please don't mistake silence for hatred. please don't mistake unanswered plotting messages as indifference, or a lack of enthusiasm towards you. considering the ages of most roleplayers, many of us have bills to pay, families to take care of, medical conditions to treat, appointments to make, classes to take, homes to clean, and lives to live away from the computer that are far, far more important than writing on tumblr — life has a tendency to get in the way of hobbies and fun things like this. be patient with your fellow writers. if it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out. of course you can set your boundaries, keep your space comfortable, and softblock whoever you wish, but do so while recognizing it's probably not hatred or apathy that keeps them from leaping into your dms with message after message. they probably love this hobby just as much as you... but sometimes life gets in the way.
1K notes
·
View notes
hey, Leverage peeps, I've got a thought. I've seen a lot of posts and memes joking about Nate's inability to understand that his clients do not want money, they want revenge. I also find this funny. but I was thinking about it and I realized something: there's a personal reason behind it. there is a very, very good reason why Nate doesn't get that.
Nate's drive to lead Leverage, outside of the crew, originated from his son's death due to his insurance company's refusal to cover the bill for the required treatment. we all know this. if his company had paid for Sam's treatment, everything would've been fine.
…or, if Nate had been a little wealthier, had a little more change to spend… maybe he could've paid for it. maybe Blackpool never would've had a say in any of it. maybe Nate would've had everything under control from the start.
we've discussed at length in the fandom how money equals safety for some of the others in the crew (Parker and Hardison grew up with little to none and know its importance to survival, Eliot needs it to stay ahead of his old enemies, etc.), but I don't know that I've seen any discussion on how it's relevant to Nate. for him, however, money equals security in healthcare and in housing (he lost the house, remember?). Nate's older than the others. he remained in the same place for much longer, and he had a stable life for a while. the others haven't been in that position before. many of their clients, however, are at that place in life.
yes, for the others, money keeps them ahead of the game and it keeps them secure. but none of them ever lost a kid because they couldn't pay for healthcare. none of them risk losing the life of someone who is completely dependent on them when they don't have enough.
(Hardison, perhaps, has the closest understanding, considering he hacked a bank to pay for his Nana's healthcare. but he never lost her.)
Nate thinks ahead, you know? he has a long-term view of things. I imagine that for him, when clients refuse the money, they're not just refusing a month's worth of groceries, or a place to stay the night, or the ability to keep running. for him, they're refusing control over their hard-earned, stable, long-term living situation. they're refusing the potential to save a family member's life.
I dunno, guys. I think that's a pretty good reason to not understand why people don't want the money.
2K notes
·
View notes
I wonder why christian misrepresentation are rarely talked about if compared to other religion misrepresentation. Like, I've seen people really vocal about Greek myths misrepresentation in LO and such (and it's valid because it's a culture and religion) but I rarely saw the same thing with christian even though there are many media who use christian religion innacurately, to the point where it comes off as using it as an aesthetic and not a proper religion.
Is it because of rampant religious trauma especially in western world? No ulterior motives on this question. I'm not a christian and yet I'm curious about this. I apologize if this sounds harsh.
I obviously don't have The Answer(tm) to this but personally speaking (and I'm about to get VERY personal here so take this with MOUNTAINS OF SALT), I think it's just the obvious - Christian mythology is one of the most well-documented and strongly protected out of virtually any other religion on the planet. Especially here in the West, it's commonplace for kids to go to Sunday school, for couples to have Christian weddings even if they're not practising Christians themselves, even the American anthem references the Christian God. It's simply not as easy to 'misrepresent' it because the representation is written into our very fabric of society. Even Greece itself is primarily made up of Orthodox Christians.
So anyone that does 'misrepresent' it are either completely mislead hardcore Christians, or people who are doing it intentionally, such as with the intent to make a parody of it or to deconstruct it through a different context or whatever have you. And of course, people will still get mad at those things, if you're implying that people aren't vocal about Christian misrepresentation then frankly IDK what to tell you there LOL If you want a contextual example in the realm of webtoons, Religiously Gay was dragged to hell and back during its launch for having a very crude and insulting depiction of St. Michael, and frankly, yeah I don't disagree because what the fuck is this-
(like at best it's just terrible character design lmao that said, there's also plenty else to criticize Religiously Gay for, including its fetishy representation of gay relationships and the fact that it's still just the "naive person who looks and acts like a child hooks up with mean person in a position of power" trope, blech, but the character design is definitely the first thing you notice)
There are even plenty of hardcore Christians who will deadass claim "misrepresentation" over things that ARE factually correct but they just haven't read the actual Bible and simply cherry pick what works for their own agenda. And of course those people are routinely called out by people like myself who know for a fact that Jesus wouldn't have promoted the war crimes that many modern day Christians are committing and justifying today. So it really depends on the definition of "misrepresentation" here.
The issue specifically with LO and Rachel that I personally call her out for (and many others) is that she's called herself a "folklorist" and claimed she's so much more knowledgeable on Greek myth than anyone else, while making a complete mockery of the original mythologies while not being honest about her intent as to whether LO is actually supposed to be a legitimate retelling OR a parody (because it sure acts like the latter more than the former, but she still seems to expect us to take it seriously and consider her knowledge of Greek myth superior?) Which leads to a lot of her teenage audience claiming shit like "Persephone went down to the underworld willingly" and "Apollo did assault Persephone in the original myths actually" and the classic "why would Lore Olympus lie or make up fake myths?"
You just can't pull off this extent of erasure with Christian mythology because we have a whole ass book of it that's been preserved, sold on shelves, and systematically integrated into society for thousands of years. Of course, there are people who will still try their damned best to twist the Bible to match their own bigotry with the whole "Jesus hates gays" bullshit (he would never), but it's met with equal amounts of 'misrepresentation' that are actually fully well-read and are intentionally subverting and changing things to either critique, parody, or restore the original intent of a lot of stories in the Bible without all the manufactured right-wing crap.
Greek myth, on the other hand, has some stories that are well preserved, and others, not so much. And in the modern day outside of the poems and hymns, you'll also rarely, if ever, see anyone use stories from Greek myth to ostracize, torture, and murder other people. "Misrepresenting Christianity" is more often done by actual Christians who are using the Bible to commit hate crimes than the people who have actually read the Bible and are just taking creative liberties with it for the sake of deconstructing / parodying / analyzing / subverting it. Veggie Tales "misrepresents" Christian stories because obviously Moses wasn't a fucking cucumber lmao but it still accomplishes its goal by retelling Christian stories in a way that's fun and educational for children.
By comparison (on the whole, I'm not comparing LO to Veggie Tales LMAO) LO just isn't clear in its intentions beyond Rachel's initial statements that she was trying to "deconstruct" the myths, while labelling herself as a folklorist. Therefore, I'm going to criticize how she does it because the way she's done it up until now has been very mishandled and has resulted in a lot of misinterpretations of the myths simply for the sake of fandom. And yes, these people exist in Christian media as well - they're called TV evangelists.
And that's my (very heavy) two cents.
169 notes
·
View notes
i feel like it's pretty safe to assume the people who say Chaggie is toxic because of Vaggie's attachment to Charlie haven't really been deeply in love before, especially not in a situation where their partner literally saved their life.
Sure a dynamic like that could go sour if you become too overbearing/demanding or controlling out of fear of losing them, but Vaggie is very obviously not that?
I can't exactly put the feeling into words, it's sort of a situation you have to experience in order to understand. But when you owe someone your life, especially when it feels that person is also your soulmate, of course you dedicate the rest of it to making them happy and giving unyielding support. Of course you feel like you owe them the world, because they're your whole world and the only reason you're even still here.
Yes it can create a power imbalance and your partner could take advantage of the obsessive loyalty that level of dependency breeds, but Charlie chooses not to because shes not abusive and she respects and loves vaggie.
Charlie recognizes that Vaggie has self worth issues and places her value in how useful she is to her, and instead of making it into a toxic situation charlie takes the time to reassure vaggie that she doesn't need to be 'proving' herself and that she is loved and valued as she is.
77 notes
·
View notes
the more loved i am and the more i love people on purpose, the more comfortable i get with who i am. i think this is a natural product of getting older as well, you kinda settle into your skin and figure out what you want and how to go after it. the funny part about doing this for me is that like.... i don't feel things like other people do. i just don't. i have a pathological need for attention and i don't form attachments the same way that others do and i break connections very easily and i don't feel guilty about stuff. i do recognize when i'm WRONG and i change my behavior and/or my viewpoints when they're harmful and i actively work to combat my most maladaptive bullshit, so sometimes it's like.
i dunno. the whole stereotype of the self-aggrandizing sociopath who thinks they're above everything is boring, but sometimes it feels like there's something to it. like i'll see sensationalized explanations of 'narcissism' and 'sociopathy' that are like "these people can just choose not to care about stuff," and i'm like....
....yeah??
So The Fuck Can You.
in fact, you do. CONSTANTLY. by telling yourself that the real life living breathing human being asking for change on the street is a scammer, or a predator, or unpleasant, or too sick, or too strung-out, or otherwise too Other and inhuman to help. you only reserve your so-called "intrinsic empathy" for people that you relate to, and you turn it off when it gets uncomfortable.
i know exactly where i'm spending my emotional energy and who i'm spending it on. when i don't spend my emotional energy on someone, it's not because they're an unperson to me. it's because i simply don't wanna put my emotional energy there.
you guys could learn a thing or two about doing this. like. i know why i am how i am. what the fuck is YOUR excuse????
96 notes
·
View notes
Prompt 51
Hear me out: Either due to a prank originally or them both being genderfluid, Bruce and Kate swap vigilante outfits. Batman is Batwoman for a night and Batwoman is Batman, not that the goons know that. The thing is though… it’s kind of fun. So they do it again, and again.
The criminals don’t know if they’re going to get kick in your teeth Batman or shoot your kneecaps Batman, they don’t know if they’re going to get flirt while terrorizing your gang Batwoman or terrifyingly silent while snapping someones leg Batwoman.
It’s fun for them, and sometimes on slower nights they’ll swap in the middle of patrol. No one can figure out who the bats are, even in rumors or conspiracy theories. People trying to psychoanalyze them are pulling out their hair, the batkids when they find out are going wild with ideas on how to make it worse.
Of course, come the Justice League, they continue to do their whole switching vigilante-sonas.
181 notes
·
View notes
Ooooo thank you for explaining the cult 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Would you be able to go in depth about how and why warlocks are hated or the general history or state of your world?
Hope you're having a good time zone 😊
🫶🏽
not really because i haven't really thought about it! and this isn't really my own worldbuilding, this is the general consensus from high fantasy media in general:
Warlocks in general have a reputation for being evil, practicing dark magic, and making pacts with "bad" forces - like demons! they're thought to be servants of evil & are not to be trusted. their magic is usually chaotic and wild, unlike wizardry and witchcraft with are more careful and controlled - and their magic is learned, whereas warlocks get their magic from a powerful entity via some form of payment (ex: their soul)
really, warlocks can be good or bad or somewhere in between like any magic user. but due to the nature/source of their powers, they're seen as evil. the rarity of them only adds to this, since many do indeed get corrupted by their patron - or they sought out their pact for less than savory reasons
44 notes
·
View notes