itrin @itrin - Tumblr Blog

An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works

Chapters: 1/? Fandom: The Bright Sessions (Podcast) Rating: Teen And Up Audiences Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply Relationships: Damien (The Bright Sessions)/Owen Thompson | Agent Green Characters: Damien (The Bright Sessions), Owen Thompson | Agent Green, Ellie Wadsworth Additional Tags: Canon Divergence, canon is stuffed into a box and thrown off a cliff, damien is desperate for affection but will bite the hand that gives it, good thing owen has oven mitts, convenient rain, Awkward Conversations, The Mortifying Ordeal of Being Known, Stalking, stalking as a form of flirting ig, Rare Pairings Summary:

So Damien was a little fucking pissed. He felt like shit too, because it had been a shit couple of months, years, decades but that’s besides the point. But it’s fine. It’s obviously fine. Because Damien is – was – always in control. Until now, of course, when he had no control. Not over anyone, and least of all over himself, over anything that matters. For now, sure, but maybe forever.

No control, no knowledge; out of the loop and in the dark. And the last fucking thing Damien needed was some AM heart-eyed dickhead pitiying him, lying to him, lying to him–

It’s fine, though. It is going to be fine, because Damien is still in control; maybe not over anything that matters, but he can be in control over this. No…he can take control over this.

or, damien gorham is a wet street cat hissing on the side of the road and owen picks him up by the scruff of his neck and gives him a pat

#damien the bright sessions #damien gorham #the bright sessions #tbs #Owen Thompson #agent green #damien/owen

racistspiderman

More women

sevey6

Thank god they decided to make more

somesaypoetry

Wow

Dolly Parton has really been hard at work

cumbacon

But In doing so…she created her biggest enemy…Jolene

ichikun

catchymemes

princesssokphanny

A once-in-a-lifetime shot — the moon perfectly framed by a rainbow. Caught at just the right time. 🌈 🌕

kedreeva

Sourcing the photos as taken by Mark Ham on Instagram, according to one of the replies.

leebrontide

Happy Pride month to the moon

revizyonist

med people are so annoying "This family's 8 year old child who was about to go through a major surgery and kept crying that she was hungry so they pitied her and gave her food, she then had a heart attack in the surgery. They're so stupid 😒" girl they didn't know that could happen or why it happens. it takes so little time to explain to them that will happen instead of telling them "no food" with no explanation 10 times

revizyonist

"Before surgery, your body’s reflexes that protect your airway are relaxed by anesthesia. If there’s food or liquid in your stomach, it will near certainly come back up and go into your lungs, which can cause choking, a severe lung / heart infection or even a heart attack. That’s called aspiration, and it is life-threatening. It's hard, but it's only a single day to prevent near certain death. Not eating or drinking beforehand massively lowers the risk and helps prevent these life threatening situations under anesthesia." <- TIP: patients have brains which allows them to receive information just like you

ancelineonline

I have four kids. I’ve had one or another of them need some kind of surgical procedure that requires anesthesia four or five times over the past 15 years.

This Tumblr post is the first time someone has explained to me *why* I couldn’t feed them before those instances.

I’m not stupid. I understood that just fine. Hell, my kids would have understood that just fine. But no one bothered to tell us.

bowditch

i did know this before having kids (i have six). we have a kid that's needed multiple procedures requiring anesthesia. and every single time, i am asked multiple times if i'm sure he was not given any food or water after a certain point.

every single time i have had to say, "i understand that if he had food or water, he could aspirate it into his lungs under anesthesia. i am not lying to you." THEN someone would make a little note and i would stop being repeatedly asked.

not a single time was that risk explained to me. the only reason it came up was because i already knew. i still don't understand why it isn't standard pre-op counseling or pre-op check information, when me as a parent acknowledging the actual risk also put THE MEDICAL STAFF at ease because i conveyed that i had informed understanding as reason to not lie about giving my kid food.

"maybe some people will get nervous and refuse surgery" okay so they need more counseling about risks and anxiety, not less information in a way that actually does endanger their child or themselves!

arctic-turtle-cassiopeia

Reblogging to save a life and teach medical professionals basic communication skills

tothechaos

me trying to convince myself that the whole spectrum of human emotions is a good and necessary thing to feel even if its not comfortable while im actively experiencing emotions that make me feel like my bones are being dissolved in acid

computationalcalculator

fforsythiaaa

Once when I was in undergrad, someone described something as “problematic” in class and our professor was like, “That’s cool, but ‘problematic’ doesn’t really mean anything. It means that the thing you’re describing has a problem, and in and of itself that’s not bad. Art, especially, should always have problems, or else it’s not interesting and not art, either. It sounds like you’re trying to say that this is bad, but you don’t want to say ‘bad.’ Is that right?”

So from then on whenever one of us called something problematic, he would make us talk it out until we could name the “bad” thing we were hinting at. In this particular class, 7/10 it was some type of oppression, and the remainder was like, “I’m uncomfortable because this is very new/confusing/pushing boundaries that made me feel safe.”

Once we stopped calling things “problematic” and stopping at that, class got way more interesting and... we all had to say, like, “that’s racist” or “that’s misogynistic” or “ew capitalism gross” out loud, which a lot of us had never done in a classroom before. Or we had to be like, “Uhhh... I’m not sure what’s so bad?” and confront our own beliefs and that was maybe even more useful.

Anyway. Whenever I see the word problematic, I can’t help but think of this professor being like, “Good starting point, now let’s get specific.” I think when we have to commit to saying “that’s ___” it requires a lot more careful thought about the truth and impact and complexities of whatever we’re claiming. Sometimes there really is some bullshit afoot, and also sometimes it’s art, and it should be full of problems, because that’s what art is.

hypokeimena

#'this is present in the text' is often a good first step #but those second and third ones (naming it; describing its function) are vital (via @elucubrare)

encodedincommotion-deactivated2

it's crazy how plausible all the shit the corporations do in the murderbot diaries is. that one scene when murderbot was talking to those humans who had signed a 20 year corporate work contract and it asked them if the contract specified 20 years by the standard local calendar or by a proprietary calendar created by the company was downright unsettling 😬 if the ceos of modern earth companies read these books they would probably start crying because the government won't let them do most of this in real life.

radioorpheus

hey fun fact this has absolutely happened before. part of the push to standardize time/timezones was because factory employers had clocks set to the pace of their machinery. meaning of the workers were not doing enough, time would run slower until they had reached their goal. there is historical precedent.

duckbunny

alexanderwales

I do think it's a beautiful thing when an author is clearly going for a metaphor, but the diegesis gets in the way. The story has symbols, but they're not just symbols, they're real things that exist within the world of that story, and as soon as the reader thinks about this, the symbol can be shattered.

I don't know what it is I find nice about this, but maybe it's the wet impact of meaning-making against base reality.

alexanderwales

I was asked for examples, here are two:

X-men is always the one that comes to mind, where superpowers are a metaphor for being gay, or Jewish, or non-white, but on a diegetic level, superpowers include things like mind control and being bulletproof and blowing up things. So then you have mutant registration drawn as a parallel to the government making lists of undesirables, but what the writers have done is made imagined threat into literal threat, as the people with superpowers actually can effortlessly murder someone. That is, the false rhetoric of destruction has become literalized.

There are mecha shows where piloting the mecha is a metaphor for the overwhelming burdens placed on children, but diegetically it actually is the fate of the world, and so this might be seen to justify things that are completely unjustified. If failing a test is literally going to result in hundreds of people dying, then the cruel authority figures are making uncomfortable triage decisions by putting enormous pressure on the cadets. And if, in the metaphor, the parents need to come to the realization that their children should be allowed to live their own lives ... we can kind of see how that doesn't work if the end result is that a kaiju stomps the country flat.

feotakahari

I swear I read a book that was supposed to be pro-gay that treated its gayness metaphor as a contagious, curable disease. Also, being gay meant you could regenerate from any injury and it felt really good, so before the protagonist got infected, she nearly got killed by accidentally walking in on two gay teenagers blowing each other up with a grenade as a sex equivalent.

jambeast

It's why, I think, in pretty much every story about aliens/robots/elves/mutants/etc, it's a mistake to read the aliens/robots/elves/mutants as a direct one-to-one metaphor where something said about the aliens/robots/elves/mutants is something said about gays/browns/disableds for anything. Because gay people don't come from space, and disabled people can't shoot lasers, and if you were to imply that one were the same as the other you would be wrong, because they are not the same.

But it's always gonna have similarities though, right? Humans react to groups-of-people-that-are-not-like-them in semi-predictable ways, not always the same way, but there are commonalities. It's kind of inevietable that if you had aliens/robots/elves/mutants in your story then people would react to them in a kind of a way, and that way would *rhyme* with the way they react to existent types of people, especially if you want to be remotely interesting about it, even just on an individual psychological emotional level.

And that inevietabiltiy is something that makes it almost like... not worth criticising. Obviously if you interpret the orcs from mordor as a one-to-one substitution of Canadian people then Lord of the Rings would be a horrifically Canuckphobic piece of media, but you really don't *have* to interpret them as a one-to-one substitution!

There's a bad tendency in a lot of lefty media crit to act as though stories about aliens, robots, elves and mutants *aren't* about aliens, robots, elves and mutants, as if that's always just a thin and unimportant veneer laid over stories about real life social issues for a bit of flavour.

But no! Stories about aliens, robots, elves and mutants REALLY ARE about aliens robots elves and mutants! These people care about aliens robots elves and mutants and really do want to write about them!

tanadrin

I think in general there is a tendency by many critics to act as if a speculative fiction story cannot be reduced to mere allegory, it is of no value, because they are fundamentally not very interested in speculative fiction. But applicability is not the same as allegory, and the former is often more interesting (and has more to say).

independent-variables

sometimes a creator is going for a metaphor and the diegesis gets in the way, sometimes a creator genuinely just wants to tell a story about aliens/robots/elves/mutants. sometimes a creator wants to do one but the end result looks more like the other. i think it just always depends on the creator and their intentions and how the story came together in the end.

thefriendlypigeon

🩷💙 N E O N N I G H T S 💙🩷

⭐[my social media links]

janirah

Partners.

Lester & Doe P.I., Arkham, late 30s

nimanii

This is incredible, oh my godddddd

sturionic

OK, see, here's what everyone gets wrong about John Cage's infamous composition 4'33" - the one where a pianist walks onstage and sits at the piano without playing it for four minutes and thirty-three seconds.

4'33" is not silence. It is music. And the performer is, in fact, performing.

Cage was coming up as a composer during a really interesting period in Western music history: the 1950's, a time of post-war immigration, cultural reshuffling, the re-defining of ethnomusicology. Basically, Western composers becoming exposed to an unprecedented tidal wave of different influences and perspectives.

This shift in perspective led to an intensification of the question that had been lurking in music, across many genres and practices, ever-larger with each passing year: Why?

Why is music what it is? Why does music consist of these pitches, that can only be arranged in these orders? After all, there are many different ways to create and organize pitches around the world, that are all music. Why does something become unmusical to a Western audience when it fails to follow the expected structure?

Enter aleatoric or "chance" music - composers recognizing that they had been deeply socialized into a certain way of hearing pitches, and building chance systems of generating pitch order to get around their own biases. They were stuck with whatever random pitches they generated, and then the job was to find the music in them. The 1950s also gave rise to musique concrète: using recorded sounds as musical pitches, rather than instruments playing notes.

John Cage himself was very interested in chance music - he experimented with various systems in his own compositions. But, like the pioneers of musique concrète, he wanted to take it a step further: What is the boundary between Sound and Music?

4'33" is in fact arguing that there is no such thing as true silence. You file into the concert hall, you sit with a large group of people, and you wait for the stage lights. You watch the pianist walk to the piano, and you expect "music." Instead, you're met with sound: the nervous shuffling of the guy beside you, an old woman sneezing violently into her handkerchief two rows down, maybe some annoyed muttering, and breathing, and ambient noise from the venue, and your own heartbeat in your ears.

What expectations had you already pre-built about the sounds you were about to hear, specifically because you walked into a fancy concert hall advertising a work by a known composer? Why did you sit there for four minutes and thirty-three seconds, obediently and attentively watching a pianist sit at the piano bench, even though you most likely were annoyed by the whole experience? What does this say about the silent compliance expected of audiences in fancy concert halls, and about the sorts of music we're expected to pay quiet, solemn attention to?

And, most importantly: Who's to say these sounds aren't "music?" Is music really all about the types of sounds we choose and how we organize them, or does it live in part in the rituals we've created around it?

titsay

strawhatsufi

"Racialised" is much better than PoC but I've been leaning a lot on the concept of racial markedness. Because that allows us to make statements like "the name Jamal is racially marked in USA". Rather than saying something like "Jamal is a PoC name", a nonsense statement, saying it's racially marked in USA allows us to contrast with societies like Albania or the Arab countries where the name Jamal is ordinary, thus unmarked.

strawhatsufi

It's a concept I've kind of imported from linguistic analysis; saying a speech pattern is more or less marked does not really allow us to avoid the subject of who's doing the marking. A statement like "womens' speech is more marked in Lakota" necessitates that we understand that it's the Lakota who are marking womens' speech. A foreigner can't tell the difference and probably doesn't understand why it would thus be weird to see a man using speech patterns associated with women, in the same way an Albanian wouldn't understand why USA people would think Jamal is a Black name.

strawhatsufi

You! You get it. In my view, if someone is saying "racialised" or "racially marked" without acknowledgement of context, they are doing it in a way that is gramatically incorrect.