.

I’m starting to explore sex & sexuality with another person (longtime lurker here but always did solo stuff) and we’ve been experimenting. I’m still figuring out whether I’m on the dom/sub side. Some aspects of dominating & control really turn me on... but outside of that, I don’t have a lot of desire to lead. I have a strong fantasy to be blindfolded and tied, let her be in charge, and give up a lot of control. I find much more attraction to being submissive, free, and being hers. (I’m also asexual so I think that’s part of why “leading” is difficult for me — I don’t have a ton of instinctual desires to guide me and fall back on. It’s genuinely scary being in charge bc I feel rudderless.)

At the same time, outside of the bedroom, I am a natural leader. I ask questions and listen well; to my anxious friends, I am the stable rock in the storm of anxiety; people ask me for advice and listen to it (sometimes too much, it’s frightening sometimes). I’m even at my best when I get to plan dates and romantic activities; I am decisive and form plans, and people seem to enjoy and trust me when I lead them.

All of this to say that, across all of the blogs I follow here, all of them display an archetype that I feel like I am hopelessly unable to fit. I want to be able to help & support my partner by being a leader, except when it comed to sex I want someone who will take charge and free me from the decisions, planning, etc. I can’t be the only person like this, but I feel like it’s rare and I’ll be unlikely to find someone who matches me in this way.

I hope you see this bc you & Amy have great content and I respect your thoughtful writings / posts on here! Cheers.

@amysubmits is on tumblr much more than I am so I asked her to chime in, but she ended up saying everything I would. I want to emphasize try not to stress fitting into an archetype. Nobody fits anywhere perfectly, and more often than not worrying about something like that just makes things worse. The rest is from Amy:

I definitely agree with you that here on Tumblr (and probably in other D/s or kink communities as well) about people who take the same “role” inside and outside of the bedroom (or play). But of course that isn’t how all people are. It’s certainly possible to be a sub during play but to be a dom otherwise. As far as how easy or hard it might be to find a partner who has needs that alignment, I really can’t guess how likely or unlikely that is? I think finding the right match is tough for almost everyone, but I’m sure there are people out there who would enjoy topping/domming in the bedroom but who are subs or ‘followers’ otherwise. You mentioned that a few aspects of dominating or control excite you as well - so depending on how significant those interests are, you might be able to find a good match with someone who likes to switch in the bedroom but you could be their Dom in the lifestyle sense?

It’s also common for people to enjoy power exchange during sex or scenes but to not have any agreed-upon power exchange dynamic outside of play. So if you like to lead but don’t necessarily need or want full spectrum D/s as far as rules or protocols or so on, you could have your playtime where you sub and then the rest of your relationship could just be based on your natural personality, so you’d be able to lead in the ways you naturally are inclined to, but not have a formal/intentional D/s agreement outside of play as long as your partner doesn’t need or want that. 

It’s easy to feel like the norm in D/s is to look at a few different categories that exist and smush yourself into one of the options. But in reality, a lot of people don’t fit perfectly in the popular categories. Even for those of us who have a bedroom role and a lifestyle role that do fit fairly well into a category, we may not fit into other kink categories perfectly such as cg/l or m/s or whatever. I like to advocate for customizing your relationship based on what you and your partner need and want when it comes to rules or titles and other things…but I think the same applies for your whole relationship, really. I hope you’re able to find someone who has needs and wants that are well aligned with yours! :) 

Okay might as well stop putting it off and post this. Was gonna title this “Disability and Dark Souls” but 1. This isn’t actually about Dark Souls itself, 2. That makes it seem like it’ll have way more cohesion than it does. Long-ass rambling to follow.

Remember this vent post that I wasn’t expecting anyone whatsoever to acknowledge? Well things happened and I guess I’m making up a followup. Specifically one that talks about the issues I have with Sekrio Shadows Die Twice as someone with a motor function disability, (specifically minor dyspraxia, a neurodevelopmental condition which affects fine motor skills). The rest of this is basically going to one long ramble very loosely framed as something of a rebuttal to the generic and oft presented idea that Fromsoftware’s approach to difficulty and accessibility is not just flawless, but specifically something that would ruin everything about their games if the formula was in any way changed. So it’s probably going to have redundancies and defensive language and be a clumsy mix of relaying my personal experiences and me trying to prove a point. Ok? Don’t say i didn’t warn you.

…So then, to go back to that original post, it used Elden Ring as an example, which out of Fromsoft’s lineup is pretty much at the opposite end of the spectrum from the aforementioned Sekiro. For that exact reason though, I think there’s merit to describing the experience of one and applying it to the other, both to show how Elden Ring alleviates the issue but also why it’s a discussion that still needs to be had, because if it can happen to one then it can still very much apply to the other; that’s inherent to the design philosophy of a company like Fromstoftware who make changes to the same base mold for all their titles, even when they severely diverge in opposite directions the way Sekiro and Elden Ring do when compared to Dark Souls. And also because the point still applies, even if my issue with present design actually lies with Sekiro. That doesn’t mean that anytime someone brings up easy modes over Elden Ring, they should still be shushed and shamed with this idea that actively rejecting accessibility is somehow a moral high ground. That’s something I wanna highlight before getting into it further. The issue was never that these games should be forced to have an easy mode; the issue is the people who actively seek to prevent these games from having an easy mode. There is no moral high ground that entitles you to think it’s ever a bad thing to be more accessible, and it’s not on you, me, or anyone else to deny the existence of such features. If I advocate for an easy mode, it’s because I have a reason to believe it’s optional inclusion would improve the experience for certain groups. The same by definition cannot apply to someone seeking to prevent the existence of such things. Reasons such as resource drain can be given for why the development wouldn’t allow for it, but to react with vitriol to the idea of an easy mode existing goes well beyond any worthy intention into pure gatekeeping. That’s why my original question was NOT “If it’s so great, why doesn’t it have an easy mode?” despite that being the question people seemed to have responded to. My question was “If it’s such an amazing game, why do people act like an optional easier difficulty would ruin the entire game including the people who clearly just wouldn’t use that option if it did exist?” So to restate, Elden Ring is only tangential, and only originally included because of how other people (such as the 'shithead youtuber' in question) take a scattershot approach of lumping it in with Dark Souls and Sekiro whenever talking about why NONE of them should be allowed to have varying difficulty settings or general accessibility. All clear? Have I alienated enough people yet? Okay. Let’s move on I guess. If this is written defensively (it is), it’s because I’m all too used to being met with hostility over all this.

Dark Souls, Elden Ring, and all the other Fromsoftware games don’t necessarily need an easy mode, but that was not the point being made. The point being made was that lacking an easy mode is not a necessity; accessibility options would be appreciated. There’s a difference between a mode that is completely rebalanced, using up time and resources to put in an entirely different difficulty setting that won't even be the intended experience, and something as simple as a crutch, like Sekiro having slow-mo without explicitly modding the game. This is to say nothing of games that already take the approach of creating one intended difficulty and simply adding easier or harder modes with basic number tweaks rather than anything in depth like rettoled AI or placement, both creating an intended and delicately crafted experience as well as providing accessibility. Personally I will always take the ‘crutch’ though over artificial difficulty, both because it’s much more streamlined and because such solutions are easy to weave into the core gameplay (the Sniper Elite series has a great example, the aim cursor and bullet-time like effects of holding your breath becoming less effective the more you increase the difficulty but also allowing you to fully disable it at any time in the options even on lower difficulties).

All that said, and here’s where people get even touchier about this discussion… there’s absolutely a difference between dedicated accessibility options and just having proper gameplay balance, the same way accessibility is not as simple as having different builds. Look I love Fromsoft as much as anyone else and when it comes to their game design they’re impeccable; the variety of approaches absolutely helps, and it has directly helped me in DS1 especially. It’s also for that exact reason, however, Sekiro is so problematic both for myself and many others to the point it completely reignited this discussion of ‘should there be an easy mode’ unlike ever before upon release. What I’m getting at is, that variety definitely pastes over what would otherwise be inconsiderately hard game design, hard to the point of more empirically warranting various difficulty. Fromsoft ingeniously chose to use its variety of approach and mechanics as a way to eliminate the need for such things, that’s true. They should also absolutely be praised for that! But if they then turn around and make something like Sekiro that removes that aspect entirely with its heavily streamlined design focusing on reflexive parrying above all else, then it calls the whole system into question. And now is the part where people always point to how they beat it, or how many people ‘overcame’ it, or whatever. Some people can even beat these games with a ddr pad. Good for them, it’s an incredible feat and worthy of accolades. But for people to then use such feats as “proof” the game is “already accessible” when some people are physically disabled and unable to properly play a game that requires, say, pinpoint dodges and parries with extremely punishing gameplay, is not just disingenuous, it’s a complete fallacy. There’s a point to be made about external solutions, things like creating controllers that can accommodate such people, but external solutions are not a reason nor an excuse for game designers to not meet them halfway if possible; as I said there’s a difference between rebalancing and at least a cheat toggle, oversimplified a solution that may be. That’s the key word: Toggle. Option. You don’t have to use it. Stop acting like it’s very existence is a detriment when you can choose to not engage with it at all. Dark Souls 2 isn’t ludicrously unfair because the Covenant of Champions exists. Ya know, because you can just NOT use it. Why doesn’t the same apply to the inverse?

I did DS2 with that covenant btw. I also did a 100% run of Bloodborne. I own DS3 too and even Metal Wolf Chaos. I probably have more hours in Fromsoft games than most of the people who’ve told me why easy modes are bad. My point is that just because I adore these games and have a thorough understanding of their design from both a gameplay and narrative standpoint, that doesn’t mean I think the arguments against easy modes somehow have merit. And i’m not too proud to admit a large part of that is related to my own situation. A while back, as a direct result of my time with Sekiro, I learned I have what is known as minor dyspraxia, as mentioned at the start. It explained a lot, like the not being coordinated bit. Not as in “I’m a bit clumsy,” as in even after a life of playing video games since the gamecube era and many years of attempts I just can never break into certain genres like hyperfast fps games or fighting games or basically anything that relies on PC controls because my base hand-eye coordination is terrible and my reaction time doesn’t match the speed at which my hands should be able to react. Starting my soulslike career with Bloodborne ended up being a blessing for me not just because the fastest soulslike was my first hurdle but specifically because of how, despite the speed, it’s got a very passive approach that clicks with me in the simple dodge and swipe approach, with riposting being the kind of the thing I couldn’t pull off but lacking the ability being a non-issue as the game is designed such it’s never truly needed. It allows you to make certain fights cakewalks with single massively damaging counterattacks, but it’s NEVER required for a fight or designed such that it’s the only realistic approach to combat. But then by comparison you have the exact reason I struggle with Sekiro’s fast paced incredibly reactionary combat (parry’s, unblockables telegraphed by symbols more than animations, deflecting freaking LIGHTNING with multiple button inputs in the span of a single second) that beat me down in a way that didn't leave me feeling fulfilled because I was actively struggling against myself as much the game.

In Bloodborne I felt pure catharsis when I beat the Bloodstarved Beast, my first ‘wall’ in one of these games. In Dark Souls 1 I felt fulfilled even after struggling for TWO YEARS against Ornstein and Smough, going so far as to start from scratch with a completely different build, but when I beat Ashina and his stupid lightning throwing technique after a few months of trying almost every day, dying over and over to the same thing in the same way…I was just sick of it. I didn't feel like I had surmounted this incredible challenge like I had when I used consumables and gear to cover my failings in the Bloodstarved fight, or feel proud for sticking with it long enough to completely redo my build in Dark Souls 1. In Sekiro It felt like I’d died like an idiot to the exact same thing hundreds of times and should’ve beaten him weeks ago but didn’t because I clearly am just bad at this with no other explanation, that the only reason I wasn’t winning was because I wasn’t as good as everyone else. I saw exactly what I needed, exactly what button to press to succeed, and DIDN'T because I kept messing up the inputs as my brain and fingers caught up a split second too late. This happened dozens upon dozens of times as I struggled with a playstyle I understood but could not cope with, and did not have the option to opt out of. Even after finally beating it I progressed a bit beyond but soon dropped the game, exhausted by it only becoming harder and more brutal because unlike Soulsborne that reactionary gameplay is the core of Sekiro’s design and the unmoving pillar all of its gameplay scales itself around. I keep telling myself I’ll go back and actually finish Sekiro if only on principle but I don’t look forward to it like I do my [counts…] …7th run of bloodborne, I expect to just hit another painful roadblock that presents a challenge not because it’s difficult and I’ll eventually overcome it, but because I’m just not good enough and trying to bring myself up to “average”. And to top it all off, according to all these people who trumpet what a masterpiece every Fromsoft game is, me not being good enough seems to mean I don’t “deserve” to experience the game in a way I can enjoy.

I agree Fromsoftware are the ones who should decide whether this sort if thing is implemented at all. My issue is not that there isn’t a version of Sekiro that will hold my hand, even if that’s what I very much wish I had so I could enjoy this clearly masterfully crafted game in my own way. My issue is how so many people describing these games as “must-experience masterpieces” react like a shark to blood at the mention of making them more accessible. All discussion of such things has been completely co-opted by this ableist idea that any step towards in-game accessibility that isn't based on very surface level disabilities like color-blindness or deafness is “making things worse for everyone” when it should be self demonstrating that it hurts no one to do such a thing so long as it’s done right. I don’t have a PC that can run Sekrio though for the slow-mo mod, something that could so easily have been added to the game. So according to so very many people, I guess I “don’t deserve” to be able to enjoy the game at all, which hurts every time i'm told it. And that missing out is likely to happen again if Fromsoft ever makes another streamlined game that has the sort of highly crafted intended experience I would otherwise be enthralled by, so long as their each and every release is met with vehement pushback against the very idea of them adding an easy mode to anything ever.

6 Services You Can Enjoy Getting Our Home Renovation Services Santa Monica

Who doesn't love to have a convenient home, especially when you have plans to live a healthy life for a couple of years and then sell it? After all, a good quality home can help you gain better money apart from assuring residential safety. But, the first thing you need to ensure in that matter if your home is in well-condition. That's we decided to highlight 6 facilities you can enjoy from our comprehensive home renovation services Santa Monica, getting which you can improve the features and appearance of your home.

1. Kitchen Renovation

Whether you agree or disagree, happiness in the home begins in the kitchen. In addition, contemplating a kitchen makeover will increase the convenience and value of your property. One of the most crucial aspects of any home is the kitchen. And, with the help of a professional remodeler, you can transform it into a more versatile space that is ideal for cooking meals and bringing people together.  

2. Bathroom Renovation

If you want to improve your home, leaving out the bathroom is never a good idea. Remember that the quality of a home is decided by its sanity management, and a bathroom plays an important part in keeping a home's sanity. You can redesign your bathroom with the help of our home renovation services Santa Monica and make it futuristic and enjoyable.

3. Basement Renovation

People frequently overlook basement renovation when updating their homes. You may believe that basement restoration will not help you boost the value of your home. However, quality basements are the most appealing to buyers. You should be aware that a basement is much more than just a dark, empty room utilised for storage. A basement can be transformed into a cosy lounge or study space with the assistance of experienced remodelers.

4. Garage Renovation

The quickest approach to selling your house is to target automobile owners to buy it. But initially, you should think about garage renovation, which is another service provided by our home renovation assistance. While many garages, like basements, are used to store parked cars, garages can be redesigned for a variety of other uses. Along with car parking, you can make room for necessary tools.

5. Home Exterior Renovation

Do you want to make a lot of money from your house? Then exterior renovation of your home is the best option for you. Our home renovation services Santa Monica can guarantee you the most attractive home exterior. You would add aesthetics to your property by renovating the exterior, which would make it easier for buyers to imagine. 

6. Roof Renovation

In addition to exterior renovation, roof renovation is another option advocated by home renovation businesses. Roofs are one of the most noticeable aspects of any home's façade. As a result, the design and materials of your roof have a significant impact on the overall exterior looks of your home. And this, in turn, activates beauty in your home to live.

A home is nor wonder an important place for a homeowner. That's why you must get our 6 comprehensive home renovation services Santa Monica from us. So contact us through our official website and get damage restoration service Santa Monica.

Happy back-to-school y’all

I’ve attended and worked at a couple of super liberal universities. I avoid the gender studies departments for obvious reasons and I still had a lecture in which the female prof gave a brief overview of TERFs and proclaimed her hatred of JKR. Being openly critical of gender ideology, the porn industry, kinks, and ‘sex work’ are the kind of things that can ruin your future in academia. Not to mention the fact that any speech or actions that could be labelled transphobic (ie. defining woman as adult human female) can get you a suspension according to many universities anti-hate-speech policies. 

So, here’s a list of small and smallish (small in terms of overt TERFery, some may require more effort than others) radical feminist actions you can take as a university student:

(this is a liberal arts perspective so if you’re a stem gal this may not apply. but also if you’re in stem maybe you can actually acknowledge that women are oppressed as a sex class without getting kicked out of school. idk)

(Note for TRAs hate reading this: One of the core actions of radical feminism is creating female networks. This is not so that we can brainwash people into being anti-trans. This is because female solidarity is necessary for creating class consciousness and overturning patriarchy. It is harder to subjugate the female sex when we stand together.)

Take classes with female profs. Multiple sections of a class? Pick the one taught by a woman. Have to chose an elective? Only look at electives offered by women. When classes have low numbers they get cancelled. When classes are super popular, universities are forced to consider promoting the faculty that teach them

Make relationships with these female profs. Go to office hours. Chat after class. Ask them about their research. Building female networks is sooooo important!

Actually fill in your end of year course feedback forms. Profs often need these when applying for tenure or applying for a job at another university so it is very important (especially with young and/or new profs) that you fill out these forms and give specific examples of how great these women are. Go off about what you love about them! Give her a brilliant review because you know the idiot boy in that class who won’t shut up even though he knows nothing is going to give her only negative feedback because he thinks any woman who leaves the house is a feminazi b*tch. 

(note: obviously don’t go praising any prof - female or male - who is blatantly racist, homophobic, etc.)

(Also if you have shitty male profs write down all the horrible things they have done and said and put it in these forms because once a shitty man gets tenure they are virtually untouchable)

(also also, leave a good review on rate my profs or whatever other thing students use to figure out if they want to take classes. idc if you copy paste your feedback from the formal review. rave about the class to your friends. do what you can to get good enrolment for that prof for reasons above.)

Participate in class. Talk over the male students. Say what you mean and mean it. Call out the boys when they say dumb shit

Write about women. If you have the option to make a text written by a woman your primary text in an essay, do it. Pick the female-centred option if you’re writing an exam-essay with multiple prompts. (Profs often look at what works on their syllabus are being written about/engaged with as a marker of whether to keep those texts the next time they teach the class. If there are badass women on your syllabus, write about them to keep them on the syllabus) Use female-written secondary sources whenever possible. 

(pro tip: many women in academia are more than happy to talk to you about their papers. expand your female networks by reaching out to article authors through email and asking them about their cool shit)

Get your essays published! Many departments have undergrad journals you can publish in. This will ensure more people read about the women you write about and will demonstrate to the department that people like learning about women

Consider trying to publish your undergrad essay with a legit peer-reviewed journal. If you can do it, your use of female-written secondary sources boosts the reputations of the women who wrote those secondary sources. Also this helps generally to increase scholarship about women’s writing!

Present your papers at conferences! Many schools have their own undergraduate/departmental conferences that you can present at. Push yourself by submitting to outside conferences. Bring attention to women’s works by presenting your papers. Take a space at a conference that would otherwise be reserved for mediocre men

Talk to your profs and/or your department and/or your university about mandating the inclusion of female works in classes if this isn’t something they do already

Sit next to other women in your classes. Talk to them. Make friends. Form study groups. Proofread each other’s essays. Give each other knowing looks when the boys are being dumb. Just interact with other women! Build those female networks!

Be generous with your compliments. A female classmate and I were talking to a prof after class and the classmate told me (out of the blue) that I always have such interesting things to say. I think about that whenever I’m lacking confidence about my academic skills. Compliment the women in your classes for speaking up, for sharing their opinions, for challenging your classmates/profs, for doing cool presentations, etc.

Talk to other women about sexist things going on on campus. Make everyone aware of the sexist profs. Complain about how there are many more tenured men than tenured women. Go on rate my professor and be explicit about how the sexist profs are sexist

Be active on campus and in societies. If a society has an all male executive or is male-dominated, any women who join that society make it less intimidating for more women to join. Run for executive positions! Bring in more women! 

(Pro tip: Many societies’ elections are super gameable. You can be eligible to vote in a society election sometimes just by being a student at that university — even without having done anything with the society before. Other societies might just require that you’ve taken a class in a particular department or attended a society event. (Check the society’s governing documents.) Use those female networks you’ve been building. If you can bring three or four random people to vote for you, that might be enough for you to win. Societies have trouble meeting quorum (the minimum number of people in attendance to do votes) so it is really super achievable to rig an election with a few friends. And don’t feel bad about this. The system is rigged against women so you have every right to exploit loopholes!)

(Also feel free to go vote “non-confidence”/“re-open election” if only shitty men are running. Too often people see that only candidates they don’t like are running and so they give up. But you can actually stop them getting elected)

Your campus may have a LGBTQIA+alphabetsoup society. That society definitely needs more L and B women representation. It may be tedious to argue with the nb straight dudes who insist that it’s fine to use “q***r” in the society’s posters and that attraction has nothing to do with genitals, but just imagine what could happen if we could make these sorts of societies actually safe spaces for same-sex attracted women and advocated for our concerns

Attend random societies’ election meetings. Get women elected and peace out. (or actually get involved but I’m trying to emphasize the lowest commitment option with this one)

Write for the campus newspaper. Write about what women are doing - women’s sports, cool society activities, whatever. Review female movies, books, tv shows, local theatre productions. Write about sexism on campus. We need more female by-lines and more stories about women

Get involved with your campus’s sexual assault & r*pe hotline/sexual assault survivor’s centre/whatever similar organization your campus has if you can. This is hard work and definitely not for everyone (pls take care of yourself first, especially if you are a survivor)

(If your campus doesn’t have an organization for supporting survivor’s of sexualized violence, start one! This is probably going to be a lot of hard work though, so don’t do it alone)

Talk to your student council about providing free menstrual hygiene products on campus if your campus doesn’t already do this. If your campus provides free condoms (which they probs do), use that as leverage (ie. ‘sex is optional, menstruation is not. so why do we have free condoms and no free pads?’)

If you’re an older student, get involved with younger students (orientation week and such activities are good for this). Show the freshman that you can be a successful and well-liked woman without shaving your legs, wearing heels, wearing make-up, etc. Mentor these young women. Offer to go for coffee or proofread essays. 

Come to class looking like a human being. Be visibly make-up less, unshaven, unfeminine, etc. to show off the many different ways of being a woman

Talk to the custodial staff and learn their names. (I know there are men who work in this profession, but it is dominated by low-income women) Say hi in the hallways, ask them about their lives, show them they’re appreciated

Be explicit with your language. When you are talking about sex-based oppression, say it. Don’t say ‘sex worker’ when you mean survivor of human trafficking. This tip is obviously a bit tricky in terms of overt TERFyness, so use your best judgement

That’s all from me for now! Feel free to add your suggestions and remember that feminism is about action

✧ astro notes and titbits ✧

 part 1, part 2 x

- a common misconception regarding the South and North Node: it’s not the mission to abandon your South Node, it just represents what you already learned and brought with you here on earth and should be expanded. The Lunar Nodes represent a constant seek for balance, South and North Node should both be equally integrated in ones life. 

 - regarding North Node: the North Node is more an uncomfortable placement as it pushes us towards what we don’t know and have a hard time understanding and integrating in our life, even though we desire it. The North Node is impulsive and aggressive in its desire and thus, on the negative side, can equally lead to trouble when blindly followed.

- when looking at our own, or even other aspects, especially the harsh ones, we always have to consider the age of the person. As you grow into your placements over the years, we then can have the abilities to handle conflicting energies within us better - this is not only an encouragement to people with harsh aspects, but also newbies who might get intimated by their own and others placements!

- a Quincunx (Inconjunction) can be even harder to resolve than a Square. While a Square can find common ground in the modalities at least, the Quincunx comes from completely different sides and can manifest as unknowingly doing the same mistake over and over again, while the individual wonders why it always hurts. At the same time, it can seem like the only option left for them, even when they know it’s not the optimum. Quincunxes can go under the radar as well, since they are a small aspect 

- this a fun thing I recently did with my own and other charts: If you were born too late or early and you happen to know the approximate delivery date of your birth go and calculate that birth chart! I found myself lucky to be born two weeks later than expected asdfghj

- when you have Aquarius/Uranus touching your ascendant or any house that is about self expression and/or the public it could give you a very scattered energy;  you might be flipping on and off energy wise and people could have a hard time keeping up with you or adjusting to your flow of energies. This can also result in a lot of different ‘phases’ the individual goes through, or in equally getting passionate about something but then losing interest 3 weeks later

- A very common trait that a lot of Pisces Ascendants have are the droopy, watery eyes and often times pointed features on the face/a rather pointed face shape

- Taurus, Sagittarius and Cancer Ascendants could stretch features of the face/the overall face shape. Sagittarius is ruled by Jupiter and Cancer is exalted in it: both of these signs can be prone to easily gaining width, Sagittarius and Cancer also can indulge a lot and thus can lead to quicker wheight gaining. Taurus, being the bull, can give the individual a rather wide, squary/boxy look, but always very sensual and serene with Venus being it’s ruler

- some thoughts on Ceres: Ceres is an asteroid that tells us equally about nurture and destruction. Ceres was Persephones mother, as much as she loves to take care of her lovely daughter, she sometimes doesn’t know the limits and when to stop - once what she loves is taken from her, she can leave a path of destruction behind her and become deeply obsessive. She can cross boarders and break rules for those she loves. Ceres is a mother archetype, responsible for harvesting, she is not only directly linked to nature, but also a good representation of mother natures extremes

-> Also: Ceres can give you insight about the relationshio between a mother and a child. I would recommend looking at your synastry with your mother figure. It can give you additional information to your parental relationship despite other very telling planets, such as Moon. Look where their Ceres touches your chart and what aspects they form

 -> Ceres in synastry can also show you where your mother figure was most present, what they cared for most and maybe even where they were overly critical/concerned, protective or didn’t care for you at all. 

- some thoughts on North Node an karmic connections in synastry: links from one Nodal point to the other don’t always have to indicate a karmic link that has a major impact in your life. Think about it: All people that are born around the same time as you and have their NN in ~ 10 degrees to yours will conjunct it, but does that mean we’re all karmically connected? It’s more likely these people all share a similar karmic life path, sharing the same soul mission.  Most likely the really big feelings and influences are when the Lunar Nodes touch the inner planets/angles, as they have an almsot immediate and very direct influence on the other

- those with Mercury square/conjunct or opposite Mars/Uranus are the ones to accidentally say something they shouldn’t have if they are in a flow of speech or just really comfortable

- Venus square/opposite Uranus often go against social norms or revaluate them, so this could give them naturally the image of a misfit and provocateur even if they don’t actively intent to do so. Their ‘out of the norm’ behaviour/attitude could leave many people irritated. This also can make them suffer from a lot of misjudgement in their life, as people could put them in a box constantly

- having a water signs in an earth or air house can make the individual a huge advocate and humanitarian, especially when it’s in inner planets or when Uranus/Neptune in Pisces are in an air/earth house

 - This might be a quiet controversial thought for some, but I am a social studies student so just a little food for thought to everyone: let’s look at the heteronormative use of astrology, aka women = Venus, men = Mars, and I am not talking about energies, I am talking specifically about assorting a gender to these planets. Venus and Mars will both show up in someone when pursuing a person of interest and developing feelings. But now think about parts of society trying to raise women as ‘the harmonizer’ and men as the ‘conqueror’, because these are the often associated traits with these two forms of gender. Back at astrology, let’s look at the archetype and temperament of Venus and Mars. Venus is the represent of unions and forming connections thus standing naturally for harmony (mostly that is), and Mars is the fighter the pursuer and represent of raw sexual energy aka life force. If people believe that the association of Venus to women and Mars to men is true, maybe look a bit closer into the environment you grew up in and maybe you can see that it’s a consequence of heteronormativity. Chances are, Mars and Venus would be looked at equally, or only preferred in insights if an individual conciously is more attracted to ‘masculine/feminine energy’ - again, regardless of gender.

- Basically: Astrology is defenitely not free of the negative sides of society and interpretations should be scanned of our own bias as best as we can!

- I noticed that people with profound Mercury, Uranus, Sagittarius or Aries/Mars influence in their chart are the ones to watch YouTube videos in 1,5 x speed. The nervous and impatient energy inside their chart wants either to spend less time on a YouTube video (trying to watch 10 minutes in 5) or feel like how most people talk and the videos flow are just too slow (chances are they wish they could do that irl too asdfgh)

 - Pisces with profound Mercury influence (especially in inner planets) can give the possibility for a very quick to judge individual - and usually they are very expressive with it as well, either in accidental, small gestures or by openly showing their thoughts through facial expressions or quick reactions

- that being said, people who have strong Pisces influence in their chart, especially those with Ascendant/Pisces in 1st, usually give their first thoughts away with their facial expressions. Their eyes do reflect their inner nature a lot, more so than Cancers and Scorpio do since these are naturally more guarded and hesitant when it comes to self expression in new environments 

SWTOR: On "too easy"

I keep seeing posts elsewhere from "serious gamers" saying "waaah, they nerfed the game, IT'S TOO EASY NOW." I keep seeing posts from people who seem to think the only way to "save" SWTOR is to make it really difficult. And posts that cast judgment on those who prefer a more laid-back approach. 

I can't stand that. Truly, one of the worst things about gaming is some of the playerbase. 

I fully believe that where possible, content should have story/veteran/NiM modes available, the way KOTFE, KOTET and the non-story flashpoints do. If someone's idea of fun is to run every single thing with extreme difficulty, and that's what they get a charge from, let them at it...as long as it doesn't mean everyone else has to play that way too. That's where these discussions usually go off the rails, since these folks seem to think that everyone should play at an arbitrary high standard they deem acceptable. 

A lot of different types of players love SWTOR. Some really do want NiM all the time. Others want to decorate strongholds or dress their characters. Some are all about story. Some love the group aspect and always want to play with guildies or friends; others steer clear of all interaction with other players. Some do a mix of all of the above. Some avoid certain activities at all costs. 

I'm a solo story player. For me, extreme challenge isn't fun. It's usually enough to get me to quit. It's not fun for me to die over and over in a game or to struggle with complicated mechanics where one misstep means death. I hate things like the Onderon datacrons. I felt that Spirit of Vengeance was originally tuned way too high and had way too many mobs, even though I was fully able to finish it. 

I've gone in and done some more difficult things like Dread Seeds and veteran flashpoints solo because I wanted to see the content and complete those missions. If the entire game was tuned like the last Dread Seeds mission or those veteran flashpoints, I'd likely leave in about two seconds. In the longterm, it's not pleasant for me. It's physically painful, it's boring and I don't find it relaxing or fun.

No one playstyle is "correct" or "normal." They all are. What's abnormal is when someone insists everyone has to play a certain way. What would I say to those gatekeepers whining about content being too easy? 

The story content isn't getting people ready for endgame. 

So? 

You're assuming everyone wants to play endgame content. They don't. There's nothing Bioware could do, say or bribe me with that would get me into things like Ops, ranked PvP, PvP at all, PUGs or Master Mode flashpoints. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. I am here for the story. Period. 

A training ground for endgame content exists in the form of flashpoints. The flashpoints in the game do get progressively tougher. If someone's truly interested in getting raid-worthy skills they're likely going to be doing solo flashpoints. And using groupfinder or joining a guild that works to help players progress. There are options, and those who are interested in raids will seek them out. 

But the story is so easy. It's a faceroll. Games are about challenge.  

Challenge means different things to different people.

Everyone has different abilities. You might roll through every flashpoint. The next player might die seven times just getting through the first tomb on Korriban. By the way, I'm "next player." I think my first toon may have kicked the bucket before even getting into Ajunta Pall's tomb. The word "easy" is very, very relative. 

Also, for some of us, easier content is relaxing and fun. The same way some people like a leisurely bicycle ride along the bike path and others train for the Tour de France. 

If challenge for you involves very difficult gameplay, it does exist. Go join a NiM guild for raids. Go play ranked PvP. Play another game. Why does everyone else need to play the way you play? 

People aren't grouping. They should be forced to group. 

Because you think they should? What gives you any right to dictate how other people play or who they play the game with? Are you the National Gaming Czar and nobody told us? 

This "grouping should be compulsory!" belief is bullshit. People who want to group WILL group. That's always been the case. Hell, I remember being a kid and playing single player console games with friends. We'd take turns, cheer each other on, and yell out advice to the person playing. We found a way to play in a group because we wanted to. 

Right now, the people in SWTOR there are guilds and healthy incentives to join them. Right now, the people in SWTOR who want to play with a friend or friends can do that. Even in things like class stories or KOTFE where it only progresses for one person, they can still come along and help. There are multiple opportunities in the game for players to meet each other. There are social media sites where they can do the same. There's group finder. There are people who look for groups on the fleet. There are PvP and GSF where they can play against others. 

Bottom line? Anyone who wants to group has multiple ways to accomplish that at this very moment. 

Those who aren't grouping likely do not want to group. They don't have to explain why. If you force them to group one of two things will probably happen: they will do it and hate every second of it and not want to be there, or they will stop playing. Which is more likely? Well, I'm sure we've all finished Oricon, Iokath and Macrobinoculars, right? Oh wait...

This is a game. It's not supposed to be like a job where you have coworkers you detest and still have to interact with them. It's not some life skill. It's. A. Game. Get over it if people don't want to play with you.   There should always be open world PvP. Sure, if you want a mass exodus from the game in about a day. The minute they make open world PvP non-optional or make PvP content compulsory is the day I stop playing. And I don't think I'm alone there. I feel like this comment usually comes from people who are frustrated that others don't accept their duel requests and that there isn't a huge pool of players for PVP matches. They can't get people to play with them voluntarily so they want to force it. And you should be able to tag a mob someone else is working on. I keep seeing this brought up as an ideal in other games. It seems to be a way to force people to group with you even if they've said no to an invite. You know what will happen with this? You'll have players hitting the mob once and getting credit/loot without any effort. Or you will have players following around other players to "share mobs" with them even when that other player wants to be left alone. I'm of the opinion that any type of group play should be consensual in all cases, not forced on players because they happen to be in open world.

*sigh* It's an MMO. 

And? MMO doesn't mean "group all the time" or even some of the time. It means a lot of players are co-existing in a shared online world. It means the ability to group should exist - and it does. 

People come into group content and don't know what to do. 

#1: Everyone starts somewhere. We all know that you were so miraculously gifted that you came out of the womb knowing advanced mechanisms for every boss fight, but most of us didn't. 

#2. If you want to play strictly with a team of veteran players, join a guild, make some friends in the game and have fun. That's a lot more realistic than expecting random players in a PUG or groupfinder to meet whatever your exacting specifications are. 

#3. Blame the devs for forcing players into Groupfinder to complete Galactic Seasons and other objectives. There are plenty of people who wouldn't be there if that weren't the case. 

People come into flashpoints and want to watch the cut scenes. 

Hang on. Let me process this. In a story based game, players want to watch the cut scenes? For real? That's completely unreasonable! /sarcasm

In the latest flashpoints, they've more or less removed all the cut scenes. You have your wish granted. For the older flashpoints, there are still many that don't have solo/story mode. The only way people can see those cut scenes is in veteran or master. If you have an issue with this, start advocating to the devs to make solo story versions of those flashpoints.  I feel like the bottom line is that everyone has the right to ask for the type of gaming experience they want, but they don't have the right to insist everyone else should share that experience.

Thoughts on the Pogtopia Traitor - My Tubbo Theory

THATS RIGHT, STRAP IN FOR ANOTHER ONE OF MY CONSTANT DRABBLING SESSIONS FOR THE ROLEPLAYING BLOCK PEOPLE-

I’ve been hearing a whole lot lately about conspiracies for who the “unexpected” Pogtopia traitor is gonna be, who will likely be revealed on the 16th during the big Dream SMP stream event. While there are lots of advocates for people like Tommy, Wilbur, or Techno, below is my explanation of why I wholeheartedly believe that Tubbo would be the most perfect choice for the traitor, and who I hope will end up being said mole in Pogtopia’s operation.

And here we go: why Tubbo is the perfect, unexpected, most reasonable possibility for the traitor.

I definitely think that Dream’s word choice of “finding out” about a traitor among Pogtopia’s ranks is significant. It’s a direct reflection of who ended up recruiting the person - and the only rational remaining option for who the recruiter was is none other than Jschlatt. Now, I get it: “Why would Tubbo side with the man who just tried to execute him in front of the entire Manberg population?”

You know why? Because Tubbo understands. Here’s the layout:

Although the two seemed to have an incredibly strained set of relations following the festival events, recall what Tubbo said to Wilbur and Tommy before he gave his speech: he never explicitly stated that he wasn’t happy in Manberg. All he said is that it would be better if Tommy and Wilbur were there as well. Yet, his desire to be with his friends in that sense takes a massive hit when Wilbur soon thereafter calls Tubbo a “yes man”. And if you’ll notice, Tommy never blatantly disagrees with the notion before Tubbo takes his place on stage.

When delivering his speech, there was a clear delay in Tubbo saying the words for Wilbur’s explosion activation, only ever bringing them up hurriedly at the very end when Schlatt asks if he’s done talking. When I watched the stream, I legitimately thought he wasn’t going to say them at all because he felt hurt by his two closest comrades. It was a blatant sign of his hesitance to go through with the plan, and therefore hesitance in his loyalty to the current ideals of Pogtopia.

Despite the fact that Schlatt tried to expose Tubbo at the festival for conspiracy, he still ALWAYS listened to Tubbo and his ideas to improve the nation whenever he proposed anything. He always complimented him and gave him power to do what he wanted. Tubbo was a very crucial part of Schlatt’s cabinet as his right hand man, keeping the nation organized, productive, and growing. And you know what?

Even though Schlatt had his moments of lashing out and all, Tubbo was one of his most valued acquaintances - and Tubbo knows this.

When he wasn’t getting outed for helping Pogtopia, Schlatt was always with him on his ideas and things he wanted to do to help improve. It was consistently, “Great idea, Tubbo.” “You are so important to this team.” “Thank you for your input.” “Where would we be without you?”

You know who never truly expressed that same sort of mutual respect for him? Wilbur.

“Tubbo, I want you to promise me that you’re not going to speak to Tommy.”

“Wilbur said he wasn’t going to hurt me.”

Let’s remember that Wilbur could have easily communicated with Techno that he should not go through with the execution. He had the time, with how much Techno was stalling to protect Tubbo. And with Tommy being subservient to whatever Wilbur says, despite the fact that he TRIED TO BLOW UP MANBERG, his trust in his friends’ decisions are brought into jeopardy.

Tubbo also knows, with his vast understanding of the government that he practically kept afloat half the time, that Schlatt technically did the disciplined and reasonable thing to maintain the nation. There was a traitor looking to take down the government, so to consequently prevent it, he took it out effectively. I think secretly, Tubbo gets that and respects it in a way.

Now lets look at some of the other proposed Pogtopia traitors that I’ve seen, and compare them to Tubbo’s circumstances.

Here we have the most obvious option with Technoblade. Techno is a clear option for traitor material. He’s said it before that he likes being the outnumbered one and that’s why he sided with Pogtopia in the first place. Even Wilbur himself claimed that it was very likely during the recent stream. However, Dream stated that this time around, the traitor is going to be a more surprising shock than Eret back in L’manberg’s fight for independence. Could Techno still technically decide to fight with Schlatt and Dream when the fight arises? Sure. Do I think this is who Dream was referencing when he was talking about a mole in the ranks? Absolutely not.

On the other hand, we have Wilbur. He is unpredictable, clearly unstable, and very hellbent on getting vengeance. But what I think many are forgetting is that Schlatt is everything he despises about Manberg. He’s the one who started Wilbur’s thirst for revenge in the first place. He exiled him, cut him off from everything he’s ever worked for, and has never once held any semblance of remorse - only rubbing it in that he’s always one step ahead. No matter if Wilbur is off his rocker at this point, it’s a reach to think that he’d side with Schlatt, especially if Schlatt has apparently made a deal that “neither Wilbur or Tommy would have ever agreed to” regarding the fate of L’manberg territory. And just to set my reasoning in stone for this one, Wilbur’s surprise when he discovered that the TNT was gone from the bunker did not seem falsified or played up to convince the others. It felt like a genuine reaction. That’s why I don’t think it would make sense for him to be the traitor.

Finally, as for Tommy, he’s too much of the protagonist role for his sole betrayal to make much sense. I feel like it would leave a lot of people a bit lost. While people think that there’s an incentive hidden there with Wilbur telling Tommy that he would never be president, I feel like his betrayal would have happened much earlier on in the storyline, and the fact that he stayed with Wilbur despite his harsh words and psychotic ideals to blow up Manberg leads me to believe that he would not leave Wil behind. My idea that Tommy would never side with Schlatt is only emphasized by the fact that Schlatt legitimately tried to execute his best friend, Tubbo, in front of the entire Manberg population. He would never take a side with him after that point...

...unless, he had some persuasion.

Tommy and Tubbo are very frequently a package deal. Everyone saw Tommy’s response when Tubbo was shot by Techno at the festival. The two even joked about running away from the entire conflict before, just the two of them. They would clearly protect each other with everything they had. So what I think could happen is Tubbo announcing his betrayal to the rest of the SMP and attempting to persuade Tommy into joining him. Tubbo isn’t gullible, stupid, or assuming. He’s incredibly organized, very observant, and a very reasonable person. I don’t think it’s hard to believe that he could convince Tommy to see his side of things.

Just as an extra note, everyone absolutely loves Tubbo, no matter what side of the conflict you’re on. Who in their right mind would say no to him? No👏freaking👏body👏 - he’s a solid negotiator, can be serious and silly, and has the creativity to find solutions that would make everyone happy. If someone finally saw that potential in him and offered him a place at the table, I think he would grab at it for sure, especially at a point in time where he doesn’t know who else to turn to besides himself.

So yeah, I think Tubbo’s the traitor. Send tweet. His role in this entire situation is so underrated despite the amount of sway he could have, so I really hope my thoughts come to fruition at some point. To be completely frank, he’d make an outstanding leader as well, so it would be super interesting to see how that sort of twist would play out.

Thank you for coming to my rant :p

Hi mod, I'm the Anon that suggested a possible set of rules for people who do not wish for others to get involved in their post. I've been reading several of the replies and I'd like to clarify a few things, as it may have caused some confusion: I'm simply a bystander and avid reader of the blog. I haven't disclosed my ethnicity in any posts either and I didn't intend to for the sake of neutrality, however, I’ve recently seen an anon post on the narutoblogcallouts where someone expressed being upset about it and not feeling safe as a poc within the fandom because of that post. So, if it makes them feel any better, I’m not white either.

Despite this, I still don’t agree 100% with what’s being said in the original post - I have a right to those reservations. I didn’t intervene in that post, I wrote a separate one in lieu of what I’ve seen, with a suggestion in mind: just because I am non-white doesn’t imply I have to automatically align myself with OP’s take: I am and always will be someone who advocates for free speech (unless it’s actively harming someone) for everyone.

Still, I really didn’t intend for this confessor to feel unsafe, I’m so sorry for that and maybe it’s because I came off too harsh, but I also think they misunderstood the point I was trying to make.

Anyway, the reason why I suggested a possible DNI option was because it's become apparent that some people feel the need to share an experience without hearing further discourse regarding other people's. Most probably the majority of yt people within the fandom don't fully understand OP's plight as a poc ; on the other hand, everyone has a right to expression, be them of whatever color; it's also worth noting that the anons who came forwards are not all white either, several have stated they're pocs themselves. All in all, the entire thread is a bit of a mess.

Viewing this from the outside, it seems that interactions such as these, especially when little context is provided in a confession, generate confusion and arguments in which people reduce themselves to name calling. It also leads to harmful generalizations and patterns of fallacy because the go-to assumption is that anyone questioning the OP is by default yt (which is ironically what's happening here with my post too).

Conversely, I think that if a person just wants to vent, doesn't wish to entertain discourse, or wants their post to stay strictly on topic, then they should have the DNI option or a “keep it relevant!” message at the end of the confession. It's frustrating for a poc to give their testimony of an experience with a portion of the fandom and have everyone jump the post, because this tends to erase their voice in the matter.

I would however think it's worth it to underline one thing: if a person is going to make an accusation of any kind, then they should back it up with an example/explanation. People (and obviously so), jumped the post because it was lacking context - it's a generalized accusation with little to no evidence, no one takes anything at face value. I also get the impression that some of the anons asking for clarity are either new to the fandom and haven't had a chance to interact much; some were poc but maybe from a different part of the fandom and wanted/needed context to understand how to recognize yt sasuke stans. My suggestion certainly wasn’t to silence pocs, it’s the exact opposite, it was to give pocs the chance to showcase their experiences without having to entertain discourse or feel like their post is being derailed. It’s sad that this person thought that and also thought that you (mod) would be happy to agree to this.

I don't know, make a poll on it maybe? That way it's a democratic choice and not taken by one person? Make what you wish of it mod...

I'll see what everyone else thinks an go with the best possible option. I certainly do want everyone to have a voice. Well, except the obvious nasty people, of course.

The DNI seems like a good idea. I do think people come here to vent about a topic but don't want to engage in debates, explanations and so on - only wanting their post to be aimed at those who understand what they mean.

We'll see if something can be worked out.

yo asking someone to make a wish so half of their heritage is gone forever is fridge horror-level wtfness (thnx TV Tropes).

of course RT and Sunrise chose not to focus on it, and in mythology people do give up divinity or humanity for romantic reasons, but specifically in Inuyasha it was like ‘despite your demon half you can still live a good life’ as if he has some disease 🤨

like I get in history people have had to hide their heritage to survive war and avoid being shipped off to their death or lose their rights, but to ask someone to permanently discard half their heritage and presumably hide their origins until death is tragic as fuuuuuuuuuuu

It's not even that they chose not to focus on it, is that they deliberately portrayed it as this grand romantic gesture from Inuyasha’s part and for a part of the audience, it truly was. But then again, this backfired for people like me, because it only served to proof how desperate Inuyasha really was to fit in.

Poor guy was literally planning on using the jewel to become a full demon just the day before. Then, at Kikyo’s request, he agreed on doing the exact opposite with little to no deliberation other than “what will be made of you, Kikyo?” I can only assume he was afraid her feelings were conditional. That if he had said no, she would have called it quits.

Imagine the same situation, but this time Inuyasha has a support system to lean on. Prejudice against half demons are still a thing, however he has his parents, his friends, a place to belong. Would he still have said yes in order to live with Kikyo? I honestly doubt it.

You see, Inuyasha hates being human. Not in the sense of saying he hates it, but liking it in secret. He actively hates it. And I can’t stress enough that we don’t actually understand how rightfully entitled he is to hate it.

We know how a human body feels like, we’re used to have a human body. Inuyasha is only human once a month. The majority of time he is a half demon. That’s what he is used to. Even worse: put yourself in his shoes. If you were to lose half your strength, half your sight, half your hearing and speed every single New Moon, you'd curse that night too. 

Not to mention the sheer vulnerability of being emotionally and physically exposed, of not being able to protect yourself or the ones you care about and becoming a "burden” when he takes pride of being the (un)official guardian of the group. No wonder he felt so hopeless he made a point out of staying up all night. And this is what Kikyo was asking him to feel like every single day for the rest of his existence so their life together could be easier, with the aditional quicker of forever losing the features that marked him as his father’s son. You know, the man who died saving him and his mother.

Every single character that got close enough to find out about his night of weakness quickly became aware of how much he despises it. Now, we don’t know the exact duration of Inuyasha and Kikyo’s relationship, but here are our options: Kikyo didn’t know about the New Moon and that Inuyasha hated turning into human or she did know and decided to go for it anyway.

Considering that the latter option is straight up awful, I’ll just assume she simply didn’t know. What does this say about their relationship? If they were an item for a considerable period of time, how come she didn’t know about such a fundamental thing about him? Especially when people who weren’t even his love interest were aware of that fact pretty early on? What was it worth all that time together if they didn’t use it to have meaningful interactions and get to know one another? If Inuyasha was keeping secrets from her and if she wasn’t interested in learning them?

On the other hand, if their relationship was indeed short lived, that could justify the lack of knowledge, but a different issue raises: if they didn’t have time to collect basic information about each other, how am I supposed to believe in their love? How am I supposed to view the decision to erase his demonic side and live together as anything other than reckless, impulsive and thoughtless? How am I not supposed to see it as mutual convenience, a mean to an end? How am I not supposed to think they are acting out of lonileness and desire to fit in? How am I not supposed to think that if literally anyone else had given them the same options they would have taken it? 

A New Moon would have happened in at least one month, tops. That’s not love. That’s a thirty days affair. It could have grown into love, if given the chance, but the pairing seemed more interested in the life they ideolized for themselves than in each other.

I don’t think Kikyo meant it as an ultimatum or that she was disgusted by his demonic attributes. She wouldn’t have approached or kissed him as a half demon otherwise. But I think it’s hard to deny that she wasn’t necessarily fond of them either, since she jumped at the opportunity to get rid of them first chance she got, with no remorse whatsoever. As if it was a bonus. This allowed with the fact that the prejudice against half demons is an allegory for racism and that she used from false equivalence to make the point that both her and Inuyasha were in the same situation puts her in a bad light.

Inuyasha was isolated by people because of his heritage, something he couldn’t change without resorting to intrusive, traumatizing and permanent magic, which Kikyo herself suggested he did. Kikyo isolated herself. People loved her because of her status and she was a privileged woman in comparison. She could have dropped everything since she was unhappy living like that, but she spontaneously chose her duty and powers over love and an ordinary life. And as much as I disagree with her choices, I can at least respect and understand them. What I can’t do is feel sympathy for her when the consequences of said choices catch up with her.

The narrative doesn’t give this problem much focus, it treats it in a much more subtle way. For instance: the jewel only being destroyed by the right wish, paints wishing for Inuyasha to become human as wrong and selfish, with the potential to be catastrophic.

That being said, Inuyasha didn’t hate being a half demon, on the contrary. What he hated was being ostracized over it, so he decided to take matters on his own hands and, when he was free to choose between using the jewel to become a full demon or a human, he went the full demon route because he knew living as human would made him miserable. But the desire of being a full demon was a facade. What he so very clearly wanted, all along, was to be accepted the way he was. That’s why he had no trouble letting go of that goal to pursue the exact  opposite: there was no attachment to it. Full demon or human, he longed for a place to belong. If Kikyo was offering that to him, of course he would have taken it, even if becoming human was far from being the first choice.

Compare that with Inuyasha finally giving up from becoming a full demon, realizing he didn’t have to change at all, that he had a place to belong and people who loved him not despite of what he was but because of it, that he could be accepted as a half demon. Compare that with Inuyasha ending up with the girl that always encouraged him to be himself, with being comfortable enough around her to follow his instincts and embracing his canine mannerisms rather than shutting them down, which he didn’t quite did with Kikyo... The message is clear:

Kikyo should never, in any circumstance, have asked that of him. The implications of it were really bad and on paper it was a win-win situation for her because getting rid of the jewel to become an ordinary woman was something she already wanted. He was the one with the short end of the stick, sacrificing everything without the same level of compromising from her part.

And Inuyasha should never, in any circumstance, have accepted this deal. As his love interest, Kikyo should have been the very first persond advocating for him not to change. If the feelings they had for each other truly were love, then she should be the one helping him getting to terms with himself while he does the same for her, not legitimizing the absurd idea that a part of his essence was less worthy of existing than the other, that he should have be the one to change in order to fit in, rather than the people who oppressed him.

Thematically, even if subtle, the narrative did a decent job out of showing the audience how fucked up the whole thing actually was. What it failed to do was making Inuyasha and the others realizing how wrong it was and holding Kikyo accountable for her actions by making them talk about it.

Because God forbid Kikyo gets vocally told she was wrong (even though she often is) and God forbid Takahashi give Inukik the tiniest bit of substance and relationship development.

Magical person in history, on not intervening on human rights issues

I am writing a dating sim/visual novel set in the present day. A major (non-romanceable) character is an ancient sorceress who moved from France to the Pacific Northwest in the 1850s. She is white. She is shown to have powerful magic. She also works closely with the main characters and develops personal relationships with them as she teaches them magic, giving each character comfort and advice during their respective stories.

Considering the events in America around her move-in date, there’s no way she could have missed the horrible human rights abuses going on, and there’s no way she was too powerless to help, even when most of the fighting and slavery was so far away. So I’m having trouble balancing “don’t make her a white savior by having her personally fireball Robert E. Lee” against “Hogwarts University is cancelled because Dumbledorette didn’t care about slavery.” I had the idea that the magical regulating body back home in France didn’t want her to intervene due to political reasons, so she helped out in small ways that could safely fly under the radar. She later realized that she prioritized her social standing over the suffering of countless others, so she began making a point of reducing human suffering as much as she could.

I can’t imagine this will show up in more than one small scene, but doing it wrong could really sour the whole thing. Is this backstory still icky? Should I just not mention it and let readers headcanon what they please?

I’m wondering what you think was happening in the PNW at the time for the fighting and slavery to be “far away.” Washington State had the Cayuse War at exactly this time period, Oregon didn’t ratify treaties and was calling for the extermination of “the I*dian race” in roughly this time period, and California’s Gold Rush created the California Genocide starting heavily in the 1840s, picking up steam in the 1850s, which included slavery of California Natives thanks to a law enacted in 1850 that lasted for 13 years. 

This is all from the top five results of googling “pacific northwest genocide 1850”, for the record. It’s not exactly hidden history.

So suddenly your character’s lack of movement in healing the poisoned populations as disease ravaged the area, in attempting to stop or at least buy and free the enslaved Natives being auctioned on their doorstep, or in attempting to get treaties ratified and honoured looks a lot more damning.

This is not counting any of the future events that happened at the turn of the century, including the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Hawai’i monarchy being overthrown, and Federal Order 9066, which is the WWII concentration camps (that included Japanese, German, and Italian individuals). This is just to name a handful of coastal issues in the next 100 years, completely ignoring Jim Crow, residential schools, the San Francisco Earthquake (which nearly had Chinese people relocated to the worst land imaginable for gentrification purposes, had the Empress of China not stepped in), and many others.

In short: she would have had hundreds of opportunities to end suffering, and focusing on a single event as a small scene feels disproportionate to how much she could have done.

And honestly? The French were no angels. 

The Second French Colonial Empire was one of the largest empires in history, and it began in 1830, covering roughly a third of Africa. The First French Colonial Empire began in the 1600s, and had both India and North America, primarily Canada.

She was white. French. You don’t specify her birth year other than “ancient”, but considering the sheer amount of territory-grabbing France has been doing since Normandy invaded England in the eleventh century AD, I’m going to assume her birth year is somewhere more recent than that. Therefore, I’m going to assume she has been around the Catholic Missionary Attitude that France had; one could call that attitude the bedrock of its existence for at least a millennia (and is still visible in modern day).

So tell me: when did she break out of it? What made her even care about human atrocities, when she has likely grown up watching France commit them her entire life? 

Because let me just say, she has had plenty of opportunities to realize she did nothing in the face of her neighbours’ hatred of people not like them, and she has never taken them before. 

Did she (or her parents, if she was born around this time) decry Napoleon re-introducing slavery in France in 1802? Side with Haiti when it declared independence in 1804, and hate that the government forced Haiti to pay for the “theft” of slaves and land (that was only paid off in 1947)? Is she presently championing for France to pay Haiti the money it wrongfully took from the country? Did she hate the delays in stopping the French slave trade, which took 11 years to actually stop after it was banned on paper? 

Unconditional emancipation was only reached in 1848, after all. I don’t care if she was born in 1830, there was some sort of major racial event happening in France all throughout the late 1700s to mid-1800s. Where did she side then?

Abolitionism was not an unknown concept in France, so it is possible she had already been working towards it quietly, but that would mean she would have felt guilt at inaction much earlier, depending on when she began decrying slavery—if she was even delayed in decrying it, which I will admit is possible. 

And if she was an abolitionist, would she have even listened to the French government in not at least easing the genocide around her? Because she would have watched nearly 100 years of the French dragging their feet on stopping slavery in their empire, and known how BS it all was… if she saw it that way.

That’s just abolitionism, and is not even counting the French relationship with the Native population in Quebec and the Great Lakes region, which is a giant tangle of proxy wars, colonialism, missionary work, and very, very, very complex relationships that started off good and ended terribly.

So I ask again: why did she only start caring then?

Speaking of proxy wars, the Napoleon Empire wanted a Confederate victory, because the Confederacy was its source of cotton and the American Civil War created a “cotton famine” in France that basically forced the textile industry into a massive downsizing. The Confederacy also tolerated Napoleon’s plans for expanding the empire in Mexico, which actually had begun in December of 1861.

So when it comes to how a magical board would rule—even though France was officially neutral in the war, the court of public opinion (among politicians and capitalists) was more on the Confederate side than the Union side. Many politicians secretly worked with the Confederacy, until they abandoned them when the Union showed signs of winning. The only reason France officially remained neutral is because a war with the British was inevitable if they acknowledged the Confederacy, and Napoleon didn’t want that.

I shall work under the assumption that because it was rather literally on her doorstep when she moved to America, she lost insulation to it (if she hadn’t thought about it before), but I will say how iffy that makes her look in the long term if she had so many opportunities beforehand (at the very least, seeing slaves in France).

My other option is the word “ancient” is liberally applied and she was only in her 20s or 30s when 1850 hit, and therefore had not had many opportunities to see otherwise (but she still would have seen slaves in France, likely).

Onto the white guilt and white saviour aspects

Strictly from a writing perspective, you have to determine if she changed the course of history, or not. This would not necessarily be within the realm of white saviour, seeing as white people were the only ones listened to at the time. You can see people who changed the course of history in this period by looking up the pastor who insisted Lincoln hold fair trials for the Dakota, which brought the execution count from over 200 down to 38. You can also look at Alice Fletcher, who made quite a few laws designed to protect Native people, but whether or not they were successful is up for debate (and she regretted some of the laws she helped enact).

If not, then you have the current tangle you’re dealing with.

Option 1

She was unestablished in America and relied on the magical regulations board to protect her, and she figured working small and under the radar would mean she could do more good long-term by not being killed, so long as you establish that such a threat is viable.

This option only works if she’s an active advocate for the slew of other racist acts that pass once she’s settled in America, of which I gave many examples above.

Option 2

She actually did change the course of history in perhaps a mixed way, or perhaps a positive way. She could have relied completely on being a white, well-to-do voice in the community, which would have granted her some privilege without using a drop of magic. 

This can apply to any point in history, seeing as there were a lot of others to pick from. It would be particularly useful once suffrage was achieved, and if she was part of suffrage, did she call out Susan B. Anthony’s racism? Did she encourage allowing non-whites to vote?

Option 3 

She was slow to care, and did not actually understand what a big deal it was that such atrocities were happening until it was too late. This leads to her dedication to atonement the strongest, but you have to be careful about white guilt. This option can go along with option 1.

This allows her to be a passive player in future racist events, but makes her an even more privileged white character who PoC will have a hard time seeing as kindly, and you should go out of your way to show white players how unkind and privileged she was, and perhaps still is.

Option 4 

she doesn’t actually care much, because she has a president of not caring about atrocities happening in France, and her bigotry shows up in other ways in modern day and she’s just a kindly-but-bigoted character. She’s your wonderful grandma who you have beautiful memories with… she just doesn’t care about anyone not white.

This can go along with option 3, as she was so slow to realize that she is still bigoted and hasn’t done any work, but her racism is going to be more covert and you’ll have to do research on microaggressions and how to frame them.

Based off the way her lack of action is framed in-story and how little a plot role it plays, I would say that option 4 with a dash of option 3 appears to be the most likely interpretation of her character by PoC. She’s lip-service to progress, at present, but seems to have made no strides in losing her social standing to be an ally.

Now here’s why I don’t think you should let readers headcanon her however they want:

White players in particular are going to minimize her culpability in what happened, and think that she did all that she could, and she is a Totally Redeemed Character now. In fact, they’ll probably wonder why she’s even an Atoner, because she did something, right? She helped, right? And now she’s helping and that’s plenty. She’s good to the players, so she is a Good Person.

Meanwhile PoC players are going to see yet another white author ignore the fact that colonialism was happening en masse at the time, and that white people deeply benefited from it, and are going to see the “it happened in the past why do you keep bringing up racism?” defence continued.

Let her be flawed. Let her be on stolen land and acknowledge it every time she teaches them something, and let her sit and exist in the guilt that happens when she realizes she could have stopped the theft but didn’t. Let her not wallow in self hate, but acknowledge her mistake with every lesson the main characters receive, and let her work on righting that wrong by championing “land back” causes that centre Indigenous voices.

Let her dialogue options show every trace of how the past is not over because the past’s actions are still being felt and reparations have not been made. The settler state is still controlling the land she has made home and she knows exactly what they did to get it, and she passes that knowledge on.

Let players be uncomfortable with the knowledge that, if they sit by and “only do small things when they can, to not lose anything”, they are complicit. Let white people see they must well and truly denounce what has been given to them by their racist, colonial ancestors in order for PoC to “stop talking about racism.”

Make her use whatever income she makes be paid in part to Native causes, as rent for the land she occupies unfairly. Make her refuse to teach bigoted students who want “mystic secrets” that aren’t hers to give, that were appropriated centuries ago. Make part of her life’s work be hiding away Black and Indigenous spiritual leaders to minimize the loss.

Let her past be imperfect. And do not force redemption on her, but instead let her own the fact she made catastrophic mistakes that will not be redeemed until land has been returned to the Native population. Until all forms of slavery are abolished. Until colonial powers give back all the resources and finances they stole from their colonized regions. Until the privilege that white people spilled so much blood to secure is no more.

Because if you want her to truly be a good character who does not support racism? That is the level you have to step towards.

Everything else is simply whiteness trying to make itself feel better.

~Mod Lesya

(TFP) Optimus vs. Orion Pax vs. TFA Optimus: Compelling Optimuses

I kind of despise TFP Optimus. I think TFP Orion Pax is way more interesting. I love TFA Optimus. Find out why I think that is.

In short, I think the primary reason TFP Optimus is a blank slate of a character is because his purpose in the story is not to be a character, but to be a narrative tool.

I’ve gone at length multiple times in multiple places about why exactly I hate Optimus, although none of those places include tumblr so I guess I should recap.

Basically, I dislike Optimus as a character because he’s displayed as the pinnacle of moral justice despite his decisions in the show actively working against him on multiple occasions (for instance, sparing Megatron the number of times he does) and because he’s never shown to really have any flaws or struggles. He’s something of a Mary Sue, being shown as basically perfect from the outset and having no difficulties with any of the problems he faces.

But I think what makes him such a bland, uncompelling character more than this alone is that he’s only used in the narrative to be a vehicle for moral exposition (pun not intended.) His purpose in Transformers Prime is not to be a character, but to merely educate the other autobots in moral values and to be an opposing force to Megatron. What are his motivations? He led five other autobots to take refuge on Earth, but has never demonstrated much of a motivation beyond this. He has never advocated for retaking Cybertron (until that option is practically thrown at him,) nor for creating a new autobot society on Earth. He displays no initiative toward any end goal. He only ever reacts to events that occur in such a way as to display the most ethical option given the context.

Orion Pax, on the other hand, is a true character. I still don’t think he’s super compelling, but he clearly has a personality where Optimus doesn’t. What are Orion’s motivations? He’s well-educated and has read extensively about how unfair Cybertronian society is. He wants to change this and overhaul the caste system, but he’s also somewhat sheltered in that he doesn’t quite know how to go about this. He’s unsure of himself, but he truly believes in his vision for a just Cybertron and wants to achieve this peacefully.

But even more important than his motivations are his flaws, which Optimus entirely lacks (unless you count his backwards moral reasoning, but the show doesn’t imply that these are flawed so they don’t really count.) Optimus is never demonstrated as having any flaws, but as soon as he reverts back to being Orion, the main flaw that immediately becomes apparent is his naiveté. He trusts Megatron more than he should, and this is actively demonstrated as being a flaw by the mere fact that, because of this trust, he ultimately hinders the autobots.

Orion isn’t the most profound character in fiction, but he at least has motivations and character flaws; two things which are basic requirements for having a character at all.

Optimus, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have motivations toward anything but punching decepticons, and doesn’t seem to have any flaws, given that he doesn’t fail or really struggle with anything. (Okay so there’s that one scene where Starscream escapes with the omega keys and Optimus angrily yells into the sky and I will give that scene a point just because it’s actually a case where he shows emotion like a real character.)

I hadn’t thought about it until writing that parenthetical, but the utter lack of emotion doesn’t help Optimus’ case either. Granted, there are characters like Soundwave who also don’t display emotion, but he still displays motivations and... not really any flaws but he does at least have some struggles and failures to make him imperfect.

Optimus’ role in TFP is simply to be an expositor of moral and ethical thought. He does not serve as a leader, or a downtrodden rebel fighter, or a strategic tactician, or even as a person.

Contrast this with TFA Optimus, which is actually the only one I even like. He, as a character above all else, serves as all of these. He coordinates strategies using the different autobots’ unique skills. He does what he thinks is right even when Sentinel or the Elite Guard push him aside. He makes mistakes, he has flaws, he even has emotional outbursts at times as any real person does. TFA Optimus starts out at the beginning of the show as a well-meaning Elite Guard trainee who was condemned to a mundane life of space bridge repair. He and his vastly underprepared crew are very suddenly thrown directly into the front lines of the war with the decepticons, and Optimus is forced to step up as a leader. By the end of the show, he (and the other autobots) cements himself as a hero, not because he was chosen by Primus to be perfect, but because he worked his skidplate off fighting the decepticons when no one was around to help him, and he did what he knew was right even when no one else would.

His character is what makes him good, not his endowment of a magical artifact by a higher power. He struggles and fails but ultimately rises to greatness because it’s what his motivations drove him to do.

This is something TFP Optimus utterly lacks. I think I’ll end on that note. I kind of want to watch TFA again, damn.

Idk if you've seen the meta about Yunmeng Bros as West vs East ideologies but it rubs me the wrong way so much. It says JC prioritizes his family and in my head I'm just like "no, he prioritizes his reputation, which just so happens to include being a Sect Leader". You'd think if he prioritized his family he'd have, idk, helped his "brother", WWX. (1/6)

It also says that the idea of "family" being above all was being ingrained into JC by his mother... Again, no?? Madam Yu decidedly advocated "by virtue of being the future Sect Leader of Yunmeng Jiang, you are superior, and everyone else is inferior to you". Which is why JC lowkey resented WWX in their childhood. WWX was the superior cultivator and his character was also in-line with what YMJ Sect stood for, unlike JC. (2/6)

Then the meta: "as opposed to trying harder to fit into the ideals of the Yunmeng Jiang Sect, Wei Wuxian actively rebels"... OP is this the same story?? WWX embodies YMJ's ideal. In fact, the more accurate translation of their motto would be "Attempt to do what is Right even when it Seems Impossible". WWX's so-called acts of "rebellion" are him precisely acting in the way an ideal YMJ cultivator would. JC's disregard of anything that could potentially stain his reputation... Not so much. (3/6)

he meta also says that WWX's founding of demonic cultivation is a symbol of individuality and rejection of conformity... And I wanna cry. OP, hey OP, did you forget that WWX wouldn't have created demonic cultivation if he had literally ANY OTHER OPTION. He would have chosen his nice broad path 11/10!! And he only doesn't choose it because he literally couldn't!! (4/6)

Now it says that WWX "chose" the Wen Remnants because of their similar feelings of "isolation" and "otherness" and T_T OP... OP he chose them because he owed them a debt of gratitude and then because it was the right thing to do... OP please... (5/6)

Anyways the way it ended is even worse if you can believe it. Something something... JC feeling betrayed by WWX's actions... Fair, I guess? But also, JC's reactions to this perceived betrayal is not excusable so. Idk anymore ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (Also I just realized that when I sent some parts of the asks I didn't send it anonymously... Skskdkskaka do you mind keeping it anon hahahaha) (6/6)

JC prioritizes his family, but he has a very limited idea of who counts as “family” and they can be removed from that category at any time, so in practice it’s more a “looking out for number one” mentality. And yeah, I... fail to see how YZY, who spends all her time trying to turn JC against his family, was the one to instill “family is important” in JC???? I mean, if you think her attitude is putting family above all else I guess, but I have no idea why you’d think that.

And yeah, WWX is explicitly far more loyal to the beliefs of the Jiang sect than JC was???? JC pretty much threw away the motto of his sect when he took over because he thought brutal revenge-by-proxy on his own brother was more important than helping people. It was JC who rebelled against the beliefs of his sect, not WWX. And yeah, WWX only started on demonic cultivation because he had no choice! It wasn’t a decision he made for the hell of it, he did it because he would have died otherwise, and the Sunshot Campaign would be lost. And yeah, he chose the Wen remnants because they deserved to live, not necessarily because he felt any real connection to them beyond his debt to WN and WQ. They became his family, but at first they were just people he was protecting because his moral compass wouldn’t allow him to just let civilians die.

Also again with the “Oh, poor JC, he felt so betrayed by WWX not being cool with genocide”. Do the people writing these things not realize that talking about how upset JC was when WWX wouldn’t stand back and let him commit genocide against people they owed their lives to makes JC look worse, not WWX?

Written by “Your Local Epidemiologist”

Be angry. Just do it with a mask on. FAQ answers...

Yesterday, the CDC took backsies on mask guidance. Last night I had a glass of wine, screamed into a pillow, and slept on my responses to your great questions, so they weren’t riddled with frustration. While this was, by far, the correct policy, the CDC is not making scientific communication easy.

So… good morning! Here are some answers to your questions…

Why did the CDC remove the mask recommendations in May?

On paper, they wanted to increase vaccine acceptance. At the time, transmission was also extremely low among the vaccinated. Should they have had the foresight that this could change? Probably.

In between the lines, they were also pressured by lawmakers. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the night before the May decision, the CDC Director (Walensky) met with Louisiana lawmakers. Public health departments were informed of the policy change from NYT breaking news. Then two days later, a deeply respected public health leader and CDC’s second in command, Dr. Anne Schuchat, just happened to retire.

I still stand by my opinion that the CDC made a mistake in May. But we need to move forward.

Do you disagree with any of the guidance?

The CDC has a really good handle on science and data. There’s no question about that. Their ability to disseminate and implement that science continues to be a disappointment though. I think the CDC should have just simply recommended universal mask wearing. A simple, consistent message. They also desperately need a deimplementation plan. In other words, when will this end for the vaccinated?

Does this mean vaccinated people can spread the virus?

Yes. Before Delta, vaccines reduced transmission by about 90%. With a 1000% increased viral load, Delta changed the game. Yesterday, the CDC said that they had unpublished data showing breakthrough infections with high amounts of virus. This means vaccinated can spread the virus. No one has seen this study or the data. We don’t know the rate of transmission. We don’t know the R(0). We don’t know a lot. This is one of the main reasons the WHO has continued to recommend masking for vaccinated.

A higher viral load does not necessarily mean increased severity of disease. We believe (and continue to see on a local level) that vaccines continue to protect against severe disease at a much higher rate than unvaccinated protection.

A third dose could help with high viral loads among vaccinated. A third dose would increase naturalizing antibodies, which would decrease viral shedding from the nose and the mouth. It might be time for us, as a nation, to consider it. This could get life back to normal for vaccinated.

How do I know if I’m in a geographical area where I should be masking?

Go here. If your county is orange or red, wear a mask indoors. This means that your county has a higher than 50 new cases per 100,000 persons in the past 7 days OR test positivity rate is greater than 8%. If you’re in a yellow or blue county, you probably don’t need to wear a mask. But, full disclosure, I have continued to wear a mask indoors regardless of which color my county was in.

Since the mask is intended to prevent me from spreading my germs to others, does it also protect me from others?

Yes, masks protect others (outward protection). But masks also protect the wearers (inward protection). This is especially true is the mask is fit and filtered right. The best protection is a N95. The next level of protection is double masked (cloth over surgical) and results in a 83% reduction in exposure. A knotted surgical mask is the next best option (see Panel C below), resulting in a 65% reduction in exposure. Protection from a loose-fitting cloth mask is low.

I have to say, I am beyond annoyed that yet again, those of us who have been super careful, masking, DOUBLE masking, getting vaccinated as soon as possible, distancing, staying home, following all the rules.... Now, AGAIN we are being asked to be the adults in the room so 30% can remain children. Frankly, I honestly don't much care if the vaccine refusers become a statistic. I'm tired of having to care about those who do not care about me.

You should be annoyed!! And frustrated. And tired. I am. But the solution is deeply rooted in complex issues: chronically underfunded public health system; polarization in politics; public health integrated into politics; terrible scientific communication; a fragmented healthcare system; suboptimal scientific illiterate base; and, health equity. We aren’t going to solve these tomorrow.

So, don’t do it for the never maskers. Don’t do it for the unvaccinated. Do it for the immunocompromised. Do it for the kids. Do it for the elderly. We can’t leave them behind. Once we get those folks fully protected, I’m all for survival of the fittest. Be angry. But just do it with a mask on.

How is outdoor transmission changing with the delta variant? Is being outdoors still a meaningful buffer?

The risk hasn’t been quantified with Delta, but outdoors is safer than indoors. If you’re not shoulder to shoulder in a crowd outside, I’m still comfortable saying that outdoor activities are still low risk.

If schools do not follow mask recommendations, what is the best advice for parents?

The CDC cannot mandate masks. Schools do not have to listen to CDC or American Academy of Pediatrics. This can only be done on the federal level and/or state level.

So, what do we do? I don’t have a silver bullet. But, if I were a parent with a kid going to school, I would advocate for masks and surveillance testing. To the school. To the local health department. To local politicians. To schools again. And to the schools again. Parents have power and influence in numbers. Don’t think that you don’t. If it’s helpful, I can put together a one-pager of talking points.

Then, I would ask my kids’ teacher if s/he were vaccinated. Then I would go out and buy a well fit respirator for my kid (there are KN95’s on Amazon for kids). Then I would send my kid to school, have a glass of wine, probably cry, and do my best to parent given the increasingly difficult landscape we are forced to navigate.

What are you doing with your kids?

My kids are young, so we are in a little bit of a different position. One is 9 months old, so she is naturally considered high risk. My 2.5 year old is healthy. Both are in childcare. My husband and I pulled our daughters out of childcare over the weekend.

It came to my attention that their teachers were unvaccinated and not wearing masks. The childcare facility would not change their policy. So, we consulted two pediatricians. Both of which said the risk of keeping them in childcare is much higher than the benefit of keeping them in. They don’t need the socialization like older kids need. At least right now, until we have a better understanding of Delta and where this new wave is going. If our kids were older than 4/5 years old, this decision would have been different.

At what point does this thing become endemic, and we get a booster every year like the flu because there are different variants, but we no longer take drastic measures like universal masking?

An endemic stage will look like small pockets of outbreaks: A nursing home here, a school outbreak there. An endemic stage is not entire states or even counties with outbreaks. The South is burning right now. We are still very much in a pandemic/epidemic stage. Progress towards endemic will be slow and painful.

We will reach this point once everyone gets vaccinated or everyone gets exposed to Delta. Some scientists think we will reach endemic by next Spring. But only if the virus doesn’t mutate again to completely escape vaccines.

Hope this is helpful,

YLE

Link to the data sources is here: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/be-angry-but-do-it-with-a-mask-on