#(which is why i simply didn't :) ) | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

Tumblr was acquired by Yahoo for $1.1B in 2013.

#(which is why i simply didn't :) )

hawkinsunderground · 3 months

Text

okay so theoretically the pregnancy smoking poster could refer to Joyce, who smokes a lot, right? I think she's one of the most prominent smokers in the show

SO, could it possibly be alluding to something she did during pregnancy affecting Will in relation to his connection to Vecna? or is that just the biggest reach ever lol

#the mindflayer's form has the appearance of smoke too #silly speculations lol #byler theory #byler #will byers #stranger things #st #st5 #'why start your life under a cloud?'#maybe this influence from another world started when he was born because something happened during joyce's pregnancy that affected him #but i also don't see joyce doing anything on purpose #which #like in the 80s #people smoked a lot around their kids bc they simply didn't know the danger

67 notes · View notes

thebad-lydrawn-sanses · 4 months

Note

I was wondering if I could give Horror a big ol' hug with a box of donuts?

p/s: ilovehorrorsobad, heissogodlycuteandineedhim.

Horror: <- put donuts in inventory

Nightmare: "consider: be one of my employees. you'll get your asks prioritized, we'll update your design if you don't like this one, etc. i can write up a contract and whatnot"

#taiyor1u #horror sans #nightmare sans #i tried to make horror a consistent height but now my reference page is outdated and Horror's height is simply 'big'#bro didn't realize the person he found was an asker and went to Nightmare to return the person back to their au which is why boss is presen #also horror is making you a peanut butter jelly sandwich in the background i hope you like strawberry jam #shortmare lmaoo #queue #i moved one of my queued posts to drafts to put this out sooner

116 notes · View notes

nateriverswife · 4 months

Text

not only i do not subscribe to the idea that Watari imposed L's role on the wammy’s residents (for different reasons) or that wammy’s was created just for L, but I also don't understand how that would work. Mello and Near are from the fourth generation (debatable but regardless, they don't seem to be from the second) and if they are the successors, it means that the people chosen from the prior generations either died or decided to back down. It's highly unlikely that everyone died, and if they decided to back down, that simply means that people can just do so, which goes against the most common headcanon in this fandom. I could accept that they all went into hiding, if only it weren't for the fact that Mello, Near and L are highly competitive individuals so there must be someone before Mello and Near that wanted to be L, especially because the way Wammy’s is structured leads to competitiveness. So what happened to those people, that at the time L dies are mostly adults? I think they would surely be the first choices, just because they are older. They don't even have to be individually the smartest people, because they can work together. I will always think that A and B's generation is also L's, so it would make sense that after A's death, the project was put on hold for a while, so nobody was actually chosen from the 2nd and 3rd generation (still debatable - do they actually exist or Mello’s came immediately after?). They probably weren't even introduced to the idea of a successor programme, so they had no idea of that, and only after, as L was getting more well known (and maybe even after B's attempt to ruin him or whatever he wanted to do) or when he started the Kira case, the successor programme was reinstalled. Still, no one is forcing anyone to be L. Near and Mello want to win, to be him. As Mello could just walk out of the Wammy’s, they could also say, fuck no, but they didn't. True that the Wammy’s could idolise L, but if we take as canon what he said to the kids and the fact that some began to dislike him, he doesn't want to be seen as an idiol and the kids are not brainwashed into thinking that.

#whatever this is just me rambling #I could go on about how it's so obvious that Wammy’s has no classes about teaching people #to be detectives which I often see in fics #also. I know what Aizawa and Matsuda say after coming back from the Wammy’s #but I think it's just a very generalised view of the orphanage cuz if it's meant to create L's successors #where the hell are all those before Mello and Near? why didn't Roger tell them about L's death too?#because they simply are not there which means that wammy’s is not a L's factory #unless as I said. they all died or went into hiding. which both are highly unlikely #I know it's just ohba's poor writing here but you know. I was thinking about this while cleaning #death note #wammy’s house #l lawliet #mihael keehl #nate river #dn.general

35 notes · View notes

disabledunitypunk · 7 months

Text

I wanna talk about a real problem in marginalized communities, but especially the disabled community.

The conflation of "privilege" with "oppression".

Here's two examples that I'm directly pulling from experience.

I am not intellectually disabled. I have fluctuating cognitive disabilities, but I have privilege over people with intellectual disabilities.

I also have significantly disabling chronic illness to the point where at times I have not been able to engage with hobbies due to being too sick. Disabled people who are less sick and more able to pursue activities they enjoy have privilege over me.

It's something that's not neat and simple, either. An intellectually disabled person who is able to engage with hobbies vs me? We would essentially both have privilege over each other on different axes. You can't then determine that one of us is ultimately generally more privileged than the other, because that's not how it works. Like if you have privilege x and they have privilege y, it isn't x-y=positive or negative privilege. You can't "solve" that equation because x and y aren't variables that can be substituted for number values.

So, first taking the example of hobbies - a recent controversial post we made that invited harassment. People were quick to tell us what our own experience was and that we weren't experiencing ableism - because they had had the privilege of never experiencing it. That was lateral ableism, and not okay.

Note: There may be people who DIDN'T have that privilege who were also saying the same - though everyone I saw talking about this specifically mentioned their ability to do hobbies, and that was who the main part of my response was directed at. However, I even specifically responded briefly to any people who were doing that - much more gently - to basically say that if they were being assimilationist out of fear that they didn't have to be, and to remind them that they aren't bad if they can't have hobbies.

On the other hand, way back when I first started this blog, I talked about reclaiming the r slur as someone who had significant trauma from being called it as a kid. I talked about how the reason I was called it was specifically because of my social issues due to my developmental disorders while being a gifted kid.

To make it clear - I was called the r slur for not understanding social cues and rules as a "smart" kid, because that's one of the things it meant to them. They weren't insulting my intellectual intelligence, but rather my social ability - at most, you could argue they were insulting my social intelligence - which having a low amount of WAS actually a feature of my disabilities.

I also spoke about how I wasn't reclaiming it to continue treating it as a bad thing, to insult even just myself, but rather to say "so what if I am? that's not bad". Y'know, the whole point of reclaiming.

I was told what my own experience was and that I was experiencing misdirected ableism because they were actually insulting traits I didn't have and therefore they were actually hurting intellectually disabled people but not me. Not because they had the privilege not to experience what I did - but because me having privilege was treated as the right to tell me I had never experienced the ableism they had.

They were treated not just as the experts on ableism against intellectual disabilities - which they are, of course - but also the experts on ableism against people who specifically DON'T have intellectual disabilities when it takes the same or similar forms as ableism against intellectual disabilities.

We all know that bigots don't wait to find out your correct identity before attacking you. We all know that there are identities commonly mistaken for others, that can set you up for repeated abuse over an identity you don't have. But what we refuse to acknowledge is that there are types of bigotry that can manifest identically in some ways for two different identities - and that anyone who experiences that bigotry is an expert on it and deserves to have a place in the conversation about it.

Someone with intellectual disabilities fundamentally cannot know that people without intellectual disabilities DON'T face the same kind of ableism on the basis of other disabilities that person DOES have because they have not ever lived that experience, just as, say, I couldn't say that an intellectually disabled person never faces specific kinds of ableism I face due to being a wheelchair user, because I am not intellectually disabled.

What I can say: "I face these types of ableism because of these disabilities and this is how they manifest."

What I can't say, because it is erasure and lateral ableism no matter my relative privilege: "You don't face this type of ableism for [disability I don't have] because it's exclusive to [disability I have] and any ableism that manifests that way is actually an attack on me."

Fundamentally, you cannot say that someone with a different disability DOESN'T face a specific type of ableism because you are not an authority on the experience of that disability. You are an expert on the experience of your disability. You cannot claim exclusive experiences because to do so, you would have to experience the disabilities you don't have while also not experiencing the ones you do. You would have to verify experiences that you simply don't have - in multiple places and contexts and presentations and as multiple people.

Oh wait, there's a simpler way to do that.

Listen to people about their experiences of their own disabilities and the ableism they face for it.

(Plaintext: Listen to people about their experiences of their own disabilities and the ableism they face for it.)

It's not ableist to say "no, you aren't the only disability that faces this ableism" or "no, it isn't targeted at you when it's aimed at me" or "actually, bigots also use [slur] to mean [definition specifically attacking my disability]". It is however ableist to tell people that because they have an axis of privilege over you, they can't talk about their own oppression on an entirely different axis because you've decided that experiencing similar oppression means you're the only person who experiences said oppression.

Or to put it more simply: Experiencing a type of ableism does NOT give you the right to speak over others when they say they experience it too for different reasons. Having something bad happen to you as a group does not give you proof that you're the ONLY group it happens to.

"X is caused by y, therefore x is ONLY caused by y" is quite literally a logical fallacy. It's called fallacy of the single cause (at least it's a nice obvious name, honestly).

This is the same discourse as cripplepunk. In fact, it's the primary motivator behind most slur discourse, and the reason why I'd honestly rather have blanket permission issued within oppressed groups I'm in* for everyone to reclaim in good faith** any slur that affects that group.

**What does "reclaim in good faith" mean? It means reclaiming only for self-usage, and only for self-usage specifically in a positive way - so no "ugh, I'm such a useless cripple", for example. True reclamation does require use of it against you/your disability in the first place, however, part of not being a cop about it is assuming that anyone who uses it in a positive sense for self-labeling has in fact experienced that. In short, it involves believing people about the oppression they explicitly say or imply through their reclamation that they've experienced.

*Note: I am specifically NOT a person of color or a member of an oppressed ethnoreligion/ethnicity, and recognize that dynamics of racial and ethnic oppression may be unique in some ways. However in disabled, queer, plural, alterhuman, and other marginalized spaces I do occupy, these are my feelings.

It is lateral ableism to tell another disabled person that they haven't experienced a type of ableism or didn't experience it due to their ACTUAL disability and therefore have no right to reclaim what was used to hurt them.

It is ableism to say "the bullet meant to shoot you, that hit you, was designed in part to hurt me, and therefore any time someone is shot with it, it was actually an attack on me. Hand over the bullet and never keep it or use it as you please again or you're basically shooting me with a different bullet." (For those that struggle with metaphors, the bullets are ableism.)

It's ducks saying that deer have no right to reclaim shotgun shells. Yes, slugs are more common than buckshot, but there's literally a type of the same exact kind of ammo designed for use on the deer too. In just the same way, some slurs and other forms of ableism are more typically used against one group but even have a (sometimes identical) variant specifically designed for use against other groups. "Mental cripple" and "retard" for sociodevelopmental disabilities are prime examples of this.

This is a wider problem in marginalized communities. "If you have any privilege at all, ever, you need to sit down and shut up about your own experiences. Only our least privileged members are the experts on any of our experiences. They make the rules about which of your own experiences you're allowed to talk about and what you're allowed to say about them." What's important to note, is that this is coming as much from the members with said privilege as the ones without.

And yes, this is an EXTREMELY insular community issue, but it's not mutually exclusive to the fact that large portions of the community DON'T listen to the less privileged ones about their own experiences! Just like the hobbies example (which, I know people may dismiss or cry 'false equivalence', but I want to again note that it primarily affects bedbound people who are too sick to do things they enjoy, and therefore less privileged by any metric).

I specifically referenced that example because it's exactly more privileged members speaking over less privileged members about the less privileged members' OWN experiences.

In fact, I'd say it's in fact a RESPONSE to that kind of being spoken over. It's an extreme pendulum swing in the other direction - "you need to shut up and LISTEN to us about our experiences". Which, if it stopped there, would be perfect! It's the part that follows it - "therefore, if we experience something, we're the ONLY people who are allowed to talk about it and the only people who even experience it".

I've seen time and time again, too, that even if you conclusively prove you experience something, the goalposts just get moved.

"Well, you experience it but not systemically."

"Okay, but you experienced it less."

"It didn't hurt you as much because it was meant to hurt me instead."

"Well, you're probably reclaiming it as an insult." (despite no proof of such, or even proof to the contrary)

"Well, if you experienced it systemically and it did hurt you and you experienced it just as much, it's actually because of [other identity that we begrudgingly acknowledge is affected] and not [identity that you say actually caused you to experience it] and it therefore isn't even [same type of bigotry] but [completely different type] instead."

"Well, even if you experienced it systemically as much as I did, it still hurts me more because it's about my identity and not yours, even though you were the one literally being attacked with it."

And if all that fails it's "no, that's not why you experienced it" or "no, you didn't experience that".

All examples I touched on earlier in this post, but still important to talk about specifically.

The person being hurt by a type of ableism, including slurs, is the person who they are being used against, period. It doesn't matter if they have "the right" disability. It doesn't matter what group the slurs or ableism is primarily used against. The bigots are TRYING to hurt the person they are specifically using the bigotry against, and that person is the one who ends up hurt by it. Full stop, no argument.

And if someone is hurt by a word, especially repeatedly, they have a right to reclaim it. Period.

At the end of the day, does this matter all that much? It's just community microaggressions, right?

Here's my feelings on it: I'm never going to let petty infighting get in the way of fighting for total disabled liberation. Just because some individuals are guilty of lateral ableism doesn't mean I won't fight for a world in which they face no ableism. It would be ableist of me to leave them behind over something like this. Not to mention, there's no need for anyone to be considered an authority on ableism in a world where there is none.

That being said, it is still a minor hurdle on the way to disabled liberation. If we police our own community and shut down discussions of ableism, how can we effectively fight for our right to not be policed or shut down by abled people? We're demonstrating that it's acceptable behavior.

You can argue all you want that abled people should recognize that it's different and they don't have a voice in the conversation - but what about those who are explicitly telling abled people that it's okay to shut down THESE disabled people talking about THEIR experiences because they're privileged invaders in the conversation and abled people should use their privilege over us to act as an even higher authority and stop us?

What about the conflicting messages of "abled people use your power over these disabled people to force them not to talk about the ableism they experience, but not these OTHER disabled people doing the same thing".

It's one thing to make a blanket statement to say "hey, if someone is actually attacking the validity of a disabled (or any marginalized) identity or talking over them about their own experiences, then shut that down". Saying a given marginalized identity doesn't exist or is inherently harmful is always bad. Talking over someone on their OWN experiences, when they are simply talking about things they've directly experienced, is always bad. I don't think it's the end of the world to say "use your privilege to shut down ableism" to abled people.

The problem is telling abled people that someone TALKING about their own legitimate experiences is bad and it's okay to shut it down. Abled people should not ever be given permission to do so - whether using their own judgment or just doing so on the word of disabled people.

Even besides that, though, it's still ableism, and lateral ableism is also a barrier in the way of total disabled liberation. It is an active threat to unity, to our ability to organize and demand change. We can fight to remove it from our communities while still focusing our energy primarily outward on fighting for liberation within the larger abled world.

Finally, it's an issue because it creates more hierarchies to solve existing ones. It says "instead of addressing the actual ableism, we're just going to flip it so you're the one experiencing it instead". It's like the so-called "feminists" that just want a matriarchy. It's not about creating a safer environment, it's about being the one to perpetrate the harm currently being done to you.

So, in cases where neither group has any real systemic power over each other, it doesn't even do that - it simply creates an environment where the original harm continues to be perpetuated while another new harm occurs. It devolves into a petty slap fight, distracting from actual liberation while also causing both parties to be hurt. That's not acceptable praxis. It's not praxis at all.

Even with the harm being small in scale, it's still not okay. Two injustices don't make a justice, just as two wrongs don't make a right.

This is very much something we need to address - in disabled spaces being my focus here - but also in queer, plural, alterhuman, and other marginalized spaces. And all of stems from the idea that "privilege" is the same as having the power to oppress someone. It's the idea that if you have an axis of privilege over another person with the same overall marginalized identity as you, that you are equivalent to being nonmarginalized compared to them and therefore disagreeing with them in any way about your OWN marginalized experiences is bigotry.

Functionally, it's that you're a bigoted privileged invader of marginalized spaces if you dare to have an opinion on a shared type of oppression. And speaking as a transfemmasc person, mayyyyyybe we should actually kill that rhetoric forever.

#ableism #privilege #oppression #reclamation #cw guns #fwiw it seems people who are MORE privileged are MORE willing and likely to harass over this #while less privileged people are more likely to block #and I cannot overstate that harassment is never acceptable #which is why we also have a hard rule about simply ignoring or blocking when we're the ones in a position of privilege #and that should be your rule too #(I mean engaging respectfully if you disagree is fine either way tbc)#just having been on both sides it would not be okay for me in the cases where I am less privileged to tell people what they experience #in fact that's the whole reason I created this blog #cripplepunk discourse led me to advocate for all neurodivergent people being able to reclaim cripple and being included in cripplepunk #if they wanted to be and found meaning in doing so #because 1. cripple is not a physical-disability-exclusive slur #and 2. neurodivergence can be physically disabling #so if there was a movement that centered physical disability that didn't gatekeep a universal disabled slur #people physically disabled by their neurodivergence should STILL not be told that they're wrong/lying about that experience #and should be let into the space on the basis of their neurophysical disabilities #also a lot of times the posts that are like 'able-bodied NDs do not derail' are talking about experiences that both groups experience #and it's not 'derailing' to say 'hey I experience this too for a different reason!' even if said reason is not at all physically disabling #I've seen SO MANY physically disabled people say 'neurodivergent people don't experience this!!1'#and just sat there going 'I experienced this as a neurodivergent person before I became physically disabled for YEARS #and continue to do so due at least in part to my neurodivergence now that I have a physical disability that could also contribute to it #anyway #mod stars #unitypunk

26 notes · View notes

fideidefenswhore · 4 months

Text

@bunniesandbeheadings I might misunderstand the text you linked. How could Mary call Edward a bastard? KoA was dead by then, and of course widowers can remarry. Calling Jane a legitimate Queen in no way would take away KoA’s status as Queen?

all of hviii's marriages after catherine of aragon were not recognised by the catholic church/pope. when he needed dispensations for these marriages, like for affinity (his marriage to jane was one of them), they were granted by the anglican church, whose authority the pope and other catholic monarchies of christendom did not recognise (the last real 'papal' henrician appointment, irony of ironies, was thomas cranmer's). there was also the matter of all marriages taking place when the realm was in schism, thus "all other women of henry concubines and not wives". prince edward was (legitimate) heir as reified by parliament; both retroactively from the succession act of 1536 and in name by the one of 1543.

foreign dignitaries of course, when they visited, would honour whoever henry's wife was as queen to maintain good relations and as matter of diplomacy (this wasn't, of course, done by the imperial until the last weeks of AB's time as queen, but otherwise, she was, even if 'frostily' by the french as in 1534). but they were often under instruction to treat this status as transient, as lauren mackay has summarized in her biography of chapuys, for example, charles v was rather mercenary in his attitude towards jane seymour, continually referring to her as henry's 'mistress' well into their marriage in his own instructions to chapuys:

"It appears Charles [V] was at times rather ruthless in regards to Jane, despite the fact that her being in power benefitted Mary. Charles referred to her in several dispatches as Henry's mistress rather than queen [...]" Inside the Tudor Court, Lauren Mackay

#bunniesandbeheadings #replies #there's like the question of why mary did not attempt to overthrow edward while he was king if she didn't believe his reign was legitimate #which is an interesting one...#but 1) her biographers really discount how much of a dissembler she was #2) loades theorized that she actually did buy into the henrician supremacy and her own illegitimacy and simply had a turnaround once #edward died believing that was god's sign she was the rightful heir thus legitimate...which i find an oversimplistic explanation. to say #the least...#i think psychologically in the last years of the edwardian regime she had something of a redeux of the AB years?#this belief england was going to fall into perdition due to 'evil councilors' but she couldn't do anything to reverse it #which is why there's an escape attempt not just an escape plan as in the former but she also decides against this in the last hour #so yes. what was her plan? or hope? it might've been that edward vi would be excommunicated as he reached his majority #and that charles v took up the call to invade and england became one of his dominions #and she would be set up as regent as he set up his other female relatives as regent in his absence #idk if i'd say jane being in power benefitted mary. all the 'benefits' she received came from her swearing to oaths she'd been pressurized #to swear to for the past two years...?#anyway this was illuminating and instructive. to me. it best explains imo why she took such a defiant attitude towards edward. she wouldn't #have seen it as defiant if she didn't believe in his authority in the first place

12 notes · View notes

monstermoviedean · 2 years

Text

honestly i respect kripke for peacing out after s5 but personally. if i wrote a show where the bad guys spent two full seasons trying to convince the good guys that fate is fate, all roads lead to the same destination, you will always end up here. and if i took pains to write that that's bullshit because love is stronger than fate, you can make it up as you go, you can write your own story. and my successors chose to end the show by saying well actually, fate wins and you can't change anything. i would quite simply destroy them.

#eric 'my ending would have been worse' kripke cmere i wanna talk #your ending may have been more tragic and heartwrenching but your tragedies always had a point #there was always something behind them #this was just cruelty #there was no reason for any of this #and it undermines the entire message of the show which is you DO matter your choices matter and your love matters #and i simply would have been angry that they butchered my boys like that #i get why at that point he didn't care but also i don't because those are our boys man...and they butchered them...#spn

322 notes · View notes

recitedemise · 2 months

Text

𝗚𝗮𝗹𝗲, 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲, 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗲. After ridding himself of the orb at last, in fact, the wizard becomes a force that's once more unstoppable. He can cast spells without a word, capable of summoning infernos with a wave, and the ease in which he harnesses storms is frightening, but only as frightening as it is an art. Of course, Gale, however, had proved long ago his more prodigious talent. Still, to see him in action beats just listening to this talk. Gale is powerful, relearning all that he'd lost with alarming speed, and that's all a testament to his blinding brilliance--and, of course, his ingrained ambition. With the orb, the wizard had to limit all manner of casting. He had to sate his hunger, was forced to draw back as to not tempt fate, and with the orb in place snuffing his most powerful spells, was something of a tempest in a thick glass cage. However, with the orb finally gone, those limits have at last been lifted. He had became a level 12 wizard with a hell of a handicap, and with that handicap absent beyond its lingering scar, it's like all his previous mastery finally returned--and with force, mind you, like a strike of lightning. In a way, one could compare him to a runner stripped of their weights. He'd learned unparalleled control with an arcane bomb strapped, but now no longer fearing his imminent explosion, is free, as goes the metaphor, to cast a god damned marathon. And Gale is learned. Rather, he's disgustingly learned. He knows all schools of magic, is qualified to teach every field in Blackstaff, and he doesn't serve his city or own his own floating realm, but he'll once again become archwizard in those ways that matter--in his ability to cast and his hellish ferocity. Maybe he won't become as great as he had been with Mystra, but as a former chosen, it's a helluvan accomplishment. In time, Gale Dekarios becomes Gale, professor at Blackstaff, but as a testament to his ability, the city again warms to the idea of Gale of Waterdeep--because she's really only one Gale one could possibly need.

Of course, he doesn't advocate for the title... But it still delights him.