The Warthropian orbit got me

Hey guys you should totally get into this thing i like. Yeah it's mid at best. It also aged poorly. You'll get nothing out of it at all. You'll like the idea of it more than the actual thing. But at least only takes half your natural lifespan to finish it

Climate change, exacerbated by capitalist exploitation, is going to force more people to leave their homelands. Get more pro-immigrant and reject nationalism now!! We only have each other.

if we're mutuals i will like almost anything you post like oh you're moving house? YAY ❤️ oh fit check? YAY ❤️ oh fanart of a character i dont know? YAY ❤️ oh OC lore? YAY ❤️oh you went to the beach today? YAY ❤️oh your parents are being mean to you? NOT YAY ☹️ BUT I WILL LEAVE A HEART IN SOLIDARITY!!!!!!❤️

i love you platonic dynamics that are acknowledged as more central to someone’s life than a romantic one. i love you romantic relationships carefully negotiating to work alongside an existing platonic relationship rather than supplanting it in importance. i love you platonic and romantic bonds that are held at equal levels, and i love you romantic relationships that understand that the platonic relationship is going to come first. i love you destroying the mandated relationship hierarchy.

when the character falling in love makes it clear that their relationship to their friend/family member/fuckbuddy comes first and this isn’t treated as an Obstacle to them having a Healthy Romantic Relationship where they’re willing to toss anyone who isn’t their partner aside…… when the romance acknowledges the importance of their previous platonic bond with someone and adjusts to accommodate it without trying to supplant it or force them to see that bond as lesser…………. that’s the good shit.

Actually, no, I don't think that friendships dropping like flies in your late 20s and early 30s because no one has time for that between overwork and family obligations and marriage and kids and partners and the ritual of the time slayer is normal and ok. No I don't think deep conversations and spontaneous adventures being replaced with a tired coffee every six months is a normal part of growing up. I don't think that emotional intimacy and soul bonds disintegrating in the face of practical inconvenience is a fact of life. I think that means something is deeply deeply wrong with our society and I will never forgive it for the friends I've lost

so many people will be theoretically anti-war and some may even pay lip service to the notion of imperialism being bad, they will perhaps go so far as to say they oppose the idea US occupation. and yet still they will genuinely be shocked when you straight up hate the military in a real way, in the kind of way where you do not make excuses for or lend sympathy to anyone who enlists. they won’t follow you there. they will invoke things like poverty and ptsd and when you remain stone faced and uncompromising they will think YOU’RE the monster. and not, you know, the people who literally knowingly signed up to be a part of the mass murder machine.

like people are always talking about poverty in defense of enlisting and I just wish y’all could recognize the very simple fact that the people in the countries that United States military members are voluntarily signing up to kill are often also living in poverty and then on top of that they are having to worry about being bombed and slaughtered by the imperial poor. Like it’s just not a good excuse to offer yourself up to the murder machine. It isn’t. Of course the United States government doesn’t treat veterans well. It doesn’t treat anyone well. What do you believe veterans to have done that should entitle them to decency not afforded to anyone else? I guess personally I’d rather focus on getting EVERYONE fed and housed, focus on opposing the systems that lead to these conditions, rather than finding sympathy for those who believe they are owed a meal ticket drenched in blood.

Been re-reading my copy of Sherlock Holmes, and I never noticed how little Watson actually speaks in the text. Other than a couple questions and a few equivalents of ‘oh my!’, the main way we hear his thoughts are through his narration. Now I know this probably because ACD had a limited amount of words, and watson dialogue wouldn't be as interesting to the readers- But I like the idea of 'WORD FAMOUS DETECTIVE and his hypeman that he brings along’. You never hear a peep out of that guy, he just stands menacingly in the background until Holmes says something like “ah yes. He was 6ft tall.” and he goes “ AHH FUCK YEAH, THATS MY FUCKING BITCH I LOVE YOU YOU’RE THE SMARETEST PEROSN IN THE WORLD I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU GOT THAT LETSS A FUCKING GOOOOOOO!!!!!!” and then falls silent again.

I will never ever in my whole life get over the scene where Fitz is summoned before Dutiful and the whole family is there and he thinks it’s a trial and they’re going to punish him and he goes straight to the rail and kneels down reports all his sins and waits for the sentence and then he’s literally unable to comprehend that they just love him and are grieving with him I’m literally sick to my fucking stomach Bee was right when she said he has a second wall that prevents him from believing that anyone could love him

unfortunately i can never hate on a "power of friendship" narrative no matter how corny because the thing is it's literally real

i just realized that Qifrey did the exact opposite of hoping a baby will save the marriage. maybe a kid will make us miserable. oops no wait i love the kid and you still love me. well maybe one more will do. maybe just one more. maybe just one m

putting "agency" on the high shelf of words banned from feminist literary analysis until we learn to use them correctly. right next to "male gaze"

there is a massive and crucial difference between a woman character having narrative agency as a character versus having literal physical agency within the story world. the former is important for a work to be considered "feminist" (though what qualifies as feminist literature is a source of endless debate, and there is no real criteria, and it is an endlessly nebulous term that im only using here for simplicity and not because its even that meaningful in practice). the latter is not because there are stories that will be told where the women in them simply do not have agency in that setting. when we talk about women characters lacking narrative agency as a character in their story we are talking about characters like the classic early 2000's action movie love interest. she lacks narrative agency in the sense that she does not exert influence on the narrative. she may exert influence on the world around her, she could easily be a #girlboss with lots of money and power and maybe she even steps on some guys throat and shoots guns and drives cool cars like an expert, but she does not exert influence on the narrative. it's not her choices that shape it, or her internal experience that is explored by the story. she is pushed along by the plot rather than doing the pushing. the leading man is often the one doing the pushing, and she is along for the ride. these are your manic pixie dreamgirls and bond girls. she has physical agency but lacks narrative agency. the narrative is not concerned with her experience and thus her experience does not influence the narrative. there are, however, women characters who lack physical agency in their setting but have narrative agency. if physical agency was a prerequisite for all feminist literature, we would have very few stories to tell, because for much of history, the experience of womanhood has been synonymous with lacking agency. the narrator of the yellow wallpaper has absolutely no physical agency because she is quite literally locked in a room for the entirety of the story. she cannot exert any influence on the world around her because her husband thinks she is hysterical and has locked her literally inside of a room. but to imply that as a result, the yellow wallpaper is misogynistic because it has stripped it's main character of all agency would be absurd. she has narrative agency because the story is concerned entirely with her experience of lacking physical agency, and her experience creates and forms the narrative. the same could be said about offred in the handmaid's tale. she has literally been stripped of all political and physical agency, and lacks agency over her own body. when offred does (perhaps) escape, she only is able to do so because a man in gilead that still has physical agency helps her do so. still, you would not say that the handmaids tale is a work of misogyny because it stripped offred of all agency and had her be rescued by a man. because offred has narrative agency. the narrative revolves around her experience. her experience shapes and forms the narrative. these are just two examples that im using because they are some of the most well known and widely acclaimed works of feminist literature that are centered around the experience of women without physical agency, but i could keep going literally forever. we have to be able to differentiate between narrative and physical agency in our analysis of a story's treatment of its women characters. if we cannot tell stories about women who have been stripped of agency because they are supposedly inherently misogynistic, we will have very few realistic and resonant stories about women to tell.