lily-penny

[lily-penny]

Everybody give it up for columnar jointing

[lily-penny]

Sometimes Bg3 will do this thing where it acts like Baulders Gate is the most evil city ever. However. I've been to Kirkwall. So.

[lily-penny]

I just wanted Dragon Age to keep going man oh my god will this feeling ever go awayyy

[lily-penny]

da2 isn't the best dragon age game *because* it's openly a tragedy, but being a tragedy forces a level of narrative coherence that the other games in the series don't have, and *that's* what makes it a better game.

okay, so. dragon age 2 runs on nested foreshadowing and a limited set of themes that almost every character and plot beat fall into: love is not enough, wealth is not enough, power is not enough, good intent is not enough. the problems you run into are structural, rather than individual, and your ability to resolve them as one person is strictly limited. the arishok is a central figure for this, because he prefigures every other tragedy and makes the game's thesis statement as clear as possible. he doesn't want to be in kirkwall, but he is compelled to remain until he gets back what was stolen. he doesn't want to lead a coup attempt, but he is compelled by qunari codes of justice to act. he does not want to die and fail his duty, but but he is compelled to by the other two impossible demands. every tragedy in kirkwall is the result of too many people with wildly different definitions of justice crammed into one place specifically designed to maximize human misery and suffering, and so you get a wonderfully nested narrative onion where each quest reinforces that idea, where there are no good options, just positions you can take — even the affinity system plays into that, where constantly gassing up your friends or constantly pushing them to change are equally correct ways to go, but ones that won't ultimately make a huge difference in their lives or characters, because no matter how much they like you, they're not under your control.

this coherence is even justified by the framing device. of *course* the moral of the game is "insisting on a dogmatic, narrow idea of justice destroys individuals and societies," it's a yarn being spun by varric the con artist to a chantry cop!

neither origins or inquisition play with that sort of narrative complexity. origins is a jaundiced hero's quest, certainly, but it's still basically a hero's quest; inquisition has a number of characters who question what you're doing and why, but the multitude of voices pulls the game in too many potential directions. DA2 was so constrained in its production that it pulled on decidedly ancient theatrical traditions, and it worked so, so well

[lily-penny]

One thing I love about Thronebreaker is that it shows you can show a woman lose her power in a misogynist dark fantasy world and still have a compelling story without showing her being tortured, assaulted, or sexualized. It's really refreshing to know there is a dark story with a female protagonist without those things.

In some ways, it's my favorite piece of Witcher media because it refuses to use the tired tropes the books and games did and still has the same themes; parent-child relationships, found family, the ole impossible choices 'between two evils' and an anti-imperialist message

[lily-penny]

[lily-penny]

*Dead media (assassinated)

[lily-penny]

i think what makes drawing solas so tricky and interesting to me is that his face changes quite a bit between dai and datv, but none of the changes by themselves are very drastic. all together, though, they kind of add up to a whole different face, but their individual subtlety is what keeps him simultaneously recognizable (imo).

some ref screenshots below for context, but i’m talking about things like his skull shape, how the parietal bone is a little longer in datv. or how his brow and jaw are more pronounced, cheekbones are a little higher and closer to the eye. nostrils are angled upwards at the front, philtrum is shorter, neck is thicker, etc. even his ear shape changes.

and none of those things are necessarily easy to pinpoint at first glance, but it’s so interesting to see how artist perceptions/ interpretations of his features (my own included) have shifted over time with those slight changes in mind.

[lily-penny]

[lily-penny]

How much would you pay for bread if you were starving?

A kilogram of flour in Gaza costs 100 shekels (equivalent to 30 dollars or 26 euros) and counting. A couple hours ago I saw one account that said it was up to over 150. The cost keeps increasing as the artificially created scarcity allows merchants to raise prices to outrageous levels. Israel has designed this famine.

If families cannot afford these costs, they have two options:

Raise funds online and hope that people care enough to actually donate.

Risk their lives at aid distribution sites, which Israeli military uses as traps to massacre starving people.

This is designed, intentionally, as part of the genocide. I need you to understand this. It's not that the aid sites are safe unless the occupation happens to strike. It's that the United States and Israel have worked together to block all other aid so that Palestinians have no choice but to enter US funded and Israeli owned hubs where they can kill as many people as possible. Almost every single day since these GHF aid sites have been operating, Palestinians have been massacred at them.

This reality has been reported on even by news sources in countries that have extreme incentive toward zionist bias.

Time reports Jul 16, 2025, "The incident is the latest in a series of deadly events near aid hubs run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a U.S.-based organization operating with Israeli support...The death toll of Palestinians killed near GHF aid hubs has now reached nearly 700, according to United Nations figures released on Tuesday."

CBC reports Jun 25, 2025: "The scene Tuesday was the latest in nearly daily violent incidents near aid centres one month after distribution was taken over by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The U.S.- and Israeli-backed GHF has drawn controversy since replacing UN-run relief operations in Gaza for using private American contractors and forcing people past Israel Defence Forces soldiers on the perimeter to reach these hubs... The Red Cross said the "vast majority" of patients who arrived at its Gaza field hospital during mass casualty incidents in the past month had reported that they were wounded while trying to access aid at or around distribution points."

AP News reports June 4, 2025: "Shootings have erupted nearly daily since last week in the Gaza Strip in the vicinity of new hubs where desperate Palestinians are being directed to collect food. Witnesses say nearby Israeli troops have opened fire... aid distribution hubs are being run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a newly formed group of mainly American contractors. Israel wants GHF to replace humanitarian groups in Gaza that distribute aid in coordination with the U.N."

PBS reports Jun 2, 2025: "Witnesses said Israeli forces fired toward the crowds just before dawn around a kilometer (about 1,100 yards) from an aid site run by an Israeli-backed foundation... The International Committee of the Red Cross said in a statement its field hospital in Rafah received 179 casualties including women and children, 21 of them declared dead upon arrival, the majority with gunshot or shrapnel wounds."

More than just being reported on, this reality is being lived right now, by several of my friends. Two of these friends are Mahrah Balousha (@mahrahpalestine) and her brother Mahmoud (@palestinian95).

The money they can raise right now, this week is literally life or death. If they cannot raise this money, they either starve or are forced to enter a very literal death trap. This is serious. Please understand the gravity of what I'm writing here.

Their family fundraiser has been vetted by 90-ghost and shared by fairuzfan.

Donate. Please.

[lily-penny]

[lily-penny]

So a few months ago there was the discourse about would you rather meet a man or a bear in the woods. I didn't want to touch it while the discourse was hot and everyone dug in hard because those are not good conditions for nuance, but I waited until today, June 1st, for a specific reason.

I'm not going to take a position in the bear vs man debate because I don't think it matters. What is really being asked here is how afraid are you of men? Specifically, unexpected men who are, perhaps, strange.

People have a lot of very real fear of men that comes from a lot of very real places. Back when I was first transitioning in 2015 and 2016, I decided to start presenting as a woman in public even though I did not pass in the slightest.

I live in a red state. I knew other trans women who had been attacked by men, raped by men. I knew I was taking a risk by putting myself out there. I was the only visibly trans person in the area of campus I frequented, and people made sure I never forgot that. Most were harmless enough and the worst I got from them was curious stares. Others were more aggressive, even the occasional threat. I had to avoid public bathrooms, of course, and always be aware of my surroundings.

I know how frightening it is to be alone at night while a pair of men are following behind you and not knowing if they are just going in the same direction or if they want to start something - made all the worse for the constant low level threat I had been living under for over a year by just being visibly trans in a place where many are openly hostile to queer people. You have to remember, this was at the height of the first wave of bathroom law discussions, a lot of people were very angry about trans women in particular. My daily life was terrifying at times. I was never the subject of direct violence, but I knew trans women who had been.

I want you to keep all that in mind.

So man or bear is really the question "how afraid of men are you?", and the question that logically follows is "What if there was a strange man at night in a deserted parking lot?" or "What if you were alone in an elevator with a man?" or "What if you met a strange man in the woman's bathroom?"

My state recently passed an anti trans bathroom bill. The rhetoric they used was about protecting women and children from "strange men", aka trans women.

Conservatives hijack fear for their bigoted agenda.

When I first started presenting as a woman the campus apartment complex was designed for young families. The buildings were in a large square with playgrounds in the center, and there were often children playing. I quickly noticed that when I took my daughter out to play, often several children would immediately stop what they were doing and run back inside. It didn't take me long to confirm that the parents were so afraid of "the strange man who wears skirts" that their children were under strict instructions to literally run away as soon as they saw me.

"How afraid are you of a strange man being near your children?"

I mentioned above that I had to avoid public bathrooms. This was not because of men. It was because of women who were so afraid of random men that they might get violent or call someone like the police to be violent for them if I ever accidentally presented myself in a way that could be interpreted as threatening, when my mere presence could be seen as a threat. If I was in the library studying and I realized that it was just me and one other woman I would get up and leave because she might decide that stranger danger was happening.

Your fear is real. Your fear might even come from lived experiences. None of that prevents the fact that your fear can be violent. Women's fear of men is one of the driving forces of transmisogyny because it is so easy to hijack. And it isn't just trans women. Other trans people experience this, and other queer people too. Racial minorities, homeless people, neurodivergent people, disabled people.

When you uncritically engage with questions like man or bear, when you uncritically validate a culture of reactive fear, you are paving the way for conservatives and bigots to push their agenda. And that is why I waited until pride month. You cannot engage and contribute to the culture of reactive fear without contributing to queerphobia of all varieties. The sensationalist culture of reactive fear is a serious queer issue, and everyone just forgot that for a week as they argued over man or bear. I'm not saying that "man" is the right answer. I am saying that uncritically engaging with such obvious click bait trading on reactive fear is a problem. Everyone fucked up.

It is not a moral failing to experience fear, but it is a moral responsibility to keep a handle on that fear and know how it might harm others.

[lily-penny]

'i don't like the conversations on ai because both sides are annoying' well I think loudly denouncing slave labor and speed running the destruction of our planet is important so suck my dick about it

[lily-penny]

I’m a huge fan of yours (requested by Anonymous)

[lily-penny]

Yeah I have trauma about it but unfortunately it's a really stupid thing to have trauma about. Yeah honestly if it had happened in a different way at a different time it would have been completely fine and normal. Yeah man like it was just a total confluence of circumstance and now my brain has an allergy against it. Yeah like a peanut allergy but stupider.

[lily-penny]

my google search history whenever I'm watching an episode of succession makes me look like I'm trying to major in business

[lily-penny]

sometimes a relationship with your father is like “my father is a malignant presence, a bully, and a liar” and “I’m better than you” and “let me out. I don’t want to be you” and “I just do what my dad tells me” and “I can see through you” and “why did you never ask me?” and “he sees everything” and “you have a hard time finding a happy medium between worshipping him and wanting to kill him” and “he loves me. he does. it’s just a wrong kind of love expression” and “fuck dad, he can kick me as many times as he wants” and “pass me the fucking shotgun” and “dad, please. /what have you got in your fucking hand?/ i don’t know, love?/ love? you come for me with love?” and “there’s nothing you could say to me now that I would ever believe” and “are you a cunt?” and “he never even liked me” and “I can’t forgive you … but it’s okay. I love you” and “it’s what dad would do” and “you hated him./ I loved him” and “maybe the poison drips through” and “he was so terrifying to us” and “when he let you in, when the sun shone … it was warm in the light” and most importantly, “he made me breathe funny”