#we are as a society not there yet where that is possible. etc etc also learned helplessness

[kn11ves]

i entirely agree that humans should depend on each other more and that we should try to approach people with open minds and not believe that they are out to get us, on that note, shaming and chastising people for not feeling comfortable to depend on other people and telling them that they need to fix it or they're actually MORE of a bother and a burden is probably not the best way to go about it

#10000 millionth post where some tumblr users' opinion breaches containment and i must comment on it vaguely #listen it is sort of upsetting how it really is true that the majority of those call-out-y posts on peoples' behaviours can be really #damaging for people with ocd. like you re just going to send us on a spiral because now we arent even sure if the thing we were trying to d #as to not cause other people pain is actually causing more pain and oh dear god we're really terrible people ohh fack ive known all along #i think the first step to making people feel more comfortable to take your help and hospitality is probably approaching them kindly? #at least instead of saying we must ''learn to accept it'' #plus the mention of individualism and comunialism-- i agree individualism has hurt a lot of people and it is very bad #although to some degree i dont think it is entirely wrong you cannot fully depend on everyone 100% of the time for your own safety #we are as a society not there yet where that is possible. etc etc also learned helplessness #but anyways if youre going to talk about individualism then you have to actually acknowledge that a lot of collectivist societies have cult #cultures in which REFUSING THE HOSPITALITY IS PART OF THE CULTURE!!!! where youre meant to say no many times as a show of respect and as th #host continues to offer it. as well many many many MANY people born from immigrant parents or who are immigrants themselves have a shared #experience of being raised to be as completely clean and polite and small as possible when in someone elses' home #it just really rubbed me the wrong way the entire post... #i just dont think you should get so upset someone doesnt accept your hospitality consider everything is not erm about you and maybe they #arent comfortable enough with you or are having a bad day ? #''i can always tell when they are only saying it because they dont want to be a bother'' no u litearlly cannot #anyways it was a very american post that i did not like. #do help each other and take the help when you need it though we need that.

[daisydisciple]

Ok thought not fully formed yet but I think everything would make a lot more sense if we thought of "sin" as more along the lines of "something that weakens your connection with God" and less "a morally bad action in the secular philosophical sense."

In modern secular philosophy, usually we only think of an action as "bad" if it causes measurable harm to society/the environment/another person etc. No victim = no crime. This makes perfect sense when we're thinking about regulating behavior with laws, rules, and, to an extent, social norms. The goal of this kind of thinking/regulating is to create a harmonious, free, and safe society in our mortal/temporal/earthly condition.

In contrast, Sin as a religious (Christian) concept is more concerned with the state of an individual soul and that soul's relationship with God. It is possible for something to be a sin and yet be a "victimless crime." (Arguably the "victim" here is actually the "perpetrator" but you know what I mean.) The goal of this kind of thinking is to help the individual be in harmony with God.

I think the problem here is when we conflate the two uncritically. Yes, there is a lot of overlap (murder, for example, would draw you further from God and also is harmful to the murder victim/their family/society.) But the two concepts are not one and the same. Just because a behavior is sinful doesn't mean it can and should be forbidden by law, rule, or even social norm. Likewise, just because enforcing or encouraging a certain behavior is beneficial to society doesn't mean that behavior is or isn't a sin.

I think this conflation is a source of miscommunication and misunderstanding. Lots of people seem to interpret calling a behavior sinful to mean "if you do this you are an bad person who is actively harming society."

I also think that's why people get so turned off by the concept of all sin being equal in the eyes of God. That isn't the same thing as all morally bad actions having equal weight or consequences in society. The point is that all sin separates us from God, and what His plan requires for us is for there to be zero separation. (That's where Jesus comes in). The point of saying all sin is the same in the eyes of God isn't to say that murder and not praying are equivalent in secular morality. The point is that someone "guilty" of not praying needs Jesus just as much as a murderer. (Because! We all need Jesus completely and equally.)

So anyway I guess my point is that Christians need to recognize that just because something is sinful (separates a soul from God) doesn't mean that that thing should be illegal or against the rules or even socially shamed.

But! Non-Christians should also understand that the concept of sin is distinct from secular morality. If I say that something is a sin, don't take it as me saying "anyone who does this is evil and depraved and deserves to be executed by firing squad." girl I sin. we all sin.

#help does this make sense #again! There's overlap #because chances are if you are knowingly causing undue harm (morally wrong) that's also a sin babey #can't think of an exception tbh #also there is kind of a gray area in the middle involving intention and impact #I could do something that causes unforeseen harm #that might not be a sin (I had good intentions) but had bad consequences #but secular morality imo usually has concessions for that sort of thing as well? #christian #christianity #religion #tumblrstake

[spntoxicfemslashevent]

about the event:

have you ever wanted to write about mary kidnapping anna? naomi getting a little too into placing hannah under her drill? raphael stalking the prophet's strange, excitable girlfriend? then this is the event for you!

supernatural contains many terrible women, and yet few works exist where those women are not only having sex with each other, but are having insane, psychosexual, radioactive sex. this is a gap we want to fill. we'll be posting prompts, potential relationship pairings, and possible formats for your works -- take that inspiration, follow it as broadly or as closely as you want, and show us what you made!

rules:

18+ -- this event deals with mature topics and themes, please only participate if you're over 18

no underage

obviously given this is a toxic femslash event, elements of misogyny or homophobia or etc that exist in our society will come up and perhaps even permeate the characters and the work itself. however, don't be a bigot. we reserve the right not to boost your work if it's racist or something

warnings are your friend -- please make sure to tag your works + add disclaimers, so those who want to avoid it can, and those who want to find it also can ;)

ship tags -- we'll be doing those in alphabetical order. for instance, if you're shipping jo harvelle and charlie bradbury, we will tag it "charlie bradbury/jo harvelle" for blog organization, even if jocharlie is the more popular name

we're tracking #spntoxicfemslash, please @ us in your posts as well so we can reblog!

posting schedule:

throughout january, we'll be posting prompts + potential relationship pairings. feel free to take inspiration from the prompt, the pairing, both, or neither! if you wrote toxic femslash, we want to see it

starting february, we will have daily general prompts, along with a potential relationship pairing, story type (such as au or 5+1), and format (like mixed media or round robin). just like january, feel free to take inspiration from parts of what we post, all, or none! send your stuff in early or late -- our goal is to increase the amount of toxic spn femslash in the world by any means necessary

[submission guidelines] [prompt lists] [prompts by date]

#housekeeping

[neomel]

Alrighty fellow insane sonic fans i have something very cool for you today: a WORLDBUILDING theory!! this is something that's been kicking around in my head for so long that i forget it isn't something I've shared with many others yet lol

[ This post primarily covers stuff from Sonic Adventure, Sonic Adventure 2 and Sonic Advance, and ignores Sonic Chronicles and Sonic Pocket Adventure as they have been struck from canon (see: Encyclo-speed-ia) ]

[ It should also be noted that this theory is built on the idea that "the world" as depicted in Sonic Forces is not accurately depicting the entire globe, but rather depicting Eggman's takeover of just the island archipelago where the animal cast lives (South Island, West Side Island, Mirage Island, Northstar Islands, Angel Island) as to explain its geography and lack of human characters ]

Right! So, a big theme in the environmental design of the original Sonic Adventure was having the Sonic cast sort of "cross over" into the human world more - the wording on this was initially nebulous, but with updated translations and clearer official word recently, we now know that it means that the "human world" is moreso like a mainland populated by humans that exists separately from the animal-inhabited island archipelago of Sonic 1, 2, CD, 3&K and Superstars (see: Sonic Origins). My immediate first point of comparison - of all things - is something like the first Madagascar movie, where the lemurs are able to be a fully functioning society in a region completely isolated from humans.

Except it's not quite like that movie, is it? We see in Sonic Adventure (and further in Unleashed, 06) that animal characters like Sonic and c.o are able to exist just fine within the human world, to where Amy has flat-out moved into Station Square. Big and Tails, too, have settled down by the Mystic Ruins close to where Angel Island (sometimes) crashes down by, Rouge owns a club in Sonic Battle - you get the gist. Animal characters, the majority population of the islands as we see in Forces and the IDW series, are able to migrate into the "mainland" human societies, but it appears to still be a rarity, likely not even something everyone has the opportunity to do (Big might've been born on Angel Island, Tails and/or Sonic can fly any of Sonic's friends to wherever they want to go, etc.). The most contact humans have with the animal world is through the Mystic Ruins site, or Eggman using his excessive wealth to fly in and try and effectively colonize the islands as we see in Sonic 1, 2, Superstars, CD, 4.1 and 4.2 (for note: CD, 4.1 and 4.2 take place on the same island of Mirage Island)

Sonic Adventure 2's level select is obviously to be taken with a grain of salt as a stylized take on a world map, but it seems to infer the same thing that Origins' main menu and Angel Island's close proximity to the Mystic Ruins both corroborate - the island archipelago inhabited by the animal characters seems to be quite close to the mainland "United Nations" landmass, most evidently close to Rouge's Route 280 level. And given how often Eggman lays his sights on the islands as a primary target for his schemes (Heroes may well also be taking place on the islands, as Seaside Hill is confirmed to be near/on South Island), it would make sense from the United Nations' POV to try and make access to the islands more accessible. For example, to enable easier import and export of goods, help citizens evacuate from possible disaster (eg. how the Metal Virus in IDW described how it was impossible to evacuate to anywhere else but Angel Island), and so on - a way to connect the two societies more smoothly only makes sense.

With ALL that context and preamble out of the way, this is my theory, and where Sonic Advance finally comes into the picture:

Radical Highway in Sonic Adventure 2, and later Neo Green Hill Zone from Sonic Advance, were together depicting a brief attempt to connect South Island to the United Nations mainland.

You may think this is a bit of a nutty conclusion to draw given how little of a story Sonic Advance actually has, but I think there's a lot we can glean from just the environmental design of Neo Green Hill Zone alone. Compared to the original Green Hill Zone, and most of the levels in the Classic Sonic games that aren't just flat-out urban cities/facilities seemingly built under Eggman's control (Star Light, Spring Yard, Chemical Plant), Neo Green Hill Zone's touches of human infrastructure are far more...friendly, for a lack of a better word. There's parasols and wooden scaffolding, a grind rail or two along paved sidewalks, yet the natural beauty of the area is left entirely in tact. Nothing about it appears like Eggman's work, yet it is quite evidently structured for human interests, for tourism and walking/biking rather than all the funky ways in which Sonic's animal cast are comfortable moving around. Then there's of course the name: NEO Green Hill Zone, as if it's reinvigorating the idea for a fresh new facelift, re-marketing it!

But how does all that connect to Radical Highway?

Radical Highway (and Mission Street by extension) have a quirk unique to them when compared to almost all other urban city levels in the series - as you can see in the image above, they're themed around still being under construction. Compared to a level like Lethal Highway from Shadow the Hedgehog (or the aforementioned Route 280 from SA2) the holes and gaps in Radical Highway are presented as being specifically because the winding roads are still under construction. You can see this on the level map above too - Route 280 and Route 101 appear to be part of a long, linear, already-finished stretch of road, wheras the area of Radical Highway and Mission Street is filled with gaps, inlets and breaks in the road. Route 101/Route 280 already appear to fill the function of letting people cross between the two city areas depicted on Adventure 2's world map...so then, what exactly is the construction and general wobblyness of Radical Highway for?

Well, let's look at Sonic Advance again: Specifically, the end of the Neo Green Hill Zone stage, and the way the game progresses immediately thereafter:

The natural beach environment of Neo Green Hill Zone Act 2 suddenly bows out before the Eggman boss fight to give way to something quite interesting: A red bridge extending out from the island's coast. The bridge's architecture doesn't quite match that of Radical Highway, most notably using tall suspension wires hooked up to some off-screen upper portion of the construction, but I think the idea alone is fascinating enough: This is drastically more modern architecture compared to the rickety wooden bridges otherwise seen in Green Hill Zone. We're still a bit unsure of if Advance 1 takes place before or after Sonic Adventure 2, but if it's before - it may also be possible that the work on this bridge began on the South Island end of things *before* the mainland Radical Highway-end were finished with their work, with the idea of joining the two bridges somewhere in the middle.

Let's again also consider where this bridge takes our characters in Advance - to Secret Base Zone, a shockingly urban facility which we still don't really know the location of. Sonic and c.o need to zip-line into its entrance, with a background that only features light and buildings far off into the distance - is it possible that the Secret Base exists sort of like an oil rig in the middle of the ocean, inbetween South Island and the mainland, as some sort of production facility for the UN? Regardless, it serves as a pit-stop in the Advance campaign - after it, we can pretty cleanly chart a roadmap for where the cast travels. Casino Paradise's ocean background seemingly depicts it as being part of the coastline (bottom left of the SA2 map), Ice Mountain is pretty clearly meant to be another area of Ice Cap Zone given how it leads to the Angel Island Zone - which is, in reality, a dilapidated Sky Sanctuary. Effectively, the campaign seems to go from South Island, to the bridge connecting South Island to the mainland, to a coastside Vegas-like casino wonderland built by Eggman, which is near the Mystic Ruins and thus near Angel Island by extension (it may be connected to Night Carnival from Sonic Rush?). And all of it connected thanks to the works of a bridge, seemingly set up in Adventure 2 with Radical Highway being under construction, possibly with the goals to connect the two core parts of Sonic's world.

Whew! That's pretty much all the words I have, and I've now reached the max cap of images per posts. I truly don't know how many Sonic fans care about these granular details and concepts about the environment of Sonics world in games from 20+ years ago, but I hope it got some gears turning - and if there is some merit to this, it may further get you wondering as to why the path connecting the two was seemingly cut off in the end? Given the cityscapes we see in Forces and IDW, it's possible that this mutual relation between the two worlds lasted for a fair while - what could've possibly led to that bond being broken? Maybe Unleashed breaking the world apart had something to do with it...

Thanks for reading this far if you did - and feel free to add your own ideas or things I might've missed in all of this!

#mel alphabet soup #ill make you eat those words! #sonic #sonic games #sonic the hedgehog #sonic lore #sonic adventure #sonic adventure 2 #sonic advance #sa1 #sa2 #sa2b #sonic writing #sonic theory #sonic series #sonic franchise #sonic x shadow generations #sonic heroes

[dreamlifebunny]

it doesn't matter where you came from, what matters is that you're here now.

one thing that really bugs me about spiritual communities in general (reality shifting, law of assumption, non dualism, etc.) is that a lot of people shame others for not understanding things or for believing in things that are limiting when they first start out. i mean, i understand the frustration - anons can ask a thousand questions that could be answered if they read pinned posts, and we all just want everyone to abandon their limiting beliefs and just get it.

but the fact is that we were born in a society that teaches us that we are limited and that some things are impossible, from the time that we are small until we find these teachings, and we are slowly undoing them through exploration and self-inquiry. it's an overwhelming and tricky journey, filled with so many beautiful highs and a lot of devastating lows, and i feel like everyone deserves a whole lot of compassion when searching for answers. i know i needed love and compassion when i first started, because my ego was scared and sad and was searching for answers in order to feel loved and secure. being told i was dumb and having someone be frustrated with me for my questions was the last thing i needed to become self-actualized. i know that everyone is different, but this is just my experience, so i wanted to share it.

my beliefs are constantly evolving into what brings me more peace and understanding. in the beginning, i wouldn't have been able to believe that my assumptions create my reality (law of assumption) if i hadn't been introduced to the idea of reality shifting. i wouldn't have understood the fact that this life is just beautiful dream and that my true Self is the dreamer (non dualism) if i hadn't first been able to separate my "imagination" from my "real life" (3D and 4D from law of assumption). these were all stepping stones in my understanding of the greater ideas that i needed to get to, and i feel no shame in formerly having beliefs or practices that i don't identify with anymore. i don't believe that you should have shame, either, regardless of where you are at in your journey of self-discovery and creative power.

i get so sad when i see bloggers shaming others for not understanding things when all of this is so fucking difficult to grasp when one is first starting out. i mean, we come from societies that have beliefs as foolish and damaging as skin colour making you inferior, or that gender is binary and you can't express yourself the way you feel inside. with beliefs such as these, of course the beliefs of anything being possible and the fictional being real are going to sound impossible and profoundly false. in my personal opinion, the tough love approach has never helped me - compassion and patience has. i feel like so many people believe and understand that we are all one and have a great understanding of the truth of things, and yet go around and are rude to those seeking answers. it just feels so pathetic to me to see bullying of those seeking answers when they're literally just an extension of the answerer. anons are showing up with silly questions because bloggers expect them to have silly questions. and i realize that even this is hypocritical of me to say because i could just choose to see a spiritual community full of love and compassion instead of what i'm seeing, but i still wanted to share this while i unravel my own hypocrisy.

i feel like if you are wanting to be a teacher of others, you have to take on the responsibility that being a teacher holds, which includes patience, patience, and more patience. that's just my own perspective at least, and everyone is welcome to have their own, but my favourite teachers have been ones that guide me to my own answers with patience and compassion. i am also profoundly sensitive and feel wilty when others are cruel to me, so maybe i'm just trying to speak out to those who feel similarly, because this is a post i wish i could have read when i first started my journey. ultimately, everyone can do, be, and say whatever they like - it's their own blog after all - but i just want to be a voice of compassion to anyone who is in the beginning stages of learning about the law of assumption, non dualism, or reality shifting. it all comes down to the same profound teachings that we are, at our core, limitless.

all of this is to say that i am proud of you. you are doing a good, great, amazing job. you are worthy of love and goodness in your life no matter what others may make you feel. you are worthy of the absolute best and nothing less. it is a hard journey at times, but it is a worthwhile journey, and you are brave and creative and beautiful for taking the steps to expand and give yourself the best life. you deserve compassion and love and patience, and i am rooting for you every step of the way. i hope you are rooting for yourself, too.

ultimately, it doesn't matter where you got your beliefs. what matters is: does it feel right to you? does it make you feel connected to your true, unlimited Self? does it open up your world and your heart to the endless possibilities available to you? does it give you peace? if so, it doesn't matter what practice or teaching you believe in. you are your own greatest teacher.

it doesn't matter where you came from, what beliefs you once held, or who you've been in the past. what matters is that you are here, learning and growing, learning how to give yourself the most beautiful experiences that your creative power has to offer. be kind to yourself and remember that we're all just trying to expand and love and open ourselves up.

#not sure how to tag this one considering its just a loving rant. but yeah #law of assumption #non dualism #sensitive bb bunny strikes again #bunny's originals #even now i'm worried that someone is gonna be mean to me about this post LOL gjhsghjgf #sensitivity is a blessing and a curse #neville goddard #edward art

[anarchistmemecollective]

hi!! over the past year or so, i’ve been radicalizing leftwards (does that make sense?), and while i do like to say that i have a pretty good understanding of things like socialism and communism and such, one thing i haven’t really been able to figure out is what anarchism is and how it works. like, i get the basic idea, but what with google being google and most people on breadtube not being anarchist, it’s definitely not as easy to research as socialism.

anyways, tl;dr: what defines anarchism and how does it work?

thanks in advance! have a cookie 🍪

"Anarchism asserts the possibility of an organization without discipline, fear, or punishment, and without the pressure of poverty: a new social organism which will make an end to the terrible struggle for the means of existence,—the savage struggle which undermines the finest qualities in man, and ever widens the social abyss. In short, Anarchism strives towards a social organization which will establish well-being for all."

leftward ho! thanks for writing. these questions are always difficult to answer because i don’t know where you’re coming from on your personal journey. but i’ll try to answer some of the basics and recommend some good resources to start with.

first of all, there are many anarchisms and if you ask three anarchists you’ll get five opinions. but probably the most prevalent form of anarchism is anarcho-communism, so while i’ll try to talk broadly from a general anarchist position, much of it be from an anarchocommunist perspective for simplicity’s sake.

at it’s most basic, anarchism is an opposition to hierarchy, to one person having control over another. it is a radical commitment to compassion and absolute freedom. like communists, anarchists want a moneyless, stateless, and classless society. unlike leninists, who falsely claim to be communists, we know that there has never been a good state, and never can be. they are by their very nature oppressive, and cannot be used as a means to an end to achieve communism. no group or individual can wield that much power over others and not become corrupted by it. absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc. so while we are committed to the fight against capitalism, we are also committed to the fight against the state. they are intertwined and must be defeated simultaneously. so we believe in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion, and the abolition of money and private property, as the best way to ensure the basic and higher needs of everyone are met.

if you haven’t read it yet, the wikipedia article for anarchism is actually a pretty good place to start:

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish the institutions they claim maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including, though not necessarily limited to, the state[1] and capitalism. Anarchism advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies or other forms of free associations. As a historically left-wing movement, usually placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, it is usually described alongside communalism and libertarian Marxism as the libertarian wing (libertarian socialism) of the socialist movement.

Humans lived in societies without formal hierarchies long before the establishment of formal states, realms, or empires. With the rise of organised hierarchical bodies, scepticism toward authority also rose. Although traces of anarchist thought are found throughout history, modern anarchism emerged from the Enlightenment. During the latter half of the 19th and the first decades of the 20th century, the anarchist movement flourished in most parts of the world and had a significant role in workers' struggles for emancipation. Various anarchist schools of thought formed during this period. Anarchists have taken part in several revolutions, most notably in the Paris Commune, the Russian Civil War and the Spanish Civil War, whose end marked the end of the classical era of anarchism. In the last decades of the 20th and into the 21st century, the anarchist movement has been resurgent once more.

Anarchism employs a diversity of tactics in order to meet its ideal ends which can be broadly separated into revolutionary and evolutionary tactics; there is significant overlap between the two, which are merely descriptive. Revolutionary tactics aim to bring down authority and state, having taken a violent turn in the past, while evolutionary tactics aim to prefigure what an anarchist society would be like. Anarchist thought, criticism, and praxis have played a part in diverse areas of human society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

i don’t know how much original theory you’ve read before, but i’ll give some reading recs. personally i’m a big fan of peter kropotkin, and found the conquest of bread to be a breath of fresh air after studying marx for years. others have recommended starting with errico malatesta’s anarchy or peter gelderloos’ anarchy works. and zoe baker (anarchopac) is excellent if videos or tweets are more your speed.

https://enoughisenough14.org/2019/06/10/anarchism-a-very-short-introduction-by-colin-ward/

getting involved masterpost

hopefully that’s enough to get you started but please feel free to ask questions, and there are many more knowledgable people here who can help as well.

#dietspam #dietspam answers #id in alt text #anarchy 101

[ride-thedragon]

NETTLES AND RHAENYRA, CHARACTER FOILS.

Because I'm not an English teacher

So the question is, How is Nettles Rhaenyra's foil?

1. Appearance .

Rhaenyra is a pretty standard Valyrian beauty. Silver locks, purple eyes, quite pretty, later on in life we get the change that she didn't lose the wait after giving birth to her kids and becùase of misogyny, her beauty has faded. Features like her long hair worn in the style of Visenya and so on are also mentioned. It's giving the Realm's delight in a real sense (not the weird sense).

Nettles, on the other hand, is juxtaposed as 'ugly'. She's brown, is skinny, has crooked teeth, a nose scar, and has short hair.

The maesters like to play to damn much, basically. But they are described as almost exact opposites. Short and long hair, skinny and fat, white and brown skin, purple and brown eyes, etc.

The narrative purpose is to ultimately show their different upbringing and places in this society.

2. Status

Rhaenyra is shown to be the princess, heir to the throne and queen throughout the book. No matter what happens with her, the security and privilege she has almost always goes over what other women have. Her only real threat is the men (and book Alicent) who have personal stake in her not ascending her throne. She's also entirely spoilt as princess and heir by her father and more so her uncle.

Nettles, on the other hand, is introduced to us as an orphan from Driftmark. We're told she could've been a thief and a sex worker by the time we met her. She has no name, lands, titles, or family that we are presented with in the narrative and her backstory for better or less is a patchwork of what her life was possibly like on Driftmark.

Unlike Rhaenyra, we don't follow every salacious rumour and really don't know much about her past.

3. Dragons

Rhaenyra’s dragon Syrax was a cradle egg hatched to her, a Targaryen custom. She's also the youngest dragonrider at 7 I believe.

Nettles claims her dragon at no older than 16 years old. He is a wild dragon (a distinction given to hatched Targaryen dragons that haven't been riden and live away from the keep) and slaughters many before she claims him.

4. Virtue

The notion of virtue in asoiaf is extremely complex, especially with these two women and the vastly different backgrounds. But virginity and speculation also develops both their characterizations in the narrative.

Rhaenyra allegedly "sleeps" with Daemon to practise what she wants to do with Criston (she's 15-). In the show, it becomes obvious that she almost sleeps with Daemon and officially sleeps with Criston. Either way, promiscuity and naivety are written into her character. The only point of conflict is who is involved with what happened in these instances less than what happened. Later on her promiscuity is brought up when Ser Harwin Strong is said to be the father of her first three children.

On the other hand, Nettles' sexual promiscuity is given to her in the narrative. The claims of her being a whore or sleeping around with shepherds are claims made by men who don't know what she was doing at that time. Men who made similar claims about Rhaenyra and their involvement in her loss of virtue as well. Where these stories differ is in Maidenpool, where the assumption of promiscuity is given a different voice.

This time, maids are alluding to an inappropriately close relationship between Daemon and Nettles (yet again, he finds himself here).

5. Daemon

Speak of the devil, and he will appear.

His dynamic is important to these women and their place in the narrative. Saving one dooms the other, leaving with one isolated the other. His decisions ultimately affect one while benefiting the other.

The cruellest example of this dynamic is him letting Nettles go after being the reason she is trapped in the narrative and ultimately dooming Rhaenyra by choosing to kill Aemond instead of going back to her.

His dynamic with both was also comparable with gift giving and quality time and even inappropriate relationship he developed with both of them, notably around similar ages. ( Both these relationships have significant power imbalances).

Between them both, his affection to one affects the other detrimentally.

6. Jace

Specifically in reference to his death, it's notable that within the narrative, while Nettles is described as crying by herself in response to his death, Rhaenyra is hardened by it.

Also, as symbols for legitimacy and legacy, Jace is the reason Nettles is recognised as a dragonseed, and Rhaenyra's line is secured as her first born, but in his absence, Nettles is delegitimised and said to be not a dragonseed. Around that time, Rhaenyra is beginning to be questioned by all the men around her as well, whereas before, Jace was a notable voice in decisions.

7. Dragons in the End.

They both meet their 'end' in the narrative with Dragons. Rhaenyra is killed by her brother's dragon Sunfyre burns and eats her, killing her in front of her son.

Nettles, however, escapes the narrative on dragonback, with the stories that follow explicitly explaining how dragon fire protects her and leads her to become a deity for the burned men.

8. Children

In the narrative, Nettles has no children. Children would explicitly be a burden in her described circumstances as a mouth to feed and someone else to care for. Effectively, children would trap Nettles in a cycle of poverty and inability to experience ethe freedom presented in the narrative.

Rhaenyra is expected to have children to secure her legacy and reign. Children, especially sons, would be her greatest benefit to ensure her ascension to the throne. They are her biggest strategy and losses throughout the war because of that reason.

This dynamic carries out to a head with the death decree for Nettles. The possibility that she would have a child by Daemon is a definitive reason that her 'treason' calls for her head. A child would give her a claimant but also be proof of infidelity by Daemon. It would be a slight to Rhaenyra’s pride and grief as she at this point has lost 4 children during the war.

9. Loyalty of men

This is one of the most interesting for me because the disloyalty of men for Rhaenyra meant the loyalty of men to Nettles. When the Mootons decide not to kill her, they are traitors to Rhaenyra. When Daemon lets her leave, he's a traitor to Rhaenyra. When Corlys stands up for both her and Addam, he's treated like a traitor. Furthermore, the Mootons turn to Aegon’s side directly after because they did not obey her for two reasons, Nettles being accused and sentenced without trial, and Rhaenyra wanting them to break guest right.

Within the narrative, at that point, loyalty to Rhaenyra was a sentence on Nettles' life, and loyalty to Nettles was treason to Rhaenyra.

Conclusion.

In other ways, like the impact of their legacy, the symbols of their identity (dragons), other ways that their narratives with Daemon (the stories) play out and so on juxtapose these women against each other in the narrative. Age and innocence in both a meta and narrative sense also play into Nettles being a foil for Rhaenyra’s character. Personally I think the reason ts written that way is for Nettles to cause a Stark difference in behaviour with men like Daemon and the Mootons as well as to show the contrast of what is expected and what is to be done and what actually happens.

Hope this helps 🩷🤎

#hotd #house of the dragon #nettles #nettles asoiaf #netty #a song of ice and fire #rhaenyra targaryen #queen rhaenyra #rhaenyra x criston #rhaenyra x daemon #nettles and sheepstealer #sheepstealer #syrax #the mootons #character foils #stop the propaganda #why would George put a character in that could be taken out easily #thats not how writing works #unless you're me #yall are acting dense and ik yall know better #dont play with me #daemon and nettles #daemon x nettles #nettles x daemon

[brownbitchshit]

You know what I loved about Barbie? It is a movie that is absolutely feminine and mainly for the woman to enjoy and celebrate. The story ofc is for everyone but this is the first time a big studio movie that is taking the world by storm is a movie that is purely feminine. The way most superhero or big studio movie exudes this masculine energy in promotion and the way men are usually in the front to hype it up, that's exactly what women are doing for Barbie. Women and men but mostly women are wearing pink dresses or dressing up like Barbies and going to watch the movie, making contents on Barbie and what not. Everything that the society tried to sell, everything that society made us feel about how too much pink is too feminine or a feminist movie needs to be about strong women who doesn’t care about their feminine sides or if you are a strong woman you must reject the notion of being feminine and must show more masculine energy etc.Barbie rejected all of that. We have seen this trope over and over again, that whenever a movie shows a strong woman she is usually someone who is not into feminine stuffs or the young adults movies we've always seen where it's the tom-boyish girls who are good and smart whereas the Barbie-like girl is the evil etc.

So the point I'm trying to make is that Greta Gerwig aka The MOTHER showed how to make a feminist movie while embracing the femininity in the biggest way possible. Femininity ofc comes in all forms but Barbie is the definition of stereotypical feminine type and yet has always been considered as something that doesn’t represent feminism at all solely because of the fact that Patriarchy taught us that in order to be equal to men we must reject all notions of being a woman. And that's the perception that Greta decided to change, and that's the impact of the Barbie movie which I'm pretty sure will go down in the history as a cultural reset.

Also the fact that a female director like Greta went head to head against Christopher Nolan and created a cinematic history by basically promoting two movies through one and having the biggest opening after Avengers endgame, is something that makes me extremely proud.

And oh, Barbie movie is absolutely fantastic. It didn’t disappoint and was definitely better than my own expectations. It is probably one of the most feminist movies I've ever watched. That's three for three for Greta Gerwig. Take a bow Queen!

#barbie movie #barbie #greta gerwig #margot robbie #ryan gosling #barbenheimer

[putnamcapital]

Queerness and power in YR / why the best comparison is Normal People and not Heartstopper

It’s a big week for Heartstopper - Young Royals comparisons and i’m not on here to throw any shade on Heartstopper. I haven’t even watched all of S2 yet and i know i love it! But thanks to the absolutely stunning, spell-binding work of fiction called the Normal People AU, i’m more and more convinced that Heartstopper and YR have …. not really that much to do with each other — aside from being tremendously good stories, amazing performances, stellar cinematography and direction etc.

Lisa Ambjorn and the team behind YR have been frequently heard saying that they didn’t want to make a show about homosexuality, where the queerness of the relationship between W&S was “the problem” that drove the plot. Heartstopper, on the other hand, is very much a story driven by the tensions and joys of budding queer and non-conforming relationships, sexualities, and identities. But does that really mean YR isn’t about queerness? I think it’s still about queerness, but with a framing that has kind of been lost from view in the post-AIDS crisis / post-gay marriage era.

I didn’t really appreciate this until I thought through the intense parallels with Normal People - as the author of Obviously has so powerfully drawn out. Normal People is about power; and if you’ll forgive me the short-cut, once upon a time, queerness (in modern global North society) was also about power. In NP, the anchoring drama, and the elemental wound, that both Marianne and Connell face rests in power structures that oppress them - in Marianne’s case, the emotional and physical abuse in her family, in Connell’s case, the abuse that capitalism inflicts on him and his family as the working class. They both seek to become who they are in spite of this power structure - while at the same always being molded by it. There is not so much a core identity to either character that seeks to ‘set itself free’ or ‘reveal itself’ by overcoming power but rather a character who comes into fuller awareness of themselves while being shaped by their contexts. For example, in that scene by the fountain in Italy, where Marianne/Wille acknowledge they have never had to think about money, and Connell/Simon says winning the scholarship has changed his life so that there are things he no longer thinks about - and then between them, they bring to the surface that Marianne/Wilhelm’s mother has been paying Simon/Connell’s mother dirt wages for years, and Marianne says out loud how she knows that there is this basic harm in the way they came to know each other - a wound that is not of their doing, but from their class positions, and yet could never be forgotten as part of their story and part of who they became as a couple. The scene is not - we can run away from all this or i see the ‘real you’ behind all this - but, we can love each other and be who we are and yet still be where we come from, with the consequent constraints on our worldview and possibilities for action. “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances listing already, given and transmitted from the past.”

Basically i think that in YR, Lisa is giving us back a much more Marxist / power relational form of queerness - where queerness is refracted through and emergent from material conditions, as opposed to being purely about declaring identities [“i was born this way”] and thus essential truths or essential desires, but about the ebb and flow between people, where that ebb and flow is mediated by the power structures in which we cannot help but experience our lives. For Wille, the power structure is obvious: the Crown. But it’s there for everyone. For Sara and Simon, it’s three-fold: the power dynamics around class and race, and the power dynamics from an abusive household / childhood trauma. For the other characters, too, it is not far away. August’s struggles are with his family’s expectations, and with a drug addiction and eating disorder that speak to the pressures of hegemonic cis-het masculinity. For Felice, she deals with racial bias and the pressure to be the perfect image of a woman her (thin, white) mother wants. It’s true for all the students at the school - the scene on parents’ weekend as all these parents swarm in is utterly stifling, as every student feels the structure they are meant to conform to. BTW it’s a subplot, but YR seems also to be saying that capitalism and class structure harm even the rich. People - everyone - experience their gender and sexual identities through and in between all that power - it’s necessarily shaped by it.

To me, this is the root of what is so intoxicatingly liberating about Young Royals (and by extension, Obviously) - that i just don’t feel watching HS, or even reading the canon NP - of the possibility of emancipation. It comes about not principally through outward facing revolt, though there is some of that, but catalyzed by a kind of relational self-growth: the characters grow into themselves as a result of their relations with others. It’s not at all about Wille walking this road alone - despite what Simon says he must do in S1/E6. It’s actually about the characters growing together, in a kind of solidarity against the power structures they rebel against. After all, it is Simon’s confession in the cloakroom, and then the look he gives Wille from the choir stand when August is about to give the speech, that compels Wille to his feet to claim his power, on his terms.

It’s a profoundly ‘class consciousness’ form of identity formation and self-actualization - like they become who they are through their struggle in concert with others. It feels utterly foreign and refreshing to me, because it’s just not the dominant discourse for queerness in popular culture, and it helpfully puts the power struggle back into queerness - it recenters the feeling of community, of joint struggle, of solidarity, and yes, of resistance.

This is how it is. This is how i feel.

#young royals #normal people #heartstopper #AO3 Normal People AU #young royals analysis

[horsesarecreatures]

Hey, uhm, about that „horse riding is harmful – but they need exercise!“ thread: what is never talked about in these discussions (this is my impression) is how priviliged it is that we can even abstain from using horses for transportation and farming.

And while our lifes have become much more comfortable since machines have replaced horses in these fields, I would argue that this shift has been very bad for nature as a whole. Even if someone does not believe in climate change, they could still see how it was bad that we built (and are building) asphalt streets and railroad tracks through wildlife habitats. And big machinery driving over soil compresses the earth unnecessarily, which makes it more difficult for plants to regrow. This would not be a problem if we still used horses.

I’m also wondering what people who are against horse owning would say to people who live in circumstances where they are still dependent on their animals. People who maybe live somewhere were the infrastructure needed in order to be able to use fossil fueled vehicles is not yet present. Or people who are just poor. Should they also stop riding and driving horses?

All of that being said, let’s imagine the consequences of gradually stopping all horse ownership. All horses currently living with humans as pets will stay with their owners and be cared for until they die, procreation will be prevented. (The alternative would of course be to release them into the wild, but deciding on WHERE to do so is very difficult and let’s just not do that in this scenario, as to not disturb already established ecosystems). Horse breeds which have been living with humans for the past thousands of years will go extinct. All the knowledge about how to feed horses, about horse behaviour and how to interact with them and about how to safely train them to be driven and ridden in a sustainable way will only exist in books within a hundred years. We are talking about skills that, at the end of the day, are more efficiently learned if there are teachers whom actually are practicing the craft. Humanity as a whole lives a bit more removed from nature – although, that is just how I see it.

I hope it’s okay for me to unload my thoughts on this onto you – I’m too shy to write under the post directly, but I really want to get this out of my head.

I live in germany by the way and I own a little pony mare. I don’t actually know her breed, it must have not been documented when she was born. She probably is a german riding pony with a healthy dose of arabian blood in her. I’ve riden and worked with horses for 14 years now and owned my mare for 5. I bought her when she was 11 years old and noone had really cared for her for two years. She spend that time on a pasture with other horses and was slightly malnourished and apathetic then. These days her fur is sparkling and her muscles have developed nicely and she expresses more happiness overall.

Hey, I don't know about the original poster as I don't follow them, but @acti-veg actually addresses your first point quite frequently. There are many people who cannot afford to not eat meat, abstain from medications that have been tested on animals, use horses for farming or transportation, etc. But the definition of veganism is, "a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.” If a person cannot avoid some form of animal exploitation because of their health or inability to make an alternative living, this does not preclude them from being a vegan as long as they do their best to limit their reliance on animals in other areas.

I agree that industrialization has led to many advancements in society at the detriment of nature and biodiversity. But I would also point out that if people switched back to horses today, at our current population, that would also not be sustainable. There is not enough land to keep them properly without adding more to deforestation, and plowing with horses is less precise and worse for the soil than some up and coming alternatives, like laser weeding and using robotic seed planting, which can eliminate the need to plowing entirely.

You are right that if people stopped breeding horses many breeds would go extinct and knowledge in how to care for them would be lost. This is a downside that has to be balanced against the upsides, like no more halter horse monstrosities, no more horses being dumped & shipped to slaughter, and the potential for farmland to be re-wilded which would increase biodiversity.

It's totally ok to share your thoughts here, and your pony sounds super cute!

[jadelotusflower]

Stargate Rewatch: 1x01 Children of the Gods

After rewatching the original film I'm kicking off with the show's pilot - I actually watched both the original version and the "final cut" because there are aspects I enjoy of both. The final cut removes a few problematic elements and adds in some new material, but also cuts a few lines I really enjoy and the original version is really where my nostalgia lies, so... as always, my feelings, they are mixed.

Cold open with some redshirts - four men and one woman, sadly representative of the gender ratio the show will have going forward.

The unlucky Smurfette is Sgt Carol Weterings, not that I think she's ever mentioned by name in the episode.

"Probably the only thing it ever did was cost money." Heh.

I will say that Teal'c turning against Apophis at the end of the episode is nicely built - starting here where he examines the gun and identifies it as technology far advanced beyond the humans they’re used to dealing with.

When your name is above the title, you get introduced with an extreme close up.

The differences between the film and the show don't really bother me - I view the show as taking place in a very similar but alternate universe to the film rather than trying to squeeze them together - so O'Neil becomes O'Neill, Sha'uri becomes Sha're, Tyler becomes Charlie, Abydos is the closest planet to Earth, not the other side of the known universe, etc etc. But I consider the events of the film to be canon to the show universe unless directly contradicted.

But otherwise the pilot tries very hard to stick as close as possible to the film, to the point that Major Samuels states that General Hammond replaced General West.

Hammond says it’s been “over a year” since the events of the film, unclear exactly how much over.

The final cut has a longer version of the dead Jaffa, revealing one of them was a woman, and with all the changes to eliminate plot holes I don't know why Brad Wright put one back in. While we do see Jaffa women in the series, Goa'uld and Jaffa society is depicted as highly patriarchal and female Jaffa soliders are rare - we never see them in Apophis's ranks. It's an odd inclusion.

"What if the aliens get it?" "Well, they could be blowing their noses right now." hee!

"THANKS SEND MORE" Remember when Daniel had allergies? Give it a few episodes and the show sure won’t!

Amanda Tapping, doing her absolute best with some terrible dialogue. Brad Wright blames the "reproductive organs" speech on Jonathan Glassner, and it is terrible and thankfully removed from the final cut version, along with some other 90's era sexism from the bros. However there is one great moment, where Kawalsky asks "Have you ever pulled out of a simulated bombing run in an F16 at eight plus Gs?" and without missing a beat, Sam deadpans: "Yes." I love Sam.

"I'll give you exactly 24 hours to either return or send a message through - no Kleenex boxes, please." Hee, Hammond isn't quite the cuddly commander we know and love yet, but he has his moments.

It's very cute that Sam has a very similar reaction to the one Daniel had in the film just before going through the gate, although his was based in the wonder of something incredible and unknown, and hers is based in the physical manifestation of knowledge - says a lot about each of them and their similarities yet different perspectives - the marrying of these two points of view is what makes them such a good duo.

Michael Shanks, doing the James Spader impression that won him the role. He was only 26!

And of course Alexis Cruz, the only holdover from the movie (other than Erick Avari, who won't appear until season 2).

The original team sure did leave a bunch of weapons with the Abydonians, didn't they? I presume they taught them how to fire the guns because there's no way Daniel could/would have. He did however teach them very good English.

"Greetings from Earth, Doctor Jackson" - very cute, it's sad that Ferretti disappears into the ether by season 2.

Not the face of a woman who is shy, but a woman who knows how to make An Entrance. She even smirks a little as she walks over.

There is however a weird little moment where Sha're is reluctant to shake Jack's hand - maybe she wasn't impressed about his little joke brushing by Daniel? Both of these beats are removed from the final cut version which is probably for the best.

It's criminal Sha're doesn't actually get to speak in this scene, and in fact how few lines she has in the episode altogether.

It's disappointing, because Sha'uri was such an integral part of the film, and yet the show tries to get rid of her as quickly as possible to get Daniel on SG-1 and give him a core drive for the next three seasons. Her abduction is the precipitating event of Daniel's ten-year character arc and defining moment of transition from film!Daniel to show!Daniel, and yet she doesn't get a character arc of her own.

However I do think Shanks and Vaitiare Hirshon sell the relationship in the few scenes they have - they're very physically connected/protective of one another, perhaps concerned that Jack's there to take Daniel back with him (which is in fact the case). And of course Sha're, annoyed at being left behind while Daniel shows the others his discovery, gives him a very proprietary kiss.

I think show!Sha're gets a bad rap, she's spunky and I love her. I just wish there was more of her.

Sam and Daniel insta-bonding - Daniel making an intuitive leap to solve the puzzle and Sam filling in the gaps with science to make it work, they really are kindred spirits.

The issue with the cartouche though is that the symbols look like hierogyphs, not star constellations/Stargate glyphs.

Back in the pyramid, there's a scene sorely missing here - imagine if rather than ogling Sha're, Ferretti had a conversation with her, giving us more of a chance to know Sha're on her own terms rather than just Daniel's wife and the object of others desire. Especially when Ferretti was on the original mission so knows she's more than a "beautiful woman" - it would also give additional weight to him remembering the gate address where she's taken later on.

Teal'c clocks Skaara's gun as the same tech he saw on Earth in breadcrumb no. 2.

"Nothing good can ever come through this gate!" "You came through it , Daniel" I mean...I realise there are a lot of problematic white savior-y aspects to the show, but idk, this scene and the Abydonians all petting Daniel to say goodbye gets me. Sean Amsing as Tobay also returns in Full Circle which is a nice callback to this scene.

The final cut removes a reaction shot from Jack which I have mixed feelings about - I get that the focus probably needs to be on Daniel at that moment, but I do think it's important for Jack to appreciate how Daniel really found a home with the Abydonians and was appreciated and loved by them, and it's nicely played by RDA.

LOL, watch out for how many times Jack pats Daniel on the shoulder. Apparently that annoyed Shanks so RDA kept doing it, but it's also a nice little setup of their relationship going forward.

There's a second shoulder pat in the hallway.

Just two dudes, drinking beer, (not) talking about their feelings.

“She was the complete opposite of everyone else, she practically fell on the floor laughing every time I tried to do some kind of chore they all took for granted.” Underrated line, because it gives important context to Daniel and Sha’re’s relationship, and perhaps more importantly, how Daniel characterises her - she is the one who keeps him grounded, who teases him, there is balance to their relationship. There’s potentially an interesting parallel there to Vala in the later seasons, although it manifests in a very different way.

“I think she forgave me for what happened to our kid, she just couldn’t forget…I’m the opposite, I can never forgive myself, but sometimes I can forget.” This is a great scene.

The Final Cut removes all the “harem scenes” and while I can see why, we do lose a bit of context to Teal'c's involvement in the process as he is the one who chooses the women from the holding cell to go into the harem, and then from the harem to be presented to Apophis.

There was a missed opportunity to actually see Sha're interact with the other prisoners - she could have had a conversation with Weterings at least, find out she was from Earth, perhaps assure her that the others would be coming to rescue them.

To the surprise of no one I’m sure, this episode does not pass the Bechdel test.

But there is a hint of solidarity among the prisoners - first in the holding cell where the others hold Skaara back, and here in the harem Sha're squeezes the hand of another woman.

Weterings is killed by the hand device which keeps the electrical current aesthetic from the movie the show will later abandon - as Teal'c looks perturbed.

Daniel back on Earth immediately getting stuck into the coffee even though no one else is drinking, lol.

"Ra played a god, the sun god, he borrowed the religion and culture of the ancient Egyptians he brought through the gate and used it to enslave them." A bit of a change from the movie here, where it was the other way around - slightly less problematic!

Everyone is in dress blues except Kawalsky who is in camo, and Daniel, who is wearing Jack's clothes.

"Colonel I'd like to remind you that rescuing Dr Jackson's wife is a secondary objective." This line was removed in the final cut and I don't know why? It adds to Samuel's bastardry.

Has everyone forgotten about Weterings?

Shoulder pat no. 3!

In the second harem scene Sha're is now sitting isolated from the other women - did she argue with them? Just trying not to be noticed? What happened offscreen?

Also what's going on in the top left corner - it looks like the healing device! Maybe Sha're did throw down with one of the others and that's why she's on her own. I have to read into things, because the show gives us so very little of Sha're and it's a real shame.

She does get a good moment fighting against the guards though - earlier she was defiant and told them she wasn't afraid of them, here she bites one of them on the arm.

I understand from a narrative perspective why Sha're is the one who gets taken over, but it really is Schrodinger’s fridging - until she’s found Sha’re is both alive and dead for the purpose of the narrative, both Daniel’s primary drive and source of inner conflict.

Christopher Judge does so much with so little. Master of the cheek twitch!

Oof, the nudity. In isolation from everything else, it doesn’t bother me - it’s intended to be horrifying, not titillating, and is effective in conveying objectification and dehumanisation by the Goa'uld.

However, it was a studio request, Wright/Glassner regretted doing it, it doesn’t fit the tone of the show going forward, but most importantly Hirshon was pressured into the full frontal when she only agreed to topless, and for that alone it should be excised.

The puppet symbiotes are so much more effective than the cgi they use later. I don’t think there’s another scene in the show that really captures the menace of the Goa’uld like this one - the symbiote (who we'll later learn is Amaunet) slithering around on Sha're's body is just so visceral and horrifying. The glowing eyes before implantation is an effective touch.

Jack sticking Daniel in it with Sam by saying Sha're was a gift could be amusing, except the conversation gets cut off before Daniel can explain. It annoys me, because Daniel not "accepting" Sha're was actually the point? It's kind of important! I assume he does tell Sam the whole story later.

"Unless we want to get ourselves a really bad reputation, I just think we should avoid shooting the first people we meet on a new planet" is a nice follow up to Daniel's sarcastic "well that would have been an excellent reason to shoot everyone" from the film. At this point, Daniel doesn't appear to be carrying a weapon other than a knife. Oh, how that will change!

The Chulak priests speak "a derivation of Arabic" and something else - the Goa'uld language is meant to be similar to Abydonian, which is based on Ancient Egyptian. Of course modern Egyptian is an Arabic dialect that came much later, but perhaps we are to assume Goa'uld - or at least the Chulak vernacular - evolved along similar lines.

Jack unable to shoot Sha're when she stands in front of Apophis is a nice movie callback.

The final cut has a good extra scene between Sam and Daniel where he is quite delusional thinking Sha're might just be drugged, and Sam tries to talk sense into him. Daniel's blind optimism against Sam's pragmatic realism will be an important aspect of their relationshio going forward.

Shoulder pat no. 4!

Teal'c P.I. sees Skaara talking to Jack and starts putting pieces together - the weapons from the opening scene, the weapons on Abydos + Jack's watch, and Daniel helpfully supplying the Earth glyph.

Alexis Cruz is committed to the film pronunciation of Sha’uri, bless him.

“But you are a great warrior, we defeated Ra together!” Skaara’s faith in Jack is so pure.

Skaara gets a shoulder pat too.

"Another fine day on planet Kawalsky" - This line was removed from the final cut! What a tragedy. I get the sense Brad Wright feels a bit cringe about the campier aspects of the show, but it's part of the charm! To be fair Ferretti was more of the wisecracker in the movie rather than Kawalsky, but I love that show Kawalsky is a little goofy.

I'm sorry, what is this silver monstrosity? I guess a sliver of credit that after the nudity not going for a sexy alien outfit, but this is a hate crime. I also have a very high tolerance, and even affection for, silly Stargate headgear, but there's camp and then there's ugly.

Peter Williams as Apophis though: 10/01, no notes.

"They're going to choose...who will be the children of the gods." I do love it when they say the title of the thing in the thing.

The subtle moment where Teal'c motions that Jack should kneel is a nice setup - Skaara being very reluctant and angry about kneeling, and being the last to do so, is nice movie continuity. Skaara really gets shortchanged by the show after this episode.

"How much would I remember if you chose me?" I wonder if Daniel ever thinks that maybe him drawing the attention of the Goa'uld contributed to Skaara getting chosen. You know, just to really lay on the angst and guilt.

So the premise is that these Apophis underlings are choosing hosts for their children who are symbiotes ready for implantation, which doesn't really fit with what we learn about Goa'uld queens/reproduction later. We also learn later that Skaara is taken as a host for Apophis's son Klorel which doesn't sqaure with these two choosing him.

Headcanon time! This is actually Zipacna who we meet later arguing for Klorel at Triad - different actor, of course, but he wears a similarly silly hat. So Amaunet now has access to all of Sha're's memories of Skaara and she and Apophis decide that he will make a good host - maybe she also likes the idea of a family resemblance between herself and Klorel (I think we can assume he is also Amaunet's son?). But Apophis doesn't want anyone to know he's choosing a host for his offspring, so sends Zipacna out to do it for him.

This makes sense of Klorel later claiming that Apophis chose his host, and also gives backstory to Zipacna showing up in Pretense. And in the scene, the Goa'uld make a very quick decision to take Skaara, while the rest get very grossly examined people before choosing.

Shoulder pat no. 5!

"I have nowhere to go." Teal'c turning on his brother Jaffa to save a roomful of people, not expecting to survive himself, really hits.

"For this, you can stay at my place." hee!

Jack not wanting to hear it when Teal'c tells him Skaara is no longer himself is a turnabout of the earlier scene with Daniel. Not so flip now it's your Emotional Support Abydonian, are you Jack?

Kawalsky getting Goa'ulded doesn't seem to hurt as much as Sha're's - because the symbiote isn't mature, or because Amaunet is particularly sadistic?

Soon to be SG-1 posing for their album cover.

It was the late 90's when tvs were tiny, so everyone had to stand uncomfortably close.

And we end with shoulder pat no. 6!

#stargate rewatch #stargate sg1 #stargate 1x01 #children of the gods #jack o'neill #daniel jackson #sam carter #teal'c #sha're #daniel x sha're #jlf posts

[elevensixteenpm]

Bringing my lengthier (and maybe more elaborate) thoughts on Rei Suwa in this week's episode of Buddy Daddies. This was originally commented on Reddit.

Now that we got Kazuki's past (a whiplash from his happy-go-lucky smiley face, of course), I'm so hyped up for Rei's backstory. When Rei said he's doing his best, I think he genuinely thought he's doing his best. He doesn't know stuff that one should know as a proper human being living in a society in a worryingly degree—location of medicine and hospital, what's inside the fridge, what can be eaten inside the fridge, etc. I know it's been always told that he's a shut in, but wow, it is THAT bad. (He probably would have died first inside his apartment while gaming because he choked on a potato chip rather than on a mission if Kazuki isn't taking care of him and his house). It also doesn't help how similar Miri and Rei are in terms of personal preferences. It's easy to overlook because Miri is a sunshine and Rei is always just Rei, but when it comes to little things that make us as a human (veggie hating, sweet loving tooth, gaming, how to laze around, etc.), they're actually so similar. This factor possibly adds to how Rei saw himself doing his best because from where he can see it, everything is working well for him. Miri looks happy and comfortable with him. At that point, that's how Rei sees taking care of Miri means. As long as Miri is happy, he thinks all is well. Rei and Miri relate to each other so much that Rei failed to see Kazuki having a hard time taking care of Miri sometimes. Kazuki has to deal with the stuff that Miri doesn't like, but needs to learn, so Kazuki gets a cranky and pouty child more often than Rei did.

It seems like he was really just raised as an assassin. He wasn't raised as a human being. He wasn't raised to live. He was just raised to kill. I wonder how they will tie his past to his current life now because this episode might have been his wake up call that he's not just living for himself now. Instead of killing, he's here, realizing that holy crap, he's taking care of such a tiny human being that relies on him. This tiny gremlin can't live on her own without him. Holy hells. My boss (dad) didn't teach me this! This wasn't in the How to be a Perfect Assassin 101 guidebook!

But from how he was fretting over Miri, and trying to do that poor looking French toast for Kazuki, it shows he wants to try now—he just needs to learn how. Taken from what I shared in another app: Also, that sorry looking French toast at the end of the episode is a good symbolism. It doesn't look good—it looks horrendous compared to Kazuki's French toast—but it is there. Rei made it. He isn't good at it yet, but it's a start, and it's an image for a possibility of so much growth, and he's trying.

Of course, Rei being like another child in the house when he's already an adult supposedly parenting a child is not excusable, but I'm sure it has something to do with his past. I'm looking forward to his backstory to know where he's coming from.

Hopefully, we get to see more involvement from Rei-Papa from here onwards! Kazuki needs all the help he can get. That golden retriever man needs a hug and a trophy. He's a trooper. (Kazuki-Papa might need to add himself in the Mama group chat because hey, I'm sure he'll get a lot of support from the other Mamas who probably have husbands who are pain in the asses, too. He needs a safe space.)

20 minutes seem to pass so fast whenever I'm watching this anime. I can't wait to see the preview for the next EP!

#buddy daddies #rei suwa #miri unasaka #kazuki kurusu #buddy daddies episode 7 #buddy daddies spoilers

[milomilesmib]

Little bit of wisdom for y'all; basically all you need to do to create a gender is identify the following:

1. What the gender feels like

2. What it's called

3. What the flag looks like

4. What umbrellas it falls under (trans, non binary, pocketgender, etc.)

5. What the culture of the gender is like

Got all that figured out, or even just one or two of those? Great job, you've made a gender. Is it ever gonna be recognised on an LGBTQ wiki? Probably not. But have you made a gender? Yeah. Is there a possibility it already exists but with a different name? Yes, but why would you let that stop you? Isn't everything we create just a soup of a bunch of what we already know with a little bit of spice added in? We do it with art and literature, why not gender?

Before anyone goes "bUt YoU cAn'T jUsT mAkE uP a GeNdEr" literally what's stopping me. What. Nothing. Fucking nothing. Social pressures? Who's that? Never heard of them. Life doesn't fucking matter. Make up a gender.

Watch I'll make one right now. It's called beastgender and it's the gender of not giving a shit about gender and knowing damn well it's a social construct. Its flag is black, neon red, and magenta with a fucking realistic tooth in the middle cause I like biting people. The culture is saying that gender is a scheme made up by bathroom companies to sell more bathrooms and making up genders randomly. It falls under the trans, non binary, and pocketgender umbrellas.

I can say I'm beastgender and people can't do anything about it. If they tell me I can't do it then I just say fuck you yes I can. Nothing's stopping me from being beastgender.

Also: gender and pronouns aren't the same. You can be a cis guy who presents masculinely and use she/they. You can be mega androgynous and identify as transmasc and use she/her. Unless you live in a place where doing this can get you in trouble, the only thing stopping you is your own anxiety.

This is the knowledge I will give you all, whether you're cis, trans, questioning, anyone who hasn't yet discovered that gender isn't fucking real and you can be whatever gender you want. Fuck society. Go identify as a duck. Nothing's stopping you but your own internalised oppression. You've got this.

#tw cursing #gender #lgbt #lgbtq #trans #transgender #non binary #pocketgender #genderpunk #queer #2slgbtqia+ #rambles #shitpost #thoughts #beastgender #fuck it it has a tag now #spread the beastgender agenda y'all #random thoughts

[utilitycaster]

as someone who doesn't engage in the fandom a whole lot, the whole "the prime deities are colonialists" rhetoric is so surprising to me

like....who came up with this? how did it get so popular? and were they running out of reasons to hate them that they had to make things up? truly baffling behavior

I have an answer for this! It's speculative, but I'm probably right.

There are two scenarios in which this argument has come up:

EXU Calamity

Campaign 3, starting around when the goals of the Ruby Vanguard solidified, but reaching a height around episode 3x49.

There are two groups of people putting it forward:

People who are atheists primarily because they are mad at people who are not atheists, and want to see their hatred towards belief in a deity validated in a world where deities objectively exist (doing this in both scenarios)

People who are doing Cirque du Soleil level contortions to avoid the blunt truth that, as Orym and Ashton outright say: The Ruby Vanguard is a group of people who have repeatedly killed innocents, including Laudna, and yet Imogen did not find that alone to be sufficient reason to automatically reject it without further consideration (doing this primarily in response to episode 3x49)

Anyway, the need these people have to see the Prime Deities as evil in order to support and validate the outcome they specifically want, mixed in with a deeply Tumblr/fandom brainrotted "there needs to be an underlying social justice reason for your like and dislike of fictional characters, ships, or plot points" mentality means they've latched onto the idea of the Prime Deities as colonizers.

What's funny is that both these stories accommodate a philosophy that is entirely humanist (well, in a fantasy world, personist, but you get what I mean), and the moral stances of the Prime Deities can be entirely ignored:

In Calamity, the heroes are not affiliated with the deities at all until Zerxus begins to show Asmodeus kindness, which Asmodeus in turn hates and kills him for, but in the end the party mitigates the worst-case scenario without the aid of the deities, and indeed, are able to do it because of Laerryn's Hubris Against The Gods machine. Also the heroes themselves achieve this - without any Prime Deity's assistance or known involvement - when they fully yeet exile the Primordials across the planes. So if the issue is "any hostile action against the Primordials is inherently colonialist" then the argument necessarily ends with "so the people of Exandria should fall entirely, as was prophesized." Like, ultimately, once you argue that the world belongs to the primordials and the humans, elves, dwarves etc. are the invaders, even if you were to kill off the Prime Deities, the people would still like, be on Exandria. So either the harm is already done and you've just killed the original perpetuators but the Primordials remain dead or sealed; or the Primordials come back. And then, either the people then kill them to save themselves, thus perpetuating the colonizing will of the Prime Deities; or they lie down and die and it's Campaign and World of Exandria Over, which is a very poor strategy for continuing to have Critical Role as a show. Anyway the point is that if you are an atheist because you believe that people are capable of great deeds and have free will and should answer to no gods, Calamity is deeply validating; if you're an atheist solely out of spite and hurt and anger, then it's not.

In Campaign 3, Ashton and Orym outright say it: who gives a shit about whether the Ruby Vanguard has to do with the gods, or if Predathos will only kill the gods; or even if the gods are good or bad. In the end, we're talking about a group of people who have an idea for how they believe society should be, and they're murdering anyone who even slightly stands in their way, and how the gods factor into this doesn't fucking matter. Moreover, with the possible exception of FCG, the main people we see fighting the Vanguard are, prominently, people who either are not worshipers of a Prime Deity at all, or whose involvement does not relate to their religion: they're either doing it because they want to protect people (humanism) or because they think Ludinus fucking sucks and want to take him down, and they do so of their own power. Meanwhile, the Vanguard, for all their talk of liberating the people's of Exandria to achieve their greatest potential, need to appeal to an ancient power greater than them to do so.

So in summary: the impetus for coming up with the colonizer narrative about the Prime Deities always boils down to "I want the gods I'm told by the story that I'm supposed to like are bad, and the evil gods to be good, regardless of what's actually happening in the present" but the actual story is pretty much entirely consistent with secular humanism, accounting of course for the fact that it does take place in a world where gods are real. And the impetus behind that is either "mad at my religious upbringing and haven't dealt with it well so I want the D&D show to tell me I'm good and right," or "shipping goggles nonsense that this still will not remotely begin to address."

#answered #Anonymous #cr tag #long post

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Theory on World Dynamic & Blot Pt. 1 (No Beta, apologies in advance for any and all confusion you may have when reading this. Please delete this is you don't feel comfortable with this):

One of the things I didn't get at first was why the Seven were considered role-models in TWST---I couldn't pinpoint how society would openly idolize people for actions that are openly admitted as wrong in a unanimous sense yet not have someone openly question/challenge this. The Seven are historical figures. Some of the dialogue we do get hints at imperfection that are more close to D!Villains the audience is more familiar with. Assuming Earth is meant to be referring to our Earth (in which it is taken in it's entirety without altercations), I think TWST is meant to have similar core parts that reflect our real-world. History-context-wise, it would make more sense that royal/governing figures(Queen of Hearts, Scar, & Jafar) would be recorded---even considered an example to TWST's present day royalty/governing system on do's and don'ts---and respected as seen by the description on the statues (being able to govern over (what I will assume is) a massive population and having the nation surviving---even thriving---are (objectively) ideal feats to be remembered by and put as positive example in the grand scheme of things). If this is true, then it would also make sense for the Seven to coexist with their respective protagonist(s), making RSA possible but also making the dynamic not as black-and-white as simplification will allow. . .Yana didn't need to write an explanation w/worldbuilding cuz she played it smart and just used what she already had---existing reference called real life.

(Note: I know that this ask opens with “part 1”, but I never received any part 2s or other follow-ups after that DX)

I think I get what you’re trying to communicate? (Correct me if I’m wrong!) So I believe this Anon is saying that 1) both the Disney villains and heroes exist in Twisted Wonderland as historical figures, 2) the alternate tellings of their histories can coexist, and 3) like in real life, history can be twisted depending on the narrative/teller and, in hindsight, actions that are considered dubious can be viewed by future generations as morally correct or righteous. (If that’s the case, I expressed similar thoughts in this post.)

There instances in which the original stories they come from diverge or coexist with other versions which are also treated as true. For example, Kalim tells a tale about a princess (Jasmine) who happily married a thief (Aladdin), transcending the social norms of their time. There is also another tale that the Sorcerer of the Sands (Jafar) revealed that someone (Aladdin) had deceived a princess (Jasmine) about their social status, and that he saved the kingdom by revealing the lie. Somehow, the original story became multiple stories, all of which stand on their own.

We must recall that there are often positive spins put on the tales we know of to be the truth; suddenly Jafar is no longer plotting to overthrow the Sultan, but is a loyal advisor who dutifully served his country, Ursula’s deals are justified because the fault lied with her clients for not paying up, etc. This is also true of real life, where, depending on the person you ask or the history textbook you reference, certain events and details may be glossed over or even completely rewritten. This may be due to censorship or a deliberate attempt to control the narrative and what information is taught to and carried over to students (and into the future). Lilia even makes a passing comment about this in episode 7, saying that history can be “changed” over time.

This is likely how and why the Great Seven are worshipped as they are; history has been “twisted” from the (presumably what Yuu views in their dreams), which just goes to show that good is closer to evil (and vice versa) than expected, thus blurring the lines between the two and creating a grey area. This is very much in line with TWST’s philosophy—that there is more to something than meets the eye, and that being truly “evil” or truly “good” doesn’t exist.

#Lilia Vanrouge #twst #twisted wonderland #disney twisted wonderland #twisted wonderland theory #twisted wonderland theories #twst theories #notes from the writing raven #twst theory

[leighlew3]

For some reason I couldn’t send the link of this post but I could download the picture and send it (hopefully)

This is what I was references in that ask to you lol

Ah. And... yeah. A painful and unnecessary creative choice.

Look, overall I'm loving Picard, despite quite a few issues with some creative choices and contradictions, because this nostalgia is incredible and so appreciated and being able to witness these characters in action again has been WONDERFUL.

That being said... well, I'm about to launch into a ramble.

Buckle up, and keep reading if you'd like...

Picard had an ICONIC legacy female character in an interracial wlw relationship with a dynamic new Black female character -- both women over the age of 50 no less, an amazing thing to explore on screen -- and it worked. And so many fans loved it and felt represented and thrilled to kingdom come. And it fit with the Star Trek brand of inclusion and acceptance in a modern society. It also made Voyager fans of 25 years feel vindicated and seen, having Seven not only confirmed as sapphic, but actually exploring it on screen and finding love, even if a "happy ending" for Seven was never in the cards for many reasons, they could have explored why instead of just sweeping it under the rug off screen and reducing it to one awkward glance between them, a joke from Worf, and that was it. Seven and Raffi deserved better. Queer fans deserved better.

Alas, they tossed it in the trash for no valid reason at all, and at the worst possible time in our current social and political landscape of an outdated and frighteningly dangerous resurgence of homophobia, transphobia, etc. Life imitates art, and art imitates life. And thus, now we see conservative-run media companies catering again to the vocal, hateful little groups and extremist far right fear mongers. There is a very obvious bias of late again against LGBTQ content (especially wlw due to the frightening rise in misogyny yet again lately) across nearly every channel and streamer and studio.

For that matter, even beyond LGBTQ stories, there's also a significant reduction in the exploration of ANY sexuality on screen across the board lately, even for cishet couples. We somehow went from Hollywood being absurdly and unfairly exploitive towards women and putting actors in uncomfortable and unnecessary situations, to some sort of bizarre, puritanical, utterly sexless exploration of romance on screen. And even a reduction of romance entirely in many cases, for that matter. We went from one extreme to the other, and it's absolutely nuts.

Anyway, back on the topic of Picard, the two actresses who previously were captains of the ship and ALL about the pairing have since seemingly now had to backtrack, make excuses for this bizarre decision, or just not speak on it at all. And that's beyond sad.

And again, it makes me concerned that if Seven does get her own spin-off or is a part of a new spin-off again, they'd likely not include Raffi nor explore Seven being with women further. Which would just be LITERALLY going backwards in time to the days of Voyager where many (not all) straight male fans tried to claim her as theirs and theirs alone while reducing her to just "the hot Borg in a cat suit" even though everyone else knew she was three dimensional as hell, one of the best written and acted characters in franchise history, and inherently representative of the LGBTQ community.

Anyway, I really really hope they prove me wrong and Saffi get a satisfying ending in this show, and if nothing else, even if they don't have a future together in other series, any other shows at least continue to embrace Seven's pansexuality. It's important.

Alas right now my trust in creatives in the TV space who are under the pressures of conservative-run media conglomerates... is limited. Even once seeming allies are showing sides to themselves lately that are... concerning, to say the least. People who previously would tell incels to F' off, and weren't afraid to stand up to and block phobes on Twitter are now blocking queer fans for just asking "WTF?" about queer favorites being sidelined or ships being tossed in the trash. People who previously seemed to truly see and value queer fans are now bordering on just using them for clicks and stringing them along on likely hopeless efforts regarding show survival. And people who actually do mean well and usually stand up loud and strong for LGBTQ audiences are suddenly growing very, very quiet if not even in some cases TURNING on their queer fans entirely as TPTB remove more and more wlw content from airwaves and streamer services.

It's all very disheartening. As a writer who has had this conversation so often with producers and executives, I GET IT. The fight is NOT an easy one. And most the time inclusion efforts are flat out shot down. But it feels like so few people are walking the talk anymore. People who capitalized heavily on LGBTQ characters and ships and fans for a few years when it was hot are now turning their backs when the going has gotten rough. And that's frustrating for us all.

But, the good news: these things are often cyclical. So if everybody can hang in there, stay strong, and fight the good fight online and IRL, rock the VOTE, etc and drown out the hateful voices that want the LGBTQ community silenced or worse, then I believe we can set (or force, in many cases) the misguided, fearful, extremist-rightwing-catering media companies back to the proper side of history.

#picard #star trek picard #seven x raffi #saffi #seven of nine #star trek #lgbtq #representation matters