#They're incompatible statements

[bonefall]

I’d be REALLY wary of that idea. I know it’s not your intention but no matter how you slice it that creates a scenario where some cats are genetically superior and more civilised than others based on where they’re from, which I feel is bad even if they happen to be nice to kittypets. Really love your work but maybe consider how you’d handle that one !!

Yeah, that's exactly the reason why I tacked the big old "THIS IS NOT IN THE REWRITE" warning onto the front of it lmao.

It also creates a situation where the Clans have an actual, unfortunate REAL justification for cat eugenics, which would mix very, very badly even in situations where there is no Clan/Housecat conflict. Unless it was completely dominant and always passed on but... you see how it's already an uncomfortable idea I'd have to tack on a bunch of bandaids to.

Sometimes a thought remains just a thought exactly because you end up thinking through its implications, y'know?

[aziraphales-library]

Hi mods Hope yall are doing good. Can i ask for some really domestic aziracrow? Like taking baths together and just being sappy

Hello. We have #fluff and #domestic fluff tags you can check out. Here are some domestic fluffly fics in which there is bathing...

Where Love Grows by AFrenchFanWriter, heeen (T)

“It starts, as it will end, with a garden.” Or After moving into their cottage in the South Downs, Crowley & Aziraphale cultivate flowers and memories together.

Soft and Soapy by Aegopixel (T)

“Can we skip to the part where I curl up next to the fireplace and fall asleep? It’d be nice to shed these layers so I can recuperate from the fatigue my tiresome good deeds caused.” At that request, Aziraphale placed his hands on his hips, looking for all the world like Peter Pan after facing down Captain Hook. “Actually, I’ve prepared something far more pleasing than that.” His statement peaked Crowley’s interest. “Oh really?” he drawled, tilting his head with seductive grace and a smirk to match. “What could be more pleasing, I wonder?” “Allow me to show you, my dear boy.” Crowley has spent his entire day out in the freezing cold, and now that they live together Aziraphale can take care of him in the most considerate of ways.

pausing the world to stay right where we are by RepQueen15 (T)

Aziraphale’s hands grasped at him gently, not in a commanding way, more like making sure he hadn’t stepped away. His pooling blue eyes gazed up at Crowley, and Crowley got the feeling he was just now realising how carefully they were doing this all, just how fondly he was being handled. Maybe he even guessed at the thoughts running through Crowley’s idiotically sappy mind right about now. In any case, he pulled at him slightly needily, almost vulnerable. He always looked this way, when he was at Crowley’s mercy, but there was no fear in his expression at all. “Are you…?” “‘M here, angel,” he said softly, stepping forward and taking Azirphale’s hand in his own. "It's okay." *** Crowley takes care of Aziraphale after Armageddon, exhausted, confused, but most of all, safe.

Lavender Haze by Scarlett_Oakenshield (T)

"You can stay at my place, if you like." "I don't think my side would like that." "You don't have a side anymore. Neither of us do." Right after the almost Armageddon, and with nowhere else to go, Aziraphale returns to Crowley's flat for the night. He takes a bubble bath to clear his head and decipher Agnes Nutter's final prophecy. Crowley joins him. They embrace their feelings with nothing left to lose, while simultaneously trying to figure out how they're going to get themselves out of this one. Or...canon compliant, couple bathing fluff for you to enjoy~

Just the Way You Are by Kat_Rowe (T)

Angels are, at their creation, biologically asexual. All too aware of his own vulnerability to pleasures of the flesh, Aziraphale has spent 6,000 years avoiding the sin of Lust by simply never adopting the equipment necessary to experience it. Until his relationship with Crowley started to grow more intimate (and more physical), Aziraphale never gave it much thought. Physical incompatibility can be solved in an instant, but he finds himself worrying how Crowley will react, and about the assumptions he might make. Now that they're covered in stardust and on their way into the shower, the issue can't be avoided any longer. But a tense discussion is a small price to pay for a romantic shower with your best friend in the universe.

he ahold of my hand by cuefog (G)

It takes them a while, but they do get there eventually: The cottage in the South Downs with the garden, and the greenhouse, and the private library of old books. The angel and the demon curled up in bed together, warm and safe under the covers. Meanwhile, Aziraphale has something to tell Crowley, but it takes him a few tries and a bit more time to figure things out for himself. (aka the slow burn after the slow burn: a collection of moments)

- Mod D

[anti-terf-posts]

Hi, this may not be the right place to ask, but I’m just wondering what’s so wrong with radfem ideology? I can’t really find any proper resources detailing why it’s wrong, besides screenshots of either toxic people saying toxic things, or screenshots of tradfem blogs. My own research hasn’t brought up anything either, as I can’t really find radfems saying anything horrible like a lot of anti radfem posts describe them saying. Again, sorry if this is the wrong blog, feel free to ignore this ask if that’s the case!

BEFORE WE BEGIN: I AM NOT AN EXPERT. I USED ARTICLES WITH NUETRAL OPINIONS ON RADICAL FEMINISM, AND BASED MY OWN OPINIONS ON IT. USE THIS AS A SOURCE AT YOUR OWN RISK

This one is actually kind of tricky, because some radfem beliefs are actually very valid and are arguably reasonable.

For example, Wikipedia states, "Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical re-ordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts" Which like, totally makes sense! The patriarchy needs to be dismantled entirely in order for women to have true freedom.

However, radical feminism dismisses the idea of legal/class based misogyny, which is ridiculous, considering the fact that women in higher classes often have more power over lower class women, and sometimes even enforce gender roles against lower class women (making them do household chores like taking care of the children or cleaning the house for them, etc.)

And let's not forget the racism rooted in radical feminism. Radfems claim that misogyny is the most basic form of oppression, which completely erases the oppression of people of colour, which has been around since almost forever.

In fact, in the early days of this movement, many black women refused to associate with radical feminists due to their ignorance of oppression against women of colour. It was only after radical feminists began to listen to woc, and start including them in their feminism that they decided to join the ideology.

Moving the discussion over towards prostitution and pornography. Radfems believe that both of those are inherently bad things. It is true that women in lower socioeconomic classes have a higher chance of being prostitutes, but it shouldn't be true. Yes, women who are coerced into sex work in any way should have the freedom to quit, but this should not clash with a woman's freedom to join the industry if she wants to.

So, sometime after the radical feminism movement was started, radical lesbian feminism began.

These women believed that they were helping women fight oppression and misogyny simply by being lesbians, because "heterosexuality inherently oppresses women". This statement is incompatible with the belief that women should have the freedom to do what they want. If lesbians are unable to control who they're attracted to, then why isn't that the same for heterosexual women? And let's not ignore the blatant biphobia that comes with that. A bi woman should have the freedom to choose to be in a male/female relationship without judgement (as long as she isn't being coerced into the relationship) and saying otherwise completely erases bi women's experiences as queer people.

Speaking of queer people, we all know and love the classic TERF, or, FART, as I like to call them. (Also, if you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic about loving TERFs. No one loves TERFs.)

Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists believe that the trans movement "perpetuates patriarchal gender norms," and "is incompatible with radical feminist ideology."

If you couldn't tell, this is greatly untrue. Radical feminism just believes that we need to get rid of the patriarchy and has nothing to do with how people identify. If you take a look at pretty much any article that discuss radical feminism, you'll see the history of anti-trans rhetoric being spread by the ideology.

Being anti trans is probably what radical feminism is most well known for. Over the course of many decades, the ideology has become less about women's movement, and more about punishing trans people for their existence. Hell, even a quick search of "radical feminism" on this god forsaken site will reveal that their main motive is no longer about women's liberation and has now become all about oppressing trans people.

As my mum put it; "it's the cycle of abuse. These women are so traumatized by the patriarchy and misogyny, that they feel the need to abuse the easiest target."

To recap, the radfem ideology is racist, biphobic, and most notably, transphobic. And if that's not enough to convince you that it's problematic, I don't know what is.

[elias-rights]

What’s toxic about JonMartin in canon?

It's a really interesting question to get into because there are many factors at play. Under a cut for length.

First of all is the simple fact that they don't know each other. From MAG 159:

PETER

It’s odd, really. You each think you’re so focused on the other, but how much do you really know each other? How much time have you spent together when not working, or bickering, or fleeing from that latest thing that wants to kill you? So. What are you seeking? The image you’ve each created of the other? The people you think you love don’t exist. Not really. And that’s a very lonely place to be.

ARCHIVIST

(cutting off Peter’s echo) Shut up!

Yes, it's a manipulation attempt, but Jon notably doesn't offer a counterargument to his reasoning. Furthermore, it's true: they haven't had the opportunity to get to know each other, at least that we've heard. Not even Jonmartin enthusiasts seem to agree on the question of when exactly Jon started reciprocating Martin's feelings; most of my mutuals share my experience of being completely blindsided by MAG 159/160 and the confirmation of their feelings.

"I need him to be okay" is often cited as proof of Jon caring personally about Martin, but I always viewed it as him clinging to the concept of Martin as his last surviving original assistant; he obviously feels responsible for him and also views him as a symbol of simpler times.

Then there's the fact that they're incompatible. To put a simple example, they don't even get each other's jokes. A brief selection of instances where this happens:

They have the highest ratio of missed jokes I remember seeing between characters in this podcast. This sharply contrasts with, for instance, Gerry, who instantly clicks with Jon's style of communication.

Okay, but this is all about why they're incompatible, which doesn't necessarily imply toxicity. That factor comes in because, throughout season five, Martin is (to put it bluntly) an absolute dick to Jon.

In MAG 181, for example, he joins in on laughing at Jon with Salesa for being powerless, when Salesa at that point was an unknown variable that could've easily been an enemy:

ARCHIVIST

[Compellingly] Tell me what happened.

SALESA

No.

ARCHIVIST

I – uh… W-What?

[DEEP CHUCKLES FROM SALESA]

SALESA

The look on your face! Look, he’s so confused!

[MARTIN LAUGHS A BIT TOO]

ARCHIVIST

Martin!

MARTIN

Sorry. Sorry. Y-You did look kind of funny. It was l-l-l-like you were flunking an exam or something.

Notably, this is after they cross an unknown threshold into the place where an agent of the Web is living, which puts Jon (again, powerless for the first time in a while) in a position where he's at the mercy of the fear that destroyed his childhood. Either Martin is being very insensitive or Jon didn't tell him about Mr Spider, which wouldn't mean anything good re: how well they know and trust each other.

From the same episode:

SALESA

And you?

[SOUND OF A DISGRUNTLED ARCHIVIST]

MARTIN

He’ll behave.

You can make an argument that I'm reaching with everything else in this post, but "he'll behave" is an inarguably disgusting thing to say about your partner, especially when he's in such a vulnerable position.

And then, of course, is the matter of the killing spree.

It starts because Jon impulsively avenges his friend, which he wasn't going to do until the Not-Them basically baited him. (Of course he then felt more secure in his power and part of him enjoyed it. He's in this situation because he was systematically traumatised on purpose by Jonah and forced to read his statement.)

And then, when Jon admits to being ashamed of himself for having these powers, for enjoying them, Martin just bluntly tells him that they should "get their murder on" because "these things" (avatars, of which Jon! Is! One! Nice job implicitly dehumanising him!) are "just evil" (never mind that some of them might have circumstances similar to Jon's). (Also, never mind that revenge fixes nothing, but that's neither here nor there.)

The most egregious example is with Oliver Banks. I know "I'm not going to kill a man just because you're jealous" became a meme line, but it's really not the sign of a healthy relationship.

MARTIN

…Cool, so what’s the problem, then? Take another monster off the hit list; job done.

ARCHIVIST

…It’s not. That simple?

MARTIN

Well, what does that mean. (slight pause, insistent) What does that mean, John? What, what happened to Kill Bill? (barest of pauses) John? John, you said –

ARCHIVIST

I know what I said, and I don’t – (sigh) I don’t know, Martin. I just – I don’t think he’s – (sigh) I don’t know; I don’t think he’s evil.

[Something creaks.]

MARTIN

(really?) Oh, yeah, sure; he’s probably a really kind, benevolent ruler of a hellish fear prison.

I get that Martin is trying to project evil onto every avatar in order to distance himself from them because he's coping badly with having a domain of his own, but maybe don't do that in front of your boyfriend who's struggling with his own avatarhood and whether that makes him a monster. Martin's phrasing even parallels Jon's "all you lose is another monster" line from S4. Tying Jon's worth to some arbitrary definition of humanity that he giveth and taketh away on a whim.

Also, Jon is very notably a person who likes to think things through before expressing them. If Martin can't even be patient while he tries to explain something complex, they're clearly not compatible.

This is from before they kill Jude Perry:

MARTIN

…No. No, I’m not going to choose; I don’t, I don’t think that’s a fair decision to put on me. It’s your revenge; your choice, not mine.

This strikes me as hypocritical. Martin can push Jon to kill the avatars he doesn't like even when Jon clearly isn't comfortable with it, but then places the weight of the whole thing on Jon, as if the killing spree had been his idea. Why isn't it a "fair decision to put on him" when Martin has tried to choose every time until now?

And, I mean, Martin apologises for the pressure, for what it's worth. Except no, the topic comes back, and not in a good way.

ARCHIVIST

What happened to “Kill Bill”?

MARTIN

You weren’t meant to enjoy it this much!

This is about Jon suggesting using his power in a way that would actually make a bit of a difference. Of course it's a fallible suggestion, but Martin's response is just ridiculous. Martin clearly enjoyed the killing spree until it was Jon who put an end to it.

Martin casually dehumanises, dismisses, and belittles Jon on many occasions: treating those Jon's obviously projecting onto like monsters, being whiny and impatient about the statements he needs to survive, or interrupting his train of thought.

Finally (for this post--there were many scenes that I skipped), there's the matter of how the entire crew, Martin included, systematically dismisses Jon's input in the last few episodes. It's like his opinion doesn't even matter, when he's the one arguably best equipped to understand what's happening.

It's genuinely painful to listen to.

[sapphire-weapon]

Alot of people who defend Aeon use that one moment when Leon is on the back of the train and says he misses her to justify that there’s something there, but they also horrendously ignore the moment where he chucks her bracelet off the train 😭 maybe it’s just me but I want to ask you about your opinion of the implications of that scene

i mean the first implication is that Leon doesn't think that she's dead. knowing the kind of character that Leon is, a line like "I can't believe I actually miss her" wouldn't fit his personality if he genuinely thought that Ada was dead.

i can't believe i'm going to do this, but i guess i'm going to have to dissect the goddamn sentence because yeah that previous anon had aeon all over it, and these people are too stupid to live i swear to fuck

"I can't believe..."

i mean just look above. that's an expression of annoyance. Leon is annoyed not just at the situation but also at himself. it's not grief. it's not longing. it's not whimsy. he's fucking irritated.

"... I actually miss her."

the word "actually" there is another sign of annoyance. he knows he SHOULDN'T miss her. he knows intellectually that Ada fucked him over, and that pisses him off. but, against all logic and reason, Leon does miss Ada's presence, and he's fucking mad at himself for it.

this is not the expression of a man in love. this is the expression of a rookie cop who had come to admire someone who he thought was senior law enforcement but then wasn't. he's annoyed that he found things about her to like, because missing her means that he wants to go back to how things were before the truth came out --

-- and how were things before the truth came out? Leon was reliant on Ada. to be without her means that he has to be the one in charge making decisions and taking care of himself. he still wants her to be the authority, which makes him feel like he's learned nothing from this whole thing.

that's what he's fucking annoyed about. in a sense, Leon is griping about the fact that he has to grow up, while at the same time being pissed at himself over the fact that he hasn't grown up already.

this isn't a statement about Ada. it's a statement about himself.

and so when he throws the bracelet away, it's symbolic of him throwing his attachment to her away. it's him making the decision to grow up and leave her behind -- to leave any attachment to her memory behind in this city to get nuked with the rest of it.

AND SINCE WE'RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT IT

his fucking smirk in RE4make -- i don't know how anyone reads that as love. literally just think about this a little bit as opposed to not at all. he smirks and then what? what does he do immediately following that? he pulls a fucking knife on her.

that's not an "oh the love of my life is here" smirk. that's an "oh she thinks she's got the drop on me but IT IS I WHO WILL GET THE DROP ON HER" smirk. jesus tapdancing christ.

and

AND

"she bites her lip when Leon calls her heartless"

DOES THIS LOOK LIKE AN "AROUSED" LIP BITE TO YOU

BECAUSE THAT LOOKS LIKE AN "I NEED TO BITE MY TONGUE BEFORE I RIP HIS THROAT OUT" LIP BITE TO ME

especially when you consider her very next line

and how sincerely fucking annoyed she sounds.

i swear to god there are some things i thought i'd never have to explain, and the normal human emotion of annoyance and/or frustration was fucking one of them.

these two are so incompatible in this version of the story. when the masks come off and they're both at the rawest versions of themselves, they piss each other the fuck off.

[transmascpetewentz]

I really want to know, why does it bother you so much that there are cis gay men in the world who do not want to have sex with afab people? it triggers your dysphoria and makes you feel bad, I gather that much, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to their sexual boundaries.

especially when there are countless posts made by gay people that are talking about same sex attraction that get dog piled by trans people feeling excluded, when they just are inherently excluded from some peoples sexual attraction.

gender and sex are different yes? and sexuality is based on sex. this seems to be something we disagree on. trans men are men, they have the right to live as themselves and transition, but they are still trans. not everyone is going to be sexually attracted to them, or have them included in their sexuality, especially people who are single sex attracted. I want to know what’s transphobic about this.

your crusade to get cis people to accept any genitals in a partner is actively driving a wedge in the lgbt community, I would like to understand your perspective beyond “this makes my dysphoric, I feel excluded, therefore I will create the term TEHM and make these people into villains on tumblr.com”

I ask this out of curiosity, I am interested to hear what your takes are in one place since it’s hard to find your whole POV across multiple posts. We don’t agree and probably won’t ever agree, but I hope you can see where I’m coming from and I hope I can do the same for you.

I was going to delete this ask, but this is the most politely that one of you has come into my inbox. I don't have the energy to write up anything that long about the subject but I'll try my best.

As I have stated many, many times, I don't care if an individual cis gay man doesn't date or fuck trans men. I really don't. The problem arises when cis gay men claim that they cannot be attracted to trans men, or that their supposed lack of attraction to us makes us any less male or any less gay.

A cis gay man making a blanket statement about never wanting to date/fuck a trans man in specific is like an allistic person loudly proclaiming that they would never date/fuck an autistic person, or a white person saying they would never be with a POC. While their individual choices don't matter, their "preferences" reveal that they are bigots.

"Trans men are men" is incompatible with the idea that gay men cannot be attracted to us. Hell, I'm a gay man, and I love my fellow trans men. If a gay man truly sees trans men as men, he will have the capacity to be attracted to us. The idea that sexuality is based on sex can be easily debunked by many examples of cis gay men dating and fucking trans men, as well as the fact that we have documented evidence of so-called "I'm only attracted to biological males!!!" type of men unknowingly fucking stealth trans men.

Now onto my more important point, the issue with TEHMs is not that they embarrass themselves by making a huge display about how they're so obsessed with hating boypussy, but that they try to claim that their own lack of attraction to trans men means that we should not be included in gay male spaces.

Not every cis gay man is going to be included in the attraction of every other cis gay man, but we don't see fem4fem cis gays claiming that masc cis gays don't belong in our spaces, do we? But because trans men are treated like shit even by other queer people, no one comes to defend us.

And as for posts that talk about "same sex attraction" being dogpiled by trans people, yeah, they deserved that. Gay trans men and transfem lesbians experience homophobia, and the vast majority of experiences that TEHMs call "SSA experiences" apply to us. Gay trans men are a very diverse group of people with very different experiences and daily lives from each other.

I also did not coin "TEHM." It was coined in 2017 by another Tumblr user who I don't remember the username of.

And before you go "but what about cis gay men who are trans allies who just aren't attracted to them 🥺" and to that I say, please show me someone. I have yet to meet a cis gay man who claims to have a genital preference or who says he would never fuck boypussy, who is also a trans ally. They all end up going mask off immediately. And so many of them try and make their subconscious biases that make them believe trans men are unattractive my problem.

It's true that we probably won't ever agree on this, especially if you're cis. If you're trans, I wish you the best of luck overcoming your internalized transphobia, and my blog will be waiting for you when that time comes. You seem to misunderstand the problem that I and other gay trans men have with TEHMs, and it comes from the bias that we're just entitled women who want to fuck gay men.

Obviously, when a gay trans man calls out bigotry, he can't ever have a point 🙄 it must just be someone refusing to play along with his fetish! (sarcasm)

[rjalker]

"I'm autistic and I feel isolated, almost like I'm a different species, so I'm going to write a story about someone who literally is a different species and that's why they don't fit in!!!"

Okay, cool, sounds fun. But are you prepared to deal with the resulting statement you're making that different people shouldn't live together?

Are you going to provide specific problems that arise from this scenario that make cohabitating an actual problem, (temperature incompatability, dietary requirements that can't be met, overstimulation from having different levels of hearing or vision) or is it just going to be that the problem is they're different kinds of people, and that means they shouldn't live together?

If you want to write being a completely different species as a metaphor for being autistic, you need to make sure you're not accidentally arguing that segregation is a good thing.

Because you can very easily slide from point A (being autistic is socially isolating because you're different from everyone else) to point E (different people shouldn't live together at all because there's no way to be happy unless you're around people who are exactly like you)

How to avoid this with your "different species as a metaphor for autism" stories?

Assuming your setting has many sentient species, have very specific problems that prevent specific different species from living together.

Do not make it a general problem of "no species can live together"

Show us different species living together, even when there's no "real" advantage to doing so (like living in a port city with lots of trade passing through). Make cohabitation a casual thing that lots of people from lots of different species do.

Show us accommodations that species make for eachother when living together. Species X has incredibly sensitive hearing that can cause them pain? Species Y adapts their local dialect to soften what would normally be loud pronunciations to convey specific meanings. Species A has strict mating seasons where they lose control of themselves and start attacking anyone they view as a rival? Species B, and anyone else who doesn't want to participate in the fighting, moves to another site for the season and gets to come back in a few weeks to everything being nice and tidy.

Make it so there are specific problems that specific individuals have with certain situations, not the entire species at large. Even with your metaphor being about being autistic, you should still have some characters, of every species, who are literally autistic. And include other neurodiversities too, like mental illnesses.

And while we're at it, give people physical disabilities too, and not just as a result of cohabitation with the "Well species J are mermaids and Species K are land-mammals, so if you think about it, Species K are disabled in the water" thing. Have characters who are amputees from birth and injuries. Have people with allergies. Have people with migraines. People who are deaf and blind and hard of hearing and struggle to see and any other physical disability you can think of. Your species shouldn't be monoliths, not mentally, physically, or culturally.

???? IDK

Just try not to let your "being autistic is like being a different species! I must find my people!!!" thing turn into "segregation is good and are we even really sure those other species are even people"? thing.

because it's a lot shorter of a slide than you think it is.

And again. cannot stress this enough. You also have to show literal autistic characters existing in your setting in these various cultures. Even if it's a fantasy setting so you make up another word to use instead of "autistic".

Otherwise your story might accidentally have the moral of "autistic people are literally not human and there's something Wrong With Them™ that we need to try and fix or else we have to cast them out of society altogether".

Don't let biological essentialism ruin your fun autistic story.

[moonyinpisces]

maybe I'm just crazy but I need a second opinion to back me up on this but,, and this is really evident in the confession, crowley and aziraphale hardly use truthful "I" statements referring to what they actually feel or want. When they're arguing over something, its always about the immutable #FACTS here's why I'm right and you should listen to me. Even in his confession where its supposedly him taking a step to say what he actually means and wants, he's always presenting evidence of their relationship at a distance of impartial objectivity ("Weve known each other a long time/ We could always rely on each other/Heaven and hell are toxic/ We need to be an us") rather than what HE specifically wants or feels EXCEPT the one time he cuts himself off: "And I would like to spend-"

This is the one time in his confession he's explicitly saying what he, Crowley, wants.

And even right after he recovers by retreating into the safety of his #FACTS.

Even Aziraphale does it too. When he says "Come with me to heaven" its about what it can do to benefit them, not actually what Aziraphale wants. (We can make a difference/We can be angels doing good)

and tit for tat, he also does the radical, going off script and goes "I need you!"

They don't say what they're really thinking. They have never said what they actually wanted to each other and it's present here and in all they're other conversations. Hopefully if neil understands 🙏 his text he follows through and makes them say their wants and desires.

i totally agree with you that their methods of communication are soooo incompatible with each other in the final fifteen down to the linguistic roots. which is why s3 needs to force them on the same page without a chance of them returning to the bad habits they've upheld (for their own protection!) for the past 6000 years. i think this is absolutely textual in the scene and was the purpose in including it, so neil knows. i'm just hoping he fixes it by grand duke crowley and aziraphale that's me in the corner that's me in the spotlight losing my religion...

[silver-wield]

Stygian pisses me off. Along people like her who say wishy washy stuff like "at most he probably thought she attractive he not blind, probably has fleeting feelings but those are bland compared to his feelings for tifa" where? Where are those?! Some talk about bro code but even before the whole Zack thing, he's already so mean in costa del sol. He's already Disgusted at the idea of a "couple gondola event". He's already mean in Remake even after that Cursed resolution. In fact it was after the whole Zack bit that he started trying to be kinder and more tolerating. It's No bro code, that concept was Never a thing he thought of. Do you know what he thought of? He DIDN'T think "oh zack gf, i should back away" , rather it was "oh zack gf, I should be more kinder because everything Zack cares about I care about as well". I bet he was super guilty and saddened about not remembering Zack and not telling his parents what's up. He Loves Zack third to Tifa and Claudia. aerith isn't even close enough to the list, heck he was more cool with barret and yuffie. He hit it off with yuffie so easily and they just met!, she can even understand his perverted tendencies about Tifa. Something not all of them see. Actually it might just be her who knows lol.

Anyway, these Statements Don't hold up and will contradict because it's Not canon. I just don't understand how they see these things that Never existed? Did they play the game? Did we play the same game? I don't understand why even entertain this? Do they Not understand the material given to them? Why are they even here? There is so much about FF7, and "ltd" Doesn't even exist. It's all in their head that Only loves to argue but stray away from canon and factual evidences.

Every time i hear them talk about him and his pov about aerith, it just makes me get turned off of him and want to Never support ct. Heck, I'd be the #1 to fight against it. I'm starting to wonder if they even like tifa, cloud or even this IP. Nojima didn't write him this way for them to downgrade and water down his character and his story and feelings about tifa.

This guy NEVER wavered. And while I think aerith was only saying what she said in her resolution as a sign she Never understood him at all (creepy date was Very Clear he Doesn't see Nor will ever see her that way, yet she missed this lol) and was indeed only talking to herself. All these so called "attraction/ fleeting feelings" some think AREN'T REAL, IT'S NEVER THERE. It's all in your imagination and you have to ask if they even enjoy FF7, tifa, cloud and ct to begin with. Or do they wanna hop onto c /a's train that if zack and tifa didn't exist this that wtvr despite Nojima writing about how these characters are Totally Incompatible in ALL levels.

Srry for the rant. I'm just so Sick of this wishy washy attitude. I think FF7 fans are so lucky to have so much material to fight against these but some ignore them. If this was a real debate, they've lost immediately. You deal with evidence and canon as support. Not use essays, what ifs , and half assed assertions such as those. It just sounds like they're afraid of being wrong. But foolishly they already are. Credibility goes down Immediately.

I understand that frustration when clotis make Aerith apologist comments that encourage dumbasses because they'll use it as a talking point to say "even clotis think Cloud was attracted to her!!!!" which is why I take myself away from those kinds of discussions because it's bullshit and I don't wanna argue with moots.

Before we had the material ulti plus scene showing that Cloud literally didn't recognise Aerith in her red dress a lot of us went "well he's male and she's dressed up 🤷" but then we got the scenario and the script that showed he literally didn't know it was even her and he was just surprised some random woman is walking towards him with a red carpet being rolled out and shit.

And then with the swimsuits, he isn't even looking at Aerith. He glances at her face then immediately checks out Tifa and we get that in the first person pov, so we see exactly where he's looking. Then he gets all shy and stammers, and they flirt. But, even when Aerith also matches he doesn't reply to her saying she needs help with the sunscreen, so he avoids her flirtation. He also constantly shows and tells her that he isn't happy with her yanking him around and calling everything a date.

So, given the literal evidence, no cloti should still be going around saying he finds her attractive. He clearly doesn't.

And idky we must have Cloud seeing her as attractive or being attracted just because she's a woman. She ain't pretty. That's not just me saying it. That's literally what we've been told throughout the games. She was called homely in wall market, Zack said she's only pretty from certain angles, nobody compliments her looks or style, and yet we're supposed to believe that the man who is panting after Tifa Lockhart, who is literally described as a bombshell, would also find someone subpar attractive and be interested in that because he's a man.

That's a pretty shitty way to view Cloud.

[handweavers]

im sorry people are reacting so intensely to your post and being goofy in the tags! i have ocd and cptsd and chronic pain so it is often challenging to just sit with myself and not distract myself with media but it is simply not that serious! being able to tolerate things that might be uncomfortable and get to a place where you can comfortably exist without constant distraction is a GOAL of most treatment plans for mental illnesses. establishing self-esteem and self-worth and self-identity are important processes in improving one’s mental health and its fine if people aren’t at that place in their journey yet but to act as though your statements and questions are incompatible with having adhd etc is so unserious.

the thing that's so baffling to me is that people keep talking about how they're nothing without their interests and it's just like. that isn't even what i asked, but it's fascinating that for so many people "consuming media = interests" with no room for anything else, including the creation of media. writing or painting or coding or making music are interests. cooking and spending time with loved ones are interests. road trips, knitting, playing the keyboard, baking, even stuff like home repair or car repair or going for walks can be interests. i have chronic pain and adhd, ptsd, and more+ and i spend a lot of time engaging with my interests outside of listening or watching stuff, but people keep interpreting "media" as "interests" and its sooo fascinating like. you're telling me you don't care about anything other than tv shows?? there's no way that's true. dig a little deeper etc

[dr3amofagame]

Why's everyone acting like Punz didn't know what Dream wanted? I'm pretty sure Dream mentioned the whole big happy family thing to him in that one conversation they had where they talk about seperating.I also don't see how their goals are incompatible: in their confrontation w/ Tommy, they talk about everyone being immortal, beating death entirely. That seems like it serves Dream's big happy family just fine. Like sure realistically big happy family is impossible, and they're self destructive af, but in theory science and family are not necessarily in opposition to eachother.

Sure, a general degree of peace for the server involving a greater level of unity was always part of the plan and what dream Desired (tm) but...it's also pretty obvious that what c!Dream actually wanted by the time we got to the finale was. Kind of a wreck, even in his own mind. In that same conversation where we get him talking about defeating death he mentions resetting the server and also killing everyone. Again, I really want to spend time parsing through every argument c!Dream makes there and like, categorizing them, but it's obvious (to me) that 1. he's not being entirely truthful, for one (the whole saw trap set up is extremely suspicious, especially considering that the steak given to both tommy and tubbo literally could've saved them BOTH) and 2. that he's extremely self-contradictory. Whether said contradictions were intentional by him and a result of his lying, or if they were partially because of his own lack of clarity with regards to his own goals, I will say that the answer isn't extremely clear. However, c!Dream saying himself that everything became "so jumbled" points to his...not actually being that sure of himself and what he wants, to me.

Science and family aren't inherently incompatible, but the finale itself did set up c!Dream as having to choose between a world that he actually wanted and envisioned versus the Plan as represented by Punz. Hence the conversation at the end where Tommy was trying to get him to think through what his heart actually wanted while Punz was discouraging him down that same line of reasoning. It's just really hard for me to say that c!Punz really knew what c!Dream wanted when c!Dream himself wasn't actually all that sure? "Big happy family" isn't a concrete goal statement in itself, and the point of the conversation with Tommy is that it wasn't all over, that there could be a different way, that c!Dream could pursue his goals in a way that was not The Plan (with punz embodying the latter.)

Again, I won't say that they're like, for sure unable to work out their issues. But I think that a level of divergence in their goals that would've made the Plan impossible to carry out in the form that it existed in the Finale was...pretty explicit, in that last stream. I won't say everyone has to share that view, but it's really hard for me to believe that c!Punz really understood what c!Dream wanted when c!Dream didn't understand what he wanted himself.

(And like, the point isn't to blame c!Punz for this. Hell, they probably did think they were on the same page! But there's still a whole point made of the whole mutual understanding of "wanting things to be simple" that c!Punz never really seems to echo--if c!Dream and c!Punz were truly on the same page, imo, then the finale wouldn't have ended with c!Tommy and c!Dream realizing at the same time that what they actually wanted was something else entirely.)

[kittyit]

Most online left x right debate are so devoid of nuances, to the point of being boring. Unfortunately, messing up the reality of what both ideologies support is very dangerous, it has real life consequences.

Speaking specially about women who think we have to allying with conservatives “to protect women, girls and children”, I have news for you: right-wingers don't give a single damn about women, girls and children. Some will try to counter this statement with “b-but the left...” and let me say this: as a socialist black radical feminist, I have felt lost many times in left spaces due to the blatantly misogyny/homophobia and also the tokenization of racism that is often assumed as “racism is taken more seriously than misogyny/homophobia” which isn't true in slightest but I have never thought that the right was the solution. Not because right = essentially bad and left = essentially good, if it was true, the blatantly misogyny, homophobia and racism in leftist spaces wouldn't hit so hard as it does, however they have an essential difference: right-wingers want to perpetuate a world full of inequality across class, race, sex, sexuality, nation, etc because they benefit from this social structure. The leftist goal, however is dismantling all the exploitation and oppression.

They're radically different, even though in the practice we see people advocating against things that oppress them, while wanting to keep things that benefit them. This is why I get upset with how brocialists talk passionately about how cruel is to take advantage of the lack of choice of economic vulnerable people but supporting the whole sex trade with the stupidest neoliberal rhetoric, it's because their class analysis is filled with male supremacist lengths and we should defy that, not supporting people who are already powerful and are not only using you feeling lost and hopeless in a fake agreement in positions that aren't even the same. The case is: it isn't socialism that is incompatible with feminism, it's sexism/homophobia/racism that is incompatible with socialism.

The root of conservative opposition to queer, trans and non-binary is purely homophobia and misogyny. Homosexuality is a threat to the male supremacist capitalism, since this system exist to control women's presumed reproductive capacity in order to get more workers who will keep the current system alive to the next generation of the oppressors.

They see trans people and queers as freakers and this treatment is reserved to feminists(even the male-centric ones), lesbians, gay men and bi people too. Why do y'all think conservative men react to our complaining about the misogyny of TRAs with a total mockery “We told you it would happen. It's all because you feminists wanted to destroy the natural order”. The “natural order” means the misogyny and homophobia feminists have been standing against since day one because it's the reason why we oppose to queer theory in the first place. Not because of hatred, not because we're “exclusionary” but because queer theory and practice are antifeminist, since they ignore/dismiss and in some aspects even support the existence of female oppression and fighting it is the solely reason why feminism exist.

And in all this mess, what is often forgotten is how queer theory and the classic right-wing sexism have a lot of more in common than radical feminism will ever be. Radical feminism can also crashes with queer theory in some points (surprise girlies!!!) and it still doesn't mean we all are the same.

i hope you'll make a blog and write some essays like this :)

[whatstrangeloops]

Finished the first season of Scavenger's Reign and wanted to post some thoughts about it.

First, I want to say that the show is gorgeous and the world and creatures are always stunning and interesting. This show is worth experiencing purely for those things alone.

However, as a story I think it was really lacking or, given the second season teaser at the end, maybe just incomplete. Which is disappointing since I can see the outline of some interesting themes going on but the show doesn't seem interested in delivering any sort of coherent statement about those ideas with the characters.

The unifying concept seems to be of humanity vs nature. Vespa is a wild and unfamiliar new ecology to the stranded survivors. While the creatures on Vespa aren't malicious their survival and the humans' survival is at odds and this forms the fundamental conflict of the show. Then later, I think in one of the last episodes, in Azi's flashback with Mia, Mia delivers a classic "this is the theme" monologue about how no matter where they are people should find ways to rely on other people. Which I interpret as the story being implicitly pro-humanity but also makes other things in the show less interesting maybe because I was hoping the show would go deeper than that.

Like here's how I interpret some of the characters and what happened to them. Sam starts out very pragmatic and is even positioned as opposed to Ursula on trying to understand Vespa (a thread that kind of gets dropped I feel). After he's infected with the parasite, at first he's invigorated but after coming to realize having the parasite allows him access to a deeper connection to Vespa chooses to die with his humanity rather than accept that influence. I think the horror framing of the parasite really muddies trying to think about it though. Kamen abdicates his humanity entirely to Vespa through Hollow (the little alien koala is called Hollow in the episode descriptions) unknowingly becoming a force of destruction but on contact with the "true understanding of Vespa" that Levi has is either rejected by the planet or reaccepts responsibility for his actions. Which one it is is kind of unclear. Finally, in Levi's arc the show seems to say that full harmony with Vespa isn't achievable by biological humans. Levi's strength is that they can be fully colonized by Vespa without any messy biological incompatibilities and they're even rewarded for accepting the planet with reproductive capability but that arc puts the human characters in a kind of bleak contrast and doesn't foretell good outcomes for them.

I guess I was hoping the show would give the characters a way to reflect on the idea of humanity vs nature more deeply. Probably the first couple episodes had me subconsciously ready to compare it to Dune and the teaser at the end of the last episode with the cathedral ship and the priests or whatever they were pushed that comparison into my conscious thinking. (Actually that teaser makes me a little worried if they're going about any of this thematic storytelling stuff being improved in S2, if it happens)

Anyway, some minor gripes: Hollow feels too much like a cheap trope. The rest of the ecology on Vespa felt very alien but still grounded. Hollow is just like a Grey but a koala complete with telepathic and telekinetic powers that no character ever really comments on and the transformation into a horror monster is also ungrounded.

I wish the show had spent a bit more time showing us how the characters discovered some of their knowledge about the ecology. Seeing Sam, Ursula, or Azi use the animals or plants in ingenious ways was cool but as they moved toward the ship and through unfamiliar biomes I started wondering about when they had the opportunity to figure all of this out. I'm thinking about the sequence where Azi, Barry and Kris have to cross that river and Azi pulls out this elaborate multi step process just to make sticky tack for their shoes like she'd been living by that riverside for years even though if you think about it I'm pretty sure that's the first time she'd ever been in that area.

[the-delta-quadrant]

me: i'm a non-transmasc other-aligned enby who is seen as transmasc and experiences transandromisia based on that and it would be great if conversations about transandromisia weren't so based around misgendering people like me

some transmascs: so you think transmasculine and nonbinary are separate things without overlap and that all nonbinary people have to be androgynous/a third gender?

literally fuck off, my personal identity is not about you, i'm not even "androgynous" myself and i don't believe in a "third gender".

like some of you all really can't handle that an abinary transextrine weirdo like me just exists and wants to talk about their experiences without being misgendered??? literally not making statements about anyone else's identity but mine.

the fact that you see me literally just MENTION my fucking gender and you immediately assume that i

1. am androgynous

2. think masculinity/manhood and nonbinarity are incompatible

and 3. think nonbinary is a monolithic single third gender

is some bullshit based on literally nothing but exorsexism. my identity is not about you. my identity is not offensive.

like some of you all will act like i'm limiting what nonbinary means by being my specific flavour of nonbinary when it's you who get offended by me existing and NOT wanting to be put into masc/fem binaries. and me not wanting to be called those terms doesn't mean that other nonbinary people can't??? my identity is about me and not anyone else!!! when i say stop putting me in binaries i'm talking about myself. when i say stop putting nonbinary people in binaries i mean let nonbinary people self-determine without placing us into masc or fem by default. it's not that fucking hard!

people accuse me of putting nonbinary people in boxes by talking about my personal gender and how it means i'm excluded and misgendered when THEY are the ones trying to put me into a transmasculine box if i want to have any place at all.

not to mention all those people who think that i'm an entitled brat for wanting to talk about how transandromisia affects me without having to misgender myself or for not wanting to be misgendered every time people talk about transandromisia. but i guess misgendering a trans person is no longer an act of violence if they're transextrine? the misgender yourself or die crowd likes to think so so

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

I've been thinking quite a bit about the NYT Taylor op-ed and the aftermath. And what it's crystalised for me is how difficult people find it to argue 'my belief is reasonable' without also arguing 'and everyone else is wrong and this is the only correct belief'. And how silly and damaging the second is within fandom - where you don't know and it doesn't matter.

I saw this screenshot about Taylor - and I'm posting it because I want to really encourage people who are approaching this logic to take a step back and understand that there is an alternative:

I don't think telling stories about Taylor is weird (or if it is it is weird int the glorious way all people are deeply weird). The first part of these statements is fine. But the second part is both obviously untrue and deeply fucked up; it is definitely not weird for straight people to write songs inspired by art their friends love, or draw daisies that look like daisies their friends have posted.

Speculating about which prominent people are queer is definitely part of queer culture - and I would argue that in that context it can be good actually. But within a fandom context it gets warped into something else very easily - and you can see that in how often people present themselves as fans start to argue that the only options for the person they're talking about are: Gay or Bad.

I understand that in this case people feel like the response to the NYT piece has suggested that they're bad and wrong (I would argue that the most significant response to the NYT piece is about it being in the NYT - and it's not relevant to what fans who are not writing in NYT are doing - but I can see that people feel differently). And they're choosing to respond to that feeling that they're bad and wrong by pushing those feelings on to Taylor

What if nobody had to be weird or wrong? What if it was really OK to see queerness in someone's life and work and not have to prove that no straight person would do so? What if there were other ways of dealing with something feeling shitty than proving that someone else was wrong?

As well as being pretty bad for the people involved, I think this drawing of lines is pretty incompatible with the joys and strengths of queer culture. Trying to make the line clear and insisting that no straight person would ever do X - is actually leaving less space for queer people in general - and closeted queer people in particular. A lot of queer culture is about making space within that ambiguity - and I just don't think that ending that ambiguity - demanding clear lines and bright lights - is good for queer people or queer culture.

[susansontag]

the thing that gets me is how successive US governments speak about their interests. a country will do anything they don't like and their response is "actually this is incompatible with our interests, please change it" and they seem to espouse this sincerely, as though anybody else should care or as though it's a natural phenomenon that everyone else be beholden to their wants. obviously other imperial countries believe compliance or at least consideration for their policy objectives is sacrosanct, but the US are so loud and blatant about it. the audacity of some of the things they come out with is amazing, their lack of shame and self-consciousness, perhaps even self-awareness, to how dictatorial they can sound is truly impressive. I'm not saying they're stupid as such or that there's no consideration for tone in their public statements and complaints, but they do seem so shamelessly arrogant. I wonder if it truly is a sincere case of extreme political narcissism or whether it's actually a veiled threat because they know they have huge sway over the economies of dependent states and thus can get away with being threatening under a pretence of earnest self-aggrandisement. but sometimes it genuinely does seem like no they just actually believe everyone else should put them first