I find it sooooo funny (aka annoying) that straight people will never truly understand the real goals of the gay community
Like they think all we want is to be treated like everyone else. To not be ostracized for being who we are. And they’re right.
But then they take this goal they think we have and somehow in their tiny Het brains it translates to “they want to be seen as straight people, they want to conform, they want gay to become a meaningless label”
So then ally culture becomes “I don’t see gay people as any different, I don’t care about sexuality, the only difference between us is who we love etc.”
And they completely miss the point that we loooove being gay. We love pride, we love talking about our sexuality and how it affects us (if we’re safe to do so) we love having a sense of community and belonging.
What’s gross about this mindset is it stems from the fact that straights cannot even fathom treating gay people like their equals without erasing our identity and forcing us to conform. “I don’t care about your sexuality, I still love you” is false allyship, and in the long term does more harm than good. What gay people truly want is “I see your sexuality, I recognize that your struggles and goals are different than mine, and I’m still going to treat you like a human and give you the rights you deserve”
If you can’t see me as your equal while also recognizing that I’m a lesbian, you are not an ally.
Magnus “I value what are perceived as good actions in the short term, without regard for what is best for others in the long term” Burnsides, Taako “I don’t pretend to ever take the nice path in the short term, and am starting to understand that some things must be sacrificed for the good others in the long term” Taaco, and Merle “If I murder Angus is it canonical” Highchurch
im so fucking angry because terezi pyrope’s personal system of ethics is one of the most nuanced and detailed examples of CLS paired with a critique of justice that i’ve ever seen in a piece of fiction and it’s homestuck
In an attempt to pull away from the cultural appropriation that had plagued modern wicca and neo-pagan movements, I notice many people gravitating towards traditional witchcraft in it’s various incarnations. While this is a broad conversation to enter into, something I want to bring up for the possibility of open conversation is the concept of the Fetch (traditional witchcraft) and the Spirit Animal (Native American shamanism). Bare in mind, my understanding of the spirit animal is limited to what I have been told and I am open to being given more information to better develop my grasp of the concept. Take the following definitions as generals, not absolutes.
A ? around a sentence means I’m not sure of the validity of this information.
Spirit Animal: An entity, separate from the self, which appears to guide or, through lessons, help one become stronger and persevere through challenge. They represent a mind set or perhaps ones strongest traits, what will become most important to them, or the path they should follow in life. ?A spirit animal does not ‘belong’ to any one person? However a totem animal is one with the person both in the physical and spiritual realm. Spirit animals may come in and out of ones life at times of need or to convey messages. ?Sometimes they have strong affiliations with a specific tribe?
Fetch: A fetch is, at it’s core, a representation of the persons most primal and uncivilized self. Wild and perhaps even dark, it is meant to act as a challenger to the persons progress in the craft and, once the challenge is won, the fetch will act on behalf of the person by helping them travel the spirit realm. They can be totemic (as totems and shamanism is not limited to Native American tribes)as they are in essence the person at their most wild and free self.
Why differentiate? Well beyond the two being very different both in concept and intention, I do feel there is a need to stop using the stolen ideals of another culture, especially when we don’t have a good grasp of what they are and simply fling around the term because we took a buzzfeed quiz. Spirit animals do not belong to witchcraft. We do not have a right to them under the concept that they exist for Native Americans. Now there may be some similarities between spirit animals and fetches, familiars, totems, et cetera in other practices. But that does not make the terms interchangeable.
there are some respects (especially as regards worldbuilding) in which LOTR is a lot more nuanced and detailed than many later users of the genre conventions it helped popularize and so there’s some stuff that Tolkienesque fantasy gets criticised for that Tolkien himself doesn’t actually tend to do
there’s obviously plenty to criticise in LOTR itself, but it’s not always what seems obvious based on later examples of the genre, and it’s fascinating to see how those tropes have mutated
Theory: Darkiplier and Wilford Warfstache represent opposite ends of a blue-orange morality axis
If you’re familiar with a lot of roleplaying games, or just a common system for classifying the motives and methods of characters, the alignment chart should be familiar to you. A basic one looks like this:
Your motives are either good, evil or neutral, and your methods are either lawful (structured, planned) or chaotic (flying by the seat of your pants).
Another way to think about it is like this:
Which is much simpler.
First consider Darkiplier. He definitely belongs on the ‘evil’ side of the graph, and I think he strongly belongs on the ‘lawful’ side too. This is because we see that he’s a planner, he has schemes.
Then if you consider Wilford Warfstache, his defining character trait seems to be that he does not play by the rules, or at least not the same rules as everybody else. So he’s certainly chaotic, but there is no reasonable way you can claim he’s good. (Great character, but not a good person.) He’d be chaotic neutral at best, and chaotic evil at worst…
Or chaotic something else entirely.
Blue Orange Morality
Also sometimes called ‘bacon necktie morality’, is a concept used to discuss creatures or characters that have a system of thoughts/morals/motives/alignment so far distant from our own human understanding that we just don’t understand it. It’s often used to describe alien races or the Fey.
So what is thinking of these characters in terms of good/evil and law/chaos is wrong? What if there is a third axis, the blue/orange axis, that we can’t actually comprehend…yet?
And what if Wilford and Darkiplier, at opposite ends of the table, are also at opposite ends of this spectrum? One chaos, one law. One orange, one blue. Both definitely Not Good.
And what if the layout of this table represents where these other personas are on the blue-orange morality axis, whatever it is? Those most like Darkiplier closer to Dark, those most like Wilford closer to him, and those that are close to neither (and potentially the closest to human understanding) in the neutral middle.
What would you recommend as a good first pet in terms of reptiles?
It depends on what you’re looking for. Leos and bear does are good but have dietary/lighting needs that are different from the heating needs of other good beginner species like corn snakes, milk snakes, children’s pythons and spotted pythons, etc.
I’ve seen some random Tamlin things floating around my dash the last few days and I just want to say…
Yeah, people deserve second chances. (And sometimes third chances, tbh.)
Yeah, he may have suffered a sense of powerlessness, he obviously had difficulty controlling himself even in ACOTAR with his talons popping out every time he got upset.
Yeah he was facing the downfall of his court and a life of servitude to Amarantha.
But… those things + loving Feyre don’t make what he did ok? I’m not sure what is with the intense desire to defend him. He fucked up. It’s pretty clear. And loving someone is never an excuse for that. Nor is mental illness. We still have to be held accountable for our actions.
when you are autistic.. this literally influences your capability to interpret social norms, etiquettes, and cues… more specifically, it makes it incredibly difficult to immerse yourself into a social roles..
and.. i literally don’t get how by this, it’d somehow exclude gender roles, straight normativity, reproductive roles, and social pressure to marry..
me being autistic literally makes me just feel like gender roles are impossible to immerse myself into.. like, why do i have to wear a suit or a dress? why can’t boys wear pink? these are the kind of autism charged questions i would ask as a kid… just as i asked really specific questions about other things most people wouldn’t think too much about..
and that’s something you all need to recognise.. monogamy, romance, gender… it’s all quite performative stuff… and performative stuff isn’t very compatible with being autistic.. because why should i perform?
i always would ask “i don’t get it.. why?”, the allistic straight person says “because that’s just because things are”.. they say this equally about things like religion, formality, and gender roles..
and you know what a good term for this is? it’s an intersecting marginalised experience.. because guess what? these things also other me because i’m bisexual and trans.. but it doubles up because it’s social constructs that alienates me as an autistic person too.
and i think this is the specific experience people refer to when they name their orientation or gender being related to their neurotype.. and if you make fun of these terms, you’re literally just erasing and ignoring the fact people are simply naming their intersecting marginalised experience.
that’s the whole point of those words… many societal things others marginalised people in similar ways, when someone is marginalised in multiple ways, then it isn’t useful to then try to split hairs, because the experience might as well be equally due to all the aspects of our identities..
and if someone has found a name for this? then that’s awesome. people should be able to put names and words on these experiences.. it doesn’t apply to the entire community, and it doesn’t say something about what the entire community is..
it just means we need to recognise there are overlaps between different minorities, and that there are people who are marginalised in multiple ways.. and experience their identities differently from others in the community due to that.