These always really confuse me. “Said” isn’t dead, it’s a perfectly reasonable way to say that a character said something (look, I used it twice). Usually, a bit of dialog doesn’t even call for any word like this, it is often implied that they are speaking by context and there are simpler ways to evoke a mood.

Compare: 

"Man, what a lousy waitress," Derek grunted as he gandered out the window at the people in the rain.

"Hey!" Sally exclaimed. "Don’t use such loathsome language," she requested, punching hand into fist. Mayhap she could convince him to amend his abominable language.

"Hmph. Whatever," Derek remarked, gazing at Sally with droopy red eyes. "Let’s skedaddle," he suggested, clearly not looking to squabble in public.

-VS-

Sally and Derek watched the waitress skip over their table again. Sally went back to distracting herself with her phone. Derek slumped in his chair.

"Man, what a bitch," Derek said distractedly. He was looking out the window now. Faceless commuters passed by, cowering under their umbrellas.

"Hey!" Sally kicked him under the table. "Don’t talk like that."

Derek stared back with leaden eyes. “Hmph. Whatever.” He glanced back out the window. “Let’s just get out of here.”

Maybe I just have a contrary writing style, but I much prefer the second one. I find flowery language distracting unless the situation absolutely requires it. I only used “said” or any synonym once even though I have five bits of dialog.

The first list is particularly puzzling. Why would you make a list of words to be sure to use? You’ll end up shoehorning them in places where they don’t belong. This is especially the case for words like “swell” “lousy” — words that are not used often in modern speech and were considered bad literary style even when they were a part of the common vernacular.

Likewise, I didn’t use any of the emotion helper words. The emotion comes with the situation and the characters present for it. You don’t need to use biological or behavioral cues to convey the emotion 99% of the time. If a character is discovers a time bomb in her attic, you don’t need to tell me that her heart is beating fast and her knees are like rubber; she just found a fucking time bomb. Only tell me her hands are shaking if it might cause her to cut the wrong wire. Only tell me she stepped back if that might cause her to fall back down the ladder out of the attic. Tell me what is necessary to my understanding of the scene; let me paint the rest of the picture as the reader.

Clean style will help more than all the vocabulary in the world.

(Source: belleresources, via digitalbunnylove)

Tags: writing style

angryskitty:

entropymusic:

knightofplato:

shitsuren-chama:

smellslikebread:

♫ Don’t let the cave in get you down. Don’t let the falling rocks turn your smile into a frown.

♫ Even if you’re lost you can’t lose the love because it’s in your heart. 

♫ Yeah I forget the next couple lines but then it goes

SECRET TUNNEL
SECRET TUNNEL

Gods I needed this!!!!

OFFICIAL SOUNDTRACK VERSION, YES.

DID SOMEONE SAY

OFFICIAL SOUNDTRACK VERSION???

hhhnngg! want official soundtrack :,<

(via hubedihubbe)

faenileda:

whimmy-bam:

reichenballs:

mrjackles:

the-bookmobile:

Gregorian monks singing “Boulevard of Broken Dreams.”

EVERYONE STOP WHAT YOU’RE DOING AND LISTEN TO THIS RIGHT FUCKING NOW

Why is this a thing that exists?

image

THIS IS BEAUTIFUL

image

This is awesome. 

: ( they don’t say “what’s fucked up”.
mild disappoint, but it’s always nice to hear hear pop(ish) songs sung in a clearer and more trained style :D

Also, their resolution to the song is better than the original’s

(Source: sheshitsinsilence, via digitalbunnylove)

moarghosts-n-stuff:

OMGGGG

wow… the past…

(Source: broccoleafveins, via batlesbo)

eisuverse:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.
The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.
But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

"BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?" screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. "You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!""But where will people get the incentive to work?!" Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. "You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”
"But who will serve me?" grumbled Marty McMoneybags. "Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)
And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.
Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.
And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.
The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?
TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 
But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.
Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

Man, I wish Malaysia would apply this as well.

I actually fully condone this idea. Additionally, I think the minimum income should be proportional to GDP, so it&#8217;s representative of how well the nation is doing as a whole (maybe even the GDP contribution of your state to try to account for local living expenses? idk). This is going to be pretty important as automation puts most of our work force out of full-time work permanently.

eisuverse:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.

The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.

But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

"BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?" screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. "You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!"

"But where will people get the incentive to work?!" Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. "You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”

"But who will serve me?" grumbled Marty McMoneybags. "Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)

And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!

Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.

And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.

Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.

And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.

The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?

TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 

But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.

Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

Man, I wish Malaysia would apply this as well.

I actually fully condone this idea. Additionally, I think the minimum income should be proportional to GDP, so it’s representative of how well the nation is doing as a whole (maybe even the GDP contribution of your state to try to account for local living expenses? idk). This is going to be pretty important as automation puts most of our work force out of full-time work permanently.

(via batlesbo)

Tags: economics

kytri:

dontbearuiner:

darrylayo:

DC Entertainment left a little message at Small Press Expo.

The message is “stay outta comic town, see”

What’s fascinating to me is that basically a third of that list is Vertigo. Further, a number of the DC titles are either not standard continuity, or are standalone stories known separate from continuity.

Kingdom Come, Hush, All-Star Superman…those were all standalone titles. 

And even though Identity Crisis was main continuity, it, too, was its own title, written in such a way to fracture the universe, bringing us 52. 

So what DC is saying, aside from “stay outta comic town, see,” is “our regular comes-out-on-Wednesdays stuff doesn’t hold up as must-read material.”

I don’t think that’s the message they meant to send.

Reblogging for choice commentary.

I got that feeling from it too, but was unable to articulate it :/
I mean, DC has correctly assessed where their quality stories are, though.

(via theclockworkaesthete)

Tags: comics DC

herokick:

Ryuko does not wear a regular Stadium jacket. What she is wearing is a Sukajan (スカジャン) Jacket.

Sukajan jackets were once worn by juvenile delinquents, yakuza, and rebellious youth. That association still exists today but to a lesser degree than in the past.

These are often made of shiny material with intricate embroidery on the front and back. In Sushio’s early sketch for Ryuko, she was supposed to have a dragon embroidered on the back of her jacket, which is a popular design for Sukajan. The Ryuko Cospa Jacket which was worn by Sushio and Ami Koshimizu is also made of a shiny material similar to a Sukajan jacket.

kinda want one…

(via mogege1)

In the spirit of Halloween, what type of monster could you see me as?

Something vampiric/demonic. I feel like some kind of Dorian Gray or Lilithian-style life/memory sucking is more appropriate than regular-old blood as your means of sustenance. Perhaps some kind of Vecna-style knowledge collecting? Makes sense in my head anyway. :P

(Source: monacomonoikos, via theclockworkaesthete)

jesussbabymomma:

crohns-sucks:

neecygrace:

Today’s picture for invisible illness is a personal one. This is one of about 30 notes that my friend has received since using her handicapped placard. I’m going to say this to you, have you ever seen someone get out of a car parked in a handicapped space and said to yourself “they look too young or they don’t look disabled.” I’m going to go with yes you have, because we all have at one time. I can’t remember doing it, but before I understood the difficulties of invisible illness when I was younger I probably did. Let me ask you this though, when you had that thought was it because you knew with 100% certainty that they weren’t handicapped or did you assume that because of their age and/or not seeing a cane, walker or wheelchair? All I’m asking is that we stop and think when we someone need a mobility aid, park in a handicapped space or say they are disabled that we remember this “DISABILITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AGE OR APPEARNACE.” #spoonie #invisibleillness #disability #chronicillness #rheumatoidarthritis #lupus #fibromyalgia #myofascialpainsyndrome

If nothing else, this post needs to be seen around the internet more. This harassment is not okay and no one should have to deal with it on top of having an invisible illness. This is just another form of anonymous bullying to add to the internet bullying these TROLLS are capable of.
If you are healthy, please reblog.If you are sick, please reblog.If you have a disability, please reblog.If you have an invisible illness, please reblog.If you know someone with a disability, please reblog.If you are a human being, please reblog.Let’s spread the word and help those of us that may not look like it. 
Ignorance isn’t bliss, ignorance is ignorance. 

I never thought about this wow

The relationship between various disabilities and associated parking rights is a long and distressing relationship to research.
For instance, here&#8217;s what a survey of parking spaces on Flower Street in downtown LA looks like (from 2010): 
That&#8217;s obviously not how the system is meant to work&#8230;
There have long been allegations of people using counterfeit or otherwise illegal placards, so I can understand where the idea that certain people are &#8220;faking&#8221; comes from. That doesn&#8217;t make it right, but if someone tells you that there are is a tiger loose in your neighborhood, you&#8217;re going to start seeing tigers in every shadow outside your window.
Most parking policy experts (apparently there&#8217;s more than one), seem to agree that the problems are that we
don&#8217;t make a legal distinction between disabilities that inhibit your ability to park and those that don&#8217;t,
give free parking (as opposed to more convenient spaces) to disabled people, and
don&#8217;t charge enough for parking in the first place (which encourages people to stay in on-street parking spaces for long periods of time, especially during the middle of the day, and discourages the use of public transit).
If this subject is even vaguely interesting (or offensive) to you check out the 99%invisible podcast on parking as a feature of Urban Design and Planning, and the Freakonomics podcast on the economic and social impact of poor parking design (and how we could make it better).

jesussbabymomma:

crohns-sucks:

neecygrace:

Today’s picture for invisible illness is a personal one. This is one of about 30 notes that my friend has received since using her handicapped placard. I’m going to say this to you, have you ever seen someone get out of a car parked in a handicapped space and said to yourself “they look too young or they don’t look disabled.” I’m going to go with yes you have, because we all have at one time. I can’t remember doing it, but before I understood the difficulties of invisible illness when I was younger I probably did. Let me ask you this though, when you had that thought was it because you knew with 100% certainty that they weren’t handicapped or did you assume that because of their age and/or not seeing a cane, walker or wheelchair? All I’m asking is that we stop and think when we someone need a mobility aid, park in a handicapped space or say they are disabled that we remember this “DISABILITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AGE OR APPEARNACE.” #spoonie #invisibleillness #disability #chronicillness #rheumatoidarthritis #lupus #fibromyalgia #myofascialpainsyndrome

If nothing else, this post needs to be seen around the internet more. This harassment is not okay and no one should have to deal with it on top of having an invisible illness. This is just another form of anonymous bullying to add to the internet bullying these TROLLS are capable of.

If you are healthy, please reblog.
If you are sick, please reblog.
If you have a disability, please reblog.
If you have an invisible illness, please reblog.
If you know someone with a disability, please reblog.
If you are a human being, please reblog.

Let’s spread the word and help those of us that may not look like it. 

Ignorance isn’t bliss, ignorance is ignorance. 

I never thought about this wow

The relationship between various disabilities and associated parking rights is a long and distressing relationship to research.

For instance, here’s what a survey of parking spaces on Flower Street in downtown LA looks like (from 2010): 

That’s obviously not how the system is meant to work…

There have long been allegations of people using counterfeit or otherwise illegal placards, so I can understand where the idea that certain people are “faking” comes from. That doesn’t make it right, but if someone tells you that there are is a tiger loose in your neighborhood, you’re going to start seeing tigers in every shadow outside your window.

Most parking policy experts (apparently there’s more than one), seem to agree that the problems are that we

  1. don’t make a legal distinction between disabilities that inhibit your ability to park and those that don’t,
  2. give free parking (as opposed to more convenient spaces) to disabled people, and
  3. don’t charge enough for parking in the first place (which encourages people to stay in on-street parking spaces for long periods of time, especially during the middle of the day, and discourages the use of public transit).

If this subject is even vaguely interesting (or offensive) to you check out the 99%invisible podcast on parking as a feature of Urban Design and Planning, and the Freakonomics podcast on the economic and social impact of poor parking design (and how we could make it better).

(via digitalbunnylove)

Sexualities/Genders (And Other Terms One Should Know)

I’m going to go against standard tumblr conventions and put my reply before the post I’m replying to; partly because I want to propose an idea that may change how you read the list and partly because that list is hella long. Anyway, to my post:

"What will this list, and the terms on it look like in a world where we actually have freedom from gendered expectations?"

No gender binary, no gender assignment, no “girly”, no “manly”; the very concept of identification will not make any sense because that identification will contain no information about the person identifying with it.

I feel like people imagine a post-gender world as “oh hey won’t it be cool/funny to see guys wearing skirts and women wearing suits and trans* people being accepted for who they really are”… but that maintains our assumptions about gender in that you are still able to meaningfully refer to “guys” and “girls” and “trans* people”.

Rather, imagine a world where you are unable to notice a persons gender — where the idea of there being two camps, or, indeed, any number of camps, is patently and demonstrably false. Imagine a society where no “feminine” things are associated with each other at all. A person who wears eyeliner is no more likely than the general population to also wear skirts or like flowers or whatever else is theoretically feminine. Likewise, no “masculine” things (fighting, cargo pants, unshaved body hair) are associated with each other.

What does it mean for a guy to be heterosexual, if there is no such thing as “guys” and “girls”? Are you saying “I have a penis and am only looking to date someone who has a vagina”? That sounds a lot like saying “I’m only interested in relationships that could result in us conceiving offspring together”. What does that mean for the gay* community? Isn’t the logical opposite of that “I’m only interested in relationships that couldn’t result in us conceiving offspring together”. By that description, a lot of relationships that we currently consider “straight” would start matching the “gay” definition a lot better. Beyond that, it all comes down to the individual’s personality (which, for the purposes of this thought experiment, do not align to current assumptions of gender). If there is no binary, how can bisexuals exist either? Polysexuals? Pansexuals? This all applies to the “romantic” variations too. Cisgender couldn’t exist and neither could transgender, agender, crossdresser, genderfluid, genderqueer, nonbinary, bi/trigender, Demigirl/boy, Dmab/Dfab, Amab/Afab, Camab/Cafab, etc. If there is no gender assumption, there can be no designation thereof, and it would be impossible to not identify with your assigned gender because neither the assignment nor the gender exist to be unidentified with!

Certainly a/demisexuals/romantics still exist, as would all variations of poly* since their “nonstandard” relationship with sex/relationships is not related to the gender or sex of anyone involved. Also, intersex and transsex people would obviously still exist, since their name refers exclusively to their relationship to their own genetalia.

What do dating profiles look like? Does it make sense to list what genetalia you have as your primary mate selection criterion? Or maybe it’s more important to list the style of relationship you’re seeking (whether you want a dominant personality in your partner, how often/how you’re looking to have sex, proximity, your plans for the future, do you want kids, etc.) and then just compare those criteria against everyone? Would that make finding a partner harder or easier? It would certainly simplify the nomenclature involved in describing oneself — though, you would have to actually describe your personality, which may be a new introspective hurdle for a lot of people accustomed to thinking of themselves and others through the lens of gender.

Anyway, even if you have vague thoughts on this, I’d love to see replies. I think that this is the direction many feminists/lgbt*-rights advocates are pushing towards whether they intend to or not, and it might seem scary, but I think the destruction of gender would be a net positive for the human race. Feel free to disagree with me in a reply!

digitalbunnylove:

Heterosexual: Male-identifying individual sexually attracted to a female-identifying individual, and vice-versa.
Homosexual: Someone attracted to someone of the same gender as themselves.
Bisexual: Sexually attracted to two or more genders.
Polysexual: Sexually attracted to many genders, but not all.
Pansexual: Sexually attracted to all genders. (this and bisexual, and sometimes polysexual, are often considered to be the same thing and different people may simply identify as any one of them due to their own personal reasons)
Demisexual: Sexually attracted to people only after forming a bond with them first.
Asexual: Having no /sexual attraction/ to others; having no desire to have sex.

Heteroromantic: Male-identifying individual romantically attracted to female-identifying individuals, and vice-versa.
Homoromantic: Attracted romantically to the same gender.
Biromantic: Attracted romantically to two or more genders
Polyromantic: Attracted to many genders (but not all)
Panromantic: Attracted romantically to all genders
Demiromantic: Romantically attracted to people only after forming a bond with them first.
Aromantic: Having no /romantic attraction/ to others; having no desire to be in a romantic relationship.
Polyamorous: Someone who is attracted to, and is comfortable with being in a relationship with more than one person at a time.

Transexual/Transgender (Term depending on generation and location): An individual who identifies as a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth to be. Often shortened to trans
Cisgender: Someone who identifies as the gender that they were assigned as at birth. (ex. matches their birth certificate) Often shortened to cis
Intersex: Someone who has ambiguous genitalia that doesn’t fit into our strict dichotomy of uterus or testes. Often forced into surgery to correct their genitals at a very young age, causing psychological and physical harm later in life
Nonbinary: Outside of the gender binary of male and female. (Can be used as an umbrella term or as its own identity)
Genderqueer: Outside of the gender binary. (**This is not an umbrella term like the post said before I edited it! Do not use this as an umbrella term for nonbinary individuals, simply use ‘nonbinary’. Queer is considered a slur and not everyone likes to be associated with the word)
Agender: Someone who feels gender neutral, or someone who experiences a ‘lack’ of gender.
Bigender: Someone who identifies as two separate genders.
Trigender: Someone who identifies as three separate genders.
Genderfluid: A gender that changes, or is ‘fluid’.
Demigirl: Identifying partially as a woman, but not wholly.
Demiboy/guy: Identifying partially as a man, but not wholly.

Dmab: Designated Male at Birth.
Dfab: Designated Female at Birth.
Amab/Afab: Same as dmab/dmab, except with ‘assigned’ instead of ‘designted’.
Camab/Cafab: Same as previous, except prefixed by ‘coercively’, to highlight the lack of choice.

Reblog to inform! And if there’s any I missed or anything that should be clarified, please message me! Always looking to expand the proper vocab. : )
**I edited this post because it used some archaic and incorrect terms/definitions, and needed more terms added to it. -Vivian Mareepe

(Source: starlightburnbright)