cataclysmic-cadenza

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

what happens when you cross a dirt poor orphan with a village who treats him with visceral contempt and revulsion?

what do you get when you cross a survivor of a genocide with a plot to systematically manipulate and control him?

#and ppl act like i can’t have both… #pro naruto AND sasuke #ty #pro naruto uzumaki #pro sasuke uchiha

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

DONATE TODAY!!!!

#signal boost #donate 👊

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

Tomska going hard on Twitter again.

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

The LGBTQ community has seen controversy regarding acceptance of different groups (bisexual and transgender individuals have sometimes been marginalized by the larger community), but the term LGBT has been a positive symbol of inclusion and reflects the embrace of different identities and that we’re stronger together and need each other. While there are differences, we all face many of the same challenges from broader society.

In the 1960′s, in wider society the meaning of the word gay transitioned from ‘happy’ or ‘carefree’ to predominantly mean ‘homosexual’ and was an umbrella term that meant anyone who wasn’t cisgender or heterosexual. The community embraced the word ‘gay’ as a mark of pride.

The modern fight for queer rights is considered to have begun with The Stonewall Riots in 1969 and was called the Gay Liberation Movement and the Gay Rights Movement.

The acronym GLB surfaced around this time to also include Lesbian and Bisexual people who felt “gay” wasn’t inclusive of their identities. 

Early in the gay rights movement, gay men were largely the ones running the show and there was a focus on men’s issues. Lesbians were unhappy that gay men dominated the leadership and ignored their needs and the feminist fight. As a result, lesbians tended to focus their attention on the Women’s Rights Movement which was happening at the same time. This dominance by gay men was seen as yet one more example of patriarchy and sexism. 

In the 1970′s, sexism and homophobia existed in more virulent forms and those biases against lesbians also made it hard for them to find their voices within women’s liberation movements. Betty Friedman, the founder of the National Organization for Women (NOW), commented that lesbians were a “lavender menace” that threatened the political efficacy of the organization and of feminism and many women felt including lesbians was a detriment.

In the 80s and 90s, a huge portion of gay men were suffering from AIDS while the lesbian community was largely unaffected. Lesbians helped gay men with medical care and were a massive part of the activism surrounding the gay community and AIDS. This willingness to support gay men in their time of need sparked a closer, more supportive relationship between both groups, and the gay community became more receptive to feminist ideals and goals. 

Approaching the 1990′s it was clear that GLB referred to sexual identity and wasn’t inclusive of gender identity and T should be added, especially since trans activist have long been at the forefront of the community’s fight for rights and acceptance, from Stonewall onward. Some argued that T should not be added, but many gay, lesbian and bisexual people pointed out that they also transgress established gender norms and therefore the GLB acronym should include gender identities and they pushed to include T in the acronym. 

GLBT became LGBT as a way to honor the tremendous work the lesbian community did during the AIDS crisis. 

Towards the end of the 1990s and into the 2000s, movements took place to add additional letters to the acronym to recognize Intersex, Asexual, Aromantic, Agender, and others. As the acronym grew to LGBTIQ, LGBTQIA, LGBTQIAA, many complained this was becoming unwieldy and started using a ‘+’ to show LGBT aren’t the only identities in the community and this became more common, whether as LGBT+ or LGBTQ+. 

In the 2010′s, the process of reclaiming the word “queer” that began in the 1980′s was largely accomplished. In the 2020′s the LGBTQ+ acronym is used less often as Queer is becoming the more common term to represent the community. 

#whoa cool! #queer history #lesbians 💋💋

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

if i go to the same school with all my mutuals, i’d probably hate school less.

#oh bby wouldn’t we all

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

hi :D do you have some time to spare to talk about our lord and saviour uchiha sasuke

Hi!! I always have time to spread the lords word!! 🕊️😇

He deserves justice and konoha can suck a fat dick!!!

This man did nothing wrong, and if he did no he didn't‼️‼️‼️

My emotionally constipated king.

The patron saint of emo yaoi

Him and Naruto need to fuck off to a house in the woods and work through their collective traumas and fuck each other's brains out

EDIT: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE THIS GIF IS FROM PLS I JUST REALIZED THE ACCOUNT WHO POSTED IT IS NOT THE OP

#golden post #narusasu #reblogging for the top gif

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

quick little doodle of the kiddos sleeping 💤

#at the end of the day they’re just. #such cute kids lmao #like i be arguing til i turn blue ab the legitimacy and beauty and fuckin genius in these two’s chemistry but also like??? #look??? #they’re fuckin adorable 🥰

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

SASUKE UCHIHA starring in SMACK A BITCH by RICO NASTY

#omg #never have i seen a more accurate piece of media #this. this is the vibes ™️

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

when we both get home from the party crossfaded as hell and my girl wants it NOW

#me. both r me

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

"i don't like taylor swift but" "i hate taylor swift but" i don't like you, you fragile human, who needs to assert their personal feelings on someone before defending them against something terrible. GOD FORBID someone would ever think you LIKED taylor swift for defending her against nonconsensual AI porn....god we can't have that

#ngl i agree with this person a lot more than most of y’all #i don’t think it’s problematic to preface your defense of someone with the statement that you dislike them/disagree w/ their values #especially if the person you’re defending or the people that follow them are viewed as problematic #it’s a way to say that you may not agree with or support their previous actions and values #but you still recognize the validity and importance of an issue afflicting them anyway #and you still discuss how it’s harmful and how you don’t condone it #esp if it’s someone like taylor swift #cause no offense yall but the swifties’ trademark is that they blow everything out of proportion #her fanbase is full of people who are kinda looked at weirdly because they’re seen as the pinnacle of whiny white feminists #that view every minor inconvenience as oppression or misogyny and every hurt feeling as trauma or heartbreak #crybabies essentially #and when a crybaby starts crying you roll your eyes and go “what a crybaby #but the point of clarifying that you’re not a swiftie is not because you simply must say that you dislike them before you defend them #it’s to make sure people actually take you seriously instead of saying you’re crying bc you’re a crybaby #there’s so many things swifties call misogynistic that are like laughable lmfao #but this??? girl this is not only misogyny #but abuse #it’s disgusting #and vile #and not a single person deserves to have it happen to them #and when it does EVERY SINGLE PERSON should have people standing up for them #and me defending taylor swift is not any more difficult because i think she’s annoying and her music sucks #her being a woman facing extreme hate and misogyny and her being someone who i generally dislike are not mutually exclusive #they have nothing to do with each other actually #but when people who like her have a reputation for being kind of ignorant and sheltered #it makes sense why people who want to be taken seriously would distance themself from that narrative #like if hitler said literally anything you agreed with you’d probably say that you don’t agree with the rest of his beliefs and actions #b4 agreeing with the original thing he said #because otherwise you’d probably get quite a few nasty looks because he was known for being evil and insane #and people who agreed with him were also known as being crazy and insane

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

#omg

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

reading old messages is really fucked up because you see things and you’re like i would not fucking say that

#😔😔😔

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

the funny thing is that i don't think younger people - and i mean those under the age of 40 - really have a grasp on how many of today's issues can be tied back to a disastrous reagan policy:

war on drugs: reagan's aggressive escalation of the war on drugs was a catastrophic policy, primarily targeting minority communities and fueling mass incarceration. the crusade against drugs was more about controlling the Black, Latino and Native communities than addressing the actual problems of drug abuse, leading to a legacy of broken families and systemic racism within the criminal justice system.

deregulation and economic policies: reaganomics was an absolute disaster for the working class. reagan's policies of aggressive tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, and slashing social programs were nothing less than class warfare, deepening income inequality and entrenching corporate greed. these types of policies were a clear message that reagan's america was only for the wealthy elite and a loud "fuck you" to working americans.

environmental policies: despite his reputation being whitewashed thanks to the recovery of the ozone layer, reagan's environmental record was an unmitigated disaster. his administration gutted critical environmental protections and institutions like the EPA, turning a blind eye to pollution and corporate exploitation of natural resources. this blatant disregard for the planet was a clear sign of prioritizing short-term corporate profits over the future of the environment.

AIDS crisis: reagan's gross neglect of the aids crisis was nothing short of criminal and this doesn't even begin to touch on his wife's involvement. his administration's indifference to the plight of the lgbtq+ community during this devastating epidemic revealed a deep-seated bigotry and a complete failure of moral leadership.

mental health: reagan's dismantling of mental health institutions under the guise of 'reform' led directly to a surge in homelessness and a lack of support for those with mental health issues. his policies were cruel and inhumane and showed a personality-defining callous disregard for the most vulnerable in society.

labor and unions: reagan's attack on labor unions, exemplified by his handling of the patco strike, was a blatant assault on workers' rights. his actions emboldened corporations to suppress union activities, leading to a significant erosion of workers' power and rights in the workplace. he was colloquially known as "Ronnie the Union Buster Reagan"

foreign policy and military interventions: reagan's foreign policy, particularly in latin america, was imperialist and ruthless. his administration's support for dictatorships and right-wing death squads under the guise of fighting "communism" showed a complete disregard for human rights and self-determination of other nations.

public health: yes, reagan's agricultural policies actually facilitated the rise of high fructose corn syrup, once again prioritizing corporate profits over public health. this shift in the food industry has had lasting negative impacts on health, contributing to the obesity epidemic and other health issues.

privatization: reagan's push for privatization was a systematic dismantling of public services, transferring wealth and power to private corporations and further eroding the public's access to essential services.

education policies: his approach to education was more of an attack on public education than anything else, gutting funding and promoting policies that undermined equal access to quality education. this was, again, part of a broader agenda to maintain a status quo where the privileged remain in power.

this is just what i could come up with in a relatively short time and i did not even live under this man's presidency. the level at which ronald reagan has broken the united states truly can't be overstated.

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

narusasu/sasunaru > narusaku

narusaku > sasusaku/naruhina

IMHO.

#seconded #nh and ss make me want to vomit spectacularly and ns just makes me want to retch

[cataclysmic-cadenza]

babe…i think this is a terrible analysis but the funniest part is how u said you would’ve liked it if sasuke heard “i know your heart and you, mine” and responded with “no you don’t.” that’s pretty embarrassing considering sasuke was the one who said that don’t you think ☠️ no shade but now the rest of the analysis making me think you didn’t read the manga makes much more sense

the unfortunate reality is that sns just isn’t that good.

sure, it could have been good if this or if that or the other thing, but the fact of the matter is that it’s not, and the main reason it isn’t is actually touted by a lot of sns fans as one of the central pillars of the relationship.

when kishimoto retconned naruto and sasuke’s relationship to state that they always understood each other, he undermined an entire series where the central conflict was about the two of them not understanding each other. to read from the beginning with this interpretation requires you to cast a ridiculous, needlessly complicated filter over all their interactions, giving them the character of a pair of chessmasters, rather than young boys. naruto and sasuke, if you throw out the retcon, read as a perfectly comprehensible narrative about two children who (realistically!) can’t see past the intricacies of their sociopolitical situations to understand that they have a lot in common. over time, their emotional maturity grows, allowing them to begin to realise this.

this is why the “i’ll bear the burden of your hatred and die with you” scene is so weighty; naruto is acknowledging that it is the realities of their circumstances that keep them apart, and he wants to meet again in another life where none of that exists. this scene is the canary in the coal mine, letting us know this relationship is going to end in tragedy; they’ve chosen separate ways, paths which are inevitably fated to cross, and the only way for them to meet again as friends is in death. he’s finally come to understand, but it’s too late. when faced with the choice of sasuke or konoha, naruto chose the village. that’s a huge choice that should, realistically, come with a consequence. even if this ends, somehow, with the both of them alive, the memory of that choice, and the circumstances that created it, remains. because naruto (the manga) is an immature narrative, however, there are no realistic, interesting consequences. sasuke is made to give up and magically let go of his grudge against an institution which murdered his family and destroyed his life, of his pursuit of justice, which, from the very start, defined him as a character, so naruto can have both his friend and the admiration of said institution. the end of the series is the death of sasuke’s character, and i could go into an in-depth analysis of chapter 699 and how i think kishimoto knows this on some level, hence why sasuke never truly returned to konoha (ergo, to naruto, since, in becoming hokage, naruto becomes synonymous with konoha). sns is depressing. i see the tongue-in-cheek posts about the sns affair, the sns divorce arc, and all i can think of is how bleak an ending this is for sasuke, and how out of character it is. what i wouldn’t have given for him to hear “i know your heart, and you mine” and lash out with a resounding “no you don’t”.

but the late series, and shippuden as a whole, more and more as it drags on, is synonymous with predetermination superseding free will. i don’t think it’s a coincidence that i don’t see many sns fans talking about the first part of the series, where naruto and sasuke are actually forging this relationship. sns would be nothing without the story pre-timeskip, but people tend to focus on shippuden-era sns, which, to some extent, i understand. this is the era most fraught with emotional tension (and where naruto spends the entire time with a thought bubble that says “sasuke”, because he lost all of his depth as a character from part 1 in favour of that, but i digress), but when it comes to looking for the core of their bond, to the actual raison d’être, the entirety of part 1 gets far less press than the scenes of them as young children in the academy – scenes which were introduced extremely late in the series as brief flashbacks. kishimoto’s fixation with destiny invalidates the themes of part 1 on all levels, and the sns relationship is in no way exempt.

so could sns have been good? yes, as a tragic relationship, disregarding the retcon. except, from what i see, people who like sns seem to really, really like it. they take the overly-complex retcon interpretation and use it in support of a “naruto and sasuke always loved one another” or “naruto and sasuke had their positive feelings for each other twisted by their martial society” reading. it’s not even that these are inherently bad takes, in a literary sense, it’s simply that they don’t hold up to the rest of the manga. asserting in the very late series that these two characters have been watching each other for some time doesn’t hold up with the reality of the story, which begins on naruto and sasuke having no thoughts or opinions of one another beyond their surface-level feelings towards a classmate they don’t particularly like or understand. the growth of this into their genuine bond is much more meaningful, because it occurs textually. it is a true show of increasing mental and emotional maturity, rather than a frustrating wait for the characters to stop dancing around the conclusion of their emotional journey, which they already know, for some reason, from the beginning. that’s the core of it, really: the retcon puts the end at the beginning, making the entire story a pointless exercise in futility. destiny is wholeheartedly embraced as romantic and self-evident, rather than the death of narrative and interpersonal complexity, and the fundamental truth that love is a choice – the continual, conscious decision to choose each other, day after day – and we already know what naruto’s choice was.

(you might say, well, I think X or Y should have changed; naruto should have learned about the destruction of uzushiogakure and understood he and sasuke came from a very similar situation,  – which, itself, rests on another late-series destiny boner retcon – naruto should never have become loyal to the village after the way he was treated, naruto should have joined with sasuke to tear down konoha – but that’s not the way it was written, and if this is your justification, you admit it is a relationship as flawed in its narrative as the ones it is so often purported to be so much better than.)