#NUANCE

[capricorn-0mnikorn]

Quick take: clickbait edition

I wish people wouldn't use the word "Lie," so much, when what they actually mean is closer to "oversimplification," "misunderstanding," "hyperbole," or simply "incorrect."

[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

[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.

[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!

[transparentdreamruins]

Sam Heughan brings so much to Jamie Fraser

[minsungincorrectquotes]

Minho: Have you ever heard of critical thinking? Jisung: I don't know. What are some of their songs?

[hellaversity]

Do Blitzø and Stolas haters understand what nuance is? No seriously, do they?

The show acknowledges their mistakes AND makes them sympathetic? Well, no shit. That's how being a morally grey character works.

Not every character who hates or criticizes either of them is a saint OR a monster? (With a few exceptions obviously) Color me shocked, this isn't Disney.

They both make mistakes that aren't meant to villify them but still hold them accountable? It's almost like THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT.

If you're disappointed that these characters you have an unhinged seething hatred of aren't the most vile, irredeemable, Valentino level of pure evil that you want them to be, I have no faith in your media literacy.

[thesunfyre4446]

i'm getting really tired of the "Aemond had no right to claim Vhagar" bs.

first of all, if justify Rhaenyra - Laena's cousin who grew up with her, and Daemon -Laena's husband - having sex on her goddamn funeral then you're in no position to criticize Aemond - who has literally never met Laena in his life - for trying to claim her dragon.

Aemond saw Vhagar and decided to go for it. Vhagar disappeared for years after baelon died, who knows if he'll ever get the chance to get close to her again? and maybe Rhaena will succeed in claiming her before him? it was a now or never moment for aemond.

baela and rhaena were justified in their anger, it's their mom's dragon. it's the last thing they had left from her. BUT aemond has never met these girls. he's desperate for a dragon. he's desperate to prove himself. so yeah, he's going to put himself before two strangers.

now let's talk about "Aemond paid the prince for claiming Vhagar \ Aemond deserved losing his eye" bs

no. no he didn't. aemond did not "pay the price for claiming Vhagar". it wasn't a sacrifice he had to make. vhagar accepted him as her rider, he had already claimed her when he was attacked by the strongs and the twins. aemond lost his eye because Luke cut it out. that's it.

Aemond's insult towards Rhaena was obvs directed at the strongs. for aemond, this wasn't even about rhaena. it was about finally winning against his bullies. and don't get me wrong, it was a shitty thing to say. but guess what guys, aemond's a kid too. he's like what, a year, two years older then Jace? kids can be selfish. kids can be really fucking mean. was insulting rhaena the empathic and mature thing to do? of course not! but it's clear that all aemond cared about was just getting back at the strongs. aemond's behavior was really normal for a bullied 10yo.

[and btw, Rhaena and Baela getting really angry and attacking aemond is also really understandable . from their POV, they've just lost their mom, and this random kid has just claimed her dragon & insulting them. ]

[thousandyearphantombunker]

"We want more morally grey/flawed female characters"

You bitches can't handle APPLE WHITE!

like people keep saying "you couldn't even handle rose quartz" but this is even more pathetic to me. How can y'all make this kid into a monster?