A nameless song, a nameless book, a nameless god

Mae, she/her, SVSSS, haikyuu!! jjk, Silm, Merlin, and Naruto, with occasional other fandoms, loves meta and pretty fanart, chronically on ao3, always up for interaction!

[hollow-lime-green]

it's too hot

[sitting-on-me-bum]

A red fox snacking on a plum.

FREDERIC DESMETTE / BIOSPHOTO / MINDEN PICTURES

[stjohnstarling]

Adaptations of Shakespeare with a quirky twist are hereby banned. You have to do it just regular now. Sorry.

[samejimasatoru]

[prokopetz]

Flavours of unreliable narrator:

Lying to the reader

Lying to themselves

Simply misinformed

Not paying attention

Has weird priorities

Assumed you knew

Hates you personally

Bad at communicating

Easily sidetracked

Will believe anything

Has weird prejudices

Just kind of dumb

[mermaidenmystic]

lotus fairy vintage postcard ~ PostcardMuse

[neonshroudedgraves]

Bluesky asks Texas users to verify their ages, citing new app store law

"Why do you need age verification on a site where everyone is 38?"

[stevishabitat]

idk who on earth could possibly need to hear this, but do NOT, under ANY circumstances, give out your SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER to ANY SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS

☝️☝️☝️

[canmom]

worth noting that the atproto architecture makes age verification a lot easier to bypass than other platforms. though, you would have hoped to have a few more years before taking advantage of these features lol. but from a country that is unfortunately a couple years into this shit already, I recommend...

switch your PDS (thing that stores your data) from bluesky.social. some existing public PDSes include Blacksky and Eurosky. eurosky has a simple tool, linked, which makes transferring your data from another PDS very easy. (if you are more technical, you can also self-host a PDS on your own server, the way you would a website.)

then, switch your frontend (the thing that lets you read and write posts) away from bsky.app to one of the forks; I recently switched to using Witchsky, which is actively maintained at time of writing. this gives you a pretty much identical experience with a few extra features, notably including bypassing age verification nonsense for DMs in countries like the UK, and some of the bullshit moderation bsky has been imposing lately. (it also lets you change the colours).

to be clear, this mostly lets you see stuff that gets censored; it won't help your posts get seen if you're blocked and most of the users are still on bsky.app, but it's a good thing to do now before you have to, and you don't need to convince everyone to come along right away the way you would something like discord.

it's going to take a while to get bsky as decentralised in practice as something like fedi, but the way they're running it, we had better pull the trigger on that 'if you don't like it you can switch and take your data with you' promise asap

[neenarchive]

really hilarious and unsexy when hetero romantasy authors refer to love interests as males and females. you sound like david attenborough narrating a special documentary on two turtles humping in the mud

[neenarchive]

i don't care if he's the king of the fae. if that man called me a desirable female i'd have him gelded

[lifeafterpsychiatry]

"Are you saying we should just allow people to have bad and scary thoughts and feelings??? And talk about them openly??" Yes. Yes I am. Your need to forcibly correct other people's thoughts and feelings into something more palatable and punishing them if they refuse to hide them is FAR more toxic than the hypothetical suicide joke you're getting mad about

[redstonedust]

unfortunately i dont think its queerbaiting if the creator is just so terminally heterosexual that they never remotely considered the same gender relationship their show is centered around could be read as romantic. it is deeply painful however.

[melanqueerly]

Maybe accidental queer baiting? The way someone may not mean to say something rude, but it may come off rude, so it's rude. Frustrating either way.

[phinarei]

Not being a dick, just a friendly clarification.

By definition you can't accidentally queerbait. Queerbaiting is specifically using a same sex pair from the show to market the show to queer audiences with no intention of ever following through on a romantic relationship.

There is officially licensed Destiel merch signed off on by Kripke. Teen Wolf had a commercial with the actors for Derek and Stiles draped over each other talking about being "on a ship." Both shows actively used scenes between them as marketing while actively mocking fans for wanting them together. Sherlock has multiple characters refer to Johnlock as a couple, including characters we're supposed to believe are never wrong about human behavior and pushed those scenes in marketing. Then they acted insulted when fans saw them as a couple.

That's queerbaiting.

Done on accident it would just be queer subtext. Done because they had no other choice due to censorship is queer coding.

The specific meaning of the word is really starting to get lost and it's a pretty important one to keep accurate. It describes a very specific phenomenon that was done repeatedly and maliciously for decades and is meant to examine that specifically.

Doing it on accident sucks, but it isn't a tactic of capitalism intentionally intended to suppress queer representation while making money from queer fans.

[joyandotherstories]

Reblogging to keep the accurate definition and examples of queerbaiting circulating in the world

[coldswarkids]

you are a woman in a fantasy book written by a man. choose your personality trait

PETITE but super strong (defeats men easily 3x your size)

crosses arms across breasts / yanks braid in irritation

has giant sexy bazongers (that are sooooo inconvenient for archery)

"ugh, MEN" (acts in completely irrational manner)

only female character among cast of 3,000 men

see male protagonist > i must bone him immediately

written to "defeat sexist tropes" but is just written as a man instead

not like the OTHER girls (tucks hair behind ears)

damsel in distress (faints dramatically) ooohhhhh

Remaining time: 22 hours 44 minutes

[huariqueje]

Pink Tablecloth ( Detail ) - Susan Ashworth , 2022.

British , b, 1968 -

Oil on board , 120 x 90 cm.

[zishiyao]

The Sentence of the Valar

Before the white banner of the Valar,

receives his banishment from Tirion, defiant beneath the fading light of the city.

[allegedly-human]

nothing is more tumblr than having a tumblr sexyman wiki and then warn you to not find some of those men sexy because it's problematic

[exhaled-spirals]

« I keep a journal of quotes, lines from songs, poetry. Nothing is my original thought — but all of it struck me as meaningful when I wrote it down.

[…] From my early 20s, there are pages trying to convince myself that friendship, which I had, could be as valuable as romantic love, which I didn’t. (Andrew Sullivan: “If love is about the bliss of primal unfreedom, friendship is about the complicated enjoyment of human autonomy.”) […] Ultimately, when I was no longer so preoccupied with finding romantic love, my shift toward looking more closely at my other relationships is mirrored in my transcriptions: Vivian Gornick on her relationship with her mother; Durga Chew-Bose on the rapturous, fresh intimacy that I miss now.

[…] Thrumming beneath the pages is a shifting self-image. When I read them, I recognize the past me who saw herself in these quotes, but I don’t roll my eyes at her. With others’ words as intermediaries, the harsh light of hindsight softens. If keeping a journal would be a way to look in the mirror and make an honest appraisal of myself, keeping a commonplace book is more like looking at myself out of the corner of my eye.

It’s an admittedly different approach from my generation’s inclination toward full-frontal accountability. Daily diary apps and self-improvement podcasts and confessional Instagram stories evince a belief that to grow as a person you have to be entirely, unflinchingly forthcoming. But I couldn’t catalog my flaws without flinching. And I don’t think I need to. That’s part of the point of reading, I think: When I find myself too earnest, too impatient, too much, I can be in conversation with other minds instead. Keeping a commonplace book feels like a kinder way to grow, by wrestling with the articulations of others in the open as I hopefully adjust myself within. »

— Charley Locke, “Commonplace Books Are Like a Diary Without the Risk of Annoying Yourself”

[yeoldenews]

A Guide to Common Regency-Era Nicknames

These nicknames are the result of a three month survey I conducted using hundreds of primary sources ranging from newspapers to period literature to murder trial testimony. I have been sitting on this research for two years due to several names I was stuck on, but when I mentioned to project in a response to an ask recently I had several people encourage me to just post it as is - so here you go...

Due to the strict social rules of the Regency era, nicknames were very rarely used in the upper classes outside of family and very close friends.

Young, unmarried women would sometimes go by a nickname publicly, but even then the rules of formal address still applied. A young woman of status would be introduced as Miss Betsey Lastname, not just Betsey. The eldest daughter would be introduced as Miss Lastname, whether or not she went by a nickname.

The same rules applied to children of a certain status that went by nicknames. Servants would refer to their young charges as Miss Sally and Master Jemmy - not just Sally and Jemmy.

Adults who went by nicknames outside of close family/friends tended to be servants (free, indentured and enslaved) or members of the lower class. A scullery maid was more likely to be a Fanny than a Frances and a stable boy was more likely to be a Jack than a John.

You do also see men in positions of authority referred to by nicknames in a "man of the people" type way - hence Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, etc.

However, this was also often used in a sarcastic manner by political opposition.

A few notes on the lists below...

Nicknames were often very regionally specific. Names with locations in parentheses were used primarily in those areas, those without locations I've found evidence of use throughout the English-speaking world.

Nicknames are listed in very rough order of popularity, starting with the most popular - (I did not actually count the hundreds of occurrences of each nickname as the sources I used were very hard to quantify, so these are based on my general observations during the project and should not be taken as academic fact.)

A general rule - Y not IE endings unless you are Scottish.

Lizzy not Lizzie, Sophy not Sophie, Charley not Charlie

IE endings were still associated with French names

Women's Names

Amelia - Am(e)y, Emily

Ann - Nancy, Nan, Nanny (northern England), Annie (Scotland)

Bridget - Biddy

Caroline - Car(r)y

Catherine - Kitty, Kate, Cat(e)y (US), Catty (Ireland), Katty (Scotland/Ireland), Katie (Scotland)

Charlotte - [see notes]*

Dorothy - Doll(y)

Eleanor - Nell(y)

Elizabeth - Bets(e)y, Eliza, Betty, Lizzy, Bess(y), Els(e)y/Elsie (Scotland/US) - NOT Beth

Frances - Fanny, Fan, Franny

Henrietta - Harriet, Hetty, Henny

Isabella - Bell(a), Tibby (Northern England/Scotland)

Jane - Jenny, Jessy/Jessie (Scotland)

Louisa/Lucy - Loo/Lou

Margaret - Peggy, Peg, (Maggy, Meggy, Moggy, Madge (Scotland))

Martha - Patty, Matty (northern England/Scotland/Ireland/US), Patsy (southern US)

Mary - Polly, Mally (northern England/Scotland), Molly (Lancashire), Pally (Yorkshire)

Rebecca - Becky, Becca

Sarah - Sally

Sophia - Sophy

Susannah - Susan, Sukey, Susy, Suckey (southern US)

Men's Names

Alexander - Allick/Ellick, Sandy - NOT Alex#

Anthony - Tony

Benjamin - Ben(ny)

Charles - Charley, Charlie (Scotland)

Edward - Ned(dy), Ted(dy) (Ireland)

Francis - Frank(y)

George - Georgey, Geordie (Northern England/Scotland)

Henry - Harry

James - Jem(my), Jamie (Scotland), Jim(my)$

John - Jack(y), Johnny, Jock(ey) (Scotland)

Joseph - Joe(y)

Richard - Dick(y)

Robert - Bob(by), Robb(y/ie) (Scotland), Robin

Samuel - Sam(my)

Thomas - Tom(my)

William - Bill(y), Will(y)

* I have found a single instance of both Lotty (in a dictionary from 1725) and Charley (a murder trial from 1735) being used as a nickname for Charlotte in the early 18th century, but none from the Regency period itself. So both nicknames pre-date the Regency era, but I, as of yet, cannot prove whether they were in use during the early 19th century or not. # "Alex." was used in the Regency era as an abbreviation for Alexander, but I have never seen it used in a period source as stand-alone nickname. Alexander Hamilton would occasionally sign his name "Alex Hamilton" without the period, but he also didn't use a period when he signed it "A Hamilton". It is possible it was also a spoken nickname at the time, however I have not come across any hard evidence of this pre-dating the 20th Century. $ Jim/Jimmy did exist as a nickname in the early 19th century, but was far, FAR, less common than Jem/Jemmy. It would not overtake Jem/Jemmy in popularity until the mid-19th century.

[prokopetz]

I’m not ace myself, so I’m coming at the whole acephobia thing from an outsider’s perspective, and as such, it’s not my place to speak to the experience of those on the receiving end of it.

However, as a bisexual dude, I can observe that many of the arguments that are employed to establish that ace folks have no place in the queer community are strikingly similar - indeed, at times practically word-for-word identical - to the arguments that were for many years (and in some circles still are) employed to establish that bisexual folks have no place in the queer community.

It’s enough to make a guy suspicious on general principle, you know?

[prokopetz]

I’ve gotten a few messages asking for (well, in some cases more “demanding”) elaboration, so: here are a few of the primary areas in which I’ve observed that arguments against bi inclusion and arguments against ace inclusion tend to exhibit significant overlap. There may well be others - these are simply the ones I’ve run into most frequently.

The Passing Argument

It has been argued that bisexual folks don’t have any grounds to complain about discrimination and violence suffered in relation to their orientation, because a bisexual person is able to pass as straight simply by choosing partners of the appropriate gender. Therefore, any discrimination and violence that a bisexual person does experience must be construed as voluntarily undertaken, since they could have passed, and freely chose not to.

This argument is similarly applied to ace folks via the assertion that being ace poses no particular barrier to seeking a partner of a socially acceptable gender, so any failure to do so must likewise be construed as voluntary.

The Performativity Argument

It has been argued that bisexual folks ought to be excluded from queer communities because sexual orientation is purely performative; i.e., being gay is defined in terms of currently having a sexual partner of the same gender.  A bisexual person who has a partner of a different gender is functionally indistinguishable from a straight person, and must therefore be regarded as straight. Conversely, a bisexual person whose current partner is of the same gender must nonetheless be regarded with suspicion, because they could “turn straight” at any time simply by leaving that partner.

This argument is similarly applied to ace folks via the assertion that their orientation has no discernible performative component; an ace person is functionally indistinguishable from a straight person who simply isn’t involved in a sexual relationship at that particular moment, so ace folks must therefore be regarded as straight by default.

(An astute reader may notice that the passing argument dovetails neatly into the performativity argument: those who choose not to seek partners of a socially acceptable gender may be dismissed because any violence and discrimination they experience is a consequence of their voluntary failure to pass, while those who do seek such partners are performatively straight and therefore to be shunned. It’s a neat little system.)

The Mistaken Identity Argument

It has been argued that, while bisexual folks may suffer discrimination and physical and sexual violence, they’re not targeted by such acts because they’re bisexual. Any discrimination and violence a bisexual person suffers in relation to their orientation is suffered because they were mistaken for a gay person. Any effort on their part to discuss such experiences is therefore to be regarded as appropriative, in spite of the fact that they personally experienced it. In short, a bisexual person’s own experience of violence and discrimination doesn’t truly “belong” to them: it “belongs” to the purely hypothetical gay person their persecutors allegedly mistook them for.

This argument is applied to ace folks practically verbatim - no particular adaptation is necessary.

[lierdumoa]

I’ll add The Contribution Argument, which involves one of these gatekeeping behaviors:

1) rewriting history to erase bisexual and asexual contributions to political LGBTQ rights movements, and then claiming that bisexuals and asexuals have never done anything for the community at large

2) arguing that modernday bisexuals and asexuals should be excluded from current political movements because our goals are distinct from, or even contradictory to the goals of the LGBTQ rights movement at large

3) interpreting any attempt on the part of bi/asexuals to make safe spaces for ourselves within the community as an attack on LG safe spaces, generally by reframing bi/ace pride as homo/lesbophobia, or by dismissing accusations of bi/acephobia as inherently homo/lesbophobic

In other words, arguing that bisexuals and asexuals, rather than being contributing members of the community, are parasites on the community, leeching from, and undermining the community and its goals.

[prokopetz]

The Contribution Argument is an interesting one because it goes way beyond popular biphobia.

It’s often been asserted that bisexual folks ought to be excluded from the LG community because that community is specifically for folks who experience homophobia, and bisexual folks don’t experience homophobia, save by misidentification. (See the Mistaken Identity Argument, above.)

However, anybody who’s over the age of 30 can tell you that the positioning of the experience of homophobia as the community’s great unifier is, itself, a relatively novel development.

Up until quite recently (and by “recently” I mean as recently as the mid 1980s), even lesbians were routinely characterised by the leaders of mainstream gay rights activism as unwelcome parasites, riding on the movement’s coattails and contributing nothing in return.

Not only is identifying the experience of homophobia - defined narrowly as discrimination against those who are actively involved in sexual relationships with persons of the same gender - as the sole qualifier for inclusion a totally arbitrary place to draw the line, it’s baldly ahistorical.

Historically, a great many folks who do experience this type of homophobia have routinely been left out in the cold by mainstream activism for gender and sexual minorities - and the Contribution Argument, as you’ve outlined it here, is one of the primary tools that’s been used to justify that exclusion.