#turn your internal critic into an internal critique

[calypsolemon]

endlessly pouring over your own art is fun when you stop making it about criticizing everything that could possibly be conceived as a "mistake" or "flaw," and start thinking about the recursive onion of meaning that you didn't even put in there on purpose, but that you gradually peel back and go "egads! there's an aspect of this i didn't even conceptualize while i was making it, but will now treat as my intent all along! truly, my genius knows no bounds 😌"

[tallerthantale]

I finally got around to doing a close reading of transcripts of the Tortoise episodes, and I am very glad that I did.

My view remains that I find all the allegations both very credible and very damning. The updates to my views are that I feel more positively (though not entirely positively) about Tortoise, and that there is a probable very bad actor in all of this that isn't getting nearly enough attention. (Not Amanda Palmer. Or well, yes Amanda Palmer, but she isn't who I'm talking about.)

Tortoise first.

I'd been seeing a lot of comments claiming that Tortoise was anti BDSM. I don't know what the people in the podcast have as their personal views, but they made a point multiple times to clarify that BDSM does not operate like what Neil Gaimen was alleged to have done, and the condemnation they had for the alleged actions was not a condemnation of consensual BDSM. As someone who has been very involved in BDSM community for decades, I am fully in agreement with everything the hosts have said. The line people got most hung up on was a guest expert snarking about degradation ever being consensual. It is ambiguous in context what definition of "degradation" he is using, but it seemed to me he was referring to processes of establishing coercive control, and not referring to degrading roleplay in a mutually invested, healthily negotiated kink scenario. My remaining critique on the host / guests perspective is that the language around abuse and coercive control used by the hosts and guests often presumes all abusers are male and all victims are female. It doesn't diminish the value of the rest of what they are doing, but I think it is worth being critical of as a side note.

The other big point of concern with Tortoise, which I got major bad vibes off of from day one, was the manner in which they talk about their "understanding of Neil Gaimen's position." That sets off my internal red flags because it immediately prompts the follow up questions, "How did you acquire that understanding?" "Who told you that?" "Why aren't you quoting and / or citing them?" I had been speculating that they were from his side of the communications provided by the people coming forward, or comments from lawyers that weren't being properly attributed. Council of Geeks had a great "Cite Your Sources!" whiteboard moment I would generally agree with.

However.

It turns out there is actually a good reason for the citation fuckery. I think a lot of people missed it, so I'm going to try to explain it. When the hosts are referencing communications provided by those coming forward, they say so. When they are referencing comments by lawyers, they say so. The issue is, the bulk of the time, their understanding is coming from piles of direct emails with Gaimen that are OFF THE RECORD. Journalists have to take that seriously to get to keep doing journalism. They are professionally obligated to NOT cite or quote him when he is off the record. Normally in such a situation journalists wouldn't do this squiggly 'our understanding of their views' thing, they would leave it out entirely to be on the safe side of their professional obligations. Sprinkled through the podcasts are comments about the moral importance of hearing from both sides, the great public interest need to hear from both sides. This is a very snarky justification for the game they are playing of vague-posting the gist of his off the record statements without ever putting the exact statement on the record.

A lot of their snark surrounding that, and some other bits, leave the very distinct impression that Gaimen and his lawyers have threatened legal action against Tortoise several times already. Honestly I hope that they do file legal action, as that would open Gaimen up to discovery. Discovery is a process by which Tortoise would be able to demand access to nearly all documents and / or electronic communications Gaimen has relating to the matter, and in doing so make them public. Discovery is far broader sweeping that what is admissible in court, because it has to be 'discovered' before the court can rule it admissible or not. But inadmissible thigs are still usually public record. A jury wouldn't see them, but we still can. Because of that, it is extremely unlikely that Gaimen will file a legal claim, but again, I truly hope that he does. Tortoise probably does too.

But there is another person deserving of investigation and discovery in all this.

The main focus of my current attention is from a bit in the first episode that jumped out at me. Like, it made my eyes bug out, jaw on the metaphorical floor, and I was shocked that I haven't seen it mentioned. But then I figured, people might just not have the context to know how big of a deal this is. So I'm going to talk about it.

According to Scarlett's account, after she came forward to Amanda, Neil asked her to take a call with a therapist that both he and Amanda see. It seemed like his financial assistance offer to her may have hinged on the call being part of the deal. At first read, it looks like Gaimen strongarming Scarlett to tell his therapist he didn't assault anyone. She does the call, and there is a message from the guy that seems designed to plant the suggestion in Scarlett that her friends are manipulating her into perceiving a consensual relationship as a non consensual one.

To me, that is a five alarm fire. Everything happening in there should not be happening, ever. A person who provides individual therapy should not provide it to both partners in a relationship. A person who provides relationship therapy should not be providing individual therapy to people in the relationship. (They should do one-on-one sessions with each in the context of the relationship therapy but that is different.) A therapist should not be framing things the way they are described in that message, or interacting that way towards someone who is not a client, particularly if they have a conflict with someone who is. Therapists are very aware of the potential for clients to coerce others into saying things that fit the client's narrative, and should not be encouraging them to try. And all that is before we even get to the part where he seems to have been tasked specifically to gasslight Scarlett into mistrusting herself and blaming her friends. By Scarlett's paper trailed account, this person should be facing very serious repercussions and investigation. According to Tortoise, he has not responded to any of their attempts to get in touch with him, and he has a phone that is set up to not accept voicemail.

The name of this alleged professional is stated in the podcast, so I looked him up. He is most widely known as an author. His first professional descriptor for himself is as an executive leadership mentor. That more or less translates to person who gives expensive pep talks to rich people. He is also a minister, and a 'consultant.' He does call himself a therapist, but he has no degrees, background, or training in psychology. His degree is from divinity school. He does not list any professional qualifications or certifications in mental health, he does not list any memberships in any mental health organizations. He did co-found an organization that appears to have put on motivational seminars for a variety of organizations. His 'client list' was last updated in 2012. His website has features that are only accessible by those who are 'fully committed.' He is based out of Arizona, USA.

Searching for his name + therapist will get you to a podcast episode with Amanda Palmer, where she had him on as a guest, described him as a therapist, her therapist, and her and Neil's relationship therapist, and promoted his books. It was recorded in 2019, and it is utterly vapid and out of touch from the both of them. Searching his name + therapist will not get you any information on his work as a therapist, because he is not a therapist.

He can't get stripped of his status as a mental health practitioner, because he isn't one. Tortoise states that he has protected confidentiality to Neil and Amanda. If he does have protected confidentiality, he has it solely through his status as a minister, not as a mental health professional because again, he isn't one. As a minister, he may have greater client privilege than an actual mental health professional, who would be required to break privilege if they have reason to believe their client is a danger to themselves or others. Religious client privilege is very strongly protected in most of the US even if the client is explicitly planning to commit specific acts of violence. This might be the main selling point to people who choose to work with ministers who pretend to be therapists rather than actual therapists.

Scarlett doesn't have confidentiality much less privilege by any avenue, his communication with her did not form a professional relationship despite the ways his message seemed to blur those lines, which would have left him free to pass on whatever she said to Neil and Amanda. That would also open the door for him to corroborate what Scarlett told him to the media, but my impression is that if he can be contacted, he will cite a duty to his real client, Neil Gaimen, to avoid saying anything. This is one of many reasons why real therapists do not take clients who have potential conflicts of interest with their other clients. I can't tell from the content of either podcast to what extent he may have materially represented himself to be an actual mental health professional to his clients, but if he has done so he absolutely should be liable if not culpable for that.

I would like to see this man investigated to hell and back, but I don't know if anyone in the media is going to bother. For anyone who needs to hear it, do not go to therapy with someone who isn't a licensed mental health professional. Do not have the same individual therapist as your romantic partner(s). If you are setting up couples therapy, it needs to be with someone who has never met either of you before, and you make first contact with them as a unit.

Obligatory this is all personal opinion disclaimer. The internal states of public figures cannot be determined or scientifically evaluated by their public statements / appearances / works / ect... I am not the behaviour panel, nor do I endorse that kind of thing. But under certain circumstances I am willing to put out some personal opinions about what certain actions, if they happened, would seem to suggest.

I've been saying for a while now, the allegations paint a very strong and compelling picture of Gaimen knowing what he was doing and engaging in deliberate strategy even if he can make pocket experiences for himself where he gets to believe that the relationships were real. I think the evidence pointing towards Gaimen having a long running pseudo 'therapist' he is comfortable sending his accusers to talk to, who then encourages the accuser to think their friends are controlling them, speaks to how deeply this approach to life can saturate a person's existence. When I say 14 represents a lifestyle choice, these are the kinds of things I'm talking about. Someone who fucked up and made a few grievous errors, and did soul searching, and is trying to do better doesn't send their victims to their on call professional gassligter with religious privilege who they outsource to. This looks like 'life revolves around finding ways to control and silence people' level shit.

[bobbinalong]

I’m really confused.

You posted that Damijons make Damian out to be mean, abrasive and ‘feral’ but you tweeted today or a couple days ago that Damian is genuinely horrible to Jon, so much so that Clark should keep Damian, a child, he understands is very traumatized, away from Jon.

You also preferenced it by saying that you love Damian so you know that your statement was inherently anti-Damian…? So you dislike Damian? You don’t have to like Damian but you can’t say one thing and then the other. Is it bad to say that Damian is mean and abrasive? Or is Damian so mean and abrasive that he should be kept away from Jon? Which is it?

Also, your mutuals were agreeing with you. People who also often kind of allude to the idea that Damian feels nothing for Jon and they lack chemistry. Why insinuate Damian is emotionless when Super Sons literally has multiple Damian focused plot points where Jon gets harmed and Damian freaks out; proving he cares for him.

So do you really think Damian should be seperated from Jon, like they shouldn’t be friends?

The important part of the tweet you're referencing is the "IN SUPER SONS" one. It's also important to note that I made this complaint five issues into my re-read, so it was more of a flippant observation, not yet a proper critique of the run or Tomasi's writing.

As far a actual critique goes, at no point has that been about Damian as a character or Jon and Damian's friendship as a whole, because I love both of those when they're written well, it has always, ALWAYS been about how Tomasi writes them in these books.

This is how Damian acts towards Jon (again, in Super Sons) before Clark says he wants them to spend more time together, not including moments where Jon gave as good as he got, but even in those, Damian is pretty consistently portrayed as the instigator and Jon as the one retaliating.

He is acting horribly and even after this occasionally like he doesn't care for or respect Jon as a person and Clark knowing where this behaviour comes from doesn't mean he should want his kid exposed to someone who regularly insults and disrespects him.

Again, though, none of this is because of who Damian is as a character but because of how Tomasi perceives and writes him. His Damian's smart and he likes to banter and Tomasi sucks at writing smart kids and friendly banter, at least in the Super Sons books, so Damian being a little catty or mean, which is in line with is character in my opinion and would be fine, turns into him throwing Jon off of buildings. That's not frenemy behaviour, that's just a general disregard for Jon's well-being.

I've also at no point denied there were sweet moments in these books; there are and plenty of them, but that just means it bugs me even more when Tomasi goes back to having Damian slap Jon around. Again, it's inconsistent and I don't like it. Which I also said on Twitter but that may have been after you sent this ask:

Both Jon and Damian are characterized very inconsistently throughout Super Sons and Adventures of the Super Sons (I haven't reached Challenge on my re-read yet, so for now it's excluded from this criticism). Damian deeply cares for Jon in one issue, says he'll protect him, has fun with him, gets mad when anyone else hurts him but he keeps going back to slapping him around, verbally and physically, and this is never portrayed as any kind of internal struggle, there's no "I care for this kid I don't want to care for so I'm lashing out at him" (which frankly, at this point in his development, isn't even a conflict he should have but at least it would be something), it's just. He's good friends with Jon in one issue and thinks it's funny to have a statue of his dad beat him up in the next and I don't particularly enjoy that.

Super Sons is just not all that, man, I'm sorry.

Tomasi writes Damian well in the parts of Batman and Robin (2011) I've read (had to stop because I was getting too emotional lol), but that might be because that one's co-written by Patrick Gleason, who wrote the Damian book (Robin: Son of Batman), as far as I'm concerned. Robin (2021) I liked, too, and I hear the current Batman and Robin is delivering some good Damian, too, as is his new Black Label book. So yeah, I like Damian. I just don't like how Tomasi writes him in Super Sons specifically.

As for the Jon and Damian friendship, it's very well written in Superman: Son of Kal-El, they're fun in Batman and Superman: Battle of the Super Sons, the Dynomutt - Super Sons issue in the DC Meets Hanna-Barbera book is neat, as are Trick or Treat and Back to School, they're adorable in that one Holiday Special and I like Tomasi's Superman & Robin Special, once again weirdly pointing toward this being a Super Sons specific issue. So yeah, I like their friendship. I just don't like how Tomasi writes it in Super Sons specifically.

And going all the way back to your first point, yeah, certain DMJNs/Super Sons fans DO portray Damian as a horrible feral demon. Probably because all they've read are the Super Sons books, which, I think I've made that clear, are not the best books to get a solid grasp on Damian. That critique was about how fandom (and not just the Super Sons fandom, either, the Batfandom, too) perceives and portrays him and I think I've done a decent job at not falling into that same trap with my fanart, so I'm not sure why you bring that up.

I don't think Damian is some horrible irredeemable character from hell. Never have. I adore him. Here's some proof.

Which I know is entirely unnecessary, I just felt like sharing some fanart at the end of this.

As for my mutuals, I don't speak for them, but both of the people agreeing with that particular tweet have previously talked about liking Damian and his dynamic with Jon, their critique, just as mine, seems to be usually aimed at the way Tomasi depicts him and them in Super Sons, where, again Damian does often seem like he doesn't care for Jon. Except for when he cares a lot. Which, again, isn't his fault, since he's lines on paper and Tomasi's the one making him act this way. Which brings me back to the inconsistency being what bugs me most, so I'm just talking in circles now.

Anyway, I don't know what you were trying to accomplish with this message, anon. If it was to rob me of half an hour to explain myself unnecessarily, congrats, I guess.

[jccatstudios]

I have been following your soc comic adaptation and it just so good!!! I love how you draw them!

I have just one question: Why did you not include Inej's opening musings about Kaz on the first page? (Kaz Brekker didn't need a reason etc) I actually really like how there is not text on the first two pages, it's really atmospheric and moody so this really is not a criticism, I don't want to insult you. I guess I was just wondering what the thought process behind that was?

Oh, I've been wanting to talk about this for a while! Buckle up, this is gonna be one of my long comic rants. (Also, no offense taken at all! Anyone's welcome to question my artistic choices and I'm always happy to take critique, even though that isn't your intention.)

So, the thing is I actually planned on including that first paragraph into the comic! Here's when I first shared the thumbnails on here. Just for the sake of this post, I'll insert them here too.

The boxes are meant to be where excerpts of that introduction would go. When I was creating the thumbnails, I was thinking about how iconic these lines were and how well they introduce the world and characters. I even finished the pages with the intention to include those lines. This is from my original csp file.

When I lettered it all out, I felt like something wasn't right...? Hard to explain. I wanted silence for the opening and the narration took that away. I then thought about the reader who'd go into this without reading the novel first, wondering if they'd be thinking, Who's this Kaz Brekker guy? Is it this character on the page? It's clearer in the book, but I didn't think it paired well with what I drew. I didn't want any confusion. It's also Inej's chapter, and while Kaz's parts take up most of it, I still wanted it to feel like her POV and her story. We can hold off officially meeting Kaz until page four.

But the main reason I took it out comes down to my philosophy when it comes to comic adaptations. I believe that an adaptation should use the original story in the best way for the secondary medium. A comic adaptation should play to the strength of comics, not the original source material.

Time and time again, I see a lot of comic adaptations of books try to use a book's strength instead of a comic's. When that happens, you get pages upon pages of narration boxes and exposition that could've easily been told in a single panel's image. If you want to read excerpts from the original novel, go do that! They're beautiful and well-crafted and you should be reading the original anyway! If you're making a comic adaptation, make a comic, not an illustrated version of the novel (that's a whole field of its own).

This whole thing really ties well into what I'm doing for Chapter 3. Kaz is such an internal character, his chapters have a lot more exposition that isn't setting description or character actions. I've had to do a lot more of my own writing for this chapter than the last just to turn that exposition into his own voice as an internal monologue. Sometimes, it's just a change from "he" to "I," but there are other times I've had to write new dialogue and find ways to naturally flow between thoughts. If I didn't do the work to adapt the expository text and instead just put in narration boxes of text from the book, there would be a greater disconnect between the reader and Kaz. Third-person limited works great in books and doesn't separate the readers from the story, but in comics, first-person internal dialogue keeps the readers inside the scene better.

If I were to redo Chapter 2, I think I would try to find a way to incorporate the information from the chapter intro better. I think by losing the intro I initially planned to include, I didn't establish certain ideas very well. Ketterdam and Kerch are established later on pages 4 and 5, but I don't think I ever go back and mention The Barrel. Also, the idea that Kaz is deliberate, even if his reputation says otherwise, is important too. I've made sure to fix this kind of issue in Chapter 3 and keep record of what kind of information I'm losing as I adapt it.

[autistic-ben-tennyson]

Do you think that "cultural christianity" is invalid as a concept? I've seen some posts calling it "religious essentialism" but I think that it does make sense.

The idea is that everyone in a Christian-dominant society or Christian background has to some extent internalized Christian beliefs even if they're ex-Christian or atheist.

Beliefs about sex and sexuality, forgiveness and atonement etc.

This doesn't mean that people can never leave their religion or unlearn the beliefs they were raised with, it just means that you should be aware of your biases.

Does this make sense?

I never really agreed with the concept either during my period as an atheist or now. It unfairly paints a broad picture of a religion that’s actually very diverse and has different denominations. People who use it never clarify if they mean Catholicism, southern baptism, mainline Protestantism or nondenominational Christianity. They often mean the version of Christianity that they grew up with that’s often evangelicalism, Calvinism or nondenominational churches. Many of these people who use it turn out to be Zionists and it’s not surprising why they believe this. Many have been taught to view Christianity as inherently antisemitic, as well as atheism and Islam. That is ironically not that different from evangelical persecution complexes with their belief that the world is out to get them.

Jumblr Zionists often use it to insult people they don’t like. Many are people with religious trauma who converted to Judaism because of wanting to take part in a legacy of oppression they weren’t a part of. It also is due to them viewing it as inherently more progressive or leftist than Christianity and more queer friendly. It’s often used to silence atheists from criticizing any religion besides Christianity, even if it’s coming from ex Jews as well as paint things Jumblr doesn’t like as bad like Aaron Bushnell’s self immolation. I think @bringmemyrocks has more information on this.

The term may have been coined for genuine reasons but slowly devolved into what it is now. It was originally used by Jewish atheists as a term to critique atheist spaces. Then it devolved into people like Prismatic Bell claiming “you’ll never leave the religion that hurt you if you put up a Christmas tree or use a Georgian calendar”. It was used with little sensitivity for those with religious trauma and often targeted a strawman of atheists or even Christian beliefs.

Christianity does influence our culture and beliefs, even if we aren’t Christian but there is little nuance to how it’s talked about and people tend to act like the beliefs of one denomination are the same for the rest, typically to prop up another religion as better. Christian beliefs about damnation can be used to justify harsh punishment and violent retribution but some can also use Jesus’s teachings on redemption to argue in favor of restorative justice and everyone being capable of change. Because the term is often used in a simplistic or derogatory way, often to paint Christians or atheists raised Christian as bad people, with little sensitivity for religious beliefs or trauma, I would rather not use it and I am glad the tumblr Zionists going mask off has pushed less people to use it as well.

[waheelawhisperer]

Bottom five arknights bottoms, I’m curious to hear your logic on this one

Degenbrecher

Gladiia. She will try her best, but eventually she will get frustrated and take over.

Dobermann. She'll critique your dick game between thrusts instead of moaning, and then when you're done she'll give you a detailed training regimen designed to improve your stamina and technique.

Tomimi: her tail gets in the way

Jessica: just lies there and cries the whole time.

Honorable Mentions:

Gnosis: perfectly competent bottom, but if you don't put a gag on him he'll spend the whole time explaining that you're gay because you like men, he's gay because he hates women, etc etc, or talking about the results of his Myers-Briggs personality test.

Kal'tsit: refuses to shut the fuck up. Like Dobermann, will be overly critical during the act. Otherwise adequate in bed, though.

Skadi: absolute dead fish, but it's because she's devoting every fiber of her being to not hurting you. If she takes an active role, you will die.

Specter: competent bottom, but she'll spend the whole time expressing her disappointment with your inadequacies in a very condescending and patronizing manner. It's not your fault you're so weak, but it is a shame. How are you supposed to leave a girl satisfied if you can barely even make her feel it?

Manticore: goes invisible every time you hit her sweet spot.

Penance/Mudrock: needs enough foreplay to break their shields before you start, otherwise they'll just lie there and ask you if it's in yet

Eunectes: keeps getting distracted by the internal mechanisms of her sex toys

Dorothy: accidentally turns your cum into a weapon of ass destruction

W: is bad in bed on purpose unless you're Ines

Kroos: falls asleep mid-thrust

Swire: Terra's biggest pillow princess. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of perspective

Croissant: charges you by the thrust

[disco-elysium-via-polls]

BOOK "LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4"

The leading intellectual organ of Martinaise communism. Offers a radical Mazovian perspective on a range of contemporary issues. The cover features a stylised portrait of the late King Frissel with a pair of white antlers growing out of his head.

>INTERACT

LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4 - The front of this quarterly journal features a large, satirical portrait of the late King Frissel. From the sides of his head, a pair of white antlers spread to the corners of the cover.

Why Frissel?

Flip through the pages, see what catches your eye.

LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4 - Because Frissel was incompetent, foolish, and cruel. In short, the embodiment of everything the communards wished to overthrow. It's *satire*, you see.

2. Flip through the pages, see what catches your eye.

LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4 - To your disappointment, there aren't any full-colour pictures to direct your attention, just column after column of closely set text, interrupted occasionally by little doodles in black and white...

After riffling the pages with your thumb several times, you return to the table of contents...

The magazine is divided into several sections: 'International Developments', 'Kunst und Kultur', and 'Local Concerns'. Just inside the cover there's also an editor's note.

Read the editor's note.

I want to catch up on 'International Developments'.

What is 'Kunst und Kultur'?

Let's see what they mean by 'Local Concerns'.

[Put the magazine away.]

LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4 - "Comrade, as you know, this journal takes its name from Mazov's immortal expression 'Du cristal à la fumée.' This was his way of describing the way the rigid, crystalline structures of capitalist ideology turn to smoke under communism..."

"But like the structures of capitalist ideology, we too are at risk of going 'à la fumée.' Unlike many publications which are content to spoonfeed their readers reassuring drivel, *La Fumée* is committed to telling the radical truth, even when that truth may drive away potential subscribers."

"So please, if you value our radical Mazovian perspective on contemporary politics, culture, and international affairs, please consider subscribing today.

Yours in struggle, The Editors."

(Whisper.) "Kim! I think this is a *communist* magazine."

Play it cool. Pretend everything's in order.

KIM KITSURAGI - "What do you expect? It was laying around the office of the Débardeurs' Union. They're probably *bankrolling* the thing."

LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4 - You flip back to the front of the magazine. The table of contents unfolds before you.

2. I want to catch up on 'International Developments'.

LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4 - This section includes a long, tedious critique of the latest round of free-trade negotiations between the EPIS nations and the Free State of Semenine.

You also skip over an article about heavy fuel oil smuggling along the Mesque-Messina border, something about bear wrestling in Samara, book riots in Yugo-Graad...

Face it, you really aren't interested in foreign affairs. You're not even sure where most of these countries are...

You flip back to the front of the magazine. The table of contents unfolds before you.

3. What is 'Kunst und Kultur'?

LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4 - It takes a moment, but gradually it dawns on you that 'Kunst und Kultur' must mean 'Arts and Culture'...

As you leaf through this section, you come across several reviews of recent radio-plays, as well as a brief 'Artist Spotlight' featuring a local artist identified only as 'C.S.'

The main feature, though, is a long essay titled 'TipTop Tournée: A Critical Mazovian Perspective'.

Read the profile of 'C.S.'

Just a moment, what is this 'TipTop Tournée'?

Sounds dull. (Return to the table of contents.)

LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4 - This so-called 'Artist Spotlight' is really just a brief Q&A, made all the briefer by the subject's evident hostility to her interviewer.

AUTHORITY [Easy: Success] - That certainly *sounds* like a certain *delinquent youth* who likes to harass you from her balcony.

2. Just a moment, what is this 'TipTop Tournée'?

LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4 - The actual article is surprisingly light on details, but after skimming a page or two you gather that it has *something* to do with motor carriage racing...

2. Alright, let's see what these communists have to say about TipTop.

LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4 - You think you're settling in for a relaxing recap of the most recent season, maybe sprinkled with some nice anecdotes about a few of the more colourful drivers...

Instead you find yourself skimming a 10,000-word feature about all the politically *problematic* aspects of TipTop Tournée.

Wait, what's wrong with TipTop?

LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4 - Where to even start? For one, there's the crass commercialism of its sponsorships. And then there's the practically *criminal* emphasis on deadly motor crashes...

Hang on, who wrote this stuff?

What's so bad about sponsorships?

What's wrong with a good motor crash? They just keep it interesting.

LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4 - Oddly enough, this article has *two* bylines: Nasteb Encalada-Bernal and Exilus Bücher.

CONCEPTUALIZATION [Medium: Success] - There's no way those are real names.

Wait, why aren't they real names?

CONCEPTUALIZATION - Have you ever met anyone named 'Exilus'? Come on, they're plainly pseudonyms.

2. What's so bad about sponsorships?

LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4 - Under capitalism, the article says, every pursuit has its price. Every pleasure, even one as elemental as the joy of racing others around a track, is reduced to an advertising opportunity.

Thus the so-called *tournée* becomes a competition between increasingly meaningless brand signifiers: your discount laundry detergent racing against a pack of Astra cigarettes or even a Frittte...

Right, but then you get to see them *crash*.

LA FUMÉE, VOL 1. NO. 4 - And that, precisely, is what's problematic about it. Were it not for the promise of random, *spectacular* violence, audiences would quickly lose interest...

At the end of the day, it's the destruction of these 750,000-reál racers that you're *really* watching for.

[young-royals-confessions]

sorry for the long confession but i’m passionate about this and i think it’s important to talk about:

there is absolute nothing ableist about disliking or even hating sara. hating a character who happens to be neurodivergent is NOT the same as hating a character because they are neurodivergent.

yes, there are people who have projected their prejudices onto sara since season 1 because she is a neurodivergent female character. HOWEVER, there are also many many people who hate/dislike her because her actions are horrid.

and yes, autism and adhd affect personality and a person’s perceptions of the world (social cues and behavior, etc.) but they are not excuses. sara fucked up. she fell in love with a man who uploaded pornography of her 16 year old brother and then proceeded to warn said man of her brother going to the police to get justice. she fucking sucks (in my personal opinion).

she did bad things. it is not ableist to say that and dislike her for that. we can all acknowledge that she is neurodivergent and understand the basis for her actions and thought processes, but that doesn’t mean people are required to like her or turn a blind eye to her actions. autism and adhd are not get out of jail free cards for super shitty behavior.

and as someone who is autistic, i can understand people being upset that the only known neurodivergent character in the main cast is a very dislikeable person. i understand the criticisms that this may continue and further some people’s negative perception of neurodivergence. AND i can understand and even kind of relate to the protectiveness some of us may have over her. before season 2, i felt the same way. i defended her and held hope that that one scene at the end of season 1 was a fluke lol. but then season 2 happened and i just couldn’t continue defending her because i was basing it entirely on my own protectiveness of her character. she was representation for me and i hated that i was losing my ability to see myself in her.

and i think we should continue having this kind of conversation for more positive representation in not only queer media but all kinds of media for nd characters. this is important and it saddens me that i don’t feel a connection to sara anymore. but i also want to call to attention that excusing sara’s behavior with her neurodivergent diagnoses also doesn’t reflect good on neurodivergence in general. saying that her actions are the direct result of her autism/adhd and therefore cannot be criticized simply isn’t the best defense at all cause that can easily be turned into more hate on us by neurotypicals.

at the end of the day, sara is an understandably complex character with many layers. she is neurodivergent and for some viewers that may result in them sympathizing and relating to her more. while others may understand and appreciate those nuances but still find themselves heavily disliking her. whereas other viewers may project their biases on her and be hateful for the very fact that she is autistic and has adhd (these are the ableists). it is possible and even valid to critique nd characters as long as you remain conscious of the language you use and your own reasoning for disliking them. i often times look inward at myself to make sure that my dislike for sara isn’t coming from internalized ableism because i never want to contribute to the hatred of nd people in this world by projecting onto her. it’s healthy to do that so you avoid becoming part of the problem. but it’s not healthy to label every critique of her as ableism because then you’re misusing such an important identifier.

in summary, hold yourself responsible for the way you think about characters like sara. whether you’re expressing your dislike for them OR defending them, listen to the words you’re saying and look inward to see what it really is you’re trying to say (whether good or bad)

.

[tonydaddingham]

I love TV Crowley and I don't think he's a bad/unfaithful adaptation of book Crowley I just. I wish that when he says things like "I'm going to run off to Alpha Centauri" or something along those lines, about abandoning the Earth, more emphasis is placed on the fact that He Would Not Actually Go Through With That. Like for as much as he threatens to do so, when it comes down to it he truly cannot bring himself to up and leave the humans like Gabriel and Beelzebub did. It would grate on him and he'd end up turning right back around and I want something other than Aziraphale to be the clear, immediate reason for it. Crowley notably hates the 14th century and that was the century where over a third of the population (245 million people) died due to a combination of the Great Famine and the Black Death. I think about that sometimes idk.

hi (again?) nonnie!!!✨ you're good dw, i got what you were saying and it's perfectly valid; ultimately as i added to the tags of the last ask, for many reasons it's difficult to accurately translate a character to screen when you don't have the more overt narration of their internal thought processes, because these give great influence to how the reader should view the character.

its not at all bad (the way that book crowley was depicted in tv crowley), there are elements i like about each more than i do about vice versa (same for aziraphale, and anathema, and madame tracy and- you get the idea), but he is in many ways different. and i trust that maybe we'll see the other facets of crowley's character in s3, by nature of s3 perhaps being more solid in the original plan for the GO story in general (again, bc t+n discussed it)... particularly those traits demonstrated more in the book, because if there's a particular season where i think this is going to necessary, it's that one.

might be worth having a read of this first ask that i got from LWA✨ (if youre new here, first of all welcome! and second, Longwinded Anon/LWA is a legend in these halls for dropping their analysis of different elements of the story and characters in my ask box from time to time... they have truly elevated my way of thinking about the story that's perhaps a tad more critical than most, but i think that's important!!!). anyway, this ask has a bit of critique on book vs show crowley that might of interest!!!✨

[princessfishy]

only on anon because i dont know you personally and idk how well you take criticism but i promise i dont mean you any harm. i would really recommend looking more into how to draw fat bodies because ngl it kinda hurts to see nearly all otto's chub turned to muscle save for one very small tummy curve. im really sorry if this is harsh im not good with words, but i really enjoy your art so im just kinda internally screaming yknow? no hate intended i promise.

Heres a lil hippo mommy + a friend's starwars oc + Floppa to give a show of my abilities! Personally I don't think of Otto as "heavy" and read him more of a "round but strong" more like a powerlifter and less of a softy <3 But I can DEF see where you're coming from! Personally his lil man tiddies were not meant to be so angular so next time I draw him i'll def draw him softer!

Personally I am very aware of larger bodies being a weak spot in my art, and im trying to improve it so if anyone has any tips PLEASE LEMME KNOW </333

I am always open to critique about my art! Im always looking to improve <3

[titoist]

kole — Today at 8:54 PM i find it completely feasible for someone to simply "get tired" of myself as a figure after a certain period of knowing one-another - not strictly as the result of a consistent set of personal mistakes, but simply as the result of passively becoming familiar with the set of variables that comprise me. i would not be at all surprised if someone extraordinarily close to me did so. [C] — Today at 9:11 PM That's actually one of the greatest factors in how i define how much i love someone Being familiar with what makes them, well, them, and liking what i have discovered so very much, and wanting to continue spending time with them variables are still variables For example, one of the greatest joys about my best friend nora is that i know what they like and how they will react to certain things (as is generally what i like about any friend or person close to me) You have functions that comprise you… f(x) = x. Even if the function is the same, any differing input for x will still grant a different result for f(x), even if they are easy to predict (as the graph is a straight diagonal line). There is a lot of happiness in being able to know that nora will like x outing that i have planned, or x gift i have gotten them, and to see that their reaction f(x) is indeed what i predicted and have come to enjoy about them kole — Today at 11:27 PM that's a fine, & sensible, & very very very kind, way of approaching the broad idea i'm gesturing towards. (factors that make up a person & one's perception of it as belonging to the "system" of that person) but for me, individually, this sentiment fails to make a dent in 1. the sense that, if one were to have even a slightly different method of processing people's qualities, i would not find it at all strange for such a thing as previously-described to happen with me. maybe it would not signal an internal deficiency in myself so much as a generally utilitarian tendency for the hypothetical person to treat the people they know with little more care than turning in a used car. but nonetheless, i would anticipate it. 2. the self-perception that i am not a haver of 'traits' & as much as i am in possession of 'behaviors', that i am a static object which, if eventually left to my own devices, will default only to doing & thinking what i am accustomed to doing & thinking. critically, i fail to conceive of myself as containing an essential 'human' element. this isn't a critique of your message as a stupid failure at reaching me in specific, necessarily, i recognize it's worth & general applicability. i just feel uniquely exempt from it where most people wouldn't be (& they would be well-off for it) ultimately the ameliorative strength of it doesn't stop it from being caught as still playing out within the more general "tug-&-pull" of the original feeling. which is hard to describe without it seeming like i'm frustratingly rejecting comfort out of hand & putting more effort into coming up with reasons to feel worse.

[adacatlovelace]

I feel like something that isn't talked about enough is the fact that the reason why so many youths are drawn into this sort of "everyone sucks" sort of mindset is that when you grow up being taught by conservatives, sure there may be a point when they realize just how horrid the political views of their family members are, but have inadvertedly swallowed the slow poisoning against the left over their formative years.

This can be especially harmful to people who fall outside of cultural norms as for so many years they have been at best constantly criticized for who they are or at worst straight up ostracized by friends and family.

They grow up feeling like shit for who they are while being fed conservative talking points about the left and the seed is planted to make them believe that EVERYONE is like that, right or left. Then they see these fringe cases of extremists on the left who also demonize who they are (usually just for other reasons) and it reinforces that idea that its all just hate from all sides.

They are so used to the conservative playbook that its hard to imagine otherwise. Like of course you're gonna buy and internalize the lie of "Those leftists will demonize you unless you are part of a marginalized group" when you are already so used to being demonized if you aren't the "good Christian boy" your family wants you to be, because to you thats just how life works.

Alone this is already bad but it can also get so much worse as having this mindset is when the radicalization begins to seep in. Hategroups LOVE to downplay the absolute fuck out of how the conservative mindset affects our culture while overplaying the effect of people outside that political ideology.

Heres an example: Early 2010s saw a rise in critique against things like sexism, racism, homophobia and lack of representation of marginalized groups in video games. People began treating video games are more than just a leisure activity you turn your brain off and enjoy and more like a serious art form.

On the other hand, gaming had become just about synonymous with this exact group of people. These critiques to them felt like a coordinated attack on gaming (And these sort of people by extension) from the left, and do you know WHY that is? It is because for DECADES there HAD been a coordinated attack on gaming from the CONSERVATIVES, who believed things like "Games cause violence" and were 100% fully IN SUPPORT of censorship.

These people were already so used to the conservative playbook that "Game developers should be more socially conscious" became "Games are sexist/racist/homophobic and should be banned" because they were so used to dealing with "Games are Violent/Satanic and should be banned" because the very idea of being critical of something out of a place of wanting it to improve vs being critical of something because you hate it and want it gone" was so ALIEN to them. Hence near CONSTANT comparisons of Jack Tompson (A lawyer who repeatedly lobbied congress for the banning and censorship of video games) to Anita Sarkeesian (Someone who made videos and WORKED WITH DEVELOPERS as a consultant to HELP their games be better)

Now here comes the Far-right. "Hey buddy heres some talking points to absolutely DEMOLISH the SJWs! Trust me Im just like you Im ostracized by both the left and right. Dont actually think about it too hard. After all it completely DESTROYS them and reinforces the idea you're being attacked"

Suddenly the Alt-right is born out of the lie "Both the left and right are BAD but the left is SO much worse" being left to fester. After all, if you spend enough time learning to "defend yourself" against the Leftists, your views are probably gonna start to align with the conservatives who were all too happy to join your fight against the "SJWs who are trying to DESTROY your hobby."

I think thats also why there are a surprising number of transpeople who held previously reprehensible views in the past, because they grew up ostracized and demonized while also having a bitter hatred to the very people trying to HELP them because all they know is abuse, but eventually they managed to heal from this mindset and get them help and support they need.

Not a day goes by that I don't feel utter CONTEMPT for the person I used to be, but I suppose the reason Im writing this to more fully understand what had lead me to become that person, so that I can hopefully help people avoid making the same mistakes I did. Maybe its even for the better that I will always hate who I was, and that there is likely people out there who will never forgive me for my past. People change but the damage done cannot be undone and its not the job of the people you've attacked to work on seeing you any differently. They don't owe you forgiveness.

[bocceclub]

Ok I am what could accurately be called a “critical fan” of the Locked Tomb, so I’m genuinely very curious about your take on Gideon. I liked it, *but* I also have some serious critiques of the way the story was told and I would love to hear your perspective

Okay so I have to admit I have a neurotic internal editor so take my critiques with a grain of salt lmao. The thing is I really really wanted to like it, because the sci-fantasy genre is so sparse and the concept seemed cool.

And it turned out to be just...urgh. The style is grating to me. Tamsyn Muir has a poor grasp on voice, IMO, and also doesn't seem to understand the concept of the author/narrator divide. There were a lot of times where the prose would slip into a dramatic, gothic style with very distinctly its own voice, completely losing Gideon's dry, irreverent, casual-modern voice – only for the next line to come crashing back in with the snark. It was jarring and it broke the immersion for me. People are praising it for this, I found out, which is insane. What are they smoking.

The plot was also pretty weak, imo, like once they got to the castle? planet? the story lost almost all structure. What should have been bigger narrative events felt glossed over, like [SPOILER] being found dead early on. Like I was expecting the narrative to lock down like a steel trap at that, but the tension abated immediately after the discovery scene and the characters continued to behave much as they had before what should have been a major turning point in the plot.

ALSO. JUMPING FROM THERE. The characters. All of them were so shallowly written I had trouble telling them apart, which is bad on its own but is especially bad when you're trying to write an ensemble cast. I didn't care when people died because they felt like hollow caricatures rather than actual people; we never got to know anyone much beyond the archetype they fell into (Gideon - "deadpan snarker/asshole with a heart of gold", Harrow - "walking childhood trauma", Ianthe - "evil bitch", Coronabeth - "golden child", literally, btw her plot twist I could see a mile off, the other necromancers/cavaliers were just stereotypes of their house traits, the final villain was also super obvious from the get go). Gideon and Harrow suffered from this immensely as the two focal characters – Gideon felt like simply a vehicle for Cool and Harrow was just Holden Caulfield with necromancy. Their romance was also rushed and didn't feel believable to me. I refuse to believe that 2 people with such strong personalities who have hated each other since childhood would take so little time to not only reconcile but also fall deeply enough in love for [SPOILER] to work. Also I have issues with noble/retainer romances and those kinds of power/class imbalances in general, but I digress.

I don't want to make this massive post any longer so I'll leave it at that, but I do have a ton of smaller, more nitpicky critiques, these are just the major ones. Honestly this one was just an all around huge disappointment lmao.

I LIED, ONE LAST JAB: I'm a sport fencer and I found the fencing/sword combat ridiculous. Idc if Muir consulted with a fencer, it's obvious to me that it was written by someone who has no familiarity with the sport. How the fuck did Gideon retrain from longsword to rapier in such a short time? Even learning a new weapon in modern sport fencing is an insanely difficult and time consuming process.

[dzpenumbra]

2/15/23

Things have been in a pretty steady decline lately. I'm sure it's pretty apparent in my writing. Today was especially difficult.

I'm just turning off a skate video I had on so I can focus on this. I should really get this out. I heard back from my old therapist, the one who worked with me the summer before the pandemic and bridging through the beginning and peak of it. He was very nice, thoughtful and kind in how he responded. But I did not process the response well. At all.

I'm still trying to think more positively, see the silver lining, all that. I really am trying. But there's something very deep and very... hurt... that got set off. Again. He's not going to help me. I swear to god, the most common phrase I've heard out of people in the mental health field over the past 5 years has been "I can't help you" or "I don't know how to help you". Can any of you just like... point me in the direction of someone who can?! I mean, it's not like... once you just walk away and say "sorry dude, I can't be your friend", or whatever they're saying to me... it's not like my problems just... disappear. It's like they expect me to just wake up someday and just... be a different person... who doesn't have the struggles that I have. That I'm just going to snap out of it and suddenly my life will just fall together.

So I try to be patient. I try to be proactive. I do my research, both internally and externally. I study. I learn. I strategize. But... what fucking good is my study, what good is my research and strategizing when I only have half a fucking picture?! I don't have perspective. And the fucked up part? Most people detest perspective. It usually sets them off. Critique, criticism, feedback, whatever phrase you want for it. Most conflicts I've witnessed involved this. I need perspective. And the whole fucking state is making me jump through hoops for this, not a single person is volunteering to assist.

Right now I'm referring to the ADHD screening, I can tell I'm being vague. Let me sum up the history here. Problems in highschool - ADD screening: positive. Got a diagnosis and a 504 plan. I was in special education for a fucking year, when my older brother was valedictorian, talk about humiliating. Flunk out of my first semester of college due to PTSD - ADD screening: positive. Got into a special education college which I promptly dropped out of because they tried to cram me in a dorm room with 2 other students, one of which brought his girlfriend over to stay the night on my first night there and... brought back even more trauma. And, on top of that, I got screened for ADD a third time back in... probably 2017 or 2018? And they never fucking gave me my results. I drove an hour to this medical building that was like completely empty, I sat in a silent room with someone and did this stupid test thing, and never got the fucking results. I was just so fed up at that point, I just gave up on it.

Now, 2023. And I can't get my current therapist, my former therapist or my brand new GP to just sit down for one fucking hour so I can either confirm this and start studying new skills... or cross it off the list and look deeper, try to understand how my trauma, depression and anxiety are creating these insanely disruptive barriers. I feel like all I do is just... wait. I just fucking wait for people to give me one hour of their time. And at that point, the pressure on me to make months worth of progress in one fucking hour is just... it's impossible. The pressure cracks me.

This may be hard for others to relate to, but this is something extremely familiar to me, try to imagine this. Imagine you are living 100% alone. That means no calls, no texts, no friends, no family. And your only social interaction is one 45 minute Zoom meeting. Per week. I doubt most people can even imagine that. Like... I don't even know how to catch others up on how much has even happened in that week in less than an hour, let alone talk about super important shit. And when all your social needs are condensed into one venue, it overwhelms people, it repels them. I swear, this shit is disastrous.

And I just feel really fucking lost and powerless. I don't know who I am. I don't know why I struggle so much with such simple things. I've been waiting for over 2 months to just... explore this possibility. And here I am.

My old therapist gave me the names of two places he could refer me to. Yeah, I know, after that tirade, right? Yeah. It'll make sense in a minute. There's a doctor in my area he can refer me to, but he doesn't know the guy personally. And... he can refer me to a Psychiatry place... that I used to go to 10 years ago. The place where my med problems all started. Where the floodgates were opened. And, being completely honest, just reading the name of that place just made me collapse in on myself. Like... wow... I'm literally exactly where I started. A fucking decade down the drain. For what?

Sounds like depression? Correct!

I'm tired. I'm tired of being tossed around for different people to study and pick apart and figure out what's broken in me and try to mold me into their ideal version of a human. I'm tired of trying so fucking --- I can't even let myself type it. Like I didn't even finish the thought and went "you could try fucking harder and you know it." Good lord. I'm so mean to myself. -_-

All of my life, all I've wanted was to make cool videos, or make cool music, or make cool art. For people. For friends. For people like me. For people who want to experience cool stuff. I want to share the interesting things I've learned, the unique perspective I have, the skills I've devoted countless hours to developing. I want to share my passions. And no one seems to want to share them. Not my friends, not my family, no one. No one even really seems to miss me when I'm not there. And that really just... it makes me feel... obsolete. It makes me feel like I'm doing something wrong. Like there's something wrong with me. Like I'm not trying hard enough. Like I'm not good enough, interesting enough, attractive enough, in shape enough, funny enough. Like I am not worth seeking out. Like my contributions, my perspective, my self, are easily replaceable.

And the only venue I can think of to go to in a hail mary for social connection is basically just becoming a cesspool of advertisements, corporate shills and carbon copy fad-chasers. And the audience isn't much better, and they all seem very satisfied with what they are consuming. And I miss my people, man. I miss my fucking people. Because Twitch isn't my fucking people anymore. Call of Duty hasn't been my people since like fucking 2009. Minecraft hasn't been my people since they sold out to Microsoft and rebranded to target microtransactions to children. I just... I don't really know where my people are. Or how to find them. And honestly, I'm not even really sure entirely who my people are anymore.

There are some skaters I get along with, but we're a ragtag bunch and there are a lot that I don't. There were a lot of gamers that I got along with, but gaming got so fucking big that like... the title "gamer" could mean anything from a retiree to a high school jock. I could try to connect with fellow artists, but I honestly don't know how or where.

I guess I'm just scared. Scared of rolling the dice, after looking around at my friend roster and realizing that not a single one of them really cared that much about me, they just cared about how they felt when they were around me. How I made them feel. How I would visit them, and entertained them, and listened to them, and inflated their ego. And the second I asked them to get involved in my life in a meaningful way? KABOOM. Screamed at. Like I just cussed out the Lord himself. Not even exaggerating. It's so surreal looking back at it, like... I never really though people actually acted that way in real life. Even in the moment, I was like... "what are they misunderstanding?" "They can't possibly believe this is too much to ask..."

So yeah, all of this, all this shitstorm that's pouring onto the page right now, that's been swirling around in my head like a poison soup all goddamn day. And I have no idea what to do about it. And frankly, I'm ready to just throw it on a shelf and say fuck the mental health, I just wanna make cool beads for right now. So let me catch you up on what I did today.

I measured out a bracelet mala. The number of beads is symbolic, I guess it's derived from Buddhism, but also Hinduism (which is more of a collection of belief systems than an actual religion). Typically they are multiples of 9, the standard is 108, which I'm guessing my necklace is. I decided to try 27 out, to see how that worked length-wise. I had to downsize it to smaller beads but the size worked decently, it's just weird because since the cordage isn't elastic... I need to have it be big enough to squeeze over my hand, but not big enough to fall off. And it does, it fits pretty well and doesn't fall off, it's just very loose fitting. From there, I did a test bead. I did a black basecoat and some very basic opaque pink line work over it. From there, I did 5 layers of Mod Podge in about 30 minute intervals. Then I sanded it, which I think I fucked up a little bit by not wet-sanding it, unfortunately. I don't know why, I just had it in my head that like... if I wet sanded... the glaze was going to dissolve or something. Like... it better not... XD But I used water very sparingly in the rough sanding and I think I paid for it. So next time I'm going to do a 600 grit instead of 400 and I'm going to make sure I wet sand. But even with the slip ups, I brought it to a nice buff shine and it looks pretty good, it looks like it could be plastic. I think that's going to work nicely.

The next thing I need to figure out, which was baking my noodle (thanks The Oracle for getting that stuck in my head since the 90's), was how to get these beads on some kind of thing that stably rotates. Like a lathe, but... for painting. So I can get nice symmetrical equatorial lines. I'm giving up on longitudinal lines, I'll wing that shit, but latitudinal symmetry makes a very big visual impact and I'd really like to get that figured out. So, in my head, I'm picturing some kind of mount to fit a wooden dowel into. The wooden dowel needs to be the right size for the holes in these beads, enough to snugly fit and hold them. Then the dowel sits in the mount and I can put a crank on the other end of the dowel. The crucial part of that is that the beads do not move. Or... I can just continue to freestyle it. Either way.

I'm tempted to take another trip to Michal's and see if they have any kind of contraption like this. It would make my life so much easier. To paint that bead, I had to wrap a piece of paper around an eyelet screw, put the screw in the vice, and then flip the bead when it was time to do the other side. It... wasn't the most convenient setup. All in all, though, I've had some decent results from these past 2 days of bead medium tests. I'm excited to see what this culminates to.

I have also had a project in mind for my mom. I think it might actually be a really thoughtful and helpful thing for her. I got a bunch of garnet beads for her christmas gift that... never really got made. Fights and all that. I had all the materials, but... I just... it's really hard to make a gift for someone who is fighting with you, you know? So... the beads and the centerpiece just kinda sat there for months. And her birthday came and went and all that. So... I was thinking of making a small mala with them, with the intention of passing it along with some documentation on what they are for. I want to try to use mine to experiment with mantra meditation, prayer and all that, which is very new to me. But she may find use from this in a very practical way through... grounding. Hell, maybe I need one deliberately intended for that as well. The intention is to have every bead represent a breath and to track your breathing exercise with it. So I was just thinking, maybe I should split it. Do 9 garnets, then a... something different, maybe a wooden bead, to mark an interval. Then repeat that twice, but the last one is a distinctly bigger one intended to signify the end of the cycle. They call that the guru bead. So you can do smaller breathing sequences with it too, not just the big 27 breath one, which might be a tall order in the middle of a heated conflict or a busy workday or something. Or at least it might seem like one. But 9 breaths? I think we can all make time for that. And the tactile nature of it lets you keep your eyes closed and know where you are, and if you want to do another 9? Just keep going. The intention is to use the tactile, maybe even smell association(I read people will douse the tassel in essential oil sometimes), to bring awareness back to the present moment. Especially in a moment of acute stress or panic, overwhelm, whatever it might be. To take a second, breathe, let the rest go for a minute until you get to the wooden bead, then choose how you want to go forward with a clear mind.

The more I talk about this, the more I am making myself aware that I need to practice this more as well. I'm sure it's going to be glaringly obvious to me when I read this back, too. (edit: It is.)

Before I wrap up, I should mention. Today was really hard for me emotionally. It was a such lonely day. And it's mine. The most loneliest day of my liiiiiife. (sorry) I don't know about downstairs, because I can't hear them - though they can probably hear me, sorry... - but all of my other neighbors are couples. From about 5:30 on, I had happy couples in fuckin surround sound. And here I am. More alone than I've ever been. It just sucked. I even made cookies and it didn't make it better. So yeah. Just...

I've had like... maybe two decent Valentine's Days my entire life. I've had maybe 5 Valentine's Days where I was actually in a relationship in my life. And I'm a romantic. And, to be blunt, the women who received my generous romance, they didn't deserve it. And they didn't appreciate it. And they sorta... planted seeds in my head that it wasn't worth being romantic in those ways, that it will be undervalued and unappreciated. I'm really sad that I let myself walk away from those gestures. But I'm really glad that I'm no longer there. Because once I find my partner, they're going to get the most thoughtful, kind, loving gestures from me, with no reservations. Because if I feel I need to hold back those expressions, I must learn from my past relationships and really try to understand why. Why would I not want to shower them with my genuine affection? Because others took advantage of it, and didn't even want it? Or is it because I feel like my partner won't believe it's genuine? Or that they will reject it or find it overbearing? If those are the case, I'd need to address those immediately, because it might be incompatibility.

Good lord, even my fictional relationships are dysfunctional! <head in hands>

I need to find a good place to meet people like me, where I will feel comfortable and not utterly overwhelmed. I thought the internet was going to help with that, but it's changed so much over the past 5+ years. I don't know where the real people are anymore. So... I might have to just give up on that and brave the real world. Which seems more likely to bring me a solid connection in my life: a yoga studio, a weird witchcraft store, a zen center, a board game shop, a small coffee shop? I honestly don't know. But one of these days coming up, I'm going to try one. I mean it. I just need to cultivate the confidence, because my confidence meter is like an imperceptible sliver right now.

Good vibes to end on? I've been playing Rimworld offline. I haven't really let myself enjoy it because of that but... the main character got married, which made me really happy. I went to get my cookies out of the oven and the game is on No Pause Challenge, so it was just running without me, and I came back and Lissandra and Slick were getting married! It made me so happy. They both worked night shift together, it's how they met. She's a sanguophage, the revered holy leader of the colony, and he was a young former criminal refugee, who she has now given the gift of immortality. So basically, the high priestess and the janitor became lovers because he was a night owl and she's a vampire. So... I guess he won the jackpot as far as climbing the social ladder goes! They seem really happy together so far, and I'm very curious to see if they naturally try for kids or not (I'm very new to the new DLC mechanics) and whether the sanguophage (vampire) gene can be passed on through birth or only through gene conversion. I did lose my other starter colonist, Omni, she was such an amazing soul. She was a level 18 builder with a 12+ specialization in architecture, and... for a tribal... that's really goddamn impressive. It was a very painful loss. She got jacked by a cheetah doing field work, no one could get to her in time. It sucked. A lot. But, that's life, and we move on. Lissandra will plan a ceremony for her soon. And I quit right after getting an insane raid that did a shit ton of damage so my colonists are going to have a lot of cleaning up and mourning to do tomorrow. I chose to do Rimworld again because it's a game I can actually have play itself in the background while I do art. Not a lot of games work like that.

Alright, bed. Here's hoping for an easier day tomorrow. Maybe I can even get out into nature? Or to Michael's? We'll see.

[thatspookyagent]

Some Black folks not gonna like what I have to say here but questioning the Blackness of Black anime fans and making assumptions about just how pro-Black we "really are", all cause we're critiquing and demanding more from franchises and or media that isn't Black led, has got to stop. You can indeed both critique and demand more from what you consume as a Black individual while simultaneously supporting and uplifting grass roots Black led efforts at creating media that caters to us specifically. Those two things aren't inherently mutually exclusive.

Not to mention, stop throwing out the words Black led and Black owned, as if there isn't huge bias issues within the Black community, that in turn effect how we operate on both a collective and individual scale. Not all Black folks have our best interests at heart. Sad but true. This is why I stress being critical of ourselves as a community or else we end up with unchecked internalized anti-Blackness, misogynoir, colorism, queerphobia and transphobia, ableism, fatphobia, and so much more.

Black led, created, and owned media as well as businesses, are NOT immune to being anti-Black. We see this with Black millionaires and billionaires (and Black rich folks and or Black capitalists in general). Black rappers with internalized anti-Blackness and colorism, all while being the number one perpetuators of misogynoir within the rap industry. Not to mention folks like Kenya Barris and Tyler Perry having majority Black media that's riddled with issues that could fill up an entire post in of itself. The biases (specifically colorism) that plagued Black 90's TV. The Black Panther movies, which are directed by Ryan Coogler, recently having colorist jabs within the dialogue of Black Panther: Wakanda Forever. Not to mention Bridgerton and its colorism, despite the show having Shonda Rhimes as one its executive producers.

And no, me citing what I did above isn't to say that the Black community should not bother with supporting our own but rather to stop viewing Black led and owned media as absolved from criticism, to recognize and acknowledge that it has the potential to hurt others (namely ourselves), and that we still have a ways to go in terms of Black representation even amongst Black led media.

Of course there's many more conversations and nuances to be had in this post, I'll gladly have those conversations (in good faith) amongst other Black individuals. Meanwhile, non-Black folks, this post ISN'T for you to add on to. I would heavily prefer it if y'all didn't touch this in any capacity (whether reblog, comment, or like) but if you wanna spread this to your Black followers and mutuals, and can do so WITHOUT adding on to it, you're welcome to. Otherwise keep it moving!

[variousqueerthings]

[Image ID:

(1) the ruling class benefits from illiteracy.

(2) short-form video entertains more than it sticks.

(3) reading is a discipline distinct from listening, watching, or other forms of literacy. It's a skill that needs to be honed separately.

(4) Absolutely no one comes to save us but us.

/ID END]

I felt the need to share some excerpts from this, not because it summarises all the points of the essay (which should be read in full), but because I wanted to share that it's a very kind essay. the author knows the difficulties that many have faced in becoming literate, and is gently taking the reader by the hand to consider what strength it takes to continue despite that -- to be honest, my issue has never been with literary literacy, but with financial and numbers-based literacy, and it's something I've started challenging in the last few years as well

it comes from similar things, and it serves the same end: see above, point (1). and we forge ahead despite the difficulty and frustration because, see above point (4)

quotes:

"The far easier route: traumatize the kids. Make them hate reading. Tie plenty of guilt, shame, and fear in the process of returning to reading in adulthood. Make them feel like it’s an innate talent— you have it or you don’t— rather than a skill you need to learn, hone, and practice. You never have to burn the books if no one ever wants to read them in the first place. And this means you can allow texts that chronicle blueprints for our collective liberation to hang out in plain sight. The internet age is the most collective access to information we have ever had as humans in every iteration of our timeline— and most of us cannot read it well enough to allow it to change our lives."

[...]

"Non-fiction words felt like homework in childhood— honestly, without understanding the importance of studying the human tapestry as this big, long, interconnected story, non-fiction still feels like homework to me.

Reading fiction as a child opened up three very important conclusions: (1) that reading could feel good, (2) that other worlds were possible, and that (3) it was possible to make up worlds. I remember the book that unlocked that third conclusion: Inkheart by Cornelia Funke. Someone just… made up the world cast between the pages of this book. Multiple worlds, in fact. What does that mean for this world? How much of my world can I make up?"

[...]

"The challenge of reading is to navigate the narrative without the overtures of overt feelings. There is no face to latch onto, no music that sways you. Words on a page especially cannot compete with screen-time. They’re not meant to. The boredom opens up space in your mindscape to your own thoughts, opinions, and feelings."

[...]

"I read too because I witness, on the other sides of the world, Palestinian scholars, journalists, poets be exploded, entire universities be leveled be swept from the earth. I witness the most internally displaced people in Sudan be a population of children, who may never read and write because of what their world becomes. Colonialism necessitates systems of education turned to rubble so that they alone make the stories and the images and the vehicles of emotion. And we in the United States buy into the lie it’s just coincidentally “too hard” to read."

[...]

"Bite-sized thoughts— especially short form video— convince you that the whole thing is right in front of you. I am trapped in an academic zoo, wherein I produce thoughts or emotions or projects what have you and often receive nothing meaningful back. The critique I receive on TikTok and Instagram… just… constantly lacks basis. Disappointing! Lackluster! I like to be critiqued. Critical analysis allows artists to take more compelling, cutting, bitter cunning shape. Short conformity stunts our conversation to the length of your attention span. This undermines the communion between artist and muse."

[...]

"make yourself an enemy of hopelessness and complacency. do not listen to the voices, internal and external, that tell you you cannot. you can. read. read. read. you must.

for me. and the children to come after us. because if we can’t read, what chance will they stand?

I hope the words, and the work, of your day pass through your hands with ease.

or, simpler said: peace."

"Absolutely no one comes to save us but us."

Ismatu Gwendolyn, "you've been traumatized into hating reading (and it makes you easier to oppress)", from Threadings, on Substack [ID'd]