#WAR (coding discourse) IS OVER!!!!!

[azuremist]

FROM THE CREATOR HIMSELF I’M CACKLING

[scientia-rex]

When I was in ninth grade I wanted to challenge what I saw as a very stupid dress code policy (not being allowed to wear spikes regardless of the size or sharpness of the spikes). My dad said to me, “What is your objective?”

He said it over and over. I contemplated that. I wanted to change an unfair dress code. What did I stand to gain? What did I stand to lose? If what I really wanted was to change the dress code, what would be my most effective potential approach? (He also gave me Discourses on the Fall of Rome by Titus Livius, Machiavelli’s magnum opus. Of course he’d already given me The Prince, Five Rings, and The Art of War.)

I ultimately printed out that phrase, coated it in Mod Podge, and clipped it to my bathroom mirror so I would look at it and think about it every day.

What is your objective?

Forget about how you feel. Ask yourself, what do you want to see happen? And then ask, how can you make it happen? Who needs to agree with you? Who has the power to implement this change? What are the points where you have leverage over them? If you use that leverage now, will you impair your ability to use it in the future? Getting what you want is about effectiveness. It is not about being an alpha or a sigma or whatever other bullshit the men’s right whiners are on about now. You won’t find any MRA talking points in Musashi, because they are not relevant.

I had no clear leverage on the dress code issue. My parents were not on the PTA; neither were any of my friend’s parents who liked me. The teachers did not care about this. Ultimately I just wore what I wanted, my patent leather collar from Hot Topic with large but flattened spikes, and I had guessed correctly—the teachers also did not care enough to discipline me.

I often see people on tumblr, mostly the very young, flail around in discourse. They don’t have an objective. They don’t know what they want to achieve, and they have never thought about strategizing and interpersonal effectiveness. No one can get everything they want by being an asshole. You must be able to work with other people, and that includes smiling when you hate them.

Read Machiavelli. Start with The Prince, but then move on to Discourses. Read Musashi’s Five Rings. Read The Art of War. They’re classics for a reason. They can’t cover all situations, but they can do more for how you think about strategizing than anything you’re getting in middle school and high school curricula.

Don’t vote third party unless you can tell me not only what your objective is but also why this action stands a meaningful chance of accomplishing it. Otherwise, back up and approach your strategy from a new angle. I don’t care how angry you are with Biden right now. He knows about it, and he is both trying to do something and not doing enough. I care about what will happen to millions of people if we have another Trump presidency. Look up Ross Perot, and learn from our past. Find your objective. If it is to stop the genocide in Palestine now, call your elected representatives now. They don’t care about emails; they care about phone calls, because they live in the past. I know this because I shadowed a lobbyist, because knowing how power works is critical to using it.

How do you think I have gotten two clinics to start including gender care in their planning?

Start small. Chip away. Keep working. Find your leverage; figure out how and when to effectively use it. Choose your battles, so that you can concentrate on the battle at hand instead of wasting your resources in many directions. Learn from the accumulated wisdom of people who spent their lives learning by doing, by making mistakes, by watching the mistakes of their enemies.

Don’t be a dickhead. Be smarter than I was at 14. Ask yourself: what is your objective?

[fatehbaz]

[A]nti-homeless laws [...] rooted in European anti-vagrancy laws were adapted across parts of the Japanese empire [...] at the turn of the 20th century. [...] [C]riminalising ideas transferred from anti-vagrancy statutes into [contemporary] welfare systems. [...] [W]elfare and border control systems - substantively shaped by imperial aversions to racialised ideas of uncivilised vagrants - mutually served as a transnational legal architecture [...] [leading to] [t]oday's modern divides between homeless persons, migrants, and refugees [...].

---

By the Boer Wars (1880–1902), Euro-American powers and settler-colonial governments professed anxieties about White degeneration and the so-called “Yellow Peril” alongside other existential threats to White supremacy [...]. Japan [...] validated the creation of transnational racial hierarchies as it sought to elevate its own global standing [...]. [O]ne key legal instrument for achieving such racialised orders was the vagrancy concept, rooted in vagrancy laws that originated in Europe and proliferated globally through imperial-colonial conquest [...].

[A]nti-vagrancy regulation [...] shaped public thinking around homelessness [...]. Such laws were applied as a “criminal making device” (Kimber 2013:544) and "catch-all detention rationale" (Agee 2018:1659) targeting persons deemed threats for their supposedly transgressive or "wayward interiority" (Nicolazzo 2014:339) measured against raced, gendered, ableist, and classed norms [...]. Through the mid-20th century, vagrancy laws were aggressively used to control migration [and] encourage labour [...]. As vagrancy laws fell out of favour, [...] a "vagrancy concept" nonetheless thrived in welfare systems that similarly meted out punishment for ostensible vagrant-like qualities [...], [which] helps explain why particular discourses about the mobile poor have persisted to date [...].

---

During high imperialism (1870–1914), European, American, and Japanese empires expanded rapidly, aided by technologies like steam and electricity. The Boer Wars and Japan's ascent to Great Power status each profoundly influenced trans-imperial dynamics, hardening Euro-American concerns regarding a perceived deterioration of the White race. [...] Through the 1870s [...] the [Japanese] government introduced modern police forces and a centralised koseki register to monitor spatial movement. The koseki register, which recorded geographic origins, also served as a tool for marking racialised groups including Ainu, Burakumin, Chinese, [...] and Korean subjects across Japan's empire [...]. The 1880 Penal Code contained Japan's first anti-vagrancy statute, based on French models [...]. Tokyo's Governor Matsuda, known for introducing geographic segregation of the rich and poor, expressed concern around 1882 for kichinyado (daily lodgings), which he identified as “den[s] for people without fixed employment or [koseki] registration” [...].

Attention to “vagrant foreigners” (furō-gaikokujin) emerged in Japanese media and politics in the mid-1890s. It stemmed directly from contemporary British debates over immigration restrictions targeting predominantly Jewish “destitute aliens” [...].

The 1896 Landing Regulation for Qing Nationals barred entry of “people without fixed employment” and “Chinese labourers” [...], justified as essential "for maintaining public peace and morals" in legal documents [...]. Notably, prohibitions against Chinese labourers were repeatedly modified at the British consulate's behest through 1899 to ensure more workers for [the British-affiliated plantation] tea industry. [...]

---

Simultaneously, new welfaristic measures emerged alongside such punitive anti-vagrancy statutes. [...] Such border control regulations were eventually standardised in Japan's first immigration law, the 1918 Foreigners’ Entry Order. [...] This turn towards instituting racialised territorial boundaries should be understood in light of empire's concurrent welfarist turn [...]. Japanese administration established a quasi-carceral workhouse system in 1906 [in colonized territory of East Asia] [...] which sentenced [...] vagrants to years in workhouses. This law still treated vagrancy as illegal, but touted its remedy of compulsory labour as welfaristic. [...] This welfarist tum led to a proliferation of state-run programmes [...] connecting [lower classes] to employment. Therein, the vagrancy concept became operative in sorting between subjects deemed deserving, or undeserving, of aid. Effectively, surveillance practices in welfare systems mobilised the vagrancy concept to, firstly, justify supportive assistance and labour protections centring able-bodied, and especially married, Japanese men deemed “willing to work” and, secondly, withhold protections from racialised persons for their perceived waywardness [...] as contemporaneous Burakumin, Korean, and Ainu movements frequently protested [...]. [D]uring the American occupation (1945–1952), not only were anti-vagrancy statutes reinstituted in Japan's 1948 Minor Offences Act, but [...] the 1946 Livelihood Protection Act (Article 2) excluded “people unwilling to work or lazy” from social insurance coverage [...].

---

Imperial expansion relied on not only claiming new markets and territories, but also using borders as places for negotiating legal powers and personhood [...]. Japan [...] integrated Euro-American ideas and practices attached to extraterritorial governance, like exceptionalism and legal immunity, into its legal systems. [...] (Importantly, because supportive systems [welfare], like punitive ones, were racialised to differentially regulate mobilities according to racial-ethic hierarchies, they were not universally beneficial to all eligible subjects.) [...]

At the turn of the century, imperialism and industrial capitalism had co-produced new transnational mobilities [which induced mass movements of poor and newly displaced people seeking income] [...]. These mobilities - unlike those celebrated in imperial travel writing - conflicted with racist imaginaries of who should possess freedom of movement, thereby triggering racialised concerns over vagrancy [...]. In both Euro-American and Japanese contexts, [...] racialised “lawless” Others (readily associated with vagrancy) were treated as threats to “public order” and “public peace and morals”. [...] Early 20th century discourse about vagrants, undesirable aliens, and “vagrant foreigners” [...] produced [...] "new categories of [illegal] people" [...] that cast particular people outside of systems of state aid and protection. [...] [P]ractices of illegalisation impress upon people, “the constant threat of removal, of being coercively forced out and physically removed [...] … an expulsion from life and living itself”.

---

All text above by: Rayna Rusenko. "The Vagrancy Concept, Border Control, and Legal Architectures of Human In/Security". Antipode [A Radical Journal of Geography] Volume 56, Issue 2, pages 628-650. First published 24 October 2023. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Text within brackets added by me for clarity. Presented here for criticism, teaching, commentary purposes.]

[anxious-witch]

Since I can't seem to stay quiet and I all but made up my mind to stay away from the tag for the next week or so, let's talk about recent discussions about jance and bokris and this...weird ship war that has been going on, shall we?

Under the cut bc while I am annoying, I will spare you the essay if you don't want to read it, god knows I write too many of these.

I don't know when we as a fandom got to a point where we are even fighting over which ship is more likely, more realistic and if the other ship is "more queer coded" or whatever the fuck. I was under the impression that the fandom is meant to be fun thing we do, but that we are all aware shipping is something that's made up. And that even if guys play into it or even if someone is indeed really dating we are aware that what we think about it is irrelevant. Factually, even if someone "was right" about the ship, our perception of it will be widely different than the truth of real people's relationship. Because these are real people, not fictional characters. They cannot queerbait, and jokes aside, even calling someone queer coded is weird, you guys. At the end of the day, we cannot assume someone's sexuality based on how they look.

As for the whole bokris-jance discourse. I don't even know why this is a thing? Bokris people, you got fantastic solo photos of both Bojan and Kris, full of symbolism and got the fire-water link between them that's just perfect for fics.

Jance people, you got joined photoshoot, with Jan and Nace clearly being very intimately connected, which you can interpret in whatever way you wish in fics and fanart. The fact that there are less pictures speaks volumes about how private whatever they have is.

Both have it's merits. Both have it's weight. I don't understand this aggression and fighting over art. Art all of them participated in creating by speaking with Damon about it before doing the photoshoot.

I have friends who ship jance more and I have friends who ship bokris more. The truth about both is that we simply don't know what's going on behind closed doors. Even more importantly, is whatever it is that we don't know worth losing the community we built here? I feel like every time I get into the tag, there is something new people are fighting over. This is just the last thing that seems relevant and that most people got involved into.

But genuinely, I am just tired. I hope things calm down when the new song drops, although god knows there will likely be a discourse over that as well, but hopefully...less than this.

And yeah, I do know this will probably get me blocked from one or the other side or both but let's just...get it over with. Since I feel like this will happen again, I might as well make my stance clear now. Which is-I am not picking a side. I don't think real people can queerbait and that they'd do a joined photoshoot if they didn't have a very deep connection to one another. I don't think they also need their virtue defended because they definitely knew people will speculate after this. But I also don't think this 100% means they are together. Yes, it sucks that queer people need to outright say these things, but I also wouldn't claim a straight couple is dating unless they publicly announced it.

So yeah can we all just please try to chill and do fun stuff again, please?

[palestinegenocide]

Zionism will never be viewed the same after the Gaza genocide

How do you wrap your head around genocide? As one numb week follows another, our leaders blind themselves to massacre and famine.

Joe Biden can see no “compelling alternative to how Israel [wages] a war in these circumstances without doing grievous harm to civilians,” Aaron David Miller writes in the New York Times, excusing the president’s support for genocide. So, Israel isn’t being deliberately cruel and sadistic. The Times coverage would just have you believe they just have no choice– as Donald Johnson wrote in a letter to the paper. “There is no middle ground between what Israel is doing and Gandhian pacifism: They just had to use 2000 lb bombs in urban settings. They have to torture captives and cut off food.”

Miller and other liberal Zionists have adopted that stance, but they are having little influence on Democrats. Polls show that the American people favor giving humanitarian aid to Gaza in far greater numbers than they do giving military aid to Israel, and the progressive base of the Democratic Party has started a political “firestorm” over U.S. support for genocide. The Zionist group J Street postponed its 2024 conference, surely because its own rank and file are enraged by Israel.

James Carville said on MSNBC this week that if Biden loses, it’s Israel’s fault, because the catastrophe in Gaza is an issue “all across the country.”

“This Gaza stuff, this is not just a problem with some snot-nosed Ivy League people…This is a problem all across the country. And I hope the president and Blinken can get this thing calmed down because if it doesn’t get calmed down before the Democratic convention, it’s going to be a very ugly time in Chicago. I promise you that. No matter what happens, I know it’s a huge problem.”

Last week, Brad Sherman, the Israel-loving Congress member from Los Angeles, fought back, accusing “anti-Israel forces” of an “attempt to penetrate and muddy our national discourse.”

Protesters affiliated with the antiwar group Code Pink seek to ask Rep. Brad Sherman about his support for the massacres of Palestinians in Gaza, in a video posted March 20, 2024. The congressman from Los Angeles/Malibu ran away from the protesters and accused them of seeking the genocide of Jews. Screenshot.

Sherman accused them of antisemitism. “There’s blood on your hands for the genocide—you’re trying to kill every Jew.”

That is the chief refuge for Democrats who excuse Israel’s actions. To say that critics of genocide are motivated by antisemitism.

But even liberal media are giving a platform to progressive critics. “The United States is complicit in genocide,” Mehdi Hasan said this week on New York public radio, and when the host pushed back and said Hasan was not blaming Hamas, Hasan said of course he denounces Hamas, but his tax dollars are not going to support Hamas. He also pointed out the inevitable consequences of military occupation. “The oppressed will always rise against the oppressor.”

And in wonderful media news this week, Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg withdrew from a speaking engagement in Kentucky after students questioned his record in the Israeli military nearly 40 years ago.

Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic, withdrew from a scheduled speaking event at the University of Kentucky (UK) Wednesday, citing a last-minute schedule change, amidst concerns from students about his past as a former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) prison guard and his views on Zionism…. “We were informed that students expressed concern as to why a former IDF prison guard would be speaking on democracy and journalism at an event celebrating the integration of UK. Students were told he withdrew to not cause harm on campus,” the representative [of a Palestinian solidarity group] stated.

The event was billed as “The Future of Journalism and the Health of Our Democracy.” That’s a little bit of accountability. The editor of the Atlantic is finally being called out for his service for Israel. The writer Yakov Hirsch repeatedly explained on our site that Netanyahu could not have maintained his faultless reputation in the U.S. mainstream without Goldberg fostering “hasbara culture.”

And bear in mind, that Goldberg used to brag about his military service. He wrote a whole memoir about it. Now, times are changing. And other editors who carried water for Israel will surely be called on to defend that work.

This process is just beginning. Zionists still have esteem in the U.S. discourse. The view that Israel supporters promote bigotry against Palestinians is still off-limits. Even as mainstream Jewish organizations assert that those who support Palestinian rights are bigoted against Jews.

“Israel supporters should be seen as on the same moral level as supporters of Bull Connor, but in the U.S. and Western mainstream you can only point to antisemitism— you can never point to anti-Palestinian racism on the Israel side,” Donald Johnson has written on our site.

“We cannot make progress on this issue if the extreme racism of the pro-genocide side is never discussed. People have to be able to say that any group, whether white southerners or South Africans or Nation of Islam members or Christian evangelical Zionists or Germans or, yes, Jewish supporters of Israel, can be racists. They can make racism central to their ideology. But Zionist racism is still a taboo subject, automatically branded as antisemitic, because fundamentally Palestinians are seen as lesser.”

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Troy O. Fritzhand

Canary Mission, an antisemitism watchdog group, has made headlines since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war for its work exposing groups and individuals that support the Palestinian terror group and express hatred for the Jewish state.

Critics have accused Canary Mission of what they call unfair “doxing,” or publicizing information about a person or organization without their consent. However, that has not stopped the watchdog from calling out a wide range of entities for allegedly antisemitic behavior and spreading hateful ideology throughout North America, especially on college campuses.

The organization, which operates anonymously, spoke to The Algemeiner about its work since Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. To stay anonymous and protect the safety of staff, the group did not attribute its remarks to a specific individual.

Since the outbreak of the war, Canary Mission has been working on what it calls four “significant” developments.

“First, there has been a sharp escalation in global antisemitism, both in frequency and severity,” a representative said. “We are no longer discussing simple breaches of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Discourse has alarmingly shifted to overt expressions of hate, including endorsements of Hamas’ violence against Jews, coupled with a stark indifference to the suffering of kidnapped, raped, and murdered Jews.”

Antisemitic incidents have skyrocketed globally since the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7. Most recently, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported a 360 percent surge in such incidents over the past three months, with about two-thirds directly related to the Israel-Hamas war.

“Second,” Canary Mission continued, “antisemites on the left and right seem even more willing to work with each other in their common cause against Jews and Israel.”

“Third, a bipartisan consensus has emerged with a clear recognition of the extreme antisemitism fostered within the anti-Israel movement,” the group added.

Lastly, Canary Mission addressed the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) refusing to say at a congressional hearing last month that calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their schools’ codes of conduct against bullying and harassment.

“Fourth, despite the dismal failure of Harvard, UPenn, and MIT leadership to condemn calls for the genocide against Jews, there have been some positive campus developments,” the watchdog said. “Several universities have finally understood that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is essentially an incubator for hatred and have taken action against them.”

Some schools have banned or suspended SJP chapters, which have orchestrated pro-Hamas demonstrations on campuses across the US, for violating school rules.

Over the past three months, Canary Mission has, among other projects, linked US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) to fundraisers with Hamas ties, profiled dozens of signatories of a letter denouncing Israel just one day after the Oct. 7 massacre, and exposed the organizers of a recent rally in Philadelphia that targeted a local Jewish restaurant for having a history of backing Hamas and calling for the destruction of Israel.

“Our support has significantly grown since the war began,” Canary Mission said. “The traffic to our website has substantially increased, reflecting the heightened interest in our cause … Our new support comes from across the political spectrum from individuals and organizations who understand the danger and hatred Jews are facing. Naturally, we have also received plenty of threats and abuse from neo-Nazis and anti-Israel activists alike.”

Canary Mission described its work as necessary and “far from finished” in combating “unfounded hatred towards Jews and the Jewish state.”

“Since our inception in 2015, Canary Mission has stood as a vigilant watchdog against antisemitism, with a particular focus on the spread of antisemitism in academic institutions,” the group said. “From UPenn to Harvard, our findings reveal an unsettling reality that has been simmering in American academia for years … Our work is comprehensive. We highlight instances of antisemitism across the political landscape and refuse to ignore or excuse it regardless of its source. The profiles we create are not just records but tools that hold individuals accountable for their words and actions. In doing so, we create lasting consequences for those who propagate hate against Jews and Israel.”

Canary Mission dismissed criticism that it’s doxing, saying it does not release any personal information such as home addresses, emails, or phone numbers. The watchdog added it “presents an individual’s words and actions. This enables the public to form their own opinion and decide on their own response to the content presented.”

Concluding, the group said, “Critics will continue to dislike the Canary Mission platform, and supporters will continue to recognize the vital importance of shining a light on anti-Jewish hatred during this difficult time in our history.”

“And a note to our critics: We are not going away — we have only just begun.”

[basiliths]

no because anakin was never dealt with a winning anything, my dude spent years as a slave’s kid working in the junk shop building droids as a form of fun.

i always enjoy the whole “Anakin just expected Obi-wan and Padmé to trust and listen to him?? Asshole” discourse because like… yeah??

not trying to self insert here but as a mentally I’ll individual 🫡 who in a fit of mania sometimes believes they are absolutely, 100% right and has the irrational thinking of; “im right, and you love me, you’re the person I love most, you should get it” & is totally irrationally emotional when they DONT, yeah… I GET THAT SIR!!

Even if it’s completely understandable, deep down I know they’re not at fault for not getting my own emotions, I’m in control of those — not others. I know this. Still, when my partner says something that goes against me it’s like nails against chalkboards sometimes

Again, when looking at Anakin he had nothing. He was a slave all his life, just to a different master each time. on Tatooine, to the Jedi/code, Palpatine and even to the Darth vader suit, he is never of his own free will. It was Qui-gon’s choice to win Anakin, to take him from his mother and home to what he thought would be a better life. granted it is, but he also finds himself isolated from what is imo what is supposed to be his “placeholder family”

MORE IMPORTANTLY Padmé is the love of his life, telling him that what he thinks they need, what he’s done for her and their family etc to be at peace/alive was actually WRONG!! BAD!! All meanwhile he doesn’t have any of his support at his side; Rex is off with ahsoka, obi-wan is fighting grievous on utpau meanwhile Palpatine has puppy Anakin at his every whim and call ((lets not forget that Palpatine had to have been grooming Anakin from a relatively young age)) They don’t get it, they didn’t see Padmé die before their very eyes, they don’t know what’s waiting them. Anakin is trying to save his family. Obi-Wan going against him is salt in the wound, even if Anakin himself knows it’s wrong and against the code and just completely evil.

I mean, Padmé FORGAVE him for the whole tusken massacre smh is it such a stretch to believe she would stand by his side as he waged war against the galaxy? i mean… isn’t that what love is…..? selfish, passionate, narcissistic, messy? she herself is a politician who often prioritized Anakin over her own duties I bet my man expected some “if you have a body in your trunk I’ll bring the shovel” type beat which also, i reiterate, WHY WOULDN’T HE when his wife forgave him for mass genocide, children included?,

he is emotionally/mentally fragile, he just recently slew younglings and killed Mace — you think this mf is thinking logically? Stop giving him the benefit of the doubt; he was a mess throughout the series, not once did he ever have his feet on the ground. He isn’t suddenly going to make the “right” decision, especially if it means sacrificing his loved ones. He’s an extremely flawed character, stop expecting him to make the right call.

The blocks of Anakin’s character have been set up to fall, Obi-Wan and Padmé are two of his most beloved relationships aside from his MOTHER that are completely dogging on his only hope of SAVING THEM. Anakin was never simply, “you have to do what I say or else I’ll get upset!” that’s a disrespect to his character — he can think logically. He isn’t a child. He is strategic, effective, in tcw he is the most efficient victorious warrior making Palpatine’s efforts look even better as leader of the republic. He builds droids from the time he is a young child all throughout his formative - adult years to the extent where knows how to understand their bleep bloops.

Anakin is flawed deeply, he was doomed from the get-go, never had a chance. His feelings are complex and deep and he questions the faith he swore to follow/protect. His character is so interesting to me and I have such a difficult time depicting the raw duality of man he wears on his shoulders everyday. Our desire to do good, yet to be evil; our desire to be unselfish, yet we are selfish.

This beautiful, scarred, monstrous mosaic of a man who from the very beginning, had a huge amount of pressure on him was meant to be so horribly dismantled. What other choice did he have? He is the chosen one, how could he be wrong? How could his idea of saving his family be any less honourable than the Jedi of the Galaxy?

He isn’t simply angry at them for not agreeing with him/falling with him, he feels betrayed. Personally. Obi-Wan and Padmé are pieces of Anakin, people that he loved so fiercely he labeled them as his enemies once they hurt him, he is too far gone to give them any semblance of second chances

anyways yep happy Thursday guys

[cartoonrival]

3 15 16 22 smirks

3. screenshot or description of the worst take you've seen on tumblr

ok if im being honest im STILL thinking about ytp/exploding hotdogs inthe micrwave-amy. NO SHE WOULD FUCKING NOTTTTT you guys just think that any girl liking traditionally feminine things automatically = no personality so the only way you can wrap your head around "fixing her" is making her less "girly". im still going to war over what ppl are doing to amy. literally no one on the planet understands amy like i do and shes not even one of my faves. i dont even enjoy understanding her like she's my own daughter i do it like its an obligation like im legally required. i also recently learned that "does naruto having blonde hair and blue eyes mean he's white-coded" is legitimate discourse and i fr think you all need serious help

15. that one thing you see in fanart all the time

ok this is my biggest hater opinion and i KNOWWWW its like unnecessarily pissy so i havent said antyhing abt it until now but i think you might understand me. I DONT LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE GIVE SHADOW SOME LITTLE THING TO TAKE CARE OF. I DONT LIKE HIS CHAO AND I DONT LIKE [expunged for my and others' safety] AND I DONT LIKE WHEN PEOPLE JUST GIVE HIM CATS. HE CANT TAKE CARE OF LITTLE CREATURES HE DOESNT CARE TO DO THAT HE DOESNT WANT TO HE JUST DOES NOT HAVE THE CARETAKERS SOUL LIKE HES NOT DOING THAT. HES NOT DOING THAT. BUT PPL DRAW IT ALLLLL THE TIMEE.......... IS THERE NO OTHER WAY WE CAN SHOW HIS SOFT SIDE THEN GIVING HIM SOME LITTLE CREATURE. HES NOT DOING THAT SHIT!!!!!!!!!! its so stupid bc its not even like ooc NECESSARILY i mean his chao exists in at least some canons and theres nothing really saying it COULDNT happen and its such a harmless thing to be a hater about BUT I HATE ITTTTTT also when ppl make the hedgehogs wag their tails BE SO SERIOUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

16. you can't understand why so many people like this thing (characterization, trope, headcanon, etc)

literally every ship with amy. i think you guys just are desperate to ship her w someone. AROACE AMY SWEEP. ASK ME ABOUT MY AROACE AMY AGENDA!!! also i know youve talked about this 1 million times but i cannot fucking stand how the greater fandom talks about scourge bc none of them even KNOW HIM AT ALL and miss literally EVERYTHING that makes his character interesting and fun bc you didnt even READ ARCHIE you just decided to take this one dude out and sand him of everything of note so you can make him a sad little meow meow ToT SONIC HAS PLENTY OF SAD LITTLE MEOW MEOWS CANT A GUY JTSU SUCK??? CANT HE JUST BE A TERRIBLE LOSER? COME ONNNNNNN but ofc you wouldnt understand bc you didnt even READ ARCHIEEEEEE.

22. your favorite part of canon that everyone else ignores

JULIE SU. JULIE SU. JULIE SU ALWAYS. theres literally so much that could be said and expanded upon w her family and background and not even in the way that canon didnt give her anything at all and you gotta diy everything, shes SUCH A FUN CHARACTER shes so funny and such a jerk and everyone writes her off as "girl knuckles" so fast that they wont even LOOK at how much unique personality she has and how UNIQUE her relationship w knuckles is LIKE.... ken penders actually gave js a fun and unique and dope personality, the FANS are the ones writing her off as girl knuckles. ummmmm its not looking good for you people! and theres the assumption ig that all the romances in archie just suck bc theres sort of a lot of them, obviously i dont like every one COUGHken and sallyCOUGH but like ToT KNUXSU IS SO SO SO GOOD.... THE WAY THEY TALK TO EACH OTHER IS SO GOOD like you guys wipe every characters personality to put them in a ship, then talk about knuxsu as if thats the issue with it and why you dont like it, but. ITS NOT EVEN LIKE THAT. AND IF IT WAS SHOULDNT YOU LIKE THAT SORT OF SLOPim sounding like lorillee rn. QPR KNUXSU AGENDA WILL NEVER DIE

and in the same vein as js, lien da also. ppl just in passing say that either shes hot or shes ugly and no one talks about that creepy as fuck issue where eggman surgically put her back together. that issue was so fucking dope. shes so awesome. i love you lien da you are terrible and i love you.

obviously literally just all of archie. nobody talks about archie. i fucking love archie but everyones too scared. i wish i could make that au

[biblioflyer]

Different Treks, Different Ethos? 

Is there authentic and valid disagreement between fans adjacent to the dumpster fires?

This is part of a series analyzing the finale of Discovery and the conflict between different aspects of the Star Trek fandom. This is in part inspired by and a reaction to a conversation between Andrew Heaton and Tim Shandefur on the Political Orphanage podcast. For more like this, use the Star Trek ethics tag.

I recently listened to a discussion between Andrew Heaton and Tim Sandefur on the Political Orphanage about the Politics of Star Trek, a couple of people I don’t particularly have a lot in common with except for a love of Star Trek. That being the case, it was an interesting exercise in seeing the franchise through someone else’s eyes. It was disorienting but interesting. 

Heaton displayed an impressive degree of understanding of views he may or may not share, but treats them with seriousness. I came away feeling like Sandefur in particular was caricaturing convictions he didn’t share and generally being deeply unfair, but it’s a viewpoint worth unpacking because I see variations on his arguments all over the place.

Essentially Sandefur draws a line between the Cold War liberalism of The Original Series and Star Trek The Next Generation, which he characterizes as “New Left”, maybe even “Post Modernist.” I’m fuzzy on whether he used the second term but I suspect he probably wouldn’t disagree given what I came to believe his definition of Post Modernist would be.

I know you may be already cringing because I brought up one of the biggest snarl worlds and thought terminating cliches in social discourse. I want to frontload this by saying that I think this is interesting, and even that it is probably reflective of a very real division in Trek fandom, not that I think Sandefur’s interpretation is fair minded or even accurate. He does get caught misremembering (a cynic might say butchering) Trek canon to make a point, but then who doesn’t have a tendency to emphasize the parts of the setting that affirm our convictions?

Kirkism

In Sandefur’s telling, the Cold War Liberalism of Kirk emphasizes equity, justice, intellectualism, is fundamentally optimistic about technology, is broadly positive about Western coded institutions and values, is prideful of its achievements, disdainful of ignorance (as defined by being scientifically backward or culturally illiberal), and perhaps most controversially: the Kirkian tradition is interventionist.

Kirk does not stop to ponder what the collateral damage will be from liberating the locals from an AI god before destroying said god. 

Kirk is mournful but resolute when it comes to arming a preindustrial people he is sympathetic to in order to ensure they are more evenly matched with a tribe the Klingons are arming. At no point does Kirk stop to interrogate what the gender, sexual, racial, religious, or political norms of said tribe are: it is enough that the tribe he is friendly with will at least be subjugated if not annihilated wholesale if Starfleet doesn’t arm them.

Kirk would not, and quite literally has not, hesitated to punch Nazis up to and including possibly causing an interstellar incident. Incidentally, in a sign the metapolitics of Star Trek may be swinging back to the Kirkian, Strange New Worlds even affirms that Kirk’s aggressiveness during the events of “The Balance of Terror” is the correct posture. Aggressively confronting an aggressor is depicted as essential for preventing a devastating interstellar war with the Romulans. 

I’m less persuaded about Burnham having been in the right with regards to “The Vulcan Hello” and the need to respond aggressively to the Klingons. There are a lot of variables between Shenzou opening hailing frequencies and T’kuvma becoming a martyr so I accept there is a strong argument for Burnham (and by extension, the “Kirkian tradition”) having been correct here.

So far, so interesting right? I would wager that your average social justice minded Trekkie is not actually finding fault with all of this if they weren’t immediately put off by the lack of severe criticism for Western values and institutions.

Kirk’s astropolitics meanwhile are complex. I would imagine a lot of us are uncomfortable with the idea of giving advanced weaponry to a preindustrial society no questions asked, but at the same time we don’t necessarily like the idea of them simply being wiped out. Do note that while the episode to my recollection presents this as a binary: arming or extinction, it is implicitly a trinary choice, it's just that the third option is really, really bad. That third option being directly interdicting weapon supplies from the Klingons and risking an interstellar war.

As far as the Discovery finale is concerned, the big thing is the techno optimism of TOS. Scientific progress is not unquestioned but it is generally portrayed as a positive.

There are certain verboten technologies in the TOS morality. Genetic engineering of humans to explicitly improve their physical and mental prowess is viewed as inevitably flinging the door wide open to fascism due to the way it creates “superior beings with superior ambition.” Likewise, the setting seems vaguely hostile to artificial intelligence. The common theme seems to be that these are crypto-illiberal technologies that seem highly likely to result in the subjugation of humans to amoral actors.

Yet when it comes to most other things, there’s rarely much in the way of introspection about whether sentient beings (I’m probably going to end up saying humanity a lot just for simplicity, which I know Azetbur would take me to task for due to its xenocentrism) have a right to “play God” or to use this or that technology responsibly. McCoy is often curmudgeonly but a lot of the time it seems like he’s written to be a silly luddite for Spock and Kirk to dunk on. Likewise McCoy is often skewered for his excitability by Spock, whom he regards as cold and amoral.

Next: Picardism and why what you would do to protect your favorite bar may not well advised for when nuclear weapons are involved.

[peridot-tears]

Okay, separate from my response to the Jiang Cheng hater post, but I think we're starting to view the word "abuse" the way we view "brainwash" when it comes to Chinese culture.

I always hated how people talked about how people in China are brainwashed by communists. "Brainwashed" meant you can't think for yourself. You're supposed to be criticizing the government, but instead you're insulting the intelligence and free will of the people. The same people who took to the streets in 1989.

(There is a beautiful article that goes deeper into how loaded this word is! Please read it, this is how I learned that "brainwashed" was originally a Chinese word that was loaned into English instead of the other way around! It originally meant to move on from the literal Century of Humiliation China experienced due to imperialism and invasion, but translated into something different!)

Similarly, what does "abuse" mean? To hurt the people in your care? But all parents hurt their children, even if unintentionally. Is it wrong to ground your kid now? Where is the line? In a lot of the discourse I see, people who jump to say Yu Ziyuan or Jiang Cheng is abusive is missing the point. If you took away the word "abuse," I think anyone, Chinese or not, would say what Yu Ziyuan did was wrong. She made everyone miserable. She pitted her children against their best friend they considered a brother. She made the past generation's arguments a burden for the next.

With Jiang Cheng, it's a bit more complicated. He's clearly doing something right if Jin Ling feels safe around him. It is considered normal, even in a modern context, to threaten to break his legs (there goes Uncle Jiang again, being dramatic). Him slapping Jin Ling is, again, era-appropriate, but it's still definitely not cool of him.

But when people say he's "abusive," it sweeps away all the nuance. It dismisses the amount of intergenerational trauma it took to get to this point. And it's personal to us because frankly, many Chinese diaspora are diaspora now because of war and famine. White Americans cannot say the same. It doesn't mean we don't think certain things our parents do are wrong. We have brains. We fucking know, and we're working really hard to not to pass that on. But our line and personal tolerance for how our parents treated us differs from person to person. I'm definitely more prickly about how my parents talk to me than a lot of my friends.

I've been seeing a lot of discourse over what is and isn't abuse over the years, and it's not just from Chinese people. It's my Colombian friends when they talk about the grandmother from Encanto. Yeah, we don't like her behaviors, but abuse? Did she strike Mirabel? Did she verbally insult her? Did she send her to her room for no reason? She didn't. And this is a woman who did things a certain way because that's how she rebuilt after watching her husband get killed while fleeing from drug cartel violence (implied, definitely believed by my Colombian friends, unsure if canonically confirmed).

"Abuse" can be such a code word for "horrible human who's out to get her children" without the nuance or regard for our own autonomy as people who had to grow up with toxic behavior from our guardians. It's a loaded word.

[fallowhearth]

It amuses me to think about an alternative world where Babylon 5 had a Tumblr resurgence and entered the hall of fame of old man yaoi. I can imagine the various discourses already.

Obviously Londo/G'Kar would be the prominent ship. Their relationship is one of the central cores of the show throughout its five seasons; they both change significantly as people, often in relation to each other. The ship wank would be incredible though. We'd have colonizer romance discourse. There would be epic flamewars over which one of them is the woobie, and secondarily top/bottom wars. People would beef endlessly over poc-coding but none of them would agree about which poc were being coded.

For fans of more problematique dynamics, there's so many to choose from. Londo/Vir has the employer/employee power dynamic and I'm certain Vir would become fans' self-insert headcanoned uwu woobie of choice. Differences in preference on how to write this ship would devolve into weeping and death threats. Fans of corruption arcs would choose Londo/Morden, Londo/Refa, or for true shippers of culture, Londo/Morden/Refa. One-shot BDSM erotica writers would also have fun with Londo/Emperor Cartagia.

A small but persistent contingent would keep the dream alive with the canon romance of Londo/Adira despite her death. Sides would form under the banners of homophobia vs rape apologism (because of her enslaved status).

The one thing the entire fandom would agree on is that all roads lead to Londo - we stan a six tentacle dicked bisexual king.

[phoenixyfriend]

Masterlist: Polls (non-Star Wars)

Navigation Post

Fun fact, tumblr allows 250 links on the old editor and 100 in the new. So. Network of masterlists.

Make a Choice!

Your favorite character is a mad scientist of the engineering subspecies. As a child, teenager, or sleep-deprived young adult, what random appliance have they taken apart and possibly set on fire in the course of trying to "improve it?" New and unanticipated sentience for the appliance optional.

Anti-plagiarism check! Pick your favorite citation format.

You can only pick one: Jokes about how white people don't know how to spice or season food. Jokes about how white people shotgun cinnamon the second September hits.

Is it vaguely dystopian for large elementary and secondary schools to have numbers instead of/before names? (e.g. the students of PS 91Q only know it by that code, not Richard Arkwright)

How long does a daily commute ROUND TRIP need to be to qualify as 'long'?

It is easier to change... your appearance OR your personality

When you see DSM-V, how do you pronounce it.

microwaving water for tea

Everyone Pick The Same Number

Writing and fandom polls!

Posting WIPs or unfinished works?

Best non-standard narrative format (that I've personally used)?

How well do you know omegaverse?

What does "it reads like bad fanfiction" mean to you, WHEN YOU SEE IT IN THE WILD, assuming no context?

What do you mean when YOU say "it reads like bad fanfiction," assuming no other context? (Unfortunately, typo messed it up)

Have you ever posted something Anonymously on AO3? (Not counting temporary anonymity for events.)

Tell me about your culture (and opinions on such)!

Did your school have you do a Mole project where, while learning what an atomic mole was, you took home a pattern and made a stuffed mole (animal)?

How close is your nearest grocery store? (Or farmer's market, fruit stand, butcher, etc. Food shop that is not a restaurant.)

Did you have to stand and recite a Pledge of Allegiance type thing to your country of residence in elementary school (and possibly beyond)

Taking off shoes on an airplane

Favorite elementary/middle school "everyone just learned a new body part" phrase

Did you know that bagels are a whole Thing and just as important to the New Yorker identity as pizza, if not more so?

Is "Whistling will bring mice into the house" a thing for you guys?

Do schools in your area do active shooter drills?

Does your culture/region have 'ants on a log' as a snack? (contains peanut butter brand discourse)

Do you do egg battles?

Tell me about yourself!

Think of your favorite band! Make sure it it is a band and not a solo artist. Now tell me the gender breakdown.

If you're trans, what's your preferred way to finish this sentence?

Pronounce "Sixth"

When you see the letter J in an unfamiliar word that you don't know the origin of, how do you pronounce it? (Assume you are reading a text in English.)

How important is the eco-friendliness fabric content to you when buying clothes?

What is your least favorite kind of makeup to put on?

Did you ever go to a big box store with your parents, get bored, and decide to take your blood pressure at the kiosk while you waited for them to finish?

A question for the pals who grew up bilingual: Have you ever had to translate from 'the language of the home country' to 'the language of where we live now' for your immigrant parents?

Last app you downloaded?

Can you reliably identify the various national blue/red/white tricolor stripe flags? (e.g. France, Russia, Netherlands, Serbia, and so on.)

Which of my "childish for someone over 21" traits are you?

Which syllable do you stress when saying Zagreb?

Do you ever heat up your milk* for cereal? - In defense of Panda Puffs

First grey hairs?

Ladies, where do you buy (most of) your undies?

How tempted are you pronounce processes (the plural of process, not the verb) as "PRO-seh-SEES" when you write it out?

Which New Doctor Who companion First Meeting™ career are you?

What are you willingly sacrificing DESPITE it being important* to you the next time you go to the hair salon/fuck it up in the bathroom?

What's your comfort/background noise show that you can rewatch indefinitely to turn off your brain a bit?

How often do you wash your bra?

How often do you change/wash your sheets?

Oh shit, the peanut butter you just opened is separated, and you need to mix the oil back in with the rest. How?

Mayonnaise

Nonsense!

let's make a bell curve!

But I am le tired... 🚬

I use an Android because

Blood on ya undies (funny phrasing)

If you're NEW to tumblr (like joined in the last two or three years), are you seeking out guides on how to engage with tumblr?

Without context, FTW stands for

Rocky Mountain Oysters

Is pilaf/pilav* a casserole?

Tag meme, not a poll: Who’s your fake late spouse?

[tempfolder]

Revisiting “Dune”

Following the release of “Dune 2” in theaters, and the echoes of the surrounding discourse, I started to wonder whether I missed something in my original readings of the Dune novel. The messianic aspects of the novel’s ending were described differently from what I remembered. I decided it’s time for a re-read with a focus on that theme. I came away with a better understanding of the novel, but a diminished view on the story of Dune.

A Questionable Ending

My previous understanding was that Paul managed through his use of prescience to avoid the galactic jihad in his name that he was so worried about throughout the book. The whole point of marrying the daughter of the Emperor was to allow transition of power without a full blown war. That was the elegant gambit, the narrow path he managed to take through the future possibilities of his visions. I was surprised when at the very end of the film, Paul, disappointed with the response of the Great Houses to his ascendancy, sends out his troops to conquer space, initiating the holy war.

I thought that mostly this was “Dune Messiah” leaking into the main story. To be clear, I don’t care for any of the Dune sequels. I never read them, nor do I intend to - the original novel was obviously written to be a complete work. I treat the extrapolations added to the Dune universe in the sequels as only marginally relevant to the reading of the original text. But was this plot point present in the “Dune” novel itself?

On re-reading, the book seems to match the interpretation of the film. This thread is central to the narrative yet it is resolved somewhat ambiguously, so I’m not surprised I missed it earlier. Before the climactic battle with Feyd Rautha, Paul muses:

And Paul saw how futile were any efforts of his to change any smallest bit of this. He had thought to oppose the jihad within himself, but the jihad would be. His legions would rage out from Arrakis even without him. They needed only the legend he already had become. He had shown them the way, given them mastery even over the Guild which must have the spice to exist. A sense of failure pervaded him [...] This is the climax, Paul thought. From here, the future will open, the clouds part onto a kind of glory. And if I die here, they’ll say I sacrificed myself that my spirit might lead them. And if I live, they’ll say nothing can oppose Muad’Dib.

Yet just after the battle, he says to Chani:

That woman over there will be my wife and you but a concubine because this is a political thing and we must weld peace out of this moment, enlist the Great Houses of the Landsraad.

I guess that last excerpt was a hope and the first was a prophecy.

However, this seems to leave us with a lesser book, a weaker story. What was the point if all the efforts were indeed futile? What do we learn if all the powers of Muad’dib don’t help him resolve his dilemma? 

A True Messiah

Dune has Paul coded throughout as more than just a Hero. All the narrative hallmarks are there. Paul is a young prince of an ethically noble family avenging his father through the use of his unique genetics. He is physically and mentally top-of-the-line. He has Special Powers: The Voice, Mentat capabilities, Prescience. He intuitively wears his stillsuit perfectly; he calls up the biggest maker with his thumper; he can process the poison of the Water of Life; et cetera, et cetera. The novel goes out of its way to mark Paul as truly special. He is not an impostor who survives by tricking the local superstitious populace into crowning him - he is an honest-to-god miracle prophet. If Arrakis had water, the novel would find a way for Paul to walk on it. Lisan al-Gaib!

Why have him aware, almost from the get-go, of his “terrible purpose” and still have him eventually fail? Why set up a Messiah but end up with failure?

Perhaps the intent was to contrast the Hero-led Fremen with the eco-aware Fremen? Their long-term terraforming project abandoned in favor of universal conquest? Liet’s father explicitly mentions this (“No more terrible disaster could befall your people than for them to fall into the hands of a Hero”). If that was the point, why have Paul promise to have flowing water on Arrakis with his ascendancy? That would mean the Fremen rightly chose the faster path to achieve the same terraforming result.

Perhaps the intent was to show the damage that can be done by messianic figures? Yet Paul is not a messianic figure, he is an actual messiah. There is rich critique to be made of the madness of the crowds in the face of a false prophet; much less so in the face of a true one.

Perhaps the idea was to show that even the most justified revenge path leads even the most noble to universal murder? Yet Paul is not Hamlet, he is not mad with revenge, nor does it cause him to make tragic mistakes. Revenge is just one of several motivators. Paul seems more aligned with Fremen liberation and the prevention of the jihad than with kanly (with Gurney serving as contrast in that aspect).

Had the ending suggested that the jihad was averted, with Paul successfully threading the political and military needle to ascend to the throne, it would have made a simpler, but better novel. Its payoff would have matched its set-up. It would have made Paul’s powers meaningful and his sacrifices worth it - his dead firstborn, his brush with death in the Water of Life, his Chani who remains forever a concubine. After all, if War isn’t averted, why bother with the political marriage? 

The Appeal

I want to make a digression and ask: why do we like Dune? 

After all, most of the characters aren’t particularly likable (*cough* Paul *cough*). The high-level arc isn’t particularly exciting, both in the optimistic reading (white savior leads oriental warriors to avenge father) and in the pessimistic one (white savior leads oriental warriors to break colonial yoke and unleash jihad). And there’s all that awful poetry.

So why so loved? I think, in large part, due to the apparent complexity of “Dune” (the novel). The complexity is there to provide the reader with a satisfying feeling of touching a rich world. It is a hill to climb, a challenge to overcome, gradually figuring out what’s going on, rewarded with understanding through effort.

The apparent complexity is present on multiple levels, beginning with the very liberal seasoning of the text with neologisms, with words and terms on loan from other languages. It’s there in the heavy dosage of intrigue, of feints within feints within feints. It’s there in the annotated dialogues where every half said or unsaid word conveys deep meaning to all-insightful participants. It’s in the half-familiar half-alien symbolism and mysticism of the Bene Gesserit and the Fremen.

Just as the text itself is intentionally complex, the world it describes is intentionally simplified. The universe of Dune is rich but small. Yes, it spans tens of thousands of years and thousands of planets, but it feels like the Holy Roman Empire. The mere suggestion that desert people can become conquerors of the galaxy just because they’re used to fighting for moisture is an indicator of how simple this universe is. Of course the Empire is feudal and archaic. Of course the skies of Arrakis are empty. Of course the shields force them to use knives. Of course there are no computers. The in-universe reasons aren’t important; there would simply be no novel otherwise. It also looks much cooler this way.

Which is also my larger point: a lot of Dune’s complexity is only apparent. It’s complexity for spectacle’s sake much more than it is necessary. Using the Hebrew “Kwisatz Haderach” is a lot cooler for the English reader than the literal “shortening of the way” that it stands for. A complex intrigue where you give Leto Arrakis just to betray him and give it back to the Harkonnens sounds cool, but always puzzles when you think about it too much. The best example of something that is visually striking but doesn’t weigh much upon scrutiny is the Gom Jabbar test.

A Bigger Gom Jabbar

Really, impressive scene. The box, the needle, the pain, the Voice. Iconic. Is it a profound test though? Big dilemma you gave Paul here, Reverend Mother, either suffer pain or die. Is this insightful? It wasn’t even a “hidden” test where the subject was supposed to reject the false binary option given to him by the Reverend Mother. No. Pain or Die. You decided not to die? Human after all!

If you squint a little, you can see a similarity between the showy complexity of the essentially hollow Gom Jabbar, and Paul’s meandering resistance against the tide of the jihad. Something that is superficially both complex and cool, but on deeper inspection doesn’t bear much weight as a story. If Paul’s dilemma was to either perish in the desert or to manifest as the messiah and suffer the moral pain of a billion deaths in the universal jihad – well, not a big dilemma is it? On closer reading of the novel it turns out there wasn’t even a “hidden” option that rejects this false binary.

Was there? The open question I ask myself is - was there something that Paul could have done to avoid the jihad? Was there a choice? Some pivotal point where it’s clear that Paul made a mistake? If there was, it sure is hidden well. If there wasn't, then Dune is a lesser story. It’s a lot of cool prose, but it’s a lesser story than I thought.

[twig-gy]

sike represents round objects and cycles. sike can be used to refer to the smoothness of an edge. sike can be used to talk about marbles and flat disks such as cookies. sike can talk about wheels or balls or even gyroscopes. Because sike can also represent cycles, it can be used to describe a repeated action. "toki sike" could be repeating the same thing over and over again. "utala sike" could be a never ending cycle of war, or some online discourse that just won't end. Wether it's physical or not, a sike will always loop around and end where it started.

^ still such a cccc coded paragraph thank you lipamanka

[(utala sike)] could be a never ending cycle of war. {toki sike} could be repeating the same thing over and over. {[(whether it’s physical or not, a sike will always loop around and end where it started.)]}

[lord-squiggletits]

Hi! Sorry to bother once again ^^" but- I wonder what do you think about general idea or concept of sparklings in fandom?

Hi, you're not bothering me! If anything, I appreciate getting asks because I tend to be rather lonely and appreciate getting fandom interaction.

Honestly, I don't like sparklings in Transformers for a variety of reasons.

They're a mechanical alien species, which presents tons of opportunities to give them weird anatomy, methods of reproduction, and cultural customs that are very different from humans. I feel like forcing sexual reproduction onto the alien robots is just kind of lame and doesn't make sense for robots

Especially when people basically end up fanoning entire characters as being parts of family or having children/being the children of other characters. At that point these characters are just metal humans rather than space alien robots.

I even dislike it when people push family-esque relationships onto Cybertronians. Like, they'll take jokes about Optimus being like a dad and act as if he's literally a father to idk Bumblebee and then start treating Bumblebee as if he's literally a child and not a fully independent/mature being. The fact that Cybertronians don't have families (except for rare instances of branched sparks/twins) removes a lot of social baggage from their character interactions and lets them interact on terms that are different/unique from humans. Not to even mention the stupid ass bullshit discourse that happens when people in this fandom decide that certain characters are "child coded" and start harassing people over shipping them with other characters even when the concept of children/childhood-vs-adulthood doesn't even exist in canon at all.

I also think that lorewise it doesn't fit in at all and even defeats the entire point of the plot in many ways? Like, for example, in IDW1 (and I think in TFA but I'm not sure) the fact that hotspots are fading and the species is no longer capable of reproducing is super important to the war's worldbuilding and showing just how fucked Transformers are that they're slowly killing each other off in a pointless war with very few opportunities to replenish their numbers. The Autobots and Decepticons get into a miniature arms race over who can find Nova's stores of cold-constructed sparks. There's an entire group of people called MTOs who were made with split-Matrix sparks and who were made just to be thrown into battles and die. If you add in sparklings/sexual reproduction then the entire worldbuilding element of "this species is driving themselves to extinction and their war is unsustainable in the long run" is completely destroyed.

Certain portrayals of family dynamics, children, and even certain things like breeding kinks or carriers vs sires just rub me the wrong way and come off as really gross. Literally one of the things I like about Transformers is that I can read fics without having to worry about tropes like surprise/unwanted pregnancies, baby traps, child abuse and related family trauma, pregnancy discrimination, misogyny, biological essentialism etc. because those things literally don't exist for alien robots. Except you would be surprised by how many times all of that shit shows up in sparkling/sexual reproduction fics and it just squicks me out really bad.

Like, I'm not gonna throw shade at ppl who like sparklings or say that all fics with sparklings/mentions of sparklings are bad. It's just really, REALLY not my thing and I will actively avoid any fics where sparklings exist unless it comes with extremely high recommendations.

[critical-skeptic]

Social Media's Cancer: The Shameful Currency of Stupidity and Shock

The fact that someone had to put the seconds or minutes of effort into deciding and coding this option into a "sort by" drop-down, tells you everything you need to know about the current state of affairs with social media networks and how stupidly shitty the bulk of the content and demand for it are. It's not just an eye-opener; it's a goddamn indictment of a system gone utterly mad.

Allow me to be clear: I'm talking about the "controversial" sorting option in Reddit posts. It's just one microcosm of a greater disease plaguing the virtual space that was once a utopia of information and connection. Now, it's become a circus of idiocy, driven by the shock factor, and facilitated by the very mechanisms that should promote intellect and dialog.

The Currency of Stupidity

You see, this isn't just about an inconsequential sorting option; it's about the insidious way these platforms encourage and profit from the worst human instincts. Controversy, misinformation, and conflict - these have become the damned currencies of the online world.

And it's not a glitch; it's a fucking feature.

In a rational world, we'd strive for reason, logic, and discourse. But what do we find instead? Knee-jerk reactions, baseless opinions, and a willingness to burn down the house over the smallest disagreement. Platforms like Reddit and others are now slave to the almighty click, the adrenaline rush of the angry mob, and the shallow instant gratification that controversy provides.

The Monetization of Misinformation

Take a closer look, and you'll see the true colors of social media giants: a disturbing eagerness to monetize misinformation and stupidity. What are they if not arms dealers in an intellectual war? Selling the weapons of ignorance to the highest bidder, and bathing in the profits, all while the world drowns in a sea of disinformation.

This must stop.

The Need for Global Action

If we don't act soon and force governments, not just in one country, but globally, to standardize both people using the same ID/username across the internet and stop social media networks from monetizing conflict and misinformation, we're doomed. The very fabric of our societies will unravel, torn apart by the selfish desires of a few tech moguls who turned stupidity and shock into a currency.

Yes, we need a global response to a global problem. Regulation, oversight, and a strong stance against the manipulation of human weakness for profit. We need to reclaim the internet as a space for intellect, compassion, and human connection.

The controversial sorting option is just a symptom of a system rotting from the inside. We need to reclaim the internet as a space for open communication and fact-based consensus!

We cannot, and must not, let stupidity win. It's time to act, and time to bring sanity back to the very platform that once promised to elevate humanity. Let's not allow it to be our downfall.