#this is DEFINITELY a delete later thing

[in-stitchesx]

I can't make text posts because when I'm upset I only speak like Shakespeare sorry

[chiricat]

souyuri (again)

[bixels]

I wanna get around to doing some small story beats for the "Main Six Takes Manhattan" story. It'd be a good chance for me to play around with different art styles too.

I'm really excited about this story too because it'd be splitting everyone up into pairs for their own little arc.

Rarity attends a fashion showcase in upper Manhattan, with April-Jacqueline in tow as her "attendant." The two get swept up in industry drama as they uncover the abuse faced by amateur designer Carol Cho under the American fashion house "Polomare."

Pinkie and Thea head to Harlem for a rent party, hosted by Thea's city friends. Despite Thea's protestations, Pinkie can't help but be the life of the party as its tenants and musicians attempt to raise enough money to fight their landlords and demand housing justice.

Dash and Félicie navigate NYC's transportation system to go to a ball game: the New York Wonderbolts vs. the Washington Senators. While Dash meets her heroes, Félicie can't help but feel homesick and smothered by the big city.

[bugisbonkerz]

what if when duck said he “always knew he deserved to be dead” he also (maybe unknowingly) meant he excepts how their world works. like we all know he loves living in that hell hole of a home and love love loves when things go orderly and as planned. and he’s ALWAYS fucking dying so he’s sorta like . “hey. if this world wants to kill me sometimes that’s okay.” duck will just randomly out of nowhere says things like he knows too much about whats going on, but he just doesn’t care bc he believes it’s normal. and if he has any awareness of this thing specifically , i don’t think he minds as long as he gets to come back. because that’s always what happens and he’s okay with that. maybe he just thinks that that place knows what’s best for him, so he deserves what he gets. even if it means making him hurt from time to time

[wickmitz]

big believer in rocky being an extremely angry person actually! so much of it is internalized and he very much channels it into specific things ( like wick, or more recently, marigold ) but this doesn’t negate the fact that he is angry and resentful. sometimes being mad is more than just punching people and threats of violence! sometimes it’s quiet seething and forced joy. sometimes awful things happen to you and you letting them happen doesn’t mean you won’t become angry about it. sometimes your anger is fear, and sometimes it’s another thing, and actually maybe it’s always coming from some other emotion but it feels like anger and that’s what sticks. and i’ll also just say that his head trauma won’t be helping him with any of these problems in the future either <3

[n4rval]

consider: mad genius who's also a very kind and lonely old man

actually adores children and connects with them better than most people because they are both openly candid, creative and curious

struggles with the asexual conundrum of wanting a spouse and offspring but ultimately Sucking So Much Ass at building intimacy with another person he skipped that part altogether and mad scienced his way into a family

[yansurnummu]

TES fest day 8: free day

The first fic I ever finished and posted was The Blood of the Coven in 2016, which followed Anthelion through the Dark Brotherhood quest line in Oblivion.

I set a goal at the beginning to do at least one of these prompts, and somehow I actually managed to do them all! I had lots of fun and it was great to see everyone else's amazing art and writing as well :)

[clouds-dont-judge]

heres an old comic i gave up on </3 it was a better idea in my head..

its a bit incomprehensible but basically i like the concept of villian eating the sidekick of their hero nemesis to lure them into a trap. But also. I think it would be funny/angsty if the hero didnt even bother saving them and just assumed the sidekick was a lost cause.

[awholelottabi]

Anyone wanna be my Mary Jane? We can do the upside down kiss 🕷

[adrift-in-thyme]

Note to self: never again let it slip to an irl person that I write whump

[thesixthstar]

Man i understand being annoyed at Americans in a general sense, especially when there’s some choice hypocrisy to yell about on this bitch of a website but it is frustrating seeing some of the posts drift by that are “””calling out”””” Americans for just. Reacting badly to a bad situation.

The internet was always a mistake in the sense that it allowed us to capture in realtime any messy reactions we have to anything, before anything like sense or logic have a chance to kick in. And it was more of a mistake when we learned to Process Via Posting.

But that really doesn’t change the fact that humans. when big bad shit hits us that we weren’t expecting for some god damned reason, we might spend some time feeling fucked up contradictory things and lash out about it a little. It’s not good but it really just is.

There’s shame and there’s anger and there’s guilt and indignation and hope and hopelessness and spite and despair. And i fucking get it when people see that and want to say “oh poor fucking baby let me play you the works smallest violin” but you really can’t expect us to thank you for that.

I’m angry. I’m sad. I went to work today and I had dinner and waived TV and I laughed at some god damn posts and then I had some other emotions and I’m still angry and sad and confused and anxious in ways I don’t understand yet.

I try to delete posts that I reblog and then realize are kinda Fucked because I want to be someone who doesn’t lash out but if the worst thing I’m doing when badly processing my emotions is reblogging a post with angry judgmental words, then fucking sue me.

[zafiro-anyejo]

.

[goldenwilmon]

.

[sundial-bee-scribbles]

"my education is my highest priority" everything returns to vocaloid

[cdroloisms]

I just came across your post about vagueposting and I think I agree with it, but the situation you most likely wrote it about is hardly a "vagueposting" because you could say who it was about after reading it literally one time and that person got jumped and insulted in the anon ask anyway so discussing it in person could be safer...

I'm reeeally sorry for bring up a past situation, but I don't think it's a good idea to write nasty things about another person and specific details about how they interact with the fandom and their post, say things that will help to easily identify a person and at the same time insult them or say how you think they feel about the characters or the story based on your feelings about their one take that you didn't like and then call it's "vague" because there is no name in the post. I mean, It can lead to bad consequences, it literally did in that situation.

And yes, I do think people have the right to discuss bad takes or takes they don't like, but there's a way to do it without giving away every detail about the post and the person who wrote it so everyone knows who you're talking about, and if you're not good at being vague, just discuss it in a private chat.

this ask is old but i was busy last week, so forgive me for the late response. i was debating answering it at all, but i dont want myself to be misunderstood, so just. to clarify under the cut.

i'll agree with you that the post/situation in question wasn't vagueing. now, i don't know exactly the difference between the number of followers i have and the number of followers that the blogger in question has, and when it comes to the number of active dsmp followers i think both of us have even less of a clue. that being said, both of us frequent much of the same circles, so i think it's fair to say that many of my posts will end up being exposed to a very similar audience to his, and so therefore this response about the situation you're talking about will be just about as clearly traceable to a specific person as the post he made that started the situation in question. just as a general observation.

if i'm understanding your ask correctly, while vagueing a take is fine, the vague shouldn't be clearly identifiable if you're going to speak badly about it or disagree heavily. to which i have to ask what, specifically, is defined as clearly identifiable? i think most takes in this fandom can be pretty easily traced to a person, even if that person is not the only person that believes in that take--just as an example, c!tommy as a butterfly pinned behind glass was a take in response to the c!sam and c!dream stream after techno escaped, and grew to be a pretty prominent theme to the point of a zine being modeled after it, but i can also trace it to a pretty specific tumblr post with a name attached. i also think that that same statement probably isn't true for many fans who maybe joined later on in the fandom. i mean, i'm aware that i'm being pedantic here, i'm aware that the situation in question created conflict specifically due to it being within dreblr and in a space where multiple people would've seen both posts and felt ensuing awkwardness bc they know both people either on a personal or acquaintance level, but i mean the same applied ages ago whenever strategist-interpretation and trauma-interpretation c!dream apologists felt like going at it again on the dash.

in this scenario specifically, what made the situation clearly identifiable was the nature of the take that was being discussed. the main identifying detail was the take that the asker was asked about, imo, and i mean ... yeah i mean. most takes that haven't blown up pretty heavily do end up being tied to one or two people? i mean, staged finale is a take that can be tied to three people who argued in favor of it the most before the rest of dreblr got on board only in late 2021. i simply don't think that a take that maybe only one person has argued for (which, i dont remember the statistics of the take in this situation, so i dont remember how many notes it had or how many people in total may have expressed public agreement towards it, honestly) is exempt from discussion when it is posted in a meta or analysis space as an analytical piece, which i do think applies to this take from what i remember about it and how it was tagged.

and back to the discussion of what's acceptable as far as directly responding versus vagueing, i mean, a lot of the discussion i've had on my blog (abt discourse etiquette in General in meta spaces on dreblr moreso than this specific situation, largely bc i did want to avoid commenting on a situation that 1) i really had no business in and 2) i have reason to be biased about. the main reason why i'm talking abt it now is bc hopefully enough time has passed for feelings to be less fraught and bc i want to make certain thoughts of mine clear, in case they weren't clear enough in my original posts abt dreblr and whatever) revolves around both direct responses and vagueing having their reasons as well as pros and cons, and both will likely continue to exist in analysis spaces and generally i don't think it's productive to really comment on what people can or can't do on their own blogs. in this scenario, i don't think "vagueing about one specific person in a way that may be clearly identifiable to parts of their audience" is uniquely unacceptable? a direct response very clearly would make the person in question identifiable -- outside of how it's kind of impossible to make a post vagueing someone in a way where No One has Any Idea who you might be talking about without making the post like, incoherent inherently, if vagueing (not identifiable) is okay and directly responding (identifiable) is okay, then why is vagueing (identifiable) not okay?

now, i understand that any situation where the person in question might be identifiable, some people may take the open disagreement as permission to harass them. and obviously, harassment sucks. part of the whole point of opening up this conversation on my blog was bc i worry, with the way that a single conflict between dsmp opinions has kind of rippled through dreblr recently and the responses to this "situation," that an environment is being created with too much of a forced global consensus that punishes people for stepping out of the status quo in both opinions and behavior, which is obviously bad for the whole community, and was looking to voice some of that and have a conversation on solutions. and i understand that in this situation, a lot of your problem with the blogger has to do with his general attitude in discussing the take and his statements on the person who made it. now, i think you have every right to find his statements offensive and disagreeable and to unfollow and/or block him. that being said, i am not exactly a PR agent, and i want to reiterate that what people do on their own blogs isn't my business and i don't think it should be my business. or uh, anyone's business, for that matter. i don't think that everyone "in dreblr" is beholden to keeping to a certain person's standard for "acceptable" disagreement and "acceptable" sharing of their own opinions on their own blog as long as they're not inciting harassment, which entails, like, actively encouraging harm to happen yk. i mean, you can think that the blogger was being rude or an asshole and prefer to never see him again, that's fine. that's your prerogative. but i mean, i'm not gonna tell the guy how to interact with the fandom on his own blog, haha.

to be clear, im not telling you what you can or can't do on your own blog either. if you wanna make a post about how his posts contain harmful rhetoric, how he's an idiot, or how he's rude bc you disagree with his public posts on this situation or on the dsmp as a whole, i mean, i'm not gonna handwring over it and tell you that you're not allowed to do that. it's none of my business, and i like to think i'm not that hypocritical. and honestly, i think that in a space where we're talking about analysis, commenting on harmful rhetoric happens often and should happen often when it happens -- literally anyone can make an analysis post that has harmful rhetoric, and sure it's fiction and no one has to answer to the analysis police for making a bad analysis post, but i've also been in this space and seen enough truly mind-boggling amounts of parroting takes about torture that make people sound like CIA psyops to go "well saying that someone's analysis post contains harmful rhetoric is really rude" pfft. again, i'm not saying i'm immune to hypocrisy, but i've certainly malded enough times in public about the shit people have said in this fandom to take issue with that. now, getting a little less into the strictly-analysis side of things, i understand that insults like calling someone an idiot may not sit right with everyone, to which i say. block to your heart's content. but c'mon man i've called people idiots before i'm no saint 😭😅

anyway. i hope this clarified some things, anon. take issue with whatever and whoever you like, honestly, whether that's me, the person that i just not-vagued for the last however many words, etc etc -- again, your prerogative. and i agree, it's a shame the situation devolved into stuff like insults in both bloggers' inboxes when it really didn't have to be like that like. at all.

[chibishortdeath]

Great googley moogley it’s all going to shit! Every day becomes exponentially more terrifying!

And all perfectly timed to just right at the start of what’s supposed to be my adult life where I get my shit together and be useful and productive!