LMFAO

i dont know if you've ever said anywhere- but we know that Remy and Ollie are both half orcs and that Ollie's other half is ~Demon~

Do we know what Remy's other half is or is that a future secret?

I'm just curious cause Ollie is So Clearly Orcish so is Remy's other half just super strong blooded or is he a twink?

SHEW yall I've been sittin on a huge lore breakthrough with Ollie and Remy that my high ass accidently unlocked a few weeks ago that I've been debating on just dumping here but I'm still considering if it's too spoilery for what is literally just about to come up in the comic, but tbh it would probably just help contextualize things a little better so IDKK if i dont drop it soon it'll be after-not this update or the next-but the one after but before I slap a little snippet, the short answer is I still don't know what his other half is exactly, it's demon no doubt but a mangly unimpressive one for sure. Adding onto that I don't even know what Remy's mom is part UUH and imma have to design her up Real Soon so im still wracking my brain for that one. The closest I got right now is maybe the demon resembled a giraffe somehow hence the giraffe esque spots on Remy ??? both Ollie and Remy's "fathers" came from the same demon cave hence the kinda dark look even around Remys eyes and similar horn stripes:

believe it or not it isn't eyeliner LMFAO its basically what Ollie has horn with just to a much lesser extent (they used to be more of a brown hue to i guess show that they weren't as tough and more sensitive to the touch but making the comic i kinda dropped it oof) but anyway the whole reason Remy was born in the first place was just for a "anything you can do I can do better" attempt by Remy's mom (Mogaks sister) ie. a lil snippit from the lore dump in the drafts:

*SIDE NOTTE Remy's mom has mental issues due to the hierarchy in the orc community over being a half orc and the fact that she isn't involved in combat and just minds the village, so she already wasn't really seen highly of (Mogak would treat her equally however) meanwhile Mogak was a pretty hefty solid full blooded orc and was a warrior of sorts and a leader in that aspect (her 'occupation' for lack of better word wasn't necessarily THAT high ranking in their society considering battle fighting was a common 'career' within the orc tribe so she's still even among the orc community, but still well liked and respected regardless) but her sister was seen as less-than in subtle ways. Due to her tough upbringing she quietly dealt with jealousy of Mogak throughout her life and during their young adult years she would take up the habit of trying to outdo Mogak with little things. When she was told about Mogak being pregnant with Ollie by her quest into a demonic cave, she planned on doing the same. The demon she ended up mating with wasn't all that great to say the least and didn't put up much of a fight either (Mogak declared a battle with the demon she wanted to make the deal with and chose a Pretty Fukkin Big Ass Boi one of the biggest in the cave I'd argue) so that's why Remy turned out Like That. After everything happened and they moved Remy's mom still carried self conscious habits and would get with men who would play off of those insecurities

Isa my darling! Happy Birthday, albeit a couple of days early.

Seeing you screech in Philza's streams because Apollo hit you with that dodgeball yet again makes me giggle a lot.

How about since headcanon's for qPhilza's past/pre island relationship with qFit. How they got to know each other, and how quickly they became friends?

Idr if I said this on Tumblr yet but deadass I asked Apollo on my pendulum if qPhil is his blorbo and he said yes. He's been as invested in shit as me and it's been hilarious. I literally have crows yelling at me irl to keep writing rn but I'm answering headcanons first.

The entire time I've been distracted between writing these, crows have been yelling at me about it. Which. Is how Apollo communicates with me when I'm not actively talking to him through readings LMFAO.

Also thank you for the birthday wish :D [desperately hoping nothing else horrible happens this weekend please god]

Anyway qPhil headcanons masterlist let's go

Disclaimer that I didn't know of Fit before QSMP (I've only been in mcyt for 4 years monkaS) so these are gonna be largely pulled out of my ass and a lil repetitive.

These two both have experiences in anarchy and war, they've definitely brushed shoulders a couple times bc of it

They admired each other's work ofc. Phil is a macro scale kinda guy, total annihilation and victory that makes a statement. Fit's more of a micro scale kinda guy, zeroing in on one person or group individually and making their lives hell until the end in the name of surviving a little longer

On that note, I think we all sleep a little bit on the fact that Fit is Also a survivalist like Phil, just in a very different set of high stakes conditions. These two are equally skilled in it and equally sharp strategists

On that note, anyone who knew them from the past would fear the idea of them coming together to create a plan of any kind, especially of the anarchist-fueled variety. If the Federation has done their research right, they should know full well how terrifying this duo could be in an effort to dismantle their authority

Btw by brushing shoulders I don't just mean brief passings by, I mean they've like. Camped out for a night together, temporarily truced for the sake of safety in numbers, etc. More than a few conversations have been had even if the time they've spent together totals to less than a week.

However, even when they weren't actively paired together, they'd still occasionally trade or gift each other surplus resources. It was a genuine kind act, even if it simultaneously served as a reason for each of them to not come after the other. I scratch your back, you scratch mine.

Like why do you think Fit was one of the first threats on Phil's mind in Purgatory. He Knew(tm). And he knew Fit has an affinity for picking off the weak first, like a lion after a herd of antelope. To him, Purgatory was the awakening of a monster who'd been dormant for a long time.

See, present day they're QPR as fuck, they'd never do this now without 10x the pressure Purgatory put on them, but back in the day they took close notes on each other's strengths and weaknesses. Just In Case, yknow? They could very much kill each other. Back in the day they would've if it came to it, no matter how good an ally they were.

Something about how these two used to be so cold and hard to the world. Be it to self-preserve or some other reason. Something about how now they've both softened and warmed after becoming parents. They never could've imagined the other would "weaken" like this, especially back then.

Phil 🤝🏻 Fit - Phil being a historian of the deities/builds of his Hardcore World, Fit being a historian of 2B2T

A lot of this boils down to mutual respect, common interests, and secret admiration tbh. And what's more homoerotic than that?

By: Ben Appel

Published: Dec 26, 2023

In 2021, Harvard evolutionary biologist Carole Hooven stated on a television news program that there are “two sexes” and that “those sexes are designated by the kinds of gametes we produce.” She added that “understanding facts about biology doesn’t prevent us from treating people with respect” when it comes to “their gender identities and use [of] their preferred pronouns.” Afterward, a Harvard graduate student, in her official capacity as director of the Human Evolutionary Biology Department’s Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging Task Force, tweeted that Hooven’s “dangerous” and “transphobic” remarks made the department unsafe for transgender people. The Graduate Student Union took out a petition against Hooven, and, since no one would agree to serve as her teaching assistant, she had to discontinue her popular lecture course. This past January, under duress, Hooven retired from her position at Harvard.

More recently, I heard Hooven speak at a conference in Denver. She talked about academic freedom and her dedication to creating a just society. She said something I believe: that the truth is the way toward true social justice, and that the truth is what ultimately alleviates human suffering. After Hooven left the stage, I tweeted my thoughts about what she said, concluding, “Yep, I’ll die on that hill.” A Twitter user, in a now-deleted series of replies, responded, “Wish you would then. And quickly.” Later, this person elaborated, “Cis white conservative gays can all d*e. Please do, no one likes you.”

This might be the first time I’ve been called “conservative” for voicing my support of the truth and social justice. Right-wing homophobia is nothing new, though the enmity for “cis white gays” like me from the other side of the aisle has sadly also become widespread online. Here’s a very small sampling:

“[C]is white gay men are the weakest links and idc who knows it.” — @ann_forcino.

“ur rave wasn't ‘100% queer joy’ it was a warehouse party full of white cis gay men who want to dance and fuck each other lmfao [...] “that's not queer joy, that's f^g joy.” — @Maxies_back

“Chelsea and Hells Kitchen, more so than other neighborhoods in New York, produce nothing better than prissy, entitled cis White Power pretentious gay men, who don't respect diversity, or the rule of law.” — “LGBT for Change”

“Maybe they were right all along and white cis gays really do go to hell.” — Jerry Falwell @obssdwmlp

“Behind every bad man there is an even worse cis gay white man.” — @ANIMETWTDNI

“We need to realize that gay cis white men are still cis white men.” — @pettypiedpipertake

“Maybe homophobia against cis white gay men is valid.” — @heartIwin

“Noah Schnapp is also evidence that gays will truly go to h£ll. especially a cis white upper class gay like i genuinely, genuinely mean that and i’m sorry if that comes off as problematic.” [Schnapp is a 19-year-old Jewish gay actor who has spoken out in support of Israel in the wake of the October 7 2023 terrorist attacks.] — @brat6z

 “I love it when white gays erase the trans and black side of this flag [...] You faggots deserve to get hatecrimed to death.” — @daredevilshill_

Writing for The Nation in 1994, the gay playwright Tony Kushner argued that homosexuality and socialism are intrinsically linked. Homosexuals, he wrote, “like most everyone else, are and will continue to be oppressed by the depredations of capital until some better way of living together can be arrived at.” Kushner lamented the growing number of gay activists, like Andrew Sullivan and Bruce Bawer, who advocated a more pragmatic approach to equal rights. The radical contingent of the LGBT community has long pejoratively described these types of gay and bi people — those who prioritize marriage equality, the right to serve openly in the military, and peaceful inclusion in Western society — as “assimilationist.” Real gay liberation, the radicals argue, will result from razing Western civilization and its capitalist, cisheteropatriarchal system and rebuilding it in their utopian vision. Like the gay journalist Donna Minkowitz once said to Charlie Rose, “We don’t want a place at the table — we want to turn the table over.”

The thing is, the pragmatic approach won. Today, gay, lesbian, and bi people get married, serve proudly, have jobs, own homes, and raise families. Like black civil rights leaders who preached nonviolent protest and a politics of respectability, discerning LGBT activists took the long view. We don’t want to exist on the margins of society, they insisted, we want to participate in it. LGBT people, just like black Americans, are a vital part of the fabric of this nation.

But the radicals haven’t taken this defeat lying down. After the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which made marriage equality the law of the land, the radicals pounced. “You got what you want,” they seemed to say. “Now it’s our turn.” LGBT rights organizations, either under the influence of impatient extremists or in an attempt to stay relevant (i.e., donor-worthy), refocused their missions to a form of revolutionary activism that purports to fight on behalf of trans people but in practice agitates for a revolt against Enlightenment ideals, liberalism, capitalism, and even basic biology.

Every LGBT organization seemingly became an extension of a university Gender Studies department, whose purpose was not to produce new knowledge but to interrogate — or, in their academic lingo, queer — existing knowledge which they spuriously associate with “whiteness”, colonialism, and Western patriarchy. Alongside this, a new social hierarchy of disadvantage was erected, where everyone was in competition to be the most “marginalized” — and therefore deserving of resources, a voice, and power in the revolutionaries’ value system. According to that value system, being gay or bi seemed to matter far less if one were also white, cis, and male, and therefore deemed to be in cahoots with the oppressors.

In 2017, while I was a student at Columbia University, I interned for GLAAD, one of the largest LGBT organizations in the US. Not only had their mission absorbed this new orthodoxy, it had filtered down to the interpersonal level. On campus and at GLAAD’s offices, I was regularly called “cis” in a kind of sneering, vitriolic tone that reminded me more than a little of the bullies who called me “fag” in middle school. The oddest thing was that much of the vitriol was coming from people who didn’t seem to be LGB, or even T, but who identified only as nonbinary or “queer.” Many of the people I encountered seemed to be profoundly homophobic. Any gay or bi man that didn’t at least adopt he/they pronouns, especially if they were white, was considered assimilationist, right-wing, traitorous upholders of the evil sex binary.

I never quite got used to being eyed with suspicion by other activists for my normative, gender-conforming appearance, or the constant bad-faith interpretations of anything I said. The only cis white gays spared this unfairly cold treatment were the ones who made a public show of being self-hating — the ones who renounced their “cis white gayness” and frequently apologized for their white privilege.

It was alarming to be on the receiving end of such vitriol simply for being myself — for not shaving one side of my head, painting my nails, piercing my septum, and adopting plural pronouns. It was alarming especially because so much of the hate I received when I was young came precisely because I was way too sex-nonconforming (in fact, in middle school, my classmates would often ask me if I was a boy or a girl). I wondered if my peers cared that I had been mercilessly bullied as a gay kid, or that I had worked on a trans rights anti-discrimination campaign when they were barely teenagers. I knew that my volunteering for marriage equality wouldn’t earn me any points, since marriage was to them an antiquated Western institution and part of an “assimilationist” agenda. This attitude has become so entrenched in LGBT activist spaces, I suspect it partially explains why support for same-sex marriage among Gen Z Americans has dropped from 80% in 2021 to only 69% in 2023.

Last year, I got a little more clarity about this issue when I came across an article, also written in 1994, by Stephen H. Miller. The publishing journal, Heterodoxy, titled it “Gay-Bashing by Homosexuals,” although Miller’s original title was “Gay White Males: PC’s Unseen Target.” In the late 1980s and early 90s, Miller chaired the media committee of GLAAD’s New York chapter. In fact, Miller came up with GLAAD’s mission statement, which was to “fight for fair, accurate and inclusive representations of gay and lesbian lives in the media and elsewhere.” In the article, Miller wrote that he was “purged” from GLAAD in 1992 because he objected to the rising political correctness and censoriousness in the gay, lesbian, and bisexual movement. Similar to the cultural shifts of the past decade, Miller recounts how activist organizations began prioritizing race and gender (and of course, the Correct political views) over individual merit. New staff members had to attend “endless sensitivity sessions” which “identified white men (whatever their sexual orientation) as the oppressor class.” Suddenly, it seemed like there was more antagonism towards the “white males” within the LGBT rights movement than without. Miller, who described himself as a “political moderate who believed in dialogue with the straight world and a good-faith search for common ground,” found himself “shunned.”

The race and gender quotas that LGBT rights organizations began adopting, Miller wrote, included weighted voting that favored women and people of color. For example, after regional delegations of organizers for the 1993 March on Washington for LGB rights failed to achieve their quotas, it was decided that women’s votes would count for three votes apiece and non-white votes would count for two votes apiece. That decision — and the many others that have since followed in LGBT activist spaces — calls to mind some dark and creepy moments from American history best learned from rather than imitated.

Of course, this also raises the question: Who decides who is a person of color and who is white, and how? Will they apply the one-drop rule, the early 20th-century legal principle that deemed any American with even one black ancestor (“one drop of black blood”) as black? I suppose that would be illegal since the Supreme Court outlawed the one-drop rule in its 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision. And yet, I’m not surprised by these backward tactics. It was Ibram X. Kendi who recently wrote, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Around and around we go.

Then as now, as Miller wrote, anyone who challenged this illiberal orthodoxy was “deemed racist and sexist” and accused of harboring the belief that “white men are the main victims of discrimination.” Naturally, Miller notes, such accusations serve to discourage people who sense this hostility toward gay white men from voicing their dissent.

Then after AIDS decimated gay and bi male activist communities, lesbian radical feminists moved in, and a “critical attitude toward men, male sexuality, and ‘the patriarchy’” became the norm. “Male solidarity, once a hallmark of gay liberation, is now anathema.”

A direct line can be drawn from this upheaval in the early 1990s and the divisiveness in today’s LGBT activist spaces, where “cis gays” — and, in particular, “cis white gays” — are seen as upholders of villainous Western cisheteropatriarchy and its henchman capitalism. These modern activists are sure to include “white” not only out of an animus against white people, but because they assume that all people of color are helpless victims of Western capitalism who, because of their oppression, invariably hold the “correct” far-left politics. In his aforementioned article, Kushner invoked Oscar Wilde, quoting “A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at.” He added that he is “always suspicious of the glacier-paced patience of the right.” Writing for The Advocate, the gay writer Bruce Bawer responded that he and so many others are “impatient with models of activism that involve playing at revolution instead of focusing on the serious work of reform.”

This anti-“cis white gay” attitude proliferates in LGBT media as well. “White Gay Men Are Hindering Our Progress as a Queer Community” was the title of an article published in the magazine Them. “You had your time — now, we have other things to fight for,” read the subhead. “Let's Talk About People That Aren't Young Cis White Gay Men,” a HuffPost article was titled.

I could go on and on.

A few years ago, I attended a conference for LGBT journalists. There, I met a young, white, gay writer who would go on to work for a progressive news outlet in New York. He said his upbringing in a Southern state had made him racist, but since then, he has “trained” himself to be attracted to black and brown people, and now black and brown people are the only types of people he wants to sleep with.

If this is the “progressive” strategy for combating racism, I want no part of it. And any liberal cis white gay person who opposes racism won’t either. This is racism, operating under the guise of “anti-racism”, plain and simple. It attempts to end inequality by inverting it and, in the process, is attacking the foundations of the principles that have enabled the remarkable progress our society has made in transcending bigotry and prejudice. I only wish more people who saw this dogma for what it is were unafraid to voice the truth about it.

==

Homophobia and anti-gay hate are alive and well as progressive virtues.

can we please not start a stupid discourse abt a war show? there's nothing wrong with people who watch the show bcs of the actors. if they want to whine how their fav characters got cut short let them be? regardless its based on real people or not, it's still a man made show without 100% accuracy lmfao it's not that serious...for me im just glad that hbowar fandom got new contents and fans again after years

Sure they can whine about it, gives me an equal right to respond to exactly that whining! Which is what I’ll do if I want to, because I think it’s highly disrespectful to the actual veterans and historical circumstances these men.

Cool it isn’t that serious to you though! Doesn’t mean it is the same for others. I personally care about how things like this are portrayed, considering, once again, It Actually Happened. It would be absolutely disrespectful to portray it inaccurately simply because fans want to see their favorite actor more. It actually, to me, shows that they’re not interested in what actually went down, but just want to see their actor in a show/film/any media. That, to me at least, is not what the hbo war community is about.

Oh and to add: I genuinely don’t care if someone watches a show for a certain actor. That wasn’t my point. At all.

I'm not indian, I'm actually mexican, so take what i say with a grain of salt, but the conversation about hindu right wingers reminded me of something interesting I saw in college, about how feminist reinterpretations of female historic figures from hindu tradition was seen as left wing and radical in the 90s, when it first started, but as the nationalist movement grew and the xenophobia against other religions and communities within india grew, they appropriated part of the feminist discourse regarding feminine figures like goddesses, heroines or philosophers, to incorporate them into the discrourse of "hinduism is better than islam".

What I find interesting about that is that i've seen similar things happen with feminist reinterpretations of women's history in every culture. For example, I've seen christians defend christianism as a "truly equal religion" based on the ideas that feminists from the 80s build up about the value of biblical figures like Mary, Magdalen and Judith, or important nuns and saints like Christine de Pizan. Nowadays Christians talk about those ideas as if they originally came from christian communities, when they actually come from feminists that were ostracized for daring to make an argument against the oppression of women. These feminists were trying to use an argument that made sense under a christian worldview to criticise christianism from inside, they weren't celebrating christianism as perfect or saying it didn't need any change, but the complete opposite.

And I've even seen similar things within indigenous mexican communities or even in feminist interpretations of judaism or islam, where feminists try to use arguments based on tradition to criticise modern day patriarchy... it's never an attempt to celebrate how perfect the culture is, but an attempt to use it's own logic to dismantle it... but then, pretty soon after they begin making this argument, right wingers apropriate their discurse to make it seem like their culture "was always feminist".

honestly yeah ive seen this happen w christianity too lmfao like christians were big anti-gay losers for centuries and then the second they wanted to argue that theyre superior to muslims & more specifically middle easterners, they were like "well WE dont think gay people should die for being gay!" like um luv the story of soddom & gomorrah didnt start w islam and stoning as a punishment was even more prominent in the bible...

i cant comment on hinduism or judaism but i can say that at least islam and christianity have pretended to be progressive (& sometimes actually became more progressive) simply to be able to argue that theyre the more Humane and Better religion

one of my fave people I've met out here is very outspokenly&openly autistic and talking to him is so unbelievably comforting. he was driving me home from a meeting today n he knows I haven't really been eating and asked if I wanted to get sushi and I was like "man I ate such a disturbing amount of food right before you picked me up" and he was so genuinely stoked on my weird bread binge lmfao it was the most like...loved ive ever felt wrt my insane food shit. then he brought up the fact I've been cutting recently and talked about how he used to punch walls and said someone else told him he shouldn't bring it up to me but he thought that was stupid. BUT the most important thing is he's very community-leader-y and good at deflecting but he finally talked to me about some stuff he was going through today and I was like haha! equal friendship footing!!! you've given me an inch!!

So at the end of Moon Knight, does it look like Layla and Marc separated or stayed together? Because I'm always confused by the ending. Marc wakes up in Steven's apartment, alone, so I wasn't sure if that meant that him and Layla aren't together anymore? I just wanted to hear your thoughts on it.

Oh, a Moon Knight question, I don't get asked those a lot. There's a few takeaways I think I can draw away from that scene, that I'll go into further discussion under the cut because I can, but I think for the moment, that element is supposed to be purposely up for interpretation. Anyway, here are three possibilities for that ending, I think:

Marc and Steven are back in Steven's flat in London, and Layla may just be elsewhere on an adventure or something.

Marc and Layla did separate.

That scene is meant to take place inside the boys' headspace.

Personally, I'm more of the belief of possibility #1. While it's certainly true there's the possibility that Marc and Layla may want to go through with their divorce, I don't choose to interpret it that way for canon personally. There aren't any secrets between them any more (since they're both equally in the dark about Jake, although Layla may know more about him than Marc does), and I can certainly see them having to slowly repair their relationship and initially keep some distance between each other (also explaining Layla's absence) as they work through their communication issues.

[Alternatively, Marc just woke up fronting on a day that was 'meant' to be Steven's in his flat.]

Like, Marc didn't sign the divorce papers and it doesn't look like Layla did either when she goes to confront him. They both very clearly still adore each other too:

And Marc post-Duat is far more open and less-masking than he was before. There'd obviously still be stuff to work through/heal from, but I do personally think they stay together. This has nothing to do with the fact that they're like...the first ship I've latched onto in years lmfao.

Also, I think it's safe to say that Layla would still be in their lives, with her and Steven's blooming romance:

which quick moment of appreciation for oscar and co for sneaking a poly relationship under disney/marvel's noses?? you know it didn't even register to either company because of ableism lmfao.

I won't go super into detail on possibility #2 because, like I said, it's not really a theory I subscribe to, but there certainly is the possibility that might be the route they choose to take in the future with Marc and Layla - perhaps not Steven and Layla, though. If we do, I think it'd be an amicable exes situation.

The third possibility is one I heard second hand, and it's something I've been rotating for a while. The scene with "Doctor Harrow" is them confronting the embodiment of their internalized ableism (and the external ableism they've faced in their lives) and when they fall out of the psych ward, they wake up somewhere safe, comforting and familiar - it worked, they're home. So it's certainly possible that the actual events of the series ended right when Khonshu released Marc and Steven, and everything following that (besides the end scene with Jake our beloved) takes place within their headspace.

in this 5am post i talk about how i feel about the Rusty Quill allegations and (inexplicably) how using an anarchist co-op approach in the industry could maybe possibly potentially have not allowed these issues to happen (from experience!)

honestly please read cuz now i want to start a podcasting co-op and it would be great if others did too.

i really loved tma (until plot>statements cuz i can't really follow the plot that much and i much prefer anthology horror that only hints at a wider plot and this is quite a long tangent actually) so this is kinda disappointing fr.

as someone who works in an anarchist co-op it's interesting to see how business who start out with horizontal leadership & pay devolve into full-on capitalist practices. is this inevitable? can i trust in the process? our bar, for example, works. at least, that's what it looks like to me. we're all paid the same, we all have equal rights within the business, we all have a stake in it, even though we all do very different jobs: bartending, hosting, talent-sourcing, sound-tech...ing. but i guess a massive difference is intent. from the start, the bar had a mission: prove that a business model like ours can work in parallel with capitalist businesses, creating networks of anarchist businesses, federation stuff etc etc, spread the anti-capitalist, if not explicitly anarcho-communist message throughout the city. a local bakery/cafe is also doing just that and they are fricking booming tbqh, it's remarkable.

with rusty quill, it's not a co-op, it's a capitalist business. hence the CEO. could the bar scale to this level and keep its core mission intact? well, i guess another difference is the fact that not only do we not expect to scale in that way, neither are we gonna franchise. it doesn't make sense. our aim would be to help other upcoming co-ops and related create their OWN co-ops, not come under our wing and become a massive co-op. is it possible to create a workers co-op in the podcasting world? pay everyone the same wage but keep that wage a healthy amount above minimum wage? No bosses, just people who do it because even in the hard times its what they WANT to do. Any creative job could be like that under a different system.

underneath this cut i go into a little detail of what i think a rudimentary podcasting co-op would look like and how it solves at least 1 (one) of RQs missteps and honestly i did not expect to talk about this and its 5am so it's a bit of a ramble but tldr; i think its possible and (obvs i'm biased) much preferable. given the time, interested people, and literally any knowledge of podcasting, would try to implement. tldr 2: capitalism sucks and it will kill everything you love if you're not paying attention.

I mean that's what we're trying to do. We are a grassroots music venue in a place that people never consider when they think about the country's culture. and yet we've managed to be a hotspot for people who've heard about us from word-of-mouth whenever our city is mentioned. yes, in general we have shit advertising but what works works lmfao.

so back to RQ: my point is it literally doesn't have to be like that. the music industry, from local venues to big studios, is extremely exploitative and such a scummy example of capitalism at work but WE MANAGED! Against the odds, a blooming spot in a tired, dying town. Can other industries do the same? Can podcasters do the same?

What would be the issue? What are the differences that make it more or less difficult? What issues befell RQ? Mismanagement and lack of communication? In a co-op, would this be fixed? I would venture a tentative "yes", because you no longer rely on a central body to have these discussions. You are the decision maker, as is everyone in the business. If it's "we should raise our pay", everyone else can say "well we want to pay for this studio or that bit of advertising, maybe we shouldn't" or they can say "yes, good idea because we have this surplus and can afford to spend less on this kind of microphone" or whatever. Everyone votes to change an established reality, and if there's a consensus, we go ahead! If it's a query that would affect only YOU and YOUR production, guess what? you need ask NO ONE!

This is just one of the ways in which i see a way out for this industry. Eventually, capitalism will come for every last one of our beautiful, independent podcasts. It's obviously already happening. And then the monopolization of it all into one, formless, Disney blob. Podcasts, one of the last bastions of high-quality, widely accessible art that so many people love and anyone can create, succumbing to the maw of the approaching terror that is the death of creativity at the behest of the invisible hand. This isn't about Rusty Quill anymore, really. I am just advocating for one of my favorite things to wrest itself from its destiny before it becomes nothing. All we'll have are the podcasts that made us think and feel decades ago:(

This became me just telling everyone to form co-ops. Also join the IWW - it's a massive international workers union. kill capitalism before it kills the things you love. do things today that make sure those things can continue being a light tomorrow. honestly, if making a podcasters co-op is viable then pls someone do it, i know nothing about podcasting, i cannot act or make sounds in microphones of high quality, so there's not much i can do on my own really. but if literally more than one person got up to this part then 1) you are a champ and 2) lmk if this is a good idea cuz rn my body is saying yes it is and that i can do anything rn.

i am sorry that this is just a stream of conciousness rambling, again i have been prescribed new adhd medication and accidentally took more than they told me to.

I am doing this instead of my C++ assignment. If anyone can also tell me how to understand operational amplifiers or how to calculate the uncertainty of a standard platinum resistance thermometer that would be fantastic.

xoxo not a girl

question 6

hiding under a read more bc this is a hate post LOL

literally, hitchannie shippers ruined the whole thing for me. a bunch of them spent literal MONTHS harassing me for preferring a different hitch ship and honestly, i just have a whole host of issues with them :/ i feel like for the most part they're annie fans who don't care about hitch, and only ship it because they think hitch is hot...i've seen literal HA mains not be able to come up with a single reason annie would like hitch besides her being hot. the few fics i've read always center around sex and give hitch 0 personality beyond being hot & loving annie. and honestly i feel like the subfandom is MAD ungrateful :/ they fight with people who don't have the same hcs (for example i got shit on bc i hc hitch as bi and they were mad and accused me of being a lesbophobe for that lol) and just...never seem grateful for what creators put out. like, when the episode when annie got out of the crystal first aired, there was a HUGE art boom and instead of being excited most HAs were crying about how it was gonna end and they wouldn't get content again soon. i'm talkin 5 minutes after the ep aired they were already hand-wringing. also they're more interested in putting them in boxes they don't fit in rather than talking about what actually makes them an interesting & good ship. like the grumpy x sunshine thing....anyone who genuinely believes hitch is a sunshine girlie is illiterate lmfao and everyone who ships HA for that reason actually ships minannie. i find them mad hypocritical, too. constantly shitting on aruani and calling armin a pedophile for being interested in annie since she was in the crystal and didn't age but turn around and ship her with hitch. nobody has to like a ship obvi but making up moral reasons to oppose it when the ship you DO like has the same pitfall is stupid. and honestly i feel like they're so OBSESSED with shitting on marlowe and mischaracterizing him? like in what world would the guy who's interested in justice & equality be a homophobic right winger...like if you're not interesting enough to come up with a compelling conflict homophobia & making him some creep who can't take no for an answer is easy i guess lol. and there's this obsession with proving that hitch hated him which is insane?? you don't have to ship them or anything i really & truly do not care but the way people are fucking illiterate and say with their whole stupid chests that she hates marlowe or doesn't care about him is nuts.

honestly, i still do like HA and sometimes write for them, but i only enjoy them in the privacy of my home. i will literally NEVER post more HA bc i don't want to feed that shit community any more than i already have

yeah and we also need to talk more about the edgy "jokes" to overt bigotry pipeline esp in cluster b spaces. i feel like alot of it is kinda waved away bc ppl will go "that's just how i am and i cant help it. if you disagree youre ableist." like they conflate ableism with being held accountable and non cluster b ppl that dont know better just eat it up. and those same ppl will be the ones who talk about how they had a bullying phase but they grew up. like sorry but you dont just get to usse other other kids for your growth. like its such a white mindset to objectify others like that. and kids of color and intellectually disabled kids are already subjected to enough w/o being treated like. idk almost like pets and then being told, "its just a joke" we didnt hurt you that bad, get over it etc. like no i will always be angry about that shit. and you cant hide behind symptoms either not only bc life doesn't work like that but also. the ppl they did that shit too had the same symptoms they did. they can't be like " you just don't get it you don't understand my struggle" bc we dealt with the same shit and didnt use it to abuse our peers.

Yeah that makes total sense! Also not as extreme (though it's connected imo) I noticed a lot of cluster Bs (and not always white but I'd say it's majority white) tend to fall pretty heavily into exclusionism and harassing other mentally ill people + systems and such because of that "I'm reclaiming being evil(tm) by being an asshole to everyone" phase and yeah the like. complete dismissal of their "bullying phases" as if that wasn't also intense bigotry that they need to unpack lmao. Like I feel like a lot of them go like "oh well I'm different now" and then turn around and are like "ok but I can be racist and also ableist as hell against anyone I want as long as I have a justification for it such as they're inconveniencing me <3"

And then there's the equally bad flipside that's like. The goddamn obnoxious thing white NDs do (that I very much did in the past and absolutely have to take accountability for cause it's cringe as all fuck of me/srs) where they're all like "i'm so Nice being too nice and empathetic and sweet and kind is my whole personality haha" and then when they're racist and someone points it out they're like hhow could u :((( my rsd is going off!!!! :(((((( im always so nice to everyone how dare you. And it's like please shut the fuck up if you were genuinely a kind person you wouldn't have to reassure everyone and yourself every other minute and you'd be actually listening when people are uncomfortable around you.

I guess either way it's just that white people are raised thinking that we deserve to be coddled and that the privilege we have is somehow something we earned or something we're owed when it's so very much not lmfao

And yeah!!! Like it's actually so goddamn infuriating that we're always like "well you don't know what it's like!!!!!!" as if POC aren't often neurodivergent and also like they don't go through things that we will never have any semblance of a clue about just because of the way that racism and ableism intersect. Like just? the audacity that a lot of white nds have to act like mental illness and neurodivergency is a white people thing or like it somehow cancels out their privilege and like it's not entirely our responsibility to make sure that mentally ill and neurodivergent people of color aren't being silenced/talked over in our spaces. ESPECIALLY when so much of the rights we have now we owe entirely to y'all like it's really ungrateful and cringy.

Like the state of the wider nd community and especially the cluster b community is honestly just fucking embarassing and I think a lot of that is due to racism and that's not really surprising since so many forms of bigotry are directly tied to it in the first place. Like it's just a lot and I can't even imagine what it must feel like to have to bear the brunt of that.

All that said I hope that you're able to take care of yourself/g and that you have the support that you need you deserve so much better than you've gotten from us that's for sure/srs

Field Work #5

1. | White Supremacy |

We are all well aware of the definition of white supremacy whether it is because we were taught, have experienced/seen it first hand, or maybe just using basic context clues in the wording: White Supremacy is the belief that nonwhites are inferior in more way than one and overall are biologically different, or some even believe not fully human. As seen in the linked video older cartoons constantly pumped white supremacy into their watchers whether it be blatantly or subliminally. The blatant white supremacy in these cartoons was shown by how the nonwhite characters communicated it wasn't proper they slurred, stuttered, struggled, and can hardly be understood; its equivalent to a jumble of words while the white characters consistently speak properly (and even eloquently in some cartoons) painting the picture that intellectually whites are far more superior. The hairstyles and accessories between girls are subtle but so obvious a cherry on top of the racist cartoon is what ill call it, two little girls one black and another white “naturally” the white child is given a clean sleek look topped with a cutesy barrette while the black little girl's hair is seen as unkept and careless looked that's topped with a bone. When these cartoons were released they made it seem normal and okay to make fun of, bully, judge, and look down upon nonwhites, especially black people who were portrayed terribly and incorrectly in older cartoons.

2. | Intersectionality |

Intersectionality is a way of assessing how one's race, gender, and class affect and shape one's life and choices. Based upon how, where, and/or how you looked growing up affect the choices, opportunities, and even patterns that you are exposed to, this varies for every person typically white people are shown better paths and opportunities due to the abundance of social capital with a helping hand in the cultural capital; but this isn't only in whites just more common. The girl in the TikTok is a teenage black girl in high school with no job, living in a less fortunate area, parental issues, and is pregnant but this is not to bash anyone in these circumstances or something relatively close but to point out that a good amount of people like this young lady end up pregnant young among other things. This is partly a generational thing there is a good chance that you or someone you know parents had a baby young this normalizes the single mom struggle when they're really barely surviving or getting by, this pattern has a chokehold on many communities including my own. In the comments on TikTok people talk down to her about how her baby probably won't have a father and she won't be anything extraordinary because this is the pattern that people see, though it may be extremely hard and feel impossible it is definitely possible to do all those things with a baby given the right resources and dedication.

3. | Genotype |

Genotype is what affects your exterior appearance, this is the one thing that makes all of us different on a biological scale. Genes make up 0.001 of our DNA which contains health and appearance so besides that 0.001 we are mainly equal. People are quick to assume that the fact that some people look different whether it be lighter, darker, smaller, bigger, or even have big noses they assume it's inferior and which in no way is correct. In the picture, these spidermen all have different costumes but they are all still Spiderman and if you change the wording to be more accurate to the human race like “we may all look different but we are all human” it's literally the same and both statements are true.

4. | Jim Crow |

The laws that were put in place to enforce segregation legally after slavery. All Jim Crow laws did was add gasoline to the fire that is divided into the United States. These laws divide us into groups based on our looks convincing everyone that we were different inside and out. The 14th amendment was placed to basically make sure no U.S citizen was stripped of their privileges or immunities. Jim Crow worked around this by giving POC the same things as white people, just extremely lower quality teaching the community that they were lesser because they had worse quality bathrooms, water fountains, etc. This is not to say the 14th amendment does nothing with jim crow but the lack of details in it is what makes jim crow thrive though it still puts pressure on the laws so that we still got the bare minimum. Which wasn't near acceptable.

5. | Miscegenation |

An older demeaning historical word for interracial marriages. Interracial marriage is still looked at sideways now depending on the coupling and where you are in the world. The black community that I have experienced and seen much prefers that the upcoming generations marry within their own race and when they don't they say the non-black partner is “stealing our black queen and kings”. Painting a picture that the thought of two people of different races is so bad that someone has to be getting forced into it. The flyer pictured is the biggest overreaction when it comes to a couple marrying, like how will a kid be negatively affected by SOMEONE else's marriage just because they are different colors. Property values may be would've plummeted during that time because maybe some white people wouldn't want to live in the same neighborhood with a black person, unnecessary reactions like this are what make minute and things that shouldn't matter social problems.

6. | Racial Ideology |

Family Guy - White Track Stars Are Obsolete like DVDs

The normalization of discriminatory behavior because the behavior is well-known or popular that's usually done by institutions and individuals is racial ideology. Racial Ideology cripples people's mindsets giving them ideas like all black people are loud or all Asians are smart but when there is someone who doesn't fit this popular norm they're “weird” or rare. In the video they let the white runners get a headstart before they let “everyone” else go because it's a common misconception around the globe that black people are more athletic, stronger, faster, and bigger but this isn't true there are tons of black people who aren't athletic myself included. Saying that our biological makeup is the reason why we're like this when in reality biologically there is barely any difference between a white or a black man. Ideas like this make it harder or unnecessarily easy for whites and POC to progress in a career, or a sport, and even in life.

Sources

Was reading some article...

It was mostly about pornography and the sexualization of women leading to greater stereotypes about women and submission, such that it affected the way men treat women unequally in society. [Part of an argument against (certain types of) pornography being protected by free speech laws.]

A toxic mindset that links 'femininity' to 'subordinate' to 'lesser-than'.

If I remembered what the article was I'd link it, but it had a line like... gay men, through being seen by other men as more feminine whether or not they appear more feminine, automatically loose social standing because to be a woman is to be seen as subordinate.

Maybe it's because I'm ace, but... I'd never considered the way types of sexualization can grant or diminish social power and become ingrained in the perception of gender. And just... the overlap thoughts I had then about gender, presentation, sex, sexuality, and social power... but specifically about sexualization. I'm not a prolific writer, but I'll try and explain how I'm thinking about this.

One of the issues the LGBTQ+ movement faces is that some people who believe in the binary conflate gender and sex (it's all biologically-based). And therefor pride (parades) get labeled as 'explicit', 'sexual', etc.

It's just the way that being sexualized degrades social power. And the toxic mindset that a person is either 'masculine' or 'feminine', and if you don't identify as just 'masculine' or if there are excuses others could make in order to perceive you as 'not masculine (enough)', then you are automatically feminized.

And to be female is to be subordinate/not-equal.

That's a part of toxic masculinity, right? Stigmatizing men who aren't 'masculine enough' by some arbitrary subjective rule (a slippery slope fallacy). Naturally then that includes sexist concepts about femininity being lesser. In both extremes on the binary there is a toxic sexualization of gender/sex roles to the point where the gender role itself implies its sexual-ness. "Manly men" should be virile and attractive to women (dominant), and "proper women" should be attractive and capable of pleasing their man (submissive/subordinate).

So... if sex/gender is sexualized as an integral part of sex/gender roles....

Masculine = empowered through sexualization of gender role = greater social power

Not masculine = feminine = subordinate through sexualization of gender role = lesser

To fight for equality in the LGBTQ+ community therefor... is to simultaneously fight on a large number of hills. (And as gatekeeping, etc. shows, obviously not everybody even within the LGBTQ+ community itself are aware of every hill.)

There is gender as a separate concept from sex and sexuality. Gender presentation as separate, but overlapping all of those. Gender roles as performative rather than intrinsic. Genders between and beyond 'male' and 'female'. Equality between genders/roles, not just in opportunity, but also social power. And toxic sexualization as harmful to all points (as it can reinforce the binary).

People who are dead-set on not believing in gender/sex outside of the binary... also (possibly automatically) are difficult or impossible to convince in many of these other topics. For them it is not a handful (or more) of hills, but one or two, which is fewer points to defend.

In other words... we have our work cut out for us.

But really... realizing that most defenses I've heard before for the gender binary include either circular-argument or slippery-slope fallacies. LOL. Probably wasn't what my Logic & Critical Thinking teacher was intending. LMFAO. Or maybe it was.

I'd honestly like to see some new faces around here since these guys are pretty rare. So, can you please do some dating/relationship headcanons for Dr Rights, Dr King and Dr Cimmerian??? Thank you!!! :)

Dating Dr. Rights, Dr. King and Dr. Cimmerian

[GN!Reader]

[Warnings: Like, none?] [AN: Oh my goodness I was SO HAPPY to see Dr. King get mentioned!! I love all three of these doctors but AH I love <3]

Dr. Rights

She's an equal amount of teasing and riling you up in a playful way and being a sappy sweetheart.

Genuinely, Rights is always wanting to hold you. She's so soft and physically affectionate. I think touch is one of her main love languages.

She takes care of you when you're working the same hours as her. Always has a warm drink ready for you from 294.

Yes, she covers you in her lipstick smooches! All over your cheeks, your neck, your hands, forehead, she thinks you look so pretty also wearing whatever color she's adorning for the day as well.

Gives you lots of doodles throughout the day of things that she sees. It's kind of become its own newsletter specifically for you.

She's weirdly good about communication too. If she senses anything is wrong, she'll be on it in a way that doesn't make you feel stifled.

Honestly dating her is the most sound you'll ever be. She makes you a better person and you make her a better one too.

She's a bit wild at times but understand that if your energy is different than hers, the space is okay. Or, that doing lowkey things is just fine too. Rights is super considerate.

Dr. King

You're probably the most grounding thing in his life and it shows.

I think he's a tad stressed, a bit of a resident mad scientist like Dr. Mann, and a little quirky tm. He's also a brilliant mathematician. All of this factors into your relationship somehow so good luck.

For some weird reason, you dampen the apple seed effect with him?? The closer you are to him the more likely they won't bother him. He is clingy somewhat for this reason.

Of course, he also just enjoys spending time with you. He's a big acts of service and quality time guy. The two of you spend time walking around the site together during working hours.

Really likes when you run your fingers through his hair.

The way he shows love is a little bizarre but it works out. He's not as verbose as some of the other people here so he shows it through action or doing things for you. All that paperwork you had to do? Don't worry, he's handled it.

I also get the vibe he'd make a playlist for you of songs that remind him of you.

Please listen to him go off on one of his passionate tangents. No one wants to listen to them because they're "boring" but if you, someone whose opinion he values more than anything else, listened, he would melt on the spot.

Dr. Cimmerian

He's sarcastic and sweet in his relationship with you, but especially sweet. Generally a soft lover who doesn't really get bitey over anything.

The way he shows love is both through his words and how long he lets you spend time in his office lmfao. Usually, he lets anyone and everyone in to spend time with him but eventually there's limits. Not for you though. You can hang out with him and do paperwork while he emails other ethics committee members on stuff. It's doing your own thing in the presence of others that works.

He's watchful of you. Scarily watchful over you.

The two of you like to stop and chat in the middle of the hallway and it's just really cute?? Like the way I see this relationship working is the little things, everything in between.

Sometimes he color matches outfits with you and vice versa lmfao.

Please give him lots of smooches and hugs. He needs them.

Yes, you can playfully argue with him. Who wins??? Depends on how he's feeling.

The two of you joke a lot in really odd, deadpanned ways. It's dry humor but really fun lmfao. Also surrealist memes. The amount of times you've both been caught on your phones of laptops sending memes that are like "kontainmunt" in that weird WordArt font on top of a bad drawing of SCP 173 is astounding.