on the topic of disabled characters, though, i think a LOT of artists give characters mobility aids that their character wouldn't actually benefit from using.
i'm sort of having a mild brain fog moment rn so i can't fully articulate what i'm on about, but i think a lot of able-bodied artists view things like canes and crutches as interchangeable. and they often don't know enough about the wide range of mobility aids to make an informed decision about what their character might actually use based on their disability
i also think that aids like walkers and rollators are sort of viewed as "cringe" on some level, and many people view them to be "just for old people," so many artists will opt for giving a character who has full-body pain and fatigue a cane (which, in many cases, can potentially WORSEN full-body pain) instead. and a lot of people don't realize that most wheelchair users are able to walk, so they don't consider it an option for characters with chronic pain
idk it's kind of frustrating. i've genuinely never, ever seen a character that uses a rollator before. not once. i cannot name a single one. i know of multiple ocs who are described to have full-body pain, dizziness, and fatigue that are drawn as cane users and are never shown with wheelchairs or walkers, though
it's also sort of sad? i've been diagnosed since i was twelve years old, and i only heard of rollators LAST YEAR. and that was only because i saw one irl and immediately asked what it was. i wonder how many disabled people out there don't even know it's an option solely because they're completely underrepresented online and in media
if you're a creative with a disabled oc, PLEASEEE check out this link. it's a very nice and detailed guide for telling which mobility aids suit someone's needs best. it's incredibly important to make the right choice for your character! mobility aids tell you a LOT about someone's lived experience. picking the right one will communicate to your audience #1 what your character goes through #2 that you UNDERSTAND what your character goes through!
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
The writers and cast have been talking almost constantly about Daniel's impending death. TVL has made numerous in-universe references to Daniel dying post-turning. His vampiric life is "brief", he "dies bad", etc. If I remember correctly, Rollins has said that Eric will have one of the best death scenes of his career. Eric and Assad have changed tune and have begun calling Daniel and Armand's romance doomed, which is the opposite of the narrative purpose it serves. On the surface, fairly concerning for anybody who likes Daniel and wants him to stick around, or is expecting Daniel and Armand to have the same ending that they do in the book series: together, and seemingly intending to stay that way.
LONG post. I'm back on my wordy bullshit. Keeping it under the cut so it doesn't kill anybody's screen.
This is a fairly MASSIVE spoiler to be throwing around for seemingly no reason. Giving the viewers advance notice that a fairly significant character is going to die in a future season and hyping up the scene in which it happens completely cheapens the value that such a major character death has narratively. It's not going to surprise us or keep us on the edge of our seats for what happens next, how other characters will respond, what this death would mean for the greater story. Any questions that would arise from the event would have already been asked and theorized about.
This has always struck me as very strange for several reasons. Obviously, spoiling such a massive plot beat is really fucking stupid. If it does happen, the fact that they've beaten us over the head with it for the last two consecutive seasons is going to ruin any emotional impact the scene has. The people who do not want Daniel to die will be far more annoyed and angry with the show than saddened or moved, because they won't be particularly surprised by it or interested in what follows. The people who have gotten tired of his character will feel vindicated, but they also won't be very interested in what follows because they do not care for the story implications of the death as much as they do getting rid of a character they dislike.
It confuses me and does not particularly interest me. I do not think that Armand deserves to lose what is ultimately his only truly loving relationship. I do not think that his story would benefit from not having Daniel in it, and I do not think that his character would get very much out of having to grieve him twice. If we assume that their chapter in QOTD is similarly canon to the show, with alterations made as needed to fit this story, then Armand and Daniel's relationship to each other is what fleshes out and closes both of their character arcs. Daniel choosing to be with him, even after everything that happens between them, is what completes one of Armand's most substantial challenges: accepting love without the need to control it absolutely.
Once Armand turns Daniel, he can no longer access and manipulate his mind. In the show, it's been well established that one of the only reasons Armand and Louis's relationship survived is because of how much Armand was altering Louis's memories and thoughts. Consistently throughout his development so far, Armand has tried and failed to keep his romantic interests by exercising complete control over their relationship. It connects deeply with his established fear of abandonment (or really, his fear of being alone), his need for control, and the fact that his two previous partners did not actually love him in the way that he wanted them to. He knew this, but stayed with them anyway, resulting in a constant and calculated manipulation of the dynamics he had with them to convince them that they should stay with him.
With Daniel, he cannot do this. Armand is hesitant to turn Daniel for many, many reasons, but one of them is that he is convinced that the relationship between maker and fledgling cannot withstand eternity. He believes (or rather, was taught) that the resentment will grow to overpower whatever love exists between them. Armand choosing to turn Daniel and then choosing to stay with him is in and of itself a substantial moment of development for him. Being locked out of Daniel's mind is a substantial moment of development. All of these changes have substantial consequences for how Armand develops as a character.
He is preparing himself for their relationship to end, believing that it is inevitable; Daniel proves him wrong. Armand does not believe that he can be loved without exercising complete control over his relationships; Daniel, again, proves him wrong. He struggles constantly with being able to believe and trust the fact that Daniel loves him for the simple fact that, once he had been turned, Armand could no longer control him. He does not have that safety net that he has clung to in his past relationships. What their relationship ultimately serves to explore is that Armand is not an emotionless, calculating abuser as he often first appears. He is, in fact, deeply complicated and traumatized, and his abusive actions stem from that trauma and are behaviors he can unlearn while he learns how to love a turned Daniel. This is the purpose Daniel serves in Armand's story. It allows the audience to explore a truly loving relationship between two characters who are not good people: who are bad, bad to each other sometimes, characters who are cruel and vindictive to others more than they are to each other, but who still love each other all the same.
In a character drama, the overall narrative and the actions that drive the story forward are guided nearly entirely by the characters' relationships to each other. Broader story events and external influences only happen in order to explore how those characters react to them and how they impact the relationships that the narrative focuses on. Each story we have followed thus far in the series has been about those relationships. Louis and Lestat, the two of them and Claudia, Louis and Claudia, Claudia falling in love with Madeleine, Armand and Louis, so on and so forth. The characters make decisions that center around and are influenced by their relationships; in turn, the story moves forward by exploring the consequences those actions have on those relationships. When we consider the possibility of Daniel dying, what we must also consider is why that decision would be made, and what exactly the writers are hoping to do with other characters following the event.
No story would be impacted more by Daniel being killed off than Armand's. The question that would need to be answered, however, is what exactly does this do for Armand's character? What lessons does he learn from losing Daniel? What purpose does it serve for his overall narrative? Once a character is dead, their death is not about them; their death is about what it does to other characters. The only reason a character ever dies in a character drama is to create a story for other characters.
For example, we can look at other significant deaths in the series to examine how this question is posed and answered. Claudia dies. Who does this affect? Louis and Lestat. So what happens to them? Louis's character arc becomes about grief and loss, and learning how to move on. Lestat's character arc becomes about guilt and regret, and learning how to forgive himself. Their relationship to each other develops as a result of this event as well. They grieve together, move on together, and become stronger as a pairing together.
How would we answer these same questions for Armand? Under the assumption that the QOTD chapter is still canon and considering that we have been given no reason to believe otherwise, Armand has already lost Daniel and grieved his absence. He may have watched him after erasing his memories, but they were not together, and Daniel did not remember what they had shared. This loss was very significant for Armand. If his dialogue in the finale is accurate (re: Lestat's the one talking), then it potentially colored the way he viewed his relationship with Louis irreparably; as a mistake, a waste of his time when he could have been with Daniel instead, if not for his own cowardice. He has experienced this pain; he has already integrated it into his narrative. So, how, exactly, would killing Daniel off permanently do anything meaningful for Armand's character other than torture him a little bit more?
Daniel's death would be unsatisfying in part because it would just be another fucking thing to traumatize Armand. One more tragedy in his long list of things that have pained him throughout his life. Narratively, there is nothing he would gain from losing Daniel that would result in important character development. Other character deaths serve to transform other characters and relationships. A truly well-executed character death will move the audience and motivate compelling narrative changes elsewhere in the story (re: Louis, Lestat, and Claudia). It would also be unsatisfying because, alongside not doing anything narratively significant, it would remove the narrative significance that his relationship to Armand actually does have for both of them, writing off one of the most compelling parts of their stories.
As mentioned before, this is a character drama. The writers of this show, no matter how much we may doubt them, would not make a decision like this without considering whether or not it would be compelling for another character. Since Daniel does not die in the book series, unlike Claudia, choosing to kill him off would have to serve a very specific purpose. I've seen people float the theory that they're giving him David Talbot's storylines and all of the body thief stuff, which is why he would die in the first place. There are numerous reasons this could be, but the most obvious one is that Daniel straight up doesn't have anything to do after a certain point in the series. Armand remains consistently relevant, but Daniel disappears for a while, so they need something to do with him. It is difficult to make up a satisfying character arc for an adaptation for the sake of making a previously irrelevant character an important part of the story, so this would make some sense. However, I do not really think it's needed. There are a lot of things Daniel could be doing now that he has more narrative relevance. Most of it could easily center around just being in Armand's life.
A related question to consider is how they intend to approach Daniel's madness. From what I understand, in the book series, Daniel loses his fucking mind shortly after he is turned, and Armand sends him away to hang out for forty years or so in Marius's basement. This effectively is their "break up" before they get back together at the end of the series. Yet, interestingly enough, this forty-year separation is chronologically consistent with the period they would have been separated in the show before Daniel is turned. Aging Daniel has reflected this timeline in reverse. Armand and Daniel meet in 1973 -> 12-year relationship -> Armand erases Daniel's memories of him -> They do not meet again until forty years later. This is either intentional because they intend to accelerate their story (which they already have), or a complete fucking accident. I am not above the idea that it could be a lucky coincidence, and they didn't actually intend for it to work out that way.
However, if it was an intentional decision, then this puts the story somewhere else entirely. Daniel and Armand get back together after spending forty years apart, much earlier than they do in the original series. Their reunion does not happen in the books until the very end of the series; now, if we assume that the forty-year separation has already happened and there is no Marius Basement Time in Daniel's future, then the writers now have to figure out exactly what they want to do with their relationship moving forward. Now, while all of these major story events are happening, Daniel and Armand are not separated. They are together. What does this change for them? How will it change the things they are doing during the story? Daniel has anger to overcome; he will, and he is capable of working through those emotions with time. Armand has a lot of trauma to heal from, and he will; he is capable of learning to love someone without having control of their mind.
What comes after is the question. What, exactly, do the writers intend to do with them? I do not think that Assad was wrong for calling their relationship deceitful and fucked-up. It is deceitful and fucked-up, which is the point of the way it grows and changes. It is deceitful; Armand is fucked-up, Daniel is fucked-up, but their development happens because of their mutual desire to be with each other and make it work. He's ended things with Louis, tied things up so he can ride off into the sunset with Lestat. Now, he has to go and make his amends for everything that happened between him and Daniel. I think this is the next stop on the narrative journey he is taking, and I think this is what leads into the kind of character arcs I was talking about in my prior post. Acceptance, understanding, honesty, and so on.
I do not think their relationship is going to remain deceitful and fucked-up. That would be antithetical to what they are setting up with the dialogue in TVL (re: that prior post again). Eric and Assad are not completely incorrect with what they have been saying because I think what they are referring to is only the beginning of where their dynamic is going to go. Daniel, still angry, and Armand, still deceitful, but this is where they need to begin to reach their ending. Point A to point B. The question is whether or not the writers will be able to successfully execute the journey between. Armand is searching for something he can cradle, someone who can cradle him in return, and he will find it in Daniel. He and Daniel will begin with that familiar violence and romantic horror, but they will not stay that way if this is executed properly.
Finding out details about David Brouillette, the ICE agent who murdered Joan Sebastian Guerrero in Maine, has convinced me that ICE is purposely hiring extremely violent and mentally unstable people who should not have access to guns so that when they inevitably kill someone in cold blood with no provocation, they can blame the individual officer and not the agency. They’ve designed the system to inflict maximum trauma and harm with minimal accountability.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
A FIFA referee has spent more time in federal custody for being Somali than anybody on Epstein’s list for raping kids. A 5 year old has spent more time in federal custody for being the son of an immigrant than anybody on Epstein’s list for raping kids.
Non-binary people get louder NOW. Non-binary people get angrier NOW. Be a killjoy. Get obnoxious about your pronouns. Put gendered words together in ways that people don't like and spit on the ones they think are mandatory. Refuse to laugh at their stupid exorsexist "jokes". Dress in ways they don't understand. Refuse to answer their prying questions. Tell exorsexists to kiss your ass. Keep your chin up. Raise your voice. Get loud and a little cocky. I want to see your nonbinarity from outer space. Don't get it twisted; do it TODAY. Do you understand me?
Not to be a filthy liberal on main but "this thing makes me uncomfortable therefore it's morally wrong" is conservative logic. That's how people justify homophobia, transphobia, racism, whatever. And being queer or supportive of queer people does not magically make you immune to conservative logic. You are not owed comfort, things are going to make you uncomfortable and you have to be able to ask yourself "is this harming anyone?" And if the answer is no then you just go "ew, gross" and block wherever it's necessary and move on. And no, again, making you uncomfortable is not harming you.
Targeted harassment is harm, intentionally sending something to another person because you know it will upset them is harm, stumbling upon something you don't want to see is not harm, stop acting like you're the victim just because the entire internet won't bend to your will and stop posting things that make you feel icky.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
You know what? Fuck it I'm adding more context. Sesame Street has talked about the topic of death more than once and it's done with such gentle carefulness without watering down or censoring the heaviness of the situations. It treats heavy subject matter with respect and dignity and has been for DECADES.
From the early 1980s:
To 2025:
Hell, they even cover the devastating heaviness of MASS SHOOTINGS without censoring or watering anything down.
They've been doing this for YEARS, and it's ALWAYS handled with dignity, respect, seriousness, understanding, and love.
Whenever I see people censoring words because it "might offend" someone or the big ad companies that are currently trying to run everything? I just want to say to them: "What? Is Sesame Street too mature for you?" Because really...what the hell are we doing.
I'm back with even more examples! Sesame Street once again to this day is out here handling extremely difficult subject matter with incredible care and respect. "We can't let kids learn about uncomfortable things!" Oh, really now? Even though they're things that happen in everyday life that they'll face one day at some point anyway? Interesting. Let's see what else this show has covered that people (for some reason) think should be avoided and hidden. Here's more on death of loved ones and greif:
Or how about when someone is put into the foster care system because their home isn't safe anymore and their needs aren't being met?
Maybe some discussions about group therapy/getting help and support?
Hey look! Here's a segment about gender expression vs taught expectation, including unlearning harmful biases and what to do when you hurt someone on accident because you didn't know it was wrong!
Look! The topic of race and diversity! The importance of unity and equity!
They even also have a more allegorical take on discrimination and being looked down on for who you are, featuring Big Bird. The conflict is about how he's not being let into a club because the one bird running the club personally decided he didn't want someone like Big Bird there.
Big Bird goes out of his way to keep changing parts of himself in order to "prove" he can fit into this club if he just changed enough. The truth comes out though, and there's nothing he can do to gain the approval of that bird. He will never be good enough in his eyes, and Big Bird starts to hate himself. His real friends see this finally put their feet down, emphasizing that you should never change yourself just to fit into one singular narrow idea someone else has.
There's A LOT of different situations this can be an allegory for. Racism, sexism, homophobia, basically ANY form of exclusion is put on full blast in this 15 minute clip. Sesame Street can be both blunt and allegorical when approaching difficult topics, and it NEVER misses or looses the point.
It does an exceptional job in both styles of representation WITHOUT watering anything down. The more sanitized everything gets, the more radical Sesame Street is suddenly considered, hence why so many "particular groups" want it gone. Hmmm! I can only imagine why that could be, in this current political climate! (I'm being sarcastic)
When Sesame Street is suddenly labeled as "questionable" or "politically/agenda motivated" content...it says A LOT about where we currently are and who gets to decide what's "best" for kids or not. Don't fall for the censorship and topic-dodging excuses that are covered by the "But think of the children!!!" movement. Never fall for it, because you know which side you're on if you do.
Sesame Street proves kids can be taught and trusted with learning about these topics when it's handled with the right amount of understanding and care. It shows what all this "controversy" is all really about. What it's always been about, actually.
Don't fall for it, always side with Sesame Street.
I was asked which tutorials I followed to achieve this look by @0n1ythisandnothingmore, and I figured it might be helpful for others so I’ve compiled a list!
For setup (downloading from Ao3 etc), tools, layout and printing:
For the binding process itself, this tutorial by bitter melon bindery goes over the whole thing step by step:
For the half-bound look (paper and cloth), here’s another video by bitter melon bindery:
When designing my own covers, I figured that I could just print the title onto some pretty scrap paper before I did the cover construction. I used my inkjet printer and it worked out pretty well, though I wish the blacks were deeper. (I found that laser printer toner rubbed off when I tried to burnish over the paper with wax)
For the sewing itself (with tapes), I followed this tutorial by Renaissance Bookbinding:
(He also has a really good video on the ways that little things can compound to make a book look professional, which I found helpful)
Anyway, I hope this helps someone. And of course, I'm happy to answer questions as well! I know how intimidating all of this looks, but it’s not so bad once you work out all the steps. If there is interest, I might make a tutorial at some point for using free programs like LibreOffice and GIMP for doing the layout and cover design.
(P.S. if anyone wants the layouts I did for Reversal and Saint’s Guise, I will see if I can find a way to share them)
Hi!! Since Pyro recently updated his boundaries to "no shipping" with you continue lumberjack cannibalism au?? /noneg just in case
I wrote 5k words and made a whole comic for the new chapter that I can't post anymore.
And I'm NOT complaining about the boundaries, it's an important thing to set for a cc and I'm glad they did so.
However I do feel like controlling people's interpretation is overstepping and I'm saying this as nicely as I can.
Pyro has said that he wanted ongoing works such as fics, that included shipping to stop updating completely if I remember correctly.
However, dni tags had been suggested for sites like tumblr in Pyro's stream, which got shot down because “A Blocked Tag? What, So I Can’t See it? The problem isn’t seeing it, it’s knowing that it’s happening.”
And there were statements which i felt off, one of Pyro's mods clarified it was meant as a joke on how the mods would ban those people from the chat/discord for engaging in any shipping fanworks, however that didn't feel great at the time.
I don't want to give up on this au, however the rules of this fandom seem blurry, a basic rule I thought was common knowledge was "don't like, don't read/engage", no matter what fandom, other cc's which have had issues with certain fanworks have seemed to go by this with their own dni tag.
If I can explain my feelings, 7 months of work since the end of vsmp feels like I am no longer allowed to touch anymore, there's not even an option to 'post it but tag it properly'. The project I spent so long on I'm expected to throw away unless I once again change the core plot. It feels unstable to spend any time making fandom works if half of them I look back on I can't feel proud of or redraw.
It's also unhealthy for cc's to engage so much in fandom spaces if they can't separate the characters that they made for a story to themselves. Fandom spaces, especially on tumblr, are created by the fans for fans, fanworks that aren't inherently shoved in the cc's faces.
And this isn't me complaining about them not wanting to see shipping content, just for all fanworks that have been ongoing to stop feels demotivating to continue drawing in a fandom where rules will change.
I think the fans have a right to draw the characters for the fans, not the ccs. Characters made for a story should remain separate to the ccs, because they simply aren't the same people.
I'm not attacking their boundaries but please clarify if I'm missing anything or just don't understand.
This isn't something I wanted to rush posting, I loved Pyro's content but I genuinely as a person, do not understand these rules.
So crau is currently on a hiatus until I get the courage to rewrite it yet a second time, I don't know if I even feel comfortable posting the last chapter I wrote, let alone the art with the state of this fandom right now.
Also I'm staying the fuck off of twitter for a bit.
Hey. Whatever is fucking happening in this fandom is terrifying.
Quite frankly, people should be more aware of what they are saying or at least try to argue this civilly.
I'm trying to be unbiased and listen to both sides of the argument.
But it's scary that people have been harassed over a ship by Pyro's fans, OR to see others that are trying to ask cc's such as Zam, which have not involved themselves in this whatsoever, to speak up on the matter when they aren't involved and don't want to risk their own careers over this.
This is turning into a hateful community where people are at eachother's throats.
Creators like everyone are people, they are also idolized by many people and especially minors. I have yet to see them take any accountability for harsher sounding statements despite that, neither have I seen them be held accountable by their own fans, they are right to set boundaries but not everything they have done made the fandom as a whole feel safe.
We don't need a fandom to be policed, we don't need it to feel so toxic.
Have we lost all common sense to argue things maturely? Simply saying people are looking for things to defend their own selfish ship is not a valid argument.
Trying to harass cc's is not also not valid, it's selfish and an asshole move.
I don't want to see more people be harassed, because not only is it turning people away from this fandom but I've noticed all of this has already isolated a lot of people to private spaces. I'm starting to feel scared at how much power one cc can hold over what people can create.
I can't sum up every little thing on my own and I don't want to add to the mountain of arguments, but I will link what I feel are unbiased opinions on the situation if anyone wants to understand both sides or make a meaningful conversation. (posts below)
Again, if anyone wants to clarify to me anything, whether defending Pyro or not, please speak to me directly I'm open to discussing it.
This one is good at representing the overall sentiment while criticizing both sides
I think this one summarizes the dangers especially well
Cleo's old post
Criticisms I've seen made to Pyro not yet addressed by anyone
I'll post the crau chapter since people have been asking and it was written before all of this happened, but it wont be receiving any updates for a while and I'll be privating the art made to only be viewed with a link since we have yet to be given a dni tag
Look, it’s a weird hill to die on, especially when I don’t really explain, but children deserve to experience fear, disgust, and discomfort in safe scenarios where they can process those sensations.
Media for children used to be scary and that’s important.
“Since it is so likely that (children) will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker.”
― C.S. Lewis
"trans men have never done anything for the community or the world u cant name HARDLY ANY trans men in history" well if yall would stop deadnaming and misgendering the dead ones or even allow us to speculate if gnc "women" who "pretended to be men" might have been transgender and hiding their identity to avoid persecution because you just loooove your "girlbosses" so much then we might be having a different fucking conversation
Magnus Johansson, born in 1683 in Åland (island between Finland and Sweden, technically belongs to Finland but they have their own courts and police and stuff, and they speak both Swedish and Finnish). he was assigned female at birth and described himself as ”both man and women-folk, but still leaning more towards man”. he moved to Stockholm in 1704 and worked as a nyckelharpist in bars and restaurants, playing and singing satirical songs about a vengeful and evil political figure. he got a male passport, started his apprenticeship as a shoemaker, managed a church choir and worked as a cantor.
he proposed to a woman, she said yes. the priest at the church he worked at got suspicious and started digging into his identity, and discovered Magnus was not AMAB.
Magnus was sentenced to 8 days in prison for crossdresser and unlawful proposal (because he was considered a woman, and he proposed to ”another” woman). the chances of survival were slim, due to disease, cold and famine.
we have records of his existence. we know where he was born and where he moved, that he was a musician and the first person that was assigned female at birth to work as a cantor in Sweden. we know he would be considered a trans man in today’s terminology. we know he was sentenced to prison for it, and that the conditions were very harsh and many people died while incarcerated.
we don’t know if he survived his sentence. there are no records of whether or not he made it out.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
as someone with a speech impediment, all of the people saying that only one type of stuttering is valid are wrong.
stuttering CAN look like this: "t-this is a-an example s-s-sentence"
OR this: "this-this is an example sen-sentence."
OR this: "t-t-t-th-..t-ttttthis is an example sentence."
OR this: "this is, uhm, an example, uh, sentence."
OR this: "this is an example sssssss-sentence."
OR this: "this is an examp-...this an example sentence."
sometimes the sentence won't even come out of your mouth at all.
there are probably many examples i'm forgetting, but that's the point! it usually is a mix of a few of these, but some people do one of them more often than others! some people with speech impediments have certain sounds that they almost consistently have trouble with (for me it's "st").
people with speech impediments also rarely-if ever-stutter whilst they're singing or whispering.
most importantly!!!! people with speech impediments are capable of saying a sentence without stuttering!! it can just be a gamble sometimes.
and if more people could portray the frustration that comes with stuttering and not being able to get words out, i'd be a very happy girl.
(fun fact: sometimes when my mouth won't let me say what i want to say, i get so annoyed that i just yell or grumble out "WORDS.")
I would actually go as far as to say that MOST abuse is unintentional. I think most people will go through their lives without ever experiencing intentional abuse. People are abusive because they're selfish, because they're stressed, because they care more about what society thinks they should do than the impacts of their actions on their children and partners, because they think what they're doing is correct, because they've made it make sense in their own heads, because they think they can fix their victims, they think they can fix their relationships, they think they can stop you from leaving, they think they can make you a better partner to them, they think that means you need to do what they want. We've sort of constructed mental illness in a way that doing this shit to other people counts as a form of mental illness because it is anti social behavior in the literal sense— it is behavior that causes social harm.
I don't say any of this to excuse it. I think everyone needs to be more aware of this because if you think abuse has to be intentional you will never realize you are capable of abusive behavior. You will never realize you are being shitty to the people you love, because YOU know what you mean, YOU know you don't mean any harm. But you're doing harm. You need to pay attention to the impact you have on other people, and you need to do it all the time, Especially when you feel least capable of doing so. Sorry! You live in a society. Get your head out of your ass.
