#I'm not getting into any discourse on this topic

[statementlou]

I feel like when people ask famous personalities to participate in activism, they may be influenced by the parasocial relationships they have formed with these celebrities and not that they really care about what is going on. They expect famous individuals to act as role models or representatives of their beliefs. That's why I think, it is crucial to maintain a critical perspective and not depend solely on celebrities for activism. This can result in a passive approach to social change and disregard the significance of collaborative action and personal engagement. The majority of celebrities don't care lol even who speak up about it publicly. Their reality is different from ours, like Gigi Hadid also drank Starbucks the other day, Bella Hadid worked with a lot of Zionist brands and did a photo shoot with them recently, etc etc. And let me not start on stans culture... the worst thing ever

Okay this is fascinating because yes! I agree with you so much! But then I was completely floored by the choice of the HADIDS (literal Palestinians who never shut up about the cause) as examples- but actually I love it because I think it opens up two really really important points that maybe get to the heart of the whole issue. Gigi and Bella Hadid are, as I said, literally Palestinian, and have throughout their public lives (not just recently) never been silent or backed down in defense of Palestine even when it has very publicly lost them (Bella primarily) jobs and opportunities, and they both continue to be outspoken even while literally targeted and threatened by zionists. Pretty much everything anyone has wanted or asked for from any celebrity, right?! But here we have, first of all, Gigi having all of that discounted because she bought Starbucks, a brand that is not even an official boycott! I feel like this is a perfect example of prioritizing performative and symbolic activism over actions with material impact, if someone who has been so consistent and stalwart can see all that dismissed because they spent $5 on a coffee (that, again, has no material financial relationship to Israel). I personally think that on a scale of good done vs harm, Gigi can afford a lot of problematic coffees, and this is not even getting into the Hadid families finances which involve huge amounts of money being used and moved around in ways that do more to help the cause than any image choice can unbalance. And then you say that Bella has worked with zionist brands- I don't know anything about this so I can't speak to it. Given that we are also apparently considering starbucks a zionist brand despite the company not operating in or having any ties to Israel, I would question what this means. But it doesn't matter- I think the point is that consumer/ individual purity isn't possible! No one is making pure consumer choices, no matter how many brands they boycott, and certainly no celebrity can continue to be one without having unsavory connections. I think that BY DEFINITION no celebrity is politically pure because if they cut all those ties, THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE A CELEBRITY. Whether the pursuit of purity is realistic or desirable is a much bigger issue, but the point is that as you say, looking to celebrities to be activists will end only in disappointment. Their job is to entertain in specific ways and they do that; if that's not working for you, then consume some other celebrity's product (persona). As I have said from the start, if you want to stan Louis because he is talented and hot and kind and smart and fun then you are in luck! But if you are looking for an activist spokesperson, he is not going to be that, and yelling at him (or people who don't consider that a deal breaker) isn't going to change that.

#I'm aware that some people don't agree with me about what tactics are effective- welcome to activism! tactic squabbling is our signature! #but I do not appreciate having my opinions on tactics dismissed as defending a celebrities actions at any cost #which I don't think I have remotely done ever honestly I have repeatedly said that if you're looking for an activist #neither Louis nor any other celebrity is that or is going to be and I would recommend giving it up #I think dismissing my arguments as that is not only inaccurate but a bit of a bad faith topic change #but it is what it is🙃 #blah blah blah #palestine #I have another ask that I will answer later and get more into the Louis part specifically #but first I'm gonna go do real life stuff! wild but true #starbucks discourse

[daz4i]

how and why is there discourse about whether or not certain queer identities exist/if people should be allowed(???) to use them. why is "people know their own identity better than you ever could, and they're the only one who get a say on what they are" such a tough concept to grasp

i think if you find yourself offended by the label someone uses (especially if they're a stranger) or think it invalidates your own, it's a good idea to look inside yourself and question why that may be. more often than not, it's a result of insecurity or uncertainty of your own identity (or many other things, but i won't make a whole list here). whatever reason it is, until you resolve it, you shouldn't take it out on people for having an identity you don't understand

many have said it before but it's worth saying over and over. infighting only helps our oppressors. conservatives don't care if you're a cis gay or a xenogender aegosexual aplatonic lesbian, they hate all of us either way. trying to fit in by going for people who are easier targets for them isn't gonna help you, it'll just alienate you from your own community, and you're never gonna please them. the momentary rush you get from hearing you're not like "one of /those/ gay people" is not worth it and is gonna do more harm in the long run, i assure you

also, it is important to me to say this, but having some less than nice kneejerk reaction caused by confusion about an identity you don't understand doesn't mean you're a bad person or anything. as long as you aren't mean to that person, and you take a second to think smth along the lines of "wait a minute, this isn't any of my business" after having said reaction, you're good 👍 a lot of reflexive reactions we have to things are ingrained into us simply by. well. living in a society 🤡 and you're not terrible for having those thoughts. it's your actions that matter, and your second thought (the "wait, why did i just think that?") is more defining of your actual character and morals than your reflex. i know that having thoughts like this, even tho they're unwanted, can very easily make one spiral, so it's important to me that whoever needs to hear this knows this doesn't make you a bad person 🙏 you're good, keep taking actions to be good, accept other people even if you don't understand them, and you're on the right track :)

#i considered adding that last part in the tags but i figured it'll be too long for that 😭 #i noticed i'm posting a lot of rants lately. sorry. but i do wanna make sure no one's actually feeling bad over them #if i complain about something that you do or call it mean and such. that doesn't make you a bad person #you can always work to change and grow 👍 it's not easy but it starts with smaller steps than you'd expect #and now i just switched to a whole other topic from my original point. oops #i do firmly believe that any discourse about someone's identity is dumb as fuck #seeing it in poll blogs always makes me 😐😬 like how is it any business for any of us. why is this up for debate #if a person says they're queer then they are. they don't need to pass some test or go through initiation to be accepted #if they feel comfortable with a certain word that's awesome. why does it matter to *you* which word they use #'they're only using this microlabel to feel special' so? is there anything wrong with that? #'this label contradicts [insert other identity that falls under the same umbrella]' ok. but does that hurt anyone in any way #a lot of identities can even be self contradictory. does it matter tho? does it affect anyone in any way? #'they might realize that label is wrong later' again. what's the harm in that. #i don't blame anyone for these thoughts bc like. this is how cishets view a lot of the even more common labels #so you're basically taught to think this way from day one. that doesn't mean you need to stick to that thought process #you might have these reflexes forever no matter how hard you try. but you'll get quicker about moving on from them #but you do have to try. you do have to realize that other people's identities aren't about you #anyway. this post feels like batting at a hornets nest. really hope i don't get some bad faith readers here lol #(i noticed a lot of places one could apply bad faith but like it's 3:30 am i'm too tired to add this many disclaimer. #so i'm gonna trust you to not jump to conclusions and to approach this in good faith okay? mwah 🖤) #also my whole ramble abt morality (in the tags too) is relevant to. any topic really #i may just make a separate post about it really. .....tomorrow tho.

[yuriyuruandyuraart]

hey, um, so i heard something about you supporting proshippers, and i just wanted to know if that was true?

not trying to start anything, just wanna know, sorry ('^-^)

i'm not a proshiper!!! but not an anti either i think? like don't get me wrong i despise pedo and underage artworks like hell but i also just blocked the tags and ships that make me feel uncomfortable a long time ago so i don't see it/reblog it accidentally and haven't seen anything like that in a while on my dash

and quite frankly labels like proship and anti terrify me HHH i don't agree nor condone harrasment or hate bombing but i also don't like proship content, especially untagged. i know you mean well dw but if i reblog anything that makes anyone uncomfortable please send me an ask to properly tag it to avoid further discomfort! i just wanna post and reblog art that caters to my hyperfixations hhh :'D

#receiving this ask was so scary HHHGHG #like!! i always see discourse about it online and i'm quite desensitized to gore and similar topics so it makes me feel awkward #i've seen people give varying definitions for both terms and i personally don't like siding with any of them just to be safe #i do block people and content that upsets me and choose not to get involved in drama cause it's frankly too stressful :'D #if it's about dreammare then i also don't ship it! it's not my thing sorry >:') #so forgive me if i didn't see something warranting a warning! thank you sm for passing by<3333

[ghost-orion]

i am just. so mad. about the transmisogyny/transandrogyny talk

like. okay. "transmisandry doesn't exist because 1) transmisogyny is the intersection between transphobia and misogyny and 2) misandry doesn't exist so 3) transphobia can't intersect with misandry"

okay. so.

transmisandry is not the intersection between transphobia and misandry. transmisandry is the term used by transmasc people of all genders to discuss our oppression. yes, transmisogyny is the most common way transphobia rears its ugly head, but there are issues that affect a lot of transmasc people and not a lot of transfemme people.

definition of transmisogyny is the intersection of transphobia and misogyny which affects trans women and transfemme people.

transmisandry is the intersection of transphobia and misogyny which affects trans men and transmasc people. (i can't find a term which would correlate to trans nonbinary people, sorry. discrimination against nb people is definitely real though.)

if you don't like the word, come up with a better one. "transmisogyny exempt" and "transmisogyny affected" does not work in this case. yeah i'm exempt from the intersection of transphobia and misogyny as it affects transfemme people. but that's not an appropriate word to use when i'm talking about me being questioned for doing anything that isn't masculine enough for other people. it's not appropriate when i talk about my past s.assault. it's not appropriate when i talk about how i have difficulty trusting cis mspec men when they tell me that they toootally see me as a man. when it's embarrassing to be rejected from ""the brotherhood"" when trying so hard to fit in with them. when i simply am not allowed to do things men do, because in the eyes of others, maleness is inherent and more powerful, so i'm basically "lying to try to make myself look male better." when i'm denied gynecology appointments. when i'm forced to be in the female ward and ridiculed for it at the same time. when i am completely invisible or just ignored, because i'm not a scary enough target for people who target trans women. like those are things that are transphobic, yeah, but it is specifically because i'm transmasculine, aka "trying to be a man," because as someone seen as a woman, i'm infantilized and laughed at for thinking i can achieve something in a sexist world, especially something so big as maleness itself.

okay. when i am infantilized to the point of not deserving something so inherent as maleness, then i really don't think it's just "both sexism and transphobia" man. when a guy at work looks at me, his eyes see, yes, an insane girl, but also a weak boy on the bench in gym class who was not picked into the boys' team because he was too weak to be a real boy.

there's also something to be said about trans men and transmasculine people being all thrown in the same bag with nonbinary people who don't present masculine nor transfeminine, cis lesbians, regular ol' stereotypical feminists and also just women who aren't girly/womanly enough, as like, these weirdo snowflakes thinking that "girly whining will get them anywhere". yes, it is clearly misogyny, but also the crossing over into "masculine territory" is like, a specific kind of misogyny. is there any talk of that? genuine question btw if you have recs, i would love to hear about them.

#vent #transmisandry #transmasc #jamie.txt #if this gets Any traction i'm absolutely fucking deleting #also i'm tired and i just. this is many feelings vomited on screen skdfjgh #i'm not trying to start discourse. this is a personal diary. if you have thoughtful constructive things to say #go ahead #but i don't need threats or insults or whatever #also i'm not speaking over trans women. i'm not saying that transmisogyny is incorrect or whatever. #i acknowledge that most of the harassment goes to trans women and transfemme people. especially trans woc and transfemme poc Yes #but this is simply a different topic which i talk about in this one moment #discourse

[max1461]

Random thought: insofar as a person's weight is largely a result of genetic factors, which by my (very cursory) look at the topic it seems to be, I would guess that the genetic factors leading to higher weight/obesity are probably pretty strongly selected against in post-industrial societies. Which one expects might make up most of the world in the not far future. I wonder if (far enough in the future for this selection to have taken effect) there's a degree to which this will leave people extra vulnerable to food scarcity. Like we'll create society of super-high-metabolism individuals who can process tons of sugar and stay skinny and then, uh. Suddenly something bad happens and everybody is super vulnerable to starvation. Or something. Seems possible. But maybe I'm completely wrong.

#this post is like dancing on the edge of a bunch of super hot discourse topics and I do NOT want to get into any of them #I'm literally just musing here not like #trying to gesture at some agenda

[torchickentacos]

I never do this, but reblogs were off and I want to shout this at everyone. stealing this post.

more thoughts under read more. I know it's a popular saying and I never look down on people who say things like this before knowing the impact they have (or even after to an extent, I have too much benefit of the doubt to go around), as we all have things we say and do that have negative impacts, and sometimes you never know to change that until someone points it out. So this is NOT a call out post or whatever, this is my rambling emotional thoughts on a topic.

I think first and foremost, I'm bothered by the ableism of course. But secondary to that is my annoyance at seeing people act high and mighty about fandom discourse. Like, if you want to talk to adults with jobs, go to linkedin or something, not tumblr, where we do care about things, and where we do discuss things.

And I GET thinking some discourse is stupid. I DO! because guess what. some discourse is stupid skjfhsdjkjfhsdjfhkdjs. I've joked about the poke/amour stuff before. I'll clown on some things, and maybe that makes me a hypocrite, but I feel like a step is taken when you take it from 'making fun of the discourse', something we all do to an extent (which dare I say is a form of participating in it) to 'making fun of the people who engage in such discourse'. We are FREE to talk about how silly the voltron stuff was. We are FREE to be snarky about things because human nature is to be a bit of a hater sometimes. but do it in a way that jabs at the topic and not the people.

But I think a lot of it also hinges on how we see human value on a larger scale. People make fun of people who work retail, people who don't have jobs, people whose jobs are considered extra or undesirable like sex workers, et cetera, despite these jobs being IMPORTANT. It's disheartening to me to see people lean on these types of jabs, and I think it tends to paint human value as something purely based on what you can give out to the world. It leans on this sort of input-output based system of determining how valuable or worthy someone is. And if they don't meet that standard value of 'adult with job', then their opinions are moot as jobless losers in their mom's basements or whatever the fuck. I think the whole thing leans into the conservative 'special snowflake' attitude, which isn't something I think we should be leaning on in arguments or discussion.

And I think that the intent is usually not to be ableist. Most people don't start their day wondering how they can insult disabled people, I'd hope. But intent and impact are often detached, and good intent (avoiding discourse) can have a bad impact (making fun of people in the name of pointing out issues with disocurse). I also think race could be a component, given how racial discrimination in hiring is still a very real thing and is a real factor preventing people from getting 'GoOd ReAl JoBs', but I'll leave that side of the discussion to someone who is more qualified to talk on it than I am. Feel free to chime in with any insight on that side of the coin if you want!!! I imagine the same also goes for visibly queer people but I'm not going to get into the straight/cis passing stuff right now.

And maybe I'm looking too far into it. Maybe I'm just thinking about it too much, maybe it's just a funny little saying that TOTALLY doesn't affect actual people in any way. After all, I'm just some jobless disabled loser in my parent's house talking about discourse on tumblr, aren't I?

#rbs are fine but please be kind if you're going to send anons about this topic. #reblogs were off for a reason presumably so I'll leave it anon #i don't know or care what side of whatever discourse op is on. they're right about this specific thing. #i genuinely don't want to get into back and forth discussion about how wrong i am on this right now tbh #I don't want to hear WELL ACTUALLY- #like no please just let me say my piece and step down from the soapbox #this isn't a callout post or like OH YOURE SOOOOO TERRIBLE IF YOU SAY THIS #like no i've said it before i think khdfskdjfhdzb just my thoughts right now #it's annoyance at the societal aspect of it as a whole #like i'm not mad at cashiers for taking my money. i'm mad that as an entire society we have no money for groceries. ya feel? #never mad at any individuals! always mad at the societal aspect as a whole #beause it really isn't something any one person should have blame for imo #also reminder i am a random tumblr user and not some moral lighthouse to guide everyone. what do i know lmao

[bylertruther]

i can't explain it well bc my brain is fried after exams but i feel like there is Something there in the fact that whenever the byIer community talks abt how shipping byIer isn't inappropriate and that them kissing is completely normal and fine, people always, always, ALWAYS have to pipe up with "well yeah kissing is fine but [goes on to preach to the choir abt how nsfw byIer is bad]". like. why is that where your mind jumps. why is it that when one person says "mike and will kissing on screen like every other couple has been allowed to would be good and normal and expected, and writing fics where they kiss isn't inappropriate at all, and we should discuss why people think them kissing is any different and inherently dirty and Bad because therein lies the actual issue" some people gotta pipe up and prove that point exactly. like. do u get wht i mean? no one brings up "pr0shipping" or sex or any of that irrelevant shit whenever someone talks abt j4ncy or lvmax sharing a peck. so why do u bring that up here and now? why do you act like we're talking about anything else here and put words in our mouths? why do you feel Some Type Of Way as an lgbt person urself whenever someone else says that they'd like to see a couple tht looks like them express innocent physical affection the same way that everyone else in the show does? why do you suddenly start talking about cp when literally no one is fucking talking about that at all? like. hello. i can't be the only bitch that sees this i can't be the only person that goes 🤨❓❓❓whenever ppl start to needlessly steer the convo in tht direction like .......

#do i make sense i feel like my brain is a pot of noodles rn #but like. sorry 2 bring it up again LMAO but it just . i've been thinking abt it #it upsets me. i can't explain it right i don't have the words rn but #ppl be like 'i'm literally gay so this isn't me being homophobic' and then when we say something super innocent literally talking abt them #just being able to kiss at least once..... #they gotta pipe up with 'okay yeah they should kiss but no one should be thinking abt anything more than that etc etc' like #who the fuck is talking about that except for u rn....... #and why are you treating a gay kiss like it's a slippery slope.... why does the topic of a gay kiss suddenly make u think of cp............ #it just Bothers me it Bothersssss Meeeeeeeeeeeeee #like yeah okay definitely have tht discourse if u want but why do you always wanna bring it up when we're talking about representation #why do you choose NOW to talk abt tht shit. do u not see the fucking issue there #u sound like every bigot thts like 'well we can't let them get married bc then they'll start marrying children and animals etc etc' #and the fact tht ur gay n have a pride flag in ur icon doesn't fucking excuse that or make it any less real #i just . am i the weird one here am i the drama is it just me am i screaming in an empty room rn Am I The Drama #IT'S LITERALLY JUST A KISS........ NO ONE IS TALKING ABT ANYTHING ELSE...... WHY ARE U TREATING US LIKE WE'RE ON #THIN ICE....... FOR A SIMPLE FUCKING KISS N EQUAL REPRESENTATION............ HELLOOOOOOOOO? #anyway .

[starset-mnqn]

Dear lord. The transmisogyny on this site from transmasc people is absolutely insane. We're supposed to uplift each other! Why are y'all speaking over transfem people?!?

#obligatory disclaimer that i AM tme so i am not someone to ask about this #but goddamn... y'all will go on about how much you love transfem people #and then proceed to just sexualize them #and ignore them explaining when something is transmisogynistic #transfem people can go 'hey. this thing is actively harmful to us' and y'all will throw a fit and make every excuse possible #the bro/dude discourse... the afab transfem aita post.... there's more that im blanking on #i knew transmisogyny was rampant on here but this was very eye opening to me to see the extent within our own community #I'm not perfect by any means. but i try my best to stay openminded and learn #genuinely please inform me when i do or say something transmisogynistic so i can learn from it #(that also goes for anything else tbh. but transmisogyny is just the topic at hand here) #transfem people. i am so sorry that y'all get treated like this. y'all deserve so much better #delete later

[ineffable-romantics]

Some thoughts on why and how I believe Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship would incorporate sex/why I do not read them as wholly asexual:

This is something I've seen the most discourse about in this fandom, and I've had a few thoughts of my own that I really wanted to expand upon in a full meta/character analysis post. I do understand that this can be a contentious topic, so first, let me clarify a few things:

First of all, this is going to be long. Tbh it probably won't be that organized either. I ramble and I'm not very good at editing, so just... you know. Be warned. (*Hi, it's me from 2 days after writing this; I'm really not kidding, it's LONG)

These are all my own thoughts. They might not be hot takes, because recently I've seen more than a few people come to the same conclusions on a lot of these points as I have. But I've also had these notes in my drafts for about a week and a half now, and have been continuously adding to it as things have occurred to me. This post is essentially just somewhere for me to collect the separate but related meta I've been kicking around in my head.

I fully respect anyone who does see and prefer an asexual reading of this relationship. These are my own thoughts and interpretations as someone who is not asexual. I am in the LGBT+ community, so while I do know a few things about the asexuality spectrum, I am by no means an expert.

This is NOT something I expect, need, or even necessarily want the show (or, God forbid, Neil's tumblr ask box) to address. Tonally, it's just not that kind of show. Newt and Anathema's sex scene was very much played for laughs, and it worked for that reason. If the show found a way to address it in a way that was both appropriate for the tone of the show and ultimately satisfying, then great! But there is so much more to this relationship than sex, and I didn't need a kiss to confirm their love, so I certainly don't need a sex scene. As immortal beings (as I assume they'll stay) there is so much of the rest of their lives we'll never get to see. You can headcanon them as asexual and potentially be right. I can headcanon them as not and be equally potentially right. Again, these are just a collection of my own thoughts, because I think the question of sexuality (or lack thereof) is just as interesting a facet of these characters as any other.

Note: Tbh I've been second-guessing this whole post and debated deleting the whole thing several times for being silly or unnecessary, bc I don't want anyone to think that this is the only thing I care about when it comes to this story/characters. But if nothing else, it's inspired me to write in a way that nothing has in a very long time, so I've decided it's worth continuing, if for no other reason than that.

This is going to be a mixed bag of textual reading, subtextual reading, and a full-on reach or two. It's been a while since I've been in an English class, but if my teachers expected me to find a deeper meaning behind blue curtains, you can expect me to read too deeply into the symbolism of a loaded rifle or an ox rib. (This is probably not what my professors had in mind when grading my literary analysis papers but oh well) My point is, if it feels like a reach, I'm as aware of it as you are. I am in no way saying that all (or even any) of my points made were deliberate on the part of Neil or the actors or the writers or the directors. I am no longer the delulu Apple Tree Yard child of my youth, I promise.

If anything said here is in any way offensive or hurtful to anyone in the asexual community, please do not hesitate to message me or comment and let me know exactly what it was. I promise you it is not my intention to do so, and am happy to clarify or outright edit anything that reads that way.

With all that being said, let's talk about why I think Crowley and Aziraphale would absolutely fuck nasty incorporate sex into their relationship.

Note: I am out of practice with essay writing, so I think I'll just go down the bullet points of notes I have been making, and expand on each as best I can

Food

Where better to start than with Aziraphale's introduction to Pleasures Of The Flesh? (Just a heads up, this entire post may feel very Aziraphale-heavy, and with good reason).

This might be the least hot take here. We've all seen the Job minisode. We've all seen That Scene.

Whether this was intentional or not, the symbolism here is off the charts. Eve was tempted by an apple. So why not go a similar route and tempt Aziraphale with another fruit, or cheese, or bread, or literally anything else for his first experience with food? Instead, we go with a huge, glistening slab of fresh meat that he proceeds to absolutely go feral upon, moaning and gasping into his meal while Crowley watches with what definitely doesn't look to be disgust or even satisfaction with a good temptation. There's surprise at the ferocity of Aziraphale's appetite, certainly. But ultimately he looks to be intensely fascinated by it, while the thunder crashes, the music crescendos, and the earth literally shakes around them.

(It's also interesting to note how very little it takes for Crowley to tempt him with the ox rib. One murmured suggestion, a bit of unwavering eye contact, and vavoom Aziraphale immediately meets him in the middle.)

Cut to Aziraphale devouring the rest of the meat with Crowley splayed back on a makeshift bed, drinking wine and continuing to watch him indulge through half-lidded eyes. Outside a thunderstorm rages while they're learning secrets about each other in warm flickering firelight. It's cosy, it's intimate, and if they'd thrown in a bearskin throw blanket, it might as well be a post-coital scene straight out of Game of Thrones.

The next time (chronologically) we see them discuss food is when Aziraphale "tempts" Crowley with oysters in Rome. So Crowley first tempts Aziraphale with meat and then Aziraphale tempts Crowley with what is widely regarded to be an aphrodisiac. Interesting.

And then chronologically after that, the Arrangement begins to form, which has always reeked of a friends with benefits situation. Just to throw that in there.

It's What Humans Do

In the very first episode, we're shown Gabriel's obvious disgust and bewilderment towards Aziraphale eating sushi, calling it "gross matter" and being proud of the fact that he does not sully his body with it. Aziraphale initially tries to defend his own enjoyment in it, before passing it off as something that humans do, as something he simply has to do in order to blend in (which we know very well is not the case).

He does this again in season 2, passing off Nina and Maggie being in love as "something humans do". But it isn't, is it? Angels are beings of love, and can sense it, and understand very well what it is... up to a point. Even romantic love is obviously within their wheelhouse, given what we now know happened between Gabriel and Beelzebub (we'll come back to them).

What the "humans do" that angels wouldn't understand is messy, physical forms of love.

But here's the thing: Aziraphale and Crowley love doing what the humans do. They love drinking, they (or at least Aziraphale) love eating. They love music. Crowley loves driving and sleeping and watching rom-coms and sitcoms. Aziraphale loves reading and doing magic and earning little licenses and certificates for achievement in his various hobbies. They love to playact at being human so much that they've stopped playacting and started building a genuinely human lifestyle for themselves and with each other.

Once together in an unambiguously romantic sense, why do we think they wouldn't also want to explore one of the most prominent, intimate, powerful human expressions of love and desire with each other?

Angels, Demons, & Asexuality

Here's where I really want to clarify that in no way do I mean that sex is necessary for a healthy, fulfilling, and loving romantic relationship, or that the lack of desire for sex makes you any less human. Asexuality is a sexuality as valid and human as any. What I would say is that it is definitely in the human minority compared to allosexuality.

Angels and demons, on the other hand, are predominately asexual. Sexless/genderless unless Making An Effort. (Which, btw, is a concept introduced as early as the original book; why even bring it up as a possibility? Why not keep angels/demons being sexless/asexual as a hard and fast rule, if not to open up the potential for later use? Chekhov's Effort, if you will. And isn't that something that Aziraphale in particular is shown to do time and time again? He makes an effort in French and driving and magic, doesn't he?)

And this is why I don't believe Aziraphale and Crowley necessarily need to be asexual, narratively. There is already a huge amount of ace rep within the angels and demons (and no, not just the horrible ones. Muriel also doesn't "drink the tea" and has no reason or desire thus far to Make An Effort, and there are certainly other angels and demons who aren't horrible like the archangels seem to be who likely wouldn't Make An Effort either).

The central conflict for Aziraphale and Crowley is that they are on their own side, the ones who went native, the ones who are so different in so many ways from their respective hives. It would make sense for them to also break away from traditional angel/demon asexuality.

I say "traditional angel/demon asexuality", because I would also like to note that I would absolutely not rule out demisexuality for either of them. This post is being written to as a response to people who specifically believe that they (like the rest of the angels/demons seem to be) would be sex-averse in a relationship, and that it wouldn't be a factor in their relationship. I could easily read them as demisexual, but I do think there would be no real way of verifying this, because they've never been able to form as close an emotional relationship with anyone else but each other. Certainly not in heaven, and I can't imagine they would be able to form that kind of attachment with any of the humans, who they love and emulate but ultimately regard as the separate species they are. So yes, they could either be allosexual or demisexual, in my opinion.

Then again, now that I think about it, Making An Effort itself could be a great metaphor for demisexuality, since they would be entirely sexless/asexual until they have enough of an emotional connection with someone to consciously manifest otherwise. Since the other angels and demons don't generally form those types of emotional connections with anyone, there hasn't been a precedent for it.

Except...

Brielzebub

We do have a precedent for it now, don't we? Gabriel and Beelzebub fell in love. They are a direct foil for Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship, speedrunning right through their courtship and finding their happily ever after on the other side of things.

For being such a 1 to 1 comparison, it feels deliberate that they did not kiss. They held hands, they were gooey with each other, but they did not kiss. That feels like such a deliberate thing to omit when you know what's to come at the end of the episode between Crowley and Aziraphale.

And going back to the food = sex metaphor for a moment, let's notice how even as they fell in love over the years, even when pints and crisps were there on the table in front of them, they never felt the desire to reach out for them. They didn't need to. It's a date (love story) even if you aren't eating dinner (sleeping together).

Yes, I know Jim liked hot chocolate. No, I am not counting it because I don't consider Jim and Gabriel to be the same person with the same proclivities, and Jim was highly suggestible at the time anyway.

Gabriel and Brielzebub's big happily ever after moment (as of now) was one between two asexual supernatural beings. They did not need to kiss to drive the point home. They showed what Crowley and Aziraphale could have, if they would only acknowledge it.

Crowley & Aziraphale's Dissatisfaction

But they do have that already, don't they? If you really think about it, what do Gabriel and Beelzebub do with each other that Crowley and Aziraphale don't already? They hold hands, they spend time together, they create little rituals, they give gifts, they're visibly and verbally affectionate with each other, etc. They are more or less already in a romantic asexual marriage relationship with each other, aren't they?

And it doesn't seem to be enough for either of them.

At the beginning of the season, Crowley is immediately shown to be unsatisfied with the way things are. Obviously part of it comes from living in his car, but it seems to be more than that (especially since Aziraphale makes it clear that the bookshop is just as much Crowley's as his, implying that he could have been living there the whole time and is choosing not to, for some reason?). You could argue he's feeling unmoored without Hell telling him what to do, but isn't that what he wanted? Isn't that what he still wants, by the end of the season? All season long, he's never indicated the desire for a new job, or a new project. He stopped the apocalypse because he wanted the freedom to openly spend time with Aziraphale, to spend his time on Earth however he sees fit. Until Gabriel arrives, he has exactly that (minus a flat).

So where does the dissatisfaction come from? And if it represents anything to do with his relationship, what does he want out of it that he isn't getting already?

I think Crowley only really comes to the realisation of what he's missing when Nina names it for him, not only putting them in the category of romantic, but physical (outright asking if they are sleeping together). These two posts [1], [2] go into more detail about what I mean, but I think it really pushes him into acknowledging that their relationship is more human than either of them have stopped to consider, and what that might mean as far as everything a human relationship can entail.

After all, Nina and Maggie only advised that he should talk to Aziraphale, make clear his feelings. The decision to kiss him, to tip them over the edge from nonphysical to physical, that was all him. And no, kissing isn't sex, but I wonder how taboo even that might be in the kind of all-encompassing asexuality most angels seem to identify with. (If they're disgusted by food and drink, I can only imagine what they think of snogging, much less sex.)

Aziraphale doesn't have this moment of someone observing their relationship from the outside. He loves Crowley, and as of 1941 probably even knows he's in love with him in a way that Crowley doesn't understand yet. Which makes sense, since love is technically his job, he'd be more likely to recognise it for what it is.

However, Aziraphale's reference for romance and relationships is Jane Austen. It's chaste. It's dancing and dinner and doing sweet things for each other and roses and candles and handholding. He contextualises his love for Crowley in that soft fantasy sort of way, where it's there, it's obviously there, but it's neat and easy and unspoken. Not to quote Glee in this, the year of our lord 2023, but it's all very "the touch of the fingertips is as sexy as it gets".

Someone should tell that to Aziraphale's face, then.

I'm not going to pretend I know what Michael Sheen's script notes were, but there were definitely some Choices™ made. Because yes, there were plenty of moments in both seasons with Aziraphale looking at Crowley in a sweet, loving, smitten way. And then there were moments that were yearning.

But yearning for what, exactly? All of those sappy Jane Austen tropes already apply to the two of them. So why are there moments where Aziraphale is looking Crowley up and down like the last eclair in the window and licking his lips and visibly exhaling like he's trying to get in control of himself (see: Bastille scene + Crowley telling Muriel to ask him if they have any other questions about love)? Why is Aziraphale not only unconcerned when Crowley shoves him bodily up against a wall in s1, but staring at his lips and a beat too late in noticing Sister Mary's arrival? Why are some of his lines so suggestive? I'm sorry, but the car ride after the church explosion might as well have been the beginning of a Pizza Man porn with a really weird Blitz theme. If even my mother picked up on that vibe, I can't imagine it wasn't intentional on part of both the dialogue and the delivery.

(This section may feel like more of a reach/joke, but I'm really only 20% joking. These are writers and actors who are EXTREMELY good at their jobs; they know what they were doing here.)

More importantly, I don't think Aziraphale is even aware that there is more to what he wants. He lives in the Jane Austen fantasy and it never even occurs to him that he might be interested in anything further. It never even occurs to him that, as an angel, there is anything further to be interested in in the first place. Until Crowley forces it to occur to him. Just like I believe Nina forced Crowley to confront the idea that romantic love is what he's been feeling all along, I believe Crowley forced Aziraphale to confront the idea that physical intimacy is something he's been wanting, without even realising.

Aziraphale's Hedonism

Expanding on Aziraphale for a moment. We talked about his relationship with food, but we all know that Aziraphale is defined by his love of things that Feel Good.

It isn't just that he and Crowley love human things. Aziraphale loves the best of the best, or at least his version of it. He doesn't just love food, he loves going to fancy restaurants. He doesn't just love clothes, he loves soft, cosy, warm, plush clothes, or shiny, flashy, bougie fashion. He loves the warmth of tea and cocoa, loves getting drunk, and sitting in a comfy chair in the sunlight. He doesn't just experience, he indulges.

Given the emphasis put on things that Aziraphale loves just because they Feel Good, it feels narratively strange to assume that he wouldn't enjoy the feeling of being touched, or that he wouldn't be willing to try it, at least once, with someone he cared very deeply for. And just like the ox rib, I think that once he gets the first taste of things, he would absolutely tip over into complete and utter self-indulgence.

Dancing

I also think that dancing could be construed as a huge metaphor here. After all, we're told flat-out that angels don't Dance. Except one.

I would argue that Aziraphale, in fact, Made An Effort to learn how to Dance. He threw himself into the gavotte with delight (at a Victorian gay club; noted) and worked hard to be good at it. He's chomping at the bit to Dance with Crowley, working up the nerve to ask him with undeniably romantic intent and eagerness. So, angels don't Dance... unless they Make An Effort to do so.

We are told that demons, on the other hand, do Dance, but not well. Makes sense, since they're the ones who would want to encourage a deadly sin like lust, but have as little understanding of human love and physical intimacy as the angels. Crowley, however, is shown to be an excellent dancer at the ball, especially in his compatibility with Aziraphale.

(But Aziraphale WandaVisioned the ball so everyone knew how to dance! Yes, he did. However, the rest of the brainwashing doesn't seem to affect Crowley in any way, and they did actually live through the time period where this sort of dancing was a social norm; I'd be surprised if he never needed to learn. After all, the demons can't spell either, and Crowley is at least functionally literate, as far as we know.)

As of today, it's also been confirmed that when Aziraphale asked Crowley to dance, Crowley replied with "you don't dance." Not "WE don't dance". So going along with the metaphor, Crowley is just now discovering that Dancing is something Aziraphale is interested in at all, much less with him, and not denying that he himself is interested in Dancing. In his defense, I believe he was asleep for a few years while Aziraphale was learning the gavotte, so he wasn't exactly aware of Aziraphale's hot girl summer.

Love Languages

I want to expand on that; Crowley and Aziraphale's compatibility. Specifically in regards to their individual love languages.

We all know Crowley's love language is Acts of Service. I don't think there's any debate there. He loves it, Aziraphale loves it, they're both aware of it, we're all aware of it, God and Satan are aware of it, no surprise there.

You may disagree with me, but I believe Aziraphale's love language is Physical Touch, for a number of reasons. One of which being his aforementioned hedonism. Aziraphale likes things that Feel Good, remember? He likes soft clothes, and well-worn books. Neil himself has said that they like holding hands. And any time he is taken by surprise (Brielzebub getting together, the wave of love in Tadfield, etc.) what is the first thing he does? Reaches out for Crowley. He stops him with a hand to the chest in the pub. He leads him by the hand to the dance floor. He guides him by the waist in the graveyard. He reaches out during the entire Brielzebub scene, whether he can reach Crowley or not. Despite his own turmoil, he grasps at Crowley's back during the kiss.

The one time Crowley reaches out for him (not counting the kiss yet; we'll get there), he is aggressively pushed against a wall (by someone he loves and trusts) with a complete and utter lack of concern (and perhaps some interest, depending on how you read it).

And when he isn't reaching out for anyone, or there isn't anyone to reach out to? Well, he's wringing his own hands together, squeezing his own fingers, as if to find that physical comfort in himself.

So. With that theory in mind, we have Aziraphale (Physical Touch) + Crowley (Acts of Service). Throw in 6000+ years of deep love, cherished companionship, and forcibly repressed longing, and there is a very real potential of this combination resulting in fierce sexual compatibility. Where Aziraphale would want to touch and be touched, to indulge in physical pleasure with someone he adores, in the same the way he indulges in every other fine thing in his life. And where Crowley would want to indulge him in return, to give him everything he wants, and to take pleasure in Aziraphale's pleasure, in the same way he enjoys watching him take joy in food everything else.

So Aziraphale is an angel who is insecure about his own less-than-holy desires, who would want to treat Crowley like a luxury to be touched and cherished and adored. And Crowley is a demon who has, over the millennia, been unhappy about how they've been forced to deny even their friendship with each other, who would want Aziraphale to feel comfortable and safe and encouraged to indulge in earthly delights. That sounds like a stunning recipe for sexual compatibility to me.

"You said 'trust me'" / "And you did"

Just like the Job minisode, the Blitz is RIFE with symbolism (intentional or otherwise). This one will be quick, but I did want to touch on it because I thought it was interesting. Maybe I'm reaching at this point, but I'm assuming you read the tin.

First of all, Crowley not wanting to admit to never firing a gun before; comes off as someone who very much does not want to admit to their crush that they're a virgin ("You must have done this lots of times!" / "Umm.... yyyyyeah.")

(You could make the argument that Aziraphale having a firearms license and a Derringer in a hollowed-out book is symbolic of him not being a virgin while Crowley is. I disagree, for reasons I'll go into later, but it's a valid reading. However, I see it more like keeping a condom in your wallet; it's there in case you need it, but the opportunity has not yet risen no pun intended.)

More importantly, the theme of this entire minisode is trust. We already know they trust each other with their lives against the rest of Heaven, Hell, and the world. But specifically, this is about the importance of having complete trust in your partner in a charged, physically vulnerable, intimate moment, where the only danger is between the two of you.

Aziraphale needs to believe Crowley would never hurt him if he can help it. Crowley needs to trust Aziraphale's unwavering blind faith in him. Frankly, it all feels very symbolic of two people deeply in love losing their respective virginities with each other.

The trick is a success, and they share an intimate candlelit dinner in which they reaffirm their faith in each other. Aziraphale also begins to voice his agreement with Crowley, that maybe Heaven's rules shouldn't have to be as black and white as they are, and that there are benefits to... blurring the lines, shades of grey, wink wink (at which point even my mom was like, whoa guys, this is a family show).

Btw also: Can we all agree how much it looked like Crowley was getting ready to get a lapdance in that one scene? You know the one.

Also also: "Aim for my mouth"? Come on.

The Birds & The Bees

Now that I think of it, there's also something to be said for the fact that Crowley and Aziraphale are both obviously familiar with where babies come from (how they're made and how they're born) while the other angels aren't.

Something something Aziraphale and Crowley fundamentally understand sex and reproduction in a way the other angels (and probably demons) very much do not, nor have any desire to.

Probably not important. Just thought it was worth mentioning.

The Kiss™ & Religious Trauma

The Kiss. Where to even begin?

This has definitely been the hardest one to start, because there is so much going on here that I definitely won't be able to cover it all, and will certainly miss a few things here and there.

Aziraphale's reaction to the kiss afterwards is the most interesting to me. And I don't mean directly after, I don't mean the "I forgive you" part. I mean the way he touches his lips when Crowley is no longer in the room and he no longer needs to save face, when he is completely alone. Had it been directly after the kiss, it would have been rightfully read as horror, or disgust, a shield to discourage further action.

It's not. It isn't just a touch, it's a press. As desperate and angry and unexpected and imperfect as the kiss had been, Aziraphale is pressing it into himself, recreating the feeling as best he can. Beneath all the poor timing and shock and hurt from their fight and fallout, I think it's fair to say that it was something he enjoyed. Something he doesn't think he should enjoy, something that Feels Good that he only allows himself to indulge in when completely alone.

Remember, Aziraphale's idea of love is Jane Austen and gentleness and courtship and fantasy. If he'd ever even considered kissing an option, it might have been gentle pecks, cheek kisses, forehead kiss, hand kisses. Soft, safe, chaste affection.

Crowley's kiss turns all of that on its head. He introduces physical intimacy in a very real, very messy, very human way that I don't think Aziraphale ever even considered could apply to them. Considering what other angels are like and what they look down on, even Aziraphale's Jane Austen fantasies probably would have been considered taboo.

So for their first kiss to be rough and desperate and passionate in the way it was, of course he was confused and in shock. It was deeply physical, and as overwhelming and awful as it was in the moment, it Felt Good. Enough that he grasped at Crowley and kissed back, if only just for a moment, before stopping himself. Enough that he actively pressed it into his lips afterwards, in private, to remember.

I adore how Neil has decided to evolve these characters past the first book/season. More so in this season, Aziraphale and Crowley have both become such interesting allegories for queer people on either side of the spectrum of toxic religion. Aziraphale in particular obviously, because he is the side that so desperately wants to believe, to make a difference, and to unlearn all of the propaganda he's been fed over such a long time. Just like so much of organised religion, there is so much that he is told, time and time again, that he should not want, that he is silly or stupid or outright wrong for wanting. It reminds me so much of the severe Catholic guilt one might feel for wanting/engaging in sex for the first time, and the stigma of being queer layered on top of that.

What is so critical to Aziraphale's character is that he goes on wanting, and more than that, actively pursues. He was convinced to go up against Heaven and Hell and stop all of Armageddon because he wanted to go on listening to music and eating lunch and reading books and enjoying the simple company of the person he cares most deeply for, even if that person is supposed to be the enemy.

All this to say that if angels are as generally asexual/sex-averse as I believe them to be, narratively speaking, it would make sense for Aziraphale to be singular in that regard as well. Mirroring his first experience with food, it would make sense for Crowley to be the one to first introduce this new messy, physical, human dynamic between them, for Aziraphale to hesitate (obviously we are at the Hesitation phase at the moment), and then (eventually) for him to dive in wholeheartedly, to absolutely glut himself on this new thing that Feels Good. It would make sense for his character development to show him overcoming his metaphorical Catholic guilt and pursuing the sexual intimacy most (if not all) of the other angels would scorn.

(I can't help but remember that plot idea Neil described from the unwritten sequel, with Aziraphale in a hotel room trying to watch a full porno by way of the free 2-minute teaser clips so he wasn't technically sinning by paying for it. I so hope this is used in season 3, because gosh, I wonder why Aziraphale would suddenly be so interested in observing human physical intimacy after 6,000 years. Lonely and doing a little surreptitious research there, angel?)

Crowley, on the other hand, is the queer person who has broken free from his toxic religion. He prides himself on being his own person, on their his own side. He doesn't have the hang-ups Aziraphale does. He doesn't worry that he's going to be judged or cast aside for wanting things he's not supposed to. So it only makes sense for him to be the first one to suggest/initiate physical intimacy. It makes sense for him to be the one who "goes too fast" (another fantastic example of this dynamic beginning as early as s1; what is that conversation in the car meant to represent, if not Aziraphale being overwhelmed by the intensity of their relationship, and his fear of succumbing to it when he believes he shouldn't? It's also interesting that this is the first conversation to take place in Soho, just after watching Aziraphale realise he's caught feelings for a demon, with the red glow of lust serving as the backdrop).

Do I think the kiss in and of itself was sexual? No. I think it was a passionate and devastating last-ditch effort on Crowley's part to convey the way he feels for Aziraphale. Not just that he loves him, but that he loves him in the most human way possible. But I do think that the kiss represents how they can move forward from here, and what they might want to explore with each other once they feel free enough to do so.

In Conclusion

I am sure, deep in my bones (unless we are explicitly told otherwise), that this was both of their first kisses no, I'm not counting the gavotte, and that neither of them have ever thought to do anything else physical with the humans while they have been on Earth. Like I said before, they adore the human race and lifestyle in general, but ultimately view them as a separate species altogether, and they seem mostly happy to keep to themselves and each other, unless otherwise necessary. I just can't see either of them being drawn enough to a human to pursue anything close to sex. If Crowley in particular has had anything to do with sex in the context of temptations, I'm positive he would be inciting lust amongst the humans themselves, not involving himself directly. At least not that directly.

So, like every other human experience they've had on Earth, sex is something new that they could explore together, just the two of them, on their own side. A deeply intimate, tangible declaration of their love and everything they've gone through to earn it. A visceral finger to give both Heaven and Hell. A renewed appreciation for their corporations and for each other's. A enjoyable method for immortal beings to simply pass the time in each other's company. A new and exciting way to Feel Good, and all the variations that come with it.

You might agree with this post, or you might not. Whether this is something that is ever addressed or not, it doesn't matter to me. This is a brilliant love story either way, and I genuinely feel so privileged to witness it.

But I just can't find it in myself to imagine, given everything we know about these two characters, that sex isn't an experience they would both consume with wholehearted enthusiasm, curiosity, and profound, ineffable adoration.

___________________________________

Bonus feature: the very silly notes I made to myself that inspired this post

#pinned post bc I'm particularly proud of how it turned out and i don't want it to get buried when people check out my blog lol #Good omens #good omens spoilers #good omens season 2 #good omens season 2 spoilers #good omens 2 #good omens 2 spoilers #gos #gos spoilers #gos2 #gos2 spoilers #gomens #gomens spoilers #gomens 2 #gomens 2 spoilers #good omens s2 spoilers #ineffable husbands #aziracrow #aziraphale #crowley #mine #meta #character analysis #character study #discourse #making an effort #this literally took me a week to finish i really hope it doesn't sound stupid lol #i know I'm gonna wake up in a cold sweat every couple days bc i forgot to add something but i needed this out of my drafts and also my brain

[heroicallynude]

The ethics of displaying human remains as museum objects

I'm writing an article for school about the ethics of displaying human bodies as museum objects and part of my thesis is looking into what the public thinks about human remains being displayed at museums.

With that, I want to know what that opinion is. So I was hoping that you would answer this poll for me. If I get enough votes, I'm going to use the results in my article, so i hope you'll be willing to answer and reblog to spread it!

I know the answers arent super nuanced, but i want the results to be somewhat easy to navigate, as it'll make it easier for me to use in my article.

No answer is wrong! This isn't a test of morality or a judgement on what you think, this is just an attempt to sus out what the overall opinion on this topic is.

#tagamemnon #egypt #ancient greece #bog bodies #mummies #history #museums #Had to redo the poll bc i forgot to add a 'no opinion' option OMG

[gougarfem]

i've never had such fake, shallow friendships as i have with white, liberal, "queer" friends. people i've supposedly been close with for years consistently left me on read when i texted them at 4am in hospital scared and alone with critically low sats because they didn't have the energy for emotional labour. you have to ask to vent, respect triggers, never ever traumadump, so real conversations are difficult because nobody wants to complain - unless, of course, it's related to identity somehow - you can say you had a bad day because your teacher is transphobic, but not because you had an argument at home or threw up or just didn't feel well - none of it comes from genuine concern but instead the rules and norms within your online community. constant reassurance, validation, knowing there's no possibility of a nuanced discussion on anything other than your approved safe topics. attempts at open communication feel sanitized and are laced with therapy-speak, not reflecting real human emotions, but "i sincerely apologize for crossing your boundaries" because it's ideologically wrong, the undertone is 'please don't make a callout on me', not 'i'm sorry', abuse and manipulation are wrong because they get you ostracised and put on blast publicly by your friendship group so any little disagreement comes with a flurry of reassurance that you aren't an abuser, and they still call you they/them behind your back, they still ask your other friends what they think of your opinion on ace discourse, have you crossed the line yet, can we cut you out yet, it's so fucking tiring and there's no space for real connection or humanity in all of it

#lav.txt #rant #vent #maybe I'm just tired and unmedicated but idk #fuck you to everyone that never supported me at my most vulnerable #but was sure to say they'd always be here

[wordstome]

how c.ai works and why it's unethical

Okay, since the AI discourse is happening again, I want to make this very clear, because a few weeks ago I had to explain to a (well meaning) person in the community how AI works. I'm going to be addressing people who are maybe younger or aren't familiar with the latest type of "AI", not people who purposely devalue the work of creatives and/or are shills.

The name "Artificial Intelligence" is a bit misleading when it comes to things like AI chatbots. When you think of AI, you think of a robot, and you might think that by making a chatbot you're simply programming a robot to talk about something you want them to talk about, and it's similar to an rp partner. But with current technology, that's not how AI works. For a breakdown on how AI is programmed, CGP grey made a great video about this several years ago (he updated the title and thumbnail recently)

I HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend you watch this because CGP Grey is good at explaining, but the tl;dr for this post is this: bots are made with a metric shit-ton of data. In C.AI's case, the data is writing. Stolen writing, usually scraped fanfiction.

How do we know chatbots are stealing from fanfiction writers? It knows what omegaverse is [SOURCE] (it's a Wired article, put it in incognito mode if it won't let you read it), and when a Reddit user asked a chatbot to write a story about "Steve", it automatically wrote about characters named "Bucky" and "Tony" [SOURCE].

I also said this in the tags of a previous reblog, but when you're talking to C.AI bots, it's also taking your writing and using it in its algorithm: which seems fine until you realize 1. They're using your work uncredited 2. It's not staying private, they're using your work to make their service better, a service they're trying to make money off of.

"But Bucca," you might say. "Human writers work like that too. We read books and other fanfictions and that's how we come up with material for roleplay or fanfiction."

Well, what's the difference between plagiarism and original writing? The answer is that plagiarism is taking what someone else has made and simply editing it or mixing it up to look original. You didn't do any thinking yourself. C.AI doesn't "think" because it's not a brain, it takes all the fanfiction it was taught on, mixes it up with whatever topic you've given it, and generates a response like in old-timey mysteries where somebody cuts a bunch of letters out of magazines and pastes them together to write a letter.

(And might I remind you, people can't monetize their fanfiction the way C.AI is trying to monetize itself. Authors are very lax about fanfiction nowadays: we've come a long way since the Anne Rice days of terror. But this issue is cropping back up again with BookTok complaining that they can't pay someone else for bound copies of fanfiction. Don't do that either.)

Bottom line, here are the problems with using things like C.AI:

It is using material it doesn't have permission to use and doesn't credit anybody. Not only is it ethically wrong, but AI is already beginning to contend with copyright issues.

C.AI sucks at its job anyway. It's not good at basic story structure like building tension, and can't even remember things you've told it. I've also seen many instances of bots saying triggering or disgusting things that deeply upset the user. You don't get that with properly trigger tagged fanworks.

Your work and your time put into the app can be taken away from you at any moment and used to make money for someone else. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people who use AI panic about accidentally deleting a bot that they spent hours conversing with. Your time and effort is so much more stable and well-preserved if you wrote a fanfiction or roleplayed with someone and saved the chatlogs. The company that owns and runs C.AI can not only use whatever you've written as they see fit, they can take your shit away on a whim, either on purpose or by accident due to the nature of the Internet.

DON'T USE C.AI, OR AT THE VERY BARE MINIMUM DO NOT DO THE AI'S WORK FOR IT BY STEALING OTHER PEOPLES' WORK TO PUT INTO IT. Writing fanfiction is a communal labor of love. We share it with each other for free for the love of the original work and ideas we share. Not only can AI not replicate this, but it shouldn't.

(also, this goes without saying, but this entire post also applies to ai art)

#anti ai #cod fanfiction #c.ai #character ai #c.ai bot #c.ai chats #fanfiction #fanfiction writing #writing #writing fanfiction #on writing #fuck ai #ai is theft #call of duty #cod #long post #I'm not putting any of this under a readmore #Youtube

[convolutedblasphemy]

Okay we're gonna try and settle this

Because I've seen so many people try and speak for the entirety of the ace community in regards to this discourse, I thought why not make a poll just to gauge out the general opinion

Disclaimer: This poll might not turn out entirely accurate given that there's always a possibility some people won't answer truthfully or throw this poll into an echo chamber with people who agree with them.

Disclaimer 2: I'm leaving reblogs open because I want the poll to reach more people but please for the love of god don't start a fight in the notes.

About Option 3: The distinction here is that you're fine with people portraying an asexual / aromantic character as anywhere on the ace / aro spectrum as long as they actually put in the effort to portray a sex-favorable ace or a romance-favorable ace and their experiences as opposed to just making the character allo.

#asexual #aromantic #fandom #aroace #ace #aro #aspec #arospec #asexuality #sex repulsed #sex favorable #ace community #poll #lgbtqia #tw: discourse #bojack horseman #hazbin hotel #alastor #hazbin hotel alastor #asexual alastor #ace alastor #aroace alastor

[balioc]

Oh, boy! It's Education Theory o'Clock again!

...I have a lot of thoughts on this topic. At some point, when I'm less busy and tired, I should probably try to write them up. Natively, I'm one of the school-is-a-nightmare-prison people, like so many others in this little discourse-sphere -- but I'm married to a middle school teacher, so I regularly encounter both the good arguments from the other side and the facts on the ground, and those things have altered my perspective somewhat.

But I am, in fact, busy and tired. So for now I'll just content myself with saying:

School is an institution that serves many, many, many purposes at the same time. A lot of those purposes are load-bearingly important. (A couple of years ago, I wrote this about college, and...it's double-plus true for primary and secondary schools.) If you don't try to account for all of that stuff in your theory of What School Is and How School Works, you will generate incoherent garbage thoughts. If you have a New Concept for school entailing top-down design that is optimized for a single function (like "increasing test scores" or "causing kids to love learning" or whatever), you'd better have a plan for how you're going to do all the other important things that schools do. And even if you think that some of those things aren't actually important or necessary, you'd better have a plan for dealing with all the people who disagree. Because...

-----

...school, as it exists today, is an inherently political institution. Both in the "soft" sense that everyone has strong opinions about what it's supposed to do and how it's supposed to work, and in the "hard" sense that it is actually controlled by democratically-accountable governments. (This is double-plus true in the US, where it is controlled by local governments, and therefore doesn't even have the protective insulation of a massive bureaucracy.) Everything about the way schools work is a compromise brokered amongst ideologues and self-dealers. Everything about the way schools work involves a lot of decision-makers trying not to get yelled at by the yelliest people around. If you're looking for elegant purpose-driven top-down design, you won't find it. You could probably make a case that any elegant purpose-driven top-down design would be better than the thing we actually have, but getting there would require finding a way to remove the political element.

-----

Most importantly: public schools are (1) compulsory, (2) universal, and (3) for children. [People who are legally children, anyway, whether or not they are actual children in whatever sense matters to you.]

This means that they cannot let students leave, and they have to keep control of all the students that they aren't allowing to leave.

In the most literal not-a-judgment-but-a-fact sense, they are indeed prisons. They are coercively keeping people inside. They have to do that thing, as per their most fundamental mandate within the current system. The alternatives involve letting kids run around unsupervised, and/or failing to give some kids even the most cursory kind of education, and those things are absolute non-starters under present conditions.

All the normal institutions-for-adults operate on the principle of -- If you really don't want to be here, you can leave, and deal with whatever consequences there may be for leaving. This is not an option for schools, and that fact accounts for...everything.

Classroom structure is built around the necessity of keeping the most-hostile, least-engaged student in the class present and supervised, and then trying to prevent him from disrupting things for everyone else. Because the obvious solution that any other institution would use -- "just cut him loose, he doesn't want to be here and we don't want him here" -- isn't available.

(I once talked to my wife about the rationed bathroom access thing, which is one of the most flagrant nightmare-prison aspects of the school experience. Her response was, "If you let kids use the bathroom whenever they want, as much as they want, then you don't have mandatory universal education anymore. Some of them will never return to the classroom, because they don't want to be there." Which is...obviously true.)

So you have something that replicates many of the features of prison, because it has to accomplish the same basic tasks that prison accomplishes. Yay, Foucault.

#education

[fromsupernaturaltof1]

so tired of everyone and their mother slandering daniel on every goddamn platform

it's disproportionate and fucking tiring

he's evil because he said he didn't like Charles' Instagram, he's evil for saying he hopes to see Jack Doohan on the grid soon, he's evil for unfollowing Yuki (never followed him in the first place), he's evil and making excuses when he tries to explain what he thinks is limiting him in the car (which his teams tp and CEO as well as another teams tp and advisor agree with)

yes he deserves criticism, some valid for his performance (he did violate track limits no matter what way you put it), some for his dumb comments (lbr his comments were the same as 6 other drivers on the grid, yet crickets for them)

you need to villainize someone because this season is boring, because somehow you're convinced F1 is a reality show that needs to churn out drama to keep it interesting. do you see this type of opinions on any other motorsport? in Indy or motogp? no!! the latest topic on motogp is Marc and Pecco disagreeing on who was responsible for a crash and that's how it should be

racing discourse is rarely about racing anymore, it's about what gets the most clicks and as always it's Daniel Ricciardo who gets clicks, good or bad

I'm honestly sick of it, it's making me hate this sport more and more everyday

edit: as Fernando once said:

#daniel ricciardo #formula 1

[nothorses]

I noticed that you reposted something that is along the lines of proship

I agree with leaving media alone but I think its incredibly disgusting when people ship, for example siblings, because what it feels to me is that they have an incest fetish or something

I know just because someone writes about murder doesnt mean they support it, and I believe that. but usually when people write about murder it's in a negative context, obviously showing how it is so incomprehensible to outsiders about how someone could do that, or showing how we need to get these people help.

trying to apply this to, for example, incest, if someone ships an incestuous relationship then it seems like it would be in a good context, and it seems like they support it should it be in real life. that's how I view this all. (itd be different if they shipped siblings as a strange headcanon and talking about how it's bad... this reasoning I can understand the most to the point where I can let myself ignore it)

how am I supposed to learn to not care? especially when they are really outward about it?

okay.

I do not participate in shipping discourse because I do not participate in shipping. I'm not really In Fandom anymore like, generally. I don't... care.

Because of this I had literally no idea what you were referring to in this ask. I had to scroll. So far back. To get to this post, which also doesn't refer to shipping discourse.

I also have not talked about incest here, and the post in question doesn't talk about incest.

It's about murder. And gore. Which you say here is fine.

Literally why did you send me this ask.

And like... there's a fair chance this is just bait, and there's also enough of a chance that you're genuinely asking that, like, fuck it. I'm gonna get shit no matter what I do, so I may as well try to do a little good.

You use the words "feels" and "seems" a lot in this ask. And I'm really glad you did, actually, because I think it's honest; you're operating on your feelings and assumptions, and that's really important to keep in mind.

And your feelings on this are valid! It's normal to be uncomfortable with certain content, and it's normal to not want to see or engage in it. You don't need to feel any differently about those things. You don't have to consume incestuous content, you don't have to be okay with it, and you don't have to be around it.

But ask yourself: you assume that other people engaging in this content means they support it in real life, but what if they don't? What if you're wrong?

Maybe they're saying it's wrong in a way you're just not picking up on, or that you don't recognize. Maybe they aren't saying it's wrong; maybe it's in the context. Maybe it's in a genre trope in a genre you're not familiar with. Maybe it's irony or satire that you aren't picking up on. Maybe they aren't saying it at all, but that's still what they think, and they just chose not to put it in that content for... who knows what reason. Maybe they're literally just bad at writing.

What then?

Sometimes you're going to feel or assume that something is going on, and you're just gonna be wrong. And you could ask who's fault that is- did you fail to pick up on something you should have been able to, or did they fail to communicate it well enough?- but like, what are you going to do with that information?

Sometimes people are not very good at literary analysis, and sometimes people are not very good at writing, and that's just part of learning. Do we tell everyone not to attempt to talk about certain topics unless they're "good enough" to do it "right"? How do we know when someone's "good enough", and how do they get to that point without practice? Do we just ban those topics altogether? What topics do we ban- where's the line? How do we enforce it? How do we prevent that from being weaponized against marginalized people?

Anon, you asked me how you can "not care" about these things existing. And I think that's a valid question; you feel there is injustice, and you want to stop it. That can be a very noble impulse, and it can be harnessed for a lot of good.

But it can also be really, really toxic- not just to the people you hurt because you act on assumptions and impulses that are incorrect, but to yourself. You can't control everything. You can't control how other people feel, whether or how they engage in certain topics, or what they do or say. You just can't. And trying, or wanting to try, or thinking you should try- it's going to drive you nuts.

So here's how not to care:

Remind yourself that you might be wrong. Take a moment to think about all the things you don't know for certain, and the things you would need to know to be absolutely, 100% sure that you're right.

Consider how important this is to you. How close is this person to you? How important is this issue? What would it feel like to let this go- would it continue to impact you? Do you have other options? (removing yourself from the situation, blocking tags/posts/people, etc.)

Consider what you can do, and what you should do. Think about the tools at your disposal, the power you have in this situation, and how likely this person is to listen to you. Think about whether those tools are ethical. Again, what if you're wrong? Is there any reason you might regret your actions?

If you still feel like it's worth addressing, start by asking questions. Make sure you really know what's going on, and if (and when) the situation changes with new information, walk through this process again. Repeat back what you believe is happening until they confirm that you're right, decide again whether this is worth it, and then proceed.

Sometimes it's more effective to just vent to someone else, or to make a post about the issue generally without confronting that person- especially considering your assumptions might be wrong! Maybe it's worth it to talk about what you thought was happening, but you don't know that what you thought was happening is what was actually happening. You can still talk about it, just, y'know, without making it an attack on someone else.

And again, I don't give a shit about fandom discourse. This is important to me because these are themes that crop up in regular-ass media all the time, and disagreements that crop up in regular-ass relationships with friends and family and loved ones. I think it's important that people have the skills to navigate disagreements, unintentional harm, and perceived slights in healthy, productive ways.

You can't live your whole life demanding that everyone agree with you on everything, or blaming other people for everything you misinterpret or assume incorrectly. You cannot assume that everything that hurts you was designed to hurt you. You can recognize that these are assumptions and feelings, and that's great! And I hope you're being honest when you say that you want to learn to let things go.