On the 10th of April 1912, The Titanic set sail from Southhampton in England for her maiden voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Four days later, just before midnight on the 14th, Titanic struck an iceberg, which caused it to take severe damage and sink during the night, leading to the death of the majority of her passengers.
At the time, Titanic was one of the most advanced ships in the world. It was as a steam-powered ocean liner, a type of ship specifically built to repeatedly make the dangerous crossing between Europe and America. Because air travel was not available at the time, this service was vital, and Titanic was built at a time where different shipping lines were constantly trying to outcompete each other in building the fastest and most luxurious ships. The Titanic was equipped with restaurants, cafes and even a Turkish bath (a sort of spa / sauna hybrid), though due to the strict segregation of first, second, and third class passengers, only a minority were allowed access to these accomodations.
The White Star Line, who built and operated the Titanic, was convinced the ship wouldn't sink, and did not adequately prepare for it, only carrying enough lifeboats to carry a portion of the ship's passengers. While this claim seems absurd today β modern ship are far, far safer than the Titanic, but no one would ever claim they couldn't sink β it was a popular sentiment at the time. Because of the Titanic's novel and highly advanced watertight compartments, it was thought that even if she suffered catastrophic damage, she would bob around on the surface like a cork, rather than sink to the bottom, so there would be no hurry to evacuate the passengers
Later, the story of the titanic would go on to become something of a pop culture legend, the greatest example being the 1997 movie by James Cameron (it's really good actually). A bunch of conspiracy theories about the ship's fate has also popped up over the course of the last century, some gaining significant traction despite the lack of evidence.
Join our public Matrix server!
https://rentry.co/tracha#tracha-rooms
As a reminder, please do not discuss current struggle sessions in the mega. We want this to be a little oasis for all of us and the best way to do that is not to feed into existing conflict on the site.
Also, be sure to properly give content warnings and put sensitive subjects behind proper spoiler tags. It's for the mental health of not just your comrades, but yourself as well.
Here is a screenshot of where to find the spoiler button.
spoiler

Hi everyone, your local straight dumb ally here. I was hoping the collective could help me with a terminology issue because I got legit thrown by this. I was on a covid dating site and someone described themselves as 'agender'. This is legitimately the first time I've ever even seen this used before so I went hunting for a definition. This the first thing that came up:
https://lgbtqia.fandom.com/wiki/Agender (very cute design btw)
So I get (or at least think I get it for the most part) non-binary as a concept. Any of the 'A' designations, my brain kind of defaults to thinking of it as 'non', or being without. Asexual - without sex, Agender - without gender, etc.. This part is what threw me:
"Those who are agender do not need to transition physically, legally, or socially to be agender.[1][4] Agender individuals can have any type of gender expression and use any set of pronouns (including no pronouns),[6] and the term is not specific to any assigned gender at birth.[7] Some agender people are genderfluid, meaning their gender identity is not static and changes from being agender some of the time to being another gender at other times.[1] The concept of a person who has no gender may challenge the notion of sexuality as a spectrum of "same" and "opposite" gender attraction.[1]"
So they're not trans, but not non-binary, but they can be genderfluid? Is this like Schrodinger's gender? Am I just overthinking this?
I consider myself transfem, non-binary, and agender-spec. Briefly, I only considered myself agender and only trans/NB perhaps as a technicality and some agender people don't like using the trans/NB label because they feel like those labels still imply a gender. Its pretty much as vague as NB as a label: if you've met one, then you've met that person. So if you want to know what being agender means to that person, you'd have to talk to them about that. Some don't outwardly display that they're not cis while others may appear to be binary trans.
The thing that unites agender people is the feeling that gender in some form or fashion is something they lack to some significant degree.
See this makes perfect sense to me. Maybe it was just that site's definition including the concept of genderfluidity as also being a part of being agender that threw me off. Or it could just be my old dumb brain not really grasping the entirety of the concept.
You know I never noticed the sidebar pic before. Are those lumpen prole great white sharks and polar bear lenin?
I assumed they just meant that genderfluid people can be fluid between agender and gender of some sort.
Probably? I don't know anything about its history. Except sharks = blahaj = trans meme.