#NUANCE

[a-rebel-but-a-coward]

True, I'm working on that myself. But please respect when other people are uncomfortable with what you are talking about/the way you talk about it

Lines of thought that seem Normal but are actually rooted in extreme puritanism:

-Seeing the nude human body is inherently traumatic -Sex scenes in art are pointless -Wearing kink-related clothing in public is the similar to performing a sex scene in front of unwilling participants -Depicting female characters expressing sexuality is always degrading -People's sexual fantasies are always an endorsement of the behavior they want to see in real life -Sex work is more traumatic and coercive than other types of work The goal is to treat sex as just another thing people do. That is a much healthier attitude than hiding it! It's not uniquely traumatic, it's not weird to talk about it or include it in society.

[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.

[its-so-ouverture]

[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

[capricorn-0mnikorn]

The fun bit is when we discover living things we thought were "merely" sentient turn out to be sapient after all.

i am on my knees tears running down my face knuckles raw and bleeding and BEGGING people to learn the difference between sentient and sapient

[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”]

[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.

[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.

[greatwyrmgold]

I'm going to buck the trend and say that rejecting industrialized clothing is not a great solution. In ye olden days, giving one person one new outfit per year would take about eight and a half hours of labor per week [citation]. Clothing a whole family is a part-time job for someone, or a full-time one if you want more than one new shirt per year.

Obviously, these times go down a lot when you add in the spinning wheel, and a bit more when you add other labor-saving devices. But it's hard to argue for individual households to have spinning wheels and looms and stuff for (let's be honest) the women of the house to clothe their families, when you could instead have large industrialized facilities with better labor-saving devices and a handful of experts and economies of scale.

Clothing under late-stage capitalism does suck. I'm currently wearing sweatpants I bought earlier this year which ripped within months. However: You do not need capitalism to run a factory. Factories can be communally owned, like a village pasture or local forest or co-op. You can reject capitalism without rejecting industrialization.

In the short term, if the only way you can get decent clothes is to make them yourself, do what you gotta. But that's not a good long-term solution, and we shouldn't pretend it is.

I'm so pissed right now. I know that fabric has been declining in quality for a while but I just bought new pajamas from kmart and they are literally see through. Not just through one layer of fabric either; I can see through the leg, that is, through 2 layers of fabric. These aren't clothes. I am not exaggerating when I say that I have strained soup through cheesecloth thicker than these pants. These are men's flannel pajamas, the kind people wear in winter, and they are made if shittier thinner fabric than even the most bargain bin bullshit halloween costumes. This "flannel" feels like plastic and is thinner than a chux wipe. Why is this even for sale.

[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.

[moncuries]

you know how “partner” was implemented to create a gender neutral term used by both straight and queer people to provide privacy and not out queer people who talk about their significant other?

ally, is often like that. In the early days of gay straight alliances, and other lgbtqia+ spaces, ally was a way of allowing people into queer spaces without outing them, and providing room for exploration and questioning. it has a meaningful history outside of its explicit definition as an ally to queer people. the “a” absolutely stands for aro, ace, etc. don’t get me wrong.

:] i don’t really care to define every letter in our acronym, or argue over ally being included in it, but i think a lot of people forget what it is to be closeted, questioning. and the history of “ally” as included in queer spaces. happy pride!

[tangents-within-tangents]

Yellow = yellow

Bananas are yellow, does this mean that yellow = banana?

No, yellow = yellow

Yellow =/= banana, does this mean bananas aren't yellow?

Lemons are yellow, does this mean lemon = banana?

Lemon =/= banana, does this mean lemons aren't yellow?

Some apples are yellow, does this mean yellow = apple?

Some apples are red or green, does this mean apples can't be yellow?

Some apples are red, some apples are yellow, does this mean red = yellow?

Lemons and apples are round but bananas aren't, does this mean bananas aren't yellow?

Apples and bananas are sweet, does this mean lemon's aren't sour? Or that sourness is bad?

Bananas, lemons, and apples are fruit, does this mean mustard isn't yellow?

No, yellow = yellow

A category groups things that share a commonality despite their differences. The differences coexist within that commonality without redefining the category.

Other similarities coexist within, and without, the commonality without redefining the category either. The fact that it doesn't redefine the category does not mean those similarities don't hold significance of their own.

If not for the commonality, it wouldn't be a category. If not for the differences, it wouldn't be a category either.

Okay? Cool

Asexuality = experiencing little to no sexual attraction

[transparentdreamruins]

Sam Heughan brings so much to Jamie Fraser

[wisegirl25]

Just reminding everyone that the statements “Silco loved Jinx” and “Silco was not a good father for Jinx” and “Silco understood Jinx” and “Silco was making Jinx’s mental health worse” can all exist because of nuance!!

Please remember none of these statements exist in a void and can be true at the same time