#you can't say that this isn't true | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

inkskinned · 3 months

Text

you have to go to work so you can pay for your doctor, who is not taking your insurance right now, and if you say i can't afford the doctor's you are told - get a better job. it is very sad that you are unwell, yes, but maybe you should have thought about that before not having a better job.

(where is the better job? who is giving out these better jobs? you are sick, you are hurting - how the hell are you supposed to be well enough for this better job?)

but you go to the doctor because you had the nerve to be hurt or sick or whatever else. and they tell you that it is because you have anxiety. you try your best. you are a self-advocate. you've done the reading (which sometimes pisses them off worse, honestly). you say it is actually adding to my anxiety, it is effecting my quality of life. so they say that you are fat. they say that all young people have this happen to them, isn't it a medical marvel! they say that you should eat more vegetables. they say that you probably just need to lose a little more weight, and that you are faking it for attention.

(what attention could this doctor possibly give? what validation? that's their fucking job, isn't it?)

there is always a hypochondriac, right. someone always tells you about a hypochondriac. or someone who is unnecessarily aggressive during the worst days of their life. or someone looking "for a quick fix". or some idiot who wasn't educated about how to properly care for themselves who just abandons their treatment. and again, the hypochondriac, the overly-cautious hysteric. these people don't deserve to be treated like humans (right), and since you might be one of these people, you also don't get treated like a human. because those people can really fuck with the system, you now have to pay for it. and besides. you're actually probably faking it.

(more often than not, you find a 2:1 ratio of these stories. for every "hypochondriac", there are 2 people who knew something was wrong, and yet nobody could fucking find it. the story often ends with pointless suffering. the story often ends with and now it's too late, and it's going to kill me.)

you are actually just making excuses. someone else got that procedure or that diagnosis and he's fine, you should be fine too. someone else said they watched a documentary about other inspirational people with your exact same condition, maybe you should be inspirational, too. you're just too morbid. your pain and your experience is probably just not statistically concerning. it is all self-reported anyway, and you're just being a baby.

(once, while sitting down in the middle of making coffee, you had the sudden, horrible thought - i could kill myself to make the pain stop. you had to call your best friend after that. had to pet your dog. had to cry about it in the shower. you won't, but that moment - god, fuck. the pain just goes on and on.)

you know someone who went in for routine surgery and said i still feel everything. they told her to just relax. it took her kicking and screaming before they figured out she wasn't lying - the anesthetic drip hadn't been working. you know someone who went in for severe migraines who was told drink water and lose weight. you know someone who was actively bleeding out and throwing up in the ER and was told you're just having a bad period.

in the ER there are always these little posters saying things like "don't wait! get checked today!" and you think about how often you do wait. how often the days spool out. you once waited a full week before seeing the doctor for what you thought was a sprained wrist. it had actually been broken - they had to rebreak it to set it.

but you go into the doctor. the problem you're having is immediate. the person behind the counter frowns and says we're not taking your insurance. you will be paying for this out-of-pocket.

they send you home with tylenol and a little health packet about weight loss or anxiety or attention deficit. on the front it has your birthday and diagnosis. you think about crying, and the words swim. it might as well say go fuck yourself. it might as well say you're a fucking idiot. it might as well say light your money on fire and lie down in it. and the entire fucking time - the problem persists.

it's okay. it's okay, it's just another thing, you think. it's just another thing i have to learn to live with.

#spilled ink #warm up #can you tell what i'm mad about today specifically #i will say that there are a LOT of things that go into this. like a lot. this is ungendered and unspecific for a reason #it isn't just sexism. it's also racism. and ableism. and honestly classism.#and before a healthcare professional reads this as a personal attack: i understand ur burnt out #we are ALSO burnt out. your situation is also dire. this is not an attack on you.#this is a commentary on the incredible amounts of bigotry that lie at the heart of capitalism #where people have to pay money out of pocket to be told to fuck off.#your job is important. so is our humanity. and if you cannot accept that people are fucking mad as hell #at the industry - you are probably not listening .#anyway at some point im gonna write a piece about sexism specifically in medical shit #but i don't want terfs clowning in it bc they can't understand nuance #> it is true that ppl w/a uterus are more likely to experience medical malpractice & dismissal globally #> it is also true that trans people experience an equally fucked up and bad time in the medical field #> great news! the medical industrial complex is an equal opportunity life ruiner :)#(if you find it necessary to go into a debate about biology while discussing medical malpractice #i want to warn you that you're misunderstanding the issue. because guess what.#cis MEN might experience this. particularly black men. particularly disabled men.#so YES having a uterus can lead to more trouble for you. but this happens a LOT.#instead of fighting those ALSO experiencing your pain.... try working WITH them.#which btw. is like. actual feminism.)

2K notes · View notes

lyramundana · 7 months

Text

Just listened to "Want it so BAD", the new song by Han and Lee Know and, after reading the lyrics twice, let me tell you:

If there's still people who claim they're just friends, I'll lose my faith in humanity. Those guys are the real delulu here because what the fuck? With this song they basically confirmed everything we've heard since debut and screamed to the world they're, in fact, very much in love and not in a platonic way. They're married, your honour. This song basically confirms it, it states firmly and without a shadow of doubt that MINSUNG is fucking REAL and it has been since the survival show.

So for all those who don't agree with it, go argue with the wall. Us, the minsung whores and defenders, are going to fucking celebrate this gift to humanity.

Now lets focus on the parts where they specifically mention their first meeting, something we've heard from both of them in skz episodes, but now the uncensored version.

Minho: "I fell in love with you unexpectedly, couldn't get any work done, so many thoughts in my head keep me awake at night, spring snuck into my heart and left me frozen with excitement, i'm not used to it i know it's pain but i really want it so BAD" 😭😭😭😭😭 this is so minsung pre-debut coded omg, he's so fucking cute in the early states of love. knowing he was going to suffer but he loved him so much he just kept going.

Jisung: "Ride, come closer, just the two of us"🥺🥺 "together we make a whole romantic comedy movie" "let's get is started, getting anxious, can't think straight" "love you, i wanna place mysef in a spot next to you" "i'll hold you tight and say i've always been waiting for this moment" "the moment I first saw you, it was meant to be. For me, it's you"💀💀💀💀💀my man wasn't even being subtle here, he didn't try

In conclusion: Minsung is more real and solid that my parents' marriage and anyone who disagrees please come and kiss my ass. thank you❤

#i really need to know the behind the scenes of this recording #were they blushing like crazy? giggling? specially minho #were chan and changbin laughing their asses off? cringing at the brutal display of fluffy incredible love in front of them?#did they have a part in the lyrics or they just produced the music?#i feel it was jisung in charge of writing his part and then minho did his because c'mon #the lyrics are VERY clear #this isn't a love song dedicated to a random person or for Stays to self-insert in #this is heavily minsung coded #i want to see what went on as they recorded it #imagine that they kept their parts in secret from the other and when they start singing them they just blush and look lovingly at each othe #because everything they say it's true and they know it but still they can't believe it #i love them so much you have no idea #minsung #minsung song #han jisung x lee know

250 notes · View notes

worstloki · 16 days

Text

there is a difference between being born to a throne, maliciously vying for a throne, stealing a throne, and having a throne thrust upon you when you are already in the midst of an identity crisis. And I fear Loki's place in the line of succession has people unable to differentiate between any of these

#you can't really argue he planned the extent of Thor's downfall #that was all Odin #Loki didn't force Thor to invade Jotunheim he isn't even the one who gave Thor the idea -- Thor did that all on his own!#that he was doing waswasa @ thor didn't help but wasn't really crime worthy on its own #Thor himself took time convincing the other warriors to be okay with the trip despite the treason and danger involved #like. what. Thor can't differentiate good advice from bad and is emotionally volatile and reckless and that's Loki's fault?#THOR was the one who got them past Heimdall too #the entire ordeal inadvertently showed off the favouritism Thor was receiving in comparison to Loki #even though Loki was the one supposedly so easily influencing Thor to such an extent #call Thor a puppet the way he--wait. no. that sounds weird. uhhhhh #you get the point #people will claim Loki was all up in there rearranging Thor's mental processes to cause his downfall #when really it was Loki doing the bare minimum instigation and watching things only devolve from there #because Thor WAS reckless and immature ?? and he WAS quick to anger and enjoyed exerting his power with violence ??#Loki didn't STEAL THE THRONE FROM THOR he literally just is implied to undermine the coronation #that's not even confirmed but we assume it's true that he let the frost giants in near the casket etc.#Loki has his own actual crimes that he did against Thor and hugging his bro's arm and saying 'you're soooooo strong and correct' was not on #even if you manage to argue Loki was cheering Thor on for the invasion (he wasn't) it was clearly to dob Thor in with Odin #which he did when he had some guard inform Odin #that Odin's chosen punishment was for Thor's disobedience aside stop blaming Loki for the damage ODIN inflicted on him #focus on Loki making up lies to Thor about how Odin died instead like at least Loki DID SOMETHING for that #you can even ascribe as evil a motive as you want there bc Loki was slipping fr #twirling his hair and telling Thor he's smarter about the realm's safety than the king was on the normal scale #you want to talk morals go look at how eager Thor was to invade mass destroy and massacre in the other realm #and expected Odin to 'finish them off! together!' bc he was power high on whatever bloodlust pheromones battle apparently imitates for him #sigh. this is why you can't have nice things Thor. no Loki you're barely any better. sit down. have a cookie.

43 notes · View notes

soracities · 9 months

Note

Hi! So I tried not to say anything about some anti makeup posts I saw on your blog but I need to say this. I think you're very wise and I agree it's very important for us to love ourselves as we are. But some people like myself doesn't care about 'empowering' of makeup or whatever but we just have fun with it and we just love it. I say we because I know there is a lot of people like me. Yeah, we are feeding capitalism or whatever, but world is beautiful and it's also terrible so people trying make themselves feel good, have fun, ect. I see a lot of people who don't wear makeup and i'm happy for them! I didn't wear makeup until i turned 20 i think and felt good.

One thing I wanted to add is in response of post about feminine girls. I think everything needs balance and sometimes people tend to overreact in their opinion and divide everything in black and white. Personally I never cared how women around me looked and what they were wearing. But I would like to have same treatment, and not to feel silly for wearing pink or feminine clothes.

Sorry, I don't know English very well so maybe I can't translate my idea entirely. What I'm trying to say i think everyone should do what they like and leave each other in peace.

Sorry for this essay, just wanted to share my point of view.

Hi, anon! I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this, but I appreciate you writing this (and your English was fine, don't worry)

I think the main argument of those posts (and my own feelings about this) is not about makeup on its own, or even judgement about who does and doesn't choose to wear it--what they are criticizing is a particular part of the society we live in which puts a huge emphasis on women's beauty and appearance in order to fulfill an idea of what a woman "should" be, and the role that makeup plays in that as a result. Because whether we like it or not, whether we believe in them or not, whether we feel pressured by them or not, these expectations do exist. How we personally respond to them does not change that.

I personally don't have an issue with makeup or the concept of it (in almost every culture on earth, humans have been using makeup of some kind for literally thousands of years)--but what I do have a problem with is when we treat makeup, or other traditionally "feminine" forms of expression as neutral things when they are not. A comb or a hair tie is neutral--it's just a thing. Lipstick and eyeliner are also just things, but only when they exist by themselves--and in reality they don't exist by themselves: they exist in a world where we value women on their physical appearance before we value them for anything else--lipstick and eyeliner exist to emphasise parts of your appearance, to make you look a certain way--and in a society where we put so much importance on women looking a certain way, they aren't just ordinary things you toy around with for fun. You can have fun with them, but it doesn't change their role. They can't be treated as exceptions from the world they are used in.

I think sometimes people assume that being anti-makeup is the same as being anti-women-who-wear-makeup, which misses the point (and also suggests a very dangerous idea which I think, sometimes, is why people respond so angrily to these criticisms: because if we believe that being anti-makeup = being anti-women, then therefore makeup = womanhood, and this is simply not true). Whether you wear these things just for fun and to enjoy yourself isn't what is being talked about because these criticisms are not about you on a personal level: they are about looking at a society that is as image-obsessed as ours, and asking why makeup has the role that it has when 1) it is almost exclusively aimed at women--women who, as a group, have been historically marginalised, and whose value, historically, has almost always been measured in terms of their beauty before anything else and 2) the makeup that is emphasized, the trends and styles that come and go, are often not so much about self-expression (if they were, people would be freely wearing all sorts of wild colours and styles: when we talk about "makeup culture" it's not the same kind of makeup used in the goth, punk, or alt scenes for example where makeup plays a very different role) but almost always about achieving or aspiring towards a type of beauty that is valued or expected: to make you look younger, to make your eyes brighter or larger, to make your lips bigger or sexier, your cheekbones more prominent etc--again, on their own, these things may not be a big deal, but they exist in a world where having these looks means you are valued in a certain way as a woman. And when this exists in our kind of world, where the power dynamics we have automatically mean women's perceived power is through beauty, and where we insist so much on women being a particular kind of beautiful (and this starts in childhood) we have to ask and investigate WHY that is--why this type of beauty and not another? why (almost only) women? who benefits from this? who suffers as a result?

The argument of "not all women" wear makeup for empowerment misses the point of these criticism, because it is focusing on a person's individual choices in a way that suggests our choices can define the world we live in, and they can't. We are deeply social animals. Therefore, how we appear to each other and to ourselves is a socially influenced phenomenon. This applies for race, for sexuality, and for gender. How women are perceived at large, in different social structures, is a social phenomenon influenced by the societies we exist in and the values of those societies. These criticisms are about the society we make those choices in and how that can affect us. For you, makeup may be something fun and enjoyable and that's fine. I'm not saying that's untrue or that people don't feel this way or that you are wrong for feeling this way. It's also not saying that you are brain-washed or oppressing yourself for it. But it doesn't change the world we live in. Someone feeling perfectly happy to go out with makeup or without makeup, and feeling no pressure to do either, is great--but it doesn't mean there aren't a lot of women who do feel pressured into wearing it, and that pressure is a social one. It doesn't change the inequality that exists between how women's physical appearances are judged compared to men's. It doesn't change the fact that almost every childhood story most kids hear (that aren't about animals) have a "beautiful princess" (and very little else is said about her except that she is beautiful) and a "brave" knight/prince/king/whichever: the princess (or maiden or whatever young woman) is defined by how she looks; the male in the story by how he acts.

It also doesn't change the fact that so many young girls grow up hearing the women around them criticize various parts of their bodies and that they carry this into their lives. It doesn't change the fact that we expect (in Western countries at least) for women to have criticisms about their appearance and they are "stuck-up" or "full of themselves" if they don't. It doesn't change the fact that magazines photos, red carpet photos, films, tv shows etc., feature actresses who are beautiful in a way that is absolutely above and beyond exceptional (and who either have had work done cosmetically, or are wealthy enough to be able to afford to look the way they do through top-class makeup artists, personal trainers etc) but who we think are within the "normal" range of beauty because faces like theirs are all that we see--how many famous actors / entertainers can you name who look like they could be someone's random uncle, or "just some guy" (writing this, I can think of 5). Now how many actresses, equally famous, can you think of that are the same? Very, very, very few.

The point of those posts, and why I feel so strongly about this, is that we have a deeply skewed view of beauty when it comes to women, because, as a society, we place so much on how they look in such a way that it is not, and was never meant to be, achievable: therefore anything that contributes to how women look, that markets itself in the way that the makeup industry does in this day and age, needs to be questioned and looked at in relation to that. No one is saying don't wear eyeliner or blush--what they are trying to say is that we need to be aware of the kind of world eyeliner and blush exists in, what their particular functions as eyeliner and blush do in the world that they exist in, that we exist in, and how this does impact the view we have on makeup as a result. Your personal enjoyment may be true to you and others, but this doesn't change the role of female beauty in the world because, again, our personal choices don't define the world in this way. Often, it's the other way around. And we cannot deny this fact because, while it may not affect you negatively, it does affect others.

I absolutely agree with you because I don't care how other women around me choose to dress or express themselves, either--that's their freedom to wear what they want and enjoy themselves and I want them to have that freedom. But my view is not the world's view, and it's certainly not the view of a lot of other people, either. I don't care if another woman loves pink and wearing skirts and dresses--but, like makeup, pink, skirts, and dresses, are not neutral things either. They're tied to a particular image of 'femininity' which means they are tied to a particular way of "being a woman" in this world. I'm not saying, at all, that it's wrong to wear these things. But I'm saying we can't treat them as though these are choices as simple as choosing what kind of socks to wear, because they aren't. They are choices that have baggage. If a woman is seen as being silly, childish, or treated unequally because she enjoys cute tops and ribbons and sundresses, that's not because we are demonizing her choices, or because being anti-makeup is being anti-woman (again, it is absolutely not): it's because we as a society demonize women for any choice. That isn't because of anti-makeup stances--that's because of sexism.

You mentioned that you want to be treated the same as anyone else for wearing feminine clothes--but the fear that you wouldn't be isn't because of the discussions critiquing makeup and other traditionally "feminine" things--it's because we live in a society where women are constantly defined by how they appear on the outside, and no amount of our personal choices will make this untrue. Whether you are a girly-girl or a tomboy, you'll always be judged. And, in reality, when women follow certain beauty standards they do get treated better--but this doesn't mean much in a society where the standards are so high you can never reach them, and where the basic regard for women is so low to begin with (not to mention the hypocrisy that exists within those standards). This is what all those criticisms towards makeup and "empowerment" are about: it's about interrogating a society that is built on this kind of logic and asking why we should insist on leaving it as it is when it does so much damage. It's saying that that if we want everyone to truly feel free in how they choose to present themselves we have to go deeper than just defining freedom by these choices on their own, and look at the environment those choices are made in. And that involves some deeply uncomfortable but necessary conversations.

Also, and I think this important to remember, views on makeup and the social place of makeup will also depend on culture and where you are, and the beauty expectations you grew up with. And when it comes to the internet, and given American dominance online, a lot of these posts criticizing makeup and the way makeup is being used to sell an idea that wearing it is "empowering" to the woman (which is basically saying: you are MORE of a woman when you wear it; you are stronger and more powerful because, in our society, beauty is portrayed as a form of power: it tells you, you can battle the inequality women face by embracing the role beauty plays in our lives but it doesn't tell you this emphasis on beauty is part of that inequality), are based on the way makeup is portrayed in mostly English-speaking Western countries. My views are shaped by what I grew up seeing, and while a full face of makeup (concealer, primer, foundation, mascara, highlighter, contour, blush, brow tint, brow gel etc) may not be daily practice or even embraced in a place like France or maybe other places in mainland Europe (but that doesn't mean they don't have their own expectations of feminine beauty), they are daily practice in places like the US and Britain, and this is what most of those posts and criticisms are responding to.

We can argue as much as we want about makeup, but when you grow up in a society where women feel the need to put on makeup before going to the gym there is something seriously wrong. Embracing makeup and enjoying makeup is one thing, but it cannot be a neutral thing when so much of it is about looking like you're not wearing makeup at all, or when we assume a woman is better qualified for a job or more professional when she wears it. It cannot be a neutral thing when a singer like Alicia Keys goes makeup-free for a red carpet event and it causes a stir online because people think she looks sick (what she looks like is normal--I would argue above normal--but wearing makeup to cover up "flaws" is so normal now that we genuinely don't know what normal skin is supposed to look like because the beauty of these celebrities is part of their appeal: they are something to aspire to). It is absolutely very normal for me, where I am, to see young girls with fake lashes and filled in brows: it's not every girl I pass, but it is enough. I'm not saying they are miserable, or brain-washed, or should be judged. I can believe that for them it's something enjoyable--but how am I supposed to see something like that and not be aware of the kind of celebrities and makeup tutorials that are everywhere on TikTok and YouTube, and that they are seeing everyday? How am I not supposed to have doubts when people tell me "it's their choice!" when the choices being offered are so limited and focused on one thing?

I never wore makeup as a teenager and I still don't, but a lot of that is because I grew up surrounded by people who just didn't. Makeup was never portrayed as anything bad or forbidden (and I don't see it like that either)--it was just this thing that, for me growing up, was never made to be a necessity not even for special occasions. I saw airbrushed photos and magazines all around me, for sure, and I definitely felt the beauty pressure and the body pressure (for example, I definitely felt my confidence would be better if I wore concealer to deal with my uneven skintone, and I felt this for years). But I also know that, growing up, I saw both sides. No makeup was the default I saw at home, while makeup was the default I saw outside. And that does play a part, not just in the choices you make, but in the choices that you feel you are allowed to make. No makeup was an option for me because it was what I saw everyday, even with my own insecurities; but if you do not see that as an option around you (and I know for most girls my age, where I grew up, it probably wasn't) then how can we fully argue that the decision you make is a real choice?

If I wanted to wear a cute skirt outside, for example, and decided to shave my legs--that isn't a real choice. And it cannot ever be a real choice, no matter how much I say "this is for me" or "I prefer it like this" because going out in public with hairy legs and going out in public with shaved legs will cause two completely different reactions. How can I separate what I think is "my choice" from a choice I make because I want to avoid the negative looks and comments? And how can I argue that choosing to shave is a freely made choice when the alternative has such negativity? If you feel pressured into choosing one thing over another, that's not a choice. Does this make sense?

This is how I feel about makeup most of the time, and what I want more than anything else is for us to be able to have a conversation about why we make the choices we do beyond saying "it makes me feel good" and ending the conversation there. Again, I'm not saying people need to stop wearing makeup or stop finding enjoyment in wearing it, but I think we tend to get so focused on our own feelings about this and forget that there is a bigger picture and this picture is a deeply unequal one. That is what this conversation is about. I hope this explains some things, anon, and if I misinterpreted anything please feel free to message me again. x

#i think in essence what i'm trying to say is that #some things are true in a microcosm but you cannot make a universal application for them bc the microcosm isn't representative of the whole #and it is dangerous to assume that it is or that it can be bc you're erasing the bigger picture when you do that #it would be like a poc saying they never felt the pressure of skin-lightening creams which is amazing but it doesnt change the fact that a #whole industry exists selling skin-lightening products BECAUSE there is a demand for them and that demand exists BECAUSE there is an #expectation that they SHOULD be used and this is because there is a belief that lighter skin = more beautiful. regardless of how messed up #and damaging that logic is that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the world #and therefore those industries exist to maintain that belief because that belief is what drives their purpose and their profits #and we are doing no favours to the countless poc who DO feel pressured to subject their skins to these products or who come away with #a deeply damaged sense of self-worth (not to mention the internalised racism that's behind these beliefs) bc of constantly being told they #are less than for being darker than a paper bag which is RIDICULOUS #saying its all down to choice is not far off from saying you can CHOOSE to not be affected by the pressure but like....that's just not true #you can't choose to not be the recipient of colorism any more than you can choose to not be the recipient of sexism. and its putting a huge #amount of pressure and responsibility for an individual to just not be affected by deeply ingrained societal pressures and expectations whe #what we SHOULD be doing is actually tackling those expectations and pressures instead #they are leaving these systems intact to continue the damage that they do by making everything about what you as an individual think and #believe but while we all ARE individuals we dont live in separate bubbles. we are part of and IN this world together. and it acts on us as #much as we act on it. but like.....i think i've gone on enough already #ask #anonymous

103 notes · View notes

vulturevanity · 1 month

Text

I feel like SV girlies haven't seriously considered "codependent mutually obsessive JuliNemo" yet and that's a shame, really. I've seen a lot of wholesome ChampionRank (really cute but a rehash of every wholesome yuri I've ever seen, not much original content here and that's okay) and one-sided obsessive yandere!Nemona ChampionRank (REALLY do not like the villainization of Nemona's neurodivergence but eh, you can do whatever you want forever) but not as much "these two get on like a house on fire. and boy, it's dry season" ChampionRank.

Where is "battle-hungry socially starved trainwrecks who have no one but each other" JuliNemo. Where is "oh god these two exacerbate each others issues into the stratosphere and this can only end in disaster but I can't look away" JuliNemo. Where is "bringing out the worst in each other and scaring the hoes" JuliNemo. Where is "you two are perfect for each other. Never change, just never involve anyone else in any of this" JuliNemo. There's so much potential here. Toxic codependent yuri save me

#pokémon #pokemon sv #championrankshipping #julinemo #babbles #my juliana is such a mess #she does not make friends easily and can't keep relationships for long at all #whenever someone enters her life she aants to make the best impression so she lovebombs them incessantly #and that either comes across as too much too fast or causes people to get too attached.#but she's young. she is very young. and the people who bothered to match her energy had ulterior motives #so now she's too afraid of getting too close to someone #she'll act the part but never show her true self #and at the slightest hint of genuine connection she'll RUN.#this of course clashes horribly with Nemona's own overbearing personality and loneliness #you know how she wants you to be her ideal rival. and you end up becoming exactly that.#yeah to my Juliana this was kind of a nightmare because. as much as this toed her boundaries #she isn't so inept as to not recognize a bit of herself in Nemona. so she decided to ride this out and appease her #and UH OH! she got attached. fear and need for control and validation from feeling wanted mixed in her head #and she started matching Nemona's energy and the two jumped into dating too fast and oops. they're codependent now #they literally can't handle being away from each other for more than two days or they start going feral #i wish i had the energy to write this one because i'm fascinated by this horrible dynamic. i want to study them in a rat maze #edit: i feel like i should clarify that this interpretation relies on Florian existing and being the one to help Penny and Arven #Florian isn't without his issues. he's a huge people pleaser too. but he's more of a doormat who can't say no

15 notes · View notes

life-winners-liveblog · 5 months

Note

Okay, DL!Scott, here comes the promised rant. (p.s., Scar, if you're feeling nice, do you think your Watcher powers could override Scott? I feel like Pearl might need to hear at least some of this)

OKAY!

Pearl didn't mean to leave Scott. She was genuinely looking, and ran into almost nobody. She went to the nether with Martyn because he was the only person she could find, and they wanted to find some stuff for their soulmates. MARTYN was the one running into danger, while Pearl tried to play it as safe as you can in the Nether. Her main focus was getting mushrooms so they could heal any damage. Whenever she did take damage she instantly started shoving food in her mouth while yelling sorry to the air, because even though she knew that her unknown soulmate couldn't hear her, she was still so genuinely sorry. Martyn started pushing to go into a bastion, and she was the one to point out that maybe that wasn't a smart idea. When she and Martyn came back to the overworld, she was excited for like .2 seconds, because while they were angry and Martyn she was happy! Because Cleo and Scott and her were together again! And then it dawned on her that they were leaving her too. When, while I'm sure it looked different from Scott's pov, from her perspective her only crime was going with Martyn, let me reiterate the only other person she could find.

And then Martyn turns around and says "I'm breaking up with you too." And then Ren banishes her from Box calling her a demoness. And then Tilly, the only living thing on that server that had showed her any kindness, died in front of her eyes. Of course she went mad. She wasn't just the crazy ex girlfriend, she was a hurt and lonely and grieving girl who had just watched the only person she cared about die.

And you have the nerve to call her the ignorant one? She is the one that's in the wrong here?

You're the least likable version of Scott, you know that? You call the others, who are all much better fighters than you according to the statistics, weak because they were attached. Yeah, maybe you weren't married, maybe you didn't have quite the same relationship as the three G's, maybe you didn't have an ally that you allowed to kill you because you were going to die anyways and if anyone is going to get your time it's them. But you did have Cleo. Don't act like you're above attachments. In the one game where you were supposed to have partners, the single game where the mechanic was designed so that nobody would end up alone, you pushed Pearl away. Martyn and Cleo became on at least decent terms towards the end, you and Pearl did not. No matter how much Pearl wanted to. You went against all of that. And still you think that you are somehow better than the others?? No wonder the Watchers hate you.

You're a b*tch, DL!Scott. I hope you know that

-Luna

(wow that was impressive)

#asks #trafficblr #author answers #/Well that was what more or less what I expected/#/Of course Pearl is oh so sad and the victim of big bad Scott and Ren and Martyn and Cleo but... you don't seem to understand I don't care #/I can't say that I enjoyed her being miserable either of course because I literally couldn't care less/#/As for Cleo? We were allies and? What's your point? ...Unless you think I actually cared for her which is so funny because it isn't true/#/And I will never ever consider a version of me any way more capable then me if they team up with Jimmy or get backstabbed so easily/#/as for Scar despite how he acts he could have kicked me out any point... He has the power to do so he just hasn't.#... ... .... You know why I am allowing you to remain here so-#/so stop acting high and mighty? Is that what you were going to say? Scar you are getting predictable/

24 notes · View notes

everymadara · 9 months

Text

Chapter 625

#naruto #madara #madara uchiha #uchiha madara #hashirama flashback #+ hashirama #he has airpods on he can't hear you Hashirama kjsdhjfkshkjsdf #That being said Hashirama you could come up with things more convincing than ''That's not true it won't be like that'' like. it's no #surprise at all that that isn't getting to him lmfao #That being said Madara clearly wasn't talking enough to him enough for him to know what the right thing to say is so! awful #Maybe if they'd had couples therapy

43 notes · View notes

maddy-ferguson · 5 months

Note

women will literally accuse women and esp lesbian circles of "not unpacking ""man-hating""" alleged ""misandry" sweetie xo" getting offended ppl aren't appropriately uplifting how "men are amazing and awesome and attractive and i won't be shamed for thinking so" as if appreciating men is a real counter opinion than blame whatever gave women of every sexuality instance to be jaded weary cautious and tired and who'll complain every now and then and continue on with her life until she dies putting up with patriarchy. just welcome to the "woke" internet where misogyny's over and "man-hate" "shamed for not hating men" is worth springing to defences for

yeah i've only seen people talk like men's rights activists and think they're being unbelievably progressive on tumblr it's kind of fascinating. like i can see how seeing people hate on men could mess with people and stuff but you can't demand men appreciation posts that's literally the whole world outside of idk your tumblr dash (or even on your tumblr dash because fandom misogyny from people who think they're not misogynistic at all is really something). men get praised for "babysitting" their own kids like be serious? it's very let men be masculine

i don't think being like men are soooo gross and we hate them is actually constructive and it can definitely veer into transphobia (you'll always be a man/"a male" and thus a danger to women/why would you ever want to become a man they're the enemy and the bane of society etc) and homophobia relatively quickly?

but the way people ON TUMBLR ""combat that"" is often so off to me like if the most basic feminist principles offend you then i'm not really sure where to go from here. i remember seeing a post that was like "men aren't your enemy. they're your friend/brother/father/colleague/neighbor" with a lot of notes and like i don't know how to tell you this but that's literally who's most likely to harm a woman, the men she knows?😭 and obviously not every system of oppression is exactly the same but would you say the same thing to someone criticizing white people like...just very weird

i think women who are attracted to men and dating them making jokes about how they only tolerate being attracted to men because they have no choice and especially the whole i'm bi so i love every woman and only find 1 in a 1000 men attractive (very often said while in a relationship with a man) thing is obnoxious and annoying for like everyone who has to hear it lmao but also when women who date men make jokes about it (not about them being ugly or unattractive or whatever but about them being bad partners in general) it's like. what else are they going to do like you said they're gonna endure patriarchy for the rest of their lives and as girlfriends/wives/mothers they go through the most it's very bleak? idk. it's not like you can date a better man yourself out of patriarchy

of course men aren't a all as bad as the worst guy you can imagine and they're not all out to get you or whatever but saying things like "men don't all benefit from the patriarchy rich men benefit from the patriarchy but jake, 23, is not oppressing you" is like. kind of insane. jake, 14, was oppressing me like have you never interacted with boys in school😭 and it's not like it was entirely their fault we all have to outgrow misogyny it's just you know society etc but some of them never outgrow it lmao and just...the takes you see on feminism on tumblr are astounding i hate it here

#and like i do think that young guys who feel bad about themselves only having people who make them feel worse and who actively make them #worse like incels and idk youtube algorithms to turn to is a problem but like. again it's the same thing as white people who feel bad about #being white to me in a way like are women and GIRLS supposed to coddle them and say it's gonna be okay you're great even when they're #like actually harming them by being misogynistic to them? that's already what they're taught to do always #the notes on that male loneliness epidemic post i reblogged a few weeks ago still haunt me like OH MY GOD #and if you think misogyny isn't as prevalent anymore you're very naive. and probably misogynistic yourself #i'm not even sure young men being more feminist is true (well it's probably true when you compare it to like the 50s) but even #when men ARE like yeah women shouldn't have to do everything i can help with chores (the use of the word help is already a red flag lmao)#when you look at what they actually do they still do way less like i don't have links because these are tags on a tumblr ask but i read #somewhere that men think chores are 50/50 when they're only doing like 30% of the work? like it just seems hopeless #sometimes i'm happy and then i think about the mental load #sorry for not uplifting men 24/7 you can just hang out on the steve harrington tag or something there's actually a lot of people doing that #when someone said um does the ronance fandom not seem terfy to you...because of a post that was like can the lesbian ship ronance #be about the lesbian ship ronance not about steve A MAN #like you can't make this up #i meant it when i said the average tumblr user would benefit from being exposed to more misogyny like i swear they forget it's even a thing #like obviously they wouldn't BENEFIT from it lmao but their posts wouldn't be as dumb and that would benefit me🙏#ask

23 notes · View notes

strangesickness · 1 month

Text

losers playing ttrpgs... losers playing ttrpgs save me...

mike is running a multi-year homebrew ttrpg campaign that is basically just a combination of any rulebook the losers can get their hands on + anything they come up with. i know it to be true. the campaign started as a call of cuthulu campaign but it is now a terrifying mix of call of cuthulu, dungeons & dragons, and cyberpunk with elements from a dozen other games including star wars: the roleplaying game, warhammer, harnmaster and somehow alma mater(??? idk how. but i know this happened). richie was like. "mike man, i love you forever, you're great at this. but why don't i have magic powers?" and he pointed at ben's collection of d&d rulebooks he'd been browsing through and he sounded so earnest and excited that mike knew in that moment he was going to sacrifice the integrity of his cool mystery campaign so richie could cast vicious mockery (99% sure vicious mockery didn't exist yet... don't quote me on that but it doesn't matter because the idea of richie using it constantly is hilarious)

they've all been playing the same characters for years and they keep convincing mike to add more stuff so they're all like super powerful and mike keeps having to come up with more and more powerful enemies.

mike's dice collection is so so so cool he has so many dice, and whenever he introduces a new important character he goes out and gets dice that fit their theme and it is such a moneysink but it's worth it because ooooh pretty dice

after four occasions where the losers decided to adopt a random npc mike hadn't planned anything for, mike has started planning every single npc out down to the specifics of their childhood education. he has endless character sheets hanging out in his room with characters he's created that populate his game world.

okay hanbrough agenda time: bill is the most oblivious guy in the entire world. i know this. (he is the guy who looks at brokeback mountain and goes "what do you mean it was gay? why can't men be friends anymore?" this is based on that one passage at the beginning of the book where he goes on one of those "why can't the curtains just be blue because they're fucking blue" rants lol. he does not know what media literacy is. to me) and mike is. increasingly frustrated and feels like he's losing his mind. he is like head in hands because he asked bill to go to prom with him and bill was like "yeah sure man! sounds great, you're my bestie forever!", and he has no idea what to do, because how is this man this dense, so he just starts having all of his NPCs fall head over heels for bill's character and flirt like madmen. it is painful for everyone involved. except bill. who still has no idea what is going on. that is a very unfortunate month.

mike and ben hang out a lot and ben helps mike brainstorm for the campaign so ben has all this insider knowledge and mike will just look at him before something insane happens in the campaign. they'll like make eye contact and ben will be like holy shit holy shit holy shit :0 and mike just drops some insane new lore. it's very special to me.

#i know it might be like. why isn't ben or bill GM? they're the writers!#but like. idk it just fits. watching mike in it chapter 2 gave me so much unhinged GM energy #that man can spin a TALE. i know it. i also know he can improvise like crazy #they finish a session and he's like. btw guys everything after like the first hour was improvised i hope it didn't feel to awkward #and the losers are like... wdym you didn't perfectly plan all of that?????#bill could not run a campaign to save his life. he does not know what chekhov's gun is. he does not know what nuance is.#he would be trying to run a campaign and the losers would do ANYTHING even slightly off the hyperspecific plan he made #and he'd start trying to railroad everyone and everyones just getting increasingly stressed #basically it would be a bad time #that man can't do improv i know it in my heart #ben on the other hand is a massive ttrpg nerd and has run multiple one shots with the losers #he's not big into long campaigns like mike is but he loves coming up with new campaign ideas #he also collects ttrpg rulebooks and is always looking for weird ones to try out with his friends <3 #they all have so much fun doing character creation with ben too. it's great.#i'm not done with this btw. i have so much more to say #i love ttrpgs and a party is the highest level of friendship. this is true #my high school best friends were literally just my d&d party #and cyberpunk (the ttrpg) is how i made friends in college lol #posts afflicted with a strange sickness #it stephen king #it 2019 #it 2017 #mike hanlon #bill denbrough #ben hanscom #hanbrough #richie tozier

12 notes · View notes

the-lark-ascending69 · 8 days

Text

> be a robin buckley fan

> be lesbian

> project on robin

> look up "internalized homophobia robin buckley" on tumblr because it's cathartic

> 3/4 of the posts are about st3ddie or just about steve

#saw one in which steve was like ''no robin you don't understand! i have never been loved! i don't know how that feels like!''#i have several grips about that interpretation #going from the fact that's not true (dustin is clearly a big steve fan + robin herself cares about him deeply)#to the fact he probably wouldn't be introspective enough to voice his emotions this concisely not to mention he'd probably wouldn't take #a moment to realize he's never felt loved if that were the case. i mean. he could think that. when he's like 35 and more in touch with his #inner world. 19yo steve can't even get the hint that hitting on a girl who's already clearly taken (nancy) is wrong so like i don't expect #him to be that smart #but i can live with people having takes i don't agree with. my opinion doesn't have to be everyone else's opinion if you see steve that way #it fine #what bothered me was the fact he was saying this to a lesbian living in the 80s lmao #who tells him that 1) her whole life has been an error 2) she doesn't think he'd want to be close to her if he truly knew her and 3)#3) is paralyzed by fear of social suicide if she dares believe for even a second that the girl she likes may like her too #like i dont need people to do deep dives into robin lore and quote from memory lines from Surviving Hawkins abt robin feeling like she's #rotten inside. not supposed to have friends. feeling like something is wrong with her and that pushes people away etc etc #the fact that she's a lesbian should tell you enough abt who has the biggest chances of being loved 😭#also bothered me that it showed up when looking up posts abt internalized homophobia because?? where's the internalized homophobia therw #unless it's gay steve feeling bad abt it in an AU (as if canon robin didn't go through it)#like look im not bothered to find steve-centric content in the robin tag cos people are gonna tag her in posts mentioning her.#she's his friend.#but there are barely any posts at all about robin's internalized homophobia. like i saw 2 or 3. compared to all the steve or steddie ones #where's the love for my babygirl 😭😭#anti steddie #not really but y'know i don't wanna bother anyone #edit: the bit about there being like 3 posts on robin w internalized homophobia isn't exactly true. there are a few. but they still feel #drowned in st3ddie posts #like something isn't right here

9 notes · View notes

the-busy-ghost · 1 year

Text

Alright uninformed rant time. It kind of bugs me that, when studying the Middle Ages, specifically in western Europe, it doesn’t seem to be a pre-requisite that you have to take some kind of “Basics of Mediaeval Catholic Doctrine in Everyday Practise” class.

Obviously you can’t cover everything- we don’t necessarily need to understand the ins and outs of obscure theological arguments (just as your average mediaeval churchgoer probably didn’t need to), or the inner workings of the Great Schism(s), nor how apparently simple theological disputes could be influenced by political and social factors, and of course the Official Line From The Vatican has changed over the centuries (which is why I’ve seen even modern Catholics getting mixed up about something that happened eight centuries ago). And naturally there are going to be misconceptions no matter how much you try to clarify things for people, and regional/class/temporal variations on how people’s actual everyday beliefs were influenced by the church’s rules.

But it would help if historians studying the Middle Ages, especially western Christendom, were all given a broadly similar training in a) what the official doctrine was at various points on certain important issues and b) how this might translate to what the average layman believed. Because it feels like you’re supposed to pick that up as you go along and even where there are books on the subject they’re not always entirely reliable either (for example, people citing books about how things worked specifically in England to apply to the whole of Europe) and you can’t ask a book a question if you’re confused about any particular point.

I mean I don’t expect to be spoonfed but somehow I don’t think that I’m supposed to accumulate a half-assed religious education from, say, a 15th century nobleman who was probably more interested in translating chivalric romances and rebelling against the Crown than religion; an angry 16th century Protestant; a 12th century nun from some forgotten valley in the Alps; some footnotes spread out over half a dozen modern political histories of Scotland; and an episode of ‘In Our Time’ from 2009.

But equally if you’re not a specialist in church history or theology, I’m not sure that it’s necessary to probe the murky depths of every minor theological point ever, and once you’ve started where does it end?

Anyway this entirely uninformed rant brought to you by my encounter with a sixteenth century bishop who was supposedly writing a completely orthodox book to re-evangelise his flock and tempt them away from Protestantism, but who described the baptismal rite in a way that sounds decidedly sketchy, if not heretical. And rather than being able to engage with the text properly and get what I needed from it, I was instead left sitting there like:

And frankly I didn’t have the time to go down the rabbit hole that would inevitably open up if I tried to find out

#This is a problem which is magnified in Britain I think as we also have to deal with the Hangover from Protestantism #As seen even in some folk who were raised Catholic but still imbibed certain ideas about the Middle Ages from culturally Protestant schools #And it isn't helped when we're hit with all these popular history tv documentaries #If I have to see one more person whose speciality is writing sensational paperbacks about Henry VIII's court #Being asked to explain for the British public What The Pope Thought I shall scream #Which is not even getting into some of England's super special common law get out clauses #Though having recently listened to some stuff in French I'm beginning to think misconceptions are not limited to Great Britain #Anyway I did take some realy interesting classes at uni on things like marriage and religious orders and so on #But it was definitely patchy and I definitely do not have a good handle on how it all basically hung together #As evidenced by the fact that I've probably made a tonne of mistakes in this post #Books aren't entirely helpful though because you can't ask them questions and sometimes the author is just plain wrong #I mean I will take book recommendations but they are not entirely helpful; and we also haven't all read the same stuff #So one person's idea of what the basics of being baptised involved are going to radically differ from another's based on what they read #Which if you are primarily a political historian interested in the Hundred Years' War doesn't seem important eonugh to quibble over #But it would help if everyone was given some kind of similar introductory training and then they could probe further if needed/wanted #So that one historian's elementary mistake about baptism doesn't affect generations of specialists in the Hundred Years' War #Because they have enough basic knowledge to know that they can just discount that tiny irrelevant bit #This is why seminars are important folks you get to ASK QUESTIONS AND FIGURE OUT BITS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND #And as I say there is a bit of a habit in this country of producing books about say religion in mediaeval England #And then you're expected to work out for yourself which bits you can extrapolate and assume were true outwith England #Or France or Scotland or wherever it may be though the English and the French are particularly bad for assuming #that whatever was true for them was obviously true for everyone else so why should they specify that they're only talking about France #Alright rant over #Beginning to come to the conclusion that nobody knows how Christianity works but would like certain historians to stop pretending they do #Edit: I sort of made up the examples of the historical people who gave me my religious education above #But I'm now enamoured with the idea of who actually did give me my weird ideas about mediaeval Catholicism #Who were my historical godparents so to speak #Do I have an idea of mediaeval religion that was jointly shaped by some professor from the 1970s and a 6th century saint?#Does Cardinal Campeggio know he's responsible for some much later human being's catechism?#Fake examples again but I'm going to be thinking about that today

128 notes · View notes

lord-squiggletits · 5 months

Text

Man, it doesn't matter what the medium or fandom is, truly the debate that ruins fandom discussions the fastest is when people try to decide which characters "deserve" what. Especially when it comes to them deciding which characters are evil, how evil they are, and how severe their punishment should be for their evil deeds.

It's really annoying/harmful on multiple levels. For one, morally speaking, the line between "evil, but can repent/compensate for their deeds" and "evil, cannot be redeemed, suffer and die forever" is harder to define than you think, and who has the authority to define it anyways?

But also, fictional stories (especially the better, more nuanced, more mature ones) are rarely ever about "deserving" and don't divide their characters neatly between the "good" and the "evil." Every time I see fans debate about "how evil" a Problematic Fave is, or if Fave 1 is better/worse than Fave 2, all I see is people ruining their own fun and stirring up bad blood between other fans. Why would you add this dichotomy of "deserving" to a FICTIONAL story and start real life beef with people over it? At that point you're getting more invested in your discourse over imagined good/evil binaries than you are invested in watching/reading/consuming the actual story itself.

#squiggposting #honestly it gets to the point where i try to avoid fandom discourse for new things i'm into such as bg3 #canon is crystal clear and then i walk into fanon discussions and it's like a funhouse mirror #fanon discussions and discourse get so wack they literally make me second guess shit i saw with my own eyes and ears #me playing bg3: yeah the themes of this are pretty clear i understand perfectly the emotions here are great #me looking at bg3 fandom discussions: what in the actual fuck is going on here. did we play the same game #it's also not helped by people who can't distinguish between canon and fanon #like. there's a difference bt things explicitly said by canon vs interpretations based on canon but not actually confirmed #there can be multiple different interpretations of a story. this is true and a very good thing #HOWEVER. ppl in fandom are often bad at distinguishing between canon information and their interpretation. it just adds more misinformation #if you're a veteran that actually knows the lore you end up stepping into discourse just to clarify:#no that isn't actually canon. it's based on this one thing that was said in canon but canon never actually says that.#you can INTERPRET THAT but the story never actually explicitly says it #just. what a fucking mess lmao. the best way to get accurate information on a story is to just play/watch/read it yourself #fandom cannot be trusted to 1. get lore factually correct 2. distinguish between canon facts and interpretation

18 notes · View notes

brother-lipsmackariah · 7 months

Text

Did a Kim/KimChay re-watch and I can confidently say that 90% of the current characterization (since the start of 2023) is pure fanon, blatant misinterpretation, and wishful thinking

Don't go claiming around that it's canon when it's just something you WISH was canon

#'Kim is shy and Chay is confident and assertive with him' LITERALLY WHERE?#give me one example that isn't an opinion of some other blog or something taken out of context #one canon SCENE where that is true #the best you can say is Chay knows his worth and is rightfully pissed at Kim but that's not the same thing #Kim's desperate messages and need to contact Chay is born out guilt and concern not whatever the fuck you've twisted it into #god i hate KimChay fans so much #all of you #the fucking 'Kim Theerapanyakul is so whipped' makes me visceral reactions now #y'all all just Chay fans but can't even do that right as none of your characterization matches Chay's actual personality #anyway rant over #Kim #KimChay #Kinnporsche #Kinnporsche the series #Kim Theerapanyakul #porchay kittisawasd #Chay is not assertive with Kim and Kim doesn't listen to him because he's naturally subservient #he listens because Chay is PERSISTENT AND STUBBORN (affectionate) and won't stop until Kim hears him out

25 notes · View notes

paellegere · 2 months

Note

hey girlie it’s me, sam winchesters gay lover, your mootie 🥰🥰🥰 i just wanted to let you know, that your tags on the post about that wincest video are based and i agree with every word, hashtag slay couldn’t agree more i loved reading your essay in those tags heart ❤️

omg thank you!!! i'm basically only capable of talking in essays whether people want me to or not, unfortunately

i just have a lot of feelings on this topic and the whole "canon or not canon" argument is weird to me; the themes are pretty darn clear in supernatural (it is NOT known for its subtlety) so idk man. they don't have to kiss to be canon. and they don't have to have a romantic relationship to be canon either. how many times do they get into relationships with other people only for it to be treated as cheating/betrayal/abandonment, only for them have to give up that relationship in order to reaffirm their devotion to their brother

that's just what the text says. i'm not under any kind of delusion that they have some secret sexual or romantic relationship, but that doesn't change that sam and dean are each other's most important person regardless of that. which is really awesome imo, that romance isn't treated as more important than whatever horrible thing they have with each other, and that they don't have to consummate their relationship with romance/sex in order for it to be the most important one they have

(and of course there's romantic/sexual subtext, like parallels and metaphors and misunderstandings and jokes, but to me that just provides a solid foundation for presenting this relationship between them as the most important even though it's not romantic or sexual—because this language of romance is the only one we know, really, when it comes to writing important relationships between characters. it's the only one we know in our own personal lives, to a large extent. so you use the romance/sexuality to symbolize the actual bond they have. which is so much worse lmao)

anyway i think spn is fairly unique in this way because of how no other relationships can really ever stand parallel to the one they share; even in other shows that center male friendship, romance is allowed to coexist with brotherhood. for sam and dean, it's not, and that becomes a point of tension and conflict and resolution many, many times over the course of the show. so like yeah!!! just because it's not romantic or sexual doesn't mean it's not canon, in the sense that their relationship is the point of the show, and it is the most important relationship they have. they chose each other above all else, every single time. yknow, it's "the epic love story of sam and dean" and all that

#ask #sorry. i did not intend to write another essay about this #but as i said i am only capable of talking in essays. my apologies #to be honest the only reason i have so much to say about this is because i have seen some truly baffling takes about what sam and dean are #and every time i see one i have to sit here and think about it. like how did you arrive at that conclusion. what are you watching #mostly in terms of like. people saying sam and dean are not weird and codependent and enmeshed with each other #that's just blatantly not true because again. this show is about sam and dean and their relationship. textually subtextually metatextually #the concept of even having to defend their relationship as canon is as confusing to me as having to defend umm rubysam is canon #or something #like it happened. they were together in canon. we saw them have sex. you can't say rubysam isn't canon because it's right there #same thing with sam and dean. the difference is the nature of their relationship and the fact that i guess people don't want to like #think of it as canon when it's not romantic????#it's such a no-brainer kind of thing. like the fact that i'm sitting here trying to explain myself is embarrassing me bc it's like #no shit sherlock #but again the only reason i am thinking about this so much is because i keep seeing people trying to deny or downplay their relationship #in the first place #which is BIZARRE to me #like idk i don't see people trying to deny that ummmm fuck. killua and gon hxh aren't canon friends #that they don't even like each other #wow i'm seriously rambling. apparently i have more to say about this topic than i originally conceived #idk man i get people are uncomfortable with incest but the point is that it's like. not. their canon-ness is not related to incest #they're just insane about each other and they are each other's most important person. they are more important than romantic pursuits #the uniqueness is that it trumps all other relationships and cannot coexist with any others. that's what's so canon about it #it's not just friendship. it's not just brothers. it's not just husbands. it's everything and nothing and so much more all at once #shrugs. sorry for rambling AGAIN #i hope i'm making sense here #supernatural #wincest #spn posting

13 notes · View notes