#which is very cishet of them but whatever

[caliburn-the-sword]

other than the entire adultery plotline, the only thing i would retcon in the entire season 1 of ouat is the fairies are cursed to become nuns in storybrooke. WHAT EVEN WAS THAT??? so many characters became their exact opposites, so why was blue the exact same stuffy woman both as a fairy and in storybrooke? in my mind, the fairies became a giant lesbian commune (so essentially what they already were in the enchanted forest) living on the outskirts of town. and because storybrooke shouldn't have any contact with the outside world, the fairies collectively own a farm that sources most of the food for all of storybrooke. when the curse broke they were like hey actually this is pretty good. and kept being a giant lesbian commune.

[seilon]

pro: ran into a coworker at a bar last night who I don’t really talk to usually (he works upstairs, I work downstairs) and we talked and im pretty sure we were highkey flirting and he bought me a drink and the bar merch shirt i was interested in and thanks to the power of alcohol i guess i asked for his number and he gladly gave it to me and. yeah

con: i have the second worst hangover i have ever had and have been fighting for my fucking life just to eat saltines

[quenthel]

not a huge fan of pride flags (they do nothing like politically imho beyond the rainbow one, also the homonationalist connections i simply dont like) that being said people putting dinosaurs skeletons and dragons on the sunset lesbian flag are so funny i love those

[genderkoolaid]

hey i was wondering something and i wanted to know your opinion on it

Why is it problematic to say i hate men but not white people or straight people

(i'm a trans south east asian man btw)

I'd say on, like, a casual exasperated level, its not problematic to say "I hate [x]." It gets problematic when your venting about a group becomes your sole lens of viewing + interacting with that group.

Like, its entirely alright to be frustrated with behaviors common to cishet white men and express that in a vent by saying you hate them. But... its like how people make the correct point that they shouldn't be expected or obligated to give all their energy to coddling people with power over them, but translate that into "i never have to care about a member of this group at all" which directly conflicts with just. being in a community? Like women should not be expected to be caretakers for men, but people in a community need to take care of each other. When the only way you engage with a group of people is by expressing hatred and asserting how much you aren't obligated to care about them, its easier than people think to find yourself dehumanizing them.

Which does not mean "you are just as bad as a racist/misogynist" or "you are oppressing them"; you are An Individual whose biases are not necessarily backed up by powerful systemic powers. But, for one, its very easy for those biases to be used by systemic forces: with men, misandry is very easily used to justify all kinds of violence towards marginalized men & people perceived as men. You also have situations where people will say the Holocaust "wasn't as bad" as, say, US slavery, because it was "white on white violence," or saying the Armenian genocide also wasn't that big of a deal because "it was done to Christians and Christians are always killing people" (two real things I have seen been said). And, again: if you are going to care about community and restorative/transformative justice and all that, you need to be able to give a shit about all kinds of people who you live with. You need to be able to see them as whole beings you are capable of connecting with on some level. You don't personally need to date or befriend men, but you do need to be able to give a shit about men in your community.

Its fine to feel annoyance and anger and use "hatred" to express that. But the problem occurs when people take "its okay to be angry with your oppressors and not spend all your energy coddling them" and make that the end-all be-all of their relationship with people of whatever group; revolutions can't accomplish compassionate goals when they are run on hatred. Very hooksian concept but "love" (as in "a combination of care, commitment, knowledge, responsibility, respect and trust", not in a strictly emotional sense but as an action) is a skill that is as vital as understanding class dynamics and protest tactics. Maybe you don't need to love everyone, but try to have the capacity to love anyone; the ability to physically care for someone you don't emotionally like is, I think, a vital step towards truly challenging and bringing down the kyriarchy.

Basically its about recognizing when your venting stops being an outlet and starts being a way for unproductive feelings to shape how you view other people.

[taffywabbit]

idk if i'm way off the mark on this, but the way some people are responding to that Guillermo del Toro interview about the decline of studio animation is a bit frustrating to me. specifically the bit where he talks about "emoji animation" and how everything is over-animated and pushed too far and things are rarely allowed to not be ultra-cartoony (y'know, because animation always needs to be marketable to children who are never trusted to have attention spans, right?). like, i think he's generally correct about it! but some folks are taking the wrong message away from that.

i've seen people going off about how "soulless" and "corporate" various recent examples are, and talking about these pieces of media as though they're the result of some kind of personal failing or lack of skill/range on the part of the animators, and it's just like. do people realize that's the only animation you're usually allowed to DO in the industry, unless you get incredibly lucky and land yourself on a project/studio that's unusually cool?

when i was in college for animation it was literally drilled into us nonstop that everything had to be pushed more, that exaggeration was not a guideline or a sometimes-treat but a hard rule that always had to be applied regardless of what was going on, because the viewer couldn't be trusted to pick up on subtlety and we sure as hell couldn't be trusted to convey it. you ever wonder why there's such a specific vibe to a lot of self-directed student films, particularly ones that are focused on character acting/interaction or deep emotions and introspection (especially when there's minimal/no dialogue)? it's because for a lot of young animators, they haven't had the freedom to experiment with realism and subtlety up to that point and they're likely not going to have it again for a while (or at all, unless their career path leads to higher positions where they might have more creative direction over the things they work on. which also becomes a lot less likely if they're anything other than a cishet white dude, for what it's worth).

i would LOVE to see more nuanced, realistic, understated motion and acting in animation. i WANT more characters to be able to express what they're feeling through natural body language and facial cues and for scenes to allow me to breathe instead of spelling everything out in giant bold flashing text all the time. what del Toro wants to see changed in the animation industry sounds great, and i hope others join him in seeking to revamp what modern animation is allowed to be.

but as things currently stand, and as they've stood for a long while now, most artists doing the grunt work on the shows and movies you see are completely at the mercy of corporations and networks who have a vested interest in producing a very specific kind of marketable and cost-efficient media all the time. (and by extension that style is ALSO what's taught in most animation schools, because their job more than anything is to grind you down into a perfect little sweatshop worker who will bend over backwards to meet quotas and get your work approved and not question the higher-ups, even if you have little to no personal investment in the projects you're working on, so that the studios who employ you can maintain their good reputations or whatever)

anyways idk what my point was here, this really just sorta became a rant and my views have undoubtedly been coloured by my own personal experiences (this kinda shit is largely why i dropped out before my last year of animation school, for the record).

i guess just be kind to folks in the animation industry? they've had it fucking rough nonstop for well over a century (the majority of them are still not unionized and there's HUGE pushback against doing so in many places). i assure you they are doing their best to infuse the latest uninspired illumination flick or weird spinoff kids' show with literally any amount of soul they can. you don't have to like the stuff that gets produced by any means! be a hater! i'm certainly not gonna stop you. just remember where these creative decisions come from and why these conditions exist, and consider that when YOU watched something and thought "hmm that could've been done better", you can bet your ass someone actually working on it probably thought the same thing but couldn't do anything about it. these things WILL change as the industry itself improves, but in the meantime folks have to pay their rent, and that usually means doing what they're told and working in a way that will minimize revisions and meet quotas so they can keep their jobs. it sucks, but it is what it is.

[communistkenobi]

Obviously art does not rest on methods, media, or the amount of effort a person exerted in making it, but I think AI art is yet another way that capitalism is changing the form and function of art (separating artworks from their original meaning on a different and even larger scale) and given that it is made by exploiting workers (the original artists and the people they pay pennies to sort through it to remove disturbing images) it makes people feel yet more powerless in the face of corporations so there is a big negative reaction to it. This negative reaction may not be articulated in the way you want but I think it's very understandable that people have reactionary feelings about large scale corporate exploitation.

just for the record before I respond, I am replying to this ask in good faith just as you are asking in good faith, I’m not angry at you and many of these questions I’m asking are rhetorical, for the purposes of reflection. So please no slapfighting in the notes, thank you!

First: I’m not disputing exploitation. in fact privileging AI as uniquely exploitative handwaves away the massive amount of exploitation that artists already endure and have endured for a very long time, as well as the horrific amounts of labour exploitation involved in mass producing the ‘tools of the trade’ so to speak.

But this is, again, a non-sequitur to my argument, which is that art produced under exploitative, destructive, “lazy” or politically repugnant conditions is still art. MCU films are art regardless of the fact that they are 3-hour long informercials for the American empire and require massive labour exploitation from CGI animators, actors, film set workers, and everything else: advertisements are art: AI art is art. Horrifying, trite, unoriginal, bad, socially destructive, maybe all of those things are true and we can talk about the merits of those claims (I certainly have strong opinions about them), but what is politically gained from saying bad, unoriginal, horrifying, or trite art isn’t art? Whose definitions are we using here, and if those definitions should be universalised, what does it mean for artists who are only unoriginal, only bad, only whatever else?

I return to my original example: are children not qualified to be artists if they only make “bad” art? I used to trace movie stills from Harry Potter photo books as a child because I loved the characters - am I a fraud for doing so? Am I given grace for my incompetence and “theft” on the basis of me “still learning how to do real art”? When does this grace period end? If we argue that only struggle can produce art, what level of struggle? Struggle for whom? Drawing isn’t difficult for me because I was taught how to hold a pencil, read, write, and draw by a western industrial publicly-funded primary school by a teacher paid with public tax dollars, supplemented with help every night from my mother and father, two married cishet middle class people in a mostly stable (if miserable and verbally abusive) marriage - all of which is resting atop stolen indigenous land. Under what historical conditions can arguments for artistic struggle be made? When we argue for struggle(/hard work/whatever) as the basis of art we are pre-supposing a universal subject whose struggle is globally standardized and calculable - which in all of these discussions on here is (implicitly, though sometimes explicitly) a white able-bodied settler living in a western state who benefits from universal primary education that teaches them the foundational skills of how to make art. You can probably add university educated to that too, given how many of these arguments seem to be swarmed by undergraduate students.

Arguing that there needs to be some threshold for method, labour, intent, or message for art to ‘actually be art’ is politically reactionary and is what I am responding to. It requires transcendental claims about the Artist as a unique labourer set apart from and superior to all others, one whose skills are universalised and whose intent is always observable and present in their work. So if people want to talk about exploitation they should talk about exploitation, not the definition of art. It’s not my fault people can’t stay on topic!

[bughugz]

DNI minors, zoos, pedos, transphobes, homophobes, racists, detrans, eating disorder blogs, self harm blogs, cishet men, 'men dni' blogs, ableists, blank and ageless accounts there's probably more if any of these things are you or you give off a not good vibe or whatever i'll block you

hiiiii i'm rory you can also call me bug, bun, or worm! it doesn't much matter to me which of these you use for me i'm a 20 year old 2spirit gnc trans man i only use he/it pronouns (on t!) please perceive as like effeminate boyish and creaturelike with some sprinkling of cultural and spiritual context to confuse the masses i'm also neurodivergent and chronically ill please be patient with me and maybe use tone tags

i'm very non monogamous and don't really label my sexuality i'm simply attracted to gender fuckery usually very t4t and i love woman and nonbinary people in a very queer way i have a big masc lean on here it's very faggy i mostly post transmasc for transmasc content

feel free to flirt with me and be like gross and horny i love attention my dms and asks are open i love interacting with y'all but consent is valued i have a life and i will not tolerate disrespect you can also send pics if you ask nicely and i might send back i may however also choose not to respond to your advances please do not act entitled i don't make a habit of creating close personal relationships on the internet and i don't owe you anything if you really want my attention or just like my content ... tip me! my venmo and cashapp are both $bughugz

i'm basically a subby bottom bitch boy the vast majority of the time i would not feel comfortable domming most people i'm just occasionally feral and sadistic will dom bottom if i feel like it i find more power in being the one receiving sooo do with that what you will

kinks & limits + terminology and names you can use for me + some stuff to get to know me outside of kink below cut:

key to my heart as a sub is petplay (mostly bunny sometimes puppy) but here is a way too long list of other things i like and may also post about in no particular order:

intox (420!)

cnc (might include uncensored use of the word rape)

overstimulation / edging

bondage / restraints

praise / degradation (not of looks)

crying

sadomasochist

dumbification

manhandling

impact play

spanking

breeding (not pregnancy)

biting / scratching

marking / bruising

free use / public play / anonymous sex etc

group sex / gangbangs / spit roasting etc

objectification !!!!

limits ie things i won't be posting about or engaging in for my safety and comfort but to each their own

abdl / ddlg / other variants

scat

beastiality

piss

vomit

race play

oviposition/eggs

detrans / misgendering

body mods ie play piercing

any sorta of burning or just open flame

if you're curious to know more of my thoughts on something that is or is not here send me an ask or dm!!!

terminology and names you can use for me include:

chest, tits, t/dick, cunt, hole (bunny, puppy, or boy prefixes are fine ie puppycunt, boytits, bunny hole)

bunny, puppy, mutt, bitch, angel, baby, good boy, love, slut, whore, (fuck)toy, pretty boy, sweetheart etc

i also like masc compliments and being called pretty!you can definitely ask if you wanna call me a particular pet name i love them and most are fine but i do not like little one, the word girl, or princess !!!

get to know me outside of kink:

i'm an herbalist and i love plants and ethnobotany especially

i'm in college slowly working towards an environmental science degree

i love bugs and crystals and anything miniature

i like cozy games and fashion and books

i'm a fiber artist and like to experiment with lots of different mediums and styles

i like to roller skate badly

exploring in nature is one of my favorite pastimes whether it's tide pooling or admiring all the little things in a small stretch of forest

this is 100% a horny blog and i will be spamming my silly horny and sometimes non horny thoughts so often that you might hate me not great with words mostly rambling. but please don't hesitate to try and befriend and get to know me and ask me about any of this stuff i like dms just so long as you're respectful i do have social anxiety so i may not dm first!

pics of me are tagged #wormy pics

audios of me are tagged #wormy audios

original text nsfw and sfw is all mostly lumped into #bun ramblings

asks are #wormyasks

anons: 🌸, 🦊, 👾,🪼,💀

[utilitycaster]

Unpopular opinion: parts of the cr fandom are really dismissive/ reductive of Travis’s characters. It feels like it’s due to Travis being seen as THE cis het man of the group, and by extension his characters must be heteronormative and bad, despite the fact that you could have queer interpretations of his characters. At the very least, Travis’s characters explore masculinity and the different ways it might look. It’s like the people who are all “ew men are gross and shitty” and act like that’s an absolutely normal reaction to a man just existing.

So this is another one in that I agree with the initial statement, but I'm actually not sure re: the reasoning why. I think it's possible but I could not tell you for sure.

I used to, again, think this was people carrying through Campaign 1 elements well beyond the point where C1 had ended, and so Grog having an intelligence of 6 was being applied to Travis; and this definitely does come through to an extent when people treat Fjord (objectively as smart as Beau without her circlet) as stupid or act shocked that Chetney is the brains of Bells Hells or that he can play a Cerrit, Fjord, or Nathaniel. However, again, I think this is one of those opinions that pops up among people who weren't around for Campaign 1 (or early enough in C2 to be exposed to it regularly) so I don't know if that's the case anymore. It could still be - it could be that Approved Fandom Opinions get passed down even when the logic behind them has long since been lost; that's a really common thing in institutional memory. But I can't say for sure.

I also have in the past credited it to, as you said, people assuming his characters are the cishet guys and then writing them off. That's still possible - I've seen both Fjord and Chetney called "token straight" despite considerable evidence of bisexuality, and they also paradoxically are both commonly headcanoned as trans while still getting called "token straight," which sort of ties into a post I would need to find from someone else from quite some time ago about which cast members are granted agency by the fandom in their choices vs. which are assumed to be the victims of circumstance. And I do think that there are people in fandom who have decided men are icky or whatever, and I used to think this came from a place of bigotry and a slide towards t*rf ideology but I now do genuinely think it's just idiots who don't grant interiority to characters outside their own limited understanding.

But I think it's also useful to consider a few things, most of which I've brought up before:

Travis is extremely offline. He is not here to entertain your headcanons; he has been politely but openly dismissive of some (imo, really fucking dumb) fanon/fan theories. I think the cast frequently talks about how it's their table, and I think that's valid and correct, but Travis is one of the players who lives it the most. He is playing this game with his friends, and he'd like it to be a good story, but if you don't like it, he is not here to make you like it. I think that really fucks with the parasocial connections some people desire with the cast.

Travis's characters tend to examine masculinity as a performance but also the general performance of the self, and the fact that you cannot in the end control how you are perceived entirely, and I think that really unsettles people who have equated presentation with reality and are again, looking for external validation of the self.

Travis can play it big but he's often extremely subtle, especially with his more serious characters, and he's not as easily quotable out of context as some others at the table. I think because he is a lot more naturalistic than dramatic at times (Chetney notwithstanding) and isn't as pithy and quotable in his characters as many of Taliesin's PCs are, and a lot of the strength is in the delivery, he gets overlooked despite being very good with words on the fly.

And finally: this would be a whole post on its own but people are still very foolishly wed to this idea that pressing the big red button in D&D is Wild and Chaotic and haha Big ADHD Man when it's actually how you play D&D if you're not a coward; the button is where the story is stored, and a lot of Travis's strength is that he is extremely good at understanding what the GM wants and supporting it with sufficient grace that it's only visible if you know what you're fucking doing.

[ysabelmystic]

Spent some time trying to see if there was any logical reasoning amongst the Americans refusing to vote for Biden and honestly, not seeing any. There seems to be a complete inability to think ahead.

Honestly, ask yourself:

1) is trump going to be better for Palestine than Biden?

The answer is no. Fuck no.

2) is there anything you can do personally to help Palestinians?

Donate money and protest. Are people being attacked for exercising their free speech on the matter? Yes, and that will continue to happen, possibly to a more extreme extent, under Trump. This country sucks ass.

So all they’re really doing by trying to punish the Democratic Party is convincing themselves that they will avoid having blood on their hands. Somehow, this same logic does not apply to them when it comes to the inevitable outcome, which, since there is no viable third party option, is that republicans win. I guess the republicans can do whatever they want to Americans, Palestinians, and people around the world, and these arrogant, “well read” fools will continue to pat themselves on the back, saying that America was already fascist anyways, that this couldn’t be prevented, that America deserves to fall actually, that voting does nothing, and aren’t they just so enlightened and moral for using “the real tools of the revolution” (which is almost always something that they aren’t willing to do themselves). If 2016 and 2020 taught them nothing, I suppose they’ll be harping on about it until the internet gets shut down.

It’s not a “Zionist take” to want my community to live. This isn’t a choice between Palestinians and Americans who aren’t cishet white men. This is a choice between shit staying the same amount of fucked and possibly improving, and full blown Christian nationalism. I’m guessing most of these people don’t know what that is. They probably didn’t grow up around it and they probably don’t live around it. They probably live in blue states or very blue cities and haven’t experienced right wing religious people consistently enough to really understand the extent of that threat. Or maybe they don’t care about themselves enough to feel like they have skin in the game at all (so fuck the rest of us I suppose).

Grit your teeth and vote for Biden, and if you think you’re too good for it and Trump wins, I hope you experience the fallout in the most direct way possible. If basic logic doesn’t work, maybe some personal experience will, that is, assuming you’ll still be able to vote in 2028.

[chamerionwrites]

I do actually have a lot of sympathy for people who get up in arms about kink, in the sense that defenses of it are sometimes phrased as none of your business, everything is fine all the time, do whatever you want forever and that’s…pretty obviously an oversimplification at best. Which I don’t blame anybody for pushing back on and/or feeling upset about.

The thing is that so often the pushback comes in the form of trying to sort stuff into clear-cut Good and Bad boxes. And imo that’s also an oversimplification, in ways that are maybe slightly less obvious but just as dangerous. And I get why saying “actually it’s complicated and contextual” makes people feel threatened, and I get that feeling threatened makes it hard for people to listen, but I think it’s important to grasp that actually nothing is okay all the time.

What I mean by that is…people can be and frequently are abused and assaulted without any physical violence whatsoever. A tender kiss on the forehead can be violating, in the right context. Because the violence isn’t in the act - it’s in the context.

What I mean by that is - most people would agree that it’s good to get off on pleasing your partner, and that there’s nothing inherently wrong with getting a nice ego boost in the bargain. But I think a lot of people could also testify that it’s entirely possible for someone to do nominally “generous,” “considerate” sex acts in deeply self-centered and objectifying ways. If someone is pushing you into something just because you’re “supposed” to like it, or getting huffy and resentful because what does it for you isn’t the same as what did it for their previous partner(s) - that isn’t generous or considerate! Because the selfishness/selflessness isn’t in the act, it’s in the context.

I guarantee you there are plenty of conservative christians who think that having anything but god-honoring gender-affirming vanilla man-on-top cishet missionary sex is perverse…and the misogyny and/or homophobia isn’t in the act, it’s in the context.

And yeah, some people get off on cruelty/control/etc for all the wrong reasons and imo you’d be hopelessly naive not to acknowledge that. But also, human libido often operates very much in a realm of symbol and metaphor, and a fair number of people have the sex version of whatever sensation-seeking thing makes the brain go brrrrrr about triple extra hot salsa/horror movies/roller coasters/tragedies that make them cry/other painful or scary or intense sensations experienced in controlled ways. And the violence or lack thereof isn’t in the act, it’s in the context.

[prince-liest]

Don't mind me getting on my soapbox for a moment... a lot of this musing is admittedly for the sake of my own processing of this topic, re: aroaceness. Read at your own peril! <3

I'm generally a very "ship and let ship" kind of person, but I think I would definitely append a little caveat of, like, "As long as you're not being actively invalidating and detrimental to others" to that. Which is a delightfully vague statement that can be interpreted practically any way, I know, hahaha.

In the case of this particular post I've just been thinking about how, like... seeing an aroace character like Alastor get written into dozens upon dozens of PWPs (including ones that don't even touch on the subject of his aceness at all) is really not something that I personally find to be hurtful or offensive. It's just smut for the sake of smut, of a character people want to see awful, sexy things done to (or doing). Valid! I vibe with you! More people should just write the PWPs they want to see in the world!

But on the other hand, I've several times seen this very particular type of art (usually it's a comic, but admittedly I haven't been reading very many Hazbin Hotel fics so maybe it's there, too) where Alastor is slotted into the "methinks the lady doth protest too much" trope. As in, he's expressing strong feelings about a character (usually Vox or Lucifer, sometimes Angel Dust) to someone, probably Rosie, and the person he's confiding to is some variant of, "Oh, silly Alastor, you're obviously in love!" And then he denies it, says that the very idea disgusts him, and the character titters to themselves about how he's so naive in the matters of romance or whatever.

And it's, like.

The "strong feelings" in question are almost always frustration/annoyance/disgust, and him being like, "Nnnno, I just hate his person" is treated like a silly and naive misunderstanding of his own feelings because obviously he's in love. Please imagine that Alastor was a female character who was established to be a lesbian. Now examine how that suddenly makes this scene feel.

(Also, Rosie being the go-to for this is a little frustrating when she's the one who, in canon, explicitly says that she wouldn't make that assumption of him.)

There's such a chasm of difference between how I see people wanting to ship Alastor for reasons of "I just want to!" vs folks who engage with him being aroace in ways that are infantilizing and invalidating. There are so many people out there - not just aro/ace people, but anyone who's not exclusively into the standard type of person they should be into at the time society deems they should be into them, which is most queer people and even many cishet folks - that have been told that exact kind of thing in real life. It reads like something out of a compulsory heterosexuality guidebook, and it actively makes it harder to leave the closet or even realize that you're in one at all.

So I guess it just feels frustrating to see it get made into a punchline, especially by folks who are shipping queer ships. I genuinely can't wait until fandom society advances to the point of consistently treating aro/acespec folks as queer instead of Queer Lite (TM), because let me tell you, ime the comphet experience and the amato/allonormativity experience are in fact nigh-identical except for how they're treated within online communities. There's a reason the pan -> gay -> ace pipeline is a thing.

But, hey! We're already doing way better than we were in 2012!

[purgemarchlockdown]

Liar Tax

(Also Known as: Nott had Visions due to Dehydration about the Shidou covers)

So the cover songs are some of my personal favorite things about Milgram. When I first got into Milgram I got brainblasted by the Animal cover and was never the same. Since then I've always wanted to write more about the covers but I never got around to writing anything about them at length.

And then I put on the Shidou Covers.

On the count of "I-love-you"

The most noticeable common denominator when it comes to these songs is the concept of lying which I will relegated to a secondary element because I think these two songs have something more interesting to give us when it comes to insight on Kirisaki Shidou.

Shidou is very much what I would dub an Eternity Seeker. He longs for the:

T1Q16: What is the definition of happiness? A: To be promised an unchanging tomorrow.

He has this distinct romanticized version of the past and wishes he had the stable family life that he lost. His songs and VDs are tinged with this very strong sense of grief and longing for the better past where nothing bad ever happened actually.

“Throw down” connecting you with me, To keep you alive, you are still living

His crime as well seems to be connected to him trying to save "someone" (presumably his wife but also possibly one of his children) and failing. He's not exactly someone who can cope with change Well. That's why he's here after all. He's forsaken a lot of "morality" to get what he wants here.

"Stolen? Just whatever do you mean?" Committing myself to this performance, set lines and all Those memories we've desperately created and clung to, they blend together and feelings between us intensify

That’s right, for all these dirty delusions, let’s settle the bill with this dirty money

And he's not exactly uh- great at coping with this entire.

For someone who has self admitted to have done a lot of bad things, is stubborn and unwilling to change, and still says that for love he would do:

T1Q6: What are you willing to sacrifice for love? A: Everything.

He's pretty unforgiving to himself about this. He asked a 15 year old to kill him and all. His morals and beliefs are strict and rigid and it hurts everyone around him, including him.

Liar Dance reflects this. The singer is unforgiving and hateful towards who their singing towards but the singer talks about how:

It's swallowed you up completely, hasn't it? Liar Turn me inside-out and I look just like you It's nice to meet you, "Crime" and Punishment" No matter what you say

It's too late to apologize We're already partners in this crime called "love"

Acknowledging that they are the same in the end. Akin to how even though Shidou makes a distinction between the part of him that committed horrible acts of presumed medical malpractice and the part that is a good respectable member of society in Throw Down. They are Both Him.

And the feelings of deceit and guilt that comes with tricking people into believing that you (Shidou) are better than you actually are. The feeling of having gone too far, That:

“Throw down” ethics is a delusion I’m still guilty even if the morning comes

Liar Dance thus functions as a bit of a self condemnation. But I don't think that's the only possible meaning that can be derived from it. As Liar Dance is also distinctly about weak and false love.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you Shidou didn't care about his family. What I will say is that You Should Read These Posts by @/archivalofsins that break down the distinct possibility that Shidou Kirisaki might just be kinda a bad dad. His romanticization obscuring the knowledge that, no family can be that perfect and that Shidou was most likely less good then he would like to admit.

Dance away, liar This love has swelled up like a balloon, let's turn it into a lie with the prick of a needle On the count of "I-love-you"

It's a lie because any sort of perfect cishet marriage is a lie. That's not a thing because there's no such thing as a perfect relationship. Shidou's standards are so high that they could be considered childish.

A family and love so perfect it can't be anything But a lie.

Turning wishes into reality

But that's not all.

While Delusion Tax is also a song that can pretty easily be mapped onto Shidou's feelings of selfishness about the morally questionable things he did for the sake of what he wants. There's also another aspect of it and Shidou's character I'd like to explore.

Kirisaki Shidou is a Boyprince.

Or uh- to read better in Milgram terms. A Savior.

Shidou Kirisaki has this thing about needing people to rely on him to feel...alive and needed.

That’s right, there’s justice that needs saving See, indispensable, I’m indispensable

Existing for your sake alone, mandatory affections and obligated kindness

He needs to be useful to others because to feel like he deserves a place in the world. To feel like he can live within it. He chose to be a doctor because:

T1Q1: Why did you choose your current workplace? A: Because I thought it'd let me contribute to society.

after all.

However, Shidou Kirisaki is self-admittedly selfish despite these seemingly altruistic intents.

Though you should be satisfied, a voice from within shouts “NO!” We have an idiot on our hands, it seems…

For many reasons, but one of them is because he doesn't really care too much about a person's autonomy if he thinks he needs to save or guide them in some way.

This is the most clear with Amane. Who hates him for this!

Shidou: I…… I just don’t understand. If everything about MILGRAM is true…… why did a child like you have to become a murderer? Just imagining what sort of circumstances must have led to that, it makes me so sad…… Amane: ……*sigh*. Is that right. I don’t think I’m going to get along with you, Shidou-san. I don’t agree with the fact you refuse to acknowledge that I have my own free will, and that I should be held accountable for my actions, just because I’m a child. I may have only been alive for 12 years, but all the choices I’ve made, even if they weren’t the best ones, were entirely my own. What point is there in you getting sad when I have no regrets myself?

Because he longs for someone to save to have purpose in this world, he implicitly imposes himself as a "larger authority" on them. Believing his actions and feelings to have a greater importance then what they say.

Let’s pay that Delusion Tax For the sake of making everyone’s life oh so wonderful…

While the Delusion Tax can also read as the "price" he paid in the attempt to what he wanted when it came to his crime.

That which you wish for, the person you think of, The past which you hate as well, they’ll all be as you like. The kind of face and chest you desire, they’ll be granted if you pay.

it can also be read as what Shidou "sacrifices" for the sake of:

making everyone’s life oh so wonderful…

Since, Shidou also has a thing about choosing what he believes to be more valuable and important to a community and this extends to how he treats the people around him.

“Throw down”, someone’s value Cannot be the same as another “Throw down” should choose between superiority or inferiority

He creates these defined lines of who is better and worse, who would be more helpful and who he can...ignore for the sake of others.

Not because he's an evil person who wants to sacrifice people. Again, he has world's worst guilt complex. Just because...from a pragmatic standpoint...some people just contribute less than others and Oh No Don't Look at this Wikipedia Page for Eugenics I have Accidentally Linked!

"Hey, that girl is pretty great… Her too!" Looks like you’re thinking some pretty nice thoughts over there… Are you really satisfied with just that? Don’t you think it’d be nice for it all to come true? “That girl is alright… That one works too, I guess” Pretending you love compromise, what a liar!

Delusion Tax's perspective Singer is talking about granting people's Wishes. For a price. But that price is good for something better right?

Turning wishes into reality Right now, buy back your future! Afflicted by so badly wanting to do “that”, consumed by desire Come now, let’s go beyond all this pain

Everything must have an equivalent exchange right?

Well, now we can circle back to his murder because, well, that's not really how life works either. Life isn't really fair in the sense of you pay something and you get what you want back. Sometimes you pay everything and still lose.

You can't save everyone, not necessarily because you were naive or because you didn't try hard enough or didn't do the dirty work you should of or whatever. But because, you just can't. It's impossible.

A Lie, a Farce, a Delusion, if you will.

But those wishes won't really come true, even if you pay For it’s all a lie, a great big farce

The Correct Answer, I Don’t Yet Know

Kirisaki Shidou I think, really does want the world to be fair. He wants to contribute, be useful, be important. Have the world stay in balance. He submits himself to be guilty verdict-ed because he Deserves To Die, but changes his mind and tries to convince Es to let him live because people now Need him and the "balance" of the "world" has now shifted into needing him.

It's his own perspective on the world applied onto himself. In Trial 1 he's sorted himself into an undesirable who should not be let into society anymore. In Trial 2 he's pinged himself as someone so important and priceless that they Must Not let him go.

Is this a necessarily healthy view? No! Not at all! This harms much more people than him really!

But Shidou's worldview is one that is rigid and working on thoughts on what is "good" or "bad" for the world. It's childish in that sense, causing him to harm others and be stubborn and unwilling to reflect and making him someone who Really Should Not be a doctor, and I think the cover songs explore what he does and the worldview around it really well.

[charmac]

forgive me if i get anything wrong with what i say; i only very recently finished my first watchthrough of iasip and much more recently started interacting with the fandom.

out of curiosity, is there a general consensus on how the fandom views the possibility of macdennis being canon? it feels like scrolling through tumblr and other social media there’s people who are in love with the idea of it being canon and those who abhor it, along with everything in between. reading through your previous ask, for me it begs the question: is there any reason why sunny fans or macdennis enthusiasts would discourage the idea of the ship actually being canon?

Nothing incorrect with what you've said; great question. And the funny thing is it's so confusing because there isn’t really a (good) answer as to how the fandom as a whole views the “possibility” of canon Macdennis, because there isn’t a general consensus on whether they should be/are considered canon already.

I think, to some extent, almost everyone has their own micro interpretations on Macdennis being canon or not based on what already exists between the two of them, though there are two undeniable facts: It’s canon that Mac is in love with Dennis and it is canon that Dennis (as Johnny) knowingly became Mac’s boyfriend this season. For a chunk of people, that is canon Macdennis; for others, it’s not canon until they’re in an official relationship, and for most (?) it's an in-between that leads to micro labels and conditional sentences before and after the word "canon"

For the sake of your question, I'm going to split the difference and say "Canon Macdennis" is an undeniably-reciprocal, on-screen hook-up. And why would Macdennis shippers not want that?

In my experience, I tend to see three main/popular explanations as to why:

RCG cannot write it. This is the most simple and maybe least popular (?) reason of the three that I see. The argument being that, whether they have the inability to or people believe they don't have the right to, R(C)G as cishet (allegedly) men can't write or act a canon queer relationship in a way that would be conducive to the characters, a gay ship, and/or the show, and therefore they should not write it at all. Don't trust it = don't want it.

It will permanently alter Mac and Dennis' dynamic. This is the most based (in canon) reason as to why people don't want Mac and Dennis to more-explicitly hook up. Their current dynamic (which has arguably existed this way since before MADBU) has always been pseudo-sexual, toeing the line of "are they fucking..?" for over fifteen years. It is true that Mac and Dennis hooking up, both fully conscious and aware that the hook up is happening with each other, will alter their relationship in a way (that's potentially destroying). There's no going back once Dennis' acts on the sexual tension between them with Mac fully aware of it happening, and some people don't think on-screen gay shit is worth ruining what they currently have. Some people are satisfied with the ambiguously sexual edging of these middle aged men and don't want Canon Macdennis because, for however it's written, there's no way to have them hook-up while retaining the unique ambiguity of their sexual relationship. Don't rock the boat.

Macdennis' current relationship is too toxic and canonising them would be unenjoyable. This reason is probably the most popular but definitely the least based (to the point of canon), stemming from the fact that a chunk of the fandom only likes Macdennis based on flanderised characterisation. If you haven't encountered this (as it's really mostly on Twitter) there are people who ship Macdennis only in fanon (either they found out about the ship through edits, fanart, fics, whatever) and they dislike the toxicity of their canon relationship (and the general idea that the Gang are bad people). Macdennis in this sense is treated more as if it were a typical sitcom ship, where the idea is that they finally hook-up, become boyfriends, and (mostly) happy together. Knowing the actual nature of the show, however, they understand RCG would never "let them be happy" and thus believe Canon Macdennis would suck to watch and would only ruin fanon Macdennis. Fanon > Canon.

I know people out there have other reasons for not wanting Canon Macdennis (i.e. Rob is too ugly to be kissing Glenn), and surely some combine a number of these reasons, but I think these three encompass the majority of what you may be seeing from anti-canon Macdennis shippers.

And I am actually interested in finding out where the divide lies over this, honestly! Right now I would predict the majority of the fandom here would like Canon Macdennis, point blank... but maybe I'm wrong.

[thefirsthogokage]

Someone just tagged me and was like "what's the TIRF to TERF pipeline?! I want to avoid going down the transphobe path!" ... but then they apparently blocked me.

After all the work I put into that post, I couldn't save the post, because, like I said, they apparently blocked me. So, here's how they do it covertly, including how they start with convincing people that sex work is inherently bad, and not infact work...which is what this person said in another post. So, I guess they don't get to learn about that.

Anywho, it's all covert.

TERFs actually love going into places (without marking themselves as TERFs or even radfems/gender critical), then saying things that slowly edge people into hating trans individuals. Maybe it starts with purity culture and talking down sex work. Maybe it starts with being anti-kink amor anti-ship. Maybe it starts with being anti all men, (saying that only men uphold the patriarchy is definitely one of their big things).

Bottom line: they start getting you to hate people, particularly people who do things of their own consent, or get you to start not liking groups of marginalized people. They start saying "this is wrong," putting some sort of moral emphasis on something consensual being inherently wrong or bad. Or maybe they start complaining about a group of people. Whatever way the do it, it's not always obvious what their true beliefs are

They start chipping away at what groups they think should not have the right to do whatever they want, or present in whatever way they want, because it doesn't fit their view of what's right.

(let me be very clear here: I am in NO WAY talking about p*dos. Fuck them.)

They do this more and more and more, and eventually, down that line, they end up whittling who should have the power down to only cishet white Christians.

Yes, this is the pipeline. It's been proved. There are charts.

They get minority groups to turn on each other, and that let's those hard right Christian White guys to get what they want: no one but them, and white women they can force to have their children. This includes lesbians turning on the trans community. People turning on asexuals, telling them they aren't real. People being bi- and panphobic. Etc.

It's a pipeline. It's talked about. The research is out there, but I am unable to pull up anything at the moment.

Just wanted to get that out.

[total-drama-brainrot]

tgirl lindsay and lesbian beth take ezekiel to pride he learns abt trans people (hes been transgender his whole life)

Taking this prompt and running it through my oblivious transmasc Ezekiel headcanon.

Lindsay and Beth adoopt Zeke into their social circle to teach him about the world outside of his farm in a healthier way than whatever media he'd been exposed too after his Island elimnation did. In doing so they come to find out that he has literally no idea about anything LGBTQIA+ - he didn't know people could be attracted to the same sex, let alone not identify with their assigned at birth gender.

It's safe to say, Ezekiel is given a very educational rundown by Beth. He doesn't have any issues with the idea though, and easily accepts Beth's sexuality. The two of them are almost impressed that his father's misogynistic rhetoric wasn't also homophobic, but they logisticise it by assuming his dad was so against anything non-cishet that he declined to mention it at all.

It isn't until Beth starts explaining gender as a concept that Ezekiel starts realising things; at first the girls are a little concerned that he's so focused on the biological discrepancies between sex and gender, but when he reveals that he's got "girl parts" (which is news to him too, thanks to his homeschool education) Beth's quick to connect the dots.

She quickly and quietly lets Lindsay know what's happening, and the girls settle in to help Ezekiel through his oncoming crisis. Lindsay's very relieved to know that Ezekiel won't be holding any transphobic views, since his taught misogyny was difficult enough to overcome.

Except there isn't one, really. He's a boy. He always has been, and being trans instead of cis doesn't change that. In the same way that Lindsay and Beth are girls.

Ezekiel is a simple lad of simple beliefs, and to be entirely honest a lot of the terms Beth tried to teach him goes way over his head, but he gets the general gist of it.

And he's over the moon when they invite him to his first pride parade! He gets his face painted to match Lindsay with the pink, blue and white stripes despite not really knowing the significance of it, he's just happy to be included! He meets a tonne of new friends who wave around their multicoloured flags with so much happiness that he can't help but share their glee!

[olderthannetfic]

Pronoun discourse is just as exhausting in person. A trans girl in my group project for History of Modern Europe refused to use he/him for me because "they/them is neutral" and I looked her in the eyes and said, "I will not reply to group texts, upload anything or share resources if you don't refer to me correctly. I use silence to train my dogs, I use it to train transmisandrists, too." She was furious and spent a few weeks misgendering me... until she realized I was serious and I would let all of us fail this group project because this he/him? Yeah, this he/him had a 100 on every single assignment up until that point and could take the grade hit. If other people can't, well, that's not my problem.

She learned to call me he/him with incredible regularity once her grade was on the line. Suddenly, two words weren't incredibly hard to recall and abruptly, not every conversation with her turned into her lecturing me on how trans women have it harder than trans men. We were able to talk about the actual subject of the group assignment and she was able to remember he/him.

Meanwhile, the cishet members of the group had not struggled to recall he/him for me once, nor had they turned group project meetings into discourse once.

Why are queer people always most vicious with their fellow queers? I'm in MONTANA, and the people worst to me aren't the fucking rednecks, it's other queer people. Rednecks don't condescend to me about how they/them is neutral and good and indicates they're trying their best and trans men have it easy actually. It's the city queers sitting there going, "Rather than just call you he/him and spend this meeting for our group project focusing on the project, I'm going to treat you like the enemy and lecture you." People talk about the concept of a 'queer community' but getting lectured about how trans women have it worse than trans men (because I guess my saying 'use my pronouns' secretly implies I think trans men have it worse? idk, I don't speak bullshitese) doesn't make me go, "Ah, yes. My community! I feel so supported!" it makes me go, "Oh, fuck. Great, I'm stuck talking to an asshole."

Between this, the lesbians I've met on campus who keep making, "gays can't do math or science or history or whatever other subject we're in right now" jokes who seethe with contempt for the privileged gay men, the cis gay guys terrified of doing something perverted who view drag, cosplay, wearing a skirt, wearing makeup or fucking around with presentation at all as not okay/possibly problematic and the NBs who cannot emphasize enough to you that they're one of the good ones who don't dye their hair or wear stupid shit or use neopronouns like the bad ones do, and the utter disgust they all look at anyone with who dares use the word queer, I'm beginning to feel like "the queer community" is one of those things you don't get access to until you're 30+. Alternatively "the queer community" appears to "antis, but with rainbows and flags and ew you think the rainbow flag is for everyone you're so problematic", which is... not great, honestly?

I know this will get a lot of queer people very angry but I'll say it: there are 492 anti-queer laws proposed in the USA, not counting the ones that have passed. We should probably focus on that instead of going for each other's throats and then saying we're a "community".

--

I don't think it will get many queer people around here angry, but yes.

We have more of a need to draw together into a community when everyone's dying of AIDS or getting beaten up or trying to stop laws that make it illegal for us to exist.

Some people have the privilege to shit all over that community. They don't see it as one, but it is.