#and i try not to engage too much in the Discourse too even

[polinated]

being both a penelope and eloise defender is not a piece of cake. i feel like i am in a constant state of war

[barcapix]

IM ACTUALLY BEGGING EVE LANDO WITH NERDY READER PLEASE!!!

✮ Mr. Lover - Lando Norris

lando norris x ‘nerd’!fem!reader

sy: even though it’s a usual habit for you, and lando knows it, he always finds a way to pester you about how your spending too much time away from him. even if it’s being at a library.

a/n: small drabble to fill my formula one drought on my blog… needa cook up more fics honestly

warnings: nah.

masterlist

bookworm girlfriend & insecure boyfriend.

a common routine of yours lately—hiding your persona from the media with stacks of books, each one detailed amongst your bipolar interests.

they ranged from political discourses, theatrical drama pieces, thriller suspenses and even the sickly sweet romance novels that reminded you of your relationship.

speaking of which, you were certain that he was already on his way to said library, a couple steps away from where you were hibernating. he’d done it everyday this week, and today was going to be no exception.

“i thought i’d find you here,” a forstakenly familiar voice cut through the programmed reading circuits in your brain. “the third day in a row.”

predictably, it was lando.

standing there with his arms folded along his chest, his thin, pale blue tee doing nothing to shield the contracting muscles in his biceps.

you looked up, lifting your glasses up an inch. “you’re saying it like it’s a bad thing. someone’s gotta stay busy.”

“it is a bad thing,” he counters, carelessly gliding the stack-of-six books across the polished wooden table, sending them toppling over.

without a second thought, he flung himself onto an opposing chair, shuffling to bring himself closer to you. after all this, you just stare at him with bewilderment.

“are you done with your tantrum now?” you ask, merely giving him a raised brow. “because if you are, i’d happily go back to reading thanks.”

you hear him scoff when your eyes travel back to the page infront of you, his own knee already bumping yours in a need for attention. nonetheless, you continue to scan the words with pure concentration, only briefly acknowledging your boyfriend throwing silent pouts and exaggerating tuts when he wasn’t the focial point of your spotlight.

lando caves in—enough is enough. your slow reaction time fails you this time, when lando swats your hands away from the rims of the hardcover book, pushing it aside with an aggressive type of force.

it ends up adding to the horrendous massacre of books he started minutes before.

“lan,” you groan, tugging the material of your hoodie over your wrists. “couldn’t you just wait another hour? is an hour really that unbearable?”

“well think about it. what could we do numerous times within an hour?” he grins to himself like a spoiled child, “and there’s your answer.”

typical. inevitable. you roll your eyes at his remarks, the obscenity of his insecurity, that so cleverly made him look like a fool.

“maybe another day babe,” you reply dryly, not even remotely interested in engaging into his profound tactics to get you where he wanted. “but i was invested by the novel i had, so if you wanna go back home ill meet you t—”

as you attempt to reach across the table, lando interjects you by locking his hands over yours mid-motion, pinning your hands in place.

“last time i checked, its not a sin for a man to wanna spend time with his girlfriend,” he cockily disputes, devilishly smirking.

you blink slowly, a brief pause in the unruly air that filled the finite space between you. your lips slim into a thin line and protest, “maybe it’s not a sin but it is an inconvenience.”

“c’mon don’t be so stubborn love,” the tone in his voice laced with sarcastic disbelief. “after all of the time you could of spent with me today, you chose to spend time in a library.”

you grit your teeth, trying to pry your hands from his hold. you’d grown accustomed to this—the push and pull battles between your determination and his relentlessness.

you were polar opposites, who somehow found love in one another. ultimately, at the end of the day, you admired how fervently he craved your affection, even if it cost the desire of your daily hobbies.

“all i’m saying is i’ve missed you today. i saw you four hours ago; that’s four hours too many.” lando admits, softer this time.

instead of releasing your hands, he holds them firmly by intertwining his fingers with yours. the brunette leans on closer, his addictive peppermint scent wavering up your nose.

“you really can’t survive that long, can you?” you inquire. “what are you gonna do when your in melbourne?”

he shakes his head defiantly. “take you with me.”

the look on your face says it all—the characteristic scrunch of your brows, the distinctive yet subtle jutter of your bottom lip.

you glance around at the broad shelves that lined the outskirts of your corner, back at your boyfriend, before relenting with a sigh. “we can leave under one condition: you promise me you won’t disrupt me here tomorrow.”

“i promise. i pinky promise.”

“alright then, lead the way home.” you eventually let him win, as he ghosts his lips over the shell of your ear, as he carves out a path from your jaw to your lips with kisses—his way of being thankful.

the stubble on his chin makes you squirm, finally cracking up a smile after such a gruelling debate. sure, he was probably the most annoying and insufferable man when he wants to get his own way, but he was your insufferable man.

“though i have to say, these glasses of yours make me fold,” he heartily chuckles, bringing them up from the bridge of your nose. “if this happens again, i beg you—don’t wear them because i might just lose.”

[storiesconsumemysoul]

Look I'm still processing my own feelings around the Siuan Sanche decision and execution but I gotta get this out of my system real quick. Firstly, some of y'all are way too comfortable swatting down, mocking, and condescending to fans (BIPOC fans in particular) who are upset. I'd recommend reigning that shit in. You can disagree and push back without resorting to all of that. Many such examples abound already within this discussion itself. Maybe try to emulate that approach instead of just bulldozing through an emotionally and politically charged discourse for minority fans.

Secondly, try engaging with this backlash with the larger context of the show in mind. Or even just S3. Look at how many characters (with speaking roles) died this season and how many of them were black. Think about the unnecessary death of Child Valda (Eamon Valda) this early in the series. The actor, Abdul Salis, devoured his introduction scene (and every scene since) so goddamn thoroughly that he instantly made the White Cloaks a terrifying presence that has resonated throughout the rest of the show. This brilliance gets rewarded with an anticlimactic quick death, with no buildup, by the hands of characters we haven't had the time to get to know properly, and who didn't even share a single scene with him prior. Right when Perrin, who does have a real established connection with him, is set up to spend a whole lot of time with the White Cloaks. Why not keep him for longer, doing what he does best, so that when the girls kill him down the line we'd have spent enough time building up to their confrontation to make for a proper earned send off worthy of such a towering talent?

And Ryma, played magnificently by Nyokabi Gethaiga, who absolutely electrifies from the get-go and through (2x6) in particular (along with her warder Basan played by Bentley Kalu). Ryma whose scream and anguished face as she is being collared by the Seanchan has haunted us for the last two years. Who left such an impression of her kindness, her strength, her faith in her sisters, her bottomless love for her warder, and with so little on-screen time. Gets one singular scene this season. With no acknowledgment, explanation, or addressing of any part of her role last season. How was she freed? When? Why was she not part of the effort to uncover Black Ajah in the tower when we saw her so deeply pained and shaken even by just the realization that one of her sisters could betray their sisterhood? She was written into such an afterthought background character this season that so many audience members seem to have straight up not even recognized her as the same character from S2, as Ryma, at all.

And Ihvon, originally played by Emmanuel Imani and recast this season to be played by Anthony Kaye, who dies in ep.(1) and, to the show's credit, haunts Alanna and Maksim's storyline so strongly that we feel his presence throughout the season. But we see none of that reflected in the tower. With Stepin (Peter Franzén) in S1, we get such a beautiful display of the warder's brotherhood, cultural ties to each other, and most importantly, how deeply loved Stepin was by his fellow warders. S1 makes us feel the loss of him reverberate through them all so devastatingly. Where is that grief for Ihvon? Where is his community? We spend so much time in the tower immediately in the aftermath of his death, and yet there is no one to mourn or honor him in the absence of Alanna and Maksim? We couldn't have had some of our characters pass by or even just hear about the other warders holding a funeral for him? Or just remembering him in some way?

I could go on for a good while still honestly. And sure, we could make legitimate arguments and have readings that justify these choices individually. But regardless, what this shows in aggregate, is a pattern of clumsiness in handling dark-skinned black characters/actors in particular. While at the same time, playing around with extremely politically, historically, and emotionally charged images of black bodies. Be it Ryma being collared and never addressing it again, Child Valda's whole thing, etc. etc. ... and now Siuan Sanche bruised black and blue, bloody, stripped to her shifts, bodily dragged across the hall, and decapitated. These are incredibly powerful and visceral images.

And no, before someone tries to make this point, I am not saying you can't graphically kill, write off, or deprioritize black characters/actors for perfectly legitimate artistic or practical reasons under any circumstances. I am saying that those choices don't exist in a vacuum. The context of the text at large and the real world are inevitably going to be part of how those decisions are received. It's not enough to have good faith diverse casting. And it is not unreasonable to expect a continued treatment of care and thoughtfulness past the casting stage and into every other facet of their presence and exit from the story.

[unsolicited-opinions]

this is a genuine question: why do you think the queer community is so bad when it comes to the antisemitism and even the overt Hamas support? I can’t figure it out at all. Jews have always been a huge part of and even pioneers in the community. now we’re banned and harassed and unsafe. I see a pride flag online these days and feel terror because I expect a watermelon or red triangle to be right next to it, it’s happened so often. I’d feel safer in a church than at a pride event. why do they hate us so much now? even those of us who are also part of that community?

I've been trying to figure that out, too.

I was pretty sure that the origin was in postmodern academia, but I didn't know much more.

I have never formally engaged with Queer Studies, nor with Gender and Sexuality Studies,so I had no idea where to start.

Someone on #jumblr (I regret that I don't recall who) pointed out this collection of essays, Poisoning the Wells: Antisemitism in Contemporary America.

Chapter 2 is "Pinkwashing Antisemitism: The Origins of Queer Anti-Israeli Discourse by Dr. R. Amy Elman.

I'm way outside my wheelhouse here, despite holding a degree in one of the social sciences.[1]

I'm going to try to summarize this in a way which is shorter and more digestible than reading the whole thing, but there's a link to the whole thing at the bottom of this Very Long Post.

Disclaimers:

1. Acknowledging the depth of my ignorance:

I don't have the contextual knowledge to know with confidence if this is an intellectually honest argument, or even if the history is fairly presented. If anyone on Jumblr has more experience studying this topic, I'd sure welcome their thoughts.

2. A note to LGBTQ+ readers on "queer":

I understand that some in the LGBTQ+ community don't care for the term "queer," and some regard it as a slur. I have tried, for this reason, to cease using this word in my daily life. Below, I'm going to use the word "queer" a lot here, however, because Elman does and the scholars she discusses do. If you're among those who dislike this term or find it hurtful, I hope that you will not see my doing so as a slur or an insult

3. My editorial comments are in blue.

4. This is long. Not as long as the article itself, but long for Tumblr. You are forewarned.

Got a coffee or an energy drink?

Continue below the break:

Elman says the increasing appeal of queer politics was for specifically millennials, and the BDS movement actively pursued a "queer" plank to broaden its appeal.

This tracks.

She says that Leaders from both movements saw a potential for synergy, with some suggesting queers could transform BDS from a "vanguard movement" to a "popular" movement.

Elman gives a history of the "Queer Movement" in which she argues its adherents are particularly susceptible to BDS's "pinkwashing" accusations.

She says:

- "Queer" is an intentionally broad, deliberately ambiguous term encompassing various sexual and gender minorities who reject traditional LGBT politics as conservative.

- The queer movement emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s in opposition to both neo-liberalism and feminists who critiqued sadomasochism (S/M) and the sex industry.

- This opposition to feminist critiques of the eroticization of inequality, says Elman, is a crucial factor in understanding queer politics' susceptibility to antisemitism.

- Elman says early queer activists prioritized passion over reason, making them potentially vulnerable to harmful ideologies.

The Feminist Sex Wars

- There was conflict, says Elman, between lesbian feminists and proponents of S/M, arguing that the increasing acceptance of S/M within the lesbian community weakened its ability to resist fascist values.

I don't see the need to politicize whatever one enjoys in private as long as it is safe, sane, and consensual, but okay.

- Elman draws a parallel between the eroticization of fascism in the past (referencing Susan Sontag and Sheila Jeffreys' concerns about Nazi aesthetics in queer subcultures) and the current uncritical embrace of certain radical ideologies.

- Elman says the embrace of "outlaw" identities and the downplaying of the harmful implications of S/M practices (including the use of fascist symbols for parodic purposes) are problematic trends within queer politics.

Which made me think of seeing Queers for Palestine protestors calling Jews "Nazis" and combining the swastika with the mogen David.

- Elman argues that the rise of queer politics led to the silencing and marginalization of lesbian feminists who focused on women's rights and opposed the industrialization of sexuality and S/M.

Like Andrea Dworkin?

- Elman says Queer Theorists have dismissive attitudes towards lesbian feminist concerns and that the once-flourishing spaces and intellectual contributions of lesbian feminists were diminished within the broader "queer" coalition.

As a cishet man, I had thought the broadening of the movement, the addition of each letter in LGBTQ+, gave all parts of it more strength, but it seems obvious to me now that lesbian concerns aren't always the same (and may not be aligned with) gay men's concerns, enby concerns, trans concerns, etc.

I can see how being subsumed by a larger movement could dampen the voices of its different component populations and diminish the perceivability of the points on which they don't agree.

Judith Butler features prominently here.

- Elman seems to say Butler's nuanced stance on her lesbian identity is rather different from her non-nuanced Jewish identity, and it is "as a Jew" that she declares her anti-Zionism.

...in 1989, [Butler] was asked to provide a lesbian lecture and responded that she would rather describe herself as "being" homosexual because identifying as lesbian felt "neither true nor false." Yet, she demonstrates no similar reluctance to claim a Jewish identity years later. To the contrary, it is "as a Jew" that she condemns Israel and vows to develop a Jewish opposition to Zionism.

A decade after Butler vacillated over being lesbian, she similarly described her nearly two-decade-long relationship to S/M discourse as "active and complicated," a position in keeping with the tenor of her fourth book, The Psychic Life of Power. In it, Butler speaks of her "paradoxical" embrace of "injurious" names because they "constitute" her "socially."

Huh. Jewish identity without nuance? I'm not sure I've ever seen that...?

- Elman says Butler's engagement with S/M discourse and her concept of erotically embracing oppressive power structures are linked to the potential eroticization of antisemitism and the demonization of Israel.

As Martha Nussbaum explains, the central thesis of The Psychic Life of Power is that “we all eroticize the power structures that oppress us, and can thus find sexual pleasure only within their confines.”

If Nussbaum is correct, there may be no better explanation for the ongoing eroticization of antisemitism and the demonization of Israel.

So concerned was Nussbaum by Butler’s influence on American women’s studies programs in the 1990s that she concluded,

"There is despair at the heart of the cheerful Butlerian enterprise. The big hope, the hope for a world of real justice, where laws and institutions protect the equality and the dignity of all citizens, has been banished, even perhaps mocked as sexually tedious. Judith Butler’s hip quietism is a comprehensible response to the difficulty of realizing justice in America. But it is a bad response. It collaborates with evil. Feminism demands more and women deserve better."

"Hip quietism" makes me want to read more Nussbaum.

Butler was chair of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (later renamed Outright First)...which was a UN recognized organzation. While the name might cause the casual observer to to think it would focus on gays and lesbians, it has seemed to focus on Israel.

Outright First claims it advances LGBT rights through awards consistent with its agenda, yet the first of these was not made until 2005, fifteen years after its founding and the same year that BDS was ostensibly established.

That year, the organization honored Mary Robinson, who decriminalized homosexuality as Ireland’s first woman president (from 1990-1997).

Robinson also served as the UN’s first woman High Commissioner for Human Rights and, in this capacity, Robinson oversaw the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa.

Despite the conference’s noble rhetoric, the antisemitism that it manifest led Robinson to resign in disgrace.

It was in Durban that “anti-racist” organizers revived the scurrilous Soviet charge from decades earlier that Zionism is a form of racism and Israel is an apartheid state. Although Robinson called these allegations inappropriate and unacceptable, she did not reject the conference’s final declaration that contained them.

Ach. The feckin' Irish again.

...in 2008, Desmond Tutu became the second recipient of the organization’s “Outspoken” Award. Tutu, a Nobel prize winning anti-apartheid activist, is also an outspoken critic of Israel for “practicing apartheid” in its policies against the Palestinians. While he too condemned bigotry against gay men and lesbians, like Robinson, Tutu may be better known for his opposition to Israel than for any long-standing and deep defense of LGBT rights. Thus, one wonders whether the “critical partnerships” Outright First fostered were less those that promoted the world’s LGBT communities than those that helped legitimize anti-Israel activism.

This example, it seems to me, is a more appropriate illustration of “pinkwashing”:

that is, pinkwashing may be less about bolstering Israel’s reputation than providing Israel’s sworn enemies a seemingly progressive mask behind which to conceal their animus.

Pinkwashing, Triangles, and Softcore Holocaust Denial

The term "pinkwashing" initially referred to corporate profiteering from pink-themed breast cancer awareness campaigns.

Elman contrasts this with the reclamation of the pink triangle by gay activists as a symbol of defiance after the Stonewall riots, noting that this is a "disturbing" appropriation of a Nazi symbol.

Years before American corporate executives bolstered sales through gender-conforming pink promotionals to women, American gay male activists openly embraced pink to signify their gendered defiance after the Stonewall riots of 1969.

This political reclamation manifested itself in their adoption of the pink triangle Nazis used to denote and facilitate the destruction of those men they identified as homosexual. That this exclusively male Nazi symbol came to signify LGBT rights is disturbing and reveals a movement that, whether through ignorance or choice, embraced a fascist aesthetic

Is that fair? The idea of reclaiming is to take the symbol away from the oppressor and redefine it, right?

ACT UP's use of the pink triangle and its analogies between the AIDS crisis and the Holocaust are presented as examples of "softcore" Holocaust denial that paved the way for later strained comparisons.

By 1987, the Nazi pink symbol gained American prominence when the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) used it for its logo, which also read “Silence Equals Death.”

Founded by Larry Kramer, ACT UP’s mission involved combating the public’s indifference to “the AIDS Holocaust.” Equating the epidemic with Jewish genocide, ACT UP’s gay pride float that year depicted a concentration camp within which activists posed behind barbed wire. Kramer’s book, Reports from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist, further popularized this agitprop and the pink triangle marked its cover. As the HIV death toll mounted across the globe, ACT UP’s rhetoric and the Nazi triangle became internationally ubiquitous

So Elman believes this was softcore Holocaust denial through universalization/appropriation by the queer movement.

Holocaust images...absent the Jews. We see a lot of that on social media from the LGBTQ+ community right now.

BDS and "pinkwashing"

Sarah Schulman, an ACT UP alum, was as a key figure in popularizing the "pinkwashing" accusation against Israel. Here's an inside look at how that happened:

And here's Schulman's 2011 NYT piece:

If you need to get past the paywall, use this link.

Schulman's argument is that Israel's promotion of its LGBTQ+ rights is a cynical tactic to conceal human rights violations against Palestinians.

It couldn't be a natural outcome of an electorate with a majority which is socially liberal enough to not want to persecute their LGBTQ+ family members? Why not?

Oh, it's because Jews are sneaky and devious /s

Elman critiques Schulman's anti-racist pretense, arguing it invisibilizes Israel's diverse population and misrepresents the motivations behind Israel's LGBTQ+ initiatives.

The investment in Tel Aviv as a gay vacation destination is acknowledged, but its negative framing by BDS as "pinkwashing," says Elman, creates not just an entry point for antisemitism, but also a permission structure.

Soon "pinkwashing" took on a different meaning from the one intended by the women who originally coined it.

When applied by "pinkwatchers" whose sights are trained exclusively on Israel, the accusation became an entry point for antisemitism.

According to Wikipedia, it now describes "a variety of marketing and political strategies aimed at promoting products, countries, people or entities through an appeal to gay-friendliness in order to be perceived as progressive, modern and tolerant."

As Cary Nelson observed, "the pinkwashing accusation gives license" to condemn Israel, while discounting all of its achievements (e.g. legal protection against sexual orientation discrimination, recognition of same sex marriages, joint adoption, and open military service) without any reservation.

Want to know the first thing Sarah Schulman posted to Twitter on 10/7/23?

Here's Canary Mission's page about Schulman.

Elman continues:

There may be no better way to simultaneously encourage antisemitism and dismiss Israel’s LGBT initiatives (whatever their shortcomings) than to insist those efforts undermine the rights of Palestinians.

Were it not for BDS double-speak, Schulman could not maintain that she “never” betrayed queer people, despite her having acted in “solidarity” with “presumably straight Palestinians” to oppose Israel’s LGBT community.

Like countless other “queers” who take “pride” in being “ashamed” Jews, she received political “guidance” from “presumably straight” folks like Omar Barghouti, the purported founder of BDS.

Known for his explicit desire to “euthanize” the “Zionist project” and his vocal opposition to the two-state solution, Barghouti insists that not even “the end of occupation” will end his struggle.

Elman wraps up:

Like “Islamophobia,” “pinkwashing” and its corollary “homonationalism” are accusations often employed to silence critics while simultaneously providing those who issue them the appearance of being concerned about LGBT people and other minorities. Yet, this posturing offers little in return.

In fact, these denunciations are in keeping with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s longstanding assault on homosexual conduct, gender equality, and universal human rights at myriad UN fora under the insidious cover of anti-racism and anti-imperialism.

You can grab a PDF of the whole book here.

That BDS similarly promotes itself through the cynical appropriation of social movements and ostensibly progressive claims that vilify the Jewish state represents a consummate act of public diplomacy in which anti-semitism itself has been pinkwashed.

_________

You read the whole thing, so have a cookie: 🍪

[1] I agree with Neil Postman that the social sciences would more accurately be called moral theologies...and are not sciences.

You can read more about Postman's point here if you want to know what I mean by that..

[lizardsfromspace]

I'm not actually sure what Very Online types think should happen in Palestine and I don't think they're sure either bc what is this

We shouldn't praise a teenager resisting the draft too hard bc. Bc...? I struggle to even parse what's being said here. It's guff about how "the bar is really this low" and then a reminder of how "we are seeing what is happening to Palestinians...and this is what people are uplifting?" but like. What does that mean though

They want Israeli oppression of Palestine to cease, but we can't be happy that a teenager refused to join in that oppression? So what should we do. Should we not encourage teens to resist the draft in a country with mandatory military service, heavy propaganda, and that has organized society to heavily stigmatize resisting military service? No, genuinely, what do they want people to do? We need the occupation to end, but also can't support anyone who's fighting for that to happen, since uhhh is the bar really this low??? Would it have been better if he joined the IDF

(do people not know Israel has mandatory military service? I've seen people agreeing with this by saying "refusing to join is the bare minimum, deciding to enlist is horrific". But they're not enlisting, it's conscription. Do they think this person enlisted then withdrew or something...? And why would that not be worth celebrating???)

The answer is ofc this person hasn't really thought about any of this. It's just raging id and an idea that engaging in online discourse is what's truly helpful. It's like the people who treated Hozier as if he was some pro-genocide goon for saying there needs to be "peace" in a statement far more condemnatory than most, since...I still don't know. "How can you talk about peace when one side's oppressing the other?" Well ending that is what peace is, definitionally speaking. How else will it end but with a treaty

The scenario here seems to be, we need the genocide and occupation to end. But also we can't support any Israelis trying to stop it, and should be sus of activism in general. Also we can't talk about "peace" in any way. We just need to post about how it should happen

Anyway when people pointed this out they instantly locked replies and said the "kumbaya libs found it 💔"

It reminds me of those people who swarm any story about Russian anti-war activists by saying it doesn't matter unless they personally assassinate Putin. Like cool. I guess people in the oppressor state should just do nothing to oppose it then if they can't fix anything. Screaming at someone who refuses to join the military that it's actually very problematic that they aren't joining in the oppression, when there's so much oppression to oppose instead of praising them for refusing to join the oppression

[kb-jank]

Tim vs Damian beef is so funny to me like😭

Like no shit Tim hated Damian, imagine you're trying to live your life and keep getting bodied by a fifth grader who constantly insults you.

"He's a teenager! He shouldn't have beef with a ten year old!" WRONG, have you ever meet a teenager?? I have beef with MULTIPLE ten year olds that I don't even know, let alone are my YOUNGER SIBLINGS. Get off your phone and stop engaging in Batfam Tumblr discourse and go fight some preteens smh STEP UP YOUR GAME!!

And OF COURSE Damian hated Tim, his frontal lobe was practically negatively developed.

Homeboy grew up in a murder cult, and he tries to...murder someone? WHAT IS THIS CONUNDRUM??? Are we shocked that the kid who only knows the hierarchy of the League didn't automatically unbrainwash himself the moment he stepped into the custody of the oh so caring and sweet and understanding BATMAN? I'd send Tim flying too if I was Damian, sorry not sorry.

And I'm gonna hold your hand when I say this but Tim can be an asshole, and I'm gonna need your other hand cause Damian can be an asshole too. And I'm gonna need a third hand cause I hate to break it to all the warring stans out there, but they don't even hate eachother anymore in the comics, they're lowkey chill.

In conclusion, don't hate Tim because of Damian, there's so much better things to hate him for! Like his stupid haircuts! And his gay ass boat! And don't hate Damian because of Tim, put some god damn passion into it. Hate him because he's a theatre kid, hate him because he'd love Fortnite.

[bringthekaos]

I'm excited for your thoughts on the new season if/when you share them

It has legit taken me 3 days to come to terms with Act 1. Enough to be able to speak about it. Gunna apologize in advance for the wall of text, and I’m hiding it under a break for spoiler reasons. Also prefacing with these are all just my opinions. All are free to disagree with me and RB with discussions/theories etc. just don’t be a dick about it, I’m not engaging in any discourse.

Ok. So. I have mixed feelings, and I’m aware that this is because I don’t have the whole story yet. So this is all contingent on how the rest of the season plays out.

First and foremost, I’m… wildly swinging back and forth between love and disappointment for Viktor’s arc. So first the negative, and I’ll try to keep it brief because a lot of people have already expressed this and I don’t need to be beating that particular dead horse.

Viktor has had his agency, his bodily autonomy, his original ideas and nearly everything that made him Viktor stripped away. Nothing so far has been his choice. And while this could have worked just fine for an original character, he wasn’t. So there is a massive disconnect between what this character was/should have been. In League, it was all his choice (albeit with a healthy dose of mental illness thrown in, but still). AND it was very heavily suggested that many of the augmentations he performed weren’t as extensive as he lead everyone to believe (namely the controlling/dousing of his emotions). But it appears that whatever the Hexcore did to him, it’s real. He is clearly having a difficult time accessing his emotions, and if he can feel anything, it is limited to the point of him being completely stoic. And the thing with stoic characters is that you obliterate any emotional payoff for the audience. It’s very hard to make an audience feel an emotional connection to a character’s story arc when they themselves don’t feel anything (I have a theory about this though, but I’ll address it a little later in this post). And then there is the issue of Blitzcrank. Blitz was Viktor’s whole world, after his exile. How are they going to swing that? Like, I’m not even asking for Blitz to be in Arcane (that would be great, but I really don’t think they have time). But I stg if they take Blitz away from Viktor, make them someone else’s invention (my suspicion is Heimer or he finds the idea in Sky’s journal)… I’m sorry but no. This was Viktor’s idea, Viktor’s genius. I will genuinely be extremely upset if they take that from him too.

Then there is the whole situation with Sky. First, this girl was fridged. She was nothing but a plot device and continues to be just that. It feels hollow and forced, especially now that he’s hallucinating her as some sort of penance for what he did. (I have seen the prevalent theory that it’s the Hexcore using her image and his guilt to manipulate him, given that it “ate” her, and we have seen it “manipulate” him before when it punished him for trying to destroy it). But back to Sky—he barely acknowledged that poor girl. The reason for that can be argued, whether it’s because he’s gay or because he was just so wrapped up in his one-track minded research. But regardless, there just wasn’t enough setup between those two for this whole thing to have as much weight and meaning as I think it’s supposed to. Honestly to me (TO ME) it reeks of comphet. It feels like that random woman they threw at Poe Dameron to No Homo him. I’m not even asking for Jayvik canon. But the creators were well aware of this ship, after all it’s the second most popular ship in this show and it’s been around since 2012 when Jayce was literally created for Viktor. I’m asking for the bare minimum here—that it’s left open-ended as it was in League, open for interpretation.

Last negative I have is the whole Viktor Jesus thing. The first problem is I am pretty violently agnostic, and messiah narratives have never spoken to me. I don’t enjoy them, they feel weak. The whole “ordained by a higher power” thing is just… stale. Especially when this character originally had no higher power, he gave it to himself through his own hard work and ingenuity. Honestly, Viktor’s original arc is about as far from a Jesus allegory as you can possibly get. And I am absolutely terrified that they’re going to end said Jesus arc the way you’d expect—with him dying for it. Which leaves the moral of his story “disabled man should have just accepted that he was going to die despite the fact that it was the oppression and xenophobia of Piltover that left him out to dry, without proper health care, accessibility, equality, or equity that lead to his terminal diagnosis to begin with.” Which is a very oppressor-centric narrative and we do not need another one of those.

Sorry, I know I said I’d keep the negatives brief, and that was… not. My bad. But moving on!

I’m not saying I didn’t enjoy it, I did. I am working to embrace this new Viktor narrative and work it into my brain in a way that doesn’t ruin the ship for me. So without further ado, the positives.

Jayce.

Jayce.

Jayce.

I’d have to go back and time it, but it feels like he got more screen time in this first act than the entirety of the first season combined, and his character shined for it. It humanized him in ways season one never did. He’s caring, he’s devoted, and he loved Viktor! No matter what kind of love you think it is, it proves he loved Viktor without a doubt. He carried Viktor several city blocks to the lab to save him, and then YES, he broke his promise about the Hexcore because he couldn’t stand the thought of losing him!

And he’s funny! (The scene where he picks up the regular sized hammer in the fight against Renni and made that “this is ironic” face?? And then basically the entire interaction with Ekko? The hand me a tome thing, and then when he basically pulled this when Ekko suggested “so this is all your fault cuz you pissed off the Arcane”:

GOD that shit was great. Jayce’s personality just shined, and maybe it’s too much to hope, but maybe this will douse a little of the hate. Because instead of being a subtle hint at all of those things being true about him, it’s now overt. And when people lack media literacy, the hints have to be overt.

And th-the. The h. The HUG SCENE. I don’t think I will ever emotionally recover from that scene. Starting with Viktor who, despite being clearly emotionally—I dunno, vacant I guess—sounded so lost and scared when he said “what am I?” For me, it was whispers of that scene from The Last Unicorn: “what have you done to me?” And my poor sweet Jayce, who clearly hasn’t left this damn lab except to go to Cassandra’s memorial. Sleeping on the desk and bleeding through his bandages because he doesn’t want to spend a moment away from Viktor while he “recovers.” And his euphoric response when he finds Viktor alive, when he realizes he hasn’t lost him. And I OWE HIM AN APOLOGY, goddamn. I said in a post that “Jayce will not understand.” I thought that was how Arcane was gunna start the divorce. But Jayce genuinely did not care, as long as his lover friend was alive. And just… Jayce being so affectionate through this entire scene. The hug obviously, but also blurting things he thought he’d never get to say to Viktor—“I’m resigning from the council, my place was always here in the lab with you.”

And… the hug itself. I know we’re all analyzing it frame by goddamn frame, but I see exactly what everyone else sees—there is a moment where Viktor very subtly smiles. But it’s gone in an instant, and it turns bittersweet. LOOK AT HIM.

There is something there, it’s just buried. Deep beneath the surface. It seems to say “I want this, I have wanted this for so long.” But then he realizes something, something I don’t think we’re meant to understand yet. Maybe that he doesn’t feel anything about it anymore, and he recognizes that this should upset him and it doesn’t. Or perhaps it’s something more along the lines of “it’s too late.” Whatever it is, I think this is the exact moment he knows he has to walk away. Because he knows he’ll cave to the affection, he said it himself. (Which is another thing entirely. His voice changes when he says that. Something in him is reacting to that word. Maybe he’s fighting against it, or maybe he’s fighting to get it back. But something made him almost growl that word.)

Which leads me to my final thought (for this post anyway, cuz it’s turning into a novel); Viktor is still in there. He can still feel things, I just think they’re extremely muted by whatever the Hexcore did/continues to do to him, or he has to fight to express them. Because he also smiled at the hallucination of Sky after he “cured” Huck. And if he feels nothing, he wouldn’t have been “joyous” at the thought of her being proud of him, approving of the good things he’s trying to do in her memory. He wouldn’t crave that validation, that vindication from her. So I’m hopeful that we start to see this shell crack a little, especially if those visions of Sky are the Hexcore manipulating him through guilt. It will start to erode him, no matter how stoic he has become. And literally the only thing I’m clinging to is that Jayce will see this and try to pull him out. “He’s still in there and I have to save him.” And that maybe it’ll start to work.

[girl-dot-tzt]

Nice to meetcha!

Hey what's good I'm Tanith (she/her), been on hrt and prog for awhile. I like mountain biking, kink, anime, snowboarding, and shopping! Not on here too much but I like to post when I can!

[This blog will be a conglomeration of the things I like, that includes nsfw stuff so skedadle if you don't like that. (That means minors should kick rocks)]

A song I like alot lately is:

(This song changes regularly so check the bottom for the playlist)

My favorite anime are Jujutsu-Kaisen and Dandadan! I'm a sucker for new gen stuff!

Friendly reminder that this is a "no discourse allowed" page, I will not engage in discourse on this page.

I won't disagree with you, I will just block you. (Also like, if ur trying to glean actual nuanced opinions from an explicitly nsfw focused blog what are you even doing with your life?)

I'm just here to have fun and arguing with people isn't fun.

Cashapp: $ironicallyd3ad

I do this for attention, but I'm not gonna turn ya down if you wanna be generous

switch, but for most ppl a dom. Stronger than you would expect 😅

Dm me if ya want

This is the playlist with all the songs I've featured for this post, the current song changes regularly 💃💃:

(If you've read this far ask me for bike pics)

[joyswonderland1108]

Not Everything Needs Your Western Lens (or Your Loud Opinion)

You know what really pisses me off? People running their mouths online like they’ve been personally blessed with the divine knowledge of the entire K-pop industry, Korean culture, geopolitics, sociology, and Jungkook’s group chat. Like. Be serious.

If it was a cultist flapping their gums, I’d roll my eyes and scroll because we both know their brain has left the galaxy — no brain cells on board. But Jikookers? Some of you? I thought we were smarter than this. I believed we were above this holier-than-thou, chronically-online, context-deprived clownery.

Y’all are out here tweeting like you own the archives of reality. Spoiler: you don’t even own the basics.

You don’t know how things work in Korea. You don’t know who’s connected to who. You don’t understand the culture. You don’t know how K-pop — no, not "pop with Koreans in it," but the K-pop industry — functions. But you sure love westernizing everything with confidence levels unmatched.

I'm still thankful some actually used their brains and, in doubt, decided to stay silent and watch for more context and more information, "I don't know, so i won't jump to conclusions". THANK YOU!!

Let me be clear: Sometimes, things are obvious. Context or not, wrong is wrong. But sometimes? You need the full picture before you open your mouth and start swinging. Not everything is a specific color, especially when viewed through the lens of your extremely limited experience as an international fan who’s barely scratched the surface of the culture you claim to engage with.

I don’t know if it’s because many of you are new ARMY, or if you’ve never even attempted to understand the industry past wevserse posts and bubble messages. But what’s clear is this: You’ve made it impossible to hold any meaningful discourse without someone screaming through their echo chamber, treating their assumptions like facts and their ignorance like gospel.

And you wonder why so many thoughtful, well-informed ARMY have dipped off this hellsite.

It’s not just leaks and rumors. It’s you. The ones who don’t listen. The ones who refuse to learn. The ones who think every issue must bend to your personal moral framework without question.

I had every intention of making a full, well-informative post today. A post explaining how many things worked. I really did. But I’ve seen too much stupidity in too little time, and honestly? I’m not wasting my brain cells trying to talk to people who move like horses with blinders on.

So yeah — I’m pissed. I’m frustrated. I’m exhausted. And I’m done catering to people who don’t even try.

[pastellus]

Classics: What is Lost in Translation

There's a lot of discourse on the faithfulness of retellings, but today I want to talk about the sources themselves. A lot of us engage with the classics in languages that are far from the ones that they were originally written in, and to do so we must do so through translations.

Translators are incredibly skilled people. When it comes to Greco-Roman works, most of them are Classicists who have dedicated their lives to the study of these. But, we should remember that no translation is perfect, by virtue of being translated. What does this mean? It is very rare, even in languages that are related to one another (think Romance languages, like Spanish, French, and Italian) for a word to have a direct translation that carries over every meaning and connotation of the original. This means that while there may be an apt word to take the place of the original, certain meanings can be lost in translation, especially when translating literature, where the choice of word in itself is an artform that can convey much more meaning than what's evident (wordplay, implications, rhyme, etc.). A translation should convey all of the original meaning of the work being translated, but what is the best way to do this? Is it through coming as close as possible to word-for-word faithfulness as we can, or by taking some liberties in favour of trying to expressing what the original author conveyed? This is a question that has been a topic of debate for as long as translations have existed, and people are divided on the answer still. Personally, I stand at a middle ground: faithfulness to the text is important, but oftentimes, it can result in us missing a lot of meaning, so a degree of liberties taken is acceptable if it does result in conveying that meaning. Let's also keep in mind that translations can become dated overtime! Language evolves as time passes, and with it, the meaning of words changes. Such being the case, what conveyed a certain meaning to someone a century ago may no longer do so for the modern reader. This also why translation from an older form of a language to its modern one may result in a loss too. Are all translations bad, then? Not at all! If you want to engage with a piece of literature that isn't in your language, you can and you should! The classics are classics for a reason, and I personally believe that everyone should know these works because they're wonderful and there's so many incredible translations of them out there! So, mainly, I just want people to be aware that not everything that we see in a translation may be entirely faithful to the source; we may never know exactly every single thing of what Homer intended to convey, because we're not his original audience, engaging with his work at the time that it was written, and in the language that it was written. Some translations come much closer than others and are praised as much more faithful, and you can find a ton of discussions online where the virtues and faults of one translation vs another are compared. I would love for people to be encouraged to look into different translations of works that they enjoy, because it's fascinating to see the differences in choices made by one translation and another. Translation is an art in its own accord, it takes incredible skill, and when reading a translation we're not just engaging with the work of the original author, but with the interpretation of a certain translator — viewing the classics through their eyes.

[blood-starved-beast]

Something that is lost in all the discourse around Arcane s2 Jinx, her relationships, with Caitlyn and such is that - Jinx has a very particular relationship with violence. And that sometimes manifests itself in sadism.

Part of it I think, is cause in s2 we don't see it as much, or rather, she is getting the reckoning there for all the points of violence she enacted in s1 and anything she tries in s2 she immediately gets the consequence for it. Thinking her breaking into Vi's apartment in s2ep5 - break-in aside, the weird inappropriate way she blows in her ear, and then gets into her stuff and paints her face in a presumed mockery of Vi's tattoo - and she immediately gets pinned by Vi who responds like a caged injured animal (which hey she is in this case) and choked. But it's a sister-ly thing! one can argue but - is it? Do Vi and Jinx up to this point have that rapport that Vi can reasonably overlook that? That is no, cause since their reunion Jinx has made an effort to either hurt or terrorize Vi (and Caitlyn by extension). Jinx is not in a place to do so, to be like an annoying little sibling, cause she threw that out long ago. It's not until later, that Vi sees Jinx has changed (and part of that is due to Isha's help) but again Jinx had to change. Jinx was not just some innocent victim. Yes she was victimized, yes she's mentally ill and part of the fear of her comes from that. But also Jinx is sadistic and the way she engages with people since s1 act 2 reflects that.

Some examples:

-Killing the Firelights including and especially that one girl who looked like Vi. Why shoot her? Cause she upset her cause she happened to look like Vi? The earlier killing were moments of failings emotional control/mental instability and can be excused but this? Man. -The killing of the enforcers in s1ep4 - yes they are cops and who cares but the manner in which she does it speaks to Jinx and her character here. She doesn't have to be sadistic about it in the way that she was. -the way she engages with Thieram/Chuck and how he is clearly terrified of her. She has a reputation and then tricks him with a bomb which the poor schmuck thought was legit (until it wasn't). -Tying up Sevika for her words about Vi replacing her and such. Not even just the fact that it's cruel, she does it in a humiliating manner. -Kidnapping Caitlyn while she's naked and vulnerable, and deliberately building that up with the monkey shape. She knew what she was doing, and it was deliberate (yes Jinx's demons have made her into a bogeyman but it doesn't change the way in which Jinx engages with that bogeyman). Compare it to Silco's kidnapping, or even Vi's. Jinx's method here is deliberate. -Dinner scene - the fake out beheading scene with Vi and the Cupcake. -the Ultimatum with Vi - she tells Vi she can only have one thing or the other. She does not grant Vi the agency to choose and and tries to manhandle her. -After losing Silco, she reacts by shooting the Council. Not because she's some great hero who wants to make a Statement. She does it out of a lack of emotional control, and that (unintentionally) leads to Ambessa having an "in" into P/Z. She creates the Monster that is s2act1!Caitlyn. -Heenot being hung upside down and the dolls hanging from the ceiling and the dead dolls of the Striketeam which are gory as is.

What do I mean by this? I'm not saying it to mean that Jinx is meant to be evil or just ~ crazy ~ and should be hated. But I've seen a lot of people after s2 jump to say she's a perfect hero who has done everything right, who hate her choice to break the cycle. Cause it's not just about the things she's done to the Council/Piltover! She has to break the cycle in all the things she's done. Jinx has a reputation in Zaun as is in Piltover and those actions she's taken for forever will continue to isolate her even as she's changed or when ppl try to rebuild her in a way she isn't - the hero archetype. She has to run away.

And this is why too, she is a great foil to Caitlyn! And why Caitlyn always speaks in "we" when it comes to their mistakes. Caitlyn in s2 becomes the mirror to Jinx in that they both embody different forms of violence in s2 - Caitlyn's organized violence vs Jinx's chaos. Both harm a lot of innocents in the process. They cannot erase their mistakes, but they can break the cycle and move on.

Anyways this is to say, Jinx is a very complex character. She has many facets to her, the alleged hero she denies the role of (cause she doesn't care, doesn't care about community as a whole like that it takes her Isha, losing Silco the way she did even Vi for a bit, and s2act2 to treat see humans as people and not dolls she plays with), the scared and hurt child, the part of her that struggles with her mental illness, the part that loves her family, loves Ekko. But it does not erase those worse off parts of her. And ignoring that side of her ignores the choices the writers make in the story. Why she decides to run away when Ekko shows her that she doesn't have to end it all. It's part of why timebomb and the sisters are doomed.

[lemotmo]

People are once again going off about Ryan being homophobic. Even when Buddie gets together, I know this unfounded claim will continue 🙄

Yeah, I have seen a couple of people posting about it and the discourse around it. It seems to be mostly contained over on Twitter though. Or I have really curated my Tumblr well, because I haven't seen anything like it yet. I'm not sure which one it is.

It's a laughable accusation really when you think of it. Ryan is the one who coined the Buddie name for the ship. How many times does he have to say in an interview that he wouldn't mind the story going into the Buddie direction? How many times does he have to say that it's important to support your loved ones when they come out to you, like Eddie supported Buck when he came out? The man talked about reading Buddie fanfiction and watching Buddie edits for crying out loud. He even reposted some Buddie stuff on his Instagram.

Anyway, I have accepted that some people will never give up making the guy into some kind of villian. Mind you, he isn't a saint, but neither are any of the other actors. They're all just people, like us. We've all made some dumb mistakes in life we wish we hadn't. But that's all a part of the journey of life.

Obviously I don't know the guy. None of us do. What we know about him is all very superficial stuff, but that's okay. I like Ryan and I'd love to get the chance to chat with him one day, but I admit that I'm mostly here for Eddie Diaz and what he has going on in his life. So I'm mainly invested in Ryan's bts or 911 interviews. I'm not as invested in anything he does outside of 911.

Look, it comes down to this: if people can't look past other people's mistakes after they have done everything in their power to apologize and show them they are trying to do better? If they can't move on after they have clearly been forgiven by the people that actually know them and love them best in life? Then that's on them.

So I don't care anymore. I just block the instigators that spread nonsense like that and move on. There is nothing to be gained by engaging these people. They already have their mind made up and nothing I or anyone can say will change their opinion of Ryan. I refuse to add fuel to the discourse. It only makes the discourse more widespread and problematic.

So let's all agree to do just that: ignore, block and move on. It will make everyone's fandom experience a lot more fun, I can guarantee you that.

I'm pretty sure that is exactly what Ryan does as well by the way. Him and Oliver are very similar in that regard. They just do what makes them happy, don't share too much about themselves and live their lives, ignoring all the social media shit. Combine that with a job they both seem to love? Yeah--

Good for them.

[franki-lew-yo]

Mouthwashing and fandom discourse as a whole.

So I recently explored the tag for Mouthwashing after watching two no-commentary lets plays of the entire game. I'm seeing a lot of posts pointing out how annoying it is that this game has a fandom and that this fandom is doing fandom things and stanning/"uwu-ing" characters from this incredibly nuanced, raw and not-fandom friendly piece of art. To paraphrase someone I just saw "you don't want mouthwashing; you want Among Us ocs but darker". And

for a moment I wanna talk a bit about how I absolutely agree with this statement while also talk for a moment about how and why fandom and catharsis fan fics exist and shouldn't be shamed inherently. Or, I guess, not in theory.

The "come on! Stop trying to make everything shippable/cutsey/memey/have a happy AU and face unpleasant emotions someone's trying to tell you about!" is SUCH a vibe with me. I felt this way in the 9 fandom a lot as a kid and that was just 9. Mouthwashing is like 9 on bathsalts emotions and theme-wise. It's a game where you play as both the flawed but caring captain of a doomed ship who's life becomes a Johnny Got His Gun-nightmare, and also a deplorable, hateful piece of garbage who got himself and his friend in that nightmare situation to begin with. Both characters, moreso Jimmy but Curly too, are the causes of their own misery. They're complex dealing with one of the two committing SA and doing nothing really about it/dodging the responsibility and humanity needed to support the victim whom they've wronged.

I fully admit it's groan-inducing seeing people be shipped up Anya with anyone on the ship considering what happens to her. On a pure pr level I think it would be illegal even since romance between coworkers in a workplace is considered conflict of interest/harassment as it so often is. (NOT that what Jimmy did to Anya is 'romance'. I'm talking about the shipping of Anya with the other three guys. I know there's people out there who do ship Jimmy/Anya; you don't have to tell or show me I believe you and also I already hate it.) It's ALSO groan inducing to see people ship Curly and Jimmy considering all Jimmy does to him- and just the fact that this incredibly tragic, toxic one-way-gone array friendship is reduced to "toxic yaoi teehee". It's annoying AT BEST.

I get the hostility towards fandom-tastic stanning and fandom behavior in general...the issue is it's still hostility and I wish some of you guys got that.

Like it or not (you don't have to like it) fandom culture is inevitable to some degree. You can and should complain about your hangups but that's all you can do besides avoiding tags and just not engaging with that side of the fandom at some point. Save your call-outs and rage for when you see active deplorable bs being committed that people are excusing for dumb fandom reasons, like lolicon, hatespeech or harassment. I'm sorry but you can not actively go after and try and take down the innocent people involved in your trigger that aren't directly hurting you by liking the thing that triggers you; ie. people who get all shipping and fandom-brained about Mouthwashing's characters which you find offensive to do at all.

This type of convo is the crux of most 'antifandom' v profandom discourse in general; for Antis I think there ought to be a difference between the people that set you off bcuz of fandom nonsense vs sociopathic 'got mine'-creepiness. There's a difference between someone who draws r34 v Shadbase. For profandom types you out to face the fact that yes- maybe NOT EVERYTHING is meant to be shippable/memed. Maybe try practicing that a bit. Yeah it's mostly harmless and makes you feel happy, but considering how people outside of your hyperfixation-of-a-hyperfixation is a thing. Asking to care or think about others once in awhile is not an attack on you as a person, believe it or not. The thing about the "don't like, don't read" argument is it goes both ways. If you're truly a "good fan" like you say you are than you have to realize that people will not like your problematicisms. Learn to interact with characters and stories without the possibility of shipping sometimes- or at least understand that that's the crux of what makes a story like Mouthwashing engaging, even if you also partake in the fandumb and AUs on the side. You can call Curly your babygirl and ship him or make him happy all you want but PLEASE acoknowledge that the game doesn't woobify him or excuse what he did to Anya as well. You can make some kind of AU scenario where Jimmy gets out somehow and becomes/is a slightly better person for all I care...so long as you PLEASE remember that he is canonically a r@pist and awful. Also, even if I'm okay with your fan decisions, note that myself and others are still going to be critical and be upset that you wrote it at all because of what kind of character Jimmy is. 'Critical' =/= declaring something evil.

Fandom behaviors are not souly a destructive parasocial outcome of brainrot; they're also a natural reaction to what happens canonically and the emotions you have to experiencing a story. It's normal and rational to sympathize and love Curly and despise and hate Jimmy. You can love/like/enjoy a problematic-to-DEEPLY DISTURBED-character based on their complexity in canon. They are fiction. They are not real. The reason you are so invested with them is because of that complexity and yes because they are fiction they are your 'toy' and you can doll them up in any kind of speculative AU crap you make. That's fanfiction, baby. Make yourself a fixit fic if you really want

BUT-

remember: it stays as a fixit fic. DO NOT cross the streams, or insist that your active misreading of the text is the same as the text itself. EVER. You should care about your special interest's escapism as a means of self-care. What you shouldn't do is demand that EVERYONE ELSE LOVE your coping mechanism and that any complaints by people on their own terms on their own blogs is #badfaith or an inherent attack against you. It isn't. You'll know when it is an attack against you and that's when you, the profandom-type, need to be prepared and save your call-out posts and blocklist for.

To me that's the fragility to fandom debates and fandom as a whole. You can not/should not police or control an entire group of people and how they perceive or interact with media. That's not fair and it's definitely not sporting or decent of you in a community. You have to share your community -your fandom- with people who hate ur fav and people who love your least fav. Agreeing to disagree means not tagging your nOTP as their shipname or by tagging your shipname loud and clear. It means filtering out posts with those topics but enjoying and/or reblogging the fandom takes you do share with your fellow fandom-mite that obviously posts abt those topics.

When schmit REALLY goes down and some assface reviewer/fan/SOMETHING is being an assface or doing something amoral under the guise of fandom-ing, that's where you out to put your foot down. Callouts and complaints are for people who did an egregious thing and refuse to take responsibility(lol) for it. They're not for "soandso likes the thing that triggers me, kill them"/"so and so is hating on the thing I'm kinning because it triggers them, kill them". Be an adult.

Your DNI lists should consist of "lolicon defenders" not "proshippers", as those ARE NOT one in the same. Same goes the other way around. List off "bigots, purity culture bs", not "antis and critics". These positions ARE NOT interchangeable. If you make them interchangeable than you're making things a lot harder for yourself.

-sincerely, a message from autistic ADHD/OCD woman who likes horror and media analysis as much as she loves popcorn fanfic schlock.

We don't all have to be friends and buddybuds. I just hate us hurting each other over being different kind of fandom-folk rather than for when someone sincerely mucks up and does something bad. Can't we all stick to our guns and just boycott Harry Potter like god intended?

[hsvh-hp]

Hi! Thanks for all the responses -- I hadn't realized how many chapters I'd gotten through since your last round until I saw the emails lmao

I was wondering, in regards to this:

And omg, I totally feel you on being a trans person in the HP fandom. It's very weird how my tumblr dash is set up. I have mutuals still from old fandoms who are queer, and I feel so ostracized from them at times when they toe the line of 'anybody in the HP fandom supports JKR, you're a bad person if you're still engaging with it'. I'll spare you the essay on why I disagree with that, but oddly the safest place I feel on the internet as a trans person is in the HP fandom. Which is weird at face value, I suppose, given what JKR is doing, but we really are separate from her. I've yet to see substantial evidence that fandom, which is infamous for generating zero revenue, is floating trans peoples' demise. It's just a thought crime, I guess.

if you would, perhaps, not spare me the essay? lol

I feel the same sort of ostracization which is especially frustrating when I am in such "thought crimes are fake!" circles, and I'm interested in your perspective, if you want to give it!

Sure, I’ll offer my perspective on it! This is probably best broken down into bullet points:

1. JKR was already a billionaire before she came out as a TERF.

There is nothing in the world that will change this status. Even if every single person currently engaging with her various IPs immediately dropped them, JKR would still have a billion plus dollars to drop on anti-trans movements and whatever. A billion dollars is immensely difficult to picture. The easiest way is to think like this: if you make $50,000 a year, the equivalent of her dropping $75,000 the other day is you spending $3.75. How often do you spend 0.0075% of your income and give it any thought? JKR’s wealth is not directly tied to ‘levels of fandom engagement’.

Which leads to…

2. Boycotts don’t work.

Sorry. They don’t. Not against someone this politically powerful. If they did, the flood of people out of the HP fandom in 2020 would have had a measurable effect. What did have a measurable effect? People not going to watch the Fantastic Beast movies (because they were hot trash lmao). Not giving JKR any more money works in the sense that it cripples her future projects, but it has zero effect on what’s already in her purse.

Also, think of boycotts this way: wasn’t it hilarious watching conservatives try to boycott the Barbie movie, Nike, Bud Light, and whatever else they’ve systematically locked on to? But so then why do progressives/the left/whoever think it’s going to work the other way? Like with Hogwarts Legacy? Just don’t interact with the media, dude. And if you do, pirate it.

3. Fandom is not mainstream. I have never seen any data to substantiate that participating in a fandom directly correlates to dollars for the IP. Copyright literally prevents that from happening. To bring up to popular saying, “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism”, fandom exists outside of capitalism—for me, at least, as a fan fiction writer. This is a hobby to me. I have never seen a red cent for any of the hours of work I’ve put into my fics.

And I can probably guarantee that no one has stumbled upon Harry Potter through me, lol. They didn’t read one of my fics and go, ‘you know, I should check out what source material this is coming from’. Harry Potter is so well-known that there’s no way they came in blind.

Also, the TERF discourse is very much an online thing. I work retail irl and I’ve had conversations with customers who’ll say “you know, I really don’t get all this hubbub against trans people” but are too boomer to be anything more than tangentially aware that Harry Potter is a Thing. Like, ‘oh yeah, my kids read those books when they were coming out, but I never bothered’. One of my employees bought a set of the HP books because they were on a wicked deal at Costco, and when we were discussing it I told her that while I still enjoyed HP, I wasn’t comfortable giving JKR more money because she’s extremely transphobic and donates a lot of money to anti-trans causes. My employee was horrified and said that had she known that, she wouldn’t have bought the books. Lots of people just don’t know!

Which takes me to…

4. This type of online activism isn’t effective.

I’m talking specifically about being anti-Harry Potter or anti-JKR. Falling into those two categories does not automatically make you pro-trans. This was pretty blatantly obvious back when the books were being burned for promoting witchcraft. As far as fighting for trans peoples’ rights, screaming until you’re blue in the face about how anybody who engages with Harry Potter is a traitor and JKR BAD is wasting time better spent doing something productive - something that could actually benefit trans people rather than…I don’t know…virtue signalling that their blog or twitter account is a safe space?

5. I personally do not feel welcomed or vouched for by these people.

Listen, I’m going to break myself down into all my stupid little categories. I’m trans. Autistic. Intersex. Aromantic. Asexual. Basically, all the things that people love to try and cast out of the queer community, whether that means they’re trying to split LGBTQIA+ at the T or Q.

The anti-Harry Potter stuff, as far as attacking the fandom, feels like the latest strain of purity politics to me. As I’ve laid out above, abandoning HP will not right the wrongs of JKR in any measurable or tangible way. Boycotts don’t work. Fandom does not feed JKR’s coffers, and destroying the fandom will not cripple her. There are trans people inside the HP fandom, and what of us? Are we traitors? Are we not ‘really’ trans, because obviously we don’t care about the current political climate? Are we just confused and need to be enlightened as to what harm we’re doing? Where have I heard this rhetoric before?

One small thing, tangentially related:

6. I don’t care what JKR says about how engaging with Harry Potter tells her about who her ‘supporters’ are.

Seriously? She’s a lying dirtbag, and I’m just supposed to take her word on this? This is the one thing she just so happens to be right about?

When she started spouting TERF shit, I was really saddened by the writers who, upon leaving the fandom, also deleted their works in protest. Seeing as the majority of the HP fandom is queer, I’m sure that JKR was very pleased with the amount of queer media erasure that occurred. Why did we do that for her?

7. I believe JKR actually seethes and malds over the prospect of her fandom being queer and producing queer content.

As a writer, there’s a special kind of pain that comes from someone not quite interpreting your work the way you would have wanted them to. What do you think JKR’s first reaction was when she first learned about the Harry/Draco ship? The Draco/Hermione ship? If she didn’t live in a stone castle, I bet she would’ve punched a hole in the wall.

So, yeah. Transing and gaying all of her characters is a pretty nice way to get to her in a way that she can’t legally or financially retaliate. Every time she screams ‘WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?!’ at the queer people in her fandom, a trans person’s crops are watered.

8. The HP setting is very welcoming to trans people.

Potions exist that can change your body. Enough said.

That the Harry Potter books never really says anything specifically about trans people (NOTE: obviously JKR’s prejudices even back then showed through, but this isn’t about that) leaves the question on the table. Obviously trans people exist in the Harry Potter setting, because they exist everywhere. So, how did they never get any page time?

Well, who says they didn’t? In a setting where potions exist to change your body, trans people are just…people. I don’t even think that they would have a marginalized identity because gender dysphoria would be something very easily treated. Think of it like someone who takes medication for blood pressure. They need the medication, it’s life-saving, and while there isn’t a magical pill to ‘cure’ high blood pressure, it can be managed. The magical world revels in being strange. Why would being trans, while being considered strange here in the ‘Muggle’ world, be anything other than normal there? Why can’t it be?

And then there are Metamorphmagi. People who can literally change themselves at will! If that isn’t a trans person’s dream, I don’t know what is. I would personally love the option of being the biggest, hairiest dude with a dick so big an erection would make me black out, and then ultra femme and delicate the next.

Last on this point, Harry never notes anyone specifically trans in the text (NOTE: touching on things like the physical descriptions of Rita Skeeter and Marge Dursley, JKR tends to do the ugly=bad person thing. Although she describes Rita and Marge as mannish in appearance, they aren’t trans characters. They’re women that JKR wants to frame as bad people. Like I said above, this is JKR’s prejudice showing through). If Harry never notes anyone as specifically trans, that probably means that it’s impossible to tell at face value. The same as blood pressure medication, to return to that analogy. How do you know someone is on them? They tell you. You see the pill bottle and happen to know what that medication is for. They complain about side effects. They complain about the symptoms that led them going to the doctor in the first place.

9. Queer HP fandom content can potentially be how a Harry Potter fan realizes that they’re queer (or that queer people are just regular folks).

Hey, the first one happened to me!

If someone comes into the Harry Potter fandom unaware of JKR’s politics - maybe they were gifted the books for their birthday or happened to catch the movies on TV - it’s good actually that this person doesn’t fall right into an echo chamber of JKR’s politics. I’ll be happily here to correct her record in a way that isn’t shaming or policing them.

Anyway, I think that’s everything lol. To summarize:

- The HP Fandom is a neutral setting. Engaging with it doesn’t help JKR, and not engaging with it doesn’t help trans people. Just don’t spend money on official HP merch.

- If you want to be a pro-trans activist or trans political ally, please just ignore JKR and put all your focus on the real world.

- There are trans people in the HP fandom who are left feeling awkward and uncomfortable due to virtue signalling.

- Generating queer HP content is good, actually.

[thisweeksobsessionis]

New Fandom trends with anti-ship names

K, so probably not a new thing, but i have noticed a raise in the S.T fandoms with anti-ship names. I.e bylosers for anti-byler content and milkvan for anti-mileven content.

And as a byler shipper, i have no problem with the tag ‘byloser’ for anti-byler content, or content that isn’t byler friendly i genuinely don’t have an issue with anti-ship names. That’s what anti tags are for — they’re there to make your stance clear and to help keep your space curated the way you want it.

in some ways, anti-ship names can even be useful. depending on the platform or search engine, terms like “anti-Byler” will still show up in results for “Byler,” because the keyword is still in there. Which can be frustrating for people just trying to scroll through their ship tag in peace and obssess, it also highlights why people started coming up with completely separate names in the first place. if you’re really trying to keep your content out of the opposing ship’s ecosystem, using a totally different name (like "milkvans" instead of "mileven") is probably more effective. there’s less overlap in words which = less accidental exposure.

BUT — and this is where my concerns comes in — making up a completely separate name for a ship can have downsides too.

a) it can create an echo chamber. if you're only ever using your own little in-group language, you start losing the ability to actually engage with the broader fandom — or even recognize that other perspectives exist. it's like self-curation gone too far, where you're no longer filtering for your comfort, you're filtering out nuance.

b) it can encourage cruelty. when you're not even calling a ship or its shippers by their actual names anymore, it becomes way easier to dehumanize them. what starts as a little inside joke name can spiral into full-on mob behavior. and let’s be real — some people use these “funny” alt names as a shield to be genuinely mean without having to take accountability. once it becomes an us vs. them thing, the insults start flying, and actual discussion is out the window.

Curious about other peoples opinions should new anti-ship names (milkvan, bylosers) be encouraged for further separation and less risk of overspill, or discouraged as it can encourages to much isolation and pack mentality, not helping people engage in healthy fandom discourse. Cause when your part of a fandom you should be able to talk and disagree with other members of the fandom without it turning into an insult competition

i might just be overthinking

[inthefoxholes]

I really want to like Thunderbolts (or the other thing it’s called now, which I don’t want to spoiler here). I want to. It was a solid movie.

But everything Marvel kinda died with Steve’s ending for me, at least everything with Bucky in it. I wanted to like TFATWS, too, even though it was a total mess, because god help me, I’d watch about anything with Sebastian Stan in it, especially Sebastian-Stan-as-Bucky-Barnes.

Thunderbolts, unlike TFATWS and Cap 4, which I both disliked because of their specific content, was actually a solid movie I enjoyed. I would like to take a deep dive into the fics, art, short stories, all that amazing fan discourse. Found family, dysfunctional people trying to get along, snark! (None of those god-awful marvel quips that make any emotional engagement impossible, though, which was a major point in favor of TB imo.)

So I want to do that, but my brain says no. Where’s Steve? How is Bucky without Steve?? Because it’s not even that I think Bucky couldn’t live with this abandonment/rejection, I think he probably could, badly. It’s just that Bucky’s character is so enmeshed with Steve’s - so much of who they are - that I doubt he’d be Bucky with a Steve who’d do something like this.

Bucky is Bucky - always protecting his spitfire but principled best friend/lover, being saved by said friend/lover who through this becomes Captain America in the first place, breaking his brainwashing/programming because he remembers this is Steve, and he needs to protect Steve, and Steve means safety, and even if he cannot trust his brain at the moment, he can trust Steve because Steve always fights for what’s right not what’s easy - because Steve is Steve. But a Steve who’d leave Bucky for a woman he had a situationship with/crush on (?) seventy years ago, who’d willingly live in the past without being able to change it (no saving Bucky; no trying to influence Howard to be a better dad, no saving Nat, no… idk, prevent the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, Thanos etc.) would not be the Bucky’s Steve, not who got Bucky out of his conditioning.

So I want to like the movie. I want to be excited for Avengers Doomsday (even though I found all the Avengers movies messy, and not in a good way). I love seeing Bucky, but my brain kinda cannot compute it, cannot do anything with the information, and I 100% blame marvel for that and what they did to Steve (and thus subsequently to Bucky, as exhibited in TFATWS).