#NUANCE

[vlad-theimplier]

This is good advice on getting seated and on mistrials. Mr. Anime Shirt was no doubt personally brave in that moment, but he threw away a chance to have a greater impact.

However, a correction and two cautions, from someone who's lived this life:

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is definitionally not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" under the case law in all US jurisdictions (that I'm aware of—I haven't done a survey). There is always a "shadow" of a doubt that aliens did it, or someone wearing a Mission: Impossible printed face mask of the defendant. But those are not reasonable doubts.

Potential jurors are under oath. In the same way that the rule of law is preferable to the alternative, even (especially?) when it results in a bad outcome for you, the validity of oaths is not something to throw away lightly. A big factor in the erosion of public trust in legal institutions is from shit like Kavanaugh and Coney Barret lying under oath about their intentions re: Roe. Accordingly, it's worth doing the moral work in advance to be able to answer honestly that you will evaluate the evidence fairly, no matter its source. That does not preclude you from acquitting people for assaulting police officers: the witnesses all have an obvious source of bias that does not have anything to do with their job as cops.

Last, the court system is not designed to be pleasant for anyone. Survivors of sexual and domestic violence in particular are often not up to testifying once. Even fewer are up to testifying twice. This is part of why a mistrial is a victory for the defense. So just... be judicious. That is, after all, literally the jury's job.

[shyjusticewarrior]

"Jason's not the angry one" not as in Jason isn't angry but as in Jason is the emotional one and anger happens to be an emotion.

[dduane]

Erotica and anniversaries

...The big E, first. Here she is. Isn't she lovely?

...Right there upstairs at the Library of Congress, on the second floor. (I noted at the time we passed through some years back—and continue to smile at the memory—that her artist has included his copyright statement right there, to make sure no one misses it.)

...Anyway, where were we? ...Oh yeah: the local takes on erotic writing and smut.

This subject seems to come up every couple of years. What nudged me into revisiting it this time was the notes off a comment to a post earlier today, responding to someone working on an explicit-leaning AU, and discussing the writing of (story) bibles for projects.

Anyway, the notes:

#love that the advice was not just 'stick to porn' or 'don't write porn at all' but 'ah yes; common problem; let me explain to you how to write a series bible'

Well, disclosure here: in my case, it can't really be otherwise. :)

Let this act as everybody's sort-of-biennial reminder (if needed) that I'm not going to be caught condemning people for writing smut, as I've written it myself. (And continue to do so when the mood moves me.)

The post from very nearly two years ago, discussing the issue in more detail, is over here. As you'll see if you read it, there were some folks who experienced brief episodes of cognitive dissonance on learning I was a cheerful writer of explicit material. Some of the surprise was probably due to the fact that a lot of people see me—mostly due to the relatively-higher profile of the Young Wizards books—as primarily a writer for younger readers.

But that's not how I got started. My (1979) debut novel centers a universe where the following exchange between two of the protagonists appears—they then being wrapped up in blankets and afterglow in the wake of a prolonged and enthusiastic post-reunion shag:

A soft chuckle in the darkness. “Lorn, remember that first time we shared at your place?” “That was a long time ago.” “It seems that way.” “—and my father yelled up the stairs, ‘What are you dooooooooing?’ “—and you yelled back, ‘We’re fuckinnnnnnnnnnng!’” “—and it was quiet for so long—” “—and then he started laughing—” “Yeah.”

Nor was this a one-off. This book and its sequels contain a fair number of passages in which human (and occasionally non-human) sexualities, both in the abstract and the experientially concrete, take center stage. And the mode in which they're expressed and discussed is intended for adults. Those sequences can probably be described as at least borderline erotica. (I certainly try had to be as graceful about such passages as I can, when and where it's appropriate to be.)

With this in mind, it's worth repeating what turns up in that earlier post, which came off a query to a ficcer about "how do you feel knowing that people may be jerking off to your work?":

I'm an entertainer. Writing's a form of entertainment. (And not just for the readership: for me, too.) To be aroused by art one's experienced is (almost by definition) to be entertained, I'd say...

Other people's art in these modes certainly is entertaining for me: and I desperately hope mine is for other people. (Almost all my more explicit writing is published only pseudonymously, which from my point of view is just fine. There's a fair amount of writing work out in the world that [for contractual or other business reasons] doesn't have my name on it. This is just more of the same.)

(Per that, adding here again my own tags from that earlier post:)

#and no I'm not going to let on where the smut is#why would i deny anyone the delights of the search#and of being repeatedly mistaken#while possibly finding smut writers who're better at it than i am#:)

Anyway, finally: from that earlier post—on nearly the thirty-eighth anniversary of something happening to me that would, just a year before the event, have seemed wildly unlikely—this note, unusually apposite because of what today is, and what's coming tomorrow.

I consider erotica—and its more casually-dressed (or undressed…) cousin, smut—to be perfectly legit forms of literary expression; ones that can soar to unexpected heights if you’re willing to put in the work. The sexy-stuff-writing muscle requires periodic exercise if it’s to remain viable and/or useful. So I exercise it. And being a 70-plus-year-old person who sometimes creaks audibly when she walks has done absolutely nothing to decrease my interest in the subject—the brain being, after all, the biggest sex organ, and the one least vulnerable to the depredations of time. If anything, nearly fifty years of experience (and more than three and a half decades of marriage to @petermorwood) have added… let’s just say nuance. 😏

So, happy Valentine's Day to all those who choose to celebrate, in whatever mode.

And to the Man Upstairs:

...See you in a few, sweetie. :)

[captainzigo]

enough of these games.

[the-last-raposa]

my nuance is that when we had family over the kids would sit on the living room sofa, we only had a dedicated kids table outside, and when we didnt have guests over we didnt actually eat at the table at all

Please, tag where you're from 🫶🏼

[its-so-ouverture]

[sunkissedliterarylightofchrist]

While we're on the topic, depiction does not automatically equal glorifying or agreeing with that thing. So if you have a problem with a piece of media just because it has elements that show we live in a fallen world, that is incredibly unrealistic- and then you can't even appreciate 'good Christian' media. Christian literary giants still have those sinful elements in their work just as much if not more than secular ones do. Because you have to show the darkness for the light to pierce it.

The difference between depicting something and glorifying it is how the author uses different tools to depict what they're showing and saying and what message they're getting across with their work. So even if you're just looking at something to chill out on your down time, and don't want to or don't have the mental capacity to analyze it, at least think about what it is saying and why and how it all works together to tell the story and how the worse aspects of it contribute to the central themes.

AND EVEN THEN if a work DOES glorify something sinful because that's what the author believes in and wants to promote, that isn't an automatic no to you consuming that media either. That is up to you to use your wisdom and discernment to see if you can enjoy that media while ignoring or not supporting those particular aspects of the media or if you should blacklist it completely because its so sinful and by consuming it you are convicted that you are sinning, or that it might lead you to sin if you struggle with that thing.

There is more nuance than you think there is in everything. Be wise about it.

[nyancrimew]

how dare you say we should piss on the poor

actually we should consensually piss on the poor who do want to be pissed on

[notaplaceofhonour]

The content of the video itself is not horrible tbqh! There are things I’d criticize about the video itself but I encourage anyone reading this to watch it and not just judge it solely based on the thumbnail/title:

My criticism in this post was primarily focused on the use of Mohsen Mahdawi’s Buddhism as suggestive of inherent innocence/incapability to be antisemitic. This is not exclusive to Hank Green or this video (a lot of the news stories/articles about his arrest also do it), it’s just the example I had on hand at the moment.

The video is mostly a discussion between Hank Green and Mikey Baratz, Mahdawi’s Jewish-Israeli friend. I disagree with Baratz on certain points (like saying many Jews are “mistaking discomfort for danger” or that all the arrests including Khalil’s are unjust), but Baratz is clearly not a JVP-style anti-Zionist, so much as just actively engaging in Palestinian-Israeli dialogue & diplomacy. It’s clear Hank and Mikey are both interested in coexistence & engaging in good faith dialogues towards peace.

I also think there’s nuance to be had over Mahdawi specifically. I don’t think it’s fair to say he didn’t do anything antisemitic or didn’t contribute to an atmosphere of antisemitism on campus at all; he was personally & actively pro-BDS, and helped lead the encampment/protest movement whose demands attacked Jewish institutions on campus. At the same time, he was clearly interested in good faith dialogue with Jews and Israelis, was obviously not personally Islamist, didn’t advocate for terrorism or violence himself, and actively pushed for moderation in the movement. According to Mikey, it sounds like the extremism in the movement eventually lead Mohsen to step back from the protests.

But Hank’s framing of this situation (taken from the video description), that:

1. Mohsen Mahdawi is a pacifist who only ever peacefully protested and went viral for pushing back against people who were saying anti-semetic things.

2. He has not been accused of a crime, which is because no one things he committed a crime.

3. In America, we have the right to speak our minds and actions like revoking someone's greencard because they helped organize peaceful protest is deeply unamerican.

has some decent points but is also deeply flawed. The argument that Mohsen only “helped organize peaceful protests” isn’t accurate, and downplays the violent incitement inherent in not just isolated incidents of antisemitism, but the core rhetoric & goals/tactics of the Columbia protests Mohsen was a part of. It speaks to Hank’s biases & certain narratives he has internalized that I think downplay antisemitism & extremism. But I don’t think he’s operating from a closed-minded place, and I’m not like unsubscribing & burning all bridges over this.

So, like, idk. Legally, I don’t know that the argument that this is all completely unconstitutional and has zero legal basis is necessarily true; even if he was personally uncomfortable with the worst parts of the movement & did later step back, Mohsen did associate with pro-terror organizations & helped lead a movement that incited bigotry & violence. I think he deserves due process, and I hope he gets it. Morally and strategically, I don’t know that him being deported, even if it’s 100% legal & based on his own actions, is good either. Even if he still holds some biases & positions that may be ultimately harmful to his goals, he seems interested in listening to Israelis, unlearning his biases & partnering with Israelis towards peace & coexistence. It’s a process. Fully shutting that down when he’s clearly interested in open good faith dialogue is not helpful.

[heavy sigh]

[unsolicited-opinions]

Once again, let's have a reality check and some nuance.

1️⃣ The Biden administration's Department of Education should have sued Columbia for doing fuck-all to protect the rights and safety of Jewish students and faculty.

This would have been the most correct and appropriate remedy for Columbia's failure to protect the civil rights of Jewish faculty and students.

The Biden administration's failure to do this was infuriating, wrong, and set us all up for where we are now.

It helped cost the Democrats the 2024 election, as huge swaths of US moderates again felt that the Democrats were simply ignoring yet another problem they didn't want to address.

2️⃣ It is clearly legal for the State Department and Homeland Security to revoke Khalil's green card and deport him.

3️⃣ A competent administration would have managed both the impeccably above-board process for doing this and would have managed public messaging about it, rather than the "Shalom Mahmoud" carnival barking of Trump, which hurts US Jews.

The Trump administration has fucked this up in a handful ways which have served Khalil and his movement.

Saying so, acknowleding this obvious truth, is not simping for leftists, is not betraying other Jews, and is not an attempt to be a more acceptable Jew to gentiles.

Due process protects the classical liberalism which liberated and enfranchised US Jews and protects us all from government overreach. There shouldn't be any shortcuts around due process, and people who think otherwise should study history, political science, and law...or sit down.

4️⃣ The Trump administration is without question a villain in this story as it:

- Fails to make any meaningful progress protecting Americans from campus antisemitism

- Energizes the leftist antisemites through its incompetence

and

- Helps target Jews for the blowback instead of acting like a responsible government and using the justice system and law enforcement to solve a justice problem and a law enforcement problem.

5️⃣ But the Trump administration is far from the only villain in our story.

Khalil is a supporter of terrorism. He absolutely should be deported.

The Democrats, who reflexively go all-in against anything Trump does, are lionizing Khalil instead of sensibly demanding due process. Their failure to acknowledge and protect the civil rights of Jews helped bring us here.

I get that many of you feel legitimate frustration, fear, and/or anger, and I'm there with you.

But if you rage at other Jews because they want to have a government which professionally, legally, actively opposes antisemitism without damaging civil liberties, skirting the law, aiding the antisemites, and further endangering Jews?

Take a breath, sit down, and consider the wisdom in some silent prayer before another idiotic word of that bullshit escapes your head.

[marzipanandminutiae]

Woman wears a skirt in historical fiction/fantasy: oppressive! Impractical! She cannot do anything in this horrible garment, and either ditches it or wishes she could (but she’s not MASC, ew, unsexy)! this is unilaterally an impossible and bad garment that no woman who has anything worthwhile to say actually wants to wear!

Man wears a kilt/toga/robe/tunic/sarong/kurta/any other type of skirt-shaped garment in historical fiction/fantasy: [No comment except perhaps “well it’s not ACTUALLY a skirt and in fact it’s insulting that you would call it that. It being a skirt would be bad. For reasons we are not going to delve into any further than that”]

[thereallyreallylatebird]

From some of the discourse I've seen, I've gotten the impression that some people think intersectionality is like math. Let me explain.

Some people think of certain identities as universally giving privilege (we'll say these have a value of +1) and some as universally taking privileged/causing discrimination/bigotry/etc. (we'll say these have a value of -1).

And what I've seen is that people will add these values and decide how hard someone has it based on the value of the product.

For example: A white (+1) Christian (+1) gay (-1) man (+1) would have a score of 2, since 1+1-1+1 is 2. (Keep in mind I'm not saying people literally do this sort of math, though I have actually seen charts that do, it's more of a way of illustrating a way of thinking I've seen.)

The problem with this, of course, is that this isn't how the world works at all. Depending on where he lived and his situation in general, that white Christian gay man could be bullied severely, called slurs, or even beaten and killed--all things you wouldn't expect going off a score of 2--because intersectionality is not like math. And because, in some places, this man's gayness would overshadow all his other identities.

Also, this mathy way of looking at things fails to consider how identities interact with each other. For instance, (and this is something several of my mutuals, but especially @dysphoria-things, have discussed in the past) a trans man's identity as a man does *not* serve to "cancel out" his being trans in the eyes of society. First, many won't even view him as a man. Second, even if he is viewed as a man by a certain group, he still may be subject to less explicit forms of transphobia. Not to mention the expectation many hold that he perform his man-ness in order for them to keep seeing him as a man. There's a lot more to unpack here specifically, but the previously mentioned mutual has already done many many posts on this, and is more qualified to speak on this than I am as a cis person, so I suggest you go check that blog out if you want to hear more on this topic.

Another example would be one of *my* identity intersections. That of being aromantic and allosexual. Now, being allosexual (not asexual) is not a minority identity. However, it by no means "cancels-out" my aromanticism. In fact, the specific combination of this majority identity (allosexuality) with my aromanticism actually leads to some seriously nasty assumptions and stereotypes. Because what do you think goes through the majority of people's (especially conservative's) heads when they hear "Oh I'm attracted to people sexually, but not romantically." Nothing flattering.

Point is, intersectionality is not like math. Having a majority identity does not necessarily mean that identity will always be rewarded (especially depending on the combination with a minority identity), and also this way of thinking is one thing that can start people down the "oppression-olympics/who has it worst" route, which is helpful and productive to exactly no one. The world is complicated, society is complicated, and people are complicated. And anything boiled down this much is usually inaccurate enough to be useless or actively harmful. Thank you for coming to my TED-talk.

[notaplaceofhonour]

I feel like there are two truths, that we rightly celebrated when Pharaoh’s army were drowned, and that at the same time G-d was heartbroken that their creation was drowning—and neither response is wrong.

Both are entirely valid and normal responses to have to the death of evil men (who nevertheless were still people), and you just kinda gotta live with that complexity. like, you can’t expect people not to grieve the death of any part of G-d’s creation, but you also can’t expect people not to sing when their persecutors are gone.

I think G-d made us to feel both, and they made some of us to feel one more than the other, and that’s okay.

[polutrope]

To be clear. This blog is pro-Elves. All Elves. Fëanorians, yes, but Nolofinwëans, Arafinweans, even Un-finweans. Teleri, Sindar (but how can you be pro-Feanorian and-- *bites you*), Nandor, Avari. Half-elves and Elf-man, too. All Elves are great, and all Elves did *something* wrong.

Love them for that.

[hold-me-witcher]

I can't believe Jaskier's character and sexuality has so much incredible nuance to it.

Like yes, he's a slut, he gets chased out of bedrooms by husbands, he sleeps casually with men, he has a few usual fuck buddies around the world who are as equally as interested in just sex and no romance. He was in love with Geralt for years

The second there was someone with no actual hangups about wanting a relationship with him he fell ass over teakettle in love back and was SO CONFUSED but also a slut about it.