#(I'm not too sure I feel very conflicted about whether or not I can actually do this haha)

[dailynakaharachuuya]

Thanks for drawing all these Chuuya art! They're a delight to encounter!

Draw Chuuya making a heart gesture perhaps?

Chu! Sorry for being so cute!

[shaunashipman]

i am genuinely a bit scared for my fellow bucktommies because with all the love eyes for bucktommy and tommy, i am not sure if people don't happily-ever-after too close to the sun with their expectations about how the bucktommy relationship will continue. 911 is still very much a drama show that will create drama out of thin air if it has to, oftentimes in ways that feel very dumb and will make the characters look very bad. we have seen in the past that resolutions are usually very lackluster, or sometimes even off screen. i personally really look forward to see buck and tommy, but i hope we all remember that buck AND tommy will fuck up at some point, and maybe even fuck up Bad. please be careful out there with how high you set your expectations, my fellow bucktommies, and don't forget that buck and tommy will have conflict again, with the others or with each other, sooner or later! (i hope it will be compelling and nuanced and interesting conflict that fuels their development, at the very least 🤞 but i also know that i am watching 911 so...)

so nonny, this isn't really directed at you, but i'm gonna use your ask as a springboard cause i'm seeing this sentiment pop up a lot

people need to stop conflating fanon actions with desires for canon

by this i mean, 99% of what i post about bucktommy, are things i never expect to happen in canon, and some of it quite honestly i would not want to happen in canon. i obviously can't speak for everyone, but most of the people i interact with are well aware that the characters on screen are not really the characters we're playing with in our sandbox.

and that's okay. that's how fandom is supposed to work. fandom is separate from the source material. we didn't used to need to post disclaimers about how no, we don't actually think this is going to happen. no, we don't actually think their relationship is going to be sunshine and roses. ppl in fiction act stupid cause sometimes the writer needs stupid to move the plot where they want. I, as a fan, can choose whether to incorporate said stupidity into my existing fanon, whether to analyze it to see how it could fit with my existing fanon, or whether to toss it out, baby and all.

part of the reason fandoms start is because we find the source material lacking. so honestly, when buck or tommy, or any characters, inevitably acts like a dick in a way that seems counter to their previous characterization, it's just more fodder for fandom, a new facet of their character that we then get to analyze and decide why they're doing it. well behaved women rarely make history and well behaved characters rarely make fandoms

so, just so it's clear, at least from me, unless I specifically state that this is what I think will happen in canon, everything I post about bucktommy, and basically all of my fandoms, is not even wishful thinking, it's just me playing with my dolls.

[the-modern-typewriter]

Hey! Asking for some writing advice here.

How does one write a villain exactly. In a very simple world with no superpowers and stuff how do you give them motivation. How do you make them slowly descent into villainy. Somehow when the villain actually thinks they're doing the right thing until the very end?

Thx love

There are a few different questions here that I'm going to try to to unpick.

I'll start with a brief overview of the connections between protagonist + antagonist, just because recognising them can be really useful in shaping your own ideas. Then I'll dive into motivation. So.

Antagonist + Protagonist = CONFLICT

If you know your protagonist well, then you have all the ingredients you need to write a great villain/antagonist for them too. Here is why.

Your villain/antagonist is, at the most basic fundamental starting point, something that is between your protagonist and what the protagonist wants/needs. As a very simple example, if your protagonist wants to make sure that everyone is free, then your antagonist is going to in some way be involved with making sure they are not free. Once you know what your antagonist needs to do in a story, then it's a lot easier to pose the question to yourself of 'okay, why would someone do that?'

Villains often reflect an opposite or warped view of the values and motivations that your protagonist has. They mirror or foil your main character. So, your antagonist's motivation will often be either opposite to the protagonist (e.g, your protagonist is motivated by selflessness, so your antagonist is motivated by selfishness in some way) or they will be the same motivation or value gone twisted (e.g. we both have people we love who we would do anything to protect...it's the villains way of acting on that motivation that makes them the villain, not the motivation.)

Of course, you can not have your antagonist + protagonist connected in this way. This is often the case if the source of conflict in your story is not another actual character or if you have a more generic villain. Lots of great stories have generic villains. It typically just means the villain is not a focus. It might be, like, about the friendships made in the journey instead.

Motivations:

I find it helpful to think of all my characters having two motivations.

The external story-specific motivation. This is whatever the antagonist is trying to achieve in your particular story and where things like genre and superpowers etc come into play.

The internal motivation that is more universal. The internal motivation is, while still specific to the character, the driving emotions and values. With a villain, that is often hatred or fear or lust for power because they're villains, but as noted earlier it can be a twisted form of love, or a strong sense of an injustice committed against them. This shapes the external motivation (e.g. 'lust for power = I want the throne, 'fear' = I'm going to kill or belittle or control what scares me so I don't have to feel scared anymore', justice might equal revenge or gaining power to ensure that a wrong is corrected. ) It could also be a bias or a prejudice that they're raised on driving them, that they genuinely believe in. Lots of possibilities!

I think this is true of people as well. We have our foundational core beliefs and desires (to be loved, to succeed, to be accepted whatever) and then we have the things we try to get in the real world to meet those needs (whether they really will or not).

Either way, it's the second one that comes into play with the slow descent into villainy and the villain thinking that they're doing the right thing until the end. Because, initially, their heart genuinely is not in a villainous place. They may actually be doing the right thing at the start. And then bad things happen. They are changed by the journey. They are a protagonist gone tragic.

We all experience emotions that can drive us to behave poorly; the desire for revenge or recognition, to ensure that the people we care about are safe, to get money so that we can provide for ourselves and others etc. None of us are without prejudice or privilege. Those things do not make you a villain, but they can be an excellent starting place for one.

Think about times when you've messed up. A villain is often an exaggerated version of that. You start pushing your own boundaries because there is something you really want/need and, depending on how far you push that...do you feel like you can still go back? Or do you feel like you might as well finish it after everything. At what point do you breathe for air, look up at what you've done, and go shit.

That's the villain who realises way too late that they're the villain.

Final note: I've been using antagonist and villain pretty interchangeably here...but they have slightly different connotations. Your antagonist does not have to be a villain to be effective. They just have to be an obstacle to the protagonist. E.g. if two people are going for the same dream job or trying to win a competition, the other competitors are antagonists to a certain extent, but that doesn't mean they're villainous or bad people. Whether you have an outright villain will depend on your story.

I hope this helps!

Some going further questions to take with you.

Is your villain trying to stop your protagonist from reaching their goal? Or is your protagonist trying to stop the antagonist from reaching their goal?

How does the villain's external goal in the story reflect the inner need? Note. They are aware of their external goal. Most people are not aware of the inner goal in the same way.

Do you know what you want your stories themes to be? (This doesn't have to be complicated and it's fine if you don't, that's what editing is for). Your protagonist and antagonist often weigh in on these themes. For example, your antagonist might be a path the protagonist could have gone down, if they made a different choice or something happened differently in their past.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for creating and running a gimmick blog?

A few months back, I was bored and decided to hop on the trend of gimmick blogs. Since I don't have any crazy skills like identifying cars or programming bots, I settled on something I thought was extremely simple: correcting typos. So I'll sometimes reblog posts that have typos in them and comment with corrections. I would only do this on posts that were already lighthearted or joking in tone; I would never derail a serious post with it. And I really haven't used it very often - maybe a couple times a week at most, just when I happen to notice a good candidate.

Well, recently I was inundated out of nowhere by a bunch of anons telling me this was a horribly offensive idea. According to them, I was insulting dyslexic people, non-native English speakers, people without access to education, and a whole bunch of other groups with these unwarranted corrections.

I had honestly never considered that angle, and I've paused using that blog so I can try and reflect on it. But when I replied to a couple of the asks asking for a better explanation of exactly how this was harmful - because I genuinely wanted to be informed - the vast majority of the replies, with few exceptions, were obscenely rude to me. I've been called classist, ableist, racist, and a lot of much worse words I don't care to repeat here. I blocked exactly two people because they were being extremely hateful in my notes, while still trying to engage with the more polite ones, but of course I still got accused of blocking and ignoring everyone I disagreed with.

The truth is, I'm still not sure whether or not I disagree with any of them on the actual subject at hand; I just can't deal with people being bitter and rude and assuming the worst of me. I tried to make it clear that I was more than willing to listen and have a conversation in good faith, but that has proved impossible.

So now I'm really hurt and really, really confused. I'm not going to just blindly trust a small group of hypocrites on the internet who claim they're worried about people's feelings while at the same time trying to completely villainize me as if I don't have feelings too. But I also understand that they might have a point. Sadly, politeness is not always correlated with correctness.

I absolutely do not want to continue running this gimmick blog if it's truly harmful and offensive to people. I've just never encountered this take before, and it was delivered with such vitriol that I had to take a break from tumblr entirely just to recover my sanity. So I'm hoping a much broader and less biased sample size will help to clear this up. I know an AITA poll isn't perfect, but it should do.

If I get a YTA verdict, I will delete the typo-correcting blog and stop immediately, no questions asked. If not, I'll know I just angered an extremely vocal minority that has no idea how to deal with conflict.

AITA?

What are these acronyms?

[indigochromatic]

From @rayssyscourse (this post), two questions for general conversation: 1- Does your experience of plurality feel inherently disordered to you or not, independent of whether or not you have a CDD? 2- How do you think about personhood and identity, collectively and individually? (our answers under the cut)

Plurality and Disorderedness: We actually sort of have two different answers to this! The distinction between the two of us (e.g. me/L vs S), to us, doesn't feel inherently disordered at all. Sure, it's complicated, and there are aspects of the situation we'd change if we could (it would really be nice if S could have his own body back, for example), but the mere fact of us-being-two-of-us, of having two senses of self in one head instead of just one, feels no more or less disordered than being a singlet. It doesn't feel like the only reason we're separate is lingering trauma/emotional baggage pushing us apart, and there's no sense of wrongness in the feeling of each other being different--we're just different, and that's actually really neat in a lot of ways. However, for S's median facet subsystem thing, the answer is a little different. (Trying to paraphrase his emotions/wording for it secondhand here) To some extent, some of the ways in which his facets can get pushed apart/lose "collective cohesion" does feel inherently disordered to him. It's less that "having facets" feels inherently disordered, exactly, and more that the degree of estrangement and conflict between his facets (which fluctuates!) feels directly related to his mental health at the time, and whatever issues he's wrestling with. Being able to go in and single out and work with a facet that's having a hard time feels like a useful processing strategy, but needing to do it a lot, or having a facet get stuck 'out in the cold for too long' feels bad, and reflective of something Wrong. Personhood and Identity: Again, two different answers for our two different 'versions' of plurality! S and I feel like two different, closely connected people. Either of us could be a singlet alone, without the other--and in fact I was a singlet for a long time, at least as far as we know--although we do like each other a lot (<3) and like being able to be a team together. Calling either of us just "a part of the other" feels reductive and even a little demeaning--not to mention just...incorrect, at the base of it? One of the metaphors we like to use is "it's not that he has half the box of crayons and I have the other half; we each get to use the whole box of crayons, we just draw different things with them". With S's median facets, though, he/(they) very persistently and vehemently feel like they're all...part of the same overarching identity? They're all him even when they disagree or have differences (there's a line from a song he likes that he often points to for it: "We are the warriors who learned to love the pain/We come from different places but have the same name"), there's a core, unifying sense of self they all share even when their 'cohesion' gets disrupted by something difficult to process that he can't quite seamlessly internally reconcile. We have some internal nicknames for some facets/'themes' that show up a lot (because the number and nature of his facets isn't static, too), and internal headspace appearances can vary, but they don't have different names because, in his words, "I'm still me, there's just....sometimes a lot of me, who don't all agree".

(Several of our friends have joked that we're the actual IRL version of the system joke "I don't have DID, but my headmate does!", and honestly that's not a bad way to describe it X'D)

[wartakes]

A Duty to Protect

Not gonna lie, I grappled with whether or not to do this one. I very nearly decided to trash it after having already written 99% of it. But, I've decided to share it anyway in an effort to talk about things going in Gaza (and elsewhere) right now while getting back to the roots of what I started doing War Takes content to begin with. Full essay under the cut.

Folks, I'm gonna be straight up and down with you: my heart hasn't fully been in it lately when its come to writing and posting and generally doing War Takes stuff.

That's not to say I didn't care at all about what I was writing about – whether its been in these essays, or in posts on social media, or what have you, but it definitely felt like ever since October 7th and the resulting Israeli War in Gaza, that I've been stuck in an ever deepening malaise (something that I'm sure many people who feel trapped watching events unfold feel). Obviously, what's going on in Gaza in particular and the Middle East in general not the only conflict I care about; I still feel very strongly about what's going on in Ukraine, Myanmar, Sudan, and on many other battlefields against fascism and brutally the world over, but what's going on in Gaza seems to specifically epitomize how the world feels right now. That there's a million fires burning, with innocents screaming in the middle of the flames, and the response of so many governments appears to be to hand gasoline to the person stoking the fire (if not pouring it on themselves) and then turning to you to say "actually, you're terrible for not thinking that this is okay" and yelling at you on Twitter for it.

The point of this long winded allegory is, I've been in a rut, the result of which is I've started to slip into becoming too focused on the here-and-now or the near-future in these essays, when one of the main reasons I started writing them is to try and think to the future, to a time when maybe, hopefully, we'll be in a better position to actually take action against the myriad of problems at home and abroad. Talking about the here and now is important, but you quickly become reminded of just how powerless we can be in the current moment, and then drive yourself insane by the perceived need for you to do something to fix all the world's problems right here, right now, when you quite simply cannot.

None of this means you should give up, nor give into apathy, despair, nihilism, doomerism, or whatever -isms you may be tempted with succumbing to. You can and should still do what you are able to make things better in the near term, but with the understanding that there are hard limits on what you can accomplish (barring massive, sudden, seismic shifts in society that you will probably only recognize once you're in the middle of them or on the other side). As one of my good online friends November Kelly recently said, you need to make your peace with powerlessness and keep your powder dry, while holding out hope and biding your time for the moment in the future when you and others will finally be able to make a substantive difference and change things for the better.

One of my ways I have always dealt with this feeling of powerlessness in the here and now, is thinking about how I would try to do things differently in my field in that hypothetical future where the United States tried to exercise its power in a more just, humane, and progressive manner. It was really the crux of why I started writing these essays, feeling that many on the Left were unprepared for a hypothetical, hopeful day when we'd be able to actually exercise power. Many of my first wave of essays dealt with thinking forward to that hypothetical better future, but I feel like in the last year or two I've gotten away from that for a number of reasons (the sheer hopelessness of some current events being one of them), so in this essay I'm going to try my best to try and get that mojo back.

In the hopes of tapping back into that original spirit of why I started writing War Takes essays, I'm going to try and link some thoughts for the future, to the ongoing event probably most responsible for my recent funk and lack of inspiration: the War in Gaza. In thinking closely about Israel's actions in Gaza since October 7th, and the response (or lack thereof, rather) of the Western world towards it, I managed to find some renewed vigor in considering how I would deal with the ongoing conflict and associated genocide if I was in a position of power.

Oh, but before we go any further, one quick housekeeping measure that probably doesn't matter but I'm going to do anyway just for the record because its been a while:

Hamas are not good and I don't support them.

I am focusing on Israel here because the scale and scope of what Israel is and has been doing to Palestinian civilians so utterly dwarfs the things that Hamas has done (which are also bad) and because the things Israel has been doing since long before October 7th set the conditions that caused October 7th to happen in the first place by making it inevitable.

Ok, that's out of the way. Let's get down to brass tacks.

Murderers Hate Him! Stop Genocide With This One WEIRD Trick!

After nine months of war in Gaza, I recently came to a realization.

I believe at this point, based on my own personal gut assessment, that even if the United States finally came to its senses and began to exert serious pressure on Israel – diplomatic, economic, and otherwise – that it wouldn't stop what its doing in Gaza and in Palestine and the Middle East in general.

I think even if the United States brought all manner of power to bear, enacting more stringent economic sanctions and arms embargoes, supporting prosecution of Israeli political and military leaders as war criminals in international venues, and so on, that Israel would not stop its actions.

Something in Israeli politics and society snapped on October 7th. To many of us who have looked upon the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict with clear eyes, we knew from the start what might happen and that what Israel is saying and doing now is not necessarily new. But while not new, Israel's actions against Palestinians and throughout the Middle East have reached new extremes, going into overdrive. The proverbial mask has truly come off, as the many videos and photos from Israeli soldiers documenting their numerous war crimes in Gaza have already demonstrated.

As a country that views any criticism what-so-ever as a borderline existential threat, if the United States and other countries actually chose to impose costs on Israel for its actions, it would go into absolute mental breakdown of derangement. After simply delaying one shipment of bombs (not canceling mind you, just “delaying”) while other arms have continued to flow, Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu recorded a video temper tantrum lashing out at U.S. President Joe Biden for only giving him 99% of what he wanted. A country only used to doubling down on its bad actions would triple if not quadruple down, fully embracing official status as a rogue state. Even if cut off from its primary foreign weapons supplier in the United States, Israel would leverage its own domestic arms industry and other like-minded partners (like Modi's India, for example) to keep its war – and accompanying genocide – going. It would not stop, because it would be even more convinced that it could not afford to stop lest it risked the very existence of the Israeli political project (something that may not really be that far-fetched given how the way things may go in the mid to long term).

Now, none of this to say that the United States and other countries shouldn't undertake the actions I laid out regardless of Israeli actions. I strongly believe there is an absolute moral imperative to do so, like, yesterday. But that being said, as I looked back on the history of such actions in the face of various forms of state violence of both the intra- and inter-state fashion, that they'd likely do next to nothing to stop the slaughter. It was that reflection on the past that reminded me of the only thing that can stop a genocide, or any kind of armed aggression, in its tracks: armed intervention.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong on this, but so far we haven't been an opportunity to see otherwise, as the few actions leveled against Israel so far have been so minimal as to practically be non-existent (not that its stopped Israel and its boosters from screaming bloody murder about them). And I think the longer Israel is allowed to continue its actions without non-military forms of pressure being levied against them, the less likely such actions would actually stop them if they were used.

This state of affairs leaves only one option as the last resort to stop the violence: large-scale military intervention.

Historically speaking, the only thing that has ever actually, conclusively stopped a genocide is military intervention. This was pointed out very clearly by the non-governmental organization Doctors Without Borders during the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, when they called for military intervention based on one simple reality: doctors can't stop genocide. What can be said for doctors can be said other forms of aid or action short of military intervention. If Israel chose to continue its actions even in the face of sanctions and embargoes and arrest warrants, none of those actions would likely stop them. Even if the world decided to send in all the food and medicine and more that Gazans would need to survive for as long as they needed it, none of that would matter if the IDF would be preventing it from entering in order to perpetuate the genocide further than its weapons were doing directly.

Such a military intervention could not, by definition, be limited either. It would almost certainly need to be extensive, and involve actual boots on the ground. Past perpetrators of genocide have continue to carry out genocide in the face of military intervention, even at the expense of their own war effort. Nazi Germany continued its execution of the Holocaust in the face of Allied advances from both the East and West, taking personnel and resources away from the war effort to do so and continuing to do so right up until its final surrender in May of 1945. In Rwanda in 1994, the genocide of the Tutsi ethnic-minority by the majority Hutus took place even as the Hutu-dominated regime and its military were pushed back by a successful offensive into the country by rebel forces. Not only is military intervention required to stop genocide, overwhelming, fast, and – more likely than not – complete and total to put a stop to the killing as quickly and completely as possible.

I realize such an action would not be without significant costs and risks, as well as almost certainly violating my own strongly held beliefs that I've stated before that regime change should not be imposed from outside and must come from within. To address the latter issue first, I acknowledge this apparent contradiction, and my only answer would be that I continue to stand by that view – to a point; and that point is the case of genocide. Once you reach that point, I think imposition of regime change from the outside not only becomes acceptable, but morally and ethically necessary to ensure that all the apparatus of state power in that regime are no longer being used to carry out genocide. In that sense, I see it less as a contradiction, and more of an order of priority.

To the point of costs and risks, I have less good answers other than I simply acknowledge that they exist and are hefty. In terms of costs, a massive military operation to put an end to a genocide in Palestine by way of direct combat with the IDF would cost a great deal in blood and treasure and would result in a long-term occupation that could potentially go very badly if not planned and executed properly. In terms of risks, aside from the risks associated with conventional warfare with the IDF, the issue of it specifically being a (undeclared) nuclear-weapons state is a necessary specter to raise – one that has given many a U.S. and allied planner sleepless nights envisioning a conflict on the Korean Peninsula ever since North Korea acquired its first nuclear weapon. Again, I have no good answers here other than, the risks are high and the costs could be just as high if not higher. But, it if we are truly to stand by our principles and not simply pay them lip service as others have, we have no choice but to accept certain risks and incur certain costs in the name of our shared humanity. Additionally, there is an additional cost imposed by the absolute imperative to ensure that one genocide is not simply met with another in response – something that cannot and must never be acceptable. The invading forces would be duty bound to go to great lengths to ensure that it prevented such a response and did not engage in one itself, working to set the stage for some kind of workable reconciliation in the end state to follow.

Of course, sadly, all of this discussion is purely academic at this stage, as such an armed intervention is in large part, impossible under the current geopolitical circumstances. Such an intervention would require the acquiescence, if not the active support and involvement, of the United States of America. Such involvement is completely unimaginable, given the United States' unshakable "rock solid" and "ironclad" support of Israel, even as its violence against civilians has grown more blatant, wanton, and brutal since the war began. Even if intervention was attempted without the United States, it would almost certainly engage all levers of national power – including its own military force – to prevent such an intervention from being carried out, having already utilized military force to protect Israel from outside attack after its own actions threatened to expand the war in Gaza into a true regional war (something that still, unfortunately, remains a very real possibility in the weeks and months ahead).

So, we find ourselves once again in a low point due to unwelcome and harsh truths about the reality we currently face vis-a-vis the ongoing genocide and other acts of mass violence and aggression tossing cold water on what may be the only real route to put a conclusive end to it. But, as always, we can't give into despair and give up. So, what can we actually do? It is that topic that I will close us out on (and hopefully maybe pull you up out of any funk I may have dropped you down into – sorry).

Never Again (But This Time, For Real)

Right now, as powerless as we may all feel, we can and must still do everything we individually can to try and help the people of Gaza – to say nothing of all the other peoples suffering from aggression or the threat of genocide, be it in Ukraine, Sudan, or elsewhere. As much as it may feel like a single lonely drop of water in a very large ocean, our actions do mean something, even if they aren't directly silencing Israeli guns or stopping U.S. bombs from being shipped to them. But while I'm not admitting defeat, I'm accepting, grimly, those previously mentioned limits on what we can do now with the way things are in our current domestic political system in the United States and the current international system.

With those aforementioned limitations in mind, I turn my mind to the future, as I've tended to in previous essays and have in some ways gotten away from. I turn my mind to a day when we have a government and a society in this country that has a different view of the world and our role in it. I turn my mind to a day when we as a country and a people view the world through a more just, progressive, democratic socialist, humanitarian lens. Quite frankly: I look to the day when we take all the truisms and platitudes and cliches of liberalism at home and abroad and actually hold ourselves to them – because at the end of the day, how much of socialism is simply taking all the nice fluffy things that liberals say that they want to do (both at home and abroad) but then actually, in good faith, doing them?

When that day comes – and I have to believe in my heart of hearts of that it will come – even as the world is better, it won't be perfect. There will still be forces that seek to do harm and commit grievous acts in the name of any number of causes. As long we exist as people, there will be those with the intent and access to the means to do harm that will be able to motivate some to do that harm in their name. To be blunt: there will still be "Israels", even if there is not still an Israel, and to that end: there will still be “Palestines” that they wish to subjugate and "cleanse" through violence; and when the opportunity presents itself, those who wish to commit another genocide will take their chance to do so.

When that day comes, it won't be enough to simple condemn those who are committing genocide or working towards it; it won't be enough to sanction them, embargo them, isolate them and turn them into a rogue state (if they aren't already). Likewise, it won't be enough to offer our profound apologies for our past inaction towards or active enabling of past genocides; it won't be enough to commit to various material ways to try and offer penance for our past sins towards those we wronged in the past, working tirelessly to repay a debt we will never be able to fully to repay. All of these things won't be enough (though to be absolutely crystal clear, we should do all of them anyway).

No matter what else we do in response to genocide, it won't be enough in the face of a new one emerging, unless we take actual, direct action to stop it – preferably in its infancy; and as has already been established, the only way to do that will be by force of arms, on the battlefield. If we are not prepared to do that, we will quite simply fall into the same "say one thing, do nothing" patterns of behavior that have been the norm for decades. Despite coming out of World War II and the aftermath of the Holocaust with a proclamation of "Never Again", the geopolitical competition of the Cold War provided cover to an assortment of mass-murder campaigns that we now only retroactively and belatedly recognize as genocides. When these became impossible to ignore post-Cold War in places like Bosnia and Rwanda, the developed world doubled down on "Never Again" with the "Responsibility to Protect" - but functionally very little changed. While in some rare instances, great powers and developed nations may do the right thing and intervene to stop slaughter of civilians, the reality is that what gets to be called a genocide and require action has depended on how politically convenient (or not) it is for those with the power to take action. If we do not take actual steps to break with this broken and heartless system when we are in a position o do so, we will become everything we have ever hated. We have to go further than a "Responsibility to Protect"; it must become a "Duty to Protect," one that is impossible for us to ignore or shirk no matter what the circumstances.

This need to be able to actually stop genocide by force reinforces the need for the democratic socialist project to be serious about actually achieving and maintaining power and accountability. Protesting (and even posting) is admirable and indeed necessary, but in the long term we still have to be serious about actually engaging successfully in politics and eventually being in a position to make and enact policy that is in keeping with our ideology and its core ethical and moral beliefs. We have to eventually be in a position where when the time comes, we have the means at our disposal – military and otherwise – to ensure "Never Again" is no longer a sad and infuriating punchline in history that is only selectively applied (if at all), but has meaning; "Never Again" won't ever mean anything, unless it comes from the barrel of the rifle and we are in a position where we have the will and ability to order a person carrying that rifle into combat to do so. Likewise, “Never Again” won’t mean anything if we don’t take such action in a way consistent with the ethical, moral, and legal principles we claim to be upholding, working actively to prevent another genocide in response to a genocide.

Time and time and time again, whether its in these essays, or on social media, or just in conversation, I talk about how I resist doomerism and strongly believe that we can, must, and will make things better both in this country and in the world. There are many reasons for that. One small, but not insignificant reason for it, is admittedly: cope; it helps me from falling into total dysfunctional despair in the here and now when I feel powerless. But the biggest and most positive reason I maintain hope that we can make things better, is simply because we're all worth it. We as people, all of us – ourselves and our friends and families and more – have value and worth and are worth fighting for. But that comes with the understanding that sometimes that operative word of "fight" will need to be literal and not just figurative. When it comes to preventing and stopping genocide, the literal interpretation will be essential if we are to be true to everything we claim to believe.

It is with that, I leave you once again. I hope with everything going on at home and abroad that you all find your own ways of fighting through the morass of despair and hopelessness and fighting on in the good fight. Until next time, keep your chin up and stay safe. Photo credit: Mikhail Evstafiev

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

Sorry if that's already been asked but what do you think about the "King's word is the law" in hotd/dance discourse? I'm not sure where that even came from and for me there is 0 evidence that suggests it's true

Hi anon, excellent question! Sorry it took me so long to reply, this got a bit long! This is actually something that comes up a lot when I teach feudalism to my high school students. I've found that most people in general do not know the difference between feudalism and absolutism, and conceive of all kingship as a form of tyranny. And compared to most modern systems of government, of course feudalism and absolutism are both oppressive and restrictive, so the difference can feel a bit like splitting hairs. Neither system gives the the common people any real voice, but the difference is that feudalism is a system with a relatively weak monarchy that has to, both directly and indirectly, answer to both the church and to his vassals. But Westeros, even under the Targaryens, even with the dragons, is not, strictly peaking, an absolute monarchy but rather a feudal monarchy.

Broadly speaking, in a feudal system "the king's word is law" is only true insofar as the king can enforce that law, and to enforce his laws he needs the support of his vassals, the landholders who supply him with his armies and revenues. The feudal relationship between the king and his vassals looks roughly like this (this is the actual diagram we use in my world history curriculum):

Notice how the relationships are all reciprocal? The king might technically own all the land in the realm, but he has no standing army of his own. Knights pledge their service to the lords, rather than the king (he will have some knights in his personal service too, but not nearly enough to make war). It is in the king's best interest to keep his vassals happy. He needs them! They help him keep other unruly vassals in check, help defend against foreign invasion, and help him wage his own wars of expansion. They also provide the crown with revenue in the form of taxes, and their farmlands are what provide food for the people of the realm. In Westeros in particular, the royal family does not hold much land of its own (the land held by the royal family is called the royal demesne and the Targaryen royal demesne is very small compared to that of irl kings), so it's particularly dependent on the support of the vassalage. This makes it a relatively weak feudal monarchy, all things considered.

(also, notice the bishop up there with the lords? Usually, he would usually be appointed by the king with the approval of the pope, but the question of whether or not church officials were subjects of the king and subject to the king's laws was a huge point of contention hat caused many power struggles in medieval monarchies, and there was a whole separate court system, the ecclesiastical court, to deal with the crimes of court officials)

Anyway, a feudal king who just does whatever he wants without regard for his vassals will quickly find himself being named a tyrant, and the accusation of tyranny is a serious one in a feudal system, because vassals will rebel rather than serve a tyrant. Rebellions were not usually done with the goal of overthrowing the king completely, they were done in order to pressure the king into listening to their demands. We saw this happen with King John, whose barons were unhappy for a number of reasons including what they saw as avaricious economic policies, costly wars with France, increased royal interference in local administration of justice, and conflicts between the king and the church. Eventually, John's barons pressured him into signing the Magna Carta, a document that specifically limited the power of the king and stated outright that the king was not above the law and that the king could not impose new laws without the consent of the lords. John later repudiated this document, which led to further rebellions, and his son and heir Henry III had to reaffirm it after his death (and a series of rebellions still plagued Henry III). Eventually, this leads to a formalization of the idea that the king must not act without the consent of his lords and the creation of parliament.

Now, we never see a Westerosi Magna Carta or the creation of a set parliament, there is the small council and the occasional great council, and lords can and do object to the king's laws, force concessions, and remove kings. Notably, Robert's rebellion in the main series is an example of vassals losing faith in their king and eventually removing him. Aegon V cannot push his reforms through because he lacks the support of the lords, and in his desperation tries to bring back the dragons. But if we look back, even dragonriding Targaryens could not simply impose their will without the cooperation of the realm's lords. Aenys was considered weak and his rule was beset by rebellions, eventually coming to a head when he arranged an incestuous marriage for his heir, this after the Faith was already displeased with his brother's polygamous marriage. This led to Aenys being known as known as King Abomination and the Faith Militant uprising forced him to flee to Dragonstone. Maegor, who followed him, is ousted (and killed) as a tyrant for going further than that, suppressing the faith and committing kinslaying against his nephew. What makes Jaehaerys' rule notable and successful is that he's very good at appeasing the lords and when he is going to do something controversial, like the Doctrine of Exceptionalism or changing the succession, he campaigns and politicks for their support (I maintain that he knew Viserys being picked at the council was a forgone conclusion, but he did not want to unilaterally go against Andal custom without consulting his lords, it's a CYA move). This is something Viserys completely fails to do, not only failing to drum up support for his unconventional choice of heir, but actively alienating potential supporters.

It's worth keeping in mind that "law" means something different in this context than what many of us are used to today. Medieval law, and Westerosi law, was a hodgepodge of custom, statute, and precedent. Westeros, like England, operates on "common law." Successions are disputed all the time because competing claims exist. If Viserys named Mushroom heir, is his word law? What if he names Helaena? Jace? And in a normal situation, if it wasn't the succession of the throne in question the rival claimants would present their petitions, citing evidence and precedent, and the master of law, magistrate, or the king would make a ruling. The will of the lords is especially required to enforce an unconventional royal succession because succession takes place after the king is dead, and so if the succession is disputed, the claimants and the lords of the realm have to settle the dispute, nonviolently if possible, or else civil war will follow.

And you can get the lords behind an unconventional succession, but you have to have a good reason. "She's my favorite child from my favorite wife" is not actually good enough. For instance, when Robb chooses to legitimize Jon and disinherit Sansa in order to keep Winterfell out of Lannister hands, this is widely accepted among his vassals and allies because the reasoning is sound. Jon may be a bastard, but it would be worse for everyone to have Winterfell pass to a Lannister, even if it's shitty for Sansa. By the same logic, initially, Rhaenyra is accepted as heir because the lords do not want Daemon on the throne (the man she is now married to!). But after Aegon is born most assumed he would naturally become his father's heir. And remember, there's no reason for Alicent to marry Viserys if he cannot even ensure he inheritance of his own firstborn son. And Viserys never builds a case for Rhaenyra while he is alive, never tries to present Aegon as unworthy, he never has the lords come reaffirm their oaths, never writes a decree to formalize Westerosi succession. He doesn't take action because he knows he would not achieve anything near consensus (despite certain houses choosing Rhaenyra when it comes to war, it's doubtful they would have made the same choice if it had been a great council), so instead of dealing with the problem, he passes it on to his children.

I think it's fair to view the challenge to Rhaenyra's succession as an objection to what some see as tyranny on the part of the king. Viserys and Rhaenyra set themselves above the law in multiple ways-- not just jumping ahead of a son in the line of succession, but the way she has destabilized her own rule by placing bastards in her line of succession. What they are doing defies all precedent, and in a world where law is built in large part from precedent, this is not something the lords of the realm are obligated to accept.

[daydreams-after-dark]

Not that filthy, who do you think is mtl into anal? Giving and receiving? And do you think they would be into anytime or only in certain scenarios, like DP or moresomes?

Fuck! Yes I love this. So... I'm obsessed with anal play on this blog and want to say each and everyone of skz is into it. But... I'm going to think about this properly and give you a run down of my thoughts.

Minho Loves to give it to you. Whether it's just him and you, or there are multiple people involved. Whenever you're up for it. He knows how you fuck your ass so good. He’ll build you up so slowly and have you on the edge for so long that you beg for release. He knows you so well - your body, the sounds you make. He knows when you’ve reached the precipice. He pulls out halfway and pauses when you’re almost there, when you’re in that moment when time stands still, and then he’ll time his next thrust to push you over the edge of that cliff. But you don’t fall, you soar high through the clouds as though your body is everywhere all at once, and then he’ll hold you as you come back down.

Contrary to what most ppl believe, he also enjoys receiving. Maybe not as much as giving, but when he's whipped for you, he just wants you to take over his entire being. He craves for you to fill him. Whether that's with and actual dick or a strap. He wants to be a pretty little mess for you and show you how weak you make him.

Jisung also loves to both give and receive. I know he's mostly written as a needy sub bottom. BUT he's a switch (I actually think that has become the consensus these days). He loves being fucked so hard and overstimulated, but there's this need in him to top from time to time. If he's with a female partner, he sometimes can't decide if he wants to fuck your pussy or ass. He wishes he had two cocks (I wish he had two cocks... and there is a fic out there where he's and alien with two purple cocks). He's up for DP with you (maybe minho can join?) One of his favorite scenarios is him inside you and someone inside him. Greedy shit wants all the stimulation.

Felix. He's obsessed with anal play. He loves to have anal with you where you're the receiver, but he's more into anal plugs and dildos. He likes to spread your cheeks and see you're wearing a cute little plug. He likes to wear them too, and It won't be long until he's asking you to wear a strap. He's a curious freak in the sheets tbh. He loves the plugs with dangly charms (I'm sure I've mentioned that before).

Chan. Giver of the best anal of your life. He's big and he stretches you so good. He's noisy when he fucks you like this. You're just too tight. He whimpers, shakes, moans... he's extremely vocal. He has a fantasy of double penetration and is so excited when you mention you want to try. He calls upon a trusted friend and together they fill your holes. He secretly wants to dp you same hole. I think he'd let someone fuck him too, but it would have to be someone he trusts. He feels very vulnerable about it.

Binnie. I feel like he's not as into anal as the other guys, but he still enjoys it. He can't say no to you when you beg him like you do. He always ends up enjoying it when he does. It's something about how much your anus has to stretch to accommodate his thickness that has him whimpering. It's so hard to hold back from fucking into you hard, and once he fully seated inside you, it takes all his self control to not blow immediately. I honestly think you could easily persuade him to let you play with him too. I bet he'd secretly love you to finger him (why does that thought do things to me?)

Jeongin. He acts like he's not into it. He pretends he's not interested. But he's conflicted. It started when you put ideas in his head about how good it'd feel. The more you talked about it, the more normalized it seemed. Then he started to fantasize about it. Jerk off to images of it. He watched a bit of porn. And when he finally agreed to it... well... he's kind of obsessed.

Seungmin. All I can think is "anal as punishment". Like he'd get so angry (roleplaying of course), and he'd tell you what a filthy, pathetic little slut you are. "You don't deserve to have your needy pussy filled. Nope, you're gonna take it in your ass, and you're gonna feel me for days." He's rough, and it stings, but he needs to punish you. It always feels too good for you, and you come so fast even though you weren't given permission to come at all. Deep down he loves that your body just can't stop itself. He also likes that it gives him an excuse for him to punish you more. He isn't one for receiving. But I don't know, maybe you could convince him? He's just a little nervous, and he doesn't want to relinquish control.

Hyunjin. I'm obsessed with imaging Hyunjin and sexual activities to involve art somehow. Especially sculptures. He has this sculpture that resembles a cock that he uses on himself (in front of a mirror because he loves to watch how erotic it is). He uses it on you too, before he sinks his cock into you. With Hyunjin you need to be open to experimentation. He wants to try anal in all the positions you can think of. He needs to see or feel it from all angles. The sex swing he owns comes in handy too. He is up for all combinations. Giving, receiving, dp receiving (yes I said that) dp-ing you - two holes, one hole... he loves it all. Also, the more the merrier for him. I think he'd be involved in group sex. He finds it erotic and expressive.

permanent tag list : open (if you are on my series taglists but want to be tagged in all my posts, please let me know and I can add you to the permanent tag list)

@channieandhisgoonsquad @noellllslut @itsseohannbin @weareapackofstrays @3rachasdomesticbanana @palindrome969 @xxkissesforchanniexx @chuuchuu1224 @fun-fanfics @wolfennracha @rhonnie23 @jisunglyricist @strayywayy @armystay89 @igetcarriedawaywithyou @mylittleponeypinkrosieposie @kyunchoni

[twost3ps]

heard of an au about Adam being so traumatized by what happened, he just forgets everything and everyone in his life after he died.(Lucifer and Lilith, Eve, his kids, the angels, everyone and everything). He's not commander of the exorcist,just a representative of Heaven,

So I wanted to ask how would all of the angels react to that?

I'm assuming die as in like, post apple and not hazbin era.

Michael is devastated. At first he doesn’t believe it at all and tries to get Adam to remember but it’s just not working and is freaking Adam out. Like, he waited 900 years or so for Adam and him to meet again and rekindle their friendship. He visited Earth to watch over him sometimes (it was very rare), but never got to actually talk to him, only watching from afar. He knew he shouldn't talk to adam, and so he didn't. He got spotted once by Adam and fled immediately. He missed adam dearly though, he considered the man his first real friend. So finally meeting adam again to then find out adams memories of him are erased and gone took a large blow on him. Michael tries to make Adam as welcome as possible trying teach Adam himself how to integrate into heaven. He’s been out of the loop though for friendships so he comes off a bit pushy and demanding which irritates the very confused and lost Adam. But Michael likes to talk to Adam about what he was like in Eden and it gets Adam to welcome him a bit more. Michael tries to treat Adam the best that he can since he feels like he failed him, especially with the memory loss. Their relationship is.. kinda strained like this. Michael is trying but sucks at it, trying to make it like Eden. Their relationship don’t flow the same so yeah lol. It gets better but takes a lot of time and ass kicking from his brothers.

Gabriel is sad too. Not as sad as Mike, but he sympathies with him. He wasn't friends with Adam in Eden but, atleast for my au, he visits Adam and Eve on earth, especially in their further later life, sending some devine messages. He doesn't from a friendship per say with Adam, but he does kind of get get acquainted with him. They formed a lot of small talk and Gabe could see why Michael liked him. Although Adam doesn’t align with the man Michael had described (earth made him a lot more jaded and angry- untreated trauma and hate lol) He even visited on Adam's last day before Azrael collected him. Adam recognized him on his deathbed so Gabriel was surprised to see that Adam didn't know who he was when Adam finally acended. Gabriel's no secret keeper. He's the first to tell Adam what happened to him or the story he's most familiar with. He's really mean when he talks about lucifer or lilith, so he honselty gave Adam a very bad impression of them (very exaggerated on Gabes part), but he was kind when talking about Eve and his kids. (Gabe hated Lucifer’s push for free will especially as the messenger of gods will (free will vs gods will arguments go cray cray) and even before the fall the two has a lot of conflict which is why he he talks smack a lot abt them Lilith by extension. Gabriel’s also not one to hold back on his opinions no matter how friendly or bubbly he may seem.) Where Michael falls short on how Adam was on earth, Gabriel tells Adam about how he was like on earth and his family.

Raphael is curious and intrigued by adams' memory loss. Since Adam is kinda like a first case, he's not sure what to really do. And as the angel of healing he feels kind of responsible to heal Adam’s mind or something. He debates on whether he should go and try and help Adam remember the bad memories then so he can go and process them or if he should wait a bit longer and then help them process them. He makes Adam meditate and stuff and they have long therapy and talk sessions. It’s a slow build to get Adam to try and jog him memories but he doesn’t push much.

Uriel is kind of like Raph and is also intrigued on adams memory loss. He aids him in the study of Adam’s memory loss. He’s s a lot more clinical about it though and is pretty cold cold. He’s documents Adam’s behavior and what he does.

I wanna say Azrael is a soldier of Michael who the was given the title of angel of death (Azreal is a Powers and serves as a destroyer angel under Mike so yeye) and has no personal ties to Adam because of it. Only real tie is taking adams soul and sending it up. He is intruded by his cousin's reaction to Adam, especially Michael's. But he really doesn’t care at all for it.

[markantonys]

@butterflydm and i have realized, if the seals are already broken in the show and were repurposed as sealing the forsaken rather than the dark one, could that mean the late-series rand-egwene conflicts will be caused by something else? such as the seanchan?

(we can't discount the possibility that a second set of TDO Prison Seals might be introduced later, but i find it somewhat more likely that the show opted to change the function of the one set of seals than that they're keeping the original seals as-is but also invented a whole second set of seals for the forsaken. and even if no prison seals, i'm sure it wouldn't be hard to still maintain rand's whole "breaking the prison in order to reforge it stronger" thing, that could be incorporated in some different aspect of the prison.)

anyway, to me it always kinda felt like RJ only had in his notes that rand and egwene have a conflict ahead of TLB and moiraine arrives to mediate, but didn't specify what the conflict was, so sanderson made up the whole thing with the seals. no clue if that's true, it was just the impression i got because the seals being the source of the conflict just is not very good. it's not that interesting of a moral/philosophical quandary to wrestle over for that much pagetime, and while sanderson tries to make it a Both Sides Have Points situation, it's so abundantly obvious that rand is fully correct and egwene is fully incorrect, which makes egwene look like she's stupid and/or being belligerent for no reason. and when moiraine shows up, the resolution is basically just "rand is right about Everything Ever and egwene should listen to him" rather than moiraine actually having to mediate and make both of them adjust their perspectives.

but the question of "how much should we appease the seanchan for the sake of the last battle"? now, that is a much thornier and murkier moral quandary with much more room for Both Sides to Have Points. rand has points that the shadow is the greatest threat of all and they need to ally even with enemies they hate in order to fight it, but egwene has points that enabling and rolling over for the seanchan too much now will have disastrous consequences in the fourth age. and this fits in perfectly with the Theme of rand being focused on winning the last battle and egwene being focused on shaping the world after the last battle! and of course on top of that there's also all the moral questions surrounding damane and whether the westlands should turn a blind eye to slavery for the sake of winning the last battle, etc.

not to mention that this is a much more important, personal, and emotionally-resonant conflict, both for the characters and for the audience. who gives a shit about the seals? who has any emotions about the seals? the seanchan, however, have had major impacts on our characters throughout the series, and so the characters and audience are going to have very strong feelings and opinions about how they should be dealt with. rand is so crushed by prophecy and duty that he feels he needs to do whatever it takes to win the last battle no matter the consequences, while egwene is so traumatized by the seanchan that she's going to oppose allying with them with everything she's got no matter the consequences. in TGS, we see rand trying to broker peace with the seanchan while at almost the same time egwene is fending off an attack from them. this is narratively delicious! and i'd love it if the show actually did something with the good guys having differing opinions on allying with the seanchan, because it felt like such an elephant in the room in the books and something that should have caused major strife among team light but didn't really (that i can recall).

so yeah, no clue if any of this will actually happen in the show, just doing some musing on what could potentially replace the seals as the source of the late series rand-egwene conflicts (IF the seals even are fully out of the picture, which, who knows)

[stripedwolf88]

The Eras Tour: Paris Night 1 (My Thoughts)

ALLLLLLLLRIGHT. So because @bettysgarden12 wanted to know my reactions and thoughts on everything that happened today, I thought I would share with the rest of yous. It's probably not going to be very in depth or analytical so fair warning on that hehe. Also this probably isn't in order of the show because my memory is trash haha.

1.First things first. The lover bodysuit. WHaT iN ThE FRiLly HeLl?!?!? I literally still don't know whether or not I dreamt of seeing that new bodysuit. Definitely, lesbian colors represented there and it was confirmed with the orange blazer she wore for The Man. It was not an accident I'm sure to have the inside be pink too.

(Side note: we all knew that The Archer was going to get cut. It actually makes a lot of sense too. I think we are past Taylor asking us to stay, not that she doesn't still hope us too. It's more like she is fine with blowing everything up now instead of focusing on the worry of messing everything up. At least I hope that is the case. We're here for ya Taylor. You got this.)

2. Second, the Fearless dress. I LOVE IT SO MUCH. I also saw that it looks really reminiscent of the original dress she wore for her Fearless tour. It's almost like she is going back to what once was.

3. Third, transitioning right into Red was something. The new Red shirt says "This is not Taylor's Version" when Red is in fact Taylor's again. Some of my moots pointed out that it could be referencing the whole Real Taylor vs Taylor The Brand theory that we as a community have been developing for quite some time. With this thinking, it would mean that the Taylor we are seeing is not someone Taylor claims as her own or something like that. It's not truly her which we all knew already.

4. Fourth, we saw a new intro for Speak Now (now officially just Enchanted since Long Live has been axed.) I don't have much to say on that other than I wasn't surprised that Long Live got cut. This cut also makes sense if we are thinking that Taylor is gonna burn it down. No more reminding about the good times or the "needing" fans to stand by her forever.

5. Fifth, combining folklore and evermore was unexpected but also not? Idk it made sense and to me it just seems like it was easier to combine them since room had to be made for TTPD.

6. Sixth, Rep was Rep. Nothing really changed from what I could tell or remember other than THE FREAKING GLASS CASES SHATTERING!!! YOU BREAK THAT GLASS CLOSET TAYLOR! WHOOP WHOOP!

7. Seventh, 1989 outfit was...something. It's just not my cup of tea visually. I DID NOT notice the lion or tiger(???) charm she had on until someone else pointed it out. Very interesting either way.

8. Eighth, putting TTPD before Midnights was an interesting choice. The whole theory that we still have to meet her at Midnight (credit to my moots for pointing this out again) is supported by this I think.

9. Ninth, the dress for TTPD is amazing!! And so are the other two outfits. The marching band uniform and it's possible reference back to ME! music video? It has me in shambles.

10. Tenth, the performance for Who Afraid of Little Old Me was visually amazing and she sang it beautifully (no surprise there) with such emotion that it was impossible for me to look away. Her levitating across the stage was also freaking awesome!

11. Next the empty cages imagery?? The nurses pulling her away from her lover??? The image of her crouching in the middle of this weird ass place??? That one really kind of freaked me out. It was eerie and heartbreaking in a way I'm not quite able to explain at this moment.

12. I was conflicted about I Can Do It With A Broken Heart both before, during, and after the performance. I had a feeling she was going to perform it and I kind of wanted her to just to hear her sing it live but then not because I knew how the fans were going to react. I really did face-palm when everyone yelled "More!" on the livestream but we all knew they were going to. The transition into ICDIWABH made me want to throw something at the TV but I also did snort on the petulance on Taylor's face for the little act. I really liked the old Hollywood theme for the visuals and the dance. It was pleasing to watch. BY THE WAY....HAVING THE OUTFIT FOR ICDIWABH ECHO HER OUTFITS ON REP IS REALLY SOMETHING. She bamboozled me again.

13. Midniiiiiiights. THE BODYSUIT IS MY FAVORITE ONE OUT OF THE ONES WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR. I'm glad that Mastermind was kept. I didn't think that she would have taken away anything from the Midnights era but if there was I had this weird concern that it would be Mastermind. Thank god my anxiety was unnecessary.

14. The surprise soooooongs~ Paris is a favorite of mine so I'm happy she played it but also of course she did. That was another predictable thing that happened. Her performance of loml was again heartfelt. She seems really happy to sing these new songs and it shows.

15. I am pretty freaking sure that the Bejeweled lights were a LOT more colorful and rainbowy than usual. Was that just me? Please tell me it wasn't just me!

Overall, it is safe to say that I was not prepared for the absolute chaos that today brought.

Taylor, it seems like you're really doing this (I reeeeeally hope that is the case) and I'm so happy for you if that is what is happening. You do you and you show us what's up. I'm looking forward to it. <3

[veliseraptor]

>>> because Jiang Cheng never wants to force people to choose him, even 'for their own good' - this is actually one of the sharpest divergences I think between Wei Wuxian's approach to problems and Jiang Cheng's approach to problems, but that's another post.

I don’t suppose you’d be willing to make that other post? (Hopeful)

you know what, I feel like sticking my hand in a bear's mouth today, so sure.

one of the things that Wei Wuxian does kind of a lot, and most notably in the instance of his golden core (but also other places) is make decisions about what is best for other people. Wei Wuxian has the thing that many smart people do, where he has very definite ideas about what is the correct decision in given situations, and a belief in his capability to make the correct decision, and will make the choice to make that decision above somebody's head if he thinks they're not going to make the same choice as he would for reasons he thinks are bad. in the situation with Jiang Cheng, his reasoning (valid or not, and I'm not interested in adjuticating that) goes basically "Jiang Cheng can't die > if Jiang Cheng doesn't get his golden core back, he will die > I can give him my golden core > if I told him I was doing that, he wouldn't accept it > so I won't tell him about it and will give him my golden core and go from there.

I think you see it with the way he interacts with Jiang Yanli and Jin Zixuan, too - in his view Jin Zixuan is clearly undeserving and not good enough for Jiang Yanli, and could never make her happy, and therefore, regardless of the effect on Jiang Yanli, he acts according to that conviction. And also with what he chooses in novelverse specifically (with Lan Wangji) to tell/not tell Lan Xichen about Jin Guangyao, out of a conviction of what is best for Lan Xichen. Wei Wuxian is decisive and strong-willed and very confident in his skills of all kinds, and part of what comes with that self-confidence is the assurance that sometimes he knows better than the people around him, and maybe they don't realize that yet, but they will eventually, or else they just never need to know about the choice he made for them.

and then there's Jiang Cheng, who is...he's not conflict-avoidant, obviously, but what he won't do is interfere with somebody else's decision, or argue with them about it (past a certain point; the amount he argues with Wei Wuxian over his "defection" is, I think, unusual). when Jiang Yanli decides to marry Jin Zixuan, he accepts her leaving in a way Wei Wuxian struggles to do; when Wei Wuxian tells him to cut him off Jiang Cheng does it, as clearly as he doesn't really want to. when it's made clear to him that someone else, particularly someone he loves, has made a decision, even if he perceives it as harmful, even if he doesn't like it, he'll step back and let it go. obviously this has reams to do with his parents' relationship and the number it did on him watching their dynamic (and experiencing its consequences) - Jiang Cheng has internalized the message of "if you try to make decisions that other people don't like, even out of love, they will just end up hating you anyway."

(Wei Wuxian, I would argue, has the message of "regardless of whether people like your decisions or not, they might hate you anyway" which probably informs his thought process.)

I'm not saying this in a "Jiang Cheng respects peoples' agency, Wei Wuxian doesn't" sort of way (though I think that's kind of true, it's just not as 'this one good, this one bad' as that sounds), just in the sense of...if Wei Wuxian errs on the side of "I know best and can make decisions even if others don't like them" (to his detriment), Jiang Cheng errs on the side of "I have control over very specific things and will not overreach past those lines, even if it runs contrary to what I think is best."

[strawberrylabs]

Lyney with a shy readerrrr? 👀 Maybe friends to lovers scenario? 🥺

yessss my Lyney brainrot is growing.

I very much enjoyed writing this one!

WARNINGS: spoilers for the 4.0 archon quest and Lyney's story quest. Very discreetly alludes to SA/mistreatment

reader will be gn!

Lyney x Shy!reader- friends to lovers!

so I can see this going two ways: childhood friends to lovers or normal friends to lovers.

personally I'm obsessed with the idea of childhood friends to lovers, so I'll be going with that one.

You were one of the children kept by the horrible noble that had Lynette. Lyney saved you along with all the other kids

From then on, the three of you have worked together for "Father"

While Lyney and Lynette focused on their performances, you often worked in sneaking around behind the scenes while people were distracted.

You also helped promote Lyney and Lynette through the steambird

When Lyney and Lynette first met you, you were very quiet.

Whether it was just in your nature or as a response to what you may have gone through in the hands of the noble prior to your meeting

over the course of the years, you slowly opened up to the two-- Lyney more so out of the pair

You did technically owe him your life after all

Lynette picked up on Lyney's feelings early on. He was the first to fall

But he was conflicted.

He knew how dangerous working for the House of the Hearth could be. He was already paranoid about something happening to Lynette, he couldn't bare to think about someone using you against him

But then over time, you too fell for the magician

And of course Lynette noticed that too

Lynette tries as hard as she can to create situations where the two of you are alone together

"Alright! (Lee), Lynette! Today was a good show! What say we grab a bite to eat on the way back?"

"Actually, I'm going the the steambird. Charlotee wanted an interview."

"What? She didn't mention that earlier.."

"We arranged it just moment ago."

"Wait- Lynette-"

"I'll see you two at home."

"..Shall we go get lunch with just the two of us then?"

"..s-sure."

Thankfully, because Lyney is so talkative, one on one dates hangouts are never awkward

He always has something to say, and he always finds a way to include you

"So I was thinking about bringing you on stage in our next show! I wanted to show off some of my natural charm to the audience, but I can't very well use my twin sister for that can I? But I also don't feel like bringing a fangirl on stage, so I figure I should bring up someone I'm comfortable being flirtatious around!"

he was avoiding eye contact as he said this. If you looked hard enough, you could see his ears were pink too.

"A-And that someone is.. me..?"

"Why of course! You... You're special to me after all, (Lee)"

Lynette was cheering from the table a few feet away as she listened in

The relationship was great, you already knew everything about each other.

It was a bit slow moving when it came to affection though

And so, Lyney's new favorite hobby was formed: teasy you

You poor, poor soul.

The SECOND you blush about ANYTHING he does, he's teasing you.

Exhibit A:

Lyney was in the middle of a performance in the street for some kids and their parents,

"Ah! Look everyone, here comes my lovely partner now! (Lee) dear, come here a moment."

Next thing, he's pulling out some flowers from nowhere and turning them into a flower crown for you.

"There! Doesn't (Lee) look pretty? Aww it would seem my beloved is a little shy."

He definetly grabs your chin and looks into your eyes like a smug bastard we love him though

"There's no need to be shy. I'm not lying when I say you are stunning."

Charlotte has written soooo many articles about you two its not even funny

And Fontanians are living for it

Despite his antics, he never takes things too far.

Like he'd never do something to embaress you if he knew you'd be upset or uncomfortable

And if he ever makes you too upset he will always apologise

With flowers he pulls from his hat

But that rarely happens. He's known you for 10 years now. He knows your boundaries like the back of his hand

The first time you tell him you love him, it's after the trial with the traveler- specifically after they've walked away after confronting Lyney about lying to them

"Lyney.."

"..."

"I'm going to see Freminet. He's probably worried after not seeing us for so long."

"..Lyney. You know the traveler just needs some time to process. We didn't mean any harm by hiding it from them."

"I know! I know.. "

"... I'm proud of you. And... I love you"

You have never seen Lyney so genuinely surprised

As a magician and fatuu, he's seen it all. And above all he knows never to let his facial expressions give away what he's thinking

But he let himself slip this once.. He let his love and admiration for you show clearly on his face

"And I love you too, my dove. My darling (Lee)"

sobbing. I want a Lyney in my life.

-Strawberry

Masterlist

Rules

[let-love-run-red]

Love ... u write for Miguel???? If you're feeling up to it - and you're one of my favorite writers - can you write headcanons for Miguel if he hurts girlfriend's feelings/ignores her? What he does to make up for it? <3 your writing! Take care!

Yes I do write for Miguel! I love him so much actually lol, also you're so sweet and I'm glad you enjoy my writing, you take care as well! I hope this is what you were looking for, it got a little longer than I intended

Masterlist | Requests! Warnings: none! just Miguel being a little bit of a jerk at first

- He hadn't always been dismissive, Miguel was actually a very attentive partner. Before the spider society.

- He used to be sweet and listen to your stories from work or spend time watching shows and making dinner with you

- But after, it was like he forgot about everything except "the fate of the multiverse." He forgot to eat, forgot to rest, forgot about his birthday, your anniversary.

- You'd been understanding before but him forgetting your anniversary was the last straw for you. You decided to be just as cold and detached as he was and you knew it wasn't the right way to handle conflict but it made you feel better.

- He caught onto that fairly quickly, and he was angry. How dare you give him the cold shoulder when he had so much responsibility.

- He started snapping at you whenever he was around. Spent more time at headquarters, spending more time holed up in his office ignoring your calls.

- Then Pavitr of all people knocked some sense into him. - "You can't just ignore her and expect her to be happy!" He'd exclaimed when he'd overheard Miguel venting to Jessica. "She's your partner you need to give as much as you expect." He'd finished before storming out of the room.

- So it started with flowers. You walked into the apartment one day to see a vase of your favorite flowers on the counter with a note accompanying it in Miguel's scrawling handwriting saying he loved you.

- It wasn't enough, but it was a start.

- The flowers became regular, a new bouquet the second the old ones started to drop petals, each one with a written note. The notes became more common too, little ones around the house for no particular reason. You felt your heart starting to thaw.

- Then it was dinner. You walked into the apartment one night after work fully prepared to order takeout to be greeted by the smell of your favorite dish and Miguel cooking in the kitchen with his music playing.

- He didn't realize you'd walked in until you ran your hand down his back gently. He jumped slightly and quickly paused his music.

- "What's this for?" You asked, gesturing to the meal he was cooking. "I missed our anniversary, I'm sorry." He lowered his head. You sighed. "Yes you did." You muttered. "I'm trying to make it up to you," He continued. You opened your mouth and he cut you off, "not just for our anniversary, for ignoring you too." You paused and nodded, lightly scratching his back. "How can I make it up to you?"

- He listened to everything you said. He made it a point to be home before eleven every night. He didn't leave without kissing you goodbye or leaving you a note on your bedside table.

- If he had to be gone for a mission, he called you whenever he could, just to check in, so you knew he was safe and he knew you were safe.

- He also made sure that no matter how busy he got he set time aside to have dinner with you at least once a week. Whether you cooked together or ordered takeout he would sit down with you and listen to your stories from work, tell you some of his own, and you would watch one of your shows together.

- It's more than a start, and it's more than enough.

[guardian5tiger3]

Tarot Reading - Pick a Picture .

General/whatever comes out.

1 2

3 4

Pile 1 .

You might be feeling a little sad lately ,possibly influences by other persons in your energy. You may be looking for guidance and spirit is wanting you to work towards building yourself up more financially and possibly becoming more stable. Being able to fully rely on yourself is the best way to avoid conflict with others surrounding you. You may have someone close to you, possibly a sister for some specific few people, who is looking at something and seemingly away from you. Sometimes you have to accept things for what they are and build yourself up and form a better connection with yourself . Deep down this person loves you no matter what. This can also be a part of yourself.

You're definitely learning in some way or another how to be there for yourself and be content with yourself. Don't let anyone be deceitful towards you at this time and try your best to trust yourself . Follow your heart, how you feel, and listen to what you naturally already know is right. You already have all the answers within.

Side note, some of you, it is also possible this person close to you or whoever they may be relating to you, is actually confused and in a way only doing or saying whatever it is as a reaction to something else. They may just need you to say something and stop being stubborn and something if you possibly have been or they might just be fishing for you to say something .

Peace and love.

Pile 2 .

You may be being confronted with a choice on how to respond information.

You might feel compelled or know you should focus elsewhere and," turn the other cheek."

Running away from things is not always the best solution to problems.

Think like a gambler, is it worth losing whatever or whoever you are looking away from?

Think rationally and try not to be too impulsive at this time.

Make sure if you care about someone to consider their emotions but do always put yourself first. Try not to get too caught up in your imagination and ground yourself.

You may be healing family wounds at this time.

I keep getting something about a pet fish.

If you have any pet even past on ,they might be trying to convey to you to be in a more Buddha like mental state if that makes sense.

Don't be naive or ignore problems, though. Healing is very important and you never fail to feel better in general in life after you accomplish a phase of healing.

Make sure you're giving to the right persons.

If you're confused, slow down and chill for a while.

Let yourself feel emotions, especially if there is some heartbreak you're trying to keep down.

Thank you. Peace and love.

Pile 3.

You might be ignoring advice or guidance from some people for the sake of individuality and or it simply just doesn't suit you.

I'm very proud of you if that's the case.

Water like in your picture is significant somehow.

At the end of the day, you have a certain destiny and even though some people may care about you and love you it doesn't mean you have to live your life according to what will make them happy or proud.

This could , for some of you, also just be accepting that you aren't the type to make money in a way that's considered as "normal."

But, if someone loves you, they'll love you regardless of what you choose to do with your life.

And final message for you-

Be happy . :) 🌈

Thank you. Peace and love.

Pile 4

Someone might have told you something upsetting in some way, perhaps it has caused some type of disturbance in your life.

Somebody might need to move out and are having trouble figuring it out or accepting what you feel like you're losing.

There is you showing up as coming out better on the other side of whatever this situation is.

Try to hold onto your faiths at this time and let your intuition guide you.

I most definitely see a rainbow at the end of the storm whether the storm is a few raindrops or a full blizzard..

Based on the energy I got from whoever gave you some type of information, it is about time you experience a fresh new start. You might meet new people soon.

I see you walking into a phase of self discovery in this next part of your life, probably the next few months. Always remember, for every situation that has cons there's bound to be pros.

However defensive you've been about yourself, keep it up. I see things about to be resolved or you're going to be in a calmer state soon.

Peace and love people.

Thank you.

🎈

-tiger girl

[yanderelinkeduniverse]

Hello, I noticed your inbox is open so I'm hoping to make a request if you're not too busy that is. But before I do I just want to say I LOVE your work, unfortunately when I first found you your original blog had already been gone so i was unableto see all your works and art, but luckily I was able to find some reblogs of your work and I became a huge fan. May I request reader who likes to sing? Maybe they became the bard of chain to help make money? Thank you very much for your time and please keep up the phenomenal work and make sure take care of yourself.

Oh a reader who can sing would be a little bit tricky for the Chain. Not because some member of the Chain dislike songs or singing, but for other, more irrational reasons.

On the one hand, they would love the fact that you care enough about them that you’d utilize your lovely singing voice to help make money to support the group. It just proves to them how kind and amazing you are.

The sheer pride that would fill them seeing crowds gather around you in towns to hear you perform dwarfs the pride they have in themselves for saving Hyrule. If they could they’d show the world how incredible you are, even if the praise you’d receive will never quite be good enough in their eyes.

But on the other hand, when they start becoming more and more possessive, a certain jealousy starts to fill them when they see other people - strangers, no less - listening to you sing.

It’s selfish, they’ll admit it, but they feel as though they’re the only ones who deserves to hear your beautiful voice. Other people wouldn’t be able to appreciate it, appreciate you, in the ways you deserve. They couldn’t care less about the money your singing brings in, they’d rather have your singing be featured in private performances with them as your adoring audience.

But one does not simply cage a bird and expect it to sing on command, Gliph was the one who made that point, so it’s fuzzy whether or not they’d actually succeed in this or if they compromise with you.

Bonus, some members of the Chain have some connections to music and singing.

Based on Jojo’s July art, we know that each member of the group can play at least one instrument so no doubt they’d provide instrumentation to your performances.

Sky specifically seems to be the one who plays his Lyre regularly as a hobby while the others bring out their own for special occasions, so he doesn’t hesitate to play along to whatever song you decide to sing absentmindedly or hum along to.

Meanwhile Jojo said herself that Wild can sing so he’ll totally have a duet with you under any given circumstances. Personally, he doesn’t believe his singing can hold a candle to your own, but that doesn’t mean he shies away from the chance to have a romantic duet or just a silly fun one.

Also, I don’t think Legend has as much baggage from Marin by the time he’s fallen for you, he would’ve healed enough to let go of her bit by bit, but his reaction to your singing was definitely interesting.

In the beginning, he wouldn’t mind you being musically inclined and humming or singing little tunes every now and again, it’s not like every instance of song would remind him of her. But as time goes on and his attachment to you becomes much more romantic, he’ll wonder if he’s essentially *replacing* Marin by loving you.

This plays into his mini arc about not pushing you away and accepting his own feelings for you, but for a time he’ll act annoyed whenever you sing and maybe even say that it annoys him in an effort to stop the conflicting emotions going through his head.

Of course, the moment you get angry at him, or worse, stop singing around him, the guilt and regret will come crashing in and weighing on his conscious. The other heroes glaring holes into him whenever this happens doesn’t help either…

In the end he apologizes and says that he was wrong, saying that he actually loves your singing and would be blessed to hear more of it. And it’s a good thing to since he was pretty sure that the others might kill him if he didn’t, but even if they weren’t affected at all he still would’ve done it.