#oversimplifies reality

[hawkinsunderground]

so I thought of a new byler fic idea and now I'm wondering if I should start writing the first chapter knowing damn well I already have my main WIP that I'm working on. Buuuut, I think I could realistically do both without sacrificing any more time than I already do with my ever-changing writing schedule, so should I just go for it??

[altschmerzes]

idk how to express or articulate this exactly but there’s something deeply worrying and hurtful to me to look around the aromantic tags and see constant posts talking about “expanding” or “reclaiming” the word/concept of love away from like. just romantic. like “oh if other aros want to expand/widen the concept of love to include them that’s fine but i dont” or whatever and that’s all well and good but i am vehemently against the idea that love as a concept has to be expanded to include me. it already includes me.

a lot of people will often say love as a shorthand for romantic love and trust me as a romance repulsed aro trying to live in this world im excruciatingly aware of that, but the idea that it ONLY means that EXCLUSIVELY as a broad concept is like……. no? the idea that love is also platonic, also includes things like family, pets, friends, etc is… not an expansion. it’s not a shift in the definition. it is already there. it is already a legitimate part of the word. people saying “oh love can be platonic to, uno reverse now YOURE the bad one” when aros point out the problem with posts implying romantic love is the centre of everything are not the same as aros pointing out that love is a word that belongs to us too and doesn’t need to be expanded or changed or broadened to do so. i find it deeply upsetting to see people talking like that with zero pushback. you might not be comfortable with the word, but do not take it away from me or scare people off it by insisting it’s only ever romantic and we, as a broad group or a society on the whole, are all on the same page about that.

love belongs to me. it’s always belonged to me. it doesn’t need to be changed to do so. it doesn’t need to be expanded. it always DID belong to me, and trying to retroactively define us out of it, even while trying to say it’s fine to want to be included in it or expand it to include us, isn’t fair or even factually accurate.

[i-am-trans-gwender]

"The lesser of two evils is still evil."

That's just stating the obvious and acting like it's genius. It's like saying "A lighter shade of blue is still blue."

Also if I had to pick between a guy who will kick me in the crotch or a guy who will tear me limb my limb i'm going with the former.

[thesopwithcamel]

The Three Hat's AU: Large vehicles

The large Vehicles in A hat in Time take many large, in my au I want to give some more technical aspects about them or even make some pretty drastic changes to the lore about them.

These concern the Owl and science expresses, The Trains in the metro, Ol' Stella and the SS literally can't sink which has been abrieviated to LCS(and by extention its younger sister the SS Absolutely Will Not Sink or AWNS).

The Owl Express:

The railway the Owl Express travels on was built in 6478 ATB by an independant railway company in the Confederation of Avian States (C.A.S), the Owl Express isn't the only train in 1HT but it is the first and only mainline transcontinental service. Its quite a surprise how it hasn't been taken over by the goverment due to how many unautharised stops are made each journey, it is also a miracle that the locomotive and rolling stock are in peak condition especially with its use in films and regular incidents.

The Owl express runs on a 1435mm railway gauge and has a consist of around 5 wagons and a caboose being pulled by an oil-burning tank locomotive capable of reahing speeds of 75mph, The wagons pulled by the owl express are around 55.5 feet high and are around 10.7 feet wide albiet the interior is quite a bit larger than the exterior.

The locomotive is an oil burning 2-6-4t which can rumble at speeds of up to 120kph and with its rather sizable boiler can generate enough power to go at these consistant speeds, the reason why an electric horn was the original steam whistle was shot off during production of the 3rd Conductors 1st movie. The current conductor has been trying to recover it ever since. It was built at around the same time the railway was finishing construction

There have been 4 conductor's since the trains construction, including our current one.

The Science express:

Basically 2HT's version of the Owl Express but unlike the Owl express was more serious and made use of many advances in experimental technology, causing the Alice in Wonderland size shennaniganry. The science owls use this train for their experiments and also for transport.

The train is ran by Gregg, Walter and Redd as well as 2HT's version of the Conductor, externally the Science and Owl expresses are almost exactly the same but internally there are many differences which make both of them stand out.

The Science Express was the development location of New Earth's KL-11, an alternate version of the Korean K11 assault rifle , which was rejected by the Metro's police force because of its cost in favour of the KL-7 (K7) Submachine gun, Caitlyn recieves the original KL-11 prototype after she stops the Shapeshifter's rampage.

The external dimensions of the Science Express are the same as those on the owl express.

The locomotive of the Science express uses an experimental steam-Diesel hybrid system, it looks like it's working to since a more conventional locomotive hasn't replaced it yet. (the system exists irl look it up).

Shapeshifter is Natalie's shadow but had been originally contained in the Science express and experimented on for most of her life, when he escaped she decided to go on a murder spree before being kicked into the firebox of the Owl express.

The Metro Trains

Run on a hollowrail system, a system created in the metro seperate of the original railways, originally these rails were served by more conventional diesel-electric Multiple Units on more conventional rails but concerns about hygene and the carbon emmissions caused a full conversion to Hollowrail which started in 6544 ATB and ended in 6611 ATB but due to them being unable to purchase specially built rolling stock and lacking the material to make their own they instead removed the engines and genetically created these giant fuckoff cats to run them.

Can average the same speeds as your average London Tube train while being similar scale to the most up to date New York Subway units, the cat's aren't very fast when pulling the trains but can hit 100Kmh if pressed and without a burden.

The Empress has some say in what funding is put into the Metro since the Nyakuza was originally created by workers running the original Diesel Electric multiple unit's who grew disatsfied but due to several anti Union laws passed at the time they had to form this group to get their opinions and points across, violently.

The Metro's technology far outstrips the rest of the planet unless you count Caitlyn's ship as part of the rest of the planet.

Sirius Model yacht MK 14 conversion 'Ol' Stella'

The above is the full designation of Caitlyn's ship, since it is the 14th conversion of the Sirius Model Yacht.

Caitlyn built this out of a decommisioned Sirius Yacht and whatever shit she had lying around on hand to weild or bolt on which included starfighter engines and a bomb bay in the engine room, turned out to be surprisingly durable which was placed on full display when a prototype starfighter colided with it and Ol' Stella casually strolled away with little to no damage.

Stella's top speed in atmosphere is mach 54 and can has a 7 second accelaration from standing still to lightspeed.

Stella is armed with several pairs of plasma cannons and can be converted into probably the scariest close air support/ground attack platform ever due to Caitlyn's insistance that cluster munitions because they aren't forbidden by any intergalactic treaties.

Due to Stella making so many long distance high speed trips the Time Piece vault was expanded and modifed to feed into the core fragment tank in order to refill it without having to stop anywhere.

The events of A hat in Time were indirectly caused by Caitlyn neglecting proper maintenace on the vault door and the window due to her being far away from anywhere and hoping to get it fixed up at the next space station, while Stella has no interior defences it has an alarm system which can often be either too effective or next to useless. She got hell for it when it was discovered and was banned from flying for a whole Terran year while Stella was retrofitted with the newest technology.

Caitlyn dislodging her friends with a broom is a courtesy not given to many, if the system hadn't activated the emergancy stop the ship would have shot into hyperspace killing all those hanging off (except the Snatcher) in pretty nasty ways.

Low flyovers are not advised.

Literally Can't Sink class (SS LCS and SS AWNS).

The SS LCS was built in 6600 and was originally christned by the Walrus Captain's hero figure, the ship was 128.3 meters long and could carry up to 470 passangers on cruises up to the arctic circle, it weighed in at 6,690 tons and featured technology donated by the Metro. Both the SS LCS and its successor can reach 19 knots in a calm sea.

Its sister ship the SS AWNS was built in 6628 and was originally going to be called the SS Hat Kid but evidence of Caitlyn being the one causing the sinking was found, fortunetally the company who ran the ship decided to cover up this actual reason because Caitlyn rescuing everyone and then saving their collective arses at Times End was enough of a repayment but even so extra security and safety measures were poured into the new ship. SS AWNS is bigger and heavier than SS LCS and has more to pack in its relatively small shell with it carrying an onboard motorboat for recovery of things like Time Pieces as well as two more lifeboats.

The name SS Hat Kid went to the most modern recovery ship built which ended up being a massive help when the calamity occured.

Both the LCS and the AWNS are used as junior crew training ships for younger crew.

The AWNS is famous for the infamous arctic flyover when a Time Piece spotted and collected by the seals as a present for the captain ended with Stella showing up and scaring the hell out of everyone.

The SS AWNS is the largest vehicle in this post while the metro trains are the smallest.

[v-arbellanaris]

alistair: [visibly frustrated, upset, heartbroken, annoyed, starting to cry] kal, why are you hesitating. kal. KAL. for the love of all that is holy, please just fucking kill him. he's a traitor, he's tried to kill us multiple times, he framed us for the king's death, HE KILLED DUNCAN, just KILL HIM im BEGGING you kal: [also crying] I CAN'T HE'S MY BLORBO!!!!!!

[syrenki]

do you people know any words that are not from an instagram self help infographic

[angelsaxis]

Me personally I have never liked the "well theres nobody being physically actively harmed from X thing so it's therefore not bad"

[utsaahpsychologyclinic]

"To Think in terms of either pessimism or optimism oversimplifies the truth. The problem is to see reality as it is."

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

Sorry if you've already covered this, but I was scrolling socials and saw that the San Antonio zoo got a large donation to expand their savanna habitat. The only thing that jarred me as I read through their expansion plans was apparently they're going to be outfitting some 'safari' vehicles so guests can be taken into the habitat to feed and interact with the animals (from within the vehicle). I was always under the impression that this kind of interaction wasn't necessarily good for either the humans or the animals-- is there a way it can be done ethically?? Anyway, I just thought it was interesting!

Ooo, okay, your question aligned with a thing I've been chewing on for a while, so let's talk ~ethics~ and ~philosophy~ aka this is gonna be a bit long. I do promise I'll answer your question, though!

The first thing I want to note is that you're really asking about two different things, which are almost always conflated these days when it comes to talking about animals: welfare (is the animal happy / healthy / safe) and ethics (is what's happening good / moral / acceptable). It's really important that we distinguish between the two, because welfare is an objective measure of physical and mental wellbeing, and ethics are a human construct that involves subjective interpretation.

A useful but highly oversimplified example of this is the bothering of cats for online videos. Pestering a cat to get a funny reaction once in a while may not impact their overall welfare. Welfare is the cumulative impact of an animal's experiences, which means that single acute moments may not weight heavily on the entire balance. If the cat is healthy, fed well, enriched, and has a good and positive bond with their humans, those momentary irritations for videos might not matter much. That doesn't mean that you or I, as viewers, might not still find bothering an animal for internet clout ethical. We can believe that humans shouldn't ever unnecessarily put their pet through negative experiences, and we can think that doing so just because it brings the human money or fame is distasteful. But! We have to recognize that as used in this example, those ethical stances aren't inherently tied to the animal's welfare state. Many people I know who dislike cat-bothering don't care if the animal has good welfare outside of that situation - they don't like that the situation occurs at all, ever.

So, back to your question. You're wanting to know if it's okay for a zoo to have a drive-through aspect of an exhibit where people get to feed the animals. You're asking if it's safe for the humans and for the animals (which is a welfare question) and if that type of interaction is ethical. I could just tell you that of course it's fine, San Antonio is an AZA zoo and their accreditation only allows them to do "good things" but that's now how it works here (nor is it the reality of accreditation).

The safety aspect is one I'm not worried about. It's actually a pretty common thing for reputable facilities to do some sort of vehicle tour in savanna habitats, whether in the guest's vehicle (safari parks) or on a hay-ride type vehicle (zoos). Many of those allow guests to feed out specific parts of their animals' diets. Offhand, I know Tampa and Fossil Rim both have feeding tours like this in a staff-driven vehicle. It's not specified from the zoo's press release, but I can guarantee you that guests will not be driving those vehicles - which means the interactions will be proctored by staff and what people are feeding out will be carefully regulated. The habitat is going to have rhino, giraffe, zebra, ostrich, and antelope/gazelle, and I'd guess that the drive-through is going to stick to those latter two and maybe additional species. Those are animals where a car is an appropriate safety barrier.

As to if it's ethical to do? It's spiny question, because it depends very directly on the ethical perspectives of the person you're asking. I think it's fine - you may not. Let's break down the different things that come into consideration on the ethical side, and my responses:

"The zoo is commercially exploiting animals by letting people pay to get closer." If the issue is that people paying to get closer to animals is using them for money, well, that's the business model of a zoo (non-profit or not, they still need revenue to operate). So IMHO it's not like it's "less ethical" than anything else the zoo is doing, using that framing.

"Zoo animals should be allowed to be wild and undisturbed by guests driving in their habitats." Zoo animals aren't wild, and their entire lives revolve around humans and the human work schedule. As long as a vehicle entering the habitat doesn't have a negative welfare impact (e.g. they're not scared of it), it's not very different from the rest of the routine of managed care.

"Feeding zoo animals will encourage people to try to feed wild animals." Thanks to obnoxiously viral content creators, people are going to try to feed wild animals no matter what. Doing it in a proctored situation where a staff member can try to do some education at the same time is probably the best possible scenario.

"People just do those tours to get close to cool animals." People are always going to want to touch the animals. If being able to pay for a tour keeps them from jumping the fence to try to pet a rhino, great.

There's one more that I want to talk about separately, because I think it's where a lot of confusion gets generated. It's this idea that "Humans shouldn't be interacting with animals at all, any interaction is unethical and bad for the animals." This is a welfare crossover, but not one actually informed by welfare science in a captive situation. And I think it's because the internet lacks nuance. Yes, it is absolutely correct to say that with wild animals, you should never ever try to feed a deer out of your car (or similar). It is incredibly harmful to those animals on both an acute and chronic timeline. But thanks to the rage-bait algorithms on social media and people endlessly justifying doing stupid, dangerous, bad things (and getting pushback for it), there's been a lot of bleed between the public's understanding of what wild animal welfare is and what captive animal welfare is. Combine that with the reality that captive animal welfare cannot be assessed or diagnosed from a single context-less clip, and that people with strong beliefs and no practical experience with the field/species/individual will pass judgement loudly to their audiences...

The result is almost a reflexive believe in many sectors of the internet that any human-animal interaction that isn't couched as a "rescue" is inherently unethical, for reasons people often can't articulate. Which is why, I think, so often people want to support certain aspects of captive animal management but feel guilty for doing so. I see this a lot in the questions the blogs gets, and I'm glad people feel comfortable asking, because it's important to think through not just the individual instances but the patterns leading us to question them.

So yes, I'd say that a staff-led experience in a vehicle chosen for safety is an ethical way to proctor an interaction between guests and certain savanna species. It will vary by facility - I'm always more wary about guests driving, although many drive-through safaris are fine - and by setup. I think what San Antonio is doing will be fine, though, and will be interested to see / hear about the setup when they start up.

If you've got a question about ethical captive management, I'm always happy to talk about it - but I'd invite you to poke around in your head a little and send me not just your question in the ask, but your thinking about why or why not something might be concerning. It's great practice for understanding why you relate to animal ethics the way you do, and where those beliefs come from.

[battlekidx2]

“Do you like girls?”

“I don’t know.”

“Do you like boys?”

“I don’t know. I think I like TV shows.”

I remember when I was in middle school all the other girls were talking about the guys they liked and I said I didn’t like anyone. I just wanted to do my own thing.

I didn’t really get why I would want to date anyone. I understood friendship, companionship— having someone to share my interests and mutually info dump to sounded cool— but I struggled to understand the appeal of spending every day and every night with someone else. Of holding hands and going on dates. 

This led to a lot of homophobic bullying and a few of them would act disgusted that I might be into them. Constantly acting like I was looking at their boobs and sexualizing them (I never made eye contact with anyone and would frequently look at the wall or space out while looking in their general direction). Or make a big show of not being interested and many other things.

I didn’t get this either. I didn’t know why I would be interested in any of them. They treated me poorly and I thought attraction was something people made up and simply just claimed to feel towards other people.

Just like I never understood celebrity crushes. You don’t know the person so how could you possibly know you liked them? And I never understood how people “chose” who they dated. Did they just choose whoever they liked hanging out with the most?

But any time I voiced this it was always met with worse and worse reactions. It led to isolation among peers and my family. My parents made it pretty clear I wasn’t who they wanted me to be. That I wasn’t normal.

I soon learned to fake it. Pretend I understood it.

The idea of not being attracted to anyone seemed like a foreign idea to most people I met. Even when I branched out and moved away, I met a few people in the lgbt community who couldn’t grasp it either and reacted poorly and it made me feel stupid. Like maybe I wasn’t just screwed up to people who fit in the neat little box society wants you to fit in, but to everyone else as well.

Maybe I was wrong. If it’s an impossibility even in this community that champions diversity and acceptance then can that really be my reality?

I kept trying to force it. To date, but every time I did I always felt that same skin crawling discomfort and it always petered out. It didn’t matter who it was or what gender. It always felt wrong. It was suffocating.

I don’t think there’s a movie that better portrays that all consuming, suffocating stagnation of feeling so out of place– knowing you’re out of place compared to those around you– and in response forcing yourself to fit what other people expect of you than I Saw the TV Glow.

Whenever I think back to growing up or whenever I return home that same feeling this movie is centered around always drenches my experiences.

And even now it’s hard to put into words when I talk to other people what I’ve felt when it comes to this aspect of my life.

That comment from Owen about knowing there’s nothing there when talking about romance and attraction, but being too afraid to look and knowing that his parents know something is wrong with him hit harder than any other scene from a movie I’ve watched this year.

It’s that absence of something that is at the heart of asexuality that makes me always question what I choose to identify as when I have to explain it to someone. Because for the most part my explanation boils down to (in broad oversimplified terms): I’ve never felt attraction, I’m more interested in watching a Spider-Man movie than I’ve ever been into even just the idea of dating, every time I’ve attempted to date it’s been uncomfortable and I’ve actively dodged anything beyond friendship while in the “relationship”.

And when I try to voice that to another person it always feels like those experiences don’t hold water. That’s describing the absence of something. There’s no real proof of the identity.

With being bi or gay or lesbian there’s something you can I don’t know—point to?— that can help you know your identity.

And that’s the fact that you’ve experienced attraction towards one or more people of one or more genders.

It’s defined not by the lack of something but the presence of an experience.

And so every time I try and explain it I end up feeling stupid. Like I just haven’t tried hard enough to find someone compatible. That I need to get back into the proverbial saddle and try again. I always in some way feel ashamed and backtrack as a result.

This is in no way to say that it’s harder or easier to be one identity or the another. Everyone’s experiences are different and everyone experiences are valid. This is just a struggle I’ve found that’s unique to asexuality that many people I’ve talked to have also experienced.

I haven’t felt that part of my experience be seen in media until I saw this movie. Maybe I’m latching onto what I can get or maybe that was an intrinsic part of the movie. That’s not important. What’s important is that it’s something I felt seen in even if it was literally just one scene.

This is my really long winded and roundabout way of saying that I really think this movie is going to stick with me much longer than any other thing I’ve seen this year.

Things can be hard to put into words and as a result I tend to keep things inside. I’m fairly certain I’m ace but it might turn out I’m on a different romantic spectrum then I thought or I fall somewhere different than I thought on the ace spectrum. I don’t know what I’ll discover in the future.

I’m likely not going to express my label out loud to anyone but a select few. I still can’t express this particular label out loud to many people. My family is definitely never going to hear it. A friend or two might.

It’s something I struggle with on a regular basis. I’m fine with identifying with the label in my head—in a lot of ways it makes me feel comfortable and happy— but any time I try to voice it the words die in my throat and I can’t help but feel ashamed. It’s easier to just tell people I don’t want to date right now. That there are all these factors in the way (finances, time, jobs, etc) than it is to try and explain what I’ve just rambled about above.

I know many people have felt and understood that experience and I hope people know they’re valid. You can express your identity with your full chest, shout it from the rooftops and let people know, or you can keep it to yourself, identifying as your label solely in your head. Both experiences are valid. And if your label changes at some point in your life that doesn’t make what you chose to identify as at this point any less valid too. People are always learning and growing. You can gain a new understanding of yourself as time move forward.

Sorry for the way too long ramble. This movie made me feel things.

[pallastrology]

observations on pisces

artwork by georg janny

saturn in pisces ('tis the season...) suffers greatly with feelings of guilt. something else they can struggle with is fear. the fear is often existential, and the natives experience it from a young age. they will often 'ritualise' their fears, creating structures that help them feel safe and protected, but in doing so, these structures can actually intermingle with their sense of guilt and lead to them feeling responsible for things no person is. they really do have the weight of the world on their shoulders sometimes.

pisces suns are often labeled as easily influenced, and while this isn't entirely untrue, i think it's a bit oversimplified. pisces is receptive and sensitive, taking in a lot from their environment and reading between the lines easily. they are a mutable sign, and so aren't naturally stubborn people. but when well-developed, sun in pisces is a very self-aware placement and that reflective, open nature helps them to actually become quite sure about their beliefs and values. so i suppose, an undeveloped pisces sun will be easily influenced, but maybe not a pisces sun in general.

with pisces in the seventh house, the stereotype is that the native is the type to dream about a prince charming figure who'll sweep them off their feet. in reality, this placement is more likely to not really know what they want from a relationship, to struggle with healthy boundaries, and to feel they have to save - or be saved by - their partner. it takes time and steady reflection to understand where these difficulties come from and how to heal their relationship with love.

mars in pisces tends to really struggle with conflict. they turn it over and over, ruminating endlessly. should i have said this? done that? did i go too far? pisces almost always struggles with boundaries and emotional conflict, but with mars here there's so much energy directed to working on these issues, it can feel like an impassable bridge to the native. as much as they struggle however, they are also fiercely caring, sensitive and surprisingly brave individuals, who can push themselves hard when they are connected to something important.

pisces moons will often disappear when things overwhelm them. they can get a reputation for being a bad friend because of this, despite their caring nature. while they can easily fall into despair over the issue, it doesn't need to be permanent; a big learning curve for these natives is learning to both not induce this crushing overwhelm and urge to vanish, and to better manage their emotions and health when things pop up unexpectedly. embracing their sister sign, virgo, can be a way forward here.

mercury in pisces, when writing or otherwise creating, is very sensitive to the feeling of their medium. so with words, for example, the word has to evoke the right feeling before it's considered to be the right word for the native to use. they are actually pretty perfectionistic in this sense, though their creations can seem to lack a strong, distinctive style; they are mutable after all, and this quality shines through in their work, as they flit through various influences and inspirations.

pisces ascendants get a reputation for being sweet and shy. while they are on the shy side, they are highly receptive and read deeply into what's going on around them, absorbing the atmosphere like a sponge does water. it's a placement that's often infantilised, probably because neptunian placements in general are easily misunderstood. but pisces risings are not so much innocent little faery children; they're a little reclusive, highly attuned to those around them, and easily confused by their own emotions and reactions.

venus in pisces is selfless to a fault, but there's an interesting process going on beneath the native's awareness. they often have a romanticised view of selflessness as a concept, and idealise being nice and giving. so while they are genuinely kind, caring and self-sacrificing people, they do gain something, unconsciously, from giving themselves to others; it bolsters their sense of self and lifts their often low view of themselves. which is part of why it can be so hard for them to set healthy boundaries and stop giving everything to everyone.

[hayqueen]

the 3D isn’t “real”

we’ve all heard people say that the 3D isn’t real and you shouldn’t focus much on it. which is true but i don’t think the phrase helps people comprehend what that truly means so let me explain!

lately i’ve really zoomed in on some of the phrases to better understand what they mean since a lot has been oversimplified and ends up being a bit misinterpreted.

your 3D reality isn’t fake, it is just malleable!

what you experience is very real. the people you see are also real, they’re reflecting your inner state of being. no need to drive yourself crazy and gaslight the living hell out of your emotions, because at the end of the day we are having a human experience in this physical body. you are consciousness, you’re what observes and experiences this whole 3D thing. the reality is INSIDE your awareness because without you there would be absolutely nothing, the reality from your POV wouldn’t be a thing without your existence since you’re the one who creates it. you’re kinda like a projector. while your experiences are very much valid, it’s just important not to be lost in the circumstances of everyday and remind yourself that; your 3D is never set in stone, you can always change it at any given moment.

we shift between trillions and billions of realities every second, the one you come back to the most through your state is what reflects out in your 3D (i’ll make a post about this soon-ish). hence why some manifestations can be literally instantaneous, like seconds apart (this actually happened to me multiple times and it’s the coolest experience ever lmao).

this is also why people say that creation is finished! there is nothing you have to change or wait for, once you decide you shift into the preferred reality. there’s no in between either! you either are in it or you aren’t, you either have it or you don’t.

the 3D is your playground. this is your movie - you’re the director, the producer and the main character.

[thisdreamplace]

for those who struggle

i recently got sent an anon message about frustrations surrounding the law, and how non-dualism hasn't made it any easier for them, but actually just more frustrating to the point where they're officially walking away from everything and wanting to just go back to live as they knew it before any of this.

the truth is that, oversimplification runs rampant in this community. as well as, hiding behind the realities of how difficult it all can be, because people are afraid of affirming that it's difficult or identifying with difficulty... but when we hide from this experience and try to come off as if it doesn't affect us, while simultaneously trying to give out advice, there tends to be more damage than good happening. the oversimplifying isn't the fault of anyone, as the truth is most of this is simple. but in actually living it, it tends to not be simple at all. the ego will fight till the very end to keep things the way they are, even when they hurt us. and that is worth being honest about.

when it comes to non-identification and indifference, this is not meant to be used to as yet another way to pretend something isn't happening or push down your feelings or gaslight yourself. i see these posts like, "just ignore the 3d and don't identify with it and you would have already have what you wanted" ..... this doesn't actually really help anyone, unless you're a person who strives on that kind of mentality. but i think a lot of people need a little more gentleness and realness, otherwise this journey wouldn't have been so difficult and painful. we'd all just get it overnight, but clearly, this community stays extremely active for a reason. because the million ways its already been explained still leaves so many confused and frustrated.

indifference is a daily practice, and it is NOT one that includes pretending something doesn't exist in exchange for getting what you want. it is actually, the extreme opposite. it's by acknowledging what's there... and allowing that to be what it is. the non-identification comes in from how you choose to see YOURSELF in relation to whatever that thing is. "this is painful, this sucks, i hate it... but that doesn't mean tomorrow won't be better for me. it doesn't mean my life is doomed..." etc etc etc. it's this very small flip within yourself, that actually leads to results. not trying to force yourself into believing you aren't even who you are when you've identified as yourself this entire life. remember that god's name is I AM, and literally nothing else.

and doing something to get something else is just... not it. it's time for you to truly want to feel better, regardless of anything else. that's why so much of this starts to get trickier than it needs to be.

non-identification is literally as simple as realizing... you are bound to no past, and you have the opportunity of every future you can possibly imagine. why ? because non-identification is literally just non-attachment. when you're not attached to this idea of who you were, of the struggles you used to face, you're able to allow in different experiences. and y'all... this as simple as being able to say to yourself, "i am allowed to experience something new" and don't let your fear of the unknown stop you from experiencing something new.

here's where it doesn't feel so simple though. how can you just stop identifying with this whole human self when the traumas of the past keep coming back to haunt you ? thats the thing. you don't just stop identifying with it. you let this be a process, a non-linear path to liberation. slowly, but surely, if you keep at it everyday, even when you feel you're only going backwards... one day you will realize how much more free you are. how much more easier it is to move into a new beautiful story for yourself, one that isn't contiminated by your past. but let today be today ! and whatever may come, let it come.

this is why just focusing on yourself is so helpful because if you're simply doing the best you can for yourself and your feeling state, the daily dramas are no longer your ruler.

the gag is that, the more you just do these small daily practices of sitting with yourself, choosing to not engage in the stories you used to identify with in the past, and allow new experiences to come to you... the more easy it gets, the more the truth of yourself begins to show itself on its own. you have to realize that the days are going to keep passing by anyway... so stop counting them, and just commit to yourself.

i also want to quickly note that so many seem to leave out the fact that behind all of this, within the pure nothingness that is also everything. behind our human identifications and all the things we have experienced in our lives, there is unconditional love. and when we actually begin to stop identifying so deeply with who we thought we are, we are lead right back to unconditional love. love in its purest form. so, use love as your guide when things get too difficult. it's the truest thing to who you really are.

you have to let allow yourself to experience the beautiful, despite how strange it may feel. because it's going to feel strange if you've never really experienced it before, and the ego is going to fight because even when it's good, the unknown is still strange and scary. and you never have to be perfect at this to get to experience the things you want, believe it or not. i know that i still have a long way to go on this journey, there may be much more time before i ever get to fully experience the promise in full, but that hasn't stopped me from experiencing the desires of my heart on a daily basis. that's because i used these simple things, these small little flips in how i chose to see life. even if the anxiety never went away, or it was a more difficult day full of tears... this is way more possible for you than you realize. if only you're willing to allow your life to be different than it's always been. just that small allowance, opens up all the doors.

xo dream 🕊

[bloggingboutburgers]

Sorry, I typically keep my comics strictly about my own ace experience, but I've heard the dumb "exposing kids to trans people and non-gender-conforming stuff will make ALL our kids trans and it's bad for some reason" reasoning one time too many lately, so I felt like trying to be an ally

...Obviously if you were a drama kid for whom roleplaying WAS a good guide in your trans experience, even more power to you! I'm just saying I'm getting sick of bigots trying to oversimplify the reality of being trans in order to demonize it even more

[queenvhagar]

Dare I say casual fans of HOTD and GOT who think HOTD is actually good and profound know nothing of the ASOIAF books including Fire and Blood and are not aware of the immense step down in quality that is early seasons GOT to the versions of ASOIAF HBO has been putting on our screens since about 2016.

The only way you can be consistently intellectualizing and praising the oversimplified and frankly misogynist and racist writing of HOTD season 2 is if you know nothing of how characters behave in this universe and how their stories are presented to us in the source material.

Had this show attempted a faithful or at least nuanced and complex retelling of this dynastic civil war, with cognizance of the sociopolitical realities of this world and how they would realistically played out, this might have had the potential to be a good adaptation.

As it stands, the show turned a story with gray characters and complex motivations, a commentary about monarchy and war, into an oversimplified and oversanitized good vs evil morality tale where the women are removed of any original agency to instead act as passive, observant mouthpieces for 2017 feminism who aren't allowed to be angry for themselves and the men are the violent warmongers who drive the plot.

Adding in some fanfiction tropes and presenting this all through millions and millions of dollars of production quality is then all that is needed for the casual viewer to applaud what is so heavily presented to them on a platter, what the writers think is the ultimate takeaway of the whole story: misogyny is bad and war is justified if it's against misogynists (but also no "good" woman would ever do anything to make a war happen on purpose) 🙄

Either they're ignorant of the source material and that ignorance allows for bliss in watching the show, or they just don't care that the story has been so severely downgraded for TV and are happy to enjoy a lower quality show as long as it uses elements of the property that they recognize and like (blonde people ride dragons).