#though arguments can be made

[frownyalfred]

My mon always said that Bruce wayne of ben affleck was the most handsome, when I was younger and I watched bvs the movie I didn´t liked him, but now that Im older..oh god he is so dilf, brrrrr I love old sexy man

He has just enough DILF energy to be wildly sexy while also technically having 0 children who are alive and/or talking to him.

[limonjarritos]

I think if Rody didn't have Manon to obsess over and therefore for Vince to make her into food for Rody I still think Vince would go cannibalism route. Like I think we're talking Vince giving a small piece of himself to be eaten by Rody as a form of love, just want to make that clear. This man is not normal.

I also think if Rody did have an obsession with Vince, he would have given a piece of himself for Vince to eat. He is all about giving the most to his partner even at the detriment to himself. He would hand over the whole of himself.

[sysig]

Justify away (Patreon)

[anghraine]

I got a comment that was like ... people are only mad about film Faramir because he doesn't act exactly the way they personally imagined him, and tbh I'm torn between being annoyed at how deeply disingenuous that argument is and slightly impressed at the sheer audacity of pinning the Faramir Controversy on difference from random people's headcanons rather than the book itself.

...then I got to thinking about how the whole time-consuming and wildly out of character handling of the temptation of the Ring is one thing, and justifiably gets a lot of attention, but Faramir allowing his soldiers to beat Gollum for information is quite comparable in my mind. They're his men! Gollum is an unarmed prisoner! I guess it's meant to show the exigencies of war or something and I'm just like ... hahaha no.

In a way it reminds me of film Aragorn just straight up killing the Mouth of Sauron in a way that seems meant to show their desperation in a badass cathartic way, and meanwhile, I'm thinking ... oh, our heroes murder ambassadors now. I feel like it's the same underlying kind of rationale, and quite far from not matching people's headcanons.

[gremnda]

HELP THE AIMSEY CRASHOUT LMFAOOOOO THAT'S SO FUNNY I'M SO SORRY

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

The whole discourse about the privacy/secrecy/support thing has been sitting with me for a few days (I mean other than it always does to a certain degree) thanks to all the excellent discussion happening and I know I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said a million times before, but I think what we're seeing and what we're going to learn (e.g. from TTPD) is that it wasn't just the support issue, but how it was shown/handled.

We've all gone out of our way to show that introversion =/= lack of support. Someone can be shy, reserved, etc. and still show up for their partner, whether in public or at home. To chalk any of the differences up to the clash between introversion and extroversion is unfair to folks who count themselves among either tbh.

@thisisctrying said something the other day that hit the nail on the head about how if that support had been offered in private, there very well may not have been a Joever to begin with, or at least not at this point in time. (Sorry for loosely paraphrasing, and for namedropping you! Long time listener, first time poster.)

If this were a case where the "shy" partner said, "I am really uncomfortable with the spotlight personally and do not want to court it, but I will support you in your ambitions and offer you whatever you need to make them happen and make the glare bearable," I suspect that would have gone a long way to making Taylor feel seen and comfortable in pursuing her goals in the way that she now has. Again, that might have been more akin to the balance that seemed to have been struck around 2019 from what we can see, but even speaking in a general sense, there are lots of couples out there, celebrity or not, that have similar approaches where there are highly driven people and busy careers involved.

(A famous example being Dolly Parton's marriage. Tbh I know next to nothing about her and Carl, but she's always heralded as an example in this regard, because her husband is famously uncomfortable with the spotlight and hasn't accompanied her to public events in decades, but she's said that she never minded that because that was always work to her, and what was important was that he supported her in pursuing all her career goals and basically ensured she had a place to call home to return to at the end of the day.)

We're kind of in a brave new world with her current relationship because it felt like, at least at the start, we were maybe watching her figure out her boundaries in real time as to what she was comfortable with or not and adjust accordingly. Like so many have said, I fully believe the extreme privacy thing was initially driven by herself and her experiences in 2016, and she needed that quiet time to recover from all of the things and figure out how to exist in the world again.

Stating the obvious, it seemed like eventually privacy was equated with secrecy, turning the relationship and the celebrity into the elephant in the room and something to never be spoken of to the outside world. People are free to choose whatever works best for themselves and their relationships, and for some the separate public lives might work, but the “kept me like a secret but I kept you like an oath” theme is all over her work and it’s clear that it’s a sore spot for her, because she’s been made to feel shame just for the life she leads so many times in the past.

What I’m trying to say is that it’s pretty obvious something Not Great was happening behind the scenes, which didn’t just amount to “she wanted to be a public celebrity and he wanted to be a private hermit.” (Also, in case anyone forgot, this is a person who also chose a public-facing career who also has to engage in press for it, but I digress.) As her career reached new heights post-folklore, if she had the support at home to do all the things without judgment and with encouragement, and in turn offer the same support to her partner, she may have very well lived just fine with that, not unlike Dolly Parton’s case.

By reading between the lines in all the press since, as well as comments on tour and general ~vibes~ with TTPD teasers, it seems like one of the issues was that that was likely not the case. There was all the stuff that we saw — the reticence to acknowledge each other in the media (particularly on one side), the lack of public support even at events at which they were both in attendance for their respective jobs, the great lengths they went to not to be photographed together at events they attended yet no problem taking pictures with other friends and coworkers, the jobs that separated them, the withdrawing from the public even for work accomplishments, etc. Which could all be manageable if a couple chooses to do so together and are not inherently a sign of trouble in themselves.

But what we’re seeing now I think is a reflection of the things we weren’t seeing then, and it seems to indicate some very deep hurt. (I know, call me Captain Obvious.) And like so many have been saying, it feels likely that that part of that hurt is rooted in that very lack of private support where a person would expect it from their partner. Obviously as a Taylor fan blog I’m going to be more inclined to understand her side of a story, but tbh, it’s also because… this is sooooooo common, and something I’ve experienced in my friend group. (@taylortruther is right when she says most breakups are the same one way or another lol.)

One partner is resentful of the other’s success, or resentful that the other’s priorities begin to evolve as new experiences unlock new goals, or feels the other’s ambitions are not worthy of pursuit, and coupled with perhaps their own struggles in the same domain, it’s easy to see where that can chip away at the other partner’s morale and faith in the relationship. I know I’m just speculating here, but I also don’t think it’s totally unfounded. (Again, because a) I’m picking up what she’s putting down and b) it happens to sooooooo many women even among us dull normals.)

With all the pointed mentions about how much Taylor feels supported in her current relationship and how she in turn loves to offer the same show of support to not only her partner but other loved ones, how she’s stepped out more in the last year to a whole host of events, how she’s mentioned feeling like she locked herself away for years and she’s just proud of her partner and happy she can show up for him even if the chaos around it is unsettling, it paints a picture of what perhaps was happening before last year.

To feel like you’re all alone in carrying the weight of the relationship (or burden of it), of twisting yourself into knots to accommodate the other person’s boundaries (or insecurities) but not feeling reciprocity for your own has to be so painful. (The idea that it may have been even darker and to have a partner not only be unreceptive to your own needs but even perhaps resentful/dismissive/belittling of them is even more painful to think of. I guess we’ll find out when TTPD comes out if that was the case, too.)

At a certain point, that lack of acknowledgement will force your hand to be able to reclaim yourself. And it feels like the further removed Taylor in particular is from it, the more she moves from being sad about the life she felt she gave up by leaving, to angry at the life she felt she was giving up by staying. Especially being in a relationship now where it seems like everything comes much easier, where she can be open about the person she’s with and show up for them, all the stuff that seemed as challenging as climbing Mount Everest in her past is nothing more than a molehill at best in her current life.

TL;DR: I don’t think it’s privacy that inherently spells doom for a celebrity relationship like this; it’s the mutual support and respect that does. If Taylor had felt that in the later years of her previous relationship, I think we could be seeing a different, though not necessarily unfulfilled, person right now in 2024, who’d be happy on tour but whose personal life would look a little different. But it seems like by losing that support she lost parts of herself, and we’ve seen her reclaim that in spades in the last year, and perhaps to degrees she didn’t even realize she could from before all the Bad Stuff started happening in her young adulthood.

I know this was extremely long-winded and unnecessary, especially about total strangers we only know through scraps fed through the media, but I just always bristle at this idea that issues like these boil down to “personality differences,” as though one person wants to live in a city and the other on a remote island, or some shit like that. The whole support (and gender tbh) issue is one that’s just very close to my heart because again, I have seen it play out with so many of my friends in long term relationships and marriages and I just think people in relationships (and women in particular in some circles) deserve better than to feel like they’re being, well, tolerated.

[vaniliens]

Im not even sticking around for the drama that stuff gives me heart diseases im just here to see where this guys gonna lead us and to make fun of him if it ends up bad and ignore it if it was good

[yazzy-khan]

just found out that Sonya is older than Yaz. need 3-5 business days to process this

[gibbearish]

every time i see discourse about fundraisers go by on here im just fully struck with the realization that not a single one of you people have either taken a cybersecurity fraud prevention course or bothered to take one singular second to consider the website youre on. this is the broke bitches website. none of us can afford to fund our mutuals' grocery bills, much less entire evacuation funds, and CERTAINLY not FAKE evacuation funds taking advantage of genocide victims. all this shit abt how people are deliberately choosing not to fund every post that passes their dash because they hate palestinians literally just does the work of actual scammers for them by laying the high-pressure sales tactics groundwork, and the "do you guys have any idea how hard it is to keep coming up with new attention-grabbing fundraiser posts?" ones just ring EXTREMELY hollow because YEAH! YEAH I DO! and so does everyone i follow! and everyone they follow! because all of us are FUCKING BROKE and surviving on crumbs! i just saw one that said "i make sure to keep $40 in my wallet at all times so i can give $20 to any panhandlers i see, this is the same" and its like!! good for you, thats very nice, but like!!! you need need NEED to take a step back and realize that /being able to do that/ is a position of privilege, not the default setting to be a good person. i wont discount that some people do ignore fundraisers specifically because of racism because Of Course, but like. a) yelling at them isnt gonna make them stop, or more accurately yelling at /everyone else/ isnt gonna make those people stop, and b) trying to apply that as a blanket motivation for everyone just. realistically doesnt work. not donating is a nonaction, it is the literal default status, and while in specific situations you can use CONSISTENT absence of SPECIFIC actions to track a person's motivations SOMETIMES, broadly speaking that just. doesnt work.

there are 8 billion people on this planet. most of them will never know you exist. of the ones that do, most will not be able to help you. of the ones that can, most will not be on the broke bitches website passing the same communal $20 around. consider your audience and stop shitting on fellow poor people for having the gall to need to be careful with their money. and if you are genuinely only posting your fundraiser to tumblr, like. im sorry, but you need to anticipate not reaching your goal and prepare accordingly. theres a reason the last big scam scandal people talk about actually getting the money is like. all-or-nothing era, as a website none of us have the funds to make that kind of thing happen anymore or the security to risk it. a fundraiser not meeting its goal on here is not a personal sleight against whoever made it, its just how life goes sometimes. and it's unfair and it sucks and we should help however we can, but. sometimes you just arent able to help someone else, and continuing to feel responsible serves only to torture yourself. and blaming OTHERS serves only to move that guilt from yourself off onto another person. i imagine that has to be where a lot of the vitriol comes from, is people who cant afford to donate more getting pissed at people they see as having the funds but choosing not to share them, but again, sometimes you just are not able to achieve the goals you set out towards, through no fault of the specific parties involved.

people on tumblr choosing to buy groceries rather than potentially donate to a scam are not your enemy and are not the ones facilitating a genocide. we're all victims of the same horrific system, the question is just how that system manifests its influence on each of us. poverty kills just as thoroughly as a bomb. everyone is just doing their best to survive, and as much as we like to pretend that everyone should be a perfect selfless angel that puts others before themselves no matter what, humans are by default a selfish species, and it is a lot easier to say what youd do in theory than actually do it. and there's a reason you have to put on your own oxygen mask before helping the person beside you, youre of no help to anyone if youre too dead to do anything.

[dreamerdrop]

also if i ever do an alice in wonderland x star trek kinda thing, it’s gonna be ezri. it’s gonna be ezri in wonderland, no question.

she’s like, the perfect alice. it would just have to be ezri, there’s no one else.

[pynkhues]

Hi sophie! I hate to be the person who brings bad vibes your way, but I keep seeing ppl twisting your arguments in the worst way possible and it’s honestly bumming me out. The latest vaguepost claims that saying Louis is traditionally masculine or a patriarch is antiblack (this is the post btw in case your curious: https://www.tumblr.com/nashvillethotchicken/770055675307065344/a-lot-of-people-in-the-iwtv-fandom-regurgitate?source=share). It made me wonder whether this pushback against Louis’ masculinity has something to do with a narrow concept of gender roles in general. Because there always seems to be this idea that being masculine equals being a hyperviolent abuser, while any gentle or submissive trait immediately gets interpreted as “feminine” (and overall I see a very strong correlation between femininity and victimhood -especially in the context of domestic abuse -which is understandable but not necessarily helpful when talking abt a gay couple). I agree a lot with your interpretation of Louis as a Byronic hero and the points you’ve made about his and Lestat’s gender presentation, so it sort of surprises me to see so many people believe that recognizing Louis’ masculinity somehow negates his sensibility and his capacity for tenderness (not to mention the assumption that we are trying to defend Lestat and make him into a victim, which is a wild leap and a very bad faith reading of the whole argument imo)

Hey, anon, and that's okay. I can appreciate feeling bummed about my words being twisted into a strawman argument - I do sometimes too - but at the end of the day, that's out of my control and I think says a lot more about the people who'd do it than it does about me.

It's actually kind of interesting to me, because I think with a lot of those sorts of posts, the person actually kind of knows they're strawmanning, because they'd address me directly if they actually thought any of what they wrote in that post was what I was saying, and they almost never do. They make these sorts of posts loudly and publicly to turn the argument into one that stokes outrage and becomes something they can adopt a moral highground to and win, and I think in a lot of ways, it becomes an exercise in control. If they can put words in my mouth and not actually engage with me, they can control the environment of the debate, and therefore they can attempt to control the discourse in the fandom i.e. dictate the way Louis is perceived and received as a character by others. They want it to look like they're arguing my points, but they're not.

They're arguing with the points they want me to be making, because if my points are that Louis' a mindless, hypermasculine 'brute' and a 'sexual deviant', they know they're right and they know how to argue against that, but if my argument is what it is - that Louis is pretty traditionally masculine, and in fact that he has almost all of the Byronic masculine traits which includes sensitivity, warmth, depression, egotism, a vengeful streak, and a complex relationship with religion, sexuality, and the self - it becomes a conversation that requires a more nuanced understanding of what masculinity is and has been throughout history and literature, which doesn't work with the TERFy talking points that are, frankly, endemic in fandom spaces broadly right now.

Which yeah, that goes to your second point about gender roles, because I think that you've hit the nail on the head. A lot of people in this fandom seem to view the concept of masculinity as inherently violent or abusive and femininity as - to borrow a phrase I loathe from TikTok, haha - demure and mindful - which is, again, literally TERF rhetoric. This desire to reinforce the gender binary and feel like you're not simply because you're applying reductive and stereotypical female characteristics to a male character is just sort of baffling to me, on so many levels.

And it appears in a lot of their arguments, like, gosh, even the post I was linked to yesterday about Eartha Kitt, David Bowie and Grace Jones being influences for Louis as indicative of his 'feminine divine', which to me - honestly - reads as a pretty homophobic and misogynistic take. Cisgender men can be (and are!) influenced personally, creatively and professionally by women, and the suggestion that to be so negates masculinity and is indicative of femininity feels like a pretty dangerous rhetoric to me.

The funny thing is, I don't actually have an issue with people liking femme!Louis at all. It's not how I see him, no, but I respect the fact that how we interpret characters is subjective, and people bring their own history and interests and yes, kinks to a show, and I actually think that's really cool! That's part of what makes engaging with stories and fandom fun! What I find exhausting is the recurring accusation that anyone who doesn't see Louis as a battered housewife entering his liberated woman era is a racist.

[widevibratobitch]

was about to make a mean post about opera but i Stopped. i am so kind <3

[feyres-divorce-lawyer]

tamsand rhaenicent au when

feyre is criston cole sorry

i mean i think trying to write feyre as criston cole would kill me but i can see it. also tamsand’s dads having an unrequited homoerotic workplace relationship would fuck

[nezumasa]

“Why is Anya ignored in favored of the men—“ you can go commission some art or writing for money. That’s a thing you can do without guilt-tripping people for free work.

[elisedonut]

One thing I like about Marcus is that he's kind of

Schrodinger's Death Eater

Like yeah he's a Slytherin

He's an asshole

But

He is never mentioned again after the third book.

Not once.

Not even a different Flint is ever mentioned

you don't even hear about like his parent being a death eater which means

You can make him one if you want

if you need him to be for the story you want to tell

Or you can choose not to if that fits better

and immediately neither of these actually go against canon

Which is really fun to me

Because you can make him and his family just literally leave the country if you want

Or maybe he is just a death eater

Or if you like me like him being close to the others that we know around his age and are also allergic to making OCs you can make him a spy with Percy

maybe they both work in the ministry and he uses the fact most people won't watch him as closely as they do Percy to get things done that need to be done. Very Percy is the brains of the operation and Marcus is the actual body of it because they both know Percy really can't step out of line too much.

But similar to how Hogwarts was during that last year of the war people just assume that as a pureblooded Slytherin Marcus is just on their side by default so don't even look twice at him

Or you know just a Quidditch boy

[jemandrr]

Unironically, Ben Shapiro's greatest win against the left was turning left/centerleft laypeople off from the idea of a 'debate with facts and logic' because of his bad faith arguments. Like it's almost...triggering to people, and that leaves a lot of people with unsharpened ideas and an unwillingness to explain them in a rigorous manner.

One example phenomenon that this has fed into is a continuing degradation in the lines of thought people use to reach certain conclusions - so person A expresses opinion X that person B agrees with, but because person B never really sees the entire line of thought laid out by anyone else, their formulation of opinion X based on their own intuition might randomly lean on some idea Y which person A doesn't care about. As a result, if Idea Y lacks actual backing, person B might wrongly defend opinion X and give an impression that the entire thing is flimsy, or person B might lose their own footing and assuredness and change sides.

I also think that he so badly mangled the concept of debate in the casual public consciousness that it's a contributing factor to the vague anti-academic sentiment in recent years. (Which, while academia as an institution has problems, there's certainly an undercurrent of less directed discontent that is contributing to low public opinion of education as a whole - and a greater feeling expressed on social media that 'casual reference of marquee media' is in a way insulting to people who have not consumed it, rather than an invitation to partake or something you can pass by without caring. Not on tumblr though, where we see Dracula and then we read Dracula.)

tl;dr his pseudo-intellectualism meaningfully contributed to certain common sentiments of anti-intellectualism because of how badly and annoyingly he and the people who emulate(d) him did/do it.