#that's not what this post is about. here's an example about me:

[antifainternational]

I have a group of acquaintances from my hometown who are mostly “moderate Republicans”, but only because they don’t really pay attention and are young straight white men from an affluent suburb. I don’t hang out with them, but we’re all in a group chat together (that they keep adding me to every time I try to leave). I figured since I was there, I might as well try to introduce them to some leftist, anti-authoritarian ideas. It’s been working—I’ve even seen a shift with the one proper alt-right guy from constantly posting evil shit unfettered to keeping his mouth shut except to occasionally completely make a fool of himself while trying to debate me—but it’s slow. With everything else that’s happening in the US, I’m wondering if this is a worthwhile use of time.

You've already shifted one of your acquaintances from the red pill/alt-right pipeline a bit, so you've answered your own question, Anon! We suggest you keep up the good work here. In fact, we've got some resources for you: If you dig through our Asks Archive, you'll find lots of examples where we responded to the most common bullshit peddled by the far-right. There might be good ammo in there for you to use to continue swaying these guys. The Western States Center has a number of guides offering solid advice on how to respond when people close to you are going down the wrong path. Generally, avoid name-calling and responding with facts is effective. A good way to frame what you say is to Affirm, Answer, & ReDirect: -Affirm that what the person is saying is real and comes from a place of real concern that you understand. This validates them and makes them more open to listening to you. -Answer (or respond) to what they're saying factually. You want to be clear, concise, and concrete when you answer. Make your answer as clear, direct, and succinct as possible and based it on real-world, concrete evidence. -Now you want to ReDirect the person's concern or anger away from the target they thought was appropriate to where they should be angry. To demonstrate: Person 1: I'm fed up with not being able to afford proper housing! There's just not enough homes in this country with all the immigrants coming here! We need to close our borders to makes sure we can house our own people! Person 2: (Affirming): I definitely hear you. It sickens me that so many people are living on the streets here. Rents our out of control. We shouldn't have to worry about whether or not we're going to have a roof over our heads from one month to the next. (Answering): But what is the real problem here? We're one of the richest countries in the world, yet for every one person living on the streets, there are 28 vacant homes available that the owners are just sitting on. The top 20 corporate landlords control over 1.4 million homes. Turning housing from a basic necessity into something to speculate on and try to get rich with means sky-high rents and homes sitting empty while people sleep in the streets. (Redirecting): Immigrants aren't the reason for the housing crisis - relying on capitalism to provide housing when it's only designed to provide profits is the reason! If you are genuinely upset about housing situation here, you need to focus on the people that created the problem and profit from it - wealthy landlords and landowners and the politicians that pass laws that only make them wealthier, at the expense of the rest of us!

[cripplecharacters]

Is there any list of stuff you wanted to see more in autistic representation? I'm autistic and I'm quite "stereotype material": white savant male good at STEM and who's not aroace but don't want a partner, and it bugs me that it's always like that, so I wanted to know what other people would like to see when I try writing autistic people.

Hi!

Honestly, I just want more autistic characters in general. There are hardly any!

Here are some things that I have never seen represented:

characters with mid-high support needs, both related and unrelated to autism

characters who use AAC [link to post about high/low/no tech aac] and who struggle to communicate

characters with cerebral palsy, tourette's, intellectual disability, or any other common comorbid condition that's not ADHD

characters who don't live with their parents

characters who don't infodump or know a lot of facts about their special interests, just that their interests are the things they engage with

characters whose special interests aren't "useful" to their life

characters with "unusual" sensory needs (for example i always see characters who hate loud noises and bright lights, but i know many autistic people in real life who are not bothered by those or actively seek them out)

characters misdiagnosed in childhood with ODD or another common misdiagnosis, or neglected as a "difficult kid" even if they have higher support needs

characters who use gait trainers, adaptive strollers, or manual tilt in space chairs

characters who have a supportive community or know multiple other autistic people

adult characters in day programs

queer characters, especially ones whose sexuality or gender is difficult to separate from their autism

characters who have harmful stims and not only when they're upset

characters who are not big. (this might seem weird but there are a surprising number of tall/large/imposing autistic characters, especially those with higher support needs; that's not what every autistic person looks like!)

So Many More!! If every autistic writer made a character who was just like them, each one would have at least one autistic trait that has not been represented before.

Mod Rock

Hello!

To be honest, just characters that don't generalize autism. On one hand you have "representation" that's all "all autistics are boys, 12 or under, who like trains and barely speak" and on the other you have "hi, I'm a very low/no support needs autistic who is very socially acceptable and lol like imagine liking trains instead of having Real and Cool special interests like me" (sometimes it's overdone to the point the character quite literally doesn't have any autistic traits). Too much autistic representation made to combat a specific stereotype just ends up shitting on the people who do in fact exist. Some people say that "ahh all autistic rep is those damn boys with they trains!!" but I don't think anyone would say that this kind of representation is actually good or thoughtful - not because of the train or the boy, but because these characters are barely treated as humans most of the time.

We need more complex representation of all parts of the spectrum, from successful savants in STEM to "obviously disabled" autistics who are intellectually disabled, have huge mobility delays, and stim at all times, to "everyday" people who just have their special interest, don't get social cues, and are kinda awkward.

I'll take a "stereotypical" character that's actually explored and developed properly over a cardboard that's there to be a "subversion of autistic stereotypes" any day.

mod Sasza

Hi,

I largely agree with the mods above. Mostly I want autistic characters treated like people and not plot devices.

But I wanted to say specifically: I want autistic characters of color. I am basically begging to see more autistic characters who are not just white people. We exist too, and really I barely see characters who have autism and aren't white.

Also, I want to see autistic characters with romantic and/or sexual partners. I feel like autistic characters are often desexualized or infantilized in a way that has them only rarely having a partner.

And I also want to see autistic characters whose special interest[s] isn't "useful" to their life, it's just there. Just part of their life. Like, it isn't their job. I feel like that's often a default.

Like Sasza said, we really need more complex and thoughtful representation of the spectrum. I don't need 'subversion' of autistic stereotypes, not particularly.

The subversion itself would be an autistic character being more than a plot device and portrayed with thought and care to the things that make their life difficult, the ways their autism affects the way they interact with others and the world, the things that make the person unique and themselves, and not just focusing on one of those aspects and ignoring everything else.

Hope this helps,

mod sparrow

[enarei]

one thing that very mildly annoys me about the way anglophones talk about DIY hrt with regards to its politicization is that there's an unspoken assumption that most of the time "DIY" refers not only to the context in which the patient acquires the medication but also its manufacture and distribution as being outside the purview of governamental regulation

when in fact to a huge share of the population not in the global north, medical prescriptions aren't actively enforced or required and the "DIY" of DIY hrt refers to people self medicating on "legal" hormones manufactured by big pharmaceutical companies which they acquired without passing through a medical institution

so a post about "harm reduction" in the context of DIY feminizing hrt can bemoan the use of that term with the understanding that it's implying an inherent risk attached to a tiny estradiol manufacturer's processes not being safe compared to "legal" sources, which is, in fact, wildly overblown, but there's also a very meaningful aspect that gets completely ignored that thousands upon thousands of people are subjecting themselves to elevated health risks by using elevated doses of ethynilestradiol found in birth control pills to transition. it's not that doctors never prescribe these or self-medicating is inherently dangerous, I myself have been prescribed Diane 35 by a private endocrinologist before, but there's a measurably higher mortality among self-medicating trans women in Brazil for example because people are using too much of the wrong type of hormones and they don't know it.

however applicable "harm reduction" is here or the intent by people using it, the way in which it is being refuted by these sort of posts distorts the reality that poorly researched DIY *can* have greater risks than just getting mildly ill, regardless of whether the same is true for non-DIY approaches, people *can* be meaningfully harmed if they're not minimally informed about what they're taking, and it's not exactly surprising it is being framed that way given the scope in which it happens

[creatureheart]

Figured this was better a reblog than in replies, so apologies for deleted replies.

--

I actually responded to this on the Nonhuman National Park forum, not knowing you had also posted it here. So I'm going to share what I wrote there on this post as well.

--------

Disclaimer: there is no ill will from me, I am simply voicing my thoughts, and I can get a bit passionate and maybe a bit blunt, but the words are my own. Sorry for the ramble/rant.

--

I am not a physical therian that I know of, but I do want to say that I feel like most should keep in mind that the use of the term "phsyical" here is simply the descriptor term for the type of therianthropy that is being experienced. It falls along the same lines as words like spiritual, psychological, metaphorical, etc.

It is used because their identity involves something related to the physical body, be it how they view it themselves, how they wish to be referred to by others, because of the disconnect they may feel from it, etc.

To be more specific, it is an umbrella descriptor for multiple things, a spectrum of experiences.

Just as one being a 'psychological therian' could mean imprinting all the way to delusions, or being a 'spiritual therian' could mean thinking one is a misplaced soul all the way to it being a religious based identity. Not to mention that these things can very easily also overlap and be experienced along with the physical parts of the identity.

I personally don't understand why some feel we should have to split specifics of one of these descriptors while not also doing that to the other types of reasons as to why someone may be nonhuman. Or more specifically, why do we have to split specifics and do away with the umbrella term for these specific experiences?

Why do the psychological and spiritual umbrellas get to remain for those who wish to use them if they do not want to be specific about their origin, but the physical does not?

Because, being honest, I do see way more of a push from people of trying to find different ways to redefine, or more so completely dispose of, the physical identity when it comes to the community than I do any other type of origin. Example being the push from parts of the community that being a therian is "only ever NON-PHYSICAL!!"

Which in my experience usually also comes from those trying to shove out the more "weird" and "undesirable" parts of the community in order to make it easier for those not even in the community, mostly those who are haters or antikin, to accept us. A way to appease those who don't actually care for us by sanitizing the community, which then can very quickly lead to ableism and other discrimination towards fellow nonhumans and alterhumans because their physical identity could very well be based in delusion, or be connected to other psychological or even physical disability means — I am rather sure I have seen some physical nonhumans connect their physical identity to their actual physical disabilities because to them it is euphoric that their body works the way it does instead of how a human body is expected to work by society.

I can understand that one may not understand why a term may be used for something that doesn't neatly fit under a definition, but it's also not up to people who do not use these terms to try and change or phase out a term that has been used(for probably decades*) and is still being used by other people due to it being confusing and inaccurate in their mind. Personal identity terms are mostly for those who use them, not for other people who don't. As I've seen said, even in queer spaces with how people talk about terms there that they don't understand, it's not for you. If an individual wants to get very specific about how they physically identify as their 'type, then that should be their decision, but they also shouldn't have to.

As in one must also keep in mind that not all physically identifying nonhumans may have a disconnect from their physical body, which then isolates them if we try to get rid of the umbrella term to only focus on those who do have the disconnect.

That all being said, these two ideas for terms you have shared could be useful for some out their who wish to have specifics like these, and I think there would be interest from those who wish to use them. But to then say we should just do away with the term 'physical therian' altogether is kind of unfair to those who do identify that way who don't want to get more specific or use another term. It should be up to them what they wish to use and what feels right to them and their experience.

--

* As seen in O. Scribner's 'Otherkin Timeline', published 2010, where the mention of physical, and even ancestral identity is listed under reasons as to why someone may identify as otherkin or therian.

"With both otherkin and therians, this identification as another species will be explained in very different ways, depending on the individual’s own interpretations of his or her own nature. Depending on the person, he or she may say he or she identify as another species in a way that is spiritual, philosophical, metaphorical, experiential, behavioral, or psychological. Most rarely, a few do claim they are non-human in a physical or ancestral way."

I don’t think the term “physical therian” encompasses the experience described by those who use the term.

I think a more accurate term would be “depersonalized therianthropy” which could be shortened to “depo therian”.

Depersonalized therianthropy: when one’s animalistic identity creates a complete disconnect from their body causing them to not recognize their observable traits as their own

This encompasses the anecdotes I have heard and read from self identified “physical therians”. Whether this experience is caused by delusion, dysphoria, or rejection of humanity, this term is applicable.

This does not include those who use the term to convey that they refer to their body with animal biological terms.

I believe this should be called “bioterms”. It could be communicated similarly to pronouns.

Hypothetical Ex:

Toby (he/him) (wolf bioterms)

This conveys that he would like his hair to be called fur, nails to be called claws, hands to be called paws, mouth to be called muzzle, etc.

The use of the word “physical” in therianthropic terms is inaccurate and confusing. I am open to hearing other proposed terms but I think using the word “physical” should be phased out for clarity sake.

[gilbirda]

How to write Romance

Hello! This is the second post I'm making as a rough tutorial for writing, based of my method and experience. I'm not a professional writer by any means, but I've been writing for a long long time, and I specialize in writing women and romance.

The objective for this post is so you, the reader, has an idea what to look for or where to start when embarking in the journey of writing romance or a romance story.

Let's go. This is a long one, folks.

Romance Story line Vs Romance Story

Before I go into the details, I'd like to discuss the difference between "romance story line" and "a romance story".

But Gil, those are the same thing!

You'd think that! But nope. The main difference lies on how much space romantic aspects take in the story.

For example, you can have a tragedy with romance story lines. A murder mystery with some romance intertwined. An epic hero journey with some romance on the side. And so on and so forth.

Before sitting down and getting to writing, think what you want to write about: Is this about an epic romance for the ages, or is this about adding romance to a story (and not let it take the main stage)?

Let's take as an example "Pride and Prejudice" Vs. "Pirates of the Caribbean". One is about Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy falling in love and the drama around them; and the other is an epic pirate action movie where Will and Elizabeth are protagonists and their relationship adds to the story but is not just about them.

I want to write a Romance story

Then you really have to sit down and write the story beats with the relationship beats.

Usually the natural flow of the story (first act, second act, third act) will match relationship milestones; and the development of the relationship is the development of the story.

There can still be drama, murder mysteries, etc. but it will serve the purpose pushing forward the main characters' romance story.

For example, the drama could be real life issues getting the way of the couple; or the romantic interest needs to do some growing before proposing.

Also, with Romance Stories you can play with some fun tropes on top of the story itself: Star Crossed Lovers, Enemies to Lovers, Childhood Friends to Lovers, etc.

I want to write a Romance story line

In this case, development of the romance takes a step back and doesn't have to match the main story beats.

You will also take into consideration the tips and tricks of this tutorial, but don't have to go deep into much detail and can afford writing the relationship development more "in the background" as much or as little as your story needs it.

For example, you could write a couple getting together at the end, but can write the characters' "will they won't they" beats with the climax of the main story line's arcs — a character receives the Call for Adventure, and leaves behind the romantic interest; a character experiences a devastating loss, and can't really offer romantic interest the attention; a battle leaves main character heavily injured, and romantic interest nurse them back to health.

How do I write a credible Romance

Note how I'm avoiding saying "good" or "bad" romance here. I'm saying credible.

Why credible? Because, in my experience, readers engage more and feel for the characters more if they can believe that what is happening could be real. You write a romance in space, or as pirates, or Regency era stuff — but at the end of the day, you are writing people and people experience emotions in complex ways.

You have to make your readers think "they are so like me for real" at least once.

But how?

Emotions don't exist in a vacuum. You can deeply love someone and still be mad at them; or be frustrated with them; or be sad and not in the best headspace.

There has to be something else going on. Things happen all the time, and the world doesn't stop because you like someone. You have to include more meat than the romance, and explore more circumstances that have nothing to do with Character A and Character B having a crush.

Develop the characters beyond their romance story. Love is great but characters are so much more than that. They should have personal goals, personal drama, individual story lines.

But wait, there's more!

Let's talk more about characters in a relationship

This drinks from some basic character development tutorial (maybe a future post idea? 👀), but regarding romance you should also take into consideration more than the romance.

Feels counterproductive, but it's so so so so important. Before you even consider diving head first into Romance, you should already have solid characters to play with.

Some usual tricks for creating a character include doing a character Bio: Write their likes, dislikes, dreams, favorite food, favorite colors, height, age, etc. Anything you can think of, have it already chewed. (Think making a D&D character sheet!)

For fanfiction writers, understand the character you are writing first. Find their voice and even if you don't have a reference of a good romance already (I'm looking at you, DC comics) try to get an idea how they respond to good and bad things, how do they communicate, how do they like to be loved.

Then, you can use it for Romance.

How?

Easy: Consider what the situation is actually about, not just the romance.

Is it about trust? — How quickly does the character trust? How do they behave with betrayal? Do they have trust issues?

Commitment? — Are they the type that commits fast? Or needs a minute to commit? Do they have commitment issues?

Is it about communication issues? — How? Do your characters speak different languages (literally and "love languages")? Do they struggle with speaking up? Do they hide their feelings to a fault?

Are they incompatible? — Do they have different expectations for physical aspects of their relationship? Do they have little in common? Is the struggle about personalities clashing?

Love is not enough? — Do their circumstances pull them apart even if they do love each other? Is it "not that simple"?

Things you should be careful about

"This drama would be avoided if they had ONE honest conversation"

Classic misunderstanding drama set up. Is very tempting to hinge your drama and character development on one single misunderstanding, and is easy to maintain as long as you don't let the characters make up.

Don't fall for it. Is not as easy as it looks like and a bad execution can derail the story you want to talk about and make your characters completely unrecognizable. Check out this video about "Idiot Plots", which discuss more in depth how hinging the whole plot on one out-of-character misunderstanding is not worth it.

There can absolutely be misunderstandings, but not make it the only thing keeping the story going.

"Big Strong Masc saves Small Weak Femme (and they fawn for their mighty protector)"

(Notice the language used, because I've seen this with all types of ship configuration, not just M/F. )

This is related to deeper issues: Gender roles and patriarchy bullshit, which have no place in fandom.

You can absolutely write Character A saving Character B, but watch out! Characters should be developed on their own and have room to shine without the romantic interest.

Here's my tutorial on Writing Women, and I'm planning on another post to discuss the "strong, independent woman" paradox.

"Character A falls in love seemingly overnight with Character B"

What it says on the tin. It's just not believable. Even people who falls in love fast, don't just make the other person their world overnight.

But Gil, what about 'love at first sight'? That one is cute, and you can definitely write characters meeting for the first time and sparks flying, but there's attraction, and there's love.

Definitely write meet cutes and so on; but acknowledge that there is so much more needed to make a love story work.

"My romance story line suddenly became the main story"

Avoid this as much as possible. If the reader wants romance story, they'd look for straight up romance. Making the relationship suddenly ALL the story is about would be changing the genre mid-story and that's not nice. Is like starting with a murder mystery that switches to a shenanigans slice of life midway.

Then how can I have drama and relationship development?

If we should avoid misunderstandings and character A saving character B, then what would be my romance story about?

Answer: Like any other story development! Write conflict.

Internal conflict — Could be about one character or both; or about their relationship.

Internal conflict is a psychological or emotional struggle that takes place within a character's mind or heart. It involves their inner thoughts, feelings, beliefs, or desires. (source)

You use these to focus on the Character's Journey, and in the context of romance, on how they grow in a relationship. Loving someone else can be the catalyst for a character trying to better themselves, or realizing they need to change.

This is all your conflicts of interests, communication issues, trust issues, etc. Create situations where the drama comes from within the characters and how they themselves get in the way of their happily ever after.

External conflict — How the circumstances surrounding the characters influence the romance.

External conflict is a struggle that occurs between a character and an external force, such as another character, society, nature, or a situation. (source)

Families not approving the relationship, political drama, different species, opposing sides of a war... The world is your oyster.

Or use both! Is so much fun and complex (and credible) when there's layers to why your characters Will They Wont They.

And that's it for now!

I may come back and edit to add and/or tweak something, so keep an eye!

NOTE: These are some tips to write healthy romance stories. If your goal is to depict toxic dynamics or portray toxic relationships on purpose, by all means change and ignore whatever you'd like. Know the rules before you break them!

Happy writing!🙂✌

[lordystrange]

I think it’s okay to ship Finn and Noah.

Please give me the benefit of the doubt. This is gonna be a long post.

I don’t think real-person-shippers are bad people, like some of you often insinuate (or blatantly state). Here’s how I view this:

We often tend to daydream about our crushes, right? Picture ourselves in situations with them, plan our lives and even analyze our dynamic and compatibility as a potential couple. We wonder if they like us back and/or how we could make them like us back. That even includes questioning the sexuality of the crush.

That’s shipping ourselves with this person.

We also do it with our friends. ”Ohh I wonder if this person likes you back… you two would be so cute together!”

So we also ship our friends with their crushes. (unless our friends have horrible taste)

Reading the possible/potential signs of mutual attraction is not only okay but necessary in the dating scheme.

Imagining you and your crush as a couple is also necessary, because that’s how you can learn if you’d even like the relationship and what exactly would it need for you to like it.

Why do we ship fictional characters? Byler for example. There are many answers, but let’s summarise it in ”We like their dynamic.” Just like we’d like the dynamic of ourselves with someone or our friend with someone.

Not all people are ”dynamics-enjoyers.” Not all people are shippers. But if you are, you can’t really help it. Certain dynamics are just so appealing to you. I’d say it’s natural.

We can’t control our thoughts but we can control what we say. I know there are a lot of Byler shippers who also ship Foah but don’t admit it out loud. Some of them are ashamed for it, some are just hiding from the bullies.

There is nothing wrong in finding Finn and Noah’s dynamic cute. There is nothing wrong in wondering if they’re together. There’s nothing wrong in wondering if it’s possible for them to be together some day. There’s nothing wrong in wondering if Finn is queer. (<- Before you wanna argue about that, check the disclaimers.)

Because there’s a difference between shipping and harassing. We can enjoy the dynamic and talk about it without it crossing the line.

What is the line, then? I’d say the line is when the people in question can’t ignore it. Here’s some examples:

A tiktok edit of cute Foah moments?

Ignorable.

A tumblr post analyzing Finn and Noah’s behavior around one another?

Ignorable.

A reddit comment saying ”Foah is so cute together 💕” ?

Very ignorable (it’d get downvoted so fast that they likely won’t ever see it)

But

Harassing their real life partners (if they got those) for ”forcing them into a relationship with them against their will?”

Can’t ignore.

Pestering them with questions about them everywhere they go together, making it uncomfortable for them to be seen together?

Can’t ignore.

Spreading your own interpretation of them like a proven fact, refusing to admit that you don’t actually know?

Can’t ignore. (there’s always people who won’t fact check and will just help spreading it)

Forcing them to come out?

Can’t ignore.

Commenting 25 GIFs of their characters kissing under every single instagram post they make? (iykyk 🙃)

Possibly can be ignored but I’d still find it disturbing.

One might argue that it’s easier to just draw the line in no real-people-ships at all, than trying to draw the line based on semantics and posting platforms.

But one might also argue that it’s easier to just not ship fictional characters either to avoid all complications it may cause.

I’m not one. I ship Byler and I ship Foah too. The extent of my shipping is different between those ships, since Byler is permanently renting room in my brain and Foah is something that comes and goes, but I find enjoyment in both dynamics. I know that my interpretations of the dynamics are just mine and I don’t expect others to see what I see, Noah and Finn themselves included, but if someone does see what I see, I’m happy to appreciate the ships together.

In conclusion: Shippers’ poor behaviour is not shipping. It’s just poor behaviour. Shipping is shipping and as such it’s okay.

Disclaimers you need to read before commenting:

I’m not saying that everybody should ship Foah/real-people-ships. I’m just saying that the ones who do so are not necessarily hurting anybody and therefore shouldn’t be shamed for it.

I’m also not saying that shipping real people is the good/right thing to do. I’m just pointing out that it’s not that different than any other ”form” of shipping.

I understand that there are a lot of different situations to which what I said can’t be directly applied to. We can discuss those, but there’s no need to intentionally come up with the most complex cases possible just to challenge me or ”prove me wrong.”

I know that me saying this might make people uncomfortable for various different reasons. Take your time!

This doesn’t excuse anyone who has been shamed by real-person-ship -antis to shame them back.

If someone manages to point out something I haven’t thought about and it ends up changing my mind, then I do.

I won’t lose my marbles if Foah never really happens.

Thank you for reading! Have a nice day! 💚

[siggiedraws]

Hello! In one of your recent posts, you've mentioned that

There are little hints here and there that point towards the symbolism of his origins, like his folded boots being inspired by Santa Claus, which is why they're red and white with a buckle! I find that such a cool detail.

and it stood out to me because "the symbolism of his origins" is very fascinating. Could you elaborate? What other hints like this are there? Thank you in advance! ^^

Of course!

What I meant by what I said is that, despite us not knowing of Sonic's past, what very little we do know about it also happens to tie into the concept of Christmas/Santa Claus, that being his red and white boots that he's been wearing since the beginning and his birthplace literally being Christmas Island.

To understand where I want to go with this, I need to get into the important context behind the presence of Christmas in the Sonic series, which is that Naoto Ohshima loves the holiday. To the extent that he would dress up as Santa Claus in public and give gifts to people.

(SOURCE)

The reason behind Ohshima's passion for the character of Santa is that he was inspired by Santa and wanted to be like him. He's always wanted to create things for children to enjoy, or things that would delight people, much like how Santa spreads joy around the world by delivering gifts.

(SOURCE)

(SOURCE)

What I meant by the "symbolism of [Sonic's] origins" is that they are literally symbolic. Sonic was the gift Ohshima created for children all over the world.

I will say that this can come off as an especially Doylist perspective on the matter, because surely Sonic's past must exist within the fictional context of the Sonic universe, and we just don't know about it. I agree with this! Looking at it within the fictional universe, it's fun to speculate on what his birthplace could be like based on what limited information we have. If he got his boots from there, it might be a Christmas-themed island where it snows a lot. Alternatively, it might bear a striking resemblance to the real Christmas Island, since the Sonic universe already has many places that are analogous to real life, like Dragon Road being inspired by the Great Wall of China.

Sonic as he was originally conceived plays with the concept of blurring the lines between fiction and reality, so I would argue a more Doylist perspective is valid when we're discussing the symbolism behind Sonic's origins. If you're aware of the Marie Granette stories, that's a great example. There's a metafictional story about how Sonic, the fictional character from a fairytale, comes to life within reality (another fictional universe in our reality, but is meant to represent reality all the same), and saves a woman from a fire. Then, he's gone again, like he was never there.

This story depicts Sonic as a character who brings joy to people, as Meg (the woman who Sonic saves) recognizes him on a flight jacket as the character from her childhood that brought her so much joy over the years. When she wears the jacket, it makes her feel safe and comforted. No one would believe her if she said she saw him. Similar to a certain jolly fellow, donned in red and white.

Perhaps Sonic was never born; not through conventional means, that is. Maybe someone needed him, and he appeared. Maybe the rest was history.

Thanks for your ask!

[butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway]

So like I've been having a really serious internal conversation about this with myself and @luulapants let me know if I'm distracting from rather than adding to here, I'll happily budge over to another post.

There's this debate that rolls through the activist community every few years about "changing the system from within" and whether or not it's a useful approach. I have always had a REALLY hard time with this conversation for reasons that are hard to convey to others but I'm gonna try here:

It is absolutely not debateable that systems change and dictate the actions of the individuals operating it, regardless of their praxis or moral approach because the literal function of systems like this is to muffle the variations and standard deviations across a societal need area, for better and for worse. You cannot change a system from within because internally these systems are stagnant and atrophying relics of "stability" implemented overtop a world of immeasurable and uncontrollable variables

Most people who are accused of "wanting to change the system from within" are being assigned a strawman, not an honest reading of their motivation and praxis. I know this because *I* get accused of doing this all the time and I have absolutely NEVER attempted to institute systemic change from the inside of the system, even on the rare occasions my action was strictly legislative or judicial. There is, for MANY OF US a difference between "this system will continue to exist with or without me until it is forced to change by external factors, and in the meantime real human beings are still depending on this system to survive, and I genuinely do not believe it is reasonable to ask us to abandon them as casualties of the system while we restrict out action from the outside. This is where multi-prong movements that were affiliated and loosely coordinated while operating in entirely different spheres of friction and resistance (aka diversity of tactics) comes in. For my classic example, you can see the voting rights activists over the 1800s and 1900s splitting organizations into militants, congressional relationships, community organization, and Martyrs. While these groups were rarely formally affiliated, the people in them knew each other, often shared strategy with each other, and acted of not in coordination than at least in awareness of what the other prongs of the movement were doing.

The question of whether or not "changing the system from the inside" is feasible is the WRONG question. The right question is "what do we do about the fact that, regardless of what you as an individual may believe about the role of these governing and authoritative bodies (I believe some not great things folks!), almost every single person living here has a loved one who is dependent on the functioning of these systems, or is dependent on those systems themselves. When they are attacked, what are the material implications for those under whom it creates a floor (whether with aid, employment, programs/"supports", etc)?"

What is the benefit and to whom of people in activism spaces deciding that anyone who is still affiliated with/employed by the federal government is an ideological traitor and doesn't deserve inclusion in or access to spaces of solidarity?

It is very important to me that I continue to do what I have always done and care for/support the people I am able to in the ways I am able to, and a far more pervasive amount of that than I think young activists may realize does include the apocraphyl lesbian who worked for Bush senior when he was considering banning queers from federal employment who told him "me and many other extremely important staffers will be removed if you do this", and we got Don't Ask Don't Tell instead. Was DADT good?? Fuck no. But the fed was GOING to hurt us some how. The queers "on the inside" were able to shift and transmute that harm, and the queers "on the outside" were able to challenge it and exentually end it.

I don't know that I have a point here and I certainly don't think I'm the grand arbiter of technique and strategy here but like.

My goal is to keep as many people alive as I can for as long as possible. Why does it feel like some folks chose the goal "be the most moral all the time without taking the time to understand the moral/ethical dilemmas actually being faced"?

Some of you are falling hard for the Trump/Musk anti-federal worker propaganda. I think part of the problem is that a lot of people genuinely don't know how the federal government works, so here's an overview on the intended and current state of the so-called fourth branch of government, the federal bureaucracy:

Executive agencies are considered to be within the executive branch, officially, but can only be created, disbanded, funded, and have new leadership appointed through congressional approval. Well, in theory that is.

The majority of staff in federal agencies are called "career staff" who are nonpolitical civil servants who do every kind of work you can imagine, from IT to accounting to scientific field work to livestock inspections to nursing at VA hospitals. They do not, typically, change from one administration to the next, which is essential to ensure the government is able to continue functioning without interruption. These individuals of course can and do hold their own political opinions, but there are stringent rules on how, when, and where they can express them. It is arguably the most racially diverse workforce in the country. Many are veterans, and many are disabled.

Each agency is headed by a political office appointed by the president and confirmed by Congress. This includes a Secretary or Administrator and all of their hand-picked office staff, who are called "politicals." However, even before Congress confirms the president's nominee, the president can appoint an interim leader with no approval, who has essentially all the same powers but can't hold the position for very long. In short, even in those offices where a leader has not been confirmed by Congress, they are being led by Trump appointees.

When Trump makes an Executive Order, those orders are immediately dispensed through the executive agencies, who must abide by the letter of the order. I saw someone say NPS was "complying in advance" by taking the T off LGBT, but these changes were made across all agencies in direct response to Trump's "Defending Women" order. Any career who did not follow this order would have immediately been fired with cause, no unemployment eligibility, and in the current environment we also know their position would be permanently dissolved.

This is what we're dealing with right now. Trump (and his puppet master Musk) do not have the authority to dissolve government agencies, but they are trying to gut them, harassing careers and making the public turn against them, conducting illegal firings, threatening them into resigning. When people leave, their positions will disappear. Their intent is to diminish the staff until the agencies are non-functional. That's why careers are picking their battles. We're holding on by our fingernails to keep federal agencies alive and functioning. We're in the midst of a hostile takeover, a literal coup of the US government.

Yes, it's awful the T was removed on the website. We don't want this. But I promise that is small potatoes compared to the other battles being fought. I have trans coworkers being forced back to the office and they don't know what bathroom they can use. Our personal information is being leaked to hate groups. Careers are getting threats and spam to their work and personal emails. Most of us expect to be illegally fired. Soon. Last week was the largest layoff in American history, and it's just the beginning.

Please support federal workers. We are under attack.

[ifbrd]

Cipher Zodiac - Holding Hands with Enemies

If I’ve got my dates right, today is the 9 year anniversary of Gravity Falls ending. Consider this analysis and discussion my celebration post! (Not that I care to celebrate that my favorite show ended nearly a decade ago but anyway…)

I recently ran into this really cute little mini Gravity Falls fan comic by @the-meme-monarch. I actually first saw it Reddit (credit properly given) a few weeks ago (and hunted it down today to reblog lol) and people on Reddit were talking about how having Mabel hold Gideon’s hand in the finale was a weird choice.

I want to talk about that, but first I want to clarify a few things:

- This is not supposed to be any kind of like callout or attack or anything like that on you @the-meme-monarch. I love this art you did, it's sweet and adorable and it would have been nice to see in canon. I'm really worried you'll take this post the wrong way and think it's meant to be personal so I just want to assure you that that is not the case.

- I am making this a separate post, not a reblog to your post, because I don't want to hijack it haha. I want your post to just be about your lovely art, not the long winded analysis I'm about to give. So everyone please go check out that post!

- I definetly think this is a fair critism about the finale. Mabel, by no means, should have been forced to hold Gideon's hand when he couldn't just learn from his wrongdoings. With what I'm about to say, I'm not trying to say this was necessarily a good choice.

With those things said, I do want to play devil's advocate a bit for this decision.

Having Mabel and Gideon be next to each and hold hands, does serve a narrative purpose here, albiet said narrative purpose could have been executed a lot better, in my opinion (or, alternatively, wasn’t even entirely necessary)

Let me explain. Let's revisit this scene: Ford takes Robbie's paint can and goes around painting the Cipher Zodiac on the ground. People start figuring out where they are on the Zodiac and getting in position. Gideon makes a big deal about being next to Mabel, despite her asking him not to. Ford instructions everyone to hold hands. Pacifica remarks that she will not hold hands with McGucket's dirty hand, and her father tells her she should do the one thing no one in their family has ever done "touch the hill-billy" (a sentence that sounds terrible out of context). They start glowing and after the extras evacuate, Ford tells Stan to join. Stan refuses, taking this opportunity to have a conversation with Ford that absolutely does not need to be addressed in this moment. Ford passive aggressively thanks him, and then corrects his grammar which is also something that absolutely does not need to addressed in this moment. They start fighting and it all falls apart.

The narrative purpose that's being served by Mabel holding Gideon's hand, is to contrast Stan and Ford, and further emphasize how riduculous they are being in this moment. Mabel is choosing to temporarily let go of her ill feelings towards Gideon, for the sake of saving the world, and she's not the only one to do this. Pacifica didn't want to hold McGucket's hand, but did so anyway to save the world. While Stan is refusing to hold hands, Robbie announces that he has "never held hands this long before" and is "very uncomfortable" but he is also continuing to cooperate in spite of this clear discomfort. These are examples of members of the Cipher Zodiac, members who are children or teenagers with underdeveloped brains and are therefore more likely to act selfishly or immaturely, setting aside their discomforts for the sake of the greater good. Then there's Stan and Ford, two grown ass men, who both know what's at stake, know their family, their neice and nephew, could die if they don't defeat Bill, yet can't manage to put aside their hurt feelings long enough to do whatever the Cipher Zodiac was going to do. The kids can pull themselves together, why can’t the full grown adults?

In what way could this have been executed better? In my opinion, the best way to execute this would be to have has many members of the zodiac as possible be holding hands with people they have or had conflicts with. This would, in theory, make Stan and Ford the only ones who couldn't set aside their grudges, which would have made it more impactful.

Most of us know that the Cipher Zodiac wasn't originally supposed to mean anything, it was just supposed to look cool and mysterious at the end of the title sequence. It was thrown in to the finale because fans had spent so much time theorizing about it. If this hadn't been the case, if the Cipher Zodiac was actually something intentional that was planned from the beginning, they really could have preplanned this and made it impactful. They could have designed the Zodiac to have the symbols have to be in a specific order, and could have written the series with that in mind, to make it so everyone was holding hands with someone they had issues with.

Of course, that wasn't the case, but I still think this could have been done more effectively with the position the writers were actually in. Looking back on the series, I decided to photoshop the finale's Cipher Zodiac to be odered in, what I think, would have made this contrast in actions more impactful. I tried to order it in a way that as many people as possible had a problem with someone they were holding hands with.

The original:

My Photoshopped version:

My explanations, starting with Ford and going counter clockwise:

Ford and McGucket - they had a falling out, although they did make up mere minutes prior to this.

McGucket and Pacifica - what canon did, and the reasoning has already been brought up and was openly expressed in canon. Though McGucket doesn't seem to have any ill feelings towards Pacifica or her family.

Pacifica and Mabel - what canon did, these two did have a rivary for a good portion of the series, although they had more or less resolved that

Mabel and Gideon - what canon did, and I don't need to explain this, it's what sparked this entire post

Gideon and Dipper - these two hated each other. Dipper didn't like how Gideon harassed Mabel, Gideon was convinced that Dipper was coming between him and Mabel

Dipper and Robbie - these two fought over Wendy for half of season 1. And I don't think they every actually made any kind of amends with each other specifically.

Robbie and Wendy - they dated and had a messy breakup, although they did appear to make amends

Wendy and Soos - also what canon did. Look, Soos is the world's most perfect man, he has beef with literally no one, but he's on the Cipher Zodiac nonetheless, so he has to hold hands with someone, this is the only spot left.

Stan and Soos - Again, what canon did, and we can refer to the same logic as above, but I also think this can work to our advantage here. One the one hand, keeping in mind their father-son dynamic, Soos adores Stan and wants his affection, so I could see it being awkward for him to hold hands with Stan, whether nervous because "don't mess this up, Soos" or an overly excited issue. While Stan seems to care about Soos the same, he would never in a million years admit it, which would make holding Soos's hand potentially awkward for him, especially if Soos is being a crazy fanboy over it. On the flip side, like making the complete opposite argument, Stan not being cooperative when he has no problems with one of the people he's holding hands with, while nearly everyone else has an issue with both people they're holding hands with and aren't making a scene, could further emphasize the ridiculousness and immaturity in his actions.

So yeah! That's what I think should have been done for this to be most effective! Or just not putting Mabel by Gideon at all would have also been great!

I'm curious though: Does anyone else have a different way they'd set up the Cipher Zodiac than what I did?

[gaybd1]

I would love to hear more about chinglish 👀

Yes I love it and find myself speaking it quite often but of course, because im supposed to teach in “proper English” at my job, it’s discouraged. Which. I kind of get but ugh.

Anyway here are some examples of Taiwanese Chinglish stuff I’d hear (or even say tbh) on a daily basis:

“Because yesterday is my piano recital, so I didn’t do my homework.” <- leaving off past tense of verbs and using conjunctions in ways that reflect how they are used in Mandarin

Similarly you’d often get something like “When I am little, I go to Japan.” <- lack of verb tense in Chinese means it’s easy for the listener to just know this is talking about the past without conjugating it that way

“He” and “she” are represented by different characters in Chinese but they are pronounced the same. Same with “his” and “her” so you get a lot of, “My mom will be so angry if you tell him that”

Articles aren’t really a thing in Chinese either so lower-level English speakers will use ‘the’ in places it wouldn’t be in other variants and also omit it randomly. Like when asked what they like to eat, maybe they’d say “I like the banana.”

In Mandarin, plural indicators are not always used, so even a more advanced speaker saying they like to eat bananas in general may still say “I like banana,” following that same example.

-s is also frequently omitted at the end of third-person verbs. For example, “My brother go to school in Japan.”

Many verbs in Chinese have multiple English meanings which can lead to sentences like:

“I know!” in response to an explanation that a speaker of another English variant would say “I see” for. (coming from 知道, to know / to realize)

“Do today have a quiz?” for “Is there a quiz today?” (coming from 有, to have / to exist)

“Can you say Chinese?” for “Do you speak Chinese?” (coming from 說, to speak / to say)

“Close the AC! I’m cold!” (coming from 關, to close / to turn off)

“I can’t see! Open the light!” (coming from 開, to open / to turn on)

“Yesterday I look TV” , “I like to see book” (coming from 看, to look / to see / to watch / to read)

Also modal particles like 啊,啦,吧 can be included at the end of a sentence that is otherwise in English, particularly la/啦 to express emphasis or commonly some sort of frustration. Similar to Singlish I guess:

“Stop hitting me la!”

“I already gave it to you la.”

“Yes it is ah!”

Lastly obviously there are always going to be loanwords or concepts like that:

I’ve posted about this before but familial words are quite common in Chinese. An auntie or an ayi is an older lady or perhaps some sort of domestic helper or nanny or something. An uncle is the same for men. (Sometimes younger people can be referred to as sisters or brothers but it’s less common in English. An old old lady will probably be called an ama)

Food words. Some food words just shouldn’t be translated. And people will try but it’s just. Dumb. Douhua will always be douhua, I don’t even know what it would be in English

Place names don’t usually have English translations but predictably even the ones that do might still be in Chinese when speaking English. Using “yushan” when talking about Jade Mountain for example

Swear words obviously. A lot of those are actually Taiwanese words people use in Mandarin that have now come over to English

I can’t think of any other specific vocabulary for Chinglish but just. Cultural stuff, you know. Like a lucky charm, it’s always going to be a pinganfu to me.

Anyway la, im sure there’s much more but it’s nice to get all this stuff down in one place. The point of English variants is that their features are common and intelligible, abd while there’s a huge push to teach “”proper English”” around here, I think people should be a little more lenient and understanding of local features and not be embarrassed to use them.

Taiwan is set to be the world’s first bilingual English-speaking country by its own free will by 2030 (I have thoughts on that lol but that’s in another post somewhere) so this is all fascinating stuff

[cryptidafter]

A Love Letter to GagaOoLala

If you, like me, have recently discovered (or rediscovered) the wonderful world of non-western queer media then I highly recommend you get a subscription to GagaOoLala (no I am not being paid for this. I love Gaga that much lol)

Look, I know what you’re thinking: “Why would I pay for another streaming service?” But, hear me out. Gaga offers a treasure trove of engaging, thoughtful, and unique queer media. Indie films, TV shows, old stuff, new stuff. AND IT’S ALL GAY! Whenever I want to watch something new, Gaga is the first place I go. I know I’m guaranteed to find something that suits my tastes or that scratches a particular itch. Gaga’s catalog puts Netflix to shame. 

I’ve seen so many posts and videos about people hungry for more queer media. They don’t like the little variety they’re given. I get it, it sucks when you can’t find any mainstream media representation…but here’s the thing. IT’S OUT THERE. Once you look past your own shores, you’ll find that so many other countries are putting out the queer shows you’re craving. I’m an American so I speak from a US perspective: PUSH PAST YOUR OWN BOUNDARIES AND OPEN YOUR MIND TO SOMETHING NEW. 

Gaga has shows from Korea, Japan, Thailand, France, Spain and more. I’ve learned so much about different cultures and regions from the writers and directors who make these shows/films. It’s a refreshing change of pace and a much needed reminder that the queer experience (despite a few societal or cultural differences) is universal. As Bong Joon Ho so eloquently stated: "Once you overcome the 1-inch tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films."

You want some examples of what Gaga has to offer? Here are just a small selection of some of my favorites: 

Fragrance of the First Flower (Taiwan)

A delightful short series (season two airs on February 18th!) about two women, Yi-Ming and Ting Ting, who reconnect years after high school and rekindle a relationship. Yi-Ming is in an unfulfilling marriage and afraid to live openly due to fear of judgment. Ting Ting is a free spirit who’s confident in herself and her desires (though she also has secrets of her own). I can’t recommend this show enough for those who enjoy high tension and drama with heartfelt moments of tenderness and vulnerability. 

Su Hee (Korea)

A short film about Su Hee, a young woman stifled by the overbearing presence of her devoutly religious mother, who finds solace and connection at church through the pastor’s daughter, Han-na. This one is beautifully filmed and acted. I’ve watched it probably five or six times at this point. Despite only having a runtime of only 25 minutes, the story manages to flow well and the emotional punches hit hard.

Yes Or No (and the sequels) (Thailand)

A movie that’s credited as the first lesbian film from Thailand that features a butch lead! Pie moves into a new college dorm and is shocked to find that her roommate, Kim, looks and dresses like a boy. Despite early bumps in the road, their relationship gradually develops until romance starts to bloom! This one is so wonderfully mid-2010s in presentation. I loved both of the main leads and it’s great to have a film with a more masculine presenting romantic interest! 

Honorable mentions (aka other stuff I really, really loved because this post is already too damn long): 

Sleep With Me

Chaser Game W 

Call Me By No Name (on-going)

Sipjangsaeng (did I understand this movie? No. Did it compel me? Yes.)

Candy Rain 

As lesbian media is my obsession right now, I asked my friends and fellow Gaga enthusiasts @technicallyverycowboy & @lugarn to give me some of their personal recommendations that cover other shades of the queer spectrum: 

Shadow (Thailand)

Set in 1999, it's about a teenager named Dan who transfers to an all-boys Catholic high school and becomes entangled in the mystery of a former student, Trin, who vanished the year before. As Dan delves deeper into who Trin was and what secrets he and the school were hiding, he beings to uncover more unsettling things about his own life. It’s a show that really deftly weaves together mystery and horror and history, complex relationships, and what it means to live with the ever expanding consequences of your choices.

End of the World With You/Bokura no Micro na Shuumatsu (Japan)

As an apocalyptic meteor heads toward Earth, a guy who has been stuck in a dead-end job with little joy in his life named Masumi accidentally reconnects with wealthy and successful Ritsu, who broke Masumi’s heart in college. The two of them set out to help two other strangers get back to family before it all ends, while realizing how much they meant to each other and maybe still do. This show uses the premise of “if you only had ten days left to live, what would you do with them?” so, so well. The characters are so vivid in their strengths and flaws and in the ways they come through for each other. The way Masumi and Ritsu’s relationship, from the moment they meet to the last moment of the show, is a particularly nuanced take on how important a second chance, even a brief one, can be.

Beyond the Green Mountain (China)

The official blurb for this movie is "One summer, in a little fishing village in China, a teenage boy's quiet life is interrupted by the return of a childhood friend. A story about youth, friendship, and blossoming love in the summer breeze." And honestly, that's perfect! It's a very short (15 minute) film that is gorgeous and captures a lot of the longing of youth. The majority of the film is shot after beautiful shot of where these boys live with them included in it. The way the visual language grounds the film in the place where it's set is just wonderful and once again, the longing. Such longing! 

Honorable mentions (some that I have also seen): 

Playboyy

4 Minutes

Kiseki Dear To Me 

My Personal Weatherman

Bed Friend 

Meet You at the Blossom

Pornographer

The Heart Killers

Caged Again

I hope you’ve been thoroughly convinced to give Gaga a try! It’s worth every penny. 

[dresshistorynerd]

@bubbletea4ever I'm responding to your comment in a separate post since my answer got too long and I then just decided to properly make my case.

(For anyone else stumbling here, here's the post in which comments we were discussing. There's couple of comments before this, so if you want more context, you are free to check them out.)

So here's @bubbletea4ever 's comment:

so you can understand that regimes can control and influence how people dress, but you can’t see that a culture does the same? If you ask women who veil their faces why they do it, how many of them do you seriously think are going to say ‘to protect me from the sun’ ? covering your face is dehumanising to yourself. you can pretend it’s neutral but it’s not. there’s not a world where this means nothing, it’s inherently oppressive that women just so happen to be the sex whose awra seemingly includes everything but the face and yet even some believe they should cover that. It is inherently oppressive that there are women who choose to swim in clothes that puts them at further risk of drowning in the name of piousness. And I said it’s cultural imperialism because that’s precisely what it is. Not every niqabi is from the specific region of Saudi where this began. This sort of regression only had a resurgence because of petro-Islam.

Of course people don't usually actively think about their clothing's origin or practical purpose. Culture forms around the practice and assigns symbolism and meaning to it. If you ask most people of the world "why are you not going out in your underwear?" they will probably not answer by "because of western hegemony we are all wearing clothing that originates from Europe and in European climate layering is the best strategy to keep you warm but not overheated or sweaty". They will most likely answer "it's not appropriate". Yes, the reason today many Muslim women wear any kind of veil, including niqab, are usually religious reasons (weather by choice or not), but my point in my original response was to show that these clothing are not just tools of oppression or just religious symbols, they are also practical useful garments which have long history, just like any other traditional clothing item from different cultures. My point was that while they can take different meanings, none of those meanings are inherent to them.

When I mentioned enforcing and controlling how people dress I of course mean also other means of control than just legal means. But there is a difference in controlling societal structures and cultural norms, though the line between those two is often hazy. All cultures ever have had some social standards and norms for dress. My previous example works here as well. In modern globalized culture it's deemed inappropriate to be naked or even in just the underwear in public. However, there is nothing inherently inappropriate in it. In many cultures thorough history, mostly those originating from hot and at least semi-humid climates, it has been entirely appropriate to appear almost or fully naked in public, and the concept of underwear itself is not even universal. Even in Early Modern Europe it was very appropriate for certain women in certain situations to appear in public their breasts fully exposed (I have a post where I explain the phenomena). However, in modern globalized culture it's not. I wouldn't call that inherently oppressive though. Historically using veils (even face coverings in desert climates) was often more of a neutral cultural norm like the one I just described rather than a tool of societal control, including in Europe, where veils and other head coverings were for a long time part of the standard dress (also originally for practical reasons). (I'm not saying this was always the case thorough history, I can already think of some examples which cross the hazy line to more of an oppressive standard, but broadly speaking.) Of course, I do know that in many modern Muslim societies, even when there's no outright laws enforcing it, there is very much societally enforced pressure especially for women to wear certain clothing, which is oppressive. Still the garments themselves are not oppressive.

I think it's interesting you say covering your face is inherently dehumanizing. Why is that? What makes covering your face specifically dehumanizing? Is covering your eyes dehumanizing? For example would you consider using sunglasses as dehumanizing?

I'll give you an example to better explain how I see this. In Victorian Era western societies it was societally enforced standard for women to only wear skirts and never pants. That was oppressive. Are skirts then oppressive? I certainly wouldn't agree with that. Some feminist women did push against this oppression and wore pants. There were also women who agreed that it's oppressive to control what women wear but still choose to wear skirts. Was the only reason they choose to wear skirts because of this oppressive standard? For some it certainly was because they were afraid of the backlash, which was severe at first. But for others it clearly wasn't, because some of them did dress in very unconventional manner directly contrasting the contemporary beauty norms, but still wearing skirts. Would it have been a good way to dismantle this norm by demanding that no woman ever wears a skirt? Absolutely not. There would be just another type of control. (I write a bit more on that history in this post.) Another example. At the same time men were not allowed to wear skirts in public (outside very specific situations like when they were small children or when they were a Scott wearing a kilt). During Victorian Era many countries had laws against cross dressing, but even to this day it's not socially acceptable for men to wear skirts in western and most westernized countries. Even if there's no longer laws against it, our oppressive social structures still enforce that. So are pants then oppressive? Of course not. Should all men stop wearing pants? No, they should be allowed to wear skirts or pants. Should I assume that every man ever wearing pants is only doing it because they are oppressed by the societal standards of dress? I do not think so. My thinking is exactly the same about niqab and other Muslim and Arab garments.

In your previous comment you said the prevalence of face covering as a whole is due to imperialism, which is what I disagreed with, at least with the "as a whole" part, because as I said, face coverings have long been used in many arid, especially desert, environments, not just Arabia. Niqab term and the specific form comes from Arabia, but very similar types of face coverings are not exclusive to Arabia nor even to Islam, nor do they originate with either of them. There's even historical examples from Europe of the practice of face coverings in certain areas (for example in parts of Germany during the Renaissance, but this is veering quite off the point). Face coverings have been recorded in Levant in pre-Islamic historical accounts as well, as this academic article on the misconceptions about nicab explains (this paper informs my opinion in this subject a lot). Coptic Orthodox women, who are Christians who originate around Eqypt, traditionally wore black veils and face coverings as seen in the photo from 1918 below. Tuaregs (one of the Amazigh peoples of North Africa), both men and women, but particularly men, have also worn face coverings called Litham for centuries, as seen in the second image from 1897. Litham is a veil that also covers the face, and is often worn by men as a turban. In Central Asia face coverings have also been used for a long time, chaderi has been used in Afghanistan for several hundred years, as seen in the third image, an illustration from c. 1840.

These are just a few examples and my point with them is to illustrate niqab style face coverings are not exclusive to Saudi Arabia, and certainly not to Najd alone, so calling all face coverings outside Najd Saudi imperialism is simply not true. Saudi Arabia is certainly an imperial entity and historically Arab imperialism has been in a cultural hegemony position in the MENA area. However, Arab imperialism is certainly not the only kind of imperialism effecting MENA societies. Similarly as Arabic cultural products are pushed on many Muslims outside Arabia and even Arabic countries, so are western products. Would you think the only reason an Arab or a Muslim more broadly, man or a woman, would wear jeans or other western clothing is that they are oppressed by western imperialism? Would you condemn that usage of jeans?

It was also the western colonialism which enforced western cultural norms in many Arab and other Muslim countries, which led to the wave of westernization across MENA in the 20th century and the decline of the usage of traditional clothing, including veils and face coverings. Western world of course framed it as progress, because in the colonial framework the burden of the white man was to "civilize" non-white non-western societies. Everything non-western was then backwards and uncivilized. The Islamic backlash against this led to another kind of oppression, which is fueled by the continued western imperial presence in the area. Even Saudi Arabia is in the end just an arm of American imperialism. My point is traditional Islamic or Arab garments are not inherently more oppressive than western garments, what is oppressive when either is forced upon a culture and upon it's people.

[cenosprite]

Valentines Movies for Spooky Bitches 

HAPPY VALENTINES DAY 

I’ve spent most of my week trying to watch as many Valentines Horror films as possible that I haven’t seen, utilising lists form my favourite horror sites (Bloody Disgusting & Fangoria) as well as recommendations from my favourite horror creator Blue Ghosts on Tik Tok. I’ll talk about these in my Diary post at the end of the week but before I head out tonight for my date with my honey, I thought I’d make my own list of top 5 freaky movies  to watch before you get freaky. 

I have limited myself to films that are horror and not just weird non horror movies, although if you would like a recommendation for a hardcore freaky deaky film I will direct you to my beloved Crash (1996). No one does it like Cronenberg and no one writes weird shit like Ballard. If you love psychosexual themes, soft pornography, subversive fethishes and car crashes (?) that is the film for you. 

The Girlies that get it will get it. 

Anyway, here’s my real list xoxo

Lisa Frankenstein (2024) 

Written by Diablo Cody of Jennifer’s Body fame, this is a lose retelling of Frankenstein. In fact, it is more inspired by than a retelling. 

We follow Lisa Swallows as she reassembles the creature who is the reanimated body from her favourite grave. This film is so funny and heartwarming and just a complete romp. It was ranked my second favourite new release of last year and I must have watched it 3 times the week it came out. Once alone, once with my partner and once with my flatmates. 

The 80s setting makes the film so much fun to look at, the soundtrack is amazing, and the costuming is perfect. Kathryn Newton does a great job as the lead and is serving Chappell Roan the whole film while Cole Sprouse is so much less irritating when he can’t speak. 

The Film follows a classic 80s rom com formula, will the girl fall in love with the dutiful best friend corpse? Or will she overlook him and miss the love she deserves? 

Big ups as well for celebrating female sexuality, we need more Hitachi wand truther scenes in mainstream media. 

(Also, if this film doesn’t make you fall in love with the song Strange by Galaxie 500 you are wrong) 

Bride of Chucky (1998) 

Aside from this being the best chucky film and a true example of a couple that match each other’s freak, if you are a bisexual lady like me who is dating a golden retriever, you get the little treat of looking at Jennifer Tilly for a good 30 mins. (You’re welcome) 

Bride of Chucky follows Tiffany as she resurrects her boyfriend Charles (Chucky) a serial killer whose spirit was transferred to a toy doll. They embark on a quest to replace their bodies after they both become dolls and have some freaky doll sex. 

The costumes in this film are perfect, Tilly looks phenomenal, and Tiffany is THE perfect gal for Chucky. 

This film marks a turn to a campier tone for the franchise and a double bill of this and seed of Chucky would not be a bad plan for Valentine’s day. 

Companion (2025) 

This is a NEW entry for this list and is still out in theatres, so I’d recommend going while you can. 

I’d like to say much more than I will about this film because I think going in blind is a good way to go, but I will be producing content about this as it relates to a subject I specialised in at university. 

This film follows Iris who is going on a trip with her boyfriend to a billionaire’ s cabin with his friends. When the Billionaire, Sergey, dies, secrets begin to unravel. 

Without giving away any oof the twists this film was the funniest horror film I have seen in a long time and has a little something for everyone on Valentine’s day, revenge, love, laughs, and kooky kills. 

The Queerness of the film is what made this really stand out to me in terms of how it relates to my research in the area, and I think that although we see a lot of these relationships sour, it still manages to tell a romantic story. 

Jack Quaid does an amazing job, and I am hoping to see him in more horror, Sophie Thatcher is easily Scream Queen material and seeing Harvey Guillén outside of WWDITS has solidified to me what a phenomenal comedic actor this man is, Bruce Campbell level of potential. 

(if you watch it, I need more people to talk about the Goo Goo dolls of it all because it was possibly the most insane part of the film) 

The Love Witch (2016) 

This film is such a feast for the eyes and really does its research with the way it handles the occult. 

The Love Witch follows widowed witch Elaine as she seduces and casts spells on men to make them fall in love with her. 

This film is so high femme and does such a good job of evoking the 1960s early 70’s style films that it is easily visually the most appropriate valentine’s film. 

I think this is a definite must watch for anyone needing to feel empowered or vindicated this Valentine’s Day. Elaine is sexy and powerful and treats men as disposable even though she is obsessed with love. And she is actually so real for that. 

Crack this on and order a baby blue eyeshadow. I promise it will change your life. 

Dracula (1992) 

I have to be so for real right now guys, I am NOT normal about this film or Gary Oldman and I may in fact be forcing my partner to let me curl their beautiful Shoulder length hair for our date tonight. 

This is THE cinematic retelling of Dracula. It is sexy, it is bloody, it is weird. With peace and love to Lugosi and Lee , Gary understood that Drac needed to be sexy and that vampires ARE sexy. Coppola said he wanted the film to feel like an “erotic dream” and if that’s not the vibe you’re trying to curate tonight then I don’t wanna know you. 

Winona Ryder and Gary Oldman really put their whole pussy’s into every kiss, every intimate scene and it gives me such BI panic. 

If your significant other wouldn’t cross oceans of time to find you then they aren’t the one babe I am so sorry. 

I hope everyone has a great day and if you don’t have a valentine then Mokey says she’ll be happy to be yours in exchange for some crisps x 

[zephyrusswinds]

An in-depth analysis of my in-depth analysis of your in-depth analysis... What is this...

So, for MK's villains, I kind of noticed that trend, but I always thought it was like, stereotypically evil behavior? But either way, it makes a TON of sense for LBD, for example, to be playing with his humanity here.

I can't say for certain what Spider Queen's tactic was here, I don't even remember half of what happened this season (the first time I watched s2 was with a fever and absolutely NOTHING registered in my brain) so I wouldn't think that's it.

But AZURE is where the fun begins.

Azure IS a groomer, he's Wukong's groomer. And a divina quien made an analysis essay about it?

^i don't like when the link becomes that :(

Here is a discussion I had with someone regarding my original post;

^I believe there was a bit of Shadowpeach thrown into it as well, so enjoy!

I don't have much to say regarding the Red Son section, however, your points are so interesting. I'm not one for any form of Red Son slander, as he is one of my comfort characters. But, it's weird to think that Red Son technically responsible for Macaque's influence on him?

At first, I don't think it was about Red Son being good, so maybe Macaque is good too! I'm willing to bet that it was MK not knowing the full extent of villainy. Until he met Macaque, that is.

Like I said earlier, MK was nice to everyone in a very specific way. But it was the SAME form of niceness all across the board. He constantly gives people second chances and sees the bigger picture. He'd tried it all across s1 with little success. At this point, it's possible that MK thought that Macaque could become another one of his weekly villains, like Red Son.

Please, please analyze those episodes! I was already working on an analysis of the Shadowplay, but I was going to focus on the Shadowplay itself, I'd love to hear another reading of that episode!

Following the trend of getting a bit personal; I suppose I focused on the whole "good kid" thing mostly because I have had multiple 'Macaques' in my life. Mostly from people I'd looked up to as a replacement for some lacking guidance in my life.

I've honestly had that desire for validation because of those people; which, I guess is why I emphasized it so much on my supplement.

And the most unfortunate part about wanting validation is that regular folks can't do much about it; no matter how much we holler.

Psychology is an amazing thing to learn. I, as an autistic person who can't communicate properly, have needed to learn it as well to properly speak with people who mean anything to me. I've dealt with a saviour complex before, and you're right! It SUCKS for everyone involved!

I would absolutely love to have you on the project! It was originally only me working on it (with the occasional help from friends), but I'm the type of person who is super ambitious but has the WORSE motivation known to man!

You are so good at analyzing this show and having another person who can use red string and thumbtacks like me would be a blessing!

Whenever you're ready, send me an ask or somethin' and we can work something out!

Macaque Episode Analysis ramble

So I was talking with a friend about the possible psychological and therapeutic take aways from each episode of Lego Monkie Kid, since I love Psychology as a whole, and came to a conclusion. Macaque's episode has a fuck ton of things to analyze. Such as - Not every role model you meet will be a good person Trust your teachers Don't push yourself too hard otherwise you'll get hurt, manipulated and possibly die (let's be real, Macaque would've killed MK if Wukong didn't step in) And, grooming They will all be covered as I explain the episode in depth. When MK first meets Macaque he thought he was Wukong but even after Macaque declines, MK still had stars in his eyes of pure admiration. He clearly looks up to Macaque since he was just as cool if not cooler than Monkey King. Within the very next second Macaque started the process of grooming, after a tiny test to see how strong MK's admiration was. "[...] I thought uh Monkey King was training you. [...] but you can never have too many teachers, I'm sure Monkey King would agree. [...]"

Then Macaque starts to train MK. This shows the duality of Wukong's more MK's current strength and capabilities training versus Macaque's more destructive and dehumanizing training. With Wukong's "Patience and focus, step into the strike", clashing with Macaque's far more brash "You don't use a weapon, you ARE the weapon." This is effective at isolating MK from Wukong and his teachings because MK feels like he is actually powerful now.

As Wukong says, MK's body isn't strong enough to handle the power. This applies to real life too. If someone tries to weight lift something too heavy for their skills, they could get seriously hurt. This is the just magical equivalent of weight lifting. But because of Macaque's influence, MK fights back and isolates himself from Wukong, his trust worthy mentor. This leads Macaque to his final part of his plan, lure MK into a trap with his full hearted trust in him.

Then Macaque finishes his plan by stealing MK's powers. Let's be honest, with how things were going and by our impression of Macaque in this episode, Macaque would have likely killed MK if it weren't for Wukong. OR left MK to die with the staff pressing him against the moutain. What can we gather from this? Well, first and foremost, MK's admiration made him an easy target for manipulation, and what resulted was MK nearly dying from the ordeal. Check for "not ever role model will be a good person", since Wukong is ALSO a role model, but a good one because he doesn't literally groom MK. (More on that in a minute.) Wukong was right and MK does what he taught him then admits his wrongs by the end and opens up on why, which Wukong responds with "Hey, your heart is in the right place, kid. We can work on the rest." MK learned to trust Wukong when he was teaching him something because ultimately that's what saved his life. I'm not saying trust EVERY authority figure, but one that is teaching you something that you trust and know will not hurt you. Get yourself a Wukong for your MK. Macaque's training has lasting impact on MK, making him feel like he needs to give himself up for others. Before this episode, MK never had the need to sacrifice himself or really seemingly blamed himself for anything. Macaque's dehumanizing training left MK with lasting damage to his mental health and also led to MK not being able to pick up the staff, granted that was after Macaque gut-punched the power out of him.

Ouch...

So, I hear you ask, "Ok, you made your point about various things, here but what about grooming? That's a bold word." Yes, it IS a bold word, especially considering the fandom space being primarily for children. However, I will clarify that grooming does not only apply to sexual circumstances.

This is from the official Canada public safety about child grooming. Notice the none sexual tactics.

"Make promises of a better life" - Promises to make MK stronger/a better fighter/hero

"Cause divsion saying "your parents are too strict" or "your parents don't understand you"." - Macaque says "Other people are going to tell you to be patient. They are slowing you down." to directly conflict with Wukong's training, further dividing MK and Wukong.

"May threaten or pressure your child to do what they ask, which could lead to sextortion." - Might not be explicit but it is implied MK had some minor doubts by the end of the training and was literally pushed into battle. Also he threw MK into the weapons rack on their first session, showing that MK was "weak" and prompted him to take up his implicit challenge, his trick. It's unclear if Macaque ever threatened MK while training, but I doubt it and he just pressured him and manipulated his drive and determination.

One that people might argue is "Approach your child online by pretending to be someone they're not - may falsely identify themselves as a person from school, or someone their age, to build a connection." but I believe it applies. - Macaque comes in creating a show with his own kaiju form, either to make himself popular or to attract MK or Wukong. Regardless, he seemed uncomfortable at first but once he prompts up "But you can never have too many teachers", that's when he starts creating a false identity, a trustworthy teacher who knows better than Wukong. That's also neglecting the fact Macaque pretended to not be that smoke demon.

If that's not "pretending to be someone they're not", then I'm not sure what is. Also for specifically adult grooming,

More signs I feel apply are;

"The person becomes withdrawn, or they may seem troubled by something but unwilling to talk about it. Alternatively their emotions might become volatile." - When Wukong points out MK has been running around other mentors, MK sounds calm and cold, like he was withdrawn. Then when Wukong presses on, MK yells at him and doesn't talk about exactly what was bothering him other than "You just don't like that there's someone who actually teaching me what I need to know."

"You notice them using or wearing something new, that you didn't buy [or teach] for them." - I added teach because Wukong points out he never taught MK how to break a wall like that, and was concerned and upset that MK learned that too quickly. Within that same scene, after MK yells at him, that's when Wukong notices the new symbol on MK's jacket and frowns. That's when he knows MK is being groomed, and by who.

"Groomers often aim to isolate their targets from their family or friends." - Well, we never see Mei, Pigsy, Tang, or Sandy in this episode, after the first meeting and they act like MK was gone for a month or more (could easily be a week lol). On top of that, Macaque was causing a divide between MK and Wukong. MK was very clearly pretty isolated already, and so Macaque just had to remove MK for MK's full reliance.

"The person might be spending more time on the phone, or online, than usual. But they won’t say what sites they’re visiting, or who they’re talking to." - This speaks for itself, but it's likely MK was training more and more with Macaque than being around his own friends, especially considering by previous point.

This video goes into great detail on how it happens, why the victim is manipulated easily, and what it does to someone. Granted this video is about a long-time grooming, but I believe the point and the awareness stands. If Macaque had been grooming MK for about a year or more, I feel MK would be closer to these signs than he is in the cannon LMK. Anyways! I hope you had fun with my analysis, and let me know if you'd like more! I love to just ramble about the psychology of certain characters or the takeaways of LMK episodes! I'd love to do Wukong, Macaque as a whole (not just the episode), MK, Xiangliu/Nine mayhaps?? Or even the Focus episode or something else- I have a minor analysis on the focus episode already in my head lol

[gentlenotes-moved]

living in fear may have kept you safe in the past, but it won't help you now. i know it feels the most comfortable to live within the anxieties caused by the unhealthy environment you used to be in, truly, i get it. but almost every time, true comfort will be found outside of your current comfort zone. because right now, it's a toxic zone, no matter how safe it feels. it's a barrier of fears from an unsafe environment that you're no longer living in. you're safe now, so be brave and find joy outside of the anxious barrier your past unhealthy environment has given you.

[welcometogrouchland]

I have a LOTT of sketches I could post rn but these 2 are recent and I'm fond of them <3 Steph costume ideas and Tim/Damian cringe bickering inspired by Batman: Brave and the Bold #18!