re-jet-irony

[re-jet-irony]

[re-jet-irony]

"We need to support LGBTA artists and writers now more than ever!"

Yes, my friend! PREACH!

"In the wake of the current news, my book series, which has trans characters, is currently on sale for 50% off~!"

Ooh, not sure how I feel about that one, chief...

[re-jet-irony]

“a penis is Ontologically Evil because it’s technically capable of perpetrating sexual violence” damn, wait till you hear about hands!

[re-jet-irony]

when will we talk about the willful helplessness epidemic on here. So many people on this god forsaken website demand to have any and all things that exist outside their personal experiences directly, personally pre-chewed and spoonfed to them. And when you do, they'll then ask for you to swallow for them, too, because, you see, in THEIR experience..,

[re-jet-irony]

Mentioned briefly above but also "If straight women can control themselves around men they find attractive then..." oh wait, they don't.

[re-jet-irony]

[re-jet-irony]

[re-jet-irony]

I am begging people to learn how to accept multiple truths and situational morality instead of this weird hill to die on pure truth stanning culture that appears to be getting more and more popular in fandom spaces. Learn how to identify the nuances, please, I am begging.

[re-jet-irony]

"The trannies should be able to piss in whatever toilet they want and change their bodies however they want. Why is it my business if some chick has a dick or a guy has a pie? I'm not a trannie or a fag so I don't care, just give 'em the medicine they need."

"This is an LGBT safe space. Of COURSE I fully support individuals who identify as transgender and their right to self-determination! I just think that transitioning is a very serious choice and should be heavily regulated. And there could be a lot of harm in exposing cis children to such topics, so we should be really careful about when it is appropriate to mention trans issues or have too much trans visibility."

One of the above statements is Problematic and the other is slightly annoying. If we disagree on which is which then working together for a better future is going to get really fucking difficult.

[re-jet-irony]

[re-jet-irony]

if racism is possible against white people, then why doesn't a word exist for prejudice against cis people? Prejudice against white people is possible, but racism is a system (prison industrial complex, redlining, etc). There is a word for transphobia but no word for the same type of prejudice against cis people because it's not an issue that really needs to be discussed. It's not a systemic problem. It's possible you could be biased against cis people, sure, but it doesn't carry the power of cis bias against trans people (transphobia)

Racism is NOT a system. That is a redefinition of the word to try and exclude white people from experiencing racism so woke morons don't have to examine their biases. Kinds like the "oppressor/oppressed class" bullshit.

And there... Is a term for bias against cis people. People just don't use it cuz they, again, are convincing themselves the bigotry's fine cuz they're our "oppressors." That term being Cisphobia. And before you try and act like that's a made up word: all words are made up, you ding dong.

Racism is discrimination or hatred based on race. That is all racism is. There are issues caused by racism that can be called systemic, but that is not the entirety of racism. The idea that it is, btw, and that it somehow excludes white people due to that, is INCREDIBLY america-centric. White people are only the majority in America and Europe, Hun. Literally everywhere else, they're a minority and absolutely face systemic forms of racism just like every other racial minority in those countries.

I also find it incredibly fucking stupid that your argument is that if the issue isn't systemic it doesn't need to be discussed. Since if that were actually true, quite a few problems faced by minorities would not need to be discussed, as quite a lot of issues we have are not systemic.

[re-jet-irony]

Saying this these days really is like yelling at a brick wall but here goes again:

You cannot gleefully take part in the dehumanisation of an entire group of people based on their nationality, their ethnicity, what have you, rejoice in the suffering of that group, and be on the side of human rights, ethics and morals.

You just cannot. But so many of you try to square that circle. You want so badly to be seen as righteous, that when people call you out for your violent, rancid rhetoric, you throw a paddy and hurl insults through inboxes (always on anon, though, because you’re spineless fucking cowards).

[re-jet-irony]

memes are fun and relatable and all that, but don't let them discourage you. all of that stuff that doesn't make it into the final product is part of how the final product gets made

[re-jet-irony]

Need this site to understand that "The Prince of Egypt" is BOTH a Jewish and Christian movie. Let no one rob it from the Jews, but us christians literally owe our faith to the same God who saw to and led the Exodus. The Ten Commandments are still in effect, Jesus did not abolish the law but fulfilled it, and to get to Jesus we needed Moses.

[re-jet-irony]

"The American government is corrupt-"

Yes 👍

"-which means everything anti American is good!"

[re-jet-irony]

Fandom Problem #7181:

"This movie was underwhelming, because it had queer people in it. Just don't put lgbt in animation, it's unnatural and forced!"

No, it was not good, because of the writing. If those people were straight, the movie would have turned out exactly the same.

"This series is amazing because it had lgbt in it! Every story would improove if we would just put lgbt+ people in it instead of those boring cishets!"

No, it was good, because it had something called good writing, lgbt+ people don't make everything better just by being here and why would being a "cishet" make the character not compelling? The character's appeal is mainly their personality.

Seriously, did people forget about execution? Having a gay character doesn't ruin a story, but it doesn't automatically improoves it either. It's a neutral thing that can be present in both a horrible and great story. (I'm saying this someone who's a lesbian)

[re-jet-irony]

One of those insidious little things I notice sometimes is how much the window of 'appropriate for children' content has shrunk within the past 20 years. The range of things it is socially acceptable to show a 10-year-old has never been more limited, and it's happened incredibly quickly.

Take, for instance, Star Trek: TNG. I grew up watching TNG. I was a little young for it as it was airing, but it got syndicated almost immediately and they would show an episode most weekday evenings on the Space Channel, and I'd watch it with my lifelong Trekkie mom. This was a very common thing. I was by no means unusual for watching Star Trek as a child.

Star Trek: TNG has lots of sex in it! It's never explicit (unless you have a particularly niche interpretation of some of the borg stuff) but on many an occasion you'll have a few characters doing a bit of making out followed by a closing door or fade to black, and then they wake up in bed together. If you know what sex is, you know that is what is being implied here. Even my 8-year-old self, whose understanding of the subject mostly came from books of ancient mythology that used words like 'ravish' and 'the pleasures of the couch' a whole bunch, could tell that what was happening was sex.

And I am not bringing this up as a 'see, I watched all this inappropriate stuff and I turned out just fine!'. I'm bringing it up to argue that TNG's level of sexual content is not inappropriate for children (I'm not using the legalese 'minors', because I think that lumping children and teenagers together in this conversation would make it nonsense. Star Trek is obviously appropriate for teenagers. Don't use 'minors' when you mean either children or teens, it just muddies the waters).

The point is that Star Trek: TNG was very obviously designed to be watched by children and teenagers. There's a whole character in the main cast whose role in the show is to be an audience insert for children and teenagers. The moral tone of TNG, its occasional dips into 'don't do drugs, kids' type messaging, and its general avoidance of graphic violence all scream 'we are designing this with an audience of children - but not just children - in mind'. It's a family show. It's supposed to be watched by the whole family.

Which means that, until at least the end of the 90s, this amount of sexual content was generally considered appropriate for kids to see. It's not pornographic - it's not even graphic. Maybe the very most conservative parents wouldn't let their kids watch TNG, but that might have had more to do with all the socialism and atheism.

So, why did that change? Why do we now have such a strong bullwark between 'things kids are allowed to know about' and 'things for GROWN UPS ONLY 18+ Minors DNI', and why have we relegated even the most discreet references to sex to the second category only?

And the next time you find yourself experiencing that knee-jerk 'think of the children' reaction, consider: would what you're looking at have been ok on Star Trek: TNG in the 90s?