this is meant to be simply a personal reference

Hold Me Tight | Pt. 2

( can you trust me? )

Part 1 | Part 2

Anonymous requested: Hwarang AU + Royalty/Servant AU
Pairing: Taehyung | Reader
Genre: Angst/Fluff; Royalty AU + Soulmate AU (in which you know they’re your soulmate when you touch them for the first time + share extreme physical sensation after you meet)
Word Count: 5,906
Author’s Note: A little warning, light smut in this part! And crazy, reckless kids in love. Like the calm before the storm.

Summary: Kim Taehyung is expected to spend the rest of his life within the company of nobility after joining the ranks of the kingdom’s newest royal guard. He anticipates alot of new experiences, new people… but the spark of a touch more powerful than anything before in his life is definitely not one of them—from the shadows of maids and housekeepers nonetheless.

.

Kim Taehyung always thought he was relatively well experienced when it came to different happenings that could occur in his life, believing that even though he lacks the complete knowledge that can only happen with age, he had obtained certain skills such as critical thinking and deductive reasoning to help him figure out certain problems he couldn’t simply reach into his memories for reference.

However, this is almost an entirely different story in it of itself.

He has just found his soulmate, the person he is destined to spend eternity with, the person who was meant to fit him better than anyone else on the universe, only to discover that you were a servant of the Hwarang household. Of all the people in the universe Taehyung could have been matched with, it had to be someone he would be absolutely forbidden to marry. For a blinding moment, it almost feels insulting to be gifted with such a soulmate of such a position, and he wonders why whatever gods in control of this would set him up with an individual he could never reach out to. He feels many different emotions the longer he lets this realization dawn upon him: anger, remorse, complete and utter confusion to name a few.

But once those emotions hit him and pass him by, it leaves the lingering question of what Taehyung was seriously going to do about the growing elephant in the room. It wasn’t like he could simply ignore the issue, because it was going to come back and bite him right in the ass whether he wanted it to or not. Because eventually, Queen Jiso was going to try to find him a princess, she was going to try and find his soulmate—and Taehyung doesn’t know how long the Queen would search before she figured it out.

However, regardless of this impending fear that comes with discovering one’s soulmate is of completely forbidden nature in a way that could result in dire consequences (death definitely being one of them), Taehyung does the thing he feels like he is best equipped to do given his high level of maturity, thoughtfulness, and wisdom.

He avoids it.

Keep reading

Debunking Serano’s “Debunking”

Julia Serano believes he has “debunked” radical feminists in this article published on his blog yesterday. I would like to take some time to deconstruct Serano’s arguments and debunk trans activism’s “debunking.” Because of all the fallacies and straw men in the article, this post will be a long one. Grab a snack and join me. Serano, this is rhetorically addressed to you.

Your second sentence in this article:

From pre-interview conversations we shared, I knew that my interviewer planned to ask me about Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s comments from earlier this year wherein she claimed that trans women are not women.

And in the article you link to for a source:

Adichie, who is not transgender, responded: “So when people talk about, you know, ‘Are trans women women?’ — my feeling is trans women are trans women.”

Notice how you’re dishonest in the second sentence of this article? You begin by touting yourself and your interview for the New York Times, and then immediately, falsely, cast skeptical feminists like Adichie as the villains. While I wouldn’t disagree with Adichie if she had said trans women aren’t women, she didn’t say that and you begin your piece by framing “popular” feminists (Adichie and women like her) as a natural enemy.

Moving on, you talk about your own book for a while, and then:

Women who insist that trans women are not women often object to being called “cis women” under the false assumption that it somehow undermines their femaleness — this is not at all the purpose of this language….In other words, referring to someone as “cisgender” simply means that they have not had a transgender experience.

You do not get to determine other people’s analysis of your writing, especially if you want to falsely put words in Adichie’s mouth. If you are going to claim that trans feelings are what matter over other people speaking, then you cannot simultaneously tell anyone who feels undermined by putting a prefix on our oppression that we are wrong.

I could say “In other words, referring to someone as ‘he’ simply means he was born with a penis and has been treated accordingly by society” and you’d call me a bigot. You cannot support, for instance, the idea that misgendering a trans person is violence if the alleged offender meant no harm because according to your logic, the intent of words matters more than the effect.

How many times have women heard men tell us not to take their words negatively? “Calm down!” “Relax!” “It’s a compliment!” This is tired.

While some cisgender people refuse to take our experiences seriously, the fact of the matter is that transgender people can be found in virtually every culture and throughout history.

This is not an argument. Sexism has occurred in virtually every culture and throughout history. So has rape, murder, and child abuse. Longevity is not relevant. You cannot argue that it lends legitimacy or validates your claims.

While cis feminists who claim that trans women are not women obsess over questions of identity (“How can a ‘man’ possibly call ‘himself’ a woman?”), they purposefully overlook or play down the fact that we have very real life experiences as women.

Actually, we don’t obsess over your identity. You do. Radical feminists are focused on material problems whereas you are the one constantly blowing about identity validation. I have never asked how a man can call himself a woman because society allows men to call themselves anything they want, including the biologically impossible.

You do not have experiences as a woman. You have experiences as a man masquerading as a woman. They will never be the same as our experiences.

Forcing trans women into a separate group that is distinct from cis women does not in any way help achieve feminism’s central goal of ending sexism.

Spaces free from men does help our goal by allowing us to organize women like you to come and tell us who we are and what our goals should be. Men forcing themselves into women’s spaces is sexism.

Other common appeals to biology center on reproduction — e.g., stating that trans women have not experienced menstruation, or cannot become pregnant. This ignores the fact that some cisgender women never menstruate and/or are unable to become pregnant.

A man has never become pregnant. Where are women who do not menstruate or are unable to become pregnant complaining like you are? I have never become pregnant and never once did I doubt that I’m a woman. Society has treated me from birth as a female with the potential to become pregnant. You do not have that potential.

Women’s genitals vary greatly, and as with chromosomes and reproductive capabilities, we cannot readily see other people’s genitals in everyday encounters.

Women do not have penises. Diversity in vulvas and vaginas is not a penis. We can evaluate the sex of 99% of the people we come across at first glance. I PROMISE you that men know I have a vagina when they sexually harass me on the street even though they can’t see it.

When I lived in Spain as an Iraqi girl, I was sometimes mistaken for a person of Romani heritage and treated as such. (One specific incident comes to mind where I was patiently waiting to use a cash machine and the current user tried to shoo me away, believing I would try to rob her.) While my phenotype might appear to be that of a Roma girl to some people and I have had “real experiences” of being an Iraqi mistaken for a Roma person, that doesn’t make me Romani. It doesn’t give me the history of the Romani people or the struggle of their daily lives and common discrimination.

And frankly, what could possibly be more sexist than reducing a woman to what’s between her legs? Isn’t that precisely what sexist men have been doing to women for centuries on end?

Possibly the idea that a woman is a collection of stereotypes rather than a biologically oppressed class? Acknowledging I have a vagina and my life has been a certain way because of it is not reductive. I never said it defines me; it makes my life significantly different from yours and as a radical feminist I am trying to fight against that. You’re the only one using that argument.

So it is hypocritical for any self-identified feminist to use “biology” and “body parts” arguments in their attempts to dismiss trans women.

Biology is directly tied to our oppression. We need to point that out to fight the oppression. Is it a black person playing into racism by pointing out that she is black? Is a Jew hypocritical for pointing out that antisemitism happens to her because she is Jewish? During the Holocaust, people with Jewish heritage who self-identified as atheists were STILL murdered along with practicing Jews. They couldn’t identify themselves out of the ghettos or the concentration camps because your identifarianism is made up.

The main thrust of this assertion is that women are women because of socialization and/or their experiences with sexism. But what about me then?


  1. It’s NOT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU.
  2. You’re not a woman. There is your answer.

Or what about young trans girls who socially transition early in life, and who never have the experience of being perceived or treated as a man?

Socialization literally starts in the uterus. There are cultures with superstitions that doing certain things will “curse” a pregnant woman with a female infant. I can see you don’t spend a lot of time with children (alhamdulillah–thank god) because you would see how early that socialization begins and reflects in their behavior. I’ve already written about how society disadvantages female infants.

A young girl is forced against her will to live as a boy. Upon reaching adulthood, after years of male socialization and privilege, she comes out about identifying as female and begins to live as a woman. Do you accept her as a woman?

Children are not forced against their will to live as their biological sex because biological sex is natural trait for human beings . Children are forced to conform to gender roles but your insistence that womanhood is just a collection of those roles is actually upholding the problem.

Saying “you are a boy” is not the same as being told what “boy” socially entails, or that you cannot do feminine-labeled things because you are a boy. You were NEVER a young girl so don’t act like a victim in that sense. I’m sorry society forces children to uphold gender roles but radical feminists are the ones out here fighting them.

More often than not, people who claim that trans women aren’t women make both the biology and socialization arguments simultaneously, even though they are seemingly contradictory (i.e., if biology is the predominant criteria, then one’s socialization shouldn’t matter, and vice versa).

Biology is the basis of that socialization. Radical feminists are not arguing conflicting ideologies. We acknowledge that socialization is assigned to us based on our material and unchangeable biological sex. This is not contradictory in any way.

Much like their homophobic counterparts who make appeals to biology (“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”)

Creationism is not biology. You’re trying to undermine biology and evolution with an example that you know is religious and not scientific at all.

The trans-women-aren’t-women crowd desperately throws the entire kitchen sink at us rather than attempting to make a coherent argument.

I think I’ve made a very coherent argument but trans activists ignore that argument and set up straw men, like you just did in the sentence immediately before this one. You’re the one who has it wrong.

While gender socialization is quite real, all of us are capable of overcoming or transcending the socialization that we experienced as children.

So now you’re acknowledging gender socialization but saying we can overcome it. This is blaming women for our own oppression because we cannot socialize or identify ourselves out of it. Even trans men cannot escape their socialization and the attacks against their female biology like anti-abortion laws.

If I could transcend my socialization, I wouldn’t wear makeup, but my job requires me to look “presentable” and this means wearing makeup in my society. If I could transcend my socialization, I would be much firmer with men who interrupt me but I know they will likely react with more hostility and I have to prioritize my safety over shedding stereotypes. It’s hardly an option really.

The “Male Energy” and “Male Privilege” Fallacies

The way you’ve put “male privilege” in quotation marks and followed with the word “fallacies” makes me extremely nervous for this next section because it sounds like you don’t believe male privilege exists. But I will read and judge fairly…

In my many years of being perceived by the world as a cisgender woman, I have never once had anyone claim to detect “male privilege” or “male energy” in me.

This is because your male socialization means you are more likely to react with hostility or violence when being criticized, and our female socialization makes us less likely to criticize men, out of fear or concern for your feelings over ours.

Do you think male-identified males have these conversations with women or with each other all the time? I have never told a man he exudes “male energy.” I’ve never even heard of this. It’s bizarre. It’s also unrealistic to believe people tell you every thought they have about you. I’m sure people have thought things about me—both flattering and unflattering—that they’ve kept to themselves.

Male privilege is a very real thing. In my booking Whipping Girl, I talk at length about my own personal experiences of having it, and subsequently losing it post-transition.

Why do you have male privilege in quotation marks in every previous line? It’s very obvious you don’t think it applies to you as you’ve stated this directly. That’s the same line of thinking I’ve heard from most male self-identified “feminists” who really just want to deny their own culpability. We’ve all heard it.

The fact that the trans-women-aren’t-women crowd constantly harp about trans women’s real or imagined male privilege, yet refuse to acknowledge or examine their own cisgender privilege, demonstrates that their concerns about privilege are disingenuous.

“Trans women’s real or imagined male privilege.” So which is it then? You aren’t putting forth a coherent argument.

Cisgender privilege is not real. Women are not privileged more than men in the world, and accepting the reality of your body and how it means you are treated in the world is not a privilege unless you argue that being transgender is a mental illness, in which case those without that mental illness do have some advantages. But the trans lobby takes offense to that.

There are numerous problems with this line of reasoning [that trans males are caricatures of women]:

1) It relies on a highly negative view of feminine gender expression (that I have debunked in my writings) and implies that conventionally feminine cisgender women are also behaving superficially and/or reinforcing stereotypes.

If you do believe that women are an oppressed group, then naturally if follows the oppressed group cannot be blamed for their participation in that system to the same extent as the oppressors.

I have been socialized from birth to act feminine according to my culture’s standards. You haven’t. When you imply that acting out my oppression make you oppressed too, it’s insulting. First, it makes a joke of what I am forced to do to live safely, and second, it implies if I acted differently, I wouldn’t be oppressed as a woman, which isn’t true.

2) It ignores the many trans women who are outspoken feminists and/or not conventionally feminine.

Lots of men call themselves feminists but it doesn’t make them feminists or make them women. Calling yourself a feminist doesn’t make you a feminist any more than calling yourself a woman makes you a woman. (It doesn’t make you those things at all.)

3) Trans women do not transition out of a desire to be feminine; we transition out of a self-understanding that we are or should be female (commonly referred to as gender identity).

If there is no discernible biological condition that defines someone as a woman, as you argue before, then what are you transitioning to?

You are just adopting feminine stereotypes (but picking and choosing, mind you) and saying that makes you a woman. It doesn’t. Womanhood isn’t a feeling or an inner identity and to imply this is anti-woman because it sets the foundation for blaming us for our own position within an oppressed class.

4) Trans women who are conventionally feminine are not in any way asserting or insinuating that all women should be conventionally feminine, or that femininity is all there is to being a woman. Like cis women, trans women dress the way we do in order to express ourselves, not to critique or caricature other women.

You are asserting that feminine stereotypes make you a woman instead of what you are: a feminine man. And, by your language “[imply that] femininity is all there is to being a woman” you are implying that femininity (which is a set of cultural stereotypes) is at least part of being a woman. This is in conflict with your “identification only” mantra and it is proven false by every proud gender non-conforming woman and man out there.

5) This line of reasoning accuses trans women of arrogantly presuming to know what cis women experience, when we do no such thing. In reality, it’s the cis women who forward this accusation that are the ones arrogantly presuming to know what trans women experience and what motivates us.

You literally said in your last point: “Like cis women, trans women dress the way we do in order to express ourselves.” I do not dress the way I do in order to express myself; I dress this way in order to avoid violence in an extremely patriarchal society where women are expected to be covered or attacked. You just claimed to know my experience and motivations and you got it completely wrong.

As a trans woman, I will be the first to admit that I cannot possibly know what any other woman experiences or feels on the inside.

Then why have you spent this entire article constructing straw man arguments and insisting radical feminists believe things that we simply don’t? Your second sentence was a lie about something feminist and woman Chimimanda Ngozi Adichie said. How could you assume you have anything in common with us?

But the thing is, the trans-women-aren’t-women crowd cannot possibly know what any other woman experiences or feels either!

Actually, I do know what other women experience and feel because I am a woman. We have a shared experience as an oppressed class that you are not a part of. I’m glad you are acknowledging that you don’t know how we feel, but women around the world have the common experience of our biology and our socialization as the lesser sex according to that biology.

It’s the cis women who attempt to exclude us who seem to have a singular superficial stereotypical notion of what constitutes a woman, or of what women experience.

When you call the shared experiences of women under patriarchy “a singular superficial notion” you are arguing that sexism does not exist. Sexism has to have a definition in order to fight against it and that definition is the oppression of women as a class of people based on our reproductive biology.

Some cis feminists will extrapolate from this [trans people’s claims of sexed brains] that all trans people must hold highly essentialist beliefs about female-versus-male brains, and therefore that we are an affront to feminism. Often, they will make this case while simultaneously making essentialist claims themselves (e.g., regarding reproductive capacities) in order to undermine our identities.

The idea of different male and female brains is an affront to feminism because we know scientifically that our brains house our personality traits, intelligence, and memory and thus significantly affects how we act within society. Arguing that women have fundamentally different brains from men supports sexism by allowing men to argue our social circumstances are actually brought about by biological determination and that our lower place within society is valid because we are less intelligent or naturally drawn to certain tasks.

As a biologist, you should know that genitals serve a completely different purpose than the brain and does lead to different lived experiences for men and women. Even without the social construct of gender, women have pregnancies and men do not. To point out that male and female genitals are different is acknowledging material reality, whereas you are trying to construct your arguments upon subjective “identities.”

Radical feminists argue this material reality should not place women at a lower position within society or designate certain roles for us that have nothing to do with biology. Radical feminists accept our realities as people with vaginas and uteruses and the biological consequences of those things. What we do not accept is the unnecessary and oppressive social roles that have been created based upon them.

But here’s the thing: Rachel Dolezal is one person. In sharp contrast (as I alluded to earlier), transgender people are a pan-cultural and trans-historical phenomenon, and comprise approximately 0.2 – 0.3% of the population.

Prevalence does not make something good or healthy. A lot more than 0.3% of the population is sexist and that doesn’t mean sexism should be accepted in society. Since you can’t undermine that Rachel Dolezal acted out stereotypes and then called herself a black person and how this is directly linked to the trans phenomenon, you’re trying to argue that the problem is small.

According to the American news networks, white people “identify” as people of color to check those boxes on university and job applications to take advantage of affirmative action all the time. People confess to doing it. So the problem of people moving into spaces designated for certain marginalized groups—including people of color and women—is not small like you make it out to be.

I am Iraqi and I plan to study in the United States which means I have to require a special visa and still face possible rejection as a result of Trump’s travel ban on my country. (I’m not a Muslim, but the ban targets Muslim-majority countries and I live in one.) Still, I checked “white” on my university applications because it clearly states Middle Eastern people are white during that process. Marginalized Americans worked hard for those distinctions and I will not undermine their work by claiming to be someone I’m not. Maybe we can discuss a separate Middle Eastern category in the future, but I’m not going to claim to be black or Pacific Islander.

I have never once in my life heard a trans woman claim that our experiences are 100 percent identical to those of cis women.

Then what is your article even about? Why does the idea of women having our own spaces without trans women bother you? What is under threat here? Your “identity,” as you state above?

The problem isn’t that we (i.e., trans women) refuse to acknowledge any differences, but rather that the trans-women-aren’t-women crowd refuses to acknowledge our many similarities.

Feminism doesn’t focus on similarities because sexism doesn’t. “Why don’t we just all come together because we aren’t that different” says the person in a position of institutional power. Society tells people we are different and then as soon as you want something we have (that you have relegated us to) you claim to be just like us. Please.

There was a time in the 1960s and 1970s when many heterosexual feminists wanted to similarly exclude lesbians from women’s organizations and from feminism. The justifications that they forwarded were eerily similarly to trans-women-aren’t-women arguments: They accused lesbians of being “oppressively male” and of “reinforcing the sex class system.”

Lesbians are women and feminism is the movement to liberate women from sexism. Lesbians are biologically female and therefore women, whereas you are not. Many previous “feminists” have been racist and antisemitic as well, but people with common sense know black women and Jewish women are adult human females and therefore included in feminism. Biological males do not belong in feminism. Do not appropriate the struggles of lesbians.

Trans women are women. We may not be “exactly like” cis women, but then again, cis women are not all “exactly like” one another either. But what we do share is that we all identify and move through the world as women.

No, you are not women. You are biologically male and socialized as boys and then men. Not all women are exactly alike but we all have the shared experience of being biologically female and being treated accordingly. You do not have that experience. You do not move through the world as a woman, but as a man pretending he is a woman.

I said at the outset, forcing trans women into a separate group that is distinct from cis women does not in any way help achieve feminism’s central goal of ending sexism. In fact, it only serves to undermine our collective cause.

Sexism is rooted in biological sex. You are a biological male and in this way you are distinct from biological females and we do not have to include you in our mission to liberation ourselves from oppression by men.

What is our collective cause? What are your goals and how do you hope to achieve them? What are you doing to help women other than writing about how we exclude you because you are a man? How do you define sexism?

Your piece is riddled with incoherent arguments and you attempt to paint radical feminism as illogical when, in fact, radical feminism can be used to logically dismantle all your arguments and point to a clear foundation for women’s oppression.

This work starts with a falsehood and ends with a vague assertion that feminists, by asking for our own spaces free from men, are hurting ourselves when actually, you have only argued how these actions hurt you and men like you. You have blamed women for our own oppression throughout this article and yet you expect us to take you in with open arms and validate your identity because that is the only thing that you believe ties you to womanhood.

It doesn’t, and we’re not here to entertain you.

a short announcement regarding the linguistics of a meme.

So I know that “I lik the bred” is a great meme and we all love the purposeful misspellings. But I would personally like to clear up something that really.

Really bothers me.

The misspellings in “My Name is Cow” and its sister poems are NOT “hello hooman lol” meme speech. They aren’t ripped from a Doge meme or plastered from some other “bork bork” meme. They are a very specific style mimicking the way words used to be spelled before the English language was standardized; meaning, people would simply spell the words how they thought the words sounded. This meant that some people wrote “Daye” when the word was referring to the word “Day” as in the daytime. It’s how we got weird-ass words like ghost instead of gost and how all of the old writings from that time period are spelled “incorrectly”. Spelling was much more phonetic and much less regulated. So it would very much make sense for the spellings of “wen its nite” and “haf gon to bed” and “I lik the bred” to be spelled that way. Phonetically, it is correct.

If you really want to make a good “I lik the bred” meme, for the love of god avoid injecting Doge meme speech into your poem. It just takes away from the witty, spritely humor of the thing and makes it seem cheesy, childish and overwrought. The only excusable (and actually pretty funny) example I can think of is if you are writing an “I lik the bred” meme in response to a doggo picture or some sort of meme where that speech is regularly used. It’s a sort of homage to the other meme and blends the two, allowing your reader to appreciate both memes at the same time without disruption.

TL;DR:
Don’t use hackneyed Doge speech in a Chaucerian verse in your “I lik the bred” poems

I was just answering a question that I intended to publish and I wasn’t even finished answering so I probably sound harsher than I meant to cause I wasn’t finished my sentence, my own fingers fooled me, they let me down today by betraying me and pressing answer privately when I didn’t want to. And I can’t even remember the name of the blog so I can’t continue…

Originally posted by 912gif

It was a question about someone copying my art, and what I meant to say was, it’s okay to copy my drawings if it helps you, I don’t mind at all. I said that kissing is really hard to draw (it was a copy of the Kaz and Inej piece) and that I have learned to draw kissing from copying and studying how other artists do it, like @burdge, she was the biggest one. What I was saying was, it’d be nice to be tagged/credited as part of the inspiration but this person did make my original drawing entirely their own, as if my drawing was simply used as a reference, and refs are so important in improving work.

Now my finally point, if you make the drawing your own, like this person did (by drawing different characters, using different colours- literally the only thing the same was the faces and poses tbh) I’m not pushed about credit, it’s become your piece, that being said, still, always nice to be credited as inspiration

But, in future I would suggest definitely asking the artist’s permission before posting the drawing, a lot of artists don’t like it! And if you do a carbon copy of the drawing, YOU HAVE TO CREDIT THE ORIGINAL ARTIST, that is still their work if you are just trying to draw the same thing! 

anonymous asked:

do you think dan and phil are private people in comparison to other youtubers or objectively? what i mean is: for me the mere wish to be a youtuber and phil wanting to be in tv shows early on make it clear that they do like attention and want it, to a much higher extent than a lot of us. i think their views have changed a lot since they have gotten popular but i also think that they do crave for attention not only because it is good for their careers but because of their personalities.

this is such a nicely worded question, and a thought-provoking one as well! however i don’t think the parts of their personalities that you’re alluding to have much to do with their desire for privacy. there is certainly an element of narcissism involved with doing what dan and phil do. there’s a degree of comfort needed with millions of people looking at you and thinking about you and analyzing the stuff you make, and they have to really believe that what they make is good and has value–that they have something important to say or that the vids they make really have the power to impact people in a positive way. i think they do believe this, and i definitely do think that in the beginning the attention they were gaining on smaller platforms like dailybooth and tumblr, the volumes of questions they were getting on sites like formspring and vyou–all of it helped them to realize that part of what was driving their audience was an active interest in their personal lives and their actual personalities. that sort of attention is flattering i think–it’s part of being human to like being liked? to appreciate that there are lots of people who think you’re cool or hot or interesting? but that was when the audience was much smaller. as their viewership grew, i think dan and phil’s comfort declined, particularly because the sheer size of the audience meant that there were inevitably individuals or small subsets of the larger group whose interest in dnp’s personalities quickly became invasive and dehumanizing. then a series of more intensely negative incidents, such as people harassing dan’s brother, the leak of the vday video, etc. probably sealed the deal for them and they built barriers that were higher than ever, not because anything fundamental in their personality or their belief in themselves as having potential to make good stuff had changed, but purely out of a need to protect themselves. my discussion of their desire to “maintain privacy” simply refers to things like their not sharing many day to day happenings in their lives with us or filming vloggy content, dan not talking about his family very much at all and never mentioning his brother anymore, their decision to keep half of their house hidden from the public, etc. they make these choices because they are just people who want to protect the things that are important to them and not have every element of their lives be a topic of discourse for the public. that doesn’t mean that there’s no part of them that likes attention–they are entertainers who continue to put out content for millions of people and i think now more than ever they have a sense of the value that their content can add to people’s lives. but that’s the limit of it–they want attention for their content and the pieces of themselves that they have control over sharing through that content. i firmly believe that they don’t want any attention beyond that and that they fully have the right to put up these boundaries and protect themselves however they see fit. 

Synpath FAQ

What does synpath mean?
Synpath is a tidy name for something you identify with on several levels, which could be a concept that resonates really strongly with you, an animal or mythological creature you feel you act like, or a person or character you share a lot of common behaviors with, among other things.

Things that are not synpaths:
Kintypes - those are things you feel that you actually are. This definition was made specifically by the otherkin community. No I am not “gatekeeping”.
You - unless someone identifies with you and considers you their synpath, you are not a synpath.

Why isn’t it sympath instead of synpath?
Because the syn- comes from both sympathy and from synchronization, and the former was obvious so I left the n for the latter. It has had the unexpected benefit of being easily-searchable, as “sympath” gets results for “sympathy” but “synpath” can be found on its own.

Why did you make the word synpath?
Simply, because I was asked to. Someone close to me had expressed feelings similar to kin but it wasn’t an identity, and wanted a word to use for that feeling.

Do only otherkin have synpaths?
No. The word was actually intended for non-kin, as expressed above, though kin may use it. It’s not a word meant for one community alone.

Isn’t having a synpath the same as being animal/other-hearted?
Sort of. I created synpath before I was made aware animal-hearted and other-hearted were terms. As synpath refers to something you resonate with and animal/other-hearted is a personal identity, there is no conflict between them and one or both may be used at the same time if desired.

Further, one can have a synpath without having to id as animal/other-hearted, making it much more versatile. (also prevents identity issues with people who are using kin as coping mechanisms, since they don’t have to fully id with certain things and call themselves both kin and animal/other-hearted)

I’ve seen people saying synpath is a racist term. Why?
Because some buttheads thought that having a fickin list and taking all the Japanese anime characters off it and calling them synpaths, then behaving exactly the same as they were when they were claiming to be fickin with them, would somehow let them dodge being called racist. That’s not how it works, and quite frankly they disgust me.

I want to clarify that I think it’s generally okay to have characters of differing ethnicities to your own; after all, most creators of fictional media strive for universally-relatable characters. A connection with them is probably inevitable for many, and you’re still maintaining your own identity apart from theirs.

Also, synpath is not intended to erase any part of a person/character’s identity. It is also not intended to demean, devalue, or harm any race. Therefore, no, it is not a racist term by any current definition or interpretation.

However, as stated before, some people who use the term may, in fact, be racist. There is no single perfect racism litmus test, unfortunately, so I encourage people to just use the best judgment they can.

Why don’t you stop them? Isn’t this your responsibility because you made the word?
I am not responsible for racists and creeps using a term I made that’s meant for everyone to use, any more than the people behind Facebook are responsible for internet stalkers or the makers of crowbars are responsible for assholes whacking people with them. That’s not to say I condone their actions; quite the opposite. There’s just not much I can actually do to stop them.

Isn’t a synpath like a weaker version of a kintype?
Synpath is not kin-lite, nor was it ever meant to be. It is characterized by a very strong feeling of resonance with whatever the synpath is and there’s nothing lesser about it; it’s just a different feeling.

I’ve been told I shouldn’t use synpath because you’re a pedophile/pedo apologist.
You were misinformed. That was a wild case of mistaken identity, and the user concerned has been identified by divinegender in the original post that claimed it was me. I’m actually a csa victim myself and this rumor hurts me deeply, so I’d appreciate not having to deal with it further.


If anything is not covered here, my askbox is always open.

The Meaning of ‘Strength‘

Something odd occurred to me last night. Lizzie had decided that she always wanted to act ‘cute’ and become the kind of wife that Ciel could protect because he had declared Frances ‘strong’ and ‘scary.’

Not long before, she had gotten advice from Madam Red how a lady should always ‘cute’ and ‘weak’ around her lord.

So naturally thought she had to act the opposite of strong. She felt as if she had to appear weak and a little helpless.

But was this was Ciel meant?

He was young at the time, plus it might not have been Frances’ physical strength he was referring to. Frances was trying to train Ciel to fence, and she was being rather rough on him.

In fact, when Ciel first proclaims her ‘scary’, Lizzie is quick to say that’s because her mother is strict. Looking over all this, I don’t think Ciel was referring to Frances’s strength or even her ability with a sword. He was referring to her strong personality and forceful demeanor. Ciel found her intimidating, but as a child he simply termed this as ‘scary.’

Lizzie was already feeling self conscious about her own abilities. When she was showing off her skills with Charles Grey and Charles Phipps present, she was thinking to herself how she wasn’t dancing a waltz through the halls.

She was already feeling as if she wasn’t acting the part of a lady with Madam Red’s advice. When Ciel said that he found Frances scary because she was strong; adding how he was glad Lizzie was his fiance, her paranoia grew. She immediately assumed he meant physical strength and ability because that was what she was focusing on. She never even thought Ciel might mean a different type of strength - such as strength of character, mental fortitude, assertiveness, etc.

This all happened when they were both small children, but it haunted her and she simply thought her first assumption as to Ciel’s meaning was correct. She had never found a reason to go back to the memory and consider he might mean something more.

If this is all true, then Lizzie did her best to hide her true strength not only on the words spoken when someone was much younger, but on a false assumption.

Thoughts?

anonymous asked:

ok please do not kill me, but is Eric actually a psychopath? Idk if you're like an info blog or something but I've seen multiple documentaries diagnose him with psychopathy disorder but everyone on tumblr says he's not

Well, first of all, NO, I don’t think he was a psychopath. As @among-the-wicked said before in this post, I believe that source of this rumor comes from Dave Cullen & his book (full of fairytales and bullshits) and from people who have never met him in person.

I would like to start with this very accurate quote.

-Eyes are the windows to the soul.-

Trust it or not, for me, an eye contact is the most powerful and most successfull way to find out about what’s going on in the mind of another person.
I don’t know, maybe it’s just me and my ability to forecast a type of a person at first glance, but I really do think that eyes can say way more about person’s feelings than words.
According to this, I can’t understand how is possible to diagnose a person whom you have never met.
And it isn’t only about eyes: it’s about talking to that person.. in person.  

Psychology is about expressing your feelings, thoughts and experiences, right? In a nutshell, all about talking.
So, again, how can you diagnose a person whom you have never met and never talked to?
         

I think it’s ridiculous Eric is labeled as a psychopath. None of the people who diagnosed him as a psychopath have ever met or spoke to him.
He was barely 18, just a kid.
The brain doesn’t even stop developing until you are in your 20’s.
Of course, it’s very easy and simple to slap that label “cold-blooded psychopath” on a teenage kid who has passed away and isn’t
around to speak for himself after these tragic events occurred.

Based on my research about this psychopath rumor, I’ve found plenty of websites and forums that speak about Eric being psychopath, BUT,
they always refer to Eric’s journal and his violent behavior in it.


There is always a chance that Eric’s journal was supposed to be meant as a show and he didn’t meant it seriously and he just tried to convice people that he is an evil master-mind (honestly, we all know that Eric would’ve loved that), but I’m also aware of (for me a VERY little) chance that it was all serious.
I believe that fantasizing about murdering people and “hating everyone in the whole world” is simply a normal reaction of a person who feels powerless and thus tries to sound/look untouchable, without emotions and empathy and without any vulnerable spots.

As far as I know, there isn’t any accurate list of things/signs that psychopaths are best known for, but I tried to pick up best point of views.


Psychopath is a person with hardly any emotion or empathy.

And we all know that Eric wasn’t like that. He was right opposite. Full of emotions and feelings and vulnerables (about which we know he had a great deal of)


Stillness, quiet and reflection are not things embraced by psychopaths.

Just look at some of the statements of his classmates, they’re full of words that describe him as a quiet and shy person, so..


An absence of any guilt or remorse is a sign of psychopathy. Psychopaths cannot feel guilt.

Eric unlike a psychopath did care and was affected by other people. For me, his remorse is most noticeable in Basement Tapes.


Thank you for asking, I really hope that I helped you, if only a little bit. ♥

anonymous asked:

I used to love your accounts and muse but lately it just feels like Luciano is nothing without Lutz/HRE. This isn't meant to be hate towards Albert either (In fact I love that account and muse as well) but I feel like we don't get to see Luci without some sort of reference towards a ship or Luciano as a character's partner. I want to see Luci and his struggles, not "look at Luci and how he's nothing without someone." Relationships shouldn't cure a person, I miss seeing him and his own actions.

//Hm…I guess that you are right. My apologize, I just built so much story around those two that I get a bit self centered and forget . However, I never meant to make him look  like he is nothing without someone ‘Luci is simply guilty, that is all for what he’d done.’’ It is simply regret. Luciano isn’t nothing without  someone, but picture a man who lived over 2000 years old and been through a lot, many humans are drained of life before they reach 50 y/o but however, he desires to feel one last thing as well. Love.That is why he tends to be a nostalgic country. Since Luci will never open up himself,I decided to reveal him through other characters which created lots of connections. But as I revealed bits of personal things about him, people wanted more so I gave them more, bit by bit. Also, there is also my desire to interact with blogs that would form my favorite ships with him such as lutz but since there is none to interact, I simply added a Lutz myself, here also applies my love for my dear otp 2pLutz/Luci - 2p Hre/2p Chibitalia.It gets a bit boring when I always reply with only Luciano alone. I’ll keep in mind what you told me and I’ll think about how I should answer my next asks from now on. Thank you for letting me know your true opinion.

anonymous asked:

I'm really confused about that antishieth post like I don't get how them referring to Shiro as a father figure to the group and implying that he is a different age to the rest of them makes the ship okay? If anything that seems to just be highlighting exactly why people take issue w it (I'm sorry if I've missed dthe point here but I'm really confused)

VERY LONG OPINION/RANT POST.
If you don’t approve of //OTHER PEOPLE// (this is key as you don’t have to like any troupe in order or a stranger to have the right without harassment), shipping age gaps, incest, general contextual abuse, any other kind of controversial genre, please read? (Not exactly about fetishization as much as simply shipping.)


Yeah I’m sorry If I didn’t exactly make the point clear for total outsiders I kind of posted it for an inside group of friends who knew half of my opinion and all about this anyway.

To be exact in reference to you ask: I meant that calling anyone in general (not just sheith people) a pedophile for enjoying a fictional ship in a completely fabricated cartoon universe waters down the depth of that accusation, a pedophile is a REAL person who has a sexual attraction to children specifically in any or all contexts, fetishizing their youth and mental immaturity/vulnerability. NOT SOMEONE, LIKELY A TEEN OR YOUNG ADULT WHO HAPPENS TO THINK THE CHARACTERS MAKE A GOOD PAIR FOR NO REASONS RELATIVE TO FETISHIZATION OF YOUTH.

The above screenshot is basically saying that if you ship Allura with Shiro, it’s equally as problematic as shipping Shiro with any of the other older teens- as she’s confirmed to be their age, and not closer to Shiros. The screenshot OP was having some sass in that they accused many aggressive Shallura warriors of ‘assuming allura was around Shiros age’ to avoid the discourse that they love to administer so much, despite the ignoring of her ‘mom’ status in the fandom by the typically fan-interactive staff and recent confirmation that she wasn’t as old as people decided she was. I suppose it’s ok to them morally because she’s an Alien, and they understand fiction when it benefits them. But what happened to the /principal/ of romanticizing and promoting the idea of a relationship with someone who’s a minor 'MAKING YOU A PEDO!!!!’ no matter what?? Because 2017 ethics, age associated IRL maturity development, and American law for some reason, all apply to even the most fictional of imaginary minors with adult brains ultimately via their writing.

Although I am a sheith shipper and can’t fathom holding other people to treating fictional cartoons as if they are real living people/children and deserving of real life moral standings and empathy when they are in fact fictional creations brought in to existence and embodied mentally by ADULT creators FOR the sake of being tools for FICTIONAL entertainment and escape mechanisms, whether Itd be a 10 year old pretending to fight Zarkon in his room while mom and dad fight, or a queer 17 year old finding enjoyment in and longing for/humoring a none-canon relationship that they can relate to romantically or sexually when they’re insecure or coping.

Anyway, the point of this isn’t to bash people who aren’t into an age gap in a universe where the characters consistently subject themselves to activities and situations that are so fictionally unrealistic and dangerous for any kid that age in the real world, that I’m /genuinely/ stunned by the amount of people who insist on holding the characters or fans to any semblance of an actual real life Moral code. Like I said, I’m not bashing you if you just aren’t into pretend age gaps, if it’s not for you because it makes you feel creepy/creeped on, then it’s not for you, and you’re even validated in your opinion of finding it odd that some people enjoy it, but the point of this specific screenshot and post was to highlight that Purity Code ethics shippers who go out of their way to cause discourse and problems, act righteous and morally superior (it’s fictional so I guess that makes them fictionally superior), and harass those who didn’t enter some alleged fucking wormhole circa 2011 that took them to a universe where people couldn’t process the concept of fiction and or core purpose from the start- which was to escape into a world of entertainment where anything and everything is possible.
I don’t mind if you openly think Taco Bell is gross, but if I come around with a Taco and you tell me I’m like, a dickhead and should be ashamed because YOU hate Taco Bell and I clearly am going to hell if we don’t have the same opinion. Anyway you get it.

I believe that fiction is fiction so this wouldn’t matter to me regardess, but just for the record here, Sheith is a very supportive, none abusive or toxic, and healthy ship that DOESNT exist out of a fetishization of an age gap or necessity for queer content, but rather a genuine show of obvious intimacy between the characters that some like to perceive as romantic.

We don’t even know if Shiro is 19 or 25, and we didn’t know until confirmation how old the others were, that alone is the most vivid exemplification of the fact that these characters are all undoubtedly mature enough to pass as a representation of any “young Adult” age the studio threw at us without a question, the cast could have gone from ranging at 14 yrs to 25yrs respectively with literally no changes based on the creators will and it wouldn’t have made them any more of REAL teens or adults, just fictional characters with a meaningless age label for trivia, continuity or plot and context.


Anyway, thanks if you cared enough to read all that. I’ve been getting slandered as a pedophile for years on this site for shipping cartoons despite the fact that back in my day of deviantart, it was a trend to get the most unrealistic or desirable ship possible and make them a thing (crack ship). Now these drawings are real people apparently.

Lee, Do You Yield?

(You shot him in the side! Yes, he yields!)


First of all, I would like to apologize to anyone who was dumb enough to believe I meant my original post as an attack. To be perfectly clear, I did not. I simply meant to point out the huge scope of an aspect of fic writing that I see as problematic. I wasn’t trying to be rude but those of you who I did mean to call out know who you are and why I wrote the post. To anyone who thought I was calling you out, I want to ask you to look at your writing and think about why you thought I was talking about you. Just because it called out those people, doesn’t mean I meant for it to be abusive or rude in any way. It just means that their writing uses the very thing I was complaining about. (And they blew it completely out of proportion, they weren’t even sure who it was directed at).

Second, I want to clarify what I was actually saying. Describing your reader inserts in detail just makes it hard for people who don’t fit the description to immerse themselves in the story, and the whole point of using reader inserts over OCs is immersion. We want our readers to be a part of the story, so we literally put them in it. By over-describing the insert, however, we ostracize a huge group of people who don’t fit the bill.

Now, obviously, there are some exceptions; you can’t write an entire story without a single character description, after all. As someone pointed out, fantasy settings often require character traits that humans just don’t have. And oftentimes the plot will require that we specify the gender of the character (or reader), especially in NSFW where actual physical anatomy becomes part of the story. But in a vast majority of scenes, what the reader looks like has nothing to do with the story.

In addition, I understand that sometimes authors feel the desire to write themselves into the story. If this is the case, it’s just as easy to write yourself as a character instead of as an insert, so why to do that? Chances are your readers don’t look just like you do, and as I said before it can be off-putting trying to stand in someone else’s shoes when the entire purpose of the reader insert is that it’s your own perspective.

My third point is this: 

All I did was voice an opinion. It’s as simple as that. Everyone who started attacking me directly over that post? I understand that you were jumping to defend those you love, but your long tangents of words do not make you better than my curt, to the point of my emotions that hold zero (0) empathy or sympathy. I tried to explain my side, and you tried to explain yours, and still we disagree. So, as a way to prevent further drama, I’m done participating. Go ahead, everyone, and tag me in your posts about how horrible I am and how stupid my opinion is. From this moment on I will not read them, I will not respond to them, and I will not give your hate any more of my energy, not that I really did before.

Enjoy the rest of your evenings (or days), sleep well, and continue writing your amazing stories while I try to do the same. And don’t forget to drink water, today.

TL;DR: I won’t be taking your abuse over my written opinion that clearly states the issue I had. You’ve all blown it out of proportion and I don’t care about what you have to say, really. That’s my civil adult response. Have an argument you still feel the need to ruffle with? DM me, I will gladly hash it out with you in the manner I’ve hashed it out with everyone. 

A comparison of Goku’s speech upon turning Super Saiyan in Japanese and English


I recently watched ScrewAttack’s ‘Goku VS Superman 2 – Death Battle’ and it contained something that caught my attention. Namely, the hosts of the show made reference to the idea that some feel Goku’s famous ‘I am speech’ conflicts with his ‘actual’ personality i.e. that portrayed by the Japanese version.

Interested by this  - I took to my book-shelf and started to look at Goku’s speech in the original manga, then took to the internet to see how the Anime differs. Now I want to shed some light on what exactly is different between the two versions.

So let’s get to it. First we’ll start with the FUNimation dub.

I’ve decided that the little back and forth between Frieza and Goku before the speech should be examined as well - to give a little bit of insight into what was changed and what wasn’t.

So here’s the script from the original FUNimation scene:

—————–

Goku: “You can destroy planets but you can never destroy what I am, friend.”

Frieza: “What…What are you?”

Goku: “I am the hope of the universe. I am the answer to all living things that cry out for peace. I am protector of the innocent. I am the light in the darkness. I am truth” (Goku powers up and stops using his indoor voice) “Ally to good! Nightmare to you!”

—————-

So as we can see from the original FUNimation script Goku has himself a bit of a Batman complex, he clearly sees himself as a protector of sorts that has a duty to end Frieza.  He not only wants to save his friends but also the universe and all of its inhabitants – he protects the innocent, what a nice guy.

(A small note on this scene is that because I grew up in the UK, I don’t think I actually ever saw this version of the dub – so this whole speech is a little odd to me as well – especially Goku calling himself ‘truth’ – I mean… what does that even mean?)

Now let’s compare it to the original Japanese – which I’ve taken the liberty of translating myself and I’ll add some notes to the nuances of the words used.

—————

Goku: 星はこわせても…たった一人の人間はこわせないようようだな…*
  (You can destroy planets but seems like you can’t destroy a single human)

Frieza: …な…なにものだ?!
(Wh…wh…what are you?!)

Goku: とっくにごぞんじなんだろう?!  オレは地球からきさまをたおおすためにやってきたサイヤ人….
 (You already know don’t you? I am a Saiyan who came from earth in order to defeat you)
おだやかな心を持ちながら激しい怒りによって目が覚めた伝説の戦士…
 (The legendary warrior whose calm heart was awaked by violent rage)

(Goku goes ape-shit)

スーパーサイヤ人孫悟空だ!!!
(The Super Saiyan Son Goku!!!)

—————-

I’m going to break this speech down line by line to highlight some of the differences – it’s also important to note that this speech is pretty much exactly the same to the original Japanese Manga.

Firstly it’s interesting to see that Goku refers to himself as 人間 (ningen) ‘a human’ – this word is specifically used in regards to humanity as a species. Goku could have referred to himself as a 人 (hito) ‘a person’ but I feel like perhaps this is meant to show how Goku still thinks of himself as an earth-ling rather than an Saiyan.

The next point of interest is Goku’s use of the word ご存知 (gozonji) ‘To know’ – this is a difficult word to translate into English with its full nuance because it’s part of the Japanese Languages’ 敬語(Keigo) – ‘honorific’ system. This particular word is 尊敬語(Sonkeigo) which simply put, are words used to raise the status of the person you’re speaking to – thereby showing them respect.

That’s not to insinuate that Goku is showing respect to Frieza however, his use of the word is almost definitely ironic. In this case – we can see that Goku is actually goading or mocking Frieza. FUNimation chose to translate this as ‘friend’ which I guess has a kind of similar effect – but it’s interesting to note here because in the Japanese version of Dragonball Goku never uses honorific language.

(In fact, in the Japanese version of the movie ‘battle of the gods’ there’s a whole scene dedicated to how Goku is unable to use the right type of honorifics when talking to Bills – the God of Destruction.)

So the use of the word in the original Japanese highlights a change in attitude caused by the Super Saiyan transformation – Goku has become a bit more willing to boast his power. Which is a little bit different from the FUNimation’s super serious ‘I am the one who knocks, Frieza’ speech.

(Also of note is that in the Japanese version Goku almost always refers to himself as オラ (Ora) - a more friendly version of ‘I’ but as soon as he turns Super Saiyan he begins to refer to himself as ‘オレ’ (ore) a more manly and arguably aggressive way of referring to yourself. This is another example of a nuance present in the Japanese that can’t be felt in English.)

Next is the conjugation of the verb やる (yaru) in the form やってきた (yattekita) – this word indicates Goku’s will or reason for coming from Earth. The will to defeat Frieza. The FUNimation dub may have been a bit heavy-handed with Goku’s seemingly overflowing new found sense of justice – but it’s not entirely absent in the Japanese version. Goku says his reasons for coming are to take down Frieza. He clearly states his purpose.

The next sentence is filled with words that can be translated into dozens of English words – take for example this dictionary entry for 激しい (hageshii) which I translated as ‘violent’.

49 entries. Japanese isn’t a language that always translates well into English – so it’s important to note that even though I chose the word violent here – that doesn’t necessarily mean that Goku means to express his rage has violent intent.

おだやか (odayaka) is another word that has multiple translations – it can mean quiet, gentle, calm etc – but we can see that Goku means to say that a once calm heart has now exploded with rage.

I don’t really want to go into the long debate of how to translate ‘心’(kokoro) either – but it’s worth mentioning that the word embodies the concept of one’s mind and spirit as well as one’s heart. I don’t think this really has much of an effect on what Goku’s saying here but it’s worth pointing out. This is also why you tend to get a lot of anime characters who say things like ‘burning spirit’ – it’s just one way to translate the ‘essence’ of 心 (kokoro).  

So there we have it. You can see for yourself the differences in the English and Japanese versions of Goku’s famous speech. Whether the English dub necessarily conflicts with Goku’s personality is up for debate - it is true that the English version seems to have Goku take on the role of a ‘protector of the Universe’ rather than solely coming to Namek to destroy Frieza. Also in the Japanese version Goku never describes what he’s doing as ‘just’ or ‘good’ – there’s no indication of morality in what he’s doing - but is wanting to protect all living things from Frieza’s destruction necessarily un-Goku-like? I’ll let you be the judge of that.

Thanks for reading – I thought it also important to include the script from the Kai version of the script  - which you can see is far more true to the Japanese.

————

Goku: “What’s the matter Frieza? I can’t be harder to destroy than a planet, right?”

Frieza: “You…You…What are you?”

Goku: “You haven’t figured it out yet? I’m the Saiyan who came all the way from Earth with the sole purpose of beating you. I am the warrior you’ve heard of in legends. Pure of heart and awakened by fury, that’s what I am.  (Goku expands dong) “I am the Super Saiyan! Son Goku!”

————-

*Note – The use (and non-use) of Kanji in my transcription of the Japanese speech was decided by looking at the original Japanese manga.

So, the element of Yin and Yang was always kind of there with my Shiro and Kuro, but I didn’t fully realize how much until now, especially when I began to develop Haiiro/Kuron more.

Shiro and Kuro are meant to be opposites while still actually having similarities at the same time. In the past on discord, I have referred to something as Shiro’s ‘Inner Kuro’ and Kuro’s ‘Inner Shiro.’ On some level, you could say that Shiro is the Kuro with more positive traits while Kuro is the Shiro with more negative traits, but not exactly at the same time, as they are still their own person.

Then the element of wuji came to mind and I realized that’s actually where Haiiro comes in. 

Wuji is a state of emptiness or simply a single point in space. Haiiro, upon his creation, was a blank state to work on as the replacement Champion and weapon after Shiro’s escape, casting aside that he did actually inherit a few traits from both Shiro and Kuro, along with some very vague memories of Shiro’s, which is another post for another day. Although, they weren’t as influential in his behavior until the Galra began to mold him into a weapon, but they did still show up whether it was known or not. Shiro’s showed up in Haiiro’s attachment to the other clones and Kuro’s showed up in his opinion of others and in the arena.

Now, I am an absolute nerd to use this example, but I find it best describes things. Taking the Tao trio from Pokemon, Shiro is Reshiram, Kuro is Zekrom, and Haiiro is Kyurem. If you’re familiar with Pokemon I’m sure you already know where I’m going with this lol.

Haiiro is more White Kyurem towards the other clones and when he is turned into a sleeper clone after having Shiro’s memories downloaded. Haiiro is more Black Kyurem towards those outside of that circle, in combat, and when he was being controlled through his prosthetic. However, it’s when he recovers his personal memories and loses the mind control device in his arm that he becomes the original dragon in Unovan lore. All of this is yet another thing for another day lol.

So basically, in my blog’s canon, my Shiro, Kuro, and Haiiro/Kuron are closely tied together.

“Behavior is Communication”

“Behavior is Communication”

This is something I see a lot from the Autistic community, I echolale it to myself now and then. It resonates because in my experience it’s true. And I find it’s applicable to both Autistic people and Allistic people, at least, as far as an allistic toddler is concerned. 

They are known as The Tiniest Person (in our house), I tend to refer to children as “tiny people”, being literal it’s a great way to divorce myself from the social concept that children are possessions, rather than their own persons. 

The Tiniest Person is a toddler, and they have recently been absolutely refusing to get dressed. It didn’t matter if getting dressed meant going to do something fun, they simply didn’t want to do it. They’d shriek and run around the house, at first giggling (for what toddler doesn’t like a good chase), and then almost crying (because they remembered that the chase ends in getting dressed). 

It goes without saying that when you’re in a hurry, this is stressful for both parties. Seems to me that The Tiniest Person exhibited the most distress. So to help solve the problem, I echolaled: “Behavior is Communication”. 

“Why is The Tiniest Person so upset about getting dressed?”

I have sensory processing disorder. So **my** first thought was to remove the tags in the outfit and try that. 

That wasn’t it. 

Next I wondered if maybe they just wanted to pick out the outfit. I lined out several options and sure enough, The Tiniest Person came over and chose something, they willingly got dressed, and off we went. 

Turns out, The Tiniest Person is a budding artist with an eye for color coordination. They didn’t approve of the outfits I had been choosing, and wanted autonomy over their body. I gave them autonomy, which respects them as a person, and they felt validated. Everyone won. 

As for my older child, DD (fake name), grocery store trips would be very difficult for the both of us, when they were a toddler. I have a hard enough time with grocery stores, and this was back before it occurred to me that I could wear sunglasses and ear defense! So DD had huge meltdowns at the grocery store. I thought it was “acting out” when I was younger, but I’ve sinse realized that it’s not unlike how I get when I’m overstimulated.

We don’t take DD grocery shopping anymore. Maybe once in a while, but it’s honestly not worth making a kid become that distressed, especially when they can be spared that by only one parent going to the grocery store. We know what they like to eat, and also there are some grocery stores where you can order your food online and pay for it, and come pick it up when it’s ready. That’s so rad and very autism friendly, I must say. 

TL;DR: If someone is having a hard time, try to find out what’s causing them distress, so you can fix the problem rather than punish them for having feelings. We parents need to teach our kids that it’s okay to ask for help, it’s okay to be upset, because we have their backs.  

Run (a Boom!Sonic fanfiction)

He had stared up at the ceiling for what was likely hours, sleep never coming to him. Too many thoughts were swirling in his head; some that he’d never thought of before, and some that he had.

Upon tracing his hand along his neckerchief, he grips it. How long had he had it now? He couldn’t remember. Perhaps one of his friends had given it to him.

His… friends…

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Does using 3D software as a 'crook' is considered cheating? By 'using' here I meant as in create everything (poses, angle, lighting,etc) with 3D software, render it, then simply redraw it (and maybe added some personally drawn things). I know this may sound ridiculously over the clouds, but I always thought professional artists create artworks purely (from blank canvas to finish) with their imagination..

People have different methods to draw, and everyone has their own opinions as to what constitutes as “cheating” when it comes to art. Some people think using any sort of reference is cheating, while some think using 3D models are perfectly fine.

Being a “professional” artist doesn’t mean anything beyond the fact that you are making decent money off of your art, or you have a job making art. It doesn’t indicate your skill level or your method of drawing. Some professionals use 3D models all the time because it’s convenient, and several companies encourage it bc it produces assets and art at an efficient rate. Other professionals prefer drawing everything from scratch bc they can or by principal.

My personal opinion? There’s nothing wrong with it as long as they know how to use it.

Books on Sherlock's Desk.

*pulls up a chair* I’m getting really into the book metas. Look at this:

So, according to Mid0nz, these books are seen on Sherlock’s desk throughout the show:

Ok, lets now put those in chronological order.

Keep reading

gaymilesedgeworth  asked:

i was gonna fight you and then i realized i don't really want to but my /tagged/straight%20privilege%20denial and probably /tagged/ace%20discourse are relevant. additionally, calling people 'allosexuals' inherently involves an assumption of personal sexual feelings that you don't know to be true. as a survivor and someone with symptoms of mental illness that affect my sexual/romantic feelings, i reject the applicability of that framework to my experiences and find it harmful.

thanks for not fighting me. The ace discourse tag was so filled to the top with acephobia and exclusion of ace people from communities that are supposed to be supportive that it makes me feel broken, irrelevant and ashamed of my sexual orientation to this day. Asexuals, even if they are hetero-romantig, are not straight. Asexual is an identity that is not-straight by definition. “Allos” isn’t meant to suggest sexual practice or even sexual feelings or needs or anything - it simply refers to people who aren’t asexual, so that we can discuss our experiences comfortably. It says nothing but that a person who is refered to by that term is not on the ace (or aro) spectrum. Thanks again for the not fighting thing