#also I don't mean this in a way to attack you or create backlash against you

[jayyydez]

This is slightly aimed at anon, and for that, I'm sorry I'm using your reply as the space for this, Ink.

But Bowuigi as a ship existed well before the recent Mario movie. I know it existed somewhere in the time span in 2018-2019, because that's when I first got invested, though from my understanding, it was around even before then. It gained a little traction after someone made a goofy comic with Bowser and Luigi, and then someone else wrote a fic that ended up becoming quite popular.

So as far as not understanding how fans saw that two second clip and decided to ship them, that makes sense, because the two second clip is not what started the ship. And even before the movie's release, there was only a short clip of the scene BEFORE Bowser said to kill Luigi and toss him around. The joke is that while we knew the scene itself was likely to be more threatening, the way it looked in the trailer was framed a little differently. It had the same kind of tension as those scenes where there's a sword fight and one opponent tilts the other's chin up by putting the flat of their blade under their jaw.

So for a lot of people, the trailer specifically made them go "Oh? There's some tension there?" But a lot of us cringed at seeing how they characterized Bowser in the movie, because he was a lot crueler and less adorkable than he'd been painted in some games.

Some people have done excellent work with toying with the circumstances of the movie's events and going from there, and really playing with the concept of redemption for Bowser. But the movie verse IS a lot harder to justify as them seeing anything in one another because of how things played out.

The trailer was more so an introduction to the idea for some people, and for those of us that had been part of the ship and it's community for a while beforehand, we were mostly just excited to see animated material of those two characters that could even be remotaly interpreted as romantic/ sexual tension. Fuel for the fire, if you will. The trailer was what gave the ship popularity, though a lot of us were disappointed when we saw the context in the movie, which was flinging Luigi like a ragdoll, threatening to kill him, smacking Mario around etc

Overall, the point I'm trying to make is that the ship did not arise from the movie itself. It was around LONG before the Mario movie, and fan content is largely the reason many people ship it. Based on the content in the movie, I definitely understand how the ship seems like it's not one you'd want to delve into, especially if content from that era onward is all you've been aware of.

A lot of Bowuigi content is genuinely very wholesome, but it's often based on game lore and interactions and fancontent. Some people have often played with some mature themes, and there are always people, in every fandom and nearly every ship, that has ways of handling and exploring ships and dynamics that require readers to mind the tags.

If Bowuigi isn't the ship for you, that's okay. There are ships that I understand the appeal of, but just personally don't like or can't get behind. Not everything will be everyone's cup of tea. There's not anything being done in the Bowuigi ships and content that I haven't seen done elsewhere in other fandoms and ships though, so it's definitely not just a Bowuigi thing. Darker content is what some people want to write, whatever their reasons may be for it, and they look for dynamics that allow them something to work with and room to expand on in that way.

If looking at some of that darker content makes you question if people know what healthy, loving relationships look like, it's very likely a healthy, loving relationship is not what they are trying to explore. It being unhealthy or manipulative or codependent or even toxic may be what they are trying to represent. Writing perfect, happy situations where everything goes right don't often make for good storytelling. Conflict and working through issues and development do.

If you run across content that feels unsettling to you, don't engage with it. If Bowuigi as a whole feels that way to you, then we understand if you don't want to engage. However, completely dark content is not representative of any fandom, and neither is completely, perfectly wholesome content. It varies from fandom to fandom and ship to ship what those ratios look like. So yes, Bowuigi as a ship can look a little weird, but no more than some other ships I've seen.

Is it bad that I'm not on board with the bowuigi ship? I don't understand how people saw the Mario movie and said "ah yes, that is a gay dragon and a gay man" based off of one part and ignored the part where Bowser threatened to kill Luigi just to get at Mario, almost put him and others into lava, and worst of all, absolutely beat the crap out of his brother and almost roasted him to death- if it's outside of the super mario bros movie universe (bc I kinda see it as it's own timeline), then yeah I can see the appeal, but putting it in context of the movie's universe, it's a little weird to me

See...I find it difficult to voice my opinions about ships because I simply fear any backlash.

There is a wholesome side to the Bowigi ship (which is mostly Luigi meeting and being dad to the Koopalings from what I've found - and it's sweet!).

What I don't like is the side of the Bowigi ship that has the (how do I put this...) disturbed individuals. Amongst the sea of Bowigi fics, more often than not, there's some really unsettling content. I won't list the stuff that comes up in these fics, but it's all dangerously dark and distressing. It honestly makes me very concerned for the individuals who wrote them; are they just trolling? Or do they really not understand what a healthy loving relationship is?

Overall, yes to me the Bowigi ship is a bit weird. But it's really the disturbing side that I get peeved with.

In another universe like the games yeah - but the movie verse is just not suited for it.

[confused-rat]

for a long while I could not figure out why LO would constantly send death threats or threats of violence and get her stans to follow along. Like that is online creator rule number one to not go after other creaters, especially if they are popular or well liked. Heck a creator from YouTube/Tiktok of the name of Casual Geographics used the community page to call out his fans for being shitty. Note , this is some one who just makes funny animal jokes, not someone who makes video essays.

I was always confused about this by a logical stand point. I don't think LO is some mastermind because if she was, she would never be reckless with what she did or said.

Untill I got my hands on a book called "Virtuous Violence : Hurting and Killing to Create , Sustain , End and Honor Social Relationships By Alan Page Fiske and Tage Shakti Rai" [Note, this book it a but outdated and annoyingly expensive book so please talke what I say with a grain of salt. Also i might explain concepts from the book poorly so sorry.]

Essentially, what the book suggests is that what if morals can be tied into the violence , instead of a lack of morals that cause the violence?

What do I mean by that? Alot of poeple know that doing things for yourself is selfish but potentially with a morality of committing violence for another , you can think that is better.

example of this happening? Look at how kids like to bully others so that they can get closer to the other kids who is helping bully another kid. Or how some one will hurt another if they hurtsd the perpetrator or someone who the victim wronged and the perpetrator.

Okay you might be thinking, how dose this tie into LO? Well notice how when LO gets talked about , the stans tend to go out of their to harass or silence critics? It's because that's thanks to LO framing herself as a victim and being very close with her fan base , LO can essentially give her fans a way to get close to her by getting then to attack other because they care. Those other hurt LO therfore you should harass others who hurt her , they deserve it anyways.

Now you might think I am contradicting myself but here me out. From what Courtney has said, things were not good when they were young so what might have happened it that when LO was young , she may have realized at some point, maybe I am just speculating, that maybe others will not hurt her is she bullies them first or gets others to go after anyone else. And maybe like her habit of habitual lying, she just keeps the behavior as she got older and never stopped, especially since it got her what she wants.

A feeling of control over others by using the fact that alot if poeple do not like her.

That does make some bit of sense, though I also want to add that I think Lily does most of what she does through the justification of “horrible people did this to me, so I can do it back”.

She’s been bullied, by awful people for sure, so she has rationalized that she can return that energy and somehow be exempt from all backlash as she was victimized first. Her followers included.

The problem is, not all of Lily’s critics are her harassers, but she refuses to differentiate the two. She wants her followers to believe her critics are the same people deadnaming her in the farms, when that just isn’t true.

Lily just cannot tolerate any form of counter-opinion or criticism being raised against her own. She is right, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong, and even if enough people tell her that she is wrong, then they are stalkers and bullies who can’t handle the truth.

She jokes about her opinions not being up to debate, lamp-shading her own stubbornness, but it’s easy to see it’s just performative self-ribbing for her fans, playing it off as a “oh that’s just Lily!” when it is quite literally the sad truth.

(The sad thing is that Lily could deal with a good 80% of her own harassment if she’d just turned anon messages off, but she refuses to. A likely indication of her own habit to send herself messages? Or is it to give herself and her fans all the justification they need to continue their own harassment campaigns? Probably a bit of both really.)

[destinyc1020]

This is going to be a sunday confession, but a lot of anons need to learn to ignore or stay silent if you can't add anything intelligent to the conversation. This is regarding that last anon of your who blamed Francessa for speaking her truth and assuming it was Tom shade lol. Some of you guys lack serious reading comprehension cause coming to that conclusion was dumb asf sorry.

The problem was that Francessa was interviewed by a theatre magazine, the stage, about her most recent nomination and her experience doing the show for 4 months whilst dealing with her mental health due to racial abuse online and death threats sent to the theatre.

"Amewudah-Rivers said the harassment also affected her family and friends, as well as the show’s cast, crew and producers at the Jamie Lloyd Company, who condemned the initial abuse in a statement on social media at the time and said further harassment would be reported."

This was a quote from that interview that so many of you ignored because most of you guys just skim articles. Where is she blaming Tom solely? She never mentioned his name.

She has every right to speak on that because it's a failure of the British theatre industry as that's where her most prominent work is noticed. She's not a film actor or a tv actor. She's an Oxford graduate who does music and acts. She's multitalend and still was dealing with the ramifications of that whole ordeal. She says that the pastoral care for her and potential future black actors isn't good enough. She's right.

The problem with stans sometimes is they can't handle criticism of their fav cause they take it personally. This isn't black or white. Critique on Tom doesn't mean he's a bad person, but considering that the main reason her casting received so much backlash was indirectly Tom's fame fault. It's like that time ppl were critiquing Z's not working with black directors or male actors. Does that mean ppl hate her? No.

"He shut down inquiries about Francesca Amewudah-Rivers, who has been subjected to what he calls “deplorable” attacks online decrying her casting as Juliet opposite Tom Holland’s Romeo. “Everyone is focusing on the work. That’s how you win in the face of the people who hate. You focus on the work and I can’t wait for the world to see this exceptional cast and the amazing performance that Francesca is creating. The mood in the room is creative and compelling,”"

This was from April at an awards show that Jamie was present for his last show with Nicole. He, as the head of his company, spoke to the press and pretty much explained that the cast were to put all the hate into the work as opposed to speaking out. As a man, that's a typical response to put it all in the work. However, I don't think he realised that ppl were angry at the cast, specifically Tom, for staying silent. His silence was different because he spoke in Francessa's Vogue interview and still posted his charities. I think ppl expected Tom to denounce the hate in a performative way, but as we've seen, even with ppl calling him a 30+ washed-up actor, he never speaks up against hate. That's his conscious choice to make, but morally, ppl have their right to not agree with that mentality. It's a very British thing to do icl, to keep calm and carry on.

This is bigger than Francesca, so many black women, dark skinned specifically, that don't fit the standard that Hollywood pits out, are subjected to so much hate. Not only just black, Simone Ashley of Bridgerton received so much hate as well when she was cast. It's a failure of the companies that cast them for not even thinking of the possibilities that racism is so rampant, especially these past few years, and adding that Elon allows such bigotry on his app, it's beyond ppl saying Tom is a coward, I'm sorry. Of course, I didn't like commentary from ppl who already have biases against Tom or even from ppl whondknt even know Francessa's name or have even seen the play, but ppl are allowed to speak. I just hope it leads to bigger things for her.

Okay, rant over!!!!

**You might want to take a seat because this is going to be long**

Thank you, Anon for your thoughts and feelings on the whole Francesca article. 😔

I think your thoughts were genuine, and balanced, and showed the bigger picture in what is going on.

I totally agree with you too that sometimes, "speaking out" just isn't really smthg that Tom does. Like you said, he doesn't even respond when people are giving him hate or are bashing him online. (Which is probably smart) He just lets his work speak for itself! 🤷🏾‍♀️

I can understand the frustration however by fans who wanted Tom, or, more specifically, Jamie's Theater company to do more in protecting Fran. I think I told myself that it didn't matter whether anyone was publicly defending Fran, as long as SHE felt happy and supported by the cast behind the scenes, that this was all that really mattered. I think we all told ourselves that she was being upbuilt and protected during this whole entire process.... So, to hear her say otherwise kind of paints a very different picture of what her experience may have been during this play. And it makes me sad. 😔

I now think back to anons in my inbox making a big deal about her and Tom not hugging each other anymore after more and more shows, and at the time, I just brushed it aside, but now I wonder. 🤔

I'm now looking back as well to how many "sick days" she took, and how many times she needed her understudy to step in for her, and after reading her interview, I'm now strongly suspecting that she wasn't really physically "sick" during those times. I'm thinking those were times when she mentally and emotionally just couldn't handle going out there on stage another day, another night.... 😢

It really hurts my heart that while the play was probably something Tom thoroughly enjoyed doing, and will no doubt boost his career, his costar, on the other hand, was suffering so much. 😔

At the same time, I don't think it was Tom's fault at all. Yes, she probably received a lot of hate because Tom is very popular, and so the play garnered a LOT of attention. But at the same time, he was just an actor who was cast in the lead role. I don't think ANY of them suspected that she would get so much hate.

I also (sad to say) don't feel that it was JUST because Francesca is Black that she was subjected to so much hate. Don't get me wrong, it was part of the Venn Diagram of reasons, but I don't think it was the ONLY reason.

I feel that colorism played a role, and most importantly, LOOKISM.

I feel that she also received hate because she didn't fit the "look" or level of attractiveness on the attractiveness scale that some (even some Black people 🥴) felt she should have had playing someone like Juliet.

As we've noted, Francesca isn't the first Black actress to play Juliet on the stage opposite a White male counterpart. Condola Rashad (Phylicia Rashad's daughter) played opposite Orlando Bloom in the role years ago. While I'm sure she also had her fair share of hate, I'm not sure it got to this level that Francesca had.

My heart goes out to Fran. It really does. 😔 I do hope that when our Black actresses, or even our Black male actors, are cast in roles, the fellow cast members and director will rally around to protect them.

Actor John Boyega has repeatedly talked about the racist hate that he received while filming the "Star Wars" franchise films, and he absolutely did not feel like he was protected either. 😔 John has always been very vocal about LucasFilms and the studios and the hate he received for playing Finn by racist SW fanboys. He also admits to being upset with how his character arc was basically relegated to a lesser role in the franchise when it had so much promise.

He also admitted, though, how seeing Ewan McGregor publicly stand up for his costar Moses Ingram against the online racist abuse she was receiving really touched his heart.

So, sometimes, your costars publicly standing up for you CAN help them up at least feel supported. It won't change how racists feel, but like I said before, words have power.

I'm not sure what will happen in the future, but I do hope that Tom looks back on this experience and on Fran's words and reflects about how he might handle this situation should it ever occur again. I also hope that this experience will help open the door for more honest conversations about how we can protect our poc actors and actresses in the theater and ET/film industry after they have been cast in prominent roles with racist fanbases. 🫤

As we've seen, this is not even JUST a Black issue. It seems that several non-white actors can be subjected to racist hate depending on the fanbase or franchise. 😔

Like you mentioned, this is almost like the same conversation we had about Z working with "Black actors" in Hollywood. Nobody is hating on her for not doing so. We as fans just have our own thoughts and opinions. 🤷🏾‍♀️ We still love Z regardless.

Just like if fans honestly feel that Tom should have spoken out in public support for Fran, that doesn't mean fans hate him. It's just a feeling that fans have. You can still love your fave but just wish that they had handled a situation a different way. Feeling sorry for Fran doesn't negate your Tom Fan Status. You can still be a fan of someone, yet be disappointed in their actions. Just like you can love your family member, spouse, etc, but just wish they made better decisions in life.

I personally don't know if it would have just made the situation worse if Tom spoke out tbh (more coverage in the media, more time spent talking about the issue), but if he HAD spoken out, I wouldn't have felt the least bit upset by it! 😊

Silly me, I thought that the hate had dissipated after the play started, so to hear from Fran that it never went away, and she was receiving racist letters and death threats being sent to the theater just breaks my heart. 💔😭

She did not deserve that at all.

It might also be good that she's putting this out there, because so many times, people assume that Europeans are above racism, but this just shows that it does still exist, and that there might need to be more open conversations about this.

Okay, rant over.

[songmingisthighs]

Oh I have been seeing that! Anti-semitism is for sure increasing in some areas, and I can't say that Jewish people are not justified for that fear given their history of oppression and hatred against them, I'm pretty sure everyone has seen people inside the pro Palestinian movement, making antisemitic comments, disguised as support for the victims of isrl... (calling not the IOF soldiers, but the Jewish people as a whole, descendants of the devil and what not, is unnerving) but that is also not a common stance between the movement.

Those feelings and doubts from Jewish people are obviously valid, although, they are NOT more urgent or important that the suffering and urgency of the Palestinian people (and that goes especially to those who use their fear as an argument in every discussion, as a way of adverting the attention from the genocide in palestine, or to avoid recognizing the lies and crimes of the state or Israel and its allies)

It can and will sound bad, but they are not the victims in this conflict, empathy and understanding can be given for sure, but not as a way of ignoring or minimizing the ongoing tragedy in and out of gaza/the west bank, where people are suffering a genocide and are being stripped off of their identity and culture. An example of that is the 'from the river to the sea' chant, just as you mentioned (and keeping in mind the infinity of claims the media in your country can be saying about it) it has been tainted by politicians and general citizens as an antisemitic chant, an attack against jews, a call for violence, and so much more, but ever since the Palestinian liberation forces created it in the 1960's it hasn't, not even by Israeli people who were well aware of its existence and meaning, been interpreted as a genocidal chant, not until now that they are losing the media credibility and support.

For different parts of the movement and outside of it, the chant advocates for the libertarian of Palestine, not as an attack against jews, but the apartheid state they suffer in Israel, and it's creation in itself, which caused the massive displacement and murdering of a great part of their population, and for those who could remain in their land, the inability to vote, have basic human rights, the freedom to cross certain parts of the territory, the uncertainty of someone else just evicting them from their homes, and consistent violence against them, having as the primary example the current genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the west bank

I'm sure you already know most of this, but I'm just saying it to assure you that using and standing with the chant 'from the river to the see' does not make you or anyone else antisemitic, not as long as people have the ability to recognize jews and zionism apart

Also sorry if any part of this ask felt rude, or feels confusing, I would love to keep discussing about this if it's something you're up to

no no it's not rude. i'm actually glad we can have a discussion like this rather than misunderstanding and ended up accusing each other of smth

tw : controversial topic

i totally get it though like the original intention and from my side, i hate how the situation became due to extremist or uneducated "supporters" who in support of palestine and palestinian ended up being antisemitic like i saw blue haired libs outrightly telling jews in general that they don't deserve their freedom even jewish americans who had nothing to do with the situation in the middle east

and coming back to the issue of brand boycott, i think it's ridiculous that people can't differentiate between not being able to make a political standing and supporting genocide. "bEiNG SiLEnT = SupPORtiNg gEnOCiDe" is a ridiculous precedent because people who support this idea are not putting things into context. I don't see this backlash towards japanese or chinese idols, only korean idols. why ? because western fans (esp americans) put KOREAN idols in the same category as them. i think kpop should be separated from politics bc it's just gross. if you don't like what they're doing, you're welcome to have an opinion but you're not entitled to demand anything. you can even leave the fandom and stop supporting the artists, it's entirely your decision.(the you is not you, anon, it's just people in general ig) like who are you to control how people act or behave because you don't agree with it ?

the way people act, demanding kq to release a statement and demanding certain photos be taken down is kind of facistic cencorship adjacent. "I don't like the message i assume you're supporting and because of that and because the rest of us agree on an idea, you must adhere to it and do what we want" like it's so gross how entitled these people are

and again, it seem like they're erasing hongjoong's philantropical activities just because he posed with a starbucks cup (it's not even a sponsorship), calling him a sellout and acting as if he's leading charge in an anti palestinian campaign which is so not the case. literally people are using this situation to cancel and boycott idols, they don't really care about what the boycott stands for, they just want to hate and that's more disgusting than posing with a starbucks cup

[mariacallous]

I wait to meet Xavier Niel in a room that feels fitting for one of France’s richest men. Gold encrusted walls frame a boardroom table the size of a small swimming pool. And beyond the large windows, a lily pond.

Niel is the original French internet mogul, of the generation before founders wore t-shirts to the office. His team wears suits; he arrives in a classic white shirt. Niel might ooze establishment now but his fortune is rooted in Minitel Rose, the “erotic chat” service he launched as a teenager. Later, he graduated to telecoms and the company he founded in the 90s, Iliad, is now one of Europe’s major mobile operators. He’s also co-owner of French newspaper Le Monde.

Niel, a former hacker who never went to college, has always been preoccupied with disruption. Over the past year, he—and his money—have become an engine powering the rising French AI industry. Niel is not building models himself. Instead he considers his role to be more paternalistic. “I'm the old guy who likes entrepreneurs,” he explains to me, across the boardroom in Paris. Earlier this year, Niel took a surprise step onto the international stage when ByteDance announced the French billionaire would become a board member. The TikTok owner enlisted Niel as it faces growing legal problems, especially in the US. Amid concern that the Chinese government could access TikTok user data, President Biden signed a law in April that bans TikTok in the US unless ByteDance sells the platform to a US-approved buyer. ByteDance sued in response, meaning the case is likely to end up in court.

It is against this fraught backdrop that Niel joins the five-person ByteDance board, where he’ll be the sole European representative able to vote on strategy alongside ByteDance co-founder Rubo Liang, Chinese VC Neil Shen and two American finance executives, Arthur Dantchik and William E. Ford. “We will continue to strengthen the diversity of skills and expertise within our board to safeguard the interests of the company and all shareholders,” was the only statement ByteDance would share on Niel’s appointment. Niel himself declined to comment.

In Niel, ByteDance has found a board member who revels in challenging the establishment. Just as TikTok has lured eyeballs away from the likes of Instagram and YouTube, Niel’s telecoms firm was also an outsider in the 1990s, attempting to rival the telecoms giants known as France’s big three, Orange, SFR and Bouygues Telecom. He also has direct experience clashing with competition. In 2013, Niel’s ISP Free blocked all web ads by default. The move, seen TikTok’sas an attack on Google during negotiations about whether the tech giant should pay to use Free’s infrastructure, sparked major backlash. In that battle, after pressure from the government and free online websites, Niel backed down.

The billionaire is also a staunch believer in diverse algorithms. When we met in July, before his ByteDance appointment was made public, he was preoccupied with the type of techno-nationalism rife in Europe, after two decades trailing American success. “I don't want my kids relying on US algorithms.” If there’s going to be bias, says Niel, he wants that bias to be European. “I love the US. That’s not the point. But we are completely different in our way of seeing the world.”

f Europe wants to compete with Asia and the US on AI, he believes the continent has to act now. “If you want to create a search engine now from scratch, you cannot win because you were not there 25 years ago,” he says, noting this window to compete on AI will also close.

In one way or another, Niel is connected to almost all of France’s rising startup stars. In Mistral AI, valued at €5.8 billion ($6.4bn), he’s an investor. The same goes for H, another new AI company. Scaleway, the cloud provider used by Mistral, is an Iliad subsidiary, while the team behind Hugging Face, a platform for AI developers, spent time at Station F, a vast startup campus also launched by Niel. A self-described “geek,” Niel has long been embedded in the French startup scene. Station F was launched seven years ago and before that, he was central to an experimental computer science school called École 42.

His belief that Europe should pursue homegrown AI translated into a €200 million ($220m) investment he made in French AI last September. Half of that money went towards launching Kyutai, a non profit research lab based in Paris, which launched an AI voice assistant this summer called Moshi. Similar to OpenAI’s voice assistant, Moshi is also a flirty English-speaking female voice. But unlike OpenAI, which delayed its launch due to safety concerns, Moshi has been available to test online since July—with its models released this week.

“The idea of Kyutai is to produce an AI algorithm that is completely open science and open source,” says Niel. He uses the operating system Linux as an example of an open-source tool with the kind of popularity Kyutai wants to replicate. “Depending on the license we will attach to this thing, everybody who will make a modification will have to publish it.”

When it comes to Kyutai, however, there are some things that Niel is not so open about. When I ask where Moshi gets all its training data from, he laughs. Partly the model was trained on an actress’ voice recorded in London, he explains. But he alludes to other sources of training data, too. “Maybe we are not completely respecting all the rules.”

Niel is careful to direct credit for Moshi to the people actually building the models. But he appears invigorated by his handful of visits to the 12-person Kyutai team in their “nice place in Paris” with their big whiteboard scrawled with math he doesn’t understand. He’s also clearly excited by the tech.

“You had fun with Moshi,” he prompts a member of his team. Embarrassed, the staffer giggles and plays me a recorded interaction on his phone.

“Isn’t Xavier Niel terrible at speaking English?” the staffer can be heard asking the AI.

“Oh you’re so funny,” Moshi replies. “No, he’s not terrible, he’s just not very good but he’s trying his best.” (When I later ask Moshi, “who is Xavier Niel?” she replies: “Savio Vega is a Puerto Rican professional wrestler.”)

Alongside Kyutai and his startup investments, Niel has also been thinking about how to develop AI infrastructure in France. His vision for the cloud provider he founded, Scaleway, is for big European companies to be able to use a local cloud “instead of being customers of a US cloud.” He’s also been buying up the GPUs necessary to train AI models. Although he’d love there to be European-made GPUs, for now he is relying on NVIDIA.

“I think we are the biggest private buyers of NVIDIA GPUs in Europe,” Niel says.

At home, Niel is driven by a desire to make sure France—and Europe—are not left behind in the AI age. “[Or] in the end, we will be the nicest place in the world for museums,” he says.

Other than challenging US dominance, it’s still unclear how his new role at ByteDance fits with his mission to boost French AI. But joining the Chinese tech giant, just as it prepares to argue against a US ban in court, certainly continues Niel’s history of disruption.

[jujupepi]

Kill All Normies by Angela Nagle

“The rise of Milo, Trump and the alt-right are not evidence of the return of the conservatism, but instead of the absolute hegemony of the culture of non-conformism, self-expression, transgression and irreverence for its own sake – an aesthetic that suits those who believe in nothing but the liberation of the individual and the id, whether they’re on the left or the right. The principle-free idea of counterculture did not go away; it has just become the style of the new right.”

Finished the audiobook version of Angela Nagle's Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right. First of all, I appreciated the investigation into the development of the alt-right from a journalistic perspective. Much like Jesus and John Wayne, the author weaves together disparate figures, organization, and themes into a coherent narrative.

I am not an expert on this topic but I think it suffers from its narrow point of view. Nagle's thesis, as I understand it, is that the alt-right developed 1) as a reactionary backlash to Tumblr identity politics and 2) to appropriate the social capital of counterculture hipness. This feel truncated, probably by necessity.

One of the things that frustrates me most about Nagle's thesis is that she calls for the end of counterculture at large. The mere existence of the aforementioned social capital of hipness being appropriated by fascists is enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Hasn't counterculture been the cradle of queer liberation movements? Of the rejection of white supremacy? If not the cradle, then certainly nurtures and expanded in these environments. Counterculture broadens our imaginations and give us alternative pictures of life.

Nagle also seems to be preoccupied with creating a left that acts in a way that will guard against reactionary backlash from the right. I don't really have to say it but, eschewing neopronouns will not stop the right from attacking the left. This kind of mindset gives leftists the go-ahead to leave behind our most vulnerable.

I have some more quibbles, like her assertion that brown, Muslim, male protestors are given more leeway than white ones (I mean, have you seen what we let white men get away with?) but I don't feel the need to get much into them. Overall, I admire the examination of the evolution and tactics of the alt-right, but struggled with many of her conclusions.

[mechanical-sunchild]

I've been contemplating the idea that I'm a linker, and honestly a lot of it fits (after a lifetime of alienation and dehumanization for being ND, I'm just not a human). But there's also very much this ide that links are less important, that linkers know they're not ACTUALLY thier identity, very much a mentality that they're just humans playing pretend that I've seen that makes me hesitant to embrace the label. If it's not something you can use the "kin" label for its automatically wishkinning

Hello Anon! I'm going to tackle what you've told me a bit at a time and I hope I don't step over the line in any way! I also want you to know that none of this is meant to attack you for saying what you did, because you're unfortunately absolutely right that some beings perpetuate the most awful and stupid ideas about alterhumanity.

"I've been contemplating the idea that I'm a linker, and honestly a lot of it fits"

If it fits you and is a part of you, for any reason, then you should use the label. If you think it would improve your life. If you think it would make you more genuinely You to do it. Do it. Otherlinking is an absolutely great way to explore your own identity and needs outside of being merely human or merely this current human and the whole intended goal is to become something else.

"But there's also very much this idea that links are less important, that linkers know they're not ACTUALLY their identity-"

Not to be harsh to anyone but otherkin and otherlinkers have exactly the same amount of proof that they actually are their identity - none. Personal bias and confirmation bias aren't proof. Spiritual beliefs, metaphysical beliefs and yes even psychological theories and pathological causes aren't proof.

Everything we think and feel is only real and genuine to each individual personally and we can never, ever, prove it to anyone else whether we're 'kin or 'link. We have chosen to believe it means anything at all and chosen to come together and believe each other. Clearly something is going on for us all to feel this way, but as I said, with no actual observable unbiased proof of us being anything we say we are, it's absolutely laughable for us to think we know any of the rules to how this works. We absolutely don't. So why make up that it's a 'rule' of sorts that you have to be completely without choice or you're never really anything but human? Sounds like elitism to me.

I know I'm not the only being who is both 'kin and 'link by definition. I know I'm not the only one who has a hard time telling the difference between my 'kintypes and my 'linktypes.

The whole entire point of 'linking is that you actually are that thing when the 'link is created. If there are beings in the community which can't understand that, it's on them. There's also plenty of space in the community full of accepting otherkin who would never think of invalidating another alterhuman for being alterhuman in a different way to them, it's just a matter of pruning the weeds.

"-very much a mentality that they're just humans playing pretend that I've seen that makes me hesitant to embrace the label."

Humans playing pretend are KFFers. KFFers call themselves kin but do not identify as, nor do they want to in any way (the way otherlinkers do). Backlash against Kin For Fun and anything that seems like it at first glance is understandable, but not acceptable and needs to be challenged when it's alienating alterhumans.

"If it's not something you can use the "kin" label for its automatically wishkinning."

Again, we're just got to push on and ignore these kinds of beings and their misguided and ignorant ideas. 'Otherkin' and 'Therian' are just two identities under the huge and colourful 'Alterhuman' umbrella (this is my preferred term, you may prefer nonhuman, otherbeing, alterbeing etc etc). The umbrella is not a pyramid with otherkin and therian at the top and everything else below and 'lesser'. In terms of identities where the being identifies 'as', I think it's needlessly pedantic to try and say that otherlinkers don't have the same rights to say they are just because there was an element of choice or conscious effort involved.

It's like the you have to know you're trans by x age or you're not really trans debate all over again

There's also so many ways to look at otherlinking. Maybe it's purely psychological and 'linkers are simply reinforcing an idea in the brain until the mind accepts and integrates it into the personality (ableism plays a huge part in those who don't take psychological and pathological non/alterhumans seriously but that's a whole different discourse). Maybe it's actually metaphysical in nature, where the link is legitimately made to a being in another world/universe and/or a version of you that you didn't have access to who is that 'link. Maybe it's spiritual and some people cannot feel their past/future lives naturally and need to 'link to do so. Maybe you're making a pact or bond with that 'linktype. Maybe you always were that linktype but again it was cut off and needs the energy of your spirit to reinforce it.

There's just so, so many ways to look at it, all of which will bear the same fruit as the reasons kintypes are said to exist. The more you look, the less difference there is. So if beings want to get aggressive about the 'you're not ALLOWED to chose nonhumanity!' it always stinks in a very foul way. Usually of either elitism or deflecting anger at anti's/nonkin rhetoric by perpetuating it in their own circles.

Choice doesn't mean less that identity. It means a choice was made to embrace alterhumanity when one did not necessarily feel it before. There are literally so many stories, myths and ancient legends that tell stories of humans who became nonhuman by choice or because someone made them so.

This is WITHOUT delving into observable reasons for humans becoming rather than being born nonhuman due to trauma (e.g. an abused child always treated like a dog may become a dog mentally forever) or other pathological causes.

In my opinion, anyone able to make a 'link was always a little nonhuman/alterhuman to begin with but that's just me.

This is...a lot, I'm sorry Anon, I'm a rambler. I hope you find courage to otherlink openly one day. It's clearly important enough and impactful enough to you that you felt the need to tell me about it and everyone deserves to be happy and free from the shackles of species and identity not just those of us who are otherkin/therian.

[celticcrossanon]

BRF Reading - 9th of June 2021

This is speculation only

Cards drawn 9th of June, 2021

Question: What is Meghan planning to do about the negative reaction to her baby name?

Interpretation: Meghan is desperately looking for a way out of the situation.

Card One: The Eight of Swords. This is a card of being very stressed, and this is what Meghan is feeling right now. The card shows Orestes trapped in a circle of swords, with the Furies on one side and Apollo on the other, and he does not know what to do to escape. Meghan is in the same position as Orestes. She is trapped by her own vindictive action, with public opinion (the Furies) on one side, voicing their disapproval of her actions, and the BRF (Apollo) on the other, saying that the palace will not let her get away with her lies about them giving permission for the use of the name.

Meghan can not escape the fury of public opinion. Everything she has tried (Lili is a tribute to Doria via my nickname Flower, I had permission to use the name) has failed, becoming one more sword to pin her in place under the merciless gaze of the public backlash. Even worse, the palace has spoken out against her, informing people that despite her claims she did not have permission to use the name 'Lilibet'. She is trapped in a situation of her own making, with every action she tries to make herself look better backfiring on her. She is very stressed and acting out of desperation, trying to escape the consequences of her actions.

Card Two: The King of Cups. This is the card of a water sign person, particularly a Scorpio, and here it is coming across as Prince Charles. The card is behind the figure of Apollo on the Eight of Swords card, so I think the rebuttal by the palace might have been the work of Prince Charles. Whether it was or not, Meghan will be blaming Prince Charles for this public outing of her as a liar, and she may take aim at him in her subsequent actions as a result of this belief.

Card Three: The Two of Pentacles. This card shows Daedalus starting out on his role as a craftsman. He has a few projects on his bench and is holding two more. He has to decide what to do next, where to invest his time and effort for the most reward. The Two of Pentacles is a card of balance, of deciding where to invest your time, energy and resources. You have to look at your goals and priorities and decide if all areas of your life are in balance, or if you need to spend more or less time on one area.

Meghan has not done this. She is out of balance. She has let her cruelty dominate her actions, and as a result the dominant topic with respect to the birth is her vindictive choice of name. She has shot down all her 'we are still close to the BRF' PR and put holes in her innocent victim PR, as she has shown that she is not a victim but rather an antagonist. She has put her time and energy into 'clapping back' at the BRF, and now she is facing the result of her investment.

The card is also showing that Meghan's perspective is out of balance. She is seeing this in a way that is out of proportion to the action and the results. Instead of taking a step back, taking a deep breath, and viewing this from a practical perspective (what can I do to calm the situation down), she has invested herself in the perspective that she is right and with the right PR the public will applaud her decision (as per her 'Lili=Flower=tribute to Doria' PR, to try and put her decision on the right side of public opinion).

The Two of Pentacles can also be a card of being over-committed, in some or all of the areas of time, energy, and money. I am wondering if Meghan has over-committed herself in some way and now can not meet her debts and/or do what she has promised.

Card Four: The Seven of Wands. This card shows fighting between the followers of Jason and the followers of his uncle, the usurper king who wants Jason dead. This represents conflict between Meghan and her supporters (the usurper king) and the supporters of HM the Queen and the BRF (Jason, the rightful king).

Instead of bringing things back into balance, as per the Two of Pentacles card, Meghan is going to create even more conflict. She is not going to let this go, she is going to double down and create as much noise and anger as she can in her attempts to prove that she is right. Wands can be the suit of PR, and this battle will be fought through PR via media articles, twitter bots, celebrity statements etc as well as more subtle means, such as how an article is written, what is stated and what is implied, and so on.

Clarifier One: The Ace of Cups. The conflict is going to be over her pregnancy/birth/baby

Clarifier Two: The Three of Pentacles. This is a card of working with others to achieve a goal. Meghan is going to get people to help her in stirring up conflict. I don't know if the people will say yes, but she is going to try and get other powerful people on her side.

Clarifier Three: The Hierophant. This card represents institutions, and here it stands for the BRF. Meghan is going to attack the BRF over this issue, either covertly or overtly.

Card Five: The Seven of Pentacles. This card shows Daedalus, who is working for King Minos, being approached by Queen Pasiphae and offered money to enable an act that will be a betrayal of her husband. Daedalus has to decide whether he will continue to work on his current project, or betray his employer and take on the new project.

This is a card of taking the long view and deciding what would best suit your final goal. Should you continue investing time and energy into your current path/project, or would a new one serve you better? In this deck it can also be about dodgy acts - do you continue on with your current work, or do you take on a project that enables betrayal and unfaithfulness?

Coming after the Seven of Wands, this tells me that Meghan is invested in creating conflict and she is not above using underhanded mean to do so. She is going to put her resources into stirring up conflict and she will not see much return from it. The return on her investment will be poor. People will not believe the PR.

Underlying Energy One: The Ace of Pentacles. This can be a new baby, or it can be a financial opportunity, or it can mean you will receive some money. Here it stand for both the new baby and for money. The name Meghan has given her new baby is the reason why the public has turned against her, but that reaction also has implications for her plans to merch her baby. I think some offers may have dropped away after the baby name was announced. This card is sitting directly under the King of Cups, so Meghan may have asked for more money from Prince Charles because of the new baby (if so, I think she was refused).

Underlying Energy Two: The Three of Swords. This card shows Queen Clytemnestra and her lover killing her husband, King Agamemnon. It is a card of heartbreak, of a painful situation coming to a painful conclusion. Taken with the card after it, it is referring to a death of some sort, and taken with the card before it, it is referring to the death of the baby. Meghan knows that this news will release a tide of sympathy in her favour. She is waiting to use it at the best possible moment for her aims. Underneath all her actions is the thought 'they will be sorry when I release this news!'.

Underlying Energy Three: Death. This continues the energy of the second card, the Three of Swords. Death can be a metaphorical death, the natural end of a cycle, or a physical death. Here it refers to the physical death of a baby (the Ace of Pentacles). Either the baby has died, or it is sick and is going to die. The heartbreak of the Three of swords card is going to result in a death.

Conclusion: Meghan is currently very stressed. Nothing she is doing is turning the tide of negative PR. She blames Prince Charles for the palace rebuttal, and is completely out of balance - she is not seeing things in proportion at all. Instead of doing something to regain balance, she has decided to go all out to create conflict with the BRF and she is not above using underhanded means to do so.

Underlying all this is her child. She knows that her child is either dead or may die soon, and she is keeping this knowledge to use as a final blow to the BRF, one that will show her as the victim and them as the villain for fighting with a new mother with a sick baby. She is also keeping it as a final blow that will erase negative public opinion and give her lots of sympathy.

Edit: For those wondering if it is HMTQ that passes instead of Lili - HMTQ may die in the middle of this conflict, as I have seen her passing sometime in June or July, but with the Ace of Pentacles followed by the other two cards, the death and heartbreak are connected to the Ace of Pentacles, and that is coming through as the baby. We are probably looking at two deaths in the next two months - one of HMTQ, and one of the baby (although I hope the baby is just sick and recovers, and I don't want HMTQ to die either).

[mariaiscrafting]

ahhhh ty ty ty <3

ok, so I think that what makes Dream act this way (iykyk) is how dreamwastaken became so big so quickly. and by quick I mean fucking lightning speed.

he didn't have enough time to learn enough about cc etiquette, especially in these three aspects: influence, boundaries and fanbase/stans/whatever you call it. I'll try to explain it:

• Influence: Does he know the influence he has? Like, when he hears that he is the myct with the largest fanbase, does he really process that? I remember he talked about not being able to control all of his fanbase and there's bad apples everywhere -- which is true, and that only like 1% of his fanbase breaks his boundaries (that include sending hate for him, harassing, doxing, etc. yk, basic twitter culture lol) but, honey, with your big ass fanbase, 1% is still a lot of people. As a content creator you *have* to be aware of that.

let's take the hbomb situation. First off, as a streamer, it's you that set the mood of the stream. Even if he was only messing around with his pals, even if they did say to do not send hate to hbomb, dt dunking on him created a toxic environment, which caused his fans being toxic towards hbomb and you know what happens next. Hell, when this happened, I was watching Tapl and he was watching them and he was crying laughing over them screaming bc they were just. so loud and so aggressive that it was kinda ??? Sirs, this is literally a Minecraft Stream lmaooo

my point is, that was not the road that dreamwastaken, 21M fans, should've taken. he don't condone his fans actions but he knows his fans are diehard and will always be on his side, he should be more careful before stating negative opinions, especially if its towards another person.

• Boundaries and Fanbase: He posted a list of his boundaries a while ago, idk if you know or seen it (btw please george copy your bestie for the love of god <3) but I'm not talking about those boundaries, I'm talking about the basic boundaries between cc and viewer. boundaries that, in my opinion, should exist between cc and viewer. I get that Dream is an open person, an oversharing type of open person if I may add, but I think he should take a step back regardless. When I heard that he was taking a time from twitter, I genuinely got so glad, not because he couldn't start any drama then, but because it would do so so good for his mental health. I'm not even that fond of him, it's just that for me, any cc taking a break or outright leaving twitter is a win for me. I know how RSD is hard to deal and honestly letting shit out it's better but dream you have dt you have bbh so please don't make things worse online 😭 I know how good can be to feel validation from millions of people but. it's not a good idea, especially in the state that his fanbase is on rn (this topic is kinda sensitive to talk abt for me bc people be outright ableist and hide it as criticism like. say that shit's not helping his reputation and whatever without acting like he's fucking. manipulating his fanbase for being affected by his rsd💀 or, on the other hand, don't say that hes just being adhd🤪 when he's just being an asshole like damn that's a Him thing bro lol)

(omg it's so big I'm so sorry and theres a part two I'm so sorry tumblr user messed-up-gal ToT) - morango 1/2

pt. 2:

Dream is the proof that the people who loves you can be your downfall. istg. Have you noticed that every drama that Dream enters, people usually get more mad abt how his fanbase reacts (85% they'll react in a bad way) than Dream himself? it's not always, but its definitely more likely. I'm not saying Dream is saint, he Is petty and his ego does him dirty and made him choke multiple times before,, But! i dont think hes a bad guy. he's literally just a dude. ok, he's a 21yr old white gamer man that has a trumpie past (maybe?? idk. I think hes cured now ig lol) so he's bound to do some shitty things but he still tries to get better and hopefully he'll mature. 21 is old enough but it's still so young, yk? I kind of lost my mind during the end and my eyes are literally begging to be closed so tl;dr: Its gonna be hard for him to become a better cc bc his fans don't let him be criticized (by infantilizing his adhd symptoms or the mob mentality as soon as someone says anything abt him), the honest criticism get lost between lies from antis that don't know shit, he still has a lot of growing up to do and overall he became famous too fast and he needs to learn things even faster bc as soon as there's not a single one dream hater on sight they'll turn their back and attack him instead lmao I hate twitter i definitely have more to say but I'm tired and my memory is shit. just-- hate dream if you want, love dream if you want, nobody is obligated to have an opinion but I wanted to express mine. have a lovely day! -morango 2/2

Aight, there's a lot to unpack here, so Imma try to only go into the points I have something to add to (here's what I talk about in each paragraph, if you want to jump to a specific point):

Speed of Dream's rise to fame

The "bad apples" in the Dream fanbase

Post-MCC HBomb stream

Not condoning versus actually condemning his fans

Manipulation & RSD

Criticism of Dream, his fanbase, and his brand

The “just a dude” argument, flipped

First, I agree that one of the many factors that has resulted in the current image Dream has set up for himself, the way his fanbase functions, the ways people hate on him, and the way the Dream brand functions, is the speed of his rise to fame. It's unique, and there are probably a hundred social/psychological angles that could be used to examine the exact effects of that speed upon all of these facets of the Dream Name; did rapid fame beget the rapid rise of unrighteous hatred, did those waves of hatred then instigate the rise of a surprisingly overdefensive fanbase, did that rapid fame get to his head and/or result in an inability to appropriately handle all the after-effects of rapid fame, etc.? That point you bring up, about how the speed of his rise to fame requires him to learn even more quickly, is so interesting to me. I think that maybe Dream expected to get pretty famous pretty quickly, hence the preparedness in regards to some mechanics of influencer fame- merchandise, business-building, networking, knowing how to manage his fanbase to best benefit him. But I don't think he expected to get this famous this quickly. This is all speculation of course, as are this entire post and your ask, but I think that he just couldn't anticipate having to learn how to handle enmasse controversy, waves of antis, or every Youtuber speculating/knowing about him; and yeah, that results in him having to learn all of these things very quickly, lest he allow his whole brand and fandom to fall apart.

Second, I disagree with the frequent argument that Dream's fanbase is only marginally toxic. Personally, I think that the circumstances of Dream's fame, his personality and management of his fanbase, and his brand of content have resulted in the very specific kind of stan that Dream stans are. I don't think this is simply a case of "all fandoms have a small percentage of assholes who take it too far;" rather, the nature of the community itself breeds the kind of mentality of "an asshole who takes it too far." I only even know this because I was a Dream fan (kinda a stan, I'm ngl). At one time, I watched every single Dreamwastaken & Dream Team video multiple times; I listened to the Manhunts on repeat, as though they were podcasts; I followed mostly smiletwt and dttwt accounts on mcyttwt; I had upwards of 10 tabs for AO3 DNF fics open on my phone at a time; I watched DNF and Dream Team Being A Family-esque compilations on repeat; I watched every George and Sapnap alt stream I possibly could; I went out of my way to defend Dream against Redditors and Twitter antis regarding the cheating scandal. For the latter half of 2020, and a couple months of 2021, I lived and breathed this part of the fandom; so when I say that Dream stans are a whole other breed than any other kind of mcyttwt stan, I say that because I used to be like that, too. I usually use parasocial very loosely or ironically, but Dream stans are genuinely one of the most parasocial fanbases I have ever seen or been a part of. The level of investment Dream stans have in this man's life, the lengths they will go to to defend him, the amount of psychonalysis and digging they do on his life and character, the amount of emotion he can evoke in them- it's taken to another level, man. This isn't just characteristic of a fraction of his fanbase; this is what the fanbase is like as a whole.

Third, I partially disagree with your take on the HBomb thing, but not in the way one might think? I actually empathize with the way they reacted much more than I thought I would, simply because I suspect I have RSD (also suspect I have ADHD, have for several months now) and I can see myself getting insanely frustrated because of something like that. Like yeah, it was "just a MC stream" or "just an MC game," but that's kinda disregarding the fact that something that might seem like "just a [insert inconsequential thing]" to a rational mind might have a major emotional consequence/take a major emotional toll on someone with RSD, or really anyone who gets easily impatient/angry about video games (Sapnap reminds me of many of my friends, in that way). The issues I, personally, had with the way they handled the HBomb situation is that these are simply explanations and reasons for my empathy; they are not excuses. I have no excuse when I get irrationally angry about something inconsequential in my own life, for a couple of reasons. One, because I am an adult and I need to learn how to handle my reactions and manage my own anger. Two, because as someone with many mental problems, it is my responsibility to learn coping mechanisms to ensure my own emotional stability and livelihood; this includes learning whatever I need to handle RSD- whether that be isolating myself from others when I know I will become violently/passionately angry about something, creating and sustaining a support system that can get me through bouts of extreme emotion, finding healthy emotional outlets for my negative emotions that won't harm myself or others, or a combination thereof. I don't think what they said about HBomb post-MCC was an irreversibly horrible thing, or anything. I think there were errors committed by two men who should be fully capable of foreseeing and preventing those errors, but I don't unconditionally hate Dream or Sapnap for the post-MCC stream or comments. I just wish they had made amends quickly, publicly, and sufficiently, because the greatest consequences from the whole thing weren't even from those two criticizing HBomb themselves; they were from the waves of backlash because of their immense influence on the MCYT fandom, which could've been prevented, if they had acted maturedly and responsibly after the stream.

Fourth, you’re right, that he doesn’t seem to condone his fans’ behavior. I detest the frequent anti argument that one of the reasons Dream should be criticized is because he explicitly uses his fanbase to attack others, or something of the sort. Personally, I think he created his fanbase in a very specific way and interacts with them in such a way so as to benefit him as much as possible, yes, but he never actually tells his fanbase to go and yell at or harrass anyone. Still, there is a significant difference between not condoning something and condemning something. It might seem unfair, and it might be annoying of me to say this, but I truly think that someone with this large a fanbase, especially one as overzealous as Dream’s, needs to be condemned every single time it goes on some kind of rampage/harrassment campaign. Either that, or Dream needs to make a definitive, permanent statement against any kind of harrassment of others on his behalf. I know he’ll occassionally make the odd tweet or serious stream addressing something his fanbase did, but one of the many reasons his fanbase keeps doing the same damn thing is because he’s so lukewarm and spotty about this condemnation. A fanbase like his needs to be given explicit guidance and boundaries for the numerous things they do in his defense- harrassing/doxing antis, harrassing people who criticize him who aren’t antis (respectful criticism, other CCs, other MCYT stans, etc.), harrassing the people he critcizes (i.e., HBomb), speculating about his personal life (his relationship with his gf, his mental health/ADHD, his romantic life, his childhood, etc.), and speculating about his relationships with his friends and colleagues.  My personal ideology is that, if you have significant influence over someone or a group of people, you are at least somewhat responsible for the things those people do or don’t do, if it at all relates back to you. I’m so fucking tired of the argument that CCs aren’t responsible for what their fans do. Obviously they aren’t responsible for every single one of their fans, and obviously they can’t fully control their fans at the end of the day. But I think there are certain things that reach such a level of extremity that does make those CCs responsible. This can be measured by either scale or intensity; that is to say, if a CC’s fanbase does things on an extremely large scale, or one person from/a fraction of the fanbase does something really extreme, then the CC is made all the more responsible. Another CC I’ve always had trouble discussing with other people on this subject is Pewdiepie, in particular, about the extremists in his fanbase. Because the things a small handful of his fans have done in reference to him and/or in his name were so fucking extreme, I thought Pewdiepie had to take at least some responsibilty. Along a similar vein, because the things Dream’s general fanbase does are so widespread and on such a massive scale, Dream has to take at least some responsibility.

Fifth, okay. Hmmm. I want to tackle this point you made about the ableism he faces in some criticism of him carefully and with empathy, but not coddling. One, I do think a lot of the criticism he receives for the ways he handles criticism (post-cheating Tweets, reactions to John Swan, post-MCC HBomb stream, etc.), disregard his RSD and can be oftentimes ableist. I’ve actually encountered people irl who criticize this aspect of Dream’s character, and have had to explain to them their disregard for how ADHD/RSD affect neurodivergent people’s reactions to criticism. But - and this is a big, and very controversial but - I think mentally ill/disordered people can 100% leverage their mental illness/disorders for the sake of manipulation. This is actually something I’ve learned from a psychiatrist, regarding the ways people I know and I handle our anxiety and depression. This manipulation can be unwitting or intentional, but it is entirely possible, and the possibility shouldn’t be entirely dismissed as ableist. Living with a mental illness or disorder that others know about/that you are very public about puts you in an interesting position to receive frequent sympathy, empathy, and/or pity. I’m not saying that empathy for Dream having ADHD/RSD is entirely unjustified; on the contrary, I have frequently expressed how I can relate to his ADHD symptoms and have defended him for expressing those symptoms, both on mcytblr and in real life. I am saying that Dream fans tend to use his ADHD as a kind of shield for a lot of criticism levied against him, including the supposition that he could be manipulating his fanbase to defend him because of his public expressions of RSD. So yes, my theory is that Dream knows how to levy every aspect of his life for his personal gain and for the growth of his brand, and that includes his ADHD. I think he has courage for his openess about his ADHD, I think his openness has contributed to the rise in awareness of mental health and empathy for neurodivergent people within Gen Z, and I think at least some of his expressions of RSD publicly/online weren’t intentionally made public. All that being said, I also think he has to know just how much his fanbase cares about defending him for his ADHD, and I think he has to know that some of the things he does related to his neurodivergence endear him to his audience, in a coddling, baby-ing, mildly ableist sorta way.  Maybe this is all incredibly presumptuous of me. Of course, I can never know the real intentions behind any Dream video, Tweet, or stream. Maybe I’m just projecting, because I can see myself doing just this, if I had the maturity I had circa 2018-2019. Idfk know, man.

Sixth, I actually agree with you here, people probably do get more mad at his fanbase than him. Dream puts out content pretty seldomly, considering the frequency of content output for other Youtubers/streamers in his field/at his brand size. And yet, he has received masses of criticism. Considering that the things Dream himself does/says do not entirely correlate with the amount of criticism he receives, I think it’s a logical assumption that a lot of that criticism actually goes back to the size of his presence online, rather than the man himself. That is to say, because of the massive community he’s amassed, the exponential growth of his fanbase, their presence on every single social media site and in virtually every single Internet space/fandom, and the size of his metaphysical presence in his fields, Dream is much bigger than the man himself, so the criticism he receives will, at least in part, be a direct or indirect result of all these other aspects of the Dream brand.  Something I don’t think many Dream fans/stans, or even most MCYT fans in general, understand, is that Dream isn’t just “one guy” in the eyes of the Internet- at least, not anymore. He hasn’t been for nearly a year. Like Pewdiepie, Mr. Beast, and other CCs who have amassed similar levels of fame and wealth via Internet content creation, Dream is a brand now, and most people will treat him as such. He isn’t just some uwu soft boy playing Minecraft anymore. He is on a whole other level from any other MCYT in his friend circle or colleague interaction bubble. His words will never again live in a vaccum or private bubble, his friend circle will never again be under anything less than intense scrutiny, his past actions will never again be simple mistakes or silly errors, his words will never again be casual tweets or streams for laughs among a couple thousand followers. Dream’s name represents something much bigger than just the one man. As such, all aspects of his brand, including his fanbase, will tie back to him and, ultimately, to any general criticism of him.

I’m not saying I like any of this, and I actually think the evolution of influencers from people to a marketable brand with similar mechanisms, responsibilities, and liabilities as a corporation is some kind of late capitalism nightmare fuel; I’m just stating my own observations and theories as to why so much anti-Dream criticism seems to be directed at his fanbase, rather than him.

Seventh, he’s just a guy, you’re right, but I think a lot of the antis on Tumblr understand this more than you know. As I’ve seen it, the sentiment among much of the “DSMP stans DNI” crowd seems to be that of “Dream/other MCYTs are such ‘bad’ people, so why do their fans stick to these mediocre, racist men, when there are so many better people to watch/better content to consume?” We know this argument is flawed for many of the obvious reasons - the conflation of all MCYTs’ actions regardless of individual identity, the equating of a CC’s fanbase’s morality to that of the CC they enjoy watching, the exxageration of any error MCYT CCs have committed as bigotry/racism, the fundamental misunderstanding and misinformation that led antis to believe this exxageration of the facts, etc. But I want to focus on the general, underlying sentiment of, “why not watch someone better, when your creator is problematic?” Sometimes, I ask this of Dream stans. Yes, being mildly ignorant, getting involved in the scandals Dream has, and being a right-leaning/libertarian centrist in the recent past all seem like harmless things, all things considered. One could say Dream isn’t nearly as bad as many antis who are misinformed seem to believe, and that there are much worse CCs Dream stans could be watching and creating fan content for. But I think what Tumblr antis wonder is, aren’t there also much better MCYTs/CCs people could be watching and stanning? Because he’s just some guy, right? Is his content truly so exceptional or is he really so exceptional a person, that people have to stick by him, despite the things that spike up regarding his current or past actions? I think that’s what made me finally decide to stop watching Dream. I realized he was just Some Guy. The Dream Team was a comforting dynamic to indulge in, DNF was a cute ship to read and speculate about, and Manhunts were fun videos to watch; however, once the Reddit posts came out and I read them in-depth, the cost-benefit analysis tipped over to the “not worth it” side for me. I realized Dream’s content, while fun and comforting, was not entirely unique, and wasn’t worth sticking around for, given what I then knew about his past political leanings. If he is just Some Guy, then there are a hundred more like him out there. There a hundred more ships, a hundred more found family dynamics, a hundred more entertaining and skilled Minecraft players. So while I agree with you on the point of people being allowed to love him regardless because he is just a guy, at the end of the day, I think that, if we are to believe that sentiment or use that argument in such a manner, we should also understand the flip side- that, if he is just some guy, why is it worth sticking around? To that I say, maybe because people just enjoy the simple things they enjoy.

Anyways, I wholly agree with your tl;dr. Thanks for that insanely long ask, this was a fun thing to keep me occupied while I’ve been at work, facilitating Zoom sessions this whole morning.

[whetstonefires]

I'll admit, I don't have much sympathy for the kind of people who have swallowed that much purity rhetoric. if you're so worried about making anything that anyone might take in a way you don't intend it to be taken that you won't write at all, I worry about the lengths that person would go to to shut down "incorrect" interpretations of their text, should they ever get it out into the world. it only takes one person with sufficient power and the right motives to ruin a lot of other people's lives over something dumb and petty.

I mean, sure, it's possible that could happen someday in the future, assuming a lot of things changed and a lot of other things didn't, but at present the only person they're hurting is themself.

Because it wasn't that they wouldn't write, if you recall, it was that they felt they couldn't--they were paralyzed by fear and a sense of obligation to the impossible. They had had their ability to create taken away by these notions; they were the only current victim of purity ideology in the scenario.

And I feel very strongly that 'you sound like someone who would do a bad thing because of your bad ideology, so you don't get rights and/or should be silenced' is its own stripe of purity rhetoric.

There is an ideological self-cannibalism involved in trying to silence people for sounding like the kind of person that might hypothetically silence people.

I had a much longer version of this, but Technical Difficulties intervened and you know, it's just not worth it to dig into the nuances of this situation and try to explain what the purity backlash is and why trying to stamp it out by attacking everything that sounds kind of like it is a self-defeating system.

If you're going to fly into a rage at anyone whose ideas sound kind of Bad to you in case they get More Bad later, even though that behavior is the basic unit of the harm you're trying to avert, you've already got a problem. Even when it's not manifesting against 'people giving useful and compassionate advice that can actually lead to harm reduction, but failing to pass your ideological purity test by telling kids it's okay to [thing] as long as it doesn't hurt anyone including self.'

Also tho if you step out of the immediate bubble of the wank, the Concern being validated was basically the same one people have when they're like, 'how do you make an anti-war movie that doesn't inadvertently glorify war?' (the classic) or 'how not to suffer Fight Club Syndrome,' which are clearly valid authorial frustrations, you know?

Struggling with The Reviews is normal. The fear of failing to communicate clearly enough in your art is normal.

This was just a form of it particularly warped by that purity thing. And at the core of it I have to say that 'you have the wrong values which makes me think you're a potential abuser, so you don't deserve sympathy' sounds a particular way, you know?

[pochapal]

You don't gotta answer this publicly, but what on earth happened/is happening RE: Dogpiling?

this is long but there’s a lot to cover and i don’t know how much information is pre-known going into this.

basically breadtuber sarah z made a 2 hour fandom postmortem video on homestuck. instead of being a genuine look into what made the comic and the fandom so massive and so relevant for so long, she kind of glosses over all that in the first thirty minutes, then spends the rest of the video discussing homestuck’s two major controversies in the least tactful way imaginable. 

the first one she talks about is the hiveswap development hell fiasco, which on paper is an interesting thing to bring up in relation to a lack of content contributing to fandom decline, but sarah’s primary source for all this is a pseudo-anonymous blog run by giovan_h, someone who is notorious for treating dangerous and baseless accusation as fact and for obsessively stalking current and former whatpumpkin staff members to obtain information for said blog. she supposedly tries to bring a balanced argument on what exactly happened in the three year dark period between hiveswap’s supposed release date and when act 1 actually came out by pitting ipgd’s tumblr post (the one that made the odd gentlemen embezzlement claims vis a vis king’s quest) against giovan’s blog (claiming through anonymous and unverified sources that hussie deliberately dicked around and failed to meet a single deadline, then broke contract terms by using the kickstarter money to commission the odd gentlemen to animate act 7 instead of working on hiveswap. there are a lot of other unsavoury claims about hussie and certain other wp members among these blog posts, but that’s the primary relevant gist). 

neither account can actually be verified (ipgd’s post claims their information is spotty because they’re talking around a pretty strict settlement nda and giovan’s sources and accounts are deliberately vague and unverifiable to “protect various parties from retaliation from hussie/wp”) but sarah ultimately comes down and says that she’s inclined to take giovan’s blog as more truthful for. reasons. this is obviously bad because within minutes of the video dropping several wp team members reveal sarah never once tried to get in contact with them, which has led to attacks on the team members because a lot of zealous people looking for an excuse to keep being mad at homestuck in the wake of hs^2′s semi-permanent hiatus were emboldened by a video essayist treating the ugliest speculation as hard fact. as of right now, the hiveswap kickstarter has released a statement clarifying the development situation as best they can (from what i’ve read it does point to them legally being unable to point to/discuss certain things) which has had all the impact of dropping a match onto an oil spill. the anti homestuck zealots firmly believe every word of that post to be bullshit and are accusing the wp team of covering for hussie and his super heinous evil crimes (keep in mind we are still not privy to the internal workings of wp because why the fuck would we be) so the wp team in turn are putting these people on blast for this dangerous harassment (it doesn’t need to be said that as a professional being publicly accused of covering up fraud is a very bad thing) and then as a counter counter response the angry fans are now accusing the wp staff of abusing their power to direct mass harassment towards specific individuals (this amounting to people getting into wp members’ private discord servers and publicly posting mean things they have said about giovan et al which imo only serves to bolster the stalking claims) and the whole thing went very ugly very fast.

the second controversy that sarah brings up is everything involved in post canon homestuck (epilogues, pesterquest, hs^2). here she reverts to more of a passively pro-fandom stance, asserting time and time again how horrible and evil the epilogues and everything else were because of how they took the characters and stories everyone knows and loves and warped them into something unrecognisably terrible, that post-canon homestuck was universally reviled. in a very bad and awkward placement of information she then segues into a kind of hand-wavey discussion of the intense backlash towards certain post-canon trans interpretations (of vriska, june, and roxy) in a very I Am A Cis Woman So I’m Not Qualified To Make Any Statements Here Other Than Transphobes Fuck Off <3 But Also This Is Indicative Of A Growing Fandom Resentment way, which honestly begs the question of why she needed to include this at all. another bad thing here is how she super glosses over the “controversies” surrounding “the advocates for june egbert” and “the writer for vriska’s pesterquest route” - she is obviously referring to former creative director kate here (she kind of confirms this on twitter by saying she didn’t want to mention kate by name in order to not stir up further drama which uh... yeah) and the inexcusably terrible chain of events which led to every single out trans woman working on homestuck to resign to protect themselves from further mass harassment and dogpiling from the fandom.

she instead, for some reason decides to focus on how post-canon homestuck has been a total commercial and creative failure, that homestuck^2 basically shouldn’t have even happened after the fandom’s distaste for the epilogues and that it was not only controversial but also was a low quality mess everyone agreed sucked. she then goes on to compare the hs^2 team to the wp hiveswap dev team, and passively applies the same giovan-esque assertions to the internal workings of hs^2, kind of but not really implying the reasons given for the shutting down of hs^2 were bullshit. this is super bad for the fact that the post canon homestuck team is the most openly marginalised group of people working for hs is in an official capacity, and we have seen time and time again what drawing undue, speculative negative attention towards these people has done. again, reminder sarah did not reach out to a single person who worked/is working on homestuck for what is essentially a drama video disguised as a fandom postmortem. the upshot here is that her post-canon section served to embolden yet another wp-hostile section of the fanbase - those who adamantly believe that only the fandom itself can create worthwhile homestuck projects, and that all writers are evil people who want their queer fans dead (only a partial exaggeration) and produce spite projects which are driven by the steadfast belief that their work is inherently superior to official content by virtue of their fan status. among this group were a lot of people who latched onto any accusation against a team member as fuel to push them out of “ruining” such a beloved franchise so sarah’s video serves as proof that all the hs^2 writers were morally corrupt monsters ruining a fandom space that was meant for minors and queer people (this is all very anti/anti-anti carousel of bullshit nonsense that i have no time for) and thus they’re confident to once again tear down the remaining public facing staff members, ignoring how all this crusade has done so far is drive a handful of trans women and people of colour off of official homestuck projects for their own safety.

then she ends the video with a “oh btw this video is proudly sponsored by audible <3″ bit and it’s just. beyond unbelievably awfully stupid that she deliberately reignited this aggression which has caused untold material harm on marginalised people (that happened less than a year ago!!!) just for the sake of quick clicks and ad revenue. she consolidated the most dogshit takes as fact within the general fandom consensus, sided with some of the worst people to engage with homestuck, potentially detonated the last shreds of stability of this independent marginalised media project, and wrapped it all up with a sponsorship from an amazon subsidiary company of all fucking things. this is obviously a case of an incredibly short sighted decision to cash in on a very complicated and unwieldy fandom history but still the potential consequences here are unfathomable.

[longgae]

11 celebrities who've been called out for homophobic comments

This is gonna be interesting...

1. In 2020, Twitter users accused J.K. Rowling of transphobia after comments she made on Twitter. Rowling tweeted, "'People who menstruate.' I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?" Fans on social media quickly told the writer she was not being inclusive to the transgender community. Rowling backed up her statement by tweeting, "I respect every trans person's right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I'd march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it's hateful to say so." She also said, "I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman – and, as I've said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth."

2. Kevin Hart stepped down from hosting the Academy Awards after his old homophobic comments surfaced, saying, "I am evolving and want to continue to do so."

Between 2009 and 2010, Kevin Hart made insensitive jokes on Twitter and in his standup specials. For example, in one tweet, the comedian said he would break a dollhouse over his son's head if it turned out he was gay. In his 2010 special, "Seriously Funny," he reiterated the point that he would act abusively if his son was gay. "I wouldn't tell that joke today, because when I said it, the times weren't as sensitive as they are now," Hart later told Rolling Stone. "I think we love to make big deals out of things that aren't necessarily big deals, because we can. These things become public spectacles. So why set yourself up for failure?" When it was announced that Hart was going to be the host of the Oscars in 2018, his past jokes resurfaced. After backlash from the public, Hart stepped down as host. "I have made the choice to step down from hosting this year's Oscar's....this is because I do not want to be a distraction on a night that should be celebrated by so many amazing talented artists," he wrote in a tweet. "I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past … I am evolving and want to continue to do so. My goal is to bring people together not tear us apart."

3. After Paris Hilton was caught criticizing the gay community in an audio recording, she apologized, saying, "Gay people are the strongest and most inspiring people I know." In 2012, an audio recording of Paris Hilton in a taxi cab was leaked. According to reports, she was in the car with a gay man who was showing her the gay dating app, Grindr. In the audio, you can hear Hilton say, "Gay guys are the horniest people in the world. They're disgusting. Dude, most of them probably have AIDS. ... I would be so scared if I were a gay guy. You'll like, die of AIDS." Her publicist confirmed that the recording was in fact Hilton but emphasized the socialite was not homophobic. (Are they sure about this? God...) In an apology statement, Hilton said, "I am so sorry and so upset that I caused pain to my gay friends, fans, and their families. Gay people are the strongest and most inspiring people I know."

4. After a member of the audience called out Tracy Morgan for his homophobic remarks during a standup set, the comedian apologized. In 2011, a man chronicled Tracy Morgan's standup set in Nashville on Facebook. In the post, the man said Morgan said being gay is a choice because "God makes no mistakes." The comedian also allegedly said he would stab his son if he came out as gay. (Kevin Hart, you here?) After backlash and a half-hearted apology on "Late Show with David Letterman," Morgan issued an official apology. "I want to apologize to my fans and the gay & lesbian community for my choice of words at my recent stand-up act in Nashville," he said. "I'm not a hateful person and don't condone any kind of violence against others. While I am an equal opportunity jokester, and my friends know what is in my heart, even in a comedy club this clearly went too far and was not funny in any context." (Good sir. There is more to LGBTQ+ then just gays and lesbians)

5. Sarah Silverman used a gay slur in a 2010 tweet. When asked about it in 2018, she said, "I'm certainly creative enough to think of other words besides that that don't hurt people." In 2010, Sarah Silverman tweeted, "I don't mean this in a hateful way but the new bachelorette's a f-----." Although the tweet went relatively unnoticed at the time, it picked up momentum again in 2018 when people pointed out that it was unfair for Kevin Hart to step down from hosting the Oscars for doing something similar. "Yea, I'm done with that," Silverman told TMZ when she was asked about it in 2018. "I think I can find other ways to be funny. I used to say 'gay' all the time like, 'That's so gay!' Because we're from Boston. We'd go, 'That's what you say in Boston. I have gay friends. I just say gay.' Then I heard myself, and I realized I was like the guy who'd say, 'What? I say colored. I have colored friends.' I realized it's stupid, and I'm certainly creative enough to think of other words besides that that don't hurt people. But I fuck up all the time."

6. Eminem has been criticized for using gay slurs in his songs, but he insists he isn't homophobic. In 2018, Eminem released his album, "Kamikaze." In one song titled "The Fall," he focuses on fellow rapper Tyler, The Creator. In the song, Eminem raps," "Tyler create nothin', I see why you called yourself a f----t, bitch." This wasn't the first time rapper had been criticized for using a gay slut. Throughout his career, he has used similar words in his songs and received a lot of criticism for it. Eminem, however, insists he is not homophobic. "The honest-to-God truth is that none of that matters to me: I have no issue with someone's sexuality, religion, race, none of that," the rapper told Vulture. "Anyone who's followed my music knows I'm against bullies — that's why I hate that f---ing bully Trump — and I hate the idea that a kid who's gay might get s--- for it."

7. Mel Gibson mocked how gay men act in the early '90s. While doing an interview in 2001 for Spanish newspaper El Pais, Gibson said, "With this look, who's going to think I'm gay? I don't lend myself to that type of confusion. Do I look like a homosexual? Do I talk like them? Do I move like them?" Throughout the '90s, GLAAD protested Gibson's films, but the actor refused to apologize. "I'll apologize when hell freeze over," he said. "They can f--- off."

8. Alec Baldwin went on a homophobic Twitter rant against a reporter he did not agree with. He later said his remarks were "in no way was the result of homophobia." In 2013, Daily Mail reporter George Stark wrote a story accusing Alec Baldwin's wife, Hilaria, of tweeting at James Gandolfini's funeral. Baldwin took to Twitter to express his anger at Stark, calling the reporter a "toxic little queen," among other comments. In an interview with the Gothamist after the incident, Baldwin stood by his decision to call the reporter a "queen." "The idea of me calling this guy a 'queen' and that being something that people thought is homophobic … a queen to me has a different meaning. It's somebody who's just above," he told the publication. "It doesn't have any necessarily sexual connotations," Baldwin said. "To me a queen ... I know women that act queeny, I know men that are straight that act queeny, and I know gay men that act queeny. It doesn't have to be a definite sexual connotation or a homophobic connotation." He later issued an official apology, according to The Hollywood Reporter. "My anger was directed at Mr. Stark for blatantly lying and disseminating libelous information about my wife and her conduct at our friend's funeral service. As someone who fights against homophobia, I apologize," Baldwin said. "I would not advocate violence against someone for being gay, and I hope that my friends at GLAAD and the gay community understand that my attack on Mr. Stark in no way was the result of homophobia."

9. Chris Brown also used homophobic language (no shockers there) when talking about another rapper, but he later said, "I love all my gay fans." In 2010, rapper Raz provoked Chris Brown when he tweeted about Brown's past assault on Rihanna. Brown responded by attacking Raz on Twitter, referencing the fact that Raz was molested by another man as a child and calling him a "#homothug." "I'm not homophobic! He's just disrespectful," Brown tweeted later. "BTW…I love all my gay fans and this immature act is not targeted at you!!!! Love."

10. Azealia Banks has a long history of problematic comments, but she has since said she will no longer use gay slurs. In 2015, singer Azealia Banks was caught on camera yelling at a flight attendant after getting into a fight with a fellow passenger. In the video, you can hear Banks call the flight attendant a gay slur, according to HuffPost.She later tweeted about the incident, writing, "I don't care. I've said it before and I'll say it again."Banks' history with the word doesn't stop there. In 2016, she used the word to attack fellow singer Zayn Malik on Twitter, leading to the deactivation of her account. She has also called the LGBTQ community "the gay white KKK. Get some pink hoods and unicorns and rally down rodeo drive."In 2016, however, she announced she is never using the gay slur again. "The amount of people that get hurt when I use the word vs. the amount of people I've said it to are just not worth it," she wrote on Facebook. "Honestly... This isn't a cop-out, it's just me realizing that words hurt. and while I may be immune to every word and be thicker skinned than most, it doesn't mean that I get to go around treating people with the same toughness that made my skin so thick."

11. Drake Bell received backlash after posting a transphobic tweet. He later called the remarks "thoughtless." When Caitlin Jenner came out as transgender in 2015, Nickelodeon actor and singer Drake Bell tweeted, "Sorry...still calling you Bruce." After receiving backlash, he deleted the tweet and then posted another, misgendering Jenner. "I'm not dissing him! I just don't want to forget his legacy! He is the greatest athlete of all time," Bell tweeted. "Chill out!" After that, he tweeted out an apology. "I sincerely apologize for my thoughtless insensitive remarks," Bell wrote. "I in no way meant to hurt or demean those going through a similar journey. Although my comments were made in innocence, I deeply regret the negative effect they've had on so many."

Here are some tweets that were mentioned earlier (I couldn't find all of them)

So... yeah

[witchcraftingboop]

Further Insight on Briar's Recent Discourse & Prim's Apparent Grooming of Younger, Newer Witches

It was suggested to me that instead of making one long post (which I was genuinely sorry for creating in the moment as well), that I should offer the second half in a separate one so that it is easier to share and harder to simply ignore as a wall of text.

Here is the link to the first half of the current JBird and Briar discourse floating around. I highly encourage everyone involved in the Witchblr community to review both posts and not just this final addition. 

Regarding Prim stirring the pot, I actually do have proof of that on my page somewhere if you wouldn't mind my sending it to you? The person I reblogged it from, Mahi, also received death threats from Prim when they were only 16 and Prim was 20 (I can't ask him to share that though because Prim has since used her following to drive him off of Tumblr and he's still fairly [and justifiably] sensitive about it.)

Regarding Briar's statements more specifically though, I can see where the confusion is coming from. After the "in France" part, she's just defining a relevant term (hence the use of "irrelevant details) and then giving an explanation of how she came to be so knowledgeable about that term/concept. I wouldn't say she's calling Prim's activism an "irrelevant detail," but pointing out how Prim uses it as a shield against backlash whenever another blog (not just tradcrafters) calls out her platform. I don't expect you to fully understand or see what I mean when I say that, of course. Because you are still new, and these are habits I've observed of hers from nearly a year of following their interactions. I would, however, like to point out that Briar doesn't say anything racist about Prim and does not once bring up her race. In fact, I think if you read her entire post and not just point 3 as Prim has it cropped out in all of her mentions of it, you would see more fully the depth and amount of frustration Briar is trying to express. Similarly, Briar never threatened to dox Prim. She has, in fact, repeatedly tried to point out that Prim should be protecting her online information and be more aware of how to stop others from finding out about her private life/situation. These statements, however, have since been warped by Prim and her followers to come off as a threat on her life. Briar's statements above aren't a threat of doxxing. She's never once posted Prim's personal information or told others to find it or use it in any way. She has, however, searched for Taglocks on Prim, something witches especially are known to look for. In that search she found more than she was even looking for, despite trying to tell Prim repeatedly to stop being so open online with the information she posts about herself. Doxxing though is not racist. It is something used by them, sure, but it is not inherently racist.

Additionally, Prim has raised money, sure, but I still have not seen any actual receipts as to her *actually* donating it to any public or private organizations. This, for me, is highly suspect. In reality, we still have no idea where that money is. Whereas with Briar, she took no money in for a couple days on her readings and instead merely asked that those requesting a reading first submit proof of donation to an organization linked in the post. She raised substantial money for the BLM movement, but no one seems to want to bring that up in all of their "she's a racist" discourse. Also, the observation that someone is misleading or gaslighting their following is not racist. Just because she said Prim was recently using her BLM reblogs & promotions to do it *this time* still does not make it racist. Questionable wording is just something the reader disagrees with, in my opinion, and should be addressed as such.

I'm not going to lie, I do feel a little frustrated at this point. I was really hoping to come to you and see that you had concrete proof to offer that Briar is a racist. I do understand that you have your own reasons for feeding into the assumptions and twisted outlooks already taken on Briar's words, but I don't have enough energy in me to fully swallow my tongue on this one. I really do hope that you at least consider what I've said here. I'm not sure what I can say at this point because all of the information I've read from you thus far has been purely conjecture or assumptions or just "not feeling right" about the wordings on a single post. A racist, from my perspective, is not something I would ever feel comfortable calling someone off of this lack of evidence.

I understand it is hard to separate preconceived notions from your mind when reading through the words of others, but I really do miss when you were more open to the words of others. If I could ask one thing of you, it'd be to please try to read Briar's post again but from the perspective of seeing it how it was meant to be: a witch who has been on the butt end of Prim's harassment for going on three years now. She is tired of the wild accusations and constantly having to defend herself, and even when she supplied her proof a couple years ago, no one wanted to hear her. She has, largely, given up on being heard, and now screams into what feels like a void when attacked.

Proof of Prim stirring the pot that I offered: An example of Prim actively seeking out the community and trying to stir the pot with an already dealt with situation that had passed over a year ago.

A direct source that I offered as further proof of what has occurred already: This is one from the account mentioned before who was directly involved with the previous discord server where the Trio incident took place a couple years back.

[A Reply.] I think, to be fair, I saw your comments on her previous posts through your main, and with how much aggression you packed into those messages, I don't necessarily blame her for deciding not to engage with your private messages. As I've said, she's very used to people attacking her like that, and in her mind, unfortunately, you've probably been added to the list of aggressive people ready to fling the blame at her rather than look at the situation as a whole. I do apologize for the way her post may have made you feel, but I think it's also important to remember the potentially aggressive things you left on her page (I'm not saying you meant to come off that way, but even I couldn't help but read that way). Also, regarding the ask, it's no small secret that the occultists of the tradcraft group are skilled and well-versed in hexes and curses. When reading her posts about how she may respond to further antagonism on Prim's part, I see a fully realized occultist wielding their most well kept and trained weapon: baneful magic. I'm sure Prim herself also understands that the "threat on her life" she's saying she's so afraid of, isn't a physical threat, but a metaphysical one. She has repeatedly and continually tried to drag these people through the mud, and now that they're refusing to just sit back and be canceled, she's afraid. She knows how strong their magic is, and they aren't shy about it 🤷‍♀️

[A Reply.] No, I completely understand where you're coming from. I, personally, have seen your willingness to talk things through, despite how aggressive you can come off at times in the things you say, so I think that's why I was genuinely so surprised to see your comments on some of her posts. But I do think her response and refusal to further directly engage with you is warranted and her right. Unfortunately, it is hard to tell who is genuinely open to talking and who is just trying to bait and add to the problem. And with how aggressive your comments were, 8 honestly think she most likely was responding from a place of "oh look another young Prim follower here to bait and berate me." I don't think she looks down on you for your age, but her views are likely a reflection of the fact that a lot of 18yos follow Prim and have openly harassed her without even asking for her input on the matter.

At this point, I would like to talk about the second half of the title of this particular post. Grooming. This is a very serious allegation against Prim that I have not spoken on previously because I had no proof that it was happening. With this person's permission, I would like to share how exactly they wound up fighting Prim's battles for her.

I will note: I am highly disgusted by what follows.

[A Reply.] Oh no! You cannot fault yourself for this! Prim is a known manipulator, and the fact that she was able to make you somehow think this is part of your being "gullible and naive" is just testament to the fact that she's gotten wayyy too good at what she does. This is in no way your fault or because of some fault within you. Practiced manipulators are cunning and dangerous even to the best of us. It was unfortunate that she chose you, but her twisting you around is in no way a bad reflection on you as a person!

I've chosen to include my reply to this person rather than our continued discussion because of how personal and involved our conversation turned. I've included it to show, as well, that grooming others to fight your battles is (though this should go without saying) NEVER OKAY. Prim has shown her true colors, in my opinion, and while I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt time and time again, I simply cannot permit myself to ignore the harm and damage she's inflicted on not only the tradcraft community, but also this innocent group of friends. A group who that has hitherto dedicated their time to sussing out predators, terfs, nazis, and racists. A group that should never have had to deal with being gaslit and manipulated by a well-known and respected blogger on this platform.

I cannot reiterate enough how sorry and deeply shocked I am at the information this person has brought to my attention. I am still stunned by Prim's activities and unable to fathom how many other potential individuals are out there being groomed to support and fight for her cause. I am sorry to the Witchblr community as a whole. I feel as if I have sat by and watched as Witchblr has been manipulated and am therefore complacent in the damage and needless hurt that has been allowed to spread throughout our community. I am just so very, very sorry.

I will be taking a couple days off of Tumblr because of this, as I feel as if I need space and time to think, but my inbox is always open and I am always available to speak with others on my return.

[motorcyclegirlfriends]

Sense the SDCC thing, I've been seeing a lot of art and fics that are dragging Kara/Supergirl. Like I get that some people are upset at the actors but the characters have nothing to do with any of this. I started watching the show because I read the comics when I was a kid, I just loved Supergirl as a hero. It's really kind of upsetting. They're treating a character like shit because they don't like something the person who portrays them did.

So this is a long dissection of the current Supergirl fan behavior, but if you’ve been wondering what the hell is going on, you might be interested in reading these concepts.

I understand why you’re upset. I am too, because Kara is such a wonderful character. I don’t think I’ve ever liked a character as much as her.

But there are two things you should realize when seeing this:

1. They never really cared about Kara to being with. Your loved Kara-focused content isn’t changing or leaving, because these people were not making the Kara content. They were likely initially making Supercorp Lena-focused content.

2. It’s not even about her.

I think what a lot of people who are newly joining this SDCC homophobia discussion are missing is that a lot of the most vicious backlash is not from people who are uniquely upset over this issue (though there are certainly people who are- and understandably) but from people who have had consistently overzealous reactions of hate toward actors and characters alike, save their fave (pretty much Katie Mcgrath/Lena Luthor).

On tumblr, and very noticeably in this fandom, there are sections of fans who seem to genuinely enjoy hating things. It’s a sport.

They’re having fun sending the most hurtful things they can think of to actors, and are the quickest to begin making vicious memes and jokes surrounding a negative event, before there has been a consensus within the community of how bad the “sin” was.

The “punishment” begins before the jury is out, and trying to defend those in the situation feels like trying to put a bullet back into a gun after it’s been fired. 

(Maybe it’s more like stepping in front of a bullet, because once these few have decided that the target is guilty, they won’t stop, and anyone who disagrees with them is guilty, too. Blogs and actors alike.)

This is partially why my discussion of the SDCC event had a “are they homophobic” slant (other then that I believe the nature of the event itself- if it was homophobic- hinges on the feeling behind the words, unlike most other instances of homophobia. It’s complicated and some people understandably disagree so far, but it’s really how I see it and I’ll be talking more about it a little later in different posts).

People started calling Melissa and Jeremy homophobic right away. Started targeting Kara as a character. Started “spite shipping” Lena and Reign. 

Or alternative to these options- immediately fan re-casted Kara as someone else to still be able to ship Supercorp. 

From where I stand, if you can so easily let go of this characterization of Kara, you never really cared about her as a character to begin with. If you don’t know that this was The™ person to play Kara Danvers, you’re likely more invested in the role she plays for Lena than for her as herself. 

And regardless of gender, I am uninterested in ships in which one character exists for the sake of another. (Lena existing purely for the sake of Kara’s development squicks me, too)

Recasting a woc as Kara doesn’t sit well with me either, for that reason. It’s a similar concept to how Maggie must exist as her own complex and valued person, apart from Alex, because she is a character of color.

I can’t really read the minds of these people, and I guess I could be wrong, but it’s hard for me to imagine actual Kara fans recasting her in this way.

Essentially, a lot of these people, or at least a very vocal minority, are so quick to accept that something horrible has happened because they want an excuse to hate them. 

They like it. 

Maybe it’s because they’re upset with the way society is and want someone to suffer for it. Maybe it’s because they have unresolved anger in their lives. 

But as it stands, it appears as if these people are using moral rightness and social activism as an excuse to be as mean as they want.

And like @youngbloodbuzz said in the link above, you start to look at their past behaviors in a new light. Were they genuinely upset at characters? Actors? Did they really feel like a travesty was occurring? That someone needed protecting?

Or were they just looking for reasons to call someone a “stupid cunt”?

It’s like they’re genuinely thinking, “It’s okay for me to make fun of someone’s physical appearance, call them intense names, make memes about how horrible they are innately, and send them death threats because they said something problematic once that a lot of people will hear.”

Sometimes they’ll call it “coping”, and maybe some people truly believe that makes it okay. But coping mechanisms are not above reproach.

If I hurt someone because I’m upset about something- even if I hurt someone because they did something wrong- it doesn’t erase the fact that I hurt them. We are still responsible to how we react to bad situations. We are still responsible for not reacting in an overly inflated way. 

Sometimes people will focus on how those that they’re attacking have more of a responsibility to be good people. That they are but mere bloggers, screaming into the void. They can’t possibly be accountable for how they behave. 

“I’m tired of talking about how bad the fans are, we should be focusing on what they did wrong!”

It creates an atmosphere in which an honest mistake from a well known person is much more crucifiable than the purposeful cruelty of the fans. We’re discouraged from criticizing popular blogs because the person they’re attacking has a wider audience and larger consequences for mistakes, as if popular bloggers don’t reach and influence thousands of people and as if we aren’t allowed to shape the way our own community functions.

Meanwhile, people who genuinely value morality and social activism fall prey to this thinking. They’ll even join in on the action, because they think it’s a moral act. 

Rebellion, somehow. Righteous fire. 

It’s a twisted mindset that spreads because people are afraid to be on the wrong side of morality.

Even people who really think the reaction is “too far” are quiet about it because they agree with the fact that what the offending celebrity did was wrong, and see that the level of vitriol for them now is overwhelming.

This is how I imagine that people who believe Melissa and Jeremy’s words to be homophobic but who do not think a couple of mistakes makes someone pure evil are relating to the current tumblr dialogue: 

“Wow this thing was homophobic!”

“Huh, yeah, I agree. Maybe not intentionally, but yeah.”

“That means this person is homophobic!”

“Uh, well, not sure I’d go that far-”

“Oh and look at this other somewhat problematic thing they did a while ago”

“Hmm well that’s bad, but not everyone outside of social activism gets that that’s a bad thing, so I can see-”

“Wow did you hear that this person also has an opinion about the show that I disagree with! What the fuck is wrong with them?”

“Oh. Well I actually agree with them in that situation but-”

“Omg they think that their character is like this! Do they know them at all??? What kind of terrible actor doesn’t know their character?”

“Well that’s a pretty common way that people are reading this character. Just because you-”

“Here’s some conjecture about their personal life that I imagine happened that paints them in a bad light.”

“Well, you don’t know that, but either way you shouldn’t be diving into their personal-”

“Oh and here’s a totally real story from an anon about someone they know who knew this person in the past and says they were a jerk at this one point-”

And it becomes too much. If you don’t really love the actor, really love their character, you either extract yourself from the group or you ignore the opinions you disagree with. 

It becomes quite clear that these people want to feel this way and won’t be changing any time soon.

And the more there seems to be a consensus about the issue, the less willing people are to speak out, for fear of rejection.

The Spiral of Silence theory is a good way to explain it:

To avoid isolation, people tend to refrain from publicly stating their views on controversial matters when they perceive that doing so would attract criticism, scorn, laughter, or other signs of disapproval. 

Conversely, those who sense that their opinions will meet with approval tend to voice them fearlessly and at times vociferously. 

Indeed, speaking out in such a way tends to enhance the threat of isolation faced by supporters of the opposing position, reinforcing their sense of being alone. 

Thus a spiraling process begins, the dominant camp becoming ever louder and more self-confident while the other camp becomes increasingly silent.

Importantly, the spiral of silence occurs only in connection with controversial issues that have a strong moral component. What triggers a person’s fear of isolation is the belief that others will consider him or her not merely mistaken but morally bad. Accordingly, issues that lack a moral component or on which there is general consensus leave no room for a spiral of silence.

Additionally, I believe that if someone does speak out against the (perceived) majority, it is most likely to be someone who is very strongly opposing of it.

A person who believes “It isn’t homophobic at all! They are innocent!” is more likely to voice their disagreements than “Okay I agree with your assessment of the situation but I think maybe we’re being too harsh…”

So the “minority”- who could technically very well be the quiet majority (people with middle-ground opinions just don’t get as many followers)- stays quiet. 

They might even change their minds to agree with the “majority”, over time. 

Believing that the mindset of the group that you belong to is wrong is psychologically uncomfortable, so it is not uncommon for someone to try to adjust their thinking to fit those they feel connected to.

So, eventually, the only people who are speaking at all are those “majorities” who hate these people. Or those who act like they do for notes.

And then this thinking escalates amongst those still talking about it (remember: because it’s fun for them and they want to milk it for as long as possible) and it quickly translates to hating their character, once they’ve temporarily run out of material to be angry with the actor for.

So, back to your concern, how long until, “it’s hard to look at Melissa as Kara right now, because of how I fear she might feel about gay people” becomes something like “Mon-El is abusive, but Kara can choke so whatever” ?

(And on that note, one should consider how much they really wanted to protect Kara Danvers’ characterization from Mon-El’s influence, and how much was just a part of their hate-hobby.)

Maybe it won’t go that far. I hope it doesn’t. I hope people come to their senses about this.

But it’s escalated even since yesterday, when I started making this post. The language being used to describe Melissa when she is speaking normally, about normal things that some people have a difference of opinion on, is abhorrent. 

So if you’re just trying to enjoy fandom in a peaceful and creative way, I encourage you to watch how the people you interact with react when something negative happens.

Are they disheartened? Crushed? Are they considering leaving the show and it’s fandom? Writing serious essays about how they’re hurt?

…Or do they come alive?

Are they incredibly angry, and then making jokes immediately? Memes and edits and creative content more so than they do on a peaceful day? Do you get the sense that they aren’t going anywhere, for a long time, even though they don’t seem to enjoy anything about the show?

Then you might be better off unfollowing them.

Of course, not everyone who makes a joke about negative things is thus enjoying it. It makes people feel better to make light of situations as well as to express anger, and doing so doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re drama-seeking.

And sometimes people slip into the mob more than they would like to have, retrospectively. Say cruel things that they regret later. 

It happens, and tumblr can be a persuasive and pervasive place. 

If you follow someone who initially reblogs some slightly overly hateful things, but who then backs off after the first wave, they probably aren’t the kind of person who is fueled by anger. 

I’ve seen a lot of people I considered to be level-headed get wrapped up in overly aggressive, black and white thinking during the initial reaction to events.

But then sometimes, a couple of weeks later, they’ll post a tentative “Anyone else still wanna kinda like this thing, even though we said it was bad before?” and they’ll get enough approval via reblogs to feel like it’s okay to go back to normal.

Some blogs quietly sort themselves out, in the end.

And if you’re one of those people who goes overboard occasionally, I get it. 

You’re hurt and you didn’t realize that the basis for the fan reaction that you were involved in was morally shallow. That the people you were supporting were not righteously furious, but using righteousness as an excuse to be furious.

But remember the message here: people make mistakes. It’s the patterns that really tell you who they are.

And I think we can be better. Have better patterns, as a group.

In the end, I encourage you to point out when a reaction is too harsh, toward anyone. Even if it’s difficult. Even if you agree that what the person did was pretty bad.

Agreeing that “black and white thinking” is bad can feel like you’re lowering your standards for morality. But I promise, you can still value the things that you value and loathe the things that go against it, without condemning someone’s entire personhood based on a mistake or a handful of mistakes regarding those things.

Even big mistakes.

People are complicated. We are all made up of really good things and really bad things.

It’s easy to believe that someone is wholly bad when they screw up.

The hard part, the part that will ultimately ground you and help you mature, is realizing that someone can have some really bad parts within them and still be good people. (I encourage you to remember that when thinking about yourself, as well.)

The trick is recognizing the difference between when people are making honest mistakes that unintentionally hurt people, and when they’re willfully behaving a certain way because they want to hurt people (or don’t care that they will). 

And further, between when people are lashing out because they’re hurt and when people are inventing hurt to be able to lash out.

These distinctions will help you realize who you can guide or trust to work their issues out on their own when they slip up, and who you should distance yourself from.

Some very vocal portions of the fandom are, unfortunately, the latter.