#and I don't think there are any correct answers

[artisticmedley]

I don't really have an answer (honestly this is something i likely give a better answer to if i had a few live convos with you) (not a request just statement of fact) (i guess really i should be suggesting you ask any trusted people that know you in-dirtspace, if at all possible)

But i just want to like. Share that once i had a friend and she said something that was a little all-or-notting, and i gave an alternate perspective, and her response was a frustrated-sounding "why do you have to argue everything all the time?" And i was quietly like ".. i don't see it as arguing" and she corrected herself, i forget the phrasing now, but basically something about being contrary or always giving a different opinion or something.

So while to me that's just... having a conversation, sharing perspectives and information, i think to her, giving a differing view / more information that wasn't entirely in line with her perspective was viewed as, well, what you've said above.

So some of it may be that you're just saying something not in full agreement with what they've said (particularly the more authoritarian ones) and they get upsetti spaghetni about it.

I also want to point out:

Does everybody see me this way, and is it only people who are already short-tempered who are willing to say it?

These are two different statements, i think. Likely the people who are short-tempered are more likely to notice some behaviour in the first place, because they are much more prone to being frustrated by harmless things that others mightn't notice or care about at all. And then due to short temper, they're more likely to snap at you about it too. But that doesn't mean everyone feels annoyed about the behaviour.

Some of it may also be a pure perception thing on their part: for whatever reason (maybe while you were still practicing conversation and not so good at it?), they may have decided you were argumentative and so to them, that is Just How You Are and so they see this all the time in you, even when it's blatantly not present. Any sort of frustration ttey experience while conversing with you (may or may not be prompted by something you did!) They blame on you being argumentative - i'm suddenly reminded of this recent article on game design / playtesting where the devs were like "people are correct about how they feel about aspects of the game, but not the cause/solution to it."

It might also be some stupid subtle annoying way of speaking / body language that they are picking up on and reacting poorly to.

Question that I suspect is autism related

I have, on more than one occasion over multiple decades, been told that I “need to have the last word” and that I “have a response for everything”.

Additionally and in a similar vein, I’ve been told that “everything is an argument with you” and I “always have to say something”.

When I was a little kid I was bad at conversations. People said stuff I had no opinion on or didn’t need follow-up and so I wouldn’t answer and they’d get bored. And eventually through trial and error I figured out that if someone said something to me, all I had to do was say something related back, and the interaction could go on as long as it needed to.

But then as a teen- and now as an adult- a number of people (mostly people I’ve found to be very delicate and particular about things in a sort of need-to-be-in-control authoritarian way) have expressed the identical observation about how I naturally try to converse, and I’m not sure what to do about it.

And the thing is, I have a sibling that talks like this too. We bicker all the time. He changes his own opinions seemingly at a whim for the purpose of being contrary, and it’s impossible to make a statement or observation out loud without him contradicting it, and even when he is demonstrably, factually wrong about something, he will dig his heels into the dirt and defend his stance to the grave.

And like. I hear myself responding, or adding on to people’s comments, but I don’t hear the ‘arguing’ they describe, or the contrarian habits of my sibling. Even when I’m paying attention and being bery careful not to follow up too much or speak too often or disagree or correct something that isn’t important, I get called out for “picking a fight”. They say something, I answer, they reply, I continue, then seemingly out of nowhere they snap. I think everything’s fine until suddenly it isn’t.

And so I guess my question is, how can you tell if you’re a contrary sort of person? How can you tell when to respond or follow up on a person’s statement and how do you know when to leave it in silence? Does everybody see me this way, and is it only people who are already short-tempered who are willing to say it?

I honestly don’t really have that much to say, and half the time I don’t even really want to talk at all, but I’ve been told countless times that I “just seem to like the sound of your own voice” and have to just be “tuned out after a while”. So if it isn’t necessary and I don’t even want to, why am I doing it?

Is there a reason I’m like this? Why is my sibling like this? How do I stop talking when there’s nothing to say, and how can I tell the difference between a conversation and an argument before the other person visibly snaps?

I’m a full grown adult

[bloopitynoot]

Reading TGCF: Extra 4-Chapter 139

For those who don't know, I am reading TGCF for the first time and sharing my thoughts!

If you have not read it, there will be spoilers! Consider this a warning.

Also- if you want to follow along, I am aiming to post updates daily. You can find all the posts in the tag Bloopitynoot reads TGCF. You can also check out the intro post for context on my read BUT if you followed along with my SVSSS read, the rules and vibe are the same.

Another early morning read with a dirty chai latte.

I am trying to get my reading done (One more chapter!?!?!?!?) before I leave for my trip this weekend. I feel like concluding this absolute epic read before I go on vacation will be perfect. It'll give me some time to decompress and reset before I pick up a new series.

I am going to miss this story! I can't believe I have been reading and talking with all you amazing people for so many months.

gah, i'm about to get maudlin so I'll leave it here for now <3

Let's get into chapter 139!

"gege help me" being their safe word is so funny to me. Good for them! XD p260

I 100% believe that Hua Cheng went into that cave to fix any statues he thought were unworthy, (not 100% correct but sort of). This is my guess! p261

omg. the statues can move!? p261

ugh my heart! Xie Lian helping his own statue (the drunk one) work through some trauma. Poor guy, he's struggling so much. p263

Oh, Hua Cheng hid the painful statue :( still sweet. But the flower poison one is not well. p266

LOL why did I think this was going to be sweet and serious. Hua Cheng is really making a statue of himself to fuck the Xie Lian statue. pls. p268

It escaped!!!?!? p270

Mu Qing needs a raise for real, "Even if it wasn't you, it's got something to do with you!" p273

Even worse! Mu Qing being so so mad that the statues of hualian are defiling his garden. oh no XD I'm WHEEZING> p275

omg. The statues of them and their debauchery are stuck like that!? pls. Wrong answers only. Where does Hua Cheng decide to display them? p277

"If only every Xie Lian could have a Hua Cheng" my heart! soon for sure! p277

WTF this art has me tearing up! This could have been reality for them :'( I'm glad the statues can have this p280

My heart!

This was so ridiculous but also so sweet. It was 90% very unserious but that 10% hit me in my feelings for sure.

One more extra to go :'3

[pushing500]

Up for a moral quandary? Two men are stranded in a desert, trying to get to town. One man has a jug of water. If both men drink from the jug, neither will have the energy to get to town before they die. If one man keeps the jug for himself, he'll be able to make it to town, but leave the other to die.

What is the best course of action?

Wondering what Mechi or Kwahu would answer :)

Assuming the two men in this hypothetical are Mechi and Kwahu, the boys would probably have slightly different opinions. Mechi says if we go down, we go down together, while Kwahu is perhaps still very aware that he is not the original/not a "proper" person and that if Yamka gets anyone back, she deserves her "real" brother.

Of course, if anybody else is thrown into the scenario, it's Jones boys for themselves and hope that anyone else gets lost before they find their way to Sparks because they don't want more guests, dammit!!

[rustedleopard]

What astounds me about the whole "you need a pure human SOUL to perfect the serum" thing is that so many people take Chujin's conclusion at face value. Chujin Ketsukane? Chujin "Winner of the 'You Tried In Engineering' Award" Ketsukane? Chujin "Fumbled Inventing Robots So Hard He Earned The Ire Of The Usually Pretty Chill King" Ketsukane? Chujin "I Accidentally Killed A Human Child By Overshooting The Parameters On My Guard Robot" Ketsukane? That Chujin Ketsukane?

[luck-lasts]

Please correct me if I am wrong because I am slightly fuzzy on the details, but why is it assumed that the actions done by JGY were purely in self preservation? I don't think we can believe all his claims at Guanyin Temple, because A) He was already established as a manipulative character and B) He was trying to convince LXC, his only potential ally, of his innocence. I am genuinely asking because from how I interpreted the text (purely subjective), it doesn't seem like we are supposed to believe everything he says.

And once again, I am fuzzy on the details, but the curse on Jin Zixun, or even the killing of Nie Mingjue doesn't make sense as an act of protection, because if I recall correctly, JGY had been in the process of somewhat regaining the trust of NMJ, which would have allowed him to turn the situation in his favour. Also, if we do talk about his primary motive to get to a position of safety, how do we determine what this position is? Is Chief Cultivator the only position where he is truly safe? Or would the future reign of Jin Zixuan, who treated him better than his father did, mean a better, safer position for JGY, if he had bided his time? Power means safety, absolutely, but at what point do we say his actions stopped being for protection and started being solely for power? I think that depends a lot of how individuals intepret the Guanyin Temple scene, so there won't be an objective answer.

In matters of intent, I am unfortunately a corp lawyer who really misses studying criminal law, and any discussion of mens rea will have me rambling way more than anyone would want. So to summarize my views, I would say intention matters because without intention it becomes very difficult to determine the morality of any action ( basic example would be why there is a lesser punishment for manslaughter than for culpable homicide). How dangerous someone is does matter, but your culpability for causing that danger again ties back to intention. (which is why someone who is legally unsound may be more dangerous than a legally sound person, but is seen as less culpable) (also relevant is that it is indicated that WWX, by a point, had become unstable, and while not unsound, was not fully in his right mind either).

Basically, from my perspective, WWX made horrible, horrible choices, which caused a lot of damage. If he had done so with malice, the consequences would be far far worse, and I agree, the Wens would not have survived because it would have triggered even worse escalation. JGY also made horrible, horrible choices., some of them out of necessity. But as per my interpretation (again, very subjective), he didn't just do it with the aim of self-preservation, he did it with malice, for political gain. And intention cannot be eliminated as a relevant consideration, because once we do that, we reach a slippery slope of essentially legal and moral chaos (not going to expand because I guarantee, I will end up rambling, but this is the most agreed upon perspective in most branches of jurisprudence, not sure about it works in moral philosophy).

Really sorry about how all over the place this reblog is, just putting my thoughts out there. TLDR; The veracity of JGY's claims is doubtful, and his actions show malicious intention. Intention absolutely matters, and that is what sets WWX and JGY apart.

As much as I love and appreciate fandom metas, especially in mxtx fandoms, a lot of times I find myself thinking "the book is deep but not THIS deep". There are many layers, but there is clear intention from the author in portraying things a certain way. Acting like Wei Wuxian is a villain and Jin Guangyao is a poor meow meow who did all of this because he was poor just detracts from the fact that both characters had a certain level of autonomy and they used it in very different ways. Despite his flaws, Wei Wuxian used his abilities to help the innocent. Jin Guangyao, despite how much he sufferered, chose to murder and destroy lives because he wanted to be at the top. His background humanizes him, it isn't intended to justify his actions.

[feroluce]

how do u imagine natasha + sampo’s relationship?

I. Feel a little bad for leaving this in my inbox as long as I did, especially since I said in this post I could write a whole essay on them. But then when I tried to actually answer this, I realized ah shit, I can't really articulate what I think of them at all OTL

(so have a bajillion words of meta analysis of them instead fklajklasjf)

Just! Sampo is very mysterious figure, and we know so little of his background and his motivations! So it's really difficult to get a solid read on some of his relationships with other characters. Regardless, I do think that Natasha is perhaps the one he's closest with, and that she is the one person who knows him the most intimately in all of Belobog.

And a lot of it IS hard to pin down because of Sampo's slippery nature, but also because it's like. If you look at just Natasha's dialogues about Sampo, it doesn't really look like much. It only becomes more meaningful when compared to how everyone else talks about him.

Most other characters just comment on what Sampo does, as in his observable actions that are easy to see on the surface or from a distance.

Natasha is one of the very, very few that actually speaks to Sampo's personality or philosophy. Like she not only is able to describe a certain behavior of his, but she's able to explain the why behind it.

At least part of this is probably that they spend so much time together- Hook even comments on it during her companion quest.

And tbh I don't really think it needs more proof or anything with such a flat out statement like that, but this is actually further supported by the fact that Seele is the only other character in Belobog to sorta-kinda comment on Sampo's personality; if Sampo were hanging around the clinic with Natasha all day, Seele would probably be the person he would see second-most there. Of the dialogues posted further up in this post, Hook obviously sees him all the time, but it's not always in the clinic, and besides she's still very young...she wouldn't have the same read on him an adult would. Luka avoids the clinic whenever he can because he's worried about taking up Natasha's valuable time. And the Landau siblings aren't even present in Boulder Town until after the Stellaron is quieted.

Seele, on the other hand, is extremely loyal and devoted to Natasha, and seems to worry about her a lot. She doesn't have the same reservations as Luka, and it would feel right to see her in the clinic frequently, taking orders and missions and trying to make sure Natasha doesn't run herself in the ground. So it would make sense for her to see a lot of Sampo if he's always in there, too, enough that she would have things to say about his personality, whether she likes that or not haha.

Of course we know from Sampo's lines that it's not that he's sick, he's just reporting back to Natasha. Sampo not only smuggles in supplies across the border like what most people know him for, he's also Natasha's source of intel.

Bringing back intel doesn't necessarily have to involve a lot of conversation though, especially because it would make more sense for Sampo to be turning in written reports. It decreases the chance of Natasha mishearing/misunderstanding something or having to rely on memory alone, neither of which are really things you probably want to be doing when bad intel can mean the difference between life and death in her circumstances. So I do really wonder what it is Sampo does in the clinic all day haha. Given that he's a big believer in the power of small talk bringing in big clients, it's entirely possible Sampo is just in there being chatty, happily making conversation and keeping Natasha company most of the time...which is kinda cute. He also really could just be talking shop, too, of course- Sampo does a lot of work for Natasha, and I don't think it'd be a stretch to assume she's his main client. There's probably a lot to discuss about supply quotas, incoming intel, scheduled drops, etc.

My favorite option, though, is actually based on one of Sampo's options from the main quest, where he says:

Because like! The way he says this, the way he specifies that this is his opinion, but no one seems to care what he thinks? And how he calls them stubborn in particular? It really sounds like Sampo has been trying to get Wildfire to operate in a different direction. And if you look up the exact definition of "artless," you get this

which very much fits Sampo, and how he does things. He has guile and deception down to an art form. Sampo goes on to call Wildfire "do-gooders," but then cautions the trailblazer not to underestimate them because of that- indicating that Sampo sees that type of philosophy as something naive, or at least just ineffective. Something that you would underestimate a person for.

And the person Sampo associates with the most in Wildfire, the one he's always seen with, the one who would hold the most sway to change the modus operandi of the organization is...Natasha.

So I wonder if Sampo has been trying, possibly for years now, to get Natasha to see what he thinks of as reason, and start playing dirty to survive. I wonder if that's what he spends so much time in the clinic for, is because he does care, and he wants her and the rest of them to live, and he has been trying to convince her to go with his way of doing things, but Natasha has been refusing him, refusing to compromise her morals.

Because we know from some readables and from the general Vibe, both up on the surface and down below, that things were getting pretty dire. Rivet Town has fallen. The Silvermane Guards are being whittled down and broken. The Fragmentum was right on everyone's doorstep, and I'm sure that if the Astral Express hadn't arrived- and that if Sampo hadn't set the stage so perfectly, if he hadn't played his part just so- then all of Belobog would have eventually been snuffed out. Sampo had to have known it was happening. He must have known the end was upon them.

He doesn't even have a stake in Belobog- he's not from here. He could, assumingly, call it quits and leave when shit got tough by whatever means got him there in the first place.

And I'm sure Sampo wants to save all of Belobog, but I think he's particularly endeared by Natasha. He famously phrases his view of Elation as "true happiness always entails the manifestation of the dignity of mankind." And like. Who else embodies that so much as her?

Maybe it is a little vague and up to interpretation, but I feel like Natasha is FULL of that kind of dignity. She has been doing this since before the blockade. She willingly chose to stay in the Underground where she could do the most good. She has seen so, so much death and you can see how it weighs on her; she's become bitter, and wary, and weary. She has it out for the Guards (understandable), and she openly taunts Gepard and goes right for his throat when he shows up in Boulder Town, ten years too late, trying to help with the Fragmentum.

Natasha even seems to have given up any belief she may have once had. She's completely lost faith in Qlipoth.

All of this, and yet she still chooses to be kind. She still chooses to help people. There is something immensely admirable in all of that.

And I feel like you can see how much Sampo admires her in just how often he thinks of her, especially when someone needs help. Sampo smokebombs everyone and needs to get them somewhere safe in the Underground? He takes them to Natasha. Svarog is about to fucking kill everyone? Go get Natasha. He finds the trailblazer passed out in an alleyway? He carries them to Natasha. The trailblazer is seeing weird shit out in the Fragmentum? Recommend they go get a check up. Specifically from Natasha.

It's a little silly, but I think you can also see some of this when Sampo is being melodramatic about being caught red-handed in the museum event. He echoes a very important sentiment to Natasha and Wildfire;

And the mission where this ideology was displayed strongest was titled, "To Rot or To Burn."

(Hell, in the dream sequence of Penacony- regardless of whether that dream bubble came from Sampo or Sparkle, it had to be informed by Sampo's tales of Belobog. Sparkle has never been there herself. And the kind trashcan that immediately helps you and sets you on the right path, that tries to rally everyone together, the only one with a name so clearly and obviously taken from someone Sampo knew in Belobog? Is Shatana- an anagram of Natasha. Even from a meta perspective, they have the same VA. No other trashcan there gets that treatment. None.)

I think they have the same goals, and even hold some of the same views. Natasha's are much more obvious, but still. Sampo says this about Belobog's circumstances:

And he says this as though it should be obvious common sense. That when things are rough, you share and make sure everyone has enough. I think they both share this belief, it's just that they disagree on how to go about making things even. Natasha believes in rallying people for the cause and giving as much of herself as she can to make up for whatever people lack. Sampo believes that if some dipshit with more money than what they need falls for his bullshit and he gets to spread it around? Well hey, that sounds like a whole lot of their own fault.

Natasha is definitely aware of this, and she has no problem threatening Sampo whenever she thinks he's stepping out of line.

She keeps him on a very short leash, which like. Yeah no that's valid fjkdlsajfdklj

Even so, the way she talks about him, like... Maybe it's just me, and my rose-colored glasses, but she doesn't seem to dislike him nearly as much as she could? She kind of just. Says these things as statements about him, without any real vitriol behind them. This is just kind of how he is. She even seems to have a sense of humor about it.

And again! She has so much more to say about him than almost any other character.

I'd like to think part of her...affection? of sorts? for him is simple camaraderie. Circumstances are dire. Past, present, and future are all bleak. Things like that deepen bonds with your foxhole buddies. Sampo is dependent on Natasha for work and pay and a place to get away from the Guards. Natasha is dependent on Sampo for food and medicine and life-saving supplies. They both heavily rely on each other in this harsh environment, and they have a really nice back-and-forth that I appreciate with how they help each other out by owing favors as payment.

And the other part, I'd like to think actually IS because she knows him very well- maybe not things like his past, but she knows some of his personality and beliefs, and finds them agreeable enough. She even has the audacity to call him a poor liar at one point- Sampo! Of all people! Known by someone well enough to be caught out as a poor liar! He's either intentionally leading her on and letting her think she's caught him, or Natasha just really is that good. Neither would surprise me tbh

I think Natasha is also just uniquely prepared to understand Sampo, and is able to see his better sides without letting her judgement be clouded by his slimy manner. She's able to appreciate that his actions ARE extremely helpful, regardless of how he does them.

Even as she acknowledges that he isn't always trustworthy, she does still choose to rely on him and give him chances. She was pleasantly surprised by him here, but she still chose to trust him with this in the first place. She never treats him harshly, and she never seems to bear any kind of grudge with him.

But my favorite example of Natasha being able to understand Sampo? My favorite is this. This one little throwaway line, that didn't even involve him, wasn't even about him. I feel like Natasha is capable of knowing and understanding Sampo on a deeper level than most people can, solely because of this.

She gets it.

(As a fun bonus: In the current trashcan event, there's a simple mechanic where you get one trial character for the initial battle. Then, for the harder stage, you get that same trial character, plus a couple of extras. This is true for every Proof- except for Sampo's. In his harder stage, you use Asta, Black Swan, and Luocha. But in his initial stage, in an event all about friendship and relationships...)

[carlyraejepsans]

for real WHERE does the idea that [utdr humans] are nongendered so that "you can project on them" come from. their literal character arcs are about NOT being a blank slate to be filled in by the audience

i think i understand the assumption on some level for undertale, because there is a very intentional effort to make you identify with the "player character" in order to make your choices feel like your own (the beating heart of undertale's metanarrative lies in giving you an alternative path to violence against its enemies after all, and whether you're still willing to persue it for your own selfish reasons. YOUR agency is crucial).

of course, the cardinal plot twist of the main ending sweeps the rug from under your feet on that in every way, and frisk's individuality becomes, in turn, a tool to further UT's OTHER main theme: completionism as a form of diegetic violence within the story. replaying the game would steal frisk's life and happy ending from them for our own perverse sentimentality, emotionally forcing our hand away from the reset button.

i think their neutrality absolutely aids in that immersion. but also, there's this weird attitude by (mostly) cis fans where it being functional within the story makes it... somehow "editable" and "up to the player" as well? which is gross and shows their ass on how they approach gender neutrality in general lol.

but also like. there's plenty of neutral, non PCharacters in undertale and deltarune. even when undertale was just an earthbound fangame and the player immersion metanarrative was completely absent, toby still described frisk as a "young, androgynous person". sometimes characters are just neutral by design. it's not that hard to understand lol.

anyone who makes this argument for kris deltarune is braindead. nothing else to say about it.

[cheriebear]

J’adore votre blog! Ça me rend vraiment content n’important quand je vous vois. Aussi, l’art que vous faites de reblog est magnifique. Vous avez un excellent œil pour ça.

J’ai aimé en plus vos commentaires sur les relations platonique et serais fasciné d’apprendre plus sur la distinction entre un vue romantique des liens platoniques et des liens vraiment romantiques.

(Feel free to respond in either English or French if you would like)

Ahhh merci beaucoup pour le message!! Tu as illuminé ma journée 🥰 J'adore aussi votre blog. Seriously, I enjoy seeing you both on the dashboard and in my notes. Merci pour le compliment aussi, I love to indulge in art, decorate my blog with it, and by doing so spread it to further audiences too since I know how important that is.

As for what you came here to discuss: I'm so thrilled you're fascinated to learn more about it! I'm not sure how broadly it's been talked about, but for much of my life I have been passionate about the distinctions between the platonic and romantic as concepts when applied to relationships, and also romanticism as an idea/movement. I very much think of myself as a romantic, as it sometimes took looking at things perhaps a little "delusionally" or with rose-tinted glasses to cope with living my everyday life in the past.

Cutting off the post here because it turns into a VERY long ramble. To read more about my thoughts on the distinction between a romantic lens on platonic relationships and truly romantic relationships continue reading below.

So, to establish to anyone else who didn't read my commentary, I'll go over the key parts to then expand. Platonic is often used to describe the love of a friend, as that is its meaning, and the antithesis is the romantic love of someone (whether you are with them in a relationship or not) which impliedly involves physical and sexual aspects because those are specifically excluded from platonic bonds.

Quite literally, the opposite of platonic is sexual. To be sexual is generally to be romantic, as romance as a definition involves a sort of "excitement" and "passion". I'm certain there's more detailed discussions on romance and being aromantic/asexual, but that's not exactly what I'm here today for. Approximately, it's understood that there are two common dynamics in love: platonic and romantic. One is non-sexual and the other is impliedly sexual.

If we look to the Greeks, there are several different kinds of love. That which is understood to be romantic (using other words that do not translate exactly) appears to have evolved into the English language to be combined with the Greek word for sexual love too. They go hand in hand in our Western society at the very least. And platonic is distinctly another type of love that is not romantic or sexual. The love of friends. Not romantic. Not sexual. Something else.

I must VERY MUCH STRESS that this is not supposed to be some sort of criticism of aromantic and or asexual identities in the LGBTQ+ community. That is not what I am here for. Aromanticism is not something I personally experience, so I am no authority on it, and I offer no thoughts on it in this post. I am on the asexual spectrum, so I feel that is partially where I come from when I talk about this topic. But I am also not any authority on what all ace-spec people think/feel/believe. I fully expect differing thoughts and opinions. I welcome them.

Now, to continue:

It has long been the frustration of the asexual community that platonic bonds are not taken seriously with the same gravity as romantic bonds. Your best friend, soulmate even, or platonic partner (generally, as you might have a platonic partner under the radar that is considered your "romantic" partner under law if you married or, in some jurisdictions, are considered a de facto partner - but that's another can of worms in the legal sense of these words) is not held in high regard compared to your girlfriend, boyfriend, spouse, and so on. I'll copy the post below that prompted my commentary in the reblogs and subsequently Obi's curiosity (je suis désolée, my dear mutual, I don't know your name, so I turned "occasionally bilingual" into O.B. and subsequently Obi as a placeholder).

To summarise the post: there is a common belief in our society, seen in the microcosm of fandom spaces, that "friendship is not enough to justify insane acts of love" between characters. Quite literally that is the essence of this discussion in one sentence. That platonic love--friendship--is not believed in. That friendship is not such a profound relationship of deep feelings that would motivate anyone to go to the ends of the earth over. A sentiment I highly disagree with.

As a side note: a little crudely, I think some people might be ruled more by their carnal desires than the love in their hearts, without always having the words or wisdom to internally assess the differences when acting on their feelings.

I'll be so bold as to put this to you: think of any fandom you're in. Any. Think of two characters, often of the same sex, who are friends in the canon and nothing else. Friends for the whole duration of the story. Entirely platonic with the understanding of the word as I have described it above. You got them in mind? Good. Now, I can guarantee someone, somewhere in your fandom has shipped them together romantically at some point. This is not inherently wrong. But I can tell you that someone has also argued something along the lines of "did you see [insert scene] where [character a] did this to/said this to/looked at [character b] in that way? Friends don't do that. Obviously these two characters are gay (and the author may or may not be a coward or making use of subtext)." And then that's how all the fanon ships treated as "basically canon" are born.

You could insert a heterosexual pair too; it happens all the time in our real lives. "Boy meets girl" and they fall in love because it's apparently inevitable (it's not).

It's a lot more distinct in same sex pairings though, the rhetoric around that's not what friends do for each other. Looking at them a certain way, doing something for them at their own detriment, and so on. But that's because, in an amatonormative society (one that assumes that everyone needs an exclusive romantic relationship for fulfilment in their life), many people cannot imagine prioritising friendship so highly that you might do anything within your power for someone you only have platonic regard for. That you would "waste" time and resources on someone you are not romantically attached to or pursuing (this is where my side-argument that amatonormative culture significantly is influenced by capitalism--but that may be a separate discussion for another time since I'm already yapping an essay).

There is also the fact that creatives like writers, filmmakers, and so on, are all artists. And artists have a way of romanticising some topics they portray in their art.

Romanticisation has a sort of elusive meaning in my mind. It's easier to point it out than articulate it. You could probably look up the definition yourself or the romantic movement. But it is distinctly separate in meaning/use from romantic relationships.

Let me explain.

To romanticise would be: describing the beauty of the dancing flames in the fireplace as your skin tingles with the fire's thawing heat that seeps into you like a hug from your grandmother. Or whatever. Not the best sentence in the world. Or how about this? As I lay on the glittering asphalt in the mists, I see the blue and red lights of the siren wink at me with halos like I'm looking at starry angels. Oh, or the cannibalism fans, what about this: her warm lips caress my skin as if in a kiss before her teeth sink into flesh, drawing hot blood spilling with all the darkness of wine down her chin. It hurts, but it feels good too, as if I have found my purpose in feeding her with my body.

That's romanticism. An emphasis on the unique beauty of something that can border on dangerous delusion.

By contrast, a romantic relationship is simply a bond you might have with someone where you are in love with them in such a way you experience physical desires of a more sexual nature. You can, in fact, romanticise a romantic relationship. Media does it all the time in selling amatonormativity. You could go on Pinterest right now and see boards filled with lipstick kisses on letters, suggestive silhouettes, poems between or about lovers, and so on.

Where I think people sometimes trip up, especially as seen in fandom since I haven't experience this in my real life to this degree, is when the romanticisation of platonic relationships is mistaken for an allusion to romantic feelings/a romantic relationship between characters.

Let me reiterate my earlier point about platonic bonds: by definition, they are inherently non-sexual and are not considered romances (God, the limits of the English language lead me to regular crash outs over words like this, not gonna lie).

Non-sexual. No romance. But can be viewed with a romantic lens (romanticisation) that I distinguish from a lens that views characters as being romantically involved.

This could be seen in the way your heart swells when your bestie does in fact confirm you two are best friends, or how your friend's eyes light up when they see you across the parking lot, or the easy flow of conversation between you as you sit in a cafe and bask in the buttery warmth of the morning sun and each other's smiles, or dropping everything at a single text to come help them move apartments, or fight their boyfriend, or comfort them over a death, or provide tutoring on a class they're worried about failing. There's love in all that. Not romantic love. But the way I described it all was a romanticisation of a platonic situation/bond.

There might be people who read that paragraph and thought at some point, Oh, no, "just friends" aren't like that, they must be in love or going to eventually fall in love (romantically) someday. To that, I say, please, sit down and broaden your mind a little. Treasure your friendships a bit more. Romantic love and sex aren't everything or all that matters in this world.

I just typed way too many words in an attempt to explain, basically, that there is beauty in the love shared between friends which should not be mistaken for romantic love. I know in fandoms we love shipping. It's just part of the culture. No one's gonna be able to stop anyone from it and nor should they. I can't even really ask anything of anyone.

As I said earlier, I also have no authority on this topic. These are just my thoughts and opinions. I've long been an advocate for the asexual community, and I only recently understood my own identity. Unironically, I believe in the power of friendship. I believe the love between friends is equal to the love between romantic/sexual partners and should be treated as such. "Just friends" is a term I don't like all that much. While I suppose you could argue that adding sex to the equation equals a romantic bond, changing it from platonic, I think that kind of talk downgrades the value of platonic connections and only creates pressure for people to have sex or be in romantic relationships to be considered valid, happy, and human or "normal"--the kind of view I don't think we need in our society.

Normalise going above and beyond for your friends again. Doing things because you care. Because you're a good friend. Because you're happier with the company of a community in your corner. You shouldn't derive all your needs for connection from a romantic partner. It's a lot to lay on one person. That's why you have friends and family and friends that are your family. Romantic feelings can be way fickler too. Friendships are more likely to stand the test of time.

Just some food for thought.

Friends can look at each other adoringly. Friends can sacrifice everything for each other. Friends can be your soulmate. Platonic merely means non-sexual and it is a separate kind of love from romantic. Sometimes people get confused when friendships are romanticised and celebrated, taking them to be romantic relationships. It happens. There are distinctions to be made though. Romantic in terms of beauty and romantic in terms of love/emotion are two different things that sometimes go together. Just be careful with it. English is a confusing language.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

Hope this longass discussion post satisfied your curiosity, Obi 💝If you had any thoughts you'd like to add, feel free to do so in French or English.

[sunnysaystuff]

aha... hey ;)

oka!!<3

stargirl mary because she's trying too hard to be the moon and she's too scared to be the sun stargirl mary cuz she's a follower lead around by her nose her love like a dog stargirl mary cuz she glimmers shines verges implosion but never moves never changes her path she's about to fucking die and she freezes stands still she can't move so she obliviates herself so she won't have to mary a star that's burning that's exploding light years away but you won't know til it's too late mary is supernovic mary is a black hole that doesn't care enough to warn people away from her gravitational pull because that's what she does she ruins she ruins she fluoresces she ruins and still she's in ruins

pandora is the sun but not in the idealized way not in the rays of light warmth of summer way not in the dappling beams illuminating the water way in a hurtling ball of fire way in a once you are drawn into her orbit you can't escape way in a don't get too close way in a charred skin and flaky ashes way in a the sun is a star way in a she's not enough to be a black hole way in a she's going to shrink into nothing way in a burn herself out way in a phaethon crashed the sun and scorched the land way in a violent burning way that needs that begs that calls

mary is not the moon because she is sharp and pointed and loud but she could be for all she endlessly revolves around the sun chasing something nothing at all pandora is not the moon because she is blunt and uncalculating and thoughtlessly brilliant with her wreckage sort of style but she could be for all the time she spends being someone else's center

mary is not the sun because she is not brave enough to be. pandora is a star because she is brave enough to be, but she is only the sun, stuck in her own little world spinning all around her, shrivelling endlessly into nothing at all.

[foggygauntlet]

I have tried to think why I cannot think of Gaston and lefou happily together, and I think it comes down to that Gaston is just a bad person who has so much power over lefou and lefou is practically defencesless against him, in both brains and strength. He manipulates and abuses lefous friendship (as well as the rest of the town) for his gain because they think he's cool. Also Gaston is just a terrible person, and lefou isn't really (at least, not to Gaston point). He shows some level of sympathy and humanity towards others sometimes, but his major flaw is idolising Gaston, so much that he will follow his with everything he does, which makes him more susceptible to manipulation (like the rest of the town). It's just really toxic and I feel icky thinking about it. (If all of Gaston haters are dead then so am I fyi) They are on just too different positions and there is such a big power difference and Gaston has and will take advantage of that. Also I can't for the life of me ever imagining Gaston being in love with anyone other than himself.

BUT believe it or not, stone and robotnik don't really have that much of a power difference (at least, not by the end of their relationship) and they are both truly evil (also side note it's also a different evil than Gaston. Like, Its genuinely funny with someone who does bad things that inconveniences the goverment or money related crimes or killing people in a goofy manner, not a misogynistic incel who cant take no for an answer) We just never get to see stones evil side because whenever he's always around robotnik he always making puppy dog eyes (Like when in the book he killed a customer who was slightly rude and impatient by breaking his neck at the mean bean lol) Sure, he does idolise robotnik, especially at the start, but he also has a genuine relationship with him, being with him for more that 8 years professionally before s1 and domestically living with him in s3, seeing robontik at his worst. Robotnik is genuine and authentic with stone in the crab as well, its not like they are trying to be someone for their gain. His idolisation never makes him susceptible to manipulation though he is just willingly like that and manipulates for his own advantage too (pre s2 comic he essentially tacticalky kills and fires a bunch of people and ruin their lives to makes himself the boss of this coffee shop so he can make a place for robotniks shit without any suspicion WHILST being a target of gun (I'm not sure if this is correct BUT I know that he uses a fake name and I'd to get the job and Its known that in the knuckles series that gun is trying to kill and erase anyone who has relations with robotnik but that's post s2 so idk) ALSO about the power imbalance, they both seem to be incredibly capable of defending themselves  mentally and physically. Like, in s1 robotnik essentially throws a large guy out a windows, and how stone was able to do all that shit whilst riding a motorbike in s3. Stone is canonically smarter than robotnik (at least iq wise) and is incredible at manipulating people also (take the pre s2 comic (I forgot what its called) for instance). Robotnik grew up in an orphanage ad a gifted child, he was (probably) praised alot as a child but simultaneously craves a family bond. (Side note here more of a hc than anything but gun def did some shit to robotnik after the shadow explosion, like idk maybe they monitored robotnik constantly as a child and used his smarts for their gain, but I don't really know. But they they call robotnik lab rat in s1 so take that and do with it as you please) Also nothing is forcing stone to stay with robontik, he litterally could've let him die and live a grand life or left him in s2 and robotnik wouldn't be able to come back. Stobotnik is essentially just two equally fucked up people being fucked up with each other.

I'm wondering...

[exhumedicarus]

i am wondering about how exactly luxu's vessels work. i've been assuming it's essentially ascians rules where he possesses the body of an existing person (rather than just changing his appearance or something) since that's what the implication seems to me and it's also what xehanort did (and i assume most people are less able to resist that sort of thing than terra) but that does raise the question of when he possessed xigbar. was braig still his own person when we saw him? what about xigbar, was that already luxu when we met him? i assume it was because the secret report where he mentions his current vessel being his last seems to have been written well before kh2. though it feels to me like it's from when xehanort was young which doesn't line up with how old xigbar appears to be. so maybe luxu does have some control over the appearance of his vessels? or maybe the exact timeline isn't so important and i'm overthinking

[funkervogt]

Feel like i have to constantly check if i'm "really trans" which is maybe or maybe not normal but still really annoying and stupid and bothering me Regardless of normalcy

[twpsyn-who]

Talking a little bit about 'boycotting Eurovision' under Keep Reading, feel free to scroll down if is not what you want to see.

The most used argument on the matter of banning Israel from Eurovision is the fact that Russia got banned from Eurovision, which is the worst argument anyone could bring.

Kindly reminder that Russia didn't get banned because of the war with Ukraine. Russia got banned because many countries has threatened to withdraw from the competition. Sadly, that's a big difference.

Yes, the countries has threatened to withdraw because they support Ukraine and see Russia as the party in the wrong. That was their reason. EBU's reason for banning Russian was because those countries threatened to withdraw, not because the war was bad and Russia must be stopped.

This situation isn't the same. Why? Because many countries support Israel in their genocide. Because this time around Palestine is the party in the wrong. Because we're taught to believe that Israel isn't in the wrong here.**

Boycotting Eurovision won't work. There are people out there who don't know the truth and want to watch Eurovision. There are people out there who don't care and will watch Eurovision regardless of the situation. There are people out there who, despite having the facts, still don't see Israel as the bad guy in this situation and will watch Eurovision. Sadly, boycotting won't work unless everyone does it.

The only way Israel will get banned, in my opinion, is by going through the same thing as Russia. If other countries threatened to withdraw- and not any countries, but the ones investing the most in Eurovision, then yes. That will get Israel banned.

Otherwise? The only thing we do is hurt artists that don't deserve it. Artists who use Eurovision as a way to get more exposure and experience. Artists who deserve to be heard.

Don't vote for Israel's entry. Don't stream their song either. Heck, turn off the TV when is their turn to perform.

**This whole situation (the war, not Eurovision) isn't only black and white. Civilians die daily because of this, all of them from both sides. Innocent people who has no fault. Let's not forget that

[rawliverandgoronspice]

the incredibly delicate tension between: we need art to feed us and connect us and make us feel like things have a purpose, and: art is slowly but surely making us more complacent and cowardly

[juliatulia]

do you think Morrissey still cares for Johnny or he is indifferent towards him?

Yes, I think he does very much. From what we know there hasn't been any meaningful direct contact between them in quite a while, but I still believe he cares. When Andy died he wrote such a heartfelt and genuine piece despite being out of his life for so long. It really struck me, none of the overused and clichéd phrases, just so heartfelt og genuine. I think when you have clawed you way into his heart you don't easily escape from it.