@treepyful / treepyful.tumblr.com
How does superglue REFUSE to come out of the tube when you're actively trying to get some out, but as soon as you give up and put it down, the damn thing decides it's time to do world's best pineapple-with-a-werewolf-boyfriend -impression?
This website makes it impossible to communicate with normal people.
I remember a while back you did a fun ask game where people sent in kinks and you rated how good an investment they are and it keeps popping into my mind because of how chill you were about kinks that even kinky people tend to view really negatively in the sense of ethics. I was wondering if you had any advice on how to *feel* chill in terms of my own kink ethics. I intellectually believe that fantasies can’t be immoral and that kink with other adults is moral as long as there is consent (and appropriate risk awareness).
But I am still pretty triggered on the topic when it comes up. Eg, earlier a friend told me they are cutting someone they love off for being friends with someone who “sexualizes trauma”. And yeah, that is definitely where some of my darker kinks come from—though not all. They’re entitled to that opinion and action of course! But hearing all the things they said against this person triggered me, making me feel like I’m dangerous and that it is wrong of me to interact with them going forward even though this isn’t a topic I would discuss with them anyway. Until writing this I hadn’t even considered if they are still a person I *want* to interact with given this. Though I’m sort of unclear on whether it is actually wrong of me to interact with them still.
I am working with my therapist on this. And I know it will take some time to work through. I was just wondering if you had any words of wisdom on the topic.
My thoughts are that if I had a friend who cut people off for having problematic (or in this case, just like, unsettling?) kinks, I would not feel safe around that friend. It would seem to me that they were judgemental, moralizing, and had a completely different viewpoint on how the world operated than I did, and that sooner or later they would demonize me for things I thought, fantasized about, felt, and so on. I might have sympathy if the person was a trauma survivor early in their recovery, as it's quite common for people to think in very dogmatic, black-and-white ways about morality in order to protect themselves and to be highly reactive to perceived threat. But their feelings of safety are their own business to guard over, and mine are mine, and I just wouldn't be able to get along very intimately with someone like that. I'd have to give them a wide berth until they started to get over it, if they got over it.
Recently, a friend of mine was completely ostracized from their local queer community simply for writing a piece that touched on a taboo fantasy -- a taboo fantasy they had concocted as a way to cope with some really gnarly early childhood abuse. They lost performance gigs and friends, had hate campaigns erected against them, had mobs of people threatening all their remaining friends and colleages, all based on a rumor about a piece that they never even got to perform anywhere because someone had heard it was about a taboo subject and even the IDEA of what it might be made them uncomfortable, and so they assumed my friend was condoning abuse when they were literally just describing what had already happened to them and how they found healing from it. Shit like this sucks, and it comes down most heavily against queer people, especially trans femmes, and I've seen the fear mongering ruin enough lives that I try to steer really clear of it.
My life has been so blessed by inclusion of people with really intense, taboo, stigmatized kinks into my life. I was afraid to even breathe a word of my hypnosis fetish to anybody until I was in my late 20s, because I thought it was so freakish and evil. and now I routinely talk with people about really animalistic feral fantasies, harkness rule violating monsterfucking, rape play, necro fantasies, abdl, age regression, incest roleplaying, blood, eating bodily fluids, and everything else that freaks people out but harms no living being. Even when it's not my stuff, even when it's something I might personally find a little squicky to actually be in the room with, it makes me feel seen, safe, and free to express the depths within me. I think surrounding yourself with more people like that or just consuming their stories can help a lot. And trying to find some mental distance from the people who do fear monger and get triggered. They have their reasons for feeling as they do. But that doesn't mean we have to align with their values or actions.
I watched Face/Off for the first time last night and all I can remember of it is this one scene
which was followed 20 seconds later by this scene
Which itself was followed by this scene almost precisely 20 seconds later
It's like poetry
Wish I could find the rest of this great cutaway diagram of the original Constitution-class U.S.S. Enterprise.
using "what were YOU doing at the devils sacrament" to mean "yeah i made an embarrassing reference but you understood it which is also embarrassing" is very funny to me
my favorite part is that absolutely nobody says this except here. so if you use it in public, it's a dead giveaway that you spent the last ten years on tumblr. but then again, they recognized it, which means they were at the devil's sacrament
https://theconversation.com/is-conservatism-really-on-the-rise-in-canada-blaine-higgs-big-loss-in-new-brunswick-suggests-not-241971
Shot; wait for the Poilievre election cycle chaser
In seriousness one guy's losing isn't really the canary in the coal mine.
Poilievre is tapping into a populism of discontent, à la his good friend Donald south of the border. There is a very real alienation happening in Canada that right wingers are desperate to take hold of and already are gaining ground in. (This alienation has a lot of roots but the main ones I will point out are the legacy of colonial white supremacy in a mostly white country that hasn't really rectified its own past with the present and of how hyper-capitalism makes everything worse)
It is not safe to say conservatism is on the downswing in Canada especially considering the kind of conservatives we already have running things.
Danielle Smith is a perpetual foot-in-mouther but also a professional grifter and her support is far more solid than Higgs' was (even if she's on track to fuck over her most solid voting base by stealing restructuring their pensions).
Poilievre has a pretty solid support base as well, despite being the federal political equivalent of a schoolyard bully. He's good friends with his fellow grifters and alt-right influencers, like those convoy morons. Remember them? Yeah those ppl are part of a nascent fascist movement that Pierre supports.
Doug Ford is deeply unpopular and yet he's still gutting Ontario services left right and centre.
That being said...
We can in fact make what this article says to be true. We can make the conservatives lose.
It requires tapping into the same feeling of alienation and uncertainty the conservatives are tapping into, because by and large most ppl aren't bigoted* but are very easily swayed by anyone promising security during uncertain times. Canada as a whole is a very centre-to-right country, politically economically and socially, and thus is embodied in the liberal party (centre-to-right) . Most ppl don't want things to change dramatically and will get upset if this happens.
But where the Tories are tapping into angern and consumerist comfort and bigoted ideas rooted in the past, we can tap into the uncertainty to mine hope. We can build bridges where the Tories want walls, we can build community and care where the conservatives would rather have austerity and isolation. And we can build a safety net where the conservatives want ppl to keep falling through.
But it's not going to be easy.
In fact it's going to be an uphill battle because ppl are dead-set on pretending everything is kind of okay and they don't have to worry about it, and aren't particularly plugged-in politically in this country. Especially in Alberta.
Channelling this genuine country-wide apathy into actual effective action would be the single greatest political magic trick of modern Canadian politics, I'd think. If someone could break the spell that's been pervading the discourse and provide a real counter to conservatism then absolutely conservatism would be on the downswing.
But I'm not so easily convinced that just because Tory two parties lost that makes it a trend.
Pierre hasn't even run his party for the top spot yet. Once he really gets his snake oil salesman charm out there a lot of those ardent blue voters are gonna drink it up without question. Even if they disagree with Doug or Danielle or Blaine they will listen to Pierre.
So we need to counter his sleazy charm before that happens.
*citation needed, we're running with the idea that most ppl aren't frothing raging bigots but rather mostly apathetic (not that that's better), but my faith in humanity these days is incredibly cynical so take this one with a grain of salt
Reblog if you're a partially muscled skeleton screaming for 30 seconds by the perimeter fence on November 14th
I am down in the gutter of yet another ship, folks.
Give me your recs for Garashir fics, I'm a Sucker for hurt confort, heavy angst and the whole sadness ordeal, but I'm not interested in smut.
Important note: I am autistic - therefore insane about Julian Bashir
Give me something cuz I'm eating ao3 whole right now.
I am also not overly fond of smut, so I have the ones that are straight-up not smut and the ones where you can skip the smut scenes without losing the overall story.
No smut:
The Epilogue Tales by treepyful: Postwar, a re-exiled Garak winds up as a civilian spouse on Julian's next posting.
The Carrington by Anguilliformes: Julian has to go back to Earth with his Carrington Award nomination to attend the reception/awards ceremony in person. Really not wanting to go to Earth, he invites Garak as his plus-one. Romance ensues.
Invisible String by cemetrygatess: Soulmate fic where Julian and Garak have an empathic link and Julian has a lot of augment angst about how Jules was Garak's soulmate, not Julian.
marry me a little by susiecarter: Julian marries Garak to keep him from getting extradited to Cardassia and romance ensues.
Murder on the Lakarian Train by Steerpike13713 is sadly abandoned but what's there is great fun-- it's the Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries AU, featuring Julian on a Cardassia where the withdrawal from Bajor was accompanied by a revolution on Cardassia, seemingly exiled from the Federation for mysterious reasons. And Garak as a detective who has to deal with this flashy human crossing his murder cases all the time.
Yesterday is Heavy by sapphose: Starting towards sleeping with Julian triggers a panic attack for Garak; Julian helps him through the aftermath.
Skippable smut:
Into That Good Night by sahiya: Post-series, Julian's PTSD overcomes him and he attempts suicide; Garak is summoned back from Cardassia to help him; we get a close look at what mental healthcare in the Federation looks like and also much hurt/comfort. (Really anything by sahiya is good on the hurt/comfort.)
Differential Diagnosis by Trillion_G: Julian is mysteriously ill with something he can't diagnose. Garak is worried. Also the Enterprise is visiting the station.
And if you'll permit me a self-rec (firmly in the no-smut category), my Escapees or Exiles series, which is an exile Julian story where he gets outed as an augment partway through the Academy, runs, and winds up on Terok Nor helping the Bajoran Resistance. It's the slowest of burns, but the Garashir is most definitely present throughout. (Also autistic trans Julian.)
That should be enough to keep you busy for a bit!
love when ppl defend the aggressive monetization of the internet with "what, do you just expect it to be free and them not make a profit???" like. yeah that would be really nice actually i would love that:)! thanks for asking
Also like. It used to be like that. I think some people forget we had a relatively ad-free internet.
It’s like every week something weird happens.
I can’t even begin to imagine how many episodes would be improved just by Picard giving a stumbling, awkward exposition of the episode’s plot to the crew
ALL episodes could be improved if we saw Picard’s awkward, stumbling exposition to the crew of what’s going on that episode. In fact, I really wanna see that.
“Attention crew, this is your captain speaking. You may notice my voice sounds different, and uh, long story short, I’m 12 again. Another transporter thing, we should really get that looked at. Anywhooo if a little blonde kid starts ordering you around, don’t ignore him, because it’s me. Ok. Bye.”
“Okay so, you may have noticed large parts of the ship transforming into some kind of Mayan temple, and Commander Data running around and talking in several different voices. We are aware of the situation and taking steps to restore things to normal.”
“Q’s fucking back again”
This might be fun to do as a fan video project.
Like, edit together some of those shots of people walking through corridors, and do a voiceover with a slight tinny filter, and be like “All Crew: this is Ensign Turing with today’s update: We’ve entered a realm of non-space and there’s some non-corporeal energy being here who wishes to learn about humanity, including death. The captain has activated the self-destruct. Please complete your will and any last messages by 1300 hours at the latest. Thanks!”
just go through the episodes and record the PA announcements the crew might have gotten 2/3rds of the way through the episode.
There were two professors like this in my department and I was one of like 20 people who was taught by both of them so there was a very small gang of us who knew that Professor Brick Wall and Professor Overshare were married with two kids.
the front seat of the car is a type of confessional
i genuinely think that physically it’s easier to have hard conversations when you’re both facing forward, not having to look at each other. the catholic church knew this also
I find it interesting that you keep saying that Asians in Asia don't see themselves as poc. While you may feel that way, I think it's valid to note that Britain (white people) occupied and conquered what was then India (today India, Pakistan, Bhutan, etc.) There is a big difference between the fair indians and the darker indians. To be light skinned is considered beautful. Therefore, that region of Asia does see itself as poc for they were treated as second class to the gori British.
Hey, I appreciate you writing in! I’ll explain my thinking behind the term here.
I too grew up in a former British colony, so while I did have a concept of whiteness and therefore do not see myself as “white”- I want to emphasise that the term “person of colour” does have different political and cultural implications than “non-European” or perhaps “non-white”. Simply, I do not see myself as “white” because of British colonialism, but I does not mean I see myself as a “person of colour”. I see myself as Han Chinese, East Asian or Asian. “ In general, I believe the term should not be used carelessly outside the US due to different ideas of whiteness between the US and Europe, as well as other countries in the Americas, where race isn’t perceived the exact same way. I don’t believe it should be used at all in the non-Western context.
1. Person of colour is a term that specifically originated in the context of the United States’ system of colourist racism, of Jim Crow, of slavery, where the idea of “white” became a vehicle to confer privilege. I say “vehicle” because whiteness has always been a social construct. in much earlier parts of US history, several light-skinned European ethnic groups were not allowed to access whiteness, like Irish people. Today, they are seen as white. Although the term has been used carelessly by many people on tumblr, “person of colour” is first and foremost a racialised identity taken on to organise against white supremacy- in Western contexts.
2. I don’t believe it should be applied to non-Western contexts firstly, because the history of Asian colourist discrimination has actually long-predated European colonial rule. Further, it doesn’t quite just exist as a marker of racial otherness, but as a class division. Fair skin has been prized in China, Japan and Korea for thousands of years due to classism. I believe it is the case with India too- from what I know, it was very much tied to the ancient Indian caste system or other class/regional divisions. That is not to say that Western beauty standards don’t help to reinforce this preference today, but it would be inaccurate for us to ascribe this obsession for light skin all to recent European imperialism. Recognising its ancient roots is crucial: as a light-skinned East Asian, nobody has ever tried to sell me skin-whitening cream, unlike my other Han Chinese friends who were darker-skinned.
3. As “person of colour” is an organising tool against white supremacy, I do not believe it has much relevance in non-Western contexts because we are no longer under European colonial rule. This is not to say its legacy doesn’t still affect us, but that the fault lines and tensions that matter are very often not going to centre so much around whiteness anymore in day-to-day life. I feel white privilege can be discussed there without us defining ourselves as “persons of colour”.
4. Lastly, the term “POC” outside the Western context tends to flatten the power structure between non-Europeans who live in the West or otherwise have a Western background vis a vis people from our ancestral countries.
5. So, the term “person of colour” is meaningless to me in the non-Western context context, and I personally find it actively harmful when people lump us as “POC cultures” because it purports to create an illusion of solidarity that obscures the massive amount of racism and oppression Asians are enacting against each other till today. Further, I see it as a projection of Western race politics on a non-Western context, which is decentering from local dynamics.
In conclusion, I very much see myself as “non-white” in Asia due to growing up in a former European colony. But I do not see myself as a “person of colour” there. I see myself somewhat as a person of colour in Europe, because it is a Western context where light-skinned Europeans are the majority. Still, not entirely- because it is quite an American term and European racism has a lot of ethnicity dimensions. I tend to see myself as Han Chinese, most specifically.
OH MY GOD someone on tumblr finally wrote a post about this! A REALLY EXCELLENT POST that makes all the points! OH MY GOD I WANT TO CRY. I DIDN’T THINK I’D EVER SEE THE DAY. The pessimist in me says this won’t get reblogged nearly as much as posts full of misinformation and simplification about social issues, but. Basically I wish this was on every blog on this website. EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW.
good lord this thing is useless
I'm asking this genuinely, as a 19 yo with no education in economics and a pretty surface level understanding of socialism: can you explain the whole Bananas discourse in a way someone like me might understand? In my understanding it's just "This is just a product we can give up to create better worker conditions and that's fine" but apparently that's not the full picture?
alright so some pretty important background to all this is that we're all talking about the fact that bananas, grown in the global south, are available year-round at extremely low prices all around europe and the USA. it's not really about bananas per so--the banana in this discourse is a synechdoche for all the economic benefits of imperialism.
so how are cheap bananas a result of imperialism? first of all i want to tackle a common and v. silly counterargument: 'oh, these ridiculous communists think it's imperialist for produce to be shipped internationally'. nah. believing that this is the communist objection requires believing in a deeply naive view of international traide. this view goes something like 'well, if honduras has lots of bananas, and people in the usa want bananas and are willing to pay for them, surely everyone wins when the usa buys bananas!'.
there are of course two key errors here and they are both packed into 'honduras has lots of bananas'. for a start, although the bananas are grown in honduras, honduras doesn't really 'have' them, because the plantations are mostly owned by chiquita (formerly known as united fruit) dole, del monte, and other multinationals--when they're not, those multinationals will usually purchase the bananas from honduran growers and conduct the export themselves. and wouldn't you know it, it's those intervening middleman steps--export, import, and retail, where the vast majority of money is made off bananas! so in the process of a banana making its way from honduras to a 7/11, usamerican multinationals make money selling the bananas to usamerican importers who make money selling them to usamerican retailers who make money selling them to usamerican customers.
when chiquita sells a banana to be sold in walmart, a magic trick is being performed: a banana is disappearing from honduras, and yet somehow an american company is paying a second american company for it! this is economic imperialism, the usamerican multinational extracting resources from a nation while simultaneously pocketing the value of those resources.
why does the honduran government allow this? if selling bananas is such a bad deal for the nation, why do they continue to export millions of dollars of banans a year? well, obviously, there's the fact that if they didn't, they would face a coup. the united states is more than willing to intervene and cause mass death and war to protect the profits of its multinationals. but the second, more subtle thing keeping honduras bound to this ridiculously unbalanced relationship is the need for dollars. because the US dollar is the global reserve currency, and the de facto currency of international trade, exporting to the USA is a basic necessity for nations like honduras, guatemala, &c. why is the dollar the global reserve currency? because of usamerican military and economic hegemony, of course. imperialism built upon imperialism!
this is unequal exchange, the neoimperialist terms of international trade that make the 'global economy' a tool of siphoning value and resources from the global south to the imperial core. & this is the second flaw to unravel in 'honduras has a lot of bananas' -- honduras only 'has a lot of bananas' because this global economic hegemony has led to vast unsustainable monoculture banana plantations to dominate the agriculture of honduras. it's long-attested how monoculture growth is unsustainable because it destroys soil and leads to easily-wiped-out-by-infection plants.
so, bananas in the USA are cheap because:
bananas are cheap, in conclusion, because they're produced by underpaid and brutalized workers and then imported on extortionate and unfair terms.
so what, should we all give up bananas? no, and it's a sign of total lack of understanding of socialism as a global movement that all the pearl-clutching usamericans have latched onto the scary communists telling them to stop buying bananas. communism does not care about you as a consumer. individual consumptive choices are not a meaningful arena of political action. the socialist position is not "if there was a socialist reovlution in the usa, we would all stop eating bananas like good little boys", but rather, "if there's a socialist revolution in the countries where bananas are grown, then the availability of bananas in the usa is going to drop, and if you want to be an anti-imperialist in the imperial core you have to accept that".
(this is where the second argument i see about this, 'oh what are you catholic you want me to eat dirt like a monk?' reveals itself as a silly fucking solipsistic misunderstanding)
and again, let's note that the case of the banana can very easily be generalised out to coffee, chocolate, sugar, etc, and that it's not about individual consumptive habits, but about global economic systems. if you are donkey fucking kong and you eat 100 bananas a day i don't care and neither does anyone else. it's about trying to illustrate just one tiny mundane way in which economic imperialism makes the lives of people in the global north more convenient and simpler and so of course there is enormous pushback from people who attach moral value to this and therefore feel like the mean commies are personally calling them evil for eating a nutella or whatever which is frankly pretty tiring. Sad!
tldr: it is not imperialism when produce go on boat but it is imperialism when produce grown for dirt cheap by underpaid workers in a country with a devalued currency is then bought and exported and sold by usamerican companies creating huge amounts of economic value of which the nation in which the banana was grown, let alone the people who actually fucking grew it, don't see a cent -- and this is the engine behind the cheap, available-every-day-all-year-everywhere presence of bananas in the usa (and other places!)
CAN WE HAVE PORTS BACK TOO
