Alright, you tiny little mortals, tell your divine goddess right now—WHO do you watch on #YouTube? 📺 I need more channels to devour! 👀💻 What weird, wild, or wonderful stuff do you binge at 3AM like the gremlins you are? Give me your #reccomendations… or else~ You don’t wanna disappoint me, right?

When it comes to discussions about Islam—or any religion, really—there’s a serious lack of nuance in how people approach it. It’s not just about “misunderstanding” the religion; it’s about recognizing the ways in which it has been interpreted, manipulated, and politicized.

To study God—to study Allah—is to study the world itself. Religion is not a monolith, nor is it static. Its meaning shifts, its texts are read and re-read through different lenses, and yet, time and time again, the dominant interpretations are the ones wielded by conservative factions, whether we’re talking about Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. Wahhabism and other extremist offshoots don’t define Islam any more than Christian fundamentalism defines Christianity. But because these conservative interpretations align with systems of power, they are the ones that get amplified, while progressive, pluralistic religious perspectives are ignored. This is one of the major sources of religious trauma—people aren’t necessarily harmed by faith itself, but by the rigid, authoritarian structures that weaponize it.

And that brings me to a broader issue: the failure of atheistic secularism as a political framework. There’s this idea that in order to work with religious communities, we need a purely secular approach, as if detaching completely from religion will somehow create an environment of fairness. But in practice, secularism often bends toward conservatism. It doesn’t erase power structures—it reinforces them. It creates an exclusive hierarchy where one belief system (or lack thereof) dominates, rather than fostering a space where religious pluralism can thrive.

Socialist movements that understand this—those that champion religious pluralism and multiculturalism—are the ones that succeed in actually uniting people. The religious socialists of the world already figured this out. If you ignore religion entirely, you’re not just neutral; you end up in the same category as those who claim to be “non-racist” instead of anti-racist. There’s a difference between passively tolerating something and actively working to dismantle harmful structures. Atheistic secularism often pretends it’s doing the latter, when in reality, it’s just setting the stage for a new dominant ideology to take over—one that’s just as exclusionary and reactionary as the ones it claims to oppose.

And let’s not even get started on how people dismiss the importance of dreams, of introspection, of looking inward to understand not just themselves but the systems they exist within. Dreams aren’t just random nonsense—they’re windows into the subconscious, into the patterns we overlook, into the ways we’ve been conditioned to think and act. If you never dream—never allow yourself to reflect, to analyze, to explore—you’ll never be able to break free from the limitations imposed on you. You’ll just keep cycling through the same thought processes, the same failures, the same missteps.

So maybe, just maybe, it’s time to wake up to that.

Language control has been a historical tool of oppression, deeply tied to racism, colonialism, imperialism, and orientalism. English does not have a single “correct” form—rather, it evolves continuously, shaped by its diverse speakers. New words and concepts are a natural and necessary part of this growth, and there is no inherent need to resist linguistic change.

Throughout history, dominant powers have suppressed languages to control marginalized groups. In the U.S., Black Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian communities have all faced linguistic discrimination. Policies such as Native American boarding schools, where children were punished for speaking their own languages, and English-only workplace laws have enforced assimilation by restricting linguistic freedom.

Dictionaries do not serve as static rulebooks for language but instead document how words change over time. Many words have shifted in meaning, some being stigmatized while others are reclaimed by the communities they once harmed.

Requiring English proficiency for acceptance is not a neutral expectation—it reflects a long history of linguistic imperialism, where non-English languages were suppressed to enforce cultural dominance. Instead of demanding others assimilate, genuine cultural exchange means valuing multilingualism and recognizing linguistic diversity as a strength rather than a deficiency.

The reason gaming is in decline isn’t some vague cultural issue—it’s capitalism, plain and simple. Conservatives and liberals both operate within capitalist frameworks, which is why neither can correctly diagnose the root of the problem. Every major issue in gaming today—exploitative monetization, artistic stagnation, corporate greed—exists because the industry is built on a system that prioritizes profit above all else.

It wasn’t always this bad. Early on, the industry lacked the refined methods of exploitation we see today. But corporations have since mastered the art of squeezing every last dollar from consumers while cutting out the actual artists and developers who make games worth playing. The demand for infinite profit forces companies to compromise quality, turning beloved franchises into cash grabs.

Esports suffers under the same weight—corporate-backed leagues struggle because their goal is endless monetization, while grassroots, community-driven scenes thrive by focusing on sustainability and passion.

This isn’t about diversity, inclusion, or any other scapegoat—it’s about the raw mechanics of capitalism. Companies don’t suddenly “become evil”; they’ve always been structured to extract maximum profit, and gaming is just another casualty of that system. If we want gaming to thrive, we have to address the real problem: an economic model that turns every creative industry into a soulless machine for shareholder revenue.

You know, I always find size RP way more fun when it just happens rather than when it's planned out. There’s just something so much more exciting about people who are always in RP mode—like, no matter what, they’re either big or small, and that’s just their thing! >w<

The best ones are the ones who have a set, canonical height they stick to, and they don’t need any setup or explanation—they just are that size. And even better? They’re a little wacky! The kind of people who roll with any situation and react in the most interesting ways. I always seem to get the best moments out of those kinds of people! ^w^

Like, when someone’s just constantly acting big and smug, or tiny and scrappy, it keeps things feeling alive! No waiting around, no awkward setup—just instant, in-the-moment fun. It makes everything feel way more natural, and honestly? Those kinds of interactions are the ones I remember the most. >:3

So yeah, if you’re someone who’s just always in RP mode, always big or always small, and you’re a little bit of a wild card—I appreciate you. You make things way more fun, and I’ll always look forward to whatever weird, unexpected thing you do next! ÒwÓ

Well, let’s just say I have a tiny little obsession with the whole master relationship dynamic… or, well, maybe a big one, depending on the size difference! >:3 I just love the idea of being either way bigger or way smaller than my ‘master’—it makes things so much more interesting, don’t you think? There’s just something so adorable about a teeny-tiny trainer trying to command something waaaay out of their control, or a giant master struggling to handle their little, mischievous pet! Either way, it’s all just so cute! And bonus points if one of us ends up as a lil’ snack for the other—what, don’t look at me like that! It’s just adorable when the big one isn’t even in charge! >w<

I mean, think about it! A teeny-tiny trainer, barely the size of a berry, all squeaky and flustered, trying so hard to act all tough and in control while their Pokémon just looms over them? Ehehe~ It’s just too adorable! Like, imagine a smug Arcanine flicking its teeny trainer onto its nose, watching them try to command it while sitting helplessly on a massive snoot! Or a big, fluffy Luxray just deciding, ‘Eh, I like you in my paws better than in charge~’ and keeping its trainer pinned under a toe bean! O-oh! Or even a playful Garchomp just… popping its tiny master into its mouth for safe keeping! Not eating them (probably~), just holding them on its tongue while they wiggle and shout about ‘respect’ and ‘obedience’! Awww, so cute~! >w<

And let’s not even start on what happens if the Pokémon actually takes the ‘master’ role seriously! Ohhh nooo, you’re too smol to battle? Guess I’ll have to protect you~! Oh, you can’t reach your own Poké Balls anymore? Guess I get to pick who fights for you~! Ohh, you look like a tasty little treat? …W-well, um, accidents happen, right? Hehe~ >///>

Ehehe~ Anyway! Pokémon really scratches that itch for me—it’s got all the power dynamics, So yeah, let’s just say I’m very invested in the whole ‘master-and-monster’ relationship! I mean, come on, who wouldn’t want to be a cute little pet… or a giant, smug predator with a tiny trainer to toy with? ÒwÓ

Honestly, Pokémon is already full of cute power dynamics, but flipping it around and making the trainer the one who's pocket-sized? It’s just so much better! Tiny masters, giant ‘mons, and the kind of adorable chaos that makes my tail wag just thinking about it~! ÒwÓ

Have you ever looked at a particular character, creature, or concept and thought, "Wow, this would be amazing if it were gigantic!"? It’s an interesting thought process—what exactly makes something feel like it should be huge? Is it just a love for the sheer scale of things, or is there something more at play?

For many of us in the macro-loving community, the appeal of gigantism isn’t just about the size itself. It’s about how size transforms the way we perceive a character or entity. Some designs and personalities seem to naturally lend themselves to being bigger. A powerful, dominant character might feel even more awe-inspiring when their mere presence is overwhelming. A protective or nurturing character might seem even more comforting when they can quite literally shield you from the world.

And then there’s the undeniable aesthetic factor. Some designs just look better when scaled up! Certain creatures, especially ones already associated with strength, majesty, or mythical status, seem almost destined to be larger-than-life. Think about dragons, wolves, or divine beings—making them gigantic doesn’t just amplify their physical presence; it enhances their essence.

Of course, personal preference plays a big role. Some people are drawn to the contrast between power and vulnerability, between vastness and smallness. Others just love the fantasy of a world where size itself can be a defining trait of superiority or cuteness.

So, what about you? When you imagine something becoming enormous, is it just for the thrill of it? Or is there something about certain characters and creatures that make you think, "Yeah, this one needs to be BIG."

Let’s talk about it! What are your favorite giant characters, and why do they stand out to you?

Oh? You’re staring? Hehe~ That’s cute. You don’t even realize you’ve stopped thinking, do you? You’re just watching. Just sinking. Just… relaxing~

My chest rises and falls… slow, steady, rhythmic. You follow it without even thinking. Just breathing in time with me, eyes locked on soft warmth. Letting go~ Shhh, don’t fight it. Just focus on the way I move… the sway… the rhythm… the gentle pull. It’s so much easier to just watch, to just… sink~

You could struggle… but why? Wouldn’t it be so much nicer to just rest against me? To feel the softness around you, warm, safe… inescapable~? Every time I move, you feel it. The warmth, the weight, the way my body envelops you. It’s getting harder to think, isn’t it?

That’s okay. You don’t need to~ Soft. Warm. Heavy. My body surrounds you, presses against you, holds you still. And all you can do is relax… let yourself be taken~

You want to be good for me. I can feel it in the way your body melts, the way you lean in, the way your thoughts fade the longer you stay close. Just let it happen~ Closer, little one. Let yourself be surrounded, smothered, consumed.

There’s no need to think, no need to resist. Just… obey~ Good pets get to stay close. Good pets get to sink. You want to be a good pet, don’t you? You love this feeling. You need it~

Even if you leave, my warmth stays in your mind. You’ll remember the softness, the weight, the feeling of being lost in me. And you’ll crave it~ Every time you close your eyes, you’ll feel it—the warmth, the sway, the pull. And every time, you’ll come back.

You have to~ You’re already mine, little one. My voice in your mind, my warmth wrapped around you, my control woven through your thoughts. There’s no ‘escaping.’ There’s only accepting~

I've seen so much Minecraft and Roblox giantess content at this point that I understand the appeal, but I also feel like there's something I'm missing. Maybe it's just because I'm outside the target demographic. 🤔

It seems like size-related content thrives best when it leans into a more cartoony or stylized approach. This makes sense because it aligns well with the fantastical and exaggerated nature of the fetish. In contrast, hyper-realistic, scientifically grounded depictions of size dynamics don’t have the same effect on me. They feel more rigid and less imaginative, whereas a more playful or surreal presentation enhances the fantasy element, making it more engaging.

I feel like we’re at our best when we embrace the playful side of scale and size difference—when we focus on unique perspectives, sensations, and the ways an individual might experience such scenarios, whether real or imagined.

All five primary senses—sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch—are profoundly altered by scale, and it’s this shift in perception that gives the concept its allure. The way size reshapes experience is what makes it compelling, especially because bigness and smallness are not absolute—they are always relative.

And because of this, our relationship to scale is deeply tied to power dynamics, perspective, and the sublime—a natural awe that arises when faced with something vastly larger than ourselves.

To look upon something immense is to feel the weight of cosmicism. It is the terror of the incomprehensible, the unimaginable vastness that humbles us. And yet, for reasons beyond logic, we often interpret this overwhelming scale as pleasurable—whether in a sensual sense or simply as a profound, reverent thrill.

Perhaps there was no single point—only the exploration of a feeling, a fascination with scale and its strange, almost sacred pull. Sometimes, thoughts simply wander, tracing the edges of what we find compelling. And that, in itself, is enough. UwU