#i mean in the way that it is an inherently human social construct

[coquelicoq]

we get a lot of really great stuff in system collapse about murderbot's relationships with ART and ratthi, which makes sense, because it spends almost the entire book with them. but i also love how even though mensah isn't there for most of the story, other people keep reminding mb of her:

chapter 2, page 25: “From ART’s personnel file, she [Karime] was older than Mensah and she didn’t look like an intrepid space explorer, either, even in the protective environmental suit.”

2, 27: “It took Karime three seconds to process the abrupt statement. (She was almost as good at not looking annoyed as Mensah was.) She kept her expression neutral and patient.”

2, 28: “In the underground colony room, Karime lifted her brows. ‘Another occupied site?’ I thought she was being careful not to show too much reaction. It was the way Mensah would have played it.”

4, 70: “Iris looked at me and I saw her hesitate, because her hesitation looked a lot like Dr. Mensah’s hesitation. And I realized I really didn’t want to go down there.”

5, 104: "Iris has that same thing as Dr. Mensah, the thing where she’s able to look and sound calm under circumstances where shit is possibly about to go down.”

it's spent so much time with her and it knows her so well and respects her so much that she's the model against which it compares all other humans. it thinks about her when they're not together. it's protective of her. it has such total faith in her competence. it (non-romantically) loves her and doesn't want to not see her again. idk man, it just gets to me! and they were teammates (oh my god they were teammates!!)

bonus:

I said, aloud, "You have to be kidding me." (ch. 2, p. 28)

seven pages later, in reaction to the same thing:

Mensah had had time to review the feed video. She muttered, "Oh, you have to be kidding me." Yeah.

twinsies 🥰

#something about their relationship is just sooo potent because of the structural power that mensah has over mb #and how mb has always been trying to navigate how much it cares about her and respects her with how afraid it is #of being a thing that she owns #because even if she doesn't exercise that power over it the fact remains that the context in which they live makes that possible #like! socially constructed ideas of personhood creating inherent violence in the human-construct relation! #even if she means well. even if it's necessary for mb to have a legal owner so that some corporate doesn't claim it as property. #it's not that mensah is an unsafe person it's that the power imbalance is intrinsically baked in because of #the broader social context of constructs as nonpersons. as property and equipment #all of that is true! AND it respects her and loves her. AND they're teammates! they are both trying so hard #to create sth just and beautiful out of sth really messed up. and trusting each other to collaborate in that way! #it was SO necessary for mb to leave at the end of ASR and SO necessary for it to get proof at the end of ES #that she would not try to stop it from leaving. that it was free. that it was autonomous #idk idk i'm rambling i just. i care them #the murderbot diaries #mb teammates #mb sc #system collapse spoilers #system collapse #my posts #murderbot

[the-scottish-costume-guy]

I'm really confused about gender stuff? Is gender real or not - and if its real how can people 'play with it'? How can someone want to be a man with breasts or a woman with a penis? /gen

(Guys I have to google tone indicators if you send them, please just use the full word if you want to indicate tone. Nobody I know uses them so I don't really learn them). Gender is 'real' but its a social construct - it's real in the same way money is real, or that a 'high street' is real, or that concepts of 'justice' are real. If humans didn't exist neither would any of those things, and at any time we can decide those things mean different things or can be used in different ways. (E.g. Money's value fluctuates, which street even is the 'high street' can change as places expand, and the ethical concepts that define justice are relevant to the place and time that develops them). You can play with gender because its a very fluid, loosely defined concept. We are in the midst of a collective reinterpretation of what the boundaries of gender are! For some it's a bioessentialist concept (gender is inseparable from one of two biological sexes - this concept rarely takes into account a wider array of biological sexes) which I could take a lot of time critiquing. The short version of that, is that bioessentialism is used to create a false dichotomy in which women are assigned one thing, and men another - due to the complex diversity inherent in people (even excluding trans and intersex people) its impossible to meaningfully define man or woman in a way that doesn't exclude someone that should be in one category, or includes someone that shouldn't. Dissatisfaction with categories of gender stretches back as far as human history goes - particularly visible in sports, politics, occupations, but also in social expectation and the formation of gender roles. The only way to pick apart these rigid categories is to experiment outside of them, and to explore what gender means on an individual basis - rather than conforming to the previous rigid definition. For many people nothing will change, for some that means embracing being a man with breasts, a woman with a penis, or wishing to be those things if they aren't something you were born with. If you separate gender from the physical, then both the physical and your gender become something you can explore independently. Plenty of people want larger or smaller breasts - but we only judge it as 'odd' when someone who has them wants rid of them completely (unless they are a cisgender man who has them due to something like a hormone imbalance) or if someone we think 'shouldn't' have them wants them. It's not much different to that - though please be aware everyone's feelings/experiences are different.

[genderkoolaid]

(different person than last anon) can you give us like actual scientific papers that "nonhumans" are real and not just ppl that need a lot of psychological help? bc like while gender + sex can be very diverse and change w the individual, species is extremely specific and thats why shit like making crossbreeds is so insanely hard and they usually end up infertile bc the genes arent meant to be combined. n also the only example i can think of of any other species having "i am not the species i was born as" thoughts is that one female monkey that was raised so close w people she thought she was a person and she would refuse to breed w any of her primate species bc of it. you would call that mental illness in that monkey because she cannot be a person in a monkey body, just like someone can't be a dog or angel or horse in a human body, so why do you not consider being "nonhuman" also a mental illness?

can you please explain about alterhumanity? I don’t mean to be negative, I don’t understand… “there are only two sexes” is wrong because biology knowledge we have today actually doesn’t support that. did modern taxonomy find out something similar about humans? that’s very interesting, I don’t know a lot about it! but if you do I’d love to read that research!

So I think "there are only two sexes" isn't the best example; the comparison is more like "people can't change their gender because gender is whats in your pants"

Yes, we can look at chromosomes and hormones and sexual organs, and that stuff is related to gender. But to say "gender/sex is a construct" does not mean "chromosomes/hormones/sex organs don't exist." Its pointing out that our relationship to those things is culturally dependent (I wouldn't say "unnatural" because humans making social constructs is natural).

Similarly, we do divide up species based on reproduction and common ancestors. But "humanity" is also a construct. What it means to be human & who is defined as human can and does change depending on our culture. Not only can some people be excluded from humanity (for example, people of color and neurodivergents), but some people believe they are spiritually nonhuman (whatever that means for them). Some people who have been rejected from humanity identify as alterhuman as a way of saying "you don't want me, then I don't want you" (voidpunk is related to this although not inherently alterhuman). Some people are delusional and identify with alterhumanity as a way of coping with their delusions (and also, yes, you can be self-aware about your delusions). Some people believe in reincarnation or alternate universes or have some other spiritual belief related to being nonhuman. Some people just feel like dogs and enjoy being a dog and it doesn't matter why because they just like it.

Honestly, the monkey does sound like a monkey-version of alterhuman, because (if I can get a little anthropomorphize-y on y'all), it sounds like she did not feel apart of "monkey culture." Obviously we can't know if monkeys have a concept of monkey-hood like we do with humanity, but if they did it would not be hard to imagine how a monkey raised with humans would feel more human than monkey. But regardless... we don't need other species to have alter-species-hood for the same reason we don't need snails to crossdress for trans people to exist. Other animals probably don't have the same complex. abstract social constructs we do.

Why can't someone be a horse in a human body? For the same reason someone can't be a man in a woman's body- because "science says"? Both trans-denial and alterhuman-denial emphasizes biology over sociological investigation, which leads people to just keep shouting "but science!!!!!!!!!!" at people who are more invested in questions of culture and constructs and what it means to be [man/woman/human] in society.

(Also, I'm kind of uncomfortable with how the first ask talks about mental illness. Specifically "person believes harmless weird thing, so they must need Psychological Help for their Wrong Thoughts")

#m. #ask box

[drbased]

i am highly spiritual, and yet we have almost identical beliefs about humanity, religion and its organization, etc. save for the conclusions it brings us to. just found this really interesting, honeslty.

In the nicest possible way: no, I don't think we have almost identical beliefs. Or rather, I think we have one primary difference in perception that changes the entire nature of our beliefs.

One of the accidental problems with language is that it can make connections and associations between concepts that aren't really real. For example, we have tras claiming that aspects of your personality, mannerisms, hairstyle etc. are all an expression of an internal sense of gender, which is retroactively justified as real through the existence of those characteristics. It's a tautology, but it's a potent one, because those characteristics can add up to something deeply personal and individual, which isn't communicated easily. One person's 'qu**r identity' can be entirely different from another person's 'qu**r identity', but due to the simple existence of the term they can find a percieved similarity of experience that wouldn't exist without it.

This relates to spirituality because I think what's happening here is that the word 'spiritual' is being used like the word 'gender'; that is, an extra layer of meaning is added to the human experience that is retroactively justified by the existence of those human experiences. In this case, the nature of spirituality seemingly being discussed is a sense of profundity and awe.

The primary dispute is one of perspective: as an atheist, I say that actually, the concept of 'profound' is an entirely human construction. Things aren't built with a natural sense of 'awe-inspiringness' that we as humans simply tap into - but rather, the emotion is generated inside us in response to the neutral things that are already there. It's a seemingly minor shift in approach, and many would feel is a nitpick, but I think it's accidentally become the crux of this whole argument.

This is why many spiritual people think that atheists 'hate humanity' and 'are cold and unfeeling' - they percieve the world to be inherently spiritual; that is, consisting of an inexorable quality that humans should be able to experience, so anyone not claiming to recognise this quality is simply denying their own humanity, their own senses, as well as denying the profundity of being: the two are inexorably interlinked. I can see where this argument comes from - we, as humans, tend to naturally feel 'cleaner' after a wash, we tend to fell happier after having laughed etc. etc. and if we don't feel these things, either there's something supposedly 'wrong' with us, or we're denying those feelings so we get to feel superior in some way. And don't get me wrong, the classic 'reddit atheist' is like this - the kind of guy who says that your pet cat don't feel love when they nuzzle you in the morning. There are definitely people (men especially) who want to feel above any and all sensory-based human emotional response.

But.

My primary argument is that things external to us (and some internal) do not have any inherent emotional quality; any emotions I generate in response to them are my own personal, fallible and fragile appreciation for them, generated within my brain in response to stimuli. This may sound less magical, and that's the point: laughter generates happiness because it's an evolutionarily important pro-social tool. Washing makes you feel 'cleaner' because it's evolutionarily important to avoid disease. There's no intrinsic nature to these things that we tap into; the emotions and subsequent meaning are generated by us. If someone managed to figure out what 'love' is in humans and found out that animals don't show 'love' as we know it - well, regardless of how much of an asshole he is, that atheist above would be right. But it shouldn't be earth-shattering because 'love' does not need to be some quality inherent to nature to have meaning and value - our version of 'love' is purely human, and whatever our pets do may not be 'love' by our standards, but something speciifc to them.

This argument is ultimately immaterial unless we can demonstrate for faith-based thinking can result in harm. And unfortunately, this is how people end up getting manipulated by churches and cults. The sense of awe you feel in a crowd of thousands of people listening to music and services doesn't exist in the ether - it's deliberately manufactured explicitly to generate that feeling inside you. So this isn't just an argument about correctness; this is an argument about harm.

Why do you think churches are built that way; it's easy to think of them as just inherently magnificent, but that is just the limitation of the way our language constructs adjectives - 'magnificent' is given the same linguistic weight as, say, 'squishy' or 'spiky'. But 'magnificent' is a value qualifier, not a neutral adjective; it's something that requires an internal sense of judgement - but due to the power of emotions it can feel real, perhaps more real than pricking your finger on a spiky thing. Religion has a tendency to place reality into a secondary level of importance; god/the universe is what's more 'real' than us. This is a hierachy; it places our subjective experiences and values as merely a conduit for something more real and meaningful than we could ever be, than we could ever imagine (and, if you think my argument is cold and male and misogynistic, then I like to remind you which of the sexes loves hierarchy). And this is hierarchy that is absolutely ripe for exploitation.

No, I do not think that spiritual/religious belief is a guarantee of exploitation, nor is it the only source of exploitation - but a tendency to see your emotions as merely a conduit for some universal truth means you will be much more easily persuaded to into believing things based on your emotional perception, and the kinds of people who want to persuade you are typical doing so to gain something; not always something sinister, but it certainly can be.

Too many spiritual people want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to skirt over arguments of correctness and harm and jump straight to accusing us of denying our senses - when what they actually mean is that by denying our senses we're denying reality. But when we claim that actually we're perfectly capable of listening to our senses, we just call these things 'awe' and 'profundity', they turn around and say 'that's just what spirituality is! you're just like us, just in denial!' When we say that our emotional experiences are not spiritual we mean it; this isn't 'agreeing on most things' - this is an entire shift in perception. My senses are mine, and the meaning I generate from them is mine. Those sense are a fallible product of evolution, and the meaning I generate from them is also a fallible product of evolution. But that also means that the profundity has a new origin, and this is ultimately less safe and comfortable than from some external source I can rely on; the profundity comes from the terrifying realisation that these things just are, with no invisible connective tissue outside the bare reality of cause-and-effect. That isn't inherently profound, but I make it so through my own human ability to generate meaning. And as that meaning is mine, therefore the responsibility for it is mine.

#my writing #atheist posting #anon

[batrogers]

"Feral" Tropes

For Clarity: I have written pretty much every single trope on this list at some point or another myself.

(Yes, including extremely ill-advised arson, non-verbal and illiterate Link, needs help with his hair, and spends weeks in blood-stained clothes.)

These can be funny tropes, dark tropes, ironic tropes, heartfelt tropes, and cathartic tropes.

[Art of my Minish Cap Link, by @l3ominor]

Why do people find “Feral” link so polarizing, then?

I’m gonna go over what makes a fantasy, character agency (or deliberate lack thereof), and – because I’m AO3 trash forever, and because I think it’s the most useful thing here – tagging.

It's also like 2000 words, whoops.

I’m using “feral” here to say that Link is positioned as either failing to adhere to expected social norms, or positioned as outside them. Social norms are part of civilization: a structure of rules and expectations that are positioned as the “height” of human social achievements. Meeting them makes you a good, normal person who is respectable and respected; failing them can make you anywhere from imperfect to exile to enemy.

“Civilized” is a moving target that’s defined by others. Anyone, at any time, can be constructed as a failure just because someone wants to do that. Similarly, other features – like slavery and war crimes – can be considered “civilized” because that’s just what the dominant power does. Being “civilized” isn’t inherently good; it’s also not inherently evil. Civilized social rules also include stuff like charity, hospitality, and similar social welfare stuff.

Basically both “Civilized” and “Feral” can mean whatever you want them to mean, but there are some common ways it goes wrong.

Again. I have written 90% of these in various ways. These are not inherently wrong; the frustration often arises from presentation and lack of clarity, which I’ll address below:

The first is infantilizing the character, creating them as helpless.

Wild can’t bathe himself and doesn't see the point in being clean; he doesn’t do anything with his hair. He’s so dumb he eats rocks; he'll eat too much or anything at all, and he has no objection to being treated like a child. He doesn’t know language or how to read or write. If transmale, he doesn't understand his period and thinks he's dying. He was literally raised by a wolf. He can't do anything right. It's presented as fair and just to pin him down to clean him, because he cannot do it himself.

The fact the wolf is supposedly Twilight, who should be striving to get him to other hylians is irrelevant. Real youth react to their period thinking they’re dying, but this is associated with literal children, particularly ones raised completely ignorant of their own bodies and of sex.

The second is othering them, treating them as antisocial.

Other people react badly to him; he has no manners, he smells; he never tells anyone what he's doing. He's afraid of other Hylians; he's indifferent to them, and wants nothing to do with them. He doesn't understand how to function in a group. He'll wander into a trap carelessly, and drag others with him in pursuit of something pointless.

In the case of Hyrule, he lives in a cave and this is strange, bizarre, and horrible, rather than a thing that is in the actual historical record and is a dry, temperature controlled and easily protected place to sleep.

The third is to make them dangerous, a savage thing.

He solves his problems by lighting things on fire, uncaring of the damage done. He bites and growls when upset. He'll kill a monster with his bare hands; he'll show up in town covered in blood and filth.

He's an abomination; he's literally not human at all.

IIII

Probably you read that list and had checkmarks going off in your head. I like that one; I don’t like that one. People never do that right; I’d handle this way better if only—

Good. It’s a fun list of things that can be good, if done to your taste.

A lot of these touch into disability tropes; some edge into racialization ones. A lot are dehumanizing. People have a lot of feelings about both, good and bad, and feeling your way through it by writing is normal, expected, and okay. You do not deserve to be punished for writing something “bad” while trying to understand what you like. Many of these fall under care-taking tropes: someone needs help, and they feel awkward asking so they just want someone to step in and “Fix it” without the humiliation of having to ask.

That’s fine. But if you want to change it up: let Link ask. Let him reach out. Let him initiate the help. There’s a very different feeling when someone pins Wild down to clean him, versus when Wild works up the courage to ask “Can you help me?”

Because yeah, brain damage is complicated. He could have just about any struggles you imagine, but what can be frustrating for others seeing this, over and over, is that he’s treated like a permanent child or an animal. He always will need taken care of; he always needs someone to step in. It is right and just to force him to submit to care against his will...

He never has anyone ask if they can help him, either.

How much sweeter can the care be when he’s willing? When he initiates? When he has agency in his own treatment? Because too many people who need help are not given that choice. Some readers are turned off because the force is all too real, and all too painful to see reflected in what they came to for escapism. One person’s care-taking fantasy, is another’s real life trauma.

Escaping society and it’s pressures is also a fantasy, one of independence and freedom all its own but again, a major feature here is choice. Does Wild have choice? Does Hyrule? Is this presented as of course they don’t belong, or as a reasoned decision, or as a result of being driven out by real violence from others?

All different stories. All different fantasies.

And being the agent of violence is a fantasy, too. “Burn it all down” is a valid emotion (I write variations on it myself, although not this one.) Think of “Kill Bill” and “Fury Road.”

But with an ostracized, feral Wild there is the reflection of real violence against the marginalized communities whenever they express frustration or rage at their treatment. The wrong person being dangerous can get them killed. Of course this is polarizing.

Ironically, this category includes the one trait that Wild displays in the Linked Universe comic that didn’t make the feral list: emotional dysregulation. He loses his temper; he lashes out. He gets upset and jumps the gun... but it’s not cute, it’s not pretty, it’s presented very well in canon (Warriors is frustrated with him, but not seriously angry.) But it doesn’t suit the feral take, because it’s too mild for the violent fantasies, and too adult and human for the innocent ones.

IIII

My first advice about writing this is to be more clear about your tags. Spoilers are always a thing people worry about, but some things can be improved with clarity, and conflict over “bad writing” is one of them. “Feral” Link can mean literally any combination of the above, but those are all wildly different things. Narrowing down what happens in your fic into more specific tropes will both help people who want to read what you write to find it, and help people who will be upset avoid it.

It just common courtesy. I tagged a recent fic “Drunk arguments”+ “Politics” because that argument could go a lot of ways. Someone who’ll read political nonsense may not read sex and may not read crack. It doesn’t say anything but the subject matter, and it doesn’t need to: the question of whether this will turn into politics or sex is a way to direct people in or away according to their taste.

Is this required? No. People make mistakes or have bad days or just don’t want to, and don’t deserve punishment for it. But it’s a tool at hand to filter your readership to better match you, one you shouldn’t disregard.

If you want to adjust how you write, frequently the aggravating factor is in the presence (or deliberate absence) of agency, and in evoking sympathy over pity. There’s also a way to balance traits in just like, the general sense of making the story more complex: nobody is one thing.

For an example from my own projects, I write my version of Minish Cap Link combined with the first Four Sword game. The second time he used the Four Sword changed him into something not-quite-human. But even prior to that, he was non-verbal and skittish; he bit and hissed, he has visible injuries on top of the later changes. I have two fics that present two different ways to frame much the same event: he gets upset and lashes out, and legitimately terrifies the people around him.

In one story, he is restrained. The people doing so are treated as villains for it; you see his fear and panic, and Zelda’s rage over his treatment. In the other, he is calmed by another of the Links, and even in an outside perspective it is made clear that Minish is reassured, relieved and desperate for comfort once his fear has passed – and he trusts the person who talked him down (who did not hurt him) to give it now. He doesn’t have to “behave” to be treated as human, but I also don’t have to make him act “normal” to do so: the framing of how he’s treated by others does it. He’s also clean, well-kept, polite, sweet when he’s calm, and playful.

Similarly, because I have multiple characters who are all non-verbal to varying degrees, I can get away with a lot of variety. I can make one a total bitch, and I don’t have to worry that he’s going to be “bad” representation because if people don’t want a bitchy non-verbal character to relate to, there’s two others to choose from. Balancing a “feral” trait with a mix of signals creatures a nuanced character that isn’t just a ball of Whump.

(Although again: nothing wrong with a ball of Whump if you’re in the mood for it. I have my balls of Whump fics, too.)

Some of the other weird things can be done as just misunderstandings: Is Link eating rocks because it’s polite to join the gorons? Did he realize he was weird and could eat rocks as a child and now does it to joke around? Does Hyrule get to be exasperated at the others pitying his cave? Letting the weird be weird but legitimate can be fun, or even funny: Hyrule lets the others sleep cold in tents while he’s warm inside.

Readers get tired of one-note characters no matter what they’re like. I’ve heard the same complaints about “Dad” Time as I’ve heard about “Feral” Wild, and about Twilight. The fix isn’t to throw out what you like; it’s to build it up into something more. It will never be to everyone’s taste, but you can have a dirty little gremlin who, no matter how inhuman they may seem, is still treated like a person.

Dehumanization is far too prevalent in the world right now, and a lot of us desperately need somewhere to escape it.

Now I’m gonna go write me some fluffy Wild asking for hair brushing. After spending all week chewing on this, it sounds like a fun challenge.

#Linked Universe #Hello it's me again #but people did ask #this is opinion not prescriptivism #LU Wild #LU Hyrule #Zelda fanfic #BOTW #TOTK #disability tropes #disability in media #dehumanization in media

[bluedalahorse]

Earlier today I alluded to the fact that Young Royals has some interesting stuff to say about heterosexuality. Let me elaborate.

One of the many intriguing moments in Young Royals season 2 (in my mind, anyway) is the phone call where Jan-Olof asks August a lot of questions and ends with the question “Are you heterosexual?” To which August replies that he is. It’s only ever been girls! (I think that’s how the line goes, anyway.)

What intrigues me about this is the way it puts the emphasis on heterosexuality as a label—or, to put it more colloquially, on the idea of being heterosexual as a “thing.” After all, the whole notion of being straight or hetero is a fairly recent one in human history. The word heterosexual hasn’t been around too long, first appearing in German in 1869 after being coined (along with the word homosexual) by Karl Maria Kertbeny. In the late 19th century, western culture saw a shift in how people understood sexuality, and people started describing sexual orientation as more of an identity thing (who you are) than a behavior thing (what you do.) If Wilhelm’s family has been on the throne at least as long as the IRL Swedish monarchs, then the current Swedish monarchy in Young Royals predates the ideas of heterosexuality and homosexuality. The Swedish monarchy as an overall institution definitely predates heterosexuality as a concept. Social constructs, baby!

That said, Jan-Olof, the show’s keeper of tradition, still asks August if he’s straight. What he’s really asking, given the uncomfortable reproductive subtext of the conversation, is whether August is willing to produce a legitimate heir to keep the monarchy going. This is interesting because of the way it conflates heterosexual identity with reproduction. We know there are plenty of straight people who choose not to have kids and use various contraception methods to prevent pregnancies from happening or being carried to term. (Heck, August and Sara themselves have a whole conversation about condoms.) We also know that there are plenty of non-straight people who have biological kids. Ultimately, straightness doesn’t matter for that kind of thing! And yet, by including a question about heterosexuality in a series of questions that’s really about reproduction, wrapped in an even longer list of questions about fitness for the throne, this conversation is putting forward the notion that heterosexuality isn’t just about sex and romance. It’s also a political stance.

And that’s… that’s kind of fascinating. Usually it’s queer people who are said to be inherently “political.” Straightness, of course, is just as political. It’s just that no one calls it that. So I’m struck by the reversal of that dynamic in the show.

I’m also struck by how August’s heterosexuality is a matter of attraction, performance, and labeling, and each of these is addressed separately and a little bit differently by the writing. We know he has heterosexual attraction toward Sara (and possibly Felice, depending on how you read that relationship) based on the fact that he has ~those kinda feelings.~ But there’s also the public performance of heterosexuality, where we see August hitting on Felice in a very overt and aggressive way. In those moments, August’s performance of heterosexuality becomes an expression of power and privilege. This is further reinforced by some of the crude sexual jokes he makes about women. Even the softer stuff toward Sara puts him in a protector role that lines up with gender roles by the end of s2. If the performance of heterosexuality is an attempt to claim power, then what does claiming the label of heterosexual mean? I think perhaps we’re supposed to see it as August declaring his alleged right to power, within this particular social system where heterosexuality means something specific.

Labels can confer power on a person by giving them the power to define themself, but labels can also be limiting, in a way. August is, for the most part, straight in terms of his identity, behavior, and personal politics. He’s willing to claim the power and privilege that straightness gives him. However, there are times where his heterosexuality gets a bit fuzzy around the edges. That time where he’s (fakely) singing Simon’s praises and out of nowhere kisses him on the forehead comes to mind as kind of a weird moment. Like, where did that come from, August? The fact that August has watched the video of Wilhelm and Simon a few too many times also hasn’t escaped fandom’s notice. Finally, the fact that August labels himself as hetero in a scene where he’s lying through his teeth about other things, and when the palace is trying to fabricate a perfect princely persona for him, really shows how much of a social construct sexual orientation labels are. They describe something real, but they can’t describe all the nuances of it.

My point here is not that August is some sort of hidden bisexual representation sleeper agent—he really isn’t! (Like I said he is functionally straight, and also these moments above still involve him behaving in aggressive and dysfunctional ways.) Rather, I’m more interested in the way August ignores his own fuzziness-of-orientation (however minute) when claiming the strict heterosexuality label, and therefore cuts himself off from the possibility of empathy for Wilhelm and Simon, as well as enlisting himself in a system where he wouldn’t really thrive. Sure, there’s lots of other aspects of his personality that play a role in this as well. But I wanted to talk about this one today, so I did.

Anyway, binaries are harmful and divisive and reinforce weird power structures. Regardless of our orientations, we would all do better if we all embraced a degree of queerness in the world and in ourselves, don’t you think?

(Hey, are there other characters in the series where you want me to talk about their relationships to heterosexuality? Let me know with an ask or something; I’d be happy to ramble.)

#young royals #my meta #august young royals #queer theory and media analysis #let’s study heterosexuality as a thing and not just as a default! #the straights are not okay

[jasper-the-menace]

Hey, since you're interested in scorpion biology, I thought you'd be interested in the idea of... intersex Chima scorpions! Well, sort of.

There's a specific character that's been bugging me a bit. Scutter is kind of the scorpion equivalent of a centaur; he has two torsos, one anthropomorphic, and another of the scorpion body. With scorpion anatomy in mind, it's easy to reach the conclusion that Scutter's reproductive organ would be heavily altered because of his body, making him intersex to a certain extent.

I hope this makes sense. I'm trying to look for possible trans rep in Chima characters (like in this example). What do you think of this idea?

Oh friend, you don't know the essay you just inspired.

You Opened This Can Of Worms, Now Lie In It

Some important bulletpoints before I get going, just to get all of my followers on the same page:

Disclaimer: I am a transgender nonbinary perisex individual. This means I am not intersexed (to my knowledge), I don't identify with the gender I was assigned at birth, and I don't identify as male or female. The closest thing to describing my gender is literally "no".

I am a strong advocate for making as many characters transgender as possible, regardless of "realism". That's why, in my own writing, half of the Scorpions are retroactively transgender (though they don't understand gender on the whole and most of them would probably be nonbinary if someone took fifteen minutes to explain gender, variable social constructs, and the concept of genitalia tying to gender roles) and also Razar is too on account of I said so.

Being intersexed does not inherently mean being transgender. There is a lot of discussion and individual choice between intersexed people about whether or not they're part of the queer community. It's a very individual thing, and I am not part of those discussions on account of not being intersex myself.

When it comes to humans and other beings with a level of sentience and sapience, the term "hermaphrodite" and its derivates are considered slurs. When talking about animals, hermaphrodite and its derivates are scientific terms. So in something like the Legends of Chima series and other humanoid-animal media, the proper term is "intersexed". (I noticed you used the term "intersex" in your ask, and I appreciate it!)

I know too much about scorpion mating and birth.

We're talking way too much about genitalia and gender tonight in regards to fictional characters.

I am genuinely delighted that you decided to drop in here to discuss this, because boy howdy do I have a lot of thoughts about transgender headcanons/representation and scorpions specifically! Scorpions are just. So damn cool.

Note for my fellow arachnophobes: There are no images attached to this post, but it's really easy to find videos of scorpions doing various things on YouTube, which is actually how I've been studying them.

Scorpion Sex, Mating, and Genitalia

Scorpions of both "genders" have genital opercula (singular: genital operculum), and their asses run up into their tails. In order to mate, they don't just do like horses. No no, buddy, they have a really weird, specific method!

In order to start wooing his potential mate, the male scorpion will lock chelae (pincers) with the female scorpion, and they will start to "dance". The male scorpion will drop a sperm packet onto the ground and lead the female scorpion over it. If the female scorpion is down, she'll basically squat and absorb the sperm packet into her body, which is then followed by a "mating plug" to keep it in while it does the fertilization thing.

(It's important to note that the courting process also contains "juddering", aka the male scorpion doing the dance that the stickbug meme did, and may also contain clerchical "kisses". Honestly, pretty romantic for an arachnid. And possibly tail-rubbing and sexual stinging. Scorpions are very kinky!)

(It's also important to note that some species of scorpions have been reported, though not reliably, to reproduce through parthogenesis.)

Post-coitus cannibalism has not been scientifically seen in scorpions, so the male scorpion is generally safe as long as he scadoodles.

Gestation in some scorpion species can last over a year, and different species can have anywhere from 2 to 100 little scorplings - the physical size of the scorpion is not necessarily tied to how many babies they'll have.

Also, scorpions give live birth!

The baby scorpion is essentially folded like a Fedex package and launched out of the womb. It will then unfold and climb on top of the mother to make way for its next sibling. These will hang onto the mother until their first molt, which happens as a group and launches them into the juvenile stage. After this, they will still stay with their mothers until their carapace finishes hardening and gaining color, at which point they hunt prey on their own and will wander off on their own terms.

Hey, Jasper, That's Pretty Fucked Up, But How Does This Tie Into Chima?

I'm getting there, hold your centaur scorpions!

This is where we get into the worldbuilding of the Legends of Chima series, the Character Encyclopedia, and our poor boy Scutter.

See, the Legends of Chima as a series is very much a product of its time. There is some rife ableism and questionable word choices in regards to the Crawlers (and Sir Fangar, but this isn't about him). According to the Character Encyclopedia, Scutter is "less evolved". There's a looong history of racism in using phrases like "evolution" in regards to other humans, so taking that and applying it to an animal world leaves us with some very strange dissonance, because it's used in Chima to mean animals turned into a more humanoid form by the Chi.

Because really, what is the Chi? It's a magical substance that, depending on how you read it, could be the animist spirit of the land (I say, as an animist myself), or it could be drugs. Or it could be any number of other things! I know one person who writes Chi as the blood of dead gods, which is metal as fuck!

Ultimately, it depends on how one is writing the Chi that makes the usage of phrases like "less evolved" more or less questionable than it was intended. We're all dragging around the corpse of a Lego theme across our writing desks anyway. And the way I go about answering the question of "what is Chi" is definitely different from others. (Again, see the dead god blood part.)

The question of whether or not the Scorpion Tribe, namely Scutter, would count as intersexed relies on 1) defining intersexuality in regards to genitalia arrangement (scorpions don't have penises and vaginas by default; and the Wikipedia article on scorpions just uses "genital orfice" or "genital opercula"); 2) determining if the Chi has magically changed how genitalia works for Scorpions (admittedly, I do this because I didn't want to have to use the term "genital opercula" over and over); 3) determining the humanization extent of the Scorpion Tribe as you write them (I lean more towards human than you do, just from what I've seen of your work); and 4) deciding if such terminology even exists in Chima.

But looking at Scutter and going with the assumption that the back end is fully scorpion... No, I wouldn't count him as intersex by default. Intersex implies landing between the two human biological extremes (which, as we all know, is not as cut-and-dry as high school biology taught us), when really he's kind of a secret third thing (a Scorpion who probably doesn't have either a penis or a vagina).

(Of course, there's also what you said, paraphrased to my own wording: the Chi may have just decided to fuck up this poor man's genital situation and do a half-ass job.)

That's not to say he can't be trans. I mean, I made Scorm and about half of the Scorpion Tribe trans already. That's also not to say they're not all trans by default, considering scorpions without the ability to think wouldn't have the concepts of genders anyway.

Okay Jasper, So How Do You Write Him?

So, here's the thing. I'm aromantic-asexual, and I also write smut and, to a lesser extent, romance, which means I think about fictional character genitalia too much. But thinking about Scutter has left me utterly baffled.

On one hand, I usually write the Chi as a magical animist force of the land of Chima on the whole, and part of that is that the Chi tries to get everyone on the same playing field, physically speaking, which is how we get retroactive transgender man Scorm in my Tales of Chima series.

On the other hand, look at him. Look at him. He's a centaur arachnid. I know he can pass the Harkness Test, but I still feel weird thinking about his genitalia. If I go with my theory of the Chi giving everyone penises and vaginas at random, then I don't want to think about how much that would get in the way for the poor boy! On the other hand, his lower body is still mostly scorpion instead of, well, Scorpion, so who's to say he doesn't have a genital operculum?

Too Long, Don't Want Details About Scorpion Sex

Alright, spoilsport. Here's your TLDR:

It genuinely depends on what the Chi does in your version of the story and how bad it fucks up. It depends on how dedicated you are to scientific accuracy. It depends on how much you want to think about scorpion genitals.

And being intersex is not necessarily trans rep, unless it is, unless it isn't. I'm not intersexed, so I'm not going to say what that falls on myself. There is an intersex pride flag that was created by Morgan Carpenter in 2013.

Trans characters can exist outside of being intersexed, you don't have to conflate the two in order to have transgender representation. Just hit the characters with the Transgenderinator 5000 Beam. Fuck realism, this is a series about walking talking animal people. Who's going to stop you? The fun police? Transphobes? Eat them.

Further Reading

Start at Wikipedia and go from there through its sources for anything of particular interest:

Intersex flag (in case you're curious about it and its history, which can also launch you into further reading about humans being intersex)

Scorpion (morphology section)

Scorpion (mating subsection)

Scorpion (birth and development subsection)

So, uh, yeah! Thanks for coming to me with these questions, it's really touching that you value my thoughts this much, and I love talking about my boys and scorpions and the complicated web! I apologize for any errors or too-crass sections, because I wrote most of this in one sitting after playing wayyy too much Skyrim today.

~Jasper

#answered #olivescales3 #legends of chima #lego legends of chima #lego chima #chima #scutter #loc scutter #scorpions #science #biology #queer #trans #transgender #intersex

[ilynpilled]

i like overthinking this sorry ok so what’s interesting about the whole jaime sitting on the throne “just to sit down” bc it is just a chair bit is that yes, jaime has a particular disillusioned relationship with that symbol of power, and the thing is that that chair is like a gazillion meters up in the air or whatever so i do think it is a bit more complicated than just him having to sit down after #allthat, he could have very well just sat on the stairs lol. there was a more conscious decision being made on his part.

and this whole exchange is more about parallax, about an outside interpretation rather than what is canonically going on in jaime’s head. and i get that a lot of people think it is mostly “a remnant from the original outline”, but i do not think that means george wrote it with the intention for it to lock on a specific trajectory, i think it is a seed that can be gardened however he pleases, especially because of some heavy foreshadowing with him in agot already for many things that i think are pretty incompatible with that original outline. i do think there is a reframing happening in asos with that action and we can still make sense of it. but neither ned or robert were correct.

jaime’s experience leaves him with a very interesting mindset when it comes to “right” to absolute power like the throne. the image of a king figure gets torn down in every way: aerys obviously becomes a destructive person who was still born with right to that power, and him having that power has devastating consequences, but what also sticks with jaime is that contradiction in his death. how he dies in such an ugly human way. there really is nothing differentiating him from the lowborn rossart, in fact, rossart seems to have died with more dignity. the whole “equal in death/not equal in life” thing. the vulnerability of a king. i do find the “sword across the knee” bit interesting, bc it does mean denying guest right in the north. i wonder if that is just meant to play into a ned/jaime conflict and misunderstanding, or if george is insinuating with that imagery that jaime is guarding the seat in a more abstract way, and sending a message with his existence (especially considering what his role and the whole wildfire plot in the story being stopped and a king being murdered by a kg means on a less personal scale: the whole analysis of ‘what is power and who holds it?’ that permeates this series), almost like a warning, considering what goes through his head before he climbs up there. anyway, i do read it as an act of conscious ‘defiance’ of some kind though. if we go beyond what a 17 year old jaime can fully grasp at that point, he did break the social order by murdering his king as a kingsguard and that has implications in their world. that is an interesting precedent. and then jaime is so disillusioned by social contracts of this sort that he sees no difference between his act and the act of robert, ned & co, which is why he is so particularly frustrated by what he views as hypocrisy, ntm that robert tore the realm apart with his war in his mind and he rues him too. and then ofc with ned’s commentary of “he had no right to that throne”, like this is just the mindset of society, it is built on these constructs of rights and oaths etc, and they all serve a purpose in reinforcing a status quo. jaime all throughout the present text shows no concern for, or even an active rejection of, this construct of ‘right’ to that throne. like he does seem to view the whole thing like: “you can win that power with swords, power resides where people think it does, what does the rest matter?” (as per his targ romance with cersei delusion passage) so many of his thoughts and actions imply this rejection of the construct of inherent right to that power, especially through birth. he also does not view it as something with that much ‘worth’ in terms of what it means for the individual. it gets as overt as it can with “how much can a crown be worth, if a crow can dine upon a king?” etc. i do not doubt all this also bleeds into his continued rejection of his role as heir to some extent. and it all feels like the effect the aerys experience/robert’s rebellion would have on him and his relationship to power. though i do think in some way he does still crave an “aerys anti-thesis”, a “good king” he does not rue, and he can acknowledge this desire more when hope is rekindled in him. anyway, i do think him sitting on that throne is a symbolic gesture, maybe even a form of taking back control through diminishing its value, even more hard-hitting considering he does not want the throne himself, and then belittles it even more with his words afterwards.

and what is also cool to me is that there is a motif with jaime’s golden sword: ned especially is so fixated on it being tainted by blood, especially of his king, it is an image that he and others keep conjuring, it exists in the collective consciousness. 

and then what that passage reveals is that jaime’s golden sword does something very different than become tainted with blood in his nightmares. it is not killing a king, it is cutting down an endless stream of burning corpses. it also reveals that jaime is still haunted by something that never happened. i find it interesting that his conscious often goes to ned, even in the fever dream he expects him to come out, but he is wrong there too, just like how he is not the one that haunts his dreams in general. he even acknowledges it: “The moss covered it so thickly he had not noticed before, but now he saw that the wood was white. It made him think of Winterfell, and Ned Stark’s heart tree. It was not him, he thought. It was never him.” things are still much deeper than just that palpable and damning judgement he received for his finest act from that man, who in many ways embodied the ‘hypocrisy of honor’ in jaime’s mind.

#jaime lannister #valyrianscrolls

[variousqueerthings]

also interesting because I just watched a video doing a rundown on the history of queerness in doctor who, which naturally had a lot dedicated to aro and/or ace reads of the doctor, which at one point discussed that ofc reading the alien character specifically as such can be alienating (not... that as an aroace person my own reads would be attempting to alienate... myself... although also here insert other discussion about how the aliens often are just the blank slate upon which non-normative behaviours are placed, so it makes sense to see the neurodivergent/disabled/queer/otherwise othered body reflected from them, while also understanding that this means the world views you as inherently alien, while also being like "sure, yeah, I always have done," while also knowing that's dehumanisation, while also...)

but, when it's consciously done, when does this alien being (whatever narrative we're looking at) resonate through the lens of xyz because we're interested in how social structures built Not on today's earth human constructs could end up in wildly interesting different spaces in which what is non-normative to us is presented as normative to them (thus making an argument of stop being such freaks against trans kids, for example), and also when do we read those characters as incongruent with their own societies (I think also here of star trek's the outcast and rejoined, which blend queerness as we recognise it in our societies with characters who break alien normative structures as expressions of an alien queerness, and then there's ofc left hand of darkness in which gender-and-sexuality is at the centre of the political narrative and it's queer on multiple in-universe and out-of-universe levels)

for example, the doctor isn't really an outsider timelord if we look at them through the lens of genderbending regeneration -- that's normalised in that society in canon, and the interesting thing there is usually how that interacts with human social constructs and politics of gender and as a scifi way of deconstructing and dissembling real life consturcts... but they are clearly an outsider in terms of many other things they do, for example seeming neurodivergent if looked at through a human lens and a timelord lens

so where do aromantic and asexual reads fit in there?

well to start with aro!doctor -- I am into the science-fiction ability to create societies with completely different expressions of "connection" that eschew simple human monogamous ideas and histories, but if we were to take that second lens as well of "what if the doctor is aromantic as an identity and not simply as an alien," the doctor continuously (with the exception of romana and the master) creates deep connections with beings that don't have a particularly long lifespan/aren't timelords, especially considering they're near-immortal. and with romana and the master there seems to be a different set of rules happening there than anything one might describe as uncomplicatedly romantic, bitter exes vibe of the doctor/the master acknowledged

the doctor interests me from the lens of "aromantic as non-normative/queer from the pov from both our and timelord society" because they seem to continuously struggle with people not accepting the connections that they're offering them. the doctor's way of having a relationship is often not "enough", isn't easy to describe/vague, and people get jealous or angry or feel betrayed for reasons that isn't the doctor's fault, because there simply seems to be a lack of language to properly describe it in easy digestible terms

that is... a very aromantic experience

and then sometimes the doctor will just have little non-romantic connections that work, like donna -- and, despite not being my favourite seasons, the bits where the doctor simply lives with/drops in on the ponds is very sweet. and the tardis of course. am a "doctor-and-the-tardis are a matching pair and one without the other is wrong, but it's not romantic" person at heart, beyond anything else

(I am interested in how this will play once my rewatch gets me back to 13 and I can watch until the end, because I know yaz confesses that she's in love with the doctor near the end, and the doctor has an interesting reaction from what I understand)

(I guess at this point asexuality is another post)

but yeah. I think I'm not saying anything new with regards to the writing of aliens (and android and otherwise non-human characters), in that obviously one would like to imagine some interest in exploring these forms of non-normativity outside of "well that's an alien" (she's an alien and he's gay) but also there's reasons we're all so into aliens

genderbending genderfluid regenerating aliens is all well and good, but it only becomes really interesting in this case when we see trans/non-binary/genderfluid/genderbending humans (as is coming up soon! and I hope we see many more actors of the trans and gender non-conforming persuasion on this show!) similarly -- while I do think we have had more than a taste (donna my heart and soul honestly) of that non-alloromantic queerplatonic vibes doctor-companion dynamic -- I'd be fascinated in what a consciously aro (and maybe ace also) companion opposite the doctor would be like, how that would restructure their relationship with the doctor, compared to others who had expectations that the doctor couldn't ever hope to fulfill, like rose, martha (although they did let down martha in many ways that had nothing to do with romance), amy, possibly yaz, (here the confession that I never did get much of what was going on with clara but maybe this watch will clarify for me), possibly sarah-jane, possibly river song although she seems to have just kind of gone with it I guess, possibly romana... heck, possibly the master (I guess possibly that american woman from the movie, I forget her name... I cannot remember rn if other companions ever expressed an interest like that in them, but if so, then them too)

also I just want to rub moffat's face in it if I'm being honest. writing snide commentary about what was described as "asexual" doctor pre-nu!who, in a way that very much encompassed aroness (because romance-and-sex has so often been and still is put under one header), and totally misunderstanding why fans were into it or why it's interesting, and then being obsessed ever since with his weird little crusade of making doctor who "sexier" and alloromantic and imo utterly failing, despite it all

#dw #aroace doctor #doctor who #im rewatching doctor who #aro doctor #anti moffat #can you tell all my posts are gonna be this? #because they very much are #interested in how that'll play out in s3 when we have the triple whammy of martha jack AND the master #all being like 'notice meeeeeeeeee 🥺🥺🥺' #oh martha my sweet beloved you deserved so much #in some ways i feel like her tragedy is the doylist perspective #it's INTERESTING that she joined the army for sure #but then it's kind of just... and then that (by the specials) and pair the spares with mickey #that's also the rip when it comes to mickey for sure #but with martha it's SO much more #i also didnt mention bill in this i know it's platonic but i need to rewatch to remember the Dynamic

[evidence-based-activism]

So to be very clear: you do not believe that trans people are who they say they are, but rather, you believe in social constructs of gender as being rigid definitions? As in, a woman is simply someone who doesn't have visible hormonal imbalances and looks feminine to you? Gender as a gut instinct? Explain whether or not you are a trans ally and give real explanations.

So, I can tell this isn’t being asked in good faith, but that’s okay! I’m going to answer in good faith anyway, since you haven’t been vulgar and I hope this may be useful to you.

So, to start with, I don’t care how people present themselves. In fact, in my ideal world (a long, long, way off) people would be free to:

Dress however they like

Date/have sex with whomever they like (assuming consent by all parties of course)

Have whatever job they want (assuming they are or will be qualified for it)

Play with whatever toys they like

Be friends with whomever they like

Call themselves whatever name they like

And other similar things

I’d say that indicates I don’t support “rigid definitions” of gender, and I certainly don’t support the idea that female individuals should conform to the current social role(s) prescribed to women or that male individuals should conform to the current social role(s) prescribed to men. In fact, I am strongly against the social construct of gender. I don’t want biological sex to have any say at all in everyone’s day to day life.

That being said, I also recognize that biological sex does exist and (in humans) cannot be changed (for some excellent reading about this see: this open letter about “whether biological sex is real”, and just to anticipate some common arguments: “inter sexism” is not as common as red hair, and sex is not a spectrum (as written by an individual with CAH, I also suggest this deconstruction of postmodernism as postmodernism underpins the theory leading to the “sex as a spectrum” conclusion).

I also know that there are very real, very impactful differences between the sexes in today's world (for sources on this please see anything in my male violence tag as a starting point) that justify the existence of sex separated bathrooms/shelters/etc.

Now, is it possible that some day men and women will be socialized they same way from birth, that crime rates between the sexes will equalize? Sure! Maybe! At that point in time, the only difference left between the sexes will be medical. But right now, these are facts of life that you can’t wish away.

To address the rest of your question explicitly, no a woman is not “simply someone who doesn't have visible hormonal imbalances and looks feminine to [me]”. Many women have hormonal imbalances and they are still women; many others present themselves in a traditionally masculine way and they are still women. A woman is simply “an adult female human”, where “adult” means fully grown, human means “a member of the primate genus Homo”, and female means “of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young”. (And to against anticipate a common response, please note the use of the word “of” in the preceding definition, the use here means “derived or coming from” indicating that the individual in question need not actually produce ova or have children, simply that they are of the sex capable of doing so.)

I don’t really know what you mean by “gender as a gut instinct”. I can say that gender is a social construct (created by humans without existing independently in nature) that prescribes certain behaviors based on an individuals biological sex. Gender is often used interchangeably with “gender roles” when using the above definition. Gender may also be used interchangeably with “sex”, generally to avoid association with “sexual activity”. I use the first definition of gender, and consider it to be inherently oppressive to women.

Finally, I support trans people to the extent described above (in reference to self-expression). I also support a variety of social reforms concerning housing, health care access, economic equality, and others that would positively benefit everyone including trans individuals. Importantly, I support evidence based interventions for individuals with dysphoria (many of the current interventions are not evidence based), please see the society for evidence based gender medicine for an excellent resource concerning scientific literature review concerning trans health care.

It’s up to you to decide if that make me a “trans ally” or not. I think it does, and I encourage you to evaluate which parts of this you disagree with and why. How different are our ideal worlds? Why do you find it easier to reject biological realities than challenge long-held social realities?

Feel free to message me if you’d like to talk!

#feminism #postmodernism

[fipindustries]

in art there is an inherent tension between nature and nurture. is the conflict between those simple executions that are known to work, that stimulate base parts of our sensorioum and brain and thus of massive appeal, easy to grasp and enjoy; against things that are dense in technique, and concept, for which one has to develop a language, a technical understanding and a taste, hermetic and not easy to grasp at once.

i think most of the public expects most art to fall on the first cathegory to some degree or another. a painting should look "pretty", whatever pretty means, a song should be "catchy", food should be "tasty", a joke should be "funny", a movie should be "entertaining". either way, the point is that art should "feel good" or rather it should "click" in a quick sensory way. that when you watch a movie its quality should be as immediatly appreciable as when you eat a good meal. and when they hear experts try to explain more advanced pieces they are expecting to hear an explination that makes it so that those advnaced pieces stimulate those simple buttons that more simple stuff so easily satisfies. but of course they never get that, instead they get a bunch of theory that does nothing to make the art any closer in a purely sensorial way.

the idea that in order to appreciate something one has to first develop an understanding or appreciation of it feels counter intuitive, it feels like enjoying art with extra steps, you have to force yourself to extract joy out of something (which is not a pleasant experience, there is always that frustration of the excercise not feeling genuine, not feeling true and emotionally potent, it feels like an affectation) in order to extract the joy and entertainment that one could get much easier from something more direct and simple.

for some people having fun listenting to a catchy jingle made with the classic 4 chords or eating a nice chocolate cake feels more "natural" than listening to prog rock or reading infinite jest. its almost teleological. our tongues were Made to enjoy sugar, that is how things are meant to be because that is how nature designed us. in a sense the studying of art techniques is basically the analisis and compilation of the formulas that work, of the buttons that one has to press to stimulate the human animal in the correct way. we know how the pentatonic scale works, on almost a biological level, we have color theory, we have composition, we understand the three act structure.

so one might ask, why even bother with the weirder stuff, the stuff that is hard to appreciate? the stuff that we kind of have to shape ourselves into enjoying? its artificial, its purely a social construct. is not real, humans were not made for this.

well, the truth is, humans are much more versatile than that, and whilst we are all born with some basic buttons that anyone can push to satisfy, it is also in our nature the capacity to develop more buttons, more complex and intricate. buttons that start to crave for layers, for nuance, for the weird and ecclectic and unique. people DO develop a taste for special, particular old wines that were cultivated in such and such a way, people DO get a lot of meaning from the works of john cage, people DO have fun reading ulysses and these things are not necesarily an affectation. and this is a process that will happen on its own the more we are exposed to more and more art.

i do want to clarify, i dont believe in teleological arguments or appeals to nature. even if that last paragraph wasnt the case, that wouldnt change anything for me, but still, it is the case and i think its worth being said.

now, a lot of people see the developing of their taste as a challenge or an obligation, which can make it an imposition and rob the enjoyment out of it. god knows i forced myself to watch some movies simply because i thought they were the kinds of movies i was supposed to like if i wanted to consider myself a cinephile. i dont think this is a good approach, experiment and push yourself out of your comfort zone, yes, that is how you discover new things. but dont force yourself to stay there if its just not doing it for you. i came to terms with the fact i will probably never understand pollock no matter how many of his paintings i see or how much i study on the subject. but i have come to discover i do like donna tart's the goldfinch quite a lot.

and this doesnt go just for the higher forms of art, try those "trashy" things that come from spaces that are not your scene at all. i was convinced i was never going to be able to enjoy cumbia or trap or bachata and yet i kept my ears open and ended up finding songs in all of those genres that i cant stop listenting to. there are so many buttons inside of you and you dont know what is going to press of of them by surprise one of these days.

#art

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Sociopaths across the globe finding posters of these kidnapped children. Babies, Holocaust survivors and tearing them down. I saw, they were all over the upper east side, the same posters of the 8-year-old girl, the 9-month-old baby, and someone had literally gone to the trouble of printing it out with the word "occupier" under it, if you would believe that.

And let me explain to you exactly why this is happening. These people have woke mind-virus.

In the woke mindset, there's no difference between right versus wrong. They see the world only through the lens of powerful versus powerless, and then they superimpose race onto that.

So, anybody who is a "person of color" has less power and thus is inherently virtuous, no matter what they do, and anybody who they perceive as a "white" person is inherently morally compromised and an oppressor and has no virtue and is evil.

And they code Jews and Israel as "white." And just like all white people, there's no such thing as an innocent white person or an innocent Jew to these woke people.

And so what they do is, when there's evidence of a Jewish victim, what could be more pure and innocent than a 9-month-old baby, they literally have to destroy the evidence because it destroys their mindset, their worldview.

And let me just tell you one more thing. You know, there's a lot of people walking around saying the Jewish people are shaking, the Jewish people are scared. We're not scared. We are livid. And if these sociopaths think we're going to cede this great nation to them, they're in for a big surprise.

--

"Another aspect of the construction of whiteness is the way certain groups have moved into or out of that race. For example, early in our history Irish, Jews, and Italians were considered nonwhite—that is, on a par with African Americans. Over time, they earned the prerogatives and social standing of whites by a process that included joining labor unions, swearing fealty to the Democratic Party, and acquiring wealth, sometimes by illegal or underground means. Whiteness, it turns out, is not only valuable; it is shifting and malleable." -- "Critical Race Theory, An Introduction" (Third Edition), by Delgado and Stefancic

-

The Role of the Moslem Woman: Article Seventeen: The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the Moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realised the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up the way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs. These organizations have ample resources that enable them to play their role in societies for the purpose of achieving the Zionist targets and to deepen the concepts that would serve the enemy. These organizations operate in the absence of Islam and its estrangement among its people. The Islamic peoples should perform their role in confronting the conspiracies of these saboteurs. The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated. -- Hamas Covenant 1988

Critical Race Theory and Hamas both echo the same "Jews control the world" conspiracy theories as the far-right.

#Batya Ungar Sargon #israel #palestine #hamas #islamic terrorism #islam #hamas supporters #pro palestine #freedom fighters #israel hostages #oppressor #oppressed #critical race theory #jihad #hamas terrorism #religion is a mental illness

[veggieboxes]

ok that adult teru post and in the tags you have some thoughts about him and his relationship w adulthood PLEASR PLEASE PLEASE TELL Us those THOUGHTS PLEASE. sorry i just i want to know i love teru hahaa

my god. you are unleashing my analysis brain. ok.

i have a lot of thoughts in general on the "main cast" around mob (reigen, dimple, teru, and ritsu) in general LOL + how they all intertwine with e/o but i do really like teru bc of how nebulous his backstory is.. ONE pretty much just gives us this:

(this dude is fucking 14. did he start living alone at 10????)

+ the fact that he started living alone bc of the claw attacks. everybody else has pretty straightforward backstories (except for dimple i guess, but he doesn't really follow the traditional rules of all the human characters), but teru's situation is so fucking strange. and it's never elaborated upon.

but i do think that it's very obvious that he turned out the way he Did pre mob meeting just bc he was forced to take care of himself and survive from an insanely young age. skipping childhood to become an "adult" is really the only option for him, which ultimately leads him to creating a social hierarchy at his school because gaining a position of power is "just something adults do." that plus the fact that he needs some way to prove himself to others that he's worthy of attention and praise because he can't get that validation from his parents. so the next best thing is his classmates!

from my viewpoint, a lottt of teru's behaviors boil down to doing what an adult "should" be doing / the ideal successful adult figure. which is also why he fits himself in those traditional heteronormative and masculine roles via. dating women and fighting men. this stuff helps reinforce the social hierarchy, but also creates the illusion that he's capable of being in functioning hetero relationships as people are expected be in as they grow older. teru wants to stand out, but in a "socially acceptable" way -- the way that will guarantee him praise from others.

the whole facade obviously crumbles after his encounter with mob. he's knocked off of his pedestal, being stripped of his dignity (and other things...) in front of the carefully constructed ecosystem he created with himself at the top. bigger pond, bigger fish! so once that's gone, teru really has nobody else to prove himself to or get worship from. at the end of the day, all he really has is himself to gain acceptance from. and with that, he can become an actual functioning human being and not a weird, disfigured, carefully chiseled mimic of what he thinks is the ideal adult.

obviously, remnants of this system pre-yassified teru put up is still present and we see that with teru still getting lots of gifts from girls who are kinda scared by him. but we don't really see how teru interacts with his classmates or vice versa in everyday life past that. i do really enjoy the idea of black vinegar's shadow leader coming back with a complete 180 personality. and a wig to match that change.

but all that aside, teru coming to the realization that he doesn't have much if you take away his psychic powers lets him become a kid again. not hardened by life or jaded, not held up to these wild expectations, not expected to take care of himself emotionally (which isn't kid-exclusive, but teru just never allowed himself to share that burden to begin with). i mean, he's always been a kid -- just in the way he tries to appear mature -- but he can let himself grow in his own, much healthier, way.

i think that's why teru's character in particular inherently has so much gay subtext, because the audience sees his character go from "traditional masculine figure" to... basically the opposite of that. and if the traditional masculine figure is defined by the role in heterosexual relationships, then the opposite would be homosexuality.

well, that and his general attitude towards mob. and teru's fruity ass fits. i'm not sure how he had those in his closet and thought, "yeah! i'm straight!"

and that's my two cents! my concluding statement: god, i hope we get the series of animated spinoffs ONE mentioned as a hypothetical.

i love mob's story to death, but i'd love to see more explorations into the other characters because they're usually pushed to the sideline development-wise after their respective arcs are over. i do love the omakes for this reason though lol

anyways, thanks for reading my intro to mob psycho 101 essay :-) sorry this is stupidly long. but also? i could write an analysis like this for every secondary character because i care about them so much.

#i have sooo many fucking thoughts on mp100 it's a little insane #most of these thoughts were drafted out to my roommate a while back at like. 2am. s/o to them for hearing me ramble on about this shit #i loooooove media analysis #even though i'm sure ONE did not think that hard about teru's character in this way LOL #teru hanazawa #mp100 #asks #i have thoughts on teru in parallel to reigen and ritsu too #but erm. that's too much for now #teru and ritsu r my favs tho so i do have a lot of thoughts about those two in particular #sorry i'm biased towards characters with inferiority complexes LOL #i do want to do a series of ristu comics cuz i think the fanon depiction of him is wildly reductive #but idk when i'll get to it lmao #huge ass tangent #i need to stop writing #bye #ask

[zizekianrevolution]

Lacan's point is that you can only ever have jouissance as something that has been lost it doesn't mean you had it at one point and then you lost it it means that it is always already missing to speak to have language is to have enjoyment always already removed from the field of possibilities before you society is shored up or propped up by language the law is written down in language norms are transmitted stereotypes are transmitted mouth to mouth by language i don't know any baby that hates black people i don't know any racist babies and i don't know any kids that walk through the world and see people with different skin tones and think lesser of them they notice difference but skin is not yet a difference that makes a difference in the child's life you can notice all kinds of differences the question is what differences make a difference socially speaking for something to make a difference in your life it has to be made into something more than a simple difference and that is happening through language the human experience of race i'm trying to tell you here is not just socially constructed it is linguistically determined it is by way of language which is why it's so excellent that we're finally talking about institutionalized racism because the primary place in which all isms are instituted is language there are so many words and expressions that if you just take a close etymological look at you'll see how they're wrapped up in the history of violence against women black and brown bodies any minoritized figure the rule of thumb was never just a simple given guideline the rule of thumb described the maximum width of a stick that you could pull from a tree and beat the fuck out of your wife and children and slaves in fact i don't even think this rule applied to slaves notice i'm not using the word fuck here to scandalize you i want to remind you that the etymological origin of the word fuck is to hit there is something inherent and violent about fucking so the rule of thumb is a good example of this it's a really common expression that describes things that almost don't even need to be described it's just a general guideline but it has this very acute unconscious history you see if the unconscious is structured like a language as lacan would say i'd like to add something more to that every language also has its own unconscious that's why words matter sticks and stones may break your bones but words can mess you up too and one of the ways they do it is by having all of this unconscious usually etymological baggage to them that we are unaware of when we use an expression like rule of thumb as you can see today i am chomping at the bit -Samuel McCormick

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Hi Raven! Lemme start out saying that I love your posts, they are really thought out and informative, especially with matters going on in the community. You don’t have to answer this if you're busy,but I have a question. I wanna start a Twist blog, well kinda. I wanna start posting some of my works, and kinda make a blog on my Twist OC, but I don't know where to start. If you have any tips or tricks, that would be helpful l, but if you don't have a direct answer to this, that's fine too anything will help. And another question is, how do you get over to fear of people not liking your works or even OC? I've seen quite a bit of hate in this Fandom, and idk if my sensitive heart can take it. 😅 It's kinda the reason why I've never posted at all. Thanks again.

Hello there ^^ I’m happy that you enjoy my blog and that you find my posts informative!

For general advice on starting and maintaining a writing blog, please see this post. I’m going to use the rest of this response to speak at length about the second question posed by the asker: “how do you get over the fear of people not liking your works or even OC?”

First, let’s get something out of the way: humans are inherently social creatures; therefore, it is in our nature to desire positive attention/approval and to be afraid of rejection and ostracism. There is no shame in wanting validation. It’s a built-in survival mechanism leftover from the past—because when humans band together, they are more likely to thrive. However, I also think that in the modern world, it’s easy to get carried away and care too much about what others will think of you. This is so true in the age of social media, where likes, shares, and even follows and views are quantifiable and thus can be used as a point of comparison to others on the same platform. It’s also easier than ever to connect with others, which can be both a boon (meeting people you otherwise could have never met) and a detriment (internet hate).

Now, as simple as it would be for me to say, “create for yourself rather than seek the approval of others”, that advice doesn’t actually do much for anyone. It's easy to talk the talk, but it's much harder to walk the walk. It’s all about mindset, because in actuality, a very small number of people out of the overall fandom will care about your works enough to actively hate on an individual. The mind seemingly magnifies the number because humans are hardwired to pay more attention to the negative experiences over the positive ones (which, again, is another survival instinct; you pay attention to the bad things to avoid them or to resolve the issues). There goes the saying, “we’re our own worst critics”, and it’s very true here. It’s not just negativity from others you must deal with, but self/doubt snd your own mind perpetuating the belief that the negativity is much worse than it actually is. Of course, there are actual serious cases of hate (harassment, stalking, threats, doxxing, racism, etc), but here I am only referring to general cases of other people “not liking what you make” or saying mean things (such as “you’re a bad writer”).

So how does one improve their mindset? Truth be told, it doesn’t happen overnight. In fact, learning to not care what others think of you is a difficult and lengthy process. It will take time and effort to reach a comfortable state of acceptance (and yes, I’m talking years long here)—but it is possible to grow out of that fixation.

Here are some truths you have to accept if you want to overcome your worries:

In putting your work “out there” in a public space, you will naturally invite feedback, both good and bad. An integral part of creating is, of course, wanting to share one’s creations with others. However, it’s unrealistic to think that you won’t ever get negative feedback or critique. It isn’t always constructive or helpful to you, but you must brace for them to come your way all the same. If you think about it, getting nothing but praise isn’t good either because then it traps you in a cycle of thinking you’re perfect and there’s nothing you need to improve on. It becomes an echo chamber and it can lead to stagnation because you’re already satisfied with your current state instead of thinking about how you can grow. Mixed feedback is important for personal growth.

There may not necessarily be a problem with your content, it could be a matter of differences in circumstances or tastes. You must remember that lack of engagement is not always equivalent to hate. Indifference or not even coming into contact with a post is NOT the same as actively going to post a negative comment or ask. That being said, lack of engagement could be the result of a website’s algorithm working against your favor. Alternatively, it could be that you aren’t hitting a target audience. Like, if you write angst, it may not appeal to a certain subsection of fans. These are factors largely outside of your control, and trying to gain that control would be a fruitless effort.

There’s nothing wrong with blocking, especially if things escalate. I know that on sites like Twitter and Tiktok, blocking people is seen as “taboo” or some kind of hateful social statement when… it’s not. Blocking is a means of curating your space so you can have fun online without worrying about others raining on your parade. If people are giving you a hard time, nothing is stopping you from blocking them (which can be done even with anonymous asks). Don’t give people that send “hate” attention by responding and showing just how upset their comments made you, it only encourages them to continue once they’ve seen how much it affects you.

One instance of “hate” is not representative of the entire fandom’s feelings. This circles back to what I said before; the negative and toxic people in this fandom is actually minuscule when compared to the total number of fans in this space. Instead of letting the few rotten apples define the entire bushel, think about all the positive experiences you’ve had!

You can’t please everyone. As much as you try to, it won’t happen. But you know what is much more feasible of a goal? Pleasing yourself. You know what you like best, and if you’re able to make what makes you happy then you have a 100% chance of satisfying at least one person.

If you feel frustrated, it’s fine!! It’s normal to feel this way when you think a work you shared isn’t getting the kind of exposure you want it to (whether it’s little exposure or negative exposure). We want to feel like our energy and time was put into something worthwhile. Just don’t take it too hard because these things are bound to happen. Not everything you make will be a hit, and your audience may not always be receptive to what you put out.

If you create mainly or solely for the approval of others, you won’t be happy with yourself. Ask yourself why you want to create in the first place. Most likely it’s because you’re passionate about TWST and/or you just wanted to have fun. But when this shifts to a focus on pleasing others, is it really fun anymore? If you’re always chasing trends (which are very transient) or thinking about how you should change your work to have greater mass appeal, is it really “you”, or are you just being what you think people want you to be? It just results in never being satisfied, because you’re aiming for the impossibility of making everyone happy. When you weigh your worth based on others’ perception of you or on engagement, you run the risk of burnout and losing joy in creating.

You’ll have to embrace cringe. When I say “cringe”, I mean it in the sense that you should be comfortable being your authentic self even if you fear people won’t like it. Again, you cannot please everyone—but surely there will be people who will accept you and like you for who you are. Some will vibe with you, some won’t, and that’s a fact.

You won’t be perfect at keeping out negativity from others, and that’s okay. What matters is how you address those instances when they arise. It’s not productive to let negative thoughts stew or hold you back from creating what you want. Instead of letting the thoughts fester, try to redirect your energy to something else.

Additionally, here are some suggestions on what you can do to alleviate your doubts. These methods work for me, but I’m not going to claim they work for everyone; I figured I’d just throw the ideas out there in case they’d be helpful to others.

Isolate yourself from social media for a period of time until you're in a better headspace.

An alternative to social media isolation is looking at other people's creations (but ignoring the numbers, as that can be a basis for comparison)! It may inspire you to make something of your own. For example, sometimes I've been scrolling and I'd see someone's OC in their own outfit for an event like Fairy Gala, and that made me excited to do the same for my own characters.

Another alternative to social media isolation is looking at the positives! Think about the number of people who have supported you or left nice comments and how they outweigh the Negative Nancies. (This is an example of using the numbers to your advantage!) I know of some friends who use a special tag on their blogs to denote "feel good" asks so they can reference these to cheer up when they're feeling discouraged or down.

Rather than comparing yourself to others, compare yourself to... yourself! Treat it like a New Year's resolution: you're looking back at where you started and think considering how you've changed since then.

Do something else you love to get your attention away from your creative endeavors. This could be another hobby or spending time with friends or family.

Speaking of friends and family, talk to them! Let them know how you're feeling and why you're feeling this way. They can offer you support and advice. I find that this is especially helpful when you are able to speak with other content creators, who may be able to empathize with your experiences.

Practice mindfulness and gratitude. Instead of thinking about what you don't have, think about what you do have and be appreciative of it. This helps shift the center away from things out of your control (ie other people) and to something that is within your control (ie yourself).

Minimize taking things personally. This can be especially hard in cases of OCs because creators tend to put a lot of themselves into their OCs (particularly if they are self inserts or Yuusonas)—so when others say they don't like an OC, it can feel like an indirect way of saying "I don't like you, the creator". But rarely is this the intended meaning of a comment. When people say they don't like something, it doesn't always mean they also dislike the creator. Remember that at the end of the day, we're all internet strangers that don't know each other on a deeply personal level (so why should you hinge your self-worth on such a thing?). You can be close with your works and OCs, but don't necessarily think of the works/OCs as a 1:1 extension of yourself. When you think of it like that, it helps to detach yourself from negativity that a work may receive.

Think about what you’re good at and focus on that niche. In this way, you will be able to make what you want while also attracting an audience that also appreciates this niche over time.

Make something for yourself, no posting necessary! Sometimes it can help you air out your feelings if you make a piece (art, writing, etc.) for no one but yourself to see. It’s surprisingly very therapeutic.

With all of that being said, I’d like to close off this post by saying that conquering the fear of others negatively judging your works is something that all creators have to go through. We're at various stages in this process, and we will continue to have our moments of weakness. This is a completely normal thing (though it is perhaps not commonly discussed out in the open) and it should be normalized. Even I go through periods of self-doubt and find myself holding off on posting certain pieces (especially anything that is OC-related) because I overthink how they may be perceived. I know that most of my audience is here for the canon TWST characters, so I worry that posting OC content is self-indulgent, maybe even selfish if I'm feeling particularly mean toward myself on a given day. It's negative self-talk like this that can be detrimental to creators and their enjoyment of their craft; that's why it's important to identify these moments and try to figure out ways to overcome them, even if it's just taking little baby steps. Some progress is better than no progress!

Anyway, I hope that you found this post useful ^^ If you think it may be also be of use to a creator you know, please consider sharing it with them.

#twst #twst oc #twisted wonderland #twst en #twisted wonderland oc #twisted wonderland en #notes from the writing raven #question #advice #disney twisted wonderland #putting this in the main tags in case this advice is found to be useful to other TWST content creators #honestly though this advice applies to creators in ANY fandom #tw // harassment #tw // stalking #tw // doxxing #tw // threats #tw // racism

[transmutationisms]

saw that you finished twin peaks! do you have any thoughts you'd like to share? also, if you haven't already, i high reccomend watching fire walk with me!

ya i saw fwwm after season 2 and before 'the return'. honestly i think my twin peaks opinions are fairly unpopular bc i simply cannot read the series in any way besides as being deeply conservative lol. this becomes especially clear to me in 'the return', which is largely motivated by a narrative of the loss of american innocence (the double r subplot, the numerous instances of drugs and violence tearing nuclear families apart, the encroachment of electricity and processed snack foods and gambling, &c). but this viewpoint is seeded too throughout the first season-and-change of the original series, and fwwm; because what was laura palmer if not the series's first use of rape as metonymous for what lynch sees as a broader process of social breakdown and irreversible change? i understand that some people try to read bob and laura as a critique of the family, in the sense that the violence comes through the father, but i don't think this reading holds even in the original series and it certainly doesn't after part 8 of 'the return', in which bob is explicitly and directly invoked in reference to the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki, here construed as an originary act of american evil.

i think in david lynch's mind, the spiritual forces and influences in the show are literal and apolitical, and frequently he seems to mean to depict them more as sources of artistic inspiration than anything else ('twin peaks' is in many ways a tv show about making a tv show, hence the double use of electricity throughout 'the return' and fwwm, in particular). but i find this really irritating frankly, because it's at best ignorant of the inherently political nature of the constructions of small-town americana, teenage innocence, violence as an act of moral corruption, and so forth—and also because, after the return, it's simply impossible to deny that the show's overarching narrative IS plugged in to political and historical lines of critique. like, i am not trying to 'force' a reading that deals with us imperialism—lynch put the show on this discursive terrain explicitly and deliberately, through not just the bomb footage and the penderecki threnody but also the inversion of classic symbols of american 'greatness' (the unlucky penny, the evil lincoln impersonator), culminating again in the violation of a young girl's body by the forces of evil. what this all adds up to is the invocation of american empire as a kind of universal moral struggle, stripped of its historical specificity or even the barest pretense of material critique or commentary. if it sounds like i'm asking too much of network television... i mean, maybe i am, but again, these were deliberate choices lynch made and specific historical events he invoked on purpose, lol. see also the jacoby trump commentary in 'the return' (cringe and yawn).

i'm not a lynch scholar but i do think there's a tension throughout his work (what i've seen) between the desire to make art about what he sees as the purely spiritual process of making art (heavily informed by his own TM beliefs), and the conservative elements that creep in anyway, noticeable especially in his commentary on american history, corruption, modernity, &c. the idea of any pure, transcendent, apolitical spiritual dimension of human existence is itself, i would argue, at best a misguided conservative fantasy, and 'twin peaks' ultimately shows these cracks more blatantly than some of his other work (say, 'inland empire') because it tries to subordinate the material to the spiritual in a kind of fantastical historical parable. but, you can see this recurring tension throughout his filmography, eg, the loss of small-town innocence ('blue velvet') and a kind of generalised modernity anxiety ('eraserhead', though taken on its own this one would permit other readings depending on how you interpreted the role of german expressionism in it).

i don't think lynch is an ideologue or even considers himself particularly political, but nevertheless his narratives do idealise a certain conservative vision of post-war america, mourn its loss, and wax nostalgic for its perceived ethos (& it's not a coincidence lynch is/has been a reaganite, lol). anyway, i thought 'twin peaks' had some really incredible moments of visual artistry (part 8 of 'the return', for example!) and i found much of it frankly beautiful and compelling to watch. so, i don't mean any of this to dismiss lynch as a filmmaker—he is, if nothing else, highly technically adept. unfortunately i did just really hate most of what the series was actually saying, lmao.

#twin peaks