#do xyz so therefore they will do it

[shrimp1y]

Every time I'm like wow maybe im wrong about jjk maybe it is good and I go back to read it, I'm disappointed

#krill livestream #'so then why are 90% of your art and projects jjk aus' i like the idea of it ok i was sold on the concept of math based abilities #but then like. the series is just. held together by mashmallows n spagheti #LIKE IS IT JUST ME i feel crazy im like the character motivations are all over the place imo i feel like. they just Do Things #why? they just Do. like from a writing perspective feels like gege is going well in order to go from here to here these characters have to #do xyz so therefore they will do it #itadoris motivation as a main character is so flimsy to me. and like considering gege is a big fan of dgm i think he's a bit inspired by #allen walker. the original painfully good hearted protag. nobody can do it like u king. but itadori failed at every step allen took #allen had a solid anchor a motivation when his parental figure died and its referenced again and again. whenever his world view shifts as #he's forced to adapt to his circunstanced #his truth of why he fight is questioned and the reader feels it. they too question where he finds the strength to continue n then the story #answers that question #and we are struck by how good he is. how much pain he is in and how fucked up everything is and yet. hes just wholeheartedly there still #itadori barely has a moment of onscreen reflection. hes like oh im sad and someones like ur sad bc u cant protect people therefore u must #get stronger and hes like yeah ur right this is no time to mope #my biggest gripe is with gojo and geto's development actually because like. i feel like gege didn't actually show how GOJO changed from #being cold and detached from humanity. apathetic and homicidal to like. somehow wanting to follow jujutsu tech's rules? #like you are telling me this kid who's bestie changed his entire world views. who once considered murdering an entire group of ppl and only #didn't bc bestie said it wasn't a good idea. who literally could beat one of the strongest dudes #decided to just. sit down and be like ok elders i guess my bestie is a criminal now #like gojo shouldve been like you killed an entire village because they were assholes? i told you sometimes ppl deserves to get beat! #i feel like geto killing his parents was thrown in just for shock factors imo and for satoru to be like wait whaaat but ur parents??? #even then im like gojo. low empathy interp. would probably be like i hate my parents too i kinda get it #you just don't. have enough. to pull a role reversal with them. there just isn't enough motivation for why Gojo would consider morality #especially the morality that jjtech valued. over his best friend. who was the one who gojo held onto that morality for in the first place

[gemharvest]

I'm very scared to give FNaF movie theory videos a chance bc like. The last time I cared abt the game lore was before the Gregbot bullshit and that stuff was kinda my breaking point with the newer (Steel Wool era specifically) games, and I realllyyy do not want to listen to a guy pull the most convoluted ideas from the books n shit as if they inherently mean anything for the movies.

I know the thing with FNaF now is that the plot is basically the equivalent of like 40 shoe strings tied together in the most tangled, impossible to separate knot, and that, despite the fact the books were originally supposed to be separate from the games, both the books and the games inform eachother to an upsetting degree, but like. Fuck, come on man. Aren't any of you tired of the state the game lore is in? Can the movies pleeeaaase just be based on the first three games.

Anyways I'm glad Micheal is not an Afton and has his own shit going on (even if tied to Afton but I was expecting that from the start I think). I really hope that they don't involve the "cofounder Henry Emily" shit and instead there's a different connection to Afton, that or the movies at least don't carry the Henry Emily name over because god would the theories be even more insufferable. (William gets a pass bc his name is cool and yeah ig that's a biased statement. He got his own cover name in the movie separate from the books' cover name so we can just throw away the Henry Emily name it's fine.)

I think if the second movie were to make Micheal an Afton it'd be so disappointing. I like the movies being their own thing while inspired by the first three games outside of references to stuff beyond that. I don't think everything needs to be shoved into the FNaF lore amalgam that constantly makes things more confusing. Let's just have one continuity that's clear that you dont need to force into being a clue at hidden game lore or that game lore inherently means [xyz] for the movies outside of obvious stuff carried over.

#ramblings #oohhhh boy heres the first of many rants #im tired so theres probably a very clear tone of bitterness #i hope when im ready to rip the bandaid off for movie theories that my fears arent proven true #but also the state of fnaf theorizing is `books say this which you can draw parallels to this from the games- #-therefore in the games stuff is supposed to be like this` so i think its reasonable for me to assume people are doing the same with the #movie. sorry fnaf theory makers but god im just so burnt out on the books being used to say xyz thing is now canon #gregbot relied on what were clear censorship cuts removing dialogue referencing blood and injury to be removed #fnafs georg you know? maybe the curtain isnt blue for nothung but you forget occams razor #while i salute headcanons and aus. there is no building blocks for micheal to he an afton in the movies. simplest answer is hes not

[absensia-archived]

the more I think about it, the more I'm not so sure that Charlotte sees the difference between regret and remorse. if she does see and understand the difference, I can't say for sure that she particularly cares that she frequently conflates the two in her mind and experience, and why that is wrong.

#for charlotte to feel regret is already kind of rare in and of itself #so for her to also feel deep pain and guilt over her actions is so improbable it borders on impossible #this is in part because she is designed to be very good at drawing lines and rationalizing her own work #she's very quick to draw a line between what is in her control (and therefore eligible to cause her guilt) and what is out of her control #and she draws that very close to herself ie. in a way that relinquishes control very soon #she also operates on the whole “the end justify the means” philosophy #so if all works out in the end or the net damage isn't as bad as it could be... then she doesn't really care... #what sort of harm was incurred during the process #moreover - whenever she does feel regret for a certain decision or action... it's because it put her or her plan at a disadvantage #rarely is it because whatever choice she made ended up hurting someone ( this is also possible - just rare ) #if someone were to ask her if she ever felt sorry for smth she did she'd reply like yeah i do regret xyz #and not really see that she missed the point of the question

[magikant]

the idea that thinking alignment is a bad game mechanic = “not being able to handle conversations about morality” is a fucking wild take

#i dont hate alignment #but i do think trying to apply it to anything besides dnd #is doomed to fail #because the only reason it makes any sense in dnd is as a basis for a fantasy cosmology #and at the end of the day it doesnt do a very good job at that #because while functioning as the base understanding of reality within this universe #it also fails to acknowledge itself as a humano/euro-centric realization of morality #the centerpoint of alignment is not flexible or considered in relation to different cultures #alignment (as conceived) says bad is XYZ and good is getting rid of XYZ #ABC races do XYZ so are bad #you are therefore only good if you oppose ABC #alignment does not ask 'what does goodness or lawfulness look like in a goblin society?' #it says 'goblins are chaotic evil. if you are good you are obliged to kill goblins' #obviously you dont have to play your game that way #and there has been enough pushback against that mindset that the text is finally starting to reflect a new attitude #but it still remains the core of the concept #honestly i dont think there is any choice wotc could make moving into 5.5 regarding alignment that i would be totally happy with #leaving it as is or getting rid of it both feel like bad options #changing the way it is implemented is the obvious answer but there is no way to do that that will make everyone happy (duh) #anyway just bugs when people act like their (probably better) more socially conscious definitions of alignments are like #them /figuring out/ the real meaning of it and what they are supposed to be #rather than admitting this is how they like to homebrew alignment to better fit with their own sense of ethics #that is not really what the people i am responding to in this moment were doing #but something i see often enough

[vcrnons]

you’re an intpt too? same but whenever i take a new one it varies from sometimes entpt to intpt

I AM! twinnies🥹

i’ve been through seeeeveral mbtis through different parts of my life to be fair but the two things that always stay the same are the i and the -t? i’ve literally NEVER had extroverted or assertive results lol

i was ISTJ for a while and then it changed to INFP which. blew my mind because how did 3/4 of the letters change lol. and now we’re INTP-t🥰 who knows maybe i’ll do it again soon and get smth completely different lmao i feel like the mood im in when i do it affects the result a little bit somehow

#💌 - mailbox. #❤️‍🔥 - moots. #max 🥨 #I wish I was cool enough to understand astrology (all I know is one of my friends looked at my chart once and said yikes) #(it was a ‘send me ur chart and I’ll tell u if I’d hit’ so I did and they were like ‘….hit bc it’s you but if I didn’t know you I would run’ #astrology besties. diagnose me. WHAT were they afraid of or were they being dramatic) #but I loooooove mbti :( #I’m awful at answering the questions though I’m always like. well i DO do that but do I do it enough to say I agree or is it a neutral— or #do I just do it because xyz so technically it’s disagree— #it takes me FOREVER and I feel like I’m never picking the extremes of the options. #it’s always the middle ones on either side ;-; #nobody asked but it is a day ending in Y and I am therefore over sharing <3

[chamerionwrites]

Like it's not especially mysterious or hard to fathom why (aside from run-of-the-mill puritanism) folks have Really Big Feelings about kink as a concept. We live in a (sexist racist homophobic transphobic etc) society. Quite a lot of people have had their sexual boundaries poked at and/or transgressed by someone (and "someone" is sometimes not even some specific individual but "society at large") claiming that [Sex Act XYZ] is normal/reasonable/no big deal, and therefore (explicitly or implicitly) obligatory. And when you have repeatedly received the message that your body does not fully belong to you, that your yes and no are valid only insofar as they align with others' reasonable expectations - well then it becomes EXTREMELY important to police the borders of what can be considered a reasonable expectation. Spoken or unspoken, the fear that people are giving voice to when they get pearl-clutchy about kink is often "You're saying all of this is normal - and therefore that I have to accommodate it if and when someone asks me for it."

That's not an unsympathetic fear! We live in a society that is not great with the concept of consent! If you're hearing "don't kinkshame" as "your no is invalid" (or if you've encountered someone who framed it that way, because those people do exist), then of course you're going to be anxious and angry about it!

Unfortunately you are also doing that very human thing of getting so deep in your feelings that you're arguing at cross-purposes. Because the ethic of safe sane & consensual kink is not "everything is normal" - it's that normal is a completely irrelevant metric. You want to get tied up? Cool, make sure everyone involved knows how to do restraints safely. You want to have sex without penetration, ever? Also cool. You like playing around with X sensation but not Y sensation? Cool. You get pantsfeelings (or for that matter completely nonsexual satisfaction feelings) out of shining someone's shoes? Cool. You enjoyed XYZ yesterday but you're not feeling it today? Cool. You get to choose. Your body belongs to you.

#normal ≠ moral #habanero salsa tag #sexuality tag #rip my notes I guess #my posts

[heavenangelly]

Make manifesting fun for you

Manifesting is meant to be fun. You’re meant to enjoy it and have a carefree attitude towards it. You’re not meant to cr¥ and scre@m and become d€pre$$ed and d€$per@te because of manifesting. That’s not the Law.

I want manifestation to be fun again for you guys. I want you to effortlessly get your manifestations and literally never be on tumblr / twitter or any social media because of how much you’re enjoying life and being a master manifester.

Here’s how to make manifestation fun again:

- Do methods. Methods are quite controversial in this community and you most definitely do not have to do them if you don’t want to, but you can if you do want to. Types of methods consist of: daydreaming/visualisation, vaunting, bragging, scripting, affirming, subliminals, placebos, lullaby, SATS, vision boards, Pinterest, etc. pick which one resonates with you the most and stick with it. An important thing to note though, is that it’s not the method that manifests, it’s YOU and your ACCEPTANCE of the desire/wish fulfilled.

- Work on your mindset/self concept. I’m going to flat out say this is important. It helps tremendously. I used to hate having to do it but once I did, it made manifestation WAYYYY easier. And it’s not a process although popular belief says it is. It’s just a decision to no longer be who you want to be and then sustaining/continue being who you do want to be / the mindset you want to have. It’s that easy. You don’t even need to think about it. Now this will help you because you no longer think you’re a v1ct1m and manifestation becomes more natural and easy, therefore making it carefree and chill and removing the desperate need for something because you’re secure in your abilities that it’s already yours.

- Make challenges for yourself. Make 2 day challenges where you live in the end for those days, with whatever rules you want and doing whatever you want to do. You can say that today you will manifest 2 desires or whatever you want. Test yourself, know yourself, do whatever you want to. Do not be hard on yourself if you do not complete it. Just try again with a new and more determined mindset.

- Experiment with the law. Like I said above, get to know what works with you. Build your confidence in yourself and the law. Manifest a butterfly following you around, do whatever you want. The law is fun and personal. Manifest “illogical and impossible” things.

- Attitude. Now this kind of ties in with mindset/self concept but I recommend having a positive attitude towards manifestation. Obviously whatever you assume to be true is true, so use that to your advantage. Look at the law is a new light, in a positive one. In a lifestyle way. Don’t associate it with negative things and trying, but instead associate it with a new ch@nce at l1f€, a lifestyle, a way to be fr€€.

Don’t put so much pressure on yourself to manifest xyz before any specific date or just in general put pressure on yourself. Be kind to yourself. The law is incredibly simple and literally only requires you to trust in yourself/imagination and know that you already have what you want / are what you want while being not even caring about the 3d.

Make manifestation your safe space. Make imagination your heaven. Make manifesting easy for yourself. Build new assumptions. Play around with the law. Be unique. Get off of tumblr / twitter and have fun.

Read Neville if you want, listen to Edward Art, make your own rules, have fun. The law, again, is personal. Make it your heaven, not your h€ll.

Just be and have fun.

#law of assumption #manifesting #edward art #loa #loa tumblr #loassumption #manifest #neville goddard #void state #3d #4d #imagination

[eamour]

visualisation and imagination.

many people usually tend to get confused with the words "imagine" and "visualise". isn’t visualising not the same as imagining? or vice versa? to quickly answer your question: yes, and no. in this post, i want to give you a detailed answer on that.

visualisation.

definition · to visualise means to see something with the eyes of your mind. it means to be able to form mental images of all things you can possibly think of. to visualise is a part of imagination and serves as a manifestation technique.

imagination.

definition · to imagine, in terms of manifestation, means to think of XYZ and to feel, know or believe it to be true. it means to occupy the state of either having or being XYZ or, in other words, embodying or identifying with the version of yourself who either has or is XYZ. to imagine means to accept.

imagining isn't visualising.

whereas visualisation is indeed a part of imagination, visualisation does not equal imagination. again, visualisation is a technique that is supposed to help you experience your desires with the mind's eyes. the technique itself doesn’t manifest. additionally, to visualise is an action that’s taken consciously. you can never stop imagining since you are always experiencing imagination and therefore always manifesting.

imagining to manifest.

as i said, you may imagine consciously or unconsciously, but you can never really stop doing it. you imagine so naturally, i believe you don’t even realise when you do so. for example, mental acts such as inner conversations are a way of imagining. when you overthink, that’s imagining. when you are in an imaginative argument with somebody, that’s imagining. when you are thinking about talking to somebody or review a dialogue you once had with somebody, that’s imagining. when you are doing any technique (affirming, visualising, scripting, vaunting, askfirming, vaunting, …), you are imagining as well. and all of the feelings you provoke, such as desiring something, knowing, accepting, believing something or denying, disapproving something also take place in imagination. what you imagine your I AM to be is what manifests.

with love, ella.

#law of assumption #loa #loa tumblr #loablr #neville goddard #loassumption #edward art #manifestation #manifesting #manifest #the law of assumption #manifesting it #manifest it #how to manifest #master manifestor #spiritual #spirituality #eiypo #affirm and persist #void state #i am state #feeling is the secret #consciousness is the only reality #imagination creates reality #entering the void #states #subconscious #consciousness #awareness #affirmations

[familyabolisher]

hi if u don’t mind me asking, could u please elaborate on your thoughts on the critique of contemporary anti-intellectualism (specifically on social media)? i’m legitimately curious and enjoy a lot of ur analysis and commentary i mean this in good faith :)

Broadly speaking, the philosophical concept of anti-intellectualism tends to critically describe the ideological + rhetorical relegation of intellectual production to an elitist practice fundamentally at odds with the interests of the layman; and, crucially, the treatment of these categories as fixities. I disagree with the propositions of that philosophical discourse as well, but that’s not always the form that the discourse takes on this website. On here, ‘anti-intellectualism’ is more of a vague catch-all used to describe anything from people who express frustration with the literary canon & mainstream schooling in ways that don’t coddle the sensibilities of people with literature degrees to people who come out with outright fascistic views on provocative art; it attempts to corral what are in fact very disparate positions and perspectives under the umbrella of insufficient ‘intellect,’ often shorthanded to ‘reading comprehension’ or ‘media literacy’ (or ‘[in]curiosity,’ a new favourite) without any materialist investigation into what we mean when we talk about intellect and literacy and a lack thereof or whether this is a politically expedient description of the dynamic[s] in question.

When I say materialism, I mean it in the Marxist sense, ie. as a counter to idealism—because what’s being described here is a fundamentally idealist (and therefore useless) position. The discourse of anti-intellectualism as it exists on this website relies on idealist propositions—people lack curiosity, they lack interest, they are ‘lazy,’ they are ‘illiterate’ where ‘illiterate’ is not a value-neutral statement about one’s relationship to a socially constituted ‘literacy’ but communicating a moral indictment, at its worst they are ‘stupid,’ ‘idiots’—these descriptors rely on an assumption of immutable internal properties rather than providing a materialist description for why things are the way that they are. These aren’t actionable descriptors; at best they’re evasive because they circumvent serious interrogation of the conditions they’re describing, at worst they’re harbingers of an inclination towards eugenicist rhetoric. The discourse casts those who are ‘illiterate’—which in this capacity means those who fail to perform conventional literacy, who lack a traditional education, who don’t demonstrate sufficient interest in classic literature—or the more unkind ‘stupid’ (which, frankly, is what people want to say when they say ‘illiterate’ or ‘incurious’ anyway, lmao) as socially disposable and places the onus of changing one’s behaviour (so as to not be cast as illiterate/incurious/stupid) on them rather than asking what conditions have produced XYZ discourse of social disposability and responding with compassion and ethical diligence; I hope I don’t have to explain why this is eugenicist.

The discourse also lacks an ability to coherently describe what is meant by the ‘intellectualism’ in question—after all, merely appealing to ‘intellectualism’ is a similarly idealist rhetorical move if you don’t have the material grounding to back it up—and indeed tends to dismiss legitimate critiques of intellectual + cultural production as ‘anti-intellectual.’ People love to talk about ‘literacy,’ but don’t like expounding on what they’re actually describing when they do so—the selection of traits and actions that come together to constitute a correct demonstration of ‘literacy’ are built on the bedrock of eg. an ability to thrive within the school system (a mechanism of social control and stratification), fluently speak the dominant language by which this ‘literacy’ is being assessed (in online spaces like Tumblr this is usually English), and engage with the ‘right’ texts in the ‘right’ ways where ‘right’ means ‘invested with legitimacy and authority by the governing body of the academy.’ Literacy is used as a metric of assimilation into hegemonic society by which immigrant and working-class children are made rhetorically disposable unless they demonstrate their ability to integrate into the hegemonic culture (linked post talks about immigrant families being rendered ‘illiterate’ as a tactic of racism in France, but the same applies to the US, UK, etc); similarly, disabled people who for whatever reason will never achieve the level of ‘literacy’ required to not have Tumblr users doing vagueposts about how you deserve a eugenicist death for watching a kids’ show are by this discourse rendered socially disposable, affirming the paradigms which already make up their experience under a social system which reifies ableism in order to sustain itself. (This includes, by the way, the genre of posts making fun of the idea that someone with ADHD could ever struggle with reading theory.) ‘Literacy’ as the ability to understand and respond to a text is difficult and dispersed according to disparate levels of social access, and a lack of what we call literacy is incredibly shameful; any movement towards liberation (and specifically liberatory pedagogy) worth its salt needs to challenge the stigma against illiteracy, but this website’s iteration of ‘anti-intellectualism’ discourse seems to only want to reaffirm it.

Similarly, the discourse dismisses out of hand efforts to give a materialist critique of the academy and the body of texts that make up the ‘canon’—I’m thinking of a post I saw literally this morning positing a hypothetical individual’s disinterest in reading canonical (“classic”) literature as an “anti-intellectual” practice which marked them as an “idiot.” (Obviously, cf. above comments re. ‘stupidity,’ ‘idiocy’ as eugenicist constructions.) People who will outright call themselves Marxists seem to get incredibly uncomfortable at the suggestion that there are individuals for whom the literary canon is not even slightly interesting and who will never in their lives engage with it or desire to engage with it, and this fact does not delegitimise their place in revolutionary thinking and organising (frankly, in many areas, it strengthens it); they seem determined to continue to defer to the canon as a signifier of authority and therefore value, rather than acknowledging its role as a marker of class and classed affects and a rubric by which civility (cf. linked post above) could be enforced. (I believe the introduction to Chris Baldick’s The Social Mission of English Criticism touches on this dimension of literary studies as a civilising mission of sorts, as well as expounding on the ways in which ‘literary studies’ as we presently understand it is a nineteenth-century phenomenon responding to the predictable nineteenth-century crises and contradictions.) People will defer to, for example, Dumas, Baldwin, Morrison, to contravene the idea that the literary canon is made up of ‘straight white men,’ without appreciating that this is a hugely condescending way to talk about their work, that this collapses three very different writers into the singular category of ‘Black canonical writer’ and thus stymies engagement with their work at any level other than that of 'Black canonical literature' (why else put Dumas and Morrison in the same sentence, unless as a cheap rhetorical ‘gotcha’? I like both but they’re completely different writers lmfao), and that this excises from the sphere of legitimacy those Black writers who don’t make it into the authorising space of the canon; and, of course, reaffirms the canon’s authenticity and dismisses out of hand the critique of loyalty to hegemony that the ‘straight white men’ aphorism rightly imposes.

The discourse operates on a unilateral scale by which the more ‘literacy’ (ie. ability to speak the language of the literati) one has, the greater their moral worth, and a lack of said ‘literacy’ indicates the inverse. This overlooks the ways in which the practice of literary criticism wholly in line with what these people would call ‘intellectualism’ has historically been wielded as a tactic of reactionary conservatism; one only has to look at the academic output of Harold Bloom for examples of this. People will often pay lipservice to the hegemony of the academy and the practices by which only certain individuals are allowed access to intellectual production (stratified along classed + racialised lines, of course), but fail to really internalise this idea in understanding that the critical practices they afford a significant degree of legitimacy are inextricable from the academy from which they emerged, and that we can and should be imagining alternative forms of pedagogy and criticism taking place away from sites which restrict access based on allegiance to capital. Part of my communism means believing in the abolition of the university; this is not an ‘anti-intellectual’ position but a straightforwardly materialist one.

A final core problem with the 'anti-intellectualism' discourse is that it's obscurantist. As I explained above, it posits the problem with eg. poor engagement with theoretical concepts, challenging art, etc., to be one of 'intellect' and 'curiosity,' idealist rather than materialist states. In practice, the reasons behind what gets cast as 'anti-intellectualism' are very disparate. Sometimes, we're talking about a situation wherein (as I explained above) someone lacks 'literacy'; sometimes we're talking about the reason for someone's refusal to engage with and interpret art with care and deference being one of bigotry (eg. racist dismissals of non-white artists' work, misogynistic devaluing of women's work, etc.); sometimes we're talking about a reactive discomfort with marginalised people communicating difficult concepts online as a 'know-your-place' response (eg. backlash against 'jargon' on here is almost always attacking posts from/about marginalised people talking about their oppression, with the attacks coming from people who have failed to properly understand that oppression; I've been called a jargonistic elitist for talking about antisemitism, I've seen similar things happen to mutuals who talk about racism and transmisogyny). All of these are incredibly different situations that require incredibly different responses; the person who doesn't care to engage with a text in a way that an English undergrad might because doing so doesn't interest them or they lack the requisite skill level is not comparable to the person who doesn't care to engage with a text because they don't respect the work of a person of colour enough to do so. Collapsing these things under the aegis of 'anti-intellectualism' lacks explanatory power and fails to provide a sufficient actionable response.

Ultimately, the discourse is made up of a lot of people who are very high on their own capabilities when it comes to literary analysis (which, as others have pointed out, seems to be the only arena where all this ever takes place, despite the conventional understanding of ‘media literacy’ referring as much to a discerning eye for propaganda and misinformation as an ability to churn out a cute little essay on Don Quixote) and have managed to find an acceptable outlet for their dislike of anyone who lacks the same, and have provided retroactive justification in the form of the claim that not only is [a specific form of] literary analysis [legible through deference to the authority of the literary canon & the scholarship of the nineteenth century and onward surrounding it] possible for everyone, it is in fact necessary in order to access the full breadth of one’s humanity such that an absence thereof reveals an individual as subhuman and thus socially disposable. A failure to be sufficiently literate is only ever a choice and a personal failing, which is how this discourse escapes accountability for the obviously bigoted presumptions upon which it rests. In this, all materialism is done away with; compassion is done away with, as it becomes possible to describe the multiplicity of reasons why someone cannot or does not demonstrate ‘literacy’ in X, Y or Z ways in the sum total of a couple of adjectives; nothing productive comes of this discourse but a reassertion of the conditions of hegemony in intellectual practice and the bolstering of the smugness of a few people at the expense of alienating everyone else.

As I’ve said countless times before, the way to counteract what we might perceive as ‘incuriosity’ or disinterest in challenging texts is to talk about these challenging texts and our approaches to them as often as we can, to make the pedagogical practices that are usually kept behind the walls of the academy as widely accessible as possible (and to adjust our pedagogy beyond the confines of ideological hegemony that the academy imposes), and to encourage a culture by which people feel empowered to share their thoughts, discuss, ask questions, and explore without being made to feel ashamed for not understanding something. The people who cry ‘anti-intellectualism’ because they saw someone on Tiktok express a disinterest in reading Jane Eyre are accomplishing none of this.

#ask

[halalchampagnesocialist]

I really do think the “But they’re forced to serve!” argument about IDF soldiers is so tonedeaf, particularly with the current state of things. Starting with Oct 7, not only did Israel deliberately obscure that a large portion of the casualty rate of those killed were IDF soldiers by saying that 1200 Israeli citizens were killed on that day, therefore painting the attack as exclusively targeting civilians. But after Oct 7, around 300, 000 reservists joined. They weren’t enlisted, they voluntarily joined.

Secondly, Israel treats every Palestinian male above the age of 15 as a ‘combatant’ regardless of who they are. This is also true in the West Bank where innocent Palestinian men and boys are killed by occupying soldiers without remorse or justice. Israel uses the ‘guilty by association’ to also target innocent people, even those who aren’t militants but public servants in a Hamas-administered government. Note also the defunding of UNRWA based on allegations that some of its members were involved in Oct 7.

Thirdly, Israeli society is incredibly racist against Arabs. Even if they’re forced to serve, those prejudices impact their actions. They do not see Palestinians as human, so killing aside, they’re evidently gleeful when they blow up homes or rummage through and steal the possessions of Palestinians who either fled or were killed.

There’s also an increasing double standard that Palestinians are always painted as guilty because of xyz but IDF soldiers get to suddenly become civilians once they take their uniforms off and go home at the end of the day.

So I don’t care if they’re forced to serve. They’re still guilty and can refuse.

[evvlevie]

-F R I E N D L Y R E M I N D E R-

Baby there is no need to obsess over the 3D as it is not the truth. REAL reality is imagination. Don‘t imagine in order to manifest. Imagine in order to FEEL. Whatever you imagine is BOUND to show up in your 3D. There is no way around it. It is PROMISED. GUARANTEED. Stop worrying about what you can see. It WILL conform to what you imagined first. And even if you can‘t see it yet, it doesn’t matter since you already felt it in your imagination which ultimately means it already happened and it is done.

If the 3D is just some cheap copy of the imagination, don‘t you realize how malleable it is? Don‘t you realize how fragile that makes it, if it’s changing EVERY time as soon as you imagine something?

Your crush didn‘t call you? Oh but you imagined how he called you in your 4D yesterday? Honey but then it happened tho? Like? You got what you wanted, and since the 3D is your cute little copy cat he is bound to call you ANYWAY????

Baby do NOT Look at the 3D and conclude that what you can see is a fact. NUH-UH. You are the story teller. You decide what happens, don‘t you get it? And just because you don‘t see your crush’s name calling you YET do not get discouraged and falsely accept the 3D as real and move on to manifest that he actually won’t call your ass. Because remember: if you imagined it, it happened, SO THE 3D FOLLOWS REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING. A N Y T H I N G. If you had it in the 4D, you have it now. Creation is finished. It is done. It’s written into the history books. The physical form of that desire is ON ITS WAY the SECOND you decide you want it. The manifestation is always in motion, things are always working towards you, nothing is ever „waiting to get to you“ no. It’s always RIGHT ON ITS WAY. Nothing is ever unreachable and I do not give a flying fuck about what the physical reality might make you believe. If it triggers you, and you feel tempted to buy into it, just take a deep breath and remind yourself:

„What I see is not what is real. I remember how xyz happened in my imagination, and that’s what is true. That’s who I am now. The 3D HAS to bend to my imagination, therefore what I see can not bother me as I know is already changing as we speak.“

Yours in every reality

Evie <3

#law of assumption #loa #reality shifting #shifting realities #law of attraction #manifestation #shifting #law of manifestation #shifting community #current reality

[hypewinter]

I'm in a silly goofy mood so screw it, let's make younger brother Danny ideas for all the batbros. Heck! I might even do some of the other batfam members. We'll see. I'll make them all separate posts with one lighthearted and one angsty scenario similar to the Damian post.

Anyway with the set up out of the way let's take care of Dick first!

Jason Tim Damian Cass

Lighthearted

Around the time Danny is born, Haly's Circus is experiencing hard times. Because of this, Mary and John give him up for adoption in hopes of him experiencing a better life. Danny grows up to be super athletic and flexible. He also looks like the carbon copy of Dick. When Danny's class takes a field trip to Gotham, a batfam member spots him and believes he's a clone. Cue the batfam scrambling to figure out this clone's origin and purpose. Danny for his part, is absolutely confused why the Wayne's have such an interest in him until Tucker points out he fits the Wayne adoption bill. This results in him panicking and when Dick approaches him the next day he yells 'I've already been adopted once so no thanks!' and runs away. This peaks Dick's curiosity so he does something none of the other family members considered to do. He does his research. After a while of digging he finds out Danny was adopted in xyz place around xyz date that matches with the time his parents put his little brother up for adoption. Could it be?

Angsty

Danny is reborn as the youngest son of the flying graysons. The night their parents died Danny was in one of the trailers and not watching the performance. Therefore when everything went down, while Dick was being comforted by Bruce, the talons were able to kidnap him without anyone knowing. He is trained as the most prized talon of the court of owls. Eventually Batman proves to be a pain in the court's side so Danny is sent to take care of him. Batman doesn't want to admit it but he's having a lot of trouble with this particular assassin so he calls in Nightwing to help. Together, they manage to knock off the talon's mask. Dick sees his precious little brother's face that was once so full of life now devoid of all emotion and that makes him hesitate. This gives Danny enough time to make a tactical retreat. When Bruce finds out why Dick hesitated, he tries to bench him. The former Robin is having none of that though. He's getting his brother back.

#dp x dc #dc x dp #hyper prompts #younger brother danny #i have a secondary scenario for the angst portion #i thought it up before i thought of this one #if any of y'all wanna see it let me know

[nayatarot777]

Lilith In Cancer/4th House

This is intuitive astrology. Meaning that I’m making these notes based on what I intuitively pick up about this astrological point being merged with these signs. Take it with a grain of salt and understand that you might not relate to everything that I get from your placement. 🖤

Astrology Masterlist

This placement evokes Lilith into the themes of immediate family, home, the mother/more primary parent, the foundation of your entire life - so your childhood, what you’ve learned from your family in terms of your emotional make-up, domestic duties, your ancestry, your cultural heritage, your roots, and your ability to nurture yourself or others.

Lilith in this placement usually struggles with severe emotional detachment, and this is due to a lack of emotional expression and nurturing within the family home. Particularly a lack of this from the primary parent who was responsible for nurturing you but didn’t, for whatever reason.

A lot of people may feel like they’re either severely emotionally detached or severely emotionally dependent on others (perhaps towards their family in particular for those with Lilith in the 4th house). The theme of extremes is always present with Lilith.

People with this placement often don’t emotionally express themselves enough due to a pattern of being shamed for their emotional expression from their parent/families, or they’re very emotionally erratic and have strong emotional reactions to things - especially when it comes to feelings of rage and anger. They got used to being told that they were “too sensitive” as children- or they were treated like they were.

These people may also reject domestic duties. Absolutely hating to cook, clean, look after children, and take care of a home. This is most likely because these things were used against them growing up. This gives the energy of women who were used as mini maids, babysitters, chefs, etc when they were just a young girl.

As a result, natives with this placement are usually robbed of their childhoods. And this leads to them being forced into maturing before they should’ve had to, but also showing more emotional immaturity as they get older - because they were never given the tools for emotional regulation. They were basically told to perfect emotional suppression while never actually developing in that area.

People with this placement (especially women), may resent abiding by a traditional feminine role in which they take care of the home and the children, but they shame themselves for that resentment and force themselves to continue down a path of a domesticated lifestyle for the sake of acceptance from others.

This placement also makes me think of people who watched their mother/nurturing parent or caregiver being vilified and demonised for not abiding by social standards - especially the social standards put into feminines/women.

The native may have grown up in a family full of men who’d try to oppress the women within it, only to be met with resistance and rage from said women who they tried to control. Always a battle of the sexes. Or the native could’ve just been taught that “girls/women shouldn’t do [xyz]”.

This sounds strange, but those with this placement are probably demonised the most by people who share the same cultural roots as them.

They might also have issues within the country/city/state that they were born or raised in.

These are the types of people who are either extremely patriotic due to being taught to be so in a very unhealthy way, or they completely reject patriotism. They may have grown up in a patriotic family in which they didn’t share those same views with, and were therefore shamed for it. It’s the energy of someone being shamed after pointing out all of the negatives about their culture/birth country to their parents or family members who act like their nationality/culture is superior to others’.

The native could also come from a family full of people who are known for being the rejected household in their neighbourhood or community. This could also be the case for your ancestral lineage in general - especially regarding the women. They probably had the types of female ancestors who would constantly clash with the expectations and demands of men.

These natives never truly felt comfort or at home with their family members. As if they didn’t actually belong. They were most likely singled out and treated worse than anyone else or most others in the household.

The natives could reject their own emotional needs or be incapable of emotionally nurturing and providing comfort for themselves due to not even knowing what that feels like. After all of the years that they had to suppress what they needed on an emotional level due to their requirements not being met, they don’t even know where to start in relation to healing that. And this is the house/sign of the foundation of you as a person. That’s why natives with this placement can take such a long time to come to terms with and integrate this shadow aspect of their personality. They’re most likely the slowest to do so (aside from 12th house/pisces Lilith).

These natives were treated like the problem-children if they didn’t just obey their parents. If they dared to reject the social and gender expectations that their family put onto them, they were demonised in an attempt to shame them into submission.

The native could’ve had a very emotionally abusive or emotionally dismissive/neglectful mother figure, leading them to have all sorts of issues with women in their lives in general. Especially Lilith in Cancer. You guys most likely experience the most shame and suppression from women who are supposed to be nurturing towards you. Or perhaps just women in general. That can lead women with this placement to either not trust other women or to not like other women at all.

This placement can also indicate the death of a mother or the more nurturing parent too, which could’ve been the reason why these natives lacked emotional nurture. If they didn’t experience abandonment through death, then it was through something else. Perhaps the parent actually leaving physically. Or the parent abandoning the native through substances (for Lilith in Pisces in the 4th house, for example. Or people with Neptune contacts to their Lilith in Cancer/4th house).

#astro placements #astrology placements #astro posts #astro tumblr #lilith #lilith in the houses #Lilith in the signs #Lilith in cancer #Lilith in the 4th house #lilith placements #4th house

[daisywords]

Out of character? An approach to reconciling plot and character choices 

I see a lot of rhetoric that basically boils down to: your characters’ decisions shouldn’t be based on what will advance the plot; they should be based on the characters’ personality and experiences. 

Clearly this type of thinking is in reaction to stories where the characters feel flat or inconsistent to the point where they seem to have no internal consistency. At some point the illusion disappears and we see the puppet strings, and the immersion breaks. 

But I think sometimes writing with the “characters first” strategy can back writers into a corner. (Or maybe, more appropriately, it can steer them out of a particularly interesting corner they were excited about spending some time in.)

You might find yourself thinking “It would be really cool/interesting if my character did xyz, but I can’t make that happen because it wouldn’t be in character.” Sometimes this is appropriate. But sometimes, if you steer too far in this direction, you get “oops I think something central to my plot or something key to my excitement about this story can’t happen because it would be out of character.” 

You followed your character into a more flat or boring version of the story. Oops. 

But what can you do? You don’t want to be blatantly dancing your character though the narrative at your whims like a rag doll. You want them to feel like a person, but you still want them to make that interesting choice. 

Here’s what you’re going to do: you’re going to build your character backwards. Instead of thinking “ok my character has X personality trait or Y backstory, and therefore they would probably react like Z,” you’re going to think “ok. I want my character to do X. What kind of person would make that choice? What kind of situation might they be in? What kind of traits and prior experiences might lead a person to do that?” 

This is a strategy that might allow you to have your cake and eat it too (a consistent character who does make that interesting choice.) 

So this is me giving you permission to let go of the “character first” mindset for a second. Maybe don’t lock your characters into specific traits and backstories and mindsets before you figure out their story. You can, in fact have characters that stay in character even if you don’t “let your characters lead.” 

Tl;dr if basing your plot on the characters is stalling your story, try basing your characters on the plot instead. 

#writing #writeblr #character building #writing tips #writing advice #just something I’ve been thinking about lately #also in companionship to this: it’s ok to just retcon things about your character. nothing is set in stone!

[qqueenofhades]

do you think there's a considerable amount of (young) people refusing to vote for biden because of i/p, or do you think theyre just a loud minority? i cant really tell, myself

I have been keeping a fairly close eye on polls (at least the good high-quality large-sample ones, not the numerous trash ones which currently flood the sphere), actual voting results, and other empirical data that relies on non-social-media blathering. And while we will still need more data and see if anything changes, at this point I think we can presume that any electoral effect of the I/P situation is already baked into Biden's expected results and performances, and I honestly don't think there's much, if any, of a measurable effect.

I say this because first of all, one of the most recent high-quality, large-sample youth polls (I think it was YouGov, but I can't be sure) had precisely 0% of voters between 18-29 listing foreign policy as their top priority in 2024. There were other expected priorities: the environment, the economy, American democracy, abortion rights, LGBTQ+ rights, etc -- but not foreign policy. Now, caveat emptor about this being only the people who respond to polls, the fact that most polls have been largely junk this primary cycle (notably, they have way overestimated Trump's performance and way underestimated Biden's), and so forth. However, even in libertarian New Hampshire, which tends to wander more than the other solidly-blue presidential election New England states (as a number of them still have Republican governors), "ceasefire" only garnered 1% of all write-in votes, and Biden won commandingly despite not being on the ballot. In South Carolina, he just won 97% statewide, and even the Democrats who skipped the primary due to it not being particularly interesting or competitive (as compared to the highly competitive open primary in 2020) still generally say that they plan to vote for Biden in November. So overall, Biden is doing even better at this point in the primary cycle than he was in 2020, where Sanders' early wins in Iowa and NH were generating chatter about an upset. Once again, this is early and we are working with a limited sample size, but despite everything, I think we can posit that the "Democrats/Black people/Hispanics/young people won't vote for Biden because of xyz issue and therefore We Are All Doomed" thesis is at best, considerably overinflated and at worst, totally untrue.

Likewise, to be blunt: the loudest voices shouting about how they will never vote for Biden because of the Gaza situation either don't vote at all, only voted once in 2020 under extreme duress and haven't voted since, and otherwise aren't being taken into account either in polls (which are bad data because they are by nature experimental and speculative) or actual voting results (which reflect the way real people actually voted in elections). The reason the YouGov sample might not have pulled any voters between 18-29 listing foreign policy as their top priority very well could be because these people flat out don't vote and therefore won't pass any "likely" or "registered" voter screens, so despite all their yelling on social media, there's not been any actual impact. Now, this is not to say that there won't be; there has, for instance, been speculation that Biden might be hurt in states like Michigan, which have a large Arab-American population. Michigan is obviously one of the traditional Blue Firewall states that Hillary lost in 2016 and which Biden retook in 2020, and any electoral wobbling there would be ominous for his overall results. However, this is also reckoning without the fact that there is now a largish chunk of old-school GOP/independent voters who say they will not vote for Trump under any circumstances, with that number growing if he's explicitly convicted of a felony. Some of these voters might sit out, or vote for Biden, or maybe decide to vote for some stupid crackpot like RFK Jr., but the point is, if they do in fact not vote for Trump or even vote for Biden, that changes the electoral math.

Likewise: there are about 40,000 Arab-American voters in Michigan. Biden won the state by 154k votes, or 3.35%, in 2020. Even if every single one of those voters voted FOR Trump this time (which would be insane, but never mind), that alone would not be enough to flip the state from Biden, and that's reckoning without the votes that Trump will lose elsewhere. I've seen a few left-leaning publications such as the Guardian picking up the "will Biden's stance on Gaza hurt him in November" question, and the loud social media blabbermouths want to insist that it will because it makes them feel important, but at this point, I honestly don't see widespread electoral evidence of it, because, put bluntly: Democrats vote. Posturing social media "progressives" largely don't. Therefore for all the screaming they do, their views do not get incorporated into the actual results, which is a damn good thing for us.

So in short: No, as of right now, I don't think there is in fact a substantial anti-Biden protest vote, and the people threatening it the most were never going to vote for him anyway. This has gone on long enough that if it was going to flag up as a major thing, I think it would have. There will always be the idiots throwing away their vote on some stooge like Cornel West or Jill Stein (lol), but once again, these people were never going to vote for Biden in the first place and it is not necessarily the case that we need to put undue credence in their threats. Not that we can slack our vigilance, as we cannot and every single person who can vote blue in 2024 needs to fucking do so if they're interested in continuing to live in a democracy, but the situation is not apocalyptic, and yet again, the Online Leftists are far from the most reliable metric of how effective their screaming actually is. So, yeah.

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts

[overleftdown]

if i can be so real for a minute, the saltburn fandom is not very large and not very old... and yet i have had SO many odd convos. usually about farleigh but sometimes about other stuff. i've been called obnoxious so many times for mentioning everything that comes with farleigh's character but it's in the movie for a reason, man. i'm venting. "what does XYZ have to do with this?" bro idk maybe the fact that it was included in the movie, therefore i'm going to bring it up?

class, privilege, sexism, escapism, etc. are all important parts of this movie. so is race. i've gotten the most heat for talking about race and white privilege which is... not surprising tbh. sometimes i just want to be serious when everyone wants to be silly. if your silliness makes you apathetic to the rhetoric of the film and how some of it should be taken seriously... man. ouch. damaging to the psyche tbh.

a lot of the fandom is rly cool but ackkk i've been on my toes. i've been encountering some irl felix cattons...

#farleigh start #that tag is being used and ABUSED #saltburn #saltburn 2023 #were you silent or were you SILENCED #not to “make it a race thing” but cmon cmon it literally is a race thing #it has been a race thing since archie helped create the character #excusing oliver for murder or whatever whatever #but excusing him for taking advantage of marginalized people? wild #insane actually #he's a soggy flaccid piece of white bread #“but venetia and farleigh liked it” howling at the moon rn #about to unleash my inner alpha #felix got screwed over too #don't get me wrong #but at least oliver and felix were on something resembling an even playing field