#anyway. sorry i derailed your post op

[boomstab-papa]

"We are still to this day harassed and told we deserved it by some."

Kind of like how terfs treat trans people, eh, butch-reidentified? Sound familiar? Fuck off.

Your bigotry is part of the fucking problem.

The way you start your blog off by demonizing trans women with accusations of "autogynephilia" - being sex perverts - precisely mirrors the way homophobes demonize LGB+ people as sex perverts. It's the same demonization that leads to hate crimes like this one.

Shut the fuck up.

The largest mass shooting in American history was a hate crime against gay people. Don’t ever forget that.

[nyoxt-was-here]

eugh grumblings ventings etc

Seeing this one post about likes/reblogs poking me in all the wrong places. Making my own grumbly post because *siiiiiiiigh* in the end of a day OP and others are right, viewers owe you nothing even if it is unpleasant to acknowledge, and I don't want to derail good message esp when it adds nothing good to conversation esp with something which is most definitely my own ages old traumas about never being noticed for the things I'm passionate about. "if you consider some1 liking your work "meaningless" why are you creating art in the first place?" Well maybe I make art to see some reactions to it, to feel less lonely in my creativity, to make new connections with like-minded people! Can a "like" scratch this itch? No-It's just a faceless thoughtless "number go up" thing. It feels kinda meaningless! It doesn't feel like a feedback at all! (And yes, that's only regarding "likes" on the creative posts, personal/life ones are a different thing) Grrrrrrr sorry, hope I don't sound like an ungrateful asshole, but I've got so many mixed feelings about the "like" mechanic. Anyway, no shade towards people who use likes on art, do what's comfortable for you, it is my personal resentment with a certain socmeds' mechanism, and desire for attention+unhealthy relationship with my work which will never go away. And bad mood probably

[eriisaam]

You can probably guess what inspired this, but what I'm about to discuss talks about a pet who passed away, bullying and harassment, and fandom discourse esque drama. If you're at all sensitive to any of these, it may be best to just skip this post entirely. Don't worry about it. The long and short of it is I'm just venting. Hope you have a good day.👍

---

You've all probably seen what happened with that cat poll between Jellie and Nefarious Anglerfish by now. Even if it's been a bit since, with it coming up again, I still can't shake off some lingering resentments of this being one of many examples of something I've seen and bottled up for a while now.

What the fuck happened to us? To fandom lately? What the fuck made enjoying things and letting other people enjoy things and liking or disliking certain things that turned into some kind of fucked up litmus test of whether or not someone is an appropriate target to just turn off all senses and be a complete asshole to them?

And over nonsense things like liking something someone else didn't like, or thought cringe, or thinks is overrated, or whatever. What the fuck happened to "cringe culture is dead"? And when did it evolve into "This person is ok to completely shit all over cuz they like Roblox/Minecraft/Undertale/Among Us/whateverthehell and that's cringe"?

No, dipshit, you're still an asshole whether they or you like those things or not.

Like, I'm sorry. I hate drumming up this issue when at this point the issue is long since done, the dust had settled, and that OP of that poll straight up fucked off.

But what gets me is how easily someone can "unperson" someone else - just shut off their brains, remove all empathy and common sense, and say the most horrendously cruel shit without a second thought - treating them like they don't have feelings and it doesn't matter if they do anyways, and over what?

Cuz they play Minecraft and you don't? They like something you think is stupid?? And you make fun of their loss of their cat for "milking the attention away" with their death and derailing attention from another cat in a fucking poll nobody's going to give a shit about by the end of the week??? Cuz the "cringey minecraft player"s cat died at a time too inconvenient for your poll?!

Fuck you. I said it before and I'll say it again: fuck you.

Back when I was way younger, what's now happening to Minecraft used to happen to a lot of things.

Back then? It was liking cartoons in general.

Then it was liking anime specifically on top of liking certain cartoons.

Then it was liking the "lame" (read: "girly") anime like Cardcaptor Sakura, Fruits Basket or Sailor Moon over the badass ones like Dragonball Z, Gundam or Cowboy Bebop. There were constant rotating fights of which anime was "cool" enough not to get shit on for liking it. (And there's still that shit even to this day, let's be real.)

Then it was liking Pokemon. Then it was liking Digimon. Then it was Yugioh, or Beyblade, or whatever. Then there's being a furry. Then it was being a brony or even tangibly liking My Little Pony. Then Undertale. Then Steven Universe, or She-Ra, or whatever the fuck else. Sometimes it's just the one thing. Other times it's an entire genre.

On and on and on the goalpost will keep changing when the old "cringey" thing stopped being an acceptable target, and there's a new thing people completely unload on without a second thought.

Like I said before. I used to be a pet owner. I've had, and lost, pets over my lifetime.

Back then I would've also been in that camp of "easily acceptable target cuz people who like pokemon/digimon/anime are losers who deserve it", and I've been on the receiving end of that shit all my life in and out of fandom circles back in the day.

When I lost my cat, it already devastated me. And I can't imagine the kind of way that pain would've magnified if I was still trying to cope with that, tried to find escapism just hanging out online or browsing or whatever, and someone took my loss to make fun of me about it cuz I was some cringey loser who liked pokemon, so they felt I deserved the kind of words that they wouldn't dream to say to the face of someone actually "worth respect".

Because how dare my cat die on a date that inconvenienced them and ruined their good mood. Some cat nobody gives a shit about, cuz she belonged to a pokemon fan, and we all know pokemon fans are huge no-life losers who never get anywhere in their lives, amirite?

It didn't have to be specifically Jellie, or even specifically about Scar.

In that moment, I saw me, when I was younger, going through that shit that's the same bullshit then as it is now, and where kid-me would've broke down and spiraled worse than I already had, adult-me wants to drop a fucking meteor on a bitch.

I said unkind things and lost my cool and I'm sorry you all had to witness that. By virtue of this post, I'm sorry you're still witnessing it now.

But I'm just so goddamn tired of seeing it, and that's not even the only time I've seen that shit happen, time and again over similarly petty bullshit. It's Minecraft now for whatever the goddamn fuck reason, but it could be anything next once Minecraft and those who play it stop being cool to bully. I've seen it in public with strangers in passing just as I've seen it thrown in the face in private at people I know. I've seen this shit thrown at friends just as much I've still had it thrown in my face time and again.

It never fucking ends.

Why is the message always "it's ok to say whatever the hell I want, as long as they like something that's cool now to shit on them over"?

When did we somehow stop caring about "If you're being a thoughtless asshole, I don't care if they like [insert acceptable cringe target here], you're still an asshole."?

[a-very-confused-gremlin]

THIS!!! like. when i was 12, i was evaluated for adhd. here's the thing: i did my research, and i did it WELL. i fuckin KNEW i had adhd. (i had researched and written 3 (unpublished) professional papers by that age, so i KNEW what i was doing.) but here's the other thing: i had trauma.

i knew better than to try and lie to a therapist, so i told her the truth. the result? she completely ignored what i was there for + tried to get me diagnosed with anxiety (which, by the way, i do not have. no idea what she was thinking there.)

this issue also ties into the societal belief that children and sometimes even teens are not inherently diverse, and instead are a monolith species, of which none are able to think and research for themselves. we infantilize, delegitimize, and look down upon kids because we think that none of them have brains. we view them, in many ways, akin to a pet.

you may protest this, but i have seen it on many occasions. i myself was treated EXACTLY like this, which is why you can TRUST ME when i say not a SINGLE ADULT respected me, even though i could think just as (in some cases, more) maturely as anyone in the room. because we do not treat kids the way we do based on their abilities or personalities -- we have an image of them in our heads that (no matter the child) we are talking to every time we come across someone under our age.

Like, I really need people who are against self diagnosis, the majority of whom had the privilege of being diagnosed in childhood or adolescence, to understand how racist, classist, and ableist this viewpoint is.

So many people of color go undiagnosed. Their adhd/autism is chalked up to behavioral problems and no one bothers to look into it further.

So many poor people don’t have the money to be able to afford getting a formal evaluation. That shit is expensive.

So many people get misdiagnosed. Afab adults in particular are more likely to get diagnosed with BPD when they actually have adhd or autism. People with a trauma history have their symptoms chalked up to trauma and all adhd/autism specific symptoms are ignored.

If you were diagnosed as a child or teen you have absolutely no right to dismiss people (especially adults, afab people, and people of color) and act like self diagnosis is harmful. Most people who self-dx do so after extensive research and they know themselves better than you. Self-dx doesn’t take anything away from people with a formal diagnosis; it helps the individual find an understanding community and coping skills that make their lives easier. If you’re bothered by that, that says a lot about your character.

[hairysexwizard]

This might be petty but i cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would reblog a post and add “i hope this isnt derailing-” instead of making their own post from the get-go. you could even link the post and go “hey this is in regards to the post i just reblogged” or even @ the OP. why go “sorry if this is derailing” you are clearly aware of what response could come of your addition so why apologize and do the thing anyways. it doesnt make sense to me im sorry

[tuesdayintheservantshall]

Jimmy has no right to *that* hostile (ie downright homophobic). He already almost threw Thomas out onto the street without a reference; if anyone has a right to be scared it’s Thomas; he’s now aware everyone knows he’s gay and he knows at least one or two of those people(one of them being jimmy) would happily throw him under the bus given the chance. He’s literally never been so vulnerable and there’s no need for jimmy to rub it in

Hey Nonny you’re my first official fandom argument! Or you were when I first drafted this over a week ago lol. Since then I've waded into some drama bc I have poor impulse control. Well you're my first argumentative anon still! Do I get a prize, or do you? Have an, um apple of discord: 🍏And I will have one too: 🍏 (Intended tone: genuinely friendly, although if you are not already aware you should know that in fandom spaces messages like these are generally considered hostile acts. Most people don’t want to argue with strangers about why their faves suck, and especially not in response to tags they made about their overwhelmed shippy feelings. (Although I guess if hypothetically you’re the OP of the post I put the tags on and weren’t comfortable with them being on your post that’s admittedly a tough place to be in. Coming to me with your face on and asking me to remove my reblog or the tags because you’re not comfortable with them runs the risk of me being an asshole or taking something in your phrasing badly and starting a big fight. Uh, the chances of that seem rather remote so I’m gonna leave the tags where they are unless OP comes to me and says “I hadn’t wanted to say anything but actually -”.) Anyway I’m not gonna derail this into a long(er than it is) ramble on preferred ways to discuss disagreements in fandom but I might post something like that at a later date.)

God I use way too many parentheses. Apologies to any with a blacklist for Jimmy (do I still have any of those? not sure), obviously I don’t want to put this in the tags. I shall tag this and any further discourse on the subject with “the storyline that shall not be named”. Let’s get (finally) to it!

So, the first thing I wanna say is: yes, Jimmy makes homophobic comments and that’s bad, both because Thomas being gay is not the reason he assaulted Jimmy and because there’s hypothetically a chance someone who doesn’t already know might figure out Thomas’s sexuality based on Jimmy’s comment(s? There's the one before the rope tug and then I could have sworn there was one other one but I'm blanking on what it actually was.)However a) the moment I was commenting on wasn’t one of the homophobic comments and b) I find it important to distinguish between the specific manner of hostility (sometimes homophobic) and the level of hostility (nasty remarks and making a constant point of distancing himself) and the level is in fact 100% warranted. If you think nasty remarks and pointed distancing are more hostile than a person has a right to be towards the guy who sexually assaulted them, then we have a pretty profound disagreement.

As for your other point, regarding fear: Thomas and Jimmy both have very compelling reasons to be afraid of each other but I have to ask exactly what you think Jimmy is “rubbing in?” He initially tried to retaliate excessively against Thomas, backed down from that, and then discovered that instead of facing a reasonable consequence for assaulting him, such as being fired but with a reference that reflected the fact that this was one very bad mistake rather than a pattern*, Thomas was promoted to a position of direct authority over Jimmy. Although Jimmy was bribed into not making a fuss about this rather than, say, threatened, I think he has nonetheless been given a fairly clear message from his employers that they will back the senior coworker who assaulted him against any potential consequence he might try to bring. From Jimmy’s point of view, which is admittedly blinkered by fear and self interest, Thomas is the one in the secure, powerful position and Jimmy is the one extremely vulnerable.

I don't even just mean from his point of view like, ~emotionally. Genuine question: what would happen if Thomas started being overly touchy-feely again, or did worse than that, and Jimmy went to Mr. Carson or Mrs. Hughes or Lord Grantham to report it? I really don't know, and neither does Jimmy. Personally, I'm guessing that whether they believed him would probably depend significantly on things like Jimmy’s demeanor, and exactly what words he used, and basically whether he came across as a victim or as a brat trying to get someone in trouble. And which of those things a person seems like has no particular correlation to the facts of what they’re reporting - as we can see from what happened the first time! Like, Jimmy came off as spiteful and nasty and instead of being fired Thomas was promoted. That is actually what happened! The fact that Jimmy's motives were mixed doesn't change the fact of what Thomas did: Jimmy, when evaluating his safety, has access to one really strong datapoint and that’s that last time the majority of his superiors came down on Thomas’s side, either from the beginning or by the end.

Now, it’s true that he’s had a year to observe Thomas’s behavior and make an educated guess that Thomas really is sorry and won’t do it again. We can only speculate as to what extent he may have reached that conclusion and why he has or hasn’t. Some possible reasons why he might not have: trauma blinkers, homophobic and sexist beliefs, sufficiently bad at reading people to not know what clues to even look for, too self-centered to bother thinking about it in those terms... we don’t know. And perhaps he does know perfectly well that Thomas won't do anything like that again and any lingering fear is of cooties or of people mistaking him for gay and him being in the line of fire along with Thomas next time! You can read him that way if you want. You can say “wtf I see no fear of any kind”. It’s a flexible canon and none of these interpretations are actually contradicted by the text. Indeed I happily read other interpretations and when I babbled in those tags it was more "this is the interpretation I am thinking about right now" than intended to assert it as my One True Headcanon that I will not deviate from. But Jimmy definitely has reasons to be afraid, and of more than cooties.

Of course Thomas also has logical and emotional reasons to be afraid of what Jimmy might do, I'm certainly not denying that. (In fact, one of the things I find so compelling about these two is that they both have such strong reasons not to trust each other and they both reach out anyway.) It seems that Thomas’s belief in who Jimmy is as a person supersedes those reasons (“He wouldn’t be so unkind. Not on his own.”) but if Jimmy has a similar belief about who Thomas he keeps it hidden at least until the fair.

P.S. please reconsider the phrase “has the right to be scared” in every context but especially when discussing someone’s reaction to a situation that involved them being sexually assaulted. I offer you the alternative “logical reason to be scared” or "compelling reason" as perhaps capturing what I hope you meant. I think that’s a language choice that really does matter a fair bit.

[genderfluidlucifer]

Response to being asked to give  an opinion on Connie’s calout by residentevil-4

(Tw: CSAM, rape fic, incest fic, predatory behavior, racism, ableism, kink mention, nsfw mentions. Minors should probably dni.)

“Connie and I know each other irl and went to school together for 3 years, although they now live in a different state and have cut contact with me. We went to a private therapy school in Manhattan as we're both disabled and were deemed unable to attend public school. Even though we were pretty close, Connie didn't like having photos taken of them, so I don't have any selfies of the two of us; however, these are from our sophomore and senior yearbooks which at least confirms that we were in the same year at school. People who have seen Connie's selfies should be able to confirm that that is what they look like. First and foremost, Connie is not TMA. They are intersex and the two of us have discussed intersex issues both in person and online, but they are still decidedly CAFAB.” Ok so first off, I want to address this part of the callout. To be honest...was it really necessary to literally doxx Connie ehre? Because this textbook definition of doxxing. Yes Connie’s done some shitty things but I freally don’t think that what they’ve done warrants this level of doxxing. Or...even better, any doxxing. This feels like a really unnecessary breach of privacy, revealing sensitive information on Connie’s childhood that they choose to confide in you with. I really don’t agree with this aspect of the callout as it feels very invasive and bordering on stalkerish.  Btw when I say bordering on stalkerish I’m not directly calling you a stalker Bonnie. Just so we’re clear. I am not defending Connie supposedly faking being TMA. Because faking being TMA is a very serious issue. HOWEVER since I don’t know Connie irl and to be quite frank it’s none of my business what the nature of their agab is. Were not close and I’m certainly not going to like lead Connie onto thinking we’re friends just to confirm this with them because that would be creepy. So to be honest I’m going to take this part of the callout with again of salt for now.

[ID: A cropped screenshot of a numbered list Connie posted to their blog hadrosaurs in response to an ask. 

“3. I’m TMA And that’s completely irrelevant. I’m not accusing them because of their gender I didn’t even know their gender when they said that to me saying that they said that because they fucking said that and the reaction to it was incredibly alarming. Don’t fucking say that stuff to people.]

I mean I”m not a trans woman so take this with a grain of salt if you want but...I don’t see how this is really proof of Connie being deliberately transmisogynistic? Yes Connie gives iffy retellings of mistakes they’ve made in the past. I’ve seen that on their blog before and I won’t pretend it doesn’t happen. BUT here they sound genuine enough and to be honest a growing issue I’ve seen with callouts as of late is. A person confirms they in fact did not do the thing they were called out for. And then the people who make the callout choose to see it as proof of incriminating behavior anyways. To be honest it’s a big problem and it’s also incredibly unfair to the person being called out. If you’re so determined at that point to see the person as bigoted no matter what they say then of course anything they say can be seen as proof. So I’m going to have to pass on this bit of evidence. “Connie responded: “Final note: I have spoken extensively with several trans women about using TMA to describe myself. I will not be getting into discourse about that on this blog again. All that leads to is people demanding my medical records and calling me slurs. If you wanna have a thoughtful conversation about it direct message me cause it’s not happening again here.” Again this really doesn’t seem all that self incriminating. Connie mentions here that they’ve talked to rl trans woman about whether or not they can be considered TMA. Connie really doesn’t have to disclose that personal information to people for any reason. Yes even when people are e including this ask response in a callout. And considering lots of people DO get invasive about Connie’s medical history ans general personal life over matters like this? I feel their reaction is pretty understandable here. “Connie has constantly compared “exclusionists” (or anyone, really) to TERFs, even when the people in question are not transmisogynistic, trans exclusionary radfems, or are even transmisogyny affected themselves.

“ Gonna have to disagree with this part of the callout too. Lots of ace inclus blogs, even some run by trans women , have proven that the ace exclus movement was started by swerfs/terfs. But the blog that has the most evidence for this is courteousmingler on tumblr. I suggest you check out that blog’s archiving of the history of ace exclus rhetoric before rushing to call me a transmisogynist for disagreeing with this part of the callout. I looked through all of the evidence for Connie being racist and tbh as a black ndn it all feels incredibly flimsy. It’d be one thing if Connie was using their experiences to derail and invalidate the discussions about how black people are oppressed But they weren’t doing that there at all. This part of the post feels incredibly biased. And like OP is looking for things to be mad about. Going to have to pass on this list of evidence. Also uh I seem to recall that residentevil04 got called out for some questionable behavior as well. “Both me (insepsy, hi) and ezrat have had really weird spikes in activity on our Statcounters, both on the same day. (Saturday, 4/17/21) For both of us, majority of the pages looked at by these visitors have been related to or about Connie, or have been posts that Connie would find "problematic" such as the f slur untagged or something related to "panphobia"/aphobia. I’m sorry but...none of the proof of cyberstalking holds any water. Visiting someone’s blogs and rbing posts to disagree with them is not cyberstalking. Keeping tabs on urls that an abusive person who has harassed are using so you can block them (in this case with kyoshi) and warn your mutuals is not stalking. As a victim of rl stalking it’s...really weird to call this legit stalking at all. Much less claim that you have damning proof of it being stalking when no such evidence exists in the callout. Besides after Connie and nonbinarydave called out one of kyoshi’s buddies for sending a death threat hate anon to nonbinarydave’s toddler st4lker partly admitted to doing it a few times. Then other mutuals in kyoshi’s toxic social circle clearly began joining in. Making side accounts where they tried to spin a false narrative of nonbinarydave’s daughter being one of their alters (ableist as hell.) And also trying to do it in such a way that they thought would trigger nonibnarydave’s psychosis (also ableist as hell.) If you’re going to drag Connie for their mistakes and never let them move on from those mistakes then it’s only fair to do that to people you agree with who also do toxic/bigoted things. ALso the fact that your wording here suggests that you think panphobia and aphobia aren’t real makes me doubt this claim even more. Exclus and their allies are notorious for mislabeling inclus disagreeing with them as stalking. “connie said that they would release that info at a later time and the minor began to argue with them that they had a responsibility regardless of their complicated relationship with age. in this argument connie for a time kept their age ambiguous and at one point told the minor (who confirmed in a later ask that they were severely traumatized by adults) that they obviously weren’t traumatized. connie quickly deleted this ask and any mentions of it and the next post they reblogged was about how wrong it was to try and quantify or discount others’ trauma. on my old blog i @ed them in the replies and asked if they had just done that. connie admitted to it and said it was fucked up but quickly blocked + deleted my comment. i can’t remember whether or not connie apologized to the minor, they may have? but yeah. i thought that was pretty weird.”] I do agree with some of the concern here that adults shouldn’t over expose minors in discourse. I’ve been contemplating this for awhile myself. And trying to figure out how to take better steps to avoid including minors who are triggered by discourse in discourse, especially. HOWEVER I have one little issue with this addition to the callout. If that is the case then exclus and their allies need to practice this as well. You cannot ignore the fact that the reason a lot of minors are getting involved in exclus discourse is due to adult exclus and their allies forcing minors to pick a side in the discourse. Y’all are not at all exempt from this problem. I still remember an ex mutual of mine trying to convince a minor to agree that aces can’t face corrective rape. And based on how aggressive it got with me when I tried to avoid giving an opinion on the matter, I can’t imagine that it would’ve reacted better to the minor refusing to give an opinion or to the minor outright disagreed. Refusing to put these standards on exclus and their allies is both hypocritical and quite frankly very transparent. The claims about them glorifying dark topics on AO3 through their fics also seems unfortunately legit. I mean those asks of shaming people who ask their viewers to not romanticize or glorify abusive relationships in their works is very damning. I’m very disappointed to see that Connie has taken being an inclus to the point of validating antis anti culture wholeheartedly. I can’t think of much more to add to my opinion on that part of the callout. As for the issue of Connie interacting with pro shippers in the past, I do know that this claim is legit. I’ve seen it before and so has Breeze. This was why for a brief time we decided to stop following their blogs. Because it was triggering to have pro shippers put on our dash. And sometimes we just don’t feel it’s worth it to always let people we’re platforming know they’re rbing triggering stuff. So sometimes we just quietly unfollow and choose to not interact until we’re sure they’re filtering what they do and don’t rb in some way. I definitely don’t agree with that behavior. And if they’re still doing that I”ll deplatform again. “The anon asks: “A weird question but do you know any other stimboard blogs with your follow criteria? (No radfems, racists, fandom antis, etc.) I was hoping to find more through your “similar blogs” but a lot have no anti-antis for their DNI or allow truscum/transmeds and exclus. :(“

The user responds: “I know of @turtle-pond-stims, @outofangband, and @kinaesthetics! 🍂🍄" “[ID: A cropped screenshot of an ask sent by Connie from their now-deactivated blog, butch-with-a-tortoise.

Connie says: “hey anon I have safe stim blogs. dm me if you want them. And radfems/bigots aren’t allowed to interact. For my own safety (because the community is honestly terrifying) I can’t publicly say on my blogs that I’m safe for proshippers/kinky people but I try to spread word how I can.”] [ID: Screenshot of a post by evilwriter37, which reads, “I’ve been seeing posts about fandom police leaving ao3, and it’s like: Good. We don’t want you here anyway. Go find your own fanfiction site.”

The post is tagged “#Fandom #AO3 #Antis #Purity Culture” and has 87 notes. It was posted on December 21st, 2020.

There is a reply from main-to-outofangband-andothers saying: “there are Silm antis on that site who are against Russigon (Maedhros and Fingon) not because they’re cousins but because they’re both male (coded)”] [ID: A screenshot of an anonymous (though signed off as being from outofangband) ask sent to evilwriter37, which says, “Melkor and Viggo solidarity is ‘Look there’s nothing wrong with keeping my enemy chained up in my personal chambers at all times so please just focus on the war efforts and I’ll focus on the boy* in my chambers’ -@outofbangand.

*boy used figuratively @ antis”

The user responds: “Pfft!!! Hahaha! You’re absolutely right! (And Viggo does refer to Hiccup in canon as ‘my boy’).”] I can’t really say anything to refute this. Because these are all posts of Connie outright stating that they disagree with antis. And not only sympathize with anti antis but are fully against antis. Looks like very damning evidence. Although ngl I’m not entirely against kinky blogs as a whole? Just so long as they truly stay in their lane with their kink content. And don’t force it on others in any way. Or shame people who are triggered by their kinks. It is true that being entirely against kinky blogs no matter what is dipping your toes into swerf rhetoric. Tbh I’m not going to look at the rest. This is pretty much all I need to make a decision on whether or not I”ll continue platforming Connie. Though I will try to get some more  perspective from people who I interact with as well. Because I feel better about making a more definitive decision after doing that. Also in general please don’t not try to get an opinion from me on how I feel about syscourse. A lot of the claims about Connie’s age weirdness and them using their alters as a shield feel like syscourse to me. Especially if this callout was written by one or several singlets. Singlets should never be trying to judge how legit someone’s system is ever. Even if their system friends encourage them to. You can call out a horrible person with a system without trying to insinuate that they’re lying about their alters in some way. Doing otherwise is ableist ESPECIALLY if you’re a singlet. Also in general the reason I stay out of discussions of judging how someone is handling their systems is because it’s syscourse and syscourse is triggering for my system and I. If this post was an attempt to get me to give an opinion  on the validity of Connie’s system I don’t appreciate it. And I would appreciate not being dragged into such matters again, thank you.

In general there’s like a few parts of this callout that feel legit. Which is unfortunately cluttered with obvious bias and obsessive hatred of Connie. I’m not here to stan or coddle Connie. I know they are not a perfect person. Especially since no human being in the world is perfect. But I feel the way this callout was created was very sloppy since a lot of the evidence was messy at best. And some points were very hypocritical as well as there being some no true scotsman moments from OP. In acting like exclus never do any of the thing that they tried to call out Connie for. Which is behavior that I am not a fan of. This is why people need to be more careful about callouts and like make roughdrafts and have a more unbiased person helping them if they don’t feel they can do it on their own. I’m even trying to make a resolve to do better at that myself. So it’s not like I’m unwilling to put my money where my mouth is. Anyways those are all my thoughts on this messy callout. And tbh I’m not going to get too much more heavily involved in this. Because I need to focus on more immediately serious rl stuff more often, like doing what I can to get out of the hellish landscape of a house I currently am stuck in.

[transgender-anakin-skywalker]

okay so uh. cw for transphobia but this reblog i found made me insane and gave me brainworms so i want to talk about it a bit. i’m not going to attempt to refute the actual claims she’s making (ie: that menstruation is “a women’s issue” and that if women ≠ bio sex then feminism is doomed), i’m coming at this from the perspective that you already agree with me because i don’t care to argue with transphobes. i just kinda want to ramble about the terms she’s using and how they relate to the original post.

• screenshots start here •

• screenshots end here •

so like, this is stupid terf bullshittery but it also (imo) presents a very misleading version of the terms it’s trying to use. prescriptivism and descriptivism describe 2 kinds of approach linguists can take when analysing language, and neither one is necessarily “wrong”. descriptivism is often encouraged as a viewpoint for researchers within the world of linguistic scholarship, as looking at how communities use language without passing judgement on whether that language is correct or not often provides a better understanding of those communities than expecting them to conform to your standards. conversely, prescriptivism can be helpful in everyday communication, as many people have a much easier time communicating unambiguously when all parties involved have similar language (hence why i’m choosing to write this post by adhering mostly to standard english grammar, because most english speakers will have an easier time understanding me that way). again, neither one is inherently wrong, it’s just that different approaches can be preferred in different settings (and you can very much have prescriptivism in a scholarly setting, such as expecting your students to use the expected language of analysis for their essays, or descriptivism in a more casual setting, such as asking someone what they mean by a word that you use differently, instead of just expecting them to use your meaning).

okay then. so where does that leave us with This?

i’d argue that there are elements of both ideas in the original post. telling people which term is the right one is arguably a pretty prescriptivist approach (remember, this doesn’t mean it’s the wrong approach), however, talking about what other terms imply and how they are interpreted by listeners is a fairly descriptivist approach. saying that “women and people who menstruate” centres cis womanhood is very much descriptive. getting back to the point on prescriptivism though, telling someone that they should use different language because the language they are currently using is harmful to you is not necessarily a bad thing. “calling people slurs with the intent to upset them is bad, don’t do it” is a prescriptivist approach, as it makes a value judgement and attempts to change the language, however, i think most people would also agree with me that it’s a good take. as far as “what lens does this post use to discuss language?” goes, i’m going to say both and that that’s actually a good thing for the purposes it aims to achieve.

psa for cis people: it's not "women and people who menstruate," it's just people who menstruate. adding "women and" implies that

the only relevant women are (menstruating) cis women, so there's no need to add any qualifiers (like "cis")

womanhood is central to menstruation & menstruation is central to womanhood by unnecessarily bringing up gender right before using a gender neutral phrase

just say people who menstruate. women who menstruate are people. saying "women and people who menstruate" is a nonsense phrase that only serves to soothe the egos of cis women. they can cope with not having their ciswomanhood centered, I promise.

[pinksthetics]

Flag anon back, that might be true about problems between bisexuals and pansexuals (and I know that’s not limited to non binary people, but also binary trans people based on what my bi friends tell me and what my trans friends have been told), but that’s not stated at all in the post? And OP was very clear that they could make a post specific to bi issues in the notes, but this still happened anyway. To me this felt like a real “all lives matter” moment and if I was good at image editing I’d be slapping that prison stripe straight pride flag onto this because I basically get the same thing out of either. Feels like an issue important to me brought up on a post about people like me is now about infighting within the “B” umbrella without even saying the word pansexual? I’m sorry it’s just frustrating because I know this week someone will be telling me that I can’t be a lesbian if I’m attracted to non binary people, but hey did you know that bisexuality means you can pick two genders (that’s where the bi comes from!) and you can pick non binary and women! That is the plot to literal conversations that I have had with people. Totally fair that pansexuals don’t have a claim to non binary people, but OP was telling people in the notes to stop making it about bi people - bisexuals weren’t excluded to be mean, they were excluded because people tend to be far more close minded about “homosexuals” and who they can be attracted to. Again I’m sorry, I’m just tired of having my identity policed and I’m frustrated and partly taking it out on you. People keep telling me and my trans friends that “bisexuality is the only moral sexuality” and that “the only people who could love a trans person are bisexual” so there’s a lot of real life harmful messaging there 😔

ok putting ur next ask and my response under the read more bc this got rly long 

Flag anon again, okay I think I just needed to kind of yell that out into the empty void that is the internet. Sorry to have made you the victim of that dump, but I guess all of the things have been telling me and my repressed feelings have been swirling around for a while. Just to be clear I fully have nothing against bisexuals as people (the majority of my irl friends are bisexual and are thankfully super nice apart from the odd micro aggressive comment). It just rubbed me the wrong way that I get hateful messaging from some people in the bisexual (not pansexual) community specifically and I felt like the original post might be something that those bisexual people might see and maybe introspect on their attitudes, but with the addition I feel like all of that is lost in them fighting an invisible unnamed enemy. Either way, I guess I have some trauma and this post set me off a bit so I’m sorry again! I just hope people will remember the original point of the post above all else because there are a lot of posts I’ve seen about bisexual and pansexual issues related to non binary people, but there are far less for lesbians and gay men sadly 😔

ok i understand what you’re saying and i see that op doesnt want people to derail the discussion from talking specifically about gay and lesbian people but the original post did say “every sexuality” and i feel like at this point you’re talking about issues beyond just the point of this post. you’re completely valid as a lesbian for being attracted to trans and nonbinary people but it doesnt sit right with me that you have this much frustration towards bi people, whether you realize it or not. 

the addition to the post really did not have any harmful messages as far as i see it, so it seems like your frustration stems from things that other people have said to you. im sorry that people have disrespected and invalidated you. however, the bi community is not “fighting an invisible unnamed enemy.” bi people face just as much invalidation and i recommend you look into that and try to understand it. there really needs to be solidarity between the gay and bi communities because, while we each face our own issues, theres a lot of overlap. 

once again, i completely understand that the original post was specific to gay and lesbian people. its not uncommon for people to add to posts and take away focus from where it should be. if you look in the notes of any posts you’re bound to find some upsetting comments. the important thing is that you have the choice to just reblog the original or even make your own post. 

i really hope you can speak with your friends about how hurtful their comments can be if they are saying things that come off as micro aggressions. and i hope you can find peace in solidarity throughout the lgbt community because honestly its counterproductive to create issues between communities. we all need a space to talk about the problems we face and we should all be supporting each other through it 

[emperorsfoot]

This post is a reply to both @ben-10-setting-omnicrom​ and @abyssmaluser, because I did not want to derail their original post with a tangent. But, I still have responses I want to give on comments they made. 

This post is in response to this remark:

(( If you would like to see the comment in context, please click the link provided in the above paragraph. )) 

The part I specifically take issue with is the “she’ll never take Ben’s spot as Hero of Heroes (for obvious reason)”. First of all, the “obvious reasons” part was not necessary, otherwise why would it be put it in parentheses. Secondly, OP, no the reasons were not obvious, otherwise I would not have felt the need to ask for them. 

(( Which I did in the Replies section, BTW. Because I did not want to derail the thread. ))

And I got an answer from another user:

This user was not OP of the thread, but OP DM’d me later and basically stood by what @abyssmaluser said. 

So, okay, lets open up a discussion about these “obvious reasons”. 

1.) He’s got an absurd amount of recognition. Ben became universally famous at the age of 15 when he defeated the Highbreed, and famous world wide on Earth a little bit after than when Jimmy Jones leaked his identity to the media. He’s got hype. He’s an intergalactic celebrity. 

But that’s the thing, he’s a celebrity! He’s like the Taylor Swift of face. Only instead of singing, he gets himself involved in other planets’ problems. Yes, his name is well known and most of it is positive, but fame does not make one a good hero. And we have seen multiple times through out the series (from the OS, through AF/UA, all the way to Omniverse) that sometimes his attempts at heroism leave a place worse off than it was before. 

Ben is more hype than substance. 

Gwen, on the other hand is more substance than hype. She does not seek out fame and attention like Ben does. She helps people, and aliens, and things because she is genuinely a good person and wants to help. She does her research and looks into an issue before jumping headlong into the thick of the conflict. She is diplomatic. 

Ben is not diplomatic. 

2.) Ben has inspired other people to become heroes themselves. 

Canonically, this is true. 

We have met multiple characters that have heard of Ben and were inspired to become Plumbers or other versions of heroes and protect their people/loved ones/planet etc. in their own ways. 

We also see several of these characters, when meeting Ben face to face for the first time, realize “this is not the hero I thought he’s be”. 

Ben is an inspiration to others, there is not denying that. But being an inspiration in and of itself does not make one a “Hero of Heroes”. 

Gwen, Kevin, and Rook have all also inspired others. It is not something unique to only Ben. 

3.) “...has multiple species that I wouldn't be surprised if they worshipped him (the Petrosapiens and Highbreed).”

Technically, this one is just a sub-category of “being famous”, but I’ll give it to you anyway. 

It is 100% probable that the Highbreed started a religion around Ben. He did re-write the DNA of their entire species. He literally re-made them. Ben is their creator. It only makes sense he would be their god. Ben has also remade the whole universe, at least twice! Possibly more, I don’t remember. That would make Ben an actual god. 

But that actually makes him more dangerous, not heroic. Every season there have been multiple episodes of Ben misusing the power of the Omnitrix for his own personal gain, or even just entertainment because he was board. Ben has had to learn multiple times, across multiple age ranges that ultimate power is not a toy and should be handled responsibly. This is a lesson he had to learn when he was 10, again when he was 15, and yet again when he was 16. Because the lesson did not stick. We never got a Ben 10,000 show, but there is no doubt in my mind that if we had, there would have been another ‘ultimate power is not a toy’ episode when he would be 40! 

I’m sorry, but a man who has to keep re-learning the same crucially important lesson at every significant age of his life is not any more deserving of being “Hero of Heroes” than a woman who has applied to time to studying, thinks critically, is patient with others, does not jump to conclusions or rush into fights, and it just as powerful and capable as Ben. 

In conclusion-

Your reasons were not “obvious”. In the future, just say you like Ben better and you don’t WANT Gwen to take his title. Instead of going at it with this passive aggressive bullshit (for obvious reasons). 

(( As an aside, I would also like to add that OP was the one who brought up Gwen taking Ben’s title of “Hero of Heroes”. I gave Gwen her own title separate from Ben’s. 

If OP felt their  favorite was threatened by that, then maybe just say you hate women and move on. ))

[kinthonic]

hey about your more recent post, you dont need to use black issues as a mouthpiece, especially piggybacking off of an old popular post. It seems like its in extremely bad taste. to call lynching a 'poc issue' mostly serves to dencenter black voices around a topic that is theirs to talk about. it ignores the antiblackness within every non black race. the hypervisibility of black violence isnt a privelage but make your own post next time

I’m sorry i didnt mean to disrespect i had just gone through a history course talkign about it and i wanted to show that the threat also impacts latine people because as a hispanic of color I’m scared too and I didn’t want to take away from your point and I’m sorry about that it was meant to be solidarity not a mouthoiece I’m sorry i didnt mean to do a bad thing

My intention wasn’t to absolve nonblacks but to show that hispanics of color are also affected. I didn’t even jnow about it until i went through a college history course that almost no one takes anyways.

I meant to sort of tack it as an add on and it’s important to mention that hispanics aren’t only nonblacks.

That being said I’m not trying to say I didn’t do something wrong, and I’m sorry I really am. I’m just scared too.

Addressing this, @punkkeroppi I want to express that I wasn’t trying to derail the conversation. I tacked on the latine thing because it was something I learned and I ended up info dumping because I’m scared too. This matter stretches to latine communities of color and I’m scared because that includes me. I understand now that it is misconstrued to be me derailing but please believe me when I say that wasn’t my intention

But i do recognize that that is what happened nevertheless and I’m sorry about that. Moreover, I’m not sure what you mean by calling op mean names?

I believe you’re talking about this. And I need to make it known that this wasn’t towards OP AT ALL. This was a general fuck you to people who were going to doubt what I was talking about and wanting to forget that these things happened. People wanna believe they’d be on the right side of history when they constrain to their bigoted beliefs and I was angry that there are people who do so. This wasn’t towards OP.

I’m going to own up to derailing. It wasn’t my intention but that’s what I did and I am sorry about that. Thank you for pointing it out.

Nevertheless, I didn’t want to delete the post because I felt that it would be me trying to erase what I did without addressing it or trying to act like I never did wrong. I’ve messaged OP and explained to them and I mentioned this and am now waiting on a response on if it would be best for me to delete my post or keep it up. I just don’t know as someone nonblack if this is what I should do.

EDIT: i just took it down

[number1riddleguy]

God that is so true tumblr likes their old men 38 with a skin routine and their villains with a hidden heart of gold smh 😤

it is very true too that people will see the conventionally attractive w more lenience than like 'uglier' people rip i admit i dont actually know Littlefinger 😂 but ive seen it before w other characters!! very unfortunate :p Esp when it comes to that characters interactions w others (women esp!) They do often get a pass when 'ugly' men get blasted for the same behaviors!

Im going to sidetrack here for a moment whoops, but it does bring to mind like, i fully believe in understanding and 'calling' out characters gross creepy behaviors w women, to like have comprehension of the text and the authors intent and your own biases and etc etc. But. I do feel like. there can be a sort of, too much 'real morals' put onto the characters. Mostly with the sort of 'undesirable' villains (hence why im thinking of it lol) and it ties back to like purity culture, but theres a definite "this is a genuinely evil and abusive character and if you like or talk about them you are also abhorrent" vibe that i just dont see as much with 'pretty' villains even if they act the same way! and it just speaks a bit to how influenced we are by the "beautiful people are more moral" undercurrent. idk this might not make any sense lmao (😅<-he could be reading too deep into it!)

Esp when the strange off putting characters are so interesting!! theres so much going on w Grima he such a compelling guy to me like, how can we not want to sit w him a little? and forgetting his narrative juice like, he looks better to me 😂 average tumblr favorite is so transposable. They all blend together. Grima stands out! He's striking!! even if you hate him, you probably remember what he looks like!!

I do love how many more people love his character than I thought would tho 💕 such a delight to see others love the hell out of this off-putting weirdo 🫶 So wonderful to see the love humanity can have even for the weirdest, creepiest, wettest, off-putting man ever made lmao 💗💖💕💗💖💗🥰

THE HOT MEDIEVAL & FANTASY MEN MELEE

QUALIFYING ROUND: 111th Tilt

Gríma Wormtongue, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003) VS. Petyr “Littlefinger” Baelish, Game of Thrones (2011-2019)

Propaganda

Gríma Wormtongue, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003) Portrayed by: Brad Dourif

“A greasy, scheming, craven, lecherous mess of what barely passes for a human being. Oh to stare down those huge, pale, unnerving eyes. If you love a foul, skanky, wretched little man, who will grovel at your feet and follow you like a shadow, can you really do much better? No you cannot.”

Petyr “Littlefinger” Baelish, Game of Thrones (2011-2019) Portrayed by: Aiden Gillan

“THE dictionary definition of "Rat-bastard". But, GOD. Problematic fave if ever there was one. I love this speechifying little creep.”

Additional Propaganda Under the Cut

Additional Propaganda

For Wormtongue:

For Littlefinger:

[gamzee]

cherrider replied to your post “Not to be a gamer apologist re; kda but don't be tempted by overly...”

whats this post about? whats going on

Whoops, sorry for doing the thing where I assumed context. I wanted to write a longer post anyway, so here I go.

Riot put out a video to announce a new AU/skin line for League of Legends, and some time later this post appeared on Tumblr. There’s a following reblog about how people should know better than to give Riot “free advertising,” which I disagree with for a few praxis reasons I’ll get to later.

For starters, you might notice OP has deactivated. This is probably because this amount of attention is, understandably, super intimidating. Not because they were lying, as some people have theorized.

But a lot of people are misunderstanding what the story was. It’s really hard to say for sure, but it sounds like they worked on the launch of the original Akali champion release in 2010. I’m assuming this from the references to “without bugs,” engineering, and the amount of work you’d encounter in a crunch associated with a project as big as a character launch.

(Oh whoops, looked into it & confirmed.)

2010 is about half a year after the launch of the original game. Major cuts to staff after the first year of a title (especially after the launch of large content patches) are super, super common, and super, super horrible. People get their lives and careers derailed; buy a bunch of people for a year, burn them out, let them go. (Or, keep firing the old development teams and hire on younger/cheaper people five years later, rinse & repeat.) If you’re lucky, a studio will be up front about how long they intend to keep you on. But a lot of people across many studios were very unlucky over the last ten years. It’s also not unique to Riot. Telltale games just closed with no severance to its 250+ employees. Motiga had to shut down this year when their project Gigantic under-performed. Activision laid off 5% of its workforce last year even though it exceeded its quarterly goals. 

(What is semi-unique to Riot is the recent exposure done on its work culture.)

Part of this is that a studio won’t stay open unless it has another project on the “conveyer belt,” and it’s harder to get funding if your last title flopped. Another part is about how much labor the game industry needs and how much instability it has to create in its workforce in order to get it. Another part is that while you have a job, you’re usually pretty well paid, or you have the option of getting better work in tech, so the industry hasn’t properly unionized yet.

And now we get to the part where I get to be contentious and initially kind of mean; it doesn’t matter if you do or do not reblog (or enjoy, or make fan content of) K/DA, as long as you’re not actively a brand apologist to justify doing it. And at the risk of speaking for game artists, these are real people who put real work and love into things they want you to enjoy. Just don’t write off the conditions developers at Riot (and at any game company) are under.

But for a completely different reason, talking up the importance of individual taste here can be kind of irresponsible, especially if that’s where you stop. It’s fine if you can’t enjoy the video or the game knowing what’s going on at Riot and in the industry. But it’s also pretty meaningless. That’s what I meant by “overly individualist resistance strategies.” Even a boycott with no organization and no demands would only hurt the most vulnerable employees. These kinds of things need coalitions-- “no ethical consumption under capitalism” means you can’t consume (or not consume) your way out of capitalism.

So what do you do? Normalize unions, both inside and outside the game industry. Get involved in a local union if you can, support local strikes. If there is a strike in the games industry, do not cross picket lines to buy products. Support developers and journalists that advocate unionization, and support them where everybody can see.

Full disclaimer so you all can judge whether or not I would know what I’m talking about, I got a degree in prep to enter the game industry and still keep abreast of it to see what my peers are up to, but for a few reasons didn’t end up there. Kinda glad for it, honestly.

[markedbyindecision]

There is something to be said about those posts that are like [insert current awful thing happening somewhere in the world] and then people in the reblogs (or sometimes the OP) will be saying things like “if you care about x group of people you’ll reblog this”.

There’s a long one that talks about tactics that rapists use to find their possible victims that has a ton of notes. i know i’ve reblogged it several times, and i’ve seen a ton of other people reblog it too. That one’s especially insistent on trying to get you to reblog it, and i remember the reblogs say things like “it doesn’t matter if this messes up the aesthetic of your blog, reblog this to literally save someone’s life.” and so of course i reblogged it. who wouldn’t? who wouldn’t want to save a life?

Anyway, cut to a few weeks ago, i saw this post that was like “Asian people are not the virus” and then people were commenting and reblogging with “if you don’t reblog this then you’re racist”.

here’s a quick PSA from me, someone who’s Chinese-American: You are absolutely NOT racist for not reblogging a tumblr post that says ���Asians aren’t the virus”.

You know what does make you racist? Racism.

This was the first post that really made me question things, because i didn’t reblog it. and the way that it’s phrased makes me feel like i need to reblog it to prove that i don’t hate a group i’m literally a part of, which is ridiculous.

(Sort of a tangent, but other people reblogging those posts means nothing to me. (it also makes me feel like i’m meant to believe anti-asian racism is the baseline??? like, it makes me feel like i’m supposed to assume all of my mutuals hold those beliefs until i see them reblog a post saying that they don’t???). Maybe other Asian people do take some comfort or feel supported by that sort of thing, and that’s fine. But i’m sure we can all agree that it’s 100% more important to treat Asian people with kindness in real life than to reblog a post telling people that you don’t think asian people are a virus.)

(Just to preface what I’m about to say, I’m not implying that our actions online aren’t real or don’t have an impact. don’t derail this. People banding together online to bring awareness to problems can be important, even crucial, in getting them solved. I know that. I’m not denying that.)

I’ve thought about this a lot recently, and I feel like I’m finally able to put words to why things like this make me, and probably a lot of other people, uncomfortable and induce anxiety. There’s this new phenomenon (and i haven’t been here for that long so correct me if i’m wrong), particularly in circles where activism and discussion about social justice is prevalent, where people will guilt-trip others into doing certain things in the name of helping people?? I don’t know if there’s a word for it, but I would call it guilt-mongering.

Here’s a kind of weird example. Let’s say some guy doesn’t know that grapes are poisonous to dogs and so he feeds a grape to a dog, and the dog dies (sorry). Would we demand of him to go around telling everyone that grapes are poisonous to dogs? To research every way a dog can die and type it out in a list and hand it out to everyone he knows? No. He might do these things to cope, but we would never require it, or imply that he’s a bad person for not doing these things. But that’s what it feels like people are doing right now.

I was talking with a friend of mine, and certain like, frames of mind (anxiety), definitely increase the chance of this, but we both felt like it’s getting harder and harder to be a Good Person™ . Sometimes the internet it feels like every action we do, we need to consider an impossible, un-ending list of domino effects that could even in the most minuscule way harm someone in order to be a good person. And sometimes that actually makes us harm someone anyway, because we’re too focused on the little things that we aren’t able to see the whole picture.

By the way, i don’t think anyone should attack people making these kinds of posts, or the people reblogging them. I would guess that most people who make/reblog them are well-intentioned and/or teenagers too. And I don’t think that reblogging a few of them is a problem. Information is cool and useful! It’s why we share it! But nobody should be demanding us to share it as if we’re directly harming someone by not reblogging a post about something bad happening in the world. Bad things happen every day. And it’s true that maybe knowing one thing might save someone’s life. But it gets overwhelming when it feels like it’s our job to spread the word all the time. We’re not responsible for other people, nor should we be. That’s not our job. Why are we all on tumblr? Are you here to save lives? No. Most of us are here to share art, look at memes, find our communities, talk about our blorbos, etc.

To anyone who feels even a little anxious about this or feels like they aren’t helping enough or can never do enough: It’s absolutely okay not to engage, or not engage much, in social activism/spreading the word about whatever on tumblr. Especially if that’s something that harms your mental health. (Even if you don’t feel like you have the right to have a problem with it. Even if you have a brain like mine that says things like “oh but i’m sitting here with so much privilege while right now other people are being abused or starving or being murdered etc etc, so i don’t have the right to feel anxious or overwhelmed by this. i should be thankful my home isn’t being bombed right now.” (these are real things i have thought, btw)) It’s important to care about people and it’s important to be aware of what’s going on in the world, but there are so many other ways and other places and times you can do that, and not obligated to dedicate a whole ton of your time and energy to helping other people. There is balance. I promise you can find balance. I promise you that you are doing good. I promise you are good, and you can continue to be good without burning yourself up so that someone can warm their hands by a fire. Sometimes we forget we are human too, and we also need and deserve the love and care we extend to others.

[hellyeahomeland]

“Lies, Amplifiers, Fucking Twitter” | Directed by Tucker Gates

After checking in on Carrie and Franny (poor Franny…), we move to the White House. What stands out here is the muted color scheme and lighting. Despite the light streaming in from behind her, the scene overall is dimly lit. In contrast to everyone’s dark suits, the American flag stands out sharply, the battle for power of the country unfolding in front of it. Keane is seated and leaning back casually, while the committee members stand before her, defiant, almost like soldiers.

The choreography of this scene is reminiscent of what we saw in “Species Jump” between Ivan in Yevgeny. Keane stays seated throughout their pitch for her to resign and she only stands later to demonstrate her authority. In close-up here, she’s stoic, almost regal, the American flag (again) in the background. Did Keane become backdoor heroic without us even realizing it?

As Carrie walks into Saul’s growing ops room, it’s hard to miss his own conspiracy-driven bulletin board. As she takes in the information, the camera frames her in the center. We can feel the weight of her realization. She’s not just involved this year, she’s actually in it--the center--as an “active measure.” 

There is lots to parse here, but this is a nicely assembled board by the art department! We love the irony of Saul co-opting Carrie’s bulletin board tactics while placing her at the center of his, especially after he found her hidden room last year and beamed, knowing she was still whom he always believed she was. (Do you think he assembled this knowing she’d eventually come into his op and this would help her piece the information together better? He even used the same color post-it notes as she did last year!)

These are just incredible shots. Again, Carrie is in the center things, both physically in this shot and thematically. As the focus shifts to the board, her body becomes blurred, and we instead see the array of information, its lines connecting out from her image like a web.

Sara is obsessed with this shot of Wellington and Keane in light of the revealed romantic feelings between them (or at least from Wellington). The placement of the two characters, Keane staring out the window, blurred behind him, is like something out of a period romance. Obsessed. 

And while at first glance it might seem as if she’s turned her back on Wellington, we actually think her body language here reveals just how much she trusts him. When you turn your back on someone like this, in such close proximity to you, you’re indicating a deep, implicit level of trust. It’s a rare moment of vulnerability from her, at one of the most vulnerable moments in her presidency.

The “Q&A” parallels in this episode are pretty blatant, but we’re gonna talk about 'em anyway! First, we have Saul surveying Carrie and Dante, just as he did with Carrie and Brody in season two.

Or what about this shot? That’s the same arrangement as in “Q&A” -- Carrie to the right of the door, Dante to the left, and the barrier behind him. (Sorry guys, but they were making a point.)

On the podcast we talked about Carrie’s failure to crack Dante, and how she assumed the role of both Bad Cop and Good Cop in this episode. Here, she’s playing Bad Cop, and the direction of this scene captures that adversarial nature. Whether it’s positioning them on opposite ends of the table, or above in close-up shot/reverse shot, to heighten the distance and differences between them.

And here is lil’ ol’ David Wellington, on his journey to Fuck Up Everything. A quick note about the set decoration: we think the set decoration is meant not to resemble the Red Room (though of course that is apt for a meeting with the Russian ambassador) but the Roosevelt Room (and, yep, we have another Roosevelt reference. Remember Saul has a portrait in his office too). This was Teddy Roosevelt’s first West Wing office. According to tradition, a portrait of Franklin Roosevelt is meant to hang on the wall during the administration of a Democratic president, and a portrait of Teddy Roosevelt is meant to hang on the wall during a Republican administration. Bill Clinton (whose portrait we also saw… wonder if that possibly foreshadows an impeachment?) was the first President to buck that tradition when he kept Teddy Roosevelt on the wall. Obviously, Keane has opted to do the same.

Back in Mathison land, it’s Good Cop time. Note that they’re not seated anymore and she walks over to him in an attempt to show that they’re on the same side.

Carrie does her best “You’re a good man, Brody” routine with Dante, and for a moment it seems like it might work.

He’s literally backed against a wall when he says he’ll be honest.

After Carrie loses control, Dante walks away and sits back down, and the space between them is again restored. Note that when he sits back down, he’s seated in her former seat. He literally turns the tables on her. (They were being super literal this episode, y’all.) 

This is the first of four aerial shots of Carrie in this episode and it comes right after her moment of vulnerability in the interrogation room with Dante. There, she admits, “I know how it happens, how things derail. You think, ‘No, I can manage this.’ But, step by step, somehow, you end up very far from where you ever wanted to be.” This aerial shot, then, coming on the heels of that admission, renders Carrie a small figure in a sea of black. Thematically, like most birds eye views, it asks us to look at the big picture. Where is Carrie now? And where does she want to be?

We just love this scene because Paley is literally stoking the flames. Like we said. Literal af. 

OK OK OK Sara has to talk about this moment very quickly. As Carrie enters Maggie’s house, she shuts the door a little too loudly, and this is her wincing at the loud sound (we’ve all been there). I don’t know if this was scripted or improvised but can Claire Danes get an Emmy ASAP? Thanks in advance.

Here’s another shot from above. So we have one of Carrie exiting Saul’s op room (work), and now one in Maggie’s house (home), so we can observe the person (or people?) she is in these two environments. One of the biggest themes of this season--and for the last few actually--for Carrie is her struggle to reconcile these two halves of herself: her work self and her mother self. Are they even compatible? Again, where is Carrie now? And where does she want to be? 

The way Carrie’s denial of the situation Maggie lays out before her manifests as her actually shutting her eyes is devastating. If she can’t see it, is it really happening?

And now we’ve got another aerial shot, this time of Carrie leaving Maggie’s house (where her mother self resides). This crane shot is actually pretty great, especially since it leads to this…

The unmitigated rage on display as she exits the world that self inhabits is a thing to behold. We’ve all been there, Carrie.

This shot reminds us of the end of “Long Time Coming,” as Carrie drives away from Dar’s house after learning of Saul’s betrayal. The major difference of course being that she’s not leaving her work self behind now--she is driving toward it, her choice clear.

WJLTP

WJLPT, part II. Yevgeny really does have a thing about casual posture, doesn’t he? He must be ~one cool guy.

The choreography here is very similar in style to what happened to McClendon, which is ironic of course because that’s kinda what started all this. We’re also going to invoke “Q&A” again and note that both Dante and Brody had stuff happen to their hands. (Sara cannot believe that Carrie’s Bad Cop is “let’s poison him!” Gail thinks it’s funny that Carrie’s vagina is a death trap. Sara would like to point out that Dante has not died yet.)

This is the last aerial shot of Carrie this episode, this time showing her work self. 

In case you haven’t been keeping track, we got four aerial shots of Carrie after she admits she’s far from where she ever wanted to be:

Departing work, on the way to home

At home

Departing home, on the way to work

At work

Each reveals something unique about these two halves, these two selves Carrie is harboring inside of her, and how she transitions from one to the other. Whether it’s sneaking meds to appear less manic in front of her family; getting in an actual physical altercation with her sister; yelling without reservation after leaving home; or tending to a man she poisoned but pretended she hadn’t, in her relentless search for the truth, it’s clear the toll this split is having on her. Eventually she’ll either have to pick a side, or she’ll have to reconcile these parts of herself into something whole. 

This is such a great shot, and it reminds us of Saul’s scenes in “The Choice,” calling Carrie and Mira, after the Langley bomb had gone off. It’s only a metaphorical bomb here, but the result is the same. He’s shown smaller in frame, and his tone is soft, more resigned.

The episode’s final moments are extremely interesting. As Carrie is pushed out of the ER, she turns around and observes the destruction in her wake.

It wasn’t even a year ago she was in almost this same position with Quinn, and we think her expression above is one of the worst kind of deja vu. This episode is all about Carrie taking stock of where she is, who she is, and what she’s doing. It’s about her both accepting she went down a much different, much darker path than she’d ever envisioned, and how that’s all wrapped up in her personal and professional failings, on bright display for us throughout the entire episode (leaving a distraught Franny at school, being at the center of a conspiracy she didn’t detect sooner, failing to crack Dante, leaving her daughter behind, and having her last-ditch effort to crack Dante backfire spectacularly).

For a second, she’s in sharp, brilliant focus. Yes, this is where Carrie is now. And this is who she is.

Then she turns, her face obscured, and she’s blurred again.

[funnysnake2019]

@abhumanaex0 said:

(also op I think I derailed your post, I'm sorry... @funnysnake2019 we can perhaps take this conversation elsewhere if you wish?)

You coming onto me?

I'm not...entirely sure what you mean by

“The possible mistake of using analytic methods in a clearly phenomenological discussion”

I'm being abstruse about how analysing your feelings using mathematical langauge is a mistake because they're not meant to be described in that way, in my humble opinion.

But from my guess, yes, I was trying to figure how this might come about or why it would make sense (both conceptually and, like, developmentally/evolutionary), and acknowledge that I do not know the process, which is probably what was actually sought.

So I did mean more like, "brains came up with this feature of rewarding the fact of following the strategy" rather than "you, personally, decided to induce desires". That said, I believe it is possible, and I have previously done so.

Overall, I’m pretty sure it’s just referring to the lack of motivation for things, rather than simply having them as ends. Saying it’s a desire for the motivation to bring about your ends is the right way to look at it, maybe.

I've assumed you're mapping "being motivated towards X" to "wanting X more"?

I'm not sure how this is different from "having this desire is strategically useful to getting more of your wants met overall, and is therefore itself desirable" which is the tl;dr of what I said*.

It's just a difference in language, like fluxion v. derivative. That said, when you use the word 'strategy' you have to import the notion of strategy. In this case it doesn't matter much, because you already have an agent that has 'higher order' desires, because it can want to want.

Wanting to want X because of X doesn't make much sense though. So why do you want to be motivated towards X?

I disagree with the first sentence, but it might be a language problem. I think it makes sense to want to do (at least one of) the steps required to bring about the end you seek. But the more I think about it, the more sense it makes to consider this "strategically" useful more than anything else. This is where the analytical style becomes a bit problematic, though. The simple fact that some end X is desired implies nothing directly about the steps required to bring X about. The fact that I desire an apple implies nothing about me needing to buy them, which itself says nothing about putting on my coat, grabbing my keys, etc.

That might be a little abstruse, still, but the idea of 'motivation' is difficult to define as anything other than a higher-order desire. Simply put, a motivation might be the desire for any intermediate point in between where I am and the end I desire (this assumes a certain 'geometric' view of goal-seeking behaviour, which I think is not wholly unreasonable).

That means we can unify our views thus: "wanting to want (to do) something" is an expression of the strategic value of desiring intermediate ends.

Anyway, I'm curious how this version of motivation would work if you don't believe desires can be manipulated? Or can you change degree, it's just that starting at 0 is a problem?

It's not that I don't believe they can be manipulated, I just have a tough time wrapping my head around the notion of 'going outside yourself' to induce motivation in yourself. There's always a part of me that believes this is only possible if the prerequisites are met, and not something that can come about through sheer force of 'will'.

(I admit I did overcomplicate things a bit by reading stuff into "wanting to want things" that isn't there.)

That's the fun part!