#they're even more horrifying as humans i think because their crimes are more on the nose

[finsterwalds]

The think tanks if they were synths in game (where's the mod @ fallout community!!!). I gave Mobius and Klein the scrubs you find for them in the Big MT, but the rest of the crew wears the standard mad scientist scrubs. I know Klein also wears glasses apparently, but my headcanon is that he only wears them when he's reading!

[shit-talker]

The only way I can rationalise people accepting literal children going out and fighting crime as Robin is if they don't think Robin is a real child.

I think it would be fun to see how Bruce would use that to his advantage in protecting his kids. Like, if people think Robin isn't human, if they instead think he's a spirit or a ghost, they are less likely to shoot at him, less likely to try and physically attack Robin because they think it would be no use.

The fun part would be deciding HOW they would do this. I like to think that Robin's domino mask doesn't have a hole for his eyes but instead is glazed over so that he can see out of it, but you can't see in. Maybe they install small lights in it so it looks like his eyes glow in the dark, because can you image how fucking scary it would be to just see these two sentient light-like eyes and just know the Batman must be lurking somewhere close by?

Maybe Bruce installs super strong magnets in their gloves because on the chance that someone does pull a gun on his kid close range, it would be a lot easier for them to grab the gun away if they had the force of magnetism on their side. Also, grabbing onto poles and other metal materials would make all the scaling on tall buildings a little safer. Obviously, they'd need a way to turn it on and off, but still. Can you imagine, you're in a warehouse and there are steel frames fucking everywhere and you look up and suddenly there's a child gripping onto one effortlessly? Horrifying.

Maybe they have a voice box. Want to scare people? Play this really ominous recording of a child's laughter that echoes just a bit too loud to be normal. Play this ominous screaming that seems too silent to be real. Play this ticking that seems to never end that induces stress and increases the chance of them messing up.

What would be even funnier is keeping this act up with the Justice League and other teams.

Batman doesn't bring Robin to these meetings at the beginning because he sees no need to involve a preteen in such matters, but at some point the subject does come up and it's sort of like; So, Bats, what exactly is the kid? Like...is he yours?

And Bruce (paranoid as fuck) doesn't want to admit to these people that yes, Robin is my son because hello? That's gotta be his biggest weakness, he would do anything to keep that kid safe and fuck them if they ever tried to hurt him to get to Bruce.

So, he tells them that he's a spirit sent to haunt him and remind the city of it'd failures and the Justice League just... believe him?? Because this is Batman, and why would Batman ever lie about something so, frankly, strange? And it's not a huge deal, like they're a team comprised of metas and aliens and literal godesses, so what if the one normal human guy has a weird little ghost child? Who cares if he cares about it like it's a real boy? Maybe the baby spirit has rights, too!! They don't know!

So, when the JLA gets more popular and becomes an actual, legal part of the American government, they're required to list all of their members. And they class Batman as a human, because that's obvious but next to Robin, they don't really know what to say or how to ask Batman about it, ao they just put "Unknown Child Spirit - TBD"

And then just... never change it?

So, they don't question why a few years later Robin seems to look entirely different, or why after that he changes again, or why Robin is suddenly a girl for a while before going back to a little boy. That's obviously just some weird spirit thing they don't understand, and it's not like Batman is going to explain it!

[lookismstuff]

On Gun and Daniel's Final (?) Note

SPOILER ALERT

Personally I find Gun and Daniel's dynamic fascinating, as morally questionable as it is. As a reader, I believe that fiction exists to allow us to sympathize with a vast range of human character.

So I don't want Daniel to become a totally upright and moral character, because his being so will turn this story pedantic, pretentious, and proselytizing. I disagree with other readers who think that Daniel shouldn't have sought out Gun in the first place, that he shouldn't have called Gun "brother". It's a well-known martial arts fiction trope, this sort of brotherhood, and besides, it's really nice for me to see that Daniel is a flawed human being.

However, and this I have to underline, even though I like the ambiguity of Daniel's moral compass, I think PTJ shouldn't have made Daniel group Eugene into "bad" and Gun into "good" so bluntly. Besides, since when did Daniel adopt Vasco's past dichotomous thinking?

In my humble opinion as a nobody,

PTJ could've had Daniel say that he knew where Gun had gone wrong, and how, despite that, he still respected, and cared for, Gun. That to Daniel, the times he spent learning with Gun mattered more than the promise he made for Eugene. And that he saw Gun as a flawed Human Being, not just a gory Ghost like all the rest.

Daniel should've been made to question about Eugene's motives too (a.k.a whether Eugene actually started out as a victim, just like himself, in the past), and still found himself unable to agree with Eugene in spite of these.

After all, doesn't Eugene deserves some empathy too, in his horrifying experiences of school violence? Although this certainly doesn't negate his very, very terrible crimes in the name of Workers.

So let me feel the ambiguity, PTJ. Allow me to sympathize with, and curse, more of your characters at the same time. Allow me to feel that they're complex humans, even though they aren't real.

[lynxindisguise]

Obviously Project 2025 and the attack on women and members of the LGBTQ+ community is absolutely horrifying and very much real, no matter how much Trump has tried to distance himself from it.

But I want to talk about what's in the Republican Party's actual plan, because these are probably the things that will happen first, and it may also be helpful in terms of speaking to conservative relatives (especially the ones who are not fully gone far-right MAGA worshippers and are, instead, confused as to why everyone is so upset) about what exactly they voted for.

Mass deportations. This is the main platform he ran on. On a human level, this is horrifying, and it's going to cause unthinkable and unconscionable suffering. Maybe it'd be helpful to discuss how immigrants (including privileged white legal immigrants) pay taxes, can't vote, don't have access to benefits, and cannot risk committing even minor crimes for fear of deportation. Maybe it wouldn't. So. On an inhuman level, this is very expensive and a massive waste of resources. If you can't get people to give a shit about other human beings, you can at the very least ask how these deportations are not going to detract resources and attention away from the 'American needs' they keep harping on about.

Getting rid of all environmental regulations and AI regulations and amping up use of coal and oil. This is devastating for the entire world in the fight against climate change. I think this is how Trump means to reduce inflation, though his entire 'reduce taxes and reduce inflation' plan is so incredibly vague. At best, it's more trickle down theory bullshit.

Reducing American involvement in foreign conflicts. This sounds really great, actually. And yet. No foreign conflicts are specified—except for strengthening support to Israel. So. It would seem that the US is becoming even more involved in genocide, and most likely less involved in aiding Ukraine.

Improving the American education system. Hilariously, Trump's solution to a failing education system is to get rid of the Department of Education and leave everything up to the states? When you read on, it becomes clear that this is so schools can teach exclusively American history—and a very specific, propagandized version of it at that.

He mentions wanting to build a DOME MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD around the US? Why is no one talking about this? This is formally written down. What the fuck does that mean?

He also talks about REDUCING censorship and protecting freedom of speech. In the coming years, I would ask your conservative relatives to hold him to that.

They also promised affordable housing, college, and healthcare. There's no plan for how the fuck they're going to do this while decreasing taxes, but I'd tell your conservative relatives to hold him to that as well.

The whole plan is here if you feel like reading the word 'great' 800 times. If you don't want propaganized idiots telling you you've fallen for the 'leftist propaganda,' come armed with indisputable facts of what the Republican Party has said they will do.

[gorbalsvampire]

TALK ABOUT HORNT VAMPIRES, PLEASE!!!

This is about the Compulsion thing, isn't it?

OK. Compulsions are born out of the Hunger - they are a consequence of Messy Criticals - but they are also evidence that the Beast isn't about the Blood and only the Blood and nothing but the Blood. The basic Compulsions "form the core of the vampiric personality" and they are Hunger, Harm, Paranoia... and Domination.

Vampires want control. It's how they stay safe, it's how they stay fed, it's one of their core drives. Of course they're going to lean on one of the cores of the human personality to establish that control, and they're going to Discipline their prey - what a choice of terms for the vampiric power set! - to maintain it.

We can talk about the raw power of the Lasombra - they're stronger than you, they can break your mind to their whim, and if you will insist on struggling, the deprivation of sight and movement and the critical but not lethal pain offered by various iterations of Obetneblivion.

We can talk about the horror that is Auspex and a mental Discipline. Tremere, Malkavians, Tzimisce and especially Toreador can read your desires off the back of your head and compel you to fulfil them and, in the latter case, you won't even necessarily know you're being played. Everything will feel... natural. For all that I love the overt hypno-kink potential of the Tremere in particular (it's wired into their relationships with each other, either part bound to enable Dominate or reliant on it because they can't bind), it's the Toreador who I find most horrifying and alluring here. My Ravnos and Setite characters wish they were that good.

We can even talk about meat crimes, if you want, but the rest of Vampire fandom on Tumblr has kinda got that part down already.

Let's go deeper, though, and get into the Compulsions of specific clans.

Judgment. Look, I don't want to spell this out for you, it seems too obvious. Transgress, and a Banu Haqim can't help themselves. They are responsible for you, you awful brat, and you keep on baiting them like this. It's a dangerous dance, working your lover's levers like this, but if you're into punishment you're going to get bitten.

Rebellion. Feral Impulses. I'm loading two Anarch pillar clans together because what unites the Brujah and the Gangrel, for our purposes, is their brattiness, the urgency and spite of their desire. The Gangrel one even goes so far as to mention that clothes are constricting: there's an exhibitionist thing waiting to get out here.

Morbidity. Don't even start me on the snuff movies. That's easy street. The Hecata can kill and resurrect something more abstract - like the desires of the jaded and the weary. When nothing excites you any more, when you feel like pleasure has lost its edge, here's a sadistic fucker with a bite that'll give you some perspective on yourself. A dangerous game, especially for mortals, but - OK, now we can talk about the snuff movies.

Transgression. What's a Minister without a boundary to kick down and slither over? You say vampires don't fuck and half the Setites have their kit off just to spite you. This is to say nothing of religious adulation, the stereotype of the serpent queen adored by pliant, presenting bodies. I actually find this one a bit tired - I'd like to see a Minister who's more of the World and the Devil than the Flesh.

Delusion - the Malkavian sensory overload, writhing in the embrace of imaginary lovers and less able to resist further... stimulus. You don't need to touch a Malkavian to set them off. But you know what I really think of, when I think about Malkavians? Power. She's beauty. She's grace. There's pain writ on her face. She carries such a terrible burden but with you, beloved, little one, with you she can let go. Unmask, and bask in the sensations she spent all night repressing. Why was Malakai so close to brother Saulot and brother Set? They both wanted to help her release. Set just wanted her to do it in public.

Cryptophilia - what does your Nosferatu lover want? What do you want? They're not going to be happy until they've turned over the deepest stone in your soul, put you in your space and found the tick you didn't even know you tocked. You lucky monsterfucker. You're going to be here a while.

Tempting Fate. Oh, Ravnos. You always want what you can't have. You just have to kiss the diva while you're taking off her necklace. You just have to make sure the Seneschal's secretary really wants to come and find you a second time. And a third. And... look, Ravnos have trouble with the word no and they can make you have trouble with it too.

Affective Empathy. Was there ever a clan so cursed as the Salubri? Ever a Kindred so driven to share, to ease, to comfort? The Salubri sex worker. The Salubri surrogate. The Salubri who cares for you so much. Won't you find solace with them? Please? Please? There's a desperate selfishness to their kindness that feels deliciously complex.

Obsession. Covetousness. The Toreador admire your beauty for itself. The Tzimisce admire it because it's theirs. They want to transform you, enshrine you, possess you absolutely. Hope you like being spoiled. Hope you like feeling beholden to the object of your Desire in a way the others will never understand. Only you appreciate it truly. Spoil it. Cradle it. Never let it go.

Perfectionism. Ruthlessness. I wasn't expecting the Tremere and the Lasombra to have so much in common, but both of them want to do the thing right. Again. Again. Again. Until it's perfect. Critically, it's them doing the thing - for all that they like giving commands, their Compulsion finds them wanting to fulfil them, to exceed them even, and Lasombra aren't the aloof hands-off kind of domme. Leave that to the Ventrue. They're going to work you over.

Arrogance. Basic as ever, the Ventrue love being the boss, but there's a catch. The order has to be given without supernatural aid. So this Compulsion forces the Ventrue to cultivate loyalty, respect, obligation, love and lust like a human, just so they can feel more like a good vampire. This is how you crack open the dignitas and get under their skin. This has a lot more potential than you'd think. If the Ventrue doesn't understand the limitations, at first, the poor bastard could be grinding his fangs night after night wondering why the cold instruction of Compel or the deliberate cruelty of Entrance isn't doing it for him. What does the Beast want that its powers do not provide?

God, I'm thinking about the erotic potential of Clan Ventrue now. Eff Emm Ell.

And Duskborn? You're mostly human anyway. Most of you are walking around with a thrill in your very veins! It hits like vitae, just about, but with no consequences. You gorgeous little snack packs. You have something the old thiccos want, and can't admit to taking. Isn't that delicious? Isn't that almost power? Isn't that how you get your Mawla sugar daddy? Isn't it fun to look these "real Kindred" over and realise that their Hunger is your Dominance? Who really has the power in this room: is it really the person giving all the orders?

[comikadraws]

Another thing that's damning is the fact that Yamato, anko, Sasuke and many, many others, even kabuto, never receive any compensation for what orochimaru did to them and they're forced to live with the fact that orochimaru destroyed them and what they had completely and the fact that he violated then. Brings so many disturbing parallels to the many, many Asian victims and the genocide that Japan inflicted. The more I think about it, the damning it is.

On another note, orochimaru deserved worse. I mean, we're clearly supposed to be disgusted and horrified at his actions and he was a legitimately great villain because of how pure evil he is and I'm pretty sure everyone was rooting for him to be defeated and finally get the punishment he deserves, yet he doesn't even get a slap on the wrist?? In pretty sure he's STILL doing experiments so he hasn't changed, he's still the same person he was ever since then.

I don't know what Kishi is like as a person, but that's so many red flags in his writing.

For reference: We had a conversation on another post of mine about Orochimaru getting away with the atrocities he has committed. We thought that he could possibly be compared to individuals such as Ishii Shiro from WW2.

For Ishii Shiro, read up on unit 731. For Orochimaru, Naruto chapters 121 & 122.

The obvious comparison is that both Orochimaru and Japan conducted human experiments and were then pardoned for being "useful" (in the case of Ishii, he was pardoned by the US) - because crimes against humanity are not crimes against humanity if it's the Good Guys™ doing them, obviously. I trust that I don't have to explain why this is hypocrisy at its finest and, overall, morally deplorable.

It's honestly disturbing just how often red flags manage to slip their way into Naruto. And yes, it's a story about war and war is a messy and difficult-to-write topic but all that needed to be done was acknowledging Konoha as the fucked-up dumpster fire it is and hold the perpetrators responsible.

I love Kishimoto's philosophy on villains and redemption, that there's some good in everybody and that redemption is possible. I really do. But there's a line. And personally, I draw that line somewhere before human experimentation, genocide, and slavery.

I don't know why Kishimoto thought that Orochimaru's redemption was a good idea. The idea of letting him get away like that is ridiculous to me but I'd also rather not try to make any assumptions about Kishi as a person from that.

In his defense, Japan is notorious for omitting its war crimes. And as a mangaka who gets like 3 hours of sleep per day, it's understandable that Kishi wouldn't have the time to properly educate himself on history or society. I don't know whether Kishimoto actually researched the war crimes that his characters have committed (though I personally doubt it) or if he just decided that "all wars are made up on people's grudges" because his grandparents told him once and thought of everything else as secondary. I can only guess.

In my ideal version of Naruto, Konoha's crimes would've been acknowledged, Danzo's crimes would've been made public and Orochimaru would've gone to prison. But none of that happened and I can only assume it is the result of Kishimoto's upbringing or a sacrifice he made to keep his target audience happy. I doubt he just deliberately decided to excuse any of these horrors and if he did, I'd argue it was born from nativity rather than malicious intent.

But man. The story sure suffered because of it...

[howtofightwrite]

Why do some armies, militias, or rebel groups commit war crimes at much higher rates than others? If you're trying to go beyond designating good guys and bad guys by authorial fiat, what are some of the fail-safes you'd want a fictional armed faction to have to minimize their My Lais as much as possible?

So, an important warning on this, I'm mostly writing this off-the-cuff, and I'm not doing a lit review at all. So, if you're looking at this as a scholarly work, please consider this a rough draft at best. Also, somewhat obviously, the subject matter here will get pretty dark.

Unsurprisingly, TW for war crimes, and terrorism. Though, I'll try to keep this clinical.

The short answer is multiple factors with no individual one ever being universally true. I'm going to break down war crimes and atrocities into two general categories: Planned and Unplanned. This is because these spring from distinct factors.

There is another possible dichotomy, distinguishing between war crimes of action, and technically illegal behavior, such as the use of munitions or weapons that are legally prohibited, but are not directly associated with any atrocities. Examples of the latter could include deployment of chemical weapons against valid military targets, or even military buildups in violation of previous armistice treaties. For example: the Bismarckand Tirpitz were floating war crimes, simply by existing, and violating existing treaties (I'm not 100% sure which treaties off hand, and the legal status of these battleships is a little more complicated than I'm suggesting.) In general, I don't think this is what you're looking at, but it's worth remembering that war crimes cover a much wider range of topics that just atrocities committed against civilians.

Planned atrocities are intentionally executed by the faction, these are often deliberate strategies employed by those organizations. This can include things like terrorist attacks, or deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure to demoralize enemy forces or the civilian population itself, these can also be employed to erode public support for ongoing military actions. Of course, in some cases, the deaths are the primary goal, and any effect on morale is incidental.

Unplanned war crimes and atrocities occur incidentally, often as a result of failures in the chain of command.

This isn't a strict dichotomy, a group may have policies or strategies that can lead to war crimes through insufficient discrimination (in this context, discrimination refers to the concept as it exists in Just War theory/doctrine, which is to say, discriminating between civilian and military targets.) For example, a faction who intentionally bombards military targets in a civilian population center (read, a town or city) would probably fall more on the unplanned side of the spectrum, in contrast to a faction who simply firebombs the entire city.

When it comes to planned atrocities, ideology is probably the biggest factor to consider. Particularly how their ideology regards the people they're killing. This can take a few really horrific turns, but if you have a group with no regard for human life, and no concern for international law, then you're likely to start seeing war crimes coming fast and heavy.

It's easy to simply designate these groups as, “the bad guys,” but that really undersells how subversive some of these thought processes can be. Unfortunately, the line between terrorist and freedom fighter is a question of perspective, and even groups you'd normally be sympathetic to may be responsible for some horrifying acts, which they justify to themselves by othering their victims. (Usually this othering is based on religious, ethnic, or political affiliation. Though, it can be any combination of the three.) A group of rebels may not have any qualms about “collaborators” getting caught in their attack, even if those people are considered guilty by simple proximity.

A classic examination of this is Battle of Algiers (1966), it's an excellent film, and absolutely worth the watch if you've never seen it.

Unplanned atrocities and war crimes can often lead back to two compounding factors: discipline and morale.

Discipline comes with a massive, “citation needed,” sticker, because it's not completely predictive. Nominally, well disciplined armies can engage in unplanned war crimes. Some of this ties into the second factor, morale, but some of it is independent of that.

Some of the difficulty with discipline is opportunistic crimes (such as looting), which can then spiral out into worse atrocities. In these cases, you're looking at the individual discipline and morale of each soldier combined with a lot of contextual factors, but that doesn't translate smoothly into a generalized model.

The simple model would be that low discipline forces are more likely to engage in opportunistic crimes. They're more likely to evaluate their current situation in relation to how it can potentially benefit them, and when you combine that with the chaos of war, it is a recipe for unplanned atrocities.

Morale is a little more complicated than discipline. In theory, troops who are suffering from low morale  are more likely to engage in unplanned atrocities. (While it's a gross oversimplification of the background factors, this is an apt description for the Mỹ Lai Massacre. Nominally disciplined soldiers, suffering from flagging morale, who incorrectly identified the villages' civilian population as collaborators, and started murdering people.)

However, in practice, morale can be a double edged sword, low morale creates a real risk of soldiers ignoring orders for personal gain, or engaging in illegal behavior out of desperation, however, a sharp increase in morale can also result in lapses leading to criminal activities. The primary example of this would be victory looting (which is a war crime, in case that was unclear.)

In theory, morale and discipline should slot together fairly cleanly to create a single spectrum, but the reality is a lot messier.

In the case of many irregular groups (such as militias, resistance groups, and rebels), the actual forces will be a coalition of different groups that may not see eye to eye on things. In this environment, it's basically impossible to effectively police the different factions within the group. And, unfortunately, history shown that these kinds of coalitions tend to purge their less radical members as they consolidate their power. (The only case I can think of where the radical and terrorist elements were shed by the more mainstream factions would be the IRA. In almost every other case, victory filters for the most ruthless.)

Importantly, coalitions like this tend to be regarded as a single entity by non-members, with the actions of each individual group reflecting on the coalition as a whole. The major exception here is with advanced analysis, where someone who is very well versed in the political or strategic details may be able to explain the different groups and how they fit together. But, for general public opinion, the coalition may as well be a single faction.

Coalitions like this are almost certain to have members who have no qualms about civilian casualties, either due to indifference to collateral deaths, or by identifying civilians as acceptable targets. This can cause problems for these groups as they alienate less radical members of the population. In extreme cases this can even result in recruiting difficulties, and the terroristic elements can cause problems for any peaceful negotiations with outside powers.

These terroristic elements, and atrocities in general, can bolster support against a faction. In some cases, these radical elements can become more of a detriment to the coalition as a whole than its real foe.

If you're hoping for a way to prevent this, there really isn't one. These kinds of coalitions are, “opt-in.” Worse, some radical elements are likely to spin up from existing members. In theory, these internal radicals can be a discipline issue, but in some kind of rebel group, they really won't have the resources to fight a war on multiple fights, especially not against themselves while their, “real,” foe is hunting them.

Radicalized organizations (whether they're part of a coalition or not) are also dangerous to their, “allies.” This is because they can provoke an escalated response from their foes. In many cases, if a group has proven that they're willing to deliberately target civilians, it will provoke a more severe response from their foes. That can come in the form of simple retaliation strikes, or could result in enhanced security and greater scrutiny. Finally, these organizations can provoke the emergence of radicalized organizations among their foes. For example, an renegade rebel cell with no qualms about civilian casualties could become the justification for an authoritarian regime's military to create death squads and deploy them in territory that the rebels operate in, taking a scorched earth approach.

While it's not frequently discussed in fiction, cultural differences can also result in, unintentional hostilities, which can also provoke escalation. At the very least, this can provoke resentment against foreign forces, which ensures that any rebel group would have a continual supply or recruits.

So, the original question you asked was, “how do I avoid this?” And, unfortunately, the answer is, “you don't.” Wars are horrific and messy, and unfortunately, the only way to avoid these kinds of horrors is if everyone agrees to, “play by the same rules.” In an asymmetrical war (such as with a rebellion or resistance), that's not possible. The, “legitimate,” government wouldn't view the rebels as a legitimate military force, and if the rebels operated openly they'd be arrested and executed. From there, the fuse is set.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[weaselbeaselpants]

Lorch opened her big stupid mouth again and decided to lean into "addicts are all awful and deserve to die" territory. How adorable.

My father functionally drank himself to death after he finally drove us away for good with his constant rage sessions, bouts of anger, stalking, suicide baiting and threatening us with guns, and all of this after a period of hightened emotional and verbal abuse we were subjected to after the death of my grandmother which lead him to self-medicate even harder than he already did throughout my whole life. I get really pissed at the idea that drugs, ANY drug or substance, can "save" you. It can't. You have to save you and self-medication can kill and does kill. It ruined my life because it ruined my dad's life and it ruined his immune system to where he died of bronchitis. I know from watching my dad's brother, my uncle, who did do HARD drugs and had the same issues as my dad, that hard drugs are easy to get into after you keep clearing hurtles to escape pain/feel higher, and then DANGEROUSLY hard to escape from. No Lily I didn't need Requiem for a Dream and Trainspotting to tell me that though I've heard from people that both those movies are disturbingly accurate about heroine, which is horrifying. No one should go through what happens in those stories and they sure as hell shouldn't be blamed/shamed/treated like 'filth' for being in that position at all.

The thing is, people are responsible for themselves. Not taking prescriptions right is bad. ALWAYS talk with a psychiatrist they are literally there to hear how you're doing on your drugs; never drink/smoke/toke and drive or handle machinery. It is absolutely not worth it get your friend or family to do it PLEASE even if they're annoying (at best) and chast you for that. If there's any way in which weed can directly kill you -Lily- it's through this. Wait till you're home; I'm not telling you this crap because I'm your mom, stranger on the internet reading this. I'm telling you this as a person with my own vices who lives around other people with their own vices; take care of yourself as best you can. You can do better, but you can never be perfect and that's okay. Don't abstain from stuff you can't quit but please be responsible. And godspeed to people dealing with addictions to hard drugs. I wish you the best - you can do it and as impossible as it may seem you will find the things you need in life to escape your pain without your addiction. I wish...so much that vibes and prayers and good thoughts could do more for you; especially the people dealing with drugs and homelessness right now which is SO MANY in my county alone. My government is screwing you over. You deserve to live and you ought to have your story told no matter what.

Anyway fuck you six ways to sunday Lily Orchard in the name of HUMANITY. You miserable, awful woman- wishing death and eugenic talk onto addicts for the crime of being an addict. You're the kind of person who doesn't just get uncomfortable+scoot away at a clearly tripping person on the bus, you actively say vile things abt them under your breath and scream at them if they even come near you. You have no empathy. I pray to god you never come across a homeless person. You must think the same backward garbage about them too.

Also speaking of vices and lecturing people on them, I find all this rich coming from the woman who wrote incest-laden cp left and right in her heyday, blames other people for it and very likely has accounts full of visual cp under your sockpuppets. I don't drink, smoke or take heavy drugs myself, Lily. But, just looking at what your good old friend Tara (who is not Sai. We both know this I don't even like Sai and I know it's not Sai) has hidden on the web I kind of want to now just to get those images outta my mind. "Quit at anytime/just NOT do the dangerous this" clearly doesn't apply to you. Predator.

[marrowcrunch]

What are your top 3 favorite vtm clans (or bloodlines)?

Bonus: which clan do you think you'd fit in with? :3c

Oh boy, this is going to be long lol

Favorite: Tzimisce 

Gosh, what a surprise :O

But yeah. I mean, firstly, the cool factor is undeniable. It's always such a joy designing Tzimisce characters because even toeing the strictest borderlines of canon they're allowed to get real weird with it in a way that most other clans aren't. I don't mean this as hate at all so I hope it doesn't come across like that, all clans are beautiful <3 but if you're playing Ventrue, Brujah, Tremere etc to some degree you'll always just be playing as Some Guy. With a Tzim it’s like…Do you want some sick-ass bone blades on your arms? No problem! Another pair of arms to put more bone blades on? Sounds good! Do you want to be bioluminescent like a squid? Great! Go crazy! 

Second: Full disclosure, I am the “My fursona is my TWOO SELF” flavor of furry. And the idea of having near total freedom of form— to be able to give myself a tail, claws, fangs, horns, [long censor beep], whatever I want, to abandon my human shape, fills me with Yearning. 

In the complete opposite direction, I also find personal meaning in the clan as someone who suffers from chronic pain. Shamelessly copy-pasting a reply to another post: 

The flavoring of Vicissitude as a creeping infection, as the actual body of the Eldest spread from generation to generation, able to rise up and consume its bearers at any moment, resonates with me very deeply as someone whose pain is caused by congenital tissue defects and which will inevitably get worse over time.

The idea that…there’s something horrible lurking inside your body. It can’t be cured. It can’t be removed. It is part of the very fabric of your being. And it is going to eat you alive, it is going to eat and eat until there’s nothing left. That no matter how you struggle, eventually it’s going to win. But you struggle anyways, because what the hell else is there to do?

The clan also has its revenant families, who are all collectively my most Specialist Little Guy in the world. I am a huge sucker for ye old trope of Special Family Bloodline Technique, and they scratch that itch for me in a really fun and interesting way. 

Second favorite: Giovanni. I actually don't have any deep reasons for this one, I just think that “fucked up necromancer vampire crime family” is such a fun concept lol. I like organized crime stories. It's also another one for the “bloodline technique” category— in v20, they even have their own associated revenant family, the Rossellinis! 

Third favorite: Salubri. The vibe I get is that they’re deeply underappreciated because people feel like their designation in both fluff and crunch as “the nice ones” means that they’re boring and clash with Masquerade’s overall tone. But I STRONGLY disagree— I think that's exactly what gives them so much potential for the sort of personal, existential horror that is supposed to be at the heart of Masquerade. I actually want to write a much longer post sometime that really gets into why, but part of it is this— being a magical pacifist unicorn prancing in a sunny flower field isn't “horrifying,” but being a magical pacifist unicorn in a dark forest where the only other animals are wolves that want to eat your face sure is. I also think the contrast between mainline (healer) Salubri and Salubri antitribu is a really rich thematic vein— again, I want to write more on this later. 

Bloodline lightning round:

Ahrimanes: Cat-themed woman power. I like the concept of Gangrel in tune with the spiritual elements of nature. Spirits in World of Darkness are fun because they can be anything. 

Ventrue antitribu: Knights in modern settings are cool.

However, if the question was “Which clan are you most like?” instead of “What's your favorite”, the answer is far and away Toreador. I love making art, and while I mostly just write now because my body has kind of fallen apart, I used to dabble in a bunch of different mediums and loved them all. That and I already do the “oh that flower/painting/ random pattern of light on the wall is really pretty *zones out and stares at it*” thing in real life lol so that would just be business as usual. If I couldn't be a Meat Criminal this is actually the clan I'd choose to be embraced into. 

Thanks for giving me a chance to talk :)

[hellsbellschime]

I need to say this and you're really only one of my mutuals who I feel kinda safe saying this to, but as a pro Palestine supporter I'm horrified by the way some Pro Palestine supporters (not on here) approach the issue of sexual assault on October 7th which I've been forced to accept happened. From these people I get the undeniable sense that they actually think that if they address it, even show sympathy for any victims, they're endorsing Israel or their IOF or the lives of Palestinian people that were tragically lost in the months after October 7th which is just wild to me. Even if no sexual assault occurred on October 7th it's the way these people were so ready to believe that it didn't because they thought it would invalidate the Palestianian cause when the Palestianian cause is (tm) is about justice, and no context will ever justify or excuse sexual violence. These two issues should be able to co exist, and somehow it fucking doesn't for these people!

I just have immense sympathy for Jewish people particularly women who are feeling alienated/betrayed thanks to this whole matter because I hear genuine nonsense like "Oh you're weaponing SA" if you want to acknowledge what occurred on October 7th. It bothers me to put it lightly that some people are willing to take what was more than likely the worst thing that happened to these people and just basically not hold the perpetrators accountable because these people belong to a cause they support.... that's really fucking dangerous!

Its even more unforgivable when some victims involved were apparently minors and still these people are silent because their too much of a coward to speak about it because they don't see Israelis as human. You're justified in hating Israel but you're not justified in just.... avoiding the horror of what was done to Israelis because it makes YOU uncomfortable, because you're afraid, because whatever. This feels even more urgent to me given its Women's History month but some of the worst perpetrators of this whole issue have been women themselves which makes it even worse.

The whole denialism also reeks of antisemitism from some corners.

Um yeah, I have a lot of feelings about this, one of the biggest of which is that it's beyond disturbing that you feel unsafe saying this publicly, because it is so obviously and undeniably wrong. I understand that people just want there to be an easy villain and hero, but sexual assault and rape are such a telling and important war crime because there is no utility in it. You can make an argument that almost every crime you can imagine, theft, destruction of property, even murder can be "useful" in war, but sexual violence has no purpose or utility beyond humiliation and trauma. It is cruelty for the sake of it, and you can't even create the illusion of some kind of justification.

But the denialism is antisemitic, and not just partially or in some corners. Horrifically, rape of women (and men and children too) has pretty much always been seen as "the spoils of war," so these rapes and sexual abuses are unfortunately not unique in that sense. But denying their existence is antisemitic because A. once again, 10/7 was not some rebellion or resistance against Israel, it was a terrorist attack on civilians that was perpetrated by a directly stated antisemitic terrorist group, and B. because rape has been used as a weapon against Jewish people for millennia as a specific and targeted form of terrorism and abuse. I mean, one of the prevailing theories about why Judaism is matrilineal is because rape of Jewish women was just that common. So to have absolute proof that these things have happened and either act as if it's justified or literally deny the reality right in front of their faces is antisemitic, across the board, zero exceptions.

And I hate to speculate because god knows what will happen, but it's extremely likely that things are going to get worse before they get better. There are still a lot of hostages that haven't been returned or even seen in weeks or months, and Hamas has repeatedly turned down deals to exchange hostages for a ceasefire. There are only a few things that this can mean. One of the most absurd but still likely options is that they just don't know where the hostages are anymore, which also almost certainly doesn't mean anything good anyway. It's highly unlikely that all of these people vanished into thin air and are coincidentally being treated well. And another obvious possibility is that whatever has been done to them is so horrific and/or so undeniable that Hamas doesn't want them to be released, because as of now they're winning the PR war and are literally getting people to agree that either the sexual violence didn't happen or it was somehow deserved.

Clearly I can't know that this is the case and there are other possibilities to explain why Hamas has repeatedly passed on a ceasefire, but there's no benefit to not even showing proof of life for these hostages unless something REAL fucked up happened or is happening to them. But regardless, I feel it really bears repeating, an organization with the stated intention of destroying all Jews then raping and sexually abusing a bunch of Jewish people is SO absurdly antisemitic that it's like the kind of comically outsized example you would try to make to explain bigotry to someone who heard the word for the first time two minutes ago, so the people who are still denying this reality are neo-Nazis in SJW clothing.

[rillils]

imagine post endgame bucky having to go alone, without someone to support him, to say sorry to all the people whos family he killed and he keeps saying that he didnt have a choice as his excuse

and he keeps thinking that its not a good enough excuse, that hes not good enough

no, you see, you see!! one of the things that made me uncomfortable about their treatment of Bucky, back when I was watching tf*ws, is precisely this

gonna slap this under a cut because BOY I have things to say

I WWILL NEVER STOP BEING MAD ABOUT THIS. I MEAN.

deciding that he has to apologize for all those deaths implies that he murdered those people willingly, while he was perfectly aware of his actions, of their consequences, and just did it anyways. so now, you know, he has to "atone for his sins", or make amends or whatever. so we're just going to send him off to those dead people's relatives to immolate himself because of course that's the only right thing to do. BUT idk, say what you will, this entire concept just sits wrong with me, I can't help it.

like first of all, we're acting as though killing all those people was a conscious choice on his part, as though he were completely 100% in control of himself and actively chose to murder a bunch of people, just because it suited him or something, when we know, WE FUCKING KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN LITERALLY SHOWN THIS, IT'S A RECURRING THEME IN AT LEAST 2 OF THE CAP MOVIES, that THIS. was NOT. the CASE. and fuck anyone who says any different tbh, mcu included

second, they might argue that by walking up to the victims' relatives and apologizing, Bucky's giving them closure or something, but. just. look at this from their point of view, right. as far as they're concerned, this is the guy who murdered their loved ones in cold blood, and he's just! walking free! getting away with murder(s), apparently without suffering any consequences whatsoever for all his crimes and all the grief he has caused. is that REALLY gonna give anyone closure? or is it just going to hurt them more/make them even angrier/unnecessarily reopen old wounds when there's nothing, really, that can heal or soothe them at this point, but rather just make them more painful than they already were????

so, it doesn't give them closure. and it sure as fuck doesn't give him closure, either.

they send him on this horrible, tragic, terrifying, sad errand, and all he gets out of it is torturing himself some more. seeing the pain and the hatred for him on all of these people's faces, the moment he says "yes, it was me, I pulled the trigger, I killed this person you loved". like, torture, yes, torture!! that's all this is!!! that's all it earns him!!! no peace of mind, no sense of closure, no hint of forgiveness! just more pain!!!!!!

just. I just hate this, you know, I just. I really, really hate this. I especially hate how, as you said, the way they insist on him having to personally apologize is just going to make him feel like his own hardships (aka being physically and emotionally tortured until he broke down and had his identity, agency and free will stripped away from him) were just "an excuse". as though a victim (because THAT'S what he is, THAT'S what he always was, a victim himself) needed an excuse for all his suffering. as if he brought it upon himself. as if he was "asking for it".

nah, all of this, it's just going to make his sense of guilt grow stronger and deeper over time, making him feel even more Unworthy (unworthy of love, unworthy of acceptance, unworthy of living a normal life after everything he's been put through, unworthy of friendship, unworthy of being seen as a whole person, as a human rather than a murderer) than he already felt before, making his own pain so overwhelmingly powerful that he might end up feeling like his entire existence is a mistake, and everybody would be better off if he just wasn't around anymore. and that's just so horrifying that I refuse to contemplate it.

[luneemeritus]

The Phantom of the Opera x Hazbin Hotel crossover AU (only Erik specifically actually)

So here I am making crossovers that no one cares about but fuck it these are my two favorite medias at the moment so. Here we go. (Please forgive my drawing skills I know it's not good)

Erik died in 1881 and went to Hell for obvious reasons.

He's a scorpion demon, and as he never sold his soul to any Overlord, he became independent and used his skills to handle himself. It's not easy, and he's been living in poverty and vulnerability during all those years, but it's nothing too different from his life.

He's poisonous, his venom is strong and he uses it frequently. It's not fatal because only angelic weapons kill sinners/demons, but it's still strong. He developed a new Punjab Lasso and has the power to hypnotize people with his voice, similar to his siren technique when he was a human. He discovered his pansexuality in Hell, every cloud has a silver lining.

So, years passed and now is modern days in Hell 🌈✨. Erik watched Charlie's fiasco in the TV and thought she was utterly pathetic. He doesn't deserve redemption after all, does he?... and even if he does, it's an impossible dream. No one cares for people like him, he's a lost case.

HOWEVER, after the news of Sir Pentious's arrival in Heaven spreads among Hell, Erik finally saw a chance of, maybe, at least finding a place to fit in. A place to not be completely alone for once. So he goes to the Hotel, yaaaayyy✨

.........…..........

Erik's relationships in the Hazbin Hotel

I think the person Erik would relate the most is Vaggie. They both have dark pasts that they deeply regret and that still affects the way they interact with people. They both use violence as their only coping mechanism to keep any kind of vulnerability hidden. They both have physical disabilities in their face and felt in love with a blonde walking sunshine with daddy issues that sing like an angel. Also Vaggie is a literal angel sooo...

As for Charlie... well, I think he would apreciate to know the best side of her instead of just judging her as a fool, but, I still think he would find her dreams and projects extremely utopic. And let's be real, Charlie is unintentionally condescending sometimes and she is not the BEST with therapy or healing mechanisms for sinners, Erik wouldn't let it unnoticed.

I think Erik would be fascinated by Lucifer. First, because he's the literal Angel of Music, an archangel, and like, the 'Lucifer' archetype is a lot similar to Erik. The 'fallen angel' casted out from his home and judged as the devil by everyone. Very tragic, very Erik-y. And Lucifer is also a dreamer, maybe more rational than Charlie, and he is naturally friendly so I think Erik would be fascinated.

Niffty scares the hell out of Erik but that's on everyone.

Alastor... uhm listen I'm not obsessed over Alastor as everyone else is so I'm not an Alator expert BUT. I think he and Erik would hang out well. Not friends, but like, having good conversations. They're both cultured and have very strange and cynical views about humanity (misanthrope bonding lol). I don't think Erik would be horrified hearing about the horrible tales about the Radio Demon's crimes, first because he hates himself and thinks of himself as nothing better, and second because he doesn't consider himself a target for Alastor's wrath. Also I'm pretty sure Erik would prefer old fashion rather than modern technology (could they shit talk about Vox together? maybe).

If Erik had met Angel before S1-EP4, my god Angel would annoy the Hell out of Erik. It would be funny though, imagine if Angel starts flerting with Erik and he's just like ? Bro? I'm a hideous gargoyle why ya wanna fuck me? But, he meets Angel post-season 1 in this AU so. Erik would probably envy how beautiful and confident Angel is, but I'm not sure if they would hang out that much. I think Erik wouldn't really have an opinion about Angel. They just exist next to each other.

Husk! Well I have a headcanon that Erik drinks... a little. A little too much. And I imagine him drinking at the bar and dropping insane Leroux lore to Husk. Lol. Husk wouldn't be surprised 'cause he probably heard much worse things but, yeah, their relationship would be this.

E: "So I fucked up everything"

H: "that sucks man, 've been there".

.........…..........

I won't do one for Pentious because he's already dead in this AU, but if you want to theorize how they'd interact feel free. anyway cringe ass aaaah crossover

[wanderrnest]

@mercurialcreatur3 Answering here because it was too long for replays on the previous post i reblogged. sorry for my English.

What you said is the most painful to me. People walk among us after they went through these unspeakable horrors, and people still find ways to deny or underestimad it. This is equivalent to Holocaust denial for us. Except now, unlike Nazi Germany, even Hamas terrorists themselves filmed things and uploaded them, sometimes even to victims' social media. There are photos and videos that I wish wouldn't be true, but they are. When there's a terrorist investigation where he said they were told to murder, behead, and rape. There are videos of sexual assault. They found sexual assault evidence on dead bodies. I'm choosing not to go more graphic, but there is so much more graphic. Many people can't tell you what happened because they're dead, like entire families; we won't hear their stories (again painfully similar to the Holocaust, where in some cases there was not one left to tell); they only left butchered bodies behind them, but even that is not enough. read on shani louk, it's one exapmle out of many. look on Hadas Kalderon that her mother and niece were murderd and her two children are kidnapped in gaza without her. they uploded one thing to her daugther's tik tok - "goodbye". it's diffrenet when you know the faces and you hear the first hand stories.

Hamas is a terror organization; it thrives on propaganda. You are fed with propaganda about Israel that comes straight from their scripted messages and false information and the dehumanizing of israelis and jews. The amount of misinformation in the pro-Palestinian circles and the Muslim world is truly off the charts. Israel did not use photos of Palestinian children. Hamas burned babies and beheaded and raped Jewish people and paraded with their bodies. It's a fact; it's documented; people saw it. i can't even think about making this up because it's too terrible to even be imagined; it's hard for me to even say it. It's people's families! I can't believe I have to try to convince a fellow Jewish person that it's not a lie, that innocent Jews actually were brutally murdered. It may seem hard to believe, and you refuse to believe the photos, but is it really that hard to believe when it's literally their declared written goal? Slaughter Jews? c'mon What else do you need? why would you choose to believe the messages of a terror organization?

Yes, she said they treated her nicely; she's like 85. I'm so glad she is physically unharmed, and I believe she wisely managed to interact with them (which to me, shows more about her humanity than theirs, since kindapping a 85 years old or breaking into a house of an old lady and holding a grenade up her head (different story of rachel adri) pretty much cancels ones humanity. not to mention shooting elders in the head. I guess some of them were interactable (also, please don't forget that her HUSBAND is still there, which might be a reason for her words). but it doesn't make their crimes against humanity any less terrible, it doesn't bring back 1,400 people who are brutally murdered. they didn't treat nicely the other elders they shot, the women they raped and murdered, the babies they burned or beheaded, and the children that are still held in Gaza. their morals are entiraly diffrenet then ours in ways we cannot comprehend. they justfiy and call to do all those things to jewish people, in all ages, including rape.

Those people also understood really quickly that bragging about all their horrifying acts wouldn't give them the West support that they love, they are not stupid, so they try to minimize damage, and it's working.

As much as I'm not a fan of the Israeli government (before it all happened, I protested against it every week; again, a leftist), and I'm the last one to defend it, but this is still not some version of Russia with fake news and censorship. We are a small country with a mandatory army, where everyone knows someone who knows someone who's been affected, who was there in some way or another, during or after. Our media is still free and diverse. Please believe me; I know what happened an hour's drive from where I live. If the TV news leaves out details, and it does, it's in order to keep us sane because the ideas are too much to handle and are feared to cause massive hysteria, but everyone knows anyway. Sometimes it's even scarier to watch the news reporter knows something but stops themselves from giving the details because it's too terrible to air on TV.

Honestly, there is so much evidence and testimonies and there will be so much more. i hope that even if not now, one day you'll understand the horrors; I don't know what else will make you believe after all that. I understand you are for the weak now, but if we were weak now, we wouldn't be alive. We were weak on October 7th, and we aren't going to be weak again. Gaza could've been free without the terror organization that rules it. That was the intention from the beginning when Israel withdrew completely from Gaza, giving Palestinians autonomy. Once it got controlled by a terror organization, it naturally got complicated and violent. But we can't protect them from their own now; I'm sorry. We'll have to protect our people from being murdered. we have no way of "freeing" anyone without sentencing our own death (casual reminder of the sea of muslim countries around us, that wouln't miss a chance to join our destraction). And it feels like it's comfortable to you as a Jew that doesn't live in Israel to underestimate this need and join your friend by judging from afar, but you aren't in this danger. anyway i hope you won't be beacuse antisemitism is getting worse and worse everyday.

But if you'd be here, and these horrors were at your doorstep, believe me you'd understand the need to defend yourself. that's why i'm so anxiously try to make you understand. Israel is not comitting genocide, i'll say it again and again. it fights a terror organization thet hides behind their civillians, and it would not have done that if this terror organization stopped murdering israelis. we have no interst in killing palestinians just because they are palestinians. none.

this is the propaganda.

and if anyone from our dozens of neighbor muslim countries truly cared about palestinians and not just interested in destroying us and the western values, they would actually help them and not encourage hamas.

This comes from a leftist who, until very recently, believed wholeheartedly in a two-state solution. i don't know what i think now.

[littleapocalypsekitten]

I was thinking over Greek/Roman monsters and how beings like Medusa, Centaurs, Cyclopses, Argus and Satyrs started out as genuinely inhuman or even grotesque, but overtime the artists started drawing them as sexy people with monstrous features?

To list:

Medusa: Attractive woman but with snake hair. Originally had a hideous and monstrous face.

Centaur: Attractive muscle-man with horse lower halves. Originally depicted as having a grotesque human appearance as they were based off foreigners.

Satyrs: Originally long tongued monstrous humanoids with goat legs and constant erections, later attractive guys with less prominent goat legs and just as prominent erections! Sometimes just men with pointy ears and erections

Cyclops: Early artwork depicted them as grotesque giants with just an eye and mouth on their face. Later artwork, particularly in roman times depicted them as giant, but attractive chiseled men with a normal human face, but with no eye sockets or just closed eyes, and a singular eye in their forehead.

Argus: He was described as being having one hundred eyes over his body, but alot of ancient artwork depicted him as a normal man but with the eyes all over his arms and legs!

Actually that reminds me, we don't see alot of "sexy cyclopes" in modern media, hahaha, I wonder why that is?

No such thing as sexy cyclops, hmmm? Monsters are fun to play with. They allow creativity, whether you want to go ugly or beautiful. It's kind of like the "Biblically Accurate Angel" fad, isn't it? There are only a few places in the Bible where Heavenly Host are depicted as highly weird to human sensibilities, a few visions. In Daniel, if I'm not mistaken, and in Revelation - the Revelation four-faced angels stick out to me in particular because I used them as the basis for a monument / statues important to a kingdom in one of my fantasy novels. Yet, more often in the Bible, angels are just guys. Like... instances where they just look like humans because they're doing the undercover-agent thing. It's neat that the Classical Greek monsters were originally meant to be horrifying. (Personally, I find Medusa's story more horrifying than gorgons, themselves... if I recall correctly, Medusa was cursed by Athena for the crime of being raped in her temple. It was like, everything back then was to blame the woman because the Ancient Greeks were pretty horrible about not seeing women as human). Modern people making her pretty cool? It's like revenge for the original story! Reclaim the problematic myths! Medusa, as a character, is pretty sexy in Kid Icarus: Uprising, even though she's a villain.

I have a picture somewhere I cannot find of a re-wilded centaur I drew in response to a tumblr convo with @virovac I can't seem to locate it right now and tumblr is being a butt on me inserting images. (I'm lucky to have gotten what I got here... system is so touchy). Eh, for every monster, there's a monsterf*cker, I guess. Neat to find out how far back it goes!

[femmesandhoney]

inclusionists who think and try to force everyone else into believing that anyone who isn’t vanilla and/or is in a heterosexual relationship actually is kweer is so funny, but then i remember that they’re an actual reason why the lgb community is what it is today and i’m horrified. being in the lgbt+ community used to mean something, but now a heterosexual into bdsm or a furry or a person who identifies as one of the variations of gender fluid or thinks that because they’re a biological male that wears skirts or a furry or a male who sexualizes lesbians and is super into mff threesomes or a pedophile or would be ok with potentially dating a trans/nonbinary person kweer or other while apart of the lgbt community and so much more is wild. so called kweer/lgbtqiap2s+ people are more concerned with being called the right pronouns and having drag queens read books to children care about actual hate crimes and discrimination towards same sex attracted individuals in the western world and refuses to acknowledge other countries like uganda who declared homosexuality a crime that will receive the death sentence. a server calling you “sir” is not the same as being murdered for your sexuality, sir. and people wonder why there’s an increasingly number of people against lgb’s, but then again who cares it’s really the transgender women who have it worst in the whole entire world out of all of human history 🙄

inclus can suck my ass they're so obnoxious they literally bring back terrible memories of when i was on exclus twitter with other lesbians and they constantly attacked us for being lesbians even while we tried to placate them with all the libfem buzz words we truly believed lol like. they really all have childish mentalities and heads stuffed with cotton to believe what they do about how the world works.

[secretariatess]

True crime is filled with some horrendous cases.

Yet bring up stories about animal abuse cases, and it hits different.

(And if you're sensitive to this, please please please do not look up details, because they get bad. Take my word on it.)

At first I wondered if animal abuse cases struck different, caused more distress (seemingly- this is a theory) because abusers can be more, ah, creative due to smaller size.

Maybe it's the desensitization to harm done to humans because of media and all sorts of things.

I know many have said they are horrified because who could do that such innocent animals?

But I think a larger part that might not even be realized is that it seems so much more horrific than harm done to humans because the animals just don't understand. It's like when they're in pain from natural causes. They don't get it. They don't get what the vet is trying to do and all that, and in those situations it hurts because they look at you all confused, and you can't really explain to them that you're trying to help them.

And in cases like these, they just don't understand why someone's hurting them like this. We don't either, but how can you explain to an animal that there are people who are just cruel? And so in hearing details, or being so unfortunate enough to accidentally see it, it's so much more heartbreaking 1) it's insanely cruel, and 2) that animal just does not understand. It just knows it's being hurt and it can't get away. And listeners of its story know that.

On a more personal level, I think it's sickening because God has put us as stewards of the earth. As Christians we understand humans are going to be cruel to other humans, because of sin. But when humans are cruel to animals, it's still sin, but they're inflicting pain on creatures that were put in the care of humans.

I'm not saying cruelty towards humans is "better." It's not. And I value human life over animal life. I just think animal abuse has its own kind of sickening because we're supposed to be stewards of the earth, and they just cannot understand what's happening to them.