#and nobody is forced to agree or disagree with my views

[maykitz]

If you're white you really shouldn't be encouraging people to watch a video of a Black woman getting murdered by police. You shouldn't have to actually watch a Black woman getting killed on video to understand how horrible it is. I'm Black and I'm just tired of people trying to act like our deaths are some sort of show or spectacle to consume.

i'll try to explain my stance on this delicate matter thoroughly and i mean this as gently as possible because i know you're coming from a place of hurt and compassion. but think about what you're saying here. if (almost) no one watches the footage, then what? who decides what's on it? who owns the narrative? do you want to grant exemptions to a few reliable(?) narrators who can watch the video and then tell everyone else what they saw? we're talking about a homicide case with major public interest and a not insignificant amount of coverup from varying sources, not least of which is the police department itself. it's actually paramount that the public have access to the evidence and use that access. you can rely on descriptions, sure, but who's to say they're accurate? even unintentionally, every description only tells you what the writer thinks happened, it will never replace seeing something with your own eyes and forming your own opinion.

besides that, i strongly disagree that viewing evidence to be able to assess the situation as truthfully as possible disrespects the victim in any way. no dignity is taken from her when other people see what led up to her death, whether that be on the news or on tiktok. we're not talking about a lecherous bystander recording of her body or anything. and nobody actually watches these videos to learn that killing [black] people is bad, i don't understand the popularity of this strawman. the crux of every single discussion of police brutality has never been questioning whether killing is per se bad, but whether this specific killing was justified due to special circumstances and especially the victim's own behaviour. the question of special justification is what all the victim blaming is poured into anew every single time. and body cam footage can not only answer this question but actually provide evidence for it like nothing else can.

people who watch material like this to titillate themselves are few and can and will get their kicks anyway. the vast majority of views on these recordings are concerned with investigating the facts before speaking on them, which is undeniably a good thing. an essential thing, in fact. how is the public discourse supposed to respond to the inevitable claim of self defense from the first hand account of the cop if everybody respectfully declines to view the first hand account of the body cam? or can only refer to the second hand account of someone else's description? you're conceding the investigation to people whose interests lie in shifting the blame onto the victim, out of racism or fanatic loyalty to the police force or whatever reason.

still, i agree that sharing these videos around on social media shouldn't be done if they're reliably permanently available somewhere. but as well meaning as you are and as much as i emphasise with your desire to protect the victim, people very much do need to see facts to form an opinion. you do have to prove that the cop killed her unprovokedly und frivolously. you're not protecting her dignity or her status as the victim by asking that everyone just says yes & amen and believes whatever some unspecified source of video description has concluded from viewing the evidence. criminal cases can't be discussed on the basis of a game of telephone. and that does mean the victim's final moments will be seen by many strangers. i'm sorry.

[marvelstars]

Anakin did not realize Clovis was forcing himself on Padme. He said later that he only saw the two of them “kissing.” He also glared at Padme and said she had “no say in this” when she asked him to stop the fight. Clovis was definitely an unredeemable asshole, but Anakin was not defending Padme’s honor. He was trying to punish her for cheating on him.

Nobody is sympathetic to Clovis; we’re sympathetic to PADME, whose husband didn’t even acknowledge the hardship she was experiencing, and even put her mission (which he knew about) in jeopardy because he couldn’t control himself.

I disagree given I have seen some posts talking about Clovis being some kind of pro-feminist character, I know it´s because many hate Anakin but that´s why I felt the need to make the post about Clovis, I believe he is a boring character in general but I wanted to explore the context of his appareances in Clone Wars.

How was Anakin trying to punish Padmé exactly?

Punish her by beating the guy who was trying to kiss her agaisn´t her will which actually counts as sexual assault?

by stopping beating Clovis when Padmé asked him?

by leaving her alone and in fact breaking their relationship when she said she wanted to end their marriage?

I guess we just very have different perspectives on what "punishment" means

Anakin admited it was wrong to beat Clovis and I also believe he feel bad more because he stopped her "investigation"even when it was going wrong if she could not stop Clovis from taking advantage of her, she certainly wasn´t in control of the situation when Anakin found them.

I personally believe Clovis deserved no less but well I guess for some fans Anakin must be in the wrong no matter the circunstances and that´s ok, fandom is allowed to be biased, just don´t get on my case when I notice the double standard.

I get you point about the problems on Anakin and Padmé relationship but I disagree with it, in fact that´s why I said I understand many fans for hating Anakin on many things, including his relationship with Padmé and that some fans see this scene as a preview of their confrontation on Mustafar and that´s why some fans glaringly ignore Clovis trying to force himself on Padme but the whole point of the scene between Anakin and Padme on Mustafar is the fact Anakin ISNT LIKE THAT, Anakin was in the middle of a breakdown and full on the darkside on Mustafar, that´s not how he behaves, that´s not himself, that´s him losing himself to the darkside, the whole point Lucas wanted to make on Mustafar was the fact Anakin wasn´t like that, he wasn´t "Anakin" anymore, he was Vader now and that´s why Padme recognizes this and tells him he is going on a path she can´t follow.

This is also why Anakin feel horrified after beating Clovis, not for defending Padmé but for his violence and that´s also why he agreed to end their marriage recognizing Padmé didn´t feel secure in their relationship anymore and he left her alone, because guess what? he actually cares about his wife, so he listens to her when she says their relationship is over and didn´t even try to argue with her.

But I guess is easier to paint Anakin as an evil guy on all circunstances. I get it truly but this doesn´t mean I won´t notice when fandom ignores context to suit their biased view on Anakin.

[the12thnightproject]

selenacosmic asked: Dear advisors on love, My question is merely for advice without an specific target of my affection. Considering that both have completely different views on this, it will help a lot. How does one flirt without being awkward? What is the path to smoothness in your words? Sincerely, An awkward person.

Dear A.P.,

Angel, although you can not see me, imagine that I am patting the cushion next to me, inviting you to sit down. I watch, smiling, as you gracefully take your seat. You look lovely this afternoon, Angel, that shade of blue complements your eyes. Did you make that kimono yourself? It must have taken you days, but it was clearly worth the effort. I’ve picked up your hands now, marveling that your delicate fingers can also create this beauty.

[Lord Shingen, you are flirting with the letter writer, but if they are awkward, they’ll not be able to do what you do. - Yuki]

[Nobody can do what Lord Shingen does - Moderatelyawesomeninja]

[Hm, you two may have a point. - Tiger of Kai]

As you can see Angel, for me, flirting is as natural as breathing, but it has been pointed out that not everyone feels the same. Therefore, let’s move on to a ‘flirting for the novice’ discussion. Now, as much as it pains me to admit it, knowing how to flirt is not a necessary skill. 

[Then why do you keep insisting I learn how to flirt? - Yuki]

[For you, it’s necessary. - Tiger of Kai]

It’s true, you can go through life having wonderful friendships and relationships without knowing how to flirt. By telling yourself that you need to flirt, you put unnecessary pressure on yourself, which will make it all the more difficult to talk to people. 

My suspicion (without having met you, Angel… which saddens me greatly, as you seem a lovely person), is that your awkwardness at flirting is because of one of three reasons (or a combination of all three).

You have been told that flirting is the only way to begin a relationship

Flirting feels inauthentic to you

Shyness

Let’s take these one at a time, although they can be slightly intertwined. Flirting is a way to begin a relationship, but it is simply a signal. It can tell another person that you are open to them. It’s saying, “Yes, Lord Shingen, I want to know more about you,” or “Yes, Lord Shingen, I am willing to sit here smiling at you a little while longer.” In a sense, it’s a subtle form of espionage - a low stakes method to gather more information about another person. You may learn that you don’t want to spend more time with them after an initial exchange. That is the beauty of flirting, it’s not a commitment of anything more than a few moments of your time. You are not obligated to have a long conversation with the object of flirtation, or to ever see them again. Nor does flirting need to be complicated. A smile can be as powerful as the most well crafted “pick up” line.

But that said, good, honest conversation and communication with others can be an  effective way, or perhaps an even more effective way to become closer to a person. Whether you agree or disagree with the other person, enthusiastically discussing your ideas will help you know them better. Instead of putting pressure on the results of your conversation, simply enjoy the exchange of ideas and opinions itself. As you learn more about the other person, and they learn more about you, you might find yourselves relaxing enough to joke around with each other. You might even tease each other, once you understand their sense of humor and they understand yours. By this time, you could be flirting without realizing it.

By having conversations about things you are already interested in, or things you want to learn from the other person, you then are naturally being more authentic with each other. You won’t feel like you are forcing yourself to behave in a way that doesn’t feel real to you, because you’re just talking about things you already like and know, or trying to learn from someone else more about a topic that they love. There’s no pressure, and you won’t be tested on the subject.

[No test? Frak. - Moderatelyawesomeninja]

[Were you taking notes, Sasuke? - Mai]

[Maybe. - Moderatelyawesomeninja]

Putting less pressure on yourself and staying authentic to yourself and your comfort level will help somewhat with shyness. Unfortunately, there’s no quick cure all for shyness… but remember a shy smile has power too.

That said, one thing you can do to become more confident in interacting with other people is to practice. The key to practicing is to do so in a low pressure situation. The next time you order a drink in a tea shop, or buy fabric, smile and say thank you. That’s it. That’s all you need to do. When that feels like second nature to you, take it a step further. Ask the person at the tea shop if they have a favorite to recommend, or the person selling you the fabric what they would make out of it (only do this if they aren’t busy). Get comfortable talking to people about things that they are interested in. By doing this with everyone you meet, not just the people you may be interested in knowing, you will become used to talking to strangers. Thus, when you do encounter someone you may be attracted to, it will feel easier to talk to them… because you are used to talking to strangers.

Make a list of things that interest you, that you know a lot about, and ask a close friend or family member to interview you about one of these things, so that you start to feel more confident in talking about your passions. Also, according to one of my sources, in your world, there are “apps” where you can practice flirting with a simulated human.

[Not that I’ve ever actually used ‘Blush’ or “Replika,’ I simply am aware of their existence… - Moderatelyawesomesource]

Would you like to practice with me, Angel? I will put no pressure on you, and you could consider it simply a learning experience, while I do my best to put you at ease. I would consider it an honor, should you ever be in Kasugayama to be your flirtation professor.

Sincerely,

Tiger of Kai

This is not all that Art of Love has to offer. Check out @lorei-writes for the God GOOD of War’s answer to your question.

[prodigal-explorer]

loyal - an omori au summary

this is the breakdown of an omori au that i've decided to call the loyalty au, and it's based off of a mixture of ideas that me and my homies (@legendling and @electriczaire) came up with!!

(cw -> murder, omori spoilers, extreme manipulation, mcd)

this is a sort of swap au in which kel accidentally kills hero instead of sunny accidentally killing mari, but there is a twist in the course of events that completely alters the fate of kel and the friend group.

a few days after sunny and mari's recital, kel and hero get into an argument over something silly. but the argument escalates when their parents step in and, as always, take hero's side.

the constant favoritism towards hero finally gets to kel in that moment, and he storms off. hero rushes after him in an attempt to make amends, but kel misinterprets his intentions, and pushes him down the stairs in a fit of anger. hero dies on impact.

just like in the original story, basil is the only one who witnesses the murder. he was at the house for a sleepover. basil comes up with the idea to frame hero's death as a suicide, and he convinces kel to go along with it by telling him that the alternative is kel going to jail and losing all his friends. kel agrees.

but two weeks later, at hero's funeral, kel can't handle lying about something so huge, seeing mari blame herself, seeing the group start to fall apart. so he comes clean. he admits that he killed hero and staged the suicide. but he doesn't say basil's involvement in the situation because he's too held up with his own guilt and his own involvement.

kel expects everything basil said to come true, but mari, sunny, and aubrey forgive kel. it's clear that it was an accident, and it's obvious how much pain kel is in.

but forgiveness doesn't mean forgetting. everyone is uncomfortable around kel, and there is an inevitable, understandable resentment towards kel. the group is awkward, and they tend to exclude kel from things for the sake of their own comfort.

and to make matters worse, the people who take kel's confession the worst are his parents. they despise kel for what he did to their favorite child, and they essentially abandon him emotionally, leaving him to endure this extremely difficult point of his life all by himself. they no longer include him during mealtimes, and when he's around them, they ignore him. they don't even yell at him anymore. it's cold, dead silence.

the only person who still treats kel the same is basil, or so we think. everyone assumes that it's because basil is so sweet and kind, but really, it's because basil is the only one who knows the full truth.

basil is desperate. upon seeing how kel is treated in the friend group and by his family, he realizes that he doesn't want the same thing to happen to him. he begs kel to keep his secret, and ends up manipulating him out of fear. he tells kell that if he tells the group about basil's involvement, then nobody would believe him, and everyone would abandon him.

so kel keeps the secret. but as we all know, kel hates secrets and lies. but he also hates betraying his friends. so now he's in a huge inner conflict between his two biggest values: honesty and loyalty. does he honor his honesty and tell the group the whole truth? or does he honor his loyalty and keep basil's reputation safe?

on top of this, kel realizes that he heavily disagrees with basil's extreme actions of deception, and he hates the position that basil has put him in, making him entirely responsible for basil's fate. but what is he able to do about it? basil is basically the only reason why kel hasn't been completely phased out of the friend group, and basil has so much control over how the group views kel. so he's trapped with basil, forced to endure him with no complaints.

after all, sweet, innocent, kind basil is much more likable and pitiful than loud, annoying, murderer kel.

i hope you guys enjoy this au!! i'm very new to the fandom so if something like this has been made before please don't flame me, i didn't know! feel free to comment with any questions you have about the au, and i'd love to answer them!!! i really want to do something with this, maybe a fanfic or something!

[saramays-blog]

I saw your post on Quora and I’m puzzled with your response. Why aren’t you against Transphobic people who don’t respect our gender identity?  

Why is someone's gender identity is someone else's problem?

It isn't anybody else's problem!

It becomes other people's problem when the person with that “gender identity” begins insisting that others view that as being as important and life changing as they do.

This gender identity stuff has become the equivalent of trying to force other people to agree with “it’s my way or the highway”, under all sorts of threats and penalties if they don't.

And that's the problem. Nobody should care what someone chooses to believe, that's their business. They do care when said person begins to demand that others believe the same thing, and/or when that person's personal beliefs erode the rights of others or lead to their harm.

“Transphobic” is by and large a meaningless term now; it's been misused so much its meaning became:  “How dare you disagree with me/refuse my unreasonable demand for privilege”. Calling anybody or anything “transphobic”.

I’m a transgender woman myself and I identify as she/her and care less who respects my identity. The people who respect my identity are my friends and the ones who don’t are entitled to their beliefs and I’m neutral towards them.

Do not confuse people who want to erase LGBTQ+ and that's a totally different subject and I'm against anyone who trample on LGBTQ+ rights to be who we truly are.

But the notion of forcing someone to behave and act according to your views is a totally different matter.

[himbos-hotline]

you have self indulgent writing that has characterizations I disagree with personally but I'm glad you write anyway because everyone should express themselves, and because i get to see how others view the characters I like

Hey. Hey anon. This. This isn't helpful or kind or a compliment that i think you think it is. I didn't ask for criticism or whatever the fuck this is. All writing is self indulgent and if you don't like how I write specific wrestlers there's this wonderful thing called scrolling the fuck away. I'm not forcing anybody to read my writing or do anything. This is mean and hurtful and upsetting. I've had countless people recently spend months putting down my writing because it was something I loved more then them, if authors don't ask for criticism or whatever you're not allowed to give it because I'm putting what I write out in the world for FREE. Nobody is giving me anything apart from sweet comments and fun conversations with the friends I think I have, you are not allowed to waltz into people and act this entitled towards someone who is making things for free, act like a human being with basic common decency, we're you never taught that "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all?"

You're not entitled to anything anyone makes. Would you say this to a fan artist yknow someone who spends hours painstakingly focusing on layers and sketches and rendering. "Your art style is self indulgent" or "I don't personally agree with your colour choices" or is it just because you see fan fic as a lesser art form becsuse it's something you can skim through and forget about or plagiarise. Fanfiction is art and this isn't how you interact in fandoms

For anyone confused of this tone, I am angry. This has upset me, deeply.

[butchbarbieagainstterfs]

Have you noticed this trend of feminist women who generally don't hang out in TERF spaces defending conservatives? Like TERFs tend to think that femininity is oppressive, but these seem to think that femininity is under attack. They call themselves feminists, just like TERFs do, and they defend conservatives, just like TERFs do, but they come at it from a different angle.

I see this type of feminist so much on baby name websites. It's honestly mind-boggling how much the feminist cis moms on there keep missing the point of debates and derailing it to the point where they call normal people misogynist for basically nothing, while letting obvious sexists slink by. Actually I will use this as an example because I think it shows just how oblivious they are to gender essentialism. An average argument will go something like this:

Tradmomma: "My neighbour named her daughter Elliot Rebecca. Can you believe! A girl with a boy name! Horrible! Girls all want to be feminine and these parents are forcing masculinity on their baby!"

Divinemotherhood: "I know, they're trying to erase gender! My own husband suggested we name out son Evelyn after his grandfather, but no son of mine is going to have a sissy name. Thankfully I convinced my hubby and we named our baby Daniel."

Blueylover: "Idk, I like some boy names on girls. Elliot is a lovely choice. And there's good feminine nicknames too if she ends up girly, like Ellie!"

Allison1987: "Uh, I can't belive you, Blueylover! People like you who only like boy names on girls and not girl names on boys are the worst kind of sexist! Why can't you appreciate feminity? I bet you just give your daughters boy names because you want them to be CEOs one day, as if my daughter can't do the same with a girls' name! I want to bestow my daughters with names filled with women's history, so they have female rolemodels who share their name!

[Five people proceed to have a lengthy but shallow discussion about how it's more common to give girls boy names than the other way around (which could be interesting except the whole argument is too shallow to make any real points), and how that means that nobody values feminine women anymore. Blueylover is painted as a horrible misogynist, while Tradmomma and Divinemotherhood get completely forgotten. Someone asserts that their daughter, Annabella Ballerina Pink Princess, has a good, versital name that fits any type of personality she might have as an adult, and people agree that it forces fewer gender norms than Elliot Rebecca does. Blueylover leaves the forum and everyone pats themselves on the back for having cleared the space from people who disrespect women.]

There's so many of these types of "defend femininity at all costs" feminsts around me and I feel like I'm going insane. A conservative will call me a slur for being a (non-passing) trans man, and then one of these feminists will show up right after and say that my identity as a trans man is valid, but since I chose to dress like an average guy instead of wearing dresses and stuff, it means I'm disrespecting femininity so I'm sexist and deserved the bad treatment anyway. No shade towards femininity itself, but it's not for me, and it's weird that supposed feminists don't think I should be allowed to avoid it even after a lifetime of being forced into it.

Have you also noticed this type of feminist? I feel like there's more of them since the pandemic started. What's your take?

Yeah people like that give a bad name to feminism. It’s always the mothers commenting on other people’s children too and making assumptions about infants based on nothing but their biology.

This is why I have my own unique relationship with feminism and rarely go into solely feminist spaces. They’re way too often, in my experience, overrun with white, cishet, stereotypically feminine mothers with bigoted views, who think their way is the only way and anyone who disagrees just hates them because they’re women.

[heretherebedork]

I know almost everyone is stuck on Boston treatment but actually let’s talk about how no one really has a happy ending.

Ray/Sand : Sand didn’t choose Ray. I am not saying he doesn’t love him but he didn’t chose him between him and his ex, it was until Ray and Mew come with receipts that Boeing tried to get between MewTop that Sand ended up staying with Ray. Actually I saw nobody talking about it but Sand wanted the threesome. In my first watching, I thought he separated Boeing and Ray during their kiss because he couldn’t bare to see it but actually he tried to add himself to the kiss but they didn’t notice him and that’s when he ended up butthurt. While I think we can agree that Ray will never accept a threesome, as he was looking away when Boeing and Sand were kissing and is way too possessive, the same can’t be said about Sand. I don’t think it’s too much to say Ray will have gone to deep end if Sand would have chosen Boeing. His wellness and stability seem to rely solely on Sand and that’s not good at all.

Top/Mew : I think we can all agree that the “cheating” is going to be above Top head for the entirety of their relationship. I thought at first that their reconciliation was going to be based to the fact that Mew will acknowledge that they were not really together at the time but it’s still a betrayal because they were getting to know each other and that it was Boston but no. I saw ForceBook saying that Top weakness is Mew and the one he will always be yielding to and I believe it’s basically going to be their whole relationship. Their storyline reminded me about another p’jojo production and it’s Friend zone the series and the relationship between Singto prachaya character and Nat Sakdatorn character and it’s actually the same storyline. They are together and Nat’s character cheated in a one night stand with Singto’s character friend played by Plustor. And actually they are getting back together with Singto’s character blaming everything on Plustor’s character. There is a second two and Singto’s character end up sleeping with Plustor’s character too and in the end it’s a sad ending for the couple. And the last scene where Mew is smiling to Mix character who look like he is interested in Mew and Top look jealous is not a good sign and actually makes me believe Mew will be capable of cheating on Top.

It will need another ask for that but it’s actually wild that in every forcebook series, Book character is self-centered and childish and Force’s character is the one loving him more and sacrificing for him. It literally happened in all their dramas.

I mean, there is weight to that. But there's also weight to the fact that their endings can be intended happy and to seem like they were all fairly happy couples together at the end.

Ray and Sand... yeah, they really dropped the ball with the idea of Sand choosing Ray by never having him make a choice and just having the choice dictated to him by Ray and Mew instead. I was hoping to hear Sand claim Ray as his boyfriend during the show and it really just kind of didn't happen. He called him his own and others said caretaker but he never made the active choice.

Now, I disagree on the reading of the kiss in the pool. I think Sand genuinely hated seeing Boeing and Ray kiss and wanted them to stop. But, hey, I've been wrong before so I'll never say my view is the only view.

I really wish that the scene where Sand came to Ray to help out with the kids had included both Ray apologizing to Sand and Sand calling himself Ray's boyfriend before the thing about Boeing, Mew and Top was revealed. That would have been my ideal for them to have the best ending.

Top and Mew: Yeah, they're never gonna break up because they would have to admit they were wrong to try a second time and neither of them can handle that so this relationship is going to last forever no matter how tortured Top is or how smug Mew is because that would be facing a mistake.

I'm not going to comment on the actors overall roles but I am going to admit a lot of frustration that Top was set up as this traumatized, spoiled counterpart to Ray who was a functional addict and able to run a business while Ray was falling apart on every level and it turned into nothing and everything just kind of fell into Top having nothing but his love of Mew and then getting over his trauma because of magic love. Sigh.

No one gets a perfectly happy ending but everyone get a better one than Boston alone in a street friendless and leaving behind the only world he's ever known without even a single person to see him off.

[artilaz]

OC Meme - Vharloth Zal'arin

(Baldur's Gate 3 version)

Tagged by: No one directly, but @ex-textura's gorgeous boy Ilztaufein inspired me to do this for yet another OC

Tagging: Everyone who wants to do it and hasn't been tagged directly!

B A S I C S

Full name: Vharloth Zal'arin. He chose the name for himself. He'd rather cut out his tongue than ever speak his birth name again, since he associates it with nothing but misery.

Gender: Cisgender male

Sexuality: Bisexual

Pronouns: He/him

Class: Oathbreaker Paladin

O T H E R

Birthplace: One of the greater cities in the Underdark, but I haven't decided on a specific one yet.

Job: None at the moment. Before his escape, he was being kept as a slave and gladiator.

Phobias: He bears an intense fear of seeing loved ones suffer or die, but since that fear isn't irrational, it's not quite a phobia.

Guilty pleasures: There's not much that brings him pleasure to begin with, but he doesn't feel guilty about anything that does.

Hobbies: He doesn't know himself well enough to have many real hobbies yet, but what he does know is that he enjoys singing - mostly where nobody else can hear it, though.

M O R A L S

Alignment: He still has to figure out where his free will will land him, but probably along the lines of chaotic good.

Sins: None of the classic deadly sins fully apply to him, but negative traits of his include jealousy, apathy/reluctance, as well as a tendency towards judgmentalism, all of which he's aware of, and actively trying to overcome.

Virtues: Patience, tenacity/resilience, hope, and the willingness to learn and improve

T H I S  O R  T H A T

Introvert / Extrovert

Organized / Disorganized

Close-minded / Open-minded

Calm / Anxious / Restless

Disagreeable / Agreeable / In between

Cautious / Reckless / In between - strongly depending on the given situation, and whether or not there are lives at stake other than his own

Patient / Impatient / In between

Outspoken / Reserved / In between

Leader / Follower / Flexible

Empathetic / Unempathetic / In between

Optimist / Pessimist / Realist - not quite applicable. His past has left him with a pessimistic streak, but he's actively working on getting rid of that, forcing himself into a more hopeful mindset.

Traditional / Modern / In between

Hard-working / Lazy

R E L A T I O N S H I P S

OTP: None so far

Acceptable Ships: Vharloth x Halsin. They're not an absolute OTP, but they'd work nicely together, at least from Vharl's point of view. Halsin's grounded, wise, and kind nature is something he'd feel himself strongly drawn to. Maybe even Vharloth x Astarion. I don't think they'd last for very long, but they could bond over some of their past trauma, and misinterpret their understanding of each other's emotions as romantic feelings.

OT3: Vharloth x Halsin x Lythia (another OC of mine). Lythia is a young half-elf, her father being Aozhan, my main OC. She's sweet, gentle, kind, accepting, and has a strong heart. Halsin and Lythia are the actual OTP here, but since they've agreed to let each other roam if they wish, and since they've both got elven blood, I can also see them with Vharl.

Brotp: Vharloth x Karlach. Vharlach, if you will. Vharl gravitates towards people with a positive mindset, since he himself is actively fighting to allow optimism into his own life, so he'd probably enjoy spending time with her. There wouldn't be romantic feelings from his side, though, since he only feels those towards other elves or half-elves.

Notp: Probably a good few, but the most obvious one is Vharloth x Minthara. Being not only a female drow, but also a Paladin of Lolth just like he himself used to be, he'd be terrified that she'd make an attempt to take him back to the Underdark and have him punished for his insubordination, to a point he'd refuse to stay with the group if she was part of it.

B A C K S T O R Y

I don't have his full story developed, but here have some facts about him that I do know for sure - in no particular order.

He's the firstborn child of a rather well-respected family, but not of noble background.

He used to have a younger sister. She was his everything, but she was killed during an attack at a social event hosted by one of the high houses, which he was also present at. His parents never forgave him for failing to save her, and neither did he.

After those events, he was pretty much disowned by his family, and eventually ended up enslaved under another matriarch.

"His one redeeming quality," as his parents often stated, was that he was talented with the sword, which led to his mistress sending him into coliseum fights for the upper class's entertainment, and eventually he was encouraged to swear the Oath to Lolth. He didn't keep it out of true conviction though, but for the fear of consequences.

For almost his entire life, he's secretly dreamed of a life on the surface. The only person he ever told about this was his sister, whom he used to have a close bond to.

Having made it to the surface now, he's in a strange mental place, having bouts ranging from internal emptiness, to radical longing for any sort of experience for experience's sake.

A quote of his is: "I'd rather go blind from seeing the sun just once, than never getting to see it."

At some point in the future, he will renew his oath, but this time he'll swear it to Lathander, and this time, he'll mean it.

[rezonan]

Why do people use OOC/Irrelevant stories to justify their hatred for characters?

I'll admit I got this question from reddit but seeing as you are a big fan of Iron Man and certain characters afflicted by this issue I thought I would ask

Comic book characters and the consistency of favored portrayals

Why do people do the exact opposite to justify how cool they think a character is?

Look this is probably the worst kind of question to ask me, back when I was in high school my classmates hated me cause when it came to arguments I would always 'Stand on the fence' or 'Never pick a side' and I agree, even when I disagree or agree I can't help but see the other side of things with some questions.

I think one of the biggest things comic fans need to accept with our medium is that, the only real continuity that exists is the one we try and brute force and make in our heads, some writers themselves don't really care, Geoff Jones ignored Batman previously basically begging for Hal Jordan to come back to life when he was The Spectre to writing Batman basically complaining that Hal was back because to him that is what he thinks Batman should act like with Hal, and considering he probably grew up with a comic like Dark Knight Returns the asshole authoritarian was probably was he knew of the character, who knows I don't know his personal life.

I think we can all say that you have fallen in love with a character based of Non Canon stories, Hell my favorite comic for Superman and the one that got me into liking the character was All-Star Superman. The exact opposite of that like what you asked tho, Hating a character because a story depicted them poorly whether it's canon or not is valid as well, I mean it's pretty damn short-sighted if they have been exposed to better represented sides of those characters, but it doesn’t change the impact they initially felt, wether they can get past that is on the person. Like for example, I fucking hated Superman growing up cause the first movies I remember seeing him in was the freaking Dark Knight Returns duology and certain parts of Young Justice Season 1 but overtime seeing better versions and representations of the characters and also hearing put fans on what he represents has pushed him up to my 5th favorite hero, I do understand not everyone can do this. People just want to support their view of the character.

I also do think people who hate certain characters do reach a lot of the time, sharing panels of stories older than their parents sometimes probably not even knowing what comic it even came from, just happy they have this image of the character they don't like being abusive or something. It's even worse then the he outright go out of their way to find these panels or stories to use for hate on purpose even after knowing it's generally agreed upon it's a shitty representation of the character. Seriously nobody should bring up All Star Batman and Robin as some 'Got Ya!' moment in an argument, just no. Sometimes some people have just predetermined in their mind they want to hate a character and will go out of their way to farm for anything that can paint them in the worst light possible.

With Iron Man it's people bringing up Civil War again and again and again continuously like the 40 years of stories before that don't show why Tony would never do any of that in his right mind. With Superman it's people bringing up injustice in literally any relation to him or people bringing up a scene of Jason Todd blaming Bruce for his death as evidence of how whiny he is even when one of the highlight lines of his first appearance as Red Hood is 'Bruce I forgive you for not saving me but-'

With characters like say, Hal Jordan, Magneto or Venom and meny more, it gets more interesting here. Here what the characters did that was bad IS/WAS(considering reboots in Hal's case) in continuity but a version of the characters that were received much more popularly then makes fans disregard these past appearances as wrong, say they have had this entirely new portrayal longer than they had that one or writers themselves will retcon them away by making them, in the case of former villians now refromed, seem less evil than they were. No no those people Magneto killed weren't innocent humans in the silver age, they were actually anti-mutant bigots that killed a little girl for being a mutant. One of my favorite examples of this is Hulk. Yes Hulk the rampaging monster from movies to series to comics, in comics in I think 2008 was retconned to have never and I mean never killed a single person in all his rampages In the in-universe 12 years at that point, not even indirectly because Bruce Banner was subconsciously calculating all the angles of where he would throw or smash stuff apprently. All those crumbled buildings, nope, nothing.

And you know what? I can agree with some of that (that Hulk retcon is still dumb) because let me tell you the real truth to all this.

Consistency

People love consistency, They don't care about Magneto killing innocents in the 60s or Venom eating people in the 90s, they care about the take that has been supported consistently in their view for longer or just showed more consistently in what they have seen. Even for the haters it's the same, if for example my only experience with Batman was All Star and Certain Post New 52 issues, I would be happy knowing I hate this borderline sociopathic dude that's what I know Batman as.

You see it even with the movies, When The Amazing Spider-Man came out you had people saying it was an inaccurate take or not liking the changes even though it was actually more comic accurate that what came before but fans of the Raimi movies have consistently seen Peter as a meek and nice kid before being Spider-Man not an asshole, they have consistently seen him with organic webbing not with web shooters. Anything that breaks the portrayal they have known the most if gonna make them react either well or badly. People who only knew Tony Stark from Civil War probably reacted well to his MCU version seeing as he broke the consistent borderline villian they knew him from the comics.

So the big issue is people trying to force their own consistent idea of a character on others when comics just aren't consistent, everyone like I said at the start has their own makeshift continuity in their head they made up with books they liked or think fit, the consistent portrayal they know about, so this is why you get people arguing about if Batman is the real identity or Bruce Wayne or if Clark Kent should wear trunks or not I could go on and on like if Wonder Woman should use a sword? Someone who is used to the New 52 version would say yes and someone used to the Post Crisis version would say no. Or maybe it's what love interest Spidey should end up with, people who say Gwen probably grew up with TASM and Spectacular Spider-Man. Better for people to just respectly discuss the takes of characters different people have instead of childishly pushing the version they have in their head as the correct version and putting down everyone else's pretty damn subjective takes. That's with superhero comics of course, the nature of what is canon and isn't and how fans of this stuff talk about it with different 'takes' is way more unique than talking about disliking MCU Spider-Man or talking about why you hate Sasuke or something.

I don't really have a good way to end all this cause that's just it, all about consistency if I didn't get that across the 10 times I used that word. As usual feel free to disagree with me and if possible tell me how and why.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

I believe a civilisation that conserves is one that will decay because it is afraid of going forward and attributes more importance to memory than the future. The strongest civilisations are those without memory - those capable of complete forgetfulness. They are strong enough to destroy because they know they can replace what is destroyed. Today our musical civilisation is not strong; it shows clear signs of withering… […] Conducting has forced me to absorb a great deal of history, so much so, in fact, that history seems more than ever to me a great burden. In my opinion we must get rid of it once and for all.

- Pierre Boulez (in 1975...he changed his mind in the 1990s)

Frenchman Pierre Boulez was classical music’s most celebrated maverick, widely regarded as the 20th century’s greatest innovator of classical music. Boulez’s 1967 proclamation that the answer to the stagnation of opera was to “blow the opera houses up”, is just one of many bold and candid statements that have won him recognition as one of classical music’s most outspoken and controversial figures.

But he has also said: “I don’t want my statements to be frozen in time. A date should always be attached to them. Certainly if you take a picture of yourself 30 years ago, that same picture cannot be used as a picture of yourself today.” His incendiary comments, whether directed at his contemporaries (he has described Duchamp as ‘a pompous bore’, Cage as ‘a performing monkey’, and Stockhausen, ‘a hippie’), or more general topics such as culture and history, however, suggest that he enjoyed the controversy.

It was Boulez who once declared, without a trace of irony, that any composer who did not acknowledge the necessity of Schoenberg’s 12-tone system was “useless”, and who wrote caustic articles such as “Schoenberg Is Dead”, criticising the Austrian composer’s approach just months after his death in 1951.

I find much to disagree with Boulez especially about his remarks on wiping out civilisations and defacing all past art, including da Vinci’s Mona Lisa.

But other times I agree 100% such as when he said, “In the provincial town of Paris the museum is very badly looked after. The Paris Opera is full of dust and crap, to put it plainly. The tourists still go there because you ‘have to have seen’ the Paris Opera. It’s on the itinerary, just like the Folies-Bergere or the Invalides, where Napoleon’s tomb is. […] These operatic tourists make me vomit. If I write a work for the stage I certainly won’t write it for star-fanciers; I shall be thinking of a public that has an extensive knowledge of the theatre.”

Or his views on minimalist music, “If you want a kind of supermarket aesthetic, OK, do that, nobody will be against it, but everybody will eventually forget it because each generation will create its own supermarket music - like produce that after eight days is rotten and you can’t eat it anymore and have to toss it away.”

Many young composers of his generation in the 1960s and since read his writings, but they didn’t always know his music. And yet what you might not guess from the polemics is the sheer beauty of his compositions.

Messiaen, who taught Boulez, would say of him that, underneath it all, he was simply a poet. Messiaen also believed it would take a long time for the wider public to really understand Boulez’s music, because it has a very particular and original sensibility. Messiaen would talk with pride of his former student, describing him as a formidable and immense talent, though when young “he was like a flayed lion”. Boulez was indeed a very angry young man.

He attacked anything in sight, including those who had taught him, such as René Leibowitz, a Schoenberg disciple who was largely responsible for introducing serialism to Paris. At one point, Boulez even turned against Messiaen, who had done so much to encourage and help him, and it was five years before their relationship was restored.

Boulez grew up in Nazi-occupied France. He was 20 when the Second wWorld War ended. The continent had to make itself anew. Messiaen used to describe travelling home on the Metro with Boulez after classes. Boulez would say “Who’s going to put music right? It’s in such a terrible state.”

And Messiaen would reply: “You.”

He considered himself from his earliest days to have an almost Napoleonic mission regarding music and its cultural role. His ambition was not only to compose, but to change the attitude of the public, institutions in France and - later - the wider western world with regard to modernism. He initially pursued this aim with a heightened form of ideological dogmatism. The works of the Second Viennese School, and composers such as Bartók and Varèse, were not played at all in Paris in the late 40s; that they are now part of the international concert repertoire is in large part due to Boulez.

As a conductor, his approach to the early modernist masterpieces has had a tremendous impact on the way they are considered by younger conductors and heard by audiences. He made stupendous recordings of hundreds of pieces of music – among them works by his illustrious contemporaries Carter, Ligeti, Kurtág, Stockhausen, Berio and Birtwistle - and has inspired and helped generations of younger composers.

Through the power of his personality, the scale of his reputation and his considerable personal charm, Boulez has made big things happen, way beyond the confines of manuscript paper. Paris’s new concert hall, the Philharmonie de Paris, owes its existence to him, as does the rest of the Cité de la Musique, his own group the Ensemble Intercontemporain and IRCAM, the musical research institution attached to the Pompidou Centre.

In his own music, however, he moved away from Serialism, the great rallying cry of his youth, and over the years further distanced himself from the concept, now viewing it with scepticism. For me, his best compositions are not the ones from his early years but the works in which the foundations of his earlier idiom are treated much more freely and with greater fantasy. I believe that only when he accepted he was fundamentally a French composer did he find his true voice.

Le Marteau sans maître (1953-57) was a breakthrough. It is a work in which you can also hear the profound influence of extra-European music, above all from Asia and Africa. This radically alters the sonority and the music’s sense of time and direction, as well as its expressive viewpoint and ethos. Boulez was by no means the first French composer to be open to, and ravished by, eastern music – it had already had a transformative effect on the father of modern music, Debussy, and on succeeding generations – but he took it a stage further, and the curious marriage between his already transforming serial universe and the extra‑European world produced a unique style.

For me, his quasi-symphonic portrait of Pli selon pli, portrait de Mallarmé – completed in the early 60s – is a greater masterpiece, and the decades that followed produced gem after gem: Eclat/Multiples, Cummings Ist der Dichter, explosante-fixe, Sur Incises. There is no better postwar musical piece written for orchestra than Notations, his five hyper-elaborate orchestral canvases, all based on very simple serial pieces he wrote for the piano in his early 20s.

Arguably the most important composer-conductor since Mahler, Boulez knows the orchestra more intimately than any of his colleagues, and these short, dazzling showpieces have an intoxicating exuberance and elegance.

Boulez only published around 30 works in his lifetime. When he died at 90 years old in 2015, I’m sure he regretted that he hadn’t written more. But I suspect he has not had the easiest of relationships with his muse. This is a man with a vastly refined and critical mind. His intelligence is so questioning and extreme, and his aural imagination so sensitive and acute, that composing must have been a taxing experience. The world today doesn’t need huge numbers of pieces, as it did in, say, Haydn’s time. What are needed, surely, are essential statements, singular and unique works. And these he has provided, without question by the time the curtain came down on his life.

Having cultivated the image of the angry young man of new music in the post-war years, it took a long time in public perception for the austere, uncompromising radical to morph into the hugely respected and revered figure Boulez became in the last decades of his life. As he mellowed further over the following decades, he also began to conduct music by a number of composers he would surely have dismissed out of hand in his hardline early years. That inevitably required some quiet revisionism.

I have an enormous regard for his rendition of Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen. It’s a surprising landmark in every sense. Boulez’s performance of Patrice Chéreau’s centenary production of the Ring Cycle shocked and then seduced audiences at Bayreuth. Filmed in 1980, it’s still among the most searingly insightful readings of the cycle, musically and dramatically, ever performed. Another of the highlights of Boulez’s operatic career, this 1992 performance of Debussy’s Pelléas et Mélisande in Peter Stein’s production at Welsh National Opera revealed the expressivity, focus, and clarity that Boulez brought to everything he conducted.

Like everything he conducted, though, it was the precision and lucidity of his performances that were so revealing, and which illuminated a range of 20th-century music in a way that few conductors before him had ever approached. And while a good handful of Boulez’s own works – the second and third piano sonatas, Le Marteau Sans Maître, Pli Selon Pli, Eclat/Multiples, Sur Incises, the orchestral Notations - will surely endure, it is his achievement as a conductor and educator in moving the music of our time and of the immediate past into the mainstream of our concert life that is likely to be his lasting, crucially important memorial.

His skills as a conductor are vast - he would have been every bit as intellectual and important if he was just a conductor and had never written a note of music himself. As it is, his music, thoughts, theories and treatises are all a massively important part of 20th and 21st century music.

[circulars-reasoning]

I've read your views, but I do not see why you call yourself a sysmed if you think the term is transphobic. That sounds like a contradiction of intent. I'm a trans system, so this feels like you're also transmed. I want to understand because your views otherwise meet what most pro-endo agree on.

I'm also a trans system, and that's actually part of why I call myself a sysmed. My time in syscourse has been incredibly painful and difficult, and a lot of it was because of that word.

I've been pro-endo for a very long time. It wasn't until I began to say a few things that were critical of the commnuity, just mildly, that I started getting called a sysmed. I got called one for every little thing -- having DID, having trauma responses, using Core to refer to my host back when we had one, NOT using Core to refer to my host back then, and so on and so forth.

Even now, the culture is to call anyone who disagrees with you a sysmed. Look at the most recent discourse on tulpa as a term. The majority of voices in the debate are pro-endo, and yet, almost everyone on the pro-tulpa(term) side has been calling them sysmeds, or spouting "sysmed rhetoric."

The fact is, sysmed simply means "someone who isn't pro-endo enough for my standards." Nothing more and nothing less; people use it as an insult more than the factual definition. I've been incredibly hurt by my own community forcing me out, so hurt that I even called myself anti-endo for a time and did say some hurtful things (after being pro-endo for years) because I was just so desperate for community.

Then, when I came back to the pro-endo community, nobody accepted me. Everyone still called me a sysmed, everyone still shut me out. It was only those individuals who were willing to look past labels and see my content that ended up sticking around, and those are the people who I found community with. Some are anti-endo, some are pro-endo, some are neutral -- but all are willing to look past labels and discuss like adults.

And that is why I use sysmed.

I'm pro-endo, fully and completely. I medicalize myself and my own disorder only. I only have the word sysmed tacked on because so many individuals have chosen to label me with it that I am preemptively calling myself that; if people try to argue with me by simply shouting that I'm a sysmed, I can now shoot back "Yes, we all know that, it's in my pinned post. Now actually tell me why my point is wrong, instead of attacking a label." It takes away the power of an insulting, often transphobic term.

It's the same reason I use it/it's pronouns on other blogs of mine (though I'm not as comfortable with them here). I have been dehumanized for so long that it became part of who I am. Same with sysmed. I do not agree with the ideology that led to the term, but because I use the term as an identifier, I can now work against that ideology without being hurt by the inevitable harassment.

You say my views are otherwise pro-endo. Yes! That's the point. If an individual cannot look past the label on a blog and see that they agree with the content -- just like how both pro-endos and anti-endos refuse to look past labels and see just how much they have in common with the others blogs -- then they have no place here.

[hiccupmistress]

On Fandoms and Discussions Therein

One of my favorite things to do is analyse media and artistic expression, be it TV, film, books, or any of it, and form my own interpretations of it, but then, more importantly, to discuss those interpretations with other people. See how other people read those works, compare and contrast different viewpoints. Unfortunately, fandoms make that hard.

I love Star Trek, so, so much. I want to discuss it with people, I want to share my interpretations of it, both on specific details and on the franchise on the whole. But lately, its been getting harder and harder to do so.

A mutual on Twitter just burned bridges with me over a respectful disagreement about differences between Strange New Worlds and Picard. They accused me of having a “bad faith” argument and trying to force my way of enjoying Star Trek onto them. I try never to do that.

If I ever come across as frustrated or gatekeep-ey in a discussion, that’s never my intent. I want to learn, understand and celebrate other fans’ points of view. If there’s the kind of discussion going on that I disagree with to such an extent that I wouldn’t be able to discuss it calmly, I simply don’t engage with it. If I’m engaging in a discussion about a fandom material, be it Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who or anything else, I’m trying to have an honest to goodness conversation. I might be trying to get across my point of view, sure, but that’s usually for the sake of comparing and contrasting your point of view, that I just want to learn more about.

This isn’t just about Twitter, by the way. I’ve had experiences like this on Reddit and YouTube. From what I’ve seen of Tumblr so far, things are mostly more respectful, despite the site’s reputation as a bit of a nasty fandom space. Maybe Tumblr’s changed over time, or maybe I simply don’t use it enough to see the nasty stuff. Honestly, I’m a little afraid to try and discuss Star Trek on here in any serious manner. That’s why I started this as a gimmick account with parody-esque episode titles and synopses.

It saddens me, because I NEVER want to gatekeep or yuck people’s yums. There are people in every fandom that insist on taking even the best-faith discussions as arguments.

My display name is different for each of these sites, I’m not expecting people to recognise me and go “Oh yeah, that’s the person who only wants good faith discussion, better respect them and them in particular!”. That’s not my point. This isn’t about me or how people interact with me. Its about fandom spaces in general - again, not just Star Trek.

Nobody should have to be called “stupid” for having a specific interpretation of the Narkina prison in Star Wars: Andor

Nobody should be accused of being a “fake fan” for liking Jodie Whittaker’s Doctor over Peter Capaldi’s

Those are things that have been said to me, but its happening in every fandom to tons of genuine, intelligent fans of things.

We don’t have to agree on everything. On the contrary, its talking about our different views that I enjoy. Its about respect. I make no secret about Voyager being my least-favorite aspect of the Star Trek franchise, and I may often share my reasons for disliking it, but I would never dream of trying to take it away from those who do like it. Quite the opposite, I hope that fans of it will engage me in discussion about the aspects I don’t like. Maybe they’ll change my mind, maybe they won’t, but that’s what I want. Discussion, not arguments.

There’s so much great art and fables and works of fiction in the world, we don’t have time in our lifespans to lash at each other’s throats over the shape of a warp nacelle or how the Force works. But we do have time to talk about those things. That’s all I want.

UPDATE: The Twitter mutual reached out and we’ve both made amends. I’m relieved that was able to happen on this particular occasion. There have been many similar occasions where that hasn’t been the case, but this time, its very meaningful that they were willing to talk it out. <3

[destinygoldenstar]

Here’s a way to play fair with everyone’s opinions and open room for friendly argument:

I will not shut out opinions that disagree with me. I will be tolerant. The last thing I want to do is force people to see through my eyeballs and not their own.

If you can come up with a reblog that has a good enough analysis, even if it’s critiquing my POV on a matter or saying an opinion I don’t share, I’ll tag you on a post as a gateway for my own followers to see your blog and give you a chance. Same goes for if you make any solo post about something and send a link to me. I will post that link and help promote it. Doesn’t matter if it’s about an opinion I do not agree with. Respect should be earned, after all.

Some criticism is kind of inspirational on points of views.

I will not do this for any personal attacks towards me just because of my opinion. That is not making a point, that is cyber bullying. Please, keep it impersonal and on topic on what you say and don’t attack people. And don’t think you’re entitled. Nobody’s opinions are the truth, especially not mine. I once saw somebody say that Madoka Magica was the worst anime out there, and my only response was: “Huh. That’s certainly a way to look at it.” And I think that show is a masterpiece. Same goes for Hunger Games, I know there’s haters out there and I’m okay with their existence.

For example on how I do this, with my more recent analysis post about screen time.

@foulfirerebel sent a reblog on that post regarding my section about RWBY, and gave a perspective on the show I would’ve never seen otherwise. I heavily respect them for that, as I was genuinely curious about the appeal after I read their response. It’s made me decide to give the show a sixth chance, and let me tell you I am going to write down every single one of my thoughts. Yes I did watch the show all the way through 1-8 about 5 times if I can recall, but I confess my last viewing was over a year ago, because of personal reasons. (Cyber bullying, a fallout with a family member at the time so that was bad timing, etc. Anxiety sucks.)

So I’d encourage trusting his reblog’s word on that show’s matter than my own take.

Is Screen Time A Valid Character Criticism?

This is the post with the reblog to see what they said. And go support their blog.

I will do this for any post/reblog messages towards me that I see, whether it’s about my own takes or not. That definitely goes for any takes I have going forward.

Have a great day to all of you!

[tatiejosie]

♾️

OH LETS GOOOO IT'S ONE OF MY ABSOLUTE FAVORITE PERSONA OST????

🔫 I got Pull the Trigger from Persona Q2!

I'll embrace being the cringiest mf of the entire internet when it comes to this series, I legit don't give a fuck. It's not hyperbolic when I say that Persona supported me during my darkest hours, and P5 music is my unconditional comfort media when I need to remember why I want to live.

🎀 my favorite parts

There ain't the perfect time for any big change Especially when not ready More time seems more brutal 'till it catches you Either you go with flow or force it without Determination But you're not alone in this complication So come with me On your mark Y'all get set Then pull the trigger and go Make a move before they can make an act on you No one but you can change your own world Ain't nobody else will do it for you

Some of my regrets come hunting me 'til this day Choice I made, it was wrong How thoughtless to believe that I was alone I learned it harder way but you don't have to go through what I've been through Cause you're not alone in this frustration

I think that the overall vibe of the song is empowering and uplifting, but I can't help but focus on the parts of it that highlight the fact that we're in this together. It feels like you're awakening someone into the politics of their struggle - most likely, a struggle that you're also facing.

When lost, look around you For a sec, you may feel lonely But you are not alone in this world We're right here with you

Coincidence - nah I chose to meet you Destiny I sought and fought through Scarred up but I'm feeling good Move destiny I'm coming through Partner we can do this right You are the fire I'm the wind tonight Burn your dread haha that's right Baby baby baby we tight*

*When Lotus Juice makes little references to his previous Persona/SMT OSTs => 🥲😭🥺

I'm aspiring to work in the socio-medical field, more specifically in the mental health domain. I don't want to just listen and toss medication, I want to genuinely untangle situations and guide people towards a path of hope and strength. I don't want anyone to go through what I've been through and worse. I want people to know that they've been wronged, to know that they have rights, to reclaim justice.

With brightest rings Yo I pull the trigger Make it look flashy, even when it's bitter Cannot defeat me even when I lose I stand right✫ Back to the spot go figure You don't see What I see But you don't have to see what I see Just see eye to eye Despite my differences We are still tight

✫I'm generally sloppy, but I still like to save face. I just like these lines.

I enjoy encountering different profiles and opinions, some that I wouldn't agree with, and allow them to understand me through my understanding of them. Discussing with people who think differently and disagreeing respectfully while working together towards a common goal, is probably one of the healthiest interactions you can have. People have different upbringings, cultural beliefs/opinions and humanity cannot align on one specific line of morals. What matters is that we respect that, and stay comprehensive and united. [this does NOT apply to bigoted views. I'm referring to intersectional discussions among oppressed groups]

So, uh, yea

This is the vibe that saved my life. All the depressive nihilism and despair was turned into anger and energy towards the real culprit - the system. Hopelessness is not an option when your suffering is caused by injustice, when your loved ones and all the other people who go through similar pain are also fighting to change the world. And I sincerely hope that what I'm trying to convey here has an impact on you, no matter how small, because I really wish I could pass this hope on to people who need it. ❤️

also please listen to Persona OSTs they're really good

[anamericangirl]

That's not saying "it's natural so it's good." That's saying "if you remove someone from their natural environment because you want them to die that is murder."

What you don’t understand is that I’m not arguing it’s not killing intentionally. I never was. I think you’re the one who lacks reading comprehension. My entire point is that it’s justified because no other life has an automatic right to your body without your ongoing consent.

The way you’re using a naturalistic fallacy is in the way the conclusion expresses what ought to be, based only on what is, or what ought not to be, based on what is not. If you’re not arguing that a biological process such as pregnancy is natural and therefore should be forced upon to take to full term then why bring up the natural environment environment scenario? The womb being a fetus’s “natural environment “ does absolutely nothing for me because I’m arguing that even if it’s a natural environment, it doesn’t mean the fetus has a right to that environment because it’s another person’s body.

You’re the one who keeps bringing up taking a fetus out of its natural environment is intentionally killing them when yeah? That’s the point of abortion. I’m saying they have a right to do that because nobody has an automatic right to your body. I’m asking you to tell where it says that the right to life automatically means the right to someone else’s body.

And you’re not understanding my hypothetical scenario. I asked you if you simply were to take a non-viable fetus out of the womb, would it survive? No it would not. So why is it that the fetus that can’t sustain a life without my body has an automatic right to my body? You already agreed that you can’t consent to a biological process but I can retract my consent to whether or not to continue a pregnancy . If you disagree, why is that? You haven’t explained to me why i shouldn’t be allowed to not sustain the life of another person with my body.

You have the right to life but not at the expensive of another person’s body which is what you’re arguing. Explain to me why and how the right to life would automatically translate to a non-viable fetus having the right to my body without using a naturalistic fallacy.

You keep saying that I can’t name another example of where your body is being used to sustain the life of another person except in pregnancy/abortion and you don’t find the organ donation scenario valid ( which is the most similar scenario ) so what exactly are you looking for? What other instance would another human be literally using my body to survive?

You’re being purposely dense. There’s a reason why we can refuse to sustain the life of anyone using our bodily organs. Even if you purposely injured another person and made them dependent on your bodily organs ( or anyone else’s ) they still wouldn’t have the right to your body. Even if they are convicted and charged for a crime , their bodily autonomy rights are still in place. Their consequences don’t include giving up their bodily organs. There’s no instance where a person has ever had to give up their body to sustain the life of another. So I’d like you explain why you think it should be the case in terms of abortion.

Once again, no, the naturalistic fallacy is not what I'm using.

"You’re the one who keeps bringing up taking a fetus out of its natural environment is intentionally killing them when yeah? That’s the point of abortion."

Thanks for admitting abortion is murder and you don't have a problem with killing babies because you apparently view violently murdering innocent babies as a right that must be protected. Fuck those babies, right? If their mom doesn't "consent" to their existence let's just violently murder them. If they're not wanted they have no right to live. That's a fucking evil position to defend.

"You keep saying that I can’t name another example of where your body is being used to sustain the life of another person"

That is not what I said you couldn't find an example of.

"so what exactly are you looking for? What other instance would another human be literally using my body to survive?"

What I am looking for, as I explained to you over and over and over again, is any situation where bodily autonomy lets you intentionally kill another human being. It doesn't have to be one where you're using organs to sustain. You keep adding that qualifier as if I asked for it and then using it to justify not being able to come up with one.

If bodily autonomy trumps the right to life then it will happen in all situations where there is a risk to an innocent life.

So if bodily autonomy trumps the right to life why are mask and vaccine mandates ok?

Why is it ok to stop people from driving drunk?

Why shouldn't we let people commit suicide?

Why can't people sell their own organs?

Why can't I stab a toddler?

Don't bring up using organs to sustain a life because it doesn't just apply to organs and using them to sustain a life. We're not using your made up definition anymore. We're using the real one. And the real one says bodily autonomy is the right to govern your own body. That's it. That's the right. It covers using organs to sustain a life but that is not the one and only thing it covers, which you are ignorantly claiming is the case.

Bodily autonomy is the right to govern your own body. It's not the right to govern anyone else's body and it's not the right to commit to murder which is the response to every point you laid out. You have failed to show in any capacity that bodily autonomy trumps the right to life. You've stated that is the case, but you can't give me an example of it being true.

I'm saying your reading comprehension is bad because it is. There is not a single time you have correctly repeated my argument back to me. You've got it 100% wrong every single time.