UnstableQueerBitch

Like, this mindset makes everything that happens in the story absolutely hilarious, in particular the whole first interactions bit.

From Rocky's point of view he sent a simple model of the local star systems to indicate where he was from hoping these new creatures would indicate where they were from. He put it in a protective cylinder and sent it over to the ship. Something enormous climbs out of a hole in the side of their ship... Wait, did one of the creature go OUTSIDE its ship in a a god damn plastic bag just to catch it??? I better aim it at where it came out of so it doesn't do that again. Then when the cylinder gets back, the creatures have indicated where they're from by attaching a lollypop stick with chewinggum to the model... which has mostly fallen off in the heat. Also they put distilled fire in the cylinder???

The creature then climbs outside its ship, again, chiseles a lump off its ship with a hammer and throws it at you so it can send you a sample so you can join to it and... its made of thin sheets of soft lead???

Then on finally talking to this large creature you realise it's incredibly delicate like a jellyfish, so god damn stupid, has essentially no memory, and cant do basic maths. And you're supposed to be saving your entire civilisation with this squishy idiot. But then a while later it turns around and explains relativistic time dilation and background radiation like its something you should have figured out already.

Ive heard multiple people describing Rocky seeing Grace like the equivalent of a dog, but he's really more like a three and a half year old blind jellyfish. Its living in a frozen semi-vacuum of highly explosive gas, can't remember anything, needs to nap constantly or it becomes noticeably more stupid, and it's here to save the world.

-ace attorney trilogy. I just need more people to go "haha HUH" at this silly and frustrating visual novel

-PEOPLE OF NOTE! I don't know if it's just I have old computer or if it needs a lot to run, but I've been having to use my dad's computer when I'm doing laundry at his house (listen its cheaper then laundrmat) and it is so good. So many music inside jokes and references. (Linkin Parka. A "free birb". Mirco.Wav for food. Circle of Fifths Council. Etc). God it's killing me i cant just sit down and play it whenever.

-West of Dead. Amazing music. Good design. Such a fun game. I dont do fighting/shooting games often bc i SUCK but i ended up not raging quitting and playing one level for like .... 55 minutes before finally completing it. Wasnt even mad. Game wasnt rude to me for dying SO MUCH and it was fun and music was great.

Comment:aer memories of old which is an open world adventure game. Theres no combat, just fly around and explore and learn what you can of the quiet peaceful world and the music is so beautiful. You need to solve puzzles sometimes to move forward but i dont remember having any crazy difficulties with them

This is actually a pretty controversial part of researching queer history, so I am going to try and give a thorough answer! There is a vocal portion of people who study history who believe that using modern labels to describe historical figures does harm to the study of history. I've heard both sides of the argument pretty thoroughly so I'll try and sum up my understandings on them, while also sharing my personal viewpoint.

Okay on the side of not using modern terms I find the more academic side of the argument. The thing is, the labels as we understand them now have fluctuated intensely and will likely continue to do so. So it means it's a different thing to call someone trans fifty years ago versus now. There was a time that the popular (and academic) understanding of transgender excluded anyone with same gender attraction. So people like Lou Sullivan were excluded from medical treatment because they were gay and trans. This is to say that without a fixed definition of labels it is hard to pin a historical figure down with certainty and doing so runs the risk of erasing or diminishing any evidence that doesn't suit the label.

It is also worth discussing that words like "queer" imply difference and when applied to cultures where same-gender attraction and gender nonconformity are normal, it can flatten the unique realities between cultures. Like, just because in some European cultures "queerness" was an oddity, does not mean that is a universal truth. There are many cultures and eras where what we understand now as "queerness" wouldn't be different or unexpected to any degree. On that note, applying the term queerness to cultures where the gender binary didn't exist runs the risk of flattening the discussions and participating in a neo-colonial line of thought.

All of this being said, I personally think that these arguments have merit, but don't convince me. First I have to speak to my personal experience which is to say the more discourse there is around a type of identity the more this argument is trotted out. It is not applied universally by any stretch of the imagination.

You will absolutely see people call a historical figure gay, but then start arguments over using they/them pronouns, asexual, aromantic, and two-spirit identities. I also believe in a debunking argument that says that if we are willing to use the word "feminist" to describe people before the more modern birth of the feminist movement, then queer terms are also allowed.

That being said, I absolutely respect the academic perspective of not using ANY of these terms and exploring history without labels like these at all and maybe finding more nuance through that method. The thing is I don't think just because it makes sense in one type of discussion, it should be applied to EVERY type of conversation. There is frankly an obvious difference between an academic book or paper versus a project like ours that is framed around accessibility.

I also find the people who fight against using these terms often have a very fixed version of history in their minds. There is one way of looking at the past and that is the CORRECT way, which in my opinion is a thought stopping behaviour. I think bringing queer terms into historical discussions reflects something very important about the study of history, fluidity.

Any study of history that relies on one truth, one perspective, and perfection, doesn't interest me. I think what makes history so valuable as an object of study is that we are always learning more and are always expanding our understandings.

I have gotten some backlash for using they/them pronouns for historical figures that did not use these pronouns during their life. But I am not married to the idea that if they were alive today they would use these pronouns. The conversation I am instead having is that when we aren't sure using they/them is a good default. Instead of it being a theory about one persons personal identity, it is instead a reminder that in this moment we are sitting in uncertainty and that's okay. I love when I see people use she/her pronouns for Claude Cahun, or King Kristina, I think they are making a valid choice. My use of they/them is often to remind people that it is a choice that they are making.

If you don't already know you have issues doing so, squat down real quick. Bend your knees all the way and touch the floor. Just make sure you can do it. Okay? For me? And then stand up all the way and make sure you can balance on one foot.

If there was ever a tumblr post worth sending to your mom, it's this one.

This is the very simple "starting from zero muscles" program I followed, highly recommend it or something similar:

See? Spock likes it!