Theoku

adult, he/it • • • Art here! Art tag is just #drawing (may contain suggestive content!) • • • Banner is a Will Wood reference

[theokusgallery]

Hi! I'm Theoku, welcome to my art blog :)

Current main fandom: Sanders Sides, probably

I'm also one of the mods on @daily-basil !

If you like my art and want to commission or just tip me, I have a ko-fi :)

Preemptive ArtFight link even though it's really early

Frequent tags:

- art tag: #drawing (#doodle for smaller things, #wip for, well, WIPs. Also sorted by #digital or #traditional. Some art might also be tagged with #cw suggestive)

- text post tag: #rant

- ask tag: #ask

- suggestive content: #cw suggestive (or #not safe for sanders, if it applies, and it usually does)

- all fandom posts are sorted by tags (#omori, #sasi, #tma, #utmv, #utdr, #aa, #iz, #sfv, #tmbd, etc...). Note that I don't post OMORI content on this blog, but I might reblog some!

I have a... half OMORI AU, half OC situation with a guy called Arsenic/Nick. Here's his masterpost. Everything about him is tagged #arsenic

Repost policy

[wannablegendary]

Everyone talks about janus lying but honestly one of his most consistent traits is being absurdly direct once he's allowed to speak

He'll just walk into a conversation and go

"Hello. The problem is this."

And everybody acts shocked

[chloe-of-astora]

professor layton notebook template i made, for your digital writing apps and such Made and edited from the game assets of curious village HD

[really-awkward-pics-of-roman]

THATS MY PRINCE!!

[queer-as-city-folk]

Anti-city people are just plain fascinating to me

[theokusgallery]

Tomodachi is great becuz it finally lets you eat artwork. Putting your art into the game so i can have my little mii eat it

Dude how do you put PNGs in there. Goddamn

[theokusgallery]

I have a bunch of rocks that look exactly like teeth now. Idk what to do with them but any suggestions are welcome ig??

I am genuinely struggling to see these as rocks and not teeth. Where did you find these what the hell

[life-gives-you-lemons]

I think people need to understand that everyone has to unlearn misogynistic behaviors and thinking patterns. Cis women and trans women and cis men and trans men and anyone who doesn’t fall under those categories are all completely capable of being misogynistic and actively hurtful to women. Trans men are included in this, obviously, but when you only call for trans men to unlearn this mindset, you are no longer being progressive and fair. You are singling out a minority.

[wouldyoueatthisfood]

Would you eat this?

I would eat this

I would not eat this

I have eaten this (positive)

I have eaten this (negative)

Remaining time: 4 days 20 hours

Food: Japanese takoyaki

Ingredients: dashi granules, water, eggs, soy sauce, flour, rice flour, baking powder, vegetable oil, octopus, ginger, green onions, tempura, worcestershire sauce, ketchup, honey, mirin, optional toppings include seaweed powder, kewpie mayonnaise, seaweed, and bonito flakes

[two-wizards-in-a-trench-coat]

seeing people glaze the pope for saying AI goes against god's will is. okay what the fuck

[two-wizards-in-a-trench-coat]

something being "against god's will" isn't a good measurement of anything being good or not. this is a broken clock right once a day kind of thing

[palant1r]

the catholic church was also an early opponent of eugenics because it represented medical science going against god's will. much like some other medical science that is good actually. broken clock.

[noelledeltarune]

before pride month ends does anyone wanna admit they have a crush on me

[noelledeltarune]

posting this on the first day of june so you all have plenty of time to gather your nerves and whatnot

[trans-pickles]

i don't think bodily autonomy for minors should be a luck of the draw type thing where you have to cross your fingers that your parents are chill about it.

[prof-grace-aspen]

"So YoU'rE sAyInG mEn HaTe OtHeR mEn?"

Yes. Yes I am. And you can ask literally any marginalized man and they will tell you American Patriarchy hates them, too, specifically because they are being men in the "wrong way".

Like fuck, this is feminism 101.

Edit: it's non-radfem feminism 101.

[weirdlittleguy]

Just look at the way that manosphere wierdos talk in reference to other men: they are competitors to be dominated either socially or with explicit violence. The whole grift is built on selling men the idea that they can climb their way to the top of the pile

[prof-grace-aspen]

^^^ This. It's like a pyramid scheme of abuse. "If you throw fifteen men under the bus and convince five of your friends to throw fifteen other men under the bus, you can Win at Patriarchy, we promise!"

[carriesthewind]

I don't care if you, personally, want the U.S.'s public sex offender registry to continue to exist, (and think it will work well if it's just tweaked a little!).

Even just looking at the registries own goals: Where are your studies showing that it is actually effective at meeting any of its ostensible goals? If it's such a risk to get rid of it, why do so few countries allow public access to sex offender registries? (And were is your evidence that the public registry increases safety in the countries that have it?)

"Killing the cop the lives in your brain" means, in large part, not accepting criminal legal system solutions to problems just because they feel good and right to you. It means not accepting the criminal legal solution as the best or only solution to serious social problems, just because it's the solution that's currently in place where you live.

[carriesthewind]

I'm going to respond to one of the comments on this post, because I think it serves as a good vehicle to explain why I hold this position, and why I felt the need to state that I don't care about people's personal desires for the U.S.'s public SOR to continue to exist. Before I begin: I am deliberately not including screenshots (instead just quoting the person) or the person's name, because that feels too much like targeting them and singling them out. If they want to comment in response to this, that's fine; however, if these aren't your comments, please do not go looking for these comments or otherwise be a jerk to this person.

(Also obviously a lot of discussion about sexual assault and child sexual abuse below the cut, given the topic. Please skip this if you don't want to read that.)

I'm going to start by posting the comment by full, and then break it down into parts:

"I think it is both Good and Morally Correct for people who sexually assault children/are inappropriate with children/etc to be on a map where families with small children are aware if their children are in danger, personally. And yeah, people can be labeled a sex offender for small shit like public indecency. Thats not right, but id still want to know if I lived next to a weirdo that ran around naked if I had children! The goal is to make sure more families are educated about the fact that there could be a predator where they live. I dont have statistics or anything but how many countries that DONT do public sex offender registries have MORE CSA cases?"

So this comment starts with a statement about which, as previously stated, I don't care:

"I think it is both Good and Morally Correct for people who sexually assault children/are inappropriate with children/etc to be on a map where families with small children are aware if their children are in danger, personally."

I do want to clarify: when I say I don't care, I don't mean people are somehow bad or wrong for having these personal feelings. Sexual assault, especially sexual assault of children, is objectively horrifying, and quite possibly one of the most triggering topics there is. It is perfectly reasonable to have a lot of strong feelings about it. It is perfectly reasonable, even, to personally want Very Bad Things to happen to people who do these things. (If fact, I suspect most people do have these kind of feelings, at least to some extent! I know I do!)

However, when you share these feelings in the context of discussions about whether the U.S.'s public SOR should continue to exist, you are not just having feeling. You are advocating, even if informally, for the continued existence of a particular goverment practice. You are advocating for a specific criminal legal solution to a particular social problem. (Also, you are taking action to help ensure that not only does the SOR continue to exist, but to make it more difficult to even make small positive reforms. This may seem like an extreme claim, but I will expand on it more at the end.) And I don't care about your feelings in that context, because they aren't relevant to the issue at hand: whether the U.S.'s public SOR actually increases public safety!

When we are talking about a criminal legal solution like the U.S.'s public SOR, the entire justification is that it prevents harm. Whether or not it makes you, as individual, feel safer is irrelevant to me and should be irrelevant to any public policy. What is relevant is whether it actually makes anyone safer. To return to that first sentence:

"I think it is both Good and Morally Correct for people who sexually assault children/are inappropriate with children/etc to be on a map where families with small children are aware if their children are in danger, personally."

I don't think it's useful to respond to statements like this by pointing out that technically families with small children can never know if their children are in danger (do you know your trusted family member wouldn't abuse your kids? I know you think they wouldn't - and I know that so did many of the family members of people convicted of child sexual abuse). Because the point the person is clearly making isn't about eliminating danger, it's reducing danger. The problem is, there isn't good evidence that a public SOR actually makes kids safer (and there's some evidence of the opposite). It's an intuitive assumption, it feels like it should make kids safer - but reality contradicts our intuitive assumptions all the time.

And so even if we want to limit the discussion around the U.S.'s public SOR list to just the question of protecting children's safety, I don't care about your feelings. In fact, I think it makes it all the more important to make sure we are acting on information, not just intuition. That we are taking actions based on improving kid's safety, not on make parents feel more comfortable.

"And yeah, people can be labeled a sex offender for small shit like public indecency. Thats not right, but id still want to know if I lived next to a weirdo that ran around naked if I had children!"

So I'm going to skip over the first sentence in this quote for now. I'm going to assume that this means the author would support, at minimum, tweaks to the current system, and address that issue later. More importantly for the moment:

Again, I don't care about whether you want to know if your neighbor was a "weirdo" that ran around naked. That desire is irrelevant to whether a public SOR increases safety. I would like to know, before I move into a new area, if my neighbors take walks at night, because I love night walks, but it makes me feel uncomfortable when I run into another night walker. My desire on this point is irrelevant to whether a public goverment list of night walkers would increase safety.

The relevant question, on this point, is twofold: first, once again, if having a public SOR actually improves the safety of your hypothetical children. And once again, the actual evidence suggests not!

Second, (since you brought up a specific action that you appear to want people to be placed on a public SOR for) whether being a "weirdo that ran around naked" actually poses any threat to children! Because, since you brought it up, part of the problem with these lists is that they are based on convictions for things our criminal system considers to be sex crimes, which may be completely unrelated to any actual harm to anyone!

In no particular order:

There are plenty of cultures in which nudity, including nudity around children, is considered perfectly normal. There is, to my knowledge, zero evidence that such normalization harms children or increases child sexual abuse in any way. The U.S. is, again, to my knowledge, a rather prudish outlier compared to many countries.

"weirdo that ran around naked" could encompass anything from "person who deliberately exposed themselves in a sexual manner to children" to "non-sexual nudist who deliberately appeared publicly nude" to "person who accidentally appeared publicly nude" to "homeless person who had no where else to pee." The U.S.'s criminal legal system's methods of distinguishing between these scenarios range from poor to nonexistent. And those methods can and are circumvented by bias.

The U.S.'s public SOR is a criminal legal solution to a problem. Any and all flaws in the criminal system will inherently be reproduced in and by the public SOR. The SOR cannot be distinguished or extricated from the broader problems of that unjust system. If you can understand the idea that "defund the police" doesn't mean "we should do nothing to try to stop theft and violence," you must be able to understand, "abolish the public SOR" doesn't mean, "we should do nothing to try to prevent and protect against sexual assault."

"The goal is to make sure more families are educated about the fact that there could be a predator where they live."

Bluntly speaking, because it's been a long week, you are either misstating the goal, or you are stating a bad goal.

What I presume you mean by this statement is: "The goal is to protect families from harm by making sure more families are educated about the fact that there could be a predator where they live." Because if that's not what you mean by the statement, you must mean, "the goal is to destroy the lives of people on the SOR forever, regardless of whether doing so protects people from harm." And that is a bad goal.

Protecting families form predators is a good goal. But we return the original problem: while I agree that it is a good goal, your personal feeling that the U.S.'s public SOR accomplishes that goal does not provide any evidence that it actually does anything to advance that goal. And again, the actual evidence suggests that it does not.

"I dont have statistics or anything but how many countries that DONT do public sex offender registries have MORE CSA cases?"

*deep breath*

Ok.

Here's the real reason why I gave the caveat above the cut about how I'm not attaching this person's name to this, because I don't want to target them or single then out.

Because I am about to be very mean.

First of all, what are you talking about that you "don't have any statistics or anything but..."?!? My original post was six goddam sentences long. Three of those sentences asserted or implied a lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of the U.S.'s public SOR. If you want to disagree, you know studies about this stuff exist, right? Like, there is literally an entire separate wikipedia page for "effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States," with a list of 27 sources if you want a place to start. If you don't think it's worth your time to look up any sources or statistics to disagree with me (which to be clear is totally fair), then what are you doing wasting your time talking about how you think there might be evidence to support your feelings, maybe, somewhere? It's not my burden to provide information to help you support your argument?!

Second, and more importantly:

...ok, actually before we get into this, my fellow USians, can we try to stop doing this?

"...how many countries that DONT do public sex offender registries have MORE CSA cases?"

The wording of this question frames the issue stating with the presumption that the U.S. is doing something right, and almost every other country in the world is doing something wrong (or at least less right). It shifts the burden of proof to other countries (aka almost the entire rest of the world) to prove that their systems aren't worse than ours. The U.S.'s public SOR is, on an international level, a highly unusual law. It was created during, and largely because of, a moral panic. The burden of proof is on US to show that this thing actually has any positive effect before any other country has to provide evidence of anything.

The U.S. is not actually the center of the world, and it's really shitty to act like it is? I'm guilty of doing this at times myself, and we need to get better about stopping it. There is no reason our laws or culture should get a presumed assumption of correctness or normalcy.

...returning now from that digression. Second, and more importantly:

"I dont have statistics or anything but how many countries that DONT do public sex offender registries have MORE CSA cases?"

This question reveals a staggering level of ignorance that demonstrates that you have no basis for publicly commenting on this issue.

Again, first of all - as stated in the original post! - the "countries that DONT do public sex offender registries" is "almost the entire rest of the world," will a wide variety of cultures, social systems, and legal systems. That alone makes this almost a meaningless question.

Second:

In 2000, according to a U.N. report, Pakistan had 0.0 rapes per 100,000 people.

Oh, sorry, did I say "0.0 rapes?" I meant, "0.0 rapes based on reported police recorded assaults." Because I think you will agree with me, people were probably raped in Pakistan in 2000.

It is incredibly difficult to compare rates of crime across different counties. (I am going to assume you meant rates, not the flat number of cases.) Anyone who does even a cursory amount of research on this subject - I'm talking a wikipedia skim - should know this. Not only are you dealing with different definitions of crime, you are dealing with different kinds of reporting schemes and a vast array of social and historical pressures that may make certain kinds of reports more or less likely. This is especially true when you are talking about something like CSA, where there is a massive variation in reported rates even within different studies of individual countries, based on the methodologies of individual studies.

It gets even more complicated if you want to try to isolate any particular reason for variation between different countries. That's just not how any of this works! Even if you manged to get good, comparable data for every country in the world, and every single country that didn't have a public SOR (i.e. almost all of them) had statistically significant higher rates of CSA than the (very few) countries that do have a public SOR, you couldn't conclude based on that alone that the public SOR was causing the difference!

To be clear, there isn't anything wrong with not knowing any of this. But if you don't know anything about a topic, you maybe shouldn't publicly advocate for a specific associated criminal solution!

Which brings me back to a claim I made at the top of this post: When people publicly share their personal feelings about liking and supporting the continued existence of the U.S.'s public SOR, they are taking action to help ensure that not only does the SOR continue to exist, but to make it more difficult to even make small positive reforms.

My original post currently has a lot of support from my tiny corner of tumblr. However, among the general public more broadly, the loudest voices are usually people like person who made this comment. In particular, people who lack a basic knowledge about the U.S.'s public SOR, but have, nevertheless, a lot of feelings about it. And while this person was very polite (again, DO NOT TRY TO FIND, @, OR BE A DICK TO THIS PERSON), some people aren't:

"Imagine thinking pedophiles deserve respect. Pedophiles deserve to be killed. If not by "the evil justice system" then by the hands of communities they threaten or by the families they've harmed. I don't know why you've made it your life's mission to defend child rapists online. Pedophiles don't deserve rights. They stripped themselves of their humanity the moment they hurt a child. Murder and battery are things that can be justified depending on the context. There is no context in which rape is justified."

This comment was in my inbox, presumably in response to this post, which if you want to scroll up and refresh your memory, was about how I think the U.S.'s public SOR is bad, regardless of any other reasons, because there is no evidence it actually increases safety. For this, someone decided to rant in my inbox about how I have "made it [my] life's mission to defend child rapists online."

(To be clear: I'm not personally bothered by this comment. If you want to upset me, the proper way to go about it is to try to schedule a meeting with me for the 4th time this week when, 1) I have already told you (multiple times) that I am not available this week, 2) we have already scheduled a meeting for my earliest availability next week, and 3) I already know you're just going to tell me how you think I should litigate my cases even though you have zero legal authority to support your position and your arguments are dumb and bad, Brad!*

*Name changed to protect the irritating. )

The reason this comment is relevant is the context. This person does not care what I have actually proposed or suggested. They, like the person who made the comment I responded to in this post, are not actually familiar with the research on whether a public SOR helps keep kids safe. They have a lot of feelings on the issue though, and they are going to shout about them when this topic comes up.

And when policy makers consider making even small positive reforms to the U.S.'s public SOR, no matter how tiny and reasonable, no matter if those reforms are based on evidence about what actually protects vulnerable people, the loudest voices those policy makers will hear are people like the polite commenter and the nasty anon. They fear being called pedophiles and defenders of child rapists. And they know that a lot of people feel like this dumb, bad law keeps kids safe, and are unwilling to do the most cursory research to follow up on that feeling. And so they fear, reasonably, that when people like the commenter see them being called pedophiles and defenders of child rapists, those people may not bother to do the most cursory research on them, on what they are proposing, and instead will accept the claims that they are defending child rapists because that matches the vibes of how they already feel.

And that's why even though most reasonable people agree that things like public urination shouldn't cause someone to end up on the U.S.'s public SOR, there is not, and I am pessimistic that there will ever be, political will to make even that tiny change.

[humornaut]

Lately, I've been feeling my OMORI fixation come back with a vengeance. Things moving behind the scenes with Senesce and the Sunny route streams maybe have been making me feel nostalgic? I miss the feeling of finding something new that supports sunflower in the game and heading into a big discord to gush and discuss it. Of course, the problem now is that there's probably not much left in the game that I am not already aware of.

I've been taking some time to go back over some of the analysis posts I've made in years past, and it's definitely clear that there were some cases where I let my personal sunflower truthism cloud the way I analyzed certain things, so I guess time has given me a bit of clarity

That being said, I am still very attached to the Sunflower truth of the game, and there are still several things that I feel only make sense in the context of sunflower and I just want to talk about them again LOL

If you know me at all, the big thing that I've always been obsessed with is the "smoothie connection" in Headspace.

Basically, if you pay enough attention while playing, it's pretty easy to realize that the smoothies aren't organized by Sunny/Omori's tastes. They don't match up with the soda flavors, which the game and guidebook definitely make a bigger deal about with Sunny/Omori's likes and dislikes, plus the smoothie that "tastes like dirt" isn't at the bottom.

There is an implication that the smoothies are organized by Basil's tastes. Everyone knows that he loves strawberries because he says as much during the birthday scene.

And I will be darned if this doesn't sound like someone that wasn't the biggest fan of a banana popsicle but didn't want people to think he hated it:

This is of course some very surface level stuff, but starts to get deeper when you consider other things we see in Sunny's dreams. Why is there a blender in Neighbor's Room? Why is the tofu trivia so focused on which ones can be used in smoothies?

Then you have the Hero's kitchen area of Black Space.

First, that's clearly Sunny's kitchen, not Hero's. That's Sunny and Basil's chairs right there. You have a blender right there, and this whole event replaces all the "LITTLE BASILS" in the area with ingredients that you collect and hand in to Hero, all using the tofu sprite. Interacting with the blender gives the line "You are scared."

but it could mean nothing ofc

Then the blender weapon in Headspace is super easy to miss during the Experiment 667 chase. This is the same segment where you can get the "Heart String" (string of fate allusion? I'm just delusional enough to believe it) and Watermelon Juice.

and how could I ever forget Budgirl. A blank-faced pink tulip that meows at you while dispensing smoothies? You get the skill required to access it's area in Sweetheart's castle, a place already overflowing with home symbolism and references to Basil? It will never give you a banana smoothie but is the only repeatable way to get strawberry smoothies? The depths of Sunny's sick and twisted mind disgust me. What, are you taking Basil's whole thing about you being like a tulip to heart while you ask Hero to show you how to make gay little tofu smoothies? get out of my sight

Anyway I'm thinking about starting the OMORI route in a stream at some point this weekend. Follow me on twitch and stay tuned for more info if you wanna watch.

[parkayquarts]

dont trace reference images. dont even LOOK at reference images. in fact, don't ever look at anything that exists in the world, in person or in photos or in videos, even when you're not drawing, because you will still be able to use the memories of what something looks like as a reference when you're drawing it later. yes that includes yourself. destroy all the mirrors in your house. don't look down at your hands or feet. don't look. close your eyes. close them tight. forget everything. it's okay, embrace the darkness. just forget.

[caffeinated-object]

@entities-of-posts

[entities-of-posts]

The Dark

[animentality]