#to the point of saying it's hypocritical to support one but not the other

[izzyspussy]

making original art: making a pie with your own recipe

making fanart: making a pie from someone else's recipe

making AI art: taking a bunch of pies fully made by other people (without their knowledge or permission) and squishing them together into a "new" pie

[paopuofhearts]

it's almost like the only option is dividing things further black and white then just going hardcore to an extreme.

like.

i spent all day yesterday cutting off friends and blogs of people i love in my native community because of the excessive call for violence as the answer to decolonization, maintaining nuance but only for one side and saying fuck all to everything and everyone else.

but then today.

the number of jewish friends and blogs i've had to unfollow because people are doubling down on "hamas bombed a fucking hospital" when there's clear evidence that isn't true and it's propaganda to perpetuate cycles of violence?

fucking horrifying.

[gameofthronedd]

Ngl something about people stanning Rhaenyra & wholeheartedly supporting her as a BAMF anti-patriarchy protagonist but calling Alicent a myriad of names, belittling & disregarding her traumas etc. Grosses me out fr.

It doesn't surprise me because it happens quite a bit on social media but some of the shit I've seen people write without an ounce of self-awareness just baffles me. The lack of sympathy boggles my mind, seriously 😐

[meejijis]

"Why are all SK fans proshippers" Silence fetus

[punkitt-is-here]

I went back, read the FAQ, figured out I was working with bad information, and would like to present an actually polite version of the previous ask.

The other women you were having the "AFAB trans woman" debate with haven't been able to let go of it,

because anons have been accusing them of gatekeeping and TERF politics for providing anecdotes of, basically, AFAB people identifying as trans women to mock or overthrow their social groups. Citations below:

https://strawberry-crocodile.tumblr.com/post/742523159739334656/aita-for-warning-new-transfem-friends-that-someone

https://necronatural.tumblr.com/post/754196456131428352/sorry-but-if-youre-afab-you-do-not-get-to-call

I understand that the brazen, all-caps-bold-text mockery of any ask on this topic is great for driving off hateful anons pointed at you,

but if you could lend some credit to @patricia-taxxon 's responses, for example, it'd help take some hate off her back and really hep build my respect for you as an artist.

This will be likely my last proper response on any of this so be chill about it

I really, genuinely do not care that much about this subject much at all. It is a passing thought to me. I made the original post, responded once or twice, and made a quesadilla. it was fucking delicious. I do not appreciate the way you have talked to me. If you're going to treat yourself like someone I have to earn the respect back of instead of a random stranger on the internet who was very brazen to me in a one-off inbox message, I am not going to care.

With that out of the way: I have read the citations you have listed. I do not care. I have read them, thoroughly considered their points, and I still do not give a shit. What you are pointing at here in the first one is an individual perpetrating shitty behavior. I am not saying that this is the case, but if there was an assigned-male-at-birth woman perpetrating the same information, it would become very apparent very quickly how obvious it is that the issue is not with their gender identity, it is with the information they are spreading. Anyone is capable of misinformation, and I am not going to shit on and belittle a completely niche gender identity because one woman on the internet fucked up one time. If I did that, I'd be a hypocrite and would not be practicing any sort of good faith towards people with gender identities I do not fully understand. This is a core tenant of how I approach queerness. I do not need to understand someone to respect them. I do not need to worry about how conservatives will see us. I do not need to worry about the larger queer community when one person is being off-putting. I am not a fucking square. I achieve a lot of inner peace by simply practicing what you have named "tits-and-beer gender liberalism".

The second post you have linked is also something that I have read. I have considered the points in said post. My stance has still not changed. I do not think ID'ing as a transfeminine person when you were assigned female at birth is an inherently transphobic concept. Plenty of people in my notes have described experiences that very clearly and understandably outline why they do or why others might identify with the concept. I fundamentally disagree with the response because I do not believe that it is a transphobic idea. I am a transgender woman and have been for about half a decade now. My relationship with femininity is complex, and I am a binary transgender woman. I think in the grand scheme of gender identities, switching from one binary to the other has been pretty easy for me mentally. I am not intersex, I have never detransitioned in any way, and my family has been incredibly supportive. I transitioned specifically for the euphoria I got from identifying as a woman. I still have a complicated relationship with womanhood. Someone who has gone through many more hardships than I have is probably going to have an even more complicated relationship with femininity, and that is why I have no trouble imagining why something like an AFAB trans woman would exist. Perhaps someone has a complicated relationship with gender in relation to their intersex status and feels that the journey that transgender women take more closely aligns with their own rather than cisgender womanhood. Perhaps they are non-binary and have still transitioned to a more feminine-leaning identity. Perhaps they have de-transitioned, but now they are irreversibly changed by that experience and they are, in a way of thinking, "trans-feminine" because they are transitioning back to femininity. It is not hard for me to think of reasons. It is not saying that trans women are not real women. I think it is very clear to me that "transfem" can easily describe an experience with femininity that differs from the cisgender experience. It is no less valid, it is simply different, as with all things.

"Transfem" can mean "a man transitioning into a woman", but it can also describe a complex approach towards self-identification. We can argue semantics all we want, but I do not care personally. I do not think transfem means transitioning from man to woman exclusively. I am a binary transgender woman, and I do not agree that that is all it is. My journey as a transgender individual has been very uncomplicated compared to others, but it is still an ocean deep. I do not want to reduce that journey and identification down to a simple "man become woman" because that betrays the inherent complexity of transitioning and figuring out yourself.

Ultimately, to me, it comes down to not giving a shit. I am rarely, if ever, going to meet an AFAB transfem person. You are rarely, if ever, going to meet an AFAB transfem person. It is an incredibly niche gender identity with a lot of baggage, as we have seen. It is never going to matter in the broad scheme of things that they exist because 99% of people are not going to bring them up in the wider conversation about transfemininity. I know that finding your identity can be a rough, arduous process. I am not going to deprive someone of the joy of self-discovery, even if it is a complex or contradictory idea. I do not fully understand neopronouns. I do not fully understand things like polyamory or he/him lesbians or AFAB transfems. I do not need to. In real life, you hang out with people and share food and good times together. None of this shit matters. If I am ever so lucky to meet someone with a contradictory or confusing identity, I am happy that my words may provide them comfort and that they won't live to hide themselves around me. Making someone feel like they have to hide parts of their self is the last thing I would ever want anyone to experience.

I have no beef with Patricia. I quite like her work. When I saw her response, I disagreed. I still do. I am not going to start agreeing with an idea I am expressly opposed to because someone asked. But it is not the end of the world. I would appreciate, if my followers are sending her harassment, that they fucking stop, because it's not that big a deal. If anyone from my post is sending anyone hate because of a public disagreement on that post, I ask you kindly to stop and go outside. I do not condone the behavior. It is not that big a deal.

I am going to go make myself a ham and egg sandwich and practice tits and beer gender liberalism now. I hope this satisfies your request in some way.

[violenteconomics]

so it’s pretty popular in this fandom for the overblotters to have a support group going on, and that’s all well and good and we’ve got a lot of amazing stuff out of it (shameless segue into compelling you to read the “girls in wonderland” series by the lovely jxnebug on ao3, please, it’s awesome), but can you just. like. imagine for a second that everybody else has a support group too, because goodness gracious, do the people who have to witness the overblots need so much therapy.

like. i imagine that it starts off with the first-years and their weekly ramshackle hangouts, and then they all start venting to each other about all the trauma they’ve gone through in the past year, which, thanks to yuu, becomes an unofficial, very unqualified support group.

ace: hey. i’m ace trappola. during my first week at night raven college i had to wear a collar around my neck at all times and didn’t even get to sleep in my dorm, which is probably for the best, because i couldn’t really sleep with that stupid collar anyway. i slaved away making a chestnut tart to apologize to my housewarden with, only to have my apology literally thrown into the trash. and when my best friend tried to stick up for me, they got called stupid and undereducated. and my other upperclassmen just enabled him. i almost got killed twice in that week, and many more times afterwards.

deuce: hello, i’m deuce spade. and i promised myself that i would become the best person i could be for my mom, only to fall short of my own expectations every single time, except for when i literally sign my soul away. i had such high hopes for my housewarden and upperclassmen to guide me to a better future, only to come to the realization that they’re even more flawed than i am. so, basically, there is nobody who can help me now, and i’m doomed to the path i made with my own hands.

jack: this is so unnecessary. jack howl. basically what deuce said, but combine that with the fact that, when you first met, your upperclassmen didn’t have any problems with getting rid of you if it meant their path to victory was assured. your dormmates will never admit that they’re wrong and sooner rip your ear out than say they like you to your face. but you care a lot about them, and deep down, maybe they care a lot about you, too. but the only thing they can do that would prove that in your eyes is improve themselves. become better. be the people you thought they were when you got here. and that is the one thing they will never do.

epel: howdy. my name is epel felmier. my housewarden is all about personal improvement. he’s right to think that i need to rework my thinking about gender and strength, because they are not equal in any way. other than that, though, he has no investment in me as a person. i’m not allowed to eat whatever i want. if he tells me to perform, that’s what i do. if i slip up even a little, he scolds me for being lazy. my posture must be perfect, my diction clear, and my hair flawless. he puts the same pressure on himself to be perfect, so it’s not like he’s a hypocrite. but that’s the thing, isn’t it? he likes me for the things i do — and he hates the person i am.

ortho: hello, world. my name is ortho shroud. not the real one, though. i’m just a poor simulacrum of him that my big brother forged from the flames of his grief and the metal of his self-loathing. but even though idia put his soul into constructing me, i can never truly be the person he wants me to be. my only purpose, and i can’t even do it correctly. for almost my entire life up to this point, idia loved his dead brother more than he loved me, and i just had to be okay with that, because the nature of the STYX organization mean that i didn’t have anybody else. and the one time i tried to change that, i corrupted my brother and almost ended the world.

sebek: greetings. i am sebek zigvolt. i nearly perished recently. the prince that i admired so dearly tried to put everybody to sleep, and in trying to stop him, i very nearly lost a dear friend of mine to the secrets hidden inside his father’s brain. the whole time, i felt distinctly out of place. it was like i was watching one of those soap operas master lilia loves so much. only ever looking. never touching. right before me was a broken family that i only wanted to see come back together, but i couldn’t fix it. for it was not my family to fix. i was helpless. useless. but that is nothing new.

yuu: …hi. i’m yuu. i was ripped out of my home and isekai’d into this world that’s filled with mentally unstable magic people who tried to kill me more than a couple times. i am currently living paycheck-to-paycheck while going to school full-time thanks to a crow who doesn’t know how to adult. and clearly, we all have a lot of work to do.

this goes on for a couple of weeks with just them, but then sebek decides to invite silver, because he’s prolly not doing so hot post-book 7 (and also, silver is basically the freshmen’s official big brother at this point, let’s be real) and then silver invites kalim a few weeks later, who invites ruggie, and then it just sort of snowballs out of control from there.

[darcylindbergh]

I have no idea what Harris' actual views on I/P are, but even if she is fully pro-Palestine wouldn't she still have to meet with Netanyahu? I mean realistically any change the US can possibly make would have to involve talking to Israel, right? Presidents meet with Putin even if they hate him/Russia's actions because that's how international politics works, it doesn't mean they like/agree with him

Well, theoretically, there's a bit of political game playing involved yes. But because the ICC has issued warrants for Netanyahu's arrest, if we're strictly following international law, Netanyahu shouldn't have been meeting anybody, he should have been arrested. But we're not doing that because the US currently thinks the ICC is wrong, which is a bad look for the US and which undermines the strength of international law, so I think this is bad and also wrong, but that's what's happening at present. And although US presidents etc have historically met with Putin, they would not at this point because Putin also has warrants out for his arrest. The difference between how the US has treated Putin v Netanyahu is, as it seems, pretty hypocritical.

Practically speaking, as you say, meeting with Netanyahu is a bit of a political game. The US has historically been a very strong ally to Israel and the US has historically been very much involved in the normalization of relations vis a vis Israel and the rest of the Middle East, and the US would very much like to remain involved in brokering a lasting peace, which involves not seriously alienating Netanyahu and Israel et al. Netanyahu and his far-right government are the ones holding up the ceasefire, and the US is only able to exert pressure so long as they are a valuable ally to Israel - if Israel has nothing to lose, in other words, the US loses its ability to exert pressure. And Harris wants very much to hang onto that ability, because she's setting herself up to exert more pressure than Biden has.

Harris has been critical of Israel. Harris is the highest-ranking Dem that has been critical of the situation in Gaza. She has been upfront about highlighting the suffering in Gaza. She's not oblivious to the conversations going on re: Palestine and the ongoing genocide. She's not sticking her head in the sand on it.

“The images of dead children and desperate hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time - we cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering and I will not be silent.”

But she's trying to walk a very careful line on public sentiment re: Israel and Palestine. She's going to be very cautious to condemn anything with even a whiff of antisemitism in strong terms. She's going to be very cautious to affirm Israel's right to exist and to defend itself, which she does in the article linked above, with the caveat that "how it does so matters." But her willingness to call attention to the crisis ongoing in Gaza and her willingness to imply wrong-doing by Israel in how that crisis has been created signals to Netanyahu that her government will have stronger limits than Netanyahu has encountered previously. Will she be a perfect candidate? No. Will she always align with my moral compass? No. Will she be totally evil? Also no.

As voters, what does this mean for us and how we support Gazans and Palestinians?

To me this is very simple. Harris is a candidate who is willing and able to exert pressure on Israel to end the genocide and, ideally, to broker a long-lasting peace. Trump is a candidate who is willing and able to exert pressure on Israel to blow Gaza off the face of the earth. Between "willing to tell Netanyahu this is unacceptable" and "willing to tell Netanyahu to break out a nuke," I'm voting for the former every fucking time.

Not voting or voting third party doesn't actually tell Democrats anything except that you didn't care. They don't have a list of people who would otherwise have voted blue if only they'd taken harder pro-Palestine stance, they're not cross-checking your voting status against your social media posts and going, oh, nuts, we lost that one. Not voting or voting third party doesn't exert pressure on the Dems to go more left, you're not "teaching them a lesson," you're not making a point. It's non-information. It's not a boycott - it's a white flag. It's giving up.

You know how you exert pressure on politicians? You call. You write. You protest. Are you still calling your representatives about Gaza every day? Are you going to town halls and asking them about what they're doing to stop the genocide? Pressure is exerted through participation.

Progress is made by the people who show up.

If the Dems lose, you can pressure them all day and it won't make a difference because they don't have any power to make a difference. And the racist, anti-Muslim, anti-Middle East far right won't be listening no matter how much you shout.

I'm not giving up on Palestinians just because some greyface anon on the internet tells me I'm a bad person for choosing to vote for the candidate I can pressure to make a change.

I'm also not going to give up on people here at home who's lives are hanging in the balance. I'm a queer woman with a uterus and a pre-existing condition - I simply do not have the luxury or the privilege to stay home in November. I do not have the luxury or the privilege of being a single issue voter. I'm not going to give up on trans kids or immigrants or BIPOC or women or disabled folks or poor folks. I'm not going to give up on healthcare or on libraries or on public schools or on the environment or on the court systems. I'm not going to give up on safe workplaces and livable wages and safe products. I'm not going to give up and let corporate monopolies and censorship and AI and five rich dudes decide what the future will be.

Don't you care? Don't you look around you and care about the people in your own communities? Or are those people too real, too complicated? Do you only care when you can win points off it in someone else's inbox on tumblr dot com?

Is Kamala Harris going to be the perfect pro-Palestinian candidate? No. But I'm not inviting her to brunch. I don't need her to be my bestie. I don't need her to be my moral compass - I have one of my own, thanks.

I just need her to step forward instead of back.

Progress is made one step at a time.

[xclowniex]

why do you only criticize the left on your blog. Aren't nazis and white supremists also bad.

The reason why I criticize the left so much is for two reasons.

1. I am a leftists

2. The left is being very hypocritical about jews

To elaborate on those points, you should always call out those within your own political side. You can't just go "right wing people don't care about minorities" whilst not saying anything about the people on the left don't care about a minority.

It's hypocritical to criticize others when your group does the same thing.

All that does is say one of 3 things about you. That you either think that being bad towards a minority is excused because of your political opinion, the minority at hand and the discrimination they face is not as important as other minorities or isn't bad or that you just don't care about the minority at hand.

Going into how the left is hypocritical about jews, the left frequently is against civilians being held accountable for the actions of their government. Yet Israelis are being held accountable by them for their governments actions. Diaspora jews aka jews outside of Israel also get frequently held responsible for a government which isn't even theirs.

Leftists are against the collective punishment of Gazan citizens yet collectively punish Israeli and Jewish folk socially.

Then you have people talking about how a minority doing a bad thing doesn't take away from the need to respect their identity. Such as how you shouldn't misgender a trans person if they do a bad thing as that's transphobic but as soon as they find out that a Jewish person is a zionist, antisemitism is now okay.

You've got jews currently who have seen the lefts ideas and agreed with them. We agree that collective punishment is bad. We agree that a minority doing something bad doesn't take away from the respect they deserve for their identity. We have supported land back movements for the native folk of whatever country we live in.

Yet none of those actions are happening for us. Instead antisemitic tropes are used to blame us for everything.

I could go on about how the lefts actions in the West further fuel the right wing parties in Israel. How they view it as "see no jews are safe outside of Israel. We need to be more violent to secure Israel's safety for jews internationally.

I could go on about how the lefts actions are forcing jews out of the left and are making jews more likely than before to become right wing.

But none of that matters because what should be in the forefront, is a leftist ideal of discrimination based on religious, ethnicity/race, sexual orientation or gender, is bad.

Yet that completely escapes people when it comes to jews and antisemitsm.

[burst-of-iridescent]

No, Shipping Zutara Is Not Supporting Amatonormativity (Please Use Some Fucking Braincells For Once)

- a treatise by a severely pissed off aroace zutara shipper

since words don’t mean anything anymore (if they ever did on the esteemed piss-on-the-poor website), let’s start with a definition.

amatonormativity: the set of social assumptions that everyone prospers with a romantic relationship, thereby positioning marriage as a universal goal of adult life. amatonormativity forms the basis of several institutional structures that are built to cater to romantic bonds over all others, also manifesting in social pressure on individuals to find a romantic partner by pushing the false narrative that those who do not experience romance are automatically lonely, unhappy and unfulfilled. it is usually characterized by the prioritization of romantic love over other forms of love, particularly platonic.

the anti-zutara argument based on this is as follows: wanting zutara to happen is amatonormative because it a) devalues zuko and katara’s platonic bond b) pushes the idea that men and women can’t be friends and c) doesn’t align with the themes of the show, as romantic love was never the point of atla.

i would like to take the time today to tell you that this is some fucking bullshit, for the following reasons:

one, this may come as a shock to some of you, but zutara shippers did not invent the concept of romantic love in avatar: the last airbender. you are more than welcome to criticize the pairings of suki/sokka, katara/aang, mai/zuko, yue/sokka, jin/zuko, jet/katara, and even kanna/pakku for perpetuating amatonormativity through their unnecessary romantic subplots. and if you don’t have anything to say about any of those pairings, then here’s a word for you: hypocrite.

zk shippers are not introducing the taint of romantic love into some kind of wholesome platonic utopia where it never existed. when we say zutara should have been canon, it is a statement that ends with the implicit instead of kat.aang and mai.ko tacked on at the back because if we were going to get a romantic relationship anyway, it might as well have been one that was well-developed, narratively impactful, and thematically relevant.

two, saying zutara is amatonormative is fucking rich when the main “romance” of atla is a three season long struggle to get out of the friendzone. aang’s desire to be in a romantic relationship with katara is one of his primary motivations throughout the show, and not once does either he or the narrative ever entertain the thought that just being katara’s friend might be enough. to the contrary, aang’s crush and the potential of its reciprocation is a fundamental part of how the story gets its audience to invest in both his character and the kat.aang relationship. they want you to want him to get the girl, and that’s the driving force of the ship’s development from start to finish.

you can see the influence of this in the way people defend why kat.aang had to happen: “aang would be crushed!” “it would break aang’s heart!” “aang deserves to be happy!” and that in and of itself is more amatonormative than any version of romantic zutara, as if this idea that aang is somehow doomed to a life of misery and loneliness just because he can’t be with the girl he likes isn’t inherently based on the assumption that platonic love can’t be as meaningful and satisfying as romantic love.

three, let’s be so fucking fr: a show written by cishet men in the early 2000s was not “subverting amatonormativity” by not making zutara happen, especially not when they went for the fucking olympic gold of romantic cliches — the hero gets the girl trope — instead. otherwise, why did the entire show end with an uncomfortably long liplock? if romance would’ve devalued zuko and katara’s platonic bond, then what the everloving fuck happened to their friendship in the comics and the legend of korra?

it is blatantly false to say that zutara shippers are the ones devaluing their platonic bond when the creators did it first. they evidently don’t view zutara’s platonic bond as equal to kat.aang’s romantic one, judging by their treatment of both relationships in the comics and LOK and the fact that they talked about kat.aang “winning” the ship war in the first place. because if the two relationships were of equivalent standing, why would there be a winner and a loser at all?

amatonormativity is baked into the DNA of atla, and while some people choose to reject this framework entirely (zk friendship >>> ka romance anyday), it is also not wrong for zk shippers to be annoyed at the treatment zutara received within the context of said framework. since the creators clearly thought a romantic relationship was better than a platonic one, they could at least have picked the couple that actually made sense instead of adding insult to injury by making that romance kat.aang. it is not amatonormative to acknowledge that zutara was not afforded the distinction it should have been in the eyes of those who wrote it, because it’s obvious that the decision to keep zuko and katara’s relationship platonic wasn’t to respect their friendship, but to position them as inferior to kat.aang.

four, detractors of romantic zutara often argue that their platonic relationship is inherently better & i’ve discussed before why that isn’t the case, but i also hate this argument because it’s perpetuating the very thing that aromantic people are trying to get rid of in the first place: the hierarchization of love. it is not the “gotcha!” you think it is to genuinely state that platonic love is better than romantic love, because it’s still buying into the idea that there’s some kind of order to categorizing human relationships. the solution to amatonormativity isn’t changing what form of love gets to be at the top of the list — it’s doing away with the hierarchy entirely.

i ship zuko and katara because canon already gave me their friendship. i already know what their platonic relationship looks like and that gives me more room for imagination in developing their romantic one because it’s a place canon didn’t go.

at the end of the day, friendship and romance are just different avenues of exploring intimacy. neither is inherently more valuable than the other, and neither is inherently more problematic. and if you truly believe in dismantling amatonormative beliefs, you would recognize that making a distinction between the two is only perpetuating the problem, not challenging it.

[kkurokitty]

i guess it’s time to dust off the old soap box. because i’m disappointed and disgusted by some of you.

to preface this, i am boycotting. i unfollowed all of their accounts, i blocked them on spotify, etc. this isn’t to punish the other six members, but to send a message to SM that their actions have consequences and that they’re unfortunately going to end up ruining RIIZE’s reputation for the shady way they are moving. they don’t deserve this. shotaro, eunseok, sungchan, wonbin, sohee, anton and seunghan all deserve better. that is the purpose of this boycott. i watched the streams on talk saxy skyrocket when he was announced to come back, i watched their twitter followers shoot up to 810k and i also watched them fall down to 732k (and still dropping) when the departure announcement was released.

i am ot7. but the way some of you are acting is despicable. it’s laughable how you guys are preaching about the harassment seunghan has received that has even spilled over to wonbin, sungchan, eunseok, sohee, etc. but then you turn around and harass people who have their own reasons to not participate in the boycott.

i agree, it would be nice if everyone could unite on this. but the reality is that people have their own attachments to the group and may not feel right ceasing all interaction with the group’s content. there are way more people participating in the boycott than you know. only about 100 people were amongst those who sent wreaths to SM and there are hundreds of thousands of people boycotting and rallying in seunghan’s honor.

which brings me to my next point. you guys are no better than the ones who sent funeral wreaths to seunghan, wrote his name in red ink, and told him to go to the han river and k*ll himself and that they’ll bully him until he does. sending death threats to people on tumblr because they aren’t doing what you want them to is the same thing. you’re cut from the same cloth. you want to preach about safety and mental health when it comes to him - which you should, he deserves to be safe and healthy - but then you turn around and send the same threats to someone who isn’t participating in the boycott. why is it okay when the person isn’t a celebrity? you people say that SM supports bullies, and they do, but you’re bullies too.

boycotting works. it does. i think more people should do it. but i also think it’s very hypocritical to bully and harass someone and send them death threats because they aren’t doing exactly as you are. behavior like that only drives someone further away from where you want them and you should be focusing your energy on those who are stalking and harassing the riize members and doxxing their families, not someone who just wants to write smut on tumblr.com.

i think some of you are boycotting for the wrong reasons. your goal and focus should be on the seven guys, not harassing people and waiting for the moment they turn anonymous asks back on so you can send them threats because they’re not completely cutting off the group. that’s embarrassing. that’s only giving more fuel to ot6s in the end. this is supposed to be a time where the fandom is united over his unfair departure from the group, but all you guys are doing is fighting and constantly adding fuel to the fire.

do fucking better.

[nav-i-nav]

Actually, while we are at it, can we talk about how awful a lot of the fanbase treats Basil? My man can’t catch a break because almost everyone misinterprets him one way or another.

Where do I even start? Literally everything he does is taken the wrong way. There’s the people who characterize him as an obsessive yandere who only cares about Sunny and did everything in his power to isolate him. On the other hand, we have people who just remove one of the basic core aspects of him as a whole and make him an empty husk with no real personality.

Headacanon him however you want, but also try to understand him? I don’t know how people can say he only cares about Sunny when it’s clear he deeply appreciates his friends. He has a stronger bond with Sunny, but that doesn’t mean he’s a possessive and obsessed person who is toxic.

He definitely fucked up along the way, but his actions were never intended to hurt Sunny intentionally. He was in a panic and all he wanted was to keep his best friend safe. People constantly treat him as he’s a disgusting person for simple fact he shows mental illness signs, which is incredibly disheartening because there IS people in real life who act this way and can’t help it! What a relief it is to know people will treat me or my friends like this if we dare show an ounce of distress or panic!

Being mentally ill does not justify your actions, but this also doesn’t mean you are allowed to treat people who suffer from them like scum. People like Basil deserve to get help, to have people who support them so they can start healing. Basil clearly didn’t have that support, the only person that was there for him being his bedridden grandmother who he eventually lost.

And on the other hand, we have people who just choose to get rid of Basil’s personality altogether and characterise him as this character who is all suffering and trauma based off things that are NOT canon. It’s true that Basil’s life doesn’t exactly fit a “normal” childhood (having to live with his grandmother for unknown reasons) but that doesn’t immediately mean he is beyond traumatized? Basil is a little shy, sure, but a lot of people are. Basil used to be a smart and lively kid who loved his friends dearly. It wasn’t until AFTER the incident that he spiralled to the point he is where we see him in game.

People either disregard his trauma and paint him as a villain (let’s make one thing clear, there are NO villains in OMORI), or try to give him even more trauma for no apparent reason. All we know is that his parents aren’t really present in his life, and while that may bring some issues, from what we can see in cutscenes and the photo album, Basil lived a comfortable life surrounded by a loving family member and friends who cared about him.

You are free to explore Basil’s character however you like, but there’s a point where it no longer feels like Basil.

There is nothing wrong with showing his gentle side, just as how there’s nothing wrong to explore his unhealthy behaviour. But focusing on only one of the aspects of his entire self just turns him into a one-dimensional character with no redeemable qualities.

In my opinion, Basil is one of the best examples of a person struggling with mentally illness in media, yet people choose to ignore the complexity of his character to have either a selfish and dangerous yandere or a cute and shy femboy who’s only there to look pretty.

Write him like the mess he is. He is unstable. He is resentful, he is paranoid. That’s what makes Basil’s character so loved. That’s what makes him feel so relatable and human. Ignoring one side of his self takes away all of that. OMORI is a game about acceptance and forgiving. Why shouldn’t we apply those terms to their characters? It’s rather hypocritical for the fanbase to treat Sunny as a poor boy who only did what he did due to stress and trauma and then mark Basil as a psychopath with no redeemable features as if he wasn’t also a scared child who witnessed his very best friend push his sister down the stairs.

[maisycoded]

I won’t lie, I’m not shocked he even one just because America always has the need to support the “ anti hero” or self proclaimed “ underdog” and so on. But what I will say is I never want to hear anyone talk about banding together or doing the right thing because ( with the exception of people who did take it seriously) most of everyone where posting their ballots writing joke shit on them, despite project 2025 being released to the public people did not see how much of a treat it is to not just black, LGBTQ+ and immigration rights, healthcare, but the rights of human beings at large

So with that said, I don’t want to hear anyone between now and the next four years talk about how books are getting censored or banned, free speech is dead, women’s rights are gone, people can’t get married or live their gay/queer dreams or story, how “ well I mean it won’t be that bad” because it will, and honestly the fact that no one understands this is going to be our generations reagan years is beyond me at this point

And with that said, I don’t want to hear shit also from anyone if people start becoming cynical, disinfectant or disenfranchised. The people are now un motivated, slackers, and the way pervious generations were seen from the 80’s-90’s. Because not only trump being president is bad enough now republicans have the house again and we all know what hell that will bring

I never want to hear about unity or coming together when we didn’t do that, the people who are a minority and still voted for him especially people of color, hispanics and so on even though our people have been though it for years we still looked at a convicted felon and facist and said “ well Kamala was against weed in the 90’s, even though she changed we hate her so fuck her” or “ well trump is friends with ( insert poc celebrities here)” is so fucking beyond me

So with that said, fuck this election, fuck the next four years, fuck everyone who failed at basic common sense and most of all fuck everyone who did the “ they are both bad imma not vote” shit because it’s not about electing a role model, all presidents are bad people, but that does not mean you elect a proven racist, rapist and vile human being over a flawed woman who’s not those things and wouldn’t put us thought the shit we will deal with now

If you voted for him, fuck you

If you where against Kamala for hypocritical standards, fuck you

If you are older and complain that todays youth is out of control and doesn’t care anymore and is angst ridden and is cynical and wants nothing to do with anything, fuck you

And if anyone shames people with moderate or severe mental illness and they can’t get help now moving forward, people have breakdowns and lose their shit, fuck you

We failed at doing our one job, and that is looking out for each other and making this bat shit country a safe place for us and tomorrow’s youth

[ddarker-dreams]

re-reading bits and pieces of SR have helped me quite a bit with post-election depression; it turns out an impending sense of doom can be evaded quite well with The Sillies! that being said, how would the bucci gang help SR Reader if she was going through a depressive episode?

i'm grateful to know that SR is able to bring some solace in what's been an awful state of affairs, as i've always considered it a comfort series myself.

[Scarlet Ribbons index]

Giorno senses something is off before you do. He's deeply in tune with your emotional state, taking mental note of everything you do down to the tiniest details. His initial instinct would be to identify any underlying issues that might have brought the depressive episode about. He's a man driven by action, willing to fight against unfavorable odds if it means enacting his vision. This leads to some internal struggle on his part, as there's no clear-cut solution to these bouts. He views you as his significant other in the purest sense — relying on you and wanting you to do the same with him. He'd eventually recognize his own hubris in his quest to 'fix things', opting for a more supportive role instead. Giorno matches his approach based on his perception of what he feels you need.

Bruno is surprisingly susceptible to your first few attempts to explain away your shift in mood. In the back of his mind, he knows something is wrong, but it's such a frightening prospect. He observed the signs in his father after his mother abandoned them. He'd get uncharacteristically stern with you, imploring that you confide in him if you keep dodging the issue. Essentially freezes your work and puts you on an indefinite sabbatical. He worries over you to the point of self-neglect. Not the healthiest approach, but there's no doubting his commitment to restoring your wellbeing. Bruno would take a break from his obligations and bring you to his hometown, where he hopes the change of pace will have a positive influence.

The ever-pragmatic Fugo would struggle with this greatly, he's not exactly a shining example of mental stability himself. He recognizes what's happening and feels utterly powerless to stop it. A bit hypocritical in the sense he'll pitch therapy or some other pharmaceutical treatment that he'd never undergo himself. He suffers from acting as an armchair psychologist, critiquing any habits that might contribute to your depression and getting frustrated if you don't actively work to resolve them. It comes from a good place; he's devastated over what's happening. You're supposed to be cheerful, making terrible jokes and pop culture references that drive him insane. He'll work himself to the bone for you to feel an iota better.

Narancia is at a loss at first. When your change in mood extends past a few 'bad' days, he can tell it's something serious, even if he can't put it into words. Ultimately, he decides it doesn't matter if it takes a week, year, or a decade; he will stick by you through everything. Narancia isn't one for subtlety, it's obvious that he's checking up on you multiple times throughout the day. He's tripping over himself to make you smile, even if it's for a fleeting second. Additionally, he's a better listener than most would give him credit for. There's absolutely nothing you could do or say that'd make him think less of you, so you never feel judged.

There is no one better at helping you feel 'normal' than Mista. He won't demand an explanation like Bruno, get frustrated over a perceived lack in progress like Fugo, or coddle you as Narancia's inclined to do. He's consistently himself. He'll take you on dates, make awful jokes, and go on unprompted spiels about his latest musings. It's not that he doesn't care — far from it — his view is just that knowing you, you'd feel bad if you realized how worried he is. If you open up to him, that's fine. If you don't, that's also okay. He moves at your pace and you never feel pressured to act a certain way around him.

Abbacchio's like well, that makes two of us. It's a complicated development. Having gone through a major depression, Abbacchio can technically empathize with you the most, but seeing himself in you is initially disconcerting. He's similar to Fugo in that your weird, peppy ways have become a lifeline. It's soul-crushing for him to recognize those first few signs. Unlike Fugo, however, he doesn't linger in this limbo for long. He takes a 'tell it like it is' approach. He won't shower you with platitudes or sugarcoat reality, but there's an undeniable thoughtfulness behind his every action. He'll give you space when necessary, sit in silence if you want company yet lack the words, ensure sure your pantry is stocked and laundry done. Abbacchio can be what he wishes someone had been for him.

[francesderwent]

it seems to me that our task—as Christians but also just as people who care about this country and don’t want to see it like this—is to step outside the us-versus-them, black and white thinking which elections love to encourage, and begin imagining our neighbors more generously and compassionately.

our politicians have spent the whole election cycle appealing to the very lowest common denominator—but that does not mean that when we picture our political rivals we must imagine the lowest common denominator. it does not mean that that lowest common denominator defines everyone who voted one way or another. the people who voted for the worst possible reasons do exist—people who feel genuine hate for those different from them, the crass and the vitriolic and the cruel, the power-hungry and the callous. these people are all real, and our politics has undoubtedly given them a voice. but again: I think we must challenge ourselves to hold in our minds a version of the “other” who is more human and more complicated than that. our principle should be built off of “innocent until proven guilty”—we should consider people as being politically thoughtful and well-meaning and conflicted, until we are beyond a doubt proven wrong.

the objection, at this point, would be the objection I’ve seen all over the internet: “okay, maybe people had better reasons in mind, but voting for a rapist wasn’t a dealbreaker for them.” and that’s a powerful bit of rhetoric. but, first of all, both sides were using the same arguments leading up to the election to dissuade people from voting third party or sitting the election out: “you’re not supposed to vote for somebody perfect, you’re supposed to vote for the lesser of two evils/the policies you most agree with/the party you think will most support your interests and the common good.” so it’s hypocritical to then turn around and accuse your political opponents of voting for someone who’s personally (understatement of the year) not perfect. and second of all, the notion of “maybe they didn’t like such-and-such policy or quality, but it wasn’t a dealbreaker” is actually exactly my point.

every voter has to weigh for him or herself which issues are going to be regarded as most important. as long as I’ve been alive, people have been pearl-clutchingly scandalized that others have weighed the issues differently than themselves, so the moral panic certainly is not new. but despite that, this is literally what our country is founded upon: there is no set-in-stone hierarchy of values. we all get to decide for ourselves what good is worth pursuing. note: I’m not saying this is a good thing; I think what we’re seeing now is precisely the problem with that system. but the point remains that you cannot insist on the importance of a democratic election and then be horrified that democracy will sometimes vote in favor of a good that you think is subordinate, to the exclusion of a good you think is foundational—that’s democracy for you! that’s the system! you might view it as despicably selfish and shallow to vote based on the price of eggs—but for someone who is very poor, that reasoning might appear far more serious than it does to you. what would be a dealbreaker for you might not be a dealbreaker for someone else.

everyone has to determine for himself or herself what the greatest possible good is which can be achieved by the federal government, and what the greatest evil is we should avoid. at the end of this determination, everyone ends up with his or her own little hierarchy of values. the horror of two-party politics is that unless your hierarchy lines up point by point with the platform of one of the main parties—and it almost certainly doesn’t!!—your vote will either not align with the hierarchy you believe to be right and just, or it will not have the power to put that hierarchy into practice in the real world. this is where imagining people generously and compassionately comes into play: perhaps someone’s first priority in casting a vote for the republicans was the price of eggs. now, instead of jumping to the conclusion that their second priority was expelling hated foreigners from the country or making it so gay couples lose visitation rights at the hospital, imagine that their second priority was something you agree with, something compassionately-motivated and understandable, maybe even something that wasn’t a part of the republican platform. now imagine what priorities they might have that weren’t presented as an option by either of the main parties—priorities they might share with you.

”but my morality is right!” you might say. “their priorities are misaligned and their hierarchy of values is wrong!” that may very well be true. but American democracy cannot recognize it, cannot give any more weight to the true worldview, because that would be taking sides. if you want a democratic system you have to accept the possibility that the correct and the popular might not line up. you might also say, “but they’re wrong about which policies are actually going to help them! the price of eggs won’t go down!” that might also be true. in that case, it’s sort of on the people with the good policies for failing to convince the voters.

you might feel aghast that other people weighed the things you disagree with them about as more important than the things you agree with them about. it’s an understandable feeling. but the crucial thing is twofold: one, unless you acknowledge their right to disagree with you—both in essential matters of morality and in matters of the relative importance of specific moral issues—you don’t actually believe in American democracy. and two, if we are to move forward we have to start acting as if the things on which we agree are more important to our humanity than the things on which we disagree. even if we voted based on the things we disagree on! when we interact with each other we have to focus on the things we agree on.

we have to believe that people are trying their best. we have to, when we engage in political discourse, engage with a hypothetical opponent who is not the easiest possible punching bag. and when we’re confronted with our genuine enemies—those who hate us and hate everything good—instead of dehumanizing them, we have to love them. I don’t end there as a little glittery good-feeling flourish to smooth over the difficulties, because that is the most difficult part. there is no version of this story where all the hurt and fear and division are erased simply by the “right people” winning elections. there is also no version of this story where all the hatred and sin and despair is solved by good people contentedly praying rosaries in little self-satisfied prayer groups. Our Lord reconciled the world to Himself not by the worldly power of conquest, and also not by kindliness and miracles and convincing people one by one to change their lives, but by His suffering and death. the reconciliation of our world will require our suffering, and our death to self. there is no other way out than through the radical love of the Cross—that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. He asks us to follow in His footsteps. imagining our neighbor as lovable is a good first step. loving him when he is not lovable is the next one, and the necessary one.

[respectthepetty]

The Loyal Pin - Episode 12

I'm fighting Pat in a Waffle House. Not in the parking lot of a Waffle House. No! Inside the Waffle House. I'm making sure God and all the employees witness me beating her ass while some old school R&B jam plays on the jukebox and the other customers wonder if anyone is calling 911 while eating their delicious waffles. The answer - NO because everyone wants to see this color-coded villain get what's coming to her. Basically, I'm pissed as hell at Patricia!

Look at our color-coded girls in love under the rainbow!

LOOK AT HOW HAPPY THEY ARE!

And this hoochie is turning red because of it!

The fact that Pat manipulated Prik, who started hitting herself because she felt so stupid, made me irate; then, Prik couldn't even tell her Blue Beauty Princess, which only made me more pissed.

Pink Person Pin is suffering! And Pat gives no effs!

She basically told Pin that she could die before she would allow her to be with Anin. She really said that bullshit!

I was worried before the show began that Pin was going to cave quickly, but to see her not only push back, but continue to wear her color made my heart happy in the most painful way.

Because the very next day, she wore purple and blue! She wore Anin's color plus her and Anin's colors mixed together! I respect the hell out of her!

LOOK AT HER BEING SO BRAVE!

Then, we have this lint licker wearing my favorite color and I want to snatch it off her body because it no longer makes sense! I thought she was wearing it as an ode to her dead lover, but NOOOOOO! She's just wearing it for shits and giggles or something. I HATE HER!

Blue Beauty Anin, save us! Save us, Blue Beauty Anin!

Once again, I'm so proud of Pin for keeping her color throughout this horrible moment of hypocrisy.

And I'm even prouder that she would not let Pat help her with anything because if Pat was bold enough to tell Pin she could die before being with Anin, then she doesn't get to be a doting mom/aunt/whatever now!

Beat her ass for Pin and for hurting Prik, Anin. *sign of the cross* Amen

Pink AND purple. *tearing up* PIN, YOU'RE A REAL ONE AND I'M SORRY I EVER DOUBTED YOU, QUEEN!

I hate this man.

AND NOW PIN HAS NO COLOR!

She is brown and miserable surrounded by all the bright colors she can't be because of her oppressive and hypocritical mom/aunt/whatever the hell she is!

So I'm kind of happy that Pat knows that Anin rescued Pin and the girls had sex in that car because the bullshit Patricia is throwing out of her mouth is wild! She is really blaming Pin for everything when Anin is the one seeking her out. What is this?!

Green isn't blue, so I feel Anin is desperate to get Pin back and acting out of her color. She is normally calculated, but there is no time for strategy when PIN IS LOSING HER COLOR!

The girls have made some dumb moves before, but kissing and hugging right in front of Patricia's window was the worst possible thing to happen because now she really is going to turn red with those red dainty earrings.

WHAT DID I SAY?!

How can Patricia just be so giddy when she knows this is the worst thing possible for Pin?! Even Anin's color-coded brother knows this is horrible.

Pin has NO COLOR! The girl is dead inside! She is a zombie sitting there! SHE HAS NO LIFE IN HER!

Anin is cyan, and she is being herself, yet directly arguing back like she never has before, and I LIKE IT!

I know this man has been a great color-coded ally, but I need him to stop trying to make excuses for Anin, and start being openly supportive of the queers in front of him who are losing their shit and their colors!

THIS IS IT! THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT! THE COLORS MEANS THINGS!

Pat is so quick to make Pin change her color, but for what?! Pat is a vibrant pink but has been turning redder with rage, and it's all for what? So Pin can be what she couldn't? Because she thinks Pin's love is doomed like hers was? Why is she trying to change Pin? WHAT IS THE REASON, PATRICIA?!

I'm proud of Pin for holding onto her color for so long and for Anin having the strength to say she loved Pin without outing Pin in the process. These are two bad color-coded bitches, and I will kill everyone in this palace for them, so these royals better get it together or I'm going full French Revolution and murdering everyone!

Get with the queer agenda or *drags finger across throat*

[bxriles]

On Rhysand and Eris:

I saw a post that said Rhysand and Eris were the same exact character and it low key implied that it’s hypocritical to like Eris while hating Rhysand (among other things lmao), so I wanted to give my two cents as someone who fucking hates Rhysand with every fiber of my soul but who also likes Eris. No hate to the person who made that original post. I’m just using it as an excuse to ramble and avoid the work I should be doing right now.

More below the cut:

I’ll start off by saying that Eris and Rhysand are DEFINITELY similar characters. I wouldn’t say they’re the same though. I would say they’re foils of each other instead. They both wear masks, but one of them has a support system while the other is completely isolated. But I want to go deeper than that.

I think the key difference between Eris and Rhysand lies in the reason they both wear a mask.

Rhysand. I cannot for the life of me understand why Rhysand wears a mask. Amarantha maybe? But that doesn’t make sense. He’s been wearing that mask for way longer than 50 years if his treatment of the Illyrians and the CON is anything to go by. Is it because he wants to seem powerful? Well, he already is, isn’t he? He’s ThE mOsT pOwErFuL hIgH lOrD eVeR. So it’s not that. Maybe he’s wearing the mask because he wants to keep a tight leash on Illyria and the CON? Fine, but I don’t think he’s wearing a mask at all when he interacts with Illyria or the CON. I think he actively hates them and treats them as such. If he actually gave a shit about the Illyrians, he would enforce the wing clipping ban. If he actually gave a shit about the CON, he would work harder to find the “dreamers” who are trapped down there. What does he do instead? He has Cassian bark orders at the Illyrians and actively torments the CON by torturing Keir and parading Feyre around as his own personal, glorified slut. (And no, I don’t think that’s what Feyre is, but it CERTAINLY is what Rhysand portrays her as when they’re in the Hewn City. Especially in ACOSF where he fetishizes her pregnancy…) So it doesn’t seem like he’s wearing a mask when he interacts with 2/3rds of his court. It reads like he straight up hates them.

Okay, well maybe he wears the mask to protect Velaris from outsiders? No, that doesn’t make sense. Velaris was already hidden from the rest of Prythian. No one was going to discover it. The only reason it got discovered was because Rhysand made a gamble on telling the human queens about it and it backfired.

Fine, maybe he wears the mask around the other High Lords to seem more intimidating. That seems plausible, but I don’t understand why he would do that. Coming off that way means the other HLs will never want to ally with him (as we saw in ACOWAR). And if we’re being honest with ourselves, Rhysand’s actions while wearing his mask do not do him any favors with the other HLs. In all likelihood, he killed those Winter Court children (and no, I’m not taking arguments on this point. If this mysterious other daemati really did exist, why didn’t they out Feyre and Rhysand’s alliance UTM? That daemati may not have been able to get into Rhysand’s mind but they easily could have gotten into Feyre’s or Clare Beddor’s mind instead), he stole an ancestral artifact from the Summer Court when he could have just asked for it, he allowed his wife to burn the Lady of Autumn (I know Beron didn’t gaf about that but if we’re talking alliances, hurting Beron’s wife is a great way to make sure they never work together for the greater good), and he regularly gallivants around the Spring Court when he has NO BUSINESS being there. Sooo wearing the mask around the other HLs may make him more intimidating, but it hasn’t yielded him any positive results. If anything, his behavior should have alienated him more.

So then what’s the reason for Rhysand wearing a mask? Because I haven’t figured it out. He’s just… Wearing one for shits and giggles, I guess? (We all know the real reason he’s wearing that mask is so SJM can justify him sexually assaulting Feyre UTM and twisting her broken bone.)

Eris. Eris’s reason for wearing a mask is a lot less convoluted than Rhysand’s. If Eris doesn’t wear the mask, then Beron will kill him. It really is that simple. In the HL meeting, Feyre notes that when Eris spoke up, he chose his words very carefully, which clearly implied he was trying not to provoke his father. It was even confirmed in ACOSF that Beron tortures Eris. So if Eris doesn’t wear a mask, he gets murdered. The difference is that he doesn’t have the IC sucking him off and telling him what a good guy he is because he’s wearing a mask. Eris has nobody.

I also want to note the other MASSIVE DIFFERENCE between these two characters. Consequences.

Rhysand. This mf does not face any consequences for his actions. Ever. He steals an ancestral artifact from the Summer Court? Yes, he gets the blood rubies, but those are rescinded one book later. He barges into the Spring Court all the time (Specifically ACOTAR, but also ACOFAS and ACOSF) and Tamlin never whoops his ass for it even though he would have every right to. He locks Nesta up in a house with a man she DOES NOT WANT TO BE AROUND after he crucified Tamlin for doing the same thing to Feyre? He’s NEVER challenged on this. He straight up lies to Feyre about her life-threatening pregnancy and then has the entire IC lie to her as well, and that’s that. He’s never held accountable for those lies. He sexually assaults Feyre, defiles her body with paint (the thing she LOVES), and twists her broken bone when she’s likely already septic and what happens? Nothing. It’s never brought up again. He gets away with all of it.

Eris. Eris is a great example of talk shit, get hit. He makes some hateful ass comments to Mor at the HL meeting and what happens? Azriel beats the ever loving fuck out of him. He leaves Mor on the Autumn Court border (he did NOT nail the note to her womb, as a lot of this fandom likes to pretend) and the Night Court holds a grudge bigger than the state of Texas against him for it and they bring it up every single chance they get. Eris goes after Lucien and Feyre in ACOWAR when they (illegally) cut through the Autumn Court? He gets his shit clocked by Azriel and Cassian. If there is one thing about Eris that I like, it’s that while he may dish out a lot of shit, he can also take it.

So is it hypocritical to like Eris while hating Rhysand? I guess you could say that if you still believe they’re the same exact character, but I personally don’t think they are. I also wonder if the people who think it’s hypocritical to like Eris while hating Rhysand also think it’s hypocritical to hate Eris while loving Rhysand. Just some food for thought.