got tired of all depressing and hating yourself for being aro vibes on legit any other platform besides tumblr (looking at you tictac app) so wanted to listen to positive aromantic playlists and legit could NOT FIND ANY??????
And the ones that were vaguely positive were made for aroace ppl. Which is great! But im not ace!!! So WHERE'S MY POSITIVE AROALLO REP?!?!?!
Anyways i solved this hyperspecific problem myself and made a POSITIVE AROALLO playlist:
You mentioned emotional stability, which I get, but it made me think of the meme about ‘how do you not cry when people yell at you’ and I’m wondering both: whether there’s as much yelling in law as in tv, and whether you’ve ever cried while doing law
Nowhere near as much yelling as TV!
The only people I've ever had yell at me are non-attorneys who are representing themselves and who do not understand how this whole system works, and generally speaking...they're not in a position where their yelling is hurtful? Every time it's happened it's been more like a person throwing a tantrum, and I just...can't take that seriously. No one I actually work with (or opposing counsel) has ever managed to yell at me. I have cut off a couple people who were working themselves in that direction and redirected things back to being civil.
Frankly: I will not put up with that shit.
The list of people who are allowed to yell at you in a professional setting is very, very short, and the circumstances where that is appropriate are few and far between. It does happen in some workplaces but that's a question of office culture and individual shitty temper. My boss would never yell at me--it's unprofessional--and if he did he'd have my resignation on his desk by the end of the day. Opposing counsel is not entitled to yell at me; I am their professional peer and I don't have to put up with it outside the courtroom, and if it's inside a courtroom, the judge is likely to shut that down.
We're lawyers. In this profession, it's widely seen that losing your temper is a sign that you have lost your professional regulation and it discredits your argument. That's true in and out of the courtroom.
I have come near tears in court, but mostly because if I hit a certain point of rage I will tear up. Twice, I've had a judge hand down a ruling so wildly unjust and unexpected that it threw me off balance and into immediate fury, but I've always been able to keep it together and carry on without actually crying.
Mostly the practice of law is just not that personal. Even if someone is yelling, it's not at me as an individual. I don't make the laws, I don't decide the facts, I just take these things and lay them out. If someone's mad, it's not usually a personal attack. And you learn to deal with and understand that kind of anger--often frustration--as you go.
i’ve seen tweets/posts from people saying that anyone who donated to the ofmd renewal billboard should get beaten with hammers and i just. come on, man
you want other queer people to die bc they spent, on average, $30 on something they really like. i spent about that much on a new sauce pan yesterday. should i also get beaten to death with hammers bc i bought guitar picks instead of donating to a charity your personally approve of. what’s the line here.
you have every right to be furious that the world seems to keep turning while there are horrific tragedies happening somewhere else. but like. how much of yelling at strangers on the internet is mitigating that tragedy. how much shaming is putting food in the mouths of starving people. what’s the point?
are you using your anger productively? or are you burning yourself out bc everything feels hopeless? are you lashing out at strangers bc you feel like it’s the only way you can have an impact?
Oh, so when IIIII make the "mutual" joke it's delusional, but when Hoyo makes it--
(Actually, since that Youtube end card tried to gatekeep it, here's Ratio's tsuntsun sweatdrop as he tries to think up a good excuse for going on TV to talk about some guy he's definitely not "friends" with:)
seemingly cool fiber arts person i followed a little bit ago just put radfem shit on the dash, anyway the blanket statement that the only contributions of men to textile production are capitalist/exploitative and the only contributions of women are household-centric/victimized is patently untrue. while less of a documented presence, women in medieval europe [1] absolutely participated in weaver's guilds and commercial cloth production [2], and men have been participating in household knitting in all parts of europe for as long as knitting has been a thing there [3]. like i'm not trying to say women haven't been deeply excluded from economic opportunities in the textile trade for centuries but you cannot be making sweeping statements like that about everyone in every part of the world through all of history and expect them to be true. do, like, a basic level of research and have a basic understanding of nuance, i beg of you [4]
footnotes/sources/etc under the cut, sources are a bit basic because i just grabbed whatever was nearest to hand but they should suffice to prove my point:
[1] i'm only referring to western europe here because that's the only region i feel comfortable talking about in any detail without embarrassing myself. systems of medieval cloth production in european guilds are not gonna look anything like the systems of hundreds of servants employed to do textile production for a household in china. don't make categorical statements about everyone everywhere all at once, you will end up with egg on your face.
[2] quotes from "when did weaving become a male profession," ingvild øye, danish journal of archaeology, p.45 in particular.
england: "in norwich, a certain elizabeth baret was enrolled as freeman of the city in 1445/6 because she was a worsted weaver, and in 1511, a riot occurred when the weavers here complained that women were taking over their work" + "another ordinance from bristol [in 1461] forbade master weavers to engage wives, daughters, and maids who wove on their own looms as weavers but made an exception for wives already active before this act"
germany: "in bremen, several professional male weavers are recorded in the early fourteenth century, but evidently alongside female weavers, who are documented even later, in 1440" -> the whole "even later" thing is because the original article is disputing the idea that men as weavers/clothiers in medieval europe entirely replaced women over time. also: "in 1432-36, a female weaver, mette weuersk, is referred to as a member of the gertrud's guild in flensburg, presently germany"
scandanavia: "the guild of weavers that was established in copenhagen in 1500 also accepted female weavers as independent members and the rules were recorded in the guild's statutes"
[3] quotes from folk socks: the history and techniques of handknitted footwear by nancy bush, interweave press, 2011, don't roast me it was literally within arm's reach and i didn't feel like looking up more stuff
uk/yorkshire dales: "...handknitting had been a daily employment for three centuries [leading up to 1900]. practiced by women, children, and men, the craft added much to the economy of the dales people." (p.21)
uk/wales: re the knitting night (noson weu/noswaith weu) as a social custom practiced in the 18th/19th c.: "all the ladies would work on their knitting; some of the men would knit garters" (p.22)
uk/channel islands: "by the early seventeenth century, so many of the islands' men, women, and children had taken up the trade of knitting that laws were necessary to keep them from knitting during harvest" (p.24) -> this one is deeply funny to me, in addition to proving my point
uk/aberdeen: "the knitters, known as shankers, were usually women, but sometimes included old men and boys" (p.26)
denmark: "with iron and brass needles, they made stockings called stunthoser, stomper, or stockings without feet, as well as stockings with feet. the men knit the legs and the women and girls made the heels" (p.32)
iceland & faroe islands: "people of all ages and both sexes knit at home not only for their own use but for exportation of their goods as well" (p.35)
[4] actually? no. i'm not begging for shit from radfems. fuck all'a'y'all.
if jake had said his "son for a son" shit out loud and spider had heard him, he would have been so beyond pissed, he would be seeing red.
spider loved his little siblings so much, neteyam included, even after they grew apart. he loved them like they were his own blood and protected them like they were too (we see a lot more of them together in the comics, where spider is the big brother without a doubt). neteyam's death most certainly rocked him hard, even if he hasn't really been able to show it (how could he? he's already going through all the shit with his dad and the RDA and their nonsense, he can't grieve around neytiri, he's just so tired after it all. he doesn't have the room or the energy to grieve yet)
so if jake had the audacity to say that to/around spider not even a few hours after he watched his little brother get shot after coming to save him, after he stared at the bullet hole in his back, after he watched him take his last breaths, after he watched the light leave his eyes, after he watched his little brother die for him; if he said that while his little brother's body lay in a pool of his own blood not even ten feet away, not even cold yet, blood still clinging to his chest, the scent of it still filling the air: he would have lost his shit.
because the disrespect for his brother is wild.
jake was an active player in spider's neglect and abuse for the last 16 years, he let it happen, he helped it happen. he tried to send spider with the humans, tried to take him away from his siblings, from the forests, from eywa to live with his foster family that didn't love him (not to mention Nash was an asswipe of epic proportions) and the RDA of all people. he had referred to spider as a stray animal since he was little. he was the reason spiders life was hell.
and after all that, years and years of putting him in shit positions and allowing him to suffer the fate of being forever unloved and uncared for (by an adult authority figure, cause I love the kids, but they don't make up for the gap left by a parent), this is what it took for jake to care about him? his little brother had to die in front of him first? he had to be traded out to fill the space of a corpse, to fill in the gap left by his little brother's death?
in canon, spider was in deep in shock with nothing to break him from it, he wasn't in the place to really think about any of it, and I'm sure we're gonna see this anger in the coming movies, but if jake had said it out loud, that would have been enough to snap spider right out of it, and he would have given jake a piece of his mind, I just know it.
I find it interesting that the most controversial/widespread posts have been those relating to physical appearance/visual medium. Lbh's hair and body type and sqq's eyes. I wonder what's the underlying cause for this. Maybe because people get attached to designs they feel more protective of them? Just a thought.
Oh, I would say this is absolutely the case. Visual design choices are, after all, often symbolic reflections of parts of individuals' own selves in some way, or of other things that are important to them. Artists will also spend a lot of time and thought on creating their designs-- and in some ways, visual media and written media are also quite different. You don't need the visual contrast so much in a book, but you do need it more when it's pictures, because characters with good contrasts are pleasant to look at together.
I actually think the donghua designs create a sort of contrast too-- both by SQQ's lighter eyes to LBH's, but as well as with the broader silhouettes, where SQQ has flowing robes and hair and LBH's silhouette is tighter. Also in general, the black robes of adult LBH vs the teal & white. Western stylization just focuses more on body type+hair texture silhouette diversity, while eastern stylization is more about the clothing and hair-styling silhouette, in a broad generalization, so it's only natural that when people create their designs, especially for a media that is only written, like SVSSS before the donghua or official cover art came out, that they will draw influence from the background of their own culture in creating these designs, in addition to their own experiences.
It's difficult too in my position, because while I genuinely want to take a neutral look at trends and history and patterns and cultural influence as a scientific sort of examination, there are so many instances of attacks on character designs, which make both the artists and designers and the people who like those designs feel bad and just isn't productive, even if criticisms are genuine. Things should be talked over civily, without bashing, because a space where people are belittled and attacked is not a space where people can learn.
Anyway, everyone has reasons for their designs. Sometimes these may be rooted in stereotyping or westernization, but other times, they're based on personal reasons and don't actually have those roots. It's not my or anyone's place to declare, definitively, that someone is stereotyping (of course, there are some instances when things are very very obvious and that's a different story), I only try to explain what things i can so that people are then able to examine things for themselves. I do think it's everyone's own responsibility to look at their own biases and think about where their portrayal choices are sourced from, especially when engaging with a culture that isn't one's own. But I don't want people to get into a justification loop, because that's not going to help anyone-- just to honestly take a look at the why of things. Sometimes there's subconscious biases, sometimes it isn't about that. I don't know peoples' own experiences, so I'm not going to say what it is or isn't.
In the end, accountability is something that is definitely needed in sensitive areas like westernization or stereotyping. However, accountability is not dogpiling on someone. Instead, it's personally being open to consideration, to change, and to growth-- and we'll never have that in a hostile environment. People need to focus more on holding themselves accountable, and less on holding others accountable-- we all have unconscious biases. It's part of existing in any culture or environment, and it's a life-long process of examining them and growing in experience and knowledge. And I hope to contribute that knowledge wherever I can, and use what platform I have to foster that sort of gentler environment, where it's not about making people who genuinely didn't know things feel bad, but where it's okay to be wrong, and to learn and grow.
It's up to an individual to examine themselves when they hear new information. That doesn't mean everyone needs to change their designs to conform with Chinese beauty standards-- which have plenty of issues of their own, and shouldn't be taken as more "morally correct!" It's just so that as many people as possible can have as much information as possible, so they can make the best and most informed judgments and decisions they can about their own viewpoints and thought processes.
But yes, even saying all this, I can perfectly acknowledge that fan-designs of beloved characters hold a bit of their creator's heart. While creators can be imperfect, the experiences and emotions and care that these designs stem from is still genuine, and should be treated with gentleness and understanding.
No matter if someone's viewpoint is erroneous or just different from yours, it's important to remember that every person on the internet is a real, human person. Fandom culture can be so notoriously toxic-- and it's high time that people remember each other's humanity, and treat one another with compassion and understanding. That's the only way to create a better fandom space-- and ultimately, a better world.