#who says you're not worth it

[i-am-church-the-cat]

i try to write and my brain floats away

[onebarofsoap]

something about this guy’s design... love to see a guy who is also a bunny 😊

[beedreamscape]

I'm pretty much the worst person to even weigh in on this topic because I've been partial to Suvi since day one, but in my opinion there wasn't ever a need to explain or justify Suvi's choices/reactions.

Not because she's perfect, never wrong (though in my heart I know...) but because I'm very certain that the people that keep on hammering on her mistakes/shortcomings/tendencies are people that already dislike Suvi (or don't like Aabria very much, I wish this wasn't a topic of consideration but even 30+ eps in there's still people like that around) for whatever reason and gather excuses to justify their bias against her and no amount of explanation will turn their hearts in her favour.

It really feels like a parallel to the way Suvi herself tries to be understood by her friends and yet she fails time and time again.

And people insist on forgetting that Suvi is not the Citadel, she's just one young wizard of the Citadel.

And it's gut-wrenching how much I relate to that feeling of alienation before every corner she tries to fit in: amongst her citadel peers she's othered by her position and privilege, and now by her friendship to a witch and a spirit; between her friends she's the odd-one-out because of her Citadel connections and the nature of her power; and now amongst the witches she stands out by being the face of the "enemy".

I don't blame her for clinging to the little corner of the world that has not made her feel foreign despite the very nature of her presence: in Steel's family whom she's not related to by blood, yet completely by heart.

And it'll never be a fair game. The girls especially are very young and with new-found independence, they're given colossal decisions to make, and that before beings older than three generations of them combined and incomprehensively more powerful and less empathic.

As much as Mirara wants there to be a good witch and bad witch, there's no such thing as black and white, there are decisions and consequences, what one does with the power they're given. There is no right or wrong in a fight filled with so much heart, there was never a world where a fight between Ame and Suvi would be clean.

[jewreallythinkthat]

Some people on the left in the USA need to go and read about the McCarthy Witch Trials which we all objectively know we're bad and wrong and then take a good fucking look at how they treat jews and people they dont like because it's a fucking 1:1 mapping of identicality when you start breaking down the behaviours

[autisticrosewilson]

So do you guys actually think that Jason's entire story, relationship to the others, and philosophy amounts to him being a rebellious teen who wants his dad's attention? Like are you 100% serious? I thought you were joking about that but too many of you are saying it with your whole chest.

And what the fuck is this "Bruce antagonizing Jason is fanon!" Shit I've been seeing? You guys are aware that a parent can love their kid and still be a shit parent right? I know you guys don't want to fathom the thought that maybe your blorbo might also occasionally have to face responsibility for consistently endangering children but let's not start being delusional now.

Bruce does love his kids, that doesn't mean that he hasn't hurt them. And I'd also argue that for the most part he feels in the right for it, and he's said multiple times that he believes it's for their own good, so you can't even argue that he's sorry about it. It's okay for you guys to admit that your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the character wouldn't do that but don't sit here and pretend that it's not a facet of the source.

[chuthulhu-reads]

[ID: Two panels from Dungeon Meshi. The first scows Senshi clutching his face as tears start to spill out of his eyes, saying, "I've always... always wanted to have this soup one more time." He's not wearing his helmet in this panel, so his face is unusually visible, detailed and vulnerable. The second panel shows himself as a youngster, surrounded by his old mining team, all smiling at each other, one of them rubbing Senshi's head. Modern-day Senshi continues, "Thank you. All of you. Thank you." End ID.]

Holy shit. I anticipated some tragic backstory from the "I must feed the young ones" panels, but what I'd guessed was that Senshi might have become so devoted to cooking and eating literally whatever because he'd previously survived a famine and had seen children starve to death. I did not expect him to have been the child who was the sole survivor of a doomed travel party, one of whom was determined to feed Senshi first because he was the youngest, and that Senshi has lived with the fear of having inadvertently committed cannibalism by eating stew that he'd never quite known the contents of. I'm happy for him that Laios deduced and confirmed for him that it was griffin meat, that he was able to taste the meal that saved his life once more and remember the friends he lost. Seriously, I'm crying, and also earnestly relieved that while his backstory is pretty dark, it's not the type of fucked up I'd been preparing myself mentally for.

[lafragolina]

just kill me

[thesmokinpossum]

Tonight was wild, I accidentally took the wrong bus and had to wait 20 minutes in the cold for the right one and then there was a problem with the booze vouchers I prepaid and I had to fight hard for them only the realize that the only beer available was lukewarm corona, it was a lot

[katierosefun]

hm maybe i’m going to get flack for this, but i genuinely don’t understand how some self-claimed fic lovers can be the same people who a) pressure and harass writers into producing more and more stories, regardless of their current health or personal lives, b) pressure writers when they aren’t updating fast enough, again, regardless of their current health or personal lives, and c) now, apparently, feed their supposedly beloved writers’ stories into ai bots. it’s becoming incredibly disheartening and clear that some folks don’t care so much about writers and really care exclusively about feeding whatever greedy need they have to just consume.

[liam-summers]

Just saw a post where someone said that Buffy is an unreliable narrator because of all the times she said she doesn't love Sp*ke, since the one (1) line in season 7 "why does everyone in this house think I'm still in love with Sp*ke?" makes it indisputably canon that she has loved him since maybe season 5, definitely season 6, and this is clearly her finally admitting it after having lied to herself about it for seasons....

Honestly, the level of delusion it takes to get to this conclusion is truly impressive, because not only was that not even the original line/intention from the script (the original being "why does everyone in this house think I'm in love with Sp*ke?") but the way some people will watch the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer for 6.5 seasons where this woman has repeatedly and consistently and violently said that she DOES NOT love Sp*ke's crusty ass, and then dismiss all of that based of of one line that wasn't even meant to have that one extra word that has fuelled rabid delusions for 20+ years in this cursed fandom.

and then to make matters even funnier, these same people will turn around and twist the line "I loved him more than I will ever love anything in this life" (Buffy re: Angel in S7) into "she meant before, she doesn't love him now, it's so out of character.", ignoring the part where she says "MORE THAN ANYTHING IN THIS LIFE", which means more than she's ever, has ever and will ever love anything in her life, something she has repeated at least once a season for 7 seasons straight..........like, not only are you all delusion, but you also apparently have extremely poor reading comprehension skills.

[actualaster]

"The improvement isn't significant enough for advertising to be able to convey that it's so much better you should definitely spend money on it even if you played the original" isn't the winning argument a bizarre number of graphics-obsessed gamers think it is

[something-about-sunflowers]

Hot take: The people who are STILL insisting that Izzy is homophobic (despite the NUMEROUS instances of the cast/crew/David himself saying that nobody on the show is being targeted for their identity and ‘it’s not “I can’t believe he’s with a guy” but “I can’t believe he’s with THAT guy”‘ ad nauseam) towards Stede, Lucius, or Ed (I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone say anything about Fang or Pete, though I could be wrong, but I’m gonna touch on that in a bit too*)? They’re, unironically, being homophobic by stereotyping the characters and reducing them to just their sexuality.

If you recognize that Stede is a multifaceted character and you recognize the ways in which he is multifaceted - He’s a man born into wealth and raised on classist, colonialist ideals. Yes, he’s also traumatized by how he was treated by his father and peers but trauma doesn’t exempt people from blame when participating in, embracing, enforcing, and benefiting from classist and colonialist ideals - you will understand that Izzy is not being homophobic towards him just because he hates him.

If you only view Stede as a gay man and ignore everything else about his character then the only motivation for Izzy to hate him MUST be because he’s a gay man and therefore Izzy MUST be homophobic.

If you recognize that Lucius is a multifaceted character and you recognize the ways in which he is multifaceted - He’s a man who likely was born into some level of the middle class, given that he can read and write (It’s also possible that he was born into a working class family and he learned to read and write there, but it’s the unlikely option by default. None of the rest of the working class crew know how to read or write save Jim who was raised by a nun and would have been taught by her.), he also avoids doing work which is necessary for the function of the ship that they live on and depend on for their livelihoods and encourages the rest of the crew to do the same with his insubordination. He’s also in an unorthodox relationship that people who have not experienced the concept of consensual non-monogamy would not understand and might interpret as cheating - you will understand that Izzy is not being homophobic towards him just because he hates him.

If you only view Lucius as a gay man and ignore everything else about his character then the only motivation for Izzy to hate him MUST be because he’s a gay man and therefore Izzy MUST be homophobic.

If you recognize that Ed is a multifaceted character and you recognize the ways in which he is multifaceted - He’s a man of color, born into a working class family who worked hard to make a name for himself, to the point where he did not have to endanger himself or his crew to earn their livelihoods. He’s also some level of neurodivergent and understimulated by the environment he’s in (because he excels at his job) which leads him to make irrational and dangerous decisions and puts the lives of himself and his crew in danger. He’s also been making increasingly out of character decisions (corroborated by Fang and Ivan) by the influence of Stede - you will understand that Izzy is not being homophobic towards him just because he’s angry about his relationship with Stede.

If you only view Ed as a gay man and ignore everything else about his character then the only motivation for Izzy to be angry about his relationship with Stede (and only Stede, because he had no qualms about Ed and Calico Jack’s involvement with one another given that he sent Jack to get Ed out of the way of the English, but that’s another post I don’t have the spoons to make) MUST be because he’s a gay man and therefore Izzy MUST be homophobic.

If you IGNORE that Izzy is a multifaceted character and you IGNORE the ways in which he is multifaceted - He’s a gay (we’re not having this argument) working class man who earned his high ranking position on an extremely respectable pirate’s crew. He’s capable and is rightfully angry when he’s looked down on because of his class. He recognizes the importance of ship maintenance and is rightfully angry when those tasks are ignored. He doesn’t understand Lucius’ relationship dynamic and thinks he can use (what he thought was) him cheating on his partner (seriously, how is ‘I’m going to tell the man you were fucking that you were fucking another man’ threatening to out him?) as a motivation to make him do the necessary ship work. He is rightfully angry when his orders are ignored because he’s the highest authority on the ship next to the captains. He is in love with Ed and is jealous because Ed is in love with Stede - you can pretend that Izzy is homophobic because of how he behaves towards the other gay men on the ship.

If you ignore that Izzy has valid reasons for his actions (which does not mean that the actions are all entirely justified) then the only motivation for them MUST be because he’s homophobic.

(* The persistent neglect of Fang and Pete in these discussions is also rooted in homophobia. Fang and Pete are the only explicitly gay men on the ship who don’t, at any point, present ‘femininely’** and therefore don’t fall so easily into the bubble of the stereotypical gay man and so they get ignored in these discussions because they aren’t suitable to push the narrative that Izzy only interacts negatively towards ‘feminine’/’gnc’** gay men.)

(** The insistence that Stede, Lucius, and Ed are in any way, at any point, LEGITIMATELY presenting ‘femininely’ or are ‘gender non-conforming’ is ALSO rooted in homophobia - and I’d argue a touch of racism via Ed’s hair and beard as they relate to his indigenous roots. The assumption/association with those three being considered feminine comes from their identity as gay men. That is homophobia.

Stede wears men’s clothes. He wears RICH men’s clothes. Bright, colorful, patterned fabrics are worn by RICH men in the 1700s - if you want to argue that, say, king George presented femininely or was gnc because of the way he dressed be my guest but you won’t because he doesn’t and he isn’t. Lucius wears men’s clothes. His clothes are perfectly at place amongst the rest of the crew’s clothes. Ed wears men’s clothes. His leather is in direct relation to gay leather-men which is a hyper-masculine aesthetic in the same way drag is - typically - a hyper-feminine aesthetic. His appreciation for Stede’s clothes comes from the wealth and privilege that centers around the easy possession of those types and quantities of fabrics.

None of them behave in ways that are stereotypically feminine. Having and expressing emotions is not a uniquely or inherently feminine trait. Caring for and maintaining your appearance is not a uniquely or inherently feminine trait. Even if they were, Izzy also does those things. Izzy frequently expresses his emotions - yes, anger, a stereotypically ‘masculine’ emotion, but others as well. He also puts a great deal of care into his appearance, aside from the materials, the only difference between his and Stede’s outfits are the type of shoes and the presence of a jacket. If those traits are to be considered inherently feminine then it is disingenuous to not apply that label to Izzy as well.)

[soracities]

Hi! So I tried not to say anything about some anti makeup posts I saw on your blog but I need to say this. I think you're very wise and I agree it's very important for us to love ourselves as we are. But some people like myself doesn't care about 'empowering' of makeup or whatever but we just have fun with it and we just love it. I say we because I know there is a lot of people like me. Yeah, we are feeding capitalism or whatever, but world is beautiful and it's also terrible so people trying make themselves feel good, have fun, ect. I see a lot of people who don't wear makeup and i'm happy for them! I didn't wear makeup until i turned 20 i think and felt good.

One thing I wanted to add is in response of post about feminine girls. I think everything needs balance and sometimes people tend to overreact in their opinion and divide everything in black and white. Personally I never cared how women around me looked and what they were wearing. But I would like to have same treatment, and not to feel silly for wearing pink or feminine clothes.

Sorry, I don't know English very well so maybe I can't translate my idea entirely. What I'm trying to say i think everyone should do what they like and leave each other in peace.

Sorry for this essay, just wanted to share my point of view.

Hi, anon! I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this, but I appreciate you writing this (and your English was fine, don't worry)

I think the main argument of those posts (and my own feelings about this) is not about makeup on its own, or even judgement about who does and doesn't choose to wear it--what they are criticizing is a particular part of the society we live in which puts a huge emphasis on women's beauty and appearance in order to fulfill an idea of what a woman "should" be, and the role that makeup plays in that as a result. Because whether we like it or not, whether we believe in them or not, whether we feel pressured by them or not, these expectations do exist. How we personally respond to them does not change that.

I personally don't have an issue with makeup or the concept of it (in almost every culture on earth, humans have been using makeup of some kind for literally thousands of years)--but what I do have a problem with is when we treat makeup, or other traditionally "feminine" forms of expression as neutral things when they are not. A comb or a hair tie is neutral--it's just a thing. Lipstick and eyeliner are also just things, but only when they exist by themselves--and in reality they don't exist by themselves: they exist in a world where we value women on their physical appearance before we value them for anything else--lipstick and eyeliner exist to emphasise parts of your appearance, to make you look a certain way--and in a society where we put so much importance on women looking a certain way, they aren't just ordinary things you toy around with for fun. You can have fun with them, but it doesn't change their role. They can't be treated as exceptions from the world they are used in.

I think sometimes people assume that being anti-makeup is the same as being anti-women-who-wear-makeup, which misses the point (and also suggests a very dangerous idea which I think, sometimes, is why people respond so angrily to these criticisms: because if we believe that being anti-makeup = being anti-women, then therefore makeup = womanhood, and this is simply not true). Whether you wear these things just for fun and to enjoy yourself isn't what is being talked about because these criticisms are not about you on a personal level: they are about looking at a society that is as image-obsessed as ours, and asking why makeup has the role that it has when 1) it is almost exclusively aimed at women--women who, as a group, have been historically marginalised, and whose value, historically, has almost always been measured in terms of their beauty before anything else and 2) the makeup that is emphasized, the trends and styles that come and go, are often not so much about self-expression (if they were, people would be freely wearing all sorts of wild colours and styles: when we talk about "makeup culture" it's not the same kind of makeup used in the goth, punk, or alt scenes for example where makeup plays a very different role) but almost always about achieving or aspiring towards a type of beauty that is valued or expected: to make you look younger, to make your eyes brighter or larger, to make your lips bigger or sexier, your cheekbones more prominent etc--again, on their own, these things may not be a big deal, but they exist in a world where having these looks means you are valued in a certain way as a woman. And when this exists in our kind of world, where the power dynamics we have automatically mean women's perceived power is through beauty, and where we insist so much on women being a particular kind of beautiful (and this starts in childhood) we have to ask and investigate WHY that is--why this type of beauty and not another? why (almost only) women? who benefits from this? who suffers as a result?

The argument of "not all women" wear makeup for empowerment misses the point of these criticism, because it is focusing on a person's individual choices in a way that suggests our choices can define the world we live in, and they can't. We are deeply social animals. Therefore, how we appear to each other and to ourselves is a socially influenced phenomenon. This applies for race, for sexuality, and for gender. How women are perceived at large, in different social structures, is a social phenomenon influenced by the societies we exist in and the values of those societies. These criticisms are about the society we make those choices in and how that can affect us. For you, makeup may be something fun and enjoyable and that's fine. I'm not saying that's untrue or that people don't feel this way or that you are wrong for feeling this way. It's also not saying that you are brain-washed or oppressing yourself for it. But it doesn't change the world we live in. Someone feeling perfectly happy to go out with makeup or without makeup, and feeling no pressure to do either, is great--but it doesn't mean there aren't a lot of women who do feel pressured into wearing it, and that pressure is a social one. It doesn't change the inequality that exists between how women's physical appearances are judged compared to men's. It doesn't change the fact that almost every childhood story most kids hear (that aren't about animals) have a "beautiful princess" (and very little else is said about her except that she is beautiful) and a "brave" knight/prince/king/whichever: the princess (or maiden or whatever young woman) is defined by how she looks; the male in the story by how he acts.

It also doesn't change the fact that so many young girls grow up hearing the women around them criticize various parts of their bodies and that they carry this into their lives. It doesn't change the fact that we expect (in Western countries at least) for women to have criticisms about their appearance and they are "stuck-up" or "full of themselves" if they don't. It doesn't change the fact that magazines photos, red carpet photos, films, tv shows etc., feature actresses who are beautiful in a way that is absolutely above and beyond exceptional (and who either have had work done cosmetically, or are wealthy enough to be able to afford to look the way they do through top-class makeup artists, personal trainers etc) but who we think are within the "normal" range of beauty because faces like theirs are all that we see--how many famous actors / entertainers can you name who look like they could be someone's random uncle, or "just some guy" (writing this, I can think of 5). Now how many actresses, equally famous, can you think of that are the same? Very, very, very few.

The point of those posts, and why I feel so strongly about this, is that we have a deeply skewed view of beauty when it comes to women, because, as a society, we place so much on how they look in such a way that it is not, and was never meant to be, achievable: therefore anything that contributes to how women look, that markets itself in the way that the makeup industry does in this day and age, needs to be questioned and looked at in relation to that. No one is saying don't wear eyeliner or blush--what they are trying to say is that we need to be aware of the kind of world eyeliner and blush exists in, what their particular functions as eyeliner and blush do in the world that they exist in, that we exist in, and how this does impact the view we have on makeup as a result. Your personal enjoyment may be true to you and others, but this doesn't change the role of female beauty in the world because, again, our personal choices don't define the world in this way. Often, it's the other way around. And we cannot deny this fact because, while it may not affect you negatively, it does affect others.

I absolutely agree with you because I don't care how other women around me choose to dress or express themselves, either--that's their freedom to wear what they want and enjoy themselves and I want them to have that freedom. But my view is not the world's view, and it's certainly not the view of a lot of other people, either. I don't care if another woman loves pink and wearing skirts and dresses--but, like makeup, pink, skirts, and dresses, are not neutral things either. They're tied to a particular image of 'femininity' which means they are tied to a particular way of "being a woman" in this world. I'm not saying, at all, that it's wrong to wear these things. But I'm saying we can't treat them as though these are choices as simple as choosing what kind of socks to wear, because they aren't. They are choices that have baggage. If a woman is seen as being silly, childish, or treated unequally because she enjoys cute tops and ribbons and sundresses, that's not because we are demonizing her choices, or because being anti-makeup is being anti-woman (again, it is absolutely not): it's because we as a society demonize women for any choice. That isn't because of anti-makeup stances--that's because of sexism.

You mentioned that you want to be treated the same as anyone else for wearing feminine clothes--but the fear that you wouldn't be isn't because of the discussions critiquing makeup and other traditionally "feminine" things--it's because we live in a society where women are constantly defined by how they appear on the outside, and no amount of our personal choices will make this untrue. Whether you are a girly-girl or a tomboy, you'll always be judged. And, in reality, when women follow certain beauty standards they do get treated better--but this doesn't mean much in a society where the standards are so high you can never reach them, and where the basic regard for women is so low to begin with (not to mention the hypocrisy that exists within those standards). This is what all those criticisms towards makeup and "empowerment" are about: it's about interrogating a society that is built on this kind of logic and asking why we should insist on leaving it as it is when it does so much damage. It's saying that that if we want everyone to truly feel free in how they choose to present themselves we have to go deeper than just defining freedom by these choices on their own, and look at the environment those choices are made in. And that involves some deeply uncomfortable but necessary conversations.

Also, and I think this important to remember, views on makeup and the social place of makeup will also depend on culture and where you are, and the beauty expectations you grew up with. And when it comes to the internet, and given American dominance online, a lot of these posts criticizing makeup and the way makeup is being used to sell an idea that wearing it is "empowering" to the woman (which is basically saying: you are MORE of a woman when you wear it; you are stronger and more powerful because, in our society, beauty is portrayed as a form of power: it tells you, you can battle the inequality women face by embracing the role beauty plays in our lives but it doesn't tell you this emphasis on beauty is part of that inequality), are based on the way makeup is portrayed in mostly English-speaking Western countries. My views are shaped by what I grew up seeing, and while a full face of makeup (concealer, primer, foundation, mascara, highlighter, contour, blush, brow tint, brow gel etc) may not be daily practice or even embraced in a place like France or maybe other places in mainland Europe (but that doesn't mean they don't have their own expectations of feminine beauty), they are daily practice in places like the US and Britain, and this is what most of those posts and criticisms are responding to.

We can argue as much as we want about makeup, but when you grow up in a society where women feel the need to put on makeup before going to the gym there is something seriously wrong. Embracing makeup and enjoying makeup is one thing, but it cannot be a neutral thing when so much of it is about looking like you're not wearing makeup at all, or when we assume a woman is better qualified for a job or more professional when she wears it. It cannot be a neutral thing when a singer like Alicia Keys goes makeup-free for a red carpet event and it causes a stir online because people think she looks sick (what she looks like is normal--I would argue above normal--but wearing makeup to cover up "flaws" is so normal now that we genuinely don't know what normal skin is supposed to look like because the beauty of these celebrities is part of their appeal: they are something to aspire to). It is absolutely very normal for me, where I am, to see young girls with fake lashes and filled in brows: it's not every girl I pass, but it is enough. I'm not saying they are miserable, or brain-washed, or should be judged. I can believe that for them it's something enjoyable--but how am I supposed to see something like that and not be aware of the kind of celebrities and makeup tutorials that are everywhere on TikTok and YouTube, and that they are seeing everyday? How am I not supposed to have doubts when people tell me "it's their choice!" when the choices being offered are so limited and focused on one thing?

I never wore makeup as a teenager and I still don't, but a lot of that is because I grew up surrounded by people who just didn't. Makeup was never portrayed as anything bad or forbidden (and I don't see it like that either)--it was just this thing that, for me growing up, was never made to be a necessity not even for special occasions. I saw airbrushed photos and magazines all around me, for sure, and I definitely felt the beauty pressure and the body pressure (for example, I definitely felt my confidence would be better if I wore concealer to deal with my uneven skintone, and I felt this for years). But I also know that, growing up, I saw both sides. No makeup was the default I saw at home, while makeup was the default I saw outside. And that does play a part, not just in the choices you make, but in the choices that you feel you are allowed to make. No makeup was an option for me because it was what I saw everyday, even with my own insecurities; but if you do not see that as an option around you (and I know for most girls my age, where I grew up, it probably wasn't) then how can we fully argue that the decision you make is a real choice?

If I wanted to wear a cute skirt outside, for example, and decided to shave my legs--that isn't a real choice. And it cannot ever be a real choice, no matter how much I say "this is for me" or "I prefer it like this" because going out in public with hairy legs and going out in public with shaved legs will cause two completely different reactions. How can I separate what I think is "my choice" from a choice I make because I want to avoid the negative looks and comments? And how can I argue that choosing to shave is a freely made choice when the alternative has such negativity? If you feel pressured into choosing one thing over another, that's not a choice. Does this make sense?

This is how I feel about makeup most of the time, and what I want more than anything else is for us to be able to have a conversation about why we make the choices we do beyond saying "it makes me feel good" and ending the conversation there. Again, I'm not saying people need to stop wearing makeup or stop finding enjoyment in wearing it, but I think we tend to get so focused on our own feelings about this and forget that there is a bigger picture and this picture is a deeply unequal one. That is what this conversation is about. I hope this explains some things, anon, and if I misinterpreted anything please feel free to message me again. x

[angorwhosebabyisthis]

honestly it's been really healing being back to actively contributing things and writing out thoughts on tumblr the last week or so, because while twitter tends to be easier for me to write out Thoughts on without getting overwhelmed, the environment in the twitter fandom circles i'm interested in is not only infested with antis but cliqueish in a way that is caustic to the fucking soul if you try to express a thought that's more than three sentences long--a hundred times over if you're autistic in slightly the wrong way--and it's incredibly reassuring to come back to an environment where the very kindest and most inclusive people toward you are not clearly thinking the r-slur the entire time they interact with you lmao

[carcarrot]

its important to go see a low stakes concert sometimes

[cerbreus]

I feel like being lonely is such a normal, terribly human feeling to wrestle with but by god knowing that doesn't make it any less embarrassing to wrestle with.