Credits to my man Finn and his grandboy's pet (im not a pet 3:<) Pretzel for helping me work this out!
[Image ID: A banner that says: ‘To break free from the JRWI RP industrial complex, feel free to block the ‘#just role(play) with it’ tag. End Image ID.]
Figured if my niece could be on here, it'd be fun to talk to her besides a one use a day conchshell! You may have heard of me from the Black Rose Pirates (or that one chapter of Finn's book, whoops), but it's your old man Drey! I normally use he/they/it, but at this point I'm not one to be picky.
I've been told also about some person called @lesbianchipbastard? They wanted me to check them out, are you trying to impersonate chip? wait is that me on that profi-
hey guys. this is my 5th fucking rp blog. @s0lar-ch3ri hello me STOP YOUR CRAZY SLASH POS
before we get into tags, this will absolutely have spoilers for riptide! im not gonna be the best at playing drey, but i can certainly try! i forgot to mention this, ooc i love he/she/it but will tolerate others (please give me neos id love to experiment lol)
#sureshots - asks
#differently aimed target - ooc
#a ferins fire - in character
#together we fly our flag - interactions
#milfs perchance - the weird midground of ooc and in character (did this to shame a friend)
#certainly a hotshot - made this to bully a friend, why not give them a fun tag :D
#beast time to type - pretzels helping out drey (retired and no longer used)
#finn-er winner - finns typing for drey (retired and no longer used)
if neither tag is used assume its text to speech
18 notes
·
View notes
Me, a physically disabled (high support needs) neurodivergent (mid to high support needs) person: Hey, my neurodivergence IS extremely disabling in a way that a lot of you say "isn't possible" and also my physical and neurological disabilities often combine in ways that can't be separated and produce symptoms that are new or of added severity for me.
Responses I've gotten from disabled exclusionists (some of whom are also both physically disabled and neurodivergent):
"What drugs are you on, you delusional freak?"
"I've never experienced this and therefore you're a dirty lying physically abled neurodivergent person who just wants to be more disabled and oppressed than you are. My experiences are universal and anyone who has different experiences is a lying liar. No one can ever prove otherwise because my axiom is that anyone who claims otherwise is lying."
"The ableds are at it again."
"Sit down and let the REAL disabled people talk."
"You're never allowed to find similarities between disabilities that are of different types, even ones you have, and if you do you're actually the reason why accessibility is such an issue because conflating them is why ableist doctors don't give us what we need and why society thinks medical gatekeeping is good, actually."
"If you're that suicidal do us all a favor and kill yourself."
This is without even getting into stuff about how disabled labels often apply differently to systems. The big discourse now is "nonverbal" labels for headmates who are permanently, always nonverbal, primarily by people and systems who refuse to view systems as anything but "parts" of a single person. Which is funny to me because ah yes, we have actual studies showing physical disabilities such as allergies can apply only to individual headmates, but gods forbid you apply a neurological label to someone whose brain activity is not only visibly different on scans from yours, but to the extent that it changes your entire shared physical body!
Like here's a novel idea: maybe we could just stop policing how other disabled people talk about their disabilities forever! Maybe we could blame any and all harm done even from the unicorn-rarity "actual fakers/liars" (also don't think I don't see you being ableist against people with actual diagnosed that cause compulsive lying) on the ableists DOING the harm because it's actually perfectly possible for them not to cherrypick our words and listen to the MAJORITY of us!
Maybe, just maybe, we could form a coalition, focus on the REAL enemy (ableist medical professionals and lawmakers) and push for actual change for ALL of us!
36 notes
·
View notes
-Why do you need to differentiate between physical and mental disability? Why do you feel you NEED cripplepunk and madpunk to be totally separate spaces? What happens to the people who straddle both when they immediately run into gatekeeping? Especially when it's largely thinly veiled hate towards neurodivenges and those "obnoxious loud" autistics "taking up space?"
-What harm comes from there being people in your "space" with slightly different experiences of disability than you, knowing that will always be the case even if someone had your exact diagnoses? If that harm is "people who have it better off talking over me," why don't you have boundaries or moderators to make sure voices will be heard? Who decides "they" have it better off? Than who? If that harm is a loss of resources, what resources? The ones that are constantly at risk of being cut because they don't serve enough people to justify costs, or the ones the government offers through intensive severe violating means-testing you're echoing in your "safe spaces?"
-Where's the line? How mentally ill, how homeless, how hospitalized do you have to be before it can be admitted to affect the physical aspects of your life? How physically disabled do you need to be to qualify? What is the point of pushing the imposter syndrome we all suffer from, and are gaslighted with as doctors tell us we're fine or it's in our heads, into our COMMUNITIES?
-Who benefits here?? By creating more and more insular communities, by using the words of someone who created a movement as immovable proof that that movement cannot change or evolve or encompass more? By gatekeeping people whose quality of life has already been deeply impacted by disability? By re-enacting the worst parts of TERF queer gatekeeping and claiming it's so totally different this time (despite having all of the cons and literally no pro) bc DISABILITY?
If your disability pride, spaces, or understanding is dependent on the idea that there are physically disabled people who have it Worse Off totally separate from the mentally ill who have it Better, you're either a psyop or so far up your own ass you needed to continue forcing false delineations of who is Better and Worse, Good and Bad, just to exist in a space. And no one needs that kind of activism
11 notes
·
View notes
If Edelgard starts a war on cats it would be a CATastrophe.
Bad pun aside, it really speaks volumes when people are so enamored and defensive about their fave that they're willing to say "racism, genocide and terrorism is good actually". Fiction may not affect reality most of the time, but it exposes views that some people share that makes you go "yikes.".
I can't believe I didn't even think of that when I wrote it LOL.
For people missing the context, this ask is in response to a reply I wrote on another post.
When it comes to media, it's one thing if there's nuance to the situation and it's not as direct (is she being brainwashed? Controlled? Forced? Somehow unaware? Shown to be conflicted about her actions/what she says? etc). In her case though that's not present and she means what she says. Even still, liking her as a character is fine.
It's different when people start using real life situations or making outright harmful rhetoric, which is something they do both to lift their favorite up and to vilify her enemies (which is why they have to reach so hard, and farther than their arms actually can reach to make up reasons to hate Dimitri. It's not him, it's the fact that they hate anyone who opposes Edelgard, and if Edegard wants them dead they also want them dead. Unfortunately that also turned into demonizing those with mental illness).
Fiction in and of itself doesn't affect reality or indicate what a person is like irl, but their behavior toward others is no longer fiction. Story wise you could argue it makes an interesting character to have these flaws and villainous traits, but it's another story entirely when people double down to insist their characters' actions are just and they go into detail to force it down people's throats - 99.99% of the time unprompted, when that character actively associates with people who have willingly and intentionally committed genocide and aims to do the same herself by finishing the job.
Which you'd think she wouldn't because... those same people wiped out all her siblings, but okay. Somehow the CoS is worse than them. I guess bc Agarthans are human at the end of the day, so no matter how inhumane and atrocious their actions are, they get a pass as long as there's a non-human in the vicinity. Racism typically goes hand in hand with genocide, so. Yeah.
It's not even just that though - it's how the arguments go that indicates if a person is just trying to defend their favorite. If they start brainlessly spewing harmful rhetoric at real people, and if what they say would actively defend real life issues, it's concerning. It's the manner in which they defend their favorite. If the way they argue is exactly how American-hard-rights defend themselves, it starts becoming uncomfortable for people and no longer applies to just fiction.
If what you argue sounds exactly what irl politics sounds like, that's a pretty powerful indicator of who you're dealing with. It doesn't matter if they are or claim to be American-left (specifying because Random said it's different in Europe!). If their arguing points shit on all the values American-lefts stand for, they are not, whether they like it or not, arguing for the left (which all stans claim to do, and then they start regurgitating American-right political stances, extremely often at the expense and discomfort of actual American-lefts. Might I remind you that one of them, a straight man, used abortion and gay marriage both being legally in jeoprady as a gotcha to argue for Edelgard).
It doesn't matter what you claim you're doing. If your arguments actually start reflecting things that can be real, you need to be careful about how you word it. Houses deals with a political atmosphere very heavily, which shouldn't have really been a problem... but it got too close to real life politics within the fandom and people's true colors started to show.
It should have been "I love Edelgard but damn some of what she does is fucked up" and not trying to vehemently defend every singular word she's ever said. As I've mentioned in my very lengthy "why the writing failed Edelgard", the writing is partly to blame for people being divided on her, but it's the fans' own faults if they can't draw a line between liking her character and supporting things in a way that makes it sound like you'd support them irl.
It's even worse that all that nonsense picked up really badly right around the time Ukraine got invaded and Putin was out there spewing nonsense. It became a sensitive issue to have people defending Edelgard invading other countries proudly with false claims/propaganda, because the arguments fell perfectly to a T in line with what Putin was doing.
Evidently that didn't matter to the people who never touch grass and waste their time and energy only thinking of defending Edelgard instead of just enjoying her character, but then, they don't really even enjoy her character; they just enjoy their made up version of her who fights for what they want her to fight for instead of realizing what she's actually doing. These people would be damn easy bait for irl politics and it shows. Dangerously.
So for anyone arguing about your fictional favorites, remember that context is important and how you treat the topic(s) at hand are just as important. I absolutely adore a villain just like Edelgard because of good writing, and there are points I can actually defend him (if you've been on this blog for more than like a week you prooOOOObably know who I'm referring to AT THIS POINT lmao). That doesn't mean I'm going to call invasion, racism, etc good and just for his better talking points to be achieved.
In my opinion Edelgard ended up poorly written because the writers wanted to be bias in the context of the story but couldn't properly justify the atrocities. I'll be honest, if this is how they handle (main) female villains, I'd rather just not have them. I'd rather go back to the days of Petrine and Hilda who were side villains and allowed to be as disgusting and horrendous as they wanted.
If writing a lead villain who is female won't work because they can't stop pushing their bias into the writing (don't even look at poor Petra, she got SKEWERED in CF and especially in SB) and it reflects poorly, I just don't want it. I know men at the writing table for some wild reason throughout the years have been unable to properly write females (which like, why. Just write human beings. But no, they seem to act like females are a different entity entirely), but if that's going to remain the case, I don't want them to write them in situations like these because they clearly can't handle it. They treat Edelgard as a trophy wife who has to be perfect for them and not as a complex, legitimate person.
Mind you, I also made a post before about how Edelgard is separated from other female villains by being drawn as "attractive". Ishtar gets treated much better than other female villains as well, with Heroes going as far as to outright shit on canon and give her an alt where she "joins the Liberation Army", which... the whole point of her character and her fighting in that war was that she was on the opposite side but wasn't a bad person. I could argue similar things for Burian, but that's more headcanon/literally based on just his death quote lmfao.
Point being, Ishtar is drawn to be attractive. Petrine and Hilda are not, and are outright villainous, terrible, not complex people at all (Hilda is a hypocrite, but she's not complex). Edelgard was drawn to be attractive, and was thus not treated like a villain proper. Unfortunately this got warped into the fandom we know now, but... like we both said, the way they argue for her is pretty telling and honestly pretty scary. Let's not forget that they've spewed death threats at people simply for not liking Edelgard.
No, that last sentence was not a joke nor an exaggeration. In a way it makes sense though, considering they defend genocide, racism, etc.
4 notes
·
View notes