#the absolute lack of thought the absolute lack of nuance the situation is not even that complicated

[sleevebuscemii]

i’ll never understand people’s complete and utter resistance to siding with palestine its so?? like people will be progressive and forward thinking about EVERYTHING but as soon as you ask them to not support isr*el its like all their fucking braincells just drop out of their fucking ears like i get it i know I Know i know why but i will truly never understand it

#this is not a cohesive thought im just rambling #its just bizzare #like yes its personal bigotries and this is Not to negate their autonomy in that bigotry #but its fucking incredible how well western media have them trained its actually disgusting #so called free thinkers when you have to open ur mind the smallest tiniest bit to realize whats right in fucking front of you #the absolute lack of thought the absolute lack of nuance the situation is not even that complicated #its unbelievable #m

[the-rollerchloster]

Parasocial relationships are strange. Parasocial relationships in a fandom like this one can be even stranger.

I want to preface this by saying that everyone is entitled to their feelings, and feelings are sometimes completely irrational. I am also aware that sometimes our feelings are driven by incomplete thoughts, and have a tendency to overwhelm us and those around us before we can process them. In saying that, I have seen a lot of conflicting emotions and reactions to the reveal that Misha Collins has a "serious" girlfriend (and a large cock apparently, but that is a whole other thing), and I know I shouldn't be surprised by it, but part of me is.

There was a conversation in my discord server over the complicated feelings people have about this news. As a cockles-friendly space this was to be expected, as any new development in the lives of either half of JenMish often spurs these kinds of conversations, but as it started to get emotional I was thanked for bringing some perspective. I hope that I can help anyone who also needs a different way of viewing this situation by making this post, while also helping myself to organise my own chaotic and complicated thoughts.

As I understand it, during the It Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time event at this weekend's Burbank convention, Misha told a fun anecdote about gift-giving with his new girlfriend and her daughter, wherein Misha got some things delivered to said girlfriend directly from Amazon, and girlfriend wrapped them for the daughter including what she thought was a microphone but was actually another similarly shaped item not intended for children at all. He continued to say that this "microphone" was for his girlfriend so she wouldn't need to go searching elsewhere for intimacy, as they are currently living in separate states. Now, I was not at the event, and the lack of recordings (recording was strictly prohibited, so if you've got one shame on you, I don't want to know about it!) means that everything I will ever know about this story and the way it was told to the small audience who were lucky enough to be able to attend this event comes as a form of the Telephone game, and therefore lacks a whole lot of body language, tone and context. We, as a fandom, have been severely burnt by this kind of missing nuance before - think DenverCon'21 - and it's these kinds of kneejerk reactions that have the potential to spiral out of control and limit the things we get told at future events - think bishagate.

Think for a second about your personal perception of Misha Collins. He's chaotic, he can be a little self-deprecating or self-effacing, he likes to turn serious anecdotes into jokes. He is also a passionate and caring man, who has a lot of respect and appreciation for his fans. Think about the way he tells anecdotes at standard con panels - it's often a bit tongue-in-cheek, a bit sarcastic, a bit exaggerated - so why would his behaviour at this event, which was specifically set up for Misha to tell stories he wouldn't normally have the space to do in a convention setting, be any different?

I am going to go through my thoughts on some of the things I have seen mentioned about what this all means…

First off, the elephant in the room, what does this mean for Cockles? To me, absolutely nothing. Whatever Jensen and Misha have going on completely transcends a standard sexual and/or romantic relationship. Misha was in his relationship with Vicki for the majority of his life, including when he met Jensen, and we all know she literally wrote a book on polyamory; his perception of relationships is literally shaped and moulded by this, and it's not something he's going to just switch off. Danneel has been a permanent fixture in the cockles dynamic this entire time as well. The JenMish panel at Burbank this weekend will hopefully alleviate any of the doubt anyone is having here, and give us some knowledge that regardless of how Misha defines his relationship status, things will continue in the same chaotic, loving and ridiculous nature we've become accustomed to.

Which segues nicely into the implication that the vibrator was purchased so she wouldn't stray, and therefore their relationship is monogamous. See above thoughts about tongue-in-cheek, exaggerated and self-effacing - when I imagine him telling this story, I see that cheeky, gummy grin going the whole time. Without the nuance of watching this unfold, I think we are all safest to assume that this was a joke, not a firm declaration that he has left his polyamorous attitudes behind.

On thoughts of him "moving on too soon" from his marriage and subsequent divorce, this is where my own feelings get complicated as well, but also where we need to remember that the key feature of a parasocial relationship is that we only see and know what he wants us to. We don't actually know what the trigger for that dissolution was, so in terms of the actual calendar timing it might seem soon, but emotional development and change doesn't run on a standard calendar. We don't know how long the process was before the decision was made to separate. I am currently working through a messy separation, and while I can pinpoint the decision to somewhere in the past 6-12 months, my marriage has realistically been dead for 3+ years, and we're a (supposedly) monogamous couple. As a poly couple, I can imagine that Misha and Vicki worked through every alternative option possible before landing on the decision to formally separate, and had probably well and truly been through the mourning period before it was even all over. Adult relationships are complex at the best of times, and no one ever truly knows what is happening in them except the people involved. I also think that as a man who is nearing 50 and just come out of very long term relationship, that he doesn't actually know how to be "alone", nor does he want to…

Lastly, for some of us, this is someone important in our lives who has found happiness in another person when perhaps we don't have that for ourselves. When those feelings hit, they can be extremely disheartening, and I want to send all my loving thoughts to anyone who falls into this category. It's difficult when the envy turns your stomach in knots and then your thoughts spiral into all the things wrong that mean that no matter how much you want to you can't just be happy for someone. Love and life are complicated, human beings are complicated, society is complicated. There is this hugely widespread and toxic mentality that we are all raised on that says we are halves of something that is destined to find our other half in order to feel whole, and it's utter bullshit. We shouldn't need one singular significant other to feel complete, and sometimes we get so determined to find that someone that we end up sacrificing ourselves to make them fit. (see also; Daniel Sloss' thoughts on this subject in his stand-up special Jigsaw)

There are many different kinds of love, many different kinds of relationships, and many different kinds of people. If anyone proves that to us, it's Misha Collins. He is walking evidence that human life is chaotic and unpredictable and indeterminate and we can make our own fucking rules. I hope that we can collectively be respectful of him, no matter what (or who) he chooses, and feel grateful for everything he trusts us enough to share.

#thoughts #this is probably a mess #i don't really know if i have a point #but i needed to collect it somewhere #misha collins #burcon 24 #it seemed like a good idea at the time #cockles #misha's gf #misha if you're lurking in your tag go away 😅 #long post

[etincelleart]

I have a lot of weird moods lately, all of it being mixed completely in a chaotic way, but I think it feels nice to figure out some stuff and to think about it o/

I'm thinking a lot about how I experience love in fact, because I always wonder if my affection comes from my desire to get some physical reassurance or just to feel loved because of my own complex family situation. Like even if it takes me time to fully develop crushes or actually fall in love, I always find myself wondering very early in relationships if romantic (or at least romantic coded) stuff could happen between one person or me. And idk I just don't know if that's something pretty ok or not, or if it's just my lack of confidence speaking ? What do I need or want exactly ? Sometimes I feel like my brain is just jumping on people as if I was searching some kind of comfort absolutely, but it's not always something I have control over.

It's confusing, I remember I loved people deeply but it also caused me a lot of pain, and I don't want to go through that again and I felt really free last time I finally felt like I cut off the strings that took me attached to someone too much to the point I would feel bad. It's a real difficult thing to talk or even think about because I now realize love isn't just "we love each other, let's date", there are so much situations, so much nuances, so much needs, so much differences depending of the person(s).

I know I'm demi and super super super super super romantic and also can be super super sexually attracted to someone at some point, it just takes me time, and sometimes it's blurred and confusing, but at the same time I just don't know what to expect or want from a "classic" or "normal" romantic relationship. I want to date yes, but what is it exactly ? How does that work ? How are you supposed to know these codes or norms, how can you be sure you're doing good ?

Sometimes I just wish things could just be like, "we have this strong bond and we both love physical affection, let's just do our thing and decide of what we'd like for us as we go" without just thinking too much, but at the same I'm demi and developing a crush or love can take so much time, and sometimes it's not even a crush it's more but it's not fully romantic either, I can get so lost in all this,,

It feels good to learn and do researches about it tho, because in fact even if I did try and even if I did loved people a lot, I never got into a romantic relationship for real and idk I'm 24 and just wondering how that stuff work. I'm not even pressed by time or anything or what I'm just, really curious and also just trying to understand what could work for me too, or what if I'm just lacking experience and stuff will be clear as I go on, idk

I haven't really thought about all of that for the past few years, mostly focused on uni, and honestly I just felt really good on my own after the chaos of my previous romantic experience. But now after a few years chilling in my corner I admit I start to think about it again, and while I don't actively seek anything or just want it absolutely, I'm just scared of how I would handle things if that does happen again. Especially with all the stuff going on on my side, with family and all

I may be good at art, I'm not that great when it comes to relationships. But I always have been really romantic lmao and it just comes out because I still have this idea of giving a lot to someone. idk when you experience romantic attraction it's just so big and so hard to describe, I just wish I could love myself just as much as I loved someone else in the past

So I've been learning about QPRs, searching and also reading and watching videos, talking about it, and basically I'm learning a lot of stuff about all of the possibilities that exist for relationships. I don't know if my strong love always come from what I experienced at home and I just try to fill the hole, or if I'm just truly like that and love a lot, but either way, no matter when or what happen I just hope things can be smooth, and that I can learn to handle my own insecurities

#just some thoughts about love and attraction and relationships because i admit it's been on my mind a lot lately #qpr #relationship #romantic #love

[yappix]

here’s my take after watching brittany’s stream. i probably won’t post about this situation again unless more comes out or another statement is made etc., but i’ll answer any asks if you guys have anything to add

(here’s the link to brittany’s video; i really recommend watching it.)

my yap of a take

a quote from my post yesterday that i want to elaborate on:

opposing perceptions can coexist, and can both be true at the same time. in complex scenarios like this with such a large grey area, there can be more than one truth. if caiti is telling the truth, that doesn’t automatically mean george is lying. if george is telling the truth, that doesn’t automatically mean caiti is lying. their differing interpretations can coexist and both be true.

paraphrasing brittany: caiti and george are telling the same story. they are saying the same things. they are telling the story from completely different perspectives, because they quite literally processed and experienced it differently. they both have different realities of what happened that night, and it isn’t always going to be as simple as one being true and one being false. they can both be true and real. it’s hard for people to look at the nuance in these situations because that means they’d have to accept that it isn’t as easy as having one person to blame.

the same way that we all agree it’s unfair of caiti to assign thought processes and malicious intent to george, it’s unfair for us to do the same to her. she 100% believes that she was sexually assaulted that night. that’s her reality and that’s how she has been impacted. and while that’s her experience, it doesn’t automatically make george a predator. it doesn’t mean george had or has malicious intentions. it doesn’t inherently mean that george committed the crime of sexual assault, without room for question. yeah, this case wouldn’t make it to a courtroom. but that isn’t because the system is flawed; it’s because when you consider all of the circumstances, there is no ethical or legal basis to charge george with sexual assault.

so many people are speaking as if validating caiti’s feelings and experience means you think george is a malicious predator, or contrarily, that recognizing george’s intentions and perspective means you’re invalidating caiti and saying she isn’t a victim. this is what people mean when they say it isn’t all black and white. it’s valid to say that caiti was sexually assaulted, but given what we know, it’s not valid to call george a predator and hold him accountable for ‘targeting caiti with malicious intent’. there can be a victim without a perpetrator. there can be a victim without a perpetrator.

i think the people who can’t/won’t look at the nuance of the situation and think it’s black and white & all-or-nothing are naïve, and are purposely ignoring what real life normally looks like. ignoring the way everyday society works, ignoring its norms, refusing to acknowledge that non-verbal consent exists, and shitting on the validity and normalcy of hookup culture is not ‘supporting victims’. refusing to acknowledge the possibility of their perceptions coexisting is not ‘supporting victims’. i also think that it’s absolutely insane to ignore the fact that when caiti did make her lack of interest in george clear (e.g. not going back to his hotel room with him), he totally respected that and didn’t continue to pursue her or show any further sexual/romantic interest. why is it so far-fetched to acknowledge that this was more than likely a miscommunication? that wouldn’t mean caiti’s feelings are any less valid, because they’re valid regardless of what happened.

i believe both of them, and that’s okay. george believes her too; he acknowledged that he misread the signals, he empathized with her and validated her feelings, he showed compassion, and he apologized for the experience that she had even though it wasn’t his own. however, that isn’t an admission of ill-intent; believing that they experienced and perceived that night very differently from each other without assigning malice to either of them is okay. that’s more likely to be the case, rather than the extreme, all-or-nothing views that either ‘george is a monster’ or ‘caiti is a liar’.

it’s okay to look at the grey area. it’s okay to acknowledge that caiti is valid in feeling violated, and that george is valid in thinking the experience was mutually consensual. misreading signals doesn’t make george a disgusting predator who targeted a drunk 18-year-old. and that mistake doesn’t automatically make him negligent and dangerous and uncaring. the problem is that there was miscommunication, and it’s important to note the irony in placing the responsibility of caiti’s autonomy on george while calling him a predator. it isn’t always as simple as having one person to place blame on. there isn’t always someone at fault, and other times everyone involved is a little at fault. this is life. these people are human. everyone is flawed. people make mistakes. believing that either george or caiti is inherently evil, or that they’re ill-willed in this scenario is so extremely out-of-touch. and if you believe that this mistake is inherently denotative of george’s intentions, his overall character, his morals, etc., i ask you: are you also wholly defined & labeled by your complex mistakes? and do you complain when your perspective & any nuance is ignored?

it’s so frustrating to see so many people make huge moral claims about situations like these when 1. it’s obvious they haven’t considered any sort of nuance, and 2. their views are extreme to the point that they’re unrealistic. i’d put money down that the majority of these people would not react this way to this same situation in real life if it were people they love. this massive fear of ‘going against the grain’ and looking like you don’t support victims, or looking like you’re just blindly defending your ‘fave’ is reasonable, and i agree that people should be aware of their biases. but at a certain point it turns into intentional ignorance, because you aren’t listening. you aren’t hearing. and ultimately, it just makes you look dumb, immature, and impressionable, because all that’s happening is a change in the target of your bias.

the main points of this that i hope stick are 1. george and caiti are both telling the truth; their realities of what happened are different, and that’s valid, 2. the extremist, all-or-nothing, this-equals-that views do not benefit anyone, including victims; 3. intentional ignorance is harmful and makes you look dumb, and 4. there can be a victim without a perpetrator.

#pixspeaks #discourse #gogcident #brittany simon

[cock-holliday]

Kind of expanding off of this post but a likelihood even more bothersome than Neil forgetting his own source material is that this was his original intention all along, and the story was only saved by his lack of complete creative control over the original product.

At this point, the core of the story is now placed in part 2, not the original. What I thought was intentioned ambiguity becomes more and more indicative of Neil not being allowed to say the quiet part out loud…until part 2. Moral quandaries from the original were merely setups for blatant and unsubtle messages. The original asked thought-provoking questions, and it seems clear that the team behind the game may have had different answers, or at least embraced the possibilities of multiple conclusions. Part 2 says there is only one answer: Neil’s answer.

*spoiler warning*

Suddenly the original is not presenting the player with grey areas anymore, it is simply the setup for a conclusion. Even the marketing now positions this to be the case, as it is difficult to find a copy of The Last of Us that is not labeled “The Last of Us: Part 1.” The HBO show has even shifted aspects to cater more specifically and blatantly to the messages of Part 2, which are as disheartening as they are childish.

The Last of Us questioned what people would do to survive, it questioned what lengths people would go to for their loved ones, it questioned what choices people would make based on their own traumas.

Part 2 tries to say that violence and hate are as inherent as love and hope, and effectively inescapable as part of “human nature.” Except it IS escapable. For the antagonist. So Neil’s own message is lost in hypocrisy. Part 2 tries to say that any and all violence is proportional. A girl killing her would-be rapist is as violent as the person who attempted to prey on her. A girl killing someone in self-defense is as violent as killing someone out of hatred. All violence is equal regardless of motivation or context or power dynamics. A system is the same as an individual. A military force is the same as the rebels fighting against it.

All violence is condemnable, nuance is lost. And the only absolution for your part in the violence is to suffer. Unless of course you seek out peace sooner than your opponent.

Joel committed violence to survive. He committed violence to save Ellie. He is only absolvable through death.

Ellie committed violence to survive. She committed violence to avenge Joel. She is only absolvable through the loss of everyone she loves, unspeakable trauma, the loss of fingers—and by extension her ability to play guitar, something that kept her connected to the person she was closest to—and must be relegated to her plainly stated worst fear: ending up alone.

Abby committed violence by avenging her father and killing Joel. She committed violence by killing and hurting Ellie’s friends. She committed violence by participating in occupation and torture of those living beyond her border wall. She committed violence by brutalizing Tommy. She committed violence by betraying her friends. She is absolved by…getting a found family.

The game tries so hard to be highbrow but doesn’t follow its own logic. It can’t decide what is excusable and what is condemnable but god does it fucking try to excuse or condemn rather than suggest that there isn’t a clear answer.

Joel and Ellie are consumed by guilt. They, particularly Ellie, are forced into situations against their own moralities, but are expected to pay the narrative price as if they did their acts out of evilness anyway.

Abby is not remorseful for anything she has done, but decides she wants to move forward (having already achieved her goal of revenge early in the narrative) and now is permitted to walk away. If revenge is evil, why is Abby allowed to have it? If violence is all bad regardless of context, why are only some punished by the narrative and not others?

If an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, why is the person who wasn’t seeking revenge blinded?

Neil tries to make a point about violence removed from context, motivated by his OWN views of violence removed from context. The why suddenly doesn’t matter. The why isn’t protecting someone, it isn’t protecting yourself, it isn’t an attempt to remove shackles of oppression, it isn’t a push for freedom, it isn’t to escape occupation. It is simply “human nature’s propensity for violence.” It is cynicism and a reductive stance on people as a whole.

Violence is not permitted to be a tool for controlling masses and a tool for liberation and a means to survive and a necessary measure for protection and a way to exert power over the defenseless all as commingling realities. No, violence is simply “bad.” A child predator is simply “the dark side of humanity” and not a specific dynamic born from a combination of factors. A child killing said predator in self-defense is also suddenly the girl’s “dark side” and not the exercise of violence as a method of escape. They are equal. Because violence is bad. A military beating down its citizens for control is just bad because violence is bad. So the people who overthrow the military occupation are ALSO bad because violence is bad.

Suddenly game 1 is no longer a multifaceted view on the potential paths of post-apocalypse, and a mind-probing posing of questions about morality and justice. It is a buffet of “bad people” doing “bad things”, with the inevitable second shoe dropping in part 2 which says: and so they will all eat each other.

#tlou #the last of us #tlou part 2 #anti tlou2 #tlou2

[nozunhinged]

This post by @waitmyturtles is what finally, finally led me to the conclusion what bothered me about the series so much (not just the ending) and I'm seriously wondering if this a cultural difference that I misunderstood which geniunely makes me question if I got the whole eyesight-storyline wrong or if it really was bad writing.

(and I didn't wanna mess up all the smart reblog-additions with my personal 2 cents so I made a new post for it)

It's the fact that Day never says himself that he's ready for the surgery/wants the surgery.

From the first episode on, every time they talked about the "eye donation" (which is the first problem imho, he's keeping his eyes and corneas are a tiny, vital part of them), I understood it as a plot device to show how the people around him make the decisions for Day and how he doesn't get the chance to make them for himself.

I felt like I was conditioned to think that way, every time the donation came up I had the reaction of "that's not the point here, deal with the situation at hand and not potential futures!!" and I thought Days lack of a response to the whole topic was meant to inflinct that reaction. Meant to be a sign of Days lack of autonomy and how he slowly, slowly gains it back.

But we never get to hear his own opinion about the possiblity of getting his eyesight back, even with him gaining autonomy and growing as a person, nor do we get a proper explanation by the doctors how his options look like and what a deteriorated cornea even MEANS. We aren't all doctors, we don't know the million different ways sight can be impaired and if it's temporary or not.

Which lead, in combination with Days ongoing lack of a response, to my (!) impression, that this storyline is not relevant to the message the show wants to put out, and that it's a story about how he learns to grow into his this new state of being. Which made the surgery feel like it came completely out of nowhere.

And now I'm wondering - in the context of this being a thai show and family playing a very vital role - did we not need Days explicit approval to learn that he wants it? Was his approval that he let his mom take care of the whole surgery process? Was this why he forgave her so quickly, and always turned to her, was that his approval? Because she stood for the chance of getting his sight back?

I'm not gonna discuss how Day is still a spoiled brat, the absolute obliteration of mhoks character, the unnecessary introduction of august or all the other loose ends of the story...

But with this particular point, I feel like I geniunely misunderstood something and maybe didn't do the story enough justice.

Do I still wish the narrative would've explained the whole eyesight-thing better so we understand the status of days disability better? Yes, absolutely yes.

But I also need a flagpole of signs to understand things so maybe I missed some nuance here and I really really want to know your opinions about this so please comment your thoughts!!

#last twilight #last twilight the series #last twilight meta

[firstagent]

Spoiler-Free Review: Digimon Adventure 02 The Beginning [Sub]

In this movie, one more troubled relationship between one more kid and their partner threatens the world one more time. The Zero Two kids help… a little.

As much as Last Evolution Kizuna’s message spoke of our need to be able to let go of our childhood fancies, and as much as it would have been an appropriate final bow to the original Adventure canon, it also proved that this world is still capable of turning out some wonderful, thought-provoking stories. Especially when given the kind of budget this movie relishes in throughout. Before we tiptoe around major plot points without actually revealing them, it must be said that The Beginning looks gorgeous. The big action is animated beautifully and minor details in the art go far in supporting the story. It’s important because the movie is all about quality. Quality above distracting subplots, quality above unnecessary fights, and—perhaps more concerning—quality above cherished Digimon Adventure establishments.

The first sign of the movie’s lack of concern about bending the knee to prior Adventure canon: this is 100 percent Lui’s story. If you’re expecting the Zero Two kids to have some deep character growth the way Taichi did in Kizuna… well, it’s the Zero Two kids; half of them didn’t get that in their own season. No, this is all the Lui and Ukkomon show. After tri. and Kizuna you might be thinking “isn’t this the third time now we’ve been introduced to a new character whose partnership issues are a harbinger for chaos?” The answer to that is no: it’s the fourth time if you count Wallace in Hurricane Touchdown. But while tri.’s format allowed the established cast to have full character arcs alongside Meiko’s and Kizuna was still fundamentally about Taichi dealing with the problems Menoa creates, The Beginning is too compact and too tightly wound to give anyone but Lui room for growth.

That’s not a bad thing though! In a relatively short time, we get all the gory details of Lui’s past, where Ukkomon fits into the equation, how things go wrong, why it’s everyone’s problem, and how Lui fixes it. It’s told vividly, and viscerally at times: some of the story is straight-up disturbing and the movie understands the importance of not shying away from it. These are some horrors that would bother even the Ghost Game kids. The facts of Lui’s story aren’t particularly complicated—it’s a surprisingly simple story for a feature-length film—but they’re presented with a nuance that hits the upper echelon of what Digimon has ever been capable of.

Still, it does leave the Zero Two characters a little in the lurch. Character moments are sprinkled in whenever they can get them and everybody’s heard in group conversations (sometimes even making a good point!), but some feel like they’re only there because they have to be. Until the fade out at the end, there honestly isn’t much more of the Zero Two kids being Zero Two kids than we saw in Kizuna. Anyone longing to see these kids tackling their own problems instead of someone else’s will be left hanging. That said, the revamped evolution sequences are fire, we’re still treated to Target and Beat Hit, and there’s even a couple teases for the shippers. And the ending is absolutely a “Zero Two kids being the Zero Two kids” moment.

But yes, one of the trickier conversations will certainly regard The Beginning’s relationship with Adventure canon. On one hand, Lui’s situation suggests a conflict with Adventure and tri., and some could interpret the resolution as incompatible with particular aspects of the epilogue. On the other hand, none of the issues are in any way major, and countered both by references to events in Adventure and tri., and the fact that everybody is still barreling straight toward their epilogue fates. Weirdly, the most dubious point of contention may be with Kizuna. Any direct discrepancies are again insignificant, but the revelations of the prior movie feel like they should weigh more on some minds as they process everything going on here.

To its credit, The Beginning seems fully aware of what it’s doing. It understands how much it’s potentially shaking things up. The characters recognize it! The movie delivers on the things that really matter: the kids, the Digimon, the music, and the heart. Things like adherence to an increasingly rigid and cluttered timeline are more superfluous. It doesn’t dismiss anything for the sake of dismissing it, but it’s not going to let it get in the way of a good story. Even as the kids dutifully stay on track for the epilogue, the ending narration suggests that anything goes from here. We may find out: unlike Kizuna’s sense of finality, The Beginning builds momentum for more stories in whatever interpretation of this world grows them best. If they’re anything like this one, we’ll welcome them.

My Grade: A

Check Back November 10 For the Spoilers/Dub Post!

Thanks to Toei Animation for providing me with an advance screener of this movie.

Want to support my site and/or my work? Buy me a coffee!

#digimon #digimon zero two #digimon 02 the beginning #digisafe

[chainofclovers]

Ted Lasso 3x5 Thoughts

(Hello hello last week was so bleak; turns out I was pretty significantly ill and as soon as my doc and I got things figured out and I got on antibiotics, I became a human being capable of thinking consecutive thoughts and enjoying the things I like.)

One of the things I like is TV show Ted Lasso. I think this was my favorite episode of the season. Or at least it was the episode that, at the end of watching, gave me the most concrete I love this show and I love the pacing and I love the story being told and I love these characters feelings I’ve had all season…and I’ve basically felt that way on some level after every s3 ep (with the exception of 3x4, which left me very unsettled, but also, I was very sick). 

Rebecca:

I am so…proud of her?!

Her panic when she didn’t know who to put as her Emergency Contact broke my heart. She’s so aware of the things she’s lacking right now, even as she does have people she loves. 

I absolutely love that Shite in Nining Armor was stupid John Wingsnight’s stupid fiancee’s slip of the tongue. I love that Rebecca had no chill in asking her to confirm what she said. I love that John was wearing his idiotic double-Manchester scarf, and I love that in the later scenes in the episode Rebecca was also wearing an asymmetrical scarf with a color gradient. 

I absolutely loved every single thing about her choice to see a fertility doctor. Right after the ep ended, my wife said that she thinks that in the end, as Rebecca looks back on her life, she will be comforted by the fact that she tried, that she sought the information, that she admitted to herself that there was something she really wanted and chose to go after the information she needed to find out if it was possible. I agree completely. Also Hannah Waddingham played every moment with that phone call in her office so, so perfectly. Her face always says a million things. 

Keeley:

(I already understood that Keeley was bi but) Keeley is bi! Jack is bi! They hit it off and are having fun! 

I think the moment when they’re drinking vodka and Keeley says she used to be a happy person is one of Juno Temple’s absolute best acting moments in this entire series, and I say that as someone who generally absolutely adores the choices she makes as Keeley.

The complexity of where she is in her life warms my heart so much. She’s learning a million new things every day. She’s attracted to Jack and feels a connection that she wants to explore. She’s still hurting over Roy and is able to admit that. 

It really broke my heart that she didn’t register that Rebecca was calling her, even though I completely understood why she didn’t. If I was in that situation, my phone would be the last thing on my mind. But I love that Rebecca’s first call was to Keeley, and her not picking up is very much in conversation with Rebecca’s lack of obvious Emergency Contact, I think. (Keeley would be a great Emergency Contact! It was just one phone call! But it hurts! Is it weird that I keep capitalizing Emergency Contact?)

I have mixed feelings about how all the Shandy stuff went down. I would have preferred it if Shandy had continued to be a more nuanced character in terms of her potential and her skills. Maybe we haven’t seen the last of her? I think that based on what happened, Keeley was right to let her go, but everything Shandy had to say and do in the first few eps of the season felt like there was a lot of depth behind it, and since she’s a person of color in a vastly majority white office environment it doesn’t really hit quite right that her firing felt primarily like a lesson Keeley needed to learn. I did really love her bridge-burning goodbye speech, though. Who wouldn’t want to yell “fascist fucks” in an awkward corporate setting?! Team Shandy. 

Nate:

Nate practicing with his mom: adorable.

Nate being really really into Taste of Athens in Tooting: stressful.

Nate beautifully articulating why it’s important to him and refusing to go along with Anastasia’s ridicule of the place: lovely. 

Beard and Roy (and a little Trent) and Ted and Coaching:

I love how much of a duo Beard and Roy are this season, and how fiercely Beard was ready to go to Kansas even while there were so many things happening with the team. That was a genuine act of family right there! And Roy got in on the action too, with his horrifying assault fantasy! The weird love between all these men sends my heart aflutter! 

I’m also endlessly fascinated with Ted once again having the beginnings of a panic attack in very close physical proximity to his fellow coaches. I’m into Trent’s gay Let the Good Times Roll mug. 

One of my favorite things about last week’s episode was Ted’s decision not to drink before the call with Michelle; it was really important that he didn’t numb himself before saying the things he needed to say. And for weirdly similar reasons, I kinda like that he was defaulting to pouring some water while the call with Michelle connected, then he switched to whiskey at the mention of Jake having taken Henry to the park. Whenever Ted is alone, the choices and things happening physically (his kitchen looked quite neat in that scene, and the open peanut butter wasn’t fighting for counter space with other items) tell so much of the story, and I’ve continued to love how that storytelling is handled.

Ted had a good parenting moment with Henry! His father’s lesson about anger transferred to Ted and then to Henry! Ted’s dad never met his grandson, but he helped him today! (Also, the absolute CRINGE image of Henry performing an apology rap…the incredibly dorky apple doesn’t fall far from the incredibly dorky tree.) It’s not lost on me that after this major parenting win, then a successful staving off of the panic attack by reminding himself that Henry is okay, it only takes a tiny bit of prodding from his team to return to finer coaching form. I love that he rips the sign further. I have been curious about whether or not he’d talk to the team about Nate, but so much time passed between 3x4 and 3x5 that maybe we’ll never know about that. But I love that in the 7 weeks between episodes, the sign stayed up in its ripped state, and I love that he addresses belief more concretely than he’s ever done precisely by taking the concrete symbol out of the equation. 

Higgins

Higgins brought the problems with the coaching staff to Rebecca! He continues to be one of the bravest people on this show. 

I love how stricken Rebecca looked when he got the words out, too. Her desk was positively strewn with biscuit crumbs. 

And he was smart about psychics and said the thing that I really hoped would be the whole point of Tish, in terms of this being an opportunity for Rebecca to see some things more clearly.

Rebecca and Ted:

OK, my brain is full of all the stuff I just talked about, but my brain is mostly full of that hallway scene. Yeah.

If it mattered less, I could………………[you know how this one goes]

#ted lasso #ted lasso 3x5 #ted lasso s3 spoilers #cw: infertility #meta by me #ted lasso meta #hot dork club

[hello-nichya-here]

Thank you for being sympathetic to Alicent and viewing her situation with actual nuance and understanding

I'm proship as they come but the way the majority of the HOTD fandom talks about her make me so deeply uncomfortable with how casually cruel and lacking of sympathy they are. Like yeah she's a fictional character, but yeesh, their hatred of her is so eerily close to actual IRL misogyny. It's one of the very few times when fictional discussion is crossing the reality line for me

Oh, it has absolutely turned into real life misogyny - there's a ton of idiots online threatening to do all kinds of vile thing to the actress because she dared to comit the crime of playing a character they don't like.

And I meant it, even as someone who is very firmly Team Black, the Greens are interesting, compelling, complicated characters that are fun to watch, so even when I'm pissed at one of them is a "love to hate" kind of situation, because they're still being entertaining.

And again, Alicent was objectively screwed over the entire show, by her father, her husband, and by her society in general. Did she sometimes make things worse for herself or hurt other characters who didn't deserve it? Yes. But so did Rhaenyra, Daemon, Viserys, Aegon, Aemond, etc. The whole point of that story is practically nobody stays fully innocent when there's a full on war going on, and EVERYONE becomes a victim of the circumstances in said war.

I might want Rhaenyra to be queen, but it IS objectively unfair how Alicent was raised to think her duty was to marry whoever her father picked for her and give her husband male heirs to inherit all he had, and she did that without complaining for the longest time - and then her husband not only doesn't want her children to inherit, but he also has the nerve to call his child of a previous marriage his ONLY child.

I would not blame her one bit if she started throwing stuff at Viserys while screaming "Then why the fuck did you marry me and make me have kids with you for? The fuck was that about?" Hell, she could snap one day give Viserys too much medicine to kill him once and for all, I'd say she was fully justified (and in the truly pitiful state he was in, he might actually thank her fo it).

It really is no surprise that, when Rhaenyra makes a toast in Alicent's honor, thanking her for all the devotion she offered to her father through the years, caring for him as his health worsens, it led to the ONLY time adult!Alicent says she believes Rhaenyra would be a good queen. It's the first time in YEARS anyone has thought of everything she was put through, everything she had to sacrifice for the sake of other people who didn't even deserve it - and so it becomes the first, and sadly last, time she sees eye-to-eye with her former friend, and recognizes that Rhaenyra's situation of "You were named heir then your father went and got you two brothers despite knowing that would likely cost you the throne" is also not fair.

Otto and Viserys are to blame for all this misery for everyone in both sides of the conflict (except maybe Daemon's, to some extent at least) - Otto for using his own daughter and grandkids as pawns in the Game Of Thrones, and Viserys for being a pushover that lets himself be manipulated AND uses "I'm just a sick, fragile old man mourning my beloved wife that I murdered" as excuse to justify remarrying and causing a ton of trouble for everyone just so he has someone by his side (and not even appreciating said person) and doesn't feel lonely.

Alicent's biggest sin was not realizing she should not have put up with this bullshit - but how could she considering how young she was when it all happened and the way she was raised to think she had to obey her father and husband no matter what?

#asks #alicent hightower #queen alicent

[stranger-rants]

I don't want to sound like a bitch, but I never understood Max's reaction to Billy in season 4. Not because I don't understand the situation she might find herself in of distress and guilt, but because that is not what was conveyed to me on screen by the Duffers in season 3. Throughout season 3, Max did not seem traumatized, abused, or tormented by Billy. She just seemed a little annoyed as is usual between two siblings. When talking about Billy, or, for example, when explaining Billy's habits to El, she simply seemed delighted and snarky or mildly annoyed at best. Even Lucas does not seem traumatized by him. In fact, he even makes the joke that Billy never wears a shirt. This does not suggest abuse or trauma, but that he even occasionally sees him on peaceful terms enough to note that he does not wear T-shirts often. In season 3 what was presented to me on the screen was a situation that had calmed down after season 2 and everyone was living together without major problems. So from going from season 3 where there were no major issues to season 4 where all of a sudden it seemed like Max was super mega-tormented by Billy so much that she wanted him to die, it seemed very strange to me. It seems like the order of the seasons was mixed up. I don't know if it makes sense what I'm trying to explain, but that always bothered me. If season 4 had happened right after season 2 I might have believed it, but not after season 3. This lack of a consistency in the characters annoys me

She wasn’t being tormented by Billy as much as people like to argue that point, because even when Billy was “in charge” at home she repeatedly defied him without much consequence to her. I don’t think Max was trying to express that Billy was abusing her when she said Billy made her life a “living hell.” Living with an unstable family member can be tough and traumatizing even if they’re not the primary reason the family is dysfunctional. So, Billy’s behavior traumatizing her? I believe that. Billy being her “monster,” though? Absolutely not. The point of her second letter was to draw Vecna out, but I think The Duffers used it in bad faith uncaring of what it would do to Billy’s narrative (as an explicit example of someone surviving abuse) and The Antis took that and ran with it ignoring any and all context including Max’s own expressed thoughts and feelings that aren’t just “Billy is terrible.”

Also, I feel like the thoughts and feelings of these children are taken way too literally when children are notorious for being hyperbolic and clumsy with their words. Like, when Max says Billy’s going to kill them? That is hyperbole, but from then on The Antis have taken those scenes at face value claiming Billy was going to murder Lucas and Steve. (Ignoring Billy telling Lucas to stay away from her…) Also when Max says he made her life a living hell, she clearly means he wasn’t very nice nor was it easy to be around him - not that he was stalking her or beating her or worse, as some delusional folks have convinced themselves of. Max never truly wanted him to die. Vecna preyed on her anxiety over their living situation and how those negative feelings were projected into Billy, as if him leaving one way or another would fix everything. People have passing thoughts about death fixing their problems all the time. Doesn’t mean that they mean it.

Max has a lot of grief and guilt over everything, especially because yeah - maybe at one point she wanted Billy to go away, but that summer there was enough of a change in their relationship that Max mourns the fact that she could never solidify that sibling bond with Billy because he died before that could happen. The possibility was there, and the possibility was lost. However, people who do not care about nuance view Max’s second letter as empowering even though it directly resulted in Max “dying.” Talk about a lack of media literacy there, but whatever. The Duffer are only partially to blame with the way they frame things, but people outright refusing to recognize Max’s more complicated feelings about Billy… that’s their fault.

#asks #fandom critical #billy & max

[liskantope]

Since I have a continuing history of keeping up with IDW-ish podcasters on YouTube (Glenn Loury, Coleman Hughes, etc.) who occasionally do episodes on trans issues as well as a spotty history of clicking on videos with clips of Jordan Peterson, the algorithm recommends a lot of videos on "transgenderism" and "the trans debate" and so on to me. A noticeable and (to my thinking) really concerning aspect of the whole set of issues is how reliably anyone who expresses interest in debating or even critically discussing trans issues is, um, on one general side of them, and how little debating or critical discussion there seems to be available. I avoid clicking on videos with titles involving "transgenderism" or "transgender ideology" or "the trans debate" and other tribal buzzwords for a bunch of reasons, but I decided to make an exception the other day when I saw a video entitled "DEBATE: does transgender ideology threaten liberal values?" (a terribly-phrased question, like most debate questions are) because it appeared to be... an actual debate! With people on both sides showing up! (Though apparently not among the audience, which by the sound of it was entirely on the anti-trans side.)

So of course, as I should have fully expected, this debate only supported my conviction that the rhetoric of nearly everyone on all sides of this is just terrible. The only nuanced and halfway decent debater here was Peter Tatchell (on the trans rights side), and some of even his arguments were used to catch him in a bind later on (more on that later). The debate as a whole was generally a bit of a -- I can only use the term shitshow here -- with debaters (mainly Freda) interrupting each other, the (seemingly entirely anti-trans) audience heckling the trans-rights debaters, and the somewhat awkward and ineffectual moderator mostly failing to keep everyone in order. Well, what better could I have expected?

Marc Glendening (on the anti-trans-rights side) had less to say than everyone else and was basically just a robot trying to churn out dry legal summaries of the situation and spouting claims about free speech rights being taken away that I find extremely dubious as phrased by him (I don't know too much about what's going on in the UK, but if we took Marc's depictions of the situation at face value, they do not jibe with his teammate Helen's completely lack of inhibition in misgendering Freda in a video-recorded debate!).

Helen Joyce was the only person involved that I was familiar with from before, since many months ago I watched an episode of Coleman Hughes' podcast where he interviewed her, thought she had some reasonable points and liked her overall rational manner of arguing, but lost any sense of her credibility because of her completely unbending and extreme absolutism. YouTube had been recommending me videos with her ever since (I really hate how stubborn the algorithm is), and I had refused up until now to click on anything involving her again. In this debate I saw the same extremist tendencies and genuine TERFiness (up until fairly recently my exposure to TERF ideology was mostly indirect as something people on Tumblr criticized and I was beginning to wonder how much of it was actually out there in force and what it really looks like -- it seems to have plenty of force in the UK and Joyce is probably one of the gentler examples I suppose!) and also saw a rational and dignified approach which I admire but unfortunately didn't lead to actually good arguments. There is plenty of room for rebuttal to Helen's arguments from my perspective, and of course almost none of that material was ever rebutted by the other side, which again doesn't surprise me given how little (in my experience of watching/reading criticisms of, say, JKR's arguments) people on the trans rights side seem to actually directly address certain types of opposing arguments. I can't decide which bothers me more: Helen's repeated comments about how the rest of the debaters went through male puberty and therefore their male voices enabled them to talk over her (easily refuted, mainly in the case of the trans women sitting on the other side, and meanwhile neither of the men ever interrupted or talked over her, but nobody addressed this, and it places Helen across my personal "too borderline-misandristic for me to feel comfortable hanging around her" line), or her claim that those men who do insist on trespassing women-only spaces have proved that they are among the dangerous ones because they don't care about women's boundaries (a very dangerous mentality, and displaying exquisite lack of theory of mind, and again nobody tried to rebut it).

Freda Wallace is... a complete mess, and I think an embarrassment to her cause. She spoke a lot (while delusionally muttering that Helen wouldn't stop talking), and very little of what she had to say comprised actual argumentation but was more of a semi-incoherent jumble of points that often ended in punchlines that seemed to be deliberately phrased into ridiculous and bizarre statements perhaps crafted to be provocative and eliciting scorn from the audience. She frequently interrupted all three of the debaters generally with childish and semi-irrelevant ad hominems, even eventually visibly pissing off her own teammate Peter. Freda appears to be exactly the caricature of aggressive, loud, attention-seeking, obnoxious, shameless, hedonistic, fetishistic trans woman that J. K. Rowling types seem to imagine among trans activists. ("So, when I fuck men, with my female penis, in fetish clubs, it is my choice. It doesn't matter what you think. And those men support Sex Matters, because in public they will, but in private, they'll fuck me [ending in a smug grin]" is... I guess technically a way that someone can talk during a recorded public debate, but maybe shouldn't be recommended? I didn't notice until I read the comments later how a minute or two after that, her teammate Peter repeated tries to get her to stop interrupting, then gently grabs her arm as she lifts her glass of wine again saying, "No more drink.") If the trans-rights organization involved wanted to strengthen transphobia and transmisogyny in particular, they probably could not have chosen a better trans woman to put on their team. There's something to discuss here (although if I tried to develop where I speculatively want to go with this, I might quickly get myself into hot water) about how difficult it seems to be to get a member of the trans community to participate in an event like this, and how it requires the very thickest-skinned type of personality which unfortunately in this case also coincides with the most loud and shameless. (This is a very under-developed and perhaps sloppily-phrased point that I probably shouldn't be leaving in this post!)

As I said earlier, Peter Tatchell, along with many of his arguments, I actually liked; he seems like a pretty cool guy all around. He did get backed into a corner at one point through an audience member's question: he had repeatedly made the argument that excluding male-bodied people from women's shelters because men are more likely to be violent was choosing to treat an entire group based on a generalization and that he was against this on principle (compare to refusing to allow immigration from certain groups because some tiny minority of them is more likely to be dangerous, etc.), and he was asked whether he wasn't generalizing in the exact same way by being in favor of excluding cis men ("all men, as you identify who's a man") from women's spaces. At first Peter seems to misunderstand that the questioner is talking about cis men and be trying to duck the question, but eventually he is backed into acknowledging the question and taking the stance that "people who present as men" should be excluded from women's bathrooms but trans women shouldn't -- a position that sounds quite blatantly transphobic in more than one way by the lights of much of trans activism! Also, Peter's stern coldness in stopping Freda from interrupting him with disagreement during his point about transness showing in people's brains says all we really need to know about his opinion of his own teammate, and I do kind of feel bad for him for having been paired with her, which I imagine was not his choice.

I looked briefly through the comments section to see if there was any discussion of why the video (annoyingly) cuts off abruptly before the end of the event (which wound up mentioned only once that I could see). Never have I seen a sea of comments so 100% skewed in favor of one side of an issue and in one direction: how amazing Helen Joyce is (and with a heap of derogatory and sometimes extremely transmisogynistic comments about Freda Wallace -- they go further than Joyce did by naming her Fred, a few do call her Freda and use feminine pronouns, but in at least one instance someone's use of "her" was "corrected" in a one-word response by another commenter!). It makes me wonder what happens to create a section of hundreds of comments that are literally 100% on one side -- is there a sort of tipping point when one side becomes a strong enough majority that everyone on the other side is just afraid to comment, or gets downvoted to invisibility by the rating system? Either way, this debate strikes me as weak enough on the pro-trans side that trans right activists probably wouldn't want to advertise it on YouTube.

Anyway, very very discouraging for anyone who would like our public discourse on this set of issues to stop being more of a complete mess than the public discourse on pretty much every other contentious social issue has been.

#trans issues #terfs #helen joyce #freda wallace #immigration #trans women are women and freda is a woman #but sorry the validity of “female penis” is going too far for me #and is deliberately provocative like most of freda's language

[synthville]

upon rewatch:

LOVED seeing raffi work. focused and a with a clear directive like that’s queenie. the only light in a season that’s really not in service of anything but ‘hey remember when’ (aka lowest form of conversation word to tony soprano!)

if i was a tng fan who’d waited all this time to see my faves reunite and was being fed this badly lit slop id riot. low effort stupid stakes and characters who are lacking facsimiles of themselves on a dull version on an ‘adventure’ that was done better decades ago? the pits.

originality has left the building. never even made it inside actually

like i know this ain’t the ‘greatest season of star trek picard’ the press and era stuck fans have been praising??? lmfao everything is so stupid

seven and raffi’s scene was even more diabolical the second time around because what do you actually mean this is the best you can do star trek picard don’t piss me off

three and a half conversations solely between women (the fact that saffis breakup convo counts helppp) that weren’t about men i think so. that’s the future :)

sevens whole voy family moment was bittersweet like it’s nice that they finally remembered that part of her life existed but also it left a bad taste in my mouth. maybe id feel differently if i thought it was actually going somewhere idk. with the brushing off of the lsc and the way things are playing all these references only come off as heavy handed reminders from the writers that the past is everything and looking forward is useless because why try to build and go on when everything you used to know is actually all there ever is (unless you’re giving up vital aspects of yourself to blend into and serve the institution in which case change is not only accepted but encouraged*) ik they did less than the bare minimum to cement la sirena as a group but they were still important to each other and the constant reiteration of the way things were is so bleak. *situation is a lot more nuanced than that blah blah im in my feelings lol

should definitely be used to it by now ik but it still blows me that they erased damn near everything. like just fuck the la sirenas huh. those two years was just lallygagging with randos ig

the endless disdain for the past seasons as if this season is anything to be proud of is ?

so much about how this show is written and presented (will someone turn on lights goddamn!!) is absolutely unbelievable. things just happen like there aren’t actual paid professionals in charge of making it good. nuts.

#release me #wanna fast forward to 15/20 years from now when the world is collectively over this reboot remake reunion era #and everyone has stepped out from under this nostalgia daze because it’s getting WEIRD. #stpk

[museumgiftshoperaser]

some thoughts on disability in fanfiction

I have so many thoughts about the common “trope” within the stranger things fandom to give specifically Steve a disability in fanfiction. A lot of my thoughts on this are mixed in with my own complicated feelings about becoming (physically) disabled over the past few years. Which is why i have a hard time writing about it objectively or maybe even fairly. Because some of it brings up a lot of negative emotions regarding ableism I’ve personally experienced. And I’m also still unpacking a lot of internalized ableism so maybe I’m not (yet) able to critique some of this stuff properly. And obviously a lot of these stories are written by people who deal with these (or any) disabilities themselves as a way to explore the topic. I love those! I think writing is such an excellent way of exploring your own feelings. So any of my critisisms aren’t about people using (fan)fiction to write about their own experiences. I’ve read some absolutely incredible works about this topic!!

A lot of these pieces of fanfic featuring Steve with a disability (you typically see either being HOH, having epilepsy or migraines) tend to fall within the larger hurt/comfort trope. And that makes sense, I guess. I also understand the need/desire for disabled people to read or write stories about characters being comforted through the struggles of disability. But I find that often these stories, especially when written by able bodied people, can fall into some harmful tropes.

The main issue that comes up for me is the romanticization of taking away bodily autonomy of the disabled person. The character, most often Steve in this case, is written as struggling with a disability and having a hard time coming to terms with this and then another character “forces” them to get better or accept help and by doing so takes away their agency in the situation. I don’t care if it’s “”the right thing to do”” or “”he really needed someone to help him”” if you’re taking away someone’s autonomy in a situation that’s kinda fucked up. (there’s some nuance there in cases of severe mental health issues where someone might hurt themselves, but even there autonomy is incredibly important and I’m largely talking about physical disability here). This also includes a lack of autonomy in who gets to know about a characters disability and how they find out. Disabled people aren’t owed anyone info about their health and people learning about it against someone’s will can be very upsetting. Another prominent trope is using disability as a way to explore self-sacrificial elements of Steve’s character. It’s the ‘he always cares for other people first and forgets to care for himself’-thing that is often explored with his character. Writers will turn this character trait on its head by ‘giving’ Steve a disability and thus forcing him to reckon with needing and being deserving of care. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that as an idea. I think many people who become disabled struggle with asking for help and feelings of guilt surrounding this. Which is what makes this a difficult concept to critique. I have a hard time puting into words exactly what rubs me the wrong way about this. But let me just say there is definitely a difference between attempts at exploring disability and turning disabled people into poor little babies who can’t do anything for themselves and oh isn’t that just so sad? Especially when a story lacks correct information about what a disabled person would or would not be able to do themselves. There’s also so much infantilization going on in those cases.

And there’s obviously disabled people with (very) high support needs, but pity and infantilization is never an appropriate reaction. Also! Plenty of disabled people have worked through that shit and are (no longer or were never) constantly feeling guilty about needing care! It’s a logical emotion to go through in our ableist society, but I feel like we could do with more representation of disabled people who don’t feel like horrible burdens just for existing. I say this because people irl are sometimes genuinely confused when I don’t feel bad or guilty or embarrased about asking for accomodation. There’s almost an expectation that we’re supposed to feel bad about requiring assistance and that’s pretty fucked up. I don’t want to give specific examples because I can’t think of any of the top of my head, but also because I’m not writing this to call anyone out. I feel like this fandom has correctly noticed that Steve’s had one too many hits to the head and I think the desire to explore this as a community could be a very positive thing. We should just be mindful of the actual lived experiences of disabled people and use this as an opportunity to educate ourselves about disability and ableism. Not just use it as a way to project fantasies about being cared for onto disabled people. I think that’s what sometimes can go wrong here. Able bodied people might project their desires about being doted on and cared for (VERY valid desires!) onto these characters. But disabled people have different needs and wants regarding being cared for! You often cannot copy your own desire to have a break from your insanely busy life (again, valid desire) and have someone take over for you for a little while onto disabled people without accidentaly perpetuating ableist ideas. You might also run into trouble when you project your own desire to be helpful and needed onto characters who take care of a disabled person. This can be a bit more of a gray area (imo) because caring for loved ones is obviously a great thing. I just think it’s important to keep in mind whether the focus is on wanting to be the person who helps someone and actually helping a disabled person according to their own wishes and standards. These are some very rambly thoughts, but I hope they can prompt some people to have a look at their own ways of reading and writing about disabled people. I think an absolutely necessary first step is to consider whether you are taking bodily autonomy into account, but there are many more nuances into properly writing about disabled people. There’s also always just the option of... not writing about disability if it’s not something you fully understand. Sometimes the latter might be the best route to take.

I’d loved to hear some thoughts from other disabled people!

#stranger things #steve harrington #hoh steve harrington #disability #steddie #just gonna use the steddie tag because i half mentioned those guys and I think these are relevant thoughts for that space #sorry not sorry #this is absolutely not a callout thing #id love to have a larger conversation about this #id love the input of other disabled people #don't care all that much about the input of non disabled people but you're welcome to join the conversation #hate using the word 'trope' in regards to disability but i hope you can see where im coming from here #i also have complicated feelings about giving people 'advice' on writing disabled characters #because in a lot of cases if literally rather people just... not even try...

[final-sarcastination]

I'm so angry that every single day multiple times a day on German TV they broadcast the interviews with Jewish Germans and Israeli victims of October 7 where they cry about how "nobody is listening to them" and "nobody cares about their fear and trauma" AS THEY ARE BEING LISTENED TO AND BROADCASTED. It does not get more absurdly hypocritical than that. While these reports get repeated every day without any new information or facts, at the same time Palestinians are being butchered every single day multiple times a day. And no reports about that at all. These people get to describe their every thought and feeling in detail and have it broadcasted on all channels while at the same time not a single report gives the same justice to a single Palestinian in Gaza. No report actually discusses the criticisms of Israel critics, they are simply called antisemites indiscriminately, without proof of argumentation. It's a completely and extremely emotionalised way of reporting that is intended to invoke shame rather than inform. They claim that Israel critics lack nuance while these reports actually do completely lack nuance. The situation of Palestinians is only mentioned in one sentence in the entire 5-10 minute reports and its either called "precarious" or they actually manage to, without any emotion, mention that thousands of them died. No concrete number. No details. They can't even be paid that much respect to, to be at least treated as concrete numbers. Not even that. It's an absolute fucking shit show. This is planned disinformation pretending to be valid journalism.

#germany #our country is complicit in another genocide right now THAT is shameful!

[hypergamiss]

Thoughts on the Erika Jayne and Tom Girardi situation? I don’t understand the outrage against Erika because most wealth is obtained through exploitation and manipulation, especially old money. Most spoiled women like her don’t question where their allowance is coming from, so I think the backlash against her is a bit random.

The Erika Jayne and Tom Girardi case is a messy one, and you're right, it raises questions about wealth, privilege, and complicity.

You're absolutely right that much wealth, especially old money, has questionable origins. Exploitation and systemic injustice are very real problems.

Erika's Situation:

Ignorance isn't Innocent: While some wealthy spouses genuinely don't question their lifestyle's source, Erika specifically flaunted her wealth excessively, even bragging about the insane cost of her glam squad. That makes her willful ignorance harder to swallow. She did give reasons that seemed valid, but was it really that necessary to give that information? I would've gone to my grave with that before letting the entire world know.

The Victims: Girardi allegedly stole from plane crash victims and their families. Showing off that lifestyle while those people suffer is where the outrage comes from. It's more about empathy, not just the legality of her actions.

The Power Dynamic: There's a difference between inheriting old money and actively benefiting from funds that may have been obtained unethically, especially if your husband is much older and the power imbalance is significant.

Why the Backlash?

Symbolism: Erika became a symbol of oblivious wealth and excess. While not unique, her case is high profile and taps into a larger frustration with the system.

The "Real Housewives" Factor: The show creates a specific image of these women. Audiences may feel more invested, and thus more judgmental, than they would about a non-reality star. If she was a person who was out of the spotlight, no one would be dragging her into this case(imo).

It's a nuanced situation with no easy answers. Does she deserve legal consequences? That's for the courts to decide. But ethically, the public outrage highlights a lack of empathy that many find deeply troubling.

[electricbluebutterflies]

17. Masturbation (mutual or otherwise) for Garcy?

Another very late crosspost, at this point who even knows what's hidden in my drafts. NSFWish and also on ao3.

The damned door won’t lock.

Lucy has tried to adapt to the nuances of living with half a dozen other people in a space she suspects was never designed for this many occupants, she has made every compromise she can, but the utter lack of privacy occasionally gets under her skin, especially when she deeply wants it. She’s in a mood and has no easy way to resolve it – at present there are no viable partners for her as far as she’s aware, and getting herself off will be a better time anyways. But she barely even sleeps in her room because someone had the brilliant idea to put her in closest proximity to the shared living areas, she is absolutely goddamn not doing this where she’s actually spent most of her nights over the past few months, and-

The more out-of-the-way bathroom is the best option she has, but even that isn’t necessarily good enough. The lock is known not to work, this isn’t exactly a new problem, and the shower curtain is practically see-through and-

Screw it, her options are either this relatively minor risk or acting on a crush she intends to take to her grave. Accidentally getting walked in on, if it happens, will be less awkward.

A few unnecessary moments of trying to fight the door lower her mood a little, but not enough to change her plans for the afternoon. It has been a long couple of days, and that problem of a crush has started taking up far more of her mind than she can justify, and-

Would it kill her to do something about it, to yank that tree of a man down to her level and make it abundantly clear that she sees how he looks at her and she has no complaints about it?

It probably would, she thinks as she decides to take advantage of her situation and draw a bath. She should know by now that she can’t make good choices. Why start now?

Warm water, theoretically waterproof vibrator, distracting thoughts… she doubts she’ll actually get off, but she’ll get rid of some of this unfortunate tension in her body, hopefully calm herself, hopefully get somewhere. She’s always been efficient, no reason to tease herself when she’s not sure how much time she even has, and there’s barely a daydream in her mind as she puts her device on a medium setting and  it’s not enough but it’s something, it’s not-

Oh goddammit.

The door opens just slowly enough to give her a moment to hide the vibrator under her body and remind herself that innocent violations of privacy are completely normal and she’s pretty sure everyone has at least seen her naked from the waist up before and-

Lucy is not fond of living any erotic cliches, and the sudden presence of the subject of most of her recent fantasies – now currently standing as if turned to stone in the doorway, and definitely looking at her – is decidedly overrated. More awkward than not, and she isn’t sure-

“I walked in on something,” Flynn says, not a question and accent heavier than she’s heard in a while.

“You did.”

Perhaps this is how it has to be, she thinks. She has no inclination to cover herself, nothing to be frightened about, nothing-

“I can-“

“Or you could stay.”

Oh, if she’d thought he’d been turned to stone before, this is something else entirely. No one else has ever looked at her the way he does, like she is divine but not delicate, and-

“What do you want me to do?”

Ravish her, she wants to say, but that feels like asking too much. Anything involving touch would be too much, she’d probably kill him just by kissing with tongue, but-

“Watch me. Close the door, block it, and watch me.”

He does as she asks, and she can see the power she has over him and someday she will use that in the bed that somehow holds both of their bodies. For now there is this, her inhibitions forced down and her eyes closed, nothing below her breasts visible above the waterline, the low buzzing of her vibrator muted by its surroundings and her own noises barely audible. She’s always been quiet, and that has been convenient these past few months, and-

To her great surprise, she falls apart with a sudden gasp and her free hand clawing against the edge of the bathtub, and it’s not quite a great earth-shattering orgasm but it’s still more than she expected out of this and for a few moments everything is very bright and very warm, and-

“Are you alright?” he asks, and it still surprises her how occasionally protective he can be.

“Better now. That felt right. I… could you help me get out?”

She’s not enjoying this as much as she probably should, but she feels his eyes on her now fully exposed body, looking respectfully but still looking, and maybe they’re not as hopeless as she’d thought. Maybe…

“What do you want?” he asks again, low and uncertain.

“You, eventually. I’m just not sure…”

He leans down to kiss her forehead, and she is unafraid, and-

“Take your time.”

#ebf writes fic #garcy #queue