#they're discussing serious politics stuff OBVIOUSLY

[mothermara]

guide to Nice to People by guy who is well-liked in their workplace

Obviously I'm just a regular person who gets annoyed or frustrated and sometimes is mean or selfish, but I am generally regarded fondly by my peers because I'm nice to them. Many people say being nice is difficult and doesn't come easily to them. That's ok 👍 it's a skill you can learn and practice.

epic nice behaviour tips under the cut ↓

some examples of things you can do to be nice to your peers, especially in a workplace setting:

Listen to them when they talk to you about themself or how they feel. Always a very solid basis to beginning an amicable relationship with someone. If they mention having a child or children, you can say things like "You have a kid? How old?" (in my experience this is an acceptable question to ask someone you don't know very well that also shows interest in them and what's important to them)

Express mild concern over their well-being. If they tell you they've been sick, you can ask if they've been feeling better (if they tell you they still feel sickly and miserable, you can also express sympathy or offer minor help like if you have painkillers or cough drops in your bag, etc.)

If you notice you haven't seen them in a while/as frequently you can point that out in a casual discussion. Usually, they'll tell you why if they're comfortable explaining (if they don't seem forthcoming about giving you the details, it might be serious or very personal, at which point you shouldn't push for information). This also signals to them that you notice when they aren't around, which is usually a nice thing to hear because a lot of people struggle with feeling unimportant.

Err on the side of politeness. If you're a generally silly and lighthearted person, you might be playfully rude to people. It's okay to do this with your friends, because they understand you don't actually want to offend or hurt them. If you do this to a stranger, they lack that context and might feel confused or offended.

I think that's pretty much the most important stuff. Being nice is free and actually relatively convenient to do, and it can help you make friends with people you otherwise don't have much in common with.

That's all, thank you <3

#ezzy.txt

[earthbeamingwradiance]

I don't really have critical things to say about today's Les Mis Letters, but it did remind me of a few quotes I've pulled from other texts, so I will drop them into the tag with the caveat that I am not an expert in any of these fields lol. I am but a lowly fiction writer who reads queer theory and care ethics stuff for fun and in an effort to find more meaning & understanding in my own worldview/work.

Let's start with Enjolras's speech, under the cut.

“It is a bad moment to pronounce the word love. No matter, I do pronounce it. And I glorify it. Love, the future is thine. Death, I make use of thee, but I hate thee. Citizens, in the future there will be neither darkness nor thunderbolts; neither ferocious ignorance, nor bloody retaliation. As there will be no more Satan, there will be no more Michael. In the future no one will kill any one else, the earth will beam with radiance, the human race will love. The day will come, citizens, when all will be concord, harmony, light, joy and life; it will come, and it is in order that it may come that we are about to die.”

Obviously we're all emotionally compromised by "Love, the future is thine," but I've been thinking about this post from everyonewasabird about how it's a conversation they're all having—to quote the post, "Revolutions are an act of love, and love is why they’re here."

Now, anyone who knows me well will know that I think a lot about the ethics of care, something my philosopher sibling put me onto. I've recently been reading Trans Care by Hil Malatino, which is free to read through the University of Minnesota website.

To pull from the book's own blurb, "Trans Care is a critical intervention in how care labor and care ethics have been thought, arguing that dominant modes of conceiving and critiquing the politics and distribution of care entrench normative and cis-centric familial structures and gendered arrangements. A serious consideration of trans survival and flourishing requires a radical rethinking of how care operates."

I am drawn particularly to these series of sentences:

"To stand on the right side of history is to care. To be committed to social justice is to care. Self-care is imperative for those in the political trenches of the left—we spend so much time caring for others we forget to care about ourselves, but we can’t care for others effectively if we don’t attend to our own needs sometimes. Self-care is warfare, after all, as Audre Lorde (1988) reminds us. We actively care for folks—as social workers, sex workers, teachers, parents, service workers, nurses, nonprofit hustlers—but we also care about others in the abstract. We are able to pragmatically prioritize the greater good; we are not, ostensibly, wholly dominated by the vicious id of self-interest. We are able to place ourselves in another’s shoes: to care is to empathize enough to grasp and service the needs of another, and to do so willingly."

Which obviously led me to look up the Lorde quote—from the epilogue of A Burst of Light

“Caring for myself is not self-indulgence, it is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.”

I think it's interesting to contrast "self-care as warfare in a world which is actively hostile to the existence/survival of many" with "it is in order that it may come that we are about to die." I could go down a whole rabbit hole about martyrdom here, but I'll spare you, and lead you onto hope instead.

I've also been reading Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity by José Esteban Muñoz. I must be clear that I have barely skimmed the surface of queer futurity in my own reading, but as someone who read the phrase "Love, the future is thine" as an impressionable teenager, the version of hope that is essential to Muñoz's futurity...resonates deeply.

"Queerness is essentially about the rejection of a here and now and an insistence on potentiality or concrete possibility for another world."

Much of the introduction of Cruising Utopia discusses the thinkings of philosopher Ernst Bloch, who talks about hope as a necessary step of striving for utopia—this, I think, would resonate with Enjolras as well.

"Unlike possibility, a thing that simply might happen, a potentiality is a certain mode of nonbeing that is eminent, a thing that is present but not actually existing in the present tense. ... Bloch would posit that such utopian feelings can and regularly will be disappointed. They are nonetheless indispensable to the act of imaging transformation ... As Bloch would insist, hope can be disappointed. But such disappointment needs to be risked if certain impasses are to be resisted."

I wish I had something intelligent to say to tie all my thoughts about these quotes together...since this is my post, allow me to fumble for a moment in search of a neat bow.

Love, the future is thine—there exists a future, though it may be impossible to reach, in which we care, willingly. Hope is a striving for this future. And while hope may be disappointed—it is still a necessary step to bring this future into fruition.

Enjolras, in this speech, rejects the here and now. He may be Justice, now. But that's not the future he's striving for. There is, for Enjolras, a concrete possibility of a future in which he doesn't need to be Justice.

Love (care), the future is thine.

He hopes.

#les mis #les mis letters #lm 4.12.8 #enjolras #victor hugo #long post #sorry

[terriwriting]

I am a Donald Trump cultist. I am a soldier for Donald Trump. I am part of — I serve at the personal pleasure of Donald Trump, my supreme leader. I am part of the paramilitary wing of the Trump movement. I am part of the Revolutionary Guard.

I do not answer to the Pentagon. I do not answer to the civilian government. I answer — I am the Praetorian Guard of Donald Trump. If Donald Trump ordered me to do an extrajudicial killing, I would perform it.

I do not swear an oath to the Constitution. I swear an oath to Art of the Deal.

You know — you have — and that — you know it's fine. You have your civilian military, you have your civilian National Guard, and all that stuff. And they work for the Constitution. They work for the government.

I don't. I work for Donald Trump personally. Now, I'm not — I don't — I'm not contracted. This is just like, you know, but — I do. But I would work for him like that. I am part of the paramilitary wing.

It's sort of like whatever Trump told me to do, I would do it. If Trump said, like, hey, you know, if Trump called me up and said, it's MAGA night at the White House, we need you. I would go there. I would. If he summoned me, I would arrive. If he sent me somewhere and said, look, we need to torture Hillary Clinton — theoretically. I wouldn't obviously do that of my own volition. But if Donald Trump won the election and Donald Trump called me on a secret burner phone and he said, look, we have to capture and — no, we can't go there. We actually can't go, actually can't go there.

But if Donald Trump called me up and said, look, we need to capture my political enemies and torture them, you're OK with that, right? This is totally off the books. This is a black op. If he called me up and told me to do it, I would. I would be like, sir, yes — I wouldn't even say, yes, Mr. President. I would say it will be done. I would say it will be done, Supreme Leader. I would say something like that. I wouldn't even say — I wouldn't even say yes, sir. I would say it will be done, Supreme Leader. I would say something like — I would say some serious, like Star Wars, like Roman Empire, like something totally not — something totally — something kind of foreign and anachronistic. I would say something completely anachronistic. You know, in the military — in the military they're like sir, yes, sir, right away, Mr. President. I would be like, it will be done, Supreme Leader Trump. It would be something like that. It would be something like that.

#donald trump #republicans #nazis #us politics #magats

[woggle-bugger-me]

Uncle Henry and Aunt Em in Oz

(Content warnings for mentions of racism) So... March Laumer. Truly one of the writers of all time.

Laumer's a bit infamous in some circles for writing Oz books that're aimed at adults. They're not that dark for modern, post-Wicked Years standards (none of the ones I read had any explicit sex or swearing) they're more like if you got a normal Oz book and added a sprinkle of what-the-hell stuff to it. Someone online once described them as like Baum's Oz, but without the innocence, which I think is pretty accurate (although Baum's books had their dark moments). That being said, Laumer wrote a lot of his books throughout the 80s, so it makes sense that they'd be controversial at the time.

Anyway, here's my review of "Uncle Henry and Aunt Em in Oz" by March Laumer. I'm not going to give an in-depth plot summary of it cos I assume most people that're gonna read this either 1) have already read it or 2) don't actually care about the plot and just want to read about the weird stuff, but basically it's about Aunt Em getting possessed by the spirit of the Witch of the East, and Uncle Henry teaming up with a kid called Zippiochoggolak (or 'Zip') to save the day.

The writing

I actually like how Laumer handled some characters, mainly Aunt Em and Uncle Henry themselves. Em and Henry are underrated characters imo, so it's nice to have a book that focuses on them.

Some of the characters are handled weirdly, though. One of the reasons why some people dislike Laumer is because his versions of Oz characters are usually OOC. He doesn't give them whole new personalities like some writers do, but the characters are usually a bit "off". For example, characters will talk to each other about politics and other serious topics, which obviously didn't happen a huge amount in Baum's books, unless you count a scene in The Road to Oz where the Tin woodman bonds with the Shaggy Man over their shared hatred of money. Some characters have a slightly meaner or sarcastic edge to them.

The child characters are portrayed as being less sympathetic in this book, and I get the impression that Laumer didn't really like kids much. There's a sharp contrast between Baum, who was good at writing child characters, and Laumer, who wasn't. It makes me wonder why Laumer didn't just focus on the adult characters seeing as he clearly found them easier to relate to?

The plot itself is unfortunately really boring around the middle. I found myself skim-reading several chapters. Laumer's books are all pretty short, but reading this felt like it took years (that might be because I was tired, but still).That being said, Laumer sneaks little bits of dark comedy into it, and there were a few funny moments.

Also, I didn't care about Zippiochoggolak. I admit I'm biased since when people make OCs for Oz stories, I often find it hard to connect with them, but I didn't find Zip interesting at all. It doesn't help that he's shipped with Dorothy, which I just found weird.

Anyway, onto the weird parts of the book!

The weird stuff

Laumer establishes early on that Aunt Em and Uncle Henry are siblings-in-law. I'm not sure if this counts as incest or not since they're only related through marriage, but it's still a bit uncomfortable to read about. That being said, they were living in an isolated rural area during the Victorian period, so it's not that strange from a historical perspective.

Later on, Dorothy discusses her family with Zip, and talks about how she'd "like to see more tolerance in Oz". They then talk about how Christians try and convert people because they want everyone to be like them (Laumer's words, not mine).

Dorothy then says that Ozites are also racist, and that no one would want anyone who isn't a white Christian to come to Oz?? I assume this is meant to be a response to some of the later (mostly Thompson) Oz books, which have some really horrible racist moments. Dorothy and Zip obviously agree that this is bad, but then Dorothy comes out with this:

“Of course,” the Princess hastened to amend, “we would probably want to exclude deviants and unmarried mothers. I guess we wouldn’t want just everybody to think they could come here—no matter how harmless they might be.”

Just in case anyone gets the wrong end of the stick, I think this is just Laumer's dark sense of humour.

The book's ending is pretty dark. A character from Baum's books is accidentally killed and the other characters have survivors guilt. They where only a minor character in Baum's books, but still.

Final thoughts

Who is this book actually for? Oz purists won't enjoy it because it's too adult and people who want a dark Oz parody won't enjoy it because there's not enough adult stuff to keep them entertained. I don't want to put people off reading it, but at the same time I can't recommend it.

That being said, I am going to read at least one other March Laumer book, mostly so I can compare them. Maybe I'll write another review?

#march laumer #the wizard of oz #land of oz #review #fun fact: this post was originally like twice as long #i had a whole extra paragraph ranting about how boring i found zip lol

[dandelioncrownns]

kanej/zoyalai double date

based off this post by @kazs-new-hat and also: this scene from Diner (1982)

#kanej #zoyalai #six of crows #nikolai duology #grishaverse fanart #nikolai lantsov #zoya nazyalensky #kaz brekker #inej ghafa #nikolai gave inej a matching purple coat ofc #so they can match lol #they're discussing serious politics stuff OBVIOUSLY #pirate SOs x grumpy ruthless leaders #the way i kept procrastinating this so much :|| #art #artists on tumblr #doodles :b

[cantseemtohide]

Check in tag

Thanks to @storiesbyjes2g @villereals and @sims4italianfan for the tags 😊

Why did you choose your url?

It's the title of a song. Which I'm not actually that much of a fan of. So basically I'm not sure.

Any side blogs? If you have them name them and why you have them.

Nope this is the only tumblr I've ever had

How long have you been on tumblr?

Since 2017.

Do you have a queue tag?

No

Why did you choose your icon/pfp?

I like City Living, I've been using icons from the mural art for ages now

Why did you choose your header?

I like City Living

How many mutuals do you have?

I wouldn't even know how to find out.

How many followers do you have?

921, although obviously about 90% aren't following me in any meaningful sense, for actually active followers you could probably take away the nine hundred 😁

How many people do you follow?

196

Have you ever made a shitpost?

I'm not 100% sure what that is but I'm pretty sure I haven't.

Did you have a fight/argument with another blog once? who won?

Not really, I've had political discussions once or twice that maybe verged on arguments but nothing serious.

How do you feel about ‘you need to reblog this’ posts?

I don't think I've ever reblogged any of them.

Do you like tag games?

Some, it's rare for me to do any sims related ones though. Only if they're very low effort 👍

Do you like ask games?

I occasionally send asks to other people but never asked for any myself. I suppose it reminds me too much of being at school to be honest.

Which of your mutuals do you think is tumblr famous?

I don't really know what counts as being tumblr famous and I'm not sure I'd know if they were or not anyway...

Do you have a crush on a mutual?

Not since myspace in 2005 or something.

I will tag @seawhims @aggretsimko @whyeverr @aleii-sim @dynastiasimss @dragonflydaydreamer @myverycoolnickname (hope you don't mind being tagged in stuff saw you posting the other day) @lollipopsimblr @medusito @evan-sims @tianella

As always feel free to ignore if you already did this/prefer not to 😊

#tag thing #check in tag #storiesbyjes2g #villereals #sims4italianfan #non sims

[essercipertuttienonperse]

What did Andrew Garfield do?

nothing in particular sjdj Idk if u know but apparently he's in the new Spiderman movie (sorry if this is a spoiler that u didn't want to know 😬) and for years he's been one of the "favorite guys" here on Tumblr and one of the reasons is bc he left marvel/isn't like the other celebrities/ is a good guy tm and other stuff but one of the main reasons was the marvel thing/how he played Spiderman as a normal guy (for the people etc) and has often been compared with Tom Holland and Tom Hollands Spiderman (Tony starks friend, capitalism mascot etc) and the ~consensus~ in that side of Tumblr was that he was much better/that Spiderman was much better and marvel ruined Spiderman with the latest installment by making him into everything that he was supposed to hate. now tho that this movie came out and he is in it I kinda expected people to be at least somewhat disappointed in that/him ? bc like for years you praised someone for not being part of something and criticized someone else for being part of it but now that the first person also participates in that something you're suddenly ok with it all ? I mean I didn't expect anything big or serious and I still expected ppl to like it but I still thought I'd see some discussion about it from the people I used to see such passionate opinions about these topics in the past ? (maybe they're out there I just haven't seen them tho!) also that side of Tumblr was always anti-mcu in general bc of other problems like the exploitation of workers, environmental impact that they refuse to really do something about, general lack of quality and artistry, propaganda, questionable politics etc.. but now suddenly those discussions also have gone quiet ? (again this can very well just be my personal pov bc obviously I can only see a very small part of Tumblr and I'm talking about this stuff in relation to my dash that I'm using as like a in scale model for Tumblr in general). idk I guess what I wanted to say is that it's like putting these people's favorite guy back into the movies made marvel regain some (possibly transient) popularity among this group of people who were very much against them and that franchise in particular before and I kinda think it wasn't just a happy coincidence you know?

#ask #anon #sorry lol this answer was 90% about the reactions rather than andrew Garfield! #i dont really have a strong opinion about him tbh bc i kinda expect actors to ultimately serve their own interests so sjhj #i dont think this was that surprising for me #or disappointing but like i didnt hold him at standards as high as certain others do here and yet they also didnt seem disappointed? #and i guess thats what surprised me !

[sayitwityachest]

i actually like my prof despite her weird contradictions with feminism- she's a fun person and seems super heartfelt. That being said she is obviously biphobic. The fun thing about being bisexual is biphobia can be soooo easy to not notice bc so much of it the silence (uhem, invisibility) UNTIL bisexuality comes up. This is a class on feminism in the 60-80s, so of course bisexuality is not mentioned much (doesn't mean I'm not gonna talk about it a bunch in my own class discussions and analyses). The prof is eager to explain and apologize (and apologize and apologize and...) about how western feminist theory has been framed around white feminists and women, and that's how she learned it. And although she only really focuses on Black women and the ways they've been left out and screwed over, basically only paying lip service to other groups of non-white women, it does feel sincere (def clumsy tho). So, when we talk about political lesbianism and I bring up how it seems highly likely that the majority of political "lesbians" were bi women- and this was the first real mention of bisexuality during the semester- and this comment is greeted with soooo much enthusiasm, so much curiosity on the topic from other students- the prof is overwhelmed. Being a lesbian herself, she speaks so much on Lesbian Feminism- which is very interesting to learn about the history of btw some wild stuff forreal lol- and we talk about the sexual dynamics between men and women (in the context of heterosexual sex and relationships), but why did a student have to be the one who brought up bisexual women? You are teaching a theory class, teaching Simone de Beauvoir, but when one of these young women asks you so earnestly if there are any noteworthy bisexual feminists (as in theorists) you have to fucking google it and read a list that includes fucking lady gaga? Are you serious? Okay that's fine because i can talk about it, and i certainly did, and after she admitted in a somewhat sheepish manner "uh sorry- I don't know much about bisexuals." Why is it that I, a 21-year-old bisexual woman, was reading theory by lesbians and straight women before i even took this class, but you, a 55-year-old feminist scholar, can't be fucking bothered to know jack shit about bisexual women? Why is it that when you talk about your 200-level class (this is freshmen and sophomores- 18/19 y/o's) and your frustration towards their lack of understanding towards old school feminism you felt the NEED to say, " and you know... they're all ~bisexual~..." and never fucking elaborated on that. What the hell was I supposed to get out of that? What were you trying to communicate? Genuinely, besties, I don't know- I'm not even trying to be like "she's saying bisexuals are dumb" there are just so many fucking different reasons for her thinking that was a noteworthy thing to say that I might actually understand- not agree with, but understand, yes- that the fact that she thought it appropriate to say that and just leave it hanging like it was an explanation in itself makes me so angry. Who the fuck else gets treated like this? "And you know... they're all ~lesbians~/they're all ~straight women~" ????? that's not an acceptable thing to say in our social setting at all. Especially in terms of feminism. I know damn well there is AT LEAST one other bisexual girl in that class, and honestly, judging by the response to my comment on political lesbianism, probably a few more. But yep, let's mock bisexuals for being interested in feminism, for making up the majority of your intro to feminism class, let's fucking fumble through all discussions of bisexuality with "oh gees uh wow I never thought about it oopsies" like that's a legit excuse as a supposed expert on women. I'm tired.

#western libfem manifesto #it's the constant disrespect that i am just supposed to ignore #and dont get me wrong #i DO like her #her teaching methods frustrate me a bit along with how she frequently contradicts herself... #that that's becoming understandable to me very quick #also something for an entirely different rant post lmaooo #but no it's that little comment in a sea of silence that speaks so much #and it doesnt actually affect ME besides pissing me off #but it makes me very angry and protective on behalf of the other bi girls in that classroom who are being sent that message #that message specifically from their feminist professor #someone they should be able to look up to and respect not only as an authority on the subject #but as a woman in general #it's just wrong #rant #bisexy tag

[mittensmorgul]

do you think it's open to interpretation whether dean and cas are in love with each other? Like is it just as valid an interpretation to say they're not? Whenever anyone calls destiel "one interpretation" or whatever, my hackles rise. And I know I'm overly sensitive about this stuff, being a gay and whatnot, but I mean, is it? Am I just insecure because my otp isn't canon, or is destiel really more valid than other readings or what? What do you think?

Hi there. :)

I’m gonna give you the diplomatic, academic answer, and then I’m gonna give you the grumpy-ass queer lady answer. Hold on to your horses. :)

Polite answer:

All media is open to interpretation. Of course, this doesn’t mean that all interpretations are equally valid, or equally supported by canon, especially when taken in context of the entire body of the work in question.

For example, I replied to a post the other day about 13.17, and that scene where Dean and Sam are-- on first glance-- rather disrespectful of the extremely rare and valuable books in the bunker... but in context of the rest of the episode and the rest of the season, that montage wasn’t about disrespecting those books at all. It had less than nothing to do with the books themselves as objects or as sources of knowledge that should be properly cared for and respected. But out of context it kinda looks that way. So, based on that one short gif set, it might seem like a perfectly legitimate interpretation to suggest that Sam and Dean were careless with the immense knowledge and invaluable books they’ve found themselves in possession of. But in the larger context of their entire history, of all their interactions with the bunker and the untold store of knowledge it holds,  and with the context of the specific reasons for their frustration in that particular scene, it seems obvious that there’s a lot more to the story, you know?

You could technically argue just about any weird headcanon can be supported by canon. I wrote this weird little post right after 12.11 aired, and it sat in my drafts for a good long time before I finally posted it. But there’s nothing in canon that legit quashes the possibility that endgame fish!Cas is where the story’s been headed all along. He’s positively swimming in fish metaphors. (sorry, I couldn’t resist) Does that abundance of fish, fishing imagery, and water imagery that have surrounded Cas for years lend itself to a literal interpretation? I mean, it’s definitely AN interpretation that is there if you want to see it, and if in your heart of hearts you believe it’s legitimately what the storytelling is attempting to convey here. But does that make it a valid interpretation that deserves serious consideration? Does it truly make sense when taking the larger story around Cas as a whole? Or is it obviously a literary theme that we’re supposed to consider through the themes traditionally associated with fish and fishing as used in countless other fictional works of the past? I suppose that sort of interpretation has been left open for us to take or leave as we see fit. It invites us to examine those references more closely, to help us understand Cas as a character and the journey his personal character arc is taking him through. It gives his experiences and growth a depth of context that is there to explore if we so choose.

(for more on Cas vs Fish, please see my tags regarding “The Fisher King.” I like to think there’s a more well-reasoned and logical line of thinking for pinning so much fish to Cas than my cracky example of fish!Cas would suggest.)

Now, looking at destiel specifically, if you take any single moment out of context, it’s absolutely possible to make an interpretation that their relationship is clearly more “brotherly,” or clearly more “familial,” or clearly one of “very close friends.” But it requires the same removal from the larger context to explain away what taken with the entirety of their history begins to look entirely undeniable.

I suppose, since Supernatural is an open canon and the story hasn’t been fully told yet, that it’s possible the writers could change course with the storytelling. It’s possible that something might prevent them from taking Dean and Cas and their story to the conclusion they’ve been building to for the last ten years. They could decide to leave this particular “interpretation” open-ended and unresolved.

Since that is always a possibility, and because I’m not psychic, nor do I have any top secret inside information from the writers and showrunners, I can’t say that my particular interpretation is more valid or correct or likely than anyone else’s. But I have yet to come up against a credible, coherent explanation for the entire body of extant canon that invalidates my particular interpretation, either.

The vast majority of arguments against boil down to logical fallacies-- cherry-picking scenes out of context as “proof,” straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. Because of this, I’m content to wait for canon to play out. I’ll happily watch the rest of the story unfold, and happily continue to interpret what I’m witnessing as a whole instead of attempting to dissect it out and explain away what I see as an entirely logical progression of storytelling.

As an aside here, I find it entirely fascinating that one of the most common complaints I read from people who deny Dean and Cas are in love is that the writing has become progressively more terrible, that the story of Supernatural as a whole makes less and less sense, and that the characters are behaving in increasingly “out of character” ways. And as someone in possession of rational capabilities, I wonder if their disconnect from the storytelling is simply their refusal to see and accept that perhaps their “interpretation” of the story is just... not correct.

When we attempt to deny or rationalize away certain interpretations of characterization, or certain progressions of events and how they relate to one another, the larger narrative just falls apart, you know? Of course it doesn’t make sense if you exclude large portions of it because you don’t want to see it or believe it’s happening, or important to the story.

Meanwhile, I’m over here loving every minute of it (okay... most minutes of it). So even if my interpretation isn’t absolutely 100% “correct” (and really, with any media, there’s always different ways to interpret everything, from what the color of the curtains might imply to who’s gonna get to fire Chekhov’s Gun in the third act), I’m content to continue to interpret it in a way that not only makes me personally happiest, but in a way that makes the story itself seem both logical and entertaining, as well.

Okay, that’s the end of the rational portion of this essay. Now on to the angry queer lady portion:

There’s more canon evidence for Dean and Cas being in love, or at the very least caring for one another to ridiculous, rather mind-numbing degrees, than there is for practically every canon heterosexual couple on television in the last fifty years. Think of any slow burn, will they-won’t they hetero couple, and do the point-by-point checklist of all the tropes they burned through before they got to the love declarations and the kissing and the happily ever afters (or worse, the dramatic breaking up and getting back together, or even worse, the tragically breaking up forever). I challenge anyone to name one hetero-presenting couple who required as many love tropes for audiences to recognize and acknowledge they were in love. Yeah, I’m thinking of that whole “they shared a pencil” post.

So yeah, there is likely a measure of heteronormativity to it, and a lot of the arguments against also devolve into rather gross denouncements that there’s no way Dean’s not straight, because he said so that one time... Mr. “I lie professionally” who also never actually said he was straight... gah... I’m not gonna dig up every ancient meta post on the subject. If anyone is legitimately interested in understanding why making those same tired arguments just doesn’t have any legitimacy in a reasoned discussion, they can damn well do their own digging. It’s not like any of the evidence is difficult to uncover, and it’s not my job to spoon feed it to every naysayer myself.

I feel like I’m standing on a Mt. Everest size pile of rational, reasonable, well-argued analysis supporting the claim that Dean and Cas are in love. *stands back and points at my whole entire blog again* If anyone would like to come back at me with something even remotely worth my time and attention to persuade me to alter my interpretation, I suggest they get busy. I’ll just be up here on top of my mountain enjoying the clean, destiel-scented air up here.

And finally, who says it’s not canon? Ah, right. Moving goalposts. At this point, I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that Dean and Cas don’t love one another. And profoundly, at that. I mean, you don’t give up an army for one guy if you don’t at least like him a lil bit. You don’t shout down God begging him to bring back that dude you’re kinda buddies with, or sink into a suicidal funk that reverses completely within minutes of finding out said buddy’s alive again. You don’t offer to march to your death with your chum because he’s such a nice guy and all. I mean... honestly. How far in denial does someone have to be to suggest they don’t love each other? At this point, when comparing Sam and Dean’s reactions far into s13 to Cas’s death in 12.23, either you accept that Dean has much stronger and far different feelings about the loss of someone that Sam does love and considers a brother, or else you kinda have to assume that Sam’s just kind of a dick for not being as broken up about Cas’s death as Dean is. So... which interpretation do you think is the one they’re trying to convey?

Bleh, whatever. I await the inevitable inbox full of nastiness that I will cheerfully delete while judging every anon who sends it as someone who really should find a better hobby than antagonizing strangers on the internet over a work of fiction.

Anon, basically, don’t let the bastards grind you down, okay?

Now for some reason I feel like listening to Achtung Baby. Imma go do that and feel the love.

#destiel #the scheherazade of supernatural #btw for anyone who still feels the need to antagonize destiel shippers #that tag would be the one for you to find a lot of that content you'll need to actually address in order for anyone to take you seriously #Anonymous