#as the leader of the group and a bad communicator etc etc

[riverofrainbows]

So i watched the Winchesters now, because of the news about the finale, and i have to say. The show is actually brilliant. Not specifically as a show on itself, it's pretty good as a show at best (the internal logic, introduction to the world and characters are lacking to wobbly, but it's definitely enjoyable), but as a processing of supernatural. It really is "Dean sending his parents to therapy to work through his Mommy and Daddy issues". It's also not as repressed as supernatural and a lot of US american tv shows in general tend to be, so that is refreshing. It's kind of earnest which is nice. Also i cannot talk about it without mentioning Carlos, i am in love with Carlos, the incredibly chill and as far as i can say positive way this bisexual male character was introduced was fantastic. And his first scene, as a bi man i had to pause to breathe, and the camera/editing definitely supported that. Like that was celebratory not mocking.

[martian-astro10]

Astrology observations - Part 4 (use whole signs)

🌟 Moon in 4th is one of my favourite placements. These people usually have a good career, like an emotionally fulfilling one. They won't stay in a job that doesn't make them happy. Their mom can help them choose a career or give them interview tips.

🏮Mars in 2nd house people are so lucky when it comes to earning money, it's like, they get a new money making opportunity just when they're on their last penny. They're also not afraid to get their hands dirty and are willing to do almost anything, very hard working people. They're also the ones managing all the money in their family.

🌟 Mercury in 8th house people are the ones with a "sexy brain" like the WAY their mind works, are so good at analysing arguments and coming up with the best possible solution. Good debating skills. These people have great manifestation skills, I have a list of 100 + incidents, it's honestly a little scary. Can also develop clairvoyant abilities if they work on it.

🏮I haven't met a single non religious, Sun in 9th house person in my life. Even if they're not that religious in their younger years, they will be when they get older. Always willing to help others even when they themselves are suffering, my mom has this, and.....it pisses me off so bad. The "put your own oxygen mask on first" advice is for you all. Stop helping people, be selfish, it's not your duty to make everyone else's life better. My mom doesn't listen, but maybe you all will.

🌟 Venus in 11th house is a placement that's really good from a business perspective. They're great at negotiations so that's helpful. They won't like doing a regular 9 to 5 job as it will suppress their freedom and creativity. They will open their own business pretty early on in life, in like late 20's or early 30's. Great architects and interior designers. I remember when I made the architecture and astrology post, a lot of people had this.

🏮I haven't seen anyone talk about this, but moon in 6th house people can be really good leaders, they're very helpful and kind and their ability to understand emotions makes them extremely likable. They have more of a people oriented leadership style. They focus on building strong relationship with their group members or employees. Also, why are you all always sick 😭? Prone to anxiety and stress and this leads to body pain and digestive issues. Please put your health first.

🌟 It's really funny how ALL my friends, every single one, has Venus in 1st. I would say that rather than us being pretty, we're just very likable. Even if they're introvert or shy, they have a communication style that makes other people want to talk to them. It's just an aura thing, tbh. Also, they're huge people pleasers and will do their best not to offend anyone, like even if a person is being annoying, they won't say anything. (Mars in 1st can change this)

🏮 Jupiter in 2nd house is not good for marriage but great for career and friendships. I know people with this who are still in contact with their pre school friends. Their friends will help them in their career as well. They're intelligent but they think they're not, and this makes them lose a lot of opportunities. Need to have a little bit of courage to succeed in life.

🌟 Sun in 12th house people probably had a painful childhood (more so than others), if mercury is with sun in 12th, then they write poems to express this pain. They're good writers, and can be lyricists, authors, script/play writers, etc. these people are physically weak. Might also not know who they are, as in, not aware of their own personality traits.

🏮Saturn in 12th house people lack confidence when they're young, but become more confident as they get older and learn to get out of their comfort zone. These people have better luck outside of their homeland. This is a good placement if you want to become a psychologist as it gives you the ability to properly analyse those with mental disorders. They also look aloof most of the time. This is another placement that is good in terms of writing skills, many famous authors have this (those who write sad stuff)

© martian-astro All rights reserved, 2024

[bonefall]

Do you think the clan cats having less kits per litter/less litters in general (they already have less kits than real cats) would fix the bloated cast issue? Because I look at Ginga and the cast is also bloated and only a few characters have offspring but the author keeps making other dogs join Ohu and refuses to kill the old as fuck dogs

I don't think there's any one particular "solution" for stopping bloat in series that manage large casts through generations like Ginga or WC, it's actually a few things

The #1 MOST important thing I think about bloat, though, is that it's about a ratio of quality to quantity. NOT raw size.

A long while back I made a couple of allegiance lists for certain eras. In spite of my Clans having the same (or even higher!) population as canon, I NEVER struggled with those lists being bloated. If anything, sometimes if a Clan's below 30, they look too small.

(I'm sure you can find those lists if you look, they're probably tagged BB!Allegiance, but they might be a bit out of date)

That's because in BB, there's dozens of HUGE cultural additions to Clan life. In "administration," alone, there's 3 new major divisions of skills (hunting, cooking, construction) ALL with their own "head" of that patrol, plus canon's leader, deputy, and Cleric. Not to mention subtitles like the Educator and maybe a Chaperone/Permaqueen!

So to bring it back to that "Ratio Theory," If our Clan is 30 cats, those 8 major roles immediately give at least a slight amount of character to a little over 25% of our group, with each role being something that the other 75% of cats can desire and compete for.

Canon's measly 3 is 10%, and you can ONLY vy for deputyship if you want any power. There's nothing else to BE ambitious about.

You can make the ratio higher by having hobbies, drama, skills, arts, etc. Basically; characterize background characters! Which should be obvious!! Give them traits that are useful and interesting and show the community being valuable.

It won't feel like "bloat," it has the sense of communities living their lives. Even if they go quiet for a while, when they return (just look at how much people like seeing Sedgecreek or Hallowflight mentioned lmao) it feels like meeting an old friend again.

WAYS TO MAKE BLOAT FEEL WORSE;

Giving too many "opportunities" to old characters.

Think of every relevant role a cat gets as a meal, and the bigger the role the more they've eaten. If you're only giving value to your old fanfavs, you're not doing much for them because they're already full while the rest of your cast starves.

Haphazardly killing off characters.

I actually strongly resent the "trend" where people conflate good storytelling with an author's willingness to suddenly kill characters off. I think it comes from the same place as needing to "outsmart" your audience.

If you kill off a character with VALUE, an unfinished arc, interesting connections, it's just unsatisfying. The Erins have this problem of killing background characters with some established lore or value (like Harelight and Briarlight) while leaving uninteresting background nobodies behind that they never build back up.

Before killing a character, ask yourself what their role in the cast is, and their dynamic with others. Try not to axe them without a plan to fill that "role" and/or comment on their absence. Replace what you take.

EASY REPLACABILITY

This one is HUGE, this is why Ginga is so bad with this. If a bunch of dogs die, 100 random soldiers can replace them from somewhere. That is REALLY bad, because all the random influxes of new characters do not have a chance to replace what was lost.

It also makes death feel cheaper. Oh no! Background dog 7446 got eaten by the newest type of bear. This won't make battles harder to win or cause us to lose any valuable skills though. Also a new dog just walked in from offscreen.

Population Growth outpaces Death Rate

AKA your cast is growing too fast and you're not getting rid of old characters. This is what anon was asking about-- and it CAN help to make births less frequent and litters smaller. Make sure to pair with preventing lots of new, adult characters to casually wander in, too.

ALL of these tips have exceptions and places where they can (and should) be subverted and broken. But these are just things I think about

[a-d-nox]

the root chakra and whether i believe you could survive an apocalypse

the root chakra is telling of our survival instincts and what we need to survive.

2 (the high priestess): you saw the end coming but likely want nothing to do with long term living in a world without life and only death. you probably are a prepper though.

3 (the empress): it's pretty unlikely you will live - you are too reliant on others providing for you and likely would miss the conveniences of the modern world.

4 (the emperor): 100% is going to live - this person saw it coming and was preparing for a long time (mentally, physically, etc). they don't have interest in a commune either or rather they would never be dependent on others to survive - they would probably become a leader in an apocalypse.

media representation: any lead character in a post-apocalyptic movie / tv show

5 (the hierophant): dooms-dayer - 100% percent would pray on those who are scared and convince them that you have minimal ways to survive most of which will involve aiding them. they are the type to dictate to others what they need to be done but won't get their own hands dirty. they have zero issues turning religion into a way of life and claiming that current passages were warning them all along - they definitely would result to implementing scare tactics.

media representation: david in the last of us

6 (the lovers): reliant on others for survival. they aren't likely to last long in that regard but also they are likely prone to depression and would become existentialistic.

7 (the charioteer): their survival depends on whether or not they have survival gear - if they don't have a good baseline, they are likely going to be the first to go. they do make good nomads though so long as they do not depend on motorways too early into the apocalypse.

8 (strength): they start out strong then end up giving up. they can be prone to getting hurt too so it is likely they will succumb to infection - perhaps consider shaping up your first aid and herbal knowledge base.

9 (the hermit): the hermit himself was a man of the wilderness - he disappeared on his own and survived on his own. these people are likely to do the same. very little will impend them they just have to be of the mindset they can do it.

media representation: the tv show alone

10 (wheel of fortune): this is the person who just survives based off of dumb luck sometimes these people have really really bad luck though.

11 (justice): this is a practical individual - who knows how to use their resources. unfortunately, they are rather high maintenance so they might be unhappy in a post-apocalyptic world.

media representation: american horror stories: apocalypse (s8)

12 (the hanged man): nope 100% wouldn't make it - probably would be the one to want to loot and take from stores then get hurt in the process because they aren't aggressive enough.

13 (death): they bounce back all the time, so i wouldn't be surprised if they just keep coming back from almost dying.

media representation: joel in the last of us

14 (temperance): they would be great at moderation/rationing their supplies, but they can experience exposure to the elements that nearly kills them if not kills them.

15 (the devil): nope, they are too dependent on the modern world and likely couldn't adjust to new horrors of an apocalyptic world.

16 (the tower): i mean they are preppers and i can see them being capable and durable, but they are accident prone and can have a horrible death if not careful.

17 (the star): absolutely not - these people are quick to give up and feel hopeless in a post-apocalyptic world. they are also prone to being overly exposed to the elements.

18 (the moon): i feel like they could survive but the question is whether or not they could bear being alone with themselves... being alone makes you face all the shadows of the self. i don't feel that they would do well in a group dynamic as they would clash with the different personalities.

19 (the sun): oop these people dip so hard. they don't care what it takes to survive they simply will.

20 (judgment): simply yes. they are very capable of remaking a life in a world they no longer recognize.

21 (the world): definitely. this is a bad ass placement - they come out on top every single time. they are often the last man standing in a survival situation.

22 (the fool): they lack awareness and it tends to be their downfall. also they take too many risks and in a survival situation, you can't simply "wing it".

like what you read? leave a tip and state what post it is for! please use my "suggest a post topic" button if you want to see a specific pac/pile next. if you'd like my input on how i read a specific card or what i like to ask my deck, feel free to use the ask button for that as well.

click here for the masterlist

click here for more web of wyrd related posts

want a personal reading? click here to check out my reading options and prices.

© a-d-nox 2024 all rights reserved

[spaghettioverdose]

how did u went from anarchism to ml question mark

I was just going to write a couple paragraphs but I basically ended up writing a novel so I'm going to put a keep reading link here for my everyone's sanity.

Tl;dr: I became disillusioned with liberalism, became ancom, saw many silly takes and analysis that felt incomplete, became disillusioned with ancom, learned more about ml, went "this makes way more sense, has been applied in real life and has also helped many millions of people", became an ml.

I became an anarchist when I was in my late teens. I was already disillusioned with liberalism, and while I was sympathetic to socialism because I come from a formerly socialist country and grew up with stories about it from my grandmother, I was still of wary of it. Partially due to some of the genuinely bad things that happened during it and partially due to the immense amounts of anti-communist propaganda I was constantly bombarded with growing up. Then I found anarcho-communism which to me at the time seemed like "communism with none of the bad stuff".

I got into it, I watched ancom youtubers, I read Kropotkin, Graeber, Bakunin, I joined online ancom communities etc.

Slowly, over time I started becoming disillusioned with ancoms.I found myself having to defend marxist-leninist projects a lot (mostly from usamericans) against some very silly cold war anticommunist propaganda a lot. Such as the idea that everyone was just miserable and trying to escape the country or brainwashed by the leader's cult of personality.

Keep in mind that I myself ate up a lot of anticommunist propaganda growing up, but I also come from a formerly socialist country and had someone who was around during the socialist era of my country to ground my view of it in reality to some extent. Most of the ancoms in these communities only had the propaganda.

I also didn't like the way so many of these people talked more about an idealised, aestheticised, romanticised and abstract idea of revolution, and especially past failed anarchist revolutions, rather than talking about the material results of revolution.

Even when I still was mostly convinced by anarchist theory, I still found anarchist analysis to be incomplete and lacking predictive power and real world practice. Other anarchists tended to excuse the fact we didn't have a lot of revolutions and that the vast majority of them were crushed within their first couple years by saying things like "we were up against everyone" or "we were betrayed" which didn't really hold up. The bolsheviks had to fight everyone as well and yet they still won. Same with the Chinese communists who were also against massive internal and external threats. This is because in both cases they had popular support and were capable of analysing the material conditions and formulating policies based on that.

Another rebuttal was that every socialist revolution was state capitalism because it didn't adhere to a very simplified definition of socialism. I thought that lacked nuance and in the end it mattered to me less than the fact that it got results and helped millions of people, but it didn't prevent me from internalising this to some extent. I did (for at least some time) think that most ml states were incomplete revolutions that eventually fell to state capitalism.

When I did believe to these ideas I often fell into pits of despair, as did other ancoms, over the fact that in our world view, communism was essentially entirely defeated and at best we (as anarchists) had two current revolutions: the Zapatista (a group who follows marxist theory, refuses to call itself anarchis and controls a very small region and only due to an agreement with the government) and Rojava (who also controls a small region, is a military ally of the US and has a constitution which guarantees private property and definitely fits the anarchist definition of a state).

The holes in anarchist theory became even larger and more apparent to me once I started reading Marx and Lenin. The contrast in the explanatory and predictive power of dialectical materialism against the philosophical idealism of anarchist analysis eroded my remaining trust in anarchism very quickly.

Anarchist analysis severely lacked much class analysis beyond "people do evil things to each other because of the profit incentive of capitalism" and "power wants to hold onto power" which while in some ways is correct, it is vastly incomplete. Which is why the conclusion of this analysis, that after an anarchist revolution the profit incentive would simply be gone and so would reactionaries, also felt incomplete.

As it turns out it's also historically been proven wrong. Revolution doesn't stop when the civil war ends and that capitalists (even if disposessed) don't suddenly stop being reactionary and don't suddenly stop being a danger to the revolution.

However many anarchists also viewed historical events in a vacuum and lacked any sort of tools for materialist analysis and therefore came to silly conclusions about why things happened the way they did.

Many propositions on how an anarchist society would run resembled some variation of Old West homesteading, medieval peasant communes or some other strange individualist fantasies.

In the end I realised about anarchism that it entirely resembled the philosophically idealist utopian communism of old. A form of communism that lost the debate against the scientific communism of Marx, Engles and Lenin over a century ago and there is no reason to engage with it in the present day.

[manesthia]

Thoughts on Halsin as an "atypical druid"

I've seen a number of excellent metas lately about Halsin's atypical druidism (the fact that he does not abhor the undead, does not have complete control over his wildshape, etc.). While I agree completely with those points, I've also noticed a tendency to sometimes frame this as Halsin being a "bad" druid or never really belonging with the druids in the first place. And I strongly disagree with that. I feel that Halsin's druidism is a core aspect of his character and implying that he is somehow "bad at it" robs him of something essential. The fact that he is a unique, complex character with far more depth than just "typical DnD druid" doesn't mean that he is not still a druid at heart - and a pretty formidable one, at that.

I see him as a character who has something in common with the nature deities and magician-priests of ancient myth and legend: Merlin (a mentor whose teachings are rooted in the natural world; who guides kings rather than wishing to rule himself; who mediates between the kingdom of men and animals; and who changes into an animal) and Dionysus (who celebrates multiplicity, fluidity, nature-based wisdom, carnal pleasure, the subversion of unnatural restraints - and who also shapeshifts, by the way). Druidism informs Halsin's entire belief system, ranging from his view on relationships (Halsin never uses the word 'polyamory'; instead, he speaks of "doing as nature does" and explains all of his preferences with nature metaphors - "the bear partners as its instinct dictates", etc.) to the importance he places on community. Halsin is unhappy as Archdruid not because he is just an incompetent leader or can't get along with other druids, but because he is so in tune with nature that he only thrives in communities with a structure more like the branching network of roots or mycelia - like our group of "weirdos" or his rebuilt community in Reithwin. He does know how to guide, counsel, and mediate - all of which are essential leadership abilities. But he needs to be part of an interconnected organism that grows and learns together, not the sole leader of it. To me, this is connected to his shapeshifting abilities and druidism: Halsin is connected to all other beings by literally becoming them (even if he is most attuned to his bear-shape).

Halsin speaks very highly of the grove as a place of worship (let's not forget how deeply religious Halsin is, too), but he also says that life in the grove made him feel cut off from nature. It's ironic that a druid grove runs on politics and power hierarchies (aspects of civilisation that most druids should despise), but it does. This is also a theme in a sidequest in BG2, if anyone recalls. In my opinion, the fact that Halsin feels out of place in a grove that has grown corrupted with politics and power plays actually makes him more true to core druidic beliefs, not less so.

I think the idea that Halsin doesn't get along with other druids gets taken a little too far at times, too. Members of his grove have issues with him primarily because they have been radicalised by Shadow Druids, not because Halsin is just too good-aligned for other druids in general. Note that every single druid in the grove who expresses strong anti-refugee sentiment also supports Kagha and the Rite of Thorns. Halsin welcomes outcasts into the grove because he is compassionate and empathetic as a person, yes, but also because it is part of his druidic belief in harmony, unity, and the value of life. Compare with Olodan's line:

This is not to say that I think Halsin's would never clash with other druids at all, or that I think his relationship with the grove is without friction. Obviously, part of the blame for the infiltration of the Shadow Druids falls on him. Obviously, there would be more neutral-aligned druids who would disagree with him on principle. But the fact that the previous Archdruid chose Halsin as his successor (we must assume that he did, since Halsin obviously didn't sign up for it) strongly indicates to me that the deceased, much wiser elders of the grove valued him greatly. Jaheira also repeatedly refers to him with the deepest respect.

I think it's also worth noting that there is room for nuance in druidic beliefs in the BG series. Faldorn in BG1, Cernd in BG2 and Jaheira in all three games are all very different. In many ways, Jaheira is more Harper than druid, which I think was indicated by her being a multiclassed fighter/druid in the earlier games. It also comes out in her conversation with Halsin about the Shadow Curse:

And if you tell her (speaking as Halsin) that she doesn't have to explain herself to him:

Of course, Halsin has a personal investment in lifting the Shadow Curse that Jaheira doesn't share, namely Thaniel. Only Halsin has a special connection with the very spirit of the land. This is also why he is completely unable to heal and move on until the Shadow Curse is lifted, unlike Jaheira. If the spirit of the land is wounded, then so is his own spirit. Jaheira, as a Fighter-Druid-Harper, is very much a protector of the realms as a whole (nature and civilisation), while Halsin is referred to over and over again by various NPCs as Nature's Steward, Keeper of Groves, Guardian of the Land, etc.

My argument here is not that Halsin is a more "typical" druid than Jaheira or that one is a "better" druid than the other (I love them both deeply). I'm just saying that all of this demonstrates to me how deeply intertwined Halsin's druidism is with the rest of his character. And I really, really appreciate him as a druid along with everything else he is.

I'm not really sure that I understand Tumblr etiquette regarding discussion (what is the polite way to interact with each other here? Commenting? Reblogs with hashtags? I'm too old for this site lol), but I would love to talk about this more. Please don't hesitate to comment, even if you disagree.

[thrashkink-coven]

Hi! I saw your post about the appropriation of religious imagery by extremest hate groups (a good post, I share your feelings of frustration) at the end you made a vague statement about the satanic temple and was wondering if you could elaborate on what happened there? They are a group I admittedly only have passing knowledge of, but what I have seen has usually been pro LGBTQ advocacy or similar things. Not that I don't believe you- I don't really interact with large institutions because they tend to become inevitably corrupt and have inherent gatekeeping, but I was wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining what exactly or which extremist propaganda they have been aligning with recently? Or is it just because they are generally anti-theistic?

(I have, in fact, been almost literally living under a rock the past few years so I apologize if the answer is something obvious, but I couldn't seem to find anything with cursory searches so thought asking someone in the community would be a better source)

I couldn’t even begin to outline all of the terrible shit the leaders and founders of The Satanic Temple have done over the years. They are a group of alt white scammers using progressive ideology and leftist sympathy to fill their pockets. They use their image to pray on young women at sex parties and employ real cult tactics to isolate and abuse them. They are a company comprised of sexual abusers, manipulators, and fascists parading the name of Satan to manipulate actual Satanists and Luciferians into giving them money, despite never showing any real respect to those philosophies or religions. We all already know they’re not theistic satanists and they don’t really worship Satan, but they also have absolutely no relationship with Satanism or Luciferian gnosis. You cannot be a Luciferian or a Satanist and be friends with Nazis. Idgaf call me a gatekeeper. They just like to use the image of Satan for publicity stunts to ruffle the feathers of a few Christians. They do not embody the Luciferian spirit or the values of Satanism.

I have a deep hatred in my soul for Douglas Mesner and how much damage he has done to the image of Luciferianism and Satanism, not to mention the real world damage they have done to abortion advocacy groups. The strategic moves of opposing institutions that oppose LGBT rights has actually given a bad name to good faith organizations who already have enough negative stigma around them. Abortion advocacy groups don’t need the narrative that they’re sacrificing babies to Satan by being supported by the Temple of Satan on top of all the backlash they already receive by Christo-fascists.

They DO NOT use the money donated for abortion advocacy to help young mothers or to fight real cases of human rights abuse, they have never actually helped a real woman obtain healthcare. The leader himself openly admitted to taking money donated to the Satanic Temple to pay his personal bills.

Asides from the plethora of real accusations of sexual assault and violence against female members of the church itself, the leader Douglas Mesner has actively supported abusers and suppressed victims from WITHIN THE CHURCH!! (kicking them out, harassing them, threatening them lawsuits etc) from obtaining justice. They have never made any actual strides in the fight towards liberation and have actively supported real fascists for years now. Douglas Mesner has advocated for eugenics and made horrible anti semitic and racist comments in the past and continues to support alt right nationalists who actively spread hateful rhetoric. The lie they promote of wanting to protect women’s and LGBT rights is a well crafted marketing scheme to give them a good image while they abuse and manipulate their own members behind the scenes.

This is a fantastic video essay that dives deep into the history of the members and their controversies:

Genuinely, from the bottom of my heart,

FUCK THE SATANIC TEMPLE

There are of course members who are great people who truly take the philosophy to heart, who have seriously fought for liberation and have sadly had their empathy hijacked. But I don’t like cops and I don’t like people who support Douglas Mesner and his band of freaks. They cannot be trusted and they have done far more harm than good. Actions speak louder than words.

[dullgecko]

Another goblin headcanon is that goblin hoards have a reputation for a lot of in fighting and strict hierarchy, which is just completely untrue.

While they do have leaders this is normally just the oldest/most experienced in whatever area they’re in charge of and hoards are actually normally very close knit and protective of each other.

One reason for this stereotype is that goblin as a language has a lot of clicks, hisses and growls that to someone who’s not used to it would think that anything said sounds aggressive and threatening.

They also wouldn’t be able to tell the nuisance in goblin body langue e.g angry tail thrashing vs excited happy tail thrashing, big toothy smile vs showing off teeth and ears going back relaxed not really concentrating on anything in particular vs ears going back I’m annoyed and about to attack.

Goblins also tend to use a lot of touch to communicate; gentle biting of friends, whining up to someone when they want something they have (especially younger goblins to older ones), playfully pushing each other and cuddling that honestly looks more like grappling and all this from a uneducated point of view could be seen as fighting.

Add this to people already having a low opinion of goblins and a lot of the ‘studies’ and ‘research’ done on goblins is at best extremely biased and inaccurate and at worst just plain racist, and goblins developed the reputation as savages that will attack even those in their hoard.

I’m also imagining a scene where riz and the bad kids go to the mountains of chaos and either run into or get captured by a goblin hoard. And after a few misunderstandings (they did plan on eating them, apart from riz) they’re happily welcomed and shown all around their section of caves, given food, a place to stay the night if they want etc.

It’s definitely weird for riz to suddenly be surrounded by other goblins after spending his whole life with the only other goblins he really interacted with being his mom and his dad and he does get pretty overwhelmed and emotional at points. But it’s also nice to experience for himself that no matter what people say goblins aren’t just these naturally evil stupid creatures.

Also the rest of the bad kids get climbed on, a lot.

These Goblins don’t often get a chance to interact with other races so are naturally very curious about the bad kids and to them getting up and close to new friends is perfectly fine, plus they’re all so much bigger than them so it makes perfect sense to scale up them to say check out gorgugs goggles or check out the colour of Kristen’s hair etc. xx

Honestly, i love this so much that i want to print it out and eat it. Thankyou.

---------------------------------------------------

They only even got attacked in the first place because a group of older goblins out for a hunt came across a pack of tall-men carrying what is clearly a CHILD and stepped in to 'save' them.

Noone actually got hurt, despite a lot of weapon brandishing and hissing, mostly because all the bad kids by this point are EXPERTS at reading Riz's body language and it translated perfectly over to the dozen or so goblin adults surrounding them and were smart enough to firstly drop Riz (who had been play-fighting Fig earlier and was at the time being carried around like a sack of potatos under Gorgugs arm until he calmed down because he had entered the silly and biting zone) and secondly put their hands up and drop their weapons.

It had taken Riz a while to talk them down, mostly because (as he explained to his party later) his mum and dad were from the opposite end of the range and had a WILDLY different accent and he had to wrap his head around that first. Think a New Zealander trying to talk to someone from Rural Texas. They can understand eachother, it just takes a bit for you to get used to the accent.

Once Riz explained to them that they were from Elmsville, and that this was his horde, the goblins attitudes changed drastically from 'intimidating and pissed off' to 'friendly and curious'. There wasnt much of a change in their body language, but all the bad kids relaxed immediatly when they clocked the shift (which only added weight to Riz's claim that these were his horde). Especially since Fig could hiss out a passable 'nice to meet you', even if her accent was terrible.

Some of them even put down their weapons to get closer and examine the rest of the bad kids, several of them grabbing and poking at Fig and Fabians forearms when they noticed the bite marks from the earlier play-fighting and Riz showed off his own bite-marks from Fig.

They get the invite to spend the night in the caves, since its already getting dark by this point and a bit too late to set up camp, and they happily accept. Kristen and Adaine have an absoloute ball playing with the goblin kids who come to investigate (they're so SMALL AND CUTE) while Fig and Gorgug get climbed all over by children and teens in equal parts. All of them kept getting offered food that they knew from experiance they proooobably couldnt eat without getting food poisoning, but they had plenty of rations to offer back and Adaine kept pulling candy out of her jacket to the delight of both the kids AND adults.

Fabian gets spared the brunt of the grabbing and poking, but mostly because Riz has taken refuge on his shoulders after a couple hours and was flicking his tail in mild annoyance anytime someone got TOO grabby. He'd fled up onto his favorite perch when, intrigued by the novelty of a NEW and STRANGELY DRESSED goblin teenager, more than one of the hordes teens had flirted a little too aggressivly with Riz for his liking (a boy around Riz's age had grabbed his tail and done SOMETHING Fabian hadnt quite seen, but the next second Riz was scrambling up his back and hissing so he didnt ask).

[donnapalude]

one aspect i really enjoy about the beginning of the maroons arc is the deliberate subversion of the african savage cannibalistic tribe trope that is prevalent in pirate stories.

when flint and his crew land on the island for the first time, the way their capture is shot seems to be leading exactly to that trope.

we first see some inhabitants of the island watching the crew from afar. they are shown in the middle of a jungle, with painted faces, jewelry apparently made from tooth and bones and few clothing items, armed mainly with blades and spears. there is also a menacing and unsettling feeling around them and it is immediately clear that they are not going to be allies to our protagonists.

and of course there's nothing wrong with all of that per se, it's just that in western media those are common indicators that we are encountering an "uncivilised" population, especially contrasted with the mainly white pirate crew.

to be perfectly clear: i think if you see a scene like this in a piece of media and you believe these people are bad ugly beastly savages you have a problem. but there's a difference between this being your personal opinion and you recognizing this is what the show is trying to say through common western cynematic language.

anyway initial impressions seem to get confirmed when flint et al. get captured and imprisoned and they are told that they are going to be tortured and killed one by one. even if it has already been mentioned in passing that these people are escaped slaves and we may feel sympathetic towards them, the setting is still framing them as enemies here. and not only enemies, but brutal, unreasonable people. it matters little that we have already seen brutal unreasonable people in the show that were not members of an african community and were judged more fairly. the cinematic trope is pervasive enough that we clearly recognize its language and what we are (apparently) being led to believe.

the first subversion of our expectations comes when we see the queen. the scene is shot from her point of view as she enters the clearing where the pirates are gathered.

so apart from seeing that the group is organised under a leader, we subjectivize her a bit. however, in any other show this sign of minimal political structure would not necessarily be enough to make us consider the group "civilised" and therefore "good". the same goes for the existence of buildings, which however are shown to be rudimentary for the western eye.

and all of this context does not change at any point. the subversion does not come from the realisation that the "savages" were more "civilised" than expected. and i really believe in other shows they would have gone that route, by slowly revealing that the group was more compassionate or more "advanced" (whatever that means) etc. than initially seen.

the subversion comes from understanding that the idea of western colonial civilisation as a measuring stick for morality is rotten. when we understand that this group of people has escaped untold horrors to create a peaceful society where they can exist only because hidden from the imperial gaze and that they attack whoever arrives as the sole measure to protect their invisibility, we reframe the moral judgement proposed at the beginning.

they still kill and torture people, we have not changed that, but they have fair reasons. they are not beastly boogeymans made to terrorize white sailors. not only they are not the predators here, but the preys. but in typical bs fashion, the important bit is also that they are not the monsters in white people's stories. they have their own story. this is their story. and the monsters are others. and when the menacing fog is dispersed their choices of clothing, buildings etc are now free to be (as they always should have been) neutrally moral choices related to practical circumstances and preferences, that have nothing to say about the group's intellect, capabilities and inherent aptitude for good (whatever that is).

so it's not that they are not considered "savages" anymore, it's that the concept of savage itself is scrutinised and found wanting. and all of this without the text really saying anything explicit about the process of realignment that we are experiencing. show of all time.

[lakesbian]

i was pondering some Thoughts about how people sometimes refer to worm as a "found family" story (& how this is sometimes mocked), how in-text alec explicitly says that the undersiders are the closest thing rachel has to family, how taylor tells them "you're my family, in a way," how the found family trope works in general, etc.

access to financial support, housing, medical care, And So On, is primarily attached to the institution of the family. the material necessities provided by membership to a nuclear family are why it's so common for people to reconcile with or keep in touch with family members they wouldn't if there was no material value attached to that relationship. the cultural prioritization of the nuclear family is how we get people offering "well, they're family" as an explanation for remaining associated with someone they wouldn't otherwise care about (or would even actively be trying to escape from, but this post is more about just Social Incompatibility in families than the outright abuse that the structure enables), with the expectation that the explanation is considered to make inherent sense.

aside from the found family trope demonstrating a lack of imagination about non-familial ways important relationships can take shape/demonstrating an inability to see relationships as truly important or deep unless they mimic the nuclear family, i think a lot of what appeals about the found family trope is a character dynamic that provides the same support, security, and undying love/depth of connection that the idealized nuclear family is purported to--and that does so as an escape from and superior replacement to the original blood family.

and what's interesting about the undersiders is that they're extremely not that. they're terrible at communicating. many of them don't get on with each other very well. they're oftentimes even actively shitty to each other: everyone but taylor towards rachel, brian towards alec (and aisha, but she's actually related to him), taylor towards alec and aisha. but there's still repeated in-text acknowledgement of a supposed familial dynamic between them! i think they're a "found family" in the sense that their group imitates the general role of the nuclear family--a small unit of people who (are supposed to) function as each other's fundamental supports in a world that, at large, does not care about any individual member, and who (are supposed to) do so regardless of any internal conflicts or lack of compatibility.

like, this is not a particularly articulate analysis of the nuclear family Whatsoever, but i don't think it's inaccurate to say that the compelling thing about the undersiders is that they are a "found family," but specifically in the sense that a lot of their dysfunctions are reminiscent of those found in typical, real-life familial bonds--people who wouldn't necessarily be getting along otherwise, or are even actively sorta bad for each other, forming very deep & intimate connections simply because they're materially forced to spend a lot of time together and have each others backs when there's no guarantee anyone else will.

for example: alec and aisha call taylor + brian 'team mom and dad' in a mocking manner not to indicate that they're kind/caring, but to indicate that they're being condescending micro-managing assholes...who aisha and alec are going to unquestionably listen to anyway, because they're a team, right? and you have to listen to your team leaders. i am onto an Observation here i think. deeply compelled by the idea of a ""found family"" where all of the similarities to an actual nuclear family are, despite being what drives the intimacy, also blatantly fucking dysfunctional

[luneengene2]

Enhypen Members and Their College Majors (+Their 'behavior' at college)

A/N : I made this according to my opinion about the college major they might take 😆

Warnings : Contains Grammar Errors

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• YANG JUNGWON

|| Faculty of Health / Medical Sciences ||

|| Department: Pediatric Medicine ||

- Jungwon really fits this major, his personality is very adorable.

- If there is practice with children, Jungwon will make parcels containing candy or chocolate so that the children are not afraid of him.

- Will be the lecturer's favorite student because his grades are always good.

- Dreams of opening a free hospital for children.

- The girls who were 'reportedly' close to him usually came from the dentistry department.

• LEE HEESEUNG

|| Faculty of Social Science and Political Science ||

|| Department: Communication Sciences ||

- Will be the most active student regarding issues of debate in the masses, advertising, politics, etc.

- Relatively active in participating in organizations on campus.

- Always arguing with the kids at Law faculty 💀.

- Can be a leader when there is a community demonstration.

- The most updated about the latest news circulating on television, especially those related to advertising.

• PARK JONGSEONG / JAY PARK

|| Faculty of Economics and Business ||

|| Departement: Business Management ||

- The heir to a family company who was told by his father to major in business management to become an expert in managing companies.

- He is targeted by girls on campus because he is rich.

- His father quite often made 'donations' to his campus.

- Go to campus using a BMW 8 The 8 840i Gran Coupe

- Often wears a Rolex watch when going to campus.

• SIM JAEYUN / JAKE SIM

|| Faculty of Social Science and Political Science ||

|| Departement: International Relations ||

- Using his bilingual skills in this major.

- Always the most serious in class and material.

- Often sent to conduct seminars outside campus because he is most fluent in English.

- Most updated about global issues or war.

- Internship at the South Korean Embassy in Australia.

- The lecturer's favorite student because he is the most active among the other students.

• PARK SUNGHOON

|| Faculty of Teacher Training and Education ||

|| Departement: Early Childhood Education Teacher ||

- Sunghoon can be 'close' to children well (I can see him when he was an ice skating teacher with Ben and Will). So, I think this college major is suitable for him.

- Often makes unique handicrafts as learning materials.

- Apprentices at a kindergarten, and becomes a favorite of the children there because of his affectionate personality.

- He is also targeted by girls because he is very fatherable.

- When his internship is over, the children he taught will feel very lost.

- His bag is full of modules and teaching materials.

• KIM SUNOO

|| Faculty of Arts ||

|| Departement: Theater and Drama ||

- One of the students who is good at writing drama scripts.

- Most active in setting up the stage.

- The most cheerful among his friends, that's why he always gets roles with a cheerful character.

- Always chosen to be chairman of the campus committee at festival events, more precisely in the stage arrangement section.

- Often praised by the campus chancellor for his stage management skills.

• NiSHIMURA RIKI

|| Faculty of Engineering ||

|| Mechanical Engineering ||

- The group of boys who are 'bad' on campus, because his emotions like to explode or often cause problems 😮‍💨✌️.

- He rarely goes to class but his grades are always high, so the lecturer certainly can't get angry.

- Always labeled a 'playboy' even though he was only loyal to his girlfriend who was majoring in English literature (Bro, he wants to hit the one who made those stupid rumors).

- Often hangs out at cafes near campus after class is over.

- Riding a ninja motorbike with a full face helmet.

- Targeted by girls too.

[rgr-pop]

I have a friend in the midwest who's looking for a political org and i was wondering if you could you offer some advice. Are there qualities you would look for in an org that would make you feel like, okay, these are people I can work with?

Yea! I think there’s a ton of variation and it depends on what kinds of work they like to do or want to learn to do. I’d be happy to talk to them directly about their city.

As a materialist, I sort of think any group or org can be worth trying—doing so gives you a sense of the conditions and things to learn, and helps you follow where people are, which is the best way to learn about a new place you live. Always join stuff, you can always stop going if you don’t like it, never try to start something from scratch until you’ve been going to stuff for a long time (unless that something is a union in your workplace :p). Your friend should just trust their instincts but be open to learning from others, honor their time/energy/boundaries, and watch out for red flag orgs that don’t respect boundaries and don’t allow members to vocalize concerns or bring ideas to the table. I think that’s the key line.

For me personally, I am only interested in deep involvement with democratically organized groups that are not primarily concerned with providing service to people who are mostly non members. I definitely respect and work with these kinds of orgs all the time, but it’s not where my organizing energy goes — I am not a mutual aid person, but your friend might be! Examples of groups locally that I like and work with and would trust as a model are food not bombs style mutual aid as well as some urban farm style stuff (some of which can be soooo fashy but some i like here!), syringe access and harm reduction, eviction defense and other anti carceral rapid response. I do work with abortion funds and infinitely recommend anybody who can stomach it do the same (they can reach out to me for info on their local funds). I’ve been doing stuff around parent/childcare/repro and I would strongly advise to tread carefully there given the entrenchment of socially conservative religious actors. Just stay vigilant and research. Antifascist style orgs are also very interesting, frustrating, messy, frequently dangerous, occasionally surprisingly fascist, and presently useful—look into them but be thoughtful.

Questions to ask, many of which especially apply to mutual aid style groups: is there a leadership structure, and if so, how do leaders become leaders? Is there a board of directors? Who is on it? Do we have money, and if so, where does it come from, who decides how we use it, and what is its legal status? Who decides what work we do and how? Do I as a participant have a vote, the potential to run for leadership, or the right to propose work or organizational ideas? How does this group conceptualize the relationship between me, the community at large, the people we focus on, and people in other places? What other orgs do they seem to be connected to? Is anyone paid staff, and if so, what are their working conditions and how do they relate to the non paid staff? What does this org have on paper, online, etc.? What kind of safety or security norms do they have? Do they have a procedure for handling violence or just mundane conflict between participants? How are everyday decisions handled? None of my judgments relate to an assessment of the people themselves, per se—which is NOT to say I don’t make those judgements lol.

Many different responses to the above are valid depending on the work, and not having clear answers doesn’t mean that an org is bad, especially if it’s open to development. Having said that, again, I only organize with groups that give me a vote. And I think everyone should consider that guide.

My pitch for joining DSA if you have a chapter is that it has the best answers to the above compared to anyone else. It has the most things you can do as a beginner, the widest variety, and the best opportunities to grow yourself as an organizer, and it’s the biggest leftist organization in blah blah you’ve heard it. I strongly recommend not getting too involved with small communist leftist factionalist orgs (I won’t name them here), but there are a million exceptions, especially in cities like Chicago and Minneapolis with long deep weird histories. And no need to hate on them, either. If some communist league seems to be really doing something and not uhhh openly trafficking people or something lol, go off. (Where I live this is the case on campus!) The other exception is the IWW. It’s always fine to join the IWW, especially for labor, and there really are a handful of cities where the IWW is effective and the place to do rank and file labor work (and mostly those are in the midwest!) In many more cases the IWW is a sad little thing but it’s our duty to be nice to them.

In conclusion “make you feel like you wanna work with them” is complicated—I’m a hater, and do not enjoy the company of most of these people, or in fact even the masses in general. You have to find your own balance, which requires pushing yourself out of your comfort zone for a little while, and see how the org reacts. But ultimately, you don’t need to want to work with the people—you need an org that is productive and moves by creating conditions for people to work together regardless of whether they like each other. Fundamental premise of socialism and communism specifically, and it’s what sets us apart from tendencies on the right and common versions of certain tendencies on the left whomst I won’t name. My #1 advice is always to avoid any group whose mission is based on affinity and friendship between its members. (But if you make friends with them, go off)

[birdsareblooming]

im so tired of having to defend myself on both sides

like. ok. i'm queer right. bi, demigender, aro, etc. also you know a girl, demi or not. all the time i have to defend myself from american christians who via mistranslations and misinterpretations spread by horrible leaders for generations have been led into a cult-like hierarchy that tells them to hate me when hate for us isn't in their book or supposed to be in their ways.

i'm also "christian". i hesitate to use the full term because of how bad american christianity has gotten. but i believe in the same god nontheless. every day i feel i have to defend myself from queer people as well

like. i so get it. as i have just established american and european christianity has gotten so fucked up and literally off-script that i'm shocked we haven't gotten another 95 thesis and a completely new branch. it's awful horrible and people who believe in such ideas should not be in power. to the point where calling myself a christian feels wrong. at least in america.

i need ya'll to have some nuance.

firstly the understanding that those who hate queer people, non-white people in any form, women, whatever else. isn't even in the text they follow. people have misused it since it was written. preaching just the verse saying wives should care for their husbands and not the one right after saying husbands should love their wives. taking out verses referring to god's "womb." about adam might not even being a man, as in, more likely nonbinary, the verse about david getting an errection when hugging johnathan. changing verses about cleanliness into women and men not wearing the same cloths. changing verses about cultural codes and allowing a world where people have to resort to prositution into verses condemning homosexuality. [X]

like. you know the matrix. was written as a trans metaphor. then a bunch of alpha sigma grindset rich white boys took it and appropriated it, misinterpreted it, used it to boost themselves and hurt women. it's like that. those people don't make the matrix a bad movie, they just don't know it's a trans metaphor. and trans people who enjoy the matrix are like. normal and cool.

as you can see i am passionate about this. i have all this stuff memorized not only to defend my queerness but my christianity as im doing now.

there are queer christians. there are certainly poc christians as right now, south america and south africa have the highest christian populations, to the point where they're sending missionaries to america.

again i'm asking for some nuance. when i see posts basically saying "the christian god is dumb" or "satan was right actually" and blantent misinformation about what the bible says. like those kind of posts hurt my heart. my god made me queer and loves me for it, i believe in a kind god, most good christians do. i feel like other religions don't get this treatment and it's just to spiritually piss off your catholic parents.

speaking of, in doing so you seem to forget about other abrahamic religions.

i once saw a post criticizing something directly from the old testament, out of context of course. saying god was cruel and the belives were flawed and all this due to one verse. people tend to forget, or not know, that the "old testament" is the tenoch. slightly different book order, same writings.

christians, muslims, jewish people, worship the same god. different names for god, some god, same base. if you make jokes about christianty willy-nilly, you're going to accidentally hit someone else. and even if you don't, you may hurt someone still.

it doesn't hurt because i think it's "sacrilegious" or i think you're going to hell. it hurts because my community doesn't care. my community doesn't see the nuance in people and decided a specific religion is the enemy. a specific group of people is the enemy. ive been marked as the enemy

it's casual jokes to you, to me it's making fun of my god

listen, by all means make fun of the assholes. i make fun of them every day. millionaires who use privet jets than preach and love to overlook the many verses condemning the rich and saying rich people don't go to heaven. people saying that as a woman of god you shouldn't enjoy sex. weirdos online and irl that seem to think patorizing random people will get them to church. dumb white people. it's great. fuckn. mormons and jehovah's witness leaders who are straight up running a cult based on a thread of the original intention. and it's funny because they're the assholes.

but don't attack the base religion itself. understand that the religion isn't inherently harmful, certain branches, beliefs, misinterpretations, and leaders certainly are. but please be kind to the people who are normal

before you make a post saying you're gonna. i dont know 'kill the uncaring god' that you're hurting people like me, any abrahamic religion, anyone who believes in a god possibly. also that's basically my parent, it's like you're insulting my awesome mom to my face bc my older sibling sucks. like thats just mean to her for no reason.

i'm just. tired. im stuck in the middle and i hate that i have to make this post because like. this is my home and my people and im tired of seeing this shit from my peers and family. just. have nuance. care about people. don't just say shit about a religion if you don't know its true.

im tired.

[nerdyerror]

Hate in when people say the captain is a bad leader he is not a bad leader, he’s a military leader. We think of Pat as the better leader because he is in a community role and he is a community leader.

Cap’s leadership skills are about functioning a unit as effectively as possible, using his troop’s abilities as effectively and efficiently as possible, which we can see he is good at. We can see that in the first episode, the fault of his form of leadership is that it requires a prerequisite common goal for all members of the group he is leading, these structures are in place in the military, chain of command, military goal, etc. but not so much in his home.

Pat’s leadership skills, on the other hand are about bringing people together, forming bonds. Less about an efficient group and more about a cohesive group.

As leader Cap isn’t worse than Pat nor vice versa they are just different types of leaders, for different situations.

In conclusion (tldr):

Pat’s leadership skills ≠ Cap’s leadership skills

Neither Cap nor Pat are better leaders they are just different kinds of leaders. :)

[icereader12]

I know I'm either preaching to the choir, or screaming into the void about this, but I feel the need to say it anyway. The phrase "from the river to the sea" is antisemitic. Full stop. Don't like it? Disagree? Unfortunately reality disagrees with you. And in a fight over information, reality should always win.

Let's start with origins. The phrase first gained traction, or general use, in the 1960s. It was co-opted by the PLO in 1964. The PLO was a group of Palestinian liberation groups, hence the name. Throughout the 1960s - the 1990s, they launched terrorist attacks around the world, but mostly in the Middle East. (Brittanica, Nov 16, 2023) The US designated them a terrorist organization, and their first leader, who brought the phrase "from the river to the sea into the limelight, repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel using this phrase (University of Michigan). The PLO claimed to represent Palestinians, and was a fighting force in the Arab-Israel war of 1967, which was declared by the Arab, and lost by them. When the PLO and Arab nations lost, the PLO rallies, and began attacking Israel with guerilla warfare. So the phrase originally referred to the desire to destroy the only majority Jewish state in the world.

History of the phrase continued.

When the PLO decided to recognize reality and acknowledge a two-state solution might be a good idea, many more radical groups in it refused to follow along and broke with the PLO. One of those group was Hamas. Hamas, widely recognized as a terrorist organization, uses the phrase in its charter. Hamas, also in their original charter, states that there will be no peace in the region until all the Jews in said region have been killed.(translation done by Federation of American Scientists). For those who can't connect the dots, that's a call to genocide. By putting that phrase next to their stated desire for genocide, Hamas confirms that that phrase, to them, is a call for genocide. (Business Insider, Nov. 6, 2023) So, in more modern day, it is still a call to genocide.

How the phrase is treated today.

Many who march for Palestine, including Palestine-American Representative Tlaib, say the phrase has changed meanings to them, and that they do not use it as a call for Jewish genocide. (Washington Post, Nov, 2023.) However, most Jewish organizations still regard the phrase as antisemitic, both for its origins, and for how people use it. This includes the ADL, AJC, Jewish Journal, etc. all of whom provide in depth analysis on why the phrase is bad to use. Most of it has to do, as previously stated, with the continued use of the phrase by terrorist organizations such as Hamas and PLEP to call for genocide. While some Palestinians argue that phrase has been commandeered by extremists, but it's okay if they use it because they aren't, that is an horrible argument. The extremists didn't take the phrase from them, they took it from the extremists (see above proof). You'd think, since many pro-palestinians claim to not support the extremists like Hamas, they wouldn't use the same phrases, so as to distance themselves from the crazies. Instead, they embrace the rhetoric.

Nevertheless, the real problem with continuous use of the phrase is that, when a minority group collectively says "that phrase is harmful to our community, please stop saying it", we oblige. When Black Americans said, "stop using the n-word, it's hurtful", we listened, because they were the community being hurt . And soon enough, we as a society realized those still using that word were racist. When the disabled community asked, "stop using the r-word, it's hurtful", we listened, because they were the community being hurt. And soon enough, we as a society realized those who kept using the word despite the harmed community's wishes were bigoted. The phrase "from the river to the sea" has been continuously used, both in the past and now as a rallying call for destruction of an ethnic group on the grounds that those calling for said destruction didn't like having to share land with said ethnic group. It has been used to kill people and incite violence. That's not up for debate, that's a historical fact. It is still being used to incite violence and get people killed. That is also fact. Marginalized communities are allowed to reclaim hurtful phrases for themselves. But the phrase "from the river to the sea" wasn't and still isn't used to hurt Palestinians, it's used to hurt Jews. Therefore, the only ones allowed to reclaim it are the Jews.

I don't care some Palestinians claim to not be using the phrase as it was originally meant. They are still using the rhetoric of an extremist group that uses that rhetoric to call for Jewish genocide. And when people use that same rhetoric for the same cause (liberating Gaza/ Palestine), they are saying, intentionally or not, that they agree with the rhetoric and actions of the terrorists who use that phrase to call for genocide. We can't read minds. Intention means very little when people call for hate. Whether they "mean it" or not, they are still calling for hate. It's the same cause, with the same words. If pro-palestinians insist on using the same phrases used by terrorists, they need to stop getting mad when we confuse them for supporting terrorists. The is nothing wrong with calling for a two-state solution. There is everything wrong with supporting a terrorist organization that calls for genocide. If you use language that could mean either but has historically meant the latter, people will think you are the latter. Calling for the death of all the Jews in a region is antisemitic. The phrase "from the river to the sea" has historically been used, and is currently being used to call for the death of all Jews in Israel. No one cares if you think you're using it differently. To the community still being hurt by that phrase, it is one and the same. Either pick a different slogan or stop being upset that you are being called an antisemitic terrorist supporter.

[sillysootyboi]

i like to hope there's an other side to this situation (like an end point), and when it happens, I do hope we can be kind. This is unfortunately some people's first brush with these kind of accusations and these kind of situations, and when you're introduced to situations like abuse in your comfort media, I know it can feel so...so horrifying, so it feels easier to go the other way, to be so angry to feel like you have control.

I don't really think people who joined hate mobs or spread vitriolic messages or acted how they acted are inherently bad people (even if some are still acting that way). I feel like for many they feel ike the 'message' justifys their angry actions.

I do hope we can instead help people understand why approaching any situation that demands you form an opinion 'RIGHT NOW' and demands biiiig emotions urgently should always be met with skepticism and a willingness to discuss it and ask questions without immediately attacking or labeling others who disagree with you as abusive/harmful.

More below for a rambly essay on misinformation/persuasive content 😵😶‍🌫️🫣

Misinformation is always a concern, but with short form video content and short form media like tweets, I really feel like it's the same as headline reading in the before-decade. You're seeing parts and parts and parts of a story, and due to time constraints, you're going to only be able to process those parts. ANY story, even if it's about stuff you agree with, that wants you to be upset and angry from the get go needs to be handled with more skepticism than standard.

It's okay to decide 'i don't know enough about this topic to form a strong opinion.' it's necessary to realize 'this tiktok made me hate this thing...should I? Who made the tiktok? Why did they make this tiktok? What did they leave out?'

I know there's been some posts circulating about the actions of Wilbur's mods/discord mods, and I do think they did more harm themselves to the community than Shu(b)ble did alone. People forget it isn't outsiders that ruin fandoms; it's the people in it. Their initial behavior regarding it was downright deplorable and continues to be something I am bothered by, but not surprised.

But it was their initial posts. Their initial condemnation without any evidence, without waiting for a reply or anything from Wilbur, that started this in my eyes. It was the update accounts. It was the mods. That was how I first heard of it.

I can't say it was like theyre evil masterminds, obviously, it wasn't their intention, but being able to say 'hang on, this is really upsetting, but I need time and space and more information before doing anything' is a skill people must learn.

When we enter the other side, I want people to look at what moment they made up their minds (whether it was in DMs, tweets, posts, etc.) and ask "what thing did I see before this?" For most people it'll be a friend or a mutual or some big account they follow that's opinion sealed the deal.

For most it won't be that Sh(e)lby stream at all.

And if you realize you looked to others, you looked to 'group leaders' in the fandom to seal your opinion, then I really, really, really need you to learn to validate your emotions and allow yourself to feel 'I don't know what to make of this. I need time.' Because most misinformation campaigns that will affect your life extremely won't be as detached as fandom, they'll be much, much more subtle and play a bigger role in your life

For example if you Google something for information and the results are pages trying to sell a product or service EVEN if they frame it as a simple information page, if it ends in trying to sell a service...it's not. Their purpose isnt to inform you, it's to persuade you. Know their language and information are going to try to make you feel a certain way they think will make you buy their product (whether it be anger/fear/shame/envy/happy)

And unfortunately that happened here. And suceeded. And it's going to happen again.

so kill me for the essay, but unfortunately that's what I studied :').