To that anon that asked me about why I still follow a certain person, I hope you can understand that I do not want hate for this. I am very much unaffected by the choice of belief someone else has. And while I know that others don't like or care for that person, I still do enjoy the art and writing by that person. Their choice of belief doesn't really matter to me, especially since that person hasn't ever done anything to anyone that was harmful, that I know of. Everyone is free to dislike someone, but I don't feel it necessary to hate anyone, especially over beliefs.

Please understand that I am not attacking anyone, nor do I advocate for hate of anyone really.

Hi!

I have a question if i may?

What are some kinks that seem harmless but aren't?

Because a while back I heard that there is the potential to royally screw up if you pull someones hair and i absolutely did not expect that. So now i am curious if there are more kinks like this.

Thx in advance!

hi anon,

god I was so afraid that this was going to be a question asking me to name which kinks are actually morally wrong and inexcusable and if that was the case I was going to have to eat your head off your body, so I'm really glad that this is just a solid good question instead!

the short answer: potentially any of them.

the longer answer: potentially any of them. even the most vanilla sexual practices have the capacity for someone to get hurt if participants aren't careful; please consider all of the "broken hymens" that are actually just vaginal tearing as a result of people with no prior experience not using enough lubricant to have sex comfortably.

once you start adding more complicated actions and accessories into the mix, obviously the potential for injury increases exponentially. hair pulling, biting, scratching, slapping and other forms of impact play, bondage, breath play, primal play, anything involving bodily fluids, playing with fire or electricity or knives - all of that stuff can get you hurt, no matter how knowledgeable and careful you and your partner(s) are. even activities that might take place mostly with words and the imagination, like roleplay and denigration, can cause emotional harm if people's wires get crossed.

this is one of the big reasons why many folks involved in kink have shed the classic SSC (safe, sane, and consensual) in favor of risk aware consensual kink, or rack. the inclusion of the word "safe" may be setting some misleading expectations, so that's been cycled in in favor of "risk aware," meaning participants are expected to be made fully aware of everything that could potentially go wrong so that they can give the most informed consent possible and, hopefully, make plans with their partner(s) for what to do if the worst does come. (many sex educators have pivoted from talking about "safe sex" to "safer" or "protected" sex for similar reasons, as a reminder that things can always go wrong and few forms of protection are guaranteed to work perfectly every time.)

the inherent risk is one of the biggest reasons why it's so important that the kink community has flourishing spaces to meet up, attend workshops and demos, and otherwise learn from more experienced folks who can teach interested newbies the rope (as it were) and help them play as safely as possible.

jewish people online:

yeah we have to block and report people constantly because they post misinformation, harass us, send death threats, doxx us, send sexual harassment threats, go after our friends, and generally destroy our mental health. there's not really any super well known lists of people to block and report because ever jew has a different threshold of what they can handle seeing and want to see. some people do share information especially about particularly violent people to keep others safe. we'd really like it if more people spoke up about antisemitism but at the very least just leave us alone and fact check things

antizionists anti-israel (totally just the government) anti jewish people:

we've curated a huge list of celebrities and influencers for you to block because they haven't talked about our special cause (palestine) yet! we do not encourage you to make critical decisions about who you're blocking and why and instead we want you to just block every single person who doesn't talk about palestine. no we don't care that a lot of celebrities accounts aren't even controlled by them and are instead accessed mostly by members of their staff. its just common knowledge that the best form of activism is getting mad at famous people! then people look at those people and realize how bad they are -- wait what do you mean?? we're exposing these celebrities to more people and some of those people actually agree with them?? they could even gain support? or even if they lose followers they might have a smaller audience that's more interactive?? no no wait that can't be right. also when people post things without checking for misinformation because they fear losing support or even income it can actually harm palestinians?? because the aid is probably going to hamas instead? wait how is that bad hamas are our freedom fighters!! anyway ugh all this is making my head hurt those (((zionists))) are controlling the media

opinion on the university protests and the police response:

I think it's reasonable to take measures to remove the encampments and keep jewish students safe. The universities have that right. This may well need to include police, however those police should not have potentially lethal weapons when the students do not have the same.

Them bringing guns into the situation makes it much more likely that someone will be killed, and as much as I disagree with the encampments strategy and hate the horrific things they're saying, I hold firm to the fact that I do not want people to die.

If there are not measures taken to ensure that the police are not being violent in their arrests, whether that includes firearms or not, this has the potential to become an even more horrific situation.

The protesters: Their strategy isn't going to bring about any meaningful change and only serves to escalate and inflame the situation and cause harm to more people. They might feel good and righteous and like they're fulfilling all their protagonist dreams, but they are not helping. also they are literally holding hezbollah flags. They are actively making Jewish students unsafe, and are very far out of line.

[EDIT: I incorrectly said that the police were the ones responsible for the kent state shootings in this next bit, when it was in actuality the national guard. The point still stands concerning weaponized government forces being used on college campuses, but that particular example does not apply to the organization of the police specifically.]

The police: They have a history of extreme violence in response to protests, including on college campuses (kent state shootings), and are already an absolutely fucked institution. They aren't likely to approach this in a peaceful way, and will make it more likely for people to be hurt or killed.

Both groups are going to escalate this already tense situation, I don't have a quick solution, but i think we just need to acknowledge this.

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this but I gotta start somewhere. I've been learning a lot about indigenous history and activism as I work on deconstruction, and a sentiment I come across a lot is bitterness towards Christianity. I cannot emphasize enough how much I fully understand. The rough bit is that sometimes when I read their work, I get the implication that there's nothing worth saving in the Church/Christianity- that to hold on to it is to hold on to all the colonialism and white supremacy and yuck.

As a disabled trans Christian, I get that, but it still hurts. I love God and am a Christian despite everything. I want to be an ally to indigenous people, but I want to follow God this way too. I know those aren't mutually exclusive, but it feels that way sometimes. Do you have any insight for me to find peace in this regard?

Thank you.

Hey there, thanks for the question, sorry for the delay!

This is something I've also wrestled with — a question I ask myself over and over, and probably always will. I cannot offer you peace, because as Jeremiah 6:14 says, "There is no peace!" — not while our faith continues to be wielded as a weapon against so many peoples. What I can offer you are some of the thoughts that have allowed me to continue to be Christian with hope that this faith can be better than what it's long been misused for, and the resolve to do my part to make it so.

First, that Christianity isn't unique in being co-opted by colonialist powers.

Any belief system can be twisted for violence, and many have been. If Christianity didn't exist, white supremacy still would — colonialist powers would have found a different belief system to twist into justifying their evils.

That absolutely does not absolve us from reckoning with the evils that have been done in Christianity's name! This isn't about shutting down critiques of Christianity with "uh well it could have been any religion" — as things played out, Christianity is the religion responsible for so much harm, and we need to acknowledge that and listen to groups who tell us how we can make some form of reparations.

But for me at least, there is some comfort in understanding that Christianity isn't, like, inherently evil or something. Recognizing that it isn't unique even in its flaws helps me look at the problem with clearer eyes, rather than wallowing in guilt and shame, if that makes sense.

Next, that there are Indigenous Christians, and Black Christians, and other Christians of color — that oppressed peoples have found things worth cultivating within Christianity! If they can find something worthwhile in this faith, it would be arrogance for me to deny it.

For instance, even when white slaveholders edited Bibles to remove too much discussion of liberation, even when white preachers emphasized verses about slaves being obedient to their masters, many enslaved people recognized how Christian faith actually affirms their equality and the holiness of their desire for liberation.

Black Theologian Howard Thurman opens his 1949 book Jesus and the Disinherited with a question asked to him by a Hindu man who knew the harms white Christianity had done to both their peoples: “How can you, a black man, be Christian?” The long and short of Thurman’s answer is that, in spite of the pain and exploitation too often inflicted by Christians in positions of power, the oppressed have always been able to see past that misuse of the Christian message to the true message lived out by Jesus Christ: a message of liberation for all.

For more thoughts on why and how to keep being Christian in spite, in spite, in spite...I invite you to look through my #why we stay tag.

___

How I wish that Christianity had never gotten tangled up in Empire! but it did, and it still is, and because for good or ill I cannot help that my spirit is stubbornly drawn towards the Triune understanding of the Divine, the best I can do is to use my privilege and what small influence I have within Christian institutions to move us towards decolonization. What some of that's looked like on the level of my personal beliefs:

I am firmly against any form of proselytizing. I don't support evangelism financially, I speak out against it, I don't platform it. (If someone wants to hear about my faith, they'll come to me — I don't run after them. And if someone does want to have that conversation, I aim to make it a dialogue, where we are learning from each other.)

I continuously work to recognize and uproot Christian supremacy within myself — the beliefs I didn't even realize where there until I started digging. That has included challenging any inkling within myself that Christianity is the "best" or "most right" religion. (One book that's helped a lot with that is Holy Envy by Barbara Brown Taylor.)

I seek wisdom from and relationship with Christians of color. Their insights are vital to our faith, and I try to use what small influence I have to uplift them.

On that last note, here are some resources I recommend as you continue to explore these questions:

This First Nations Version of the Christian Bible is gorgeously written, and a great way to explore scripture through a Native lens.

Native by Kaitlin B. Curtice is a lovely poetic memoir that explores how one person has sought to hold both her Christian faith and Potawatomi identity within herself. (She also has a new book out that I haven't read yet but really want to!)

God is Red: A Native View of Religion by Vine Deloria Jr.

Rescuing the Gospel from the Cowboys by Richard Twiss

I haven't read any of these 4 books but they look good too

This video with advice to non-Indigenous Christians

If anyone has any resources to add, please do!

You reblogged that one post a while ago that said crowley loves mischief but only the kind of mischief that doesn't hurt people and what he actually wants is to be kind and that azi loves kindness and being kind but that he wants to be be free to be selfish sometimes and i think it captures it.

There is no good one and no bad one because they're both good. They have flaws but not bad flaws. They care, they're selfless, they're kind, and they want to do the right thing. Neither of them would ever want to hurt or harm anyone, not the other and not humans or whoever. The hurt sometimes caused like in the final 15 isn't caused by intention or hurt pride or whatever but because they care so much about the other, because they want the other to be safe and happy. The key here isn't that either of them is bad but the miscommunication and azi's refusal to let go of heaven and heal (everything you listed in response to the first nonny). The intentions towards each other and in general are and have always been good. That's what makes it so tragic yet beautiful.

Mhhhhmh I am making a very undecided noise right now.

Neither of them is bad OR good. No one is, and that's part of the point—the entire dichotomy from start to finish is nothing but a purely imaginary construct that has no factual basis. Angels aren't good, demons aren't bad, that divide is arbitrary and subjective.

If you were to ask Michael or Uriel if they're good they'd tell you yes, they are, and they believe it. They're angels, of course they're good! To them, morality is not decided by actions, there are two options and you don't get to choose.

To quote NG and TP:

Everyone is fundamentally people, including every single angel and demon, which makes Crowley just Crowley and Aziraphale just Aziraphale.

They can choose to be kind, they can choose to harm people, they can choose to protect—everyone has the capacity for both 'good' and 'bad' actions, and no one will always do only one kind.

Crowley does find fun in hurting people, e.g. the paintball scene, and while his moral compass is more down to earth (pun intended) than Aziraphale's he isn't a saint. He is never intentionally cruel, sure, but he also doesn't intervene e.g. when Morag is dying, he still scares Job's kids, he kills a duck (then brings it back for Aziraphale), and he has no qualms doing his little hypnotizing act if it makes a situation more convenient for him.

Aziraphale, boy, Aziraphale is in some aspects worse than Crowley. The way he talks about poor people alone is horrific, he hoards books and actively scares and manipulates people to keep them away, he uses humans like PUPPETS during the ball, he tells Wee Morag Elspeth will go to hell with a smile on his face. His morality is equally complex and makes him just Aziraphale.

Not good or bad. Just themselves. They do kind acts and nice acts, harmful acts and selfish ones, and so on and on.

Side note: Aziraphale doesn't actually care that much about individual humans but rather humanity tm as a group, while Crowley does actively care about the occasional single human and is more personal in his interactions with him.

Btw for y'all using abusive people with cluster b disorders (especially npd & aspd) as an excuse to not support us as a whole: not having any proper support system for the disorder and the heavy stigma is literally why there are so many people with these disorders that aren't getting the help they need. It actively pushes more of us away from looking to get help when all we see about the disorder is that admitting we have it will make us loose so much support and be treated like monsters for the rest of our lives.

"Okay so I just support the ones who are getting help" no. You are still part of the problem. All of us deserve support for our disorders regardless, the idea that our support for our mental health is conditional is blatant ableism. You either support all of us on this level or your support isn't real. An individuals shitty actions will never justify being ableist about their disorder.

Not to mention when we aren't doing better, whether that is projected outwardly and hurting other people, inwardly, or both, that is when we need that support the most. It doesn't mean you are supporting us hurting people, no one is saying you should, including those of us with these disorders who do have a history of it causing harmful behavior. We are simply saying that we still deserve to have our disorder supported, us having access to basic things like mental health treatment supported, how our disorder affects us supported, not being treated differently for having the disorder by itself and for non harmful symptoms. If you loose that type of support for any of us because of those of us who are harmful to others, you are ableist.

Archive-locking the fics that YOU WROTE and are thus 100% yours to decide what to do with 'hurting people' is so silly tbh. Skill issue on their part. Wish those people could be normal about the amazing fics that writers like you put out & be understanding or at the very least respectful of the choices that writers make about how and where they make their fics available. Especially in light of recent ai training theft and nonsense & all that.

I hope this doesn't sour the fic writing & sharing experience for you too much. I love your writing & think you're very talented & skilled!

There seem to be dual attitudes I'm coming up against recently (and obviously these are not held by everyone, I don't even know that they are held by a majority, but they are certainly held by a plurality).

The first is that authors should be grateful that readers deign to read what they put out there. I think this stems from the "content creation" mentality and the idea that everyone who posts things wants as massive as an audience as possible (for monetization purposes which... isn't a thing in fanfic). I think this mindset also leads to readers demanding that people write specific tropes/pairings/whatever, or threatening basically to take their business elsewhere. "Nobody will read unless you do [X]." 1. Not true and 2. Okay, you weren't my audience.

(I also think authors circulating those posts about how badly they want comments/kudos feeds this mentality of readers doing authors a favor by even clicking on the fic. "Wow, if people are so desperate for attention, then mine must be worth an awful lot!")

Fanfic ain't a business, and I write for myself. Readers choosing to read my work isn't a privilege or an honor they are bestowing upon me (nor are comments for that matter), just as me posting my writing where they can see it isn't a privilege or an honor for them. We are both engaging in hobbies and a love of some media, and sometimes we will overlap and connect and sometimes we won't. Readers aren't reading out of altruism for attention-starved authors, and authors aren't writing out of altruism for content-hungry readers.

And there are those who will read these paragraphs above and think to themselves "wow, what an ungrateful author," and that's exactly the attitude I'm talking about. Don't get me wrong, it's delightful and rewarding to receive comments on fics and chat with people about Blorbo and the Situations. But it should be delightful from both sides of the exchange, or why the hell are we doing this? If I'm meant to be grateful for every commenter who jumps into my inbox, then every commenter in my inbox better be grateful for me, and I can tell you right now there is a population who is not. There is a population who sees me as a service provider for their entertainment, and whatever form I take in their brain, it is not shaped like a full person.

This attitude also leads to people thinking that things like lorefm are no big deal. Don't I want to get my work in front of more eyeballs (or ears)? Don't I want to broaden my audience? And once I put my work out there for readers to see, should I be shocked (or express any negative emotions at all) when someone plagiarizes/scrapes it for AI/demands updates rudely/reads it on a monetized youtube channel/binds it and sells it for profit?

The other idea I've been coming up against is almost the opposite of this--that because some readers form attachments to fic, deleting that fic (or even archive-locking it!) is actively harming those readers. Sure, they can't be bothered to hit the download button or get an AO3 account, but that's no reason not to think of these strangers first before doing what I want with my creative output.

Yall, life is ephemeral. There are things we will see and enjoy and never find again for one reason or another, and it's not harm being done to us, it's just the nature of existence. Having an emotional reaction to something does not give you any sort of ownership over that thing. Artists are allowed to change their minds about whether they want that art in the wild, particularly given that it's free. Maybe it's because I utilize the library a lot, but reading a book and then losing access to that book is not a crime against you, it's just a normal thing that happens. If you read something and it means that much to you, there are ways to avoid losing it (download it).

Seeing this particular attitude extend out to "not making your fic available for as many people to read as possible is harming them" is beyond bizarre. If I woke up tomorrow and deleted everything I have ever written, there would still be thousands upon thousands upon thousands of beautiful, emotional, meaningful fics out there for people to read. They would lack for nothing. Would some people be upset? Probably. Would I be hurting them? No, not really.

Sometimes people have negative emotions because of our actions, but that doesn't mean we did anything to them. This is one of those times.

Lastly, this AI and everything else bullshit really has taken a toll on my enthusiasm for posting my work. It's one thing for companies to try to pillage every thought, every word, every stroke of a pen or paintbrush to enrich themselves while actively making the planet an unbearable and inhospitable place to live, it's another when fellow fans are telling you that "Whelp that's just life, what did you expect, give us your content anyway or you're a bad person and if you complain, then I'll be taking my business elsewhere, you sensitive, entitled creative, lol."

If the core of your activism isn't a deep, profound love for vulnerable people then like...idk what's the fucking point? I fight terfs because I love trans people. I fight nazis bcs I love jewish and romani and queer and disabled people. I fight racism because so many people I love aren't white. I fight ableism because I love the disabled and mentally ill. I fight fatphobia bcs I love fat people. I fight classism bcs I love poor people. I fight oppression because I love humanity, and I firmly believe that we all deserve a better, kinder world.

And so should it turn out that some facet of my activism is hurting more people than it's helping I want to know so I can stop and reevaluate if such actions are actually worthwhile or if there's something else I could be doing to help. Progress will probably always have some collateral damage, but we should care about minimizing it as much as possible bcs I don't want to hurt vulnerable people while trying to fight for them.

Telling bad people to kill themselves does not make the world a better place. It isn't a substitute for deplatforming, or being aware of dogwhistles, or protesting, raising money or charity, volunteering, educating yourself and the people in your community, voting in local elections or showing up at city council meetings, just giving some cash to an unhoused person, or doing things that actually make our spaces safe for the people who need our help. All it does is hurt trauma victims and the mentally ill. And tbh it will probably get your account banned, which is what the bigots want. You're silencing yourself FOR them. So why not stop doing it and start doing something that will actually make positive change.

And it's okay to be angry. It's important to be angry! And no one is arguing that you have to be nice to nazis or racists or fatphobes. They should be deplatformed. But god all I'm fucking asking is for us to care more about helping the oppressed than we do about dunking on bigots online for clout points, especially when said dunking causes real, measurable harm to marginalized people. There are better ways to dismantle the power bigots have garnered, ways that don't make progressive spaces hostile for vulnerable people.

Wouldn't you rather minimize the harm you do to the vulnerable than bulldoze over them in your quest for a better world? Aren't you fighting to protect them? Aren't you showing up because you care about them and want them to have a future? Isn't it all about love in the end??

I just...why is this so hard to grasp? I've never felt more confused. I thought we were doing this out of love. To minimize human suffering. To help people. But I guess that was just me being naive. Sorry.

Goddesses That Would Be Better Wonder Woman Antagonists Than Hera

Enough with Hera as a bitter, manipulative, shortsighted hag!!!

WE GET IT! HERA HATES ZEUS'S BASTARD KIDS! SHE GETS MAD ABOUT IT! ENOUGH! SHE HAS OTHER TRAITS!

*Cough*

I'm so sick of media making Hera a flat, hysterical cunt, especially compared to the general moral nuance that her entire pantheon represents. It's just lazy at this point and done to death, and for Wonder Woman to have to fight a woman who's main grievance is being cheated on and generally mistreated by her husband again and again again and again like...optics people.

So here are my choice picks for goddesses of other pantheons (and one Greek on) that would be interesting obstacles to Diana, both ideologically and materially. Also! I say antagonists on purpose, because generally in polytheism, gods aren't truly evil, even if they have negative attributes, it's always more complicated than that, and while these ladies WILL cause some conflict, they're all more than just flat villains. Most could reasonably also be allies, and Diana is all about making her foes into friends.

Skadi

A goddess and Jotunn, Skadi is the queen of bowhunting, skiing and winter, generally. Famous for storming Asgard alone to avenge her father, and being intimidating enough for Odin to choose to attempt to appease her instead, Skadi is intense, and fittingly cold, but also fair and capable of seeing reason. Her tentative truce with Odin and her failed marriage to the god of the summer, Njord, could be ripe to twist into reasons to cast her eye towards current events, both divine and mortal. A proud, mighty giantess that will do what she deems necessary to see justice done to herself? You can do stuff there.

Izanami-no-Mikoto

The Shinto creation deity turned goddess of death, Izanami is upset! Very upset! And fairly so! She's like if Eurydice got really livid after Orpheus ignored her simple instructions and vowed to break all of his little toys. Because that is exactly what happened, they almost have the same myth. As revenge for him messing up her resurrection, Izanami vowed to kill 1k people each day to hurt her husband, Izanagi, the other creator deity. Izanagi responded by making 1.5k new people each day, which...I mean solves maybe the wrong end of the problem but...

Unlike Hera, she poses an active threat to mortals and has the power to make dealing with her difficult. Maybe Diana and Amaterasu have to team up to deal with her insane...uh...step mother? Kind of? It's a little complicated, I'm not going into it, Wikipedia is your friend.

Ishtar

I'm going to be honest she's my mythology blorbo and I made this post for her okay--

The Mesopotamian goddess of love, war, conquest, divine law, the Queen of Heaven, patron of queer folk (No I'm not making that up, she's down for the gays mythologically speaking), Ishtar is complicated, a little strange, and funny, so funny. She's got a short temper, is easily offended, yet is generally fair and uninterested in harm coming to mortals. Her bit thing is how her conquest domain often manifests. She doesn't care about leading armies or whatever, she goes to attempts to swindle or fight other gods for their domains. Her big famous myth is about her hubris in attempting to single-handedly storm the underworld to steal the seat from her sister. She's incredibly powerful and self assured, a little petty, but not cruel. If you want a goddess who will show up, slap Diana down a city block and intend it as a friendly hello, while also vaguely suggesting that they make out, it's Ishtar. She's a perfect occasional antagonist/ally depending on her whims, and she's so disinterested in bothering humanity that you can really have mostly consequence free god fights. An arc where she decides that Ares is starting to embarrass the war god community and she's going to beat his ass and take his job? Diana has to try to get her to stop without offending her and making it a personal problem? Because again this woman is crazy, she has beaten a mountain to death because it wouldn't bow. It was not a sentient mountain. She'd be so much fun!

And we're going to ignore the version of her that showed up in "Black Adam" because that was boring, lame, and focused completely on the sexual angle, because straight men can only focus on one trait at a time--

Pele

Polynesian goddess of volcanoes, Pele fills a lot of the same niche's as Ishtar here, in that her rage and displeasure is catastrophic, befitting the personification of a volcano. Though even as a volcano god she's notably scary, in some tellings the previous volcano god who occupied the volcano she lives in now, caught wind that she was coming in his general direction--not specifically for him mind you, just in his direction--and he fled for his life, vacating the volcano. She's as multifaceted as a volcano though, bringing life as well as destruction. But you know. Her domain IS a natural disaster, so it's not hard to create a scenario where Diana would need to try to stop that from being a thing. Bonus points if she's irritated about the colonization of Hawaii, that could be an interesting narrative for Diana to contend with.

Nemesis

DC dropped the ball here as well, don't look her up, you REALLY don't want to see her design, it's nasty.

Anyway, Nemesis is the goddess of retribution, but SPECIFICALLY for the crime of "hubris" or arrogance against the gods. She punishes you for thinking you're hot stuff in comparison to the divine. She's the reason Narcissus fell in love with his own reflection and died. She did that. She thought he was a bitch, and she was correct. Why is that distinction important? Because she's not just vengeance, she's a tool to defend the honor and ego of the gods. Who in the DC universe would make the Greek gods feel disrespected and threatened? An alien who is willing to punch them in the face perhaps? We could have Diana desperately trying to stop this divine terminator from messing up her super friends who really don't understand the levels of petty the her pantheon is willing to stoop to to save face. Shes a winged warrior goddess with a heart of stone!!! Give us that fight!!!

Anything but Hera!!! Anything!!! Leave her alone!!!!

i hate the side of the deltarune fandom that is like “kris is evil!!1!1! kris is a psychopath who would kill everyone if we werent controlling them!!1!”

like, no. that is actually not factual. stop giving me fanon chara flashbacks. stop making kris out to be a sadistic killer.

this is really inaccurate and honestly kind of annoying. so, here’s some things that show how inaccurate the “kris is evil” speculation is:

kris has broken out of our control before and never directly harms anyone. they had the chance to. they DIDN'T.

the snowgrave route smile? that’s an illusion created by the fence. this may be an intentional illusion, but no, kris is not enjoying this. kris isn’t happy, kris isn’t indifferent. kris is noticed by susie and ralsei to look upset after the frozen chicken incident.

pie eating? tire slashing? dark world opening? if i was being possessed and i just broke free for a moment i would eat an entire pie and be a bit destructive. also, the tire slashing and dark world opening may have been deliberately planned. not sure what the plan is but they aren't trying to hurt people. like i said in my first point, kris did have a knife and instead of stabbing toriel and susie, kris opened a dark world and slashed the tires of their mom’s car. if kris was trying to hurt them, stabbing them with a knife is more efficient than slashing tires and opening a dark world.

at the end of chapter one, kris defends susie. if kris was a sadistic killer, they would’ve just watched. kris actively defended susie.

kris probably isn’t the knight (implied to be a bad guy.) the king and queen probably would’ve recognized them, as they have seen the knight before. kris is not trying to bring about the roaring (which seems to be the knight’s goal) and the roaring would kill everyone so… yeah.

kris tried to tell undyne about dark worlds, and it is implied that kris tried to tell undyne because dark worlds can be dangerous and they didn’t want people to get hurt.

i probably missed some examples but overall, kris probably isn't evil. sure, it’s implied that kris has a dark sense of humor and a mischievous streak, but kris doesn’t seem to want to hurt people. if anything, they seem to be a silly kind of pacifistic outside of our choices.

more fanon things i despise under cut (slightly problematic stuff in first paragraph, very problematic stuff in second paragraph)

oh yeah also, another common fanon misinterpretation. referring to kris with he/him pronouns. no what the fuck why? they are literally only referred to with they/them pronouns in canon. it literally is not that hard. where are you getting “he” from? where?

drawing kris with huge tits is another fanon misinterpretation! if you do this, i will block you. what the actual fuck is wrong with the people who do this? i hate to break it to the fan artists who do this but they’re a minor. that is implied to be nonbinary. but most of all they’re a MINOR. don’t do that. just don’t. that is gross.

anyway thanks for coming to my ted talk.

Matt, Let's Talk

Hello photographer matthew, head bitch in charge of hellsite, let's have a chat. Don't worry, I'm gonna be cool about it, just calm down and take a seat, have some tea.

Matt, you did a transphobia.

I know you say you aren't transphobic and for now, i'll give you the benefit of a doubt on that one and assume it's true, but like, buddy, pallie, salt of the earth, sugar lumpkin doodles, you did a transphobia.

You probably didn't mean to do a transphobia and probably don't like that all us trannies are mad at you right now, but you did a transphobia.

I know what predstrogen said you to hurt your feelings, i get it, you aren't used to having people vaugepost about your death like most of the trans people on this site are. But see, what you do is, ignore it. Or in this case. Step back for a second and realize what's happening is a trans woman was feeling frustrated and scared because people on your site had been harassing her heavily for months on end and the lack of response from your staff made her feel like your staff didn't care about her and maybe was actively rooting for the people who wished her harm. And if you think it was unfair that she felt that way about your staff. Maaaaaaaybe it's actually a sign you need to try harder to focus on making this site safer for trans women.

Maybe if your userbase is so fast to assume your staff and you personally hate trans people, maybe you should be more worried about why we have reached this conclusion rather than being mad it's being said to your face. Because this site does feel like it doesn't give a shit about trans people especially trans women.

Maybe if your staff is working hard to ban transphobes from this site, it means you have a larger problem because transphobes are fucking everywhere man. Like they just are. Several of them have shown up in my inbox recently telling me i should harass a trans woman over things that aren't my fuckin business.

Maybe think that if you are crossing social media sites to pick a fight with the person you banned for the mean words, that you might be the one worrying to much about it especially when predstrogen does not know you nor would have any ability to contact you.

And I get that it's scary when people say violent things about you online, they've said them about me. I actually had to contact the FBI once over things people said to me online. It was leagues worse and leagues more specific than what predstrogen said to you. You need to let it go man, you are the CEO of a company, people are gonna be mad at you sometimes and you have to have thicker skin than coming off a sabbatical to dm random trans women asking why they don't like you.

Just like, say you fucked up man. Say that you did in fact do an accidental transphobia and then try and fix the things that made you think you weren't doing an accidental transphobia. It's not that hard man. Just drop the ego, admit you did a stupid, and try harder.

@tragicallyphosphorescent

You see, the thing about "sociopaths" it's that they're not real. If you open a psychology book, as you apparently hint to have done at some point, you'll discover that the term you're using isn't only scientifically inaccurate, but an outdated and harmful term used to refer to people with ASPD– Anti-Social Personality Disorder. This cluster B disorder is developed as a coping mechanism by people who suffer from childhood neglect, so people demonize literal abuse survivors for their little "serial killer abuser sociopath" fantasy that they saw in their favorite true crime movie. I would love to know where did you get the objective fact that most "sociopaths" don't seek treatment and hurt people.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder, otherwise known as NPD or just "narcissists", is a disorder that's classified in the cluster B category of personality disorders according to the DSM-V, this disorder is also developed because of childhood neglect. People love to armchair diagnose their abusers with this disorder under the ignorant belief that narcissistic people are selfish and that's it, it's used as an interchangeable term, which couldn't be further from reality. So no, I don't believe in "narcissistic abuse". Abuse is just abuse, an abuser is just an abuser, there's no need to slap anything else alongisde that label.

Just because a manifestation of trauma is different it doesn't mean it's bad. People with ASPD and NPD are as likely to abuse someone as a person without them. Lacking empathy doesn't make someone a bad person, empathy is just the capability to instinctually feel another human's feelings, but it's not the same as sympathy or compassion. A good person is one who's actions do good.

Now, I'm not invalidating the abuse anyone has gone through. If you tell me somebody, anybody, abused you, I believe you. But there's no need to demonize disorders in order to find support or validation.

You can find a free PDF of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th edition (DSM-V) easily on the internet, no need to buy the book itself. I suggest you give it a read to clear up that whole "sociopath" thing and to educate yourself more on the narcissistic personality disorder. As a disclaimer, the DSM-V is highly discussed by the neurodivergent community on a regular basis and some individuals, including myself, have a word or two about certain criteria that needs to be met to get a diagnosis, but I'm advising you to read it as a start.

Sincerely, a borderline with fluctuating empathy that's very tired of watching their cluster B siblings get denied treatment and dignity, because in case you didn't know this, lots of us actively seek treatment but get deemed "too hard to treat" or get actively abused by the medic system IF we are even allowed some sort of therapy. As a neurodivergent person, I'd assume you know of the kinds of horrors people like you and me suffer in psych wards, except people with personality disorders and other demonized illnesses still get thrown around and abused since our disorders aren't deemed as "harmless" as people who suffer from depression and anxiety or people with autism.

Was musing on the Aware AU and how the trio internalize and process the abuse and otherwise contextualize or understand and communicate it or otherwise maybe fail to do so.

Because realizing a parent is unfair or doesn't care or is cruel is one thing. It can often be another to straight up be aware of and say you are an abuse victim.

Be it because they are young and thus even with the spread of therapy speak, being able to use it effectively on themselves is hard.

Or because abuse victims don't often look like they do, IE, aren't usually mega rich heirs to powerful names. Even if being a rich child can be rather akin to being an exotic talking pet given none of that money is theirs.

Sad money also makes getting empathy hard and feeling there is a way out even harder. They may not want the former or at least not desire it consciously. But its also a case of, "If we were even believed what could anyone do?"

But then there's also the more personal takes on things, such as how:

Adrien may not blame himself for his fathers inability to love him (Or at least love him in a not terrible way) but he sure as hell blames himself for "Fooling himself" for so long. He's known Gabriel his whole life, he is his son, if anyone should have figured out what he was like it was Adrien. But he didn't so he can't blame anyone else for not seeing it.

Then there's stuff like media where cold and controlling parents get redemption arcs by being soft once or the like. Adrien's just throwing popcorn at the screen, "He's lying to you, its a trick, he'll never change!"

Kagami genuinely loves fencing, she loves how skilled she is, she loves that she is a world renowned fencer. This makes it hard to deal with when abuse is woven into training, such as with overly violent spars, or with training sessions that see her hit the ground and then be forced up again and again.

She's used to her body hurting after training, the issue isn't the punishment, its how arbitrary and unfairly her mother applies them Compounded with the social isolation, control and emotional repression which she has a hard time naming. Meanwhile you have Marinette just wanting to scream because Tomoe is intentionally harming her daughter as punishment.

She'd likely need an outsider to highlight the punishment spars themselves are a bad idea that hinder rather than help her. That the pain itself was wrong, not just when or why it was applied. Kagami is proud of who she is and what she can do. So to some degree she sort of.. Needs the trauma. Because if it was unnecessary, if it isn't how she got so good, then it was just pain.

Chloe has the. other victims do not look like me jacked up to eleven. Most victims are not rich, most people who are aggressive (In her research) are physical and were harmed physically. Most don't have mayor fathers who bailed them out of trouble, though be it to make her reliant on them and feed his own self esteem, hence encouraging her acting out as it fed him.

But its also because she chose to imitate Audrey. She chose this path in order to win her parents love and it didn't even work. She chose this and now she is not choosing it but something else. She had agency in this god dammit and don't you dare tell her otherwise! She is not a victim! She is not weak!

Feeding into that is stuff like Andre actively and outright teaching her, "Extortion, intimidation, bribery, these are how you win a campaign." Because even as she restructures herself, part of her still defaults to these, part of her still sees them as pragmatic and useful. Part of her thinks they will be needed for her and the people they care about. So again, was it abuse or just Andre being bad at parenting?

Plus on the physical side of things, there is some stuff that can be bled into headcanon, among other things... But one thing I would note is that canon Chloe grabbing Zoe and inspecting her like livestock before giving her approval. How she gets so aggressively close and into people's space when she otherwise seems to try and be distant. This screams learned behavior and we can't even blame it all on Audrey cos she was more of a: Fly in tear my daughter apart and leave parent. With likely a mix of social media, calls and streams, or rejection from and via those to compound things. So she's getting this heavily from Andre. But its not overt, its not hitting, it can't be abuse then, because Chloe is too different to the victims she finds, too different to be seen as a victim.

All true! I don’t think any of the kids would apply the words "abuse victim" to themselves. Like, their parent suck. They suck SO BAD. Their parents are awful people who aren’t going to change. They know this. They accept this. But I'm not a VICTIM. I'm not ABUSED. I'm not what that looks like. It doesn’t apply to me(derogatory).

Funnily enough, they might apply it to EACH OTHER. Chloé absolutely thinks Gabriel is emotionally neglecting Adrien. Adrien thinks André and Audrey emotionally abuse Chloé. They both think Tomoe abuses Kagami. But it doesn’t apply to themselves, and they don’t bring it up or try to convince each other.

ugh!!! different anon but i just read your thoughts about everything r is thinking and feeling and i canttttt, and it also hurts bc from s perspective, the feelings and developments he thought they had for so long were a ruse!! so on both sides we have them fighting their feelings and denying the reality of their connection :(((

one follow up question i have is, how does r (and really the whole gang) reconcile this initial distrust and subsequent shock (that s is Becoming Good) with the existence of reg? bc like on the one hand yes s represents so much evil shit to them, has done so much evil shit, but his redeemed brother is right there as well. so i’m curious about how these characters marry those feelings

yeah <3 i mean 2 clarify it's not so much that r thought s was like. actively tricking him like he believes what s was feeling was real too it's just that s knew before they kissed etc. that he was going 2 be obliviating himself so the idea that those feelings could become something was, at that point, a lie, and that's where r feels betrayed.

and that's an interesting question!! re: reg (and re: s) all 3 of them have v different perspectives. like for james reg chose on his own 2 betray voldemort, and even tho reg kinda dismisses the idea that he was rebelling 4 some noble reason etc james still like...kinda gives him that credit & sees him as someone who organically came 2 this position that was at least somewhat aligned w the values & goals of the order, whereas s did not do that; hence, james cuts him way less slack. s was also a lot more active in the d.e. & actively harming order members + allies in ways that reg was not, which also makes james like him less to begin with. but james has also grown up pretty separated from broader society, so even tho the d.e. have always been his enemies, he hasn't been like...quite as subjected 2 their reign in his daily life the same way r has, and bc james has been raised as like a soldier in a war he views voldemort as his ultimate enemy & the d.e. as like enemy soldiers, so there's overall less of like...this personal hatred 4 them as individuals. which makes it easier 4 him 2 accept that people like reg & s can grow & change if they demonstrate they're willing 2 side w the order + work towards order goals.

for lily a lot of this is similar 2 james--she views reg as having made his own decision 2 leave the d.e. + s as being forced, so trusts him less 2 begin with, etc. but lily, unlike james, has spent even less time actually like...directly interacting w d.e. like she's spent most of her time in order bases + hq working behind the scenes on potions etc, so she's even further removed from the personal aspect of all this & has an easier time accepting that both s + reg can become good people (tho at first she dislikes reg bc james is tutoring him + flirting w him lmao). lily also sees a lot more gray area than james, who tends 2 view the world in black & white terms (if you're fighting for the d.e. ur bad, if you're fighting for the order ur good, etc). for lily, everyone has the capacity 4 both good & evil, and a person's life is largely shaped by conditions outside their control, so her worldview + relative distance from the whole conflict makes it easier for her 2 accept that reg + s can change.

but remus has grown up as a werewolf under voldemort's government for most of his life, not in order bases, and so he has a very acute sense of the ways in which individuals make up + perpetuate these systems of violence, and is not particularly forgiving towards them even if he recognizes that yes, people can change and yes, that's probably a good thing--it doesn't undo the hurt they've done and it doesn't mean he's going to forgive them. this is why r + reg aren't friends, even tho lily + james are friends w both of them; r didn't really like reg from the start & basically just avoided him as much as he could, which wasn't hard bc he was out doing work 4 the order + reg was working in potions labs w lily. so even tho r could recognize that like, ok i guess it's good we got a reformed d.e. working 4 us, he never had 2 go through like a personal struggle of actually feeling friendly towards the guy & basically just kept disliking him lol. so not only does he already hold these grudges (understandably!), he also doesn't think of evil in the same way as the others--whereas james views voldemort, the figurehead of this entire system, as the Ultimate Evil, and lily can understand how people born into these violent systems would perpetuate them but thinks that's usually more from being misguided than ill intent, remus views this as a structural issue in which people like s, who (from r's pov when they first meet) think of themselves as generally 'good' people, still justify their role in these systems of violence because it benefits them, which is much more insidious and infuriating than someone like voldemort, who is just pretty straightforwardly a Bad Guy. and that's what i mean when i say r views s of representative of like, everything wrong w society--bc the vast majority of people in society are like s, who view themselves as good people and blame all (or at least most of) the bad on figureheads like voldemort without recognizing their own role in structural violence. and his whole relationship w s & feelings for him just make it way more difficult 4 him to watch s change + grow & to accept that that's possible, even though, theoretically, he should want it 2 be possible, bc there's this more personal level of pain...someone who views themself as a good person hurts u & u want 2 go "hey!! ur not a good fucking person!!" but then they actually become a good person (or at least a better one) so then what do u do w that hurt, y'know?

anyway. this got v long but yeah have actually spent quite a bit of time thinking about these 3 characters & how their different worldviews + experiences shape their attitudes towards the black brothers!

‼️ creep 2014 spoilers ‼️ everyone complaining abt aaron's actions being stupid is 1000% missing the point bc .

. bc knowing in retrospect that josef was fully actively plotting to kill aaron from the moment he saw him it becomes pointless to question and nitpick everything aaron did. bc like he literally never does anything that hurts his case. he's never in a position where josef couldn't/wouldn't kill him and then he did something stupid and then josef became able to kill him.

yeah sure aaron isn't just nice he's overly trusting and accommodating and gives josef the benefit of the doubt far beyond what he's earned, to the point where you kinda wonder how he's gotten this far in life. but on the other hand being empathetic and believing what others tell you abt themselves and trying to see the best in them is . generally a good thing and something that will make people value you . and for what it's worth it's this very quality that makes josef genuinely like aaron and a little hesitant+regretful abt actually killing him.

like 'it seemed stupid that you wouldn't look behind you. but then i realized you're a good person and believed i would do you no harm' you don't need to question aaron's behaviour at the end they. they do that for you in the movie. and so yeah it seems aaron goes to the lake believing that josef doesn't really intend to seriously harm him. maybe that belief wasn't totally rational based on what we've seen. but yknow on the one hand any of the people in your life could be plotting to harm you. and on the other hand our feelings and beliefs aren't based just on logical analysis of the evidence. like what i'm saying is

-on the one hand

aaron's only real 'mistake' is he goes to josef's house assuming josef is not a serial killer. and sure the job is a little sketchy but that's still a reasonable assumption. like the fact is, random strangers, creeps, people who have hurt you, they're all usually not serial killers. it doesn't pay, yknow basically all of the time, to assume that the people around you are serial killers. and this has already doomed aaron just as the film begins.

also like it's very easy to imagine a version of this movie where aaron takes way more safety precautions and i envision it being a more boring movie but i don't envision it being a movie that makes me feel safe and secure bc it's very easy to imagine him doing that and still dying. maybe his friends or the police end up with more evidence they could use to catch josef but that doesn't really help aaron. like it wouldn't be very useful if he had told someone where he was going or had them checking in with him but josef just murdered him as soon as he got there. but yknow josef doesn't murder him at the cabin at all. like you're left with the knowledge that josef was thinking abt killing aaron the entire time and could have killed him in pretty much any frame of the film and was just choosing not to bc it was more fun for him. so like this movie made me feel fuckin unsafe. the ending really puts it in perspective that like cautious or not if some rando decided they really wanted to kill you. they could. they could murder you anytime, anywhere. is it more likely josef's murdered dozens of the dumbest motherfuckers on earth or that he was able to kill them simply bc they didn't know in advance he was a serial killer. yeah josef wants to kill aaron back at the lake just as he likes toying with people and forming weird relationships with them before killing them and likes to have their interactions filmed but by the time josef's sending the last tape .. if aaron didn't come he probably would've just . broken into his house and murdered him anyway right.

(side note it's the exact same people complaining it doesn't make sense aaron would keep filming as he's answering the phone / trying to escape. ??? he was already filming it's literally more effort for him to turn the camera off than not also you're trapped with someone you've come to believe is dangerous why Wouldn't you keep filming?? like as a deterrent / so you at least have evidence if something does go down)

-on the other hand

where does aaron's belief in josef come from? this is not really a mystery. when we leave the cabin and start watching josef's videos on aaron's tv there is certainly this sense that aaron is not even nominally in control of the narrative anymore, this sense of like, this thing has come out of the woods and the darkness and followed aaron and yknow it's in his house now. might not have been intentional but aaron's yellow shirt in the first scene after the cabin reminded me of his car and the yellow door that's featured strangely prominently at the beginning too - like, we're travelling, we're entering a new house, aaron's house, aaron's own reality, this evil is inside aaron as well now.

aaron admits josef has gotten into his head. he groans 'i gotta stop thinking about this guy' more like josef's an off-limits crush than a stalker. indeed josef has gotten into his head more than he even realizes, in the sense that he believes the emotions josef expressed to him. as much as he believes josef could be dangerous, and despite the evidence he can't trust what josef says, he also believes josef's loneliness and pain and desire for connection. josef has gotten to him. and i don't find that terribly unrealistic bc as a viewer mark duplass gives an amazing performance and he's super fun to watch and ofc we're seeing the character in a different light than aaron is but josef Does kinda get to you. aaron is indeed stupid but also i do kinda understand why he didn't just run away and might've seen something to care abt in josef.

also imean to my mind aaron's actions are due not only to stupidity and empathy but Also his attraction to josef. however, random commenters and critics alike seem determined to ignore the sexual aspect of this movie even though it's not exactly subtext. well hopefully for josef's part it goes without saying. as for aaron... we see just as he does the way josef is pretty much coming onto him, the way josef loves him and really likes hugging him, that by the end of the day it's pretty clear josef has a sexual interest in him and that he openly expresses his romantic feelings in the tapes (he uses the word friendship but uh we know what kinda 'friend'ship he's talkin abt) - i think the easiness with which aaron accepts all this makes Way more sense if he's also bi and josef isn't totally off the table for him either. admittedly that's speculation and to speculate some more isn't it possible that even while being creeped out by it aaron likes that josef likes him? after all the movie starts with him half-joking about the client being an older woman who just wants a boy to give money and rubdowns to and in a way that's not so far off from what he gets... and ends with him going 'how can i not go he's so sad... you got me'... maybe aaron is drawn to josef bc josef appears to want him and to need the kinda emotional support he's apparently very willing to give. mark duplass even said as much in an interview which ikno is Not part of the movie But this interpretation doesn't seem more unlikely than aaron simply being the stupidest person to ever live to adulthood which is also just an assumption audiences are making.

in any case what is NOT speculation is that aaron decides things aren't over with him and josef Not bc josef sent him a video but rather bc he's having dreams abt him. i'm not so sure there's any peachfuzz in aaron there's probably no part of him that's a murderer but there is a part of him, perhaps subconscious, that's intrigued by josef's fucked up shit and is exploring putting himself within this weird, undoubtedly sexual, fetish framework that josef outlined for them at the cabin. josef's weird sexuality has gotten to aaron as well. iknowikno the author is dead and everything but it is actually inconceivable to me that the filmmakers didn't intend the two dream-sequence-descriptions to be read as attraction on aaron's part. like the second one do i even need to say. maybe they're also there to suggest that aaron has a feeling of complicity with/protectiveness towards josef and his weird wolf shit as well. this is clearly backed up by his call to the police where he says he wants to report 'a violent domestic incident and stalker.' not that he deserves to not be taken seriously but this is probably most of the reason the cops don't take him seriously bc it sounds like he's talking abt a guy he hooked up with. he could have said assault or kidnapping or anything but he said domestic incident. the only thing this term means to me and indeed the only relevant thing it means to google is violence within the home/within a relationship, usually between intimate partners. SO either he's thinking of josef as someone he potentially could be / is in a relationship with, maybe without even realizing it, or he wants to make what happened between him and josef sound less weird, make josef sound less predatory, kinda suggesting they were consensually hanging out instead of . josef luring him to a remote location and attempting to kidnap him. why doesn't he tell the cops he has video of josef? why does he immediately get defensive and hang up instead of trying to explain where he's coming from, which seems out of character for him? perhaps the stress of the moment, perhaps stupidity, or maybe, again even without realizing it, he doesn't want anyone else to see the tapes.

while i don't think aaron's feelings for josef affect his ultimate fate that much i also don't view it as totally incidental - these things make aaron more of a character in his own right, suggest an understandable motive for some of his actions and show that josef accomplishes his goal of insidiously getting into aaron's life and mind before killing him which itself adds another intriguing and unsettling dimension to the film . and it makes ya think. what if i somehow got killed for being horny for mark duplass in creep 2014.