The Geek Cove

My art and other interests.

[lilyflxwers]

ok i absolutely need to know what accents u all have pls reblog and tell me or comment or whatever I must know

[seerofmike]

toin coss. should human AU alfred be from delaware (first state) or virginia (first colony) or bald (secret third state)

hetalia america birth state

delaware

virginia

bald

Voting ended onJun 10

[househunting]

Built In 1899 / 8 br / 4.5 ba

$1,850,000

Knoxville, TN

[sergal]

are you scared of clowns

yes

no

nuance option...??

Voting ended onJun 5

[lianarias]

Okay guys I volunteered at a haunted house for 10 years. The correct demographic for people who are scared of clowns, are the people who saw the original IT in 1990. My parents are way more nervous around clowns than I am and many of the people who had clown phobias at the haunted house attributed IT for their fear. IT frightened a whole generation.

[parkchanwoohoo]

Once you start noticing how the incapacity to handle discomfort affects how people live their lives it's actually pretty shocking how it ruins pretty much every conceivable aspect of existence. Interpersonal relationships, romantic and platonic. Career and education opportunities. Your politics Your willingness to go anywhere. The kind of food you eat. The kind of art you expose yourself to and your ability to read it. It's never just one thing, it touches everything, and once you notice it it's like suddenly being able to see germs or something. Just this horrific catastrophe people look at you askance for screaming about. As I grow older and see what became of my friends and peers who could not learn to handle discomfort, the more I'm like. This is a genuine societal issue

[werewolf-beans]

Increasing my discomfort tolerance has also been one of the greatest assets to improving my mental health.

[lianarias]

Do it uncomfortable!

[mortalityplays]

whether they're Good Media™ or whatever aside, I think mainstream liveplay ttrpg shows have been a fucking disaster for the hobby. it's hard to imagine anything that could have fucked the expectations:results differential for people more than having celebrities do college improv with dice (and an entire media production team behind them) and telling a generation of new players that's what tabletop gaming is like

[iamjojobean]

I was the president of a ttrpg university club 2018-2019 (which is 8-7 years ago YIKES) and was very focused on getting more diverse players into the hobby, so this topic is so interesting to me. The experience you describe was not my experience when I got into the hobby about 10 years ago, but I haven't interacted with new players for the last 6 or so years. Most of the people I play with now are people I met at the ttrpg club in college, or their only exposure is through me (because I dragged them to my game lol). Your opinion makes sense given how much more polished and popular mainstream liveplay ttrpg shows have become.

I apologize in advance for the long paragraphs below detailing my personal experience. I want to explain how liveplay shows looked 10 years ago and the impact they had on me.

I started watching some of the liveplay shows on the Geek and Sundry youtube channel circa 2015 like early Critical Role. Some weren't liveplay, but edited, such as Titansgrave and The Adventure Zone. They did have professional actors with improv training and production teams behind them, but they weren't nearly as polished or as much of a phenomenon as they are now.

At the start, Critical Role appears to have been filmed in one of the Geek and Sundry meeting rooms. They had 4 static cameras. They usually had 1 on the DM, 1 on each side of the table, which appears to be a pretty similar to what it looks like now.

Occasionally they would switch to the 1 focused table when looking at maps. The maps looked like this in episode 1:

There would be frequent bouts where they would pull out the sourcebooks and look for a rule, and discuss interpretations of it. I feel like they would go on random tangents sometimes, but these might have been in-character jokes, I don't remember super well.

For me, these shows were a great intro into the hobby. They provided a way to see people play and see them use the rules live. After a couple of hours of watching I thought "hey, I get it. I could try that". I wasn't as afraid of trying them out anymore.

It was also nice to see that the games weren't just focused on combat and finding loot. It was inspiring to see them so character focused and the players so friendly with each other.

Another factor is that ttrpgs at the time had a reputation for being overwhelmingly for white cis straight men. Media representation solidified this: If there was a girl at the table, there was only one, and she was typically sexually harassed or treated way differently than anyone else. This reputation really prevented me from getting into the hobby. I was afraid of sticking out. I was afraid of the men treating me strangely for being there, either negatively or positively. I was nervous about being talked down to as the rules were explained. I was afraid that if I messed something up, they would accuse all girls of being bad at ttrpgs. Liveplay shows not only let me learn the rules and social expectations to feel more comfortable, but they let me see women in these games, and they were interacting with men who treated them respectfully. It is so much easier to do something after you see someone like you do it.

When I first joined my college's ttrpg club in 2016, the club was overwhelmingly cis straight white men. I did experience some amounts of weird treatment that made me a little uncomfortable, but knowing that people like me did belong helped me power through it. Within the next couple of years, the diversity of the club greatly increased. There were a lot more women and queer folks (a few more non-white folks, but not as diverse in that regard as I would have liked). Although I'd like to take complete credit for this change as the president of the club, I feel like that change in part because of liveplay shows and other ttrpg media.

I did not experience anyone expecting the game to be like these liveplay shows. I think most people at the time had a good understanding of what a normal game might look like: shorter games, no minis, regular people with ok improv skills, just a buncha friends screwing around.

Again, this was 10 years ago, things are different today. I'm not a new player anymore and don't interact with new players. I'm curious for those of you who feel like the liveplay shows fucked your expectations, what your specific experiences have been like? I would love to compare and contrast now vs 10 years ago.

[lianarias]

Iamjojobean, you have some really good points that are still relevant today. I mostly watch Critical Role, so I havent seen some of the behavior that OP is talking about (since CR epeisodes arent edited down and still involve character conflict and rules look ups), but personally I believe the actual difference in expectations comes down to what a player personally wants out of a TTRPG. I have been playing Pathfinder since 2017 but only got into CR a few years ago. I really enjoy storytelling and character driven games, even before I started watching CR. I've had various DMs and have played various systems and habe even DMd my own games for about 2 years.

All that is to say, even I was disappointed the first session I rejoined a local group this year because they were so combat focused and lacked a lot of roleplay. Once I adjusted my expectation, I had more fun, but I still wish that I could play in something with more roleplaying, like the tables I run.

I think that CR and other live play shows specificially attract people interested in roleplay and character driven stories and thats just not everyone who plays TTRPGs. There are plenty of people there just for the rules or structure. This creates conflict when the live play fan joins a group with these other people and their priorities dont mix. But this was always going to be an issue eventually, the live play shows just give new players more understanding of what they enjoy before joining.

Apologies for the also long ramble. The tl;dr is that I disagree with OP that live play is harming the normal TTRPG playing, just that it is appealing to a very specifc type of player who might not get along well with other player types.

[amechyofsorts]

But look chief, combat and dungeon crawling are "roleplaying". Like, those are the primary modes of play games like dnd and pathfinder are based around. They aren't roleplaying games just because sometimes you just have long conversations in-character without rolling any dice to swing sword. Combat and dungeon crawling are still a roleplaying experience, if of a specific kind of "role". To seperate combat and dungeons entirely from the supposedly more "character based" storytelling, and only call the latter "roleplaying" is exactly the kind of false image of the medium op, and more generally a lot of ttrpg discourse on here these days, is talking about. Stating that the "game" and "roleplaying" are opposing forces is a misunderstanding of the medium, perpetuated by a lot of these liveplay shows.

Those "rules and structures" you say only appeal to specific kind of players are what drive roleplay in the game. If you ignore those rules or seperate them out entirely, are you really playing the roleplaying game you say you are playing? You might as well just be doing improv theater instead of playing dnd. Or to go for a less hyperbolic example: play a different ttrpg that's not primarily focused on combat and dungeon crawls.

[lianarias]

It is true that the term "roleplaying" is very all-encompassing and typically is defined differently be each person. It's hard to see combat and dungeon crawling as roleplaying when players are just like "oh my exploration activity is hide" instead of trying to be in character and be more "I think I'll be hiding under the blanket in the cart, ready to jump out at a moments notice". When players are just like "I'm going to Strike, here is what I rolled, okay here is damage" instead of even saying what weapon they are using. It is true, that combat and dungeon crawling can be roleplaying if you are actually reacting and describing actions your character takes, but just playing the stats or mechanics just doesn't make it roleplaying to me. That's like saying I'm roleplaying while playing the game Clank! because I'm dungeon crawling. I never said that roleplaying has to be "long conversations in-character".

I have played different TTRPGs that aren't focused on dungeon crawls, like Candela Obscura which is a rules-light system. It can be a lot of fun for people looking for a more roleplaying driven narrative. Pathfinder, especially 1e, is usually considered to be way more rules-heavy than DnD 3.5e or 5e. Typically Pathfinder Society scenarios try to balance NPC interaction equally with combat. It's a little disingenuous to try and say those who prefer character roleplaying should be playing a different TTRPG when the actual scenarios created by Paizo are intended to appeal to both types of players.

tldr: Both types of players (character roleplayers or rules lawyers) are valid at a TTRPG table, and character roleplayers who specifically joined because of their interest in live play shouldn't get flack for not being the same as the rules lawyers.

[amechyofsorts]

It is true that there are people who get into the game and interact with it in a language based around mechanics, rolls and numbers. I've done that, and play with people who do that, and consider it a bad habit that can be bad for immersion. For some people it can just be difficult to stay "in character" for a lot of the interactions through the game. People can be shy or just not good at coming up with things their character would say on the spot. However, whether or not a person does that or speaks in more "in character", in-story describtive manner, both players are roleplaying. They are both engaging with a system of game rules in order to create the roleplaying experience.

You say that you regard both player types as valid, but seperating them out in the first place as people who "just play" and people who "roleplay" is a false dichtomy. Both of them are playing a roleplaying game, and in fact, the former type of player seems be the one actually actively with all the rules of the game, which are there to create the intended experience of the roleplaying game. Maybe the latter type of player is too, but if they aren't and are there just to act out the personal character drama they thought out before the campaign even really started, and only detachedly engage with the combat and other game mechanics, rolling lazily when the dm tells them to and refuses to even learn their own characters mechanics, it's absurd to give them the label of "roleplayer" out of these two types of players.

Now if that example sounds hyperbolic again, it kinda is, but it's also very much a real thing that people in the ttrpg sphere have begun to have to deal with since the rise of these liveplay shows.

Also, the comparison to a dungeon crawling card game isn't fair. Obviously you aren't roleplaying when you play one, because it's not a roleplaying game.

"It's a little disingenuous to try and say those who prefer character roleplaying should be playing a different TTRPG when the actual scenarios created by Paizo are intended to appeal to both types of players", this is fair. It was a bit presumptious of me to label you, or the hypothetical roleplayer in this scenario, as someone who wouldn't enjoy dnd and pathfinder. Both games do have some rules for character interaction (though somewhat mechanically lacking to warying degrees. That's a whole different conversation), but again, these are still ultimately games about going to dangerous places, killing things and getting loot. Any character stories that told in them should ultimately be informed and involved in that premise, because if they aren't, the players ought to playing something more befitting of what kind of experience they want. It's not a value judgement of the players, but rather just advice for them to find the kind of game they would enjoy more.

"tldr: Both types of players (character roleplayers or rules lawyers) are valid at a TTRPG table, and character roleplayers who specifically joined because of their interest in live play shouldn't get flack for not being the same as the rules lawyers." Again, this framing is a false dichtomy. Both type of players are "roleplayers" if they are playing a roleplaying game, but they just have differing specific interests and skillsets in the game. These usually overlap, and both players can potentially learn to be more like the other. If they can't, or don't want to, maybe they should be playing different games from one another.

(I also really take issue with conflating these two broad groups as "rules lawyers" and saying that the "roleplayers" are the people were brought into the hobby in the first place by liveplay shows, but this post is way too long as is.)

Sorry for the wall of text. And this is not meant to be any kind of attack or argument for the sake of arguing. It's and worthwhile topic to discuss for those in the hobby I think.

[lianarias]

I feel that this comment is a misunderstanding of what I am discussing: "Maybe the latter type of player is too, but if they aren't and are there just to act out the personal character drama they thought out before the campaign even really started, and only detachedly engage with the combat and other game mechanics, rolling lazily when the dm tells them to and refuses to even learn their own characters mechanics, it's absurd to give them the label of "roleplayer" out of these two types of players." In no where during my previous comments did I imply that the character roleplayer is lazy with game mechanics. In fact, that usually is not the case that I see. All players I have played with and run for have respect for the rules of the system, and ask only for DM ruling on things that may not be covered. I'm sorry that you have not had the same experience.

I'm glad that you agree that those who put little effort into the roleplaying aspect of the game have formed bad TTRPG habits. My hope is to enable people, who may be too shy to roleplay, to feel comfortable enough to test their boundaries.

My goal with all of this discussion has been to establish my opinion, that we see these posts constantly about how live play has killed hobby dnd, and it disregards that the true conflict created is about differing playstyles, neither of which is more correct than the other. There is no singular way to play a TTRPG, and therefore no, live play has not been a disaster for hobby players. One could argue that it has brought new life and interest to the hobby, but that would be a whole different post.

[mortalityplays]

whether they're Good Media™ or whatever aside, I think mainstream liveplay ttrpg shows have been a fucking disaster for the hobby. it's hard to imagine anything that could have fucked the expectations:results differential for people more than having celebrities do college improv with dice (and an entire media production team behind them) and telling a generation of new players that's what tabletop gaming is like

[iamjojobean]

I was the president of a ttrpg university club 2018-2019 (which is 8-7 years ago YIKES) and was very focused on getting more diverse players into the hobby, so this topic is so interesting to me. The experience you describe was not my experience when I got into the hobby about 10 years ago, but I haven't interacted with new players for the last 6 or so years. Most of the people I play with now are people I met at the ttrpg club in college, or their only exposure is through me (because I dragged them to my game lol). Your opinion makes sense given how much more polished and popular mainstream liveplay ttrpg shows have become.

I apologize in advance for the long paragraphs below detailing my personal experience. I want to explain how liveplay shows looked 10 years ago and the impact they had on me.

I started watching some of the liveplay shows on the Geek and Sundry youtube channel circa 2015 like early Critical Role. Some weren't liveplay, but edited, such as Titansgrave and The Adventure Zone. They did have professional actors with improv training and production teams behind them, but they weren't nearly as polished or as much of a phenomenon as they are now.

At the start, Critical Role appears to have been filmed in one of the Geek and Sundry meeting rooms. They had 4 static cameras. They usually had 1 on the DM, 1 on each side of the table, which appears to be a pretty similar to what it looks like now.

Occasionally they would switch to the 1 focused table when looking at maps. The maps looked like this in episode 1:

There would be frequent bouts where they would pull out the sourcebooks and look for a rule, and discuss interpretations of it. I feel like they would go on random tangents sometimes, but these might have been in-character jokes, I don't remember super well.

For me, these shows were a great intro into the hobby. They provided a way to see people play and see them use the rules live. After a couple of hours of watching I thought "hey, I get it. I could try that". I wasn't as afraid of trying them out anymore.

It was also nice to see that the games weren't just focused on combat and finding loot. It was inspiring to see them so character focused and the players so friendly with each other.

Another factor is that ttrpgs at the time had a reputation for being overwhelmingly for white cis straight men. Media representation solidified this: If there was a girl at the table, there was only one, and she was typically sexually harassed or treated way differently than anyone else. This reputation really prevented me from getting into the hobby. I was afraid of sticking out. I was afraid of the men treating me strangely for being there, either negatively or positively. I was nervous about being talked down to as the rules were explained. I was afraid that if I messed something up, they would accuse all girls of being bad at ttrpgs. Liveplay shows not only let me learn the rules and social expectations to feel more comfortable, but they let me see women in these games, and they were interacting with men who treated them respectfully. It is so much easier to do something after you see someone like you do it.

When I first joined my college's ttrpg club in 2016, the club was overwhelmingly cis straight white men. I did experience some amounts of weird treatment that made me a little uncomfortable, but knowing that people like me did belong helped me power through it. Within the next couple of years, the diversity of the club greatly increased. There were a lot more women and queer folks (a few more non-white folks, but not as diverse in that regard as I would have liked). Although I'd like to take complete credit for this change as the president of the club, I feel like that change in part because of liveplay shows and other ttrpg media.

I did not experience anyone expecting the game to be like these liveplay shows. I think most people at the time had a good understanding of what a normal game might look like: shorter games, no minis, regular people with ok improv skills, just a buncha friends screwing around.

Again, this was 10 years ago, things are different today. I'm not a new player anymore and don't interact with new players. I'm curious for those of you who feel like the liveplay shows fucked your expectations, what your specific experiences have been like? I would love to compare and contrast now vs 10 years ago.

[lianarias]

Iamjojobean, you have some really good points that are still relevant today. I mostly watch Critical Role, so I havent seen some of the behavior that OP is talking about (since CR epeisodes arent edited down and still involve character conflict and rules look ups), but personally I believe the actual difference in expectations comes down to what a player personally wants out of a TTRPG. I have been playing Pathfinder since 2017 but only got into CR a few years ago. I really enjoy storytelling and character driven games, even before I started watching CR. I've had various DMs and have played various systems and habe even DMd my own games for about 2 years.

All that is to say, even I was disappointed the first session I rejoined a local group this year because they were so combat focused and lacked a lot of roleplay. Once I adjusted my expectation, I had more fun, but I still wish that I could play in something with more roleplaying, like the tables I run.

I think that CR and other live play shows specificially attract people interested in roleplay and character driven stories and thats just not everyone who plays TTRPGs. There are plenty of people there just for the rules or structure. This creates conflict when the live play fan joins a group with these other people and their priorities dont mix. But this was always going to be an issue eventually, the live play shows just give new players more understanding of what they enjoy before joining.

Apologies for the also long ramble. The tl;dr is that I disagree with OP that live play is harming the normal TTRPG playing, just that it is appealing to a very specifc type of player who might not get along well with other player types.

[amechyofsorts]

But look chief, combat and dungeon crawling are "roleplaying". Like, those are the primary modes of play games like dnd and pathfinder are based around. They aren't roleplaying games just because sometimes you just have long conversations in-character without rolling any dice to swing sword. Combat and dungeon crawling are still a roleplaying experience, if of a specific kind of "role". To seperate combat and dungeons entirely from the supposedly more "character based" storytelling, and only call the latter "roleplaying" is exactly the kind of false image of the medium op, and more generally a lot of ttrpg discourse on here these days, is talking about. Stating that the "game" and "roleplaying" are opposing forces is a misunderstanding of the medium, perpetuated by a lot of these liveplay shows.

Those "rules and structures" you say only appeal to specific kind of players are what drive roleplay in the game. If you ignore those rules or seperate them out entirely, are you really playing the roleplaying game you say you are playing? You might as well just be doing improv theater instead of playing dnd. Or to go for a less hyperbolic example: play a different ttrpg that's not primarily focused on combat and dungeon crawls.

[lianarias]

It is true that the term "roleplaying" is very all-encompassing and typically is defined differently be each person. It's hard to see combat and dungeon crawling as roleplaying when players are just like "oh my exploration activity is hide" instead of trying to be in character and be more "I think I'll be hiding under the blanket in the cart, ready to jump out at a moments notice". When players are just like "I'm going to Strike, here is what I rolled, okay here is damage" instead of even saying what weapon they are using. It is true, that combat and dungeon crawling can be roleplaying if you are actually reacting and describing actions your character takes, but just playing the stats or mechanics just doesn't make it roleplaying to me. That's like saying I'm roleplaying while playing the game Clank! because I'm dungeon crawling. I never said that roleplaying has to be "long conversations in-character".

I have played different TTRPGs that aren't focused on dungeon crawls, like Candela Obscura which is a rules-light system. It can be a lot of fun for people looking for a more roleplaying driven narrative. Pathfinder, especially 1e, is usually considered to be way more rules-heavy than DnD 3.5e or 5e. Typically Pathfinder Society scenarios try to balance NPC interaction equally with combat. It's a little disingenuous to try and say those who prefer character roleplaying should be playing a different TTRPG when the actual scenarios created by Paizo are intended to appeal to both types of players.

tldr: Both types of players (character roleplayers or rules lawyers) are valid at a TTRPG table, and character roleplayers who specifically joined because of their interest in live play shouldn't get flack for not being the same as the rules lawyers.

[mortalityplays]

whether they're Good Media™ or whatever aside, I think mainstream liveplay ttrpg shows have been a fucking disaster for the hobby. it's hard to imagine anything that could have fucked the expectations:results differential for people more than having celebrities do college improv with dice (and an entire media production team behind them) and telling a generation of new players that's what tabletop gaming is like

[iamjojobean]

I was the president of a ttrpg university club 2018-2019 (which is 8-7 years ago YIKES) and was very focused on getting more diverse players into the hobby, so this topic is so interesting to me. The experience you describe was not my experience when I got into the hobby about 10 years ago, but I haven't interacted with new players for the last 6 or so years. Most of the people I play with now are people I met at the ttrpg club in college, or their only exposure is through me (because I dragged them to my game lol). Your opinion makes sense given how much more polished and popular mainstream liveplay ttrpg shows have become.

I apologize in advance for the long paragraphs below detailing my personal experience. I want to explain how liveplay shows looked 10 years ago and the impact they had on me.

I started watching some of the liveplay shows on the Geek and Sundry youtube channel circa 2015 like early Critical Role. Some weren't liveplay, but edited, such as Titansgrave and The Adventure Zone. They did have professional actors with improv training and production teams behind them, but they weren't nearly as polished or as much of a phenomenon as they are now.

At the start, Critical Role appears to have been filmed in one of the Geek and Sundry meeting rooms. They had 4 static cameras. They usually had 1 on the DM, 1 on each side of the table, which appears to be a pretty similar to what it looks like now.

Occasionally they would switch to the 1 focused table when looking at maps. The maps looked like this in episode 1:

There would be frequent bouts where they would pull out the sourcebooks and look for a rule, and discuss interpretations of it. I feel like they would go on random tangents sometimes, but these might have been in-character jokes, I don't remember super well.

For me, these shows were a great intro into the hobby. They provided a way to see people play and see them use the rules live. After a couple of hours of watching I thought "hey, I get it. I could try that". I wasn't as afraid of trying them out anymore.

It was also nice to see that the games weren't just focused on combat and finding loot. It was inspiring to see them so character focused and the players so friendly with each other.

Another factor is that ttrpgs at the time had a reputation for being overwhelmingly for white cis straight men. Media representation solidified this: If there was a girl at the table, there was only one, and she was typically sexually harassed or treated way differently than anyone else. This reputation really prevented me from getting into the hobby. I was afraid of sticking out. I was afraid of the men treating me strangely for being there, either negatively or positively. I was nervous about being talked down to as the rules were explained. I was afraid that if I messed something up, they would accuse all girls of being bad at ttrpgs. Liveplay shows not only let me learn the rules and social expectations to feel more comfortable, but they let me see women in these games, and they were interacting with men who treated them respectfully. It is so much easier to do something after you see someone like you do it.

When I first joined my college's ttrpg club in 2016, the club was overwhelmingly cis straight white men. I did experience some amounts of weird treatment that made me a little uncomfortable, but knowing that people like me did belong helped me power through it. Within the next couple of years, the diversity of the club greatly increased. There were a lot more women and queer folks (a few more non-white folks, but not as diverse in that regard as I would have liked). Although I'd like to take complete credit for this change as the president of the club, I feel like that change in part because of liveplay shows and other ttrpg media.

I did not experience anyone expecting the game to be like these liveplay shows. I think most people at the time had a good understanding of what a normal game might look like: shorter games, no minis, regular people with ok improv skills, just a buncha friends screwing around.

Again, this was 10 years ago, things are different today. I'm not a new player anymore and don't interact with new players. I'm curious for those of you who feel like the liveplay shows fucked your expectations, what your specific experiences have been like? I would love to compare and contrast now vs 10 years ago.

[lianarias]

Iamjojobean, you have some really good points that are still relevant today. I mostly watch Critical Role, so I havent seen some of the behavior that OP is talking about (since CR epeisodes arent edited down and still involve character conflict and rules look ups), but personally I believe the actual difference in expectations comes down to what a player personally wants out of a TTRPG. I have been playing Pathfinder since 2017 but only got into CR a few years ago. I really enjoy storytelling and character driven games, even before I started watching CR. I've had various DMs and have played various systems and habe even DMd my own games for about 2 years.

All that is to say, even I was disappointed the first session I rejoined a local group this year because they were so combat focused and lacked a lot of roleplay. Once I adjusted my expectation, I had more fun, but I still wish that I could play in something with more roleplaying, like the tables I run.

I think that CR and other live play shows specificially attract people interested in roleplay and character driven stories and thats just not everyone who plays TTRPGs. There are plenty of people there just for the rules or structure. This creates conflict when the live play fan joins a group with these other people and their priorities dont mix. But this was always going to be an issue eventually, the live play shows just give new players more understanding of what they enjoy before joining.

Apologies for the also long ramble. The tl;dr is that I disagree with OP that live play is harming the normal TTRPG playing, just that it is appealing to a very specifc type of player who might not get along well with other player types.

[gorgynei]

in the age of repression and purity culture, getting more perverted is the only morally correct course of action

[gorgynei]

#(thousand-yard sex-disinterested aroace stare) cool opinion. love seeing this same sentiment 10000 times a day on this website

im also aroace. being disinterested in sex and romance is still sexual perversion in the eyes of the state. get more perverted in whichever direction fills you with the most joy!!!!!!

[lianarias]

My Friend Lost Her Job and Needs Help

Buy Lucifex a Coffee

Become a supporter of Lucifex today!

My friend lost her job (literally the week of her birthday) and needs some assistance to pay her rent this month. Anything you might be able to give is appreciated.

[indigosfindings]

how do you pronounce the honourific "Ms." in english

"miss"

"miz"

other

unsure/see results

Voting ended onMay 21

[mortalityplays]

really good "shocking number of people are confidently objectively demonstrably completely wrong" poll

[3liza]

i am losing my fucking mind

[avocado-moon]

#we dont use honorifics in my first language so whenever i have to select options (usually for flights) im always so confused#like what is actually the difference between miss and ms#i like miss bc it sounds more historical and im a historian so

"Miss" means an unmarried woman. "Mrs." means a married woman. (both of these have origins in the word "mistress" as in "mistress of the house".)

"Ms." - prounounced MIZ, btw - is a third option popularized by gloria steinem in the 70s - mainly through her feminist magazine Ms. - which is meant to be a neutral term, usable for any and all women regardless of marital status (hence the soul destroying irony of the tags above). it gained wider general acceptance when geraldine ferraro, the first woman to be nominated as VP on a national major party ticket, started using it widely to avoid confusion, since she was married but used her maiden name professionally. eventually over the years it came into common use though i do think the brits are a little more critical of it than americans (as far as i'm aware lol)

[avocado-moon]

"obscure facts only a tumblr user would know" and it's one of the most influential institutions of second wave american feminism. PLEASE open the schools

[onbearfeet]

Hi. I'm an unmarried woman in her forties. I use Ms. and pronounce it "miz", though I don't correct people who accidentally use a soft S. I use Ms. because it's no one's business but my own whether I'm married, to a man or anyone else, and that's what Ms. means. It means fuck off, my marital status is irrelevant, just as it is for every man who uses Mr.

I've had people (usually children) ask me at work if I'm a missus or a miss. I have replied that I am a miz, full stop. And when they pressed for which one I was REALLY, I have replied, "Why? Are you going to treat me differently depending on whether there's a ring somewhere?"

That's what Ms. is for. That is its linguistic function. It says, "This is an adult woman," and nothing else. Nothing else is necessary, and in my case, nothing else is desired.

I also use miz for other women unless and until they express a preference for something else because I don't magically know everyone else's marital status when I meet them. That's a courtesy—I'm declining to assume marital status and allowing them to decide whether they wish to declare it.

Also, I've taught English and worked as an editor for twenty years. I am quite literally the grammar police. This use of Ms. is a standard construction. If you didn't learn it in school, someone failed you.

[squeeful]

“Obscure facts” Boo boo I was taught it in elementary school. One with a state standardized curriculum.

Ms. is marriage-neutral and it’s pronounced Miz. It is deliberately different from Miss.

[derinthescarletpescatarian]

#in the episode of Daria where there’s a rumor that her and tom had sex#upchuck knowingly refers to her as the lovely MIZ Morgendorffer#this was the end of season five meaning this would’ve been fairly common knowledge in 2001

[lianarias]

Interestingly I believe I was taught some weird hybrid meaning. Like I def thought Ms. was pronounced Miss but I was also taught that it was status neutral. That Mrs. was for married women only and that Miss/Ms. was a woman with no bearing on her marriage/single status. Its cool to get it corrected after all these years.

[househunting]

$575,000 / studio / 1 ba / 542 sq ft

Manhattan, NY

built In 1956

[lianarias]

The cabinets are super cute but the twin bed pushed up against the double doors is insane. Plus the price of course but that is Manhattan for you.

[ohhelloimsotired]

I found the audio that reminded me of them

[convelocity]

75 free to use hand refs for you! Use them however you want.

You can get all the high res files for free here ✨

[helenvaughans]

it is really funny to me how the american far right has tried to co-opt catholicism primarily bc the aesthetics for run of the mill american christofascist evangelicalism suck so bad and bc mainline protestantism like episcopalianism or presbyterianism is totally libbed out but ofc catholicism is the one denomination they could have chosen where they do actually have to at least pretend to respect the earthly authority of another entity besides their own political figureheads

[lianarias]

From my internal knowledge growing up in the Catholic Church, Catholicism has gotten so large that individual churches and interpretations vary extremely. The church I grew up in was very progressive. That caused friction with leadership in the diocese, eventually causing them to relocate our priest to other not-purely catholic churches. Ironically this led a lot of the congregation to follow him. Those that remained had to deal with the traditionalist priest they installed instead. Many left after that as well, when their values did not align with the traditionalism.

I can't be sure how prevalent this is in other religions, but I do see it as a progressive wave of change in the Catholic Church. It has been present in both the current and past Pope. As public opinion changes, slowly so to does the Catholic Church. The values it previously kept have already adjusted over the years. That is to say, the American Christofascist Evangelical churches look to what they believe to be an ally, only to find it has changed with the times, while they have remained stagnant.

While I am no longer a member of the Catholic Church, many of my loved ones remain. Those that do are loving people, who believe in their personal definition of the church and belief, and not in the official stances of the Catholic Church. This gives me hope for the future.

[asterrisms]

as a pink lover. The ""universal""" hatred of the color pink by young girls is due to the heavy expectation of femininity forced on them. It is an expression of frustration at gender roles. It is not internalized misogyny. No you will not inevitably start liking pink as an adult and if you do that is not healing your inner divine feminine or whatever we're saying now. Its a color. 😁👍

[slothsrainbowsandpotatoes]

The only damage the Schemers collectively took during this 2 hour long combat was Hal stabbing Bolaire at his command

Don't misunderestimate the employees

[lianarias]

So true! I considered this after the episode wrapped. Its probably some of the most fun and inventive combat ive seen in a good while. Mostly because you have a group of people all working together toward subterfudge which doesnt usually happen in an adventuring party. That and Brennan was rolling terribly (I think he failed every save) and Azune proved to be an absolute unit. I love how they were so scared at the end of last episode and they clearly prepared between the episodes.