Hey btw, if you're doing worldbuilding on something, and you're scared of writing ~unrealistic~ things into it out of fear that it'll sound lazy and ripped-out-of-your-ass, but you also don't want to do all the back-breaking research on coming up with depressingly boring, but practical and ~realistic~ solutions, have a rule:
Just give the thing two layers of explanation. One to explain the specific problem, and another one explaining the explanation. Have an example:
Plot hole 1: If the vampires can't stand daylight, why couldn't they just move around underground?
Solution 1: They can't go underground, the sewer system of the city is full of giant alligators who would eat them.
Well, that's a very quick and simple explanation, which sure opens up additional questions.
Plot hole 2: How and why the fuck are there alligators in the sewers? How do they survive, what do they eat down there when there's no vampires?
Solution 2: The nuns of the Underground Monastery feed and take care of them as a part of their sacred duties.
It takes exactly two layers to create an illusion that every question has an answer - that it's just turtles all the way down. And if you're lucky, you might even find that the second question's answer loops right back into the first one, filling up the plot hole entirely:
Plot hole 3: Who the fuck are the sewer nuns and what's their point and purpose?
Solution 3: The sewer nuns live underground in order to feed the alligators, in order to make sure that the vampires don't try to move around via the sewer system.
When you're just making things up, you don't need to have an answer for everything - just two layers is enough to create the illusion of infinite depth. Answer the question that looms behind the answer of the first question, and a normal reader won't bother to dig around for a 3rd question.
i love it actually when nonnative speakers make mistakes that reveal how their native languages work.
lots of koreans online say they "eat" drinks which would assume they only have one word which covers the concept of consumption.
arabic immigrants in sweden (my mother included) have a hard time differentiating between "i think/i believe/my opinion is" which suggests that in arabic these different modalities of speaker agency is treated as one or at least interchangeable.
swedish speakers in english will use should/shall/have to/must with much higher nuance precision than native english speakers, to the point where they sound well awkward, because the distinction between these commands in swedish is much clearer than in english. i make mistakes between is/am/are and has/have constantly because swedish only has one pronoun covering all grammatical persons.
i've heard speakers of languages without gendered pronouns (finnish, the chinese dialects, and a tonne more) make he/she mistakes because it's hard(!!) to learn two or more gendered pronouns and when to use them correctly.
how neat is that?! it add a charm to international english usage in particular and make our appreciation of both our native languages and our learnt ones stronger...!!
Squidward clocking out of the Krusty Krab and heading to the nearest gay after hours event
Only day you can reblog this
neurodivergent child: *asks a lot of questions because something doesn’t make sense to them*
parent: why are you arguing with me.
Playing dnd and it just made me think-
Where's my mutuals for horny dnd where we can fuck monsters and bang in taverns and also have the greatest battles ever smh
Roleplaying my bardic fuck scenes with players? Yes
*whispers* holy shit people are amazing.
we could go back to telegraphs instead of social media. send your mutuals unspeakable strings of morse code at 4:30am
i was reading about that influencer who groomed and trafficked several young women (not andrew tate) and most articles mainly focus on the "exciting" parts of kat torres' fancy lifestyle and the novelty of a beautiful lady pimp, but what stood out to me is that those women very explicitly said that the prostitution laws in texas were a major part of keeping them trafficked. the threat of their own criminalisation and the fact no one could be in any contact with them without risking a felony (letting an 'established prostitute' into your car can be enough) is what prevented them from escaping even after the abuse was so severe the grooming wasn't keeping them at heel anymore. it's been said many times but the way a sex trafficking victim can openly say the state's laws were aiding her trafficker and keeping her in that situation indefinitely if her family's efforts hadn't resulted in being rescued from the outside and it'll still be fully glossed over in all the discourse about the case is nuts. i can't think of a more dire indictment
Hi there! I'm RatBitchKinsTheFae or RattyKins! they/them, 19, and open to any friendly messages! Though I may take a while to reply (;ŏ﹏ŏ)
401 posts