#it's just so inaccurate and excluding so many people

[katya-goncharov]

i do really truly hate how in this past year or so people have started using the term neurodivergent as a synonym for just autism and adhd

[survivalove]

ATLA fandom and removing Katara’s agency and POV

Recently, I came across the following thread where OP proceeded to uplift the following ships to diminish Kataang, on the supposed basis of Katara’s agency and pov (or lack thereof).

I decided to keep all their points and pictures to show a holistic analysis of the show, which they themselves fail to do.

Firstly, on the topic of loss, Kataang has multiple moments where they connect over their losses.

At first, Katara tries to tell Aang that his people may be lost by opening up about her mother, but he is obviously in denial. It is only when he sees Gyatso’s body (like Katara did when her mom passed) that he accepts the loss of his people and her comfort.

I also want to note that this is a recurring pattern of Aang struggling to accept Katara’s comfort at first, despite these shippers’ claims that he easily accepts her “coddling/mothering”.

Kataang as seen in Katara’s pov:

This is easily the most inaccurate part of the thread and shows how shippers fail to acknowledge Katara as a character unless she is with their preferred love interest.

Kataang’s relationship is framed in Katara’s point of view multiple times, especially in these episodes.

Next, Katara’s boundaries:

Once again, they exclude the frames where Katara exercises her agency — pushing him away and telling him off, removing her pov from the scene all on their own. Furthermore on the issue of being violated, what is her point of view when she’s tied to a tree, or when her grandmother is being roughed up and tossed around?

This is part of a greater issue where shippers genuinely believe the misogyny in the writing room is exclusive to a single ship and would somehow be resolved if the female character ended up with… another man.

On Katara’s grief,

Honestly, this has to be the second most dishonest and laughable part of the thread (don’t worry we’ll strike gold soon), so I’m not even going to validate it with more than these pics:

Lastly, the ship in question:

I just find the lightning pic so funny in this context like what?? Like I said earlier, Kataang is shown from Katara’s pov multiple times, but here’s more pics because when your ship has the material!

Aang has seen Katara at her worst multiple times, either stepping in, comforting her or giving her advice (just like Katara has done for him many times, unprompted I might add) because he knows her and has seen her very hostile reactions towards Jet and Hama when they tried to use her as a tool for their revenge. Mind you, this same advice her literal brother and eventually Zuko himself agree with.

Also I always found it pretty weird how Zuko (ahem the writers) set this up so that she can forgive him right after he failed to understand why she was the last one to do so in the beginning of the episode, but anyway…

Lastly, both Aang and Katara have opened to each other in incredibly significant ways. Aang opens up to Katara about the monks and why he disappeared. She is the only person to know this side of him. Meanwhile, Katara tells him about her mother and opens up her family to him, and even in the most platonic interpretations, how is that not the most significant way to open up to someone?

[literallyspiderwoman]

Unpopular opinion: Most Gwen fanart looks nothing like her.

Now before I go on a little rant, I want to make it clear that there are LOTS of great and accurate Gwen fanart and tysm to the artists who have made those 🫶🏻 BUT, there are a lot of Gwen fanart that is straight up disgusting.

It’s not usually on Tumblr, but on other apps there tends to be a pattern of really sexual Gwen art.

Take Pinterest for example, yes there are many accurate Gwen fanart(s?), but most of it is just NSFW, or Ai generated. OR both!

And if it isn’t one of those two, then it’s usually inaccurate as hell and looks nothing like her. I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve seen Gwen fanart excluding her tooth gap, this bugs me the MOST. I know it’s just a small detail but it’s SO CUTE and when artists actually include it in their Gwen art and it makes me so so happy <33

Now about the NSFW fanart, I have seen SO many artists draw Gwen with a massive rear and huge titties, it’s disgusting. She’s literally small chested. I swear half of these Gwen fanarts look like they were made by horny guys or people who specifically draw porn.

Next, the Ai generated ‘art’. I don’t think I need to elaborate on this very much. Ai generated ‘art’ is effortless, and it pisses me off so much when I see people posting it and claiming it as their own. This applies to any Ai character ‘art’, not just Gwen. There is literally no effort involved, you just open some random Ai website and type in a prompt like “Uhh hot Gwen art with big boobs” and boom, you now have your ‘art’. The amount of times I’ve seen Ai generated NSFW ‘art’ of Gwen (or any atsv character atp) is actually concerning, and considering the fact that she’s a minor is even worse. Yeah the sexual art is bad, but when you think about her age- Ew. She’s like 16 leave my girl alone 😭

But again, thanks to all the artists who actually draw Gwen accurately, I love you guys smmmmm auaaushfh

[maolong]

Yesterday I ended up spending too much time creating this diagram in order to describe yuri, and now I feel a need to actually go in and explain the description.For the purposes of this diagram, Yuri is described as some level of relationship between two girls (This will be explained why girls here is in part inaccurate) that is deeper in some form then their relationship is with others too a degree that it is an important aspect of the narrative, characters, and/or framing of the story in such a way that it can be construed as having a romantic or similar tone to it either in an overt or an implied manner. Similar tone here can be used to describe things such as rivalries, sexual attraction, pure lust, hatred, basically anything that is in some way an intense emotional relationship between the two. In this case, two characters who are friends may be excluded from being considered Yuri because they do not have an intense emotional bond in the relationship, because it is secondary to their relationship with other characters (In terms of emotional depth usually, narrative importance has never stopped yuri shipping or yuri bait from being applied), or because the friendship is largely unimportant in it's role for the story or the characters. Other reasons are possible but are often less used.

Now it's time for a definition of terms, I will try to use specific examples of relationships when discussing these, and as such it will contain spoilers. I will make an attempt to give proper warning but if Tumblr has a way of spoiler text I don't know what it is so expect spoilers to be forewarned but not hidden.

Starting off we have 'Pure Yuri,' I'll be using Sakura trick as an example later on so if you don't want to be spoiled for it (Not that I'm sure that you can really be spoiled about it). Pure Yuri is yuri that is emblematic of the common image of yuri from the mid to late 2010s online or in general culture that would be aware of such. Pure Yuri tends to be Yuri where both characters are aware that they have feelings for each other, and reciprocate them in a way that acknowledges both parties feelings, and in a way that has genuine affection involved. While it doesn't show a problem free existence, it's typically one in which issues that are a result of the relationship are quickly resolved and/or meaningless or alternatively ones in which they are primarily a result of others people not either of the people involved in said Yuri. Sakura Trick for instance, has the two main characters of it 'Yuu' and 'Haruka' engaging in a romantic relationship with each other through kissing and spending time with just the two of them as a solution to being split apart in class. The issues here are ones that are largely irrelevant, but they do serve as a framing for the focus which is on the relationship between Yuu and Haruka as well as how it's special compared to their other relationships. This focus on the relationship, and it's focus on it as something that is uniquely pure is the cornerstone of a lot of pure yuri. This applies to many forms of Yuri in which the focus is on a lewd relationship as well, and even in these cases it is often times framed as something that is more pure then other forms of lewd behaviors and even sex. Some forms of pure yuri that are focused on lewd behaviors, Virgin's Empire for example doesn't show those involved in the lewd shenanigans afoot as inherently pure (Often times quite the opposite) however, there is still a focus on it being something that all parties are aware of the emotional investment of desire and lust between the parties involved, and being more then happy to engage with those feelings. Pure Yuri ends up being something that is primarily about the relationship between the two girls in a way that is in many ways celebratory of the relationship as well, and this ends up being what defines it. This doesn't mean that the two will end up together, in fact due to some japanese cultural beliefs about the relationships young girls should hold and ideas of tragedy, it is common in a lot of works for them to explicitly not end up together. This has been changing as more and more works come out where the girls do get together in the end.

[the-sappho-of-lesbos]

Okay! Overall thoughts of the new live action adaptation of Avatar

- 10/10 costume and set design. It genuinely felt like that world had come alive visually and it was beautiful to see

- The actors all did really well with what they were given and some actors were assigned perfectly for the roles

- SO MANY STUPID AND UNNECESSARY CHANGES THAT DIDN’T NEED TO HAPPEN!!! They had the time and the money and resources to not change them. Changing them was pointless

- It literally starts off wrong. We see nothing of Aang being excluded by his friends because he is the avatar. He doesn’t even run away , he just flys up to think for a bit and gets caught in the storm. We don’t get to see his turmoil over his role and the guilt he feels from wanting to run away.

- Sooooo much frustration at the lost potential of this show.

- The characters felt like flat versions of who they were in the cartoons. Aang is just sort of there. Sokka isn’t all that funny (and he took some other characters’ lines) and Katara lost ALL her spunkiness.

- The change as to who Zuko’s crew were was really good in my opinion

- The small and subtle changes in scenes (like Zuko at the war meeting or how Pakku responds to Katara fighting him) made me so frustrated because it took away from the impact

- The characterisation of Sokka and Katara’s dad was sooooooo off. He’s a completely different character and says things his cartoon counterpart would never. Also the fact Sokka did actually do his ice dodging thing ??? That took away from a pain of his character

- In the original cartoon some of the romances could feel a tad choppy at times but it’s ten times worse in this adaptation. We don’t even get to see Sokka like try to woe Yue. They just like each other

- speaking of why can she travel to the spirit world as a fox. Why did they make it so Katara and Sokka went to the spirit world. Why change that.

- SO. MUCH. TELLING. NO. SHOWING. We are TOLD allllllllll these things about the characters but hardly ever shown it. Even though they had the time to do it !! We are told Aang is a goofy kid wayyyyy more then we are ever shown it.

- removing imperative plot points and shoving them together with other ones. No people living in the air temples. No town Jet wants to let me destroyed. No Pakku recognising Katara’s strength in after their fight , only when she talks to him in the war

- the moon and ocean spirits where just sort of thrown in at the end

- Azula was shown to already have a rocky relationship with her dad which again took away from what happens later when she cracks

-the plot points about Zuko and his relationship to Zhao got all mixed up and weird

Overall I stand by my comment that watching this show felt like eating the world’s most beautiful cake only for it to taste like nothing. I was more frustrated then anything watching this because it could have been good. It could have been sooooo good. The foundations were there. The budget was there. The design was there. But for some reason they felt the need to make all these little changes that made it feel more like someone was inaccurately recounting the show while also striping the characters of what makes them who they are.

[obscurecharactershowdown]

Before I reveal the contestants, I want to shout out some characters that didn't end up getting in, for one reason or another, but stood out to me

Prince Peasley (Superstar Saga): I mentioned him as a character I really enjoyed learning about, but since he won the Luigi ship competition, I'm unsure of his obscurity status and he may overpower the other characters. I'm sorry your highness, please know I love you

Francis York Morgan (Deadly Premonition): I was stunned to see not one, but 2 people submit this character. I'm endlessly entertained by his weird ass game. He would've been a shoe in had he not been submitted twice. Sorry buddy. Also if he was I would've put in my own propaganda, consisting only of this image

and a video of the squirrels that make monkey noises

Crow T. Robot (Mystery Science Theater 3000): the only reason he's not in is because another MST3K I consider comparatively more obscure was submitted, but I am going to post part of the propaganda for him now because I really loved it and it would be a shame if I was the only one who got to read it:

i have to take a chance on crow, for he is my #1 blorbo and my favorite mst3k character since forever. i charted out a whole TIMELINE for him and there's like. 4-6 of him just existing in various locations. he's shaped like a friend. he can be folded into a torpedo. he has legs and i constantly forget this until he has them on-screen and i'm like OH SHIT this guy is mostly leg (he's around 5'4"). he managed to kill mike (the human guy he lives with in space) TWICE on accident and neither time stuck. all of his presentations are insane and completely factually inaccurate. he claimed women were myths like bigfoot in a short-film style black and white presentation. he's friendly/friends? with pearl, one of the main antagonists (and a woman, who he just claimed didn't exist). he can play the trombone. he just kinda bounces up and down sometimes and is so shaped. he spent 500 years alone because he got bored of being pure energy at the edge of the universe after five minutes. he wrote patrick swayze christmas, the only christmas song ever. he's constantly doing t-rex arms. he keeps falling from extreme heights. to a few ancient romans he's a spider-duck god. he's a bit of a pyromaniac. he went to thanksgiving in deep 13 and walked away unharmed (everyone else got poisoned). he causes an illusion in the theater where it looks like he's staring at you instead of the movie. he's an absolute menace. he contains so much gender yet none at all. he's different! he wants to decide who lives and who dies, and i think he should. he is simply so guy. ty for reading my crow rant sorry for the wall of text

Thank you for this. I love Crow and MST3K too, you are in good company

Mister Qi (Stardew Valley): In the propaganda section, the submitter wrote: "He sucks and I hate him. It'd be really funny if he lost." and it made me laugh

Chuck Cunningham (Happy Days): The submitter's dad told them to submit him and that was also funny to me

Vincenzo (kdrama of the same name): Submitter's dad has a crush on Vincenzo <3

Pioneer 9 (17776): This was the most submitted character, with a total of.....4 submissions! Wow!

Husky (+Anima): This is the second most submitted character, with 3 submissions! I'm sorry to you both but this means you are automatically excluded from being picked for the competition.

Less specifically, shout out to the many characters who were just barely well known enough to drop out of priority. And the major characters/protagonists of major series. A couple were clearly jokes, but several were not.

And all of the characters from albums, commercials, various Real Life Things, myths, some OCs, etc: I have a plan for you. It's not the main bracket, but you are not being left out here. More information on that when the time is right.

Thank you for all your submissions! The list of contestants and their matchups are coming soon!

[lastwave]

Hello, if you have the energy, time and will, would you expand on the recent post you made on how people in fandom talk about the skills and how harry feels about them? Like, what kind of things people say are hurtful/inaccurate/uncomfortable, in relation to disco elysium?

I do not mean to pressure you to educate me on this topic, as it is not the responsibility of the affected to educate unknowing people just because they are affected, of course. I just have not found many sources discussing the microaggression regarding the way some people talk about the skillset in disco elysium and the way that they might differ from the general microsaggression about psychosis and systems.

I ask this because I am curious about the way other people experience the world (though I know I will not always get my curiosity sated and this might be a selfish reason) and I want to know what not to do or say in talks about the skillset or in depictions of the skillset in art or writing. I want to be able to discuss and use the skillset as a game mechanic, narrative device and characters in a way that minimizes harm to marginalized groups. I also know that venting or talking about frustrations can sometimes help make one feel better, (but I also know that that depends on the person, problem and the relationship between the venter and the person listening) so maybe this can help relieve some feelings? Those are my intentions with this ask.

I apologize if my careful wording is too overly careful or if this question in other ways causes you unnecessary strife. I just try to be a careful person when it comes to these topics. If you'd rather only respond to me personally instead of the ask, feel free to message me. Whatever way you wanna handle this, if it be publicly as a post, a private message or if you do not feel like you want to answer at all.

Whatever you choose, I wish you the best day that you can have today. Kind regards, Chromatophorium

hiii thank u for asking!

im gonna preface the system bit with whether or not harry & his skills are a system is never explicitly stated, so take this all with a grain of salt

the rest is under the readmore so i don't clog up peoples dashboards

so what gets me is a lot of works imply the skills are less as people than Harry. i understand where the assumption comes from tho, because a lot of media likes to purport the idea of an "original" alter, which isn't how the disorder works. harry is the current host, and he identifies with the body, but the host isn't any more or less person than the other alters.

& we know the skills have independent thought from harry and their own, even if some (or a lot) of them share similar goals (see electrochemistry and volition, two very different personalities w/ different thoughts on how to go about things, but share a goal of keeping the system experiencing joy, though echem has considerably worse coping mechanisms). hell, they even have different political affiliations (see different routes) and a method of coming to a consensus on information (thought cabinet.)

and, as implied in the name, the skills have different talents from harry. *harry's* talent is connecting with people. i interpret the red checks with other skills as trying to let another alter front. i know ive had moments where i've had to let a way more socially adept alter take over. this would be a slightly different conversation if he was implied to be polyfragmented, but hes not soo.

that's why im less inclined to believe theyre a delusion or supernatural thing (shivers excluded, shes definitely supernatural), bc on the most part the skills just act like people, and all display signs of did/osdd (amnesia, distinct personalities, dissociation, etc.) if u want i can make a separate post going into individual skills and how i think they fit how certain alters form, but thats off topic

ANYWAY. it irks me when people boil the skills down to "this is the one that wants good things and this is the one that wants silly things and this is the one that wants bad things" bc it really falls easily into the negative stereotypes applied to systems & by extension psychotic people

[the-owl-house-takes]

tw: transphobia, homophobia, queerphobia, sexism, suicide mention, racism mention. Long post!

https://www.tumblr.com/the-owl-house-takes/732087162542096384/for-those-who-say-belos-has-never-been-canonically?source=share

Hi! History major here. You are correct that Puritans were homophobic (mostly in regards to gay men - lesbians were generally excluded from persecution; however, this is not acceptance, so much as it is casual sexism. Keep in mind, the targeting of gay man while largely ignoring lesbians is very common practice, even to this day!) Puritans' biggest issue with gay men was that they were firm believers in God's law, and homosexuality contradicted their "one man, one woman" worldview laid out in the Bible. Gay men also might not produce children - and keep in mind how important fertility is for fledgling colonies!

HOWEVER, while Puritans did enact laws against homosexuality (called "sodomy" laws), it's a mistake to claim they were always strictly enforced. Speaking generally (and this is consistent with most - if not all - historical civilizations), Puritans didn't give too many shits about gay men unless they were public about it, or if an accusation was politically convenient.

Your other statement that Puritans were transphobic is a little more complicated to unpack. First off, it's important to note that the idea of people being able to be "transgender" wasn't really a thing until very, very recently. Trans individuals certainly existed historically, but they did not have the language to describe themselves, nor the tools / resources to define themselves, and so they remained isolated cases: community 'oddities', scandalous news segments, and - in the case of intersex individuals - legal dilemmas.

Similarly, transphobia is even newer than transgenderism. Just like the Puritans with homosexuality, as more trans people began to come out in the late 1900's and early 2000's, within America at least, there were not many people who actually gave shits about it unless it was public or convenient for them. It is only within the last couple decades, and even more intensely in the last few years, that we have gotten our more traditional anti-trans bigots - the person you think of when you hear "transphobe", essentially.

Reasons for transphobia are more difficult to pin down than the history of its existence, but I think it's super important to note that it doesn't exist just for the sake of existing - there is a very practical reason for transphobes to be hateful. Ever heard of the "Southern Strategy"? It was a mid-1900's calculated move on the part of Republicans to gain votes by appealing to racism against African Americans. It pushed a lot of white voters further to the right. We see this again now with transphobia. People's discomfort with transgenderism is being used, as I write and as you read, as a political tool to gain votes. It's pushing formerly moderate Republicans or even voters on the fence deeper into conservative right-wing territory.

That was a lot of modern information, so let's move back to the Puritans. In this time period (the early/mid 1600's) they still have no conception of what or who trans people are. Thus, they have no clear enemy to give a shit about. Hopefully now it's a bit easier to understand why it's at best inaccurate to label Puritans transphobic.

I think it also might help to illustrate the point with a thought experiment. Present a trans person to your traditional bigoted conservative in America, and what are the arguments you'll generally hear? (In between the streams of vitriol, I mean.) More likely than not: "It's unnatural" (who cares), "it's unfair to put this sex with that sex on a sport's team" (not how that works), "children are being forced into permanent changes" (they're not), "it's not what Jesus would want" (who cares), "it sets a dangerous precedent" (it doesn't), "predators will use it to enter women's bathrooms" (not how that works), "people regret transitioning" (they don't), etc etc etc.

Now, present that same trans person to a Puritan. Too bad trans people didn't exist then so we can only speculate on what a Puritan might have - oh wait they existed then and we have a whole Wikipedia article on one such individual: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas(ine)_Hall. Hall lived in colonial Virginia and was intersex. They were not systemically persecuted in the sense that laws were already in place to deny them rights; in fact, they were brought to court because they were confusing their neighbors so much! Jamestown ruled they were "both a man and a woman and must dress in male and female clothing simultaneously". The article has a lot of information on them - I encourage anyone interested to give it a read.

But that's before we got ways to transition effectively, you say, so how would your average Puritan react to a modern trans person? We have to assume they'd default to the way they treat gay men: first off, a gander through the Bible to establish precedent. Oh wait, there's nothing in the Bible with explicit laws against it, they would realize. But, they might catch on to: "Male and female he created them..." and feel that trans people are therefore contradicting God's will (just as how gay men contradict God's will that people "be fruitful and multiply"). Then, a Puritan would assess the situation with regard to what would benefit their colony the most. Are trans people producing children? Well, sometimes, but often no. Are they causing confusion and disordering society? Hell yeah! Conclusion? We'll discourage them, but also will probably just ignore them so long as they're mostly quiet about it.

Great, so that was a whole lot of boring historical word-vomit, but what does this mean for Philip Wittebane, you ask? My answer: given how queer-coded he is (this deserves its own post), and given general Puritan attitudes, I'm inclined to believe he does not give any shits about queer people. The most I could see is that he might be uncomfortable with the idea of gay men, and confused by trans people. But, again - on a meta level - his depiction as a character makes this an unlikely stance for him to take.

Lastly, I'll end this by complimenting your take that he is going along with LGBT life in the BI for political convenience. As it is with businesses, so it is with politicians - they'll sign off on anything so long as it nets them popular support! This tendency could be attributed to Belos being a manipulative person, but also keep in mind that sort of opportunism is common practice wherever power can be found.

I hope someone out there found this interesting :)

-

[xenodelic]

On Defining Otherkin

TL;DR - Having a simple, consensus definition for the word otherkin can be helpful for explaining the identity to outsiders and newcomers. However, we reject the idea that any one person or group can authoritatively decide the definition. And we find that the stricter the definition is, the more likely you are to exclude people who would feel at home in our community.

Our inspiration for writing this is in response to recent community discussion in the past few days. Keep in mind, this is not an attack on anyone in particular, nor an attempt to "debunk" anyone or be inflammatory. This post is our opinion about how the word otherkin is defined, and why we believe that imposing strict definitions is harmful to the community. We invite open and honest discussion, either in reblogs / replies or in our DMs if you'd like to speak privately.

Post under the cut.

Here is the "consensus definition" we will be working with, and critiquing, in this post:

Otherkin: An individual who identifies, partially or wholly, as nonhuman on some non-physical level - typically mentally or spiritually. This identity is in some way innate or otherwise involuntary.

This definition is based on what we personally see used most often, and is found in several community-based dictionaries, such as this Alterhuman Dictionary. This does not mean it is "The" definition of otherkin, it is merely one we see used very commonly. Hence why we are using it as the so-called "consensus" definition.

If someone who has never heard of otherkin asked for an explanation, we believe this is a perfectly acceptable starting place. It accurately summarizes quite a large majority of the community, and is a good basis to build off of for further discussion.

So what are our issues with it? We'll go point by point.

1.) Defining otherkin as a non-physical identity. This portion of the definition is technically accurate in the sense that the vast majority of the community do not consider themselves to be physically nonhuman. Otherkin experiences most often exist on a psychological or spiritual level. It would absolutely be inaccurate to say that otherkin IS a physical identity.

However, strictly excluding those who experience their nonhumanity on a physical level leaves out large swaths of the community. While its not quite as common anymore, there has historically been members of the community who considered themselves to be genetically nonhuman. This can include changelings, those who believe that their ancestors had children with nonhuman beings, those who believe their DNA has been altered in some way, and many more. We ourselves believe that we have lycanthropic DNA tracing back to distant ancestors.

There are also those who simply consider their body to be a nonhuman body. "I am nonhuman, and this is my body, therefore it is a nonhuman's body." This is not necessarily a denial of one's physiology, simply a statement of one's self determination about the nature of their body.

More information about those who are physically nonhuman.

This definition also excludes people with Clinical Lycanthropy as well as some Endels. Not all CLs and Endels consider themselves to be otherkin, but many do!

The point we are trying to make is that while otherkin is generally a non-physical identity - experiencing your nonhumanity on a physical level does not and should not exclude you from being otherkin.

2.) Defining otherkin as involuntary. Same logic applies here as with the previous point. Otherkin identities are generally involuntary, and the vast majority did not choose to otherkin. It would be inaccurate to say that otherkin is a choice for most people.

However, identity alteration is absolutely an option for some people. Many people have fluid identities, and some choose to move towards a different experience of the self.

Believe me, I know this is a sensitive topic, especially for those who have experienced the trauma of others trying to forcibly change something about them. Just because some people out there voluntarily alter their identity, that DOES NOT mean you chose yours, or that you can or should change yourself in anyway.

All it means is that people are not static. Not everybody was "born this way" and that's ok! And just like people should respect that one person's identity is innate, we should also respect that for others it might not be.

There has been much written about otherlinkers and copinglinkers who began with a voluntary identity that eventually became involuntary over time. Many linkers consider their linktype to have become a kintype. Some people gained a nonhuman identity through magical rituals. Others had an identity alteration after trauma, or some other life-changing event. Some system members gain a nonhuman identity after voluntarily fusing with another system member. There has always been multiple theories to how people can be otherkin, and several of them include some level of intentional connection.

Hell, even tracing community history back to its very beginnings, the Silver Elves believed that wanting to be an Elf was enough for you to be one!

So in general, a kintype is very rarely a choice, but there are some people who gained it through voluntary means, whether directly or indirectly. That does not make their identity any less genuine than an involuntary one, and it certainly does not exclude them from being otherkin.

On page 66-67 of Orion Scriber's Directory, you can find several writings about becoming nonhuman, as well as those who are no longer nonhuman.

We also strongly recommend reading aestherian's essay on the history of voluntary identities in the community.

3.) Defining otherkin as strictly nonhuman. This is a tricky one to explain. Again, otherkin has always been defined as a nonhuman identity, so it's perfectly accurate to explain it that way. However, we do think there is room for exceptions.

One possible exception to the rule being human fictionkin. Many human fictionkin consider themselves separate from otherkin, which is totally fine. However, some consider their experiences to be very similar to otherkin. Especially if their human fictotype has traits that are not standard to this world's humans - such as superpowers, magic, or physical traits such as being born with purple or pink eyes. These deviations may cause a fictionkin to relate more to nonhumans, despite technically being human by the standards of their source.

Some nonhuman system members do not consider their nonhuman identity to be a kintype, instead they may be an extranth or something else entirely. However, nonhuman system members can have human fictotypes - thus the "other" in "otherkin" would actually be the human identity, rather than the nonhuman identity.

There are lesser known groups who identify as no-longer extant human ancestors and other hominids, such as Homo Erectus and Neanderthals. These definitely blur the line between human and not, but we would argue that they are certainly "other"!

And yes, we do think someone with a fact-type (factkin, etc) could consider themselves otherkin if they feel their experiences align. We know this subject is touchy, and we don't have time to get into in-depth, but the point is about whether or not the individual feels that their experiences align with others in the community.

We think its perfectly acceptable to define otherkin as being a nonhuman identity, but there should be room for others who fall in unusual categories or relate to nonhumans in general.

Again, this is on a case-by-case basis and is up to the individual to define whether they feel they fall under the otherkin umbrella. If one relates to otherkin experiences or feels at home in the community, one should have the right to self determine themselves as such. Even if they "don't fit" the standard definition.

4.) "Otherkin isn't a mental illness / delusion". Ok, so, this is a brief interlude to critiquing the definition above. This is more in response to the general talking point that comes up time and time again.

This talking point is largely in reaction to anti-kin rhetoric. Anti-kin often bash otherkin in ableist ways, such as saying that identifying as nonhuman must be a mental illness. It makes perfect sense to respond, "no, it isn't" especially if you yourself have kintypes that aren't related to mental illness.

However, there's a few problems with this response. When anti-kin say "otherkin is a mental illness", it is with the unspoken implication that something rooted in mental illness means that it isn't real, that it is wrong in some way, and that it should be fixed or cured. By responding "but its not a mental illness!" one is often, without realizing it, contributing to that same stigma.

It is far more accurate to say "otherkin isn't inherently a mental illness". Which is true, however, it would be very helpful to follow it up with something like, "And even if that's the case, which it is for some, that would not make it any less valid or genuine."

Mentally ill and delusional people still have the right to self determination. A kintype rooted in mental illness is not any less genuine than kintypes of other origins. By excluding otherkin with these sorts of origins, you are implicitly contributing to ableist and sanist stigma that mentally ill people do not have the same level of autonomy to decide their identity.

Like it or not, many nonhuman identities come from trauma, delusions, neurodivergence, and more. If that does not apply to you, that's perfectly fine! There is nothing wrong with stating that your kintype is not rooted in mental illness, and that many otherkin are similar. But when doing so, you do not have to throw mentally ill nonhumans under the bus.

5.) Who gets to decide what is and isn't otherkin? Well, we could start back at the very beginning, when the term was coined. The word "otherkind" was coined to be a more broad and inclusive alternative to Elvenkind. However, this was over 30 years ago, and a hell of a lot has changed since then.

Therian, otherkin, and other nonhuman communities used to be almost entirely separate, with hundreds of scattered, isolated forums and chatrooms all across the internet. Now most of us are consolidated to the major social media sites, and intermingling more than ever.

Otherkin and all the intersecting communities have exploded outwards into all sorts of directions. However, even when the communities were a lot smaller and more isolated - there never was, and never could be, a leader of otherkin. There are well known figureheads and respected greymuzzles - but no leaders, no rulers, no gods, no masters.

No one single person, or group of people gets to define what otherkin is. There is no gatekeeper, there is no arbiter of the otherkin experience. I don't care how long they've been in the community, or how many followers they have, or how well respected they are. Nobody is the authority. The best we can hope for is to come to a very loose consensus, and to always leave room for nuance.

And trust me, we get it. The harm that "kin for fun" (or kin-as-relating) has done to our community have made many want to be cautious. Having a solid, clean definition of otherkin would give us something nice and easy to point to and say "They aren't real otherkin!". However, its really not that simple.

KFF / KAR aren't harmful solely because they're using the "wrong definition" - they're harmful because they push ableist and sanist rhetoric. They're harmful because they push the idea that anyone who is genuinely nonhuman MUST be delusional while also excluding and making fun of actual delusional nonhumans. They're harmful because they shit on people's spiritual beliefs and punish "problematic" kintypes. They're harmful because they refuse to understand the way that their rhetoric has damaged our communities.

And unfortunately, we do not have a solution to that problem. But what we can tell you is that creating a stricter definition of otherkin and attempting to harshly gatekeep our community is NOT going to fix anything. There have been countless testimonies from kin who have been harmed, abused, or had their self-discovery set back by years because of community gatekeeping. Attempting to draw clear lines in the sand is only going to push out newbies, questioning otherkin, and those with more complex relationships to their sense of self.

There is never going to be a definition of otherkin that perfectly includes all kin and perfectly excludes all non-kin.

People are just too complex to be sorted into neat little boxes that way. There will always be grey areas, nuances, and blurred lines. There will always be individuals who do not want to be sorted, and never could be. There will always be those who don't quite fit in, but still choose to make their home with us.

And we should be the first to welcome them.

6.) So how do we define otherkin? Well, like we said, we can never come up with a perfect definition of the word. And we certainly do not have the authority to do so. But we have some suggestions that may help create a more inclusive consensus definition for newcomers and outsiders.

Let's start with the definition from above, and modify it a bit.

Otherkin: An individual who identifies, partially or wholly, as something nonhuman - typically on a mental or spiritual level. May also include individuals who identify as non-standard deviations of humanity, such as fictional humans.

Is this perfect? No, definitely not. Admittedly its a bit clunky. But the purpose is to include wiggle room for exceptions, such as the word "typically" and "may also include". The purpose of this definition is not to exclude those who aren't otherkin, but to include those who may be otherkin.

We once again want to reiterate that nobody has to use this version (in fact, we welcome anyone to pitch in and critique it). The definition from the start of this post is perfectly workable, so long as one clarifies that it is a general explanation, and may not include all the nuances of otherkinity.

Our major goal here is to ensure that whatever definition we use, that we do not do so with the intention to exclude - but rather to explain, invite curiosity, and to welcome kin from all experiences into our community.

[asexual-society]

Does orchidsexual fall within the asexual spectrum? I have always gone off of the asexual wikia, but there are a few identities on it, like orchid, that encompass feeling sexual attraction, but not desiring a sexual relationship that are labeled as falling under the spectrum. I always read this as meaning that the desire is a feeling that is a part of sexual attraction, so them lacking that desire means that they don't feel sexual attraction in the typical allo way, so are a part of the spectrum. Other people seem to disagree with this though and think that the identity is just being voluntarily celibate, making them not a part of the community.

This is a slightly controversial topic I think, and one I honestly can't say I'm super on top of, and I feel like it deserves more than a quick 'yes' or 'no', but I'm also just a guy, and just because I sit and answer asks on here sometimes does not make me an authority in any way.

So first off, by definition an asexual person is someone who experiences little to no sexual attraction. This is our agreed-upon definition as a baseline, and so if you do experience sexual attraction, this label is inaccurate to you, however, many people on the ace spectrum do experience sexual attraction and many of those people call themselves asexual, despite experiencing some level of attraction.

Additionally many asexual people have sex regardless of the level of attraction they experience, which is why we use the definition based on "attraction not action".

That being said, a large proportion of the ace community does not have any desire to have sex, and further, many are strongly averse to it. As such, lot of asexual activism boils down to "we exist, stop treating us like shit because we don't want sex like you do". This isn't to discount sex favourable acespecs, but what we're trying to do here is as much about telling people it's fine not to experience sexual attraction as it is trying to make society accept that it's fine to not have sex?

I think orchidsexual people suffer from our allonormative society just as much as any other asexual person, and I don't think it makes sense for you to be excluded from a community that you share so many experiences with. Just like how drag performers and trans people are heavily overlapping circles of a venn diagram, that only very recently have been forcibly pried apart, and gender nonconforming cis people from genderqueer people, and just any and all queer people from each other. Our position within the community isn't based on oppression, we don't need to have struggled the same way to share a label, but sometimes we don't share a label and experience the same things anyway.

The shift of Asexual as a term from meaning just not having sex to the definition we have now isn't a bad one, but it could very easily not have gone that way. Functionally speaking there's no real difference between an asexual person who, through some level of active decision, never has sex, and anyone else who makes a similar decision never to have sex. Sure the reason may be different but the outcome is the same, and sex is a morally neutral action so this isn't even some philosophical "I did a good thing but for a bad reason, does that make me good or bad?", and to the bigots we're all the same anyway.

That doesn't mean everyone who is voluntarily celibate for any reason is automatically ace, but if you feel a kinship or sense of solidarity or even sanctuary within the ace community who the fuck are any of us to say you don't belong here?

I really hope this comes across in a semi-coherent way and that I'm not talking out of my ass or being a dick, I've seen too much exclusionism to want anything other than radical inclusion honestly, but I couldn't just say that and not explain the thought process.

Anyway that's all, other mods are welcome to add anything they like, everyone else is also welcome to argue but if you could do it elsewhere that would be preferable.

- mod key

[originalitysquared]

hey whats up im just gonna ask outright because i dont particularly have the capacity to dance around things.

simply, why is it that you believe that trans women are not women? can you give a reasonable explanation as to why you think sex isnt a biological cluster of properties that includes cis and trans women? if, for example, you think that gender is dictated solely by genitalia, or social conditioning, or chromosomal sex, why is it reasonable to assume the other properties must align as they would with many (but not all) cis people? would you exclude intersex people from the gender binary (specifically, in a way that would deem them as socially inferior for being neither)?

im not asking for a dissertation on this matter; i merely think that trans people are valid and you clearly do not to some extent and i want to understand why you seem so adamant on something that, scientifically speaking, is inaccurate

Hey so this took me like ... weeks because I wanted to actually be serious and write something thoughtful and it took me this long to actually focus so hi.

"why is it that you believe that trans women are not women?" because they are born men. Does that mean they can't act in a feminine manner? no. Gender is a social construct and you can look or act however you want. All born women act differently and dress differently. Some women don't wear makeup or dress femininely at all, does that mean they must not be women? no. The only thing that all born women can say we have in common is that we are born women. I say "born women" because some will ask "does this mean women who are born without the ability to conceive or without all of her reproductive organs are not women?" No. Women without the ability to conceive are still born women.

"give a reasonable explanation as to why you think sex isn't a biological cluster of properties that includes cis and trans women?"

What do you mean by biological cluster? Like, taking that word by word, it sounds like a weird tumor somewhere in your body. Sex is a biological reality. it is XX and XY and all the DSDs in-between. (we will continue the intersex convo in a sec). some Cis and Trans women may have properties in common like long hair or makeup or clothes or hobbies. But these traits do not encompass all women nor all trans women nor all people at all. Your sex is a biological classification. Human bodies are either male or female. People with Disordered Sex Development (DSDs, aka Intersex people) are female or male bodied people with medical conditions. They are not excluded or othered from sex, they literally have a medical condition that makes their experience different. Depending on their chromosomes they can have any number of symptoms and side effects. I am not intersex but can probably find some resources if you were interested in learning more about intersex people. They are not just some gotcha to an argument. They are people that are often genitally mutilated at birth and lied to. "But they are assumed a gender at birth!" yes. and not their sex. which was hard to determine because they had a sexual development disorder. Their sex never changed despite the genital mutilation. They are not suddenly able to have children and often still have symptoms associated with the abnormal development. DSDs prove how immutable sex is.

I think trans people exist. But not to the degree that we are seeing so many people claim to be trans. Transgenderism is severe body and genital dysphoria that can only be remedied by medical intervention. Furthermore, I am not denying these people's existence by saying they are born a specific sex and are transitioning. That is literally what "trans" means. If they were born a woman and said they were a woman, they would just be cis.

Also the audacity to come over, demand an answer from me but also "You aren't looking for a dissertation". Lmfaoooo, what a stuck up loser.

[haywire-hetfield]

LOC making Varg be excluded was so weird. Real life Varg was beloved. He was charismatic, kind, funny, and according to Euronymus himself, Euronymus’s best friend.

So the tension? The exclusion? People not really seeming to vibe with him? Just really confused me.

Dude I don’t know much about manhiem. Attila though, man had great hair imo especially when his sides where shaved. I haven’t thought about them together but it could be cool - 🐈‍⬛

I'm so sorry it took me so long to reply to this. I had a paragraph typed out and then this was me for the next 14 hours

I'm conflicted on how Varg is presented in the movie. I completely understood why they wanted to make him seem more like an outsider and just this weird guy who wasn't really fitting into the group.

It also made for some hilarious moments because you would not believe how many times I've rewatched his little Nazi rant and laughed my ass off at everybody's reactions.

(Half were wondering "goddamn is this bitch still going???" and the other half were just "bitch what the fuck???" But hey, it's okay. Sometimes you misjudge the vibe of the function.)

I also wonder if something important was cut from the movie or if they'd originally wrote it differently because the murder scene between them doesn't make sense to me. Because Euronymous says "you're my friend" (which I could write off as him just trying to get Varg to, you know, not kill him) but Varg also says "you only pretend to be my friend."

And I was like??? When did he EVER treat Varg like a friend in the movie? (in ways that weren't clearly meant to be getting Euro something he wanted, like him giving Varg the necklace)

I really wonder if the movie was originally written in a different way or something that would make more sense.

I really like Varg's character in the movie even if it isn't realistic. (LOC is one of those band movies that I enjoy for what it is rather than looking at it as trying to be an accurate depiction. I think it definitely helps that it was very clearly presented as something that WOULD be inaccurate in ways. "Based off of truths and lies")

Also this is just a sidenote, but the sudden cut to Varg butt-ass naked and fucking? Caught me SO off guard the first time I watched it.

And Atilla DID have some great hair. Also I think it was an amazing choice to cast Atilla's actual son to play him in LOC. He did a fantastic job.

[rebellum]

The weird thing about people who hate the word "transandrophobia" is that so many of them seem to think power is just like.. someone something HAS and is enacted on another. Like a dodgeball or something. That's not how power works, it's a system.

In the middle of the woods, a black trans man and a white cishet man have the same amount of social power. They're just 2 dudes.

But in SOCIETY, the white cis het man is part of a number of in-groups, and that membership gives him power. He has the power with other white people to exclude black people from spaces. He has the power to say "this black man attacked me" and to be believed. He has the power to decide with other cis people that a trans man shouldn't have access to medical care. The power to band with other cis men and argue that the black trans man isn't a real man. If he attacks and sexually assaults the black trans man, to teach him a lesson about where he belongs, other white people, other cis people, other cis men will all band together and say "of course you did the right thing. We got eachother into this places of power (police, jury, judge) and we can see, since you are a member of our group, that you did the right thing, and are not at fault."

Trans people don't have that in-group power of gender. A trans man does not, CAN NOT, engage in the systemic oppression of trans women on the basis of gender. Trans mascs are NOT part of the in-group. They are not prioritized for certain jobs, are not valued more, are not seen as being more truthful. Trans men can't get together and decide to deny a trans women the right to medical care, or to safety from discrimination. While there can be lateral aggression, eg. a trans man being transmisogynistic, he can't DO anything with power he does not have.

When people talk about transandrophobia, they are talking about how they are treated as a group of specifically trans and masculine and trans-masculine people. No one is saying that trans fems are behind systemic transandrophobia.

Arguing that trans men should just shut up about their oppression, and saying that they oppress trans fems, is WRONG. It is inaccurate, and harmful because it is silencing an oppressed group who are trying to raise awareness and to discuss the oppression they face. This whole idea that people (of all genders!) have that trans mascs are using the word transandrophobia as a weapon to harm trans fems is harmful and not based on facts. If you believe in that, you are not helping trans fems, you are just harming trans mascs.

[gemsofgreece]

I mean, but "Byzantine" is peak Western appropriation of the Roman Empire, so why spread its use? It's not what the Eastern Romans called themselves, it was meant to separate them from the Classical Rome around the time Rome got "hip" with the Western Europeans, its origins are also Western European, and it followed the trend of refusing to call the Roman Emperor with his actual title, instead calling him "King of the Greeks" and using "Roman Emperor" for a Germanic King. That's of course, if

I don’t know if I am missing a part in between but that’s all the mail I got.

If you are saying that Roman history as a whole is part of the eastern heritage then I disagree. I believe the Roman Empire pre-split is either part of the western heritage or both. I also find inaccurate the perception of Ancient Greek heritage as purely western. To my understanding, the Romans were the westernisation of the Greeks but that’s my personal take on it.

Because of that, I find the conundrums created by the use of the Roman label both for west and east and for people of different origins, ethnicities, timelines, language and religion to be expected. Conundrums are the best conditions for appropriation to do its work.

If you mean the Roman empire is heritage of both west and east and thus we shouldn’t be excluded, which is what I think you were saying, I get your viewpoint. The new danger however is that more and more western people will claim Byzantine history as part of the Roman therefore western heritage and, you know what, it really wasn’t. The original Roman might have been inclusive or ambiguous but the East Roman almost certainly wasn’t.

We should never forget that when the Ottomans were approaching Constantinople it was often heard in the streets “Better the Ottoman fez than the Pope’s mitre”. We should never forget that the East Roman Empire would perhaps not have been defeated by the Ottomans (according to many recent historian estimations) if it hadn’t lost almost all its lands, treasures and fighting men after the Crusades the Pope, the Latins and Francs had unleashed against it. Perhaps a few Greeks wouldn’t have internalised so much an ahistorical distaste for the name Greek or a false concept of Byzantine debauchery if they weren’t repeatedly told so by the Western Europeans. Maybe we wouldn’t still hear Protestants say how the Eastern Orthodox Church is straight out paganism and offensive to real Christianity (despite being much older than Protestantism but whatever).

In short, I would rather keep them separating me / us / our ancestors from the inclusion to the western heritage than see them trying to appropriate the eastern heritage as western now that the tables of historical research are turning.

I don’t even care for the whole Western civilisation concept, to be honest. It wouldn’t be the first time west Europeans pat themselves on the shoulder for the bare minimum. Western civilisation is just eastern civilisation that moved west. Greeks did not wake up one day and said “now we are gonna create ‘Western Civilisation’ out of thin air’’. In truth there is just human civilisation and nothing more. The western civilisation is a concept Western Europeans came up with to distance themselves from people they considered inferior, who however had developed advanced civilisations far earlier than those westerners’ ancestors. You see?

So I’d rather be excluded from this western concept rather than be included so that they can claim that stuff they once fiercely hated and trash-talked is now theirs too.

As for telling them, “yes they were Romans, no they weren’t part of your history, do not appropriate” as if they are going to heed us Anon. A person who does not want to understand is simply not going to understand, especially when the issue is objectively perplexing. The woke revisionism of Greek mythology is a perfect example. They suddenly pretend they don’t understand what a mythology is so that they can shred it to pieces freely.

That’s how I feel about this, IDK, I might be wrong and I might have not explained this as eloquently as I would like to but this is something that bothers me so much. The harsh truth is that you can’t get it the right way. Either they will just appropriate Ancient Greeks (i.e it’s a common thing said among N.Europeans that they are closer to Ancient Greeks than Modern Greeks are, a German academic professor told that to my dumbfounded friend) or they will appropriate everything. So I am thinking, better just the ancients than freaking everything. I don’t know.

[nickjunesource]

i don't pay much attention to this such but how has the response been this season? I'm pretty neutral (I do like Nick and June but I don't base the strength of the season off of them) but this season even without the awful June and Luke scenes still feels real sloppy and boring

Unfortunately a large portion of The Handmaid's Tale fandom watches the show uncritically and unquestioningly, so it can be challenging to get an accurate feel for the response to this season and to the show as a whole. The people who watch that way are liking this season. Additionally, people who love Serena and/or Luke are also really enjoying this season. The response from critics is also more positive this season compared to last.

But with that said, there are a few signs that many people are dissatisfied with the season and are enjoying it less than previous ones:

A big sign is that social media interactions are down substantially. Looking at tumblr, there are less than 100 posts in the week after a new episode airs while during season 4 there was a fair bit more than that. Notes on tumblr posts are also down notably. On reddit discussion of new episodes generally have only 200-300 comments when in previous seasons there were always at least 1000 and often over 2000. On twitter the amount of likes, retweets, and replies are down by a substantial amount. On imdb only 3 out of the 9 episodes that have aired so far have more than 1000 ratings. For season 4 not a single episode has less than 2000 ratings. This is all evidence that people just aren't very interested in this season and don't care to interact with it in any way.

Fan ratings also show dissatisfaction with this season. Looking at imdb, season 5 currently averages at 7.9 with 4 episodes ranked 8 or higher. Season 4 averages at 8.1 with 6 episodes ranked 8 or higher. Season 5 has some of the lowest ranked episodes in the history of the show, with 4 episodes making up the bottom 5. On Rotten Tomatoes, season 5 has an average fan rating of 51% while season 4 sits at 65%. Metacritic fan ratings for season 5 currently sit at 4.5 out of 10 while season 4 is at 5.9. Overall it seems that fans are just not enjoying this season as much compared to last.

There are frequent comments about how boring this season is. We've seen many people mention how ridiculous and sloppy the idea of New Bethlehem is. Many critical comments have been made about the lack of progress this season, the continuing misery, and dropped plot ideas. There have been a number of criticisms about the amount of retconning that has been seen and on the poor usage of screen time resulting in several characters feeling neglected while others are very oversaturated. There have been a handful of negative comments about the redemption plot for Serena. Some people have noted the pointlessness of the attempted Hannah rescue when the adaptation of The Testaments will be occurring, thus already confirming that the attempted rescue would fail as Hannah spends much of her young life in Gilead. The inaccurate and suddenly negative portrayal of Canada has also been criticised, particularly from Canadian fans. Additionally @nickblaine received an anonymous account of the season premiere at TIFF, where there were said to be many critical comments about the jarring shift in June and Luke's relationship. Some of the only positive comments we've seen about this season are on the performances of the actors (excluding scenes in which June and Luke are together, which are criticised for their lack of chemistry in addition to the poor writing and jarring shift) and the cinematography. The writing for this season has been panned by many.

Long post short, the fan response to this season overall has not been particularly great. Many agree with your sentiments that the season does feel sloppy and boring, us included.

[outsidereveries]

— issues in the countries in the balkan peninsula

(albania, bosnia and herzegovina, bulgaria, croatia (not fully), greece, kosovo (although not fully independent i count them), montenegro, north macedonia, romania (only north dobrudzha), serbia (not 100% of them excluding kosovo), slovenia (some parts), turkey (european part))

disclaimer: as a bulgarian who lives in the balkans, i’m naturally concerned of the balkans as a whole. i have knoweledge of the other countries at least for a bit. i don’t know all of their detailes. however, i know what’s going on and what’s not, so yeah. my readings might be inaccurate because of changing energies and misinterpretation. if i happen to guess some things, i will share them here and not on twitter for personal purposes.

legend: what’s going on — issue — what can be fixed currently — what HAS to be fixed: everything with one to two cards

albania: page of swords — knight of swords/four of wands rx — seven of cups — queen of swords/the chariot

i can see someone “swords”. perhaps, with air energy? so, i saw lindita nikolla is libra. does the speaker of the parliament is doing some schemes allegedly behind the scenes? perhaps, will they have sudden parliamental elections?

i can see the deputies there aren’t in team as they have to, and currently they can make their issue solved with many, many options. either they might need help, or they will have to be courageous in the extent everything will be under control until 2025.

bosnia and herzegovina: ace of pentacles/knave of cups — the hanged man — king of wands rx/eight of cups — ten of swords rx

there might be an offer/idea that can make many people with jobs. however, the issue here is them deciding to step aside. i can see that they’re being forced to do it, so they have to reconsider the whole idea to the extent they have to transform the original plan.

bulgaria: the fool rx/eight of wands rx — seven of wands rx — two of wands rx — king of cups

i can see that for some reason there’s lack of belief about the future of the country. with the elections that finished recently, it’s kinda obvious some of the bulgarians (me included) feel stuck with the current situation. the other part of them are really pessimistic and don’t believe they’ll be optimistic at all.

i am certain some parties aren’t even themselves just to win more deputies while others are too persistent to work even harder. the issue here is the bulgarians being really THAT mixed which party they want to rule bulgaria.

i can see the parliament has to take choice: new elections again or unstable coalition, however.. new elections are the safer option.

in the longtime run, unless bulgarians are at least more sure of who to vote (last time there was 40% activity ..), we will be under the same cycle all over again.

croatia: king of swords — two of cups — knave/knight of swords — six of wands

whoever has the swords energy here, i see the issue is about a partnership croatia has with.

with many thinking, the only things i see here are many people, partnership and the action that’s needed for the long turn is just to be courageous for the needed achievement. are they trying to win someone’s side? i don’t have any idea what it might be here.

out of topic, is ursula here? 😭 she’s libra after all😃

greece: six of cups — five of cups rx — nine of cups — eight of cups/ten of swords rx

i am assuming the issue is with the country for a while. however, i feel only the emotions for it. did the greeks gave up on their issue? i am assuming it’s about their local currency being back in use and the lose of it using euro.

since there might be still these influences from the past that were there at that time, i understand them for giving up at this point. i feel that even if there’s an issue they don’t care, they got over it.

the thing that can be fixed is either then trying to gain courage to try again, or to gain somehow more money just to live a bit better, i guess.

the actual desicion of their issue is to rethink their actions and fight for their local currency to be back in use in greece. they might gain courage watching bulgaria from afar, but who knows if that will happen or not..

kosovo: three of wands rx — ace of cups — six of wands rx — ten of swords rx

hm. so, the people in kosovo want to feel like home? i don’t quite know if they want to be independent fully or want to be part of serbia tbh. the issue here is their happiness. do they want to be separate after all, or they prefer to be in serbia?

whatever they actually prefer, it looks like it will be unsolved for now. there is delay for the instant solution while the action for the long-term seems to be temporary and not permanent.

montenegro: ten of cups — nine of swords — seven of swords — three of pentacles rx

i believe montenegrins want to live peacefully, to be happy, to be safe. they’re not and that’s the issue.

the instant solution doesn’t want to be revealed. it’s full of secrets and it might be temporary, however the long-term one might involve some budget cuts, elections after elections (basically, similar issue as bulgaria?) and everything involving teamwork/money loss.

north macedonia: queen of cups — six of wands rx — strength rx — four of pentacles

they might care about specific person. does they made the country’s citizens not loyal to them? i feel they’re sick of them, so the instant solution could be to get rid of them. however, the long-term one is only showing the consequences they’ll receive – loss of money, inflation..

romania: two of wands — four of wands rx — five of wands — six of wands rx

the romanians seem to care about a choice that HAS TO BE TAKEN. idk what this is actually about, to be honest, bc it can be about many things.

the issue is them not being together? so, perhaps is this about moldova? i’ve heard moldova’s official language will perhaps switch to romanian so i don’t know what will happen to the moldovians themselves after this to be honest.

the instant desicion will lead to quarrels, scandals and etc., so i could assume romania wants to unite with moldova and perhaps to make the four of wands turn into 180 degrees and become upright. (i mean that’s their way of solving the desicion)

however, the six of wands rx as a long-term result is really that uncertain since there’re delays and they might even rebuild their beliefs there, on moldova. or, romanians might not want that at all?

from what i remember, moldova has independent district, taraclia from what i remember. there might be issues between bulgarians, romanians and moldovians because of it… i can see revival/renaissance stepping up if this is true.

serbia: the magician rx — four of swords — page of swords — knight of cups

i am certain the country’s trapped. they could be either tricked or manipulated, or there’s many, many tries for this to become reality. i can see the issue is them not talking about it, so the issue might be about them trying to take a side from the r-u* situation.

the short-term solution might be on serbians themselves, or their government. fortunately, they have good intentions to them, so i can see serbians being acceptable of this action no matter what this is.

the long-term act on this issue though, might be on the knight of cups. there might be an offer to them, so i believe serbians could accept it.

slovenia: five of cups — queen of pentacles/the emperor — the devil rx — three of pentacles rx/nine of swords

i feel they’re disappointed from the queen of pentacles being in power. is that about nataša or urška? probably urška, since they’re parliamental republic. i am certain they’re aware of this issue, so for long-term i see there might be another elections, again.

turkey: eight and seven of wands (both rx) — the hanged man — the star — nine of cups

i also think there are outside influences here. is this about their future presidental and parliamental elections? because i feel patientce before suspension here as the whole issue.

the short-term solution is only for the turks to be optimistic to their happiness and security. with these cards, i do think erdogan might win in may.

*russia-ukraine

i hope you enjoyed this. i know it’s different from my content in general but that’s my interests and i won’t stop doing k-pop or will go straight towards politics. i genuinely want to expand my knoweledge.