Just Witchy Things

32 • Taurus • Witch

[issela-santina]

ngl the change of phrasing from “if I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear” to “if you are not to award me love, then I will indulge in rage” says a lot about what GDT wanted to do with the Frankenstein creature. I think Mary would have sobbed if she heard that

“I will cause fear” is more transitive than “I will indulge in rage” is what I'm saying. cause whose fear? which does align with how the violence the creature commits is in the name of trying to say something to Victor

meanwhile, indulge in rage. aka you know what, I'll just be mad. madness is the out-group created by the violence that it takes for sanity to exist as the in-group that opposes it. to the sane, anything can look like madness and rage as long as it's unlikable. Victor closes every possible door for the creature that he deems as unlikable to enter the company of the sane, the company of normalcy, the company of oppressors, and Guillermo del Toro, master of turning monsters into friends of the oppressed instead, responds like hey what if I need to belong to the sane and the normal and the likable to find my will to live again. I will be ugly and mad and I will enjoy life anyway

[theinternetarchive]

I just want to let you guys know Cornell's entire library is open access (no permissions required) and there are (shocker) many books...

[medusas-daughter]

The Creature calling itself Viktor and following Viktor around is so much more tragic when you know how babies develop and how newborns don't yet realise they and their mothers are two separate people. And one of the first things babies realise about themselves is that they're a whole separate person. And one of the first things they do when they start developing as a person is find out they have hands and play with them and with textures and start exploring. And when they want to start talking, they put their hands and fingers on their parents lips and throats to figure out how that sound is coming out of there and then they start imitating. Guillermo Del Toro nailed every single step of human development in such a beautiful celebration of life.

And Viktor abused the crap out of the poor creature for not being smart enough when it was only following natural developmental milestones. Because, like most men, like his own father, he wanted to create life but he wasn't interested in raising it beyond that and instead wanted it to be born a doctor ready to show the world how smart Viktor is for creating a carbon copy of his brain except in a stronger immortal body. Elizabeth gave him five minutes of love and let him explore how sounds come out of her mouth and he started talking.

Idk why some people are complaining about the movie being different from the book when the essence is literally the same, Viktor created life as if it were a godly feat and not something women have been doing since the dawn of humanity, and then he abandoned that life as deadbeat dads do. And that abandonment is what created a monster out of an innocent souls who could have become a beautiful being had it been nurtured. That's literally what Mary Shelley wrote. She would have been proud of this story. On top of being an incredibly gorgeous visual story, the narrative is very loyal to the point Shelley wanted to make.

[medusas-daughter]

The Creature calling itself Viktor and following Viktor around is so much more tragic when you know how babies develop and how newborns don't yet realise they and their mothers are two separate people. And one of the first things babies realise about themselves is that they're a whole separate person. And one of the first things they do when they start developing as a person is find out they have hands and play with them and with textures and start exploring. And when they want to start talking, they put their hands and fingers on their parents lips and throats to figure out how that sound is coming out of there and then they start imitating. Guillermo Del Toro nailed every single step of human development in such a beautiful celebration of life.

And Viktor abused the crap out of the poor creature for not being smart enough when it was only following natural developmental milestones. Because, like most men, like his own father, he wanted to create life but he wasn't interested in raising it beyond that and instead wanted it to be born a doctor ready to show the world how smart Viktor is for creating a carbon copy of his brain except in a stronger immortal body. Elizabeth gave him five minutes of love and let him explore how sounds come out of her mouth and he started talking.

Idk why some people are complaining about the movie being different from the book when the essence is literally the same, Viktor created life as if it were a godly feat and not something women have been doing since the dawn of humanity, and then he abandoned that life as deadbeat dads do. And that abandonment is what created a monster out of an innocent souls who could have become a beautiful being had it been nurtured. That's literally what Mary Shelley wrote. She would have been proud of this story. On top of being an incredibly gorgeous visual story, the narrative is very loyal to the point Shelley wanted to make.

[crazycatsiren]

Books on the history of witches and witchcraft that I recommend:

Drawing Down the Moon - Margot Adler

Witchcraft: A History in Thirteen Trials - Marion Gibson

The Triumph of the Moon - Ronald Hutton

The Witch - Ronald Hutton

[breelandwalker]

Cosigning all four of these and adding the following (check your local library):

Oxford Illustrated History of Witchcraft and Magic - Owen Davies

Witchcraft, Magic and Culture 1736–1951 - Owen Davies

America Bewitched - Owen Davies

Witches and Neighbors - Robin Briggs

Historical Dictionary of Witchcraft - Michael D. Bailey

For those who prefer their learning in audio form, I also have a couple of masterlists of podcast episodes that deal with witchcraft, witch trials, the history of witchcraft-related beliefs, and resources for fact-checking and debunking misconceptions and misinformation commonly found in witchcraft spaces.

[alittlegreenwitchery]

I like the word “witchery” because of its linguistic similarity to “fuckery.” Witchcraft is fuckery; fuckery is witchcraft. They are inextricably connected in my mind and it makes me happy.

[wolveswolves]

By John Hyde

[liberalsarecool]

Wouldn't banks giving mortgages to 30,000,000 undocumented immigrants be traceable?

Are they all paying cash for these homes?

Buyers with decent income and documented credit history have a hard time qualifying for a mortage.

But undocumented buyers are 'taking' houses? That language sure is loaded.

JD Vance knows Blackstone has exploited the housing/rental market for families.

JD Vance knows hedge funds and private equity are buying up homes and rental units.

Using bigotry and nativism to spread lies about hard working immigrants is evil.

Vance's xenophobia and racism have created a complete fictional narrative.

[jitterbugjive]

Look up how many empty houses there are in america

now look up how many homeless people are in america

immigrants aren't taking houses

the housing market is hoarding them

[grungekitty-77]

Not that anybody asked, but I think it's important to understand how shame and guilt actually work before you try to use it for good.

It's a necessary emotion. There are reasons we have it. It makes everything so. much. worse. when you use it wrong.

Shame and guilt are DE-motivators. They are meant to stop behavior, not promote it. You cannot, ever, in any meaningful way, guilt someone into doing good. You can only shame them into not doing bad.

Let's say you're a parent and your kid is having issues.

Swearing in class? Shame could work. You want them to stop it. Keep it in proportion*, and it might help. *(KEEP IT IN PROPORTION!!!)

Not doing their homework? NO! STOP! NO NOT DO THAT! EVER! EVER! EVER! You want them to start to do their homework. Shaming them will have to opposite effect! You have demotivated them! They will double down on NOT doing it. Not because they are being oppositional, but because that's what shame does!

You can't guilt people into building better habits, being more successful, or getting more involved. That requires encouragement. You need to motivate for that stuff!

If you want it in a simple phrase:

You can shame someone out of being a bad person, but you can't shame them into being a good person.

[grungekitty-77]

Fun fact, that was literally what inspired me to make this post!

[cassafrasxx]

Today on shit my boss says to me at work...

He's telling people I'm *mean* to him and avoiding eye contact.

[cassafrasxx]

Today I'm going to start a serious titled "Shit my boss says to me at work"

Today he (ironically) called me "Sister Cassie" which was then followed up with a "bless you" to which I replied, "No thank you, you can take your blessings back" to which then he replied, "No, you NEED blessed"

[cassafrasxx]

Today we got a new water/ice machine (it's been broken for almost a month) and he says to me "There you go Cassie, you have ice again" and jokingly I said "Yeah now you don't have to hear me crying anymore"

This dude goes "I don't hear you cry, when you talk all I hear is 'Wa, wa, wa'" (like Charlie Brown)

Oh okay then 🤣

[thememedaddy]

[dan-tad]

did you know public libraries are free and beautiful

[swordfright]

you guys are so annoying. why do i have to see discourse every year that's like "was tolkien really a woke king or was he your conservative uncle?" the guy was a devout catholic and a genteel misogynist who maintained lifelong friendships with queer people and women, and this isn't even paradoxical because that was part of the upper-class oxford culture he was immersed in. tolkien told the nazis to fuck off (and in doing so demonstrated a real understanding of what racism is and why it's harmful, beyond simply "these guys are bad news because they're who my country is at war with right now") but his inner life was marked by internalized racism that is deeply and inextricably woven into the art that he made. he foolishly described himself as an anarcho-monarchist, and it's kind of crazy to see people on this website passionately arguing that he likely never meaningfully engaged with anarchist theory, because...yeah, no shit, of course he didn't. tolkien didn't have to engage with most sociopolitical theory because as an upper-class englishman of his position, he was never affected by any of the issues that this theory is concerned with. what is plainly obvious from reading both his fiction and letters is that tolkien's ideal political system was that the divinely ordained god-king would rise up and rule in perfect justice and humility; he didn't want a government, he wanted a king arthur, even though (obviously) he was aware that outcome was impossible. why is it so hard for people to accept that he was just some guy! his letters aren't a code you have to crack. no amount of arguing or tumblr-level analysis is going to one day reveal a rhetorically airtight internally consistent worldview spanning jrrt's fiction, academic work, and personal writings, thereby "solving" the question of whether he was a woke king or your conservative uncle. his ideology was extremely inconsistent because, at the end of the day, he was just some guy.

[hacash]

You’ll all sleep a lot better when you realise that actually most people, rather than being purity in human form or evil incarnate, are in fact just some guy.

[cassafrasxx]

Today I'm going to start a serious titled "Shit my boss says to me at work"

Today he (ironically) called me "Sister Cassie" which was then followed up with a "bless you" to which I replied, "No thank you, you can take your blessings back" to which then he replied, "No, you NEED blessed"

[winduppup]

parallel play (liking and reblogging your mutual's posts but not talking to them)

[catgirldragon]

Reblog this post to parallel play with prev

[jager-bruder]

[queen-scribbles]