#also i say marginalized but i really just mean they're not white

[jankillbride]

There is something to be said about the fact that half the time, marginalized characters end up being the "normal" ones in fanon when that is so clearly not the case.

[doberbutts]

It's astonishing to see people say "All fear of men is reasonable and okay, but you shouldn't be afraid of black people obviously" and you having to reply, "Hey, question? Aren't black men people?" Everyone clinging to their fear of men while never examining their actions which could harm men of color, in this case, black men who have historically been killed and lynched in great numbers by white women weaponizing this fear to end their lives. Read the Will to Change! bell hooks talks about this! She talks about how white people, especially white men, have distracted from their own patriarchal masculinity by portraying violent women-haters as aberrant and abnormal (So, clearly Black men are more likely to be dangerous because they're already aberrant and abnormal in our white supremacist society). PLEASE understand your fear isn't fucking value-neutral and can be inherently be trusted!!!

Also, on the topic of patriarchal masculinity, I think that term really encompasses what we're talking about when we say male privilege is highly conditional. It's also what makes this uncritical man-hating so devious. Like, bell hooks says, contemporary feminism has provided a place for some women to construct a sense of self outside of sexist expectations, but the same can't be said about men. So by distrusting trans men, telling them they should accept feeling unwelcome in queer spaces because "your identity as a man means you have to earn other's trust (even if you haven't done anything other than exist), you're conflating transmasculinity with patriarchal masculinity. Which is so fucking damaging? Not to mention how people love to destroy and hurt transmasc's emotional selves, the same rituals that bell hooks talks about which so severely damage cis men (who were the book's main topic), and we're doing this to a marginalized, queer group who face immense systemic oppression.

Just--I hate how we mutilate trans men's emotional selves, demonize them because we assume all men possess patriarchal masculinity. I hate how we can't talk about marginalized men because apparently, that means we believe in misandry, when in reality, we're trying to talk about how men of color are portrayed as the worst of masculinity to deflect from white men's violence.

Disclaimer: Sorry for this big ass ask. Just seeing you have to respond to people with a basic lack of understanding of intersectionality and who weren't subtle about their racism--gosh.

And the biggest issue is that I understand why the kneejerk reflex happens- there's a lot of men who have engaged in the most bad faith of bad faith discussions about men's issues and somehow have turned it all onto "so it's WOMEN'S fault things are like this" rather than "so how do we work together with everyone in society to break free", and so a lot of people have their guard up from the start and don't care to listen to the last bit because they think it's more of the same.

Unfortunately, all this will do is continue to make us spin our wheels. We are always stronger together.

[la-pheacienne]

I wish there was a way to actually convey in english the transition between the plural and the singular verbs used by Javert depending on who he's speaking to. In french (and in my own native language, greek) we have this thing where, if we are addressing someone important, or even someone we respect, we have to address them as if they're mutliple people? Idk how to explain this in english. In english we just have "you", but in french we have two words for "you": "vous" (plural of "you") et "tu" (singular of "you"). But in greek culture we don't care about this that much and it is very common to talk to the waiter for example or to a stranger who is your age, in a normal way, not addressing them as if they're multiple people. And this doesn't necessarily mean you disrespect them or that you consider them inferior to you, it's just a sign of friendliness and familiarity.

But in France oh boy this is such a no no. If you address a stranger without respecting this formality it is so so deeply impolite. It's the equivalent of calling your Professor "bro". You just don't do it. However, if a state officer does it it's not just impolite, it's extremely offensive, it's perceived as an actual attack, which it is. It's saying "you are inferior, a second class citizen, and I will treat you as such and the state will treat you as such". And guess what, it still happens, but it happens almost exclusively to homeless people, immigrants or just non white people, mainly arabs and black people. These groups of people are often being addressed by the police for example as "one person" (singular of you) and not in plural, and it may sound ridiculous a to someone who is not familiar with that formality but here, it is an insidious but very real way of asserting authority over marginalized citizens while stripping them of their value and humanity.

And yeah Javert of course is extreeeemely polite to Valjean when he thinks he's Madeleine, because he's the Mayor, so he's a superior, so he addresses him using the plural form and of course he uses the singular form when talking to Fantine and of course he switches to singular form when he talks to Valjean later, once he discovers his real identity. This small detail really conveys how Javert treats Fantine and Valjean like actual flies that he can just squash with his boot. Also it should be noted that while Javert has started addressing Valjean in singular form, Valjean still continues to respect the formality, addressing him in plural. Perfect depiction of class hierarchy.

[batboyblog]

Less than 60 days out from the election, how do you think we’re doing, considering the recent debate and Taylor Swift unleashing the Swifties?

I'll start this by saying we're with-in the margin of effort, if either side really puts their backs into it, and pushes and shows up, volunteers in big numbers and turns out voters it could go either way.

So having said that, I feel good, right now the national polls are close, but all show Harris ahead. The swing state polls likewise are close but mostly show tied or leaning to Harris. On top of which Senate Democrats (and the candidate for Governor in NC) are running far ahead of her in polling, I hope thats a sign that late undecideds will break Democrat, they often do break toward the incumbent.

On the debate, I'm often skeptical that debates shift things. That said I think anyone watching would say that debate is pretty unique in the history of Presidential debates. The media has been working very hard to uh "sane wash" Trump and what he says. That debate was an unfiltered view of Trump. I'm frankly shocked he brought up the pet eating, the right has been meming about it but I thought he'd only say some dogwhistle to it not just straight up say some of the most racist shit imaginable on live TV. The bar for Trump was very low and he still failed totally to meet it. Likewise Harris had a high bar and met it, she was claim, she was professional, she came across as ready and smart while also serving as the audience surrogate to let us all know "yeah this is as crazy as you think it is"

just briefly here the attack on Haitian Americans is crazy, and racist, and the whole "the immigrants are eating dogs" goes back 100+ years, I've read people accusing NYC Jews in the early 1900s of kidnapping and eating neighborhood cats and dogs. But also its politically crazy too since Florida where Trump and Republican Senator Rick Scott have both been slipping in the polls as America's largest ethnic Haitian community, just over 500,000 or roughly 2% of the state, so great plan to call them pet stealing and eating monsters just before an election.

The other factor is the Laura Loomer. If anyone doesn't know who she is click that link and enjoy, but basically she's a white nationalist and Islamophobe (that's according to her) and the person extreme far right Republicans point to as proof that they're not "that bad" any ways, Loomer seems to have been with Trump, on his plane the day of the debate and every day since, and Republicans are wigging out

MTG, and any number of Trump super supporters are sounding off about how much they don't like this, and the internet is "joking" that Trump and Loomer are sleeping together. Together with his unhinged debate being connected with one of the worst people in American politics might cause serious problems. In any case a campaign of just alt-right memes is not gonna win most Americans.

On TSwift, I mean the data I've seen showed a really big jump in people exploring registering to vote after her message which is good. I'm again skeptical about how much of an impact she'll have? celebrities in general don't have that big of an impact, basically 90% of famous people are Democrats/liberal, but their fans don't always go along, don't get me wrong I'm happy she endorsed I just am unsure how big an impact it'll end up having.

So to repeat what I said at the top, we're in the margin of effort, if everyone who doesn't want Trump volunteers and puts in the work Harris will win, so

VOLUNTEER

[jesncin]

I appreciate most of your takes but don't understand how you look at a character like livewire, a character created in the middle of a 90's feminist movement and come to the conclusion she's supposed to a be a caricature of classical racist conservatism

?? huh is this an elaborate joke I'm missing out on?? Like you're roleplaying as a Shockateer? There's no tone indicators so I'm left to my own perception that you're being serious so I'll have to respond in seriousness. I'm gonna be so embarrassed if this is a joke :(((

So...just because a character is made "in the middle of the 90's" or "feminist movement" doesn't...mean they're a feminist character? Like with that logic, Tana Moon is a feminist icon I guess. Also "caricature of classical racist conservatism"? man, I kinda envy how people think the way I write her is Cartoony Evil Racism and not a toned down depiction of how personalities like Posie Parker, Matt Walsh, and Blaire White talk. I suppose I'm glad you haven't encountered anyone that awful. Good for you! 👍

Livewire meta under the cut fellas

I feel like you don't have a very holistic view of Livewire's character. Because while yes, she has been used for feminist critique in the show and comics, that's not all there is to her character. My take on Livewire is a commentary on how white womanhood intersects with parasocial internet grifts and the larger way identity gets filtered online. It's a take influenced by how she literally started out as a controversial provocative shock jock in STAS.

There's so much potential to re-imagine her hatred of Superman as a commentary on how white women feel justified in harassing marginalized men because it looks like a punch-up to misogyny. The way she uses the accident Superman caused as a way to white-woman-victimize herself and prime her audience to hate him more. You can take the spinoff comic where she only lets women speak on the air as her presenting a black and white, non-intersectional view of social progress. Kind of like how TERFs keep fantasizing about a world without men as a utopia? In CW Supergirl, Livewire plays into internalized misogyny and homophobia to jab at Supergirl. Not showing up for her fellow women if you ask me.

Because while yes, Leslie has been shown to be a character who had to deal with sexism, she's also a really compelling narrative for an imperfect victim. Just because a character deals with sexist hardship, doesn't mean it makes her a feminist ideal y'know? Leslie lashes out and weaponizes her victimhood, she uses her audience to bully others.

I think one of the flaws to the longevity of her character as a villain is because her narrow hatred of Supes makes her themes short lived. So I really want to expand it through Satoshi Kon-style deconstruction of how people juggle having multiple identities in the modern era. In the (bleh) Batgirl Burnside comic Livewire shows up in, she returns as a being of energy who doesn't remember who she was before. In STAS, it's left ambiguous whether she actually believes what she says about Superman or if it's all part of an act that "pays the bills!".

Imagine the opportunity to make it so she pieced together a sense of self from the fractured way her audience viewed her! What a great way to talk about how parasocial relationships make us think we know a person from the bombastic way they present themselves (Casually Comics thought of this brilliant take). DCSHG has been the most competent reimagining of Livewire. A perfect update of her shock jock origins into the internet era that revitalizes her attention-seeking traits into the clout-chasing grind of social media personality.

All this to say, Livewire's way more that just "sassy woman on the radio fighting against The Man!" I think making her a punk appropriating, rebellious, internet personality who uses her privilege to marginalize others for clout and money is a natural, more political progression of what DCSHG built with her character.

I don't really understand how you can look at a character whose most prominent iterations involve her bullying and targeting people (including other women) and tell me she's "feminist" unless you actually believe in Leslie's version of White Woman Girl Power. Any kind of "feminism" that touts Hating Men as a major point should be something to be critical of.

[breelandwalker]

Red Flag Checklist

Okay witches, let's have a round table.

When you're reading or contemplating the purchase of a book on modern witchcraft or paganism, what are some red and green flags that you look for?

I'll start.

Red Flags:

Disreputable Author - If the author is either a known source of bad information or bad behavior, or one of those "house names" that certain companies use, that's a no for me.

"New Age White Witch" Syndrome - If a text has a more-than-incidental or very deliberate focus on culturally appropriative practices ("Use this exotic voodoo doll ritual to hex your ex"), outdated terminology ("black magic," that G slur we don't use, etc), antisemitic bullshit (Lilith is not a pagan goddess), or anti-science rhetoric ("Essential oils are better than pills!") And yes this means the ever-expanding list of racist dogwhistles too.

Poor Understanding or Misrepresentation of History - If someone's repeating Murrayisms or insisting things are ancient that definitely aren't (POTATO GODDESS), that says to me that either the author didn't bother to do their research or they don't know what they're talking about.

Insistence on One Correct Way - If I encounter anything resembling "this is the only TRUE way," the book's going out the window. The more so if the author is citing their personal opinions or UPGs as fact.

Insistence on Gendering Everything - If a book insists on assigning a binary gender to everything (outside of citing a historical context), or is boomboxing ~*SACRED WOMYN'S WOMB MAGYCK*~ throughout, or even if it's just overly preoccupied with fertility and childbearing as part of the "natural" life cycle, I'm immediately putting it down. (This is more of a personal one, in a way? But it's a red flag for TERFy things too.)

Lack of Sources - If there's no bibliography, no works cited, no recommended reading, or just a really flimsy list that's rife with internet links or problematic titles, that's not a good sign.

Green Flags:

Inclusive Language - If the author refers to the reader or an unidentified person as "they" or "them," that's a good sign. Double points if it's in a context that you'd normally expect to see gendered elsewhere. There's always room for gendered language when it's appropriate, but to me, it's refreshing when an author doesn't assume the reader identifies as female.

Health and Safety Warnings - If there are notes for safe handling or harvesting of potentially harmful herbs, or warnings about health hazards (i.e. keep this away from persons who are pregnant or nursing), or reminders to be careful with fire and glass and the like, this is a good sign. To me, it means the author has a practical mindset and is at least keeping real-world limitations in mind.

Lots of Sources...and GOOD Sources - If the book has a nice fat bibliography, especially if there are mundane sources as well as magical ones, and if those sources are solid? A+. Double points if there's an index or footnotes and citations throughout the text.

Lack of "Guru" Mindset - If the author encourages the reader to take what they've learned and continue to do research on their own, that's a good sign. Encouragement of critical thinking is excellent, and also the admission that there is more than one way of Doing The Magical Thing. (Hi Lee)

Good Formatting - A book should be visually appealing, but it should also be easy to read and formatted properly, in a way that makes sense. I like to see clean margins, good spacing, and clear text. Page decorations and pictures and fancy title fonts are fine, so long as they don't make the book difficult to decipher.

(Okay, your turn!)

[puttingherinhistory]

Excuse me while I sound like a crotchety old geezer for a minute here

I've seen this attitude pushed more on social media that "kids and especially teenagers are naturally defiant and naturally want to upset and piss off adults and parents and teachers need to just accept this and deal with it" and tbh, I don't agree. I don't remember wanting to piss off or upset anyone on purpose for fun as a kid or teenager.

What I do remember is that when I was getting a budding sense of morality and justice I would stand up to misogyny / racism / homophobia or general cruelty from adults and/or peers and it would usually be dismissed as "oh she's just at an age where she wants to be rebellious for the sake of it, she just wants to defy adults for fun because she's at that age" and that logic was used to dismiss it.

Likewise the same logic was being applied to kids, I'm talking especially privilged kids like the white kids and the boys especially the cishet boys, with budding cruelty that was a result of unchecked privilege. Like boys being grossly misogynistic and homophobic, "oh he just wants to be rebellious and piss off adults, it's fine". Do you see the issue of brushing the behavior of marginalized kids who are developing a sense of justice with the same stroke of privileged kids being cruel and bigoted? Oh that they're both just being rebellious and trying to get a rise out of you and it's fine just ignore it don't try to actually address it or do anything about it?

I think kids and especially teens usually have more complicated reasons being their behavior than "oh it's hard wired into their biology that they just HAVE to be defiant for the sake of it at that age" and using that logic prevents adults from actually having to think about and address the root of their behavior.

It also lets adults off the hook from actually having to do something about dangerous behaviors kids and especially teens do, like binge drinking until they have to be hospitalized. "Yeah it's just normal and natural because they have to be rebellious and make stupid decisions at that age, it's just hard wired into their brains that they gotta" is just fucking lazy. When I was at that age I understood drinking until I blacked out and needed to be taken to the hospital was bad and should be avoided because adults in my life had taken the time to explain to me it was bad. I was actually capable of rationalizing "hmm, alcoholism and alcohol poisoning are bad and I should avoid those things" and being warned against it did not tempt me to go out and drink dangerous amounts. Why the fuck would it? That makes no god damn sense and is just a lazy excuse not to actually teach kids better in a way they can understand.

Also I mean sure, part of it is laziness, but I also think some adults are so scared of looking like the buzzkill killjoy to young people because they're afraid of aging and actually having to look like a grownup. A lot of this is our culture's worship of youth and demonization of aging, so a lot of people are really scared of looking "out of touch" from the youth and really want to look like the cool hip understanding adult.

But also part of this is privileged adults wanting to protect the behavior of privileged kids. Just rebranded "boys will be boys" if you will. Of course an adult man is going to say "oh come on he's just a teen, teens are gonna be stupid and want to break the rules" about a teenage boy behaving in a reckless and cruel way. Of course white adults are going to say this about white kids behaving in a reckless and cruel way. They got away with it when they were teens so of course they want the same for today's youth who share their privilege.

Anyway it's time to stop being lazy caregivers. Kids aren't a bunch of stupid animals that just have something hard wired into their brains telling them to break rules and be defiant with no deeper motivation to their behavior than some "rebellious defiant" hormone in their brain mindlessly controlling them. It's degrading to oversimplify their behavior like that, they are human beings after all. There are almost always going to be deeper reasons for their behavior, most often that they're an underprivileged kid with budding morality and justice, or that they have a privileged background that has resulted in their more reckless and cruel behavior going unchecked. If you're someone who is a guardian or caretaker over kids and teens you do actually have a responsibility to exam the deeper reasons behind their behavior and address it instead of just dismissing it at "oh well it's just their weird hormonal teen brains commanding them to break rules and be rebellious without any deeper reasoning, time to just ignore it and not take it seriously"

[yellowocaballero]

Omg hi Ms. Yellow Caballero big fan of your work <3 For real though, I'm really excited that your sharing the Weekenders, it was a joy to read and I'm bongocat-ing now that others also get the privilege to read it as well.

Referencing your tags, would you please elaborate of ableism in fandom and, like you said, how fandom treats characters with unpalatable disabilities?

Hi Ms. Bud Lite I'm a big fan of you <3

TL;DR A fear of writing characters of highly marginalized identities shields you from criticism and discomfort, but it's actively stigmatizing to people of these identities and as a writer you really need to get over yourself and write The Icky People.

I guess I'll come out swinging on this one and say that fandom doesn't like severe mental illness. (As a note, when I say severe mental illness (SMI) I mean illnesses such as psychotic disorders, bipolar disorder, substance use disorders, personality disorders, etc)

Obviously, nobody likes people w/SMI. It's just insanely egregious in fandom to me, since fanfic writers absolutely love writing characters or HC characters with depression, anxiety, or a specific variety of PTSD That Isn't Scary. People actively reject any character HCs for a SMI. When people write a character with SMI, they nicely downplay it, ignore it, substitute it for a disorder they like better, or rewrite it. It's completely untolerated, in both headcanons and in fanfiction, and every time I bring it up I always get the most interesting reasons why somebody couldn't possibly acknowledge a character's SMI in their writing. I've heard all of these:

"I don't know enough about the disorder to write it accurately." Do research.

"I'm not X, so I can't really depict it." You probably aren't a cis white man, but you depict those guys just fine.

"It feels insulting to the character." There is no shame in having a SMI.

"I can't understand what it's like, so it's better to be cautious and avoid giving characters stigmatized identities." There are LOTS of experiences that you'll never understand because you've never had them - you just don't want to write anything you're uncomfortable with. People with SMI make you uncomfortable, and you don't want to write anything that makes you feel uncomfortable, or think of a comfort character in an uncomfortable way. SMIs are marginalized differently than solely depression/anxiety/The Nice PTSD, and by refusing to write them you're actively contributing to the stigma.

I think (?) I've spoken in the past about how I believe that the rigorous external and internal policing of writing people of marginalized identities is actively harmful towards efforts to increase diversity of experience and background in fiction. A lot of fanfiction writers are just terrified to write people who they can't directly relate with, because they're worried 'they'll get it wrong' and be Big Cancelled. I think this is negative enough when it prevents people from going outside of their comfort zone, but on a macro level I think this results in people refusing to write characters of marginalized identities as all. It's an insidious thought process, and it's reflected in people's unwillingness to diversity their writing or acknowledge canon diversity.

'Well, I don't understand what it's like to be Black, so I don't want to write Black people'. 'I want to project on this character, so I only want to write them with mental illnesses and identities I have'. 'If I write a marginalized character incorrectly people will yell at me, so I won't write a marginalized character who's marginalized differently than me at all'. Can you imagine writing a lesbian character with a boyfriend because 'you feel uncomfortable writing lesbian experiences'? It's blatantly homophobic. But people do that with disability and race/ethnicity ALL THE TIME.

People with SMI notice that you feel uncomfortable with them. It's obvious. They notice when a character has a SMI + anxiety, and you only write their anxiety. They notice when a character displays symptoms of a SMI in canon, but you write it out. And POC notice when the characters of color are written out. I know we all like to project on the blorbos and relate to them, and in the joys of your own head do whatever, but as a writer if you only stick to identities you're comfortable with you are actively being a worse writer. Which to me is the REAL sin lmfao.

[unforth]

I've debated multiple times doing something like cataloging racist microaggressions I see in the danmei tags and making a post about it. I generally see at least one a day, and I block the worst offenders. But in the end I'm a white USAdian and it's really not my place. I'm sure I don't even catch them all.

It's a real issue and I've seen a lot of anecdotal evidence that it drives Chinese and Chinese diaspora fans out of participating in Westernized Tumblr danmei fandom, and that's utterly unacceptable.

One of the most common ones I see is how people talk about the character names. For example:

[Image ID: screen cap of a text post. It reads: "This all came about when I was looking at SVSSS memes on Ao3 and went like "My friends nor coworkers would get heads or tails of what in the world these alphabet smash assortment mean let alone know that they're referencing Soecific individuals or novels." End ID]

THIS IS A MICROAGGRESSION. For fuck's sake, people, acting like the names are ridiculous, incomprehensible, outside of what "friends and colleagues" could comprehend, is RACIST AS FUCK. And I see people say stuff like this constantly.

"But I only meant I was struggling--" THEN WHY DID YOU ASSUME OTHER PEOPLE WOULD STRUGGLE THE SAME WAY? STILL RACIST

"But I could say that about the abbreviations in any--" BUT YOU SAID IT ABOUT THIS FANDOM SPECIFICALLY AND CONTEXT FUCKING MATTERS AND IN THIS CONTEXT IT'S RACIST.

"But it was on my personal blo--" LOOK IF YOU WANT TO BE RACIST ON YOUR PERSONAL BLOG I CAN'T STOP YOU BUT IF YOU TAG ORIGINAL POSTS INTO MAIN FANDOM TAGS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WILL SEE YOU AND KNOW YOU ARE RACIST.

The person who posted the above, when I said it was a microaggression, demanded to know how. So, for them and everyone else in this fucking fandoms, I present what any of them could have learned by googling the term. The definition of microaggression:

(Source)

[Image ID: a dictionary entry for the term "microaggression." It reads: "noun. A comment or action that subtle and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member if a marginalized group (such as a racial minority)." End ID]

What that screen cap says about names is literally the textbook definition of a microaggression.

Chinese names are just names. The way Chinese sounds is just the way a language sounds. Cultivation is inherently based in Eastern culture and cannot be completely divorced from that context even for a cute AU. I'm so tired of seeing posts saying things like "MXTX just stole the plot of (insert Western myth/folktale/fable here)". Do yall realize how fucking racist you're being? Do yall realize how fucking racist even I've probably been by accident because I'm also a dumb white USAdian?

I've been holding this post in for like a year, but the person who posted that screen cap, who doubled-down by posting a non-apology to all the MXTX main tags, and who acted like I'd said something insane when I told them it was a microaggression...they're apparently my last fucking straw.

DO BETTER, WHITE WESTERN DANMEI FANDOM. We all need to learn and listen and knock it the fuck off already. Me included.

Please, please listen when people say "check yourself." Seeing this stuff everyday is exhausting even for ME and I'm not even in the marginalized group. Chinese people (including diaspora) who stay in the fandom here despite the constant deluge are strong as fuck and they do not deserve this and, as a white person, I'm so so sorry white people are like this.

[nothorses]

With the whole voting shit going on, I've felt incredibly conflicted about voting. But recently, the opinion I've landed on is similar to Kelly Hayes. I am roughly paraphrasing here, but she said that it's incredibly insensitive to ask Arab Americans and Palestinians, people who have outright LOST their family members due to the US's unrestricted military aid to israel and the genocide, to vote. That makes sense to me. I absolutely agree with that, and I don't think it makes sense to yell at these people to vote. BUT, Kelly then goes on to say that the argument that if you're voting, you're got blood on your hands, is just wrong. Because living in America, benefiting from the imperialistic violence, we always had blood on our hands, and no one's breaking solidarity with marginalized folks simply by voting. You break solidarity when you justify your politicians' horrible actions, such as police brutality, prison industrial complex, etc. But in this case, when someone acknowledges these politicans aren't gonna get the real important shit done, only direct action works, and you're voting to choose your opponent--I don't think that's breaking solidarity. Or throwing people under the bus. The truth is even if every leftist didn't engage with electoral politics at all, and spent it on mutual aid, community defense, these things--there would still be a president until we somehow destroy settler nation America. And that president will destroy public infrastructure and attack marginalized folks a lot quicker if he isn't a democrat, because the Republicans are literally just--fascist party.

I dislike people whose only engagement with politics is to vote shame. But I also think it's just a wrong take to act like people who vote, who aren't vote shaming, who do think it's harm reduction, are all idiotic liberals. As we try to mobilize against imperialism, it's crucial to try to pick our enemies when we can. I understand the fact our wealth, the fact we have these healthcare systems, this public ifnrastructure and government assistance even if it's nowhere near enough--it comes from blood of the Global South. And there is a real problem with liberals who care about these elections only to maintain their quality of life, don't care about imperialism and global oppression at all. These people exist, and if we do start dismantling imperialism ina meaningful fashion, USA quality of life will drop. But people voting Democrat because they don't want the Affordable Care Act dismantled, want to keep their food stamps, their schools funded--they're not inherently selfish and breaking solidarity with third world folks. There's nuance here, a lot of nuance. Which is why I like Kelly saying we can't let electoralism destroy our relationships., because we are going to need to build, build, build if we are going to survive. I'm going to vote because ultimately it won't take me much time, but I also won't judge the people who refuse to, choosing to invest their efforts in direct action.

I also think the people who say voting doesn't do anything...they also ignore the nuance. I get it. I get the frustration. But as I read various perspectives, I'm starting to realize the treachery of black-and-white thing. Before there's a revolution, it's more likely we are going to build new things out of the old system, incrementalism, before we make any foundational leap. Again, this shit has nuance.

Yeah, I think this resonates a lot for me. And I'm not really here to "vote shame" either! I think I do have a similar opinion on it to FD Signifier, though, who says he thinks of voting like washing your hands.

You can choose not to, it's not the end of the world. But like. Why? Who is this helping? I mean maybe it's not my business, maybe you have a good reason, whatever. It's just one of those things that, y'know, especially if it takes you 5 minutes to mail a ballot in... it's just good hygiene.

And I think a lot of people say, "put your energy towards these other things instead!" without any intent to actually do so, and without any follow through themselves. And do you really need to not vote in order to do those things? Like is voting the thing preventing you from Doing The Revolution? For real?

At the end of the day, I'm not going to shame anyone for not voting. I talk about it because I think some people are misguided about how all this works, and I think some of the opinions people put out there just, like, suck. But it's ultimately not up to me. 🤷‍♂️

[genderkoolaid]

I think people forget that atheism ≠ anti-theism. Like in the same way, say, asexuality ≠ anti-sex/sexuality. Somebody talking about how antisemitism is bad is not saying people who don't believe in god are Bad, they're saying being against religious people is bad. And for asexuality, not being sexual yourself does not automatically mean you are against people who are

From what I've seen the basis for antitheism is "religion is inherently harmful and getting rid of religion will improve the world." but the problems with that imo are:

religion is a made up concept that's almost meaningless. like its a well known issue that "religion" is such a vague concept that is deeply western which is why its often really really hard to apply it to the vast majority of human spiritual traditions. hell even "religio" in the context of roman polytheism doesn't map exactly onto the concept of "religion"! like in a lot of cases the line between "religion" and "philosophy" is blurred or nonexistent. not to mention that there are religious atheists. jewish atheists are probably the best example since judaism tends to be far more open to that kind of complexity & fosters a culture which allows people to engage with judaism in a variety of ways. but there are people who don't believe in god or jesus-as-savior but are christians for cultural or philosophical reasons. there are tons and tons of atheists buddhists because its a helpful way of engaging with life regardless of whether or not you believe in samsara literally. the idea that there is this strict binary between Religion and Atheism is, like all binaries, made up.

scapegoating religion for all of humanity's problems is just unhelpful. the idea that religion is this force will propels people to do bad things, and that without religion we wouldn't do them, ignores how humans shape religion to our benefit. there's a reason that wealthy kings who want to maintain power emphasize interpretations of the bible or quran that endorse war while downplaying the ones that endorse peace and compassion. for the same reason that people will support philosophies that view humans as inherently mean and violent and in need of control instead of ones that view us as capable of communal care and cooperation- you don't need to believe in a deity to create a reason why you need to kill another group of people and take their shit. religion is a way this happens, and its important that this is dealt with, but this is not a unique feature of religion. getting rid of religion will not fix our shitty behavior.

going off 1 and 2: trying to get rid of "religion" will inevitably mean fucking over marginalized groups who have already had their spirituality attacked and whose culture cannot be so easily separated from their spirituality. and even beyond that, antitheism is just another way of trying to force a belief onto people. believing in no god is no more objectively correct than believing in one, or any other spiritual concept. there are always going to be spiritual people. also you can say "but there are nonwhite/formerly nonchristian antitheists!!" as much as you want but that doesn't change that saying shit like "all your beliefs are childish and mentally ill, you need an educated intellectual to make you realize you are being stupid and irrational and make you think correctly" is absolutely some classic colonial white supremacist bullshit.

also trying to force atheism on people actually does not help atheists. because it in fact only makes it easier for people to stigmatize atheism as inherently destructive and hostile.

anyways now that anon can get mad for being a wretched child ranting about antitheism. now i've earned it.

[genderqueerdykes]

opinion on twinks ? i feel like they are ONLY used to joke abt and then throw under the bus and it makes me extremely upset as someone who identifies as one . i feel like im the only one who cares

opinion on twinks: wonderful, radiant, a gift to our society, desired, loved, needed, appreciated

i agree with you, actually- i used to be friends with some transfeminine people who genuinely thought it was funny to say they were "twinkphobic" and meant it- they genuinely would go on and on about how they hated twinks because i guess? people would confuse them for twinks, which is not the twinks' faults, but rather transmisogynistic society's fault. i don't get the hatred, i really don't, and even as a bear i felt so uncomfortable around these women when they'd go on these rants, as a gay man. i'm transfeminine, but the gay community is my community, and i'm not okay with people throwing any gays under the bus, for any reason.

there's nothing wrong with being a thin effeminate queer person, people really just love to show they asses especially when it comes to straight up being homophobic. people will love to clamor and say they love gay men but then instantly throw twinks under the bus and then go on to say that bears are gross and hunks aren't gay. people love to be homophobic and pretend like they arent; like gays can't win, even among other queers, people find ways to bully and mock us, make us feel bad for expressing ourselves and berate gays for how they choose to dress, look and act. it's not cute, it's not funny, it's literal homophobia.

also every person who gives thin and/or pre-T transmascs & trans men shit for being twinks deserves to get smacked at least 150 times. if you are claiming that you dislike twinks because of transmascs, i need you to think long and hard about why the hell you're so transandrophobic and how you can afford to take a long walk far, far away from queer spaces until you sort that shit out. there are just as many if not more cis twinks than transmasc twinks, knock that shit right the hell off, also don't call trans men twinks in order to emasculate them, because it's not even an insult in the first place.

most thin people don't choose to be thin, why the hell are we body shaming people? even if someone is choosing to be thin, oh well? that's how they want their body to look? they may also be struggling with an ED, which deserves compassion? or maybe feel guilty about their body in a fatphobic society, which also deservse compassion? oh you hate men/mascs/people who meticulously groom and care about their presentation? that's literally what cishet men rag on gays for. can we talk about this?

i've heard some people say they hate twinks because twinks are the "socially acceptable gays"- that's not even true, what the hell does that even mean? cishet society still hates twinks, just because occasionally an effeminate skinny white cis gay man becomes successful doesn't mean that twinks are accepted by cishet society- they're not. it's not okay to bully and abuse twinks just because they have a marginally smaller chance of being hate crimed

so basically what i'm saying is this shit makes me angry and i'm with you, i care, and i don't think it's funny to throw any type of queer under the bus, it's literally just punching down on other queers and it's not helping. great to know some people still have internalized queerphobias and have zero intention of getting past them, but that's not where i'm at. i'm not here for creating hostile and violent spaces

[highfantasy-soul]

So I need to get something off my chest about 'writing' and what a show is trying to do vs if the writing is the best to show that.

I haven't seen this complaint so much on Tumblr, but it has been brought up several times in a Discord server I'm in and I don't think there is the best place to address it (it might be taken as too political or an attack against specific people) but I really really needed to write out how I'm feeling about it.

So a massive complaint in this Discord is that the writing of the Acolyte is bad. The ones making this criticism claim that they like the ideas behind the show, but the execution with the writing is terrible and they need to get a whole new writing team for season 2.

So. Hmm. How to not get too in my feelings about that.

Let's take a look at who the writers are. We have:

3 men - 2 of which are men of color, the last I don't know enough about to say if he's part of a specific marginalized identity or not

and we have 7 women - Leslye who is openly queer, 3 black women, an asian woman, a trans woman and activist, and another who I again, don't know enough about to say if she's a part of a specific marginalized identity (other than her femininity) or not.

I didn't do deep dives on them, they're writers, so it's kind of hard to specifically find out 'hey, do you personally have a lot of experience with colonialism/religious trauma?' BUT I think that just baseline seeing how many women, people of color, and queer people there are on the writing staff and the way I could see so many extremely nuanced and real things on screen that I personally know about gives me a good idea about their own experiences/knowledge about such subjects.

Despite the claim that 'they like what the story is going for', the understanding of how the writers are telling that story isn't translating to everyone. I have a little suspicion as to what unites the people who 'don't get' the writing despite claiming to like what the show was going for. Kind of like how people 'liked what the civil rights movement was about, but those leaders and their methods? Get those out of here and accomplish the goals in a different way'. Or reading a classic and having no context for who wrote it or when the story was written and trying to judge it based on your own very limited understanding and claiming it's "bad" because you, personally, are just not aware of anything outside of your own world view.

It's important to be able to identify where your own understanding might be lacking - and acknowledging that just because YOU don't 'get it' doesn't mean that the writing is BAD. It just means... you don't get it. Personally, I don't get every single show made for a very specific audience - especially racialized comedies specifically for the race the writer/performer is. As an example, Dave Chapelle (horrendous transphobia aside) wrote a great deal of his material for his very specific audience of Black Americans. I personally, as a not-Black person, wasn't sure how to feel about some of his jokes - but what I DIDN'T do was say that he was bad and 'I get that he's making fun of his own community, but he should do it in a different way, maybe get a different writer'. Because I'm not the one equipped to judge that. I acknowledge that his comedy is outside my wheelhouse and honestly, for Chapelle's case when it comes to his racial jokes, I simply remove myself from the equation and just look to other Black people and how they react to his comedy to see if he's stepped over a line. (Also, when it comes to comedy, as he himself pointed out, some white people were laughing a little TOO hard at his jokes - I think that's mainly an issue with comedy and poking fun at yourself only to have someone not in your 'group' not take it as friendly ribbing but rather more malicious - and so he dialed it back).

Comedy is a bit different than any other media - I do think that comedy requires a lot more knowledge of the subject matter to know when the person is exaggerating, critiquing, or affectionately ribbing that is pretty important to know before internalizing what's said in the show. If you're not aware of that stuff, you might hear a stand-up routine and internalize a lot of really harmful stereotypes so I think it's ok to step away from comedy that isn't "for you" in a way that I don't think is particularly great for ALL types of media that isn't "for you".

With romance stories - I just don't get why a character would make all their decisions focused around getting a romantic partner, maybe I actively dislike watching/reading about that, but what I'm NOT going to do is say Jane Austen is a bad writer. I can point out things I disliked aside from the romance aspect or even larger writing critiques, but I'm not going to say that 'I see what she was going for, but get a different writer because I didn't get it'. Those stories were intensely personal to her and many people see themselves in the characters she wrote. Just because *I* don't get their motivations doesn't mean others don't.

So, examples aside, I think it's incredibly important that before we say 'the writing was bad', think about if maybe it's just that you don't have the meta understanding of the groups being highlighted in the story. It does give me the ick when people say to 'replace the writing table' on The Acolyte when the story trying to be told is of marginalized groups interacting with massive colonial institutions and the generational trauma that causes - and when you look at the writers....they are part of the groups affected by those issues, and the ones who are saying 'replace them'....aren't (largely).

When you 'don't get' something in media, especially if that media is telling the stories of groups you don't belong to, go to see what those groups are saying. There have been articles written about The Acolyte from the points of view of marginalized groups and meta posted around about how these irl subjects are being handled. In my opinion, as someone a part of such effected groups, I think the writers have done an incredible job with the show.

The main issue I think (good faith) people have is that DISNEY didn't give the show more time to tell its story, but then they lay the issues at the feet of the writers for 'not explaining enough' - but the things they want explained, largely I find are things that...were explained enough if you know the basics of colonization, missionaries, and generational trauma.

Other complaints I've seen boil down to "the show should have told me everything in order, clearly, and told me what to think about it and each of the characters - because I was left guessing, instead of using my own brain to think about it, I have decided it's bad writing because everything wasn't fed to me in a straightforward way" which again, isn't a fault of the writing, it's a flaw in the way you THINK all shows need to hand-hold you. Just because a show doesn't spoon-feed you the story and character motivations, doesn't mean the writing is bad.

Finally, I've seen critiques of the writing (and story) to the effect of 'it's a Star Wars story - it NEEDS to fit into the Star Wars box/expectations and if it doesn't, that means it's bad writing' - which again, kills diversity. You want surface-level inclusion where "yay! It's a woman doing bombings now! Cheer for her!" rather than "Look, it's a woman doing war-crimes and we're pointing out that war crimes are STILL wrong and here's other marginalized people fighting against that!"

So before claiming 'the writers need to be replaced', take a step back and look at why you feel that way, take a look at who the writers are and what story they were trying to tell, and first consider: maybe you just aren't knowledgeable enough about the subject matter. And just because it's not 'baby's first colonizer story', doesn't mean the writing is bad. Maybe you aren't the center of the universe for once and maybe its OK for you to feel a little behind in understanding - it just means there's new stuff for you to learn! Which is a good thing!

Obligatory explanation that all this doesn't mean that you can't critique the writing or that if you critique the writing that means you 100% are who I'm talking to in this post. All I'm saying is that maybe before having the knee-jerk reaction 'get rid of the writers', take a look at it from this perspective to see if you 'not understanding' isn't on the writers, it's on you and your life experiences not preparing you for such a story told in this way.

[scrollonso]

Hi I’d actually LOVE to hear more about the way you view Strollonso dynamic because a) the way you write about them makes ME feel insane and b) I am also attempting to write fic of these two and require all the references I can so I can feel at least marginally confident dipping my toes in rpf

Anyway keep being amazing and being awesome with your writings!! I hope we can all survive our parasocial relationship with this 20something rich white boy!!!

i have SO MUCH to say.

okay lets start off with their different instagram useage. lance hardly ever posts (averaging like 1 post a month) but nando on the other hand... (like 4 posts a week) so with this difference we get fernando mentioning and talking about and posting and praising lance and its so sweet because hes not doing it for lance to see hes doing it because he MEANS it.

then the fact that theyre so touchy for literally no reason and this isnt even new in 2017 (i believe) fernando was touching all up on lance after he got a podium and now that theyre teammates theres always some kind of contact going on (nando grabbing lances neck, arm, hands, hugging, etc.)

and yk i cant NOT mention the "happy you are not in alpine?" video because HELLO. the way lance walks over and grabs him straight away with a "yes, man" then when nando realizes its lance his whole face lights up. UGH. then when they hugged they were so close, lances lips practically against fernandos skin as he spoke like god get a rooommmmm... AND NANDOS HAND ON LANCES FACE? like he full on cupped lances cheek and the eye contact and smiles?? u dont do all this with a teammate u dont want to fuck.

then when nando won "overtake of the month" and told the woman interviewing him that he didnt vote for himself but for "this guy" (lance) like in what world are you VOTING for your TEAMMATE who in most cases is your biggest competition??

and back to their hugs, any time they hug its never a half assed side hug its always both arms tightly around eachother smiling talking chests pressed together like U DONT HUG JUST ANYONE THAT CLOSELY??

then when lance got p5 and nando got p3 (dont remember what race) and while celebrating with the team nando put a hand on his face again and one on his waist?? and people say they have a "father son dynamic" 😣

i posted abt this a while ago but them walking together is like my favourite thing ever because theyre so close and aware of eachother its like theyre two teenagers with a crush 😭 then ofc that video of nando waiting for lance because he was walking slow like ugh theyre so sweet

then we know lance obvi doesnt enjoy media much and usually has a poker face or is showing the person talking to him that he isnt enjoying the conversation but as soon as he sees fernando or he gets involved he has the biggest toothy grin on his face like i know your cheeks hurt after geeking over this man so much

and we're all aware that nando is practically known for being evil and mean and having big rivalries with his teammates (besides carlo they're my babies) but thats never been a problem with lance theyve genuinely always been just love and had this sweet bond and dynamic since before nando and lance even thought of joining aston and its beautiful

also i adore how they basically refuse to fight eachother or risk their relationship its so sweet and its a very unique thing to see because this is a sport and thats the whole point. from lance saying he wasnt going to fight because it was fernando and nando giving lance his brake information because he knew it would help it really shows just how mature they are and how in the end they value their relationship and their teams performance as a whole so they put that above fighting eachother.

[northern-passage]

i've been thinking a lot about the word "representation" and what it means and how it's changed over the last few years, particularly when it comes to the writing/publishing landscape but also in movies and tv shows… and i really don't like it anymore. to be clear, of course i think it's important to have diversity in your work, i'm not saying i hate the concept of representation. but i do really dislike the way it's used now, and i really just hate the word itself

in a broader sense it's just become a marketing tool. i'm not impressed by any publisher or author who just describes their book by listing all of the minorities/identities the characters represent as if that should be enough. it feels very gross, very exploitative and disingenuous. it also really bothers me because it's always marginalized identities- which i understand Why, but it feels very othering to me (and again. Very exploitative as an advertisement). you would never list out "cishet able-bodied white man" as a character description to pat yourself on the back over. so why do it to everyone else? why insinuate that one is the "default" and the other one is "special"? (and when i say this i'm mainly talking about advertisements/marketing. i understand why people would specify about characters in descriptions with the plot, but i don't like to see an ad that's just "this book has gay people!" with nothing else)

which then leads me to my other point, which is that a lot of people treat "representation" as if it's "too hard." like "oh i don't know enough to write about that, i don't have that experience, etc" which is a fair way to feel! however… it's weird that people only say this about writing trans characters or characters of color. i'm writing a story right now with a character who is really into motorcycles. i personally do not know that much about motorcycles, so i researched what parts are what & what different kinds of models there are & what basic bike care looks like. i guarantee Most people will have to google something at some point in their writing process. so what's the problem? it also, again, feels very othering when authors treat certain groups of people as "impossible" to write, "too hard" to understand. they are just.. people. you write them as a person. and then you figure out the rest later.

and i think part of the refusal or fear to write something outside of your experience is because of the way representation is treated as So Special. these characters are So Special that they aren't allowed to be anything other than "representation." they're Not allowed to be characters with complex emotions and interesting motivations, they have to just be Trans or Gay or Disabled or whatever. they're not allowed to be people. which means, at the end of the day, we loop right back around to where we were at the start….

there is bad representation. there are depictions of certain marginalized people that are harmful and that are damaging, i'm not trying to minimize that or argue against it at all, in fact we should all be mindful of that while writing and reading. but i also think it's possible to swing too far in the opposite direction as well and put certain groups of people on a pedestal and not allow them to do anything at all but be Perfect Representation, if that makes sense.

[semi-imaginary-place]

oh look fandom hates when I speak the truth again so I'm just going to repost this everywhere.

Most people do not understand Claude, and the loud ones especially misunderstand his character. Claude was never slutty meme frat boy. Joe Ziega made this worse. Things have actually gotten better after Hopes as Claude in Hopes is in line with Claude in Houses just overt characterization instead of implied.

The Marianne support is especially interesting because Claude for all his charm is sooo clumsy at interpersonal relationships. He knows he hurt Marianne and doesn't know how to fix it so the best he can come up with is to make the relationship transactional, he learned one of her secrets so he gives up one in exchange. He has leverage and vulnerability over her so he gives up some of his secrets and becomes vulnerable for her because in his minds that helps make up for things, makes things fair again. 

Claude's like an onion many layers. He's been hurt by people too many times to be vulnerable with others but he also likes people and genuinely wants to help them which leads to this contradicting behavior of wanting friends and to be loved and understood while also being terrified of genuine emotional intimacy. Also, like Claude always hated Rhea he implies in Houses he'd rather have her dead and Fodlan would be better without her.

For Felix I get into details later but I saw a weirdly high proportion of Felix depictions in fandom being trans or asian like higher than any other character Even the actually brown characters like Petra or Dedue or Claude had less non-white "screentime" in fandom than the canonically fantasy European Felix (Petra in general is woefully underrepresented in this fandom), which was paired with a lot of transphobic and racist stereotypes. And then there's the disturbing prevalence of homophobic stereotypes when Felix shows up in fandom. 

Felix is like a magnet for homophobia, transphobia, and racism. Fandom disproportionately )like more than any other character I have seen) makes him every gay, trans, and asian stereotype under the sun (why people race swap him I will never know). And what's worse is that these people think they're woke leftists without ever examining their own bigotry and start crying screaming sending death threats when confronted about it. Sis do some self reflection on how the way you ship really is just latent fetishizing of gay, trans, and brown men. 

And you know it's controversial because I get downvoted into hell every time I say this by people who lack media literacy, won't self reflect on their own subconscious bigotry, and won't accept the truth. Which just means I should say it more.

fe3h fandom often tacks on a lot of bigoted stereotypes onto Felix instead of engaging with his actual in game characterization (well that last part is a problem of fandom in general but I digress). For example in gay ships Felix tends to more often be the submissive, bottom, feminine, trans, or non white partner. All of which is fine but starts getting suspicious when all these traits are conflated with each other and even more suspicious when this is contrasted with Felix's partner (I think Sylvain and Dimitri are the most popular ones?) which is usually a dominant, top, cis, and white man. Again nothing wrong with any if this but suspicious that this seems to be the most common (by a large margin) characterization in fandom. To break it down it plays into classic right wing talking points that how in same gender relationships one partner is the "man" and one partner is the "woman". Again fem/masc pairs are fine its in combination with the rest of the stuff. Next is the classic transphobic talking point about how transmen aren't real men or as masculine as "real" men, which is the justification for corrective rape. Next is the classic racist stereotype that asian men inferior to white men by being more feminine (aka lesser, because racists also tend to hate women) and less masculine than again "real" (white) men leading to being pushed out of most career paths and only allowed lesser jobs like laundromat. And again nothing wrong with any of these traits individually or in combination when when it happens every time with little variation and all people can do is parrot right wing bigot talking points, these something fishy.

Oh hey I forgot the misogyny. Like a lot of this loops back to (what I presume is) internalized misogyny in the authors and artists, because all the points I talk about above in some way intersect back to the basis of misogyny that female is bad. And it isn't which is why I'm always confused why the (female dominated) fandom clings so hard to misogyny. I noticed in fanfiction before I just stopped and blacklisted the whole thing is that Felix tended to be written differently than the other men which connects with the observation that fandom makes Felix the "woman" in gay pairs.

Anyways yall need intersectionality, a history lesson, media literacy, and self reflection (because everyone carries bigotry within them, we live in a society it's unavoidable. It's not the choice of having no bigotry or not, it's the choice of being aware of it and actively counteracting it, or not and having it leak through).

I don't have any problem with shipping or shippers. I don't understand the appeal most of the time but whatever, I'm mostly neutral about it, doesn't bother me when I see it (although tag so I can blacklist if it personally doesn't jive with me). What I CAN potentially have a problem with how it is done however if someone it just regurgitating bigoted stereotypes without any sort of meaningful contribution to the discussion.

(Sometimes with like really out of character stuff like different personality, different setting, shipping two character that have never interacted in canon, I think these people just want to write original stories but are cowards, but whatever do what you want. )