#there would be no end of discourse about it

[rametarin]

The plight of women in the undeveloped world is a nice thing to tap to fuel outrage. And then they try and put it back on the shelf and disallow further discourse about it that may ask uncomfortable questions.

In the past, it was convenient when getting into the radical feminist conversation about how, "all men are the same, everywhere. It's Patriarchy (theory.)" It argued that societies that treat women like shit justify radical feminist 'punky, standoffishness, histrionic anger at men' was justified in the west, and that you were a horrible person if you had a problem with it.

But if you question if that may be part and parcel of those 'poor, oppressed, exotic minority cultures being abused under capitalism and white hegemony', suddenly the conversation isn't allowed to exist and you're a horrible bigot for suggesting a noble oppressed culture might be oppressive.

They want just enough attention to how women in developing nations are still somewhat brutal or patriarchal towards women and then zoom out to go "the west is the same, so you'll be held culpable as men and a man-centric society" And then they do not want any more discussion about the subject.

It's deliberate, it's bad faith argument, and it's about argument of convenience for ideology's sake. It's an incredibly on purpose isolated example they cite.

Before they decided to go all in on support of Islamic regimes as 'oppressed under global capitalism and white hegemony,' you could mention forced marriages as an example of international abuse of girls, but not as examples of unique abuse under multiple cultures, purely just as an expression of how evil men are. If you tried to attribute that evil to those cultures, the tone would shift and the conversation would either end abruptly or twist to be you being a bigot.

Now they refuse to even discus inconvenient things that would mean regimes and cultures have a woman problem, because they aren't white and may not be capitalist.

By the way. While many people are now cheering for Iran for attacking Israel, people who like to think of themselves as a spokesperson for justice. Do you still remember Mahsa Amini? Or any of the other countless women in Iran killed, or living in fear, or fighting for freedom? Do you all have short memory, or do you just refuse to acknowledge who it is you're supporting as long as they keep killing Jewish people?

This is a rhetorical question. I do not want an answer. I want you to take a hard look in the mirror and think about what you're doing.

[draconym]

so I don’t know you but i’ve followed all this discourse and I first want to say I heavily relate to you and think everything you’ve said and done is valid and justified. and I honestly really hate the internet’s tendency to respond to almost every problem in any kind of relationship with “you should cut them off and find better people.”  I feel like they don’t understand that for a lot of people it takes a tremendous amount of time and care and effort to get close to people and that cutting everyone off at the first hiccup just leads to being sad and lonely. also, being told to be less kind to others is quite frustrating and never really solves…anything? it doesn’t mean your needs are more met just because you are doing less for others. the problem isnt not wanting to put in work, it’s wanting to have others support you back. cutting out the first part of the equation might “balance” it but it would just make me more unfulfilled. leaning into the relationships that make you feel most valued is good advice, and so is communicating with people you care about in regards to your wants and needs. I just feel the internet is far too trigger happy about ending relationships. and maybe this generation in general is. I kept having people tell me to break up with my partner when mental health and medical issues meant they had a really hard time communicating with me and needed far more support than they were able to give. which, fuck that, I should be allowed to express that I’m having a hard time without everyone jumping to “you should abandon them they’re treating you unfairly.” I’m so glad I did not. Instead we realized we both needed to lean a bit more on our wider support networks. Sometimes solutions do indeed exist. And it’s funny how the people who say “you deserve better” are rarely the people who actually step up to support you…

Anon, thank you. It's been disappointing that almost all of the online advice I've ever received about my mom is "go no contact" because she is sometimes selfish or immature. I don't want to go no contact with my mom. I want us both to grow as people and learn to talk to one another like adults.

"Go no contact" is not a conflict resolution strategy, it is a danger avoidance strategy. And it is sometimes the best solution, but ... actually addressing conflict is kind of essential if you want any of your relationships to other people to last.

[kuroananosanji]

I feel like post-canon 40!Zoro would just kind of mellow out, keeping his warrior spirit of course but being less on edge and more cheerful. Sort of like early pre-ts Zoro. Anyways one thing about this swordsman is that he brags about his “wife”. A lot. Every time someone challenges him they leave with not only near-fatal injuries and wounded pride but also an earful of how that supposed “wife” is the most kindhearted, gentle, beautiful, strong, talented at cooking person in the world. So word spreads and now everyone is discussing who this “wife” of Roronoa Zoro’s is.

Then one day a young challenger follows Zoro all the way to the All Blue (took at least 3 months), and just sees Zoro being greeted with a kick to the face by some angry blonde guy, who screams at him about being a “good-for-nothing aquatic plant who only knows how to get lost.” And Zoro equally rips back into him ending in a full-blown duel. The poor young swordsman doesn’t even have time to process this before he gets his ass swiftly handed to him by Zoro.

So now the discourse around Zoro’s wife (husband) has gotten even more intense (“Is Roronoa Zoro a victim of domestic violence?”). But you’ll get pirates who defend the missus saying that he cooks you a meal for free if you lose to Zoro and would even encourage you to “train harder and come back to kill him someday” (“??? Is Roronoa genuinely okay??”)

“Wait no guys does that not sound like Black Leg Sanji?”

“Of course not have you seen the bounty posters? Black Leg is a hideous man. Zoro’s wife is actually so fucking hot.”

[soulfulazrael]

Something dawned on me about part of Deltarune fanbase which made me theorize something about the ending.

And that is discourse around Kris recently on the internet and the Soul which relates to this

And I have something in mind I want to speak up about, There is something we can see quite a bit in both Undertale and Delatrune fanbases. And that is... bias towards ourselves. Where a lot of players refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. Where some still believe Chara is responsibe for genocide. Where Snowgrave is something Soul itself did or something else controls us. So forth and so forth.

And I was wondering about this, but on something else. Because I also saw some speculation about DU having similar story to a game called Omori. Haven't played it myself, but from what I understand it's ending is tied to confessions. And there is quite a few people now given that Toby by the time it released said a game would be very similar coming out and author of that game is their friend. How Kris will have to explain so much. How Susie will hate them and not trust them. How everyone will turn on them and they will lose their hand too and so forth and so forth.

And now I think... on that side people are doing THE SAME thing as people who blame Chara do. They are still on their very big bias towards themselves which makes sense as we probably always will be biased the most towards ourselves. But I have this thought this concept that... it will be that, but it wont be Kris who will be hated in the end. It will be us. We wont be the ones who will be accepted and Kris judged. No. It's Kris's decisions that THEY make matter. It is our choices that do not.

And possibly in the one ending we get WE are never accepted. Susie will never like us. None of the characters will care for us. It's Kris that will be loved, it is Kris who will earn forgiveness as we are told to leave. Like in Undertale even on Pacifist route we are told to LEAVE and never come back.

And while it is just my theory it would be fascinating if it ended up being true. Sort of way to gauge the kind of person you are. Whether or not you find it fair or satisfying that someone else gets to be loved and accepted and you are left alone. Even if you play full pacifist the ending remains where you have to leave. Probably as being viewed more fondly upon, but not truly accepted. Basically. Can you be okay with Kris being the one who get the happy ending. Not you.

And I know some of you may say how this is something that happens in lots of games like Mass Effect or something, but here is the thing. Deltarune is unique because of how much distinction it makes between the player and the main character. We are hit on our head time and time and time again how we are not Kris. How they have their own agency, their own likes, needs and personality that we hijack.

So in the end no matter what deals they have, what happens, they will earn something better and you will not. And Snowgrave could be a path for those who are bitter about this choice. Who do not accept it and want to force the game to cater to them. To love them. Make at least one person love you. Someone very, very vulnerable you can mold.

Now I know it sounds, dark, weird and uncomfortable, but to me it would be very interesting. A test of how far you extend your empathy at the cost of your own happiness. And how many of those people who are scared for Kris will NOT be happy if good ending for Kris means a bad one for them. Becuase Kris is Kris and you are you. So how about leave them in their world and like Ralsei said "Have real friends"?

Now just to be clear. I do not mean here that characters in this game will HATE US no matter what. What I mean is that we will never be as close to those characters as Kris is and despite everything Kris will be seen in much more favorable light than we ever will be if confessions ever happen. Where Susie may at first look at US more with Scorn and forgive Kris much easier. I don't mean that until the end she will hate us, but I think the game will make sure to let us know that Susie and others will never be VERY close to us.

That is for Kris. And like even in Pacifist Run Flowey pretty much begs us to leave Frisk and others happy and let them live their lives I feel like ending of this game will be similar. In that we will have our time with those characters, but we have to move on and let them be happy on their own. Without us.

[unfairunknown]

And somehow Rogue's super-hell fate isn't even the thing I was most sucker-punched in the gut about, in regards to going into these RTD2 seasons with good faith and being disappointed at nearly every turn. I have to get some DW thoughts out, I think. It's a long one, so I put under the cut. TL:DR is

Disappointed by RTD2 era DW which feels like I'm being gaslit by an entire IP.

Verada Sethu is an incredible talent, and if I had a nickel for every time a prominent long running sci Fi series show horned her character into terrible misogynistic tropes in 2025, I'd have two nickels....

Ncuti Gatwa was the bright light of the season. Beautiful, effervescent, charming, what a delight as the Doctor.

"The Story and the Engine" was the best of this run.

My knee-jerk reaction to Rose Noble, as a transgender person myself, was deep discomfort that never quite resolved....there's something slightly *off* with how I feel RTD presented her I never quite managed to land on, beyond that I think it was really problematic to insinuate that Donna absorbing feminine magic while she had a child in utero is why that child "became" a girl...but I have lost a lot of my tolerance for transgender "discourse" because of a lack of good faith critical thought and conversation...I don't even know what I'm saying besides, did other transgender people feel that way?

Also, while DW has always been campy, it's also often made some kind of social statement. And yet I feel this entire run lacked the fangs or impact of any true statement or positionality. A problem would be introduced, as of to say 'look how aware of the social contexts we are,' only to ignore or refuse to contend with what that issue actually means or would impact. Like Rogue's arc, for example.

The "problems" I think his character seems to address:

1. That the Doctor never says they love their companions to their faces. Heavily implied to mean romantic love (see the famous Ten/Rose sequence) but not always.

2. Having a canonically confirmed queer element to the Doctor. I.e. diversity/representation, etc.

But what the narrative actually DOES is more important, to me, than saying something exists on the page. "Look, we confirmed the doctor was queer by having him kiss Rogue and say he loves Belinda to her face!' yes, and that's nice, sure, in 2025, but here's why I have a problem with these things:

1. While the longing and angst is certainly an intentional element in storytelling, the let the Doctor tell their companions they love them thing, when juxtaposed with Thirteen's appearance and commentary regarding her romantic love for Yaz, which I think was pretty clearly stated "it would be you," but I digress...if the core of these longings is romantic queerness, then the Doctor saying he loves Belinda, whose own ending is so....awful, doesn't actually address what the desire for the 'I love you" commentary actually WAS. It's a bit like saying retroactively Dumbledore was gay the whole time...and like I do think it's important to show and express platonic love, but I think that message is lost by refusing to even acknowledge the lurking spectre of queer desire present since original DW. 15 talking about his love for any other companion, especially non romantic ones like Graham, could have assuaged me here.

2. Rogue. In a lot of ways the episode mirrored Ten's "The Girl in the Fireplace," which was also heavily implied romantic/sexual that ended without Ten getting his happily ever after, too.

Except in that case, his love interest went on to love a fulfilling happy life where she was the consort to a powerful man who she seemed to hold in high regard, even if she did have true feelings for the Doctor.

And Rogue...went to hell. He isn't dead, but he isn't coming back any time soon.

And I can't help but feel like the conservative issues I had with RTD1 era and Moffat era in general have been enhanced by Disney's corporate sanitization?

'look at all the diversity' but what does that actually MEAN? The beat episode of Ncuti's run WAS written and directed by the people whose story was being told, and you could tell! It was incredible! And it wasn't *trying* to make a point without understanding what it's core context is in the world of 2025.

Finally, I have all these feelings, and I am deeply upset by these seasons of a television show, because I want to belong to the IP's I love, I want them to cling to me, too. If I didn't love it, it wouldn't hurt.

poor rogue saved the world from compulsory heterosexuality and is still chilling in gay super hell (only other occupent: castiell)

[butchvaderkin]

vader and disability: a complex narrative

there’s lots of writing about disabled vader which you should go read if you're going to listen to anything i'm saying about it, because i am canonically just some guy and opinions vary, as they should. every vader disability analysis i’ve read rightfully establishes the problematic aspects of disability representation in the star wars canon, most notably the use of disfigurement, amputation, and medical tech as signifiers for vader's evil, particularly in the OT, as well as in the climax of ROTS. this is obviously an essential critique: disability as a shorthand for evil is a deeply harmful trope dating back...well, about as far back as people have hated disabled people. so....a while.

however, the discourse i’ve read struggles to go much deeper than 'disabled villain bad.' this feels like a missed opportunity, given that vader is not a one-dimensional villain or a simple boogie man but a complex character with six full-length films centered on his development and arc. we can acknowledge the harmful implications of this trope and also ask: is there more to unpack here? given that darth vader is one of the most iconic characters in movie history, and he's also disabled, is it not worth our time?

like a lot of star wars discourse, vader disability discourse tends to reject the ways in which lucas complicated his own narrative in the prequel trilogy. anakin's evil is more often framed as internally motivated and absolute: he turns evil, then he turns disabled to reflect this internal state, upholding the harmful trope. anakin's experience of medicalization and pathologization from TPM onwards are left out of the analysis. his in-universe experience of disability and ableism is flattened. lucas' own stated intention of illustrating anakin's victimhood is denied.

this is one of the central schisms at the heart of star wars discourse: whether to accept or reject anakin's victimhood. i would argue that this is inherently bound up in his status as a disabled character. disabled victims, especially imperfect disabled victims, are almost never represented in this way: as the central pillars of their own stories and collaborators in their own end. 

so yes, ultimately both the depiction of vader, of anakin, and the popular response to his characterization are products of an ableist society. that ouroboros is undeniable. however, in our ableist society, disabled characters (and people) are more than anything treated as disposable, adjacent, unnecessary. in this sense, anakin breaks the mold and is punished for it, both within his own story and by those who consume it. he cannot be both a victim and a perpetrator, a disabled hero and a disabled villain, because people struggle to extend that much range of humanity to disabled people. it must be a mess up. the writing got it wrong. is this really george lucas' failure to represent disability in the appropriate way? or is this just who we are? what we expect to see?

as i mentioned above, vader disability discourse also tends to flatten anakin's experience of disability. there's an assumption that anakin doesn't really experience any in-universe impacts of his disabilities, that they exist only as a visual signifier to us, the audience, of his internal evil. but reading anakin as disabled in-universe only strengthens his arcs in both his trilogies. why should i, a disabled viewer, reject that reading? why should we assume the galaxy far far away is not subject to the social model of disability too?

the social model of disability argues that disability isn't a fixed or objective state, but rather a circumstance which arises due to social barriers and attitudes. this runs counter to the medical model of disability, which holds disability as an individual biological problem that can either be cured or not. obviously, many disabled people live with incurable medical diagnoses -- the social model of disability doesn't deny that. rather, it argues that greater harm is caused by the social and structural response to disabling diagnoses than by the diagnoses themselves.

if the viewer rejects the idea that anakin experiences negative impacts from his disabilities, they may also reject the idea that there was any structural failure on the part of the jedi, or any active manipulation on the part of palpatine. the fact that disabled children are often failed, neglected, or actively abused, and that this treatment may exacerbate the harm these same children later cause to themselves, their relationships, and their communities, well.....it's not really something people enjoy talking about. the harm that anakin causes from his own choices does not negate a disability reading, just as a disability reading doesn’t negate the harm he causes. disabled people can and do cause harm. disabled people can be both complicit in destructive systems as well as victimized by them. by reducing anakin’s disabilities to a simple visual shorthand for evil and denying the ways they impact him in-universe, viewers can uphold a simplistic reading of the saga in which good and evil are organic absolutes, uncomplicated by systemic and social failures. not only does this ignore the more interesting elements of lucas’ storytelling choices, it misses the opportunity for reclamation and deeper analyses of complex disability narratives. 

as a rebuttal, i would argue that anakin's disabilities create experiences of medicalization, pathologization, objectification, and dehumanization for the entirety of his arc.

anakin's first experience with the jedi is one of medicalization. as a plot device, the midi-chlorians are hated by many, but they tie explicitly into this medicalization reading. anakin's blood is drawn and analyzed by qui gon. he is brought in to a panel of experts who test him and analyze the results. he's simultaneously told that his readings are off the charts and that he can't be helped, he can't be trained. he can't be fixed.

anakin's subsequent "acceptance" into the jedi temple is tinged by constant pathologization. it doesn't really matter how viewers diagnose anakin, wherever on the spectrum of mental/emotional/cognitive/developmental disability, many readings may work. what's clear is that anakin's emotional experience is viewed as abnormal by the people around him. anakin can't control his emotional reactions to the degree the jedi expect and require, and this earns him distrust and active disdain. basic human needs like validation, affection, and respect are denied to him, with this neglect sometimes framed as a direct response to his unwanted compulsive emotional behaviors. in truth, anakin doesn't need a diagnosis from our world; he is experiencing the disabling stigma of such a diagnosis, in his world, either way.

as his arc progresses, vaderkin's life is increasingly informed by physical disability. he becomes a burn victim and a quadruple amputee. while it's not really explicit in the movies, supplemental materials suggest that vader's use of cyborg limbs and breathing equipment make others in the imperial bureaucracy relate to him as less-than-human. he's seen as more object than person, half-man, half-machine. again, it's hard to separate creator ableism out from the in-universe ableism we may be searching for. do vader's prosthetics make him inhuman because lucas holds them as such? or is the objectification and loss of agency vader experiences through his physical disability part of his victimhood? has this framing shifted throughout the history of canon?

in his final form, vader is heavily disabled, dependent on medical technology to stay alive. the sound of his mechanized breathing is one of the most recognizable elements of his character. i would never criticize someone for taking issue with the stigmatizing aspects of this depiction, the problems inherent in equating medical tech use with a lack of humanity. but we can also interpret this through the lens of in-universe ableism. vader's suit was never designed to be an actual adaptive accommodation. instead, it's a form of control and torture which he didn’t explicitly choose for himself. in this sense, anakin is again a victim of medicalization, a curative model of disability which seeks to return the disabled person to a useful participant in the system, or else discard them.

and although anakin removes his mask at the end of his life, none of the choices that allow for his redemption are negated by his disabilities. it is that same disabled man in the suit who throws down palpatine, not a physically "restored" version of his "better" self. again, vader breaks the mold of the disabled villain trope, his complex personhood ultimately upheld in spite of the systemic violence he has experienced and perpetuated.

so yes, in spite of the ableism which has shaped anakin's story, both within and without of his own universe....in the end, i find anakin's disabled humanity at the center of it all. <3

[moyu-sy]

Purely based on what i see on youtube and instagram, I wouldnt say its as black and white as « gender affirming positive if cis and negative if trans ». Cis recipients of cosmetic surgeries do experience stigma surrounding their choice. (Pancakes waffles)

Personally, I dont know a single woman in my 3D life social circle who had undergone surgical cosmetic procedures. Laser hair removal is the closest, and that was one woman out of more than a hundred who I know, and around 30 (rough estimate) who I consider friends.

This is purely anecdotal, and I must say that my demographic will influence surgery rates, since we are mostly recent young adults, and many of these women are middle class, so will hold strong feminist sentiments. I would suppose purely cosmetic surgeries are not so much a priority to us. (Lots of us are also queer and poc fr, living in an ex british colony, so appealing to patriarchal beauty standards is NOT. A big need.)

I have HEARD based on youtube and news sources that in places like south korea, cosmetic surgeries are much more common, accepted, and encouraged, for cis men and women, but I havent conducted reliable research for this, I’ll be frank. Alas sk is also. Interesting 😭 regarding queer place in society (ive heard from social media but i 100% believe it, it being a conservative and asian country)

This is taking too long to type out fr so imma put it in dot points LMAO

Mostly from youtube / instagram observations:

People shit on the kardashians for promoting unhealthy beauty ideals (which is true) and for their faces/bodies, which are no longer representative of « natural beauty » (which patriarchy LOVES to insist exists as a baseline of femininity 💀💀🙏 criticisms of women’s heavy makeup and sexy outfits fall into this category, while praise of more « natural » beauty [i.e. doesnt use black eyelier or red lipstick] is generally accepted)

Generally cis women (and some men) will get some shit for « ruining their face » with cosmetic procedures. Ive seen the word mutilate pop up once or twice, but NOT NEARLY as much as for trans surgeries. (Think lip fillers, hair transplants, jaw surgery, liposuction)

A point to note is that I’ve also seen sympathetic responses alpng thw lines of « yeah you were fr ugly before, good for you seizing autonomy 😍😍😍 » which is.

People (mostly young women) change their features through surgery and there’s always comments going « yeah uhh. You looked fine before. Didnt need to do the change. Youve been brainwashed » which isnt aggressive but must be disheartening to hear. Last point lowkey true because of how much more pervasive and entrenched beauty standards are for cis people VS pressure to surgically transition.

Women who remove lip filler / boob filler / cosmetic tattoos are often praised for « accepting herself » and « accepting natural beauty ». Theres a big push on natural beauty in general. (Ah yes hairless legs and armpits 100% natural on all women)

Cosmetic surgeries are often seen as an indication of being superficial and vain.

I will note that I believe that most cosmetic surgeries are easier to acquire by cis people. Honestly, I dont think ive got enough research to form a jusgement on the suitability of current surgery acquisition procedures.

I will also note that the aggro against trans cosmetic surgeries is almost always MORE paternalistic and MORE hateful, with a few slurs sprinkled in…

I will also note that instagram in particular, but also youtube, uses an algorithm which has grown increasingly politicised in recent years, and theres a SHITTON of troll / bot troll accounts, so my perceptions may be artificially inflated.

I will also note that Ive never heard anyone discussing cosmetic surgeries in real life UNLESS talking about online discourse.

Also all this is a personal perception, completely biased. (Bc sample size is 1 and sample method was convenience sampling 😂)

Trans people get the short end of the stick here by MILES, its true. Cosmetic surgeries are kind of frowned upon in general, but in trans contexts its mixed in with homophobia and a LOT of sexism (« OMG youre ruining your boobs which you should keep for me to look like 😭😭😭 » « OMG you dont fit into my alpha ideal of male supremacy since you want to surgically remove your male genitalia »).

Honestly the potential possibility that there is even a 1% chance that a confused cis person mistakenly gets a gender surgery they'll later regret should not be a reason to make gender-affirming surgeries harder to get. Not just because trans peoples' lives should be easier, but also because I find that thought to be fucking hilarious.

Like dude how do you accidentally sign up for get-your-dick-inverted-and-your-balls-removed surgery and now you're shocked that you got your dick undone and balls removed? The fuck did you think that was gonna do. lmao fucking idiot.

[chameleonsallinvermillion]

I had a mildly cursed thought so naturally I thought I'd share it. We never really get much detail about erotica in Ankh-Morpork but it definitely exists. We know there are romance novels, after all, so there are definitely scandalous bodice-rippers out there, if the Ankh-Morpork citizenry still have it in them to be scandalised. Which means it's basically guaranteed that there's golem erotica.

Think about it. Big strong clay man...never shows emotion...endless stamina...his one function is to serve... There are 100% people in Ankh-Morpork sighing and squealing over erotic golem content.

[adhdevankinard]

Even if the writers bring in a new LI for Buck, no one is ever gonna beat Tommy Kinard. Sorry! But just look at this material:

Tommy personally knows and respects the life of a firefighter and why it’s so important to Buck, something that Buck’s previous love interests found difficult to understand

Tommy can be involved in calls and can help the 118 in a way others can’t (as we’ve seen)

Even before dating Buck, Tommy had strong connections to the main characters — the most important people in Buck’s life

Buck himself said Tommy is his most transformative relationship since Abby (whom Tommy is also connected to)

Speaking of Abby, Buck pined for her, but it was clear that Abby was ready to move on when she left him. With Buck and Tommy, both of them want each other back. Neither is ready to move on. They pine for each other.

Tommy is one of the very few people who call Buck “Evan” and the only one to do so regularly and with such affection. It was only during the breakup that Tommy called him Buck. The worst day of Buck’s life was the day Tommy called him by the name everyone else uses for him. Because Tommy isn’t everyone else. And no one else will ever be Tommy to Evan.

Tommy was a part of the call that ended with Bobby’s death. Tommy was the only one who saw Buck’s grief after losing the person he considered his father. Tommy was a pall bearer and walked with the main characters at Bobby’s funeral.

Speaking of Bobby, Tommy is the only LI of Buck’s that Bobby approved of. The only one Bobby will ever approve of. Bobby knew Tommy and Tommy knew Bobby. Tommy was part of the 118 when Bobby began again. Tommy saved Bobby’s life before Buck met him.

It was Tommy’s decision to transfer that opened the spot at the 118 that changed Buck’s life.

Literally, Buck is the happiest he has ever been when he is with Tommy. He can be giggly during sex and hold funerals for dead cowboys. Buck smiles and looks at Tommy with so much affection. And Tommy shows up for Buck – whether it’s attending the hospital wedding after an exhausting shift or making sure he’s resting after he’s injured or cooking him a literal feast or stealing a helicopter.

Any LI after Tommy would pale in comparison. The writers will do what they will but … why even attempt to outdo this ... You simply can’t!

[cokrouch]

oooo yay

1/ therian and otherkin, idk actually know much about anything else or their prolly would be more....but im just not very knowledgeable i suppose(very open to learning tho)

2/ Theriotypes: Black wolfdog, Dear, Rabbit, Crow, Barn owl, Black cat, Rhinoceros beetle, Fly, Cockroach

Paleotype: Therizinosaurus

Otherkin: Angelkin, Robotkin, Vampirekin, Zombiekin, Ghostkin, Skeletonkin, Cryptidkin, Creaturekin, Sirenkin

3/ i dont think so but when i get distressed or feel cornered i feel like a prey animal which makes sense i suppose. i also sometimes when im sitting on the edge of my bed and close my eyes i sometimes get little like memories(not visual but like i just know that its smth thats happened) of sitting at the foot of a throne, wings tucked neatly behind my back/over my face(the ones on my head) and im dressed in silk and gold and its just...nice i want to go back but alas i cannot(whenever im in the car and look at the sky and see the sun rays filtering through the clouds all i can really think is "i should be up there")

4/ its pretty ever present so yk

5/ most people are nice, i dont get into discourse cuz it makes me a lil sad cuz like...idk its someone elses life i dont think its a big deal unless its spreading misinformation or harming someone/something

6/ uhhhh prolly gotta go with 2 of my friends being therians too so i can chat with them about it sometimes(i keep it to myself most of the time idk im just like that) being referred to as my therio/kin/paleotype. the fact that most of my clothes are black and one of my more frequently noticeable types have black fur(maybe thats why im more comfortable in blacks/browns/greens huh...) the fact that i have a lot of like cat/dog/owl/prey/etc mannerisms

7/ sometimes mainly cuz i dont have fangs/sharp teeth or a tail and i have skin...and organs...and no wings...only 2 eyes the list just goes on but its not like dysphoria it doesnt cause me distress but yk id rather have all that stuff cuz it would cause more euphoria does that makes sense?

8/ stay away from discourse and if smth doesnt fit thats alright, been there done that, it isnt the end of the world, promise /gen /pos

9/ yes, i want some. the only gear i have is a half finished crow mask it just needs elastic and some feather/painted details but i dont have anything so i gotta wait a bit(i have a wip yarn tail...but i dont like the way the yarn feels even tho it kinda feels like course fur)

10/ no....i do not sadly

11/ you know the gist, anyone can answer and i thing i'll tag....hm...@neowanderseternally /nf ofc

If you are an alter/nonhuman, reblog and answer these questions!

(don't be afraid to write a lot, do what you want ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯)

1/ Which category of alterhumanity do you belong to?

2/ What/who is/are your type(s)? (if you have any)

3/ Do you experience shifts? If so, can you tell us your most common shifts and your strangest cameo shift (if you've ever had a cameo shift)?

4/ How do you experience your alterhumanity in everyday life?

5/ What do you think of the community?

6/ What are the things that make you most comfortable and euphoric in your alterhumanity?

7/ Are you experiencing species dysphoria?

8/ What advice would you like to say to a young alterhuman who has just awakened?

9/ Do you have/want to have gears?

10/ Do you know/have any theories about the origin of your alterhumanity? If so, tell us! (all beliefs are legitimate)

11/ Tag someone/a creature to answer these questions!ㅤᵕ̈

[queerum]

aromantics are way too comfortable implying friendship is the most valuable part of life to bitch about alloros doing the same thing with romance

[swordscleric]

I'm only halfway through the second phase of Predathos (which, to be clear is an incredible vibe for a bossfight, love a good head & hands/multitarget-same-entity boss) but I cannot shake the feeling of disappointment and just dissatisfaction I have had with this campaign that definitely started with Dusk/Yu, got followed up handily with the first Delilah/Sun Tree fight and then has been unfortunately reinforced with every discussion surrounding the Prime Deities since Hearthdell. This campaign is fascinating to pick apart, I have been really enjoying pulling apart why it isn't working compared to C1 or C2. But as much as I'm having fun dissecting where the worldbuilding has led to the current weaknesses in the gods' argument or reading other people's incisive commentary on the lack of personalities on the Ruby Vanguard's end, the "girlfailure" nonsense, etc etc, man do I wish this campaign was better than it is.

There are so many avenues of improvement -

Matt telling everyone to prep and write characters for this campaign instead of a C2-esque character-focused campaign.

Matt working religious organisations into the world properly.

The cast engaging with Marquet as a genuine location rather than set-dressing.

Otohan, Ozo and the rest of the Vanguard having more than "*insert snappy line here*" for their personalities.

No Delilah.

Bell's Hells having an iota of curiosity for anything outside of their own selves, including but not limited to: the gods, religious worship, the Elemental Titans and why they were sundered, how the people of Exandria feel about the gods, Vasselheim and its role in suppressing information about Predathos, Ludinus Da'Leth's plan and how it would still break the world if they did it in his place

I don't know why all of this fell into place in the way that it did, but it did. We can endlessly speculate why - the cast resting on their laurels after C2, not having enough time between the animated shows and Daggerheart and Candela Obscura and, and, and - but at the end of the day I really do hope that whatever form the final campaign wrap-up takes, they burn the damn questions asking the cast "what if the world was made of pudding and this character and this character kissed?" and instead pick questions that get them to introspect for a potential Campaign 4. Otherwise I don't know what will happen, but it sure as hell won't be Mighty Nein part 2: Issylra Boogaloo.

[sunnibits]

potentially hot take but this is a pet peeve of mine

[fiona-fififi]

Honestly think it was incredibly disrespectful to add Tommy into the Bobby dying montage.

Like, whatever you think about Buck's potential romantic prospects, we should not have been watching Tommy’s reaction to Buck's reaction to Bobby's death. That scene should have been about Bobby, full stop. Shoehorning a D plot about Buck's love life into Bobby's literal death scene was disrespectful to the life AND death of Bobby Nash.

Terrible narrative choices.

[transgenbur]

people are saying this about c!quackity now and it's the same vibe that they were saying about c!wilbur after his finale (for the "utah = death" believers. Which im not. but its in that perspective).

the idea that a character wanting to die and feeling like it's their only outcome (whether because they feel it's deserved or because they want their suffering to stop. or both) does not. does not actually mean it is. you guys know that right. you understand. we don't need to go over the whole Watsonian vs Doylist thing do we. do we.

this isn't even me discussing whether the ending was an appropriate choice on cc!quackity's end (thats another post and one i have neither the interest nor energy to make), its about people using c!quackity's POV as a suicidal character to justify the Narrative Choice of making him kill himself. him FEELING it's his only outcome DOESN'T MEAN IT IS. do these people understand the implications of their words when they say these things and imply that a suicidal character feeling this means it's an accurate assessment.

and its Exactly what utah death believers would say about c!wilbur after his finale. Shit about how it was the only good outcome because he's hurt people and there's nowhere else for him to go. its like when people say "c!wilbur is a bad person..." -> mildly justifiable statement despite the very restrictive/binary view on morality "...because he said so" -> WHAT! WHAT!

Like these takes genuinely baffle me because most people i encounter on a daily basis on here, despite their sometimes abysmal takes, have an understanding of mental illness that is at least MARGINALLY better than this. "mentally ill guy hates himself so what he says about himself must be correct."

i dont understand what goes wrong that makes people say these things. Because this is truly not revolutionary stuff i'm saying here. like im pretty sure "if you have issues your brain will lie to you sometimes about who you are as a person" is like. General Understanding Of The World 101. so like. whatever. im gonna go play the sims 4

[reineyday]

why do they keep making bucky a government-manipulated pawn 😭 from the american military to hydra to whatever weirdass public relations campaign valentina is pushing the thunderbolts through (see: end credit graphics & the cereal campaign), like he had his brief time on the run and his goats in wakanda but he's sucked back into a sketchy institution once again like what are they doing with him. sure the movie was fun, but every time i think about it i just end up head in hands.