#when people show themselves to you believe them

[civanticism]

Understand that a lot of people are operating from a place of ignorant grievance. They are mostly uneducated and underachieved people of privileged backgrounds who feel threatened that formerly oppressed groups are now moving towards equality with them, which they feel crowds their formerly easy path to mediocrity. They will no longer be able to claim their place at the top of the bottom by virtue of their birth, skin color, or whatever other arbitrary attribute they think superior about themselves. They speak insincerely of meritocracy, but want a bigger piece of the pie because of who they are, not what they have done. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

[kdinjenzen]

I am at a confused crossroads and was wondering if you could help me untangle it? I firmly believe there is a problem with the fetishization of trans women and it should be called out and opposed like any blatant oversexualization of women should be.... but as I transition myself, I want to be overtly sexual. I want to show off the body I am earning as I become more in line with gender identity. I want to admire other trans women embracing themselves similarly. I want to enjoy the freedom to be as slutty and pervy as I feel with myself and other consenting adults. I want to wear revealing or skintight outfits and cosplays as I get the body for it. I know these two views can co exist and are not mutually exclusive but I am having a lot of difficulty separating the two from colliding as hypocritical contradictions within my own view. Have you run into this yourself and have you found any way to reconcile it for yourself if you have?

Going to cut right through everything and say this:

Sexuality =/= fetishization

Being slutty or perverted =/= fetishization

Wearing revealing/skimpy styles of clothes =/= fetishization

Fetishization = Objectification

I need to remind people that you can fetishize a culture, a person/group of people, and anything in general without it being sexual in nature.

When you de-person someone and focus only on the objectification of them/an aspect of them/their culture/etc, that's fetishization.

Legit just respect yourself as a whole person, respect others as whole people, put time into understanding them beyond just thing. That's all ya gotta do it's really simple tbh.

It's almost blatantly obvious when someone is fetishizing something/someone when you really get down to it.

And the only reason you're feeling this way about this kinda stuff is because of how trans women have been objectified EN MASSE by so many people/medias/etc and you fear that because you find things about trans women to be beautiful, endearing, to have qualities and such that you love, to want to see yourself in that same way you fear that you're going to be fetishizing (objectifying) yourself and other trans women in doing anything that revolves around sexuality or being overtly sexual because trans women are shamed for existing outside of being treated as objects.

Just treat yourself and other trans women with respect. S'all ya need to do.

[sitronsangbody]

Warning: this gets grim

I'm up at night thinking about an episode of Supernatural and how it demonstrates some really heinous public attitudes toward fat people.

Mild spoilers for Supernatural season 6 I guess:

Dean Winchester has to take on the job of Death for a day, meaning he has to go to those who are supposedly destined to die, witness their final moments, and give them the touch of death, thus claiming their lives and sending them to the afterlife. He soon struggles to live up to his responsibilities as he's required to end the lives of a sick child and a young nurse. His first two victims, however, don't bother his conscience at all. The first is an armed robber who threatens to shoot a little boy and gets killed by the boy's father. The second is a fat man who has a heart attack.

When I say fat, what I really mean is fat-coded; the man is simply not stick thin in the way that nearly every character on the show is, so he counts as fat and his storyline (minor though it is) is tied to his size. He is in his 50s, maybe early 60s. We first see him wolfing down a cheeseburger, and Dean says "this looks like a heart attack situation", before the man indeed clutches his chest and dies. When he asks why he had to die, Dean's reply is: "you think maybe it was the extra cheese?"

His death is not portrayed as tragic in any way. He himself is only mildly distressed. We don't get to see anyone grieving for him. His death is there to be one of the Easy ones, an unsurprising, almost comical and even deserved(?) death to make Dean think it's not that bad of a gig, ending people's lives. And we, the viewers, are supposed to agree. We're not invited to feel sad for this man in the slightest, even in retrospect. Everyone who created this scene and decided to keep it in the show, believed this to be a normal way to think of a fat person suddenly dying. This came out in 2010.

It just encapsulates so much stuff - really fucking dark stuff, I might add - about how fat lives have been viewed through the years. That scene (and scenes like it) says:

- when fat people die, it's because they brought it on themselves. They are ticking timebombs and their death is expected.

- when fat people die young, no they don't, because being fat means living on borrowed time anyway, so a fat person dying way earlier than the average life expectancy is not tragic the way it is if a thin person does.

- when fat people die, it's definitely because they are fat (and they are fat because they make bad choices).

- when fat people eat what's considered unhealthy food, it's depressing and stupid and they're out of control. Dean Winchester is canonically a big fan of fast food and eats burgers all the time on the show. Because he is thin and fit, this is portrayed as fun, relatable and manly.

- when fat people die, it's not sad.

And like, I wish this was exclusive to fiction, but there are real people who act like this when real fat people die. Like they know why, even if they have no clue, like it shouldn't be shocking, like it's self-inflicted and therefore deserved, and like it probably wasn't much of a life anyway so it's just not that tragic, really.

This stuff is, just for me personally, one of the roughest sides of anti-fatness. When people deny us dignity in death. Partly because it's so ghoulish, and partly because it's so ubiquitous it appears in media like this, without controversy. I'd like to believe there would be stronger reactions had this plotline come out today in 2025, but I am not confident.

[kissboybyler]

it gets to me so much sometimes when i think that, in whichever fandom, the GA or just most people tend to ship two characters just because they are canon. Like mike and el, for instance, they are canon, they have kissing scenes and they dance at the ball and they…hug?! But what do they even talk about? What’s the music playing in the background? What’s the context of their interactions? Why, why do they love each other? Do they make each other better, do they find missing parts of themselves in the form of another person? Are there hints and tells and color-codes that just…exist to symbolise their love?

Why do we ship these characters? What’s is it about their love that is so strong? And don’t get me wrong, i also believe -like many other bylers/ fans of the show- that mike and el grew to love each other, to appreciate and kind of need each other. But not for the right reasons.

I mean, mike needs to be needed, to be able to help or even save another person, to feel loved and wanted. But he also needs to allow himself to be who he is, outside of “forced conformity” (“that’s what’s killing the kids” after all!)

El, on the other hand, needs to find who she is, but firstly she needs to have a safe place where she is allowed to kind of just exist and then blossom into her true self. And bumping into mike, who eventually grew to appreciate and embrace her, she felt safe for the first time. And alongside her, mike felt needed, like he could protect her and be there for her and make her happy.

But now el, who has established both meaningful familial relationships and friendships, needs to find out who she is. How can we expect her to grow when she’s in a relationship with the first person she met right after she broke out of the lab (her literal prison), who can’t even talk about any other part of her that he loves other than her powers?

And i’ve read many many other people write about this, about how in s4, when mike wasn’t with el he embraced his geeky, nerdy and weird self but when he finally reunited with el, he had to hide himself from her (as did she!). He just…couldn’t be himself around her.

But like, apart from the problems in their relationship, i really just don’t understand why people ship them. It’s just…mike cant be himself around el and el doesn’t have room to find herself when she’s with mike. It literally doesn’t make any mathematical sense.

And then they say we’re delusional for thinking, for proving, that there are astronomically higher chances for these two not to be endgame, for el to be single and for mike and will to get together. Because it makes sense…right? Like, el will be able to find herself outside of a relationship, she won’t be dictated by anyone but her own self, and mike and will… do i really have to elaborate? Like, in every single aspect of stranger things, from musical titles and colour-codes, parallels and loving, longing stares, hand touches, over-protectiveness, deep and meaningful understanding to posters and freaking funko-pops, interviews and good ol’ fashioned cinematography and storytelling… it all points to them, if you connect the dots.

And how, how is it possible that so many dots have been put into such perfect places, to make such a beautifully crafted imagery, just for all of this to be a coincidence? When, when has anything ever in stranger things been coincidental? Ever?

Edit: I’d just like to denote that, when i said “(mike) can’t even talk about any other part of her that he loves other than her powers” i didn’t mean that mike loves el JUST because she has powers, fuck no, BUT when the time was right for him to note all of the other aspects of her character that make her a remarkable person (ex. her selflessness, her compassion), he decided to focus on her powers. The very thing that she herself thought dictated her.

just wanted to make that super clear.

[evidence-based-activism]

all stereotypes are rooted in some reality (e.g. women being bad drivers). It wouldn’t be so pervasive if it wasn’t somewhat true. Men drive more, and many of them who drive vehicles for a living do it for longer periods of time through harsher conditions, they drive more difficult to manoeuvre vehicles e.g. lorries, buses, trucks etc.

Also, recklessness doesn’t mean that men aren’t skilled drivers. Recklessness is a choice, but driving aptitude and ability generally isn’t. Men are proven to be far more skilled and able drivers. You can argue that they are more antisocial drivers than women or that they don’t make conscientious choices when driving, but that is a different conversation. Women being better rule followers doesn’t mean they’re skilled lol.

So, this is in response to this post, where I explain – thoroughly – how men cause more car crashes and engage in significantly more risky driving behaviors (measure both objectively and subjectively).

I am genuinely amazed, Anon, that you somehow seem to think that men can be the more "antisocial", more "reckless", get into more crashes, and still somehow be a "better" driver than women. However, I actually have even more sources for this topic, so allow me to explain in more detail how men are worse at driving than women.

---

all stereotypes are rooted in some reality (e.g. women being bad drivers).

Incorrect. Just because you believe something is true, Anon, doesn't make it true. For example, here are my posts about how women are not worse at mathematics or spatial ability than men, women do not have lower IQs than men, and men and women do not feel attraction in fundamentally different ways.

So, no stereotypes need not be rooted in reality.

It wouldn’t be so pervasive if it wasn’t somewhat true.

I broke this out primarily to inquire if you also believe in the pervasive antisemitic conspiracy theories about blood libel? What about the pervasive stereotype that gay men are pedophiles? The racist, unscientific comparisons between Black people and monkeys?

Are you capable of recognizing that all (any?) of these ideas are baseless and bigoted? (Either way, I suggest doing some reading into the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy.)

Men drive more, and many of them who drive vehicles for a living do it for longer periods of time through harsher conditions, they drive more difficult to manoeuvre vehicles e.g. lorries, buses, trucks etc.

(Some of the following information is repeated from the replies in the original post.)

Riskier behaviors

Previous work has estimated that ~70% of all road accidents are the result of risky behavior (e.g., driving under the influence, distracted driving, speeding, etc.) by the driver(s) [1]. That makes the fact that men are substantially more likely to engage in these risky behaviors – as indicated by sources 1 and 5-9 in the original post – relevant. Within source 9 from the original post, their sources 12-17 confirm men’s greater riskier driving behaviors and 18-27 address men’s riskier mentality surrounding driving.

A bad driver is someone who puts themselves or others at risk on the road, and, clearly, men are substantially more likely to do this. And an additional report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety [2] further indicated that "60% ... Most Dangerous Drivers were males, whereas 57% of the Safe Drivers were females," further supporting this finding.

Driving exposure adjustment

Men have a higher crash rate even when you adjust for their greater driving times, as supported by sources 3 and 9 from the original post. (Within source 9, their sources 8-11 also adjust for amount driven.) Source 3 also demonstrated men had greater fatalities involvement, adjusted for distance traveled, in each vehicle category.

In addition to that, this longitudinal study from Australia [3] shows that men had a higher crash rate than women even after adjusting for driving exposure. In fact, they have a higher crash rate even after further adjusting for drug/alcohol use, risk taking, training and experience, and several other factors.

They were also more likely to be in a crash in dark or wet conditions, at high-speeds, and in single vehicle crashes, again even after adjusting for all of those potential confounding variables. The only crash type women were in at a higher rate was crashes resulting in hospitalization, which can be explained by how car safety features are not designed for women. (Again, see the original post sources 10-11.)

This study from Russia [4] examining serious crashes further confirms these results, finding men were more likely to be involved in crashes even after adjusting for the number of drivers and distance driven. They are also more likely to commit “ aggravated road accidents" and drive under the influence.

This older American study [5] confirms these results again, finding higher crash rates for men than women in both the daytime and nighttime, after adjusting for the amount driven.

In other words, men get into more crashes than women, even after adjusting for the amount they drive, the conditions they drive in, and even the risks they take.

Driving for the job

Now, men make up much more of the professional drivers’ workforce (e.g., truck driving) than women, although I have spoken many times about how this is because men deliberately prevent women from joining male-dominated jobs.

Regardless, the demographic makeup is irrelevant, since when women do become professional truck drivers, they do better than men [6-7].

Male truck drivers are more likely to be "cited for a major violation of rules" and "to have a major unsafe driving violation" [6]. In addition, a 2022 update by the American Transportation Research Institute found "males continue to be more likely than females to have violations, convictions, and crash involvement" [7].

Another study [8] found "male [bus] drivers not only have more accidents but also are more likely to get involved in higher severe accidents." A result which is confirmed in a more recent analysis [9].

So, no, men's higher crash rates are not because they drive trucks or busses for a living. Male truck and bus drivers are also more likely to get into crashes/be unsafe than female truck and bus drivers.

Bonus: traffic tickets

This review article [10] indicates males are more likely to repeat traffic violations. These articles [11-12] also found men receive more traffic tickets/citations than women. As did source 5 in the original post.

Also, recklessness doesn’t mean that men aren’t skilled drivers. Recklessness is a choice, but driving aptitude and ability generally isn’t.

Anon, what exactly do you think makes someone a good driver? If someone is placing themselves and other people at risk, then they are bad at driving.

Now, not engaging in reckless behaviors may not be sufficient to make someone a good driver, but it is absolutely necessary. We are operationalizing our definition of "bad driver" as "gets into a crash and/or engages in high-crash-risk behaviors", which is necessary for us to quantify the data for analysis.

That being said, as shown above, men get into more crashes even when you adjust for their greater propensity towards reckless behaviors. So, no, men are not simply hiding their superior skills under their poor choices.

Men are proven to be far more skilled and able drivers.

No, they aren't. I have, at this point, provided you with 30+ sources explaining how they are not. Your refusal to accept factual information does not make it any less true.

You can argue that they are more antisocial drivers than women or that they don’t make conscientious choices when driving,

Yes, I have provided you with substantial research to that effect.

but that is a different conversation.

Again, it really isn't. Men choose to create dangerous situations for themselves and others on the road. This makes them bad drivers.

If a heavy machinery operator chose to violate safety regulations, you would say they are bad at their job. If a doctor chose to endanger their patients by practicing drunk, you would say they are a bad doctor. If a construction worker or architecture designer ignored building codes, you would say they are bad at their jobs.

It's the same for driving; men choose to ignore the rules and choose to put people at risk. Therefore, they are bad drivers.

Women being better rule followers doesn’t mean they’re skilled lol.

Again, following the rules for driving may not be sufficient for being considered a skilled driver, but it is necessary. Not to mention the fact that, as indicated, adjusting for risk taking did not eliminate the gender gap in crash rates.

Conclusion

Women are better at driving, as per decades of cross national research. Often repeated, misogynistic, stereotypes do not change this.

References under the cut:

McCarty, D., & Kim, H. W. (2024). Risky behaviors and road safety: An exploration of age and gender influences on road accident rates. PLoS one, 19(1), e0296663.

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. (2023). 2022 Traffic Safety Culture Index (Technical Report). Washington, D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Cullen, P., Möller, H., Woodward, M., Senserrick, T., Boufous, S., Rogers, K., ... & Ivers, R. (2021). Are there sex differences in crash and crash-related injury between men and women? A 13-year cohort study of young drivers in Australia. SSM-population health, 14, 100816.

Belov, M., & Kazun, A. (2024). Beware of His Car: Why Are Men More Dangerous than Women Behind the Wheel?.

Massie, D. L., Green, P. E., & Campbell, K. L. (1997). Crash involvement rates by driver gender and the role of average annual mileage. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 29(5), 675–685. doi:10.1016/s0001-4575(97)00037-7 

Scott, A., Davis-Sramek, B., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2024). Men at work… unsafely: Gender differences in compliance with safety regulations in the trucking industry. Production and Operations Management, 10591478241235145.

Markus, A., & Murray, D. (2022). Predicting Truck Crash Involvement: 2022 Update. American Transportation Research Institute.

Feng, S., Li, Z., Ci, Y., & Zhang, G. (2016). Risk factors affecting fatal bus accident severity: Their impact on different types of bus drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 86, 29–39. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.09.025 

Zhu, T., Qin, D., & Jia, W. (2023). Examining the associations between urban bus drivers’ rule violations and crash frequency using observational data. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 187, 107074.

Kaur, A., Williams, J., Recker, R., Rose, D., Zhu, M., & Yang, J. (2023). Subsequent risky driving behaviors, recidivism and crashes among drivers with a traffic violation: A scoping review. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 192, 107234.

Mohammadzadeh Moghaddam, A., Sadeghi, A., Jalili Qazizadeh, M., Farhad, H., & Barakchi, M. (2018). Investigating the relationship between driver’s ticket frequency and demographic, behavioral, and personal factors: Which drivers commit more offenses? Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, 1–20. doi:10.1080/19439962.2018.1477

[astroyongie]

⋆⁺₊⋆ ☾ Random Astrology Observations 𖤓 ⋆⁺₊⋆

Note: Since you guys have been requesting more astrology posts, I decided to make a small random astrology observations <3 I hope you guys like it! I might do more eventually!

⋆⁺₊⋆ Sun Scorpio 8th House

People with this placement are all that we can expected from a sun scorpio. they are deep, intense, and their personality is very adaptable to their environment. Often people either are super admissive or them, or hate them all together. They make such good listeners and most of them have good prospects in psychology. They have a good and strong intuition, unfortunately I have noticed they are also people who go through a lot of traumas that shape their way of being.

⋆⁺₊⋆ Moon Gemini 3rd House

They are people who are often addicted to social media or enjoy the thought of becoming an influencer of some short. Also these people are just so clever and they have talent in communicating with people. often extroverts. They are amazing writers, poets, artists in general. Moon swings tho are no kidding and can become issues

⋆⁺₊⋆ Mercury Capricorn in 10th House

Some people might not like them because they appear as super serious, super rigid and structured with their life but they are smart and complete. This placement makes people serious, with the capacity to become leader, specially in politics, business or just like ceo works In general. you can always count on them.

⋆⁺₊⋆ Venus Pisces 7th House

Their delulu is greater than anyones, the way they love is so soft, so deep, so idealistically. They enjoy people who are romantics, who are beautiful, deep eyes and also who have artistic sides (depending on other placements they can be themselves very artistic like). The downside I have noticed with these people is that they struggle with boundaries in their relationship, because the are compassionate and also unable to say no. they believe in greater good and fixing

⋆⁺₊⋆ Mars Aries 1st House

I never saw people more energetic than them, it's like they were born with charging in their butt. they are just very competitive and bold which often can make them easily go on fights or get in troubles for their behavior. Even if they are highly driven and never give up they are also so impulsive and their anger issue is no joke

⋆⁺₊⋆ Jupiter Sagittarius 9th House

They have a very interesting philosophy of life and despite being a controversial placement, they are quite interesting to hear and learn from. These people also love traveling, they are curious, they need to see the world, to live through new cultures. Honestly, they are probably one of the most interesting people.

⋆⁺₊⋆ Saturn Cancer 4th House 

I often noticed that people with that placement might have a very tough childhood (restrictive, lack or absence of a parent, divorces or other family issues that have disturbed the dynamics). Yet they are often responsible and their family becomes a responsibility to them. a lot of transgenerational trauma as well.

⋆⁺₊⋆ Uranus Aquarius 11th House

To me they are sooooo annoying because they see themselves as the typical "revolutionary thinker", they have a need to leave the social norms, to be extra open minded and progressive in order to find their place in the world. they often feel frustrated with their life. usually they are involved in activism or tech innovation.

⋆⁺₊⋆ Neptune Libra 5th House

Their talent I say opinion so underrated, they are such romantic at hearts and they often show their devotion through art (all types). they are creative, they are imaginative but also they are so damn beautiful? one thing I noticed too is that people with this placement often have affairs or struggle with affairs in their love life.

⋆⁺₊⋆ Pluto Virgo 6th House

hypochondriacs as they are sooo obsessed with their health, the way they look, their improvement and their efficiency. often they have low self esteem and tweak hard when they arent able to achieve something they worked toward. I noticed people with this placement often suffer from different types of OCD's and are psychorigide with their approach in life and their routine.

⋆⁺₊⋆ North Node Leo 2nd House

People with this placement are just so talented in different part of their life (depending on the Jupiter and Vesta placements). They struggle embracing confidence and finding their self-expression. If I have an advice is to tell you that with this placement, to achieve success and your life purpose, you need to step in the spotlight and build self worth through hard work

⋆⁺₊⋆ Chiron Taurus 12th House

People with this placement struggle a lot with three things. self worth, has they have often low self esteem and some even can develop unhealthy eating habits; material security as many can be in situations where money is a sensitive topics and finally, sensual pleasures as some of you depending on other placements, can use sex has a way to deal with trauma or hurt. Healing comes through spiritual practices, letting go of past pain, and learning self-acceptance.

⋆⁺₊⋆ Lilith Aries 8th House

Honestly, its such a powerful, intense, and magnetic presence and the people with this placement know it and they give femme fatal or dark romance like man. they may experience taboo desires when its related to their sexual life, plus they have a deep sexual energy. but that also makes them struggles in intimate relationships

⋆⁺₊⋆ Midheaven in Gemini

If you have this placement let me tell you that you could have such a successful career in the areas of communication, media, teaching and networking. these people are naturally adaptable and may have multiple careers or interests throughout their life which makes them versatile people.

⋆⁺₊⋆ Venus Leo 12th House

These people often have secret relationships or like relationships were emotions are a complicated topic when it comes to express themselves as they have a deep fear of being vulnerable. it also shows a deep need of being admired, of being loved which becomes tricky because the leo influence also makes them fearful of being truly see by a partner, and often leads with loneliness in love.

[calamaroo]

Vegimals : Biology and Culture Of Sirens !! ====================

WHOOOOOOOO THE BABIESSSSS OOOOOO!!! Fair warning, this is gonna get long, lolll (also, I am praying this doesn't flop because I worked very hard on this and am super proud of it 😅)

THE VEGIMALS' BASICS:

The Vegimals, as we all know, are funky little fish-vegetable creatures adopted and raised by (mainly) Shellington, and of which there are many. According to the Wiki, there are 16 (not including Vegi-Bot), but for the purpose of simplicity (or not knowing), most people tend to stick to the main five: Tunip, Barrot, Tominnow, Codish, and Grouber

Personally, I believe they all exist, but for continuity reasons and simplicity, as stated previously, anything canon to my AU will only include the main five.

THE VEGIMALS' BIOLOGY (MY AU):

I have always had a fascination with monsters, cryptids, and mythology, but by far, my favorite genre of mythological/folkloric creatures are sea creatures; leviathans, mermaids, and for my Octonauts AU, ✨️sirens !✨️

My vegimals are sirens (the idea came from their humming/song in the show), more specifically Abyssal Sirens, the most aggressive, territorial, and dangerous type of siren due to the harsh conditions of their home/ecosystem. Why? Because I can use it for juicy D R A M A !!

[According to the speculative biology of my AU, there are sirens born and bred for each level of depth in the sea. Epipelagic (Sunlight), Mesopelagic (Twilight), Bathypelagic (Midnight), Abyssopelagic (The Abyss), & Hadalpelagic (The Trenches). Sirens are too complex a species to live in the Hadalpelagic, and resources are too slim for even them, a highly adaptable species.]

Anywho, much of the basic design parts of their biology are in the drawings, but not how they would live in a world, so here that is ! -------------

The Vegimals are amphibious, and therefore can breathe on both land and underwater, but in a more specialized way where they have gills specifically made for each place to get their oxygen from. Because of these specialized gills, they can spend as long as they'd like on either side, as long as their primarily "made-for-salt-water" skin is moisturized. It is a part of the daily care routine that Shellington has for them --- regardless of whether or not they have a mission that day, Shellington will take the Vegimals out to swim and rejuvenate their skin/scales for at least an hour a day. Another part of this routine is a daily scrub/grooming (cleaning) of their scales, although Shellington doesn't have to do much work anymore as the Vegimals get older and learn to groom themselves . . . Except for Tominnow, she's still too small to get that much needed deep clean. Both Shellington and Codish (who I headcanon is closer to her than the other vegimals) will help her out. ☺️

[ @animalsalvationassociation ] very you core moment, lovely 💋

They (sirens) are a species built perfectly for the hunt, using their highly advanced vocal cords and a pheromone secreted during the process of "singing" to lure in their prey. The Vegimals have a natural instinct to sing/hum when "catching" food, AKA, when they are cooking/baking. The Octopod is always filled with their chipper song when the time to eat rolls around.

But cal, the vegimals aren't man-eating monsters. What's that about? 🤔

Well, according to the speculative biology of my AU, and as stated before, sirens are very adaptable creatures and can alter their own genetic makeup in a matter of weeks. This is why the vegimals do not look or act very threatening, although those basic instincts are still in their little bodies deep down. Newborn sirens are extremely clingy, as they need to learn how to live through observation. They learned to be kind and helpful from their papa, Shellington, who is their primary caretaker, and the other Octonauts --- but will always have their base instincts, that's something they can't adapt out of. They just do pose much of an issue in their day to . . . very often. 😈

Sirens, due to their adaptability, can function in both solitude and company. Young spend around a year together, learning from their mother. The vegimals never had any need to separate after maturity (they are roughly pre-teens at this point and are of that age in the present time of my AU) so they stuck together, continuing to follow the lead of their father figure . . . Aaaaand, their leader.

Leader? Who?

Why, Tunip, of course (along with Shellington and Barnacles, but more-so Tunip)! Sirens, when grouped together, form a hive-minded semi-hierarchical social structure, where the strongest and smartest of the group will act as the "queen bee." The leader of the group will make most of the decisions concerning shelter, food, and the safety of the group, but for anything else, it is a group effort.

Sirens are an omnivores species who will eat what all that js available to them. And that means everything is on the table. Think of them as the pigs, raccoons, or even the vultures of the ocean --- they will hunt, forage, or scavenge for what they need, and with keen senses like spectacular vision, smell, hearing, and speed, they are very good at providing for themselves, once they've learned to do so (and they learn quickly, so is the way of the ocean).

====================

That's all I can think of concerning the speculated biology of my AU's Vegimals, I hope you enjoyed my rant, fellow Octonauts-lovers!!~

I hope to one day make a post about the more personal details of my Vegimals, like personality and character relationships, but that will have to be another because this one is already too long XD

Mentions (cool people only 😎):

[ @urautismdiagnosis ] I hope you enjoyed my rant, wisty! 💛

[ @mildy-vibing ] I hope you like it, friend 👉👈

[ @oatzimir ] hi oatzyyy!!! 💛💛💛

[ @animalsalvationassociation @hers-underwraps @snowy-yoshi @mooshie-blue @xoxotifia @anxiousstarlight @trackermycutiepatootie @traumatizedartist @batbitesthebat @cyree @4eyedloser @astro-nautic ]

Sorry to all that I mentioned if this is a bother to you, I just wanted to share my creation with people who like the stuff I like 🥺👉👈

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

🦈🪸🪼🥬!!!🥬🪼🪸🦈

[zenosanalytic]

When Christians Kill God

I was watching a Big Joel video essay on Nebula this morning(sorry, can't link it rn: he hasn't put it on youtube yet) about the God's Not Dead series of christian-nationalist movies, and it crystalized something for me:

When Nietzsche said "God is Dead"(and I have my Issues with Nietzsche this is not a "Nietzsche is Great" post), he didn't mean god had ltrl had a heart attack or something, nor did he mean ppl didn't BELIEVE in god anymore. He meant "God", as a concept, had lost the explanatory and organizational meaning he felt it had in the past: that "God" was no longer a transcendent and otherworldly point for social cohesion, which provided structure and meaning to society and life, and The Church no longer an institution everyone deferred to and interacted with by dint of its divine-connection, but rather that both had become subordinate to gross political power. He meant that God-as-concept was now a mere rhetorical means to achieve inescapably worldly, political ends(one could fairly argue if "God" had ever been anything BUT that).

There's a moment in one of the latest of these movies subtitled In God We Trust[1](we'll get back to this) that is VERY telling. The hero of the film, a conservative pastor running for congress, is debating a strawman liberal and the liberal says something like "Isn't do unto others the main message of Christianity? Isn't Love Thy Neighbor central to the teachings of Jesus?" to which the hero says "No." both times and then responds "central to the teachings of Jesus, IS Jesus." and follows it up with "the only reason the teachings of Jesus resonate is because he was the son of god" meaning that christianity isn't about following Joshua's teachings or example, but just baldly about worshiping him, as a deity and like:

First off Josh Says(Im going to have to quote the Gospel of John quite extensively here to make a point, so plz excuse that) pretty clearly

I am the way the truth and the life

That how he lived is The Life dedicated to god, and his example the WAY to god, and his life's teachings AND example the TRUTH of god, and reiterates it later when asked by Phillip to show them god by saying

have I been with you all this time, Phillip, and you still do not know me?

in other words 'WHAT HAVE I BEEN TEACHING YOU That you don't know god yet? Haven't you been paying attention to my words and actions?' and later

The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own, but the Father who dwells in me does his works

in other words 'The Words of my Teachings are the Work of God. I. HAVE. BEEN. TEACHING YOU. GOD' and then, still, following from that

Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, but if you do not, then believe because of the works themselves. Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.

and later still

Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words, and the word that you hear is not mine but is from the Father who sent me

It Could-Not-Be-Fucking-Clearer: Joshua is saying DIRECTLY 'If you believe in me you will live by my example and my teachings, and if you do not live The Way and The Truth I have brought to you FROM GOD, then you DO.NOT. believe in me' His message could not be clearer.

The people who made God's Not Dead: In God We Trust made it's culminating moment a DIRECT RENUNCIATION of Joshua's teachings, and John 14 specifically, in favor of worshiping divinity in-and-of-itself. They reject his life, his teachings, his works --Everything the Gospels equate directly to Joshua and through him to God-- to merely worship a god for being a god, and in doing so mark themselves out as not christian at all. They DO NOT keep his words, and so they do not love him, and they are PROUD OF THIS!

So, No, God's Not Dead: In God We Trust(which you CLEARLY DONT DO, Actually): Christ is NOT "the central message of christianity", his WORDS are his BODY and those who KEEP them in their Hearts make themselves a HOME FOR GOD. When you reject his Words, you reject his Way, you reject his Life, you reject God, You. Reject. Christ.

I am no christian, but by the standards of the professed beliefs of the people who made this work, of the VERY TEXT they claim is their inspiration and truth, bowing down to divinity is NOT Enough. You HAVE to Walk the Way; you MUST Accept his Words.

But more to my point: What better proof that "God Is Dead", no longer a pillar to build your life around and bring ppl together by, now nothing more than a tool for unscrupulous power-seekers, than a gang of wealthy liars calling themselves ~Christians~ proudly celebrating their Rejection of "The Way The Truth The Life" in favor of scraping at divinity's feet, as a tawdry tactic to drum up votes for an election.

They Spit on their God and call it "Faith".

[1]That they'd name it this is particularly galling, given everything else, because of course that Wasn't The Original Motto of the US, E Pluribus Unum(Out of Many, One) is, but rather one adopted in 1956 after a long campaign of political christians campaigning for it. In other words: That "In God We Trust" is the official US motto is yet another example of God being reduced from something holy to a political football. ↩︎

[useless-catalanfacts]

Re the ask about whether pro-Catalan/independence supporters tend to be left-wing, weirdly I've had Spaniards try to convince me that pro-Catalanism/independence is a right-wing movement, but they've never been able to take that further than a bald assertion -- it sounds more like a thought-terminating cliché, and it doesn't square with anything I've seen as an outsider.

Depends on who you ask, Catalans are stereotyped in opposite ways. Speaking Catalan or having a Catalan accent makes us "villagers", "poor and uneducated", and "stupid farmers" until it's the left wing who wants to criticize us, then Catalan makes us "bourgeois" and "never worked a day in their life" and "Catalonia was a flat land with nothing until Spanish people arrived and worked to build it". Catalan is "basically dead", "nobody even speaks it anymore", "it's only spoken by elderly people in villages and everyone else hates it and hates to be associated with it" but when it's more convenient it's "all-powerful", "if you don't speak Catalan they mistreat you", "everyone speaks Catalan all the time just to exclude Spanish speakers". Catalan independence is a "radical anti-capitalist extremist movement full of terrorists" and often gets mixed with "anarchist terrorists" until the person who wants to criticize it would think that's cool, then it's a "right-wing movement based on greed". Everything always has two completely opposite stereotypes, which allows them to criticize without having to actually listen to our experiences or what we have to say, they can decide simply based on their prejudiced beliefs.

They right-wing stereotype is a newer one, it started gaining popularity about 15 years ago at most and lots of Spanish nationalists have been obsessed with it since, even going as far as trying to fund a right-wing Catalan independence movement into existence. It's very strange because it comes out of nowhere, they're just obsessed with wanting it to become true because that would make their argument easy. Catalan people have always (for centuries) been stereotyped as greedy merchants (think the Jewish stereotype, in Spain many of the "jokes" that in English are "a Jewish man does x" in Spanish they're exactly the same word by word but with a Catalan instead; in fact in the 1900s in Spain there was a significant movement of antisemitic Spanish "intellectuals" who argued that Catalan people are "racially Semites") and this stereotyped is deeply believed in by many people in Spain. Thus, it's very easy to wave off pro-independence concerns with "ah see but it's just that they're being greedy! The whole point of independence is that they're secretly rich and don't want to share!". This is an easy way to make Spanish people not need to listen and rethink their prejudices, because holding on to the prejudices is seen as somehow "sticking it to the power", and it breaks leftist solidarity.

An example of how this belief manifests is some of the tweets posted by the Spanish actress Karla Sofía Gascón (the main actress in Emilia Pérez movie):

Translation from Spanish:

1. I'm following the NASA press conference. There's water in Mars. Wow! Luckily NASA aren't Catalans, they would have kept it to themselves.

2. They invited a Catalan pro-independence man to a wedding and he ended up eating alone in a corner, he couldn't stand seeing food be shared with all the guests.

She was literally tweeting about imagined hypothetical horrible Catalan people she imagined. These people aren't real, this didn't happen, she just wanted to talk shit of Catalan people based on stereotypes. (There's another tweet by her calling Catalan independentists Nazi rats and saying she hopes we all die or rot in prison, which is not directly the stereotype we're talking about here but it goes to show where these beliefs end up taking the person who has them).

These aren't unusual and the only reason I'm pulling them out as examples is because she's a famous person and I think it's a better example than random people, but this is a widely-held belief in Spain. It doesn't make sense to paint a whole culture like this, and if we were to look for any clues I think we would find all the opposite, solidarity has always been very important in Catalan culture (like in most cultures throughout history!).

[damnfandomproblems]

About 7434: Buddy… the people that argue or get behind people like you saying that certain types of fiction will make someone diddle a kid whether it be a ship or a fanfic that you personally find disgusting, are probably pedos themselves trying to hide their crimes. Or… people look the other way when actual kids are getting hurt.

I recently looked at a Twitter crash-out where he argued that fiction will make people attack children, but he has made fun of a dead person, he tried to make cryptocurrency, and he blatantly ignored and victim blamed minors (being 13-15 mostly) being groomed and hit on by ADULTS in HIS Discord server. You’re dangerously starting to sound exactly like that guy, submitter.

Not only that, someone on Twitter pointed out a pedophile ring called blue something (I forgot what the actual name was) but someone looked the other way because the person who pointed that out is a lolicon and proshipper. We’re talking about REAL LIFE children getting harmed on social media out in the open and you’re making it about fiction? Good job showing you don’t care about actual children.

People used EDP445’s argument of “Lolicon = Pedophilia.” Which is rich coming from someone who tried to groom what he thought was a 13 year old girl, and then did the same thing again, but with a 16 year old and got caught twice. Like okay, you’re gonna rally behind a pedo to make your argument? Okay, you’re an idiot who does not care about actual children.

If you really, truly believe the yucky fanfiction and ships people like are pedophilic and you insinuate that it’s illegal, then call the police, see what happens.

Before anyone goes, “Anon, don’t say that, they are going to do this and waste resources,” trust me, when people use this counterargument, antis start to fold. Or if they actually do waste resources, let them get punishments for their actions.

Might as well say, “violent video games turn people into serial killers,” “Pokemon cards encourage gambling and has satanic practices,” or women reading smutty romance (even between two consenting adult characters) is sinful then, lol.

Posting as a response to a previous problem.

[ipractical-joker]

The Odd Man Out; Generation Kill, RPF, and HBOWar

What's been bugging me since having finished watching all 4 of the HBOWar installments has been how out of place Gen Kill feels when you lump them all together.

The obvious of course being the fact that Band of Brothers, The Pacific, and Masters of the Air are all WW2 (ETO & PTO) and GenKill is very much not, being focused on OIF in 2003. The difference are near endless, Tom Hanks vs Ed Burns, the time frame, 2-3 years vs ~3 weeks, the public perception of the war that they are fight/ invasion they are launching, even the names/number of episodes (BoB/TP -10, MotA-9, not having ep names, GenKill -7, having ep names ).

The names of the shows themselves even evoke very different feelings from the viewer. Band of Brothers and Masters of the Air are triumphant, unity, brotherhood, and victory, which I feel like reflects the view of the general (american) populace on WW2. Generation Kill on the other hand is ugly and direct, and outright violent and diluting from the jump (imho). It's a reflection of the people (men in this case) that fought it, where for some joining up was better than jail, fresh off the surge of American patriotism/Nationalism in the wake of 9/11, trained into red-blood American killers and 'liberators'. They came in and they killed, Operation Iraqi Freedom ringing severely hollow and ironic. It lacks the nobility of the prev 2 titles, its gritty and has an immediate negative connotation compared to BoB and MotA. The Pacific (w/ knowing the context of ww2) is a negative connotation but generally considered neutral (imo). The Pacific is a unique case for my point about naming conventions, because it covers stories about the 1st,5th,& 7th Marines, it has to be more general. The books subtitle "Hell was an Ocean Away", does help, but this is the show we are talking about.

So therefore --> You know what you're getting with each show, it's right on the tin. BoB is brotherhood, MotA is triumph, TP is the horrors of the Pacific, and GenKill is the result of the pressure cooker that was the War on Terror and American patriotism. Then again how much stock can be put into the names of these shows when they are based of books that were name by others, based on the stories that they were telling and vary, intentionally or not, at least somewhat from their source material. I guess I can take it up with Ambrose^2, Miller, and Wright on that point.

Even in their similarities the differences are still very stark. There are marines in TP and GenKill - but one group are volunteers, boots, and draftees (mainly regular people), the others are mainly highly specialized reconnaissance men. Ones beaches, jungles, mountains, and islands, the other is dry af desert in the Cradle of civilization. There is the idea of patriotism in all of them, obvs, and the idea of joining up after a foreign attack on American territory (Pearl Harbor/ 9/11) is present in both, but this is hardly unifying in meta as it's not especially the focus in any show from the point in time where the viewer joins the story, just the means to getting us there, the catalyst (both implied and stated) to the launch into their respective wars.

In the long and short, American patriotism is not the reason these shows are classifed together, though it does serve as a thread connecting them.

Culturally, the expanse could not be greater between shows that similarities begin and end with HBO (& AppleTV) and being about war (w/ BoB/MotA/TP vs GenKill).

So where does the RPF part come in? What I think is the biggest distinction between GenKill and the rest of HBOWar is proximity. It's the idea of historical research vs first hand journalism. 'But Sep!' I hear you cry, 'They [BoB/MotA/TP] are based on first hand accounts!'. Which, I agree! That is true! And I love that we have Parachute Infantry and Helmet for My Pillow, With the Old Breed/China Marine, and the like. I consider them invaluable. But I believe that GenKill is a far more direct page to screen adaptation, with literally word-for-word recitations of recorded conversations, with one of the Marines LITERALLY PLAYING HIMSELF (I can't even wrap my head around that one,,,Rudy Reyes, the man that you are).

That being said, this is not an attack on any of the shows! I love them all so much!! However because of the distance, in the time between the war and the accounts and the creation of the show, it allows a little more wiggle room for creative liberties to be expressed. Just ask Tom "rpf is fine" Hanks!

An interjection here, I've been told that S. Ambrose was more of a writer than historian,,,which doesn't instill the most confidence in his accounts towards historical accuracy. Additionally, in my own reading of him [BoB], I found it,,,underdeveloped? Or perhaps simple might be a better word. Which is good, when making military operations and jargon and further nuances of a World War palatable to the layperson 45 years after it happened. But when posed next to the rather elegant entries of David Webster, which were quoted often and at length,,,Ambrose came off as somewhat lacking. I by no means, mean to disparage S. Ambrose, he is the reason we have BoB in the first place.

So back to it. The aforementioned distance and time and rpf. It's my opinion that it allows for a certain character to be established that is, for the most part, separate from their real life counterpart. That's why there are the disclaimers on fics that establish that it's the show, the works of Tom Hanks or Ed Burns and the actors portrayals that they are basing their fic from, no intention of disrespect to the actual real life people. Because of the nature of Evan Wright's documentation while writing the articles that later formed Generation Kill (2004) and the fact that that was explicitly his job and he was not a marine or solider who also happen to document his experience in war, there is less wiggle room. That (assumed, no man is without bias) faithfulness to what he was seeing in Iraq and then the subsequent pretty dead on series adaptation makes it significantly harder, for me at least, to seperate the men that are portrayed in GenKill (2008) than the real men of 1st Recon that Wright depicted in his book. But that's just me! In the fandom space, GenKill, even if it's not explicit rpf, it does feel more like rpf than any of the other shows. I don't have a problem with rpf, I just don't personally engage with it. Certain details that often included in fics like Nate Fick's horseshoe necklace or Dick Winters engraved knife from Lewis Nixon, their signifcance is never mentioned in the show (nor the objects sometimes even shown) but is explored in fic. We are, at this point, about 20 years removed from the events of GenKill, but still, it feels a bit more invasive to include information obtained outside of that show than any of the others.

Additionally, a call back to the cultural aspect I mentioned before. There no over looking the differences between existing in war and just as a person in the 1940s and 2003. A distinct lack of Nelly in the 40s, for starters.

This had been touched on before by people far smarter than me but, BoB is pretty sterilized in its portrayal of war, it's lack of anger toward the enemy (barring Web's outburst), there 1 sex scene, and limited uncouth language (correct me if I'm wrong). This isn't the case in really any of the other shows in at least of manner or another. TP doesn't shy away from violence and is considerably more gory, but that tracks with the purpose of the show. In my Pacific rewatch I was promptly reminded the stark anger and racism towards the Japanese there was. The Pacific also potentially has the most sex featured in it.

GenKill is in a league of its own for bigoted language and considerable rauch with a distinct lack of both sex scenes, with the exception of combat jacks ig, and named female characters

So what is it? Is there one defining factor that makes GenKill the odd man out? Is it not being WW2, not being done by Tom Hanks, not having Dale Dye, the propensity toward rpf, the presence of Nelly?

What it really comes down to, is of course, the obvious, timing of release and subject matter. BoB was 2001, GenKill 2008, TP 2010, and MotA 2024 and they are all about war and on HBO (except MotA but it was adopted as it has Hanksian parentage). There doesn't seem to be a single unifying thing that holds everything together nor any entirely isolation that makes it so you can't draw parallels between all 4.

In the resurgence of the HBOWar fandom with the airing of MotA, I feel like GenKill has become the ugly stepchild of the fandom, even tho it was the 2nd aired show. Being relatively new to the fandom, I would love to hear from members of the HBOWar pre-MotA and how the dynamics between the shows worked previously. Was GenKill always the odd man out? Was it just with the addition of MotA that it got pushed to the side? Was it a dead fandom and got its own resurgence?

All this to say, PLEASE GOD LET ME TALK TO SOMEONE ABOUT GENKILL. I FINSIHED WATCHING IT AND ITS CONSUMED BY BRAIN PLEASE

[improperfrog]

Spoilers ahead

Astarion is not evil, you just don’t understand him or what trauma can do to people. 

I can’t even begin to comprehend the level of trauma this man has. People can get severely traumatized by one bad event in their life, now imagine 200 years of them. 200 years of pure shit.

People who were abused sometimes become abusers - then they feel like they’re finally the ones in control and in the position of power in this dynamic, no longer the powerless victim. They feel like they regained their power by becoming an abuser. 

People can become abusers because they don’t know what a healthy relationship looks like. They may believe relationships are built on domination and not mutual respect. That there’s always a hierarchy - someone always holds power and they’ll do anything not to be the victim again.

People who were abused will sometimes feel better when someone else suffers abuse - then they’re finally not the ones on the receiving end of it. Finally they get a break. They may fear that if they interfere, the abuse will turn back at them, so they’ll comply, even abuse others themselves, not to make that happen. Standing up for others always ends up with severe punishment from your abuser.

People who were abused and weren’t helped can feel resentment and envy towards those who were helped. They’ll feel angry that when they needed to be saved so badly, nobody saved them. They were all alone, while all those other people had a helping hand reach out to them. They might not want to help. Helping other victims can also be a trigger that reminds them of what they have gone through.

Astarion doesn’t want to ascend for fun, he wants to ascend, because he has this false idea that when he does, he will finally be safe. That this will ensure nobody will ever be able to hurt him again. But that won’t be the case. He may feel strong and he may actually physically be strong, but that won’t erase the mental destruction he’d faced. He does this because he’s terrified. In his head, he still will be that until he processes his trauma and comes out of it healthier.

Ascending him emphasized some of his traits - this is why he will try his best to turn you into the spawn, or won’t let you break up with him or become an equal vampire - he will use his power to stay in control in your relationship, so he will never be the weak one again, nor can he be abandoned again, nor can you turn on him*. That only shows that ascending didn’t help his mind, it only helped his body. 

Astarion can become ‘evil’ if he lets his trauma win, but he’s not evil yet. The time frame of the game is far too short for him to process his hurt (especially since he doesn’t get to sit around and think - the group is in constant action, traveling and fighting, doom lingering over their heads - hardly a good environment for therapy. He’s in constant survival mode*.), and expecting him to simply become a nice, helpful teddy bear quickly is unfair and unrealistic. Let’s not perpetuate the ‘perfect victim’ standards on traumatized people. They’re not perfect and after what they’ve faced, they should be expected to be.

*An example of that fear is shown when we meet the hunter that’s after him, and Astarion says that we should kill every hunter we come across, except maybe Wyll. It’s framed in a joking manner, but it’s actually rooted in fear. He does fear Wyll (and presumably others) could turn on him. He confirms so when you romance him and he says his plan was to make you develop feelings for him, so that you don’t turn on him. 

[fascinationstreetmp3]

Sometimes I fear they won't do devil's minion at all. Armand won't call Daniel beloved and like the turning- the turning was said to be done in spite where in the books there was at least some love, something that made Armand say they will be in hell together after all. I feel like there is a possibility that in the show hell together means like a thorn lodged in the throat. You can't ignore it and you can't get rid of it. That will hurt a lot if they do that.

im sure dm will definitely be romantic in the show at some point, it's just a case of how they get there because things are obviously different from the books.

i myself am keeping an open mind about the whole "spite" thing tbh. that descriptor does not come from armand or daniel, it comes from louis, who was not there— and in my opinion, daniel sorta dodges addressing it any further when louis brings it up, and there could be multiple reasons for that (he doesn't want to talk about it? or maybe there's more to it he isn't letting on right now?)

just throwing things out there but if it WAS entirely spiteful, but past dm happened, it's possible they could also utilise daniel's book turning scene for the "memory wipe", framing that as armand's act of love in order to save daniel's life, which would balance things out a little more. either way i think we WILL see the turning no matter what anyone says

where they are now with each other, the writers might take inspiration from the sort of push/pull they have towards 1985 in qotd, along with the long period of separation they have after qotd and the regret armand feels for turning daniel. daniel feeling resentful towards armand (for turning him? for messing with his and louis' memories? for leaving him all alone?), but unable to stay away for long; armand believing he has made a horrible mistake and trying to stay away while also dealing with the fact that daniel destroyed armand's relationship with louis, but he and daniel are bound together now and the maker/fledgling connection sometimes seems to be a lot stronger in the show, even between "strangers" as displayed by madeleine & louis being able to "feel" one another

i think show daniel seeing armand at his lowest, knowing what he can do to people and what he has done to him, will play into the way daniel sees armand in the books: a terrible creature capable of great evil who daniel is drawn to and loves for who he is, and armand gets to be perceived outside of the roles he's always playing by someone he doesnt have to control or lie to (and cant, really). for how they get to the love part... im curious to see how it will go because there's a lot of ways it could happen. i'm just certain they will get there. they might feel stuck in "hell together" at first, but eventually hatred won't be the only thing that binds them together (if it ever was the 'only' thing between them in the first place)

maybe tangentially related but ive seen people suggest rolin jones has some sort of dislike for dm or that he just straight up doesn't care/wasn't planning on including it, and of course i have no clue what's going through his head but i have to disagree. a deeper relationship between armand and daniel has only been hinted at right now; pieces of a puzzle slowly make themselves known, and the audience has to notice them and put the puzzle together with what they've got so far. just because something's in the books doesn't mean theyll just talk about it openly, its still a show spoiler. which means outside of the show (in interviews etc) it's only going to be acknowledged as a "thing that happens in the books", yknow? just like book characters that havent appeared yet, the way theyll be portrayed in the show isnt discussed. kinda why i think they got king of spoilers eric bogosian to drop the "budding romance" line in those sdcc videos from a while back because to me... that technically is a show spoiler lmao

[last-herondale]

You Are Enough Pt. 7

Astarion x Fem!reader

Fluff

AN: how we feeling? This is the fic for the poll!

Enjoy! 🤘🏼

Part 6

The tension in the room was palpable. Almost as if you could reach out and grab it. Your group sat at the table, arguing between themselves as you tried to take in as much information as possible. The room was filled with your allies and there was a buzz with the daunting mission before you.

Infiltrate Moonrise Towers and kill Ketheric Thorm.

Lae’zel was arguing strategies with Gale as to how you all should approach the towers. You were not surprised to see Lae’zel had opted for a direct show of strength, whereas Gale preferred a craftier approach to the mission.

During the whole ordeal, you tried to stay grounded and not fall into a panic ridden state. Astarion had opted to not take part in the meeting knowing this exact thing would happen.

“I’m sorry darling, but I don’t see the point in standing around for hours listening to the group squabble over battle plans that will never come to fruition, because let’s face it we both know that this whole blasted mission will turn into chaos—as it always does.”

While you agreed with Astarion, you believed it was important to be there and show support. It was a daring plan, the whole operation. The most dangerous plan since coming into the shadowlands.

It was turning into hour three of the meeting and Wyll and Lae’zel were mapping out plans for yet another approach when the doors to the meeting room opened. You glanced up and were shocked to see Astarion standing there in the doorway with a wild look in his eyes.

Before you could register a look of concern he had crossed the room in a blur, appearing in front of you as he cupped your face in his hands. You only had a moment to see his tousled white hair before he pulled you in for a kiss.

This kiss was like nothing you had experienced from him before. It wasn’t playful, or teasing like he usually was. This was desperation. This was consuming you as if you had been gone years rather than hours.

Your body was tense only momentarily, before you naturally melted against him, responding to his lips and hands on you.

The room grew quieter as people murmured and muttered at the spectacle.

When Astarion finally pulled back, his hands lingered on your face as he inhaled deeply, brushing his forehead against yours. His breath was uneven, as if he had been running. His fingers trembled against your skin.

Then, as quick as he entered, he was gone. Without a single word he turned and strode out of the room.

The room, which only moments earlier had been a constant roar of voices was now oddly still, save for the fire crackling in the fireplace.

Your heart was beating rapidly in your chest and your face was flushed as your companions looked to you for an explanation.

“So,” Shadowheart said after a moment, raising an eyebrow, “I take it we’re supposed to act that didn’t just happen?”

Gale cleared his throat, his hands on the map, “Well, I think I would prefer that. Yes…”

Karlach seemed amused, her arms crossed as she smiled, “Well that was something.”

Lae’zel scoffed, “Sentiment is a weakness. Let us refocus!”

You barely heard any of them.

Without hesitation you pushed your chair back and went after Astarion immediately.

You found him outside, just beyond the glow of the torches, pacing near the end of the Inn’s protection. His hands were braced on his hips and his head was tilted down toward the ground, his body ridged with tension.

He heard the sound of your footsteps and turned. His expression softened when he saw you, but only slightly.

“Astarion. What was that?” You asked, approaching slowly, your eyes searching his.

He raked his hands through his hair.

“Well, clearly I thought a declaration of love would save you from that mindless meeting—“

You crossed your arms, “Don’t do that. Don’t deflect. That wasn’t some grand plan or even just an impulsive kiss— Star, you were shaking.”

He let out a breathy, bitter laugh, looking away from you. His jaw tightened and his usual smirk was gone from his face.

“I just— had to do it.”

“Why?” You asked softly.

He hesitated, and you thought he might deflect again, but he just took a step closer to you, his voice quiet.

“I can’t stop thinking about what we have ahead of us. Thorm, the castle, what lies ahead in the city…” he shook his head, “The danger we face is unparalleled.”

His eyes bore into yours, his brows furrowed.

“I couldn’t stop thinking…What if something happens to you? What if tomorrow, something takes you from me? What if I never see you again? What if—“

His breath caught and he shook his head again.

“And gods, I couldn’t stand it. I had to see you, I had to touch you. I had to remind myself that you’re still here— that your still—“

He exhaled sharply.

Your chest aches at his words and the fear on his face. You reached out and took his hand in yours, interlacing your fingers with his. You felt his body relax slightly at your touch.

“I’m here Astarion,” you said softly, “I’m right here.”

He sighed, and laughed weakly, “For now.”

You squeezed his hand. “Forever.” You said fiercely. “It’ll take more than Ketheric Thorm to take me away from you.”

His expression softened, yet his eyes traced over your face, as if he was trying to memorize every part of it. As if he was afraid you would disappear.

“Don’t promise me the impossible,” Astarion murmured.

You pulled him closer, resting your forehead on his.

“I mean it. Forever.”

He closed his eyes, breathing you in, grounding himself on your warmth. His other hand came up to rest on your waist holding you there. Not possessive, or demanding— just needing…

“I don’t know what I would do if I lost you,” he whispered.

“Then I guess I’ll have to make sure that we both come out of this, won’t I?” You smiled, whispering back.

Astarion let out a breathy laugh. He smirked, brushing his lips against yours, not kissing you yet.

“What a terrible burden I’ve put on you, my dear.”

“For you, I will endure it all, in stride,” you grinned, nudging your nose to his.

This time he kissed you, but there was no desperation there. There was only comfort, only love. Only a sealing of that promise that you would do anything to keep.

[bean-spring]

You can understand Helena's complexity, the reasons behind her actions and the inherent connection between her and Mark that is clearly there beyond questioning if she's Helly or not ("that sort of kinship carry over from innie to outie"), because at the end of the day, she is her (in different circumstances and enviornments).

But that doesn't mean that outside of the poetry and natural attraction between them there isn't the whole question of whether this is right or wrong. It isn't just "this is rape and she's inherently and utterly evil" or "they're the same person and she's also hurt, so it's okay" because that would minimize what the show is working so hard on. And that is fucking with our heads making us wonder who we truly are, what things would make us commit these actions, what truly is freedom, and at what point we stop being ourselves.

Let me make this clear (it's just my opinion): No, it wasn't consensual. Mark didn't consent to having sex with Helena. He thought it was Helly. That part is obvious to everyone. The whole "he said he doesn't care who she is outside, but he cares who she is with him, so it is consensual!" doesn't matter when he actually doesn't know who the fuck she is. He is being lied to. He said that because he thought he was talking to his Helly and didn't care who she was outside because, at the end of the day, despite being the same people, innies are practically born again (socially) and build a personality and experiences from the very beginning, from their very first memory that is appearing in the office (Dan literally refers to this point of their lives as "adolescense" while S1 was "childhood"). And they keep fighting for their rights and individual freedom.

I don't think we're giving this its proper depth, tbh. It isn't just "Helena wasn't Helly here". It's: Helena has way more knowledge than Mark has, while Mark believes they're both on the same page. Helena went there hoping for an experience in specific with him (selfishly), while for Mark it happened way more organically. Helena has said she doesn't view innies as human and has been watching them as if they were a Sims 4 gameplay. For Mark, it's Helly and the fact that their connection goes beyond that night while for Helena it's not that much about Mark himself. There is a clear, obvious power difference in here and she is, after all, for now, one of the antagonists. We can't forget that.

But it isn't just "evil" or "bad" or "cruel". Because Helena, due to the lack of freedom in her own life, is in the same place (in a different enviornment, though and turning that into power over others instead) as them. She longs for a human connection she has never experienced before. She is broken and torn apart about who she truly is. She uses Mark to experience this, yes, but at what point does that turn into real attraction? At what point her jealousy towards her innie and dehumanization of both herself and the group turns into her also realizing she's the same and understanding Mark? At what point does Mark fall for and embrace the kinship that connects Helly/Helena (that guilt and shame and lack of freedom and yearning for love) instead of just seeing double? At what point does Helena stop seeing a chance to experience love to start seeing... Just Mark?

And after ALL OF THAT it still doesn't make it okay to do what she did.

In the most natural, poetic, human perception of this scene, there is a connection between no matter who they are. But memories and shared experiences are also a huge part of ourselves, we do change with them. Both Mark and Helly have said multiple times that they don't see themselves as an extension of their outies and are their own selves. It doesn't matter whether they are the same or not, it's how they see it. Mark never agreed to share his body with Helena specifically and that's taking away from him the chance of choosing individually. His freedom.

In my opinion it was 100% rape but it's way deeper than just that. It's still awful, though, and we have to start learning to embrace complex characters and try to understand them without only being guided by our IRL moral compass.

[dearweirdme]

Jk didn’t kiss Tae at the airport and Tae didn’t kiss Jk’s nape on stage. These are conclusions you come to when you don’t bother to have a good understanding of the members and their habits. Jk either tripped (most likely option) or he his whispered or sniffed Tae’s hair. He was even wearing a mask. How do you kiss someone with a mask on? Even if he was excited because it was Tae’s birthday, he couldn’t wait until they were in private? Tae didn’t kiss Jk’s nape. He sniffed it which is something he actually does quit abit. There is no way in hell you believe that Taekook are a closeted couple and you spend all that time talking about SK and how it deals with queer people yet you believe that Jk would kiss Tae at an airport full of people and cameras. Yes queer people who are closeted are human which means they can slip up sometimes but slipping up doesn’t include kissing someone at a crowded place like an airport with multiple media houses present. Taekookers would make excuses about Tae and Jk not spending certain days or moments together and blame it on them being closeted yet the same people would claim that jk kissed Tae at an airport. How does that even make sense to you? There is literally no reason to do that except they decided to come out. You see sense in it because it is Taekook but if this was another suspected couple we were discussing you would have been swearing about how queer people can’t even admit to talking to each other or seeing each other on certain days because they are closeted in a homophobic country. This shows that you don’t even believe your own arguments but only make them to debunk other ships.

I know that you might start talking about queer people being human or having moments where they don’t give af and I agree but those moments will never include openly kissing at a very public place with the media present unless they are ready to come out. Arguing this fact means you don’t even know the first thing about the closeted people or so rules you talk about 24/7. Apply the logic you use in debunking other ships to your own ship. These rules don’t only apply to others.

Hi anon!

I’m actually very consistent and my views on Tae and Jk and their closeting. I don’t see it as something that’s stagnant for one. I think throughout the years the way they have dealt with their closet has changed from pretty serious to more free (though still with boundaries for sure). I’d say that’s a normal way of development when you allow for the idea that they don’t actually want to be closeted in their hearts. They have learned not only how they themselves come across as a couple, but also the ways fandom will react to them. They know where and when there’s space there and at times I think they take some of that space at times.. because feelings speak louder rational thoughts at times. And yes that is them being human. They weren’t openly kissing. Jk gave Tae a kiss at the back if his head. At most (outside of tkkrs) the response would have been that they are cute and he loves his brother so much. As lovely and cute as I might feel the moment is.. there is absolutely room for people to say it’s not romantic.

‘Apply the logic you use debunking other ships…’ let’s be real, there’s only one ship I debunk. And there’s a fast difference between Jk giving Tae a kiss like that (a small fleeting moment) and giving two members the spotlight by sending them to do a travelshow together, and two members enlisting together. Jkk isn’t real on many levels, it’s just not in their interactions for me.. I wouldn’t even need to use the closeting argument to point that out.

The whole thing is though, that it’s not about what it’s supposed to look like, but it’s about what we see. Their situation is unique, so it’s not actually weir or impossible to see things that we would normally not expect from others in the same kind of situation.