#actions without words

[labyrinth-lavie]

WHAT IF?

What if I told you? Could it be better? Will it turn everything bitter? What if I’ve been brave? Would it be enough to win you? Will I endure the sting of losing the fight for you? What if everything is just an illusion? Will you clear up my confusion? What if you will only puzzle my emotions?

[bonefall]

Anyway. Bi and Mspec Lesbians aren't a hotly "debated" topic or even new to queer culture, it's just the newest thing that bullies who REALLY want to be homophobic and even racist use to justify harassing gay people they don't like.

It's the thinnest possible veneer of progressive language wrapped around TERF and reactionary rhetoric so that they can feel righteous for forming an angry mob against vulnerable targets. If you're gullible enough to fall for the newest wave of bigotry within the queer community, and turn on your allies because they're "confusing" or "invading your spaces," the SAME way they turned on bi/pan labels, trans people, xenogenders, neopronouns, and aroace people before this, then get lost.

[ilynpilled]

it frankly pisses me off that what is essentially “rapists and abusers should be depicted as monstrous caricatures because humanizing them is inappropriate” is considered a very moral and enlightened position to have on art by so many people. a rapist can feel pain, have moments of vulnerability, be amiable and charming, express remorse and compassion at times, be a victim themselves, and so on in real life. they are even capable of doing good things. they can have different sides to them and have individuals in their lives that they are kind to or have a decent relationship with. they will be a human being, and that fact encompasses a lot. conflating that with the claim that they are entitled to and deserve forgiveness or absolution is an issue. nurturing a mindset that believes they need to be one note and uncomplicated to be a correct and tasteful depiction of a rapist inadvertently falls in line with the logic of “how could they have possibly raped you? they are so normal and kind to me. they did all these good things here and there.” ok that doesn’t change that they are a rapist.

[arthursfuckinghat]

Nothing can describe the way my heart shattered when Arthur asked if Dutch was going to go look for him after he was kidnapped by Colm in chapter 3- all he got was a "Oh of course, son" in the most pitiful, unassured tone of voice I'd ever heard from Dutch.

The three of them had set up a meeting point at "the fork in the road" if the O'Driscoll parlay went south, Arthur seemingly disappeared and didn't return for another day or so until he was physically crawling trying to get back to camp, and still nobody questioned where he was?

Yes, it's typical for Arthur to wander and find his own way home after missions, but the key word is AFTER. Arthur disappeared DURING the meeting and didn't regroup at the designated rendezvous point AFTERWARDS.

Especially dealing with the likes of the O'Driscolls, wouldn't that ring some kind of alarm? If not from Dutch or Micah, then wouldn't anybody else at the camp question it?

I imagine an (exaggerated) conversation like this probably happened if anyone at camp asked:

"Hey Dutch how was the meeting with the O'Driscolls?"

"It went fine we talked a bit then they left suddenly so weird"

"Where's Arthur then?"

"Oh I don't know we didn't see him after we split up for the meeting haha probably wandered off again typical Arthur"

God, if you're going to treat Arthur like the gang's workhorse, then act like you care about him at least.

Arthur is strong, but he isn't invincible.

[bakudekublogblog]

kacchan there is actually a way you and izuku can be together forever i have this crazy inventive solution for you it's called a marriage license

[sophsun1]

Queer as Folk – 3.06: One Ring to Rule Them All

[anthony-crowleys]

POV: you're thinking about all the lost potential that The Acolyte had

[scarletfasinera]

I hate when people are like "I already didn't like xyz so it's not difficult for me to boycott it unlike those loser customers that actually Liked the thing which I could never understand bc I was never a customer uwu" bc like. That literally isn't boycotting lmao. That is just Never Being A Customer In The First Place, which means nothing actually.

Boycotts are primarily about applying pressure (or completely making it impossible to operate) via financial/commercial/economic impact. AKA it's about money and capital.

If you already weren't spending money on a product/franchise/company, then you were already never part of their sales data, and you just doing nothing & making absolutely no change to your daily life and just continuing to not be part of their sales data as normal, has literally no material impact. You were already never a factor. The people who WERE customers & WERE part of the sales data & ARE withdrawing their money from those sales figures actually ARE making a material impact.

"Supporting" something isn't about vibes or thoughts or feelings or you telling your best friend how much you like a thing, "support" in a meaningful sense is specifically material. It is financial. Refusing to continue supporting something means taking the money you were previously spending on it & putting it elsewhere. If you were never spending money, you were never supporting it, and therefore it doesn't make any difference if you continue to not support it. Boycotting is something CUSTOMERS and CONSUMERS do.

SO STOP FUCKING BRAGGING ABOUT IT & STOP MAKING FUN OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY ARE BOYCOTTING FOR "EVER LIKING XYZ TO BEGIN WITH" & STOP SPREADING THIS FALSE IDEA OF HOW BOYCOTTING WORKS LMAO sorry for capslocking I remembered I was annoyed

I just hate this low-morale mean-spirited bullshit some people do in the notifs on boycotting info posts where they arbitrarily moralize about something they just don't understand so they can pat themselves on the back for doing literally literally nothing AND inadvertently spreading misinfo in the process. Be quiet. Go do something that matters. There are plenty of posts going around, including from Palestinians themselves, with lists of references for how to help Palestine & other similar causes for people currently in crisis, please please do something For Real instead of boasting online about your fandom superiority complex as if it means anything.

[srnileforme]

“Your mentor is so easy to read. He's obviously jealous.” Winny Thanawin as Q and Satang Kittiphop as Toey.

WE ARE (2024) | EPISODE 9

[scentofpines]

have you ever considered...that identifying out of woman/girlhood because you don't relate to the societal implications, expectations, etc... contributes to making womanhood (feel) even more restrictive? maybe you feel better when thinking of yourself as anything but a girl/woman because you do not feel like a woman (what does that even mean?) but in my opinion you just added another brick into the prisonwall that is gender.

[aimasup]

throws up my hands in mock resignation but also a hint of frustration Okay Valentino is a cool villain I guess

He's like. Genuinely unsettling. Wish the show struck a better balance with his character sometimes (like sometimes when he's onscreen I have to skip over because I feel queasy and sometimes he's so unsubtle he feels more like a prop than a guy who's going to be a Huge Deal in s2)

[ofbreathandflame-archive]

(heavy discussions on sa - this is actually an older post that i made like months ago, and was actually the first draft of the amarantha taboo post, so some things sound similar! just a heads up!)

you know i actually think there is a wider discussion to be had about rhysand's sexual assault - or sexual assault and trauma as it functions in the wider narrative. ive always felt that bc the story puts rhysand in this vulnerable position (i.e. a victim of sexual violence) the story always needs to like...make up for it, if that makes sense? 

what i mean is: the story creates this dynamic where rhysand is a victim; he has no power, control, or say - but it also has a very hard time reconciling to the fact that he was placed in this position. and so there's these weird placeholding pieces of information that often addle or confuse the narrative. and i talked about this before with rhysand's framing of his 'service to amarantha.' i also contributes to the moments of hyperviolence with rhys in the books, as if he constantly has to make up for the fact he was placed into these vulnerable positions in the first, implicitly.

the first book - and other books thereafter - imply that rhysand's court is specificially shielded from amarantha because he aligns himself (action word). rhysand's decision is framed as a 'sacrifice' which implies a choice (that he didn't really have). it always implies that rhysand is the one consciously 'one-upping' amarantha by 'agreeing' to be her 'right hand man' again - notice how despite the fact amarantha is characterized as a sexual deviant, she's rarely the focus. its what rhys 'gave' and not what 'amarantha did.'  

and this is fine if this is the way rhysand chooses to see what happened to him - bc then that's a trauma response. he can't acknowledge it so its better for him to rationalize it - that would have been great writing. 

but thats not how his sexual assault and role utm is discussed. 

other characters view rhys sexual assault as a statement of heroism (which ew) and not a just a statement of amarantha's capacity for sexual violence. tarquin literally says something along those lines. which again is implying that RHYS HAD A CHOICE. we can't frame this as heroism. he was raped, he did not sacrifice something...it was taken. 

in the initial scenario - where we remove the idea of autonomy (e.g. the idea that rhys purposely aligns himself with amarantha) he's a victim. but then - so is tamlin, tarquin, beron, kallias, and helion. in short - rhys being taken advantage of says nothing about him. it's a statement on amarantha's cruelty. but the story isn't satisfied with this bc...how would he be any different than tamlin whose vilified for being directly affected by his trauma, who 'sat on his ass for fifty years' as the book says. 

its the tragedy of how male sexual assault is rationalized in this series. the story literally purposely sets up a mirror position where rhys and tamlin are consistently compared for how they work through some of the craziest trauma ever known to man. the level of trauma the story is asking these characters to 'overcome' is actually quite insane. 

so the story ups the ante, it doesn't want rhys to be 'just a victim,' it wants him to be the MAN TM. bc tamlin and tarquin are 'just victims' so ewww. like even lucien is given another horribly written experience with sexual assault (which it literally has to bend the worldbuilding to accomplish) and then kind of position his complaints abt ianthe as whiny. or how tarquin's trauma is...not 'dark' enough for feyre. these men are often characterized as cowardly or not enough in relation to rhys. helion, thesan, tarquin, and tamlin are all consistently characterized as 'cowards' with little to no initiative or backbone.

so the story does that thing where it provides impossible situations: rhysand is the most powerful being in the world, he's so powerful that even without his 'real' power, he's still light years more powerful than the others when they're powers are ripped away. he can read minds, and has two wraiths that can literally walk through the walls and spy. he's often sent on missions on behalf of amarantha and can waltz in and out of the spring court without any issues (ie. its easy for him to convince amarantha he needs to go to the spring court multiple times. and then when he works for amarantha - he's the mastermind, not her. he's playing her all along and blah blah blah). but then it doesn't know how to write this dynamic with rhys and amarantha. and then it depowers him, while shaming the other men in the series for not doing 'enough' even when the most op character with all of those advantages isn't even able to over power her.

there's little introspection into amarantha as a character and as a villain -- and you'll notice she's hardly ever mentioned after the first book...despite the fact that she was literally the high queen of prythian and was the governing oppressive force for a half-century. as said in this post - the story isn't actually concerned about making a point about male sexual asault.

and that's why i talked about why that amarantha taboo is...kind of important to how the story chooses to conceptualize sexual violence/assault. the choice to create amarantha (and ianthe and maeve too) as these caricatures of sexuality - which is pretty much the case of all of sjm's villains. 

the story doesn't want to fully commit to a tactical scenario, because it doesn't believe that he's a victim in that capacity  - or at least that the victimhood is valid. bc its spends so much time invalidating the male trauma around rhys, the only way to make a distinction between rhys and the others to have rhys "orchestrate" his own assault to save everyone.

[erytherion]

Reading the webtoon and…

Does this imply that Kim Dokja also tried to write a questionnaire for her to fill in since she wouldn’t speak to him, that either he 1) never gave her in the end (especially if he couldn’t find her after she was released) or 2) gave it to her and she STILL refused to answer?

Because that is so so so so awful. It was already bad but if he tried so many ways to get her to speak and she still gave him no response, regardless of her reasoning… isn’t that still directly choosing to cut herself fully out of his life? Why in the hell did she lie for his sake and allow him to visit her if she wanted to never speak to him again?

I know everyone claims Kim Dokja is just like her in sacrificing himself for loved ones, but at least he tries his best to stay with them and to keep them in his life. He still chooses sacrifice, but it’s not because he intends to never return. He always returns (even if much later than planned).

The only time this differs is with 51%, when he STILL tried his best to stay with them - at least as much as he could.

I sometimes like Lee Sookyung, but I am mostly still SO mad at her for completely ignoring her child since he was 8 years old. Especially when he must have looked like shit any number of times from being mistreated and bullied by family, friends, army, employers.

But maybe that’s just the fragment in me being eternally pissed with her. She DOES love him, but like he says in the webtoon in this chapter - maybe such truths are painful enough to be false anyways, because they’re just SUCH bullshit. That’s not how affection should work, if you actually care about someone and want them to be happy.

[its-cosmerely-an-obsesh-wound]

So I’ve been thinking a lot about the chasm scene from WoR, can you imagine if they lived in our world and Kaladin was sharing his experience in the military and mentioned “bootcamp” and then Shallan is all like:

[aroacettorney]

for a character with a reputation of being extremely rational and logical, many of ludger's actions are actually quite emotionally motivated. even when he stays oblivious to his true emotions, there are still many instances where we can see how they unknowingly manifest in his actions and subtly influence his biases. i think ludger's second most toxic trait is that he tends to subconsciously cook up a seemly logical reason to spontaneously cover up his emotional ass because he cannot admit to himself that he feels emotions intensely.

exhibit A: his vengeance for arte's death required him to admit that he had a strong attachment to the kid, so he stated that eliminating the evil and offering solace to the victims were the actual reasons. counter: there were many better ways to deal with delica's incidents if his goal was simply enacting justice. even hans realised that this was a weak excuse to conceal his regrets.

exhibit B: his mercy towards aiden required him to admit his unwillingness to eliminate him, so he covered it up by reasoning that it would be too risky to take a student's life. counter: we know very well that he's fully capable of eliminating someone without leaving a trace if he puts his mind to the task.

exhibit C: his sparing casey's life twice required him to admit his disinclination to kill her, so instead, he reasoned that she was more useful alive and that her excessive pride wouldn't let her easily expose him to the public anyway. counter: strategically speaking, turning her against blackdawn was an obvious blunder. he didn't even need her to deal with them. plus, somehow he conveniently forgot at the moment that casey could still have told her best friend, terinna, about his identity regardless of the matter of pride and subjected him to even worse danger.

exhibit D: his taking owens under his wings and founding u.n. owen required him to admit his emotional bonds to them, so he claimed that he needed a strong fortress for his goals and his own protection, especially against the bretus. counter: considering his op-ness, he had never really needed protection. he also mainly tasked owens with leg work while dealing with most of the dangers by himself. he even ended up disbanding them to confront bretus on his own and telling them to prioritize their lives over his goals.

at first glance, his reasoning might seem sound and logical, but if we look at them for more than ten seconds, they are actually quite flimsy and contradictory. this is not to say he's inherently an idiot or a terrible liar. ludger's capability of reasoning is proven comparable to that of casey. he is also an excellent liar when it comes to deliberately lying to someone. but how does one reason or lie about feelings that they themselves are not even aware of?

my hypothesis:

when his suppressed emotions subconsciously influence his biases and/or manifest into his actions, ludger needs to convince himself that he is still being logical, and thus, without even realising it, he tries to rationalize them and grab onto whatever reason that momentarily sounds in his mind: why was he so dedicated to teaching his students? he couldn't get caught half-assing his job, and he wanted to earn the trust of the president. why did he save esmeralda? quasimodo annoyed him, so he had to step in. why did he delay the first princess' orders and prioritize the students' safety during the attacks on the capital? it was the princess' trusted blade himself who suggested saving the students, and not him. why did he accept casey's companionship during his moriarty's era? it was an act, and he was simply getting into his character.

whether ludger wants to admit it or not, he has always been a person moving according to his emotions. and the actual reason why we see so many inconsistencies and hypocrisies in his actions when aligning all of them together with his own logic is that his reasonings are only flimsy excuses that his subconsciousness makes up on the fly to rationalize away his repressed emotions, i.e. his strong attachments to this world.

[tswwwit]

just reread whump au for the nth time now, and it suddenly occurred to me what in god's name would've happened if dipper just straight up kicked the bucket right after saying, "i love you."

i can't imagine bill's reaction would've been a good one. i'm getting chills just trying to picture it, honestly.

in fact, just the image of dipper dying in general, and seeing the aftermath of that from bill's pov, has my whole body breaking out into goosebumps.

awesome.

also, let's just assume that bill hasn't yet figured out the whole reincarnation thing in this scenario aha

(i just really like angst okay? lmao)

Oh man, Bill? Oh Bill. Bill.

He would be very, very upset.

Also this is a good opportunity for the ol' classic: