Burning Hot Take:

your posts are always a pleasure to read!

i love it when you use irl information to further your point :D i never know when i might learn something new!

your shorter posts are also amazing, you never need too many words to make it super angsty :') /pos

never be afraid to reach out, we love you here <3 /p

thank you so much?!! doing research is so much fun, and I end up learning so much as well!! strangely enough my main aim with most posts is to make people sad,, spreading c!dream angst brings me joy. I've even been working up the confidence to post non dsmp content, and I feel like I have interesting things to say

c!dreams actions are bad enough on their own,, you don’t need to make shit up!!

It’s really fun being in a fandom who can’t decide what words mean. Apologist? Sympathiser? NO ONE CAN COME TO A CONSENSUS ON THE DEFINITION OF THESE WORDS! I see them completely swap meaning regularly- you can no longer just use the term, you also have to explain your interpretation of it.

How did I just see someone only care abt the conditions in pandoras vault because of c!tommy being in there??? I hate twitter so much oh my goodness.

So many people argue that c!dream being imprisoned and tortured is best for c!tommy... is it really? Surely the most reassuring thing for him would be knowing that his abuser has been rehabilitated and no liber want to hurt him? Instead he just lives everyday unsure if c!dream will escape and hurt him again. Perpetuating the cycle of violence, focusing on the punishment of crimes rather then the prevention of them future ones, hurts everybody, including c!tommy.

if i see one more person say that c!dream was the one to build pandoras vault the way it currently is—

Many people are of the opinion that some of the abuses that C!Dream faces are in some way justified or excusable. Which, no! Abuse is never okay! But lets put that aside for one moment. Lets pretend that yes, c!dream being subject to solitary confinement is defensable due to the moral boundaries that he’d crossed. That he posed such a threat to other people, that he was bad enough of a person, that his rights are now null and void.

Where do we draw the line? I’m genuinely curious, at what point in the storyline did people no longer think he deserved adequate living conditions? What action did he take that then made it perfectly okay for him to be cut off from any form of support network? What moment meant that his canonical self harm could then be dismissed as attention seeking?

And if we’ve now established that there is some point when abuse is justified, surely that logic must be applied universally? What action would c!tommy have to take where exile was okay? Where is that line in the sand?

The logic behind excusing the conditions of pandoras vault is the same behind justifying the exile arc.

A study on over 200,000 prison inmates showed that whilst making up just 7% of the prison population, those in solitary confinement made up 53% of all recorded acts of self harm.

There is a possibility that these statistics show correlation, and not causation. That those placed in solitary confinement were already those more likely to reoffend, and with pre-existing mental health problems. However this argument is refuted when looking at other observable effects on the brain. 

A 2018 study showed that after just one month of isolation, in the sensory and motor parts of  mice's’ brains, their neurons shrunk by 20 percent after one month of isolation, and by 25 percent after three months. Further research is needed to determine if this loss is permanent, as well as looking for other areas of change. 

Wedding Waltz commission :-)

Special thanks to @squimp who helped me SO much with designing Garak’s outfit!!!

But no I’m not done explaining why this shit is hot homophobic garbage and anyone who reblogs it should be ashamed of themselves

Tommy reacted to Buck’s genuine show of vulnerability and fear and bid for connection with reciprocation. He opened up about his own father and his experiences with Gerrard.

It wasn’t “out of the blue” Buck said “we both have daddy issues” with a smirk on his face. He was flirting. He turned the conversation horny.

If your argument relies on ignoring half the actual lines in the scene, it’s just bad logic. You get an F in Media Analysis.

“I would have killed him with a gun” god Good Thing there’s not a well documented pattern of people killing gay men for flirting with them and getting away with it or that would read very poorly. Oh Wait.

“Poisonous” in reference to a gay man is just classic Lavender Scare rhetoric.

The whole vibe of acting like Buck, who again, was the one that first brought up daddy issues, is some passive observer being preyed upon by Tommy? Homophobia. Textbook homophobia.

Blocking anyone who calls you out is troll behavior but that doesn’t excuse the people that reblogged it uncritically. It especially doesn’t excuse the person that put it on my dash.