There are a lot of iconic squads of fictional characters out there who play off each other to absolute perfection. They keep us coming back for more and inspire fanfiction and fanart and shoving whatever piece of media they come from down the throats of everyone we know. (Just me?)
Frodo and Sam. Sherlock and Watson. Sam and Dean. The Gaang. Whether they’re siblings, lovers, frenemies, or bitter rivals, character dynamics can bring life to a work of fiction in a way few other things can.
What are your favorite character dynamics? Do you prefer duos or an entire squad? What elements in a dynamic make it truly *chef’s kiss*? Do your preferences differ if you’re the reader as opposed to the writer?
I’ll start things off with two of my favorite character dynamics/tropes. The first is grizzled and/or gruff loner character who Does Not Form Attachments that adopts the smol bean who is a living ray of sunshine or otherwise just their child/charge now. From John Silver taking Jim Hawkins under his wing in Treasure Planet to the titular Mandalorian forming a clan of two with Baby Yoda, I cannot get enough of this trope. It tugs at the heart strings and sets up great potential for suspense, strife, and angst. There’s something about the innocence of the smol bean proving the warmth of their rough and tough guardian and bringing out their potential for good, especially in the context of a more morally ambiguous character.
The second dynamic is enemy-to-adopted-weird-uncle-who-still-hasn’t-really-changed-sides-exactly. The most prototypical example of this is Hector Barbosa in the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy. He’s the primary antagonist of the first film, but by the third (spoilers) he’s marrying two of the heroes mid-battle. He’s not exactlyfriends with the good guys, but at the same time, he is. The longstanding comedic irony in this group dynamic is one of the primary draws for me, as well as that unique push and pull of being fond of someone you can’t necessarily trust to be on your side. I revel in the massive grey area of these kinds of relationships.
I don’t know that I have a true preference for group dynamics or one-on-ones, but group dynamics often prove to be more difficult to balance. There’s actually a pretty clean split between my two active WIPs. In The Calm Before, it’s more a series of one-on-one dynamics, while Here There Be Monsters has to deal more with how a larger group interacts and relates as a whole.
Join in and start chatting about character dynamics! Reblog or tag me in your own ‘Write Angle’ post with your take. No deadline for participation, and no need to necessarily answer the questions above - they’re just prompts to get the ball rolling!
Taglist under the cut. Drop me a line to be added/removed.
I love character dynamics like you’ve mentioned! I’m such an absolute sucker for stoic, brooding characters who adopt a cheerful companion as well. I have a relationship like that in a wip of mine and it’s just,,,,lovely. Another one I love is best friends ganging up on everyone else, whether it be through pranks or morals or a heartfelt moment, you know They’re always going to stick together no matter what.
Yessss the Power of Friendship ™! I’m always onboard for an unshakeable group of ride-or-die friends. What do you think the greatest challenge is in writing a stoic character/cheerful companion dynamic?
Finding a balance, definitely! You want them to get along but you don’t want it to feel forced, the stoic character won’t instantly love the cheerful one’s personality unless the point of the plot is that they do. Depending on what you want to go for, the two can fall for each other’s personalities instantly or have a long, hard trek to acceptance and love, platonic or romantic.
expressing your needs, your emotions, your boundaries and your concerns will not drive away people that are committed to being in your life. wanting to be treated with respect, knowing your worth and acting accordingly is never asking for too much in any kind of safe or healthy connection.
the elephant in the room when it comes to the “we must protect our children” objections by conservative politicians is that they are not referring to living, breathing children, but a platonic concept of “a child” that children are coerced into emulating through abuse kneaded by both the state and their parents. The lack of rights children possess is to render them unable to object to what adults claim to do for their own good, which oftentimes are merely just means to maintain them as property than help them as people. The idea that teaching 6th graders very basic, very clinical sex ed is child abuse stems from the fear that their parents lose some control over their child’s autonomy by having the child know things (which, statically, also makes them more likely to tell someone when they are being abused by an adult. Interesting) that the parent has not sanctioned as a part of their person. Conservatives accuse everyone else of child abuse not because they care that a child is being hurt, but because hurting children is only their god given right.
You know one of the shittiest parts of chronic pain?
Sympathy has an expiration date.
If you’re hurting because you broke your leg, people can sympathize with you, because there’s an end-date. Eventually your leg will heal and you’ll be okay again. People will coo and coddle and bring you chocolates and sign your cast because they know that’s emotional labor that they will only have to perform temporarily.
But if you have a chronic condition that causes you daily pain, after awhile, people get annoyed with having to deal with you. They ask you what’s wrong, and when you reply with the same thing that was wrong last week, or the week before, or the month before, you eventually get an incredulous, “Still?”
Or maybe they’re not that overt. Maybe instead they go, “Oh, just that. Okay.” As if today’s pain should somehow be fine for them to ignore because it’s nothing new. No need to worry: it’s just the same old same old.
Let me tell you: Pain never gets easy to handle. It’s not like people with chronic pain develop an immunity to it, or that we stop feeling it. Sure, some of us get better at ignoring it, or better at living around it, but honestly? Most of us just get better at hiding it, because we get tired of feeling like an emotional burden to everyone around us.
But that doesn’t mean that we’re not hurting, and it sort of sucks that long-term pain, in addition to all the other fun things it entails, also eventually comes with a revoked right to be sympathized with, or even just treated like something other than a whiny attention-grabbing faker (or worse: a drug-seeker).
Chronic pain is real. And it sucks. And one of the worst parts about it is knowing it’s never going to end.
It would just be cool if people could try understand that, I guess.
ok so today Sony announced that there next Spider-man related film is a movie about El Muerto staring Bad Bunny
Now I’m pretty sure most of you when you heard this news where like this
Now as someone who actually knows who this is because I read the comic he’s in, and being Hispanic myself I was like this
Yeah I’m not at all excited by this at all, if anything I feel insulted, this is Sony’s big Spider-man related announcement, a one off villain who only appeared in two issues of Friendly Neighborhood Spider-man, (literary all the images there using for the promotion come from those two issues) yes a side comic not even the main Amazing Spider-man comic, this is suppose to get us excited to see more of these Sony marvel movies, really.
And what makes this worse to me is that Sony is playing this up as a big diversity win, “The First Hispanic lead Superhero movie” and being Mexican myself I feel insulted, I can guarantee that no Hispanic nerds where asking for this, no one was asking for an El Muerto movie, and to think that this good enough to get that win is insulting, like we will just take anything
You know why Black fans love characters like, Black Panther, Luke Cage, and Storm, it’s not just because there black, it’s because there black and are cool, and so they can see themselves being cool as well, just being visible is not enough, we also need to be seen as cool, and appealing, and trust me El Muerto is not cool at all.
On top of all of this, Sony scraping past the bottom of the Spider-man barrel to find there Hispanic lead superhero movie is unnecessary, seeing as there are plenty of Hispanic/Latino Spider-man characters to pick from who are not only much more recognizable, but are simply much cooler than El Muerto
You have Miguel O’Hara AKA Spider-man 2099
You have Anya Corazon AKA Spider-girl/ Araña
You have Anton Miguel Rodriquez AKA Tarantula
Sony has all these amazing Hispanic characters at there disposal and they just choose not to use any of them, and instead choose the most obscure of obscure characters, if Morbious couldn’t get people in the theater, then what makes them think this will?
This is literally what I was saying. Really? El Muerto? When Miguel O'hara is RIGHT THERE!? The entire 2099 landscape is wide open giving you the mass-appeal of Spider-Man without having to be tied to the MCU. Plus you’ve already got the hype from him appearing in Spider-Verse. Just a blank slate of Spider-possibilities available and you pick El Muerto? Sony c'mon! Let’s go to the 928 universe!
When I yank your head back by your hair I want to see your vulnerability
When I hurt you I want to see the trust you have in me mixed with your pain
When I deny you I’m increasing your pleasure later. I am giving you what you want in my own way
When I order you around I am solidifying your dedication to me
When I spank you I am claiming you. You are mine and in that same breath I am yours
Every spank, hair pull, and act of dominance is “I love you” written in actions. I want to show you how much I care. Show you that you are loved, cared for, wanted, and lusted after. Always.
It shouldn’t have taken a white person backing up his statements for film twitter to pay attention and listen to Ray Fisher, but I am so proud of Charisma Carpenter for speaking up about her experiences, and I hope both of them (and any other actor who’s suffered at that man’s hand, but maybe doesn’t have the resources or voice to publicly speak on it) continued healing, love, and support.
Wait. They aren’t jokes. You guys really keep dozens of tabs open on your browser forever.
What if I want to return to my search for obscure russian idioms or go back to rereading 17776? What am I supposed to do, spontaneously remember that that was a thing I was doing, completely unprompted by visual stimulus or external reminders, and renew my search from the beginning in a fresh new tab? No, my cluttered nightmare of tabs is a way better solution if i ever even hope to come close to getting back to the things i leave for later.
Okay but the end of ep 2 was absolutely brilliant. I was thinking that Hye Jung had found a purpose and stability too soon, but it was honestly so in character. It’s obvious she throws herself into whatever she does, whether it be being a gangster or a star students so it makes sense that she would succeed early on. No, what was more moving than seeing her succeed was how she dealt with a failure. Because she’s never had anyone to protect besides herself. It would be so easy for her to have claimed Ji Hong had forced himself on her, but she didn’t. She tried to sacrifice herself. For the first time in her life, she found something other than herself worht fighting for. She found stability and a place in this world in such a short amount of time, and Hye Jung not being able to do anything but watch as her new purpose, her new family literally goes up in flames was brilliant and heartbreaking
I dislike the bottom/top discussion when people turn it into a personality where like, The ‘bottom’ is legit submissive and seen as weaker.
I dislike that because it’s a homophobic way of portraying the relationship.
There’s a huge difference between ‘i think this person is a bottom because they like it’ and ‘i think this person is a bottom because they’re shorter, weaker and more ‘feminine’ (aka, seeing a MlM relationship through a het lens)
The first one is fine. People have preferences and that’s part of being an adult. Knowing your preferences.
The second is gross because it’s turning a really potentially interesting dynamic into a really warped viewing of that dynamic
whenever i listen to fall out boy it doesnt matter if i hear the first 3 seconds or im listening to it for an hour. im always ready to fight. who am i fighting? my arch nemesis? the fictional characters i hate the most? my own ass? i don’t know all i know is that im ready to fight
The term “POC” (people/person of color) is thrown around loose and fast on Tumblr, and many times quite inappropriately as well. This can lead to the erasure of lived experiences, neo-imperialistic projections onto non-Western contexts and ultimately can reinforce white supremacy in turn. I find the rampant abuse of this term on and off of Tumblr (but especially on this platform) to be exasperating to say the least. It’s one of many reasons that I’ve grown increasingly tired of even engaging with conversations on here, but a recent conversation I had with another friend, who has already left tumblr, prompted me to write this short list for one of my Tumblr major pet-peeves.
So with that let us begin, HOW NOT TO USE THE TERM POC (in 2 steps):
1. Non-Western Contexts
As a Nigerian I find this to be especially irritating. I have seen people throw race into the #BringBackOurGirls conversation, even as Nigeria is a more than 99% “black” country where we do not even consciously identify as black ourselves because (ding ding) basically EVERYONE is black! We do not see ourselves as black in the context of Nigeria, but now we are suddenly “persons of color”? I can hear my Nigerian aunties hissing at the thought even as I write this.
I also once saw someone on tumblr call Ghana a “majority POC” nation and I was absolutely floored. In yet another country where people don’t even identify as black, suddenly they are now “POC” as well? This is Western centrism and cavalier neo-imperialistic projections of Western racial politics onto the wider world in action. Race is a social construct which varies tremendously from place to place, and taking a flat view of race on a global scale is myopic to say the least. Calling Nigeria and Ghana nations of “POC” is not only flat out wrong, but it is an erasure that reinforces Western hegemony in turn. We want nothing to do with your word “POC” in our countries, as it has no meaning in the context of our lives there.
At this point it’s important to remember that the term “POC” is a Western political term for organizing in Western contexts against white supremacy. Again, it has no use in a country like Nigeria or Ghana where basically everyone is “black” (by our definition, even though, again we must note that people from these countries don’t even consciously identify with a racial marker like “black” until coming to the West). It also has no use in other “majority POC” nations. For example, how useful is a term like “POC” in a country like Saudi Arabia, where there is brutal, local Arab supremacy rooted in a largely independent history as well? How useful is it in any east Asian country where not even “Asian solidarity” exists given the history and tremendous animus between various peoples in the region? The answer is short- it doesn’t apply. Context is critical. Please stop abusing the term “POC” in non-Western contexts. When you do so, you’re talking over people from these countries, being Western-centric and erasing their lived experiences in turn. Stop.
2. When antiblackness and other specific forms of racialized oppression occur
As a community, many of us black people are still mourning the loss of our murdered son, Trayvon Martin, killed by antiblackness and failed by a virulently white supremacist and antiblack justice system. Yes, other POC are victims of racial violence and hate crimes all of the time, but this specific tragedy was a black tragedy. Trayvon Martin was killed in that neighborhood because he was a black boy whose black body was immediately interpreted by George Zimmerman as a security threat that needed to be tracked, followed, and ultimately extinguished and destroyed. Again this is antiblackness in action.
But to my great surprise, in the midst of our grief, we find other POC waxing long about this being a “POC tragedy.” No, it’s not a POC tragedy, it’s a black tragedy as he was killed for being black. Stating blandly that this is just about some general struggle that all “POC” go through is a form of violence against black people and an erasure of the particularities of our struggle as well. People love to do this with black tragedies in particular, piggy-backing on our pain, but similarly, if someone told me that the murder of Vincent Chin, who was killed for being east Asian-American, was a “POC tragedy” I would also be horrified and disgusted.
In short, stop it. SPECIFY the form of oppression at play, because without doing so you are simply erasing lived experiences and perpetuating white supremacy and the violence against the community in question. Stop it.
—-
And there you have it. It sounds simple doesn’t it? Don’t apply the term “POC” to non-Western contexts and specify forms of oppression when you can in Western contexts. But people regularly fail to do these two simple things- perpetuating violence, white supremacy and Western dominance against marginalized communities across the globe. Please do use the term “POC” as a political organizing tool in the West– I understand its use and importance there and do use it myself in specific ways to encourage solidarity. But I simply have no time for any of the above and hope that one day the abuse of this ostensibly useful term will finally stop.
In line with what @wigglebox has said hereandhere, and what @cynifersharedhere, I want to add a few thoughts just to put them down and move on from the issue.
- The situation is weird and things don’t add up (how it started, the Stands tweets, etc); we don’t know quite what happened but it evidently spiraled out and turned into a mess. It sucks, but it’ll pass.
- Straight is the label he’s shared with us, and all respect to that. Of course. He has his reason(s) for it and he knows them better than we do.
- Straight, however, doesn’t necessarily mean 0-on-the-Kinsey-Scale-never-had-a-single-homoerotic-thought-in-my-life. Sexuality is a spectrum and straight doesn’t fall outside of it.
- Even if Misha were a Kinsey 0 (and how likely is that, by his poems alone?) that doesn’t change the (wonderful) person he is, what he’s said and what he’s done. It doesn’t invalidate or erase all the stuff on the Cockles masterposts, for example.
- On that note, it also doesn’t change the fact that he knows about Cockles and is fine with fans having their fun.
The drama is, in the end, mostly about the emotion fueled clusterfuck of this weekend. We’ll know more about Misha’s life when and if he decides to. I really hope he’s okay and that he gets to a place where it’s easier than this.
Meanwhile, I think it can be business as usual in fandom. We can tinhat or speculate as long as we follow the usual rules of keeping it respectful and within the fandom.
I’m probably forgetting something or not explaining properly, but that’s what I got right now.
If the 80,000 people who reblogged this uncritically bothered to read their sources carefully and then take out a calculator they would find out that the meat industry is responsible for as many GHG emissions as 70 of these companies combined.
You go from number 34 (Qatar Petroleum Corp - 0.54%) all the way down to number 100 (Southwestern Energy Co - 0.04%) and you get 14,5%*, which is the percentage of GHG emissions animal agriculture is responsible for.
*14.5% is if you don’t count the consumption of fossil fuel along the sector supply chains - it obviously doesn’t make sense to count it since that fossil fuel is produced by the companies listed in the article, so it’s already included in the 71% figure reported above.
To be more precise, the livestock sector accounts for 14,5% percentof GHG emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. Livestock are responsible for much larger shares of some gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere. The sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2) most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants. It emits 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2), the great majority from manure. Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.
Between 2010 and 2050, as a result of rising demand, these shares could increase by 50–90%: the environmental impacts of the food system will exceed the planetary boundaries for food-related GHG emissions by 110%, for cropland use by 70%, for bluewater use by 50%, for nitrogen application by 125%, and for phosphorus application by 75%. Some estimates suggest that meeting projected demands for livestock products alone will exceed the sustainability boundary condition for reactive nitrogen mobilization by 294%. This means the livestock sector alone will significantly overshoot recently published estimates of humanity’s “safe operating space”.
We could stop using all fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy todayand even then, even if every single one of these 100 fucking companies were burned to the ground, we would still exceed the 1.5°C limit, just from raising animals for food.
Barring unforseen technological breakthroughs worldwide animal product consumption at current North American per capita rates is utterly incompatible with a 1.5°C warming target.
In addition to its effects on greenhouse gases, animal agriculture affects the environment by the conversion of natural ecosystems to agriculture since, obviously, growing the crops used for feeding animals, such as soy and maize, eats up land. 26 percent of the earth’s terrestrial surface is used for livestock grazing. One-third of the planet’s arable land is occupied by livestock feed crop cultivation. 40% of our cereal production is not destined for human consumption, but for animal feed. So is 80% of Amazon soy.
Land use and habitat conversion are, in essence, a zero-sum game: land converted to agriculture to meet growing food demand comes from forests, grasslands, and other natural habitats. Consequently, cattle ranching is the largest driver of deforestation, accounting for 80% of current deforestation rates in South America. Seventy percent of Brazil’s deforested land is now used as pasture, with feed crop cultivation occupying much of the remainder.
These numbers are, of course, the result of today’s meat consumption levels: If developing countries were to eat as much meat as developed countries per capita, the amount of agricultural land required worldwide would be about two thirds larger than today.
If any of the 80,000 people who agree with this post and think it is journalistic malpractice to encourage a reduction in meat consumption could enlight me as to where they plan on finding all this land without worsening deforestation, land degradation, and habitat loss, it is more pressing now than ever that they come forward with their ideas. Especially in light of the new UN report warning that “We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe”. From the Guardian:
1) The IPCC maps out four pathways to achieve 1.5C, with different combinations of land use and technological change. Reforestation is essential to all of them as are shifts to electric transport systems and greater adoption of carbon capture technology. 2) Although unexpectedly good progress has been made in the adoption of renewable energy, deforestation for agriculture was turning a natural carbon sink into a source of emissions. […] Reversing these trends is essential if the world has any chance of reaching 1.5C without relying on the untried technology of solar radiation modification and other forms of geo-engineering, which could have negative consequences.
To raise livestock also takes water: nearly one-third of the total water footprint of agriculture in the world is related to the production of animal products. The water footprint of a live animal consists of different components: the indirect water footprint of the feed and the direct water footprint related to the drinking water and service water consumed (service water refers to the water used to clean the farmyard, wash the animal and carry out other services necessary to maintain the environment). In Italy, for example, about 89% of our water footprint relates to consumption of agricultural products and 7% to industrial products. Nearly, half of the water footprint of Italian consumption is related to the consumption of animal products.
An important distinction must be made here between water “use” and “consumption”. Hydroelectric power is one of the largest “users” of water in the USA, but actually consumes very little water. The water is used to power turbines or for cooling and is almost always returned to the source immediately. Agriculture is the largest “consumer” of water because it pulls water from the source and locks it up in products, not returning it to the source immediately, if ever.
Fishing also affects ecological processes at very large scale. The overall impact on aquatic systems has been described as comparable to that of agriculture on land. In fact, with the rise of commercial fishing methods marine animal populations are no longer able to replenish themselves fast enough. Between the 1950’s to 2011 worldwide catches increased 5 fold while the amount of fish in the sea was reduced by ½. Some scientists predict that we will see fishless oceans by 2048.
The most obvious reason for the reduction of marine life is overfishing. 90-100 million tonnes of fish are pulled from our oceans each year, with some sources even estimating 150 million tonnes. ¾ of the world’s fisheries are exploited or depleted. But it’s not just the amount of fish being taken from the ocean for food that is the issue. there is also the method of species targeting. Humans tend to go after the biggest fish first until they are no longer available. Then they move on down the chain, a process marine biologist Daniel Pauly termed “fishing down marine food webs”.Over the last 50 years, the abundance of large predator fish, such as cod, swordfish and tuna, has dropped 90 percent. Fishing vessels now increasingly pursue the smaller forage fish, such as herrings, sardines, menhaden and anchovies, that are lower on the food chain. The removal of apex predators leads to what’s called “trophic downgrading” where the loss of predators allows other species to grow unimpeded, upsetting the entire ecosystem. One study suggests that the removal of sharks may contribute to climate change by leaving the unchecked numbers of species to feast on the ocean’s vegetation, releasing the ancient carbon found there in massive quantities. Dr. Peter Macreadie, one of the study’s authors, cautioned that “If we just lost 1 percent of the oceans’ blue carbon ecosystems, it would be equivalent to releasing 460 million tonnes of carbon annually, which is about the equivalent of about 97 million cars. It’s about equivalent to Australia’s annual greenhouse gas emissions.” With 73 million sharks killed every year for the shark fin industry and 40-50 million sharks dying every year as bycatch*, this is more than mere speculation.
* bycatch is a fish or other marine species that is caught unintentionally while catching certain target species and target sizes of fish, crabs etc. According to the FAO, for every 1 pound of fish caught, up to 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as bycatch.
Even marine plastic is in large part a fishing issue. It turns out that 46 percent of the Great Pacific garbage patch is composed of discarded nets, and much of the rest consists of other kinds of fishing gear. To put this in perspective, things like plastic straws - which everyone seems so eager to eliminate - make up 0.03% of all marine plastic.
All these sources of global change will rival and significantly interact with climatic change in environmental and societal impacts.
Now, before anyone can misconstrue my argument, I 100% agree with the sentiment of that tweet. Our entire economic system needs to be turned upside down. Drastic changes - chief among them the discontinuation of the use of fossil fuels - are needed on an institutional level.
What’s my problem then, you might ask. It’s this: while that twitter guy and I might disagree on the importance of individuals taking the bus instead of driving, we both obviously acknowledge that the fossil fuels that power our cars are unsustainable. And I don’t have to wonder whether or not he would support further investments in public transport. I know he would.
When it comes to animal products, though, I can never be so sure.
If I listen to what you’re saying, then it seems like you take issue with my telling individual consumers to eat less meat because you want to go straight to the government and after the corporations. You’d rather we demanded subsidies for plant-based foods, and policies that restrict the supply of animal products, and more investments in plant-based companies and lab-grown meat, perhaps even changes to school and workplace menus. In other words, you’d rather we held the government responsible for making delicious and nutritious plant-based food as available and convenient to the average consumer as junk food is today.
If that were your actual position, I’d be crying tears of joy. But you see, I’m not at all convinced that it is. ‘Cause your words are never backed up by actions.
If the biggest left-wing party in my country listed “reducing meat consumption” as one of their objectives, do not insult me by telling me that non-vegan “anti-capitalists” would vote for it. I know you wouldn’t, you know you wouldn’t, politicians know you wouldn’t. That’s why reducing meat consumption is not part of any political party’s objectives and it is never going to be unless this issue becomes a deal-breaker for the majority of their voters.
That’s who consciousness raising need to start with, individual voters. Most voters are aware of the unsustainability of fossil fuels and would support reforms to reduce their use - perhaps grudgingly, but they would support them. The same cannot be said for animal products. The average citizen - even the average “anti-capitalist” - would not accept the government meddling with their diet. The meat lobby, powerful though it is, is not the only thing standing in the way, since as long as votersoppose a reform,there is no chance of it ever becoming law. Suggesting that we should back off individual consumers and go straight after giant corporations is completely out of touch with reality because it ignores this simple fact.
Furthermore, you may tweet about the futility of individual consumers taking the bus, but you then follow that up by letting politicians know that you want them to take care of electric cars and public transport. Do not tell me that non-vegan anti-capitalists are known for letting politicians know how concerned they are about animal agriculture.
You don’t want us to leave you alone and go after corporations. You want us to leave you alone period. Most of you want to leave the livestock sector completely untouched and out of the discussion.
That’s not possible. A global shift toward a plant-based diet is part of the institutional changes that need to take place to stop climate change. It’s not a nice little addition that we can survive without. It is an integral part of any serious climate change mitigation plan.
This isn’t my opinion. It isn’t neoliberal propaganda. There is scientific consensus on this. In fact, there is not much difference between being a climate change denier and denying the role of animal agriculture in climate change.
How come one study is all it takes to convince you that 100 companies are destroying the planet, but no number of studies is enough to convince that the livestock sector alsoplays a role??
That’s the exact title Daddy gave me for today’s writing… he’s not making things easy.
I’m trying very hard to make this a thoughtful, deep (ahem) post… and kinda failing. Don’t get me wrong, having things put in my ass is something I take very seriously… and is one very, very good way to instantly have me dripping wet and desperately begging for more. But, honestly, show me a lovely picture like this or tell me how you’re not even going to bother with my cunt and will only be fucking my ass, and any thoughts after that will be anything but coherent. But Daddy says I gotta write, so here goes.
Let’s not beat about the bush here (ahem), being fucked in the ass, with whatever Daddy decides will go in there, makes me feel like a dirty little slut. And sure, that feeling alone is enough to get many people going, but it’s about a little more than that, I think. Besides the obvious things like it being a teeny bit degrading and humiliating, it puts me in the right frame of mind to serve. Because, though yes I do like the feeling, having things put in there is not, ultimately, for my pleasure. That’s not typically where things ‘feel good’. But it happens anyway, because that’s just what he wants to do. It reinforces, time and time again, that I have no mysteries left. I often enjoy playing the mystical, secretive creature, watching how it drives men wild… but not with him. Never with him. I have no secrets, nothing I have is kept from him. Knowing you have revealed and handed over your every secret power can be very frightening. Many people like to maintain a sense of mystery and hold back bits of information as a self-preserving defence mechanism - if they are later rejected, they can brush it off more easily with a ‘well he never knew the real me’. Handing over every part of you is like handing someone a knife, closing your eyes, turning around, and trusting they won’t do it. And that is how I feel when I give him the most secret, hidden parts of me.
This may well sound like a massive overreaction, considering how I’m basically just talking about assfucking, ha. But nothing we do is quite so simple. It is not the physical that keeps me here, but the psychological. The connection that is forged when we uncover everything, strip back all that tiresome pretence, and hand ourselves over to another.
So there’s all that…
But then there’s also the fact that, when he takes my ass and whispers what a filthy little whore I am with his mouth at my throat, I cum so fucking hard.
Whilst Dangerous Lies might appear to be a thriller on the surface, it’s actually a very complex novel about how the people we love and trust the most might not always have our best interests at heart.
I think it’s kinda funny when people bring up the fact that Hawks is a hypocrite like it’s some kind of revelation and not his biggest, most defining personality trait.
Like, his whole character is based on the ideology that sometimes you have to do bad things for a good reason. As long as there is a net-positive result from an action, that action is excusable and even morally correct. That’s a running theme in his life that has affected his family, his career, and his current choices in the war. Of course Hawks excuses Endeavor; he’s the number one hero whose saved countless people during his lifetime and also, is kind of necessary as they fight in what is essentially a quirk apocalypse. Of course Hawks is trying to justify his killing of Twice; Twice has killed hundreds of people and is a known terrorist, who Hawks considered an active threat.
But the whole point is that Hawks’s ideology contradicts Deku’s (and therefore the narrative’s) belief that actually, no, doing a bad thing is always still just doing a bad thing and not morally correct. Hawks is supposed to be wrong. You’re supposed to see his character and realize that, while fundamentally he is trying to do the right thing, the way he goes about it is only leading to more suffering. You’re not meant to agree with all of his actions. He’s part of a bygone era, and chapter 354 is actively pointing out that he’s aware of that, and is currently fighting for a future that can be better than the one he was a part of.
Now, whether or not Horikoshi gets this across in the story especially well is an entirely different conversation, but yk.
I think a lot about how we as a culture have turned “forever” into the only acceptable definition of success.
Like… if you open a coffee shop and run it for a while and it makes you happy but then stuff gets too expensive and stressful and you want to do something else so you close it, it’s a “failed” business. If you write a book or two, then decide that you don’t actually want to keep doing that, you’re a “failed” writer. If you marry someone, and that marriage is good for a while, and then stops working and you get divorced, it’s a “failed” marriage.
The only acceptable “win condition” is “you keep doing that thing forever”. A friendship that lasts for a few years but then its time is done and you move on is considered less valuable or not a “real” friendship. A hobby that you do for a while and then are done with is a “phase” - or, alternatively, a “pity” that you don’t do that thing any more. A fandom is “dying” because people have had a lot of fun with it but are now moving on to other things.
I just think that something can be good, and also end, and that thing was still good. And it’s okay to be sad that it ended, too. But the idea that anything that ends is automatically less than this hypothetical eternal state of success… I don’t think that’s doing us any good at all.
The Issue with Multiverse of Madness: Wanda’s Characterization
I really wanted to like Doctor Strange In the Multiverse of Madness, but Wanda’s characterization kind of ruined it for me. Honestly, the writers seemingly erased all her character development from WandaVision.*spoilers ahead*
The whole point of Wanda’s arc in WV is that she went through all the stages of grief, and in the finale, she reached a point of acceptance. She got a sort of closure. She accepted the loss of her family and made peace with it, acknowledging that preserving her family was not worth the cost of innocent lives. So you’re telling me that it makes sense for her to then turn around and murder tons of innocent people so she can get her family back? When the exact opposite of that was literally the point of her character development? Honestly, I feel betrayed.
MoM reversed (or straight-up ignored) her arc. The WV finale made it seem like she was getting a fresh start, albeit a bittersweet one. This movie made it clear that isn’t happening. Even though she redeemed herself in the end by sacrificing herself, Wanda is an amazing character who deserved so much better than this! She deserved better than erased character development, becoming a mass murderer, and then getting killed off. I also resent how in the WV finale she finally came into herself and reached her true potential with this incredible moment of transformation, and then they turned her into a crazy, murderous villain. Yes, I know the Darkhold corrupts its readers, but still! That wasn’t shown. If the whole movie had been Wanda reading it more and slowly sliding into evil and obsession, that would have felt more believable. As it is, Wanda going from closure and acceptance straight to this level of “evil obsessive villain” felt wrong on so many levels.
Also, where the heck did the White Vision storyline go? In WV, Wanda’s Vision gives White Vision his memories and essentially his consciousness, and it was kind of implied that now White Vision embodies everything about the Vision we know and love in the MCU. So, theoretically, he could be with Wanda, and things wouldn’t have been much different. There was every opportunity for (and plenty of hints toward) a happier storyline for Wanda where she gets to continue on her journey of healing. She didn’t get that, and I don’t see any good reason why not.
Basically, just because you can go with a certain storyline or twist doesn’t mean you should.
I have to agree. DSMOM has other issues–chief among them the fact that Strange remains a rather two-dimensional character, also that they introduced America Chavez as a victim incapable of heroism before Strange’s pep talk magically fixes her–but the shortchanging of Wanda’s story/characterization is the most egregious. We’re just told “the Darkhold did this to her” without seeing it, without getting any sense of her other choices, anything. The only reason the movie works at all is Elizabeth Olsen’s powerhouse performance, which finds whatever honesty the material is capable of possessing.
And given the incredibly picayune moments Marvel has chosen to pull actors in for cameos, it’s RIDICULOUS that they couldn’t get Paul Bettany for at least one scene in Wanda’s ideal universe, because he would absolutely be there. Like, my love for Patrick Stewart’s Professor X is vast and unending, but all the Illuminati cameos didn’t mean as much to this story as 15 seconds of Vision would have.
