#I'm not vagueblogging to be clear!

[breadvidence]

I'm going to table a two-pole concept as a useful tool when evaluating what you're building when you write meta/literary analysis.

So: say there's a distinction between what you can read out of a text and what you can read into a text: or, I'm going to use those prepositions as convenient shorthands for this post as I talk about one of many patterns in literary analysis. Both are the bread and butter equally of the academic industry and fan work, though I'd bet the former would pretend it uses reading into texts less, and I've seen fan work fail more genuinely to see the difference.

When we read out of the text, direct quotes, context, historical facts, etc. come together into a more complex idea or conclusion: one of my favorites in Les Misérables is the murder-suicide implication of Marius bringing Javert's pistols with him to his final (missed) meeting with Cosette at the Rue Plumet. It hinges on the context of Romantic tropes surrounding the death of lovers, his direct association with Ulbach via the Lark's meadow, his insistence that death will follow their separation, the fact of there being two pistols, and answers the otherwise puzzling question put to us when the narrator says "It would be difficult to say what vague thought [Marius] had in his mind when he took [the pistols] with him." (4.9.2). Now, whether Marius would have shot Cosette—or solicited her to commit suicide with him—is beyond what we can read out of the text, in my opinion, but the potential is inarguable.

What we can read out of a text is, I will note, haunted by the question of authorial intent. There's this guy named Barthes, I think it is, who fucked us up on that one.

"Why are you bringing up prepositions to talk about basic literary analysis, Bread?" I hear you ask. But wait! There's more. A preface this with: per my opening, I'm laying out a concept with two poles, and there's a gradient between them, nothing fits perfectly-neatly, and any analysis might be a blend of in and out—and almost all things read into a text must somewhat come out of it. That qualifier being said, I'll still argue for:

When we read into the text, while quotes, context, historical fact, etc. may spark the idea, ultimately the analysis begins with its conclusion, and we are seeking to find material to shore up a structure we've already built. So, so much professional queer literary criticism of works created without explicit queer intent fall into this category, bless 'em, and so does a lot of fan meta. Reading into a text is the entire game of fanfic, and it's a space in which creators can enrich the works of others. Often, what we bring into the text is ourselves—which is neat as fuck, particularly for a queer person like myself whose understanding of the world radically differs from an author like Victor Hugo (though of the ideas that I freely admit to reading into the text, my real darling is fear as Javert's primary emotional motivator [Hugo tells us at length about Javert's emotional motivation: I just think it's neat to ask why do we hate?, and find an answer that is less painful than for its own sake]). Analysis that has been read into the text can be intricate, built upon extensive evidence from the text and history, but ultimately it varies from what can be read out of the text in being indefensible: some portion, however compelling, relies upon an element that cannot be found in the text and its context: if the analysis could not be independently built by every reader possessed of the same basic facts, you got something read in. What we build this kind of analysis with often includes, without value judgment, our emotion, identity, and personal investments (ever-present in analysis of all types, but in these specific cases structurally integral). For a second example: to me, it's incredibly important that the bourgeois marriage at the end of Les Misérables is meant as a failure of the sociopolitical ethical argument made by the book as the whole, but I cannot read that out of the text. Trust me, I have tried to build that analysis, and I always find myself having to lean on feeling and inference and implication in a way that's so much air. To make Les Mis meaningful for myself, I stick to this idea of that failure: but I can't defend it to someone else.

I can still write an analysis of Javert motivated by fear or bourgeois marriage as failure, share that, have people read and (hopefully) enjoy it—that's meaningful fanwork (or academic work, for that matter; that's a thin line in literature). What I won't do is defend those points as definitive readings of the text, and I definitely ain't going to argue back if somebody tells me they have a different reading. Sometimes analysis can tip-toe right along the edge of being out of and into the text, but I can tell you when I'm doing the latter.

There are times when you can read into the text in a way that is fully indulgent in fan work in a way that academia generally avoids (or pretends to avoid): take, for example, building trans Enjolras out of canon material. There is precisely zero way to read out of Les Misérables that Victor Hugo wrote the novel imagining Enjolras had anything other than a dick—I am not altogether married to the question of authorial intent, but me and it are on friendly terms, and I'm dead confident here—but as fandom has made abundantly clear, you can read transness into the novel (which is not to say Hugo doesn't play with androgyny and gender in Enjolras' character—he's just not flying the pink-periwinkle-and-white). This is something that means a lot to a lot of people, and that's valuable. The fact that it's not in the novel does not invalidate the meaning. It simply means it's built on different ground (and, when we talk about the ways in which a text lacks or fucks up or can do more, we find going into it results in a more fertile reading than simply getting out of it).

There's no have to in meta or literary analysis—it's a game we're playing with stories that are themselves games—but I think this framework has a couple benefits as a tool to analyze analysis, particularly in a social environment. (1) If your goal is to make arguments about what can be firmly concluded from a text, recognizing that reading into it is a different style of analysis with a different level of portability to others is useful and (2) recognizing that what you have read into the text is refutable and idiosyncratic strengthens your ability to remain engaged with others who don't share or agree with your analysis. Now, sometimes you think you're reading out of the text, and additional information or a counterpoint prove you wrong: that's fine, inevitable, we all got our days where we didn't know the historical usage of a certain word or something, eh? On the other hand, if you're perfectly aware you're reading into the text, if someone tables a counterpoint or additional information, you can say: Yeah, cool, thank you, my investment in this idea is playful or personal or what-have-you, and its defensibility is irrelevant to its existence.

From personal experience? All beneficial.

[honor-among-thieves]

Can't stress enough that characters aren't people, they're tools, and treating real people poorly on the behalf of characters is not a cool thing to do.

[formshaper]

at some point I've gotta add (pre-emptively, no one has actually done this so far but I Remember The Old Days) to my carrd that Dutch isn't a punching bag and I'm REALLY not interested in super antagonistic interactions with him where it's clear that the IC behaviour is reflecting how the person feels about him OOC... he's a very special character to me and I KNOW how complex villains get treated on tumblr LMAO FKVNFNVF

[creature-wizard]

Hey so I know I can come off as smarmy and snarky with how I dig at people buuuuut consider I have pored through your fairly expansive pinned resource list and you are doing a very good job at intellectualizing your belief system instead of engaging with questions directly which is… a challenge.

I don’t know how rephrase the question: “What experience do you have outside of a Western tradition?” can I have pose it since I feel like you’re largely right in your criticisms of Christian ideology but missing the larger point?? I see a lot of links to others without any emphasis on what you actually stand for which is largely why ~I~ feel like then discourse is rotted. I attempted to engage and then when unable to do it YOUR way (re: paywalls and ‘read this’), I was lambasted in a weird kind of vagueblogging fashion.

Tl;dr I think we’re largely on the same side it just feels like I’m calling you tacky (respectfully) and you’re just a second away from calling me a slur lol no beef fam just genuinely curious and concerned

We might very well be on the same side, and there may genuinely be some kind of communication problem here.

So to be clear, most of my comprehension is very western-based, in part because I am addressing nonsense that I commonly see going around, which is mostly stuff from the western cultural sphere because that's how this website shakes out.

As for "what I stand for," I feel like I have very clearly spelled it out, and I genuinely do not know how I can possibly give a clearer answer. Maybe you need to ask more specific questions?

And I'm sorry if my media suggestions have frustrated you, but it's just a reality that some things can't be summed up in short and qualified academics are often much better at putting things into words than I am. And I know how frustrating paywalls can be, which is why I also suggested free content.

And for what it's worth, you're not gonna get called a slur.

[getvalentined]

I'm gonna say something really important here that was inspired by one specific event but applies to several others I've seen over the last few years. This is not vagueblogging to call someone out, this is a pattern I've seen a few times now that I'm genuinely concerned about.

If a series, whether books or television or films or video games, is so all-consuming in your life that a new installment going in a different direction from what you want is enough to make you have an emotional breakdown, you need to unplug from that series. If you sincerely refer to characters in this series as "[your] people" or "the love of [your] life" or "[your] family," not as a figure of speech but as something so genuine that having them handled in ways contrary to your preference makes you feel like your way of life is under attack, you need to distance yourself from those characters.

I'm saying this as someone who literally can't get into fandom debates anymore because I get so wrapped up that my heart rate spikes to the point of danger to my person. Because of a specific experience with a specific person (related to events outside fandom, but triggers are triggers) I have a very real trauma response to these discussions, and I can't engage with them anymore. I'm not saying this as "it's just a show calm down" or "why do you care so much about a video game" or as any kind of insult or passive aggression; I'm saying this as someone who understands firsthand that feelings get caught in specific places, and sometimes we just can't seem to pull them loose.

If you feel like this over a work of fiction, you need to get help, because there is something wrong. Something in your head and your heart has gotten caught on this work of fiction, and you need to pull it loose for your own wellbeing, but when it's gone that far it's all but impossible to do on your own.

I need to be very clear that I'm not talking about special interests or hyperfixations. I'm not talking about people who throw their lives into loving a specific thing, learning everything about that thing, expressing their interest in that thing, and so on. There's a line between passion and obsession, and a difference between what appears to be an obsession but is harmless and what appears to be passion but is an unhealthy level of obsession.

It's easy for those of us on the outside to write this kind of behavior off as just more entitled fans being entitled, but there's a point where what looks like entitlement exposes itself as something very different, something much more dangerous. If you're feeling this way—you need distance and assistance. If you're seeing friends behave this way—they need help, not rallying cries to "speak [their] truth."

I cannot express this strongly enough. No fictional character, no fictional story, no fandom is worth your health. Not one. Period. You are a real human being who deserves to be alive and safe and happy. The creators of a work of fiction are not attacking you or belittling your efforts by continuing to create within the boundaries of the fictional universe they created.

To put it as simply as I can:

If a work of fiction that you did not create existing in a state that you can't control is seriously damaging your mental and emotional wellbeing, you need to step away.

[vorchagirl]

Look, I'm sorry to vagueblog, and I know people are sending anons with the best of intentions, but please don't try to drag me into tumblr drama or try to get me involved in a situation which I'm not involved in, and which involves people that I don't even know.

Let me be clear: I have no idea who these people are, and I don't want to be involved in this situation.

I don't know if the things you sent me are true, but if they are, I suggest you contact the police with your evidence instead of sending anons.

[tykobrian]

My Caitlyn Kiramman Meta: Part -1 // Why I think a so-called villain arc for Cait is most definitely NOT happening...

DISCLAIMER: Right off the bat, I want to be very VERY clear, this is not an invitation for people to come along and spoil me with the leaks. This is not a competition to see who can predict season 2 most accurately and then correcting them with spoilers. I'm simply writing everything I've understood from the show and the things I wish to see in future/ the things I'd love to see the writers exploring. Sure, I make speculations but THAT doesn't mean I'd appreciate people spoiling me. I'll see what really happens in a month after all.

Moreover, I'm not here to create or stir up fandom drama. I understand what I'm going to write may not be favourable to some people. That's why I've tried to keep this post out of the popular fandom tags. And no, I don't think less of people who expect things to go differently from myself in season 2. This post is not some kind of vagueblog at other fans or posts/ meta.

---------------

Let me reiterate. The chance of Caitlyn having a villainous storyline is extremely unlikely. Why? It’s pretty straightforward in my humble opinion. Arcane is a show produced by an American/ Chinese company. Both countries have a strong bias towards portraying cops/ military positively. I think this was evident in the first season. Caitlyn’s mentor, Grayson, was shown as a good person striving to maintain peace but ultimately falling victim to the schemes of malevolent Silco and the duplicitous Markus. They even tried to make Markus as sympathetic as possible by depicting him manipulated by Silco from the start, emphasizing his role as a conflicted father (massive eyeroll). Sure, not all the enforcers portrayed in season one are the beacon of virtue. But that’s because Caitlyn will the portrayed as the missing link that will ultimately change the enforcer system for the betterment of both Piltover and Zaun. In earlier League of Legends lore, Caitlyn is depicted as an idealistic sheriff dedicated to maintaining peace between the two cities and refusing to take orders from Piltover’s wealthy elites. In season 1, the writers carefully made it clear that nobody wants to see Cait as an enforcer. Not the current Sherrif, not her own parents, not her pal Jayce. It is implied that she joined the force to solve the murder of her mentor, not for maintaining Piltover’s influence over Zaun. She has a strained relationship with her evil councilor mother for Christ’s sake! They made Mel not recognize her name when Jayce mentioned her to make it clear that she doesn’t hang around elite circles enough for people to know who she is readily. All of this is show that Cait is still an outsider who can’t really be considered to be participating in actively undermining the lives of Zaunites, even if she is the daughter of a Counciler, even if she herself is an enforcer. So, this will make it easier for her to prop up in the audience’s mind as a fitful person to take over the so called revamped enforcers! After Jinx’s attack on the city and her mother in S1 finale, I speculate that Cait might initially feel vengeful, but before she does anything truly harmful, the writers will likely make her regain her composure and act as the “bigger person”. They will never let her “stoop” to her arch-nemesis Jinx’s level and start doing stupid shit like bombing Zaun! She might even suggest herself to let someone like Vi, a Zaunite, to join the enforcers, demonstrating her fairness. I also suspect Ambessa’s character was introduced for mainly for Caitlyn to defend Piltover against an outsider (Noxian) force, making her a savior. Caitlyn will likely play a significant role in protecting the city from Noxian forces and emerge as a hero. Also, they could play the angle of OH CAIT WAS BEING MANIPULATED BY AN EVIL SCHEMING NOXIAN, you really can’t blame her for doing woopsie things a la Marcus- Silco storyline v.2.

The fact that Piltover’s system is essentially feudal, with a severely skewed, undemocratic, and centralized power structure, doesn’t matter as long as a virtuous person like Caitlyn is in charge! Also, she is in love with a Zaunite, Vi, who is literally the terrorist Jinx’s sister. How can an evil person look past these and fall in love with a Zaunite, eh? Checkmate! It’s quite frustrating. I believe, everything I said boils down to: the narrative will go to great lengths to protect the only so-called good cop in the show, because otherwise it’ll be evident that the so-called law enforcement system portrayed in the show, which incidentally somewhat mirrors the system found in real-life, is inherently unjust and evil regardless of who is in power. The main problem of Piltover's law enforcement was that the "right" person wasn't in charge, you see! I think an American/ Chinese show would be the least likely place where something this radical would be portrayed.

----------

Well, that’s what I think they’ll do with Caitlyn in season 2. I really really REALLY hope that’s not how things go for her. But I’ll have to face the facts. Anyway, next I’m going to analyze the show as if it’s not a show written by people but rather something like a documentary. That is, it’s not a written things which is havily enfluenced by the writing teams' personal bias/ agenda rahter something that happened in real life in another universe. This will hopefully let me explore how Caitlyn’s character could have evolved organically. Perhaps I’ll analyze other Arcane characters this way in future.

[velvetvexations]

I wanna be clear that I wasn't consciously using they/them for the sake of not getting the person I was talking about harassed, it was literally just 59 words of vagueblogging. Don't wanna give the impression I'm saying it was noble when it was simply neutral.

I love you all though and am very thankful for everyone who's showed up to back me. <3

[gffa]

I honestly admire your attitude towards things you're not into- you're very respectful, but you're not afraid to defend your own interests

Thank you for the very kind words. <3 I credit a lot to hanging around pan-fandom discussion places, especially ones that have a focus on various wanks going on. There is NOTHING to make you realize how complaining about things comes off like watching people roasting a vent post that got all aggro on something that wasn't in their lane and just went full wanky asshole about it, when you're not really that into the fandom. When you have no horse in the race, you can sit back and just watch the behavior instead, and you suddenly understand a lot about how a person comes off when they're deep in their own passionate feelings, but other people aren't. Suddenly you get a real clear view of how this thing that feels like a giant mountain of importance is actually someone throwing a tantrum over an anthill. I've taken that lesson with me as much as I can. I'm sure I still fail at it and it has to be balanced with caring about things that actually are important (real world issues especially) but like. Watching people lose their shit over Voltron ships changed me as a person, because I get how it looks to outsiders now. And once I got into that place, I also got into the place of examining my feelings a lot when someone pissed me off with vagueblogs or crabbing something something I liked that had nothing to do with them--how did that make me feel? Annoyed as shit. What was I going to do about it? I'M DOUBLING DOWN, FUCKER, I'M GONNA DATE YOUR MOM TWICE AS HARD NOW. So, I try to pull back on the crabbing out other people's stuff, because it just puts me in a bad headspace and it's only going to make those people try to date my mom twice as hard and it's not worth the hassle. My energy is better spent on doubling down on my own things, you know? I don't always succeed at this, but it's helped a lot. (But also seriously. Seven years of people being shitty about my liking the Jedi on my own posts. All it's done is make me think that they're acting like shits and now I'm dating their mom twice as hard.)

[thessalian]

Thess vs Apologies

This is not a vagueblog thing, incidentally. It's just that I decided to clear some lingering questlines in Rivain and happened to trip over that scene - the scene that most of what Reddit calls "chuds" and I call "neckbeard assholes" seem to be complaining about most when they talk about "too woke". You know. Isabela's doing the pushups as an apology for getting Taash's pronouns wrong.

Except ... that's ... not what that scene was about. It wasn't, "Oh, I have done a Horrible Wrong and must do Penance!!!" - in fact, that was precisely what it was meant to avoid. That scene was about communication, particularly when it comes to acknowledging that you did not communicate the way you meant to. It's about apologies and how they can be either just words to brush an issue under the rug or so far overboard that the person who deserves the apology feels forced to hand-wave away their own feelings to make the person who miscommunicated feel better. Now, obviously there are middle grounds that don't involve push-ups (and it's a good thing too, because that's not kind to the disabled), but in principle, it's a good practice.

I admit, I was worried about this scene a little, because of all the hate it got when it leaked. But given how few of the things people complained about really bothered me, I approached the cutscene with an open mind. And what do you know? It was entirely different than what people made it out to be. If Isabela had been apologising for anything else, no one would have said a damn thing. But because it's about "PRONOUNS OMG!!!!!!!", it was obviously too "woke" to be allowed.

...Then again, these jackasses don't have the best communication skills either and don't like taking accountability for anything, so I can see why they'd hate a way of apologising that they can't make all about them on principle.

Honestly, though, I think a lot of what I'm finding is that a goodly number of the people complaining are taking a very surface level approach to the material, and if they thought for five seconds, they probably wouldn't complain as much. Someone literally said at one point how they were going to pretend that the choice between Treviso and Minrathous was about the difference between saving a whole bunch of innocents who had literally no protection from the upcoming mess and a city on the brink of being taken over by Venatori instead of "Neve's city vs Lucanis' city". But ... like ... that's exactly how they themselves framed it, when trying to get Rook to make the choice? Yeah, they love their cities, but Lucanis - fucking Lucanis, who's not a bad guy but isn't exactly known for his altruism towards strangers - is talking about how Antiva has no standing military and the Antaam would probably be helping the destruction instead of trying to help stop it, and Neve is flagging up exactly what happens if the Venatori get the slightest opening into the Magisterium. Yet somehow they just boil it down to "Which companion do you like better?" I don't know how much more they wanted in terms of an explanation; it's not like you have time for a long drawn-out conversation about the sociopolitical ramifications of your choice when dragons are literally descending on cities as you speak or anything. Maybe they should have been reading the fucking codex entries?

Meh, anyway. Tomorrow is probably more overtime and definitely seeing to shit in the Grand Mausoleum and Emmrich's whole personal quest. I know what's coming in that one. I know what decision I'm making. And honestly, there are some decisions I can never see myself making. I can see myself saving Minrathous instead of Treviso on a particularly logic-driven character, but I can't see myself suggesting to Taash that they see themself as more Qunari than Rivaini, and I can't see myself letting Emmrich leave Manfred dead for him to become a lich. But you never know. Once I'm off a practice run, some of my characters might surprise me. Jessie always did, I'm sure. And a Srina ... well, in a "Friendship Is Magic" kind of game, having a Srina in charge is going to be interesting.

[tropylium]

An approximate tierlist of types of people on tumblr

Real-life friend

Online friend (multiplatform)

Dear mutual

Senpai (pls notice)

Formerly dear mutual (I don't mind their current business though)

Pseudomutual (good posts but I do mind something about it (possibly just posting volume) and so I only check back at their blog occasionally)

Content Creator (good posts but I have no expectations of personal engagement)

Fan (thanks for liking my posts, alas I'm not into yours too much)

Cool mutual-in-law (but also seems clear neither of us would like following the other)

Dashboard mystery (why am I following this person again do we even interact, I guess there must've been a reason once)

Ghost follower (AWOL on their own blog since 2016, last seen leaving one comment in 2022)

Median quality barely familiar name

Dark matter follower (apparently posts daily but never interacts with me (do I smell bad or something?))

Rando who once liked a reblog from me

Median quality random reply guy

Demispam follower (indie musician etc. who followed me after I posted one thing in a tag they track and probably has never looked at their dash)

Person at respectful distance (occasional shit takes haver but the ones I end up seeing naturally are fine. Most likely type of person for me to openly post snark at in reply)

Ex-mutual (probably mostly fine, just keeping my distance since the Incident)

Spambot (blocked, even if amusing)

Median quality askbox anon

Annoying neighbor (mostly shit takes haver but apparently a mutual-in-law multiple times over so guess I'll have to bear it since we don't have muting on here. Most likely type of person to vagueblog about)

Person at disrespectful distance (will unfollow people for putting their shit on my dash)

Shitstarter (blocked)

Radioactive clown (pre-emptively blocked)

Cancer (will block people for interacting with them, probably banned by now)

[kintatsujo]

So I'm gonna vagueblog loz opinions again

I saw a post last night that was about a lot of stuff but the thing that made me stop reading was the complaint that the Sheikah are "just a subset of Hylians with a different esthetic now"

And I just

There is a subset of loz fans that has been insisting for years that the Hylians and Sheikah are full on separate species

I have run into fanfic where they explicitly can't interbreed

I can almost guarantee someone at Nintendo finally caught on to that and decided to clear it up in canon the least obtrusive way possible

But also no the Sheikah are still their own people and their persecution under a Hylian king as the reason the Yiga clan split from the Sheikah does fucking come up talk to NPCs more

Over half the plot and backstory from botw gets summarized in side quests

[princehendir]

hi! I'm actually that Goldanna anon (you don't have to answer if this is bothering you, I just happen to follow both blogs), and I feel like I must have worded something wrong? Because I wasn't trying to justify Goldanna's attitude or imply she didn't do anything wrong - just that I understood her ic reason for not wanting to see him. A lot of the hate for her I've seen through the years was over her asking him for money, and that was the primary aspect I was trying to address. Again, sorry if this is bothersome, I would have just ignored it but when that ask was interpreted as 'justifying calling him a rape baby', I really just wanted to clear the air because I really wasn't trying to go that far or imply that that was ok.

Ah. Hi. Not bothersome. I kinda want to apologize now actually 😭 I was actually logging back in just to change my phrasing because I was regretting it, but also for the record that part wasn't about your ask it was about um, other, worse takes I've seen. In fact most of the irritated vagueblogs preceding this were not so much about your ask specifically as they were about my pre-existing, wider reaching irritation with other people's takes that I remembered and started thinking about after reading your ask, which I did agree with the main point of. Your wording was fine, even in the places where we disagree. Sorry 'bout all that. Hope you're having a good evening 🙏

[theworldgate]

Hate to vagueblog, but the reason a lot of criticism of JKR focuses on her transphobia is because, like. Most of her life now is doing transphobia.

And, in doing so, she is actively endangering trans lives.

Like, sure you can do nuanced critiques of how the construction of the Wizarding World reflects the prejudices of a white British woman with a middle-class social background who was obviously going for whimsy over versimilitude (laziness is the wrong term - e.g. the naming thing is consistent with the sorts of kids books she'd have read and whose atmosphere the HP series emulated).

But... There is a very obvious and direct link between her words and actions (like, literally her words and actions, due to her platform and lingering media fealty) and the current torrent of bills designed to shut trans people out of public life (or worse), as well as the frustration of efforts to make life easier for trans people.

Just as an example: the UK Government (and the Tory party under Rishi Sunak are openly planning to promote and exploit transphobia in the next election) actually used the veto (which, to be clear, hadn't been used ever) on... The Scottish Parliament making it slightly easier to force a birth certificate amendment. (Language being because legally I'm not clear on when a birth certificate can be amended)

But yeah, my point is: JKR's transphobia is at the point of being actively, and proximally, dangerous! And her actions in promoting transphobia are actually making trans peoples' lives worse! Of course people focus on it more!

(note: this is not criticism of people saying that the antisemitic undertones are an additional reason to to buy The Game That Shall Not Be Named, but people being outraged that the thing that is directly making people's lives worse gets more focus than the use of common but dodgy children's book tropes)

[hunters-angel]

to be clear, i'm not vagueblogging or ranting, i just have thoughts that i wanted to write down to clear my head

to be precise i have three thoughts about yesterday that bother me

1) the venue should have clear rules about how they deal with accessibility. that means it should be clear to all who attend that there may be people who are able to enter the venue without standing in line, but it also should take into account the fact that people queue for hours to get good spots, and they should be able to get them

2) i really dislike it when people take unfair advantage of disability accommodations. it makes abled people hostile towards us when we use accommodations we need. it should really be about equal access, not advantage.

3) there are disabilities that make queueing impossible while not preventing you from parting in the front row. i have a disability like that. being able to do certain things doesn't make me less disabled, even if those things are perceived to be inaccessible by others. i am not able to queue, if i go to a show i usually get there right before the doors open and skip the line. but i would be able to enjoy the show in the front row, if i really wanted. now, i don't do that bc i think the people who queued should get those spots and also i really want to be able to leave easily if i need to, but i could. disabilities can be complicated and someone being able to do certain things doesn't mean they are faking.

so i think the problem is, only the people who used the accommodations know if they used them fairly or abused the system, but the venue should have rules to ensure people who queue for hours and hours don't get fucked over.

[softerseasons]

I get where "vagueblogging/posting/tweeting" came from and I understand the necessity of classifying passive-aggressive behavior in a way where it can be referenced and discussed, especially when it's done explicitly where the person being spoken of can see it.

That said. There needs to be some nuance in the use of the term. If someone is talking in generalities and it applies to you, but isn't explicitly and solely about you, that's not vagueing. That's just... talking. You can't tell someone not to talk about their experiences just because you identify yourself in the type of people being talked about. And what's the alternative? Do you want people listing the names of everyone they know who acts in a specific way or has historically or even recently done a specific thing that OP happens to want to talk about? You really want to be on blast like that?

"But I know that this is specifically and only about me!" You sure? Have you asked them? Have you come to them and been open and said something to the effect of 'Hey, I'm worried this is about me in some way, and if it is I would like to talk it out and find out how I erred in your perception and how I can prevent this from happening again'? Have you made it clear (with your actions, not just your words) that you won't lash out at them or punish them for being honest about their feelings about a situation?

And let's be real. If you haven't, but you're still convinced it's about you, have you considered the following:

1. You may just be the most recent in a long line of people to exhibit the same frustrating behavior?

2. This may not be about you at all, and if you feel that it is, it's a good opportunity to examine your behaviors and figure out why you were so personally offended by a post that did not name you?

3. You are likely not the sole and only figure in this person's life, and they could be talking about any number of people or events outside of your purview?

If it is vaguing- that is, describing a specific incident with a specific person where that specific person can see and will know they are being talked about- take steps to protect yourself, of course.

But be sure that it's not just venting without spreading drama first.