#sorta? it's nuanced

[hyperbali]

If you're a Solavellan do not click here lmao

So I've seen that one post going around that's like "people who are shipping Rook and Solas are missing the point, they don't have a deeper connection than he had with Lavellan, Lavellan knew the real Solas"

And I have never seen such obvious cope in my life lmao

Fact of the matter is that they are both a blip in his existence. Solas knew Lavellan for 1-2 years, of course he's going to be more fixated on the romantic/platonic/situationship/whatever that lasted for millennia and literally broke the world, especially when the aftermath is that he feels like he's on such a different level than everyone left that they are pretty much Tranquil to him! This is a thought that he specifically expressed!

And claiming that Wisdom is the real Solas and Pride is not... also misses the point. Solas is Wisdom is Pride. Solas means Pride. At no point in his interactions with either the Inquisitor or Rook is he ever not lying, even just by omission. Neither of them see who or what he is as a whole, both are always operating at a disadvantage based on how much knowledge he's willing to give, and both have the opportunity to genuinely earn his respect.

As genuinely as Solas can get, at any rate.

Bearing that in mind, his chemistry with Rook compared to Lavellan is like a bonfire to a fireplace, in my opinion (bear that in mind oml). Even back in the day, I wanted the opportunity for a rivalmance with him so bad. I wanted to be able to call him out on his shit, to debate with his ideas, to meet him on a level that he was fully unexpecting and he hates that he loves it. Actively HATES it, not just that it makes him sad.

As it is, this "and so the wolf fell in love with the halla" shit is so cringy. Not at all helped by the fact that a romancing Lavellan apparently pined for him for a decade, couldn't do a damn thing to change his mind in the end, and willingly cuts herself off from her life, family, and friends to be a simpering, lovesick sycophant for the rest of her days. Because the Veil is STILL up. She IS dying in a few decades. And all of it will have been pointless.

Canon is a mess, I'm twisting it in other ways regardless, etc. etc. MY POINT IS

Shipping him with another character is not going to somehow make your ship invalid*. You can still make your favourite dolls kiss how you like. Relax about it.

(That last bit is not derogatory, as I am also proudly clanging my dolls together as usual. Just! Relax!! We are all in hell!!!)

*my 'ship and let ship' mantra has an exception and that exception is neve/lucanis. i'm sorry but it was the dumbest possible pairing for either of them and bioware should have let both of their nonromanced pairings be queer

[a-confused-spoon]

⚠️SPOILERS FOR ARCANE SEASON 2 ACT 1!⚠️

I'm absolutely convinced someone has already pointed this out, but this parallel between 01x08 and 02x03 is haunting me:

"This is how things are, how they've always been- I was so stupid to think they could change!"

Do you see how in the "break up" scene of season 1 the camera frames both Caitlyn and Vi at eye level, therefore at the same height, because the leading cause of the split is the powerlessness of two equal individuals to change a system that is bigger than them?

"I keep telling myself that you're different, but you're not! It's her blood in your veins!"

...and how the break-up in season 2 takes the pov of the two characters (Vi looking up at the topsider that just hurt her after pointing out how her actions are being part of the problem, and Caitlyn looking down at the zaunite she hurt blinded by her own anger and refusing to see her own faults), making it a representation of the bigger class/system issue at hand?

[s-e-v-e-n-38]

I hate drawing Prime designs so much but I am plagued by visions

[arsenicflame]

Hornigold's Izzy was the worst, of course. A version of himself that never escaped that terrible place, who lived his life as little more than an object. He still has nightmares about all the things Baz told them, about all the things he didn't.

It doesn't really surprise him, after the first ones, not at its root. To be Izzy Hands is to be someone's after all, though seeing his own face on someone so fundamentally different to him never gets less weird. The people who these other Izzys attached themselves too often left him with more questions than answers. Jack's Izzy, he can understand, from a certain view, though the man himself felt like a fever dream. The less said about Stede's Izzy the better, he's never going to forgive him for the ideas he put in his Stede's head.

Then there was Sam's Izzy.

The first thing anyone noticed about him was that he was happy. He smiled and laughed without thought, and went through life with an ease Izzy didn't think he had ever felt. The crew took to him immediately, accepting him in a way they never did the other Izzys, and certainly not their own. They prodded him and asked him endless questions, and he took every touch without a flinch and answered every question without a hint of a grumble. This Izzy was free. He was open, unburdened, trusting. He was happy.

Sam's Izzy was the one that hurt the most to see. He could accept the worst that Hornigold could've offered, that he would have suffered and been broken. It was infinitely harder to see that he had a chance to be this happy. That it slipped through his fingers.

He's never looked back before, but now? Seeing what might've been? He can't stop himself from considering the possibility that maybe he made the wrong choice back then, going with Ed.

[fanvoidkeith]

not gonna lie, i think i didn't "mature properly" the first time i went through (the wrong) puberty. transmasc puberty is making me smart and cool and handsome and more mature, i think

[saynomorefic]

Shout out to all my biracials / biculturals / bilinguals who feel visible and represented thanks to Simon and Sara Eriksson

[pallanophblargh]

As part of my ADHD diagnosis intake process (or whatever you call this), there’s a massive quiz I have to take. I THOUGHT I was prepared. I was not.

Aside from leaving it to almost the last minute (I have a week to complete), I just... these questions... what. WHAT. I mean, some of them are super easy, but a good chunk of them have caused a level of internal anguish I normally assign to tax returns, math, or social interactions with strangers.

I don’t know if this proves anything. I’m only half way through and part of me wants to cry.

I think a good chunk of the anxiety stems from the hard dichotomy of a simple “true or false” answer system. I am in hell.

[redysetdare]

listen when we say we need aroace rep - we MEAN we need AROACE REP. becuze shock of all shocks, a character being just ACE is not aroace rep! same with a character being just aro is not aroace rep. not all aroace ppl see their aro and ace identities as separate.

I for one, find it difficult to separate my aro and ace identities from each other which is why i am AROACE and not aro and ace. A character being only ace is not representing me. I do not feel represented by only an ace character. they are not even half representing me because my asexuality goes hand in hand with my aromantisism. and Ace character is not half representing aroace people. I'm sorry but i do not relate to the alloace experience because i am not alloace. so a character being only ace is not relatable to me because they are not aroace. the same goes for if a character was only aro or aroallo.

Now before anyone decides to misinterpret this post to hell and back I'm not saying that aroallo or alloace rep is bad or shouldn't exist. I'm saying stop throwing aroace rep under the bus because "Actually we need more just aro/just ace rep" as if that somehow solves the issue of aroace rep being nonexistent.

[edennill]

...you know you can like Indis and think her stepson hating his siblings just for the circumstances of their birth was a jerk move and think Indis & Finwë & Míriel didn't handle things well and sympathise with Fëanor's position...

[perenlop]

okay so as a gen 5 stan who does adore the story in bw and bw2, and now that gen 5 has experienced both a vicious hatedom that wouldnt hear a single positive thing about the games, and now a super protective fandom that insists they were perfect and had zero flaws... can we admit now that the bw1 story at least was. a little mid.

[triaelf9]

ugh I reallllyyyyy didn’t want to get in on this but like

The assumption that all atheists are people who’ve “never touched a religious text in their life” basically says to me you have a specific view of atheists and have probably not known many.

Most of them grew up IN the system and DO know the text and THAT’S why they walk away. 

If you’re gonna make a whole post on ppl not using nuance with CR stuff right now the least you can do is use nuance yourself and not paint an entire group of people with a brush that TV taught you, or a bunch of white men into power *cough* Dawkins *cough* coopted a movement in a society where to not believe in god is synonymous with being immoral.

So just keep in mind, the representation of people without faith that you see on TV or twitter isn’t the majority and 9 times out of 10 isn’t correct at all.

thanks ^_^

[carnivalcarriondiscarded]

Sometimes I feel that Barnaby and Wally have this friendship like big bro/Lil bro, and Howdy being Barnabys bf has to put up with a lot of Wallys shenanigans for Barnaby (doesn't mind cause he also adores Wally I'm a big bro way)

i view them (as a trio) Similarly! though a little to the Left cause i don't view Barnaby & Wally's relationship as big/lil bro. rn to me they're very close friends - borderline queerplatonic! like... Wally is Barnaby's special little guy, yk?

so in my mind, in this trio, Wally's not exactly a. uh. third wheel to Barnaby/Howdy i suppose? oh this is difficult to translate into words - he's part of the relationship without being Part of it if that makes any sense? like of course he's gonna be With them a lot. Barnaby's not gonna be like "ok go do something else so i can make doe eyes at Howdy". that's his Little Buddy. they're gonna Include him as much as possible, i'd imagine. and i doubt Wally would mind being around while they flirt chat. he'd probably love being Barnaby's "wingman"

[horribluh]

most of the time i enjoy zoro as a character the same way dudebro anime fans do. hes like an action figure to me i just wanna see him beat on ppl and like flex his bulging muscles idk. the only difference in the way dudebros and i like zoro is that i also wanna see him and sanji make out

[goldenspringmornings]

idk why I’m doing this to myself but I started plotting an au centered around keir so I downloaded pdf versions of the last three books and used the search to pull up every mention of his name from MAF on. he was mentioned/named a total of 176 times (most of that in WAR and most of that was because of the darkbringers) and I think I’m coming out as a keir-sympathizer cause bro wtf were all of these scenes??? if I had to watch a couple fuck in front of me without control of my own body I would hate those people too

[fishbloc]

ok i think its just imposter syndrome more than anything... and the feeling of peer pressure. my art is fine (visibly shaking)

[spiderfreedom]

not gonna effortpost about this today because I gotta get work done but real short

I notice this argument being used all the time: "you can't make a definition of 'woman' that does not exclude some people that we call women. therefore, the only good definition for 'women' that includes all people we call woman is 'people who identify as woman.'"

and the thing is, philosophically, "you can't make a definition of {thing} that does not exclude some examples we also call {thing}" is something that applies to almost every category! it's literally a whole philosophical problem of "what is the definition of a chair?" didn't we have a whole meme about how nobody can even agree on what a sandwich is?

it's not something unique to women, tables, horses, sandwiches, salads, or anything else. it is a problem of language itself.

you can apply the exact same argument to other categories: "how do you define 'blackness' without excluding some people we call 'black'?" if you're american, maybe you will use the one-drop rule, in which case halsey is black and anyone who had a single black ancestor four generations ago. but is that actually how we use the word black? does that capture something meaningful about being black in america? how about being black in the world?

let's go further: "how do you define 'transgender' without excluding some people we call 'transgender'?" within the transgender community, there is no real agreement on what it means to be transgender! beyond a vague sense of "identifying as the gender society assigned to you", but even that can be challenged. if a cis (female) woman takes testosterone, starts hanging around trans women, calling herself a trans woman, is confused for a trans woman by the people that she talks to, experiences oppression on the basis of being perceived as a trans woman... can she be considered a trans woman, despite being female?

ultimately "how do you define things" is a philosophy of language question more than anything else. perfect definitions that encapsulate sets neatly do not exist, because the terms we use are socially contingent. when people came up with the word 'table', they didn't also create a logically rigorous definition for it. they just said 'well, this thing here is a table.' and then people argue about the edge cases. because also, nobody actually agrees on the members of sets of every single word!! just like how we all have different ideas of what is and isn't a sandwich!

that's the other thing, people already disagree about what words refer to. someone who has the 5ARD intersex condition has testes but may be raised and socialized as girl because their parents think their genitals kinda look like a vulva. is this person a 'girl/woman'? people are not sure... which makes sense... because it is an edge case. is a stool a chair? is a hotdog a sandwich? is an open sandwich a sandwich? the further you get from the 'prototype', the more people are going to be disagree.

so the entire question 'what is a woman' is just an exercise in confusing philosophy of language framed as saying something very meaningful about the social category of woman. it is not! it is a problem of language that we cannot define 'woman' or 'chair' or 'salad' or 'horse' or 'gamer' in a rigorous way. it is nothing inherent to women, chairs, salads, horses, or gamers.

(but what about science?) good question, what about science? science tries to operate differently from the way laypeople talk about things. scientists take common words, like 'energy', and give them different, more rigorous definitions in order to try to figure something out about the world. for laypeople, 'energy' is something vague and diffuse. for physicists, 'energy' is the force that causes things to move, and its behavior is described by certain mathematical models.

similarly, laypeople may take 'woman' to mean 'a person with breasts and vulva/vagina', but a biologist may have a more rigorous definition of 'female': 'producing large gametes.' this is useful because it helps us see commonalities between creatures that may look really different, like flowers, bedbugs, asparaguses, cats, and humans - all very different creatures where sex looks different, but still have a distinction between 'producing large gametes' and 'producing small gametes' - there's no intermediate gamete. biologists have a different word for what people/animals look like, and that is 'phenotype.' when a parent looks at a child with 5ARD condition, they see the child has no visible penis and thus 'looks 'looks female.' a biologist would say that the child's sex is male (because they have the reproductive equipment to produce sperm, and none of the reproductive equipment to produce ova) but that their phenotype is ambiguous. sex is a binary variable, but human development is a long process where are a lot can happen, and so sexual phenotypes are not variable.

so already we're pretty far from the lay definition, because laypeople don't have the same idea of what sex is as scientists do, and don't distinguish between someone's sex and their appearance - for them, the sex is the appearance. who is right? it depends on what you want to do. scientists want to discover meaningful things about nature, and their definitions are far more useful than the layperson's for that purpose. which definitions are useful is also socially determined - we may feel sympathy for the child with 5ARD, told they were a girl their whole life, but who learns that they have testes. should we continue to treat this child as a girl/woman, or should we encourage them to view themselves as a boy/man? that is a social, cultural, legal argument, not a scientific one. the biological truth is the same regardless of the social, cultural, legal arguments, but there may be a compelling case to act differently. that's on us as humans to decide!

so yeah I'm just tired of hearing the same damn arguments over and over again. "what is a woman? is someone with CAIS a woman? is someone with 5ARD? what if we take a young non-intersex male and give them female hormones?" like this will never take us to where we want to go because it's a philosophy of language question disguised as a scientific one. the real question is, what are we talking about and which definitions will help us in that? if you believe that female people are exploited on the basis of their female bodily functions, then obviously you want to bring attention to that by using the word 'female'! if you want to focus on feminine socialization, then it may be useful to bring up cases of people who may not technically be female but were still raised as them, like Erika/Erik Schinegger, a male (possibly with 5ARD) who was raised as a girl and believed he was a girl for most of his youth.

trying to make a single catchy response to a question of what is 'x' is never going to satisfy everyone, because it cannot, because language is imperfect and real life is messy. scientists try to cut nature at the joints, but their cuts may not look like laypeople's! (and don't get me started on scientists disagreeing on what is a joint and what is not, metaphorically.)

and at its worst, when chasing an ironclad definition, you get bizarre answers that seem detached from reality, like saying 'people with CAIS condition are genotypically male and have underdeveloped testes, so we should treat them as males'. they may be reproductive males, but they have a female phenotype, and are raised as girls, and are literally unreceptive to testosterone - to treat them as 'men' on the basis of developmental or reproductive sex certainly seems to be missing something very important from the picture! see below: a person with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS):

does it really make sense to say this person is a man due to her having testes, which technically makes her reproductively male? is that capturing reality? or are you trying to force reality to fit into your definition because you're afraid that if you cannot create a perfect definition of 'woman', that we will never be able to talk about biology and female oppression?

tl;dr: questions like 'what is a woman' are designed to be time-wasters because they are not actually answerable because language sucks. argue for your operative definition, your context, and move on. and don't be afraid to change definitions based on the context... sometimes reproductive sex is relevant, sometimes phenotype is more important, sometimes socialization is more relevant. this is not weakness, it's recognizing that reality is not so rigid and sometimes you must use a different model to get the understanding you want.