RadioFluff 🦌📻🍰🐑
Alastor x Nilla
My first time filling one of these out. I tried my best. Might redo it one day or make adjustments
Blank templates I used:
I'm pretty sure the original post had more colors..? But I don't remember exactly and I don't remember where I saw the original post (sorry)
7 notes
·
View notes
being around my older white american coworkers has made me realize…..I really don’t fit in these spaces at all and that probably adds to my inability to properly socialize with them. It’s definitely an age and cultural disconnection, on top of autism making it hard for me to even find that connection socially. it’s got me asking my mom if we can visit guatemala together because I crave the familiarity
11 notes
·
View notes
There's a word I try to use ALL THE TIME that apparently doesn't actually exist in English. IDK if it does in another language I speak and maybe that's where I picked it up?
I usually go to "facetious," "ostentatious," or "obstinate," but those are not quite it (tho the last is close).
It means something along the lines of "being difficult on purpose, often as an attempt at humor or smugness at the expense of the others in the conversation."
Closely related to contrarianism. It's like... the point in a debate where you realize the person is just arguing for the sake of arguing because it makes them feel better than you. A lot of "um, actually"s are this. The attitude of a person you'd rather just ignore in a discussion because you know responding to them will go nowhere (but oftentimes they insist). Not necessarily rooted in disingenuity though. Might be convinced of their own superiority? Not always though; it's not always done seriously. Might be done in jest but it is still meant to be annoying. Attitude / behavior that you'd say "ok, now you're just being [word]" (if more lighthearted) or "don't be [word]" (if seriously pissed) in response to. Can immediately take a mildly frustrating or exasperating discussion and turn it into seething rage acutely directed at the other person.
7 notes
·
View notes
one thing i'm really really fascinated by is the fact that everyone in the modern pokemon world seems to consider the deities a power source, nothing more. the games generally imply that knowledge of the legendaries has been lost to time and legend and only preserved by a select few who keep to the Ancient Ways but i don't really think that sounds likely. i think they might be common knowledge people just don't seem to. conceptualize them as greater than in the way that we generally think of them. "this is a divine force that underpins reality and has been worshipped since antiquity" is not a thing that seems to have any problem coexisting with "i'm going to put this thing in an engine and make it my tool." and it's very frequently the baddies doing this which maybe weakens the point a little but very rarely is the point of contention with the bad guys "hey you shouldn't do that to god" that's kind of like, never the part of their thing that people object to. it's always their motives, never their methods. when the Good Guy (local ten year old) catches god and makes it their new partner, nobody has a problem with it! and people joke about this but i'm saying it might imply a way deeper facet of society than people give it credit for.
and is this maybe trying to force the round peg of pokemon legendaries into the square hole of actual religion. very possibly! the games aside from pla certainly seem only very occasionally interested in treating these creatures as gods or godlike or worshipped in any way, and far more often just want to treat them as regular pokemon But Stronger. so it's maybe not reasonable to try and say these entities are deities. but the problem is they are! it's not like this isn't supported textually, it's just... not a part of canon that canon is actually interested in. dialga, palkia, the lake trio, kyogre, groudon—these things are gods. canon can mince words and call them legendaries and "worshipped as deities maybe sometimes" but when you get to the point where you're discussing something that represents a fundamental force governing reality and/or can end the world on a whim then idc what you call it. that's a god.
but the problem is that they are gods and also pokemon, they're both simultaneously. and people in the pokemon world seem to have worked this out, and have had the collective realization that the gods are truly not exempt from their own rules. they can be captured, they can be subjugated, they can be used. this also ties back in with the whole anarchism discussion obviously but it's just the fact that like. it goes way deeper than everyone being fine with the ten year old putting the lord of time in a ball. the entire world operates on the premise of "eat your gods."
does that like... contradict worship? can you be faithful to something knowing it's been used as a tool?
37 notes
·
View notes
Some intersex people genuinely don't want to be included but the majority of us want to be. It's actually really difficult to be in queer spaces that consistently enforce sex binaries, never use the updated progress flag with us, and never have intersex flags.
Often the idea that we don't want to be included comes from intersexists who want us to remain as "disorders of sexual development" (outdated offensive term). It's unfortunate that this idea permeates the queer community so much.
You can see photos from this intersex organization using the pride flag, if you need more than an anon's word. https://interactadvocates.org/#
Thanks for the information!
I didn't know "disorders of sex development" was considered outdated and offensive, I thought it was actually a modern (more formal?) alternative to "intersex". Unless that was "differences of sex development"? (I almost tagged it on the original post but I wasn't sure what the term was.) Ah, I found more information on the link (x). Thanks for the website, very helpful!
This subpage is a great source on intersex people wanting to be included! It's a bit more ambivalent than I expected - combined with this anon's word and my previous impressions it seems like there are still a significant amount of intersex people who don't want to be a part of the queer community, but the ones who do want to be included would much prefer the queer community open its arms. So it seems to me the best course is to do so and the intersex people who want to can individually distance themselves (my impression is most people of that group more want to be personally distanced than think 'I' should never be a part of 'LGBTQA') and only partake in intersex communities.
We recommend adding intersex to your organization’s LGBTQIA+ acronym only once you have intersex leadership, consultation and/or resources. Intersex people have very specific needs, just like each letter of the acronym.
This line in particular stood out to me because they only provide guidance for what organizations should do... I feel like most times when the decision is being made whether or not to use the intersex progress flag, it's individuals and small groups like my GSA making posts, selling merch, decorating a space, etc. that aren't serving any needs besides community for anyone... I guess I already came to the conclusion to include by default though? (Honestly this page feels just barely strong enough for me to send to anyone if this question comes up in the future, so if anyone has any more sources do send in more anons!)
Honestly I was hoping for something like "our survey of as many intersex forums/organizations/people as possible found that 80% of intersex people want to be included in 'LGBTQIA', pride events/orgs, and the progress pride flag" --that this had been "laid to rest" and I could just tell my friend straight "no, intersex people want to be included now"-- , but of course I shouldn't expect things to be too simple haha, people & groups are nuanced and nuance comes in the form of caveats. At least I feel much more informed now!
4 notes
·
View notes