#also transitioning in general and also just life in general bc people just make assumptions and then somehow those become commonly accepted

[windwardstar]

Listen. Listen. If you're thinking I like bottom surgery option except x thing. Chances are you can either not do or actually do x thing. Especially if you've not actually done research into it. Look into your options before you decide x thing has to be true.

It might make healing harder or be more difficult to find a surgeon who is willing to do so, but most of the time x thing isn't actually a hard and fast element.

[beanghostprincess]

Auntie Buggy anon, back again bc you are my soul twin (no romo) and you Get Me

Consider an AU where Buggy comes out relatively early on in life but only really PUBLICALLY transitions later on. She is happy and safe under Roger's wings and so she feels secure enough to ask Crocus questions and look around and talk to Roger, Rayleigh, Shanks - Shanks is the first to know anything. He goes from "wow he's so pretty" to "wow she's so pretty" with barely a hiccup.

The crew is aggressively supportive. Roger especially made damn sure NOBODY would be mean to his daughter ((both bc he's Protective and also bc AAAAAAA HE HAS A DAUGHTER)).

Hormones weren't safe or feasible for her at that age - she was young enough for puberty blockers maybe, but the notion (and supplies) were just Chemicals to her. She could think of far more interesting chemicals to play around with - explosive ones!

Add in her devil fruit and an instinct to split at a prick or slice, she wasn't really good for injections. And she was so wild that the idea of having a routine for medication was laughable. It didn't matter, bc her dad and her crew and her Shanks were there for her, even if some people (cough cough ROGER) got a little too excited when she came out.

(Though in his defense, she DOES look cute in a ballgown. She just didn't need him to buy out the entire boutique. No, really, Captain, stop-!)

When Roger realized the End was here, that he'd done what he Had Wanted To Do, he gave the kids gifts - things for them to carry on with them in lieu of himself. He considered them his children, and so he passed on what he could as smth of an heirloom.

To Shanks, his Hat - his Legacy. Not to be the next Pirate King, not at all, but to live freely, happily, and to embrace the Seas as a sentinel. Shanks was the sky, limitless and without shackles, and Roger would not tie him down to a set path or a pre-written journey. Smth Big was coming, after all, and Shank always loved a good adventure.

To Buggy, his Initial - she was less inclined to battles than Shanks, though by no means was she weak. No, Buggy would do better nurturing the next generation, putting her mind to use and plotting the course to her own treasures. She was the one who he could see as the driving force, the energy, the charisma, the catalyst to the New Beginning. She was a D. in all but blood (and maybe even then that can be argued - their blood types were compatible, and he had definitely donated some to her before.) Where Shanks was the sky, she was the sea - bold, unapologetic, merciful and cruel, dynamic and unflinching even as it carried so many currents, too many to count. But just as the waves calmed when held in hand, she too benefited from security. She would be safe, and she would be his, a last little claim for his baby bug.

((And maybe, Roger, knowing how much she FEELS everything, knew she would love with all she had. Buggy loves love, even if it scares her. He would never be able to clip on her veil or call her a beautiful bride or walk her down an aisle or make sure the man/woman/whoever (or more) she married would be good enough for her. He wouldn't BE there, but he could give her this, a piece of him, his past, his roots, to help her grow in the future, to connect them. It was the best he could do in that moment))

So Buggy comes out early on in her life.

After Roger's execution, the Marines and the press make assumptions when she makes waves, calling her a man; Shanks, Rayleigh, Crocus, anyone who KNEW, they are furious but won't out her, not without her permission - something impossible to get.

So when Buggy eventually DOES come out, even years upon years later, it is to knowing smiles, Seas apart and still so painfully fond.

((And if she ever gets married, Rayleigh may show up with a familiar sash, decades old but lovingly protected. It's worn, soft, and there are spits where the color has been bleached by the sun. Somehow it even still smells faintly of a familiar brand of rum, an old recipe no longer being made, sea salt and caramel and something almost like ozone, an imprint of Haki so familiar it brings tears to blue eyes. And Rayleigh smiles, nods to her silent question.

Roger left many things for his children, but some were for special occasions. Who better to trust with such things than his first mate?))

I have so many emotions about Buggy in GENERAL and the Rogers and trans Buggy and just aaaaaaaaaaaa too many feelingsssss

You are my soul twin too bestie <3 You get me !!

Using the same reasoning I use for transfem Sanji, fem Buggy makes sense because Roger has SO much girldad energy. He'd be so so supportive. Like, extremely. All the crew would, but he'd just be so proud of his girl and he has no idea how to talk to or treat women but he's excited anyway. And Shanks literally just changes pronouns in his head so damn easily lmfao he just sees Buggy as Buggy he doesn't care if she's a girl or not or whatever, what matters to him is that she's happy. And if she's a girl, to him she's the prettiest girl in the world and he's ready to fight whoever says otherwise.

You didn't need to make the initial thing so damn poetic, do you want me to start crying??? It's so-- Okay. Shut up. It's just too beautiful because people often portray Roger as this guy who ignored Buggy and preferred Shanks when he quite obviously loved both a lot and,, And I am sobbing. Roger not being able to see her getting married but Rayleigh showing up-- I am inside your walls. Stop- I- Okay. I don't want to make this about Shuggy but I am making it about Shuggy and saying that Shanks would be so damn emotional marrying Buggy. Like, he'd see her in a dress and he'd just start sobbing mid-wedding and Buggy would be so tired of him because he's pausing the whole thing only to cry. Fucking sap (she loves him a lot).

The Roger Pirates would be so protective of their girl because, well, that's basically their only girl, lmfao. If somebody dares to disrespect her, they're probably ending up dead or very very wounded. Good luck trying to make fun of her.

I also can't stop thinking about Buggy growing up surrounded by men and feeling a bit too much left out, but then Toki shows up (thanks Oden, we love you bestie), and that kind of changes Buggy's life completely? Trying to think about this before she comes out to the rest of the crew and she's just starting to think about gender and what it means to her. And Toki is right there, being all feminine and gorgeous but strong and extremely smart and Buggy admires her a lot. And she starts spending a lot of time around her and she helps her so much to understand herself,,, Sobbing.

[livelaughghoul]

Would you give away your childs birthtime? ESPECIALLY if they’re famous??

I’m pretty sure he has an amazing mom, I’m not shaming her I’m just curious about others opinions on this.

I’m not afraid of those people that try to determine weaknesses though the chart and do according witchcraft or anything (fucking weirdos tho- leave people alone, get a life)

But I think giving away your childs birthtime especially in this day and age makes them so vulnerable.

Celebrities get diagnosed on various illnesses based on one second clips and then there are people justifying their invasive behaviour with the celebs planetary placements. Like “oh he is a scorpio moon of course he has mommy issues”.

Yeah it might be the case but it also might be wrong. However now lot’s of people have this perception of this person.

I don’t wanna be a hypocrite because it kinda is what we are doing here, but here it’s also just speculation and I think it’s still done just for funsies in this blog 🥰 like I’ve noot seen hella weird stuff here I think you do it in an ethical way.

But I’ve seen people go rlly far with this. Like when someone gets accused of something like sa and the fans believe the accused person did it bc of this and that placement.

And also when someone has harsh transits coming up. I just don’t know. For example when astrologers say “this celebrity is prone to car accidents on that day” and then they do have a car accident. I then always wonder if it’s a manifestation of that conversation rather than the transit itself. Because that transit could manifest in 19272816277 ways but the repeated mentioning of car accident then might becames reality.

And whilst most of it is just speculation, when you give away your childs birthtime by the minute I think that will give these obsessive fans too much confidence.

Personally, I don’t think it’s that serious, but I also realize that I have a weird view on these things because of how I was raised and how this stuff was taught to me. I know this is a serious ask, but I have a Scorpio moon and that honestly made me giggle.

Even without knowing someone’s exact time of birth people are going to make generalizations and assumptions, based off things like body language, vocal inflections, or even what they look like. I completely agree that birth charts are personal, and can absolutely provide a deeper insight into someone, but at the end of the day, it’s all speculation, there is not definitive that should ever be taken away from a birth chart reading.

I’ll be one of the first people to tell you that someone’s chart doesn’t determine if they’re a good person or a shitty person capable of something like S.A., solely because people are more than what their birth charts indicate. I don’t put any merit into the astrologers who make specific claims like that when it comes to transits, because there is no way to tell from a planetary transit if someone is gonna crash their car, if that were possible then a hell of a lot more people would pay attention to astrology. Making those specific claims gets attention though, and when they’re right about something, it gets people talking and probably brings in lots of paying customers that want to know what danger they might face.

Unfortunately there is a market for those really specific readings, and I think people want more from astrology than what’s possible. I definitely try and be ethical about how I approach my readings, I’ll never speculate on people’s health and I refuse to delve into someone’s love life in specifics, but I know that there are people out there that will do that because it brings attention and it’s probably monetized.

[exploding-carrots]

I’ve been wanting to draw or write out my ‘future’ Bottom ideas for a while but haven’t gotten around to it. So here’s a long post of some head canons and a general story line of them vaguely developing as people at some point set after the live shows. If anything this is just sort of my personal AU for the characters getting together. Mostly focused on the progression of Richie and Eddies relationship and my thoughts on both of them being trans

- They’re both trans, (a lot of Ades characters give me trans dudes vibes but that is 70% me wanting to time travel and body swap w the man) Eddie is a bi trans dude (who medically transitioned young, but is not necessarily out as either) and Richie is a closeted/repressed bi trans woman who begins to come to terms w it during the whole island era

- Richie is also intersex, which while yeah is sort of canon in a mean way, is sort of important to me for the character 🤭 However she is not aware of the fact

- Eddie is dyslexic and has ADHD which both contribute to him struggling on and off (which was really just a gag they went with when funny) with reading/writing depending on how well he can focus on it at any given time (example: the Edies Bra sign vs the grave stone). I am not even going to attempt to say what is going on w Richie but the woman is a mess of unresolved issues and trauma complications

- After everything they go through in the live shows they do somehow make it back to the flat which is unexplainably the exact way they left it.

- Every single joke about Richie going off and fucking dudes from the live show is taken as fact. It is the most poorly kept secret amongst the cast. They literally do not talk about it unless Eddie is trying to make a point or piss off Richie

- Eventually Eddie IS trying to piss off Richie and does bring up everything about her sex life and the clothes, and... well everything else. After a ridiculous fight it somehow turns into an almost semi-serious conversation. Eddie makes the assumption that Richie is gay and Richie counters with the fact that she is genuinely interested in women but it’s a hell of a lot easier to get attention from specific types of men. Gets some wheels turning in both of their heads

- Personality wise they never really calm down, but they do start to slow down a little bit as it takes them longer and longer to recover from their fights. Obviously there is still the odd dart to the forehead or gentle push down the stairs but the ridiculous games and completions they make up take center stage

- they get weed at some point (Dave Hedgehog and Spudgun seems like a feasible source, because let’s be honest if Richie and Eddie tried to buy weed it would not work) that leads to all sorts of embarrassment because Eddie gets crossfaded as all get out and starts hitting on Richie. Which while having a precedent in their history (I mean, the first episode gives us that right away) takes on a new sort of meaning once the concept of bisexuality has been rolling around in their heads. Nothing particularly saucy happens at this point Bc they are high, drunk, and old but all of the actual acknowledgement of feelings start to really develop after this point

- in an attempt to do something with her time Richie picks up sewing and picks up where she left off with the wrap skirt and rubber underwear she made on the island. Starts to really develop the little wardrobe she wears when she’s alone. It’s a mix of the same awful button up shirts she always wears and some dresses and skirts along with a couple pairs of sexier (for Richie at least) under garments

- eventually Eddie comes home while Richie is still in her feminine clothing. Eddies Reaction is different from the first time he saw her dressed up that way since now there is a precedent. Eddies approach is much more “playful teasing” and fake surprise than it was previously.

- Slowly Richie starts dressing up around the flat more and more often as opposed to just when alone. Eddie ramps up with the pet names and husband/house wife dynamic they already had going on.

- THE MOMENT is when Eddie is leaving the flat to go to the bar and there is an ‘accidental’ kiss on the cheek along with his usual good byes. Eddie realizes what has happened immediately and bolts before Richie can say anything. Richie has a moment of “teehee that was nice” still in her little fucking house wife head space before it catches up w her.

- Richie panics, paces around the flat, gets changed like 8 times, cooks dinner, throws it away, takes it out of the trash, paces more, breaks like 8 things, and essentially just fluctuates between “Ooo Eddie fancies me” to “oh fuck the bastard is making fun of me again” to “it was an accident and Eddie is going to make it into a fight” back to “ooo Eddie fancies Me~”

- eventually Eddie comes home, pissed to hell and back way later than he’d normally come home. Richies passed out on the couch. Eddie wakes her up by pushing her over on the couch so he can sit. Eddie says something along the lines of “I’m fucking drunk so I’m only going to say this one” before saying some incomprehensible drunken rambling and pulling Richie into an awkward full kiss. It’s a nice moment for maybe about 5 seconds before he stands up again, pulls a pint out of his jacket, chugs it and says something about drunkenly passing out before doing just that across the coffee table.

- Richie just sort of gawks at Eddie sleeping across the table before giddily tossing a blanket over him and heading off to actually go to bed.

- relationship wise this really just sort of introduces a sexual/physical dynamic to their relation while ramping up their camp version of domestic life

- it’s Spudgun and Dave Hedgehog who actually say something to Eddie about it. They’ve always been in on the “oh look, it’s Eddies terrifying wife” thing. Probably only actually say something about it after the 2nd or 3rd actual display of physical affection they witness. It’s more of one of them asking Eddie if Richie really is his wife (in that half aware sort of way they observe things). This alone doesn’t change much, but it does takes a lot to get through to any of these repressed bastards

- Richie grows accustomed to the more feminine/soft pet names that Eddie uses for her. At one point Eddie uses more traditionally masculine terms which sets off “oh actually I am not a fan of that” in Richies head and leads her to asking Eddie to not refer to her that way. Leads to an awkward half coming out on Richies part. Eddie does genuinely switch up how he refers to Richie at this point and her gender just sort of becomes an silent fact that they both respect. Everyone else sort of knows them as those weirdos who have some sort of common law marriage going on and it’s not really questioned. This is the point where Richie starts to earnestly medically transition without really saying to much about, canonically she has been on estrogen pills before (even if it was a ‘mistake’)

- End game is essentially just them being casual about their identities and relationships in a unspoken sort of “well that’s just how it is” way that naturally sort of bleeds into a the other aspects of their lives.

- Additional note on Eddie being trans: Richie is already vaguely aware of this fact Bc obviously they’ve been seen what the other is working with at one point or another but the fact that she is unaware that she herself is intersex and has a skewed sort of idea about genitals and peoples bodies Richie genuinely does not think about it all too much. Eddie assumes that she knows, especially as they get older and casually refers to being trans (in my mind probably during the entire “Edwina” disguise thing. I imagine Eddie wearing the dress came down to the clothing size and some off hand comment about him “having experience”, which is total shit Bc even before he transitioned Eddie never presented that way). That’s probably around the point that things start to click in Richies head about Eddies identity and she starts comparing and contrasting Eddie to other ppl and such.

[firelord-frowny]

obligatory disclaimer that this post is ENTIRELY based on my own perceptions of my own experiences, and may or may not be true to a broader degree. 

anyway, Weight Stuff under the cut. also LMFAO this post is long as SHIT lmfaoooo and it doesn’t even end with the topic i meant for it to be about. 

Sooooo, i’ve always very loudly been on Team Mind-Your-Business-About-Other-People’s-Bodies, and i still am, and i am ALWAYS down to (usually gently) call out someone who’s overstepping their boundaries as far as other people’s bodies and lifestyles go, blah blah, and i am KEEEENLY aware of the damage people cause with fatphobia, and that rhetoric surrounding ~diet and exercise~ is almost ALWAYS malicious in terms of hyperfocusing on “ugly fat” and shaming people into feeling horrible enough about theirselves that they pay out the ass for Quick Fixes, and there’s almost 0 focus on The Actual Health Benefits of a healthy lifestyle other than just Maybe Being Slimmer. 

But alsoooooooooooooooooooooo???

i’ve always felt like, because of all that shit, it’s so difficult for me to feel comfortable talking about my own body and my own habits and my own shortcomings and my own goals. like, i DO feel bothered by the weight I’ve gained recently. NOT because it makes me feel ugly - i don’t feel ugly at all. i literally almost always feel beautiful lmao. NOT because i’m worried about how other people see me - i don’t have relationships with people who would give someone a hard time about their weight in the first place, and beyond that, i’m generally unconcerned with what people think of my appearance. 

the thing that bothers me is that i KNOW my weight gain has been the result of unhealthy lifestyle choices. i’ve always eaten more junkfood than anyone i know, and i’ve always tended to eat VERY few healthy things. so like... that’s bad enough for my health. but i ALSO don’t get much physical activity. and then covid hits and my job is snatched out from under me and i spend most of every day in the same 100 square feet. so like... OF COURSE i gained weight. lots of people did! people gain weight all the time for lots of reasons and nobody should feel bad or guilty about it. 

but for me, even though i don’t see my weight gain as cause to lament about my appearance, i DO see it as an indicator that i’m not taking very good care of myself. i mean, if i’m thinner with a shitty diet, then my thinness kind of allows me to ignore my bad choices because there’s no ~visual~ reminder. i know that’s prolly fucked up, but that’s what’s happening in my head. when i’m thinner, i don’t have to acknowledge that there are going to be consequences for my choices. 

but to SEE my body change as a direct result of crappy diet and no exericse??? it’s really made me see how urgent it is that i start treating myself better RIGHT the fuck now. i mean, i am Young, but i won’t be young forever, and the longer i keep eating garbage and sitting around all day, the sooner i can expect to start having real health issues. and like, heart problems run in my family (as they do in MANY black families). i already have pcos, and that puts me at a higher risk for stuff like that. 

so, it’s been scary to have to face the reality that i’m setting myself up for disaster. 

and i figured that CLEARLY i’ve been unable to get myself on track For Free, so i finally caved and signed up for noom, and i’m down almost 10 pounds already.

and i get on the scale and weigh myself and i feel proud! i feel happy! i feel capable! i feel like i’ve proven to myself that i CAN make better choices. i’m NOT weak-willed. i’m NOT incapable of taking care of myself. 

But then I feel like i shouldn’t say that out loud, or i shouldn’t tell people how glad i am to see the natural result of my healthier choices. 

i’m not glad because i look different - i’m glad because my different look is a sign that i’m succeeding in taking control of my lifestyle. my different look is visual evidence that i’m eating more fruit and whole grains and drinking more water and i’m eating less sugary foods and less meats, and i’m eating healthier portions, and i’m not snacking all day. i can SEE the proof that i’m making choices that are going to give me a better chance at staying healthy throughout my life. 

i’m KINDA exaggerating in that i don’t actually think i LOOK different just yet lmao i feel like i look more or less the same. but i definitely do FEEL some subltle differences. i mean maybe it’s a placebo effect, but i think my forearms are slightly narrower and my bewbs are a bit less... cumbersome lmao. (i SWEAR like half of the weight i’ve gained has been in my boobs alone omfg). 

but idk, i guess what i’m trying to express is that i just... don’t feel comfortable sharing how glad i am about my progress bc most of my social circles are comprised of people who are rightly critical of the way people talk and think about weight loss. i knooooow that most reasonable folks, if i give the Full Explanation about how my gladness is due to the fact that i can see that my lifestyle is changing for the better, would understand and would be happy for me. 

but uhhhh lmao some people Aren’t Reasonable and are committed to having a negative reaction to any statement that seems to exalt thinness in any context at all whatsoever. 

and i KNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW that a person’s weight is not an automatic indicator of their health, and you can’t assume that a person has Become Healthier just because they’ve lost weight, and you can’t assume that a person has become unhealthier just because they’ve gained it. there are all kinds of reasons for people being whatever size they are, and we can’t make those kinds of judgments about people’s size bc obviously we don’t know their life! we don’t know if they eat veggies and go jogging! we don’t know if a thin person has a cinnabon for breakfast every day or if a fat person is a professional dancer. so like. it’s stoopit to assume anything at all about a person’s health/lifestyle just based on their size. 

BUUUUUUUUUUT!!!! an individual person can make those judgements about their own size and their own health. like, people know why they’re the size that they are, whether it’s genetics or lifestyle or health related. one person who’s super thin knows it’s because they have a fast metabolism. another person who’s thin knows it’s because they starve theirself. another person who’s thin knows it’s because they intentionally make choices that would result in their size. and the same goes for big people! they know if they eat too much junk food, or if they’re just genetically ~meant~ to be their size, blah blah blah. 

so when a person talks about their own weight and how it relates to their own health and their own lifestyle, i feel like it’s Inappropriate to lecture them about how ~it’s okay to be fat, you don’t need to lose weight~ blah blah. bc like... DUH, it’s okay to be fat. whether it’s because of lifestyle or genes, it’s still okay. it’s allowed. and people should be free to feel beautiful and see theirselves as UNCONDITIONALLY valuable and intrinsically worthy of the space they occupy in the universe. If a person actually disparages theirself because of their weight, then sure, you’re probably welcome to tell that person that their size, no matter the reason for it, has no bearing on their worth and that they have the right to feel good about who they are and how they look. 

but if someone says, “you know, it’s really time that i finally started eating right and exercising so i can be healthier and lose weight,” thennnn... i feel like the only appropriate response is to cheer them on and tell them to go for it! if someone knows that their weight is the result of unhealthy habits, and they express a desire to change that, there’s no need to try to tell them that they don’t need to try to change it omfg. 

like... literally everyone needs to eat well and exercise in order to give theirself their best chance at staying in good health. thin people need to eat well and exercise. fat people need to eat well and exercise. they only people who DON’T need to eat well and exercise would be people who are actually physically incapable of rigorous movement or people who are, idk, allergic to most ~healthy~ foods. 

So if someone who’s been eating junk and sitting around tells you that they want to start eating well and exercising... that’s a GOOD THING. 100% of the time. it’s ridiculous to respond to that with a lecture about ~all sizes are beautiful~ and ~you can do whatever you want, you don’t have to Fit The Mold~ like omfg THAT’S NOT THE POOOOOIIIINNNTTTT!!! 

basically, i feel like in the midst of rightly defending fat people’s right to exist as they are, some of the Discourse has inadvertently careened into the absurd territory of actually DISCOURAGING people from making HEALTHY lifestyle changes that would result in weight loss. 

as i’m typing this, it also occurs to me that there seems to be an assumption that anyone who intends to lose weight is planning to do it via extreme but temporary methods like restrictive diets and unsustainably vigorous exercise. 

i feel like some people need to acknowledge that there’s a difference between “i’m only going to eat one meal a day and exercise for 4 hours a day so i can lose 30 pounds before my wedding day,” and “i’m going to lose my excess weight by transitioning to a healthier lifestyle.” the former describes an unhealthy and unsustainable attempt to starve and overwork yourself to lose x amount of pounds that you’re inevitably gonna regain after you go back to your normal habits, and it’s exclusively focused on appearance. like, it CAN’T be about health, because those methods are unhealthy! you don’t get healthy by doing unhealthy things! 

the latter describes a legitimately healthy way of life that can and SHOULD be sustained for a person’s whole life if ptll ossible. there’s no need to try to force your body into a different shape in a short amount of time when you could instead just allow your size to adjust slowly to a permanent and positive lifestyle change. 

but it seems like there’s a knee-jerk reaction to condemn weight loss in any context altogether. 

i under staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand why people might have that attitude and i’m not mad about it. i GET why some people might be hypervigilant about condemning any belief that suggests that being fat is something that a person should be unhappy about, and i don’t want people to stop doing that. 

but i doooooooooooooooooo think that perhaps it’s time that people begin learning to trust other people’s analyses of their own bodies and their own choices and their own goals, and learn to tell when a person’s weight loss is motivated by genuine health reasons, or by social pressure/shame/embarrassment. not everyone who wants to lose weight hates their body. not everyone who wants to lose weight has low self esteem. people can feel fabulous and gorgeous in their current body, and still want to make choices to change it via improving their health.

and like! some people genuinely just don’t WANT to lose weight that they know they’ve gained from unhealthy habits. some people are totally fine with living their life the way they like to live it, and prioritizing their enjoyment of their lifestyle over efferts to prevent future health issues. and that’s their right! and nobody should say shit about it! mind ya business! 

i kinda compare it to like... cave divers, or daredevils, or mountaineers. those are all HELLA dangerous activities that kill or seriously injure a LOT of people. and the people who engage in those activities KNOW this. they KNOW that they’re at a significantly higher risk of premature death compared to people who DON’T do those things, and they know that they could increase the odds of living a log time by Not Doing Those Things. 

but they do it anyway! because they want to! because they think it’s fun! because the enjoyment of the activity is, for them, worth the risk of harm. they’re living a lifestyle that could kill them, but nobody says shit about it. nobody shames them for it. they just accept that people have the right to be cray cray if that’s what they want to do. people might think daredevils are stupid, but they’re not trying to bully them into quitting. 

so if somebody wants to eat a diet comprised of nothing but eating cinnabons 3 times a day every day their whole life, that’s their right! mind ya damn business! if somebody hates exercise enough that they’re okay with the possibility of health problems down the line, then fine! it would be fair to worry about that person and to wish that they’d make differen choices, in the same way that it would be fine for someone to worry about their dearedevil friend and wish that they weren’t a daredevil. but it’s still not grounds to be a dickhead to them. 

[gendercynicalgrantaire]

A little bit ago I saw you make a comment about how radfems fail to realize there are trans normies. I've been thinking about it and I wanted to ask, other than yourself, do you know very many trans people irl who are normies who don't have any explicitly homophobic or misogynist ideas about gender and sexuality? I know they exist. But I've been disappointed by more than 1 transman who I thought cared about me and respected me as a lesbian when we really got into discussions about sexual orientation. Like I try not to become jaded but its really hard when I have trans friends I trusted for a long time and then they tell me same sex attraction is harmful or that gender roles are innate (ie: "I know I'm not a woman bc I don't vibe with xyz stereotype that I believe is true for every other woman I meet unless she identifies otherwise". I don't think every trans person is a actively toxic or anything but I feel like homophobia and misogyny is so rampant and explicit from the trans community in current year it's really hard not to be jaded as a defense mechanism.

Hi! So I found the post you were talking about. The intention I was trying to communicate wasn’t so much that normie trans people are unproblematic in their views of gender, but more so that there are trans people out in the world just trying to live their lives who aren’t narcissistic manipulators like a lot of internet TRAs might come off as.

When I call trans people “trans normies,” I’m defining that as trans people who are mostly not online and mostly not involved in trans discourse. And trans normies, like other kinds of normie, sadly tend to have some unexamined assumptions about how things work based on the dominant culture they were raised in.

Most of the trans people I know irl fall into one of two categories: the ones I meet at PFLAG meetings or trans-centric spaces, and the very rare ones encountered out in the wild. I’m going to hazard a guess that most trans normies are the latter-- they tend not to run in circles with many other trans people, and they also tend to be more interested in passing to blend in, both of which make them more difficult to find. They, like me, tend not to really run in the “trans community.” And admittedly, it’s even rarer that I meet a visibly trans person in the wild that I grow close enough to that I learn all about their gender philosophy, because I too have internalized assumptions about other trans people’s feelings that make me jaded against them (I’m trying not to fall into the idea that I’m “not like other troons” lol), and I’m trying to work through it to find and see if there are ones who have gender philosophies I can vibe with.

Most trans people whose gender philosophies I have heard, then, are the ones I meet in PFLAG and trans-centric groups. So probably a little less normie, but there are still normies mixed in there. And I’m not gonna lie, some of the ideas I hear make me cringe a little or feel like they would quickly fall apart if poked at. I don’t know if there’s a single trans philosophy out there that’s going to satisfy the gender critical community. But what I can say for trans people is that the vast majority of them that I have met irl believe in the following (paraphrased):

- If someone’s sexuality/dating pool excludes me, that’s their business. It can be a little disheartening knowing how small my dating pool is, but trying to convince people who don’t want to date trans people to date trans people is not a solution. I want a partner who loves me for me, not one who pretends to love me for woke points.

- XYZ stereotype does not mean that someone is a man/woman/nonbinary. (Insert just about anything in the XYZ. The trans and nonbinary people I meet in real life are also some of the most pro-gnc-cis-people people I know.)

- I am consciously aware of how I make cis people uncomfortable, and I make a conscious effort to mitigate that discomfort to the best of my ability while still living authentically and keeping myself safe.

- Cis women can have their own spaces. It doesn’t concern me.

- Obviously there are issues that only impact natal females and ones that only impact natal males.

- I understand that I have the biology of a certain sex. I might be uncomfortable with having a body of that kind, maybe even to the point where I don’t like to use the anatomical terms to describe my body in contexts where I can avoid it, but I’m obviously different from a [cis man/cis woman]. If I didn’t understand that, I wouldn’t be calling myself transgender.

I make these points because of their relationship with gc discourse. It’s inconvenient for gendercrits and radfems to acknowledge that there are trans people who feel this way. It’s even more inconvenient to know that the number of trans people who feel this way is not insignificant and thereby easy to dismiss.

In particular, I want to focus on the second point: stereotypes do not a gender make. Because honestly, most of the trans women at the PFLAG meetings aren’t talking about how they played with dolls as kids or how they just love being expected to wear make-up (often in an effort to pass, because unfortunately our gendered society does turn make-up into a tool for reading as female), and the trans men there run the gamut from hyper-masc to fairly feminine. There are a variety of trans philosophies I’ve listened to that stray away from the idea that simple gender stereotypes make a gender.

More often the story is one of alienation -- alienation from one’s body, from one’s appearance, and/or especially from society. And this alienation usually disappears (or at least fades into background noise) once transition has been undertaken. The trans person in question might not always have a satisfactory explanation for why that is -- and again, I don’t think any explanation fits the radfem/gc ideal -- but it is distinct from the rhetoric “wigs and dresses don’t make you a woman,” “lack of those things doesn’t make you a man,” which trans people are generally well aware of. This is what I hear most often from other trans people regardless of sexuality, mental health history, class, or any other dividing lines that gendercrits like to use to explain trans people away as simple, easily dismissible categories (think Blanchardianism).

Hmm...I hope that answers your question? I know I probably went off the rails there. Again, I can’t claim that trans normies can’t be problematic, or even that most of them aren’t problematic. Most normies in general are problematic because they tend to live less examined lives. But I also know there are trans people out there willing to listen to and calmly discuss the other side of things, especially if their viewpoint is just parroting what they’ve generally heard from the mainstream side of trans discourse.

In that regard, you’ll have the most luck with passing trans people and trans people who’ve been settled into their identity for a while. Non-passing and newly-out trans people tend to be defensive and self-conscious in a way that more seasoned and socially integrated trans people just aren’t. That’s another post in and of itself though. If a trans friend of yours says something along the lines of “I know I'm not a woman bc I don't vibe with xyz stereotype that I believe is true for every other woman I meet unless she identifies otherwise” (if they use that wording -- not sure if that second part is what they actually say or just the implication you’re picking up on, but chances are they don’t think every woman vibes with it and just need that pointed out) but they also seem like a chill person and you feel safe doing so, don’t be afraid to calmly and casually bring up a point of disagreement. It might not be something they fiercely cling to or have even really thought through all that much.

[roominthecastle]

Possible spoilers here, fair warning. What's in name ? Do you know that Michael " Who is like God", the saint, is often pictured during angels' battle of the Apocalypse, in the end of time, killing the Devil, holding the Balance Weighing the Souls on the Day of Judgment, as a judge (psychostasis) and a guide (psychopomp) of the salvation of souls for Hell or Paradise (symbolic allegory of the final victory of Good (religion), on evil)? Have a nice saturday Room !

Apologies for the late reply, anon, and thank you for this thought prompt. Yes, I have read up on this a bit. His name has been a point of intrigue for me too bc there are several curious allusions to its famous angelic source (whether by accident or design, idk, it’s fun either way). It is a question (”who is like God?”) not a statement, and while I personally do not subscribe to the undercover boss theory, i.e. that Michael is the show’s version of God in disguise, I think he might be shaping up to be the show’s unique approximation of Michael the Archangel.

Regarding religion, TGP doesn’t take its cues from one specific tradition, but Saint Michael’s character isn’t confined to Christian scriptural literature, either, so developing a figure like him on the show is entirely possible, imo, and in S2 our Michael does transition into roles that are traditionally associated with the Archangel who’s both referred to as the “merciful” and the “most dread of the six-winged”.

What’s also entirely possible is that Michael is simply named after TGP’s “architect” Mike Schur and there is no bigger complexity to it, but even then we’re left with a demon who is the odd one out among its kind and wears an archangel’s name. It is just too good not to overthink it, so here are my results behind the cut bc LENGTH (and GIFs):

St. Michael always appears in the context of major drama involving crisis, impending judgment, doom, and salvation. Despite being a comedy, TGP operates within the same basic framework, too, so we are on track.

The examples you mention above are the most dramatic and show-off-y in the lore. They capture one side of St. Michael: the warrior-angel, ruthless commander of the heavenly host and an agent of judgment as presented in the Book of Revelation. This is his most well-known image, the whole “soldier dude impales the big bad devil/dragon” aesthetic popularized during the Middle Ages. And sometimes he’s also depicted with the scales of judgment but it’s less common. Bottom line: he’s the one who always steps in and pushes back when the devil and/or demons try to rig the soul scale to take what isn’t theirs.

Our Michael has yet to fully reveal his overtly aggressive-combative side, but it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have it in him (after all, he used to literally turn bad people inside out - among other things - before he earned a desk job). He’s still a work in progress in an ongoing story, but we’ve already seen him get real testy with Trevor over Eleanor, dabble in post-mortem individual soul-weighing, impose “trials of judgment”, and finally conclude that the bad people he was entrusted with are not deserving of the kind of punishment they were sentenced to.

He’s willing to step in and push back when he feels demons are out of line or if the “system” itself is unfairly harsh on humans. So he may not be a stereotypical warrior but he’s already fighting for humans in his own way (which is increasingly confrontational but still relies more on brain than brawl). He may not be a commander or have an army, but he’s already shifted away from being a blind follower to making his own choices, so who knows where he will end up at the end of the story.

Now the other side of St. Michael’s dual character, the “merciful and long-suffering” side, is already evident in our Michael. The Archangel is primarily a guardian, famous for protecting and championing the human race. He is a compassionate ally, an “agent of revealed knowledge” and an intercessor. He shows concern for sinners and advocates on their behalf. He’s an “ambassador-of-sorts to the heavenly court” who’s capable of interceding with God and mitigate judgment. In III Enoch, he also laments the Lord’s unwillingness to save His people.

Yes, this is our Michael. He has a soft spot for humankind and grows unhappy with the afterlife system he functions within. First, he refuses to hand over his humans to Shawn and the other demons, then he goes to plead with Judge Gen on their behalf and for the re-tuning of the “soul weighing system” since it’s clearly badly failing those who are grey in moral character, i.e. most human beings.

In the Testament of Abraham (ToA) there’s a somewhat similar scene where St. Michael and Abraham encounter a soul whose good and bad deeds are equally balanced. Angels keep a detailed record of human activity, both good and bad, which are balanced and tested, then the result either warrants punishment or salvation. This brings the ticker tape room and the point system of TGP to mind + the central question Eleanor repeatedly voices: what about those who fall in the middle? Abraham asks St. Michael to help intercede on behalf of the “grey soul” in front of God, which the Archangel does and they are successful. Our Michael advocates his humans’ case in front of Judge Gen and she agrees to put his claims to one final test.

St. Michael is set over humankind in general but sometimes he’s closely associated with specific individuals, their life and death, acting as a personal guide and guardian, a permanent companion and protector of their souls. ToA again is a good example of this but the Virgin Mary also enjoys St. Michael’s special attention (Assumption Apocrypha). He escorts her on a tour of the underworld where he shows her how the sinful are punished, helps her intercede on their behalf, and later on he is the one who conveys her to heaven, which is also among his core duties. As a psychopomp, St. Michael facilitates the transition from this life to the next. He’s charged with the care and guidance of the dead and can also convey souls from hell.

Our Michael is the first to meet, greet, and give a tour to Eleanor & Co. after they die. Even though it’s a ruse, he still helps orient them (everything he says about the point system, the rules of the afterlife is, after all, true), and he continues to act as their afterlife guide and protector when they decide to team up and later sneak into Bad Place HQ. He’s also the one who gets them through the portal to see the Judge since he promised to take them to the Good Place and that is the only way.

As for the tour of punishment, we have the perfect TGP parallel in the Museum of Human Misery. And our Michael - despite being fond of human stuff & the gang in general - is def partial to one of them by the name of Shellstrop. Also, he is literally trying to take unfairly judged souls from hell (TBP) to heaven (TGP), which - similarly to going up against your misbehaving coworkers and your superior - is a very St. Michael-y thing to do.

St. Michael is also associated with water (rain and thunder in the Qur'an) and agriculture. In The Shepherd of Hermas, for example, he is shown caring for a garden which represents hope and redemption. Our Michael’s connection to water/rain/thunder & agriculture is not the most tangible but one can always reach a bit by noting details like

sounds of water in the waiting room of his office in the pilot when Eleanor “wakes up” there after her death + there is water everywhere in his neighborhood (fountains, lakes, rivers, sea).

he also messes with Eleanor by unleashing two storms

he does keep a wooden dragonfly figurine on his desk and dragonflies are associated with water (+ acc to folklore dragonflies weigh human souls and they were believed to be dragons once - all these connect back to St. Michael too)

also, the neighborhood Michael creates and cares for is a garden of sorts in the middle of a desert region, and the result of this experiment is what provides hope for avoiding eternal suffering.

Last but not least (my favorite tidbit), in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible, it is mentioned that St. Michael is “skilled in song” and… well…

work consulted, paraphrased, and quoted:Saint Michael the Archangel in Medieval English Legend by Richard F. Johnson

[livrenucci]

Who could Psamtikpadineith be? (Part 1)

Now that it’s been some time that I am researching the jars, I now affectionally call him just “Psam”. We have to admit that it’s way easier and way more catchy. But he still remains a complete mystery to me.

I found nothing on the internet of this general personally. I know he is a general because the Oriental Museum told me so but there is no source about it. But if we base ourselves only on the jars, it would be difficult to know anything about this character.

For this post, I will only make assumptions as I cannot be 100% sure of my findings. But I thought it would be still fun and engaging to imagine what his life would have looked like. I will make a Part Two of this post, as I think the first one will be relatively long. 

What I do know is: 

He was a male. --> Research of the life condition of an adult male in Ancient Egypt Late Period.

He was a general at around 650 BCE to 550 BCE during the 26th Dynasty.--> Research of the Military Organization in Ancient Egypt + who did he serve? + what battles were fought at this period. 

Those next two points will be looked at in the Pary two of the post:

His name is Psamtikpadineith --> Does it have a special meaning? Why would he be named like that?

He received honours, as he was mummified properly. --> Was it common for generals to receive honours? Did he maybe make something notably incredible? 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIFE CONDITIONS OF AN ADULT MALE IN ANCIENT EGYPT LATE PERIOD 

How did Psamtikpadineith occupy his days? What did he do, eat, study? 

Because we think Psam was a general, he most likely lived his life as a higher class adult male and beneficiated of all the privileges that come with it. 

Psam was most likely well educated, as his rank demands. Indeed, it was common for boys of richer families to be sent off to schools from the age of eight. The most important subjects taught at school were mathematics, reading, writing, arithmetic, geometry, geography, astronomy, medicine, and moral instruction, all subjects which can be seen as important topics in the Egyptian society of the time. After being instructed in various disciplines, it was common for boys to follow the line of trade of their fathers. Thus Psam’s father was most likely part of the military when he was an adult.

He most likely had access to good food, even when he was on the field at war. Indeed, while away, the ‘mainstream’ soldier only had access to a low-quality bread and the better quality food was given to higher-ranking officials.  On a more general basis, while the poor were limited to a diet of bread, fish, beans, onions and garlic washed down with a sweet, soupy beer, the elite most of the time dined off meat, fruit, vegetables, and honey-sweetened cakes enhanced by the finest of wines. 

MILITARY ORGANIZATION AND REIGNING PHARAOH AT THE TIME OF THE 26TH DYNASTY

Military organization

Egypt did not know many truces during its history. Countless neighbouring civilizations took their chance to invade Egypt, attempting to put the country under their grasp. But therefore, since the beginning of its history, Egypt organized a definite organization of defence in order to protect its richness.

Starting from the Old Kingdom, Egypt used specific military units, with military hierarchy appearing in the Middle Kingdom. By the New Kingdom, the Egyptian military was divided into three major branches: the infantry, the chariotry and the navy. 

Let’s have a look at those major branches:

We call “infantry”, an army of soldiers that are marching and fighting on foot. In Ancient Egypt, the infantry troops were partially conscripted, partially voluntary. The men that composed it were majorly native Egyptians but it was also very usual to enrol mercenaries, professional soldiers hired to serve in a foreign army. Noticeable mercenaries’ origins included Nubians, Sherdans, Lybians or Phoenicians. 

We call “chariotry” the regiment in which charioteers are working. Like the name implies, charioteers fought on chariots, a moving platform of combat that was usually pulled by two horses. Chariotry was the backbone of the Ancient Egyptian army. The members of the chariot corps formed their own aristocratic class known as the Maryannu (young heroes). The heroic symbolism can be seen in contemporary paintings in which the King is shown riding with the elites, shooting arrows at the enemies. This image became typical of royal power iconography in the New Kingdom. Also, because charioteers were much faster than foot-soldiers, they pursued and dispersed broken enemies to seal the victory. Usually, the Egyptian light chariots contained one driver and one warrior; both might be armed with bow and spear.

Finally, we call the “navy” the regiments of soldiers that were working on ships. The Ancient Egyptian navy has a very extensive history almost as old as the nation itself. The best sources of the type of ships that were used by Ancient Egyptians and their purposes come from the reliefs from the various religious temples that spread throughout the land. While the early ships that were used to sail the Nile were often made out of reeds, the ocean and seagoing ships were then made out of cedarwood, most probably from the woods of Byblos, in present-day Lebanon. The wood ships created the naval fleet and gave the Ancient Egyptian navy its fierce reputation. 

Each regiment in the Egyptian army could have been identified by the weapon they carried: archers, lancers, spearmen, and infantry. The lancers not only carried their long-range weapon, the lance, but also a dagger on their belt and a short-curved sword. Depicted in Egyptian art is a cane or a wand-type object that has been assigned to each fifth member in a group.

During the conquest or wars, the Pharaoh would divide his army into two parts, giving the command of the North and the South to two generals. Those two armies would then be further divided into four more armies named after the Egyptian god's Ra, Amen, Ptah, Sutekh (of all the armies the Pharaoh would align himself with Amen). From there he would pick a commander in chief, generally princes of the royal house who would then pick captains to enforce orders given down the chain of command. During war times, the commander in chief was given the job of selecting their captains, who were usually lower-ranking princes of the royal house. They generally achieved these positions using tools of bribery and appealing to the interest courts. Another major factor of choosing both officers and captains was the degree of education they received; most officials were oftentimes diplomatists with extensive educational backgrounds. Later, after receiving the official position, the divided armies would ally themselves with mercenaries who would be trained with them as one of their own but never a part of the native Egyptian military.

Reigning Pharaoh - Psamtik I? 

We established that Psam lived in the period between 650 BCE to 550 BCE. If we consider that his name is Psamtikpadineith, it would not be far fetched to believe that the Pharaoh that Psam served during his life is Psamtik I. 

Psamtik I reigned from 664  BCE to 610 BC. He was the first of six kings of that name of the Saite, also called the 26th Dynasty of Egypt. It was called the Saite dynasty as their chosen capital in Egypt was the city of Sais. 

Psamtik I is most well know to have united Egypt under one rule and to have expelled the Assyrians from the territory.

Figure 1: Psamtik I is the third king of the 26th Dynasty, which was also called the Saite Dynasty after the town of Sais in the eastern Delta. The long face, detailed modelling of muscles around the mouth, and careful carving of the eyes are transitional features between the austere art of Dynasty 25 and the refined elegance that was to develop later in Dynasty 26. When complete, the statue probably represented the king kneeling. The object can be found at The Metropolitan Museum, X.358. 

What does it all mean for Psam?

With regard to the meagre information that we have on him just looking at the jars, it is impossible to define to which branch of military Psam was serving. Looking at the time he lived in and at his name, he probably fought for the Pharaoh Psamtik I. 

We think we know he was a general. That could mean two things: he was a general of the North army or the South army, meaning he was a really important man and probably a close relative to the Pharaoh OR he was a commander in chief of the infantry or the chariotry or the navy. Whatever he was, it is nonetheless highly probable that he was part of the upper class or even aristocracy. 

We cannot know which exact battles Psam fought. But considering that he received the honour of a proper mummified burial, we could anyway assume that he fought some battles that lead to victory and that he was part of the high society. 

Sources: 

http://www.legendsandchronicles.com/ancient-civilizations/ancient-egypt/ancient-egyptian-education/

https://www.historyextra.com/period/ancient-egypt/history-extra-explains-what-did-people-eat-in-ancient-egypt

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Psamtik-I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_navy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_ancient_Egypt#Late_Period_Armies_%E2%80%93_712-332_BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariotry_in_ancient_Egypt

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/X.358/ 

[noctomania]

on nihilism and subjectivity

while i am ok with and actually comforted by nihilism, i recognize not everyone is! it makes me think about in class when a teacher would be telling us about a project and students askin questions about guidelines etc. in the situations where the teacher/professor let loose the reigns and didn't have much if any restrictions, there were always peers of mine who would absolutely lose it over there being no guidelines, constantly worried that because they weren't given a list of "do not do this" that they would do something wrong, while i was comforted with the freedom of understanding that even if i did do something wrong it was with the best intentions and that it was a learning experience regardless, which requires some fuck ups to learn sometimes. some people were brought up in a way or have had experience that makes them more comfortable with restrictions because they feel safe with the fences. me, im always worried about what is behind the fence, boundlessness makes me more at ease. it also makes me think of anarchist vs heirarchists. i consider myself anarchist bc of my nihilistic perspective. i don't think laws are necessary because much of it is intuitive ("i want no trouble so i won't trouble anyone else unnecessarily") and usually they are just in place not as guidelines to the general public (how many laws did you not know exist?) but for expediting trials and give easement to jury and judge in their objectives of placing blame. i feel more comfortable accepting the real lawlessness of life and working from there for peace rather than trying to use institutions that were built on corrupt principles by corrupt people for corrupt purposes to "right the wrongs". it doesn't make sense to me and in fact i argue overcomplicates things unnecessarily, because sometimes the laws can be used against victims and actually often is. For instance, who is to say one set of rights is more important than another. is my right to speech more important than someone's right to their religion or someone else's right to bare arms? one person would rate those very differently from another who would very differently from me. i will admit it's admirable the lengths at which humans have gone to attempt to make a recipe for equality, but the facts are diversity exists. diverse perspectives will never cease to be and where diversity exists so does conflict and the ways in which we have chosen to react to that conflict is poor. we have focused on placing blame and shaming certainly someone if not everyone without really coming to a conclusion. most walk away from any conflict hurt somehow, if not at the end then surely in the beginning or at some place throughout and nothing will change that back. as it is, at least here, a person is accused of a crime or turn themselves in and there is an entire process where "unbias parties" participate in determining the believability of someone's alibi and based on prescribed knowledge, which is transitional in nature, determine their future. now nihilism catches a lotta slack because it can serve as grey area for criminals to get away with shit. well guess what, so does our current system, the only thing is it's built by them for them and it benefits the most powerful. at least with nihilism and anarchy there would be no pre-existing wall for the powerful to hide behind. there would be no red tape preventing every day people from accessing others who are more revered or popular. i don't feel it is acceptable to negate the harm you can cause by claiming nothing matters anyway, it's not a justification for malfunction. doing something purely harmful is unnecessary at best, that is clear. we can clearly determine productive vs detrimental better than we can determine right vs wrong or good vs bad. As it is, we're trying to run quantitative measures in a qualitative reality and that inevitable neglects important factors, things like mental health, neurodiversity, the "invisible" identities and their experiences, etc. As a species we are built to recognize patterns and we do it fairly well. but we mistake the forest for the trees when we try to apply that theory to practice. we think if we create a cookie cutter system that all the slack we cut off will rot away and we'll be left with a perfect cookie. but that slack doesn't die out. it doesn't fade. it festers. out on the fringe. it grows stronger by one way or another. outliers are further ousted by their removal from the development of the rest of society. The people living in rural areas that aren't as accessible, the introverts who seek solitude, those pushed out by capitalism that forgets the poor need homes too; these people suffer from being disjointed from societies culture. There is rural culture, urban culture, rich culture, suburban culture, fringe culture, etcetc. these groups are removed from one another's lifestyles be it due to money, location, identity tolerance or a variety (generally a variety and none of these exist in vacuums.) They all get different exposure to different experiences on an individual basis, but also on a group basis. Life is simply too complex to have even transitional law of the land imo. i believe everything needs to be treated with the same level of uniqueness that it is composed of. I feel it would be much more efficient that way. however that's based of my own knowledge which is not based in reading about political ideology or theories. whatever assumptions you may bring to this post are likely of your own but if you have gotten this far after reading all the above and wish to talk about this id love to but don't pull out some reference to some political philosopher and assume ill know who tf you're talking about and why because i won't and you will just piss me off by coming across pretentious as i am but a dumb country boy who somehow made it through college without hardly ever reading anything beyond skimming (mostly because our education system is a joke as well) until them toodles my brain is fried