iguanamouth:

prokopetz:

Thesis: the narrow focus on public performance over substantive action in certain activist circles has less to do with cynical schemes to game the system for progressive brownie points, and more to do with the fact that many folks basically think social activism is a form of ritual magic. Popular histories give us images of Great Men making speeches and leading marches and circulating petitions, and completely erase all the ground-level infrastructure that made all that stuff work; the end result is that a lot of folks seem honestly to believe that bringing about social change is a matter of performing the appropriate symbolic actions and waiting for reality to reconfigure itself accordingly.

roachpatrol:

jumpingjacktrash:

genderphobia:

nankingdecade:

• the normalization of jealousy as an indicator of love
• the idea that a sufficiently intense love is enough to overcome any practical incompatibilities
• the idea that you should meet your partner’s every need, and if you don’t, you’re either inadequate or they’re too needy
• the idea that a sufficiently intense love should cause you to cease to be attracted to anyone else
• the idea that commitment is synonymous with exclusivity
• the idea that marriage and children are the only valid teleological justifications for being committed to a relationship
• the idea that your insecurities are always your partner’s responsibility to tip-toe around and never your responsibility to work on
• the idea that your value to a partner is directly proportional to the amount of time and energy they spend on you, and it is in zero-sum competition with everything else they value in life
• the idea that being of value to a partner should always make up a large chunk of how you value yourself

!!!

listen, i am super duper monogamous and i promise you all these things are toxic even in the most 100% enthusiastically exclusive relationship

even ‘commitment == exclusivity’ is toxic because no, you have to actively communicate, maintain, and respect boundaries, you can’t just assume your partner has the same definitions as you

i’m pretty sure this post means ‘toxic monogamy’ just like the way people say ‘toxic masculinity’— monogamy itself isn’t inherently toxic, just like masculinity isn’t bad to be masculine! but people adhering to this really fucked up rigid and ritualized performance of the thing, in the belief that that is the correct and only way to do the thing, damages people in a lot of different ways. monogamy is a great fit for a lot of people—maybe even most people!— but the aforementioned practices are what makes it harmful to participants.

currentrobin:

superbat is a bad ship name. it should be manman

vampireapologist:

i know i’ve made a post exactly like this before but that trope of a vampire or faerie or anything “other” watching a human from afar and “choosing” them is STILL so wild and uncomfortable to me bc if you watch someone from afar like that you’re gonna form such a romantic image of them in your head that’s actually barely what they’re like 90% of the time but now what the hell are you gonna do you just turned them into a vampire/brought them over to the faerie realm for eternity you’re STUCK with them and THEY’RE stuck with your impulsive naive romantic ass like

if a vampire watched me from afar they’re gonna catch me smelling wild flowers, talking to crows, and walking barefoot through creeks but they never see me inside and now they’re stuck, listening to me complain about the Naruto epilogue again. Again. They’re so tired. “Molly Anne,” they say. “Molly Anne please. It’s been two-hundred years.” I keep going. The betrayal still feels fresh.

gplantman:

pipistrellus:

feynites:

minesottafatspoollegend:

i love in fantasy when its like “king galamir the mighty golden eagle and his most trusted advisor who would never betray him, gruelworm bloodeye the treacherous”

When my sister and I were kids we had this one action figure, who was actually a brutalized batman doll without his cape (the dog chewed half his head, too), who we dubbed ‘Evil Chancellor Traytor’. The idea was that in the fictional society of our toys, ‘chancellor’ just came with the word ‘evil’ in front of it, as a matter of ancient tradition. Like ‘grand’ or ‘high’ or something along those lines.

Anyway, the running gag was that the king (an old Power Rangers knock-off doll) had absolute and unwavering faith in Evil Chancellor Traytor, who basically comported himself like a mix between Grima Wormtongue and Jafar from the Aladdin movies. Everyone was always sure that Evil Chancellor Traytor had something to do with the nefarious scheme of the day. The dude even carried around a poisoned knife called ‘the kingslayer’.

The additional twist on the joke, though, was that he never was behind anything. The king was actually right. Evil Chancellor Traytor was the most devoted civil servant in the entire Action Figure Dystopia. He spent his nights working on writing up new legislature to ensure that broken toys had access to mobility devices, was always on the lookout to acquire new shoeboxes for expanding city infrastructure, and drafted a proposal that once got half the ‘settlement’ in my sister and I’s closet moved to the upper shelf so that vulnerable toys were less likely to be snatched up by the dog.

The knife, as it turned out, was as symbolic as the ‘evil’ in his name. See, Action Figure Dystopia had a long history of corrupted monarchs getting too big for their thrones and exploiting the underclasses. The job of the Evil Chancellor was to always remain vigilant, and loyally serve a good ruler – or, if the regent should became a despot, to slay them on behalf of the people.

But since killing the king would be a terrible crime, the Evil Chancellor had to be the kind of person who would willingly die to spare the people from the plight of a wicked leader; because the murder would be pinned on them, in order to keep the ‘machinery of politics’ working as smoothly as ever.

Anyway, Evil Chancellor Traytor had a diary, in which my sister I would take turns writing out the most over-the-top good shit he’d done behind the scenes. Usually after everyone else had finished talking shit about him. I don’t know why but we got the biggest kick out of being like:

Barbie With the Unfortunate Haircut: Oh that Evil Chancellor Traytor! Why can’t the king see how wicked he is?!

Charmander From the Vending Machine: Char!

Jurassic Park Toy of Jeff Goldblum With Disturbingly Realistic Face: At least if someone puts a knife in the king’s back, we’ll know where to look!

Evil Chancellor Traytor’s Diary: Today I was feeding ducks at the park when I noticed another legless action figure sitting by the benches. I put a hundred dollars into his bag while he wasn’t looking. I really need to increase budgeting to the medical treatment centers. If only we had enough glue, I think we would see far fewer toys trying to get by without limbs… *insert iconic evil laugh*

Anyway, Evil Chancellor Traytor eventually fell victim to one of my mom’s cleaning sprees, and she decided he was too busted up to keep and tossed him out. My littler brother, who tended to follow my sister and I’s games like he was watching a daily soap opera, cried so hard that we had to do a special ‘episode’ where one of the toys found the Evil Chancellor’s diary, and so he got a big huge memorial and the king threw himself into the empty grave and then ordered the toys driving the toy bulldozer to bury him so that ‘Traytor’s grave would have a body’ (this seemed very important for some reason).

And then we had the Quest For a New King. Somehow or another that ended up being a giant rubber snake called ‘Tyrant King Cobra’.

#i love this discworld novel

This are where great authors come from.