#So they think just having a queer character is way more radical than it actually is bc the grew up on like

[hypermascbishounen]

Ime It's pretty easy to tell when an author doesn't care about your experiences as a queer audience member, but about how they personally look telling your story for you to other people.

Like, it's on a scale. There's definitely stuff that's well intentioned if a bit clumsy, vs stuff that's deeply cynical "praise me for including u, faggot". And sometimes there's also people really just trying to tell their own story and struggling.

But overall, I think a lot of it comes from a really cowardly position of just fully ceding ground to bigots on media interpretation. Because the idea that queer things aren't canon or real unless you fully halt the story to spell it out to the audience in painstaking detail, is also the position of every homophobe who denies queer subtext/implications in any work they happen to think should be about them by default. (It's also basically the position of erasing queer people from history and treating cisheterosexuality as default, but that's a deeper topic).

I simply do not think looking at a work bleeding with queer subtext so dense there's no cisheterosexual explanation for parts of the plot, and then declaring it "not canon" and thus not "real" representation, compared to a work with what amounts to shallow tokenism, is a progressive stance actually! Sometimes shit is just gay, and not admitting that is asinine. I think at best, people who've internalized "queer subtext is invalid" often go into writing not knowing how to show and not tell, when it comes to character identity or relationships - things that often go poorly when *just* told.

If it's really that difficult, and you're personally lucky enough to not have to deal with censorship(reminder that ability to publish uncensored queer work is often more just privilege than being particularly brave or creative), you can put it in a character bio.

at a phase in my life where when i get the sense a book is trying to offer me Representation (TM) i hiss and scream and start kicking and ripping bricks out of the wall. this character's Coherent Identity And Articulation Of Their Issues had Better fit in with the rest of the worldbuilding (it won't)

[max1461]

I think that the average internet Marxist is actually not much of a materialist at all, in fact in their behavior and rhetoric they seem very concerned with moral purity, the redemptive power of suffering, and the ability of narrative to shape the actual world. As myriad as the senses of the word "materialist" have come to be, none of this would seem to comport well with any of them. This all feels very Christian.

In some cases I really do think there is a latent Christianity in it, but I think the stronger source of this trend is simply the leftist emphasis on sloganeering. Somewhere along the line, maybe with the Bolshevik policy of democratic centralism or maybe somewhere else, the importance of the slogan, the party line, the supreme power of the speech act seems to have been elevated for many leftists above all other concerns. From this follows the kind of disingenuous, obviously fallacious argument you so often see from the online ML left. The point is to say the magic words that have been carefully agreed upon, the magic incantation that will defeat all opposition.

Whether it's "I don't want to vote for a candidate who supports any amount of genocide" or "The Is-not-rael Zionist entity is on the edge of collapse!" or whatever else, a rational person can recognize the impotence of these words. They don't do anything. They're just words. But the feeling seems to be that once the perfect incantation is crafted—the incantation that makes your opponent sound maximally like a Nazi without engaging with their position in good faith, or the incantation which brushes aside all thoughts of defeat, or whatever else—once the perfect incantation is crafted, all that is left to do is say it and say it and say it, and make sure everyone else is saying it too.

This is not a materialist way of approaching politics. This is a mystical way of approaching politics.

I think it's also worth saying that this tendency in Marxism seems old, it certainly predates the internet. Lots of Marxists today are vocal critics of identity politics, of what they see as the liberal, insubstantive, and idealist Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion framework. I share this criticism to a significant degree, but I'm not very eager to let Marxists off the hook here. The modern DEI framework evolved directly out of a liberal/capitalist appropriation of earlier academic ideas about social justice from such sources as Queer Studies, Black Studies, academic Feminism and so on. I say this as a neutral, factual description of its history which I believe to be essentially accurate. In turn, disciplines like Queer Studies, Black Studies, and academic Feminism each owe a great intellectual dept to academic Marxism, and likewise to the social movements of the 1960s (here in the Anglosphere), which themselves were strongly influenced by Marxism.

Obviously as the place of these fields in the academy was cemented, they lost much (most) of their radical character in practice. To a significant degree however, I think their rhetorical or performative radicalism was retained, and was further fostered by the cloistered environment of academia. In this environment the already-extant Marxist tendency to sloganeering seems in my impression to have metastasized greatly. And so I think the political right is not actually wrong, or not wholly wrong, when they attribute the speech-act-centrism of modern American (and therefore, online) politics, its obsession with saying things right above doing things right and its constantly shifting maze of appropriate forms of expression, at least in part to Marxism.

Now I should say that I don't think the right is correct about much else in this critique, and I also don't think this is wholly attributable to Marxism. But I think there's plainly an intellectual dept there.

More than anything else, this is my genuine frustration with both Marxism as it exists today and with its intellectual legacy as a whole. I fundamentally do not believe in the great transformative power of speech acts, I do not believe in the importance of holding the correct line, I do not believe that the specifics of what you say or how you say it matter nearly as much as what you do. I do not think there is much to be gained from playing the kind of language games that Marxists often like to play, and I do not think that playing language games and calling it "materialist analysis" is a very compelling means of argument.

[lycandrophile]

recently i’ve been embarking on the next leg of my gender exploration journey, and the hardest part of it has honestly been navigating the way people see manhood as at odds with any sort of complex gender experience.

because the thing is, i’ve seen myself as a man for years now, and that hasn’t changed! i still very much consider myself trans male, even as my understanding of my gender has continued to evolve. i’ve been exploring parts of me that feel more connected to gender neutrality and androgyny and fluidity and even womanhood than i’ve previously acknowledged, and none of those things contradict the fact that i am a man! all of those different pieces of my gender coexist perfectly well and don’t cancel out the fact that i want people to recognize me first and foremost as a trans man.

but other people don’t see it that way, and i know that. if i express any sort of relationship to those other aspects of gender — especially to womanhood — i know for a fact that people will view that as me saying i’m not “really” or fully a man. they’ll assume it means i’m just partially a man (which i’m not) or masculine but not a man (which i’m also not) or just living as a man on the outside when my “real” internal gender isn’t male (which i’m definitely not).

so even acknowledging that the more complex parts of my gender even exist at all has been an uphill battle, because i know what they mean for the way people see me if i express them. it’s already a herculean task to get people to see me as a man without that!

i recently told my boyfriend about some of these experiences i’d been exploring, and even then, i was terrified. it seems silly — if there’s any single person in the entire world who would support me no matter what, it’s my boyfriend — but it still felt like i was immediately taken back to the fear of the first time i ever came out to someone. honestly, even then, i watered down a lot of my thoughts more than i wanted to because i was afraid they could be taken as implying something about my gender that i never wanted to imply.

and i don’t want to be afraid of it! i want to be able to talk about experiences like revisiting the gender neutrality i identified with when i first came out and discovering androgyny through spirituality and seeing myself in genderfluid characters and finding new bits of gender euphoria in being seen as a woman now that i’m on t, and i want to be able to do that openly without fear that it’ll be used against me, that it’ll be seen as me giving people permission to ignore the manhood that’s still the backbone of my gender experience.

i love being trans! i love being genderqueer! i love all the gender complexity and playfulness that comes with that for me! and i was never afraid to express it before i started living as a man openly because before then, i knew that i could always count on other queer people to get it even if most people didn’t. but now, i know there are a lot of queer people who wish i would be anything other than a man, who see manhood as antithetical to gender complexity and think that’s a radical view somehow, and suddenly there are a lot less people i can count on for that support.

manhood can be neutral. manhood can be androgynous. manhood can be fluid. manhood can be womanhood. manhood can be all those things at once. manhood can be any of a vast array of other things. manhood can be fucking anything because gender in general can be fucking anything, and it really seems like a lot of people have no problem acknowledging that until it’s applied to men.

restricting manhood to nothing but the most limited, simplified, binary version of it is bad. expanding our concept of what a man can be is good. playing with gender and stretching its boundaries and showing that binarism is a lie because none of these experiences actually contradict each other is good.

it’d be great if people — especially people who pride themselves on fucking with gender and smashing the binary and all that — could realize that, because i’m really getting tired of feeling like i’m being shoved back into the closet after so many years just because y’all can’t wrap your minds around the idea that some of the people with the cool weird genders are dudes.

[nekropsii]

your staunch defense of transfeminine people in a community where we're so routinely mocked and sidelined does not go unnoticed or unappreciated.

you're doing a fantastic thing

Hey, I'm glad it's doing something!! It was... Kind of radicalizing realizing that no one's fucking normal, actually, they just say they are. But the really, really radicalizing thing - the thing that got me to start being very loud and aggressive about it all - was getting hit with wave after wave of misdirected Transmisogyny for two reasons...

I acknowledged Transfem reads of characters exist, and stated that I actually - gasp! - enjoy some of them, even over the popular Transmasc readings of the same characters. Getting hit with backlash for this was expected, but I didn't foresee how that would manifest. Several people - all self-reporting as trans men, weirdly - flooded my notes and inbox talking down to me, treating me like I'm stupid, and that I don't understand Transmasc struggles (I do, I just distinctly was not talking about them), and... Most vexingly, treating me like I'm a woman, and acknowledging me as such. By saying I, for example, preferred a Transfeminine reading of Dave over the popular Transmasculine one - by simply bringing up trans women in a conversation that didn't include putting them down - I had apparently branded myself as a stupid bimbo woman in their eyes that desperately needed mansplaining to. By discussing trans women positively, I had branded myself as an "other", and needed to be treated as such. I don't understand why it was all trans men doing this - you'd think they'd know better than to start misgendering and condescending people just because they started talking about feminism or trans rights. You'd think they'd understand meeting feminism with traumadumping is inappropriate.

I put a Cis Woman in my Webcomic, and she apparently wasn't feminine enough for some fucking people. Mind you, none of us on the Dev Team ever really thought that she was any degree of Masculine. She was never designed to be masculine, and she wasn't designed with transness in mind. We'd always referred to her internally as a cis woman. She just happens to have broad shoulders, narrow-ish hips, an Adam's apple, a bigger nose, and some serpentine heat pits on her face that happen to look like facial hair.

This is her. The uncanny, ugly, mannish freak who should've just been a boy. She looks normal! She's just a regular woman! Apparently, when you tell people that what human beings would identify as sex characteristics are totally randomized on an alien bug species because that alien bug species literally only has one sex, that's cool and based until it's applied to women? Even then, these are all traits that some normal human cis women have in real life. What's even more jarring is that almost all of the Transmisogyny thrown at me over Tejuri's appearance was done over fucking Cohost - the website people fled to specifically to escape Tumblr's Transmisogyny. The site that touts its pride in getting rid of all Transphobes. God.

I've noticed that people often preach their alliance not as a genuine statement but as a way to keep with the trends. A lot of reblogs on posts about loving trans women are viewing them as either a body ("loving trans women" taken as synonymous with wanting to have sex with them), an object ("loving trans women" taken as their value being synonymous with their romancability), or a token (saying that you "love trans women" is the latest political trend in progressive spheres, and professing this makes you look like a better person, even if you don't mean it). I've learned recently that a lot of people don't know anything about Queer Theory or Transfeminism. A lot of people apparently don't even realize Transfeminism exists. It's been a fucking wild past few months. Things I thought were just basic human decency and common sense apparently need to be stated, because it turns out my standards for what counts as "basic human decency" is a lot higher than most. Wild. @_@

Every time someone pulls this stupid horseshit on me, I get more annoying and more powerful. Nothing's gonna make me back down. At the end of the day, I have the privilege of being able to shut up and stop facing harassment. That's not a privilege trans women have. It's why true allies cannot stop fighting even when it does get a little hard. We can put the weapons down. They cannot.

Every now and then I think about the phrase "Trans Women are the Women of Women". Every day, it becomes more true.

[sexy-sapphic-sorcerer]

1: Magic is a Metaphor > 2: Morgana is a Lesbian > 3: Merlin is Gay > 4: Arthur is Bi

Obviously, magic is a metaphor for being gay. It is something that you're born with, that you can't change, but that you have to hide because the society around you won't accept you. Both Merlin and Morgana are always saying that they've been made to feel like a monster, an outsider, and they just want to be accepted for who they really are. And it's no coincidence that they are the most queer coded characters in the whole show.

But building off of that subtext, I think that you can read the different way that Merlin and Morgana go about trying to achieve equal rights as being an allegory for queer identity politics, where Merlin embodies this homonationalist assimilation strategy. He believes that if he stays closeted and conforms to the status quo, then eventually he will prove that sorcerers are good, moral, normal people and therefore worthy of rights. But over time, he internalises all of this shame and self-hatred and becomes increasingly obsessed with Arthur and dependent on his validation until he becomes complicit in his own oppression.

Meanwhile, Morgana represents a radical rebellion ideology. Even though she comes from a place of privilege, she quickly realises that she can't achieve meaningful change through constitutional methods and therefore resorts to violent protest. But her downfall is that she's more motivated by personal vengeance than a genuine desire for equality. So she creates a lot of infighting within the community by shunning anyone whose ideas aren't as extreme as her own, and she inadvertently confirms all of the negative stereotypes about 'angry witches' that she has been trying to fight against.

Obviously I don't think that all of this political commentary is intentional, but the basic idea of magic being gay is definitely intentional. As evidenced by this quote from the executive producer of the show, where he says very sarcastically, "some people say that (magic) is a metaphor for his sexuality, but that's just read in by them, isn't it? On no level is magic metaphorical in this show." And then Katie McGrath says, "it's funny because I don't actually think you're being sincere." And then she says directly to the audience, "Julian is lying right now."

[nebmia]

Reviewing every rpg book on my shelf: 5, Flying Circus

Flying Circus is a a game by Erika Chappell where you fly planes, have messy dramatic relationships, and find out who you are. Sometimes all at the same time. More specifically you fly *rickety planes from the dawn of aviation* and have messy, dramatic relationships, and find out who you are *in an essentially queer way*.

The first thing I love about Flying Circus is it's sheer audacity in taking pbta (usually deployed for low crunch storygame-y titles) and twisting it into a highly detailed and technical system for running dogfights. I think its really clever how Erika has taken the idea of a detailed combat system are re-appraised it from the ground up in the context of dogfighting.

There is no grid based movement here, it simply is not useful in the three dimensional world that planes inhabit. Instead your positioning is modelled through altitude and air speed, with each being tradeable for the other and spend able to perform maneuvers.

Honestly the whole system is rather intimidating (a fact the book freely admits). Each plane requires a little personal instrument panel sheet (and a few extra side sheets) that resemble somthing you would expect in a euro-game boardgame more than an rpg. The system goes as far as modelling how your plane performs as you use up your modelling fuel and with varying altitude. There are also a lot of fairly involved moves that it feels would be a little tricky to keep aware of while running a dogfight. However, from what I hear, the system works well and, once you understand it, isn't /that/ tricky to run. I think this isn't actually that crunchy when compared to your standard tactical battlers, it's just completely new (and working in a zone most people have less of an intuitive understanding of [although its worth noting that most peoples intuitive understanding of medieval style combat is dead wrong]) so we are unably to draw upon our preexisting assumptions.

You will notice I have to fall back on reports and intiitions here because I am yet to be able to play the game, which is honestly my biggest problem with it: it carves such a specific niche that I think I will really struggle to ever bring it to the table. Anyone I have talked to about the game has always responded to the effect of 'I don't think I'm into planes enough for this'.

I am also not half as into planes specifically as Erika Chappell is. But what I am into is getting deep into things in general, and this whole system excels at letting you get incredibly technical and nerdy about your plane (as far as things like exactly what radiator fluid it has, if you use the advanced rules) and making those choices actually matter in play.

ok, that's probably enough about planes (a phrase I anticipate has never once been uttered by the author of this book), what are you doing when you get out of the planes?

The game follows a cycle of mission and downtime, which you spend relieving stress (in healthy or unhealthy ways) and running upkeep on your company. This is where you do a lot of the character work and bring into focus the 'coming of age' narrative that the game intends.

Which seems a good lead in to talking about the playbooks. Each playbook is focused around a particular thematic idea or experience, which is helpfully spelled out directly in a 'themes' section for each one. This isn't a game where you play as a fighter because you want to solve problems by hitting them but rather one where you play as a Fisher because you want to engage with "a queer reclamation of the monstous", or a scion because you want to engage with "privilege and power, and what obligations come with it", or a believer because you want to engage with "a mindset that thrives on radicalism", or a survivor because you want to engage with "a metaphor for what it feels like to be a transgender person escaping an unwelcome or abusive situation".

Obviously, alongside themes you do also get a load of cool abilities to use.

Of the many games that claim to be ghibli-esque but I think Flying Circus hews closest on account of two things: understanding miyazaki's perspective on war and also due to being absolutely unhinged about planes.

[kiwiweewee]

Like a Prayer

It's wild to me that Madonna's Like a Prayer has become this superhero genre, intense, emotional song. Mainly because the song's history. I've been on tiktok and I've seen the choir version of the song played for edits of Batman and various other heroes and while I'm glad the song is popular, it's kinda crazy that it is being applied the way it is. The song was really controversial upon its release. I only learned about this because I had a young high school teacher who was writing his own curriculum and decided to talk about it one day, so shout out to Mr. Challinor. Like a Prayer was considered controversial not only due to its religious theming/language in an otherwise sexual song but also because of the music video. The song itself. As said above, there's a lot of religious language that serves as a double entendre to sex. It's worth mentioning that the setting of the music video is a church, so Madonna sings this while surrounded by religious imagery. "I'm down on my knees, I wanna take you there" "In the midnight hour, I can feel your power" "I close my eyes, Oh God I think I'm fallin" But this isn't the only thing to get her in trouble. The music video got her into hot water as well. While less sexual than the lyrics, it was a reflection of America and its politics. Madonna's character witnesses the brutal robbery and possible sexual assault of another woman by a group of white men. These men also kill the woman. A black man tries to come to the woman's rescue as the men leave, but when the police arrive, he is arrested for the murder. Madonna's character hides in a church and reflects on what she witnessed. Nearby, there is a statue of a saint who resembles the black man from earlier. Madonna falls asleep and has a dream, where she is kissed by this saint. She awakes and decides to go to the police to give her account of what happened. There are several depictions of burning crosses, something the kkk would often do. The audience knows the black man is innocent, so his arrest is suggested to be more than a wrong place at the wrong time scenario. He, like many black people in America, is considered a criminal/suspect out of prejudice. This whole plot may not seem radical now, but at the time, Madonna received a lot of hate. The Vatican condemned the video, several religious and family groups protested its broadcast, and she lost her Pepsi sponsorship after they used the song in an add and a boycott on the soft drink began. So you can see why I think it's wild how such a controversial song turned around to be a new superhero anthem. I actually like Deadpool and Wolverine's use of the song. The music video's message and subject of minority treatment is something that connects well to the X-Men canon. It's also a spoof on masculinity in a sense, with these big muscular men having this emotional handholding moment while Madonna, a notable queer icon, plays. I have no qualms with its usage in the film and I think it's inclusion is very deliberate. I'm actually not against the usage of it now. I guess that I'm just in awe at the massive turnaround this song has had in the way it's viewed. And hey, a bop's a bop, right?

[woman-respecter]

eh, I'm kind of tired of the relentless promotion of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood as feminist when all those female characters exist in relation to men, and that was the message I felt it sent to me: women are great but only if they don't forget their place. Those women are just better written than most because the original mangaka is a woman, but I've read a lot of Arakawa's stuff and it feels like she's really into this kind of promotion of traditional women in a way that has its pluses in showing how fully-faceted those women are, but never seems to really question those roles in a larger sense. I get why it appeals to people but I wouldn't exactly call it "feminist."

(I also have longstanding beef of how people use that to excuse the really fucked up messages about race in that show/manga, especially to dump on the original FMA anime which does that aspect much much better and whose female characters felt a lot more genuinely independent to me, but whatever. Neither is a bastion of feminism lol and don't want to make this about fandom beef)

It's also not necessary because there are a lot of anime that are outspokenly feminist and center women. Revolutionary Girl Utena being the obvious one, and got me through the 2016 election aftermath with episodes like when Utena beats Touga after he defeats her the first time, showing how women can triumph eventually even when the odds are wholly stacked against us. And it has a really probing analysis of the patriarchy and heteronormativity woven throughout the whole show.

A whole bunch of magical girl anime (not the entire genre, some suck and are made for gross dudes, but a lot of them, especially the 90s ones are aimed at women - Sailor Moon and Cardcaptor Sakura etc). Sayo Yamamoto's stuff that isn't Yuri on Ice - not that that show isn't great and gay and cute and doesn't say interesting things in its occasional one-off subplots about women, but it's obviously focused on men. But people who liked it who want great women-centric stuff should watch her Lupin III: The Woman Called Fujiko Mine and Michiko and Hatchin, both centered on women and very feminist in their themes, albeit in a way that requires you to pay attention and think and watch the whole show so you occasionally get Tumblrites without reading comprehension missing the point of them. I was really surprised, given the kind of trashy title, by the anime Maria the Virgin Witch, which is all about fighting patriarchal ideas about sex in fantasy medieval Europe. Also, Yurikuma Arashi by the same creator as Utena is a really good analysis of the ways that lesbians are portrayed in Japanese media and by the broader patriarchy.

For as much misogyny as there is in anime, the stuff that does engage with feminism can often be pretty radical and smart and does it better than you'll see in a lot of other media. It's like having that low hum of misogyny in the medium as a whole builds up a rage in some of its creators that just explodes in the stuff they make. Same with how it often engages with queer themes, tbh.

And then there's just that anime has a lot more female-character-centered stuff even if it isn't "feminist" exactly. Like stuff about women where the story and world is centered on women that you can just put on as a comfort watch. Love Live or something lol

you do bring up a good point about fma, i kinda forgot about that bc i watched it like a decade ago. rgu is really great and i defo recommend it even tho it was directed by a man. yurikuma is actually my fave anime of all time but does seem sexist and fan servicey on the surface. and i love love live and the other cgdct anime but it feels like there is always an underlying misogyny of that genre, knowing how the male fans and creators are. if i were to recommend a comfort watch i would go with k-on bc it has a female director.

thanks for the recs!

[redjennies]

i see you sometimes in different dragon age tags like "oh yeah the lae'zel fan with the redjenny url. who also likes oghren. extreme good taste" and then as an anders girlie i see your "anti"-anders post and im like "yeah they even have good taste in the way they hate my guy"

aw I really appreciate this! I'm really glad people like my takes on Oghren. I almost posted this long ass meta about him while doing my Brosca playthrough but ended up saving it to the drafts because I was like "girl you are the only person going to bat for this man and everyone else is just tolerating your right to be ornery about disliked characters." I just think about him at the Temple of Sacred Ashes a lot. to anyone reading this, if you've never brought him there, you are truly missing out on some fucking wild character work. he is a gem.

truthfully I'm not even really that anti-Anders when I'm not actively in a mood about how much this fandom annoys me. I'm extremely critical of him as a person and full disclosure, without trauma-dumping too much, I do have a personal history that makes it hard for me to not see him as very manipulative if not outright abusive. but I actually quite enjoy him as a character. I think he's got a lot of flaws and strengths that are really interesting to examine how they coincide with Hawke's larger story. how Anders and Hawke are arguably more intrinsically linked to each other than Varric and Hawke are. it might surprise people but I intentionally max out his friendship every time with my main Hawke because I think their particular story is more tragic if she has fully drunk the Anders kool-aid because he's the first unapologetic apostate she's met outside of her family and because he saved Carver in the Deep Roads and she feels like she owes him. even more of a surprise possibly, I love Sebastian and don't like Anders, but my canon ending is Hawke sparing him one last time and asking him to leave because I think that's the best ending for how I play their relationship. like "no, you have asked so much of me and I have done it for you over and over but I'm not going to give you this, even at the expense of my other friendships. you don't get the easy way out. you have to live with this and you have to do it far away from me." like fuck man! the drama! the poetry! the divorce!

honestly most of my vitriol towards him comes from over a decade now of having an extremely negative experience with what I fully recognize are not all his fans but a vocal group of people who plague the Bioware fandom who are just as bigoted as your average fanboy but in a way they can dress up as "social justice." I've said a lot about how I think the Circle and apostates is just straight up a bad metaphor for systemic oppression (see also: any setting with supers and/or legitimately dangerous monsters as stand-in for oppressed people.) and I won't get into it too much here, but it's worth mentioning because I believe the mage rights discourse and Anders particularly attracts this crowd because you know he's a cute queer whiteboy with legitimate problems and pseudo-radical politics. but I was in the DA Tumblr fandom when Inquisition dropped I remember what group of fans on Tumblr who were particularly rabid in their hatred towards characters like Vivienne and Sera (who are both critical of mage freedom, mind.) 'Twas not primarily the Cullenites calling Vivienne an Uncle Tom, no matter what people will tell you now.

and I also get that there's this way Anders haters talk about him that makes even more otherwise reasonable fans dig their heels in about him. like any critique of him that boils down to "Anders bad because he did a terrorism and terrorism bad" is not really useful to me because yeah, I'm not super keen on bombings as the best course of political action, but terrorism is a very politically loaded and at this point somewhat meaningless term that is mostly used to justify extreme violence against a person or group by the state. I don't need to bring up real life examples because the politics of who is and isn't labeled a terrorist being shorthand for who is and isn't a person deserving of basic human rights has become so obvious over the last three decades that everyone knows at least one example of what I'm talking about. on top of that, I'm a big believer that fiction does not and should not exist in a vacuum and good art should provoke discussions about how we view people who do similar things that these fictional characters do. who are we being asked to give empathy to and who are we not? who are we naturally extending empathy to and who are we not? how do we immediately feel about these things? are we outraged? disgusted? moved? does sympathizing with these characters change our understanding of our personal ethical lines? are certain actions justified under dire circumstances or are there certain lines that should never be crossed? are people forever defined by it when they cross said lines? etc etc. none of these questions can be meaningfully answered by "no, thing bad because thing bad."

that being said, I still come down on the side of Anders is a shitty person at the end of the day. not because he blew up that church or even because he tried to kill that girl, but because there's a consistent lack of compassion for the suffering and/or oppression of others the second someone doesn't fit his mold. because he's honestly pretty sexist and racist in universe. because his romance plot is just a series of progressively worsening red flags in a way that's in my opinion, less sexy and more like he's gonna start punching holes in the wall right next to you. because he's lowkey a tankie. and I've said it before and I'll say it til the day I die, we can have a discussion about how ableism influenced his writing, but at the end of the day, as a mentally ill anarchist, I know buckets and buckets of mentally ill leftist whiteboys who act like this. shit I know women and nonbinary people who act like this too. while I can understand that Bioware wasn't necessarily coming from the same perspective I am and think people are right to call his overarching storyline a tired centrist liberal take on the dangers of radicalism, his character writing still feels not only coherent as a character but very true to a particular type of ain't shit anarchist boy I have encountered over and over. i cannot dismiss his flaws and worst moments as bad writing because I feel like I personally know this asshole.

for example, I once made a post about Dissent years and years ago where I was talking about Anders/Justice/Vengeance/whoever we're calling him depending on what's most useful in the moment's outburst of violence towards Ella through the lens of male entitlement even in leftist circles and like yeah I was being a little tongue in cheek about it because a) I'm pretty tongue in cheek in general, b) I have a tendency to get even more tongue in cheek when I'm talking about things that hit a little too close to home to me, and c) that quest is frankly terrifying if you've lived a life that makes you relate more to Ella in that scene than to Anders. I think it was something along the lines of "people can call Anders a revolutionary all they want but when a mage girl was afraid of him instead of grateful for his rescue, he tried to kill her. [insert anarcho-feminist ranting here]" and I remember someone arguing with me about how that's not what happened at all and how even though I was being pithy, their take on the situation was so utterly removed from what occurs that I had to go back and watch the scene to make sure I wasn't the one completely misremembering it which made me realize just how much Anders has been completely rewritten in parts of the fandom consciousness.

which in and of itself is not really a problem. I know some people just don't care for interacting with fanon at all and want to stay as true to canon as possible and I'm like that sometimes, but there are lots of characters I'm like "oh, I don't like how their story went in canon or think the writer had a neat idea but is too misogynistic to handle her in a way I like and I'm going to basically put them in an AU where they developed their traits in a different way and I can recognize this is more or less my version of them." there's characters I don't care for in canon but I love someone else's fanon version of them. I'm even fine with people doing this with Anders, if they want. I've read really good fic with him that is not my take but hey you do you, this is what transformative fandom is for after all. but I do get more than a little prickly when I'm interacting with my reading of canon that is of course informed by my experiences but still discussing something that just literally happens and someone tells me I'm wrong because of what basically amounts to their fanfics, you know?

anyway that's my very long post about my complicated and extremely nuanced Anders feelings. great character, shitty person, his fans are either really cool or really fucking not. also it's been almost fifteen years, and I still think we should've had Jowan in DA2 as a familiar face helping out in the mage underground to both flesh them out more and to serve as a middle ground between the more circle-aligned Orsino and the initially representing the mage underground before getting progressively more Kaczynski-esque, Anders, instead of Cullen just kind of hanging out in the templars not really doing anything.

[olderthannetfic]

/728571347409731584

Firstly, the person you're replying to only describe in-person experiences. Secondly, I've been to two universities in the US as a result of getting a scholarship midway through. At one, I was discouraged from attending the queer club on campus by the head of it, as I wasn't queer, I wasn't "really" aroace, I was just "a late bloomer". She informed me that everyone wants romance and sex sometimes. Aro and ace people want it less, she explained, to my face, standing ten feet from me, but they still want it.

No, it's not "only in online spaces". Queer people who use the queer segments of the internet do not only exist in darkened cellars they never emerge from. Teenagers and young adults go to college. It isn't 1998 anymore, pretending the internet and the physical world have zero overlap and what you read online cannot impact or shape your views is ridiculous.

You know how I know this? At my incredibly liberal university, where I live in a gender-inclusive nearly all queer dorm, not only have I heard two separate conversations at floor events about this where it was repeated by other queer students, including ace people, that ace people have sex and ace people do romance, with NO utterance of the word "sometimes", but today? Today, guys, gals and enbies, this Friday, this very fucking Shabbat, I heard it from a professor.

My Social Stratification professor said that asexuality is "a usually treatable condition" and "doesn't mean someone doesn't have sex, just that they have a low sex drive" and when I said some people don't have sex, she said "therapy can help" and topped it off with, "and of course they still masturbate frequently, so they're really not as different as people like to stereotype them as".

I don't. I don't masturbate, it's not fun for me. I don't long to fuck fictional characters or real people. I don't need therapy. I'm not traumatized. I don't have sex. I don't want romance. I don't find reading about it compelling most of the time, either. I don't need therapy for that, because you go to therapy for things that are negatively impacting my life, and actually?

I am aroace in the "wrong" way, a zero-sex, zero-romance, zero-masturbating person, and I'm happy. I like who I am. I like how I am. I have a good life at my dream university, with good friends, a nice room, roommates I like, a mostly walkable part of town, and I'm working on my dream degree to reach my dream career. I'm not huddled in the corner in the fetal position sobbing about the sex I secretly want or on my bed furiously masturbating to anything. I am not lying about my identity, my experiences, my thoughts or my feelings.

This professor is young, roughly 30. That means it's feasible she's been using tumblr for years, as it was popular during her teenage years, or she has been in the company of people who, via tumblr, Instagram, Amino, etc., have this idea of asexuality. And does that idea stay locked inside a computer somewhere? No, because the person who reads them doesn't. The people who read, internalize as truth and believe shitty online takes also exist in the real world. They have physical bodies they take to physical places and they open their mouth and say things, which are then passed onto other people who exist in the offline world.

"The only thing that [they] are seeing is internet wank" NO! The only thing you are seeing is internet wank, but there is not a mass conspiracy of college students across the USA to lie and say we're experiencing things we aren't, which would be the only explanation for so, so many ace people I know online talking in private on Discord servers, tumblr, in YouTube comments and in person having this same shared experience.

I genuinely don't know how people think no one could possibly have the same bad take offline that they do online. Q-Anon exists. January 6th happened. People get radicalized into beliefs much more absurd than this and act on those beliefs constantly and "no you just need to touch grass" is what you arrived at as a conclusion instead of "sometimes people are wrong"?

Though I say this with love, I mean it when I say that you don't just need to touch grass, you need to hug a whole hay bale.

--

[monsterblogging]

So this post I reblogged has got me thinking about humanity loss as a trope and the way it's treated. And just to clear things up for anyone who might be confused, I'm talking about stories that involve some amount of physical transformation (with possibly some amount of mental transformation), not just "losing your humanity" in the moral sense. (Though the idea that compassion = human is itself incredibly flawed, but we're not getting into that right now.)

So like, there is media where portraying loss of humanity as a bad thing actually makes sense - specifically, where it's a metaphor for something that's actually bad. The first example that comes to mind is where turning people into robots or cyborgs is used as a metaphor for the dehumanization of laborers. Rich fucks in real life want to treat workers like machines, so it's kind of a natural step to write fiction where it's presented a bit more literally. Or there's stories like Resident Evil 4, where transformation is an allegory for religious radicalization, because the bummer truth is that people who've been radicalized are more often than not impossible to reason with and either want to make you one of them or kill you. When the major bad guys turn into giant monsters, it's an allegory for wielding corrupt power.

(And for those of you out there going, "but people can be deradicalized???", I am with you! And this is why I think a lot of these narratives need to lighten up on the "oh no once you hit Certain Stage of Change there's no going back!!!" stuff.)

But then there's like... the people who miss the metaphor or have very chauvinist views, and oop - there is no allegory now (or at least, not much of one), and we get stories that effectively inform us that becoming too Other means we're no longer deserving of compassion, respect, autonomy, or even life. Like, you can tell that you're dealing with the kind of person who just doesn't really believe in universal human rights, or in people exercising too much autonomy. And I think it's very natural to have an "oh, fuck you" kind of response to this kind of thing.

And then sometimes there is an allegory, and the author is targeting queer people, communists, foreigners, or anybody the establishment isn't really a fan of. Once you realize that the author is just bullshitting, I think it's only natural to think that there could be another side to this story.

And I think it's also fair to ask ourselves if transformation into Something Else could be an allegory for something that isn't actually bad. Maybe getting in tune with some aspect of nature triggers changes; like you grow gills and fins after hanging out in the water for so long. Maybe this upsets the sensibilities of the people back home, but quite frankly it's none of their business where you choose to spend your time and what you allow to happen to your body. Or maybe the cult leader turned you into their perfect weapon, and maybe that process was traumatic, but what happens when you regain your autonomy? Are the abilities you gained inherently bad, or does it come down to what you choose to do with them? Do you really deserve to die just because your body has a different shape now and there's no way to undo it?

And sometimes transformations brings on various forms of disability, or the experiences the characters go through are very similar to the experience of being disabled in some way, which can make them very relatable to some people. When you see something about yourself in these characters, it's only natural to want them treated as a person who deserves compassion and accommodation, rather than nothing more than a dangerous monster.

Add into this that nonhuman characters in general are constantly given characteristics associated with autism, ADHD, and even trauma. Factor in that the temptation of turning into a creature who isn't expected to act "human" (read: neurotypical) so you can be released from burdening expectations. Factor in the desire to be free from anything considered "human," period. And don't forget the whole otherkin/alterhuman thing. Then of course there's the thrill of the idea of experiencing a novel form, of seeing how it feels to move in a differently-shaped body and exploring what you can do with it. And the temptation of stimming with a tail. And also the fact that people's bodies and minds will change throughout their lives and that's fine, actually. Nobody owes it to you or anyone to be the same forever.

So yeah, works of fiction that depict "losing your humanity," as in changing your physical body and rewiring your brain in a way that people find strange as inherently bad and morally wrong are crap. Change is nature, and if somebody wants try out life as a dragon that should be none of anybody else's fucking business.

[radiocmyk]

See the thing about all the misanthropy stuff is. I've always related to computers, monsters and aliens more than human characters in sci-fi stories. But specifically i've always related to computers, monsters and aliens who like and love humans. Who admire humans and who have hope for them and who take inspiration from them.

Sci-fi likes to do a certain trope a lot where they have the nonhuman robot/computer or alien or Etc. character hate humans, find them repulsive or pathetic or crude or etc. etc. I'm not even talking about stories where nonhuman characters lash out in response to mistreatment by humans. I won't lie and say i never relate to those characters too. Because i do, because i get it. But ones where they look down on humans for being human? Robots or AI who find humans laughable because they can't do things as quickly or because they bleed when they're hurt. Aliens, somehow always overly logical geniuses, who patronize human characters for not being an "advanced society" or for being prone to frivolous emotions. Werewolves who feel condescending disgust at humans simply because they aren't as physically strong; vampires or elves smugly laughing at the pitiful lifespan; dare I even start on tropes of angels and demons.

At the point you feel superior for the sole reason that they are human and you aren't— why is this better, how is this radical? These tropes involve the same feelings that a lot of humans have toward other beings, projected ideas of how every sapient thing would probably feel if they were in some way physically or intellectually superior... feelings about the very idea of superiority and inferiority that have been used to hurt me, in actual real life, when my disabilities or ethnicity or sexuality designate me inferior. I am not going to feel "superior" to anybody after growing up as a queer autistic Jew—and the Jewish part of all this is essential here, I think, considering everybody reading this is probably queer and autistic—knowing that superior and inferior are not things that even exist, especially when applied to people. They can't be and shouldn't be.

IDK where i'm going with this. You can feel whichever way you want. I'd rather misanthropy be rampant in the community than for everybody to feel like they're required to have or voice some sort of saccharine optimist-approved hopepunk "faith in humanity." G-d knows i'm not an optimist, let alone faithful. This is all just stream of consciousness now but i guess i'm saying in a way not only do I relate to fictional nonhumans who care about humanity, that's just kind of what I literally am. I'm not human and i admire humans for what they are. Not just that. I recognize what they are; a completely neutral type of being without inherent moral or ontological significance, just like everything else. I don't think i would go as far as to wish I was human like narratives for these characters often do, but I just can't vibe with misanthropy. Humans started naming all the animals they saw. Humans came up with music and tea and made bananas really good. Humans wrote down all the things that happened to them so the future could know about it. Humans wrote stories where computers and animals and aliens are their friends just so they could feel less alone. How in the universe could you ever decline the offer?

[denimbex1986]

"Sorry about your mom, sorry to hear that. Grief is such, um, it's such a difficult thing to quantify and to categorise in some ways, um, and I don't think necessarily grief, um, is always related to death or the loss of life. I think we experience grief much more than we can recognise actually. I think, you know, um, the end of a relationship or the end of a phase of your life or just something where you think: 'I don't have that anymore and I can never get it back.' I think that's how I would quantify grief, qu - over sadness."

"But at the time that we were filming, my mum, I found out that she'd become quite sick. It was - it's so interesting now looking back; I wasn't able to process it at the time, but my body was processing it. Something that I've learnt about grief is that it's a physical thing and it's actually has nothing to do - you can say that you're fine in your head, but it has to manifest itself."

"It's that expression 'The body keeps the score.' I think that's so brilliant. It's like you can say whatever you want, but your body will tell you the truth."

"I think for so many people, particularly uh, queer people, uh, you can feel estranged from your own family; you can feel like a stranger in your own family, even if they haven't direct - you know - rejected you outwardly; you just feel slightly different perhaps. Um, and I think that's really the case for both of them. Um, I, I think had they had maybe a bit more support from their families, they might be in different situations."

"I think what's going on with Harry's family is actually slightly more insidious. They, like he's come out to his family, how lucky is he that his family are still there in comparison to Adam's - but they may as well be ghosts and dead, because they don't exist because they're not there for him in actuality. I think it's just really - that, that part for me is really upsetting because you think the world has come further down the track - I think what the film is saying is that yes that has happened, but if you look at isolated members of the queer community, that's not the true experience."

“There’s no big sweeping romantic gestures and yet I think the film is absolutely romantic. Like, all these characters do is listen to each other and are there for each other. To love with courage sounds so simple on paper, but I think it's utterly radical, and requires a huge amount of bravery, so I think what they give to each other is their total focus and attention.”

"Some of the most pleasurable things to shoot were actually stuff within a, I suppose for want of a better word, a montage sequence, where you see them - where you see them just actually enjoying the small things, life, or you know, just having a shower or being asleep or - all the tiny things in life that are so beautiful and wonderful to experience. And I think that's particularly - it's, it's even more of a balm for them because they haven't had it before."

[bookwyrminspiration]

what’s kotlc and is it better than the great library? i read the latter and it was fun, perhaps not the height of literature but fun

OKAY! Keeper of the Lost Cities by Shannon Messenger is a long, ongoing middle-grade fantasy series following Sophie Foster, a 12-year-old high school senior who can read thoughts following a bump to the head at age 5--or so she thinks, until she's approached by a cute stranger who reveals she's really an elf who's been hidden away.

She's whisked away to a secret, supposedly perfect world of elves, goblins, ogres, and more. Sophie wants nothing more than to be normal, and tries to fit in--go to school, play with friends, etc.--but all her abnormalities have followed her from the human world. She's still weird, and it turns out it might be the result of bigger forces working behind the scenes. Forces she needs to uncover to learn who and what she truly is--but there's no taking it back, and plunging into the underbelly of her supposedly "perfect" new world opens a seemingly never-ending rabbit hole to try and understand and save it from itself. Full of rebellions, corruption, mysterious notes, stuffed animals, a large cast of characters, and so. many. sparkles. there's a lot going on for Sophie to discover

I think tgl and kotlc are hard to directly compare. tgl has a lot of explicit found family, fast-paced action, and is, like you said, just genuinely fun to read. it's quick, speaks to booklovers, and embraces a variety of different moral stances in a way that distinctly characterizes everyone. but it does falter in terms of consistency, and there are several contradicting details throughout it. kotlc is more structurally sound, but it is meant for a younger audience--which is not to say it's bad, but that it does impact reading. There are some cliches, such as experiment children, excessively powerful ocs, a love triangle, etc. It also has a fairly developed and explored world on several fronts, though there are some gaps. It does, however, want for diversity and representation. There are few non-white characters, few disabled characters, and no acknowledgement of queerness so far--though given recent releases it's possible that last part will change.

While kotlc is a special interest of mine and I'm quite attached to it, I don't necessarily recommend it to people outside the middle-grade age range. It's a solid series despite its flaws, but that doesn't mean you'll be head over heels; if you read it, I think it would be similar to how tgl was fun but not the height of literature. It's enjoyable and there are a wealth of characters to get attached to, compelling plotlines/character pasts, but unless you really click it'll just be a solid, time-filling read.

The series has also had a rough few years recently; the author has a lot going on in her personal life--which is totally fine, it just means there are long waiting periods currently. And not everyone thinks its worth it, because the story is going an unexpected direction and there are some creative choices made not everyone likes (too much focus on the love triangle, deposing the main character, butchering character arcs last minute, etc.).

All this to say kotlc has radically altered the course of my life and is an incredibly dear series to me, and I will be keeping up with it and blogging about it until the end of time with anyone who wants to join, but it's also not my favorite series I've ever read, if that distinction makes sense. If you do want some simple, if long, reading--go for it! We're always excited to have new people around and would love to have you. There's actually a pretty consistent, if small, fandom and a lot of art, fic, and other things to explore. But we'd also all understand without any pushing if it's not for you.

That was longer than I meant it to be, but if you have any further questions please do ask :)--and again, this is my view on it! Just my opinions and assessments

[lupuslikethewolf]

One thing i have noticed in regards to J*R's bigotry and how it is presented in popular media (i.e. news stations, articles and by celebrites) is that the main focus seems to be on the transphobia, and - as a british trans person - i think it is safe to say that a major reason for that is the rampant transphobia already present in this country, but the blatant anti-semitism, racism, misogyny, and right-wing politics tend to just get swept under the rug.

I am brown (desi), trans-masc and gay, but i'm not jewish, so if i am incorrect about anything i say regarding anti-semitism, then please correct me! this is based of research and what i have heard from jewish people, not personal experience.

In order: Misogyny and TERFism, Transphobia and UK Politics, Racism and Xenophobia in Writing, and Anti-Semetism and Caricatures.

Misogyny and TERF-ism

I think the first thing to say is that J*R glamorises the term TERF, or 'Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist' and considers herself the height of Women's Rights Activism.

I think this is truly evident in the fact that she seems unable to include a female protagonist in HP that isn't motherly or a love interest. Hermione Granger, while the most well-rounded and complex of the female characters, is the caretaker of Ron and Harry during their time at Hogwarts as students, and is treated as the 'back-up' girlfriend by Ron and Harry during the Fourth Year Yule Ball. Lavender Brown exists to create a 'Not Like Other Girls' trait in Hermione by distancing her from all the boy obsessed, hyper-feminine 'bad' girly-girls of Gryffindor. She is also, again, nothing more than a love interest. Molly Weasley is a mother figure for Harry, and everything about her eventually links back to that fact. She cooks, cleans, looks after people, knits and sews, etc etc. Nymphadora Tonks was actually an interesting and badass character, but then J*R got mad at her fandom for doing fandom things and turned her into a one-dimensional tragic love interest for her queer-coded character who she has admitted to writing as a fucking AIDs allegory.

I believe this view is rooted in her transphobia, TERF-ism and internalised misogyny, as J*R cannot create a 'good' woman who isn't motherly and feminine, but only in the acceptable way. This is seen in Rita Skeeter, who is also hyper-feminine and yet described in a very masculine way, with 'thick fingers' and a 'heavy-jawed face'.

Transphobia and UK Politics

The transphobia tends to rear its head most often because it is incredibly common and in the public eye, especially with the UK government repeatedly shooting down efforts to make progress, like how they blocked Scotland's law to make self-recognition easier for trans people. It is also evident in her TERF-ism and the fact that she no longer hides her support for anti-trans movements, and instead uses her platform and wealth to fund and promote them.

There is also the fact that she has also been using that same platform and wealth to publicly campaign against Scottish Independence for far longer.

The UK Tory (aka Conservative) Party has routinely held up J*R as a bastion of good-will, 'progress', and the ultimate citizen, even quoting her directly when sprouting anti-trans bullshit. While J*R will claim to be a Feminist and support Labour (the only real left-leaning opposition to the Tories), her views often align more with those she claims not to support.

Politics also show themselves in characters such as Seamus Finnegan, the only Irish character, with the most stereotypically Irish name there is, who is always blowing things up when trying to cast spells, and loves to drink. In the 90s, when HP was set, Northern Ireland was suffering from something known as 'The Troubles', wherein two sides known as 'Protestants' and 'Catholics', whether there was a religious affiliation or not, were bombing, street fighting, sniper attacks and committing other acts of civil warfare all throughout the country. And J*R put those actions onto a child.

That's some Tory shit right there.

Racism and Xenophobia in Writing

If you have seen any criticisms of J*R's writing of diverse characters, you will know that she has a massive, massive problem with using stereotypes, especially in names, to portray her Characters of Colour.

I think the most obvious tends to be Kingsley Shacklebolt, the only major black protagonist in the series. She named her only black character Shacklebolt.

SHACKLE bolt.

Just let that sink in for a minute.

Then there is Cho Chang, who's only personality traits include being sad about her boyfriend, kissing Harry Potter, and being smart. She is also the only main asian protagonist, and her name is just two east asian-sounding surnames put together.

'Cho' is Korean or Burmese, and 'Chang' is a romanised Chinese surname.

Padma and Parvati Patil rely on the same stereotypes. Their culture - especially the clothing - is completely butchered and used as nothing more than fan-service to prove how not-racist she is (yeah right) and are only around to be love interests who get tossed aside and treated horribly by Ron and Harry.

'Padma' is a Persian name while 'Parvati' is a Hindu/Sanskrit name.

If a writer needs to rely on stereotypes and racist views to write her characters of colour, than she is not a good writer and either needs to be held accountable and made to unlearn her biases, or simply not allowed to write anymore.

Anti-Semitism and Caricatures

Reminder to listen to Jewish People and the Jewish Community when it comes to Anti-Semitism in HP, not just some non-jewish 16-year-old with too much time on their hands and unlimited internet access trying to procrastinate revising for their exams!!

(Tumblr crashed when i was writing this part of the post,,,, feels targeted /lh) Also, this is not a definitive list of anti-semetic items in HP, go look at a Jewish person's perspective to fully understand! This is a good post from @/whilommm regarding the new HP game and this post by @/genderkoolaid which talks about a youtuber posting videos on antisemitism and other issues head-on.

Goblins are the most prolific anti-semetic stereotype seen throughout HP, and most other mythology.

The first and most obvious thing, in my opinion, is the description of their noses. Hooked noses are a very distinct trait found most often in Jewish people, and are described very often in the Goblins, and not only that, but Snape and other villains in HP have 'bad' or 'ugly' noses.

Goblins are also greedy money-hoarders who run the banks, which feeds into anti-semetic conspiracy theories about Jewish people running the world's economy, and the N@zi propaganda of Jewish people hoarding wealth and collapsing the German economy.

There are little-to-no female goblins. Which, while also feeding into the misogynistic side of J*R's writing, also presents jewish-coded characters as being inherently misogynistic when that is not the case of any ethnic and/or religious group.

The goblins are rude to wizards and any other outsider, which is a belief that likely stems from the fact that it is an incredibly hard and long process to convert fully to Judaism, as the beginning involves being turned away from converting three times by the same Rabbi. This does not make Judaism or Jewish People xenophobic or even otherwise cautious of outsiders, it is simply part of their religious conversion process made to deter people who do not genuinely want to be apart of the religion and to make sure those converting are doing so with good and honest intentions.

If the Death Eaters are meant to be Fascist N@zi Allegories, why not make the only jewish-coded characters you have actually well-fucking-written and main fucking characters. Or, better yet, Don't Call It A Fucking A Nazi Allagory!!! Oppression doesn't have to involve Fasicsm/Nazis!!

The New Harry Potter Game Not To Be Named And Only Ever Pirated If Even That is a whole other can of worms of blood libel, romanticising oppression and even more anti-semetic caricatures that deserves its own post.

Final Notes

This is not a definitive list, but simply what I personally am most angry about and can remember the clearest from my last re-read of Harry Potter. Other things to be considered: bad world building that makes no sense, werewolves as an AIDS allegory that then proceed to prey on kids, homophobia regarding dumbledore and wolfstar, and her use of slavery and 'slaves who enjoy being enslaved' because what the fuck was that thought process.

Here is a post @/chaos-in-one with some other links and more brilliant points about why people should hate J*R

[remus-poopin]

1,5,10 and 27 for the snape asks ;3

1. Do you have a snOTP? What is it?

I’m not really a shipper so I don’t really have any ships I feel that strongly about but if I had to choose for Snape than maybe platonic Snily (if that counts lol)

5. Do you think Snape ever loved anyone other than Lily, romantically or platonically?

No, I don’t think he loved any other person romantically (I think I’m in the snapedom minority because I actually think Snape did have romantic feelings for Lily). I don’t really see him being that romantically active tbh. Platonically I don’t think so either. I think he may have cared for his DE friends but I’m not sure he loved them. Maybe I can see him loving the Malfoys though.

10. Do you think Snape's character has changed the way you think/feel about others?

Actually yes, a lot. When I first got into the snapedom it was from a lot of meta and analysis and one of the things that kept popping up was the class conversation, DE grooming, and radicalization. I think this (along with all the left-tube Contrapoints type videos I was watching at the time) really changed my perspective on the people who join hate groups. Because I’m a black queer women and I came of age on tumblr during the rise of the Alt-right movement it was very hard for me to see the humanity in those people (not that I wasn’t capable but I just wasn’t interested in trying to). I think I did myself a disservice in not trying to figure out what the hell was going on with these people because if I did I would have had a much better understanding of the people who were apparently against my whole existence. It was very easy to write these people off as just hateful racists and leave it at that.

Learning about radicalization and how young (white) men, usually poor, usually bullied, and usually victims of SA or assault are drawn to hate movements where they feel like they can reclaim some of the power that “was stolen from them” that they feel was rightfully theirs in the first place (that they are “entitled to by society”) helped me understand those movements more deeply and how they function (I’m actually writing something on this rn and I want to make it into Snape meta eventually).

Reading the Snape meta got me more interested in that process as it was very relevant to todays American politics which was always an interest of mine. Me coming to like Snape actually humanized those people for me, which I feel is incredibly important because dehumanization, even of those who are extremely shitty is never helpful (my black ass still wouldn’t want to be anywhere near these people tho). My love for Snape mostly comes from the fact that he made it out to the other side from that hate. I think that’s a really valuable story to tell, especially in our times.

So my love for Snape has really increased my empathy and that is something I’ll always be grateful for.

27. Do you think Snape was close to his mother?

I wouldn’t say close because I don’t think she really spent a lot of time with him or anything like that. I always viewed her as distant and a bit defeated. I think Snape definitely liked her more than his dad, but I don’t think they were a close mother son duo by any means.