#semantic elements

[technikki]

"errm super paper mario isn't even an rpg" i'm firing lasers haphazardly from my eyes in the hopes that one of them makes contact with you

[mantisgodsdomain]

Oh fictional bug geography we're really in it now (<the fool is writing about Bug Fables worldbuilding again and, as is inevitable, running into massive hunks of stuff where the devs Didn't Think About It, and then getting worked up because there are MASSIVE HOLES IN THE SETTING that could have been fixed if anyone took five seconds to consider "wait a minute... how do these bugs eat?"

[windor-truffle]

I love it when when the gameplay and in-game story intersect to create deepened immersion.

For example, Wallbridge is traumatic for both the characters AND the player :P

[html-tute]

HTML Semantic Elements

HTML Semantic Elements are those elements that not only define the structure of a webpage but also provide meaning to the content they encapsulate. These elements help both browsers and search engines understand the content better, improving accessibility and SEO.

Common HTML Semantic Elements:

<header>:

Represents the introductory content or a set of navigational links.

Usually contains the logo, site title, and main navigation.

<header> <h1>My Website</h1> <nav> <ul> <li><a href="#home">Home</a></li> <li><a href="#about">About</a></li> <li><a href="#contact">Contact</a></li> </ul> </nav> </header>

<nav>:

Represents a section of the webpage intended for navigation links.

Typically contains a list of links.

<nav> <ul> <li><a href="#home">Home</a></li> <li><a href="#about">About</a></li> <li><a href="#services">Services</a></li> <li><a href="#contact">Contact</a></li> </ul> </nav>

<main>:

Represents the main content of the document.

Only one <main> element should be used per page.

<main> <h2>Main Content</h2> <p>This is the main content of the page.</p> </main>

<section>:

Defines sections in a document, such as chapters, headers, footers, or any thematic grouping of content.

Typically used to divide the webpage into sections that make sense contextually.

<section> <h2>About Us</h2> <p>Information about our company.</p> </section>

<article>:

Represents a self-contained piece of content that can be independently distributed or reused.

Used for blog posts, news articles, etc.

<article> <h2>Blog Post Title</h2> <p>Content of the blog post.</p> </article>

<aside>:

Represents content that is tangentially related to the content around it.

Often used for sidebars, pull quotes, or related links.

<aside> <h3>Related Posts</h3> <ul> <li><a href="#post1">Post 1</a></li> <li><a href="#post2">Post 2</a></li> </ul> </aside>

<footer>:

Represents the footer of a document or section.

Typically contains copyright information, links to privacy policies, or contact information.

<footer> <p>&copy; 2024 My Website. All rights reserved.</p> </footer>

<figure> and <figcaption>:

<figure> is used to encapsulate media such as images, illustrations, or diagrams.

<figcaption> provides a caption for the <figure>.

<figure> <img src="image.jpg" alt="An example image"> <figcaption>This is a caption for the image.</figcaption> </figure>

<time>:

Represents a specific time or date.

Often used in articles, events, or any content where time is relevant.

<time datetime="2024-08-07">August 7, 2024</time>

Why Use Semantic Elements?

Accessibility: Assistive technologies, like screen readers, can better understand and navigate your content.

SEO: Search engines can index your content more effectively, improving your site’s search rankings.

Maintainability: Semantic elements make your HTML more readable and organized, making it easier for developers to understand.

Using these elements in your blog will help make your content more structured, accessible, and search engine-friendly.

Read More ➡️

[pom-seedss]

I also don’t think that it has destigmatized addiction as much as people would like to believe.

While it’s all well and good to say on one hand that the person has a disease, that doesn’t stop people from thinking poorly of those afflicted. Like many other disabilities and conditions, people will think it’s just a lack of willpower, or you haven’t tried the right thing.

They still talk with disgust when the person addicted is... you know behaving like they are addicted. As long as you have pleasant conversations over afternoon tea they can think things are fine, but turn their noses up when they find out that you’ve used the substance you are addicted to. Or what lengths you went to to get it because conventional means have been barred.

Not to mention what happens when treatments don’t work!

Then you get blamed for not trying hard enough, for lacking the willpower, for wanting to stay ‘sick’.

It doesn’t matter what other influences, such as not having an adequate support network, not having enough stability in their lives, not having hope for the future because *waves generally at current events*, not having a lot of things that would otherwise make life bearable.

It individualizes the issue and makes it “not other people’s problem”. Unless they decide to restrict your autonomy ‘for your own good’ anyway.

Not to mention ableism is very much a thing and there is a particular mix of pity AND scorn that disabled folks get that just compounds when talking about addicts. Or how your race gets thrown into the mix with BIPOC folks getting the scorn dialed up dramatically.

While I acknowledge that addiction is complicated and there are biological factors at play, I don’t think that approaching such a complex subject with a single model will be beneficial for moving forward.

one of the main failings of the disease model of addiction is that it doesn't actually say that drug use or alcohol use is morally neutral. it says that people who do them cannot help themselves; it's not "their fault".

which still maintains the belief that drug/alcohol use are, fundamentally, Bad, just some people have Diseases which Force Them To Do Bad Things. it actually fits very neatly within reactionary + puritanical beliefs about drug/alcohol use + the benefits it has for reducing stigma/violence against ppl who use drugs (which it has evidently done, to some extent!) are limited by this

[absolutebl]

Of My 50+ Favorite BLs these are the 10 I rewatch the most

So you could call these my favorite comfort foods. Everything on this list got a rating of 10/10 or 9/10 from me.

10 Most Comforting BLs

(for me, in order of most recently rewatched at the top)

Our Dating Sim

Korea 2023 Viki (watch the series not the movie)

This is a perfect short form KBL, an office set reunion romance featuring geeks that really suits 8 eps with no fluff and no chaff. Just comforting and yummy. I adored every aspect from the casting to the pristinely simple premise to the quietly smooth execution. Sure it’s low stakes, but that makes it high domesticity and extremely warm and gentle. This is a fuzzy blanket of a story - a cozy BL. It lives in my rewatch pile and you know what’s best about it? Every single episode is in that pile. There’s no skipping with this one, it might be good natured and calmly sweet but it’s tight and the pacing is excellent.

Cosmetic Playlover

Japan 2024 Gaga

The most recent release on this list, it came out this year and I've already rewatched it 5x. I love this little show. It's a classic office BL about the older workaholic who loves his job and the younger upstart who unexpectedly loves his boss. It’s a hyung romance where everybody is extremely earnest and sweet and pretty about everything. Except our seme, who is slightly unhinged and a little obsessed in all the ways one likes best from Japan (if one is me). Plus the kisses are good! Utterly charming unexpected gem of a show. What fun!

Jun and Jun

Korea 2023 Viki

A delightful office romance about an ex-idol who joins cubical life only to find his new boss is his first love. Other boys are sniffing around too. Operative word being "sniffing" as much of this romance involves smell. With a snappy (sometimes even raunchy) script, enjoyable sides, a pretty as peaches cast, and decent chemistry this show made up for in style what it lacked in substance. I like fluff. I loved this. I smiled every moment I was watching. My only caution is this is for fans of the BL genre only, I don’t think it’ll work for anyone else.

My Personal Weatherman

AKA Taikan Yoho

Japan 2023 Gaga

This style of live action yaoi really only works from Japan. Basically: boys who fell in love in college end up living together but are so repressed they don't realize they're in love. It's higher heat than we usually get from Japan's HEA stuff, and that aspect is also very well done, but it leaned into the "why don't they just talk for fuck's sake?" trope which is only exacerbated into undiluted frustration by the fact that they're already fucking. It's great, but watching requires more patience than usual, even for Japan. That said it's also bruisingly romantic. Emphasis on bruise.

Unintentional Love Story

Korea 2023 iQIYI

OMG the plot! Uke forced into a totally understandable betrayal, falling in love despite himself, put into a corner he can't get out of, the AGONY, the PAIN in those gorgeous eyes. Gah. Okay, so: A boy loses his job due to trumped-up corruption charges accidentally discovers his ex-boss's favorite artist, now a recluse. Evil manager offers him his job back, if he can convince the artist to rejoin society. Instead, they fall in love. I found the artist a bit stiff and reserved but Gongchan (maknae of B1A4) is a fucking GIFT - he carried this show (which I do not expect from the idol element). He was luminous with extraordinarily expressive eyes, just drown in the emoting abyss. The external conflict, social tension and pressure is complex and beautifully executed, plus Korea gave us legit side dishes (NOT a love triangle, hally-fucking-luya). All that said, when I rewatch this it's usually just the second half, but WHAT a ride.

Semantic Error

Korea 2022 Viki

Sexy older boy discovers pouty younger boy has outed him as a slacker, starts out bullying him, accidentally falls madly in love instead. Korea hits it entirely out of the Parks by doing a university BL with everything we expect from BL just done exactly right. Korea's signature quality executed perfectly with added bonus good story, great pacing, stunning visuals, and fantastic chemistry. You cannot ask for more from a BL, let alone a KBL. Another one where the rewatch is mostly just the second half.

Old Fashion Cupcake

Japan 2022

This show had me from the moment they broke the egg yolk with the chopsticks in the opening credits. It’s about a younger man with a long cherished crush on his boss (ten years older and going through a mid life crisis) who decides to save and seduce said boss with pancakes. It’s wholesome, comforting, sexy, and a very necessary narrative about still having hope, interests, and openness to affection at any age. It’s a stunningly filmed late-in-life comg of age/queerness story packaged in a subtle critique of expectations around masculinity, love, and loneliness… and it’s beautiful.

Yes yes. But the bit you know you want to rewatch is that long shot with the bite kiss. YOU KNOW you wanna.

Seven Days

Japan 2015

Ha! I faked you out 'cause this wasn't at the top but of course it's on the list! One of the best live action yaois ever made, with perfectly structured angst, fantastic characters and acting, and no problematic tropes (rare in Japanese BL). Older boy dares the hot af younger one to date him for a week. Turns out they both like it... A lot. The leads have excellent chemistry although it’s low heat there’s still some really cute mutual kisses.

Takara & Amagi

Japan 2022

I gnawed on my knuckles and squealed a lot with this show, but a rewatch is way less tense. Reserved cool kid must learn to communicate to keep the tiny disaster nugget he’s madly in love with. It is beyond charming: soft and gentle, packed with cuteness and high school angst, thirst, & yearning.

We Best Love

Taiwan 2021 WeTV

WBL successfully managed to pick up and combine the best features of Korean, Thai, and Japanese BL as it exists right now. Couple that to the insane chemistry from the leads, and we have one of the greatest BLs of all time, cooking to a recipe I doubt anyone else will ever be able to replicate since only Taiwan is this flexible. It's basically every classic BL trope bombarded at us in two parts, rapid fire, one after another. Rewatching this show reminds me of everything I love about this genre. It is the genre in pure concentrated form.

The End!

I think it's no accident that none of these are Thai, part of a rewatch for me is the brevity of the show, longer stuff does get rewatched, but not as frequently.

(source)

[luckthebard]

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about storytelling vs. gameplay in Actual Play and finally had some solid thoughts coalesce around it when looking at Worlds Beyond Number and Thresher.

Thoughts after the cut:

This is going to be a hot take but I think, increasingly, Worlds Beyond Number is not an Actual Play but a collaborative audio novel/drama. While the margins between those things might seem on some level semantic, I think they’re really key for thinking about how Actual Play is different from other kinds of storytelling media. WBN was originally conceived of and advertised as “like the games you run in your living room” but as it has gone on the podcast has moved so far away from that that it is no longer delivering on that original conceit. This does not mean it is bad! I think WBN is actually succeeding more on a storytelling level as it sheds more of its obvious gameplay. But it’s gotten to a point where the game mechanics are either edited out and therefore not central to what is heard by the audience, or incidental to the story being told, which is driven far more by Brennan as the main worldbuilding storyteller than by game mechanics or player action. When a supposed Actual Play has a key narrative episode that finishes with almost 10 minutes of story narrated solely by the GM with no gameplay rolls or mechanics mentioned, of an epic, hugely narratively important combat, in my mind gameplay has taken enough of a backseat to the storytelling process that the podcast is no longer an Actual Play.

And I think we’ve seen an evolution over time of a lot of Actual Plays de-centering game mechanics or the conceit of gameplay in favor of more crafted narrative beats, to both the benefit and detriment of the stories themselves. In Critical Role for example, C1 and C2 in many ways felt more like a D&D game than C3, if only because of the presence of incidental, seemingly narratively insignificant combat moments. As late as late C2 with the Mighty Nein in Aeor, the players were rolling random encounters that had no relation to the larger endgame plot. This led some viewers to complain about pacing, but made other Actual Play enjoyers happy to the extent it showcased game mechanics and allowed character moments to emerge from the combat mechanics themselves, the core gameplay element of D&D. Contrast that to C3, which very early in the episode count did away with “meaningless” incidental combat and pushed forward with a very clear endgame narrative. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that fan engagement with mechanics really fell off in C3, with less meta about what spell or feat choices meant for character development. Similarly, the sunsetting of the CritRoleStats project, while certainly because founders were just busy and had put years into it already and were ready to move on, also was at least somewhat influenced by having less to work with as gameplay mechanics were emphasized less and less at the table in C3.

If you were to look at a lot of the more professional and academic study and critique of Actual Play, you might be convinced that a move away from centering gameplay and above table mechanics discussions was universally good for the medium, as an emphasis on storytelling over gaming would make it more universally accessible. I would posit though that at least some of this comes from the loudest, most professionally credentialed commentators on Actual Play coming from literature backgrounds, and therefore valuing storytelling and narrative over gaming for audience appeal. But I think that misses the gaming audience of Actual Play, who are less and less catered to as the medium becomes more mainstream.

There’s often not a lot of understanding of the appeal of gaming itself as an object of, especially curative, fan obsession, even as sports fandom exists as a huge example of the wide appeal. I am, pretty loudly, a baseball fan as well as a ttrpg and Actual Play fan. In many ways, these things hold similar appeal to me. I am interested in thinking about the game mechanics and action economy of certain character builds and how they fit into party composition in the same way I might obsess over a pitcher’s ERA and arsenal, as well as what his role is in the starting pitcher rotation or the bullpen. I find the prospect of a matchup between, say, Shohei Ohtani and Zack Wheeler appealing in the same way I’m excited about a mechanically strong D&D party fighting a Beholder. Gaming has long been interesting to people not only as something to participate in, but something to study and analyze. Win scenarios, optimal builds, and gameplay tactics are engaging to viewers as well as players. And I think, increasingly, Actual Play productions either forget this or, if the prevalence of editing gameplay out of edited AP is any indication, do not think the gameplay itself is of value or interest to the audience. Published Actual Play scholarship, in my opinion, continues to make this mistake as well. This has led to an increase of productions which are labeled as Actual Play and ostensibly have a gameplay component but are so far removed from watching/listening to people play a game that it is hard to argue that they are still Actual Play.

Which brings me to Thresher. Thresher was brilliant at threading that needle between production, radio drama vibes, and centered and narratively driving gameplay. I am someone who often complains about Actual Play production and editing doing Too Much but I actually loved the costumes and some of the editing gimmicks on Thresher because all of the storytelling and narrative was still so clearly grounded in the gameplay mechanics. Uses of drive mechanics and character abilities were clearly defined even as the audience could hold their breath in a tense horror atmosphere. Mechanics like Turn the Tide and Jasper’s move as the GM to allow the players to pass him secret notes were fantastic ideas to center player choice in crafting the narrative, and let the players surprise each other, leading to big and exciting moments a the table. The storytelling was enhanced by Abubakar’s above table exclamation of “what the fuck is this??” at the end, because it wasn’t just about the story that had unfolded but that his fellow players had surprised both him and the GM by using their game mechanic options to change the direction of the narrative and the condition of the story. I would love for more Actual Play to remember the value of the audience seeing that or being in on the extra-narrative elements of gameplay that shape story. Not all Actual Play needs to be the same, but I think we’ve lost something in the medium as a whole recently with a shift away from visible mechanics and toward streamlined, almost audio drama style story that just happens to have scaffolding from a tabletop roleplaying game.

[buckets-and-trees]

Bucky Barnes Collection

↠ Main Masterlist | Field Guide to the Forest

Unless specifically noted, all of my stories feature a female reader insert character.

dividers by my og wife @vesearartistry

Series & Collections

FINE LINE a near-future dark omegaverse AU DARK STORY, omegaverse dynamics, scenes of dubious consent, angst, manipulation, blackmail, kidnapping, explicit smut

↠ part one: Give Up [500] ↠ part two: Falling Away [1.5k] ↠ part three: Every Minute Of It [4k] ↠ part four: Entanglement [4.9k] ↠ part five: No Way Out [5.9k] ↠ part six: Under Siege [8.5k]

DEVOUR - complete soft!dark mob boss!Bucky AU explicit smut with feels

SERIES: ↠ salt non/dub-con ↠ fat ↠ acid ↠ heat

MINOTAUR BUCKY modern/mythical AU Minotaur!Bucky x female!scientist!Reader soft!dark, smut, monster fucking, tw: dub-con

↠ Sacrificial [3.5k] ↠ Arrangement [3.2k] ↠ Do You Remember? [460]

CHOSEN - complete a modern AU with soft!dark, mystical, and cult elements eventual Bucky x curvy Millennial Female!Reader, Natasha x Reader scenes, Natasha x Reader x Steve scenes, Natasha x Steve SOFT!DARK STORY, cult themes, explicit smut (with feelings and without feelings), dubious consent and enthusiastic consent, veiled truths, gaslighting, entrapment, natural sleeping drugs

INSTALLMENTS: ↠ Arrival [3.4k] ↠ Lunch [3.2k] ↠ Consideration [4.4k] ↠ Semantics [3.4k] ↠ Preparation [3.2k] ↠ Procession [4.2K] ↠ Offering [3.2k] ↠ Binding [2.9k] ↠ Transformation

BED CHEM a modern AU traipsing through hook-up culture explicit smut

↠ Parking Lot Chem [6.7k] ↠ Camaraderie [3.4k] ↠ Even Better Than In My Head [2.9k] (no smut) not complete, but not a series - updates sporadically

WARM SHADOWS - complete post-endgame omegaverse series Alpha!Bucky x omega!reader, Alpha!Captain Hydra x omega!reader, eventual Alpha!Bucky x omega!reader x Alpha!Steve DARK SMUT, tw: non con, tw: dub con, fluff beginning

↠ chapter one: When You Fall On Me Like Night [2.5k] ↠ chapter two: Let All Light Go [7.5k] ↠ chapter three: Carving Through the Dark [14.4k] ↠ chapter four: The Working of Your Hands [15.5k] ↠ epilogue: The Dawn Has Come [5k]

THE BROOKLYN BOYS - complete a post-endgame where Steve stays in the present rom-com drabble series, slow burn Bucky x reader, Steve x reader, eventual Stucky x reader

SERIES: ↠ 1: Bucky and the Bench ↠ 2: Steve and the Sandwich ↠ 3: Bucky and the Books ↠ 4: Steve and the Skyline ↠ 5: Bucky and the Brief Brush ↠ INTERLUDE ↠ 6: Steve and the Ballet ↠ 7: Bucky and the Shelves ↠ 8: Steve and the Blindside ↠ 9: Bucky and the Situation ↠ 10: Steve and the Best Friend ↠ EXITLUDE

LITTLE LARK a modern mafia AU with dark elements mean Mafia!Bucky x curvy Millennial Female!Reader x mean Mafia!Steve

↠ Little Lark ↠ Bird on a Wire ↠ Bird Home in the Darkness

BUCK’S ELEVEN  a snapshot series, historical AU, Ocean’s Eleven-style heist premise mentions of ex-wife!Reader, Steve and many other Avenger cameos

↠ Buck's Eleven ↠ Bookings and Rings Steve x Pan Am Stewardess Reader [600 words, light smut] ↠ Good Luck the team [600 words]

DESPERATE TO DEVOTED a rivals to lovers post-TFATWS verse

↠ Desperate [3k] SMUT, dubious consent, sex pollen, kidnapping ↠ Uncertain and Sure [550] slight angst, feels, no smut ↠ Insatiable [1850] fluff and explicit smut ↠ Big Conversation [1.1k] little bit of fluff and sass ↠ Too Hot [700] light smut

Double-Shots

Perfectionists[2.2k] + Test Play [1.8k] Game Designer!Bucky, modern AU, smut

Sweet and Slashy Summer Saturdays [3.6k] + the morning after [2.3k] modern AU, smut

What You Want [2.7k] + Now That I Saw You [4k] lawyer!Bucky x curvy!female assistant!reader modern AU

Talk [2k] + Feel [2.3k] Pleasure Dom!Bucky (modern AU), smut, BDSM

Parking Lot Chem [6.7k] + Camaraderie [3.4k] modern AU, raunchy!Bucky, smut, hook up culture

IN THE OPEN AIR  Out of These Waters [7.9k] + That Shore Up Above [continued TBD] Gender Bend Mermaid AU

One-Shots

Into Cursed Pixie Dust [9k] morally grey Winter Soldier, smut, tw: infidelity, tw: slightly dub con

Poison Blood from the Wound of the Pricked Hand [3k] Post TFATWS!Bucky, sultry but not smutty

Silent Screams in Wildest Dreams [8k] dark, ignore Endgame/Steve stays, smut, unhappy ending

He Bought a Studio [4.3k] Bucky x Natasha ignore Endgame Steve stays, 5 times x 1 time, smut and fluff

hope is a dangerous thing for a woman like me to have [2k] DARK FIC, dark!Wanda + Bucky x gender neutral!Reader, non-con/dub-con smut

Parking Lot Chem [6.7k]  modern AU, raunchy!Bucky, smut, hook up culture

The Pool Party Op [1.2k] post-TFATWS Bucky, smut

Meet Cute [2.2k]  modern AU, first piece in the Trader James Collection

Saturday Night Movie Marathon [2.4k] modern au, smut

Don’t Blame Me [<1k] smut, tw: infidelity

All the Pieces Fall [3.4k] unidentified male main character x female!reader modern AU, second chance, smut

Drabbles

Bound demon!Bucky x female!reader, smut, monster fucking

Tactics [650] TFATWS era Bucky, character study

Crimson Mornings [500] Bucky Barnes x female!Reader x Ari Levinson, smut

taking care of Bucky after a mission [400] gn!Reader insert, fluff

Christmas Eve Eve[1.1k] gn!Reader insert, fluff

Coffee Shop Meet-Cute Request [1.1k] post-TFATWS!Bucky Barnes x female!Reader, fluff

Other Sebastian Stan Characters...

Nick Fowler, God the Bounty Hunter

[fuckyeahisawthat]

What started as a joke about the Hexcore being Viktor's toxic replacement boyfriend has genuinely changed how I look at that part of the story. Because I was like lololol WAIT BUT KINDA. He does develop a weird codependent relationship with that orb. They're obsessed with each other. They're compelled toward each other. The Hexcore does not just transform him. They transform each other; the Hexcore growing more organic as Viktor grows more magical. There's an exchange; a relationship there. They feed on each other (blood, magical energy). There is something almost vampiric about their interactions: Viktor (literally!) allowing the Hexcore to suck his blood; the Hexcore entering his body to transform it. There's the fact that he strips down to his underwear for both these transformation scenes (even though he technically could have been half-clothed both times). Not to mention the literal sex scene intercut with Viktor's first uhhh commingling with the Hexcore. There is an undeniably gothic and sensual element to it, the idea of surrendering yourself to a dangerous, unknowable force with a willingness to be transformed.

And yeah sure you can argue that Viktor was being controlled by the Hexcore from the moment he built it. I think there's enough textual evidence to support that reading. But that's boring!! It's much more interesting to me if Viktor is making the choice to keep coming back to the Hexcore, out of desperation and hubris, ignoring the signs that it's a dangerous, powerful object he doesn't understand.

I think you miss out on a lot of interesting Viktor characterization if you don't think that Viktor is doing this of his own free will. It might seem like a minor semantic difference but I think of the Hexcore not as controlling Viktor but as enabling him, drawing out some of his more self-destructive qualities: his obsessiveness; his tendency to self-isolate; recklessness born out of knowing he would have a shortened lifespan; and yes, arrogance in thinking he understands this thing he's created well enough to keep it from hurting anyone except himself. (He is willing to keep pushing the limit if he's convinced that the only person being hurt or put at risk is himself, which in itself says something about how little he has to lose at this point.) It is not just the Hexcore that kills Sky; it is Viktor's own stubbornness and unwillingness to see the damage he is doing before it's too late. Sky pulls him back enough to get his hand off the Hexcore three times, and every time he grabs it again. If he'd let go the first time, she would have lived.

And it's so fucking SAD, because Viktor is in his toxic spiral with the Hexcore from 1.05 through 1.09 and NO ONE SEES IT. It's such a contrast to the beginning of Hextech, where the scientific breakthroughs happen when Viktor and Jayce are together, happen because they're together. All of Viktor's breakthroughs in understanding how the Hexcore works happen when he's alone with it, frequently at night long after everyone else has left the lab. He keeps reaching out to it, even after it does things that scare him, because he is desperate and alone and thinks it can offer him something he needs. In the process their life-forces become inextricably tied together; while one lives the other cannot die. And they end up consuming each other to the detriment of the rest of the world.

[writer-logbook]

5 tips for proofreading & their pros and cons

Define your objectives for each chapter. In my case, some of my chapters are better written than others. My objectives for them will differ. Before starting my proofreading, I list my needs and areas of improvements, and I write them down somewhere so I have them in front of me rather than in my head alone.

Pros : allows you to know which points you need to focus on ; provides a guideline adapted to your needs.

Cons : risk of losing homogeneity and fluidity + flaws may be shifted to other chapters that didn't have them before due to a sudden imbalance.

Plan several proofreading sessions, each one of them addressing ONE NEED AT A TIME. (E.g., one for grammar, another for style, and a final one for coherence. ) And I insist on the "one need at a time" part. Even for those who can multitask (unlike me), I really don't recommend settling for a single proofreading session. It could interfere with your concentration and let you skip some flaws. And please, always give your chapter a final read after your edits to ensure that the elements make sense as a whole, and are not repeated every two paragraphs (I plead guilty, your honor)

Pros: allows you to focus precisely on each point, and give it dedicated attention.

Cons: you can quickly get confused and risk multiple re-readings + significant time investment.

I make my corrections on a separate file. Whatever you do, it's always better to have a backup and therefore to save your files (don't blindly trust autosave) to create archives. I think it's a two-ways process : 1) you open two files simultaneously, one with your V1 and one, blank, where you'll rewrite your chapter as you make changes. Eventually, this new doc will become your V2 ; 2) you copy the parts to proofread into a new document and edit directly in there.

Pros: allows you to rewrite as you wish without being discouraged by the following paragraphs - especially in case of the first way.

Cons: requires multiple files (maybe multiple screens to be at ease) and better organization.

Change the typography. I don't know about you, but after a while, I'm struck by semantic satiation (click on the link - it's Wikipedia -, it's very interesting) and nothing makes sense anymore. After the 52,846th proofreading, I might as well read in another language. I've found a relatively effective trick - not as effective as a complete break, but sometimes you need to move forward - which consists of changing the typography. I can't remember who gave me this advice though, but be sure they've been thanked more than enough in my mind. In any case, seeing words change their shape significantly helps my brain to stay focused and attentive. (Maybe it's just my mind playing tricks on me but I only see the results.)

Pros: it's simple to implement.

Cons: I don't know if this trick works for everyone or if I'm the only weirdo (you can tell me in the comment section).

Take notes. This is a very personal tip but I keep a proofreading logbook. Like, I record in a few sentences the first time an element is mentioned, how it's describes, and most importantly… I MENTION THE DATES. The story I'm currently writing is heavily governed by a chronological system, so I have an absolute need to keep the day count up to date.

Pros: helps avoid inconsistencies and oversights.

Cons: very tedious to maintain and creates (a lot) of extra work.

I've started my prooreading journey yesterday and I already want to die. If I find in the edits something that is worth making a post, be sure that I will. Or let me know if you're simply curious.

Gentle reminder : Best is the worst enemy of good so, at some point, you'll have to let it go and let your chapter live its life to its fullest. Don't be hard on yourself and be proud of your work - or know that I am.

[transmutationisms]

Forgive me if this is a silly question + no pressure to answer it ofc, but what would you 'replace' addiction with when discussing patterns of harmful and compulsive substance use? I agree with your views re: the disease model and its failure to engage with the material contexts in which these behaviours often arise, but I also find addiction a useful concept for talking about my own experiences with substance use (including severe physical dependency). It's a nebulous, imperfect term, but when someone calls themselves a [substance] addict you implicitly understand something of their relationship with that substance. For some the relationship is mutable, whereas for others it's a pattern that repeats throughout their lives; both can claim to have experienced addiction, as far as I'm concerned. But there are certain behaviours and attitudes that are very common amongst self-described addicts, and these commonalities form the basis of many peer support networks. Without the conceptual framework of addiction, would we not be even further isolated?

first of all i disagree that addiction is even a useful shorthand, and i think you actually contradict this notion yourself in this ask. if someone tells me they're an addict, do they mean they're a 12-stepper who views substances as external impositions onto the psyche curable by prayer to protestant god? do they mean they're physically dependent on a substance? that they have been in the past? that they subjectively feel out of control of their substance use? that it's escalating, or has been in the past? that it has cost them jobs or friendships? that it is subjectively enjoyable but exacts health effects they dislike? that they prioritise it over other elements of their life? that they use it as a form of escapism, as a form of self punishment, for some kind of spiritual enlightenment, as pain relief, as a distraction...?

if i care about the answers to these questions then the label addiction means nothing to me. i find out these answers by talking to people and the explanations are simply not summed up by that one word. i have met self-identified addicts with definitions of the term beyond my wildest conceptions & i'm sure i will continue to do so. "it's shorthand" is not factually workable if no one can even define what precisely is ostensibly being shorthanded. so on a basic level, no i actually do not think anything is being semantically sacrificed in challenging the idea of 'addiction' because it's a political dragnet, not a coherent psychological or experiential concept.

second, in a hypothetical world where the behaviour of using substances recreationally isn't pathologised, i don't really care that strongly what people do or don't call it. but i don't live in that world, i live in the one where the idea of 'addiction' is a clinical discourse born of a degeneracy theory discourse intended to produce economically useful citizens by pathologising inebriation. so i not only don't see the value in caping for the term, i actually think continuing to rely on these discourses is actively harmful. incidentally, and not to elevate my personal experience here, but some of the most heinous shit people have ever said to me wrt my own substance use has come from self-identified addicts too. because again, this term is not rooted in some kind of care model but in a political discourse intended to eliminate the behaviours it describes.

this to say: i'm not proposing an alternate name for addiction because i don't think it's actually a useful or liberating term, let alone a coherent description of any one psychological or personal experience. there are specific terms i sometimes use as far as they go: i might talk about physical dependency where applicable, or about feeling compelled to use substances (though i am becoming increasingly disillusioned with notions of 'compulsion' for basically the same reason, i use that term only as a purely subjective description, and frankly i may move off recourse to it at all).

but i don't see that the umbrella term 'addiction' is actually unified by anything except a political logic of attempted discipline & control. if i want to talk to people personally about our experiences using drugs then i already have quite a bit of vocabulary beyond the addiction term that i need & like to use for myself, & i solicit the same from the people i talk to wrt their own experiences & interpretive frameworks. i don't think using the addiction framework is good or even neutral in a politico-moral sense, and its conceptual heterogeneity means it's not even useful philosophically. what it does, and what it exists to do, is obscure the individual into a pathologising discourse intended to correct and punish a deviant behaviour.

[serpentface]

WARDI WRITTEN LANGUAGE (BASICS).

Couya's full name (properly 'Haidamane Couya') written formally and with common handwriting conventions.

The Wardi written language derives from earlier proto-language systems consisting exclusively of logograms without direct phonetic meaning or grammatical structure. These symbols gradually became simplified and abstracted to the point of many having little intrinsic clarity, and combined to communicate abstract concepts.

The development of a full written language did not occur independently (as very few written languages do), and its phonetic elements (namely its use of syllabograms) were largely derived the 'ancient' Burri writing system, gradually synthesized with native writing conventions, and in the contemporary forms a wholly distinct system. The language's Relatively universalized form is a very recent phenomena, developing within the past two centuries with the region's conquering/unification into a single entity.

The contemporary written language is a mixture of logograms and syllabograms. It is read from right to left and arranged in horizontal columns. The most formal variant of this system contains each character within a square outline, usually separated by a small space. This outline confers little phonetic or symbolic information beyond making distinction between syllables exceptionally clear, and can be (and often is) omitted in handwriting. The separation of words is conveyed through a narrow rectangle or line in formal contexts, and again often omitted in handwriting (instead indicated instead by a wider blank space).

The pure logograms that have been retained in this writing system tend to be those of very common words or specific concepts (most logogram characters for types of livestock, key crops, water, major body parts, etc are widely recognized and in common use). There has not yet been any attempts to fully 'formalize' the language and omit potentially unnecessary logograms, and they remain frequently used as shorthand while conveying the same semantic information.

Many of the syllabogram characters are directly derived from logograms that depicted monosyllabic words. For example, the spoken word 'gan' means 'cow', and the character for the syllable 'gan' is identical to the common logogram for 'cow'.

The name Gantoche (literally "cow-eye") could be written either fully with syllabograms as:

or through logograms as:

Both ultimately communicate the same meaning, but the former clarifies pronunciation (the words gan and atoche are contracted, it's gantoche and not gan-atoche).

It is a relatively easy written language to learn, as the pure syllabogram characters indicate their own pronunciation with little ambiguity and often have consistency to their construction (ie the character for the syllable 'man' contains most of the same elements as that for the syllable 'wan'- the dot placement in particular has indication of the vowel sounds).

The inclusion of logograms in general and many of the syllabic characters being directly imported From logograms complicates matters. These characters lack visual consistency, and can be confusing to the large swath of the public who know common logograms but not the full written language itself. Ie: the word 'ungande' meaning 'liver' will be composed of logogram-derived syllable characters for 'un' (which alone means 'hand') and 'gan' (which alone means 'cow'). Someone who is only semi-literate in common logograms may be confused at the meaning, especially since these same exact same characters may be used elsewhere on their own to indicate 'hand' or 'cow'.

One major exception to this tendency is that current religious doctrine requires established logogram characters describing God to be used in place of syllabic characters. The word for god is 'Od', and has its own unique character (as do each of the Faces, the capital F 'Face', and Its deified pronoun). The syllable 'od' [oʊd] is very common in the Wardi language, and a wholly separate character is used for the phonetic sound when it is not a reference to the deity (ie 'lion' (odo [oʊdoʊ]) does not contain the same character for God in spite of its first syllable having the exact same pronunciation). Names are a bit of a gray area (ie: the name 'Odabi' is very common and carries the meaning of 'gift/blessing from God'). Religious leadership is currently experiencing a mild schism on whether the written character for God is separated due to being wholly sacrosanct (and thus inappropriate to include in the written form of a personal name) or as more of a functional delineation of the sacred and mundane.

[dreamersparacosm]

I have a feeling OC and Yoongi would get along really well but like in a quiet way...and annoying(whispering) that's it that's the idea

they sooo would! i mean, think about it: oc keeps to herself very much, doesn’t speak in social settings unless she feels she needs to insert herself (obviously not true at work), and when she does finally speak, it’s some one-liner no one forgets. who does that remind you of, you may ask? yoongi. and jungkook fucking hates it (but also loves it)

the price of desire — epilogue blurb 2!

prompt ; in which you’ve met your match, and jungkook’s annoyed it’s not him.

warnings ; none!

You don’t have a lot of friends.

It’s not on purpose, really — you’re not a total psychopath — it’s just that between the corporate ladder you were busy free-climbing with your bare hands and the general soul-crushing speed of your career, there wasn’t a lot of time to seek people out, or maintain them or text them back or remember birthdays.

Or… socialize like a normal human being in any capacity, honestly.

You were always polite. Charming, when you needed to be. Professional to the point of intimidation.

But friendship? That required vulnerability. Time you didn’t have. You’ve spent your whole adult life hoarding those two things like a miser, rationing them out only when absolutely necessary.

So when you first met Jungkook’s circle, the boys he’s built an entire lifetime with, you were cautious and quieter than normal (which was wild, considering you have so much to say it sometimes physically pains you to keep it in.)

You smiled at the right moments. Nodded. Even laughed twice when someone said something genuinely funny. But mostly, you lurked in your corner like a fashion-forward gargoyle, judging people.

Jungkook noticed, because of course he did. The man tracks your movements like you're his favorite Netflix series.

What caught his attention and made his head tilt like a confused puppy was the bizarre wavelength you and Yoongi seemed to share. You were two perfectionists silently communicating through raised eyebrows and microscopic sighs. So professional you make accountants look like chaos demons, constantly eyeing everyone in the room with a level of judgment, and with wit so dry it should come with a dehumidifier warning.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Jungkook wasn’t jealous. Just… intrigued, he said, when you called him out on the weird little pout he tried to hide the first time he caught you and Yoongi side-eyeing Jimin’s questionable outfit choice from opposite ends of the room (and by “intrigued,” he meant he was building elaborate friends-to-lovers fanfiction plots about it in his brain, but whatever. Semantics.)

Which is how you find yourself here today — sitting cross-legged on the pristine floors of a HYBE rehearsal studio, laptop closed at your side, watching Jungkook run through choreography with the rest of the guys while you not-so-subtly whisper to Yoongi during breaks.

It's nice watching Jungkook in his element. The transformation is almost comical, like watching your playful puppy boyfriend suddenly morph into a sleek panther. He's all laser focus and sharp edges, completely locked in with a concentration so intense it could burn holes through concrete.

You rarely get this front-row seat to witness the version of him that's equal parts discipline, raw talent, and charisma. This is the Jungkook who built his name into a global phenomenon, the one who makes teenagers faint.

You should probably be paying more attention. You should be clapping enthusiastically after each run-through, smiling proudly like a good supportive girlfriend.

Instead, you’re currently elbow-deep in a whispered conversation with Yoongi about the fact that someone (you’re not naming names but it rhymes with Schmin) is absolutely not hitting the counts on the bridge section.

“Left foot,” you murmur out of the corner of your mouth, gaze locked on the mirror.

Yoongi, without missing a beat, “Always the left.”

You purse your lips, nodding solemnly, like two battle-worn generals surveying the frontlines.

Across the studio, Jungkook, who’s supposed to be focused on perfecting a complicated turn sequence, catches the whole thing in the mirror.

He sees you lean in closer to Yoongi. Sees Yoongi nodding sagely, the two of you in your own little private world of silent judgment.

He messes up the next turn with a stumble, nearly crashing into Jin before muttering something about "slippery floors" that nobody believes for a second.

When the music cuts and the studio fills with the buzz of professional dancers pretending they're not exhausted, Jungkook makes his way toward you with the desperation of someone trying very hard to look like they aren't rushing. The man has many talents, but subtle he is not.

You don't immediately notice his approach, too busy trying not to choke on suppressed laughter as Yoongi whispers something accurate about the choreographer's hand gestures.

It's only when Jungkook's sneakers announce his arrival with a passive-aggressive squeak on the polished floor that you finally look up. He's standing there, brows furrowed into a perfect v, arms crossed over his chest in what he clearly thinks is an intimidating pose.

You blink up at him innocently, unleashing your sweetest smile. "Hi, baby."

His eyes narrow to suspicious slits, not buying your act for a millisecond. "What's so funny?" he demands, gaze bouncing between you and Yoongi.

You glance at Yoongi. Yoongi glances at you. An entire conversation happens in absolute silence.

The lack of response hits Jungkook harder than any explanation could have.

You shrug with feigned innocence. “Nothing’s funny.”

From beside you, Yoongi deadpans, “Why do you look like someone just stole your lunch money?”

A loud unflattering snort escapes before you can clamp it down and Jungkook's face immediatel flattens.

You make a valiant attempt to contain your amusement, but it's a losing battle against the twitching corners of your mouth and the tremor in your shoulders. Especially when confronted with Jungkook looking like that.

Because — and this is just an objective assessment — Jungkook looks absolutely edible today. His tan and blue Nike tracksuit clings in all the right places, particularly around his waist and thighs. His hair has reached that perfect stage of dishevelment, curling slightly at the ends, falling dark and heavy across his forehead. Cheeks glow with a pink flush, lips parted, eyes sharp and focused.

He looks, quite frankly, delicious. The kind of criminal, offensive, painfully appetizing presence that makes you understand why certain animals bite their mates.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

He glares at you a second longer, like he’s debating whether or not to drag you away by the collar of your shirt, and then dramatically plops down next to you and Yoongi with a grunt.

You and Yoongi immediately adopt a synchronized silence. The transition from animated conversation to complete innocence happens faster than Jungkook can change outfits between performances.

Jungkook's eyes ping-pong between you two with suspicion. "No, no," he says sarcastically "Please. Continue."

You raise a single eyebrow at him while Yoongi doesn't even bother looking up, just leans back on his palms radiating indifference that only comes from a decade of surviving Jungkook's antics.

Another silent communication passes between you and Yoongi, one of those telepathic exchanges that require no actual words but convey entire paragraphs of shared amusement. The silence stretches between the three of you, growing thicker by the second.

That's when Jungkook — survivor of world tours, global media frenzies, and dating you — finally explodes.

"OH MY GOD.” he groans, arms flailing outward. "You’re doing it again."

You release a shameless giggle that does nothing to help the situation, and Jungkook whips toward you with betrayal painted across his unfairly gorgeous face.

"You guys are literally speaking a whole other language!" he accuses, hands gesturing wildly "You didn't even say anything and you still had a whole conversation! How is that fair?!"​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

You laugh harder, reaching for him instinctively. Clutching the fabric of his tracksuit, you pull him close and start planting obnoxiously loud, smacking kisses all over his face — his cheeks, nose, forehead — anywhere you can reach.

He squirms at first, trying to dodge you but he’s laughing by the third kiss. It makes you wonder how you ever survived denying yourself this particular man.

“You’re just mad because Yoongi understands me,” You murmur against his temple, grinning.

Yoongi, maintaining his position as the group's resident unbothered zen master, merely lifts his chin in lazy agreement, a silent validation that encapsulates the quiet solidarity that drew you to him in the first place.

A few feet away, the rest of the guys are watching, half-amused, half-horrified at what’s unfolding before them. But Jungkook appears completely unconcerned with his audience.

He leans into you, arms winding around your waist and pulling you onto his lap, holding you there.

The boys adore you.

He can see it, feel it in the way they welcome you into their lives without hesitation. Jungkook, for all his ridiculous jealousy over silent glances and whispered jokes, can only be so grateful.

Somewhere along the way, without you even noticing, you became theirs too.

And he thinks, with utmost clarity, that this unexpected belonging might be the greatest gift you've ever given him.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

masterlist + request

[loki-zen]

what i feel like people on here don't get when i wind up in these arguments is that I really am seeking out LLM tools - mostly the ones my coworkers are excited about - and testing them out. And when I actually examine their output in detail* they disappoint every single time. I think I'm actually remarkably charitable about people's claims that they're getting good and useful results given the amount of times this has happened.

* "in detail" meaning that I did one or more of the following:

Genuinely considered what I would have learned from this informative-writing-shaped object if I didn't know anything about the subject (a skill honed as a creator and editor of writing designed to inform the public about complex subjects)

Checked to see if its citations went to real publications, and if so, whether they were used in a way that would lead me to conclude that the writer has actually read the thing they're citing (the best I've ever seen an AI do on this was something I'd generously call a 90% hit rate on literal, is-this-the-right-article and-does-it-contain-that-claim accuracy - however, this was a product advertised as being for summarising research articles, and every single reference it made was to something from the abstract of the article in question!)

Where the LLM task was to describe or summarise a piece of writing, actually opened that piece of writing to compare it to the summary

Checked whether the tone/structure of the output was appropriate to its context - for instance, when asked to summarise a number of specific research papers on a given topic, does it sound like it's instead giving a broad overview of the topic?

Checked whether the grammatical and semantic elements actually pair up. For instance, if it starts a sentence with "however", does the content of that sentence in some way contradict, contrast or recontextualise the contents of the previous sentence? If it says that x or y "highlights" or "further demonstrates" z - does it?

Checked its implications. If it says that "these findings suggest a need to begin incorporating considerations of X into our models of Y, in contrast to traditional Q-based models", is that a reasonable thing to say or have our models of Y actually been largely X-based for fifteen years now?

In many cases, IMO - actually read the output! Like actually read each word and each sentence, attempting to construct meaning from the sequence of characters displayed upon the screen

To me these seem incredibly basic, and yet every single time it turns out that I'm the first one to examine it in this much detail before raving to my colleagues about how great it is. I feel like I'm being gaslit.

[soft-pine]

I got an ask about semantics, that Dean is often branded “toxic” and that it tends to be overused. Semantics isn’t my strong point, so i thought I’d come to a Dean historian. :)

Do you think this is overused for Dean?

I find it’s a much more interesting conversation when we describe his behavior for what it actually is—whether he’s being stubborn, dismissive, hostile, or even emotionally guarded. I think some of the specific ways he copes—through joking, deflection, self-sacrifice, breaking objects, or pushing people away—are very human.

I think it was @ilarual that pointed out that Supernatural isn’t a Saturday family drama… it can’t be divorced from its religious horror fantasy roots. The characters’ struggles—whether emotional breakdowns, crises of faith, or cycles of self-destruction—aren’t just personal; they’re heavy with cosmic forces, biblical themes, and the weight of fate itself.

Anyway, it’s hard for me not to see “toxic” as a copout word. (Forgive me for dumping on you.)

Hi Shal! I'm so honored to get two asks from you!! I was carrying them around in my head all week though I didn't have time to answer :(

I'm trying to gather my thoughts about this. Because, yes, I agree that calling Dean "toxic" is a) not accurate and b) a cop-out for analysis. And I certainly agree that that word is overused by deancrits particularly.

I think I'm probably not grasping the full weight and meaning of ilarual's point but from what I'm getting, I think that's a really important element to how dean (and sam and cas and jack etc) act and how we evaluate their actions. The stakes are always so damn high for all of them.

Stepping back for a moment, when reading fic I'm often a little frustrated if Dean is characterized the way he is in canon but most of the contexts that have made him behave, react, be that way are removed. Because in some of those instances, I think some of his behavior reads as pretty ungrounded from reality and maybe more into the kinds of patterns which coalesce into toxicity. (I mean I also think fanon makes people lean into these kinds of characterizations of dean - disaster bisexual, repressed and biphobic, and various other things which are incomprehensible to me)

But in canon, I tend to personally struggle to define any of TFW et al as "toxic." I recall a conversation I had with a friend after watching Lucifer Rising where she was critical of Dean for yelling at Cas when he was trying to break Cas free of Heaven's plans to bring on the Apocalypse. She said he was being mean. I remember feeling so confused - surely if the stakes are the whole entire world, you are well within your rights to raise your voice?

I think all of TFW has moments of being not particularly kind or good communicators or steamrolling each other's emotions or various other things which are kinda yucky interpersonally. But it's pretty much always because the stakes are so fucking high; the world is in peril; there isn't time to have a conversation; they are dealing with catastrophic grief while also having to do crisis management. Most of the conflict in spn happens when the characters are going through what, for most people, would hopefully be the worst day of their lives. And for our boys that happens again... and again...

I am not saying all of this to say we can't call out specific instances of them not being very kind to each other - Sam strangling Dean, Dean aiming a gun at Sam, Cas beating Dean up in an alley, Dean beating Cas up in s10 etc etc. And I also think it's important to talk about the ways these kind of moments constitute or break from their common behavioral patterns - or don't. Eg in your post about Amara and 15.15, you pointed out that betraying and forcibly sacrificing someone who isn't really a direct threat and is learning and growing is not in line with Dean's usual morals - a break from a pattern. And people often point out Cas' pattern for trying to problem solve solo. (These are just examples and by no means comprehensive!)

All this is to say that I actually think that if they all ever got to be in safe, calm world, got some space and time, they all really really do have values around talking things out (we see this again and again) and listening to the differences in how they feel or want to handle situations. Sam and Dean alone have a staggering amount of conversations at the end of episodes where they had conflict. Dean and Cas have multiple on-screen conversations about what caused tension between them and many off-screen conversations which are alluded to. I don't think any of them are perfect communicators. I think they all have various amounts of introspective capacity and effort at various times. They all have some well-worn and not all that healthy emotional go-tos because of the traumatic lives they have all lead - which would take time and safety to unlearn, unpack, and change.

I know your question was about Dean but there's not much I really have to say about Dean which doesn't apply to the others. I am specifically a die-hard Deangirl(gn) but this logic is what would keep me from making a long post about how Sam or Cas are Toxic(tm) even when I'm seeing them exhibit a specific behavior pattern which is annoying to me.

But the last thing I'll say is much more Dean specific and that is that Dean is sort of always just supposed to absorb and roll with everyone else's opinions and analysis and choices and not react with his true or full emotions or else he gets these labels thrown at him. This reminds me of a time I saw a Casgirl(gn) claim it was okay for Cas to beat Dean up in 5.18 because he was really mad at Dean... ? Or what we were talking about a week ago with the Mia Vallens therapy where Sam's frustration and hurt and anger are listened to and validated - including him lashing out at Dean - and the grief and frustration and cornering that Dean is feeling are somehow not supposed to affect the way he's acting? I'm certainly not the first to point this pattern out by any means but I do think that that's a big contributing factor in labeling Dean toxic while having explanations, exceptions, and excuses for the others.

Lastly, you are never dumping on me though I fear this reply is at risk of being a dump <3 I also don't even know if I really answered your question...

Oh wait, one more thing. I think the way fandom can be so focused on looking for the Victim(tm) and the Abuser(tm) means that, especially in many moments in spn, they are utterly missing that one of the inherent consequences of whichever godawful shit the characters are facing is that their beliefs about how to handle it will be in tension. And that's gonna suck for everyone. But it's actually no one's fault that they're arguing or disagreeing about how to handle it.

[txttletale]

if you dont mind doing so could you go into detail about the whole phenomena about online people insisting kinks like bdsm, petplay, etc are nonsexual? its always kind of rubbed me the wrong way but i havent been able to enunciate why

i mean i want to be super clear that my stance is not that those things are somehow ontologically sexual. i think the opposite of that, i think drawing a line and saying "playing pretend where you're elves fighting a dragon is Not Sexual, playing pretend where you're hitting each other with whips is Sexual" is really silly. and it is downstream from this position that i think the semantic positions of calling a certain predetermined set of activities "kink" regardless of sexuality is also silly, and that "kink" is much more useful and coherent as a descriptor for any activity being engaged in as an element of "nonstandard" sexuality.

and likewise my post isn't making fun of the idea that someone might do shibari (or whatever other stereotypically 'kinky' activity) for nonsexual reasons, right, that's totally plausible, it's basically just assisted yoga -- it's making fun of the argument that i have seen unendingly that since most/some kink scenes don't contain [insert extremely narrow and normative definition of Having Sex here] they are on those grounds not sexual. which is fascinatingly silly