#which i guess inherently isn't a bad thing

[sauce-cat]

i've never had so much food ← women characters i like

[classicslesbianopinions]

This is so unbelievably funny. I stopped watching Ninjago ever since I moved to a place that didn’t have cable and we couldn’t afford it, like around season 2, 3, or 4 of Ninjago. And I’ve never seen or read Antigone in my life, but even if I did I would still vote for Lloyd simply bc it’s the funnier option.

But besides all that, having Lloyd’s character being diluted is a crime by Antigone people. Bc Lloyd was quite literally forced to be the green ninja. He had no say in it. It was either be the green ninja or literally die bc the world was ending from what I could remember. Bro was like 7 or 8 dude. Imagine being a literal 3rd or 4th grader and forced to decide the fate of the world itself. He was homeless and essentially abandoned by his family. Dad is evil and mom dropped him off at a boarding school. Literal snakes used him as a pawn when he thought they were his genuine family or the closest thing he had to it. He’s a kid. Like at the root of it all you have to remember he was only a kid. On top of all that, in order to be the green ninja he had to be a near adult. Like bro went from 7 or 8 to 17. He had a whole decade taken from his childhood to be the green ninja. In a whole afternoon it was just Thanos snapped away. All that time just gone. Lloyd sacrificed a whole decade to be the green ninja. You don’t understand. He is my Roman Empire.

Also Lloyd wasn’t born without fingers and still managed to save all of Ninjago. Antigone could never suck my nuts, I’m out.

i like how you're sending me the propaganda rather than the actual poll bracket blog

[unproduciblesmackdown]

fr both taylor's quants as mirrors to themself. rian Seen as so meritous and deserving and talked to and tasked with and advised and considered but apparently rian's whole thing is going "huh. wha" and having wendy's level of self-reflection (none). winston who is begrudgingly allowed to sit in his corner and ignored b/c he's undeserving so he can't really be meritous and nobody would look in that mirror b/c it's gonna be So not their reflection. while he just won't stop cassandraing and having all these insights and perception and observations nobody even asked or told him to have and is peak taylor understander and just like taylor: isn't guided by a paper-thin ego but also will take criticism / blame / mistreatment Too Much for his own good

[sophiamcdougall]

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you.  I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age."  -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.  

[chantillyxlacey]

i've seen a lot of takes (i am using the word 'take' absolutely neutrally here; and i'm specifying neutrality bc i have started to see that word as having inherently negative connotations in this context and i have no idea if that's just a Me Problem but i figured specificity couldn't hurt)

okay, that got away from me, let me start again

i've seen a lot of takes about The Damsel that have to do with idealization being another kind of dehumanization and how she's Like She Is because you/TLQ are projecting a fantasy onto her and sanding away any traits that don't fit into that fantasy and rendering her into little more than a vessel for your/TLQ's wish fulfillment

and i don't necessarily think that's *wrong* either-- but i think that's also not the complete picture, and that only looking that that half of the image does kind of tend to paint TLQ in an unfairly bad light

because the thing is, in The Damsel's route, TLQ is ALSO being reduced to an archetype just as much as The Damsel herself is! The Princess becomes the quintessential fairytale fair-maiden-in-distress that exists only to be rescued by a knight-in-shining-armor; and TLQ-- if you allow them to be guided entirely by The Smitten-- becomes that quintessential fairytale knight-in-shining-armor that only exists to rescue the fair-maiden-in-distress

The Damsel says over and over, explicitly, that "I just want to make you happy!" and The Smitten in this route is equally preoccupied with making HER happy-- he even says it directly if you start deconstructing her. every other part of his identity has been subsumed to revolve entirely around her just as much as the reverse is true for her.

(speaking of the Deconstructed Damsel, i've also seen Smitten's reaction to that touted as him not caring about her agency-- but again, i always read that as him being unable to see any flaws in her rather than being pleased with the idea of her being biddable, specifically. if you halt the deconstruction his reaction is "she's ALWAYS been perfect" -- he'd think that no matter what she did or said, because his identity revolves around her the exact way that hers revolves around him/TLQ)

even the actions that lead to HEA fit into this, i think-- i read that moment as less The Smitten lashing out at her because she didn't live up to his fantasy-- it still happens even after she's said "i guess we can stay, if that's what you want"-- she's giving The Smitten what he wants, but he's still distressed because SHE'S not happy

i think it's more The Smitten feeling that HE hadn't lived up to HIS half of their shared fantasy. if she's not happy with the idea of "all we need is each other" then it must be because HE failed somehow. if she needs or wants more than him, it must be because HE is not enough.

if he was just better at playing his part, if he just offered her more, if he was just clearer about his devotion--

"if we just showed her the contents of our heart, she'd be happy"

that's not to say that what The Smitten does in HEA isn't incredibly toxic for both of them-- it definitely is, and it clearly makes both the Princess and TLQ miserable. "everything she doesn't know she wants" is a bad mindset to approach a relationship with, whether that mindset is reached through controlling selfishness or a desperation to appease (and i definitely think Smitten is motivated by the latter-- it's no coincidence that we arrive at HEA through a literal and fatal act of self mutilation)

he's definitely the antagonist of HEA, in that he is what TLQ and the Princess and the player need to overcome, but he's not a VILLAIN (which i think is most clearly illustrated in the moment where the Princess admits she's unhappy, that she's never been happy here, and his reaction is to GIVE UP instead of lash out harder)

i never got the sense that The Smitten was ever putting any blame on The Damsel-- he always considered *himself* to be the problem-- he puppeteers TLQ just as much as he does the Princess, even if we can't hear him while she can, and he asks TLQ/the player through her "isn't this enough? isn't this what you wanted?"

which in and of itself is an unhealthy way to approach a relationship-- blaming oneself for every bit of conflict or lapse in synchronicity is just as harmful as laying all the blame on the other person. there IS no blame-- sometimes people disagree or have conflicting needs or desires, and that's not anybody's "fault" because that's just how people and relationships WORK.

...can you believe i wrote out all of this when my original intention was to lay out an entirely different point about a read on The Damsel/HEA routes that wasn't about relationships at all?

OKAY!

THAT GOT AWAY FROM ME LET ME START AGAIN

so i don't think that looking at The Damsel/HEA through a lens of "what does this say about relationships and expectations and respecting other people's agency" is incorrect-- clearly i have a lot of thoughts about that lens!

but i wanted to offer another one that i haven't seen yet:

The Damsel/HEA route as a commentary on what makes a satisfying narrative

if you play out The Damsel route just single-mindedly taking actions to free her-- it's kinda dull, isn't it? like-- it's not without its charms! The Smitten is silly and entertaining and the Narrator's exaggerated pettiness is very funny! but ultimately, that's about it.

potential sources of conflict are brushed aside-- if you took the blade with you, you just drop it and it gets forgotten; the Damsel's hand slips right out of the manacle with no effort or harm; when the Narrator locks the basement door, every 'choice' you make just magically unlocks it right away. and then you're outside, what you wanted to do from the start. ...so what do we do now?

nothing, actually. the chapter ends, and there is no chapter 3. the game itself continues, but that ending feels about as substantial as the Narrator's "Good Ending" where you follow his instructions without question and accomplish his goal immediately.

if you DON'T take either of the actions that lead to one of Damsel's chapter 3's, there's very little variation in The Damsel's story-- pretty much all of it comes down to slight differences in dialogue. there's no "the princess kills you" outcome. the closest thing to an alternate end to The Damsel is if you deconstruct her-- and even then, it feels like less an "alternate route" and more like-- a cheeky acknowledgement of the lack of substance, because that isn't a bug, it's a feature!

but if you introduce conflict-- either in the more direct sense by slaying The Damsel or in the more interpersonal sense by highlighting a mis-match in her and TLQ's desires-- suddenly the story opens up! there are a bunch of new possibilities and a bunch of new outcomes, and all of them are more interesting than "you achieve your goal with trivial effort, hooray!"

Even if you wind up finishing HEA on a note that is superficially very similar to the easy end of The Damsel's route-- you leave hand in hand with her, the narrator conceding defeat, and the last image of her before TSM takes her is a warm, tender smile-- it FEELS so much more like a genuine happy ending-- even though the Princess' face is still streaked and stained from her tears. BECAUSE of that.

it's one of the most heartwarming moments in the game, and one that has made me misty eyed every time i've seen it, and it's BECAUSE of the conflict you had to go through to get there.

conflict is what drives a compelling narrative, is the takeaway. it precludes PERFECT endings, perhaps, but not happy endings-- it's what makes those imperfect happy endings feel substantial and earned.

even the dinner and the board game contribute to the idea-- the description of the food is some really lovely writing, to the point where i sat through and listened to it all again even though i knew nothing really happens during it-- but *nothing really happens during it*. it doesn't move the narrative forward-- you're just as hungry as you were when you started. it just stalls the story in place, and every time you go through it again it's less satisfying until it's outright unpleasant. the description of the meal also notably gets simpler each time, and less detailed-- there's only so much that you can say about it before you run out of things to describe.

the board game is similar-- the way that it's described the first time you play even sounds like the description of an exciting story! and then the board resets, and you do it all again just the same. and so on. the game/story stops being exciting and the wins or losses stop feeling like they mean anything-- because is conflict really conflict, is a challenge really a challenge, if you're always tracing the same path, always making moves where you already know the outcome? it becomes "a slog towards the end"

and this is how i tie the idea of "what Damsel/HEA has to say about relationships" and "what Damsel/HEA has to say about narratives" together:

ultimately, the statements can be summarized the same way "whether in a narrative or a relationship, 'perfection' is unattainable, but you wouldn't actually want it anyway"

conflict, substance, variety

in a relationship there will always be differences of opinion, differing goals etc-- variety between the members of the relationship, knowing and sharing this substantial and non-superficial information about one another, navigating the resultant conflict-- that's what allows the relationship to grow and deepen, and what allows the people in it to grow as individuals as well.

in a narrative, or in Narratives, as a whole, conflict is what makes things HAPPEN, substance makes them feel like what happens MATTERS, like something is being communicated, variety means that you're learning or considering something new-- and those are what make a narrative capable of impacting a person, of changing them, of being remembered

[myszalowska]

Here's my hot take on The Bad Batch as an AuDHD person: I do not quite like the fact that people are calling Tech neurodivergent. It's not like he can't be — he absolutely can. It's about the trope that annoys me. I am tired of autistic people being portrayed and/or seen as an ingenious man who just happen to lack social skills.

Why doesn't anybody say that, idk, Crosshair might be neurodivergent instead? For example, he has a hard time fitting in, he doesn't seem to like it when someone touches him, he demonstrates rigid thinking and he also stims (which, I must underline, does not mean that he's definitely ND).

Because he isn't as nice as Tech, I guess. Because of the said stereotypical trope. People are used to it because it's everywhere — "The Good doctor", "Young Sheldon", whatever. While calling Tech neurodivergent is not an inherently bad thing, it still perpetuates the abovementioned stereotype. And perpetuating it certainly doesn't not help anybody to take a step to true acceptance of neurodivergency.

It's okay when neurodivergent people write posts along the lines "Tech is sooo ND", but when it's the neurotypicals doing it, it kinda feels like seeing people call a villain mentally ill just because he's a villain. But that's a whole different topic.

Once again, I'm not against the idea of Tech being ND, I'm against the stereotype that just can't die.

[bogleech]

Guess I have to make a main thread about this. Someone decided to fight with me in the notes on this post just yesterday about Gaza and made select responses of mine into a callout thread here, where they say my anger towards the IDF is all a cover for antisemitism. This didn't make any sense, because they said they were also against the IDF killing civilians, and I repeatedly said that Jewish people aren't to blame for the IDF or represented by the IDF in any way, putting us supposedly both on the exact same page. What gerry leaves out of their own screenshots, and I'd actually forgotten, is that at first they came at me from an angle that I was disrespecting the victims in Gaza.

So this implies they feel gaza is being subjected to a genocide, and a pretty big one, since they're upset my language made it sound "smaller and tamer." When it becomes obvious that I do in fact consider it a serious genocide, that's when they switch over to saying that my criticism of Netanyahu or the IDF is inherently an attack on Jewish people.

Notice I never actually said "zionists" in this screenshot, even, but that I defined "regular humans" as humans who don't want to kill innocent families. That would automatically include Jewish people since they overall do not wish to kill anyone, but have in fact spent quite a lot more time trying not to get killed. I believe there may be entire books about this fact! I think there's even whole museums about it, if I'm not mistaken?!

So then they pivot to saying I'm an antisemite because I said the IDF and its supporters can "burn in hell," and they say "invoking hell" is an antisemitic dogwhistle, which is definitely news to me?!

So I tried to clarify, again, that I'm only angry at the people who are themselves killing civilians and the "pro-genocide maniacs" who defend the killing of civilians, which they responded to as if I had "lumped them in" with those. You can just see right there that I didn't make any assumption that they were a part of that at all. Thanks to their earlier comments I still thought I was speaking to someone 100% against the IDF's actions, but every time I said that the killers and their advocates alone are bad, they've framed it in some new way as me just not liking anyone Jewish. So now that you have that context:

...In a response to an ask, they finally just say they hated me to begin with and set out with the intention to "bait and sealion" me (their own words!!) into saying something they hoped would be antisemitic, which they believe was successful despite me never saying anything about Jews other than "this isn't their fault." They saw what they admittedly wanted to, so strongly, that they show me saying "this isn't the fault of Jews" as evidence that I blame Jews. But speaking of people "going mask off"

In multiple more recent posts and asks, this person appears to say that they simply do not believe the IDF is really targeting children or ambulances or relief aid, that "none of those are true," and the deliberate targeting of any children is supposedly just a conspiracy theory??? So I guess they did successfully troll me and I feel like a real gullible dumbass, because the only reason I continued responding to this person in the first place was that they said they were in fact against the ongoing massacre. Instead, these comments sound like they think the IDF is being unfairly vilified by dishonest propagandists, and that's why they hated me enough to try and fish for callout fuel. That's the nastiest fucking thing anyone's yet pulled on me about this and it's not one that I'm just going to ignore. I should have smelled a troll early on and just blocked them, but it's SO hard for me to suspect ulterior motives. I always go in thinking people mean well, and that there's just a miscommunication we can work out. I almost feel like this individual noticed that and tried to exploit it?!? Unfortunately I'm sure this kind of thing will happen again simply because I don't intend to obediently shut up about what's being done to Gaza. It's not logistically possible for the death and destruction to all just be accidental collateral damage. Don't let anybody ever fool you into thinking the IDF is the face of the Jewish community or vice-versa, just as you can't let anyone fool you into thinking Hamas represents all Palestinians. Especially don't engage this person, stop doing so if you have been, and block them.

[alilarew23]

if your main focus is on being in the state, you're not in the state

let's say you've decided to manifest a car, a porsche 911 carrera 4s to be specific (yes i am projecting, that badboy already has my name on it), and you've been trying the whole affirm and persist thing for a grip but "nothing is happening" so instead you decide to focus on your state. you ask yourself what the version of you with the porsche would be thinking, feeling, doing--who, when you own this porsche, would you be? you realize you'd probably be thinking something along the lines of, "i fucking love my porsche, this is the dopest car in existence," you'd be feeling like a total baddie, turnin' heads, you would, of course, be driving your porsche everywhere you went, so now, every time your desire comes to mind, you "get into the state." you think your new thoughts. you feel yourself into your imagined car and visualize people driving by in awe of your bad-assery. when you're driving your honda accord, you're telling yourself it's your porsche. you're even believing it! you do this for a couple weeks, and it feels good, persisting in the assumption that your porsche is yours, but then you start to get frustrated. "i've been in the state so consistently! still nothing! why isn't anything happening?" well here's the thing: you're seeing states as a sort of technique, a means of getting something that's not already in your possession. it's not that you're doing something wrong by imagining. it's the intention behind the imagining where you're faltering. think of it this way: if someone came to you in five minutes and said, that porsche is yours, 150 trillion percent, can't tell you how or when but just know it's a done deal and is coming to you right now via the path of least resistance, how would you feel? probably pretty stoked, grateful, relieved to not have to think about manifesting, and, along with those feelings, you'd probably be thinking, "this is so sick. i legit have a porsche coming my way simply because i decided to have a porsche. the law is wild in the best way." if you're a visual person, you'd probably also see some scenes in your mind's eye of you in your porsche bumpin' mac miller drinking your iced latte, if your brain tends toward inner conversations, you might hear your friend say how low key jealous of you they are (but also thrilled because your friends are the most supportive)...but the difference here is this is all a NATURAL BYPRODUCT of you being in the genuine state of the wish fulfilled. by genuine i mean what underlies it is ACTUAL BELIEF that you have already received your manifestation. not in the physical realm--it's fine to know your porsche is yours but still acknowledge it's on its way--but in imagination, it is already written. so, now, as you go about your days, your base state is fulfillment, and yeah, every so often you might "fall out of the state," but you'll quickly recognize you're being goofy, remind yourself the porsche is a given, and boom, you're back in. whereas before, your base state (though you probably weren't even aware of it) was a state of not having the porsche and trying to get it. which--you guessed it!--only manifests more trying. hence your frustration. so do i think it's wrong to focus on your state? goodness, no. we are always in a state. of course we want to embody the state of our fulfilled desires. but check your starting place, and make sure the belief (knowing) of having already received your manifestation is inherent in it. you'll save yourself so much time, energy, and unnecessary mental acrobatics and--a fun bonus!--your porsche will be in your driveway in a jiffy.

as always, love you/believe in you. can't wait to pass you on the highway.

xx, a

[drdemonprince]

Hi Devon, you’ve said in the past that you don’t mind being challenged so I guess I’m going to test that theory.

I totally agree with what you have said re trans men and cis men being Men but just arriving at that place from different routes.

You talk in your latest Insta post about women not seeing trans men as men as the problems with that.

However you in the past have talked openly about not feeling safe with cis women, and in fact have written a whole article on it. Outlining your past bad experiences with cis women. In that you clearly outlined a view that cis women specifically were more dangerous feeling to you, implying more so than trans women.

By your own account then are you not saying that you see trans women and cis woman as different and not as equal “women” because of your own experiences.

If that’s the case why can’t women differentiate between cis men and trans men and also say that they don’t feel safe with cis men because of past bad experiences but are ok with trans men because they haven’t had those same experiences.

For the record I’m a gay man so not coming at this from a defensive point of view but seeking to genuinely understand as there seems to be some possible cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy going on.

I say that with respect. I’m just wondering how you reconcile those two seemingly opposing views.

I think what you may be missing here is a differentiation between the descriptive and the prescriptive. The piece "I Don't Feel Safe Around Cis Women" is descriptive of my experience -- if you read through to the end, you'll see that I affirm that one day I hope that I will feel safe around cis women, and a lengthy exploration of the many many ways in which equating a person's identity to their safeness (or dangerousness) is unhelpful. That piece is far from an argument that cis women are categorically less safe than any other group, or a prescription that anyone's politics should be centered around the idea that cis women are uniquely dangerous. There is a very big difference between describing one's emotional feelings and making political pronouncements about how the world is or how people should be treated.

This same distinction applies in the opposite direction, too -- I think people have reasons for feeling uncomfortable or unsafe around cis men that obviously make a huge amount of sense. Frankly I don't care one way or another what somebody's feelings are. I have no intention of changing those. What I care about is a person's behavior, and the politics they advance -- and a politics that deems cis men as inherently more dangerous as individuals goes down a pretty troubling road when it's divorced from an understanding of structural power dynamics. The same thing is true of the cis woman discussion -- cis women aren't dangerous to me because they're women, or because of any innate quality to who they are; they're only more dangerous within a specific power differential. Similarly, cis men aren't all more dangerous to everyone who isn't a cis man -- we must take into account class, race, immigration status, ability level, and a number of other factors.

tldr; there's a big difference between someone feeling unsafe and someone having a politics that declares members of a group are actually inherently suspect, no matter the situation or their other positionalities.

[mychemicalraymance]

The thing is, just like any technological advancement, ai itself, as a concept, isn't what is being protested against. It's the exploitative use of ai by large companies and corporations. Whether or not ai is useful or, I guess, moral, is a different question than what union members are striking about. In our current economic model, labor innovation is almost never a good thing for workers, despite the fact that less labor should be better. If ai could be used to take orders at mcdonalds (which, btw, it cannot do that successfully yet), why shouldnt it, and then those people have the opportunity to join labor forces that are more fulfilling, or more necessary? The issue is that the workforce is being held hostage for the sake of profit, and has no niche to fill other than a resource to exploit, and there is no choice to join a different workforce - the system doesn't serve the people working, ever. this is all basic socialist utopia /capitalist dystopia stuff lol. the less labor that has to be paid is always better for capitalism, which is why exploitative use of ai is rightfully being protested and struck against. My point is that the technology itself is not inherently evil. It has simply come about in such a way that it was designed to increase profit, not decrease labor. Which is BAD. Everyone knows the saying - instead of ai doing data entry and me making art, the computer is making shitty art and I am doing data entry. I got onto this from seeing news headlines about "strikes against AI", which I don't think is always accurate.

[velvetvexations]

Mother Velvet I just saw someone being very wrong about transandrophobia and I am being soooooo strong by resisting my desire to message them with a correction. I want, very badly, to (gently) correct their misunderstanding of what transandrophobia is and what people are actually arguing for. Unfortunately I am also of the knowledge that this is probably not a misunderstanding and that they would not listen to anything I say, and that even a gentle "hey that's not what people talking about transandrophobia are saying, that's not the conversation being had" would cause an argument that does more damage to me than just seeing them be wrong in the first place.

I want to say, no, transandrophobia isn't about men being the PRIMARY target of misogyny, that's not what we're saying! I won't say nobody is saying that because someone inevitably will have bad ideas about things, but the broad conversation around transandrophobia is that transphobes see us as women trying to be men and treating us with both misogyny (for being a woman incorrectly, and just having been born female to begin with), and malgendering us (for the crime of trying to be men, which is ontologically impossible for a silly wombyn to do and therefore must be corrected by showing that Dumb Idiot Baby Girl how impossible it is to ever really be a man). It is not, really, seriously not, about how transmascs are the real primary target of misogyny and everyone else is just collateral. It is not us wanting to be the victim, or wanting to barge into marginalized spaces and control the conversation to make it All About Men. It is not trying to argue that misandry is a systemic force. It is not equivalent to being an MRA blaming feminism for the suffering of men.

People talk a lot about how transmascs have a "toxic masculinity problem" and think that it's, like, some inherent aspect of being a man, or that we're trying so hard to be men that we uncritically repeat and reinforce toxic masculinity. As if trans people of all stripes aren't forced to perform the highest standards of their gender in order to be recognized as their gender, as if it's somehow unheard of for trans men to be forced to perform the height of masculinity in order to be recognized as men. Trans men are held to a higher standard of masculinity than cis men because we have to prove to the transphobe that we're "real" men! Cis men already have to perform masculinity to an extreme degree under threat of degendering, do people think that just doesn't exist for trans men? That it isn't worse for us (compared to the cis man) because degendering is misgendering and we have to fight tooth and nail for every shred of recognition as men? The only problem people are willing to accept transmascs have is the toxic masculinity issue, and that is at best seen as a very bad personal failing (and at worst an inherent aspect of Being A Man, and so also a personal failing for anyone who would "want" to be a man; the thought, even from other trans people, is that we "chose" this and so it's the bed we must lie in). Because we are men, because men have no problems, because transmascs trying to discuss their experiences with misogyny are just trying to take from women, trying to control the conversation and deny the reality that others are targeted too.

The idea that transandrophobia is saying we're the primary targets of misogyny is wrong, and I'm being so restrained by not saying anything to that person, not trying to correct them, because even though it's eating me up inside I would be even more hurt by whatever they say to dig in their heels as a response to me. (I sincerely hate that my autism will not let me let go of this stuff! I wish it would stop and that I could see people have Different or even Factually Wrong Opinions about the world without feeling personally betrayed but here I fucking am I guess; this isn't the first time I've come to your inbox to vent about it, I don't have anywhere to talk about these feelings so all I have been able to do with them is suffer through them until I can shove them into the little box in the back of my brain and hope I don't get intrusive reminders of them)

Y'know, I've experienced a lot of transphobic violence, from the emotional to physical. I was kicked out of my home by family members. I had to fight to be accepted as I am, and still have to fight because I don't pass, can't bind my GGG-cup breasts for medical reasons, am too disabled, too short, too mentally ill, too autistic. I was prepared for that, I knew I would be fighting an uphill battle. Trauma doesn't work right for me, I don't find stuff traumatic that should be, and do find stuff traumatic that shouldn't be; because I was prepared, because I knew what I was getting into and knew I would be happier as a man anyway, I have not been traumatized by the transphobia I have faced.

What I was not prepared for, what has stuck with me longer and hurt me more than being thrown out of my own home or threatened or beaten, was how other trans people treated me. How alone I was in a support club for the trans community at my university, in a class about trans art with nothing to show for trans men but boys don't cry and a drag race supercut from the professor's boyfriend, being told I was the wrong kind of trans for the community around me, that nobody knew what to do with me, and treated me like I was an invader desecrating some sacred soil.

In trying to talk about my suffering, I am taking up valuable space that could be given to someone else, someone who is not a man. In talking about the issues I have faced within the trans community, I am attacking trans women, trying to steal misogyny and claim I'm the primary target. It doesn't matter what I say, how gently I try to correct them, how much proof I have that those are not the conversations or goals of discussion, because that's what they want to believe about transmascs. That's the vision of transandrophobia they have. There is no way for me to change the mind of someone who willfully misinterprets what I'm saying.

I'll at least put this in the tag this so people can see it. <3

Transandrophobes are constantly assuming the most bad faith interpretations of what's being said and it's so exhausting even to observe. They're unthinking zombies reblogging second-hand shit about terms they have zero understanding of. It's infuriating just to observe let alone experience first hand.

[chiaseed149]

Arcane S2 Rant (Felicia and her Daughters)

This is just a rant off the dome about the inclusion of Felicia into the arcane s2 narrative and why the show massively fumbled it imo

I may be reaching but something about Arcane s2 that really rubbed me the wrong way was that the narrative made it lowkey feel like Jinx was more Felicia's daughter than Vi was.

There are countless visual and character parallels made between Jinx and Felicia (especially in episode 5 and 7) isn't inherently bad but when coupled with the fact that Vi has none; it doesn't sit right with me.If anything, Vi should be more like Felicia because she knew her longer and yet we see a majority of Felicia's legacy through Jinx instead. From mannerisms to looks to philosophy, it's all from a woman that Jinx most likely does not remember vividly.

also the inclusion of Silco partially taking Powder in because she is Felicia's daughter like Vi isn't equally her daughter. Now knowing how close Silco was to Felicia AND young Vi makes it so much more sinister the lengths he went to cause her harm knowing full well who she is. Like he wanted that girl DEAD and yet is implied to have cared for Felicia and her children as Vander did ABSOLUTELY NOT. I can no longer accept the argument that Silco saw Vi as more Vander's child than Felicia's when Jinx spent the same amount of time and her more formative childhood development years with him...

I wish we had gotten one of the childhood flashbacks from Vi's point of view (we already have countless flashbacks on Vi's part of Caitlyn and Vander, what's one more of her actual mother) because she was a ful 10 years old when Felicia dies and yet we never really see her mention it. Especially with how much we see Caitlyn deal with the loss of her mother, it would have been really insightful for Vi to take about losing her own mother in a similar fashion just on the otherside of the war (but this would require the writers to not be cowards and actually have meaningful and challenging, nuanced conversations between Vi and other characters... the writers really did not like doing that this season). Ideally, I think the flashback should have happened at the end of epsiode 9 when Vander dies again -- in this, I think it should have been a flashback of ALL the things people Vi has lost at this point (Felicia, her father, vander, mylo, claggor, her youth, powder, warwick, etc...) but the narrative doesn't allow vi to have these moments of vulnerability so i guess not.

Alas, I think that the inclusion of Felicia was entirely for Jinx's benefit which is really disappointing because I feel like a lot of things were also done for her benefit when the story is about two sisters, not about a girl and her sister's girlfriend while the sister in question is left to simply react to their actions.

[moodymisty]

Something i find very interesting about the Horus Heresy is the general absence of female influences. The core characters are all male, and conduct themselves in typically masculine ways. Excepting the general absence of libido, (most of) the Primarchs are pure manliness.

I find this dynamic very interesting. Men behave differently towards each other when women aren't around to observe them. Sometimes this is positive (e.g. brotherly affection), but sometimes it's negative (e.g. resorting to violence as a means of conflict resolution). The same is roughly true of women when men aren't around, except that women exhibit different behaviours (e.g. cattiness rather than violence).

If you have mixed group of men and women, the two sides tend to temper each other. Men break up female conflicts, and women break up male conflicts. Likewise, the presence of men motivates women in unique ways, and the presence of women motivates men in equally unique ways. This motivation isn't always positive (e.g. a woman could spread malicious gossip about her romantic rival), but it can certainly be positive in many cases.

This isn't a hard rule, as everyone is different, but it's a tendency i've witnessed. Men and women affect each other just by being around each other. It's just human nature.

On this basis, then, the Horus Heresy is interesting because it essentially represents how men react when there aren't women around to temper them. Lots of ego clashes, lots of petty one-upmanship, lots of violence, and very little consideration given for anything other than dominance. Even though there are certainly respectable female characters present in 30k, many of whom influence the Astartes and Primarchs around them, they don't play any tangible role within the politics of the Legions, and there is no female equal to the Primarchs whom they would have reason to listen to. They are all "mortals", and therefore not of any great concern to most of them, even in the best of cases.

(For the record, i'm not arguing that masculinity is inherently barbaric and ego-driven. I'm just saying that such is the "dark side" of manliness. An example of the "light side" of manliness is chivalry, which - you've guessed it - is partly motivated by the presence of women.)

In essence, the Horus Heresy is - to me - a story about what happens when masculinity is left to run rampant without a female voice present to call out all the shitty behaviour, and make the men feel bad about their childishness. It's basically like Lord of the Flies, but the fate of humanity is at stake. That's what makes 30k so tragic and engaging; it's all so avoidable.

The closest thing the Primarchs have to such an influence is The Emperor, who fulfils the role of a father figure. Although patriarchal (fatherly) figures are necessarily judgemental and punitive when necessary, it's not the same as being scolded by a mother figure or a spousal figure. Being scolded by Dad feels different to being scolded by Mum, or by your wife. With the exception of Guilliman, mother figures are not present in the lives of the Primarchs, and it reeeaaally shows. Also, the Emperor is a very absent parental figure to the Primarchs, meaning that they're mostly left to their own devices despite behaving like teenagers. This is another reason why 30k feels like Lord of the Flies.

Now this is purely speculation on my part, but if the Primarchs started getting married off to stable and well-adjusted women close to an equal footing with themselves (say, powerful perpetuals), the women would be a positive influence on them, and the Horus Heresy would be much more mild, if it happened at all. Sure, you might get different stories (such as Horus being deceived by a daemon disguised as his late wife), but that's not what Warhammer is about. Warhammer is about big men/robots/aliens hitting each other for assorted reasons, and the tempering influence of women would detract from this, in some areas. So... No wish fulfilment dreams for us :'(

I love the idea that the HH never happens because a few of the primarchs actually got pussy.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

speaking of speaking of Abuse it's like hey it's helpful to remember to not think of it like "whoa. an extreme word broken out to make people feel bad" but rather "an identification of a type of situation where an oppressive system is being continually established / maintained and something needs to be done differently to counteract / dismantle this" Just Like With approaches to other labels created for describing the external manifestations of [there is an oppressive system here] and going "someone is saying so b/c in identifying it it's also recognizing the crucial 'so something Else external needs to manifest to improve this reality' of it all, not just like 'whoa that's a big word for extreme things that we'd all definitely recognize & all definitely even be motivated to acknowledge in the first place rather than being potentially vested in it continuing without it even being a challenge to put any description of it into words to start to communicate about it'"....just like how we all totally know that [autistic people existing] is so Extreme and must be so Abnormal and we'd all Know It when we saw it, and when someone goes "i'm autistic" what matters is that people feel weird and then it's threatened that they might be obligated to do anything differently, so that person's probably exaggerating and trying to disrupt the norm, which is as good as trying to Elevate themself. kind of like when people break out the "abuse" A-word, right....always more important that no one could potentially feel bad via someone directing [and that's bad] language at them rather than asking "but like, Are they doing this thing? Are they having this effect?" which may still be answered with "no." and certainly will be if someone's committed to feeling above other people & positioned to act on it

[queer-questions-and-polls]

Ok genuinely I've seen too much of this bullshit fighting between fem & masc trans people on my fyp to not talk about it so here we go:

To all trans people:

your experiences are your own. some people are gonna have it worse than others and that has not a lot to do with if your androgens, fem or masc. Stop acting like it does.

Yes their are gender specific trans problems, and yes, we do need our own spaces to talk about and realise each others problems are incredibly real. but that doesn't mean anyone is better than anyone else or that anyone had it harder. We are all in the same fucking boat. Please hold this discussion until we are legally allowed to be alive & be ourselves almost everywhere, because if we just fight each other for this and not join hands to fight for our rights (or even fight to keep the ones we have), we're all dead.

On to another thing:

some people really need to stop idolising all fem alliend people. (As one myself) It's really ignorant and makes you rationalise anything a fem person does so you blame the masc person. Guess what? masculinity (that isn't toxic) actually isn't a big scary moster that wants to hurt you, neither is feminity

(I'm not talking about trans fems. I'm talking about people who present fem. That ranges from trans fems to fem boys and everything in between)

Now to my trans peps who have trauma with masculinity:

It's okay if you inherently think of masculinity as a bad think as a result of trauma, trust me it's okay I'm undoing that thought process at the moment. For a while I forced myself into the nonbinary label because I hated masculinity but feminity didn't feel right or like me. It wasn't good for me.

But please don't take that out on others. I promise you most trans people have had this problem at least once. We know how it feels but we shouldn't have feel bad to make others feel better.

In conclusion:

If you hate people based on gender presentation/gender in general your going to miss out on so many good opportunities & relationships.

We are all just people who have dealt with lots of sides of the gender spectrum and the way your treated in those groups as a newcomer.

But I'm only a silly boyflux person whose not going to pass until top surgery, so i guess ignore me if you want. I know most of you will.

I'm also sorry if I'm coming off as aggressive, that wasn't my intention. I'm just really tired of this.

Found this gem in the transadrophobia tag.

Edit: I'm sorry if I was transadrophobic or transmisognstic in this post at all. I was trying hard to be neutral, because I have an extremely positive experience with feminity and a horrible but slowly healing one with masculinity which is detailed here

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/772763169277034496/so-we-all-know-that-the-underage-sex-tag-is

The only fic I've ever used this for that wasn't rated E was one in which a character 1. had flashbacks to being raped when he was 13 to 16, during which he heavily dissociated/canonically thinks in a very scrambled, disoriented way 2. discussed it with his therapist and 3. slowly tried to navigate his feelings about having killed his rapist. The idea that I didn't need to check the box saying "Underage Sex" intrigues me, here, because... well, that feels like a thing that the readers should know about? And you can't just click "Rape/Non-Con" because that describes multiple characters in the cast and doesn't sufficiently let readers know whose experience we're going to be discussing, here. Only one character has had this happen to him as a kid, however, so checking that box made total sense to me as the author.

I guess I'm confused as to why your fic has to either be rated E or not use the "Underage Sex" label? Because if we're going to have this guy sit down with a therapist and go over how he hid the evidence, why he didn't come forward, how that was when he learned to switch off his feelings, etc., it's no longer in "Implied/Referenced Underage Sex" territory. The underage sex isn't 'referenced', it's the subject of entire chapters. Yes, the flashbacks to the physical event itself are rendered in that canonical scrambled way, but it's not as if the underage sex is something that's not integral to the plot.

Is the argument that unless the whole thing is on-screen in explicit detail, you can't use that warning? I can't really see the logic, here. Yeah, it's annoying when someone uses the warning for someone getting horny. That doesn't mean it doesn't apply to things that aren't rated E. It's rated M because it's a therapy fic and it's heavy, but it's not E, because there's no lengthy depiction of sex. Am I supposed to up it to E because any mention of underage sex automatically ups the rating?

That... feels kind of like what an anti would say, honestly. You know, that whole idea of sex as a topic being so taboo that if it's going to be discussed, it's gotta be rated E, lest the wee minors encounter it and get scarred for life or something. Even though M is already a rating higher than Teen, so it's not exactly being thrust out in front of kids, it's gotta get upped to E if we're addressing this topic at length?

IDK, maybe there's a nuance I'm missing here? Maybe it's a USAmerican vs. other rating systems thing. But personally, I'm of the opinion you can have underage sex in a story without it being E rated inherently. The idea every fic with that tag that's not E is mistagged seems very bad-faith. It feels like something you tell yourself so you can get more upset about the numbers than is really called for.

--

The 'underage sex' warning is for Australians with dumb laws.

It's so people don't accidentally read content that will get them slapped with legal consequences.