#live your life not as a thing; 'things' don't exist inherently. The idea of 'thing' is a product of human perception just like identity

[homunculus-argument]

I think the reason why some cis people are so offended by being called "cis" is because they're entirely unfamiliar with the idea that they might be things that they didn't deliberately choose to be, or that the way they inherently are and hadn't considered as a distinct thing may be a concept that's been named, observed and defined. They don't like to learn that there are names for them that they had not been aware of.

When you've lived all your life with a vague and lingering dread that you are somehow different from everyone around you, it's a relief to learn that there are words for what you've got going on, that there are names for people like you. That you're not somehow uniquely wrong in some way in which everyone else is right, you're just type B when the vast majority of people are type A. There are others like you, whose patterns are like yours, you are not a deviant for deviating from the "norm".

Default Settings People get strangely insulted by the mere idea that they, too, have a slot in the classification system. They'll protest this, being the biggest, most typical, and statistically most likely category isn't enough, they want to be outside of this system completely. Arguing "I'm not some type, I am normal", like being sorted into a type at all is dehumanising and insulting. They want there to only be One Type, and that everyone falling outside of it is a Miscellaneous Deviant. Being "typical" in contrast to "atypical" isn't enough, they want to be normal in contrast to abnormal.

In unrelated news, the ADHD subreddit on reddit has banned the word "neurotypical". That kind of language has been deemed as 'political', meaning that it hurts the feelings of neurotypicals and therefore should not exist.

[ponett]

Whenever I complain about graphic or dark content in media I watch, I keep hearing people retort with this apparently very popular opinion that people who enjoy comfy, wholesome things are actually more likely to be raging assholes than people who love things like death metal and gore. As someone who seems to enjoy comfy, wholesome things yourself and likely met many others who enjoy similar such things, do you agree with this opinion? If so, why do you think this happens?

So I've been sitting on this ask for like a week, not knowing whether or not I wanted to touch it because it kind of feels like being handed a live grenade

For one, I don't like being pigeonholed as someone who just likes "comfy" or "wholesome" things. Yeah, I enjoy My Little Pony and Animal Crossing. I made a game with cute furry characters and lots of bright colors. I also enjoy things like Berserk and Chainsaw Man and Doom and violent crime dramas and punk rock with vulgar lyrics and porn. Variety is the spice of life

Anyway: I generally don't think it's a good idea to make sweeping statements about peoples' moral or intellectual character based on what genres of story they enjoy, regardless of what direction you're coming at it from. But this is a very leading question that kind of skirts around the root problems

There's frequent (perhaps a bit exaggerated) pushback these days against people who prefer their fiction to be a warm blanket, a form of escapism meant to distract you from the real world. In particular, the dreaded "person who only watches kids' cartoons" is a form of this that gets brought up a lot. I don't think the root problem here is what media people enjoy or don't personally enjoy - taste is subjective, and I don't think it's a moral obligation for everyone to have diverse tastes in TV shows - but I do think some folks should try to get out of their comfort zone a bit more. Sometimes stuff that seems like it won't be for you on a surface level will really end up speaking to you, but you won't know until you give it a shot. Trust me, I've been there many times

It becomes a problem when people demand that media ONLY cater to that "warm blanket" attitude. And I think that's part of the reason why that stereotype you mentioned about fans of ""wholesome""" media being assholes exists. People who view dark or violent content as an inherent flaw because it's not what they like. People who yell at creators when they make bad things happen in their stories, because how dare you do this to my comfort characters? People who say movies should never have sex scenes. People who want "problematic" moral complexity stripped out in favor of black and white moral instruction. People who seem to hate any sort of interpersonal conflict in fiction at all

These attitudes can be the result of many different cultural factors, factors that can't all be traced back to Tumblr or what shows you like, but sometimes it's definitely because of that lack of broader perspective on media. You can tell when someone's opinions on The Right And Wrong Ways To Write Fiction were shaped almost entirely by, like, Steven Universe discourse. (Yes, this is a jab at Lily Orchard.) And when these people are very loud about their opinions, well, it becomes a trend people notice

Like. I don't know you. You sent this anonymously. But when you say you "complain about graphic or dark content in media you watch"... that could mean a few wildly different things! Maybe you're just venting about something that unexpectedly triggered you, and that's totally fine. But the wording could also imply that, like, you take issue with these things being present at all, and that you expect a person who likes "death metal and gore" to be more of a "raging asshole" than someone who likes the "wholesome" things you like. So... well, maybe you're more dismissive or judgmental of things outside your comfort zone than you realize?

Unfortunately, in case it's not already obvious, on the internet this shit quickly becomes a proxy battle over dozens of intersecting cultural issues at once where everyone is kinda just talking past each other. So it gets messy

For example, I have no reason to believe that the people who run the "Wholesome Games" showcases have anything against games that are dark or violent or contain adult themes. (They've outright said they don't. Many times!) But when you see people going "why is Spiritfarer allowed in the showcase? That's a game about DEATH and that's NOT WHOLESOME, why would you make me think about death?" or "Ugh, why does Disco Elysium have to be about a cop? Why can't we apply these systems to a game about a young witch who's trying to find a lost cat in an idyllic village instead?" it... Well, it makes me sympathetic towards the indies who don't feel comfortable with the "Wholesome Games" label and consider it limiting. But it also doesn't make me think that devs catering to a demand for more chill, nonviolent video games are categorically facilitating fascist censorship from the Christian right

It's complicated! The written word is imprecise and the internet is a nightmare

I've kind of gone off on multiple tangents here. Basically: I do think that people can kinda turn fans of "comfy" media or "adults who only watch Bluey" into an overblown boogeyman these days. I think people online generally have a habit of swinging too hard in one direction or another in their stances on certain things, overcompensating based on what group of people online are currently annoying them the most and turning said group into like The Main Problem With Society Today. But I also think that boogeyman only exists because of very real examples of people demanding that everything cater to their narrow comfort zone. Go like what you like, but also, y'know. Don't be that person

#anon #ask

[boredom-reigns]

You know, as frustrating as aro discourse existing in 2024 is, it's kinda made me think of stuff.

Primarily, how seeing some non-aspec people's responses to aromanticism really highlight how some just don't understand or don't try to understand what the aromantic experience is like.

It's easy to brush off aromantics. It's easy for them to say "oh but you're straight-passing anyway" and then say that there's no reason for aromantics to cling to the lgbtq+ community—to cling to any community at all.

But you know? I feel like what a lot of non-aspecs don't get is just how fucking alienating being aspec is.

Hell, before I even identified as aromantic, I just felt so disconnected from society because I couldn't fall in love. I remember just feeling something was so wrong about me because everyone was talking about falling in love and having crushes and the media everywhere says you need to find The One and get married and that romance is a requirement for a happily ever after. And it’s not like I didn't know gay people existed! I knew! Because I tried to check if I was gay or bi or pan—I tried so hard to get attracted to people, and I just never did.

There's just that specific feeling of loneliness... wondering if somehow you were broken in some way. And that fear of thinking you'll never be happy because society promotes the idea that romance is True Love. That it is the best relationship you can have in your life. That you will never get a happy ending and that you will die alone.

Discovering that aromanticism is a thing made me feel normal. It told me I'm not broken—that other people like me existed. And that's why the community is important to me. Because the feeling of thinking something is wrong with you is something I don't want others to feel. The more people know and discuss aromanticism, the less people have to experience the negative emotions that I and other aromantics felt.

And aromanticism just doesn't feel alienating in the cishetallo society. It's can be so fucking isolating being in the lgbtq+ community too. Th

Because this is a place that's supposed to accept anybody who diverges from the societal norm of cishetallo. But no, we're either rejected, excluded, or treated invisible. People don't bother to listen to aspec experiences. People would say they support aspec people but then turn around and spout aphobic rhetoric.

So then this ngl, it's honestly kinda predictable that this discourse pops up and people go "oh aspec people are queer but—" NO BUTS! Aspec people are queer. Cishetaro and cishetaces are queer. No ifs and buts.

Why is the aspec identity inherently considered less priority than the cishet identity? Aspec isn't some secondary label—it's a part of who we are. An aromantic heterosexual still diverges from the norm. They have experiences that heteroromantic heterosexuals would never understand. They are still hit with amatonormativity and heteronormativity.

And at that point, yeah, I get it. Those arophobes probably think it's easy to ignore being aromantic in day-to-day life. I've seen people assume we just put on the label, then don't have society tell us we're wrong for being who we are. That we don't need a community.

To that, I say: listen to aromantic people. Listen to their experiences. Try to understand what it's like to live in our shoes.

But also—queerness isn't about oppression. The lgbtq+ community exists so people who aren't part of the "normal" in regards to gender and sexuality can find a safe space. So that people wouldn't feel alone and broken and realize that there's more people like them than they think. So that we can break these societal norms that just harm all of us.

Basically, my god, shut up. We're queer, we're here, and we're aromantic.

#aromantic #aromanticism #aro #lgbtq+ #lgbtqia #lol this got rambly and all over the place but yeah

[molsno]

I've already written about why male socialization is a myth that needs to be discarded, but in the responses to those posts, I sometimes find tme trans people who concede that yes, the concept of male socialization should be rejected, but refuse to let go of their own supposed female socialization. this always makes me quite reasonably angry, for two reasons:

I dislike it when people hijack my posts about transmisogyny to talk about things that aren't transmisogyny.

rejecting male socialization but embracing female socialization is still innately transmisogynistic.

you might find yourself wondering how that second point could possibly be true. it's true for a lot of reasons, and I'll explain to the best of my ability.

"female socialization" is the idea that people who were assigned female at birth undergo a universal experience of girlhood that stays with them the rest of their lives.

right off the bat, this concept raises alarm bells. first, it is a bold (and horribly incorrect) assertion to claim that there is any universal experience of girlhood that is shared by all people who were afab. what exactly constitutes girlhood varies greatly based on culture, time period, race, class, sexual orientation, and many, many other factors. disregarding transness for a moment, can you really say that, for example, white women and black women in modern day america, even with all else being equal, are socialized in the same way? the differences in "socialization" only become more stark the fewer commonalities two given people have. to give another example, a white gay trans man born in 2001 to an upper middle class family in a progressive city in the north is going to have a very different life than a cis straight mexican woman born in 1952 to an impoverished family and risked her life immigrating to the us in the deep south. can you really say anything meaningful about the "female socialization" that these two supposedly have in common? I think that b. binaohan said it best in "decolonizing trans/gender 101":

Then in a singular sense we most certainly cannot talk about 'male socialization' or 'female socialization' as things that exist. We can only talk about 'male socialization**s**' and 'female socialization**s**'. For if we take the multiplicity of identity seriously, as we must, then we are socialized as a whole person based on the nexus of the parts of our identity and our axes of oppression. ... Indeed, it gets complex enough that we could assert, easily, that each individual is socialized in unique ways that cannot be assumed true of any other person, since no one else shares our **exact** context. Not even my sister was socialized in the same way that I was.

and while I could just leave it at that and tell you to read the rest of their book (which you should), it wouldn't sit right with me if I just debunked the concept without explaining exactly why it's transmisogynistic at its core.

now, I should preface this by saying that I believe trans people have a right to identify however they want, and I think that trans people deserve the space to talk about their lives before transition without facing judgment. there are tme trans people who consider themselves women and there are trans men who don't consider themselves women at all but nonetheless have a lot of negative experiences with being expected to conform to womanhood. I don't want to deprive these people of the ability to talk about their life experiences. however, I do want them to keep in mind a few things.

first of all, "female socialization" is terf rhetoric. terfs talk all the time about how womanhood is inherently traumatic, which they regularly use as a talking point to convince trans men to detransition and join their side. when your whole ideology hinges on the belief that having been afab predestines you to a life of suffering, who is a better target to indoctrinate than trans people for whom being expected to conform to womanhood was a major source of trauma and dysphoria? the myth of female socialization is precisely why there are detransitioners in the terf movement who vehemently oppose trans rights.

that's why when tme trans people talk about having undergone female socialization, it's almost always steeped in the underlying implication that womanhood is an innately negative experience. even if they don't buy into the biological determinism central to radical feminism, that implication is still present. because, you see, womanhood can still be innately negative because the result of being viewed as and expected to be a woman is that you are inundated with misogyny.

that right there is why clinging to the notion of female socialization is transmisogynistic. it allows tme trans people, many of whom don't even consider themselves women, to position themselves as experts who understand womanhood and misogyny better than any trans woman ever could. that's why I find it disingenuous when a tme trans person claims to reject male socialization but still considers themself as having undergone female socialization; how could they possibly benefit from doing so, other than by claiming to be more oppressed than trans women, by virtue of supposedly experiencing more misogyny?

by being viewed as more oppressed than trans women on the basis of female socialization, they gain access to "women's only" spaces that trans women are denied access to. their voices are given priority in discussions about gendered oppression. people more readily view them as the victims when they come into interpersonal conflict with trans women. they become incapable of perpetrating transmisogyny on the basis of being the "more oppressed" category of trans people.

how exactly could such a person not be transmisogynistic, though? if they believe that gendered socialization is a valid and universal truth that one can never escape from, then what does it even mean for them to reject the concept of male socialization? if they were to actually, vehemently reject it, then they would no longer be able to leverage their own "female socialization" to imply that trans women aren't real, genuine women on account of not having experienced it. and make no mistake - there are very few tme trans people who subscribe to the myth of gendered socialization that even claim to reject male socialization. most of the time, they're very clear about their beliefs that trans women have some "masculine energy" that we can never truly get rid of after having undergone a lifetime of being expected to conform to manhood. and as a result, they continue to treat trans women as dangerous oppressors.

that's why gendered socialization as a concept needs to be abandoned wholesale. there's nothing wrong with talking about your experiences as a trans person, but giving any validity to this vile terf rhetoric always harms trans women, just like it was intended to do from its very inception.

#txt #transmisogyny #my writing #1k

[txttletale]

The "calling police is inherently immoral" takes feel… maybe a bit US-centric? All countries have structural issues with police that come as the result of the conflict of interests between individual people and the interest of the bourgie state, but not every country's police force is a highly-militarized, highly-armed trigger-happy murder force comprised of wannabe bullies the way the US's seems to be. Some do clear that very low bar. Hell, there are tons of countries where regular police officers aren't even armed.

In my life I've called the police twice over student parties past midnight so loud you could hear them two streets away, and once over someone's dog being trapped/forgotten in the trunk of car, distressed and barking continuously.

Even in a world after police abolition, the above kind of policing will continue to need to happen. Some people are dicks, and some situations need intervention. A shitton of civil law, not criminal law, exists for a very good reason and still requires some form of police to enforce. I like to think I have a pretty hopeful view of humanity, but the reason people in my country have stopped smoking indoors, and don't leave their trash in random places, and don't piss in the middle of the street, is that all of those things are illegal and can result in police being called and getting you fined. There is absolutely no way people en masse would obey those "don't be a dick" laws without that stick hanging over them.

In a country where police are so fucked up that calling them over a minor disturbance is likely to get people killed, yeah, I would probably not call the police and just suck it up and mourn the fact that the supposed justice system has become completely unusable for its intended purpose. But not all countries are like that.

(To be clear: I don't agree with calling police over someone doing drugs.)

even in countries where the police are not just outright death squads putting young people, especially young people of colour or working class young people, into a situation where they suddenly have to interact with the police is just not a cool thing to do. you've correctly identified that the role of the police is to repress the working class, no matter whether they're the white supermacist paramilitary groups of the US or the less militarized and better at PR police forces of Europe. like. the police in the UK are also 'not as bad' as the police in the US and yet they still do all kinds of horrendous racist violent shit and kill people. even the darling of democratic socialism norway, famous for its humane prison and policing system, actually still experiences police brutality, because no matter how 'professional' and disarmed the police force is its role is to enforce bourgeois property rights through violence. the idea that there is an 'intended purpose' to the justice is just buying into the police's hype.

& hey by the way you know who leaves their trash in the street and pisses there? homeless people. people who have nowhere else to put their trash or piss. the idea that the police are the only thing keeping society from descending into 'chaos' (i.e. visible signs of poverty and homelessness existing) is genuinely deeply reactionary. it's thin blue line shit. sure, it's cool that calling the police in your country isn't playing russian roulette with someone else's life but if you think that the police aren't 'a murder force' or 'comprised of wannabe bullies' wherever you live then i think you should probably look harder and pay more attention because there are almost certainly anti-police activists there who can tell you otherwise!

#ask

[queerprayers]

any tips/advice for someone who is not catholic who wants to participate in lent? like how to choose what to give up etc?

Cheers to not letting Catholics have a monopoly on Lent, beloved! Last year I answered a similar ask that might be helpful. Here are the thoughts I have right now!

[CW: discussion of eating/fasting in italics] My most important note/disclaimer: Fasting is not for everyone. It is a beautiful tradition (for Catholics and non-Catholics) that can change people's lives, but if it's going to be a part of your practice, do it on purpose, knowing yourself. It inherently changes your relationship with food--and for people who have always had enough to eat, who have never struggled with disordered eating, who have never been seriously ill, there can be a solidarity and new perspective in fasting, in realizing how sensory experiences and comfort and mortality go together, how privileged you are to have the choice to go hungry. But for those who have struggled with food insecurity, or have lived through/live with eating disorders/disability/illness, or any other experience/relationship with food/the body that changes your perspective, fasting will often be a re-traumatizing or triggering practice that doesn't change your perspective so much as reinforce unhealthy ones. Something I think about: why fast if you cannot feast? Lenten fasting brings us to Easter feasting--if that's not accessible to you, if that wouldn't be joyful or affordable or healthy, fasting probably isn't either. Okay, all that said:

There is so much diversity in what a Lenten practice can look like, and I can't tell you what will be most meaningful for you, but I'll give you some ideas and some questions that have been helpful for me to ask myself! Lent existed way before the Catholic/Protestant divide, and exists among so many diverse communities, and there is a path here for you if you want one.

"Giving up something" is the most common language used for Lent--fasting technically refers to anything abstained from--and generally that's really useful! Jesus's forty days in the wilderness was time that he had nothing but God, and during Lent we can get closer to that experience. I give things up not as punishment or a test of self-control (those ideas trigger unhealthy behavior patterns for me), but as a letting go of something that is in my life but doesn't need to be, and may deserve reconsidering. Sometimes it's a bad habit, but sometimes it's just a conscious allowing of my life to grow simultaneously smaller and bigger. There is space for grief during Lent, but we're not just making ourselves feel bad--I've never found forced emotions to be spiritually helpful. Emotions come and go--we're doing this on purpose, and whatever we feel about it, we make space for that.

Ideas of things to give up:

eating out/getting coffee/buying drinks/little treats

impulse buying/nonessentials (you could pick a category, like clothes, or go all out)

alcohol/drugs/smoking (if this would be starting a recovery journey, I am not the person to ask for advice on that but please do seek help)

social media (you could choose one app to give up, or set time limits--it doesn't have to be all or nothing)

scrolling-on-your-phone time before bed/another time when you get sucked in

another form of casual entertainment (like TV/video games--again, you can limit this rather than cutting it out)

sexual activity (I talked about this here)

makeup/other appearance-related thing (I must confess I have considered doing this and always chickened out. I know that's because it would force me to rethink too many things, which is a probably a sign I should do it one of these years.)

a social habit, like gossiping or getting into arguments online

overscheduling/not having rest days (this is often unavoidable, but rest is necessary and holy, and perhaps this is the season for sacrifice in honor of rest)

single-use plastics/another environmental choice

Note: I don't think any of these things are inherently bad things. This is a list of things we can change/investigate our relationship with or have a season without them as a distraction, not things I think we shouldn't be doing or we should feel bad about.

One of the most important things I've realized is that so often I have given something up and not done anything about it. Like I didn't watch TV for forty days and was mad about it and then Lent was over and I watched TV again. Perhaps this strengthened my self-discipline, or made my life better in a way known only to God, but ultimately nothing happened. I didn't consciously do anything else, I didn't learn anything.

Now, when I give up something, I purposely do something with whatever space it leaves. If I'm not watching TV, what am I going to do when I would usually watch TV? Am I gonna pray? go to bed earlier? call my grandmother? Am I gonna cancel my Netflix subscription for a couple months and donate that saved money? Or maybe I'm gonna give up watching mindless TV, and find stories that resonate and make me think. Don't give things up to check a box, but to reexamine your relationship with them, make everyday things sacred, fill the space/time/money/energy you now have with God, and ultimately to set this time apart.

The other way of looking at Lent practices is things you can add. Often, as I mentioned, they go together--you can pair up something you're no longer buying with somewhere to donate to, or give up an activity and replace it with a new one. I always caution against Lent-as-self-improvement--obviously I can support improving our habits, but I've seen too many people use Lent to restart their new year's workout plans, and while exercise can be a way to care for ourselves, if new year's and Lent are treated the exact same way, what's different about this season? What makes this Lent?

One of the questions I've been asking myself recently is: What are you gonna do about it? When I'm investigating a belief, or learning something new, or reframing an old thought process, I ask myself: What am I gonna do about it? Lent is a path to Holy Week--something I and many others commemorate as the week when God was put on trial and literally killed. I genuinely believe God died and was resurrected--how does this affect my life? Believing something like that and not letting it change you is, to me, inauthentic. When I'm considering a belief, I think, if this were true, how would it change me? Would it lead me to Love? Lent (and Christianity itself) over and over asks us to do something about what we say we believe. Faith without works is dead--and faith is a work, something I do.

It's almost Lent, which is preparation for the Resurrection, which fundamentally changes our understanding of what it means to be alive--so what are you gonna do about it? Not because doing something will make God love you more or make you a "better person," or even because you'll succeed or change your life, but because how can we not? We are of course welcome at Easter having done nothing, but I can't imagine knowing what's coming and not letting it change me.

Ideas of things to add to our lives:

start a prayer/Bible routine--I can now wholeheartedly recommend (as a Protestant who connects with ancient traditions but not always Catholicism) Phyllis Tickle's Divine Hours books! For Bible study, I like The Bible Project's videos.

read a book--it can be anything that connects you with God! (I had a lovely experience with Lenten Lord of the Rings last year, and this year I'm properly going through the Quran)

pick a subject to research (theological or anything else)

start to attend worship services or commit to attending more--this could include going to several different places if you don't currently belong to a church

research places to volunteer for or donate to

do something politically active, like calling your representatives, researching the next local election, or attending a protest

donate to the next [insert number here] posts you see online requesting mutual aid

start a physical practice like taking a walk or stretching

write a letter or call someone regularly, especially with people you've been wanting to connect with more or have unresolved conflict with

start/commit to more regular therapy/other health treatment

ask for help--maybe you're the one who needs mutual aid, or reaching out to, or support cleaning your house or with your kids. there is no shame in this.

These are all obviously things we can be doing year round, and certainly we can use Lent as a season to start something we want to keep with us! I'd also encourage us to have something that's only present during Lent, or something that we do more or in a different way.

You asked how to choose, and I don't have a one sentence answer to that (...obviously), but perhaps in these days before Lent you can look at your routine/habits, the places where God is present, the things you do to distract yourself from life (not a crime--just something to be mindful of), and you can see where Lent might be able to come in and change you. The thing that's nagging at you that you know might be helpful, the thing you're not in control of and just do, the time you take up or the money you spend that might not be bad but also doesn't lead you anywhere. We can't expect every aspect of our lives to be purposeful and present, or to be continuously improving ourselves (in fact, that sounds terribly stressful and unsustainable)--but we can look around us. We can have a season that looks different because everyone I've ever known has a brain that craves ritual in some way--and either we do it on purpose, or we fall into it. Do something (or don't do something) a little more on purpose this season.

Another think to think about is what Sundays will look like for you--the "forty days" don't count them. There's no fasting on Sundays--my mom says every Sunday is a little Easter. "Sundays in Lent" is such an interesting concept because it's very much Lent, but the rhythm of our weeks breaks through. When I give up soda, I'll have one as a celebration on Sundays, but a prayer/reading practice I'll continue through. It's up to you and depends on what your rhythm/habits ask of you.

Ultimately, let God interrupt you. Let Them seep in the cracks of everything you do and let go of. To be loved is to be changed. Even the smallest thing--like wearing a cross necklace every day--can cause our lives to be filled with noticing God's presence. I keep saying to do this on purpose, but know that I find Them much more often by accident.

And an obligatory note: starting Lent late, stopping your practice halfway through, not meeting a goal, whatever comes up--Easter still comes for you. Lent is for paying attention, for making space, not for perfection.

I also want to add that while a lot of Lenten practices (including most I've mentioned here) tend to be personal, ultimately what is asked of us is interpersonal. We make space in our life and be more present in the name of Love--which we cannot do alone. If a practice is not specifically about other people (like volunteering/donating), ask yourself how it will serve the ways you love others? This isn't a trick question, just something to think about. Personally, my study of the Quran this season will connect me with my Muslim siblings through time and enable me to more fully love the Muslims around me, and my rhythm of the divine hours will connect me with the wider Christian community and center me as I go about my day, allowing me to be more present in my relationships.

Easter comes whether we're ready or not--and I don't think we can be ready. But we can look at the small parts of ourselves, set this time apart, see what we can change our relationship with, and perhaps when Easter comes, we will every year have come that much closer to understanding what it means to live out the resurrection by honoring the death that came first.

Wishing you a blessed almost-Lent, and praying for you and your practice (as well as all those reading this)!

<3 Johanna

#asks

[genderkoolaid]

Can I ask, what's the difference between a romantic relationship and a sexual relationship with emotional intimacy? That was sort of how I defined romance in my head until I read your post, and now I'm wondering what I need to recalibrate.

(Hope it's okay to ask this, if not, sorry)

I talked in this ask about romance and emotional intimacy, but to elaborate:

The only difference between romance and friendship and anything else is what you decide. You see people say stuff like "they are dating but don't realize it," which assumes that romantic relationships are this natural Real thing that exists beyond human constructs. But you could have two people who never have sex or kiss, who sleep in different rooms- or even two different houses- and consider themselves married. You can have two people who kiss, have sex, live together, are legally married, who consider themselves friends without any hint of romance. Because the nature of your relationship is based on what the people within it label it, based on whatever criteria they want to use.

People make a bit of fun of "romantic friendships" and tend to see them as a way for lesbians to have romantic relationships despite homophobia. But this is a very amatonormative way of looking at that- it assumes that "romance vs friendship" is a pan-cultural category of relationship, and that "romantic friendship" must fit into one of those categories- that it can't be its own thing, that historical queers could not have referred to their lovers as "friends" and meant it. I mean, think about marriage- while romantic marriage has often been valorized (because its good to actually like the person you're supposed to fuck and raise kids with for the rest of your life), the idea that marriage = romantic attraction is not universal. There's also how, in the US, men kissing or being physically affectionate is often seen as immediately romantic- while in other places, its part of normal platonic affection. What is considered "romantic" vs "platonic" is just as made up as "masculine" vs "feminine."

I have a feeling a lot of people (especially alloromantic allosexuals) haven't done a lot of in-depth critical thinking about romantic feelings vs platonic feelings vs sexual feelings. I've had conversations with very amatonormativity-illiterate alloros who seem to be trying to, like, "gotcha" me into realizing I actually do feel romantic attraction because I want emotional intimacy and sex. It feels to me that my lack of romantic attraction makes me more aware of romantic attraction than alloros- because to them, romance is a natural, inherent part of life, and romance is the highest form of love and attraction (to someone who isn't related to you, at least). So you see people define romance by the intensity and deepness of two unrelated people's relationship, rather than the type of feelings they have or the label they wish to put on it. This also leads to the assumption that romance is inherently deep and sexual attraction is inherently shallow- this isn't true. Someone can feel romantic attraction to a person they've known for five seconds because they did something sweet. Someone can be super horny for a life-long friend because of their personality.

#m. #ask box

[illegiblewords]

SOME ILLEGIBLE RAMBLES AND REFLECTIONS: ON GALE AND MYSTRA

I've been on the fence about whether to make this analysis specifically, but after seeing a few other discussions floating around figure it's worth offering another viewpoint in case it resonates.

These analyses in particular are very subjective and offer an interpretive option more than anything. I might allude to discussions I've seen elsewhere that I have different views from, but different views don't automatically mean personal dislike for me. Life would be boring if we all thought the same way, you know? Anyway. Hugeass post ahead, proceed at your own risk lol.

One of the arguments I've seen cropping up recently is the idea that romance between gods and mortals is inherently unequal, abusive, and problematic. I am very much of the mind that Mystra abused Gale. The developers at Larian have stated that every companion in Baldur's Gate 3 is a victim of abuse in some capacity. Some of my favorite romances over the years have been between gods and mortals. Mystra/Gale is not one of those. I think blaming the divine/mortal dynamic for any abuse misses the point. Moreover, it absolves Mystra of a huge amount of personal responsibility in the abuse she committed. I think it makes the abuse focus on what she is rather than who she is, how she looks at others, and how she treats others. I reflected on the divine/mortal pairings I've enjoyed compared to the dynamic between Gale and Mystra. In every divine/mortal romance I've loved, the god found wonder and saw a kind of power they lack in their mortal partner. This power stems directly from their mortality. There are experiences and perspectives specific to being mortal that are invaluable. The god doesn't relate to those experiences and perspectives the same way. The god always needs not only humility but equal respect for their mortal partner in some capacity. Additionally, the god acknowledges that being divine does not equate to omniscience. This is not a god according to the monotheistic definition. It's closer to an immortal being who excels in a very specific area and has certain responsibilities weighing on them. The god sees the forest but may no longer see trees, while the mortal sees trees but may not see the forest. There is value in what is ephemeral and fragile, just as there is value in what is permanent. The god and mortal need to bring balance to one another in the sense that the god helps the mortal find comfort in a bigger picture while the mortal reminds the god what it feels like to be small, vulnerable, and intimately connected to the world/other lives. A healthy divine/mortal romance requires recognition of multiple forms of strength, intelligence, and value. That very, very much is not what Gale and Mystra had. Another layer to the 'divine/mortal romance is always problematic' argument ties to questions of power imbalance. I would argue that even among human beings--power imbalance always exists. Human beings are not identical or interchangeable with one another. One partner might be brilliant at math and runs finances where the other partner would be lost. The other partner might be brilliant at people and can navigate social situations the mathematician would feel helpless in. One partner may be physically larger or stronger than another. The other partner has the full weight of social/legal support in most conflicts. And this isn't touching on issues relating to mental health, physical health, economic stability, societal issues, etc. People are multifaceted. None of us excel at all things, find power in all things, or suffer all things. We each have our own pains and triumphs. We each have the ability to hurt each other if we want to. If we wanted to avoid any power imbalance in favor of 1:1 equality, the only answer we'd have would be to literally romance ourselves . And that's 1) narcissism 2) lonely 3) sad. Just ask Raphael.

But unhealthy power imbalances must exist, right? And there is a horrible power imbalance between Gale and Mystra. I would just argue it has more to do with them personally than because of Mystra being a goddess. I'd argue that we should be looking at Gale and Mystra not as mortal and god or man and woman, but as people above all else with their own experiences/motives driving choices throughout the relationship. Examine the ways they look at and treat each other versus themselves. If Mystra was the mortal and Gale was the god, if Mystra was a man and Gale was a woman, I would not change my stance regarding where abuse was committed. Imo people get too caught up trying to make sweeping generalizations instead of focusing on the individuals and how they specifically interact. This in-mind, what are some examples of unhealthy power imbalance as I define it?

A character is physically and/or mentally incapable of participating with proper awareness of the situation, as a partner with equal respect and sway within the relationship.

A character is dependent upon the prospective partner for survival and cannot refuse them without fear of retribution or withholding necessities to survival.

A character is being systematically isolated and made dependent on their partner for all socialization and self-worth.

And so on. Hopefully you get the gist. What I do want to draw attention to though is that these examples offer room to include a variety of circumstances or dynamics within their umbrella. Ex. An underage character with an adult would easily qualify for the first criteria, but an extremely, non-functioningly drunk character would also count. So lets have a look at Gale and Mystra's situation in particular again.

Gale has, by his own admission, been involved with the Weave for as long as he can remember. He sees Mystra as synonymous with the Weave, and with magic. These are things he explicitly states within the game. Gale also has notable reactions to say, saving Arabella from being killed over the idol of Silvanus or Mirkon from harpies. With Arabella especially, the idea of being treated as unforgivable or deserving death for a youthful mistake is something he talks about as if he has some experience with it. And while this is a video game with limited character models, I'm going to estimate that the tiefling kids are probably somewhere between nine and thirteen. We know Gale has been stuck largely alone in his tower with the orb for a year or so. The orb specifically is something that happened when he was an adult, but the way he talks about Arabella with implicit personal identification of facing older authority figures as a young person who didn't know better... I don't think this is the orb alone troubling him. Minsc also has a dialogue option where he talks about how in Rashemen, boys with an affinity for the Weave were hidden away and he suspects it was to keep them from being preyed on by Mystra. Not men, boys. I've seen people try to argue that Mystra would have been indisposed/dead and unable to take advantage of Gale when he was a kid due to the broader Forgotten Realms timeline. I'm inclined to say in this instance, with all evidence in the narrative pointing to a particular arc and theme for Gale and Mystra's relationship, it's more likely that the timeline was something Larian chose to fudge in the interest of storytelling opportunities. The alternative would be that none of those dialogue exchanges meant anything. The narrative is weakened if those moments are made meaningless, and the characters become flatter and less credible without them too. If it comes between trivia and the emotional core of a story, I'd argue the core wins. Gale claims to have slept with other people before Mystra, but that a romanced character is the first person he's slept with after her. I personally suspect it wasn't a lot of prior experience, and he was pretty young when his romance with Mystra began. Additionally, while it's pure conjecture on my part--given how Gale reacts to the tiefling kids it would make sense to me if Mystra started grooming him when he was between nine and thirteen years old. Other people have shared analysis pointing to evidence that Gale unknowingly dual-classed and was a storm sorcerer originally, but was told he was purely a wizard and then had all of his sorcerous abilities eaten by the orb without ever knowing they existed. I do think it makes sense for Mystra to influence Gale as a potentially very powerful sorcerer this way to 1) get him to self-limit through wizard spells so he's easier to predict and control 2) be completely dependent on and devoted to her, starting as early as possible. (For the curious, sorcerer Gale theory is here and here. Very well-done imo!) In any case, Mystra absolutely has personal motive to do what she did, that has nothing to do with Gale personally. That it turned into grooming for a sexual relationship isn't a huge leap in light of her apparent mindset either. But lets take a moment to review that.

This is a really good recap setting up Mystra's situation. Karsus too, by the by. This second video here helps explain Mystra's own situation. My understanding is like this:

Mystryl was the original goddess of magic. Mystryl was a born-goddess rather than an ascended mortal goddess, which is important to note because both exist in the Forgotten Realms. Mystryl was neutral alignment. The Weave, magic, and those casting magic all tied into her divine portfolio. Divine portfolios reflect deities' jurisdictions and callings, which empowers them through use in the world as well as mortal worship. With all this in-mind, naturally it benefited Mystryl to encourage experimentation, devotion, and arcane ambition. The more spellcasters pushed the limits of magic, the more powerful Mystryl became too. This was when the Empire of Netheril came about, with its floating cities and its magocracies. Worth noting, eleventh level spells were being used at this point in time. Cue a bunch of aberrations showing up, called phaerimm. Cosmic horror monstrosities that sort of looked like if you combined grubs and lampreys then made them way too big. On the one hand they were ridiculously powerful natural spellcasters themselves. On the other, they could straight up detect, deflect, and eat magic at will. Incidentally they were also extremely hostile to other life forms. So them existing at the same time as Netheril caused some massive problems. The wizard empire was at war, struggling, and panicking. Karsus was a prodigy and the one most people were turning to for protection at the time. Karsus decided the best way to solve the problem was to become a god himself using the first and only twelfth level spell (of his own design) then get rid of the phaerimm that way. The spell specifically required the caster to replace a god of their choice. Karsus, being a wizard, thought Mystryl was the strongest divine force of all time and chose her. The first video explained very well, but it basically sounds like as a born-goddess--maintaining the Weave was essentially an autonomic process for Mystryl. Basically required as much thought as beating your own heart. It wasn't like that for Karsus. Karsus might have been the best wizard in the sense that someone might be the best marathon runner of all time, but if you take that marathon runner and then tell them they have to pump their heart manually from now on they're not just going to lose any future races they attempt--they might just die on the spot. Which is kind of what happened to Karsus. Karsus became a god of ambition along with magic, then lost his divinity to become a Great Old One instead. These days he's a stone stained in the gore of his dead people who speaks in fountains of blood. (One of the reasons I'm not enabling Gale in his quest to become god of magic, by-the-by.) Mystryl died because of Karsus's spell. Mystryl probably hadn't considered mortals, let alone the wizards who gave her so much power as a goddess, a threat to her personally before. An incarnation of Mystra (not Gale's Mystra) was born from the ashes of Mystryl to become the new goddess of magic. One of the first things Mystra does after basically reincarnating from Mystryl is ban mortals from using magic at level ten or higher. Mystra is now aware that mortals can challenge the gods and straight up kill her personally. She still needs casters using magic at high level to empower herself as a goddess, but it's a double-edged sword that can absolutely kill her. And to make matters worse... this Mystra also gets killed later. The Mystra we have now was a mortal woman (Midnight) who kept Mystra's name to avoid confusing worshippers, who'd been chosen by Mystra previously and ascended into that role. Midnight-Mystra, from the sound of it, also got killed for a bit and had to get saved by Elminster.

Like I said before, I do think there were some timeline blips going on for Mystra with Baldur's Gate 3. As long as she's died and reincarnated twice, her psychological state is cemented. How long it took her to come back and whether there were even more deaths than that is less important. I'd argue the key ideas we're supposed to take away about Mystra from this are that she is a goddess who 1) at this point is an ascended mortal who may have certain inherited memories or experiences from born-deities 2) is hyper aware that mortals can kill her 3) has been killed and reborn multiple times, not just by mortals but the very wizards she draws power from.

This is absolutely a shitty situation. It makes sense Mystra has complexes around it. It makes sense Midnight-Mystra would feel especially afraid when it comes to wizards seeing as she herself is a former mortal, so her position likely feels even more tenuous. The way she interacts with wizards and relates to her own position as a goddess is not as someone secure in her own power, but someone who sees anyone coming close to her level as a direct threat to her life. She needs casters to be strong to fuel her portfolio, but if they're too strong they can challenge her. So she is using whatever tools at her disposal to keep them beneath her while maintaining her own strength. It's also worth remembering that Mystra has no pretense of being good-alignment. Her motive in confronting the Netherbrain wasn't to protect Toril from mindflayers, but to protect herself personally from the Crown of Karsus and protect the Weave from the Karsic Weave. If magic as a force is in danger (as per the Karsic Weave) she might try to do something, but what befalls mortals is irrelevant to her. I'd argue she's 1000% acting out of self-interest for Baldur's Gate 3. And again--it makes sense given her position. It makes sense given the track record for gods in the Forgotten Realms.

So, if we go with the in-game implications that Mystra is supposed to have been active across Gale's life and was active when Minsc was running around a century ago (referenced in his comments about Rashemen protecting boys from Mystra)... what kind of relationship has Mystra built with wizards in particular? This is heavy speculation here but I'm going off of Gale's experience, Elminster's behavior, a point of notable cattiness from Lorroakan, and Mystra's motives.

I think Mystra encourages wizards to compete for her favor, both through their arcane power and on a personal level. She encompasses their entire world and dictates everything they are capable of by holding the Weave in her portfolio. Casters are nothing without her. She is fickle in her attentions, moving between wizard paramours and chosen so they constantly feel the need to prove themselves worthy of her love. As their goddess, they have no room to question her or ask for loyalty born of personal affection. Mystra does not care. She is inherently more than they are and ever will be, and unless they have something to woo her through her portfolio specifically there is no reason for her to stick around. They're lucky she gives them the time of day. Even if she can't literally, physically, personally prevent a wizard from interacting with the Weave--she can seriously screw with them while they do. Mystra's first post-Mystryl act was to blanket-limit the spells wizards could perform, remember? And BG3 Mystra was able to pluck the orb from Gale's chest at any time, whenever she felt like it. She just didn't. Lifetimes of work, dedication, study, and innovation are not ultimately credited to the casters who built themselves through their art but to Mystra. Memorized spells, arcane gestures, the interaction of components. She can make all of that so much harder. And she takes credit for any advancement a wizard makes. Origin Gale has lines with Minthara where he struggles to see himself as capable of anything without Mystra's say-so and needs to be reminded that she can't claim everything he has ever done through magic, and she hasn't managed to stop him yet. The fact that Gale himself, as Mystra's former lover, doesn't believe this initially and needs someone who very much is not a wizard to remind him says a lot about the dynamic Mystra set up with him and (in all likelihood) other wizards. So how does all of this fit in with the grooming point? Well, magic users are going to be much easier to psychologically control if Mystra starts taking advantage of them when they're still children and don't know any better. She needs to feed off of their strength with no risk to herself, so she needs to make sure they are can't even fathom turning on her. Maximize the power difference, ingrain that shit early. And if it becomes a sexual relationship... Mystra can tell herself they're even less likely to consider turning on her because it's just one more way they depend on her for validation.

Mystra's own fear and trauma (like Cazador's) does not prevent her from becoming an abuser. And like Cazador, she's using it to fuel the abuse she commits herself.

Something else I want to highlight before I segue to focus on Gale further, is how wizards deal with each other and why policy differs toward wizards versus other casters.

Wizards are nerds with shared interests. They're fucking around to see what's possible with magic and seem genuinely excited when anyone innovates. Innovation is something they can learn from and incorporate it into their own art. But actual wizard friendships, at least in Baldur's Gate 3, seem to be rare. They undercut each other emotionally and often look for ways to elevate themselves above their peers. Gale's colleagues left him to twist alone in his tower for a year. Elminster prioritizes pleasing Mystra by passing on her message for Gale to kill himself, and defends her if the player condemns Mystra's behavior. He even gets angry for certain dialogue options.

(It bears saying, I think Elminster has been psychologically wrecked by Mystra too. He does seem to be trying in spite of that but guy's not well himself.)

Even if not all wizards look to become romantically entangled with Mystra, Mystra has definitely encouraged competition and mistrust between them. After all, if the wizards supported each other they might realize they're stronger than her and that she's been causing harm. Another potential death.

I suspect the reason Mystra focuses on wizards is because wizards are ordinary people who know they were born ordinary, and know how hard it was to build arcane power. They aren't as secure in themselves as sorcerers who use magic like a reflex. And warlocks manage to work around Mystra with patrons who aren't beholden to her. So best for Mystra to undermine, manipulate, or otherwise occupy sorcerers who are strong enough to pose threats and teach the wizards they'd be nothing without her.

... One of the other arguments I saw recently was that Gale was being disingenuous/lying to himself and the player when he claims he wanted to gift Mystra a part of herself back. That he only wants power for power's sake, is kind of a terrible person, and it would be boring if he was being genuine. I deeply disagree with this stance.

When it comes to motivation, I'd argue power is by nature a means to an end rather than the end itself. "If I'm powerful enough no one will be able to hurt me again," "If I'm powerful enough I can fix every terrible thing I feel the need to," "If I'm powerful enough I can push the boundaries of what is possible and find a sense of wonder at the results."

Power because power does not cut it as a motive. It's likewise with ambition. We're not 2-D mustache twirlers here.

Ambition includes experimenting with a project to see if you can pull off something new or particularly difficult. Finding joy in the process and challenge itself isn't evil. It isn't even unhealthy.

Competing with others isn't necessarily negative either, in the right context. Being an elite athlete at the Olympics for example, you're putting your own skills against those around you in the hopes of surpassing them. It doesn't mean you think poorly of your fellow competitors. If anything, one would hope you respect them deeply for the shared discipline and passion. (But you still want to win, course. ;P)

If you read my post about DnD's pantheon, it's pretty clear I'm not opposed to the idea of A. firing gods from positions they're neglecting or B. nominating others to oversee necessary-but-unused portfolios. There are established gods of the Forgotten Realms who need, urgently, to be sacked. Being born into divinity, set up through nepotism, or 'elected by seniority' is not enough to shield a deity from my judgment. Mystra is abusing her worshippers, and while her portfolio might be able to squeak by I'd argue she's been compromised and is committing unprofessional and detrimental behavior in her capacity as goddess of magic. ESPECIALLY knowing she's like this as an ascended mortal. Any other mortal would be well within moral bounds to replace her. She has no ethical high ground in that regard. Managing autonomic maintenance of the Weave is an issue, but if someone showed up to replace her with the argument that Mystra is unfit due to committing abuse... I don't think that person would be morally wrong. Ballsy as hell, but not wrong.

So what's going on with Gale?

Gale canonically, in dialogue, thinks he and the world might both be better off if he was dead. I'll go a step further and argue that before the game even starts Gale considers his personal self a net-negative. If he isn't offsetting that with magical skill, knowledge, achievements, material possessions, and overall usefulness--he doesn't think he has a reason to be alive. The universe is worse for his existing in it.

Gale brags because he's trying to show he has something of value to give other people when he sees nothing of value in himself. He's trying to prove he can be an asset so others will keep him around. He brags notably less as he gains a sense of self-worth, self-confidence, and general support as acts progress. The times he gets snippy with other casters are because if he isn't the only and most useful magic guy to get something done, Gale thinks he might as well be thrown away. He is replaceable. He's also terrified to admit anything about the orb in Act I because there is no way to see it as anything but a danger and a burden. When that's added to his depression, he's sure he'll get abandoned in the wilderness to explode by himself and it might even serve him right. No one will mourn him. They might even be glad to be rid of the burden he brought.

Gale wants others to like him, to see him as a good person, to see him as someone brave and smart and worthy of trust. He absolutely does not see himself that way. If he's trying to prove it to the party--he's trying to prove it to himself just as much. There's a line he can give with The Dark Urge where he comments that if people are being killed just for being annoying, he should be dead a thousand times over. If you get solid approval with him at the tiefling party, he'll admit he didn't have any friends before the game. And while I can only speak to a particular romantic route, in Act III he talks about having been told to his face at various points/in various ways that he's insufferable. He knows other people don't like him and don't believe in him. If bad things happen to him they probably think he deserves it. He might even think so too.

Gale doesn't see anything worthwhile in himself that isn't built through wizardry. It has to be because he was smart enough, worked hard enough, and showed enough character to earn his power. If it's sorcery (and this is only a standard he applies to himself) then all that effort he put in would become meaningless. He can't look at his personal self as having done anything deserving of value or respect if he's a sorcerer because magic was easier for him than other people. And if he can't provide any magic, knowledge, or resources at all then no one has reason to give him the time of day. People hate him. Mystra only paid attention for his abilities as a spellcaster. The mortal, personal aspects of him were things she put up with.

So forget power and ambition for just a moment. What does Gale as a person in that position, who feels that way about himself, actually want? I'd argue that he probably just wanted to know the person he loved most actually gave a shit about him as a person. That he wasn't disposable or only worth as much as his skills and material possessions. I'm pretty sure he'd have wanted that regardless of whether Mystra was a goddess. Mystra both being the kind of goddess she was and the kind of person she was kept telling him he should be satisfied, that he shouldn't want any more than she was giving him. He can't climb any higher than her. No one can give him more than her. She is divine, she is the world itself. Gale never felt loved in that relationship. Due to Mystra's abuse he got to a place where the idea of wanting to be loved back became sacrilegious. It meant there was something wrong with him, that he was arrogant and insatiable. How else could he feel utterly alone and unlovable with a goddess?

Gale desperately wanted to mean something to Mystra personally, so he tried to offer a gesture of love in her language. Something he thought would be valuable to her as an individual and something requiring a ton of arcane skill/strength to deliver. He wanted her to look at him like he was irreplaceable as a person. I genuinely don't think that's a power-hungry or ambitious thing to want.

Gale didn't understand the orb, and unfortunately for him he didn't understand Mystra either. She wasn't the wise and understanding goddess he thought she was. She never wanted an equal. She does not have it in her to love someone as such. The idea of equality, for Mystra, is something that must be crushed to preserve herself.

I figure that the Gale who ascends to godhood has accumulated a divine amount of stuff and power to compensate for his belief that lacking those things, he would be worthless. If Gale wasn't a wizard it might have been music, or writing, or fighting, or politics--any skill, influence, or resource could be used the same way. It’s not that ambition is inherently bad. It’s that for Gale, it’s unhealthy. The ambition isn’t for its own sake. He’s using it as a counterweight against his own sense of worthlessness. God Gale buries his problems instead of dealing with them. He will never know if a character who romances him only did so because they saw his potential and wanted to come along for the ride. He will never know if they'd have bothered to stick around if he was only Gale Dekarios, if he didn't have so much to offer them. He tells himself it's enough that they believed he could do it.

With the mortal Gale ending, we should note that Gale doesn’t need power to enjoy the study of magic if he’s healthy. His priority isn’t about pushing the limits of spells, making new ones, or making a name for himself. Given room to decide for himself, he just wants to uplift and share with others through teaching. His trends in approval and disapproval support this preference too.

For Gale, I really think ambition and power are crutches he uses to justify being alive because he doesn't see any other reason. Give him a reason and he genuinely doesn't need them. They're the means, not the end. He does not want power for the sake of power. Guy is sad and doesn't know how to live with himself. He's not a worse or less believable character with that being his motive. Stories are about people, and people don't move through the world with static 'flaws' and 'virtues' checklists that need to be balanced. There's nothing inherently deeper or more meaningful about villainous characters compared to heroic ones. People make choices and deal with situations according to their experiences moment to moment, trying to make sense of things as best they can throughout their lives. Gale fits perfectly within this. The other cast members do too.

And for the record, while I'd argue Karsus was far more ambitious in character than Gale--even for him, it wasn't just about power. The guy was trying to save his people. He fucked up in a horrible and traumatic way so he's a Netherese blood fountain now. (RIP Karsus but also someone please pact with him.)

And as one last, controversial section... what did Gale's experience with Mystra do to him when it comes to his relationship with sex?

From how Gale talks about and shows Weave-sex, I'd argue it's an extension of him feeling inadequate as a mortal. And knowing this is a controversial point + a lot of people have done and loved the Weave scene because it reflects Gale's love of magic, I offer this: Gale would not be less worthy of love if he didn't have magic. Gale does not know this about himself. He went from an archwizard with a tower and Mystra's chosen to a level one adventurer sleeping on the ground. His entire relationship with magic for much of the game is incredibly unhealthy because he sees the person left in its absence as worthless. For Gale to have a healthy arc, I'd argue he needs to learn how to look at himself as nothing but a man and know he's still precious and irreplaceable. He needs to learn that he doesn't need to prove he deserves to be alive. He isn't disappointing. He doesn't have to try to impress others all the time to have a place in their worlds. He doesn't need to bribe people with shiny things or unique abilities so they'll tolerate the rest. He can exist as no one and nothing but himself and be treasured just for that.

I think at some point Gale could potentially have sex in the Weave again as a repairing experience where he's confident that his physical body, his reactions, and his wants weren't anything to feel ashamed of. Reclaiming that from his experience with Mystra could be very powerful and sexy. But for the first time he has sex since Mystra, when he thinks he's going to need to kill himself any day now and has been struggling between terror and self-hatred, I personally think it's healthier for him to get the validation of being enough as just Gale. Not the Wizard of Waterdeep. His life isn't being advocated for because he's strong or unique in bed. Someone wants him alive as just a person.

And not for nothing... I'm saying this as a writer who can't not write. I've had to do my own share of reflection about how I look at myself if writing isn't the metric of my worth. I wouldn't think Gale needs to abandon all magic any more than I would need to abandon all writing. But it's really important to know we aren't empty trash without our callings, you know?

Before I end this post, I do want to invite readers to think back to those bullets I made before on unhealthy power imbalance.

A character is physically and/or mentally incapable of participating with proper awareness of the situation, as a partner with equal respect and sway within the relationship.

A character is dependent upon the prospective partner for survival and cannot refuse them without fear of retribution or withholding necessities to survival.

A character is being systematically isolated and made dependent on their partner for all socialization and self-worth.

If Mystra deliberately started grooming Gale from a young age, emphasized and exaggerated the power discrepancy rather than making any effort to close the gap, that's a pretty big deal. Gale definitely never had equal respect or sway in the relationship compared to her. She'd probably find the idea insulting in the face of her godhood. She didn't want a partner but a supplicant who obeyed her with no needs for himself. Mystra actively distorted Gale's sense of boundaries and magnified what she could take from him if he displeased her. His life's work, his ability to access parts of his own mind for spells, his means of functioning in the world, his ability to defend himself... but also? His health and survival, once the orb was brought into play. And socially, Gale was incredibly isolated. It sounds like he hasn't even seen his own mother in at least a year, which I have some thoughts on. He was friendless for a long time even as Mystra's chosen. And Mystra made sure other wizards knew when she abandoned him to the point that even Lorroakan was aware. Mystra's offense was something for others to look down on him for. And Gale struggles in-game with the idea that Mystra mistreated or neglected him--because how could a goddess, his goddess, do that? He's been gaslit so hard that he doesn't quite get a moment of fully realizing it wasn't his fault. In some dialogue options Mystra even tries to frame his trauma over her abuse, unaware even that he had the Karsic Weave inside him, as wallowing in self-pity.

Gale did make a mistake, but I'd argue it matters a lot that the mistake was innocent and that he's woefully misjudged Mystra's character. He's being told it couldn't have been innocent and he deserves to be punished for it. He largely believes that. Doesn't make it true.

#Gale Dekarios #Mystra #baldur's gate 3 #baldur's gate iii #bg3 #bgiii #warning to readers there are strong opinions in here that I am very aware not everyone will share #it's okay if you have a different take and I tried to be careful about how I phrased things #I also didn't scour for all of the direct quotes from the game this time and for that I plead laziness lol sorry #I can try if there are specific moments people want to pick over #but yeah this is in the spirit of reflecting and discussing a character I adore + find really interesting for Gale #along with a character I find really psychologically fascinating and subtle as a villainess for Mystra #people are going to read both differently in places and I genuinely am not looking to fight about that #Just explore how I'm reading things + why in a way where other people are welcome to join if they wanna #If I mixed any lore details from outside the game apologies!

[system-of-a-feather]

For realsie though, I really wish I could look at the people who are diagnosed with DID and get upset at people "making it look like a fun disorder to have" with some level of sympathy or empathy, but I really honestly think that rhetoric is really honestly destructive as a means for self soothing and one I really just can't stand personally.

Like this disorder sucks ass and the reason it happened sucks ass and recovering with it sucks ass, but I don't see that rhetoric as any better than stating that "anyone who went through that could NEVER recover or live happy".

And I get where that comes from, I do, but at a certain point in trauma processing, stabilization and recovery, things start to click that trauma is over and PTSD inherently is referencing an event that has already passed. Trauma sucks. Severe chronic trauma SUCKS, but that's the past and - while its a LOT more difficult than it is to just say - that past REALLY doesn't have to define the present even a quarter as much as trauma makes it feel.

Of course, I understand and get those who feel like DID is horrible and a hell disorder - I 10000% understand that and its a valid feeling / opinion / statement to make, but to claim that it is impossible to have fun, be happy, and make casual content and just genuinely make the best out of a shit situation; or to claim that anyone with DID would be totally dysfunctional and miserable and unable to do XYZ - it's just... really self depricating and a huge negative self fulfilling prophecy don't you think? Also not to mention a LOT of projecting?

Other people don't deserve you forcing your self loathing and pain onto them. You are allowed to hate your situation, you are allowed to hate your disorder, you are allowed to feel and think and experience your experiences however you want, but a line is drawn when it comes to displacing that hatred, those feelings, those thoughts, and those experiences onto others and demand that they should meet your standards of misery.

I apologize, but I'm not going to pretend like DID stresses me out when I'm really not stressed by it anymore because most of our regular parts are actually decently connected and coordinated with one another. I'm not scared of them and they aren't scared of me. I'm not fighting them and they aren't fighting me. We got trauma but we also got, ya know, a life going and the trauma gets less and less prevalent and intrusive as time goes on so, life's honestly pretty lit and I really love to see other systems heading in that direction.

I think everyone should aim to be happy and at peace with their disorder. I don't understand, empathize, or support the idea that someone had to meet a standard of misery to be "real".

(TW: suicidal ideation and physical abuse mention)

If I take medication that makes it so I don't scrub my hands raw and have panic attacks over having not eaten a salad "recently" thus meaning I am going to rot from the inside out and die, does that mean I am faking having OCD? If I take medication and improve my life so that I only pluck my hair once a month, is my Trichitillomania faked? If I stop having suicidal ideation, does that mean I was faking being suicidal the whole time? If I stop having bruises, does that mean I faked being beaten as a kid?

(TW cleared)

Recovery and peace should and does not ever invalidate the truth of the pain suffered and the struggle overcome. Happiness and joy can co-exist with the truth of hurt, pain and suffering.

Trying to hold the two as mutually exclusive is a huge part of why a lot of people get stuck being miserable. If misery is vital for honoring your pain as real, it is very hard to let that go and let yourself be happy again, because if you are happy, what will attest to give your pain justice? But pain, justice, misery, and happiness - they can all co-exist and honestly, that's a really important thing to learn and understand in my healing journey as it really opens up doors to letting trauma go.

Your pain doesn't define your truth.

Your truth is your truth.

It will stay true regardless of if the pain persists or leaves.

#alter: riku #ptsd #c-ptsd #cptsd #actuallydid #dissociative identity disorder #ocd #physical abuse mention #recovery #healing #syscourse #discourse

[cosmicjoke]

I want to talk about these panels, and particularly, how we see undermined here the notion that Kenny somehow instilled in Levi his belief in life's value.

These panels actually show us the opposite. Kenny says to Levi "Because we found out how meaningless our sad little lives really were."

Kenny flat out says here that he considers life meaningless, and his wording infers that he tried to impart this belief to Levi as well, by including him in the sentence. He says "we found out..."

He then says "But, something saved us. We found somethin' we wanted to do. It's simple. Simple, but true. Hobbies make life worth living."

And here Kenny is talking about dreams again, and how it's the motive of our personal dreams that keeps us going, that gives us a reason to want to keep living, even if life itself is meaningless. He underscores his low opinion of life's worth in general by casually comparing it to the idea of "hobbies", as if life's value is only equal to what activities we engage in to occupy our time when bored. This doesn't denote someone who finds life itself to be inherently worthwhile or innately worth living.

This is the exact opposite of Levi, and that's highlighted here by Levi's disbelieving reaction to Kenny's words. He says "Hobbies? So is blowing my soldiers' heads off one of your hobbies?"

Levi is disgusted by Kenny equating life's worth to something as inconsequential and frivolous as "hobbies". To Levi, life is, in and of itself, inherently valuable, and more than that, it's the one thing he values above all else. People's lives are what motivates him to fight. The desire to safeguard and preserve those lives. To protect them and prove their worth.

Kenny compares them again, saying Levi also kills if it "benefits" him, and Levi agrees, saying "Yeah.". But Kenny killed Levi's soldiers to get him closer to his own, personal dream of supreme power, while Levi killed members of Kenny's squad to protect the lives of his own comrades and himself. Kenny treated the members of Levi's squad like they were minor inconveniences in the way of him realizing his dream, which is where Levi's disgust also comes from, the casual and easy way in which Kenny took their lives, and how he then compared those lives worth to something as pointless as a hobby, easily disposed of because they weren't worth more than his dream to begin with. Because the thing is, Levi doesn't have a dream. There's no intangible and distant goal or desire he looks toward to keep him going, nothing he wants personally for himself. His only goal is to keep people alive, and barring that, to fight for their dreams, to make sure they at least don't die without reason, as a way to prove the worth of those lives. Levi is operating from the opposite stance that Kenny is, that being a belief that life is more valuable than anything, and that it doesn't need a reason or an explanation or an excuse to justify its existence. Just life in itself is what matters, is what's worthwhile and important.

The contrast between the way Levi regards life and the way Kenny regards life is fully expressed and demonstrated through this exchange, and the entire battle between Levi and Kenny's squad.

Kenny clearly didn't teach Levi to value life. He taught Levi to be selfish and greedy and to dispose of anyone who might get in the way of his personal desires. He taught Levi that life is hardly worth the distraction we derive from personal hobbies, that indeed, those hobbies are the only reason we have to go on living, implying the rest of it is pointless and without value or merit of any kind. Kenny would have demonstrated this to Levi too in the way he always so casually took others lives and in the way he taught Levi to do the same.

And yet, we see Levi defy this belief again and again, we see him defy this lesson imparted to him by Kenny again and again, by fighting so ardently for life and its preservation, to no, real benefit of his own, for no fulfillment of a personal dream, but simply for the sake of the people he's fighting for. For the lives of the people.

As I've said multiple times, it's really despite the way in which Kenny raised him that Levi ended up valuing life so much, not because of it.

#Levi Ackerman #attack on titan #shingkei no kyojin #meta #commentary #analysis

[olreid]

additional lines that feel like tlt thesis statements to me <3 i love how muir makes full use of this premise's capacity to be both hopeful and horrifying.. like on the one hand one of the things i most enjoy about spending time in the world of the locked tomb is how life persists despite trauma, so that for example you can experience the literal apocalypse yet live to find yourself still standing ten thousand years later on a planet that didn't used to exist in a body you weren't born into, developing loving relationships with people who were born so recently in the grand scheme of things as to be blips on the timeline of your life... and there is something so fun and hopeful and TRUE about that! disco elysium voice the world should end but it does not, it goes on; after the pale the world again; no matter how much death we accumulate there will also always be life coming up through the cracks.

and then of course on the other hand the inherent horror of zombieism, which has to do with the existence of a power that is capable of disallowing your death, the idea that power structures can shape you into forms you wouldn't choose and make you do things you don't want to do, including and especially outlive the things that originally gave your life meaning... the hopeful reading is that new meaning can always be generated but the horror lies in the fact that trauma dissolves meaning and that enough compounded trauma might ultimately injure your capacity to forge new relationships to the extent that you're left in a life that has voided itself of meaning without the emotional resources to forge new relationships.. at which point what you are experiencing is a kind of living death from which you have no means of escape. what kinds of unspeakable lives can people be forced to lead, and what will it do to them? a matter of life, indeed.

#ALMOST done posting. probably. #locked tomb trilogy #ntn spoilers #wasteland radio #zombie theory

[headspace-hotel]

Personally as someone who experiences much more daily suffering than the average person I am deeply uncomfortable with the mere idea of "eliminating suffering" because it treats "positive" experiences like love and joy and happiness as more meaningful. In my experience this is done pretty much exclusively to the detriment of people like me.

Because by acting like suffering inherently decreases the value of someone's life you are implying that lives like mine aren't worth living. And maybe it's just me but I take offense to that! Sure my life isn't perfect and there are a lot of things I wish I didnt have to deal with but this life is mine and I'll be damned if I let other people tell me it's not good enough!

Humans weren't designed to exclusively experience pleasant things. Suffering is part of being alive! And I would not trade that for anything!

Ultimately its a facet of toxic positivity, and it makes me very very nervous. Because the people who are suffering the most always seem to be the ones thrown to the wayside for fancy little hypothetical "innovations" like this. Getting rid of suffering is quite likely impossible but that doesn't mean the people backing the idea won't just put on some horse blinders and pretend they don't see the people who would prove it didn't work.

I was about 12 years old the first time somebody told me I was too depressed to be around and it was catastrophic for my mental health. I just don't think that applying that on a worldwide scale is exactly revolutionary ya know?

The ultimate manifestation of this idea is in anti-natalism (people who think it's actively bad and wrong to have children) and people who believe in this idea are often actively pro-eugenics and just...anti-human.

"eliminate suffering" inevitably ends up at calling for extinction of all life, or at least extinction of human life, and there are people out there who think we should go extinct!...and I think we need to be firmer about calling this extremist and harmful, instead of treating it as a philosophical position to be considered seriously

like, even if voluntary human extinction just involved humans choosing not to reproduce, it's still going to fuck you up to go around looking at other humans and believing that it's bad that they're alive. yes, "existence is bad" I guess is one of the basic possible options to come to when asking questions about life and meaning, and I see how people start feeling like there is a "pro-natalist agenda" or some shit because it's something we don't really talk about.

but...believing that a universal genocide would be a good thing isn't that different from believing a genocide of one specific group would be a good thing.

And "no one should reproduce" is not really any better than "everyone should reproduce," because both violate the basic principle that other people reproducing is none of your damn business.

I am generally really uncomfortable with how so many environmentalism and climate change mitigation proposals focus on human population growth as a main cause of climate change.

There's no real evidential basis for the numbers that get cited as the ideal population for Earth, like supposedly 2-4 billion is the max the Earth can support if everyone lives a "comfortable middle class lifestyle"—What The Fuck Does That Mean? Where does it come from? Is it something we actually need or want? The vast majority of humans on Earth aren't living a "middle class lifestyle."

I want to see breakdowns of complex simulations explaining how much biomass the Earth can actually support, instead of arbitrary bullshit like that.

But from everything I've read, producing enough food for the world population is not even remotely a problem. Capitalism is the problem. Huge companies controlling the food supply and keeping the countries that produce food in poverty is the problem. Technological solutions are important but they will not fix the current problems, just like Eli Whitney's cotton gin didn't eliminate slavery.

Everyone assumes that the system is working as efficiently as it possibly can to meet the material needs of people, and that is so terribly wrong.

Anyway much of that was off topic but yeah, I'm not a fan of this line of thought and where it leads

[flayote]

I have nothing against you or your supplier I just want more open discussion on this. In the images even if the cage wasn't existent, like in wild foxes, wouldn't it still be wrong just to kill them for their pelts if you don't have to? Art is important but I don't think it takes priority over their lives but that's my opinion. Those farmed foxes I still think shouldn't be captive, they're wild animals, bred for fur and then killed, this isn't worth a pelt or a mount to me. What do you think?

that’s a fair question, and i’m glad to have more open discussion on it since these conversations around the myths about fur farming are often taking it for granted that fur farms should exist in the first place, which is the crux of the issue for most people. 

for me personally, it comes down to the fact that as a whole i believe it is ok to farm animals for the resources they can provide, regardless of what it is, as long as it’s done in a humane and responsible way (ie a high standard of welfare, and reducing waste as much as possible/using as much of the animal as you can). i feel it would be hypocritical for me to be ok with farming animals for food, but not for fur. you could say we need food for survival while in modern times most people don’t necessarily need fur, so it’s different. but i don’t find there to be a hard distinction that makes one ok and not the other. is there a significant distinction between a farmer raising cattle to kill and sell the meat to earn the money needed for their own survival, and another farmer raising fox to kill and sell the fur to earn the money needed for their own survival? 

so for me, what makes it ok or not is whether the farming is being done in an ethical way, not what the product you’re farming for is. breeding animals just to kill them if you don’t absolutely have to does not sound very nice, and i see why people are uncomfortable with that. but i think that feeling mostly comes from anthropomorphizing these animals, and i don’t believe that whether fur farming is ethical or not hinges on whether or not it is a kind or strictly necessary thing to do. i think it hinges on the effect it has on the animals themselves. 

does a fox/mink/etc have a concept of freedom vs captivity? do they desire freedom beyond the ability to express their natural behaviors? would a fox choose a life in the wild, fighting for survival, over a fairly comfortable but limited life in captivity, with all its needs met, simply for the idea of being free? is freedom an inherently positive experience for them? is captivity an inherently negative experience for them? do they have the capacity to care which life they have, so long as they have access to food, water, the ability to express their natural behaviors, and don’t experience undue pain or stress? can they comprehend and experience distress over the fact that they will most likely be killed within a year, whether by human hands or injury/disease in the wild? 

from my understanding of these animals, i would say the answer to all of those questions is no, and that is why i personally don’t have a problem with farming animals, whether it’s for meat or for fur.

#fur farming

[escapedaudios]

Long post! (Discussing Gothic Horror, Der Wolfsjäger, Werewolves, and why I love all of these things) I love Gothic horror, the aesthetic, of ruin, the haunting atmosphere, and the feeling that something old and dangerous and powerful lingers just outside of sight. The biggest aesthetic hallmark of Gothic horror is probably the lone decaying castle, this haunting vestige of the past intruding on our present day idea of normalcy and safety. But there's another aspect of Gothic horror that isn't as prominent that I have an affinity for.

I like the primal side of it. Statues inscribed with symbols no one can read anymore devoured by vines and fallen leaves. I like the beastly and barbaric side of that haunting feeling. That strange hereditary reminder of a time when forests were endless and dark with little refuge for man. Enter the werewolf. I am fascinated by the idea of people, even against their will, being returned to this savage state. I think most humans have an inherent discomfort with the idea that we are animals. We are fragile, we hunger, we are made of soft flesh that can be devoured.

Remembering that we are no more than animals somehow reminds us of a time we didn't exist in. That time when the forests were endless and we were few. It's frightening, it makes us feel small, it takes away our sense of control and safety. It shatters our delusions of power. But there's also something cathartic about completely immersing yourself in the things that make your afraid and uncomfortable. The Gothic werewolf is symbolic of this. The man living among us who has completely submitted to the brutal nature that still exists in all of us.

I say Gothic werewolf as a distinction from other kinds of more sympathetic, palatable, and less horror-centric werewolves. The Gothic werewolf is haunting. He's cunning and cruel. He does not see human life as special or valuable. He never stops being a wolf, even when in the form of a human.

I adore this. It's also one of the things that makes the Werewolves in my writing special. They don't see themselves as humans who become wolves, they see themselves as something completely different. They're characterized by their sickening disdain for civilization. In Matador Gothic when Alfonso asks Rampage to reveal his true fork he rebukes him, telling him that his wolf form *is* his true form. Mondheulers in Der Wolfsjäger wait patiently for the full moon, waiting to kill again, sometimes killing and maiming impulsively even as humans.

Blutschreibers in Der Wolfsjäger have to spend over a decade in the wild as wolves before they gain the ability to transform back into humans. This return to feral barbarism, and the allure of giving into it, is what gives them their flavor. The Blutschreibers are particularly unique, not only in the sense that they are haunted by spirits, but because underneath all of their barbarism and savagery there is a frightening level of intelligence and cunning that we as humans find frightening in something so animalistic.

We see barbarism as beneath our intellect. Something we left behind in the past for more intellectual and sophisticated virtues. Seeing something as intelligent as us, if not more, rip flesh and wield brutal strength is disturbing not only for its physical danger, but in the way it assaults our comforting worldview.

I'm excited for all the neglected and untapped potential for werewolf horror in audio roleplay. I'm writing Der Wolfsjäger with renewed enthusiasm now. Have fun! And remember, if you see a wolf in the wild, he always saw you first.

#werewolves #writing #werewolf fiction #werewolf horror #escaped audios #der wolfsjager #gothic horror #horror writing

[karniss-bg3]

Hello! I've read all your stories about Kar'niss and liked them much. I've also dug recently into drider's lore and learned that driders can cast spells, but didn't understand whether all driders are able to do this, or not. How do you think, can Kar'niss cast any spell or not? And what would happen if he met other drider? Thank you in advance :)

Hiya! I'm glad you've enjoyed the writing.

According to the lore I've found, all driders can innately cast certain spells.

All driders could inherently cast clairaudience /clairvoyance, dancing lights, darkness, detect good, detect law, detect magic, dispel magic, faerie fire, levitate, and suggestion once per day. Dhairn once noted that these abilities were essentially the same as those owned by powerful blessed drow and used this fact to dupe driders into supporting his cause by calling them blessed creatures of Lolth by pointing this out.

Out of that list, the idea of any drider using levitate is a new fear I didn't know I had. Enjoy that bit of nightmare fuel, you're welcome.

Drider also carry over any spells and abilities they had pre-transformation. So if a drow was a wizard, they'd maintain their wizard spells once changed. While I don't know Kar'niss' full ability list, everyone who has fought him knows his default go-to spell; Sanctuary.

This spell has intrigued me a bit. Even though the information claims that drider can cast like clerics, wizards and sorcerers, it specifically goes into the cleric domains driders can cast from. I've checked all four; Chaos, Destruction, Evil and Trickery and none of them list Sanctuary as a spell drider can choose from.

This leaves one option, Paladin. I had an ask sometime ago where someone spoke of their ideal class for Kar'niss being Paladin. The more I thought about it the more I was like "Yeah, actually." There are other classes that can use the Sanctuary spell but they aren't included in BG3 as options, so I'll assume they don't exist in this realm. But it gets even weirder! The two oaths that can cast this spell specifically are oath of devotion and oath of redemption. In BG3 oath of redemption isn't available as a subclass but there is a fair amount of comparisons to be made. Truth is, either of them have cross-over characteristics that fall in line with Kar'niss' devout way of life. It's far too much information to pack into one post but I'll leave the links here to read over and compare at your leisure.

Paladin - Oath of Devotion

Paladin - Oath of Redemption

As for your second question, driders are known to be solitary creatures. However, they have also been reported to pair and live with a few driders and a collection of giant spiders. So Kar'niss could reasonably get along with other drider if the circumstances are right. If they are still Lolth-sworn he's more likely to be aggressive toward them and may even seek to destroy them. I think he might like having other drider around if only so he doesn't feel like the odd spider out, or just to have someone else to relate to. Thing is, I think his focus on the Absolute is so strong he likely cares for little else. Only Her approval matters, only Her attention matters, everyone else is a side character in his heroes journey.

Thanks for the ask!

#baldur's gate 3 #kar'niss #drider #bg3 #karniss #baldurs gate 3 #answered #drow #Paladin #oath of devotion #oath of redemption #theorycrafting #long post #my ADHD mind strikes again going on random tangents #I may meme him to be a bard but paladin really suits him as a whole

[wixelt]

Btw, I've been working to flesh out characterization and worldbuilding for the Player Culture AU but, due to that technically being a mostly completely seperate AU from Hermitphibia, I'm probably only going to update you where it's relevant as to not flood your inbox with unrelated lore. I've been mostly going through SMP's to see if they have anything lore relevant and seeing where it would apply.

...

So anyway, Pirates SMP Scar is almost explicitly HC8 Scar and also shares the name of his previous sailing ship with New life!Scar's plane and I think The Hermatrix may have done essentially the same thing to the Hermits' memories The Core did to Marcy's memories to ensure they were for the most part versions of themselves that wouldn't catch on to being in a simulations, with the exceptions of Doc and Ren, who were made into versions of themselves that would catch on quick. Yes, this is rather the big assumption to make based just on Scar having continuity, but it's either this or decanonising The Hermatrix.

It also goes to explain some of Season 8's weirdness as a whole and opens the season's lore up to be used again... just not in it's surrounding context. Mumbo is probably a formless shapeshifter with half a soul, but it probably isn't Grian's and he's probably been that way since before joining Hermitcraft. The reason The Hermatrix accounted for Pearl's connection to the moon is because of the subconscious memories she still had but hadn't recalled. Impulse eats rocks because he both is and isn't a dwarf due to existing in like two or three points of his life simultaneously. Pearl's megabyte resembles the human settlement in S9 because, well,

Tl;Dr: either The Hermatrix is explicitly noncannon or it was fucking with the hermits' memories to make them relive moments of their pasts because otherwise I can't see how the entrepreneur who traveled by wagon went on to become a pirate and possibly later an air pilot.

Also Pirate!Scar's pirate hat is in Scar's room in Scarland and Pilot!Scar's head is in Cub's meuseum if I'm remebering correctly, both shown in Sausage's world tour.

(Glad to hear your culture interpretation's going well. Always interested to hear about it in relation to the Hermitphibia AU.)

I like the idea that the Hermatrix fundamentally shifted the Hermits' inherent selves to keep them safe (& that it echoes Marcy in canon/False in the AU), though I imagine its less making them different in personality & more unconsciously nudging them away from certain lines of thought they'd usually have.

The idea that this process embellishes or reinterprets certain traits of each Hermit is fun, too.

I don't know if some of the specific interpretations line up with the way I view things, though, but lets work through them one at a time:

Scar's timeline in my mind happens as released & I don't think too much Hermatrix shifting would be needed, nor would it be non-canon. The Hermits take on personas all the time (RenTheKing, etc.), & Scar of all people is very inclined towards that.

I don't know where the interpretation of Mumbo as a half-soulless shapeshifter comes from (aside from the potato thing, maybe), but I'm not sure if I buy it over, say, the view of him as a vampire. I'd be interested in hearing more, though.

Pearl's connection to the moon in the sim - name aside - stemming from her past lives is something I like. Makes it more than just a symbolic connection, & that'd be especially important in the AU as unless Pearl chose her name (which is plausible), Grian's surname would also be Moon.

Impulse eating rocks coming form his dwarf phase is something I'm going to steer clear of, unless we interpret that the Hermatrix was somehow predicting the future as well, since that was still a season away.

#hermitphibia au #hermitcraft #hermitblr #hermitcraft au #amphibia #amphibia au #player culture au #goodtimeswithscar #marcy wu #amphibia core #hermatrix #docm77 #rendog #mumbojumbo #grian #pearlescentmoon #impulsesv #cubfan135 #mythicalsausage #falsesymmetry