#all social pushback aside

[qqueenofhades]

Once you get offline, Biden’s doing ok with everyone but Republicans and racists. Unfortunately, that’s a pretty big voting bloc, but it should be manageable. More unfortunately, Harris is. Not popular. With anyone. Like, we’re talking Dan “To not have a mind is being very wasteful” Quayle levels of dissing. You can blame some of it on sexism and racism, but enough women and people of color have jumped on the “Kamala’s letting The Team down” bandwagon that there’s got to be more to it than this. Any thoughts?

Yeah, uh, I don't think that's fair OR accurate, and deserves quite a bit more reflection and pushback than is implied here (since your question frames it as thinking there MUST be something wrong with her and invites me to expand on it). First off, I am not comfortable comparing the first female vice president (AND female VP of color) to empty suit Dan Quayle, and especially when there's such a disparity in their background, social perception, and accomplishments, not to mention their role in the administration. So:

"You can blame some of it on sexism and racism, but -- " Okay, but how much? Are we actually assigning a weight to that and taking it into consideration, or hand-waving it aside in search of the "real" cause? Online Leftists are already disposed to irrationally dislike Kamala because of the "she's a cop!!!" business that went around during the primaries, which was likewise inaccurate and misleading, but showed how women, especially women of color, are often treated in white leftist spaces (including by leftist-identifying women). That very much WAS down to sexism, racism, and perceiving her as "shrill" or "there's just something I don't like about her." Okay, what is that? WHAT is the thing you don't like about her? Would you notice it in a male politician? Would you critique it in a male politician? If the answer is any part unclear, this needs more work and is in fact reflective of that dynamic, whether or not anyone is aware of it or thinks that's the reason why.

No, seriously. If someone professes that they "just don't like" Kamala or "there's something about her that rubs me the wrong way" or whatever else, my immediate next question would be "Why? What don't you like about her?" And keep drilling down through whatever excuses about "unlikeability" or "personality" or whatever else is offered. If this can be persuasively articulated in a way that a) exposes a substantive policy reason, b) can be differentiated from what any male vice president or other person in her position would do or what should be expected of them, and c) isn't just about "offputting vibes," then sure, we can have a discussion about that. Otherwise, yeah. That's not convincing me that it's anything other than the constant, long-running, ever-present discomfort with seeing a powerful and accomplished woman of color, who started her career prosecuting sex criminals, was the first Black woman in the Senate, and is now the first female vice president, actually state her issues and own her role.

"Enough women and people of color have jumped on the 'Kamala Is Letting the Team Down' bandwagon that there must be -- " Really? Must there? First of all, it's damn near impossible to find any Online Leftist who's willing to give Biden accurate credit for his accomplishments -- see the "Biden is bad and uninspiring and anti-trans but we should I guess vote for him anyway" rhetoric which is the closest they can possibly get to acknowledging it. (None of which is actually true!) When that's the case with the top of the ticket, it's orders of magnitude easier to project that irrational dislike and distortion onto "shrill" or "dislikable" Kamala. So who are these "women and people of color" who don't like Kamala? Are they in the room with us right now? Do they actually care about/vote for the Democrats, support their policy accomplishments, and realistically understand the progress that's been made and what remains to be done, or do they want to use Kamala as yet another convenient stick to beat the Democrats (since they won't give them accurate credit to start with?)

Even if this was true, sexism and racism somehow magically wasn't a factor (which uh, it is not) and Kamala had some terrible personality defect that was unique to her and her alone and not any of the far worse vice presidents there have been in the last 20 years alone: what is this kind of question intended to accomplish? Are we supposed to fear that by voting for Biden, we might vote for Kamala as well? Well, she was on the ticket last time too, and they won the election. Don't know what else to tell you.

[asylumgarden2003]

The Importance of Setting Boundaries

I don't think many of us do this often enough. We're constantly connected, whether we like it or not. Whether it be with family or friends more often than not, we may feel like we’re always “on” and available to everyone.

But what does setting boundaries even mean? And how can you do it without feeling like you’re letting people down or being “selfish”? Spoiler alert: Setting boundaries isn’t selfish at all. It’s one of the healthiest things you can do for yourself—and for others.

What do Healthy Boundaries Look Like

Emotional Boundaries:

Not absorbing other people’s emotions or problems.

Saying no to emotionally draining situations.

Time Boundaries:

Protecting your time by saying no to things that don’t fit your schedule.

Setting aside time for self-care and personal activities.

Physical Boundaries:

Deciding who is allowed in your personal space.

Being clear about your comfort level with physical touch.

Mental Boundaries:

Standing firm on your opinions and beliefs.

Avoiding conversations or debates that drain your energy.

Material Boundaries:

Setting limits on lending possessions or money.

Protecting your own resources before offering them to others.

Digital Boundaries:

Limiting time spent online or on social media.

Not feeling pressured to reply to messages immediately.

Boundaries are basically a way of saying, “I respect myself, and I need you to respect me too.” When you set clear boundaries, you stop feeling drained, taken advantage of, or stretched too thin. Without boundaries, you might feel resentful or overwhelmed because you're giving too much of yourself ( and receiving too little ). Setting limits to things helps you protect your peace, your time, and your emotional well-being.

And here’s the thing: Boundaries are good for your relationships, too. They help the people in your life understand what you need and what’s important to you. When you’re clear about your limits, you’ll end up with healthier, more respectful connections.

Respecting Other People’s Boundaries

Just like we need to set boundaries, it’s important to respect other people’s too. When someone sets a limit, don’t take it personally. Boundaries aren’t about shutting people out—they’re about creating healthier, more balanced relationships. So, if someone says they need space or time, trust that they’re doing what’s best for them.

How to Set Boundaries

Figure Out What You Need: Before you can set boundaries, you’ve got to understand where your limits are. Think about what makes you uncomfortable or stressed. When do you feel drained or pushed too far? Those are your starting points for setting boundaries.

Be Honest and Direct: You don’t need to apologize or over-explain. Just be clear and straightforward when communicating your boundaries. For example, saying, “I need time to myself tonight,” or “I’m not comfortable with that,” is enough.

Stick to Your Boundaries: Once you set a boundary, it’s important to hold firm. If you’re inconsistent, people might push those boundaries, thinking it’s not a big deal. So, stay strong, even if it feels awkward at first.

Expect Some Pushback: Not everyone will immediately respect your boundaries, especially if they’re used to you always saying “yes.” It’s okay to get some resistance—just remind yourself why you set the boundary in the first place.

Check In With Yourself: Boundaries can change over time. Maybe what worked for you a year ago doesn’t feel right now. Make sure you’re regularly checking in with yourself and adjusting boundaries when needed.

At the end of the day, boundaries are about taking care of yourself. They’re about recognizing that your time, energy, and emotions are valuable. Setting boundaries can feel uncomfortable at first, especially if you’re used to being a people pleaser, but it’s one of the best ways to protect your well-being and build stronger, more respectful relationships.

The more you practice setting boundaries, the more natural it becomes. You’ll find that they’re not barriers; they’re bridges to much healthier, happier connections and a better sense of balance in your life.

[katjapetersart]

NPCtember 14: A meeting at the state office goes wrong.

Nia has worked so hard for this. Made really tough decisions, took a strong bet. First few weeks were tough. Then work at the sawmill. But fuck, does she need to get her shit straight. It's been too long, money's tight, and it's just one slop after the other. Go chat with a counsellor, she was told. They'll help. Yeah, don't worry about only having done lower education. It'll be fine. Well, she put her shame aside.

Now what.

Ninestar, and the City-State of Ninestar, are an oligarchy that focuses itself on expertise, edcucation and skill. Ninestar being a merchant and now student city, there are a lot of people who come there to escape other situations. One way these people are controlled is through citizenship. To purchase property, access certain areas and support systems, or even use a specific bridge, citizenship is required. Citizenship can be achieved by completing a certain level of education. In rare instances, community icons can be given citizenship. Either as a sign of goodwill from a Council member- or as a form of control.

Non-citizens have few legal protections, are easily exploited in their search for social supports and new communities, and often rent crowded 'woodhouses'. They are sometimes called 'woodlice'. The role of social, legal and monetary support can be filled with gangs, often protecting a community at a high cost.

Most people in Ninestar are not citizens. There has been a push to make a second type of citizenship for the merchants and workers with the growing industry, but this has recieved strict pushback from certain council members and guilds. It has recently been possibile to extend hereditary citizenship to all citizens, and not just select noble houses.

[lover-of-mine]

Oh SO much has happened. Mustache confirmation broke my heart. Someone hold him down and shave it off!

The deleted scene of Eddie and Chris was posted a half hour ago and the BTs have IMMEDIATELY jumped on it. Of course the narrative is ‘this proves Eddie is straight’ ‘Eddie has always and exclusively been attracted to women’ ‘they are dropping this to shut up the Buddies’ yeah okay. Remember when the deleted Tommy Henren medal scene was released? And the BTs said ‘oh this is signalling that Tommy is going to be really important next season and that the general audience loves him?’ Apparently releasing a deleted scene of Eddie does not mean the same thing. The network is not trying to tell us that Eddie has a major role next season. Just that Eddie is straight. Which is honestly again just a weirdo narrative because dating women in the past does not preclude him from liking men.

Aside from that. Two big things obviously: the con and the Twitter space. Not really much to say about the con aside from what’s publicly known. BTs are just harassing the poor organizers of this event even though Lou was never confirmed for this con. It was just a poll to gauge interest. Though it was funny to see BTs immediately jump to the ‘Ryan is getting invited instead’ narrative. Why are they obsessed with conflating Lou and Ryan/Tommy and Eddie so much? Weird.

Also please free Kenny from this narrative that he never asked to be a part of. No he is not going to drop out of the con because the organizers considered inviting Lou and decided not to.

The Twitter space was just nasty. ‘Oliver is catering to Buddies because he cares what people on social media think about him.’ Have we forgotten what it was like when he was on Twitter back in the day? He was sick of us! He straight-up told fans they were annoying! And you think that the same man who did that would purposefully hang out with a fellow cast member just to appease strangers on the Internet? Yeah alright.

As for everyone calling Oliver racist for hanging out with Ryan. Besides how hypocritical they are for saying this given Lou’s undeniable racism and bigotry. It is so clear BTs do not actually care about this. If they did they would not exclusively be targeting Oliver. Kenny was also hanging out with Ryan. Where are the allegations of him aligning with anti-black racism? But no it only matters when Oliver is involved. A ship war is more important to them than these allegations of racism apparently.

Mark my words. When Lou arrives on set it will be an excessively professional work environment. He started this and encouraged it through the cameos. No one is going to be buddy-buddy with him. He will show up do his job and go home and that will drive the BTs crazy.

hello baby 💙

Honestly, Eddie talking about meeting the wife we know he had proving something is exactly the type of thing they would try to spin for real. We're keeping up as regularly scheduled, I guess.

But, seriously, Oliver catering to us when he was always very no-nonsense when it comes to his social media presence. He would never hang out with and post someone if he doesn't feel like it. But it is true, it's not about whatever problematic behavior Ryan might exhibit, because if it was there would be pushback on the whole cast, not just Oliver since they were all at Ryan's. And I agree, when he shows up it will be just professional considering he is responsible for this whole mess starting. But let's see how it comes when he shows up.

[chaifootsteps]

(long ask, sorry!) the new media HH/HB thread on TV Tropes is doing the 'Viv gets scorn no matter what because she's a queer woman who makes things' routine atm (they're blaming TADC fans for toxicity and discussing the 'write like HB' trend, for context)

I've definitely seen creators (anyone, really) get far more hate online when they're female for stupid reasons, but it's frustrating to see them do the 'Viv can't win no matter what she does' thing because I can't really think of an instance where she hasn't responded to criticism she doesn't like, or has actually tried behaving like a professional for a minute - even some of her fans on subreddits have said she needs to step away from Twitter for her reputation's sake or hire someone for PR.

The reason she 'can't win' is not because she's a woman - she's not Rebecca Sugar and she's not Tracy Butler who know how to behave professionally (and before Viv started mudslinging at Lackadaisy, neither Tracy nor the LD crew had any drama attached to them despite Tracy being a woman herself... curious)

Viv's a creator who acts as though she doesn't have the confidence to let her work stand on its own merits and can't bring herself to ignore criticism (given she seems to disagree with practically all of it; the only thing I've seen Spindlehorse try to improve is not using red as a bg color so much and cutting down on the constant sound effects), & as a result she has cultivated a fandom who feel rewarded when they make tweets either defending her or explaining the show on her behalf because she keeps liking those tweets, which only makes it happen more. the lack of distance she keeps from her fans and the way she actively rewards the ones who put down criticism of her makes them act like she's their friend instead of someone whose show they like and someone who is actively using them as both a shield & sword. This is why the fandom has a bad rep, it's not just that the Hellaverse shows suck - it's that their creator will paint all criticisms as bad faith and only makes the effort to address fans not when they harass, bully or threaten people, but when they do something that affects her personally (like celebrate a ship on the same day as her birthday). and I understand social media feels like overwhelming toxic noise: but that's why creators need to learn to step back and not engage so much. enabling toxic fans aside, this level of enmeshment strikes me as bad for anyone looking to hone their craft and create something meaningful

as much as I want to offer some pushback in that thread I feel the plagiarism accusations will be immediately downplayed or ignored and any mention of bad pay or treatment in the workplace will be met with accusations of 'debunked!!' or 'some of the reviews were fake therefore all of them are, even the ones that line up with consistent accounts of bullying or misgendering or a pattern of no deadlines being given!!' asking 'I don't understand what she's done to attract this level of vitriol' kind of suggests they haven't looked that hard or listened to anyone who would want to tell them

but if I was to put it to them, I think I would say - Viv will 'win' when she behaves like a professional, credits people properly, doesn't just drop people when they're no longer useful, stops burning bridges with other people working in the indie animation space, stops vaguing and painting all criticisms as bad faith and understands that even behaving professionally will not make people stop criticizing her show, because every artist in the world has to deal with the fact that people will want to discuss and critique their work. and though I doubt the writing on her shows would ever improve, I'm sure people would at least respect her trying to act more like the professional showrunner she's supposed to be. no one can 100% control their own narrative with her level of Internet fame, but the best way not to make it actively worse is to stop trying to imo

Agreed, and also I feel like it's been years since TvTropes was right about anything. Although even the Viv pages on TvTropes have been very slowly getting more and more critical.

[goodluckclove]

I have this piece of canon that I don't know how to fit in the series so I just need to talk about it here.

Scott doesn't understand most forms of bigotry. Sexism, transphobia, intersexism - it's not that he's too innocent, and it's definitely been explained to him, but something about his upbringing and the way his mind works just doesn't allow it to process that some people are just like that.

Like he grew up with civilian kids coming in and out so definitely he got some shit pre-puberty for being intersex and generally gender neutral. And he mostly just reacted with confusion. Like who cares? Stuff is complicated. Are we playing pirates or what?

And then when he went through a masculine puberty and decided to identify as a man and people told him he might get some pushback for still having long hair and wearing dresses, he just sulks. He complains to Ollie, who hasn't transitioned yet, how it isn't fair she and Tenzin get to wear dresses whenever they want "just because they're girls".

"well I'd probably get shit too," Ollie tells him.

"why?" Scott asks.

"because people probably wouldn't think I was a girl."

And just like that he's even more confused and frustrated for the rest of the day. Because what the fuck does that mean?

I would like to think it's his Ollie, his best friend, who tells him eventually that some people are "just fucking stupid". So as an adult, whenever people make comments about his being intersex or having an asexual relationship, he still gets confused for a second, and then something clicks and he smiles at the person and says "oh right - you're just fucking stupid". Then he excuses himself from the conversation before they have a chance to argue.

Scott Skylark Kaufner is not the best queer person for an in-depth and educational discussion on queer identity and politics. He knows a TON but just accepts fluidity and the overall spectrum so completely that he is impossible to talk to about it. You can identify as any contradictory culture or micro-label and he will accept it with no follow-up questions aside from maybe "what does that mean".

Mspec lesbians? Alloaros? Cistrans people? All fine, let's move on. Stuff is weird and vast and he knows it's okay to admit you don't know most things. Scott would never have a tumblr because even as he improves with technology I think social media would be hard for him, but he'd have quite the social circle.

I do think furries would be hard for him. Mostly because he is going to think he's friends with an actual anthropomorphic fox.

[vespertin-y]

so hey, *sits down politely in Listening Mode™* what do you think about akasaiou? :} (feel free to go off. going off is encouraged!!) /genuine

DEEP INHALE

IMMEDIATELY FORGETS EVERYTHING I'VE EVER THOUGHT ABOUT AKASAIOU DESPITE THEM OCCUPYING ALL MY BRAIN SPACE FOR MULTIPLE YEARS AT THIS POINT

TAKES SEVERAL DAYS TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION (SORRY) BECAUSE WORDS HARD EDITING EVEN HARDER

ough. um. well first of all there's LOTS of tasty hand symbolism and i go bananas for that. with saiou it's pretty explicit (i reach out, but he doesn't take my hand and the bandaging scene in the FTEs, he can't lie about the warmth of his hand in salmon mode, to a lesser extent shuuichi's accusatory finger point but ESPECIALLY in the fourth trial) for saimatsu it's a bit more subtle (kaede reaching out to pull shuuichi up when he falls out of the locker, shuuichi taking her hands over the desk to comfort her even though his own are shaking, a lingering shot of their hands desperately reaching out for eachother that they CUT from the execution and i will NEVER NOT BE MAD ABOUT-) and for oumatsu it's almost entirely in my head (them playing tag COUNTS, it DOES-). it's good food basically.

(small side tangent about that last bit - i want to focus mostly on them as a trio here, but i feel like i need to play a bit of defense for oumatsu because GOOD GOD are people nasty about it in a way they aren't about saiouma or saimatsu. no, kaede does not dislike kokichi - she calls him "hard to hate" more than once. no, kokichi is not "too mean" by pointing out her failings in the tunnel (and yes, he's allowed to be snappish when he's exhausted and injured!). kaede and kokichi are a wonderful duo who both give the other much needed pushback on the faults in their personal ideologies, and they do that while knowing when to stop and just goof off together. half the people who say their dynamic is irredeemably unhealthy are stealing that dynamic and plastering it onto kaito/kokichi because they hate ships with women in them. this has been Soapbox Time With Vesper).

i think the main reason i started shipping them - beyond all three of them just having fun/cute/silly dynamics with the other two sdhnjhsf - is that they are, to me, the core of v3. i've talked about it before (1 2) , but kaede's death is EVERYTHING to kokichi and shuuichi's parallel character arcs.

kokichi is bright, extroverted, and has a hand leading the group (challenging kaede in the tunnel, establishing the first breakfast meeting, leading the charge in convincing the others monokuma is dead even when he doesn't truly believe it) but he's never the same after kaede dies; he believes *any* kind of open cooperation will get him targeted by monokuma and killed. he resorts to manipulations on top of schemes on top of plans in a desperate attempt to never end up like her.

shuuichi is withdrawn, suspicious, and really only cooperates with one person (he suspects rantarou to the point of taking kaede aside and warning her not to ask him any more questions about his talent, he makes his own plot to catch the ringleader with no intentions of sharing it with the group) but once kaede passes on her wish he forces himself to socialize and to trust in a way he never would've before, and by ch4 *he's* basically the group's de-facto leader. if v3 had a movie poster kaede would be big and faded from the back and saiou would be back-to-back in the center with everyone else lining the corners. does that make any sense?? idk.

ough what else...i think the flaws/weaknesses in each pair are helped by their third member (kokichi has ZERO tolerance for shuuichi or anyone else putting kaede on a pedestal, shuuichi is a calming presence to balance out the oumatsu shenaniganery, kaede will simply knock the boys' heads together if they attempt Miscommunication™). i think they should all bond postgame (what if we didn't directly kill anybody but we still had blood on our hands...and then we held them!!). i think they should have one of those bunk beds with a twin on top and a queen on bottom, so saimatsu can spoon and kokichi can cackle manically from his nest of pokemon plushies. i think they should go on a boba date and shuuichi should have to pull out all his acting chops to pretend he doesn't hate the texture. i think that i love them a lot :]

[fiercynn]

Everyone deserves safety, autonomy, and basic human rights. In the time since I started writing this, I’ve seen op-eds and social media posts pop up suggesting that “queers for Palestine” is akin to saying “chickens for KFC” or “minks for fur.” Aside from the dehumanization and condescension of those ridiculous comparisons, they also just aren’t accurate. They set up a hierarchy that true queer liberation seeks to dismantle. Global oppression of queer folks does not supersede any other form of violent, racist oppression. Fighting for Palestinian rights does not fundamentally take away from our own rights. Imperialism constantly constructs and maintains anti-queerness, and anti-imperialist work benefits all queer people. I’ve seen people online peddle the misguided idea that Palestinian freedom and queer freedom are at odds with each other because queer Palestinians seek asylum from persecution in Israel. Indeed, Israel has an official policy to grant temporary stay permits to LGTBQ+ folks from the West Bank and in some cases has issued work permits. Israel also has cultivated a reputation for being an ultra queer friendly destination, though as queer feminist Jewish activist Ashley Bohrer has written, the deliberate pinkwashing of Israel seriously obscures a lot of the lived realities of queer Palestinians living in Israel: “This so-called gay-friendly state of Israel preys on the vulnerability of queer Palestinians, a vulnerability that many of us who live in ‘progressive’ ‘human rights-friendly’ countries still face.” A longread feature in the independent nonprofit magazine run by Israeli and Palestinian journalists +972 Magazine similarly highlights stories from asylum-seeking queer Palestinians that contradict the dominant narrative of Israel as a LGBTQ+ safe haven, suggesting it’s only a safe haven for some. These queer Palestinians often face financial abuse, restrictions on access to healthcare, and other forms of discrimination and abuse. And while many of the sources interviewed indeed experienced violence in their homeland, it’s clear from reading these testimonies that things are not as simple as it being safe for all LGBTQ+ folks in Israel and unsafe in Palestine. In 2014, an op-ed published in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz urged the IDF to stop its practice of blackmailing gay Palestinians. So even within Israel, there is pushback against the notion that Israel can function as a refuge for queer Palestinians.

fantastic piece by kayla kumari upadhyaya, published at autostraddle on october 31, 2023

[marciabrady]

i rewached the hunchback of notre dame on friday for the first time, in a long time, and i'm still in shock.

hond was a film that was around when i was a child, because it had just come out, and the merchandising was still prevalent. it was being pushed a lot, so to speak, and growing up in the era that i did, the kids on the playground or online were either belle, meg, or esmeralda girls- there wasn't room for anyone else. as a child that gravitated more toward the classic princesses and femininity, it was not a movie that spoke to me and the fact that i felt it was shoved down my throat turned me off of it for a time. too much happened, even in the first five minutes, and there was constantly a wild series of events that i would try to reel my head in from. it wasn't a universe i wished to inhabit and, frankly, i think the crux of the reason why i didn't like it was because esmeralda was really the only female character (aside from laverne) and there wasn't enough for me, as a child, outside of the violence and shouting men and misery showcased. i revisited the film when i was twelve and i loved it so, but i think parts of me valued it at even higher a premium because of how rare and forgotten it had been. i even wrote esmeralda for a time. needless to say, it didn't last, and until now i've kind of been undecided about it

but watching it on friday...wow. i'm filled with both wonderment and despair. after craving quality content from disney for so long and continually being disappointed with tangled and frozen and moana and brave and raya, and every other movie i've tried to watch, i was instantly transfixed by how adult hunchback was, from the opening frames. the epic scale of the art, how ambitious it seemed, how elevated the jargon was- but mostly, how raw and realistic the storyline was. this movie threw no punches- it contained swear words, topics relating to disabilities, religion, death, genocide, se*ual assault, you literally name it. it exposed an underbelly of society that could be flattering and unflattering. while parts didn't age well, i'm surprised at how nuanced the conversation was around certain topics- decades before me too and social activism became more commonplace. i couldn't believe how beautiful it was and how much guts it took for the artists and writers to really go there. i was in disbelief for how evolved their viewpoints seemed, and this was before the internet was commonplace and they could've gotten as many viewpoints as readily as we can get them now...but then it filled me with instant sorrow, because i know they all got so much pushback and this film was so discouraged, we never saw the likes of it again.

it's funny because this film came years after the little mermaid, and you can tell how much of a higher budget this crew had to work with. the film's crew had sharpened their abilities and skills from previous years and made astounding technical advancements. that, mixed with how varied and diverse their topics became really signaled them finding their footing- or trying to. can you imagine, if they didn't give up on these types of movies, where we'd be today? how many more diverse stories, in diverse settings, we would've gotten- all adult in nature? the beautiful 2d designs and animation mixed to heighten the effect and impact and how it would've rounded out walt's vision, of wanting these films to not only be kid's stuff but genuinely be able to compete as a film genre unto itself? how different this movie was from any other??? and compare that to now, where they're all the same. what's the difference between dreamsworks, pixar, and disney movies anymore? and the activism they push now is 20 years too late, nothing cutting edge, and it's all the same. this female character is this much more badass, our first (minor) gay character that actually has no weight, addressing x about generation trauma, etc. even the topics we address in films now have been so sanitized and vetted out for audience approval that there's no real risk or edge to anything anymore, it's all monolithic and as safe as you can get.

but that's the thing with how experimental these later movies were- pocahontas, hunchback, hercules, mulan...while certain elements aged better than others, these movies should've been the beginning of an entirely new genre, not the last of their kind? how disturbing and offputting is it that tangled and brave came out decades after these films? that we've replaced the 'hellfire' villain type song with 'shiny?' we really could've had so much and it's sad that everything collapsed out from under us in that last breath of disney creating true art

the only thing that gives me hope is that we, the generation that grew up on these films, are the marketplace now. perhaps that will make these films come back into vogue and disney start producing them once more? but can they ever pick back up after such a long hiatus, without the original creative teams? is it all just a lost art form? also disney is making more money than ever with their marketable, but soulless, movies that are coming out now...also if these movies are to be in the spotlight again, does that just mean they'll be primed for another unnecessary remake? don hahn recently said disney only did animation because they couldn't make the special effects look real, but now that there's cgi to achieve hyperrealism, there's no need for 2d anymore and that's so sad to me. just because photorealism is in (which looks dated by the minute) and 3d is what people prefer, does that mean 2d is banished forever? that's like saying the invention of photography justifies the banishment of art. idk i just hope our generation can get these renaissance style movies back and to stay

[qnewsau]

'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' star reflects on impact of lesbian character

New Post has been published on https://qnews.com.au/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-star-reflects-on-impact-of-lesbian-character/

'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' star reflects on impact of lesbian character

Despite premiering nearly 30 years ago, Buffy the Vampire Slayer still has a dedicated queer fan base and blazed a trail for LGBTQIA+ representation on screen. 

Buffy’s iconic coupling of Tara and Willow was the first ever long-term lesbian relationship shown on US. television and for many viewers, was the first time they had seen themselves represented in the mainstream media.

Speaking exclusively to Out, Amber Benson who played Tara reflected on the enduring impact of her character.

“As an actor, you do a ton of work where you’re like, ‘Okay, I did this thing and it’s fine and I paid my bills.’ But with Buffy, I felt like I was part of something important and that what we were doing was not just a television show,” she said.

“It was at hand to people who were living in places where there wasn’t a community. I know Aly[son Hannigan] felt the same way, that this relationship was iconic in so many ways. It was also about empathy and love. Willow and Tara raised Dawn, you know, and before all the bananas stuff happened, their relationship was so special and important.”

“We got a lot of pushback from standards and practices,” Benson recalled.

“They were like, ‘Oh, girls kissing girls in bed together. Oh my gosh. We just, we don’t know what to do with this.’ It was very frustrating.” Willow and Tara’s scenes had to be carefully managed, meanwhile Buffy and Spike were dry-humping on sarcophaguses.”

Benson recalls a crew member in the art department taking her aside to say, “Yeah, it’s stupid and annoying that you guys can’t kiss or you can’t be in the bed or whatever but what you have to understand is that this relationship, this positive relationship goes into people’s homes every week.

“You are changing people’s perceptions of what it means to be queer. You are talking to people in other parts of the world, our crazy country especially, who are watching this show but have never met a queer couple in real life but love Tara and Willow.”

Benson also shared that she has a cameo in the upcoming queer horror film I Saw The TV Glow. 

The film stars Justice Smith as Owen, a reserved teenager and social outcast.

However, Owen’s world changes when friend Maddy (Brigette Lundy-Paine) introduces him to soapy, pulpy Buffy-esque horror TV series The Pink Opaque.

For the latest LGBTIQA+ Sister Girl and Brother Boy news, entertainment, community stories in Australia, visit qnews.com.au. Check out our latest magazines or find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

[ayeforscotland]

Having just read up on this - it was Roma children, this article doesn't mention whether they were Romanian or not (like that matters anyway)

Looks like social services tried to take children away, crowds gathered, police were called, people fought back hard and won.

Right-wing ghouls Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage have tried to blame muslims in the community for it, going so far as to claim the attack the local green councillor for rioting.

Seems like solid community pushback that had a few bangers trying to fight for the fun of it.

As a general aside, this anon was obviously being a complete cunt. But I didn't hear about this today until I was live on stream, I took a few seconds to respond to them, and immediately went to read up on it when I finished up.

This week has been exhausting, and while I tend to be relatively quick on the draw with news here, I've worked 60 hours this week and no one should be treating me as some otherworldly being who sees all but only selectively chooses to comment on things.

No heartfelt outpourings of empathy over cops stealing Romanian children from their families then?

I knew it.

Eh?! What are you on about?

I've worked 27 of the latest 48 hours, me not being able to cover something is not me not caring, you fucking cunt.

[ilovejoyjessie]

Hidden Figures #2 (Perre's Ventaglio III by Beverly Pepper) || III.

I haven't quite fit into a clear Artist Box from the time I found my voice to now:

Yes to my work falling in a Contemporary or Conceptual box via the deep-rooted themes and visual storytelling my pieces possesses....but sometimes those themes are delivered in ways that seem too provocative for some Contemporary art circles...

So, yes to some of my work fitting in an er0tic or sensual art box....but those sensual sides of my projects, the baring of my body, aren't the only goal or initial intention...

And, yes to using a platform that allows me to show my work uncensored when it's called for....but no to that meaning that my work must be all s3xual in nature...

So, yes to my pieces kind of fitting into artist"ic" or Fashion boxes...but no to them being viewed or understood without question as an artist of a particular school or genre; no to my fashion-driven works being editorial (Because Calvin Klein can show a little skin, but I - an artsy nobody - doing it is a little too much).

Yes to being the subject in my works, usually captured by others....but also yes to being a subject under my own creative direction for my work. So, yes to being an artist with agency that shares ownership of my pieces as much as my collaborators in some circles...but also no to owning it, no to creating my art the "proper way", no to being anything more to my work than a model prop in other circles.

.

Meanwhile, as I exist as a female human in the world, to whom I belong must also be boxed for fussy family members, well-meaning acquaintances, and nosy-ass government forms: "Single and thriving", "Single so miserable", "Single so probs for the streets"..."Still in that relationship, must means she loves it", "Unhappy in that relationship? Don't love herself enough to leave."

And the broad boxes we love to put women in only get smaller when you also happen to be one who sometimes reveals her body in certain, specific ways, says or identifies with certain things, and has certain proclivities. Romantic potentials salivate at the thought of getting to handle me the way they "know" women in the box they assume I'm in like to be handled - that is, when they aren't tossing me aside based on the label they see affixed to me:

"The type of girl who shows her body that way? I know she's DTF. If she's reaching out to get to know me, she either wants me, hopes I'll do her...ugh, or wants to sell me something."

"Oh she's got a submissive side, huh? Finally - a girl I can tell what to do and not expect any pushback. I just do my thing, talk to her when and how I want and she'll just deal with it? The dream."

"'You want to hear from me between our hang outs because it 'lets you know I actually dig you instead of just making you feel like I only hit you up when I feel like it?' I don't know man, sounds needy. Oh, 'It's important for you to express your needs because communication is a priority for you?' Well, I don't really talk a lot to anybody...and sounds kind of high-maintenance, tbh."

.

And in the meantime, to that Regional Seattleite Box:

Yes young, yes liberally educated, yes progressive....but doesn't often wear things like my sexuality and social views on my sleeve

Yes to being passionate about causes that matter to me....but no to the immediate indictment of those who act differently and no to dedicating myself to those causes until a time when its inconvenient to do so arises...

Yes to revisiting my favorite places....but no to remaining consistently within the same limited block radius of my home with the same 3 people I've been revisiting places with for years...

Yes to being friendly and open to forming new relationships....but no to avoiding necessary confrontations; yes to being honest over seeming nice (though I do remain working my People Pleasers Anonymous program).

And underpinning it all, as a 31 year old in the Millennial Box:

Yes to seeming like I'm doing my best to find a place and way that aligns with me in a broken world like many of us do....but also yes to admittedly being plagued excessively by existential crises and the questioning of my own existence for most of my life

Yes to having friends....but also no to keeping around those that do not serve or show up for me; no to settling for numerous acquaintances I don't feel like I can actually count on

Yes to being open to new experiences and people; but no to making loose plans of "Sure!" or "Maybe" when I really mean "Nah" or "Probably not"

Yes to love...but no to it being free; no to accepting the idea that any casual relationship, platonic or otherwise, are just "the way things are now"

...and no to wanting and adjusting easily to new tech distractions that say they make life easier and fun but do they really? Do they?

.

And don't even get me started on the Black Woman Box..

[bisexualmaedhros]

stuff i want from the sims in the future in no particular order (base game, not dlc! also put under a cut bc it got longer than i expected and idk how much dash space it'll take up haha)

ability to input ur sim's pronouns, and even add multiple sets for the game to use at random maybe (though i doubt they'd go as far as that second part unfortunately). it's bullshit that they have the pride decorations and whatnot but my sims still get misgendered. granted i know progress doesn't happen all at once but my god. come on

in a similar vein, more customization wrt your sim's sex & gender (eg not having to have a flat chest if your sim is listed as male, etc; maybe even the option for a sim to transition?)

disability options, physical and mental (granted this would probably be tough to implement properly but that doesn't stop me from wanting it lol). even if they weren't able to go all out right away, it seems as though something like being able to give a sim prosthetics wouldn't be too complicated of an addition? of course it depends on how much realism you want, but like... they didn't make glasses all that realistic, but they still let us have them. why not prosthetics or even mobility aids?

happy healthy polyamorous relationship options. i doubt they'd actually put this in but a bitch can dream.

the ability to customize a sim's height

the ability to give them painted nails like you can makeup

i've heard people say they had online dating in previous sims games, but afaik they don't in ts4? why. bring it back that sounds fun

ability to have sims remove their shoes when in a house. the fact that my sims are walking around in their goddamn winter boots on these nice ass floors gives me fucking hives. i live in a household that is not a shoes off household irl and i cannot wait to get my own place and be rid of that. please i don't want to deal with this in the sims too

this is another one that sounds like it might be hard to code, but like. the option to customize the cadence of a sim's voice. i have ocs i've made who, even if i get the pitch of the voice basically right, it's hard to tell because they're supposed to be way more monotone than the game makes them. we can choose voice categories (sweet, warm, etc); i think it would be nice to also customize how expressive they are when they talk (for example, always monotone, usually monotone, usually expressive, always expressive; smth like that idk)

acne/more skin details and stuff!

[thebibutterflyao3]

So true! The main pushback at the time was from religious groups who protested the series because it “encouraged witchcraft.” Which wasn’t uncommon with children’s books.

I do remember that there were criticisms of character names early on, but it was generally dismissed as lazy writing and brushed aside in attempts to defend JKR from religious zealots who advertised book burnings featuring her series to gain media attention. The early 2000s was a wild time for all fantasy authors and a lot of well-meaning people viewed her as a victim of persecution.

Also, the books came out long before social media existed in its current form and the target audience was children, so I think it took a while for the series to be taken seriously enough to be critically analysed. It really wasn’t until she started being openly transphobic in the late 2010s that people started realising how awful she was.

Guys remember that time JK Rowling named Kingsley Shacklebolt and really thought she was Doing Something? Like how did we not figure this bitch out sooner?

[telomeke-bbs]

I actually think the first person to cross the tribal lines in bad buddy was Pran when he saved Pa. You can see afterwards he wanted to be the Jindapat kids’ friend even when he was told not to, but Pat pushed him aside and didn’t thank him after the incident and so his guard went back up and he talked about Pat ‘owing’ him. His olive branch offering also bookends the show as he saved Pa in episode 1 and buys Ming a gift from Singapore in episode 12 even though he knows/believes in both incidences he’ll probably gain nothing from it. Dissaya’s emotional abuse of Pran caused him to repress everything to please others and to protect himself. But his inherent kindness and selflessness always still shone through

Hi Anonymous! You're so right that the first one to cross tribal lines was Pran, jumping in selflessly to save Pa from drowning while poor Pat was too stunned to move. (And to anyone else reading, this comment is a reference to an earlier post on tribes and sides here. 😊)

I have to respectfully disagree with your observation about Pran's repression being caused by emotional abuse from Dissaya though; the only time we see her flare up at Pran (and it was admittedly a doozy) was the one time in Ep.10. I do agree she can be harsh and over-protective, but for the most part I can't picture her being abusive to Pran whom she loves so much.

Actually, we only see Dissaya turn into the flame-spewing dragon version of herself whenever Ming or his family are somehow involved (and this was invoked when Pran confessed that he and Pat were in a relationship during their Ep.10 confrontation). At all other times within the family home, Dissaya is the very soul of tenderness with her beloved Pran – for example, during the two scenes of them at the Siridechawat dining table (in Ep.1 and Ep.7), and also in Ep.12.

It's possible she could have gone ballistic at Pran during his childhood/adolescence whenever the Jindapats were involved, but I prefer to think that their Ep.10 confrontation was more a one-off in terms of intensity, and that it only escalated to that level because Pran was newly confident from being in love, and was now sassing her back. This would explain why he also found it so terribly devastating when she lashed out, if she'd never done it so violently before (verbally or physically). I think Pran only became the emotionally-repressed version of himself that we see in earlier episodes because he learnt from Dissaya that great dangers lurked outside, emphasized by her always exaggerated and outsized reactions to the Jindapats.

Thanks very much for pointing out the lovely parallel with Pran's gift to Ming in Ep.12! I hadn't noticed it before, so that was a nice discovery for me. 😊

Actually, Pran's gift of alcohol in Ep.12 made me put on my thinking hat again, and looking more closely I believe it's actually really loaded with significance.

Once again, this references the Jindapat family's Thai-Chinese roots, and Ming's portrayal in the series as a Chinese traditionalist.

Alcohol and liquor have a special place in traditional Chinese culture (which is ironic, given the prevalence of the Asian flush). There are all sorts of associations and symbolisms assigned to liquor, wine and spirits in Chinese literature and poetry dating back thousands of years. This significance of alcohol has persisted to the present day, and as with many aspects of Chinese culture, can also come into play when navigating the complex rituals addressing social hierarchy. In the China of today, hard drinking with business clients is still seen as an essential part of relationship-building (although there has been recent pushback); in drinking the liquor, you honor the client, while refusing alcohol that a client offers to you during a drinking/dining session is tremendously insulting to him/her. (A teetotaler friend of mine found this out the hard way.) If you'd like to read more, there are plenty of articles floating around the Internet (some links: Literary Lushes, Understanding Drinking Culture in China and Work Drinking in China Comes Under Fire).

As the Siridechawats are not (or do not identify as) ethnic Chinese (depicted very clearly when Pat and Pran's moms have their Ep.1 "Baby boy, call me Ma/Mae" dispute in the street), Pran's gift of prized, quality alcohol specifically to Ming is really significant because it is such an esteemed gift for a Chinese patriarch from someone not bound by the same traditions, and Ming understands this. (That the alcohol is meant for Ming is mentioned by Pran during the scene at the wonton noodle stall in Ep.12 [3I4]. And we are also shown that Pat too understands the significance of Pran's gift – he stops the teasing banter they'd been engaging in up to that point, and nods emphatically at Pran at Ep.12 [3I4] 13.44 with perhaps a note of pride in his half-smile. Pran didn't forget the rest of the Jindapats though; there are snacks for them too in the bags from Singapore that we see in Ep.12, also highlighting Pran's thoughtfulness – and I'm also trusting in his good taste to have avoided buying the durian-flavored chocolate mini-Merlions. Abominations. 😂)

What we're seeing is Pran, as the partner of Pat, being the dutiful son-in-law and honoring his Chinese father-in-law with a culturally very appropriate and meaningful gift, even though he has every reason to believe the gift will not be acknowledged as such (and even though their relationship itself is not formally acknowledged, i.e., Pran is not considered part of the Jindapat family and is not officially a son-in-law). Pran's alienation is not because he is gay; we're shown that Ink has been happily welcomed into the family as Pa's lesbian partner (with Ink addressing Ming using the Chinese honorific for "father" at Ep.12 [4/4] 0.25 and Pat's mom going "It's like we have two daughters now" at Ep.12 [4/4] 3.43). Rather, it's because Pran is from the enemy Siridechawat tribe (but we all knew that already 😊).

Nonetheless, we are then shown that Pran's alienation isn't a complete one. When Ming takes a sip of the liquor later on, it's not because he's a secret alcoholic, or just can't resist its great flavor.

I think Ming (knowing full well the gift is from Pran) has been so moved by Pran's gesture honoring him and his traditions that in drinking he signals tacitly not just that he accepts the gift, but that he also symbolically accepts Pran as his son-in-law (although he's probably never going to admit it out loud). 💖 To Ming, this is not just any old gift – it is one that resonates with deep cultural echoes, from someone outside their tribe and traditions whom he treated so despicably, but who still cares enough to do correct thing by offering respect to the patriarch and father of his spouse. In doing so, Pran has also shown respect for the traditions that Ming holds dear, and his unselfish gift across tribal lines comes even when the very traditions it embodies were what caused them so much anguish in the first place (see this analysis here for more explanation).

And this is when we get a glimpse of Ming quietly admitting some of the guilt he feels in allowing tradition to dictate so much in their lives at the expense of their happiness, and is also why he softens just a bit and redelivers the misdirected mail to the Siridechawats later on.

So it really was an olive branch across tribal lines, initiating a stepdown in the warfare between the two families. 😊

Eep. I've rambled on too long as usual. But thanks so much for pointing me to this, Anonymous! I hadn't fully worked out the significance of Pran's gift before, and it's really thanks to your comment here that I have a better understanding of Ep.12 and the thawing that we see in Ming. You've given me a gift here. 😊 💖

[dhaaruni]

I wish dem messaging would be less school-marm-y as well. I live in a deep red area and i guarantee you i'd get jumped for (sadly) talking abt trans people and banning guns, but like whenever i talk about socially liberal things in terms of "well its no-ones BUSINESS how i raise my children, it may not be how YOU would do it but my kids ain't your kids" like even THAT gentle pushback gets some people to scratch their heads for a second. Guns are a total no-go here bc of all the white nationalist chuds but the truth is a bunch of my lefty friends here have guns too so its like. Ok we all got guns now what like that should be the conversation in these areas. I start losing hope bc whenever someone starts messaging RIGHT someone on the squad or ~~liberal media~~ gets them cancelled or smthn it pisses me off lol

That's what I'm saying!

I’m not claiming that Americans agree with the nitty-gritty stuff activists are saying on abortion or LGBT issues (most people don’t support abortion “on demand without apology” and are divided on trans girls in sports) but most Americans don’t really care what other people do if it doesn’t impact them. America’s very individualistic, borderline libertarian in many ways, and it’s probably the best thing about this country. Like, Trump banning transgender people in the military had like 20% support, and people overwhelmingly support trans people not being professionally discriminated against, which is leaps and bounds better than most other countries.

So many "liberal" policies, both social and economic, are really just common sense, and we should frame it as that instead of claiming we want to revolutionize these people's way of life. Like, Steve Bullock, the former governor of Montana, said it in his NYT op-ed: most people want the same things for their families, the opportunity for a good education, a job they don't despise that puts food on the table and can provide for them and their families, to not fret about going bankrupt over an emergency appendectomy or whatever, and some occasional leisure. It shouldn't be rocket science to win enough of these people over when Democratic economic policies ARE better for most Americans than Republican ones, they do agree with us on the essence of social issues, and yet, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden lost non-college voters to Trump while Barack Obama won them, which that should be a major electoral red flag given only about 35% of Americans even have a college degree.

And even with social issues, if you frame abortion as "Do you really want your 14-year-old daughter to be forced into having a baby when she's a straight-A student and sports star and could get a scholarship to college?" or "Do you really want your beloved wife to die a painful death when that baby you both desperately wanted is already dead inside her?", you're going to get a whole lot more support even among avowed conservatives than if you scream about abortion being rad and joke about celebrating abortion, you know what I mean? I don't celebrate a root canal or appendectomy, why would I celebrate an abortion? It's just a medical procedure, and glorifying it as as bad as moralizing it.

But you're right, like it's partly misogyny in the Democrats = feminine Republicans = masculine stereotype, but even aside from that, Americans associate Democrats with being lame and didactic and out of touch with normal people, and that's both untrue given what the party actually stands for and electorally devastating. And when half the House Republicans voted to overturn the 2020 election, Democrats need to win as much as possible for the sake of our democracy like we don't have another option right now other than to win over moderates. If you have another idea, let me know lol.