#what blogger said ^^^

[superseal76]

Gif credit to @ltcdrmcgarrett

[zabiume]

orihime's confession to ichigo evoking the idea of time ["five lifefimes"] vs ichigo's pre-confession evoking the idea of time ["can you make time for me?"]...something about ichigo wanting orihime's time and orihime promising five lifetimes worth of it...something about both of them seeing time spent together as the biggest luxury life could give them...that they had ten whole years between the yhwach battle and the next time we saw them...ten years where they didn't battle anything and didn't rush off to risk their lives, just sat around and spent time together, talking about nothing and everything. and both of them valuing that so much because all they've ever wanted is the other person's...time

[kerryweaverlesbian]

Dean Winchester of Supernatural fame is NOT reading parenting books he is putting on Cheaper By The Dozen, Daddy Daycare and Honey I Shrunk The Kids taking notes.

[letsyapthenightaway]

“Cats are better”

“No! Dogs are”

FISH! AQUATIC ANIMALS!

My truth is I don't want a job to live, NO! I want a job to have my dream fish tanks.

[mushroomjar]

I don't like the way you guys talk about Palestinians asking for donations. I don't like it.

I had to see someone make MULTIPLE posts bitching and moaning about how people need to stop sending them asks asking for them to reblog their donation posts, that they'd just be blocking them from now on, and that they didn't care if they were vetted because they still found the act of sending asks to get reblogs on their donation links suspicious, even if they were in a dire situation. They even went as far as to say that they got an ask, deleted it, and then they got another ask from the same person, and accused the person of sending another ask to purposefully "get under their skin"

I don't know man, have you considered that being a victim of ongoing genocide will make you ask for help in whatever way you can? And sometimes that involves sending random blogs asks to see if they can donate or at the very least share your donation links? A Palestinian reaches out to you multiple times because they need help and your response is to whine about getting donation links in your inbox? I wish I had your problems

Also the thing about "getting the exact same ask from the exact same blog multiple times"... uh, duh? First of all, they're probably reaching out to dozens of blogs daily, do you think they're gonna type up a new paragraph for each blog they reach out to? Second of all, maybe they reached out to you multiple times because a. They really really really need the help and b. What, do you think they're gonna see your URL/blog and be like "oh! I already reached out to this blog, I'm not gonna send them another ask"? Or do you think they'll be like "this person has been reblogging other people's donation posts, maybe they'll reblog mine too"?

Like I understand being suspicious about getting sent donation links to your inbox, but literally all you have to do is check if the blog's been vetted by other bloggers? It's as easy as searching for their URL on tumblr sometimes, it literally takes less than a minute or two. And that's what bothers you? That's what you're complaining about? Find a real problem!!!

[aro-culture-is]

Alloaro culture is wanting a similar word to qpr for a committed partner you have sex with sometimes that is not romantic: qpr isn’t right because it has the word platonic in it.

hi! in a very gentle way, i am vibrating to let you know this is incorrect :)

from the POV of someone who's been around the aro community since ~2013-2014 on tumblr, the only time i've seen folks start to say that qprs couldn't include sexual components has been when

they've learned an incorrect definition of QPRs, or

in one particularly notable case, the individual proposing it turned out to be quite sex negative and upset at the mere thought that people could think that qprs could include sexual activity. this individual suggested an alternative term for individuals desiring sex in QPRs in a rather explicitly alloarophobic measure. when gently called out from what had seemed to be a genuine attempt at coining a new term, the above came to light. smaller cases of this pop up every once in a while, but this one got some notoriety.

queerplatonic was always meant to mean "queering the idea of a platonic relationship", "queering the idea of what a relationship means", and by explicit definition, has always been broadly and radically inclusive. any relationship, so long as the partners involved agree it is a queerplatonic one, is queerplatonic. no exceptions. this can mean it involves romance, sex, traditionally platonic elements, and anything and everything those involved desire out of it.

tldr; the word platonic is in queerplatonic to say it is counter to the idea of a restricted "platonic" relationship.

[dolluvique]

my bsf called me a teachers pet today

[apothiplatonic]

i've often tried to explain why i'm friend-repulsed – what is so uniquely distressing about friendship to me, compared to other interpersonal bonds – so here's one part of it.

friendships feel distinct from other types of relationships in that they usually start without any agreements, and can be entered into without even realizing. growing up, this was frightening to me; to hear a teacher declare we had to be friends with every student in the classroom, or to be called friends with someone i was just polite or kind to. when i did see models of “people asking if they can be your friend”, it was in children's books about how rejecting them makes you a bully. there was, and is, no escape. to suddenly hear that someone considered me a friend, and that i would be an evil oath-breaker if i left them or failed to be a “good friend” or sat there and did nothing at all, was bone-chilling. i made no oath!

i'm a scrupulous person, and i was even worse as a kid, so my society's friendship norms hurt me a lot. i didn't have any cultural example of how to say “no” to “do you want to be my friend?”, no script to turn down a kind and well-intentioned request for friendship, no means of egress that didn't make me a villain. i would regularly end up in – what seemed to me – servitude to some other child, not sure how i got there but unable to leave until they lost interest in me. i felt bent to the will of one person after the other, each one oblivious to how i felt their every friendly action as suffocating, consuming, as knives carving me into an empty statue who would do what they wanted. i was given no model for negotiating a friendship contract, but always reminded that there was a contract, one that i could not see or understand or alter.

...of course, there are always unspoken rules in social interaction, and culturally-approved coercion, and awful norms around consent. but there's something about how harmless friendship is seen as, and how socially discouraged it is to deny it, that hurt me a lot. i didn't have a drive towards friendships, so my friends were decided by whichever child was pushy and domineering enough, and i assumed that was just how things worked. i never even noticed when my friends actually treated me unfairly, because all of it hurt so much that i couldn't tell the difference. until i found the apl community, i couldn't find the language or ideas to even begin to think about it!

i think in most possible worlds, i would still be aplatonic. but it's this – my own experience of friendship as an inescapable torment, tearing chunks out of myself and offering them to whoever was strong enough, while the adults around me called me “such a good friend” – that made me friend-repulsed.

[fengshenjunlang]

No one said that raising the dead is culturally inaccurate. Raising the dead is morally unacceptable to the other characters in MDZS because of Chinese cultural beliefs of respecting the dead and allowing them to pass to their next reincarnation. Even when the dead animate on their own, it's a cultivator's goal to lay them back to rest. That's why Wei Wuxian is "culturally unacceptable". (I don't think he's a bad guy btw. I just don't think he's 100% morally pure.)

Raising the dead is culturally unacceptable and messing up reincarnation cycle? Nowhere in MDZS stated that. Please respect the original source when it never stated any of such thing. In Chinese belief soul parts are divided into part that went to reincarnation, and Hun part that was left on earth as resentment. So where did you gain your so-called "Chinese Belief?"

Furthermore, Please do not forget, That MDZS is a Taoism story. And even in Chinese real world Taoism, raising the dead is culturally acceptable technique. Read more on this:

Wei Wuxian is not 100% morally pure?

Whoaaa MXTX wished for her readers in MDZS end notes to have character like the not so 100% morally pure-Wei Wuxian.

Also in MXTX's interview:

[katyspersonal]

Can't wait to revisit the DLC area in NG+ (or maybe just new game) so I can get to Midra again and then just NEVER kill him. His battle is SOOOO well made in every aspect.. I had a similar problem with Lady Maria's battle where it was just too fun to end, but it HAD to be because Fishing Hamlet was locked behind her. Thankfully THANKFULLY though Abyssal Woods and Midra's Manse are optional for the DLC so I can just keep him within my reach forever and just deliberately die every time I am close to victory 💕 I didn't know it'd be SO frustrating to adapt to his patterns so fast and beat him.. but I won't make the same mistake again 💕 I won't have enough of getting stabbed by him or burnt by him. Maybe it is even good after all that Fromsoft still haven't added an option to resurrect the bosses, because then there would not be the same thrill of meeting again.. "making Torrent too afraid to go here also gives the feeling of not being able to run away-" good because I don't want to. 💔 He is so good. He is such a fucking NERD, 90% of his Manse is just BOOKS. I'll actually willingly die to both his boss battle and prior stage. It will be such a good time

[strawberry-pretzels]

"having el end up with no romantic interest is infantalizing her!!" yk what's even more infantalizing?? believing she doesn't deserve the opportunity to discover herself as a person, tying her down to mike forever and having a wedding at 19 or whatever y'all say,, I'm rooting for byler endgame but yk what I'm rooting for just as much?? el's independence arc!!

[angels444yuri]

i feel like an english lit major every time i make what i believe to be an astute observation about a character

[vanweezer]

not bisexual but i do respect the culture 💗💜💙

[juricore]

girl yaoi girl yaoi you guys dont get it. rei and kaoru could literally do sasunaru

[cdroloisms]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hotsugarbyglassanimals]

i feel like this site leaning heavily into the "pedophilia and incest and rape kinks are good" angle lately can be attributed to the mass expulsion of sex workers and black ppl on here ngl