#and i don't think that this post in itself is anti black

[leikeliscomet]

(Reposting from twitter)

My POV as a Black fan that thinks Dot and Bubble's racism commentary is trash

Rewatched Dot and Bubble and I'm gonna break down from my POV as a Black fan why this episode didn't work for me & why it's an awful racism commentary. Long arse post incoming:

The whole "You should've noticed the cast was all white except for fifteen ha your bias is showing" doesn't work for a show that's been predominantly white for 60+ years. D&B casting has been the default for most of the show so its not abnormal enough to be a racial litmus test. An example is the Matt Smith era The only reoccurring character of colour in s5 (2+ appearances) is Liz 10. Artie n Angie in s7. 0 in s6. RTD's own era isn't fully safe either. For many eps Martha or Mickey are the *only* Black characters. Most POC are side characters or extras.

White fans should be aware of the predominantly white casting of the show but this late in the game feels cheap. Most of the show has gone through 100% white episodes including fan faves and it was never an issue back then bc it was beneficial. This is so hollow. Representing racists as cartoon caricatures SEVERLY underestimates the danger of white supremacy irl. White supremacy is system designed and constructed and rebranded over centuries. It is not accidental. People aren't racist bc they don't know they're racist because they *do* They know the system that oppresses POC, Black people especially, benefits them socially and financially and that is why they participate. Its not stupidity it's intention. That should've been the Finetime core not Lindy goofing around bc the arrows are gone or some shit.

Human Nature showed us racist young people that exercised this power bc they knew this. They may be children but they are still dangerous bc of their views. Martha knew this. The silly tech obsessed gen z angle erases this danger and that of actual gen z white supremacy

Instead of the camp goofy tone we could've gotten a serious focused episode. The slugs and millenial/gen z social media silly distracts from what could've been the main theme of colonisation instead of saving it for 10 mins of exposition at the end & scattering microaggressions. Saving Fifteen's racism scene for a goofy episode was a horrid idea. Spending 30 mins on representing racism as silliness then giving a dramatic dangerous score is the definition of tonal whiplash. Representing his oppressor as a blonde bimbo again does not take this seriously. Fifteen went to 1960s BRITAIN & got through it unscathed. Finetime is a fictional futuristic land but the racism of 1960s Britain was real. If anytime was right it could've been Devil's Chord. Distancing yourself from a panto villain is easy but addressing your history is hard.

The scene itself is incredibly performed so I'll give Ncuti his flowers but what he used this skill for could've been so much more. Having his FIRST SCENE begging to save a racist is disgusting. It isn't Black people's responsibility to show compassion to people that want us dead. Yes the Doctor helps the baddies bc they care. But they're aren't ignorant to prejudice. The liberal anti racism of who is so jarring and why I still think Thin Ice is performative. When white people are angry at injustice it's radical. When it's Black people we're aggressive.

Respectability politics is a tool of white supremacy. That if one pleads and is nice enough they can earn liberation. What would white fans think of Fifteen if he DIDN'T beg Lindy? If your allyship with Black people depends on showing kindness to racists you are NOT an ally.

Next up is Ricky. It was established ALL Finetime citizens have white supremacist views yet Ricky September stans refuse to see him in any negative light. Just like Joan Redfern white dw fans refuse to see racism if a character is likeable. If nice guy Ricky's a racist, then anyone no matter the niceness can be racist too and that's a pill white fans aren't ready to swallow. If racism is systemic and not about individual character, then what's keeping them safe? What happens when YOU are under the microscope.

THIS is why we NEED Black writers in Doctor Who. The nuances, depth and complexity of the Black experience can only be told at it's best by Black creatives and not guessed, assumed or spoken over by white fans and white writers. It's okay to put ego aside and say you don't get it.

"Im white but I loved the Doctor's reaction" "I'm white and i thought the racism commentary was great" "I'm white but i-" Yet again, we have to sit through another round of white and non Black fans of colour dictating Black representation for us. I'm so fucking tired man. AGAIN IM YELLING FROM MY HILLTOP TO WATCH SHOWS BY BLACK WRITERS. Almost EVERY single theme in Dot and Bubble and frankly most of the show has been done WAY better in other media. RTD is not the authority on Black stories. We are. Always have been and always will.

Tl;dr Dot and Bubble is an unserious and tacky racism commentary. It's core message is drowned by more RTD Who camp. Don't tell me this episode was good at representating my own experience. It wasn't. S15 having Black writers isn't a need it's a must. Goodbye.

Reblog this version pls

[opbackgrounds]

The Romanticism of One Piece IV: Revolution

AO3 Part I Part III

“The difference between treason and patriotism is only a matter of dates.” ― Alexandre Dumas

When it comes to the idea of freedom in One Piece, there are two related yet separate tracts the manga takes. Both are worth looking into, and both have parallels within the broader Romantic movement. The first of these is the idea of personal freedom as exemplified by pirates. The other is the pursuit of systematic freedom by Dragon and the Revolutionary Army. Robin explains the difference between the two in the post-Enies Lobby arc. By raising the flag, pirates label themselves criminals as they go out to sea, but unless they’re the Straw Hats they don’t usually go around picking fights with the World Government. The goal of the Revolutionary Army, on the other hand, is to overthrow the Celestial Dragons, which would in essence end the World Government as it currently exists. 

I’ve seen criticisms thrown at the series that One Piece doesn’t go far enough in its revolutionary politics in that it’s not explicitly anti-monarchy. There are good kings and bad, and whether or not an island is a good place to live or not seems based more on the actions of individual people than the system overall. There are even strange cases like Iceburg who as mayor is in an elected position, but who also holds ridiculous power over the entire island’s economy after turning its biggest industry into a monopoly under his control. In the real world that would be a horrific amount of power for one person to hold, but because Iceburg himself is a good man, it doesn’t matter. 

While this train of thought is worth exploring, I think that many of these arguments miss the forest for the trees. One Piece is not a story told from the Revolutionary’s point of view. It’s a pirate manga that elevates any individual brave enough to dream. It’s through this lens that paragons of virtue like Iceburg are allowed to exist without being hashtag problematic. The Revolutionaries themselves sidestep much of the messiness that tends to follow real-world uprisings by having them portrayed as principled and virtuous to a fault. In chapter 1058 Dragon promises harsh disciplinary action against Sabo if it’s found that he killed King Cobra, when as an allied nation of the World Government, the king of Alabasta should technically be their enemy. 

This lionizing of individuals and specific institutions goes back to Mirriam-Webster’s 4a definition of romanticism, and as a children’s manga whose primary themes aren’t centered around systemic revolution, this simplicity is perfectly fine, although I personally think it would be more interesting if the Revolutionary Army was portrayed as more morally gray within the series. Despite this, there are also deliberate links between the Revolutionary Army and the historical Romantic movement. 

It starts at the very foundation of their concept and character design. Many of the highest ranking Revolutionary commanders have a European steampunk look to them, while Mariejois seems based on the Palace of Versailles. Oda would not have paired a shirtless man in a black feathered coat with a cravat had he not wanted to tap in at least a little into the design language of European historical fashion, and by extension, the French Revolution. This is best seen in the design of Belo Betty, who seems to be explicitly based on Eugune Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People, a French Romantic painting depicting a personified Liberty leading Frenchmen from all walks of life as they strive to overthrow the despotic King Charles X in the July Revolution of 1830.

The term French Revolution is itself wonderfully imprecise, as France has endured several revolutions, uprisings, and revolts. One does not go through two empires and four republics without a history of civil unrest, and to this day one of France’s favorite pastimes is protesting against the government about things they don't like. But for many scholars, the first of these Revolutions in 1789 was one of the major sparks of the Romantic movement, drawing sympathy from and giving inspiration to writers and poets throughout Europe. The Revolution itself was brought on by many factors, including writings of late Enlightenment/early Romantic writer Jean Jacques Rousseau, whose work The Social Contract pushed for for a free populous living under elected governments.

It seemed that all of Europe would follow suit. Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Poland, the German Confederation, and Northern Italy all saw liberal uprisings of some sort during the early 1800s. Some were successful, others weren’t, but all were instrumental in destabilizing the political landscape that had existed for centuries. This followed a process that had already started globally, as the United States, Haiti, and much of Latin America had already become independent of their colonial masters. There’s a push and pull that’s often seen between art and history, with one influencing the other in an eternal tug of war. Romantic artists painted the pursuit of freedom in a positive light, which inspired frustrated men and women to take up arms against governments they felt did not adequately represent them. In turn, these revolutionaries inspired the Romantics to write and paint about the heroic deeds they saw all around them. One of the most famous Romantics of all, Lord Byron, even died in 1824 after joining the Greek war for independence. Although Byron himself had no strong political ideology and thought all governments as equally bad, the mere act of revolution inspired his romantic spirit to take up arms and fight. 

While there is no real-world equivalent to the World Government of One Piece, the greatest atrocities committed within the manga have their basis in real life, including many of the cartoonishly evil acts of the Celestial Dragons. The Atlantic slave trade, genocide of indigenous peoples under colonial rule, and the crushing poverty of the underclasses were all everyday realities, and these were all things people fought against during this time of world-wide revolution.

Again, some of these movements were more effective than others, and not all of them required violence to achieve their goals. 1807 marked the end of the slave trade in England while in 1838 slaves were freed in British colonies across the world, something once thought unthinkable. In 1861 the tsar emancipated some 23 million Russian serfs, while the Romantic era in the United States ended with the American Civil war and its bloody quest to end chattel slavery in the States.

In a twist of irony, the very same political instability brought on by decades of war ensured that the Romantic movement in France developed later than it did elsewhere. By that time, the Reign of Terror and Napoleon’s wars split Romantics abroad, and several quietly distanced themselves from France and its Revolutions. It was in this post-Revolutionary world that Victor Hugo looked at the smoking wreckage left all around him and began writing Les Miserables. In the preface of this book, he writes, 

“So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation which, in the midst of civilization, artificially creates a hell on earth…so long as the three problems of the century - the degradation of man by the exploitation of his labour, the ruin of women by starvation and the atrophy of childhood by physical and spiritual night are not solved; so long as, in certain regions, social asphyxia shall be possible…so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, there should be a need for books such as this.”  

The three problems Hugo described exist now as they did then, and One Piece is in many ways a story of ordinary people with extraordinary dreams rising up above this artificially created hell to make a better world for themselves, and the people they care for. 

Other Romantics, disillusioned by a world that did not change as they would have liked, turned their search inward. For these, systematic change wasn’t the goal; personal freedom was. And it’s this inward, more spiritual journey that exemplifies the ideal pirate within the context of One Piece, as best seen by our main protagonist, Monkey D Luffy. 

[mariacallous]

Trump is staffing his cabinet with billionaires, who will break the government out of incompetence, spite, or avarice. So why not just go for class politics, and forget about everything else? As the country reaches unprecedented levels of inequality, why not just tear off the oligarchs' masks? Why not present them as merchants of death?

We should all know who they are, how wealthy they are, from what sources, and how they profit from holding power. And, in some better future, we should all benefit from anti-oligarchical policies that make us all more free. We have to talk about inequality, about class.

But America cannot get to social justice only by talking about class. I want to consider the last few weeks and months -- the campaign, its outcome, the CEO assassination -- to think through how an effective opposition might work.

The election itself gives is an important clue. Oligarchy could have been halted at the ballot box. Harris would have been very different from Trump on taxes and redistribution. Sure, she might have run from further on the Left, but she was not herself a wannabe oligarch, and would not have built a cabinet of oligarchs. Had the Democrats controlled Congress, her policies would have continued a trend toward redistribution that Biden had begun. Even without Congress, she would have prevented the Trumpian oligarchical orgy. So if people had wanted to prevent rule by billionaires, they could have done so.

Harris suffered from an incumbency problem. It was a "change" election. Around the world and for several years, post-covid, it has been strikingly hard for incumbents to win. The question, though, is why Trump got to be the "change" candidate. Here is a hint of why just referring to class will never be enough. The candidate who would have changed American society in the direction of equality was not the change candidate. The candidate who was associated with wealth was. This can only be understood as culture.

Rule by the wealthy is not change. The wealthy, putting it gently, have been in charge before. The oligarchs don't actually need the support of the voters to have more than sufficient power in the United States. Why did voters support them? I spent most of October in the Midwest and Great Plains, entirely in states that went for Trump (except Illinois). It is harder and harder to have these conversations, but I think I have some notion.

Trump voters saw their guy as the outsider, even though he has already been president once, and has been very present in media for forty years. For Harris voters, the fact that she is Black and a woman make her an outsider; for Trump voters, or at least for many of the ones with whom I spoke, they make her an insider. And that notion that women and Blacks direct a deep state is a cultural construct.

For Trump voters, or at least many of the ones with whom I spoke this fall, Trump's (supposed) wealth also made him the change candidate. Anyone who is wealthy is seen as a daredevil who broke the rules. The image of Trump as a trailblazer was created by the man himself, not by actual earnings. More deeply, though, the notion of the wealthy person as a hero is an American cultural construct. It makes of voting a cultural act: I want to feel like I am a part of that.

So when people say we need a class war, I sympathize. The grotesque inequality of wealth in the United States is at the root of countless problems. I dwell on this in both On Freedom and Road to Unfreedom. And, of course, in the coming years, cities and states should redistribute wealth and provide social services, thereby helping people to become free. At the national level, though, you cannot just declare a class war, because you cannot decide what class people belong to for them, or tell them what their class interests are. Even basic interests, like staying alive, being safe, or having money, are experienced in emotional contexts. Class anxiety can lead right to oligarchy or fascism or both.

If you are an oligarch, you know this. You win the class war by fighting the culture war. You engage negatively with both class and culture. You never say: "hey, I am Elon Musk, and I care about you, therefore I am writing every American family a check for $5,000." You stay away from numbers and math. You tell a story about how the wealth of the wealthy somehow benefits everyone. And you reinforce the idea that the people who threaten the prosperity of your voters are those who threaten their culture. And so Blacks or immigrants or transsexuals (or whoever) are always presented as threatened both prosperity and identity.

On the other side, those who want democracy rather than oligarchy must engage positively with culture in order to engage with class. That people even have a class identity is not given by nature. It is a result of education, experience, camaraderie. The welfare state was curtailed at its foundation in the 1930s and weakened in the 1980s because of racism. Labor unions became effective at defending wages when they became effective at admitting non-Whites. Americans deny themselves the policies that would serve them because of culture, because of who they see as the real people, the real citizens. And that is why we cannot effectively care about economic inequality without practical, everyday understanding of racial other sorts of inequality.

Orwell said that it is a constant struggle to see what is right in front of your nose. Culture can blind us to the obvious. Non-Blacks tend to project onto Blacks political irrationality and "identity politics." But who in America votes consistently with their economic interests? African Americans, in general. And is this because they are somehow free of culture, and just more rational than the rest of us? Perhaps. Or is it rather that they are not subject to the dominant form of identity politics, and can see through it? And that this knowledge is not just the experience of one life, but generationally transmitted, deeply connected to the actual history of the country? The very notion that African Americans are the savviest voters is practically unsayable in American English.

Let me give a second example of how culture frames what we see. Affirmative action by universities on the basis of race has been banned by the Supreme Court. But the largest affirmative action at universities, as an honest admissions officer will tell you, is on the basis of gender. In college admissions, boys with worse grades are favored over girls with better grades. (Did you have to read that sentence twice?) But it is unthinkable that a woman could bring and win a case at the Supreme Court on the basis of the discrimination that girls inarguably suffer in university admissions. That all of this is practically unsayable is a sign of how the culture works.

When we say "identity politics" in American English, we are usually invoking women, or Blacks, or gender or sexual minorities. That is itself a sign of how deeply culture affects our judgements, and by "culture" here I mean a deeply rooted sense, among many of us, of what is normal and therefore unworthy of comment. The most powerful form of identity politics is Trump's, and it goes something like this: "I am a rich white guy who breaks all the rules and who therefore gets to make them, and so you should enjoy the feel of my hand in your pocket as I pick it."

Of course, we should pass policies that address economic inequality where and when we can. But there are barriers to the success of this at a national level, barriers that the coming Trumpomuskovite regime will raise even higher. The oligarchs understand all this, and those who wish to resist or defeat them must know how to turn a vicious circle into a virtuous one.

The work that has to be done on American racism is hard, and it is part of the work that has to be done on American social injustice. This might seem to make matters harder. But it doesn't, really. The impossible is harder than the difficult, and so avoiding the impossible is a good idea. Trying to do things that are impossible, like addressing class without addressing culture, is not the right use of energy.

And in an important way these realizations makes matters easier. The work that needs to be done in the culture has to be done every day. But that means that it can be done every day, in small ways, by all of us.

Some of that everyday work involves our analysis of the election. Personally, I hold the unpopular view that Harris ran a good campaign, if not a perfect one, and that the reasons she lost -- anti-incumbency, the internet generally, Twitter bias, Musk's money, Trump's talent, media cowardice, U.S. history -- were not things we can really blame her for not overcoming in a few months. I do agree with some lines of critique: I think that she should have let Walz be Walz, and used more grandiose language about her economic policies.

Where I disagree is the notion that Harris lost because of her "identity politics." She did not run her campaign on "identity politics" in the sense that is meant. Harris did not emphasize being Indian, or Black, or a woman. Trump's campaign, however was identity politics from start to finish. Trump ran as a rich white guy and won; Harris ran as an American and lost.

Trump succeeded because of his identity politics, which brings race and class together in a certain way. By connecting the desire for change with emotions that make it impossible, he (and many others) generate, in the end, sadopopulism: a politics that works not because all benefit but because some learn to take pleasure in the greater suffering of others. Deportations have to be understood in this light: they are a spectacle of the suffering of others. So does mass incarceration.

A test for this, as we have been recently reminded, is health. Persuading people that it is normal to pay for shorter lives is the litmus test of sadopopulism. In America, we do in fact pay exorbitant amounts of money to harmful middlemen who kill us by denying us care that we could afford if their scam did not exist. (It is a sign of our cultural problem that we say "insurance" or "health care" when we mean "death grift.") The recent assassination of the CEO of the misnamed company UnitedHealthcare brought the middleman problem into focus. On the internet, people on the Right joined people on the Left is sharing family stories of expense, uncertainty, suffering and death.

Will it matter that almost everyone agrees? Why did people who want better health care vote for Trump? Why do we not have a single-payer system? Who do we pay so much more and get so much less than other people in other countries? Why was it so hard for both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who were very popular presidents, to pass the kind of health care reform they favored? Part of it is, of course, that we have too much money in politics (a class factor, let's say); but part of it is that many people who would gain security, prosperity, and lifespan from a better system don't want it if they have to share it with others (a culture factor, let's say).

How this will play out under the coming Trump regime is a test. If Trump were a true populist, which he is not, he would seize on the issue of health care to gain support from Americans all over the political spectrum (this is an idea I steal from Kate Woodsome). The grifter king must protect all grifts. UnitedHealthcare, a company that makes lots of money by delivering a lethal absence, represents just the sort of capitalism that a Trump regime must celebrate. Indeed, the plan in the middle term (RFK JR.) seems to be to make us all sicker, so that even more advanced grifts are possible.

And so in Trumpomuskovia a way will have to be found to change the subject from health care, to blame the Blacks or the migrants or the trans people for all the lethal dysfunctionality, to connect the assassin himself to some conspiracy of unlikable figures, or something. It's not clear just how this will work -- most likely, the first move will be not to move at all, in the reasonable hope that the policies of January and February and March will be so frightening that people will forget about health care. And maybe this will work.

If it does, we can look forward to a new kind of fascism. In the traditional sort, your children had to die on the front to perpetuate a vision of racial glory. In this iteration, your children have to die of diseases so that people who are already billionaires can become wealthier. The Trumpomuskovian policy will be to keep the death-grift billionaires we have, and create new ones by ending vaccinations and thereby opening the snake oil market.

This is a deepening of class differences, between the wealthy and the long-lived and the financially and existentially precarious. It is possible future thanks not only to greed, but also to a culture in which we don't see our own health care problems as everyone's, and in which we can be easily drawn, by personal fears that activate prejudice, away from seeing ourselves as part of a larger class of people who could be living better and longer lives.

All the same, it won't be enough to be outraged at the terrible injustice in the abstract. Even when the issue is life itself, "class not race" won't work. We need the mode of outrage at the numbers. But we will also need the mode of empathy for African Americans and others whose marginalization has been used to keep health care -- and good policy generally -- from coming about. This is the most important effort, over time. How shock, including the shock of illness, strikes a population depends on how that population has prepared itself. And, yet, we will also need empathy for people who voted for Trump and who get sick. People change their minds, but not usually when they are suffering alone. This is a different kind of move, hard for different reasons, but necessary.

About class, about differences in wealth, we need clarity, and we need outrage. But we will not get far without equal clarity about race. Without empathy for others, we cannot see ourselves. Without empathy, every inequality can get worse, and will. But Trump and Musk and other oligarchs can be stopped when they try to blame our health care debacle on those who suffer the most from it. They can be stopped when they try to ban vaccines and profit from further disease and death. With empathy, health care might just be an issue where the oligarchy fails to consolidate, and the people begin to hear themselves speak.

[everything--random]

Look guys I understand we're all used to calling Darkiplier an emo vampire but I don't honestly see that at all... I personally have started to call him a goth. Why you ask? Well I don't think he'd be listening to My Chemical Romance and all the other stuff in his off time. Many fanfic writers have made the 1920s the decade that Who killed Markiplier happens so I personally think Dark would either prefer absolute silence or music from around that time. Now what does this have to do with Dark being goth? Well we all know Dark is a depressed motherfucker and goth music most of the time is really chill and mellow music and most goth songs are about being sad. I know you're only goth if you listen to the music but style wise Dark also fits into the goth style category because goths also wear eye liner and are unbelievably pale and wear black and white like there in a back and white film so it just seems to fit him more. I'm sure Dark wouldn't mind listening to music like the Lumineers or maybe Fiona Apple because these artists aren't really known for being loud and focuses mainly on the words.

Emo makeup and the style itself seems very obnoxious (yes I know goth makeup can be very obnoxious sometimes too) and has a lot more color to it besides just black and white. I think Anti would be the emo one here, I mean I doubt he'd be listening to Boys Don't Cry by The Cure. I see Anti being the one to listen to My Chemical Romance and so on. Hell I'm sure he'd be blasting Metallica or some other metal band. He himself is quite obnoxious so emo fits him pretty well in my opinion.

Just wanted to get that brain worm out of my head. I'm hoping I didn't offend anyone in either of the communities I've talked about in this post. I've made playlists for Dark and Anti on YouTube music but they are unlisted so if any of you would like to see those I can make it public if you all really want. Tell me what you think about Dark being goth and Anti being emo if you really want and ya... Bye!

[blackbird-brewster]

Meta: Jemily Queerbaiting

With the huge influx of posts saying 'Jemily is gonna be canon', I really appreciated seeing this post because OP was completely correct. I didn't want to write an entire dissertation as a reply, so I'm making my own post with my personal opinion on this. (All sources are noted in footnotes)

Before I began this rant, for anyone who thinks this is anti-Jemily. It is not. I have shipped Jemily for 18 friggin years and that's never going to change. This post is specifically my thoughts about queer baiting.

First off, I need to note that the showrunners (and the cast members who use social media) KNOW what a huge queer following this show has and that's why we got pansexual Tara Lewis in S16 [1]. Which, in itself, was SOOOOOOO important!!! Our first canonically queer main in SIXTEEN seasons was a middle-aged Black woman!!! That's phenomenal. (The fact it was horrible rep, because they instantly ruined her relationships once her queerness served it's plot point is a whole other post entirely)

In my opinion, the 'big Jemily moment' Paget posted about on Twitter [2] (and AJ hinted at during a recent IG live) is simply queerbaiting to get people to watch S17. I know a lot of you are newer to the fandom and I love your enthusiasm, I really do, ship and let ship, but listen, let's be real, Jemily is not going to be made canon. The showrunners aren't going to suddenly say (after 17 seasons) 'Surprise, Jemily is endgame'. This show has never cared about queer rep and now that CBS/Paramount have already ticked their queer rep box with Tara, they won't be in any rush to add any other characters to it.

Please buckle in, I've got a lot of thoughts on this matter --

What is Queerbaiting?

If you aren't aware of what queerbaiting is, here's a good definition:

Historically, queerbaiting has carried two meanings: the first is an act of aggressive heterosexuality to shut down queer subtext on screen while still teasing and catering to the queer audience in advertising, public relations, and fan engagement strategies; the second is an existing homoerotic tension between two characters played up on screen while met with derision by the professionals behind the scenes. [3]

The Medium article quoted here is from 2017, a time when parasocial relationships were really starting to take over social media. In 2024, actors are now only a mention or tag away online, they have direct conversations with fans, and this process has allowed for an even deeper form of queerbaiting.

Oftentimes online, actors are asked directly about certain ships and while some ignore these questions (usually to avoid breaking their contracts or other repercussions), others (looking at you, Paget) choose to instead tease fans about queer ships. She's done this for years upon years and if I've learned anything in the past twenty-years of existing in fandom spaces it's this -- don't hold your breath. In it's original meaning, for something to be deemed as queerbaiting there had to be malicious, or at least, purposeful intent to string queer fans along by teasing them with suggestive content about the ship in question, while knowing this ship will never come to fruition in canon.

The thing to remember is, Paget and AJ aren't the only ones who know about Jemily shippers -- the network and showrunners are well aware of this ship too. When networks/showrunners figure out they have a strong sapphic fanbase, they love to use that to their advantage to get more viewers and higher ratings. Queerbaiting is a goldmine to keep fans watching long running shows, look at Rizzoli and Isles, Supergirl, and OUAT for examples of this.

Jemily and Queerbaiting:

Ever since Emily joined the BAU in S2 (2006), there have always been fans who ship JJ/Emily (shoutout to the old LJ forums!). Way before celebs were just a tweet away from fans, back when all our fics began with disclaimers so we wouldn't get sued by networks, we went to great lengths to keep our fanworks far removed from actors/showrunners attention.

As far as Jemily goes, this reply from Paget in a 2009 interview with TVGuide.com [4] (which has now been deleted from their site unfortunately, but there are quotes on Tumblr still [4.a]) confirmed some fans' worst fear -- the actors had found our fanworks online.

TVGuide.com: Of course, a band of fans want her to hook up with Hotch.

Brewster: I know! I didn't realize that fans make these videos on YouTube? A.J. Cook sent me a hilarious one that made it look like Prentiss and J.J. were having a secret lesbian affair. You know, when Hotch was blown up in the SUV, we shot this scene where he's in the hospital and I'm standing next to him, looking at his bleeding ear. Our director came in and said, "Paget, you're looking at Hotch like you're in love with him. It looks really weird." So now, every day, Thomas [Gibson] and I flutter our eyelids at each other.

This was the first time I recall anyone acknowledging Jemily shippers publicly and at the time (Jan 2009), the show was still in Season Four (just before CBS fired both AJ and Paget [5]). Paget genuinely said it's 'hilarious' that fans shipped JJ/Emily. Even now, I'll see people say 'We know Paget and AJ have seen Jemily fanvids, so they obviously ship it too' -- but those same people rarely acknowledge the full context of the original answer. Paget not only thought JJ/Emily were 'hilarious', but then she doubled down and turned her reply back to how she and Thomas liked to play up the chemistry between Emily/Hotch.

While no one can say for sure which video it was that AJ sent Paget, just knowing they were watching JJ/Emily fanvids sent a bit of a shockwave through the femslash side of the fandom. To some it felt like an invasion of privacy, fanworks are by fans for fans -- knowing the cast were poking around in fandom spaces added an extra layer of worry around what we fans were posting online. Fifteen years ago, it used to be quite taboo for actors to outwardly discuss shipping or other fanon for whatever show they were in, and we fans were usually comfortably removed from the actors altogether.

Of course, now it's the norm for fans and actors/showrunners to co-exist online and interact with one another. This connection has opened new ways for shows to queerbait their fans. Pretty much every show has some form of social media account now and there is no doubt that the people running those accounts keep up with the most popular ships and hashtags. Not to mention that actors are constantly barraged with questions about whether they ship their character with x,y,z, or whether they think a ship should be made canon, etc. These interactions only serve to benefit the shows themselves, because whether the conversation is for or against a certain ship, it's all just free publicity (Why do you think CM now has a TikTok account?)

Every time AJ or Paget say anything about Jemily, the queer side of the fandom loses their minds. But this has been going on for YEARS now and every single time, it turns out to be nothing but social media hype and queerbaiting. Remember this AJ post? [6] Or what about the notorious reply by Paget to a fan, where she talks about how she and AJ held hands under the table 'for the shippers' [7] I've seen this cycle over and over again, so perhaps I am cynical, but I'm not getting my hopes up that Jemily will ever seriously be canon.

It's widely known now, after both Kirsten [8] and Paget [9] have talked about it, that there was an early idea where Prentiss was supposed to be queer, but that was ultimately scraped before it ever made it on screen. For context, please remember, this show has been airing for nearly twenty years. It began in 2005, during the highly conservative Bush administration. Queer people didn't have rights in the US, we couldn't get married, we were rarely protected under discrimination laws, and we could even be fired for simply being queer (in some states). Diverse queer representation on screen was extremely limited to things like 'The L Word' and 'Queer as Folk' (both aired on Showtime, so they were behind a paywall. And as far as tLw goes, that show was extremely male-gaze focused and is horrible in nearly all regards if you try to rewatch it now). As far as prime time shows went, queer rep was even more rare. Which is why Emily wasn't queer from the get-go.

Yes, things have changed since 2006 in terms of queer rep on TV. We have a myriad of queer identities represented in TV and film nowadays, which is why I think it's so easy for newer fans to say 'lf she was supposed to be gay anyway, they should just make Emily queer in canon!' I know this is what fuels most fans' demands for Emily being confirmed queer, and I get it, I DO. I would be all for it! However, I do not, in one hundred years, actually believe that is going to happen after they already canonically queer confirmed Tara in S16. The fact we even got ONE queer character is ground-breaking for this show.

It's also worth noting, that in the time between Paget's departure in 2012 and her return in 2016, she became very active on Twitter. This was when more and more fans began asking her about Jemily and after Kirsten's AfterEllen interview, fans also pushed for Paget to address the possibility of Emily being gay. 'Pushed' is actually an understatement for some of the outright harassment she would receive. (AJ received some of this harassment too, but less so because she doesn't use social media ass often) Back then, neither of them replied to these things directly. Yet, no matter what either woman posted, the replies were full of Jemily stans begging for her acknowledgement. (Did you know 'stan' is literally a term coined for stalker fans?) I remember one time AJ's friend was missing and she posted info on her IG about it, you know what the replies were? People asking her about Jemily. It was genuinely sickening.

Within this context, it was no surprise to fans when Emily came back in S12 , she and JJ's friendship was seemingly erased. The two women were rarely on screen together in the late seasons, plus the writers saw fit to even give Emily not only one (Mark in London, but two, on-screen boyfriends for the first time in the entire series. I personally do not think these changes to Emily's character were coincidence, I saw the hellscape of what people would say to AJ and Paget online and I fully believe that upon Paget's return to the show, the showrunners purposely tried to distance JJ and Emily to dissuade the more abusive side of the fanbase.

Can I prove that, no. But it is the only reason I can think of as to why Emily S12+ seemingly didn't care about JJ anymore, despite their deep and meaningful friendship. I mean, they both CROSSED THE WORLD to go rescue each other in prior canon -- but when Emily comes back, they acted like they barely knew each other. This was even more prevalent in S16, when JJ's main storylines all revolved around Will, and Emily barely looked at JJ in the entirety of ten episodes. (Remember how Prentiss didn't even hug JJ after bomb, but she did go hug Luke?)

So, do Paget and AJ earnestly ship Jemily, or are they continuing the long tradition of queerbaiting us? Who fucking knows, not me. But based on the history of this fandom, I think I can make a safe bet. (Interestingly, if you search all of Paget's twitter for the word 'Jemily' [10] she only has 3 direct tweets mentioning the ship. I don't think it's a coincidence that two are within the past few months since they started filming S17 (the other one was a RT of Kirsten (who tagged something Jemily)

This is all to say --

Just because Paget and AJ have publicly talked about Jemily,, this doesn't mean it's ever going to happen on screen. And you know what, THAT'S OKAY!! There has been this constant outcry (after Tara became queer confirmed) of 'Do Emily next' or 'Why wasn't it Emily with a girlfriend!?' and 'Jemily needs to be canon in S17!' -- as if people believe their ships aren't worth anything unless they are canon.

That couldn't be further from the truth! Fandom is built on headcanons and fan interpretations and rare pairs and all types of shippers. Your ship does NOT need to be canon for you to enjoy it. I will ship Jemily forever, no matter what. I don't think there will be some magical queer plot in S17, at best, we might actually get to see Emily/JJ on screen together again and after the train wreck that was S16 -- I'll take whatever I can get.

And hey -- if I am completely wrong, if Erica Messer pulls a Korrasami out of her hat, I will be ecstatic. I will be happy to be proved wrong, but at the same time, I'm not going to lose sleep over it and I'm DEFINITELY not going to go hound the actors about it on social media.

Sources:

[1] 2022 Digital Spy article about the importance of Tara's coming out

[2] 04/18/24 Paget Tweet

[3] 2017 Queerbaiting article from medium.com

[4] 2009 Broken TVGuide link

[4.a] Tumblr quote from the above TVGuide Interview

[5] 2010 Kirsten interview screenrant.com

[6] 2019 AJ Instagram Post

[7] 2020 Paget video on Twitter (via @karasluthqr)

[8] 2015 Kirsten interview AfterEllen.com

[9] 2016 Paget Interview CriminalMindsFans.com

[10] @PagetPaget search 'Jemily'

[spale-vosver]

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT A CHAPPELL ROAN HATE POST. I LOVE HER MUSIC AND HOPE SHE KEEPS MAKING IT

With that said, what sticks out to me most in her "I hate both sides, I'm so embarrassed" statement is that the communities who would be most harmed by a second Trump presidency -- queer people and POC -- are the same people from whom she takes creative inspiration, but she refuses to recognize or even acknowledge the real danger they are in.

It's obvious to the trained eye, but much of her stylistic choices are derived from drag , specifically drag queens (who are typically and who historically have been queer people of color, in particular Black people.)

Not convinced? Here's a picture of the famous drag queen Divine

And here's a picture of Chappell Roan

Chappell Roan is also incredibly successful; her album The Rise And Fall Of A Midwest Princess was the #1 best selling vinyl album in August, and she plays for massive crowds.

Meanwhile, the communities she takes inspiration from often aren't as lucky. Nearly half of Latino transgender adults live in poverty, and about 40% of Black transgender adults live in poverty . Of the 59 transgender people murdered in hate crimes in 2022, 83% of them were people of color, and 54% were Black transgender women.

(This is absolutely not to deny that white cis queer people face harassment -- on the contrary, Roan herself has faced catcalling, stalking, and now has to employ a security team; in her own words, "so lame*. I'm incredibly glad she has security, but also recognize that being able to have security against stalking is in itself a privilege. I digress.)

Now, back to the dangers of a Trump presidency for these communities: I'm sure many of you have heard of Project 2025/whatever they're calling it now, but the tl;dr is that it's a several hundred page document that outlines how Trump should use his second presidency to transform America into an autocratic Christian nationalist state. Not good. You can read it for yourself here. Trump has, multiple times, claimed that he has no idea what it is, but he's very close with several of the key organizers, and, given his track record, is probably lying out his ass.

Among the many horrifying things included in this document (total abortion bans, mass deportation, etc) are plans to completely gut trans rights in the United States, including cutting Medicare funding from hospitals who provide gender-affirming care to adolescents. It would also outlaw "transgender ideology" and provide federal funding for research on anti-trans conversion therapy.

Anyone, anyone could see that a Trump presidency would be absolutely disastrous for trans rights if any of these policies are passed.

But Chappell Roan, the well-off, white, cis Midwesterner?

She's "so embarrassed" by what's going on and "doesn't have a side", effectively throwing the very people whose labor she built her career on under the bus for...what? Leftist virtue signaling? Self-soothing?

Sure, she dedicated her VMA win to them for "fueling pop" , but a dedication won't protect them from hate crimes, or put food on the table, or prevent anti-trans legislation.

And maybe I'm not the right person to say all this, as I'm a white trans man, but it feels very transactional -- I take your culture and get famous, then you don't get my material support because I'm, like, so embarrassed by the neolibs.

Idk. Much to think about.

[foreignswaggersession]

there are definitely iwtv fans who love acting like they care about racism when it comes to fictional characters, but have no issue with being condescending towards actual black and south asian people in this fandom.

Btw making "brown man has mid dick" jokes to prop up lestat is also clownery and it's even more stupid how some people would choose to double down on it after hearing about why it's degrading and uncomfortable. like i couldn't believe the bullshit i was reading from some of these so called "fandom anti racists", but they're clearly not mature enough for this discussion.

sorry for taking so long to respond anon - i wanted to make the posts with screenshots first so i could show my work and not be accused of merely reaching to support my ship. i think most the condescension from these fans comes from their selective memory of the show as filtered through their long-held headcanons, and i wanted to respond by citing the show itself. the fans started claiming louis was never attracted to armand as plainly evident, when the show clearly says the exact opposite, repeatedly. i watched the "armand has mid dick" joke/theory develop in real time and snowball within the pro-louis section of the fandom. it got twisted up in the 'louis hates topping' + 'lestat's dick is uniquely amazing' + 'armand can't satisfy louis' takes, all of which i disagree with. i understand your discomfort anon, it's part of why i started posting in the fandom - 'louis only wants pink dick' also became a thing this season and it broke me (louis didn't get it up for jonah while eating rats for y'all to act like pink dick does anything for him but sure, believe what you want).

to give some credit, i think some of these fans you're talking about started making these 'jokes' in reaction to the overwhelming (and undeserved) sympathy towards armand that dominated the fandom at the time (probably still does tbh). it's fair to point out that armand is not just any brown man but is in fact an extremely manipulative abuser who threatened to kill louis, set him and his family up to get killed, killed his daughter/sister, lied to him about it for years, sadistically let him suffer after a suicide attempt he instigated, erased that memory and covered THAT up for years, and to also suggest that those acts negatively affected louis's attraction to him. and yeah, i too am tired of reading takes about how loving armand was (girl when?) and how louis wasn't nice enough to him 🙄. that said, armand is attractive as fuck in universe and in our reality, so it's weird to pretend louis would not be attracted to him, despite his off-putting nature (see season 1).

most importantly, louis's desire for armand is a key plot point essential to the breakdown of his and claudia's relationship. claudia didn't say "picked another one over me" and "you were lestat's, now you're armand's" out of ignorance - she understands louis better than anyone. it's wishful thinking to suggest that louis suffered in silence for claudia through eps 11 and 13 and only stayed with armand for 70+ years to protect claudia/punish lestat and no other reason. it would have been really great if louis kept his commitment to claudia, probably would have saved several lives...alas, tragedy.

like i keep saying, just say you don't see the chemistry in / can't support loumand, or prefer the chemistry / want to support loustat. but claiming that louis never fell in love with armand prior to claudia's murder - that just is not supported by the show's text.

just fyi, i think saintarmand has a great answer to a similar ask, so i will also refer you to her response here.

[daenerystargaryen06]

I saw a comment on another post about how fans of Daenerys (and those who also support TB) cannot accept criticism of Daenerys' character and go overboard with our love for her.

This statement is entirely false. Daenerys fans do entirely accept Daenerys' flaws and criticism to her character- so long as the criticism is done properly and makes sense. We only go against criticism when said criticism entirely misconstrues Daenerys' character in a false and gross way. Bending the text of the books or even early seasons of the show as an excuse to "criticize" Daenerys is obviously going to be ignored because it presents an entirely false narrative. The ones who do this mainly are Daenerys antis/Sansa stans/Jonsa stans. Most critical points/metas they make against her can be disproven (and have been many times) by reading the text of the books and analyzing Daenerys' show scenes early season before her character became entirely ruined by s8.

Daenerys fans do accept criticism of Daenerys and we do acknowledge her flaws. But the difference is that those who do criticize her often tend to paint her out to be 'evil' or the main villain for ASOIAF/GoT, when she isn't. Daenerys, like every other character in the ASOIAF series, is a gray character. Us fans see and know this. But Daenerys antis only look at her through a lens of black-and-white, which is an issue of itself, considering she isn't meant to be viewed that way. The reason why us Dany fans/stans go against criticism of Dany so much is because it's often wrong and entirely out of proportion, in which we make counter points/arguments backed up with actual textual evidence from the books or scenes from the show. The criticism against Daenerys isn't just critically analyzing her as a character, it's blatant hate and often misconstrued to paint her in a light that makes her seem worse than she is.

When we look in the world and setting of ASOIAF/GoT, Daenerys' actions are just like any other character in that world, only not as extreme, and when she makes the decisions she does within the books she questions the choices she's made and thinks heavily over them.

When you look at the men of ASOIAF and GoT, their actions are in line with/far worse than what Daenerys has done. Tywin has eradicated an entire house, slaughtered countless people, treated his son with disdain for being born a dwarf, etc. Robb executed a man for going against his orders. Jon killed a child (despite the child having taken part in his murder- it was still a child) and is much darker in the books. Tyrion has fantasies of violence towards Cersei, expects Sansa (a child) to want him when they're wed, etc. Robert nearly slaughtered and eradicated an entire House, laughed over dead bodies of children, r*ped Cersei often when drunk, etc. Ned executed a deserter of the Night's Watch. And we all know how terrible Euron and Ramsay are in the books/show.

And yet Daenerys receives more hate than these men over her actions, is viewed more critically, and is 'criticized' far more than said men. Which is unfortunately driven by misogyny. The difference between Daenerys and the men of ASOIAF is the fact that she is a woman. If she were a man, I doubt her actions would be so heavily analyzed and torn into by antis. Anyone could say that isn't true- and yet, it's evident in the way Daenerys is heavily hated and discussed most over compared to anyone else who has done far worse compared to her.

It's not the fact that we don't accept criticism over Daenerys. It's the fact that us fans have to always constantly defend her over hate that is unjustified to her character. Is it even so wrong that we show love and support to her character anyway? I'm sure everyone else does that for their own favorite characters as well and deny criticism to them often if the criticism is actual bullshit over a valid critical and neutral analysis. Why is it so wrong for us fans to do so?

A blog I will always recommend that actually does amazing metas character analysis- @rainhadaenerys.

[dicenete]

Hey, I'm rambling about IkePri again

Okay, I just need to get these thoughts I have about Gilbert von Obsidian out because I enjoy predicting stuff and overthinking design and narrative choices even tho they might not be right. :P But there really isn't that much predicting other than me overthinking about narrative and design choices. This time there will be most likely spoilers of Gilbert's route so far, and route of Clavis and some thoughts I have just gathered while playing the game in general. I try to put these thoughts in cohesive order, but well... I don't know if I can really, because I just need to get these out of my head. These are my thoughts, ramblings and opinions. Feel free to form your own and certainly disagree with me! I apologize about the lack of art in this post. I'm busy with work currently so no fanart for a while. I'm also not native English speaker, so there might be grammatical errors and such. Sorry about that. Everything under the cut.

To start with Ikemen Prince is a romance visual novel first and foremost. That doesn't mean it can't be deep (and it certainly has been deeper than I initially expect, which left me positively surprised). I suppose there is somesort of thematic vibe that there is no prince whose ideals are the main thesis of the game itself. But that also kinda leaves that fact there is no huge catharsis regarding the world and it's state. Everything so far has been left quite open. And the more I have learned about lore of the world, I really feel like anti-monarchist here xd Clavis really sold me the idea for real. Or atleast throw away the absolute monarchy. That's where I think things should go, but that's my own belief. (really, the last king of Rhodolite... He umm... I have some opinions.) Chevalier and Gilbert First things first: I don't hate or dislike Chevalier as a character. There are just some things that give me Deus Ex Machina feels. But I know it is what they are going for with him. This genius that so far ahead of everyone that it is so alien concept to rest of the people. And well that is a very hard concept to pull off without being a genius yourself as a writer. Or that is what I feel like. But what I do love is what the writers are doing with him and Gilbert in thematic sense! (Hence why Chev x Gilbert sounds so juicy to me)

I really took steps to the deep end as I started to think about why I have enjoyed Gilbert's route or was interested in his story to begin with, but have little interest in trying Chev's one. Because they are so similar but they really aren't.

How I would describe it is that where as Clavis is the complementary to Chev, the purple to his yellow, the emotionality vs rationality, the heart vs the brain, Gilbert is more like right brain to Chev's left brain. If it makes sense like that xd Their color schemes are harmonious. Not opposite. Almost like how Nokto and Licht's color schemes are harmonious with each others.

(Nokto (Blue + white + gold) vs Licht (Blue + black + gold)) Not to mention that their names clearly are meant to mean light and dark. (Licht: variant for light, Nokto: comes form latin nox or noctis, meaning night = dark) But that is a rambling for another time.) Both their crests are tigers. White and black tiger. Chev's color scheme is White + gold and black. Whereas Gilbert's is Black + gold and white. But then the overall color that game devs use to signal about the characters baffles me a bit. Gold/Yellow vs Black/dark red. They don't seem to have too much connection or that of which comes to my mind quickly and without digging deeper. (because I believe that if you dig deep enough, you have digged yourself into a trap of overthinking about things. (Justifying things because you want to justify them, which I'm not big fan of. And sometimes things don't need meaning and we have to live with that. As much as it pains my overthinker brain.)) But here is my impressions about Gilbert so far. I'm at the point where MC has left the Clavis's party (I loved it btw). Gilbert really does give me toxic INFJ villain feels, but let's not get too hang up on terms such as that. But he is someone who is driven forth by his own ideals and desire to change the world better. He, like Clavis, seems to cloak himself in this idea that he is the villain and is okay, even happy, to take that role. He is the one who, like Chevalier, has thrown away emotional attachment out of the window (or so they say) unlike Clavis who makes his choices based more on emotion rather than rational thinking. Maybe that's why I like Clavis and Gilbert, they push MC out of their black and white thinking. That things are not so easy peezy as "choose a right king and everyone will be happy". There will always be someone who is mad about it. That's why I really loved the scene with Gilbert with the orphaned kids and the Clavis's party. He seems to enjoy the company of children (who are not morally corrupted or tainted) and he really empathically listens to those who are angry. He believes in the idea that "no one remembers what you said, but they will always remember how you made them feel". (A quote with debatable origin, people say that it was coined by Maya Angelou. But I really love this quote, because I think it is the truth.) Gilbert isn't trying to rationalize against someone's choices with pure intellect. He uses empathy to guide him to the most rational outcome in that emotional scope. But he also uses this to manipulate people with fear. He uses fear extensively and he does it actively. Where as I feel like Chev just has that aura about him automatically. Hence my next thought: Action vs Stasis!

Gilbert and Clavis are action oriented. They shake the gameboard, they make the first moves. Gilbert probably more than Clavis. They both want change. Is it change for the better, we will see, I still haven't finished Gilbert's route but he really gives me this "I'm willing to become the greatest threat so that people unite to defeat me." or "I will conquer all so there will no longer be wars.". Chev, on the other hand, symbolizes stasis. His goal is to keep the kingdom of Rhodolite going. That's his duty and he is willing to take it. (even tho we can debate if that is something he really really believes in or even thinks about that much. I feel like it is out of obligation rather than of personal ideal. But alas, I have not played Chev's route yet.) Chev is reactive rather than proactive. He waits for the opponent to make the first move and reacts accordingly. (I'm not saying he is not reactive once game is on. More like "if there was not threat to deal with, he wouldn't create one".)

Chev doesn't care what you think about him. Gilbert does. He might seem like he doesn't but he is really there to prove a point. (I will pick up his dislike for lying later >.>) Chev is not. Chev knows that his way is the right way for him and that is enough for him. Chev also actively makes a "gettaway plan" for himself in Clavis. He knows that Clavis is the final thread that keeps him from going overboard because he understand that he has to be blind for "individual people" aspect to be a good ruler. Gilbert probably understands this about himself too, but he is trying to prove a point. So he needs to go overboard. Because masses of people need absolutes to react to. If it is something banal, it won't do. His evil actions need to shake the very foundation of ideas. The people have to face those things head on and see it for themselves. They cannot be sheltered. Gilbert gives me the vibes that he is willing to sacrifice himself not for the kingdom, but for the betterment of all mankind. He is happy to become the villain #1 if that means that other people will rise and take down the corrupted Obsidian or the corrupted idea. I would say that he is Lawful Good going on about things like Lawful Evil.

Gilbert asking questions means that he wants you to think, he wants to challenge your opinions and how you look at the world. Same as Clavis. They yearn for change. They want to change the world. Where as Chev wants to maintain things as they are. Chev "If it is not broken, we don't need to fix it" Michel. Where as Clavis and Gilbert want to improve the system. They are idealistic. Gilbert and lying

This is something very interesting. At first I thought that he was all "I dislike when people lie to me." but he really is "I dislike lying in all its forms." And he does say that he doesn't lie. And I'm starting to believe that is really the case. All the things he says are true. But because how other people see him, they are suspicious anyway. Like MC is. Like we all probably are when we start the route and think "So what is your trauma, baby girl?" When he is unsure or knows that he shouldn't say the thing he really thinks or that is true, he will deflect or give a very vague response. Which makes me quite happy to replay his route at somepoint with this in mind. In conclusion: Welcome to my TED talk, with no head or tail, just me overthinking about things about a otome gacha game. If you read this far, thank you for your time. Remember, if I ramble about it, it just means that I'm invested. Have a good day~

[sciderman]

Hi Sci! You always have the best Peter Parker Takes™️, so I was hoping you could help me with something! I like a lot of things about Peter, but I find it so hard to reconcile the fact that he tends to be written as pro-police and politically moderate. I personally headcanon that he was more of a morally black-and-white hothead when he first started Spider-Manning, but as he grew older and wiser, he started understanding that everything tends to be shades of gray and thinking before swinging in with punches. Still, you’d think a kid who grew up poor in Queens would know better than to just go “ah you are stealing and therefore Bad” ya know?? I know these grievances are more with what the comics/film industry will publish, but still, my kingdom for some nuance!!

oh, bless you anon! god - the cop question is so interesting in superhero media, it really is - and, honestly, my take is kind of the opposite of yours. peter parker wasn't aligned with the cops in any way when he started. in fact, he kind of had a general distaste for cops because, you know, the cops kind of had it out for him.

never forget, peter being a bitchy little bitch boy to the cops is kind of his origin story.

when peter started he actually had very little respect for other heroes or law enforcement at all. he kind of just worried about himself, and his aunt may and that was all. he wasn't any sort of beacon of morality who was seeking to deliver justice or anything. he kind of just wanted to take photographs and make a buck. it took him a long time to start playing "hero" - and even when he did, law enforcement and him were generally not on the same side.

i think his first real positive relationship with someone on the side of the law was captain stacy - peter, obviously, respected him a lot and, you know, captain stacy died heroically.

still, spider-man's relationship with the law continues to be rocky at best - he's constantly being hunted by the law but also some individual cops kind of have a soft-spot for him and let him off the hook - sometimes he helps them, sometimes he's on the run - they love him, they love him not - kind of fluctuates. i think the spider-man comics are generally noncommital about the cop question and kind of just play whatever song will give peter parker the most drama. spider-man comics were are generally lighthearted about this sort of a thing.

i think it's not until a post 9/11 world where copaganda kind of became a lot more prevalent in superhero media and you suddenly started seeing all the heroes working with law enforcement. suddenly, i think, it became unquestionable - a hero had to respect the law, even if they were a vigilante. i think - especially with spider-man comics being set in new york - there was a desire to see these heroic figures working alongside "real life heroes" - so, i think all of the sentiment that peter is pro-cop came from a post-9/11 world, which - to be fair, with the first spider-man movie coming out when it did, it's no wonder that the public consensus on spider-man is that he'd be pro-cop.

andrew's spidey - andrew's spidey isn't full-on anti-police, but he doesn't exactly hold law enforcement in the highest respect

the movie itself isn't police-critical but peter is portrayed as your general "no respect for authority" kind of kid in tasm1 who's relationship with the law i guess shifts after captain stacy helps him and dies heroically. andrew and the cops are presumably bffs in tasm2 – he's kind of just totally beloved by the city in tasm2. i feel like tasm2 probably really severely under-explores spider-man. in fact, it feels like spider-man is barely in tasm2. he's barely a character. i think maybe that's where the tasm movies stumble, actually. those movies really aren't about spider-man at all. they're entirely about peter parker. and yes, there is a difference.

tom holland's spider-man is a cop. police don't really feature in his story, but he is one. funded by the elite class and basically tasked with looking after their property. hate that. gross.

i think it's why i hate seeing peter working with the avengers. the avengers are cops. he doesn't belong there. it's only a recent development where we started getting spider-man on team-rosters - he was always a solo guy who didn't really particularly want to play with others. he had his own stuff to deal with and it didn't matter to him hugely whether he was playing on the side of the law or not. he was dealing with his stuff.

personally i'm not about seeing a morally black-and-white peter parker. i don't think he's ever been that way and i still hate seeing him reduced to that - i think we see him painted as politically moderate because spider-man stories really aren't often about asking greater questions - i don't think it's the platform for it. peter is always too concerned with his own personal troubles to pursue any sort of activism - i think it's quite funny - as active as spider-man is, peter parker is generally an apathetic figure, and i think that makes him a certain degree of relatable. i think characters like gwen and mj and even aunt may are more politically active than peter parker is. peter's kind of too busy just trying to survive.

i love the thought of a peter parker that does punch first. i think that's his whole bag. he's not thoughtful. he's quick to anger. he actually isn't particularly thoughtful and doesn't always approach situations with some moral wisdom. sometimes he punches the wrong people. sometimes his anger is misguided. his energy is practically always going into the wrong places. he doesn't always know what's right and wrong. but he tries.

i'm so not into the stories that paint him as a moral beacon because - more often than not - he's doing it for himself. if he really did have unwavering respect for the law and his morals perfectly aligned with the cops, he wouldn't put the mask on. it's like, the whole point. a vigilante exists fundamentally by it's disobedience to the law. otherwise they'd be carrying a badge.

[kwanzaa-wakanda]

Why you don't know anyone who celebrates Kwanzaa

"Because no one cares"

"Because it's a sham holiday made by a con artist"

"Because it's dumb"

"Because no True African would ever celebrate Kwanzaa."

These are all bad faith arguments. They aren't meant to actually explain why, and do more to devalue the holiday as well as people who celebrate it or at least respect it.

So, why don't you know people who celebrate Kwanzaa? After all, you have so many Black friends, or maybe even you are Black yourself, shouldn't Kwanzaa be everywhere?

This post is a bit long, and some points are explored more deeper than others, but I think this will provide an explanation that's actually pretty fair and common sense. The short version:

Kwanzaa is a newer, anti-consumerist holiday that does not appeal to every single Black person. And that's okay!

1. Kwanzaa is a newer holiday.

Kwanzaa is only about 60 years old. It's not going to be as popular as Christmas. Other holidays, say Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, or Martin Luther King Jr. Day are about as old or even younger than Kwanzaa, so why are they celebrated more widely? Well, it helps that they're all federal holidays with a state structure to back them up. Individual people can celebrate those holidays, but they don't have to, institutions celebrate them for us by giving us time off work and making a public statement (maybe a donation or two). Other than that, those holidays are largely upheld by community events, just like Kwanzaa (more on this later).

The types of family traditions we associate with Christmas take generations to build. Even other older holidays like Mother's Day don't have any real traditions inherently associated with them--we all give our moms a gift but beyond that, everyone engages with it differently.

New holidays need time to catch on. Institutional structures help speed that process along, but Kwanzaa doesn't really have that. So it's going to be slower than others in terms of attracting people.

2. Kwanzaa is anti-consumerist inherently.

In America, consumerism makes up a very large part of how people engage in holidays. Note that I'm not saying "people only celebrate other holidays for consumerist reasons", I am saying that a lot of the driving forces that 'remind' us to take holidays seriously in the US are market forces. We're inundated with advertisements, sales, and decorations that help create a 'feeling' of the holiday (be it Christmas, Valentine's Day, Halloween, etc) which also make it easier to engage with the holiday. We can get the supplies we need at the store. If we don't have plans then there's probably a business throwing a party around that time to keep us entertained. Gift-giving and feast preparation is expressed through buying products en masse so we prepare financially. Holiday specific media sculpts our collective understanding of the holiday's themes even if we don't engage directly.

Kwanzaa, as an explicitlyanti-consumerist holiday, doesn't lend itself to that level of cultural zeitgeist in the US. People exchange gifts and decorate places for Kwanzaa, but commerce during Kwanzaa is typically kept within Black communities through dealing directly with (small) Black Owned businesses. Given that most corporations in the US are white owned, there's very little reason for the market structure to incentive our continued engagement in Kwanzaa. The passive acknowledgement that it's a holiday that exists is the most we can really hope for.

Imagine Halloween without candy sales, Spirit Halloween stores, Halloween parties or costume nights at our favorite restaurants and bars. Imagine no horror movies coming out in October! In a world like that, I and many other people would still celebrate Halloween, but it wouldn't be as easy, and a lot of people probably wouldn't acknowledge it at all, because it isn't as easy.

Kwanzaa explicitly resists the market forces that help holidays stay in our daily lives. We all value our holidays beyond those forces, but we can't deny the very heavy role they play. We can argue that such market forces are morally neutral or even good, but not in this post--whatever your view of holiday consumerism, it's critical to understand that Kwanzaa was organized specifically for people who don't appreciate such consumerism.

3. Kwanzaa does not appeal to all Black people equally.

I think this is one of the hardest points for people both within and outside the community to grasp. The holiday is for Black people, and is meant to appeal to as broad a sampling of Black people as possible. That doesn't mean it will appeal to everyone, though.

The target audience for Kwanzaa is Black people, regardless of nationality, who believe in a shared political unity, heritage, and cultural engagement of all Black people regardless of nationality.

Thing is, not all Black people believe in or value those things. Not all Black people are Pan-Africanist, Afrocentrist, or Black Nationalist, or any other Negritude philosophy. These philosophies are widespread in politics and scholarship, but outside of those dimensions of life engagement with them gets complicated.

You may have heard that "no Africans celebrate Kwanzaa" this is largely true because Africans live in families and communities where their African heritage is already affirmed through other means, including other holidays. Kwanzaa therefore doesn't appeal to them, even if they do believe in all it's themes. Such people may go to Kwanzaa events if invited, but they likely wouldn't hold them for themselves.

Many in the African Diaspora understand their identity most immediately by the region they settled in, and only have a distant sense of African identity. They don't deny being African or having African heritage, but they see being Caribbean, or Brazilian, or American as more relevant. Kwanzaa therefore doesn't appeal to them as it's not specific enough.

Kwanzaa is not closed to any Black demographic and actively encourages all of us to celebrate it. But not all of us will find it appealing.

I would compare Kwanzaa to a holiday like Easter--its a Christian holiday meant to appeal to all Christians equally. But if you aren't church-going and have no children in the family, you probably don't celebrate Easter to any meaningful extent, or your engagement is so personal that it isn't considered very mainstream or traditional.

The point I'm trying to make is: holidays aren't guaranteed to appeal to everyone in their target demographic. Though the reasons why diverge, not every Christian celebrates Easter, not every Black person celebrates Kwanzaa.

4. Communal Kwanzaa celebration is more popular than in-home, but that also carries some drawbacks to it.

Whenever people interested in celebrating Kwanzaa ask me how to get started, I often tell them to look into community celebrations. They're usually put on by churches (perhaps even mosques), community centers, cultural activity groups, or political groups. And therein lies the problem--if you don't live in close proximity to that type of Black community, or the community is invisiblized, then even if there are communal Kwanzaa celebrations to check out you probably won't know about them.

You can't just ask a random Black person about a Kwanzaa event, typically. My advice is to tell people to check out a Black bookstore (and, if available, an African cultural store or an Afro spiritual store). The types of people organizing Kwanzaa events are usually those deeply enmeshed in cultural and political Black discourses, particularly those that affirm an African heritage. But such people aren't found everywhere. In my experience, you can find such people and spaces in most major cities, and so a Kwanzaa celebration probably isn't too far away either. Everywhere else, though...

The only other option to find Kwanzaa celebrations, in my experience, are through Black student clubs in colleges. Not all of them do Kwanzaa activities due to many factors (cost, timing, interest, etc), but my undergrad college did and I know that others throughout the country do. However, such activities may not be open to the public (again, for varying reasons -- cost, timing, interest, college policy...).

When people ask about personal celebration, they usually ask about in-home celebration, treating community celebrations or celebrations in schools as less serious or legitimate. Kwanzaa in general is itself rare, but the idyllic in-home celebration is even rarer -- I myself was raised engaging in Kwanzaa almost entirely through community rather than in-home celebrations (though I started doing in-home for myself in recent years).

---

How, then, should we treat people who celebrate Kwanzaa, or even the non-Black people who don't celebrate it but acknowledge it as a valid holiday?

Honestly, I don't get why that has to be a question. Sure, it's a very marginal holiday, but it's also harmless to treat it respectfully and try and make room in your life in case you ever come across someone who does celebrate it.

I made this post because I often see this idea that people were "tricked" about Kwanzaa. I fail to see what harm has transpired. I don't get why people use their lack of awareness of Kwanzaa or Black communities that celebrate it as a "gotcha" that proves Kwanzaa is a scheme. When I do try to understand the logic underlying this, I come back to this idea that holidays and cultures have to earn respect and validation, that being included in our American idea of "Holiday Time" requires that holidays have a certain number of people we already respect, whom would be offended otherwise.

But that isn't a perspective that I share. I can't say how many people need to celebrate a holiday in America before I stop thinking it an insult or a lie that said holiday be included next to Christmas in a holiday greeting; the number doesn't exist because I don't hold Christmas or Hannukah in so high esteem. I value Christmas in as much as I recognize other people value it, the same is true of Hannukah and Yule (and even the pagan witches I've known didn't celebrate Yule). To me, the only thing one needs to be worthy of consideration as one of The Holidays is to simply be celebrated by people around this time of year.

[studsandswords]

i made this as a reply to a repost of one of my own posts but i think its important enough to be its own post

If you want to be punk, listen to the music first, its incredibly diverse with diferent sub genres like hardcore, crust, D beat, power violence, street punk, oi, queercore, Anarcho-punk and riot grrrl.

IMPORTANT- listen to local punk bands and support your local scene and community

band recomendations-

-Black flags -Bad brains -Minor threat -Capitalist casualties -Circle jerks -Crass -Dead kennedies - DIscharge - Doom -Dystopia- Electro hippies- GBH - Nausia - No consent -Operation ivy -Subhumans -Zulu

For the dress sense, there are a ton of DIY vidoes on the internet. Don't buy anything expensive like those £200 jackets on the internet, they're a rip off. If you want to make patches, Anarcho-stencilism has a subreddit and deviant art full with stencils and a guide on how to make patches. Thrift stores are where its at for clothes since they're cheep

If you want to be punk, having the ethos is very important too. Anarchist politics(like mutual aid, squating and general anti-state/capitalst action) are very linked to punk as well as anti-fascism.

Don't be afraid of doing things wrong, we're very accepting in the punk community, as long as you don't give in to consumerism, listen to the music and support left wing(actual left wing not like democrats) politics then your likely to get along with almost everyone.

And beware of TikTok, theres alot of flase info on there and people who give bad advice.

Be gay do crime

(Im not an authority on punk, take this all with a pinch of salt. if you disagree with me on anything thats valid, punk has been around for a while now which means its gonna contradict itself sometimes and different people are gonna have different opinions on it since it is a living and evolving subculture)

[sordid-dog]

DNI: zionist, antikin, ableist, lgbtq+ phobic, fatphobic, fat kink, proshipper, support ai art, anti-cringe, general bigotry, s/h + ed blogs, proship.

im sorry for not reblogging or answering asks regarding current wars and genocides but i really cant handle it.sorry.

RB > LIKES on art, preferably

art fight,,

pronoun👍

strawpage!! <- kinda important

bsky

userbox by @/oy--with-the-poodles-already :]]]

stupidscav -> sordid-dog

hello!! I'm callie/fester! feel free to alternate names and give name suggestions!! I go by it/thing/he/they. I am neurodivergent (autism, anxiety, probably adhd and maybe ocd) please be clear about things,, my mental health also may not the best currently so I might not be in a stable mood sometimes. expect some vents. i am also a minor, and I love bugs, indie music, Gravity Falls, The Owl House, Night In The Woods, and Rain World. :3

you can send me bug images as long as it is NOT A LARDER BEETLE. THEY ARE SMALL BLACK BEETLES WITH A WHITE/TAN STRIPE. DO NOT SEND ME THOSE . if you send an image of a larder beetle i WILL be blocking you.they remind me of some bad shit that happened to me in the past .please and thank yoy

please also refrain from sending me images of worms, or ask if you can send an image beforehand.

if anyone uses this to specifically send me images of tjem im just gonna delete this part

I am a demiboy and a bi lesbian, and I adore contradictory labels.

I am also otherkin/fictionkin, and my confirmed (?) kintypes are caninekin and cryptidkin :] i also relate to/kin a lot of other characters and creatures,, im probably constelic/fictionflicker

about my tw tags: I tag the word itself. if "your mom" was a trigger, I would simply tag the post "your mom". you can always ask me to tag something!

current tags:

#dog misc: me yapping

#festers fuckery: me art

#dark pearls: vents and/or dark topics.yea the tag is the same as before

#waggy tail: happy vents

#dog rage: me being rightfully mad

#dog howls: serious discussion/announcements

#awroo: asks

#dog treats: gifts

old tags + info (these are my previous tags i used to use):

#scavs silly misc: miscellaneous posts/original posts. I upload random shit sometimes🔥

festers fuckery: art :3

#dark pearls: dark topics, vents

#pearl treasury: asks and polls!

#scavs favorite pearls: gifts! at least I think that was the tag

#scav is serious: announcements mostly

spam acc: @gayass-ery

music sideblog: @musicmutt

btw, I love being tagged! I love being asked! I love getting doodle requests, though idk if I'll get them all! these are basically always open!! unfortunately I am a horrible procrastinator so I might not always answer timely :']

probably gonna add more if I forgot, which is very likely. ty!

-please don't make jokes on my vent posts or blank reblog or anything unless I say you can btw. should have said that earlier sorry

[multi-fandom-lunatic]

living in the uk is wild bc so many ppl have just. Stopped liking that franchise completely. Performances of the play ars still being churned out, but no one is going to see it. That exhibition is up but no one is going to it and tbh it's just like...idk that franchise needs to Go it's so irritating lmaoooo. Like these fans telling ppl that we have to let them like a franchise that constantly prioritises cis boys and cis men so much so that it is viscerally uncomfortable to engage with......yeah no

I live in Australia and while bookstores still proudly display Harry Potter and there are a few fans here and there, there really isn't much HP discourse at all. It's mostly on fandom spaces (but there's plenty of it here).

"Just let people like the things they like!" isn't the argument they think it is to reply to their blatant racism. Enjoying the things you like stops when it becomes harmful (to others not just to you).

I found a statistic on Morning Consult (no idea how reputable that site is, so take with a grain of salt) that 76% of HP fans are white. That is an absolutely astronomical amount, especially considering how popular HP is. So the whole 'sidelining POC voices to uplift white twinks' checks out a lot more. A lot of HP fans ignore racism simply because they can afford to. The only time they question racism within the fandom is when they are explicitly told about racism within the fandom, and only still when it doesn't make them uncomfortable. I've been through the #anti marauders tag and it's all only POC telling the fandom why their favourite characters are racist.

And I've noticed the Marauders fandom in particular seems to headcanon the characters as queer to reclaim it from Rowling and my honest reaction is just to sigh. Rowling does not CARE that you make fanart and fanfiction of queer Marauders and post them on Tumblr and Ao3. She cares about the current popularity of her books, and unless you let the fandom die, you aren't doing jackshit to Rowling, in fact, you're uplifting her.

My example for this is Regulus Black. The Black family are pure blood supremists and Reg also holds these views. He then joins the Death Eaters, who are extremists who hold Reg's views, but then Reg leaves the Death Eaters because he finds Voldemort too extreme (Though, anon, I'm sure you'll already know this). There is no evidence that his views changed. Redemption is through consistency, where many small actions have more values than one big one, and Regulus simply cannot be redeemed because he doesn't show any actual change (Besides, the Marauders, in canon do not have much page time AT ALL. So having a full fledged arc would be... impossible, unless she made the series even longer, god forbid).

Anon, you'll notice I'm specifically talking about the Marauders fandom here, that's just because that's where my research led me. My thoughts specifically about HP fandom is more or less the same, though I don't have any particular examples from the HP (not Marauders) side of things. I do think that the HP fandom is super fucking irritating, they are also a little less delusional than the Marauders fandom. Simply because while when the HP fandom (when I say HP fandom, I mean the main one) tries to separate itself from JKR, they pretty aware of the fact that JKR is a transphobe and they (mostly, and only here on fandom spaces) acknowledge that JKR is a shitty person and their views don't align with hers. Whereas the Marauders fandom act as their they're a completely separate entity, and while they do try to separate from JKR, they think they're absolved from any flack because "we're a separate fandom" and "we headcanon our characters as queer". Newsflash, Marauders fans, you aren't the first one to come up with headcanoning your characters as queer, and you sure as hell are not any different because your author is a transphobe.

You cannot separate the artist from the art, but especially in Rowling's case. She has glued herself to the art and is refusing to let go. And when people engage in the fandom, they just cement her legacy, as if it isn't an extensive one already. I've said this before and I'll say it a million times more: just. read. other. books. I know nostalgia is a bitch, but you sure as hell cannot move on if you never even acknowledge the behaviour as a problem. HP fans are just a step away from Booktok girlies, I fear. Constantly taking out the very political nature of the books just to focus on the things they like (for Booktok, it's morally grey book boyfriends. For HP, it's the cis white men they love so much. For Marauders, it's the racist asshole they've twinkified).

Thanks for the ask, anon. It's absolutely wonderful to have someone share my views on HP, Marauders and the fandoms. I hardly see any criticism that criticises the nature of being in the Harry Potter fandom, and the delusion in the Marauders fandom. I hope I addressed some stuff that you wanted to discuss, but no doubt there's a shit ton more. I know I'll likely not change any HP fans' mind with this, but if it causes them even a little discomfort, my job is done.

[sapphicsvibes]

my personal opinion is that yes, black americans do have american privilege by proximity of living in and benefitting from the american imperial core. when talking about the privilege of black americans and those living in the global south, the average black american, has more privilege than a person in the global south.

but i think we need to have a conversation about anti blackness in a lot of communism, marxists, etc., spaces.

these conversations of usamericans who are poc, having american privilege are insightful, but it because obviously transparent when those conversations only center black people.

no one speaks about how native americans have usamerican privilege, how asian americans, how first generation latin americans have usamerican privilege - no you guys only talk about how it is black people.

that is not a coincidence.

i have seen five posts talking about how usamericans need to stop applying race dynamics to places outside of america, and how usamerican poc are privileged and still benefit from the american imperial core, and yes, i agree.

but then it makes it very clear that op is specifically going after black people, and op is not black themselves.

i don't think the discussions of american privilege that black americans have are harmful nor anti black by default. what is anti black however, is how black americans are somehow, always the center of these conversations, and other usamericans, white people included, are often times excluded from these harsh critiques of american imperialism.

there is a problem with anti blackness in these discussions and movements. and is a lot to be said about how a lot of people who are making these posts, who are in these groups, who are in these movements, have not done the work to dismantle their own antiblackness which is why it comes so naturally. a lot of you guys come from communities that have historically, hated black people and have been violent to black people in your communities. but you think that because that anti blackness is turned toward black americans, then it's something that is excusable. essentially, you are hiding behind your marxism, communism, etc., and that is supposed to shield you from your anti blackness, which it does.

and we also need to talk about anti blackness in itself, in how it is not just a couple of words on the computer, but rather a very dangerous form of bigotry that has gotten black people, regardless of birthplace, killed for thousands of years. black americans still do face violent racism and antiblackness in other countries, regardless of us being american. i have actually been the victim of this.

but that doesn't mean we don't have american privilege, it doesn't mean we do not benifit from the us imperialm core. and i believe these conversations, should be had together and should co-exist.

but once again, the issue at hand is that the people leading these conversations on how usamerican poc (when they really just mean black people) are privileged, have not even begun to do the work to address or dismantle their own anti blacckness.

and that is simply because they dont think antiblackness is an issue worth addressing.

[theevilmaninyourcomputer]

A soft critique of Luigi Mangione:

We have to keep in mind that this ties into a much larger conversation about the morality of gun violence.

 Been thinking about the weaponization of non-violent protest. We're taught that Gandhi, Mandela, MLK, etc. are the heroes, whereas people like Malcolm X are dangerous, insurgent threats to public safety. And the 'peaceful' revolutionaries DID enact change, but their ideologies are being manipulated. When we're told that the solution to systemic injustice is 'non-violent protest,' the outcome is complacency. Empty picket signs, and inaction.

But vigilante justice is really, really dangerous, and it's been popularized by this image of the 'gun slinger,' the lone rider who is subservient to no one, but whose moral compass is unfailingly and unequivocally correct. This is ESPECIALLY exacerbated by the whole, idk, FIREARM PROLIFERATION THING !!! We need legal safeguards, if we don't have legal safeguards, innocent people get hurt. Even though, in this case, everyone can generally agree that Brian Thompson 'deserved' what happened to him. For what that's worth. Thompson was a figurehead, and this assassination is HOPEFULLY the catalyst for something larger.

It's easy to praise Mangione for what he did because it was 'good', but then you have to consider where assassinations slot into the larger discussion of vigilante violence. It's messy. Think about ‘stand your ground’ laws, wherein a person can shoot someone based simply on the feeling that they are at risk even if walking away and avoiding the confrontation is a reasonable alternative. These laws effectively legalize lynchings. There was this one case, Ahmaud Arbery, who was a black jogger who was shot and killed by three men on conviction of having robbed a store. Obviously, that's fucking morally reprehensible. And it furthers my point. There isn't a lot separating Ahmaud's shooter from Mangione, legally. Just that we FEEL like one was deserved, while the other was unjust.

As a note, violence doesn't immediately cease to be vigilante violence when it's systemic. Take police brutality, for example. Cops kill on conviction, and exist as arbiters of the law. They are bound only to themselves, and so, they are unbound. They are the law, and so exist above it.

I brought this up to a friend, and they responded, "would you punish someone for killing Hitler?"

Can killing on conviction be righteous? Can violence be moral? Who are we to decide that Mangione is innocent?

School shooters decide who deserves to die. Mangione decided that Thompson deserved to die. Again, I'm not saying that Mangione was wrong, just that TikTokers flagrantly echoing 'free Mangione' is a little unsettling. I want people to understand the breadth of this situation, because non-violence CAN TURN INTO complacency, that's true. And sometimes, violence is absolutely necessary. But not in every circumstance.

I saw this comment under an Instagram post, and it really speaks for itself.

That's the problem. In this instance, I think it was really, really effective. I'm not anti violent protest. But, we're so detached from reality and chronically online we say things like "our generation is so unserious 🤣🤣🤣" and in doing so, we squash movements before they actually get off the ground.

Furthermore, the response to this reminds me a LOT of the Jeffery Dahmer fandom, the people who disregard the incredibly fucked up things he did because he was attractive. I'm not equating the two, but we need to have these conversations. It's dangerous if we don't. What if Luigi Mangione hadn't been a hot white man? What if he'd been black? What if he'd been middle eastern? Would the response be the same?

I'll spell this out - the answer is NO.

I'm SICK of performative TikTok liberalism. So help me God, we're not going to do performative activism. We're not going to write fanfiction about the shooter. We're not going to aestheticize this assassination to the point of ineffection. We're going to strike fucking terror into the hearts of the 1%. We're going to incite legitimate change. And we're not going to let this live and die when the current cycle of memes dwindles out.

I hope insurance CEOs everywhere are fearing for their wellbeing right now. God knows, so many Americans have been for so long.