#because it isn't ABOUT kindness or 'serving' the marginalized group in some way. it's about eradicating the group in any way possible

[uncanny-tranny]

If your politics stem from, "in a perfect world, disabled people wouldn't have to exist to suffer their disability!" you are just a eugenicist.

So often, people seem to forget that eugenics isn't "being mean," so when eugenics are framed as kindness, compassion, empathy, and as a service done unto the people they are helping (see: eradicating), it isn't seen as eugenics - it's seen as a kindness. In what way would disabled people "not exist" in society if it were "made perfect"? In what way would we be deemed not to be "suffering a life of disability," and how is it measured?

The "kind" eugenicist is still operating with the same tools that the "dyed-in-the-wool" eugenicist uses. The kind eugenicist relies on people taking what they say in good faith, that they actually want to help the people they seek to eliminate.

[vaspider]

I've been thinking about the one post that had some weirdo TIRF on it talking about how "men 👏 don't 👏 experience 👏 misogyny" and everybody just kind of skipped to talking about how ofc trans men experience misogyny but like

We can't just skip how fucking asinine that sentence is on its face. That is not ground that should be conceded, bc trying to state as if it's a plain fact that "men don't experience misogyny" should get you laughed out of any room you're in.

Every time a boy is told he "throws like a girl" or is called a "little baby girl" for crying, he's experiencing misogyny because he's being devalued for traits that others see as feminine, traits which those doing the mocking see as belonging to women. Every time a fat dude's "moobs" get mocked, he's experiencing misogyny. Every time a girl makes fun of a dude for enjoying something she perceives as feminine, he's experiencing a double whammy of misogyny and homophobia.

There is no other reasonable way to discuss what these men are experiencing. That's misogyny.

The longer I talk with people in all kinds of marginalized groups online, the more convinced I am both that it's very understandable that people want their experiences and their hurts and their oppressions to be totally unique and unable to be experienced by anybody who isn't part of their group and also that anybody who hammers away on the idea that "only [X] can experience [Y]" and devotes excessive time to guarding the borders of their little fiefdom is not just not helping the cause of liberation, but is actively degrading our chances of making meaningful change.

I would go so far as to say there probably isn't a man alive who has zero experience of misogyny. Misogyny is leveraged against men constantly as a form of social control. Just because it's "do X or we will devalue you by calling you a woman" doesn't make it not an experience of misogyny.

Is it exactly the same thing that women experience? No, but also what different groups of women and different individuals experience is also different. There is no flawlessly singular experience of oppression experienced only by women, experienced the same way by all women, and never endured by men.

With that very simple fact in mind, spending time endlessly trying to police the way that another marginalized individual speaks about the method and effect of their own oppression rather than finding solidarity and commonality is fucking fed shit. It does not serve us and actively sabotages all of us, serving only those who actively benefit from our subservience and our infighting.

So fucking stop it.

[honeydewcorporation]

Some Things I Did Not Realize Until Later In Life

When it is sunny and miserably hot (>65F) outside and someone tells you to "enjoy the beautiful weather," they're not being ironic and genuinely think it is pleasant weather.

The default amount of pain most people are in is literally 0, not figuratively.

Most people feel a compulsory urge to breed with their preferred variety of people. Sex isn't supposed to be some kind of trial you endure to prove you love someone, and it's ok if you don't want any.

Polyamory doesn't have to be [people A-N in a relationship with each other at the same time] it can be (and is much more logistically feasible as [person A in a relationship with every person B-N individually]

If you think something is wrong with your body, follow that hunch as far as it will go. Your body doesn't just hand out warning signs for fun, those serve a purpose. Sometimes your body spamming you with warning signs for no reason is the problem in and of itself, and you should see a neurologist.

The golden rule is usually pretty good, but it can get you in hot water if you're autistic and trying to help someone. (I don't have a fix for this, just try to make sure people know your intentions before you speak to them.)

You don't need a "type"

You don't need a label.

You deserve accommodations for any disability you have, even if "it's minor" and you can live without them.

People tend to want to help each other out. Often you do not need to make it worth someone's time to ask for help, and they would prefer spending time to help you over spending time watching you flounder around without help.

It's ok to stop talking to people you don't vibe with, just be nice about it.

If you know someone who has a condition triggered by someone doing something they can't control such as Misophonia (when certain sounds send them into a panicky rage) triggered by a family member's eating noises: Neither of them are at fault, and it's ok to for either to ask the other to leave.

Equality is great in an ideal world but we live in a horrible bastard world where equity (certain marginalized groups receiving the aid they need before and in larger volume than advantaged groups) makes more sense.

Capitalism will always be at odds with general prosperity.

People give each other gifts because they like them. You should not feel obligated to give someone a thank you gift or feel guilty or indebted in any way. They would not like that.

Visualizing things from other people's perspective if you have low or no empathy is made easier by picturing it's you in their situation. A reminder that the world is complex and all those other people living in it are like you sort of.

Sorry this turned more into life advice! Hope it helps at all!

[oliveroctavius]

Doesn't the decision to get involved with Sam Bullit prove Gwen was a bad person?

Hey, I've been looking for an excuse to post about this. The Sam Bullit arc isn't really about Gwen (though it certainly reveals some things about her character). The Sam Bullit arc is about racist dogwhistles and why they work.

ASM #92 pg 19: "I will bring law and order to the people of this great city! I will show no mercy to the anarchists and all others who would destroy our way of life!"

Bullit's platform is not openly white supremacist in the sense that it doesn't overtly mention race. He talks about laws and safety in a way meant to appeal to rich white voters. The true meaning should be clear to anyone with any political awareness (who are those others and what is our way of life?), so why does this rhetoric attract "otherwise rational" people?

ASM #91 pg 6: "I want to volunteer to help you--in your campaign for DA. Because--I want you to bring Spider-Man to justice!" "We need strength--strength to punish those who mock the law! I will use such strength to bring Spider-Man and others like him to justice! I will not betray your trust."

Gwen makes her decision to back Bullit on the way home from her father's funeral. There's a very real phenomenon of tough-on-crime bills named after (white) murder victims. The grief of families who feel like justice hasn't been served is a powerful tool to push harsh laws while smothering any criticism as "disrespectful" to the victims. What’s in a Name? An Empirical Analysis of Apostrophe Laws, 2020.

Bullit showed up at George Stacy's funeral with this exact goal in mind, and when Spider-Man "kidnaps" Gwen later, he leverages the media obsession with white girls in danger for his cause. Gwen is a pawn, but she did offer her help first. Her desire for closure is very human and her short-sighted reactionary faith in "the law" is very white.

Oddly absent from your "proven bad person" takeaway is J. Jonah Jameson. The Bugle lends Bullit a platform to make Gwen's personal tragedy a political talking point. JJJ has the ~Black best friend~ excuse and everything, and he still blows past red flags like crazy.

ASM #91 pg 7: "Maybe they were better days than now! At least we had law and order then." "Yeah--and lynch mobs, and bread lines, and Uncle Toms..." "Come off it, Robbie! What's wrong with a man standing for law and order, anyway?" "Maybe it just depends on whose law--and what kind of order you're talkin' about, man!"

(Another point of this arc: marginalized groups learn to recognize dogwhistles pretty quickly for survival reasons. If they tell you something is a dogwhistle and you don't see it yet, look closer.)

ASM #92 pg 9: "Parker's story just served to open Jameson's eyes--but I've kept a dossier on you. I haven't been city editor all these years for nothing! I know where your support comes from. I know about the lunatic hate groups who are backing you. I know what you really mean by law and order!"

Late in the campaign, the Bugle switches sides. This scene tends to be described as JJJ giving the racists what-for, but the moment is truly Robbie's. (Note that it took Peter getting roughed up for Jameson to take this seriously!) JJJ can yell at Bullit all he likes without consequences, but Robbie is kidnapped and threatened by white supremacists in retaliation. It's Robbie's determination to speak up that eventually puts Bullit out of the running for good.

The Bullit arc isn't there to sort characters by Bad Person and Good Person. Neither Gwen nor JJJ have to personally hate black people for their self-centered sense of safety to be weaponized by a racist agenda. This is a Stan Lee PSA about masked bigotry and how it might appeal to you even if you consider yourself a Good Person.

But for some ~mysterious~ reason, Gwen's brief agreement and Jameson's brief rejection are the only parts of these two issues I ever see brought up, with Robbie's major role not mentioned at all. Some ideas fit more neatly than others into smug ship-war quote tweets and anon asks, it seems.

[lookwhatilost]

notes on nashville:

on conservatives and ideological framework of violence – the right wing model of why mass shootings happen seems to be a spiritual crisis theory of events. mental illness is interpreted as a presentation of this, and this compounds with the assailant being trans-masculine. the right generally seems to see transness as this scary, socially contagious, hypothetical delusion. or folie a deux via tiktok and twitter. so, even if they try and tie this back into "gender ideology", their presupposition is that the root cause is abnormal psychology, which isn't the same to them as political philosophy. i hope commentators pick up on that, because it's important to make these sorts of distinctions when we talk about starkly different views of gun violence in this country.

if you want my slipshod analysis, i think it's not mental illness so much, but what happens when you let the 24hr news cycle play with guns. but i don't want to derail too much.

on the categorical issue of stochastic terrorism – i've always really hated this term. if someone has told themselves that violence or destruction is warranted if it serves the right ends, anything in their media diet can inspire this. hell, not just the media diet, even their own philosophical conclusions! to pull a page from environmentalism, eco terrorists have historically been the types to justify extreme measures because they see this as less than proportional to the existential threat of climate change and/or industrialism. ted kaczynski is the most notable example of this, but so are the parade of clowns in later decades who did some arson to save the environment.

when the massacre happened last november in colorado springs, many were quick to blame tucker carlson and libsoftiktok for fomenting the climate that led to it. if you believe you're behaving in self-defense, retaliation is justified, so the logic goes. and i don't want to sound like some kind of ~enlightened centrist~, but extreme political polarization creates an environment where everyone feels perpetually under attack begets this in both directions. this is something worrying to me.

what's also relevant here is the narrative of trans genocide that's been floating about. at risk of being controversial, this is a huge misrepresentation of the set of heuristics gregory h stanton developed as warning signals that could potentially be turned around. this poster is frequently circulated, but i don't think it accurately captures the meat of the essay that spawned it. if you play fast and loose with the simplified descriptions, every marginalized group is going through an "ongoing genocide". stanton is very deliberate in how he characterizes the acts. i don't love to be a semantic nerd, but genocide is an action. there are pundits and politicians that i believe, if given enough power, would begin genocidal actions. but we're still at a point where we can do something. this is why the distinction matters.

that all said, this juvenile interpretation of events has been spread impulsively and uncritically by social media pundits that young people gravitate towards. i've been hearing and seeing it nonstop – they want you dead, they want you dead, they want you dead. i wonder if those pundits have the self awareness to know the thing they're doing might result in the stochastic terrorism they've bleated so much about. have you ever considered that your words echo beyond your comprehension?

ah well, that's enough. disagreements? comments? questions? send them my way. this is my nascent stance and i'm not hardline committed to it.

[liskantope]

@togglesbloggle replied:

We definitely got shotgun-blasted with lots of Feelings About SCOTUS recently! Mostly I think I just 100% share your sense about the obvious politicization and transparent corruption of the institution itself- enough that it's really hard to say "eh, yeah, that seems like a complicated issue and I mostly agree with them." And it's terrible that you can't even really pretend there's a theory of jurisprudence or whatever to back it up, just factionalism.

Very much agreed, with the qualification that I could imagine things worse and even more partisan: now and again (I think on gerrymandering / voting rights stuff, and a few other things), they don't side with the current Republican party. They don't seem particularly determined to do Trump's bidding even though they mainly have Trump to thank for having become so conservative-skewed. But yes, you summed up by saying that the sum total of their opinions at this point reflects factionalism over some objective theory of jurisprudence.

I suppose now's as good a time as any to expand on my (far from a place of expertise or ideally educated) thoughts on the decisions that went down, mainly the LGBT-related one.

I've always found opposition to same-sex marriage (and other privileges) revolting on both an intellectual and a humanitarian level, but I have to admit that after the battle for marriage was won in the mid-2010's, I just couldn't get myself worked up at all about wedding cake companies that wouldn't bake cakes for same-sex couples (the immediate next gay rights issue placed in front of us). The recent SCOTUS case, as I understand it, is essentially the same kind of thing, except with a company that creates wedding websites instead. And not only do I not find myself able to get worked up about it, I don't see any particular reason to suppose that the decision is unjustified (although I would really have to research the legal arguments on either side to say that confidently and I don't have any background in constitutional law), and moreover, I have a really hard time seeing how it harms LGBT people in any substantial way.

There is a distinction that nobody on either side ever seems to acknowledge, which is between the following:

(1) a company refusing service to someone directly because of who they are, as in, they see a gay person walk through their door (I don't know how they'd know the sexual orientation of the potential customer, but maybe it's a tight-knit community or something or maybe the customer is really queer-presenting and they guess) and saying "We don't serve your kind here!"; versus

(2) a company refusing to create something that contradicts the owner's values (where the type of something they would be asked to create is different in a way they consider salient and which also happens to roughly align with a marginalized identity group).

Scenario (1) seems like it should be completely unacceptable under US law. But my understanding of the case is that it fits Scenario (2).

I say "roughly align" because of course one's sexual orientation isn't determined by who one eventually chooses to marry: a very queer-presenting bi person (or even mostly same-sex-attracted but heteroflexible person) could walk to order a website for their wedding to an opposite-sex partner. My understanding is that the company would be compelled to take such a person on as a client, and I feel that if they had the right to refuse such a person because of their identity then it would be a very different matter.

(Okay, maybe we could go down a rabbit hole where the company isn't required to take this person as a client because it's against their values to photograph very queer-looking people or people they've been told previously had same-sex partners. We're now talking about what I imagine to be a rare set of strict-commitment values here, because even your middle-of-the-road homophobic Christian is likely quite happy to see someone who previously "strayed the path" now making a life with an opposite-sex partner, and disapproving of their haircut or whatever would be a secondary concern, I would think?)

It seems to me, what should happen to companies who insist on restricting their output in accordance with homophobic values shouldn't be compelled by law to create things that go against their values (which will only feed a victim complex and incline them towards doubling down) but, rather, should suffer the consequences of it being public knowledge that they hold to these values, which means that (at least in most areas of the US in the 2020's) they lose a substantial amount of business. Except in the most conservative regions, I can only imagine it must be a net disadvantage to be on the record refusing to produce something for gay weddings that you produce for straight ones.

I don't really see how this creates a hardship for same-sex couples. Do they want to give their business to a company run by people who oppose their right to be married but are serving them only because forced to by law? Don't they, in 2023, in most parts of the country (even in 2015 when I first started hearing about this issue), during an age when geography matters much less than it used to (I guess maybe not with cakes but with websites and photos?) have tons of other options? Wouldn't they want to make a statement with their dollars about which kind of company to support? I would worry about this creating a hardship in, let's say, 1998, when I doubt wedding websites were really a thing but if you insert analogous service here I would guess it was actually probably hard to find a company willing to recognize same-sex relationships. I would be concerned if like 90% of all wedding cake/catering/photography/website companies adhered to homophobic values. But that's surely not the world we're in anymore, outside of a few very unfortunate geographic spots (and like I said, geography doesn't matter much anymore anyway)? I don't know, I've been criticized for underestimating the power that American religious conservatism still holds, and maybe I'm doing that here.

I can only imagine that the real reason this SCOTUS decision is being met with so much outrage from the gay community is somehow the principle of the thing, like it just feels like the Supreme Court (and by extension, the political establishment in general) is turning back against them, like they ruled this way as a way of giving a middle finger and saying "We don't care about respecting your identities as much as respecting someone else's right to believe hateful things". And I can be sympathetic with this feeling and moreover acknowledge that this might be on some level what is motivating some individuals on the (as I've said, rather horrifying) Supreme Court deep down. But I feel like this mentality feeds into the kind of "warrior philosophy" that I've been extremely leery of for at least a decade, where any move made that superficially reduces to a marginal blow against one's own side has to be combated out of a deeply obligatory moral principle, rather than be considered in terms of its actual concrete direct and second-order effects in contrast to alternatives.

As for one of the other big SCOTUS decisions (as if this post weren't spicy enough), I'm completely agnostic on how to judge the constitutionality of race-based admissions to public colleges and universities. But I've felt pretty adamant for a long time that among all the factors that create social inequalities and in the whole conversation surrounding social justice and related policies, the whole thing has been way, way too fixated on race (at the expense of a bunch of other things, particularly class), and so to a first approximation at least I on principle can't say I'm opposed to making it harder for universities to conform their admissions processes around racial quotas. I will not be happy if they additionally remove standardized test scores from applications (which I imagine a bunch of places will now, since they'll see it as one of the only anti-racist measures left available to them) and leave economic privilege and legacy shenanigans with a relatively outsize role, so there are a lot of wrinkles to how this plays out and whether or not it will be a good thing.

I'm in the weird position at the moment of being horrified in general by the current Supreme Court, perpetually angry at how its current make-up came about, and wanting badly to do something about our mechanism for getting and retaining its members, but not being at all sure that I oppose either of its decisions that came out today. (I really mean the "not being at all sure" in a pretty literal manner: I have a good bit more research I should do, especially on the refusal-of-service-to-LGBT decision, before feeling confident in my stances.)

[hellomynameisbisexual]

Here's a shortlist of those who realized that I — a cis woman who'd identified as heterosexual for decades of life — was in fact actually bi, long before I realized it myself recently: my sister, all my friends, my boyfriend, and the TikTok algorithm.

On TikTok, the relationship between user and algorithm is uniquely (even sometimes uncannily) intimate. An app which seemingly contains as many multitudes of life experiences and niche communities as there are people in the world, we all start in the lowest common denominator of TikTok. Straight TikTok (as it's popularly dubbed) initially bombards your For You Page with the silly pet videos and viral teen dances that folks who don't use TikTok like to condescendingly reduce it to.

Quickly, though, TikTok begins reading your soul like some sort of divine digital oracle, prying open layers of your being never before known to your own conscious mind. The more you use it, the more tailored its content becomes to your deepest specificities, to the point where you get stuff that's so relatable that it can feel like a personal attack (in the best way) or (more dangerously) even a harmful trigger from lifelong traumas.

For example: I don't know what dark magic (read: privacy violations) immediately clued TikTok into the fact that I was half-Brazilian, but within days of first using it, Straight TikTok gave way to at first Portuguese-speaking then broader Latin TikTok. Feeling oddly seen (being white-passing and mostly American-raised, my Brazilian identity isn't often validated), I was liberal with the likes, knowing that engagement was the surefire way to go deeper down this identity-affirming corner of the social app.

TikTok made lots of assumptions from there, throwing me right down the boundless, beautiful, and oddest multiplicities of Alt TikTok, a counter to Straight TikTok's milquetoast mainstreamness.

Home to a wide spectrum of marginalized groups, I was giving out likes on my FYP like Oprah, smashing that heart button on every type of video: from TikTokers with disabilities, Black and Indigenous creators, political activists, body-stigma-busting fat women, and every glittering shade of the LGBTQ cornucopia. The faves were genuine, but also a way to support and help offset what I knew about the discriminatory biases in TikTok's algorithm.

My diverse range of likes started to get more specific by the minute, though. I wasn't just on general Black TikTok anymore, but Alt Cottagecore Middle-Class Black Girl TikTok (an actual label one creator gave her page's vibes). Then it was Queer Latina Roller Skating Girl TikTok, Women With Non-Hyperactive ADHD TikTok, and then a double whammy of Women Loving Women (WLW) TikTok alternating between beautiful lesbian couples and baby bisexuals.

Looking back at my history of likes, the transition from queer “ally” to “salivating simp” is almost imperceptible.

There was no one precise "aha" moment. I started getting "put a finger down" challenges that wouldn't reveal what you were putting a finger down for until the end. Then, 9-fingers deep (winkwink), I'd be congratulated for being 100% bisexual. Somewhere along the path of getting served multiple WLW Disney cosplays in a single day and even dom lesbian KinkTok roleplay — or whatever the fuck Bisexual Pirate TikTok is — deductive reasoning kind of spoke for itself.

But I will never forget the one video that was such a heat-seeking missile of a targeted attack that I was moved to finally text it to my group chat of WLW friends with a, "Wait, am I bi?" To which the overwhelming consensus was, "Magic 8 Ball says, 'Highly Likely.'"

Serendipitously posted during Pride Month, the video shows a girl shaking her head at the caption above her head, calling out confused and/or closeted queers who say shit like, "I think everyone is a LITTLE bisexual," to the tune of "Closer" by The Chainsmokers. When the lyrics land on the word "you," she points straight at the screen — at me — her finger and inquisitive look piercing my hopelessly bisexual soul like Cupid's goddamn arrow.

Oh no, the voice inside my head said, I have just been mercilessly perceived.

As someone who had, in fact, done feminist studies at a tiny liberal arts college with a gender gap of about 70 percent women, I'd of course dabbled. I've always been quick to bring up the Kinsey scale, to champion a true spectrum of sexuality, and to even declare (on multiple occasions) that I was, "straight, but would totally fuck that girl!"

Oh no, the voice inside my head returned, I've literally just been using extra words to say I was bi.

After consulting the expertise of my WLW friend group (whose mere existence, in retrospect, also should've clued me in on the flashing neon pink, purple, and blue flag of my raging bisexuality), I ran to my boyfriend to inform him of the "news."

"Yeah, baby, I know. We all know," he said kindly.

"How?!" I demanded.

Well for one, he pointed out, every time we came across a video of a hot girl while scrolling TikTok together, I'd without fail watch the whole way through, often more than once, regardless of content. (Apparently, straight girls do not tend to do this?) For another, I always breathlessly pointed out when we'd pass by a woman I found beautiful, often finding a way to send a compliment her way. ("I'm just a flirt!" I used to rationalize with a hand wave, "Obvs, I'm not actually sexually attracted to them!") Then, I guess, there were the TED Talk-like rants I'd subject him to about the thinly veiled queer relationship in Adventure Time between Princess Bubblegum and Marcelyne the Vampire Queen — which the cowards at Cartoon Network forced creators to keep as subtext!

And, well, when you lay it all out like that...

But my TikTok-fueled bisexual awakening might actually speak less to the omnipotence of the app's algorithm, and more to how heteronormativity is truly one helluva drug.

Sure, TikTok bombarded me with the thirst traps of my exact type of domineering masc lady queers, who reduced me to a puddle of drool I could no longer deny. But I also recalled a pivotal moment in college when I briefly questioned my heterosexuality, only to have a lesbian friend roll her eyes and chastise me for being one of those straight girls who leads Actual Queer Women on. I figured she must know better. So I never pursued any of my lady crushes in college, which meant I never experimented much sexually, which made me conclude that I couldn't call myself bisexual if I'd never had actual sex with a woman. I also didn't really enjoy lesbian porn much, though the fact that I'd often find myself fixating on the woman during heterosexual porn should've clued me into that probably coming more from how mainstream lesbian porn is designed for straight men.

The ubiquity of heterormativity, even when unwittingly perpetrated by members of the queer community, is such an effective self-sustaining cycle. Aside from being met with queer-gating (something I've since learned bi folks often experience), I had a hard time identifying my attraction to women as genuine attraction, simply because it felt different to how I was attracted to men.

Heteronormativity is truly one helluva drug.

So much of women's sexuality — of my sexuality — can feel defined by that carnivorous kind of validation you get from men. I met no societal resistance in fully embodying and exploring my desire for men, either (which, to be clear, was and is insatiable slut levels of wanting that peen.) But in retrospect, I wonder how many men I slept with not because I was truly attracted to them, but because I got off on how much they wanted me.

My attraction to women comes with a different texture of eroticism. With women (and bare with a baby bi, here), the attraction feels more shared, more mutual, more tender rather than possessive. It's no less raw or hot or all-consuming, don't get me wrong. But for me at least, it comes more from a place of equality rather than just power play. I love the way women seem to see right through me, to know me, without us really needing to say a word.

I am still, as it turns out, a sexual submissive through-and-through, regardless of what gender my would-be partner is. But, ignorantly and unknowingly, I'd been limiting my concept of who could embody dominant sexual personas to cis men. But when TikTok sent me down that glorious rabbit hole of masc women (who know exactly what they're doing, btw), I realized my attraction was not to men, but a certain type of masculinity. It didn't matter which body or genitalia that presentation came with.

There is something about TikTok that feels particularly suited to these journeys of sexual self-discovery and, in the case of women loving women, I don't think it's just the prescient algorithm. The short-form video format lends itself to lightning bolt-like jolts of soul-bearing nakedness, with the POV camera angles bucking conventions of the male gaze, which entrenches the language of film and TV in heterosexual male desire.

In fairness to me, I'm far from the only one who missed their inner gay for a long time — only to have her pop out like a queer jack-in-the-box throughout a near year-long quarantine that led many of us to join TikTok. There was the baby bi mom, and scores of others who no longer had to publicly perform their heterosexuality during lockdown — only to realize that, hey, maybe I'm not heterosexual at all?

Flooded with video after video affirming my suspicions, reflecting my exact experiences as they happened to others, the change in my sexual identity was so normalized on TikTok that I didn't even feel like I needed to formally "come out." I thought this safe home I'd found to foster my baby bisexuality online would extend into the real world.

But I was in for a rude awakening.

Testing out my bisexuality on other platforms, casually referring to it on Twitter, posting pictures of myself decked out in a rainbow skate outfit (which I bought before realizing I was queer), I received nothing but unquestioning support and validation. Eventually, I realized I should probably let some members of my family know before they learned through one of these posts, though.

Daunted by the idea of trying to tell my Latina Catholic mother and Swiss Army veteran father (who's had a crass running joke about me being a "lesbian" ever since I first declared myself a feminist at age 12), I chose the sibling closest to me. Seeing as how gender studies was one of her majors in college too, I thought it was a shoo-in. I sent an off-handed, joke-y but serious, "btw I'm bi now!" text, believing that's all that would be needed to receive the same nonchalant acceptance I found online.

It was not.

I didn't receive a response for two days. Hurt and panicked by what was potentially my first mild experience of homophobia, I called them out. They responded by insisting we need to have a phone call for such "serious" conversations. As I calmly tried to express my hurt on said call, I was told my text had been enough to make this sibling worry about my mental wellbeing. They said I should be more understanding of why it'd be hard for them to (and I'm paraphrasing) "think you were one way for twenty-eight years" before having to contend with me deciding I was now "something else."

But I wasn't "something else," I tried to explain, voice shaking. I hadn't knowingly been deceiving or hiding this part of me. I'd simply discovered a more appropriate label. But it was like we were speaking different languages. Other family members were more accepting, thankfully. There are many ways I'm exceptionally lucky, my IRL environment as supportive as Baby Bi TikTok. Namely, I'm in a loving relationship with a man who never once mistook any of it as a threat, instead giving me all the space in the world to understand this new facet of my sexuality.

I don't have it all figured out yet. But at least when someone asks if I listen to Girl in Red on social media, I know to answer with a resounding, "Yes," even though I've never listened to a single one of her songs. And for now, that's enough.

[normal-thoughts-official]

What do you think of writers making fic about topics they haven't experienced? Like if someone was to write a fic about if Buckys Jewish identity without being Jewish. I find it kind of a grey area bc I totally think that published books about social issues should be exclusively by own voice authors because no one else should profit off of their struggle. But with fanfiction its kinda different in that no one profits, and fanfiction isn't used to educate. Idk I saw a trans creator talking about how they think its fine for cis writers to use trans characters respectfully and not be scared to use them, even if they dlget some things wrong, becausr otherwise we are still in the same situation of all representation falling to the responsibility of that specific community, which often means they don't get enough repsentation. Idk I wanted your opinion on it.

i agree with this writer. i think that the argument that ppl should only write about what they have experienced serves nothing but to make ppl more closed in the groups they belong to and less likely to learn, empathize, and reassess the way they see, marginalized groups. i think privileged ppl are put in a way too comfortable position whenever we say that the best thing they can do for marginalized groups is nothing, because that's what they, as a rule, already do. it serves oppression and supremacy and always has, because oppression stands on its own; it needs active work to be dismantled, and passiveness will never be enough

i do believe that we as readers should always ALWAYS look to diversify the sources of the media we consume, because oppressed ppl are not only more qualified to write about themselves, but also bring perspectives about OTHER topics that privileged ppl are frequently blinded to. i, as a brazilian, have a fundamentally different viewpoint from gringos in a lot of subjects even when they are not at all related to that, and that cultural and experience diversity is always enriching. so do look to diversify your sources on everything

but it's different to say "readers should look for ownvoices books" (and honestly not just when it represents a minority; minority creators should be valued regardless of whether or not the topics they write about are related to their minority status, simply because they are as capable of writing compelling and interesting stories as anyone else) or "publishing companies URGENTLY need to start hiring more diverse authors" (NOT only to write about diversity! minorities are and should be allowed to, and valued for, having whatever interests they fucking want), and "privileged people should keep to writing about what they always wrote about". i don't agree with that and i don't think i ever will, because i've seen every argument in favor of that at this point and none of them ever came close to convincing me

with that being said, again: representation is a responsibility. it's not about simply "well i'm allowed to write about whatever i want!" (of course you are, but it's deeper than that); it's about the fact that writing about minority groups you are not a part of is an opportunity to learn, and, by learning about harmful tropes, getting sensitivity readers, and etc., you also get to reassess the way these subconscious bias affect YOU as an oppressor, and unlearn that. it should be treated with care and willingness to learn and reassess yourself and the way you think, constantly. it also needs to mean being open to criticism

this all ties in with what i've recently written in this post (link)

[writeyouin]

aaahh, thank you so much!! you're definitely cooler, tho òwó since the thighs of thunder comment has inspired me so, how bout a pre-game scenario in which best friends Jack, Will, and reader are hanging out at an ice cream shop or something and during their convo reader "casually" comments that Jack is hella fine, in so many words? maybe she drops the thighs of thunder comment verbatim, LMAO. their reactions are up to you. female preferred, neutral's fine too! (I hope this isn't too vague ;v;)

Jack Joyce X Reader – A Hypothesis

A/N – Ahh, my first fic in awhile, I hope you enjoy it Quantum Anon.

Warnings – Mild language.

Rating – T

The sun cast a warm glow over Riverport, reminding the small town that summer was coming and it was going to be a hot one. You, Will and Jack were seated on a small metal table under the awning of Gabrielle���s, Riverport’s favourite long-time Ice Cream Parlour. Sixties music played lazily from the building’s speakers, setting up the perfect atmosphere for friendly conversations. The general mood from the staff and families inside the building were generally happy since the Ice Cream parlour had recently been saved from bankruptcy by a new company, though you couldn’t remember the name of it; Monty Solutions, or something similar.

All in all, it should have been a marvellous day, and it would have been, if it wasn’t for the on-going tensions between the Joyce brothers. Unless things got better between Will and Jack quickly, you knew Jack would leave Riverport. That was why you’d suggested the outing in the first place; evidently it was a mistake to do so.

“Unbelievable, Will!” Jack exploded from your left, making you flinch. “Seriously, I cannot believe you.”

“As is the definition of unbelievable,” Will countered snarkily from your right.

“Asking me to give up my inheritance for you over some half-baked scheme is crazy. You won’t even tell me what it is!”

“How many times? It’s not a scheme, it’s a scientific endeavour.”

“Call it what you want. It doesn’t change the fact that you’re insane.”

“And you’re insufferable.”

Jack threw up his arms frustratedly, “Why are you even here? (Y/N), why is he here?”

Will rolled his eyes, “I could ask the same thing if it wasn’t so painfully obvious.”

Both men fell silent, turning their hard gazes to you, though Jack softened marginally. You gave an awkward half-smile, having hoped neither of the brothers would have commented on the fact you’d invited them out under false pretences. Both originally thought that it would only be you and them individually; you knew if you’d have told them the truth they wouldn’t have come.

“C’mon guys, it’s not that bad, is it?” You asked helplessly.

“Yes,” They answered simultaneously.

Will’s chair scraped against the sidewalk as he got up, “That’s it. I’m done.”

Irritated by the quick turn of events, you slammed your fist against the table, “Sit down this instant.”

Will eyed you carefully, lowering himself back into his seat. He doubted he would have done the same for anyone else, but he cared about you greatly, even if he didn’t often show it. When the Joyce brothers’ parents passed away and Jack assumed responsibility for Will, you and Paul were the only ones from Jack’s original friend group to stick around through the bad times. As such, Will had grown a sort of detached fondness for you, like you were another sibling there to settle the arguments between him and Jack when they hit a stalemate.

“I invited you both out so we could have a nice day, just like the old times. Remember when we used to come here after school and talk about whatever was bothering us? Jack, when it was your finals, Will helped you study algebra here, and Will, when those idiots in class started bullying you, Jack taught you how to throw a punch here. Now it’s your turn to sit down and stop arguing for one day for me, because this may very well be the last day we get together like this. Can you do that?”

Jack looked away sullenly, mumbling a rushed, “Yeah.”

You glanced at Will who nodded curtly, embarrassed at being reprimanded by you.

“Good. I’m going inside to order now and when I get back, I expect to find the two of you talking nicely.”

Once you’d left Jack spoke again, “Jeez, looks like we made mom mad.”

Will wrinkled his nose disgustedly, “Gross. Don’t tell me you see (Y/N) in a parental light. That is hardly appropriate.”

“What are you talking about? You’re always saying stuff like that.”

“Exactly.”

“What? Wait, you’ve lost me.”

Will sighed, hating that he had to explain the paths his mind took, as usual; he might not have been as agitated about it if he and Jack hadn’t been arguing only minutes before. All the same, he tried to explain his thought-process to Jack, “Okay, think of (Y/N)’s relationship with you like… like an egg.”

“An egg?” Jack echoed.

Will could see from Jack’s confused expression that it wasn’t the time for metaphors. “Okay, forget the egg. Long story short, (Y/N) has a crush on you, so you can’t ever make a parent joke again.”

Jack leaned back in his chair, chuckling to himself, any previous anger towards Will forgotten. “You think (Y/N) has a crush on me?”

“No. I know (Y/N) has a crush on you.”

“No offense Will, but you’re hardly good at reading people.”

“Once again, you’ve proved my point. I,” Will pointed to himself, “Can’t read social cues. It’s rare that I’m ever sure what people think or feel, so when I say I know-”

“-You know,” Jack finished thoughtfully. “Alright, I’m game. How do we prove your crazy hypothesis?”

Will looked through the parlour window to make sure you weren’t coming out any time soon. There were a few people in front of you, so he figured he had some time if he spoke as fast as his mind went. He leaned closer to Jack, “Okay. You’re basically a male chimp.”

Jack raised an eyebrow, “A chimp…”

“Yes, keep up. In the wild, male chimps show their interest in mates by displaying their genetalia-”

Jack pointed warningly at Will, “If you’re suggesting for even a second that I send a dick pick-”

Will slapped Jack over the head, “Don’t be disgusting. I was going to say if we translate that behaviour to a socially acceptable equivalent, all you need to do is show you’re a worthy partner through a feat of skill or strength that highlights your muscles. See that guy behind the counter about to serve (Y/N)?”

Rubbing his sore head, Jack turned to examine a gangly forty-something man with an unflattering porn-stache. “Yeah.”

“You have to assert your dominance by punching him.”

Jack stared at Will disbelievingly, “I’m not punching some random guy.”

“He’s not random. I picked him because he short-changed me the last time I was here.”

“Fine, then I’m not punching some guy because you don’t like him.”

“Well then what do you propose?”

“Gee, I don’t know,” Jack replied sarcastically, “how about I just ask (Y/N) how (s)he feels about me?”

“We’ll call that plan B.”

“I’m not punching-”

“Quiet, (Y/N)’s coming.”

You took your seat between the pair, “Ice cream will be here soon. Did you two find something nice to talk about while I was away?”

“Sort of,” Jack smiled playfully.

“’Kay, then hit me with it.”

“The guy behind the counter is a menace to society,” Will jumped in.

You nodded agreeably, “Tell me about it. He tried to short-change me. I should have decked him for it.”

“See,” Will said to Jack. “I told you my plan would have worked.”

“Plan?”

Jack was practically grinning from ear to ear, “Yeah, Will had a pretty fun hypothesis.”

“Do tell,” You said eagerly, awaiting yet another one of Will’s crazy theories that you had grown accustomed to over the years.

Will looked away awkwardly. You turned your attention to Jack, wondering exactly what you had accidently stumbled upon.

“(Y/N), do you have a crush on me?” Jack said, waiting eagerly for you to get flustered.

Instead, you answered coolly, “Sure I do. Who could resist those thunder-thighs you got?”

Just then, a server came out with a tray of ice-cream sundaes. Before she could pass them out, Will got up and grabbed his off the tray. “I don’t want to be here for this,” He said, heading for a table inside.

The server didn’t even bat an eyelid at the unusual scene. She placed a sundae in front of you and another in front of Jack who was laughing into the palm of his hand, practically convulsing, and without a word went back inside.

“THUNDER THIGHS!” Jack sputtered in hysterics.

You smiled. “I didn’t hear you deny it.”

Once his laughter had subsided somewhat, Jack looked at you quizzically. “Seriously, what does that even mean?”

You grabbed your spoon, tucking into your ice cream before gracing Jack with an answer. “Remember in high school when you decided to join the football team?”

“Yeah.”

“Back then I only went to those dumb games to watch you play.”

“And here was me thinking it was for the love of the sport,” Jack quipped.

“Alright, I get it, you knew that already. What you don’t know is that I led you to believe I was there to support you, but really I just went to watch you in those cute gym shorts. When you tackled, you looked great, or rather, your thighs did.”

“I think you’ll find all of me looks amazing; if you weren’t so focused on my thighs, you’d have noticed that by now.”

“Oh God, don’t tell me I inflated your ego further,” You groaned.

“While it was obviously indecent of you to stare so brazenly at me, especially without an escort, I find myself flattered that you think I’m the most beautiful creature you’ve ever laid your eyes on.”

“Careful or I’ll find someone else to stare at.”

“It’s far too late for that. At your age, it’s time to settle down with someone, before you’re put out to pasture. That’s why I’m going to make a one of a kind offer to you. If you go out with me tonight, I promise you won’t die alone… My thighs will be there too.”

You rested your hand over his, smiling the entire time, “Well, when you put it that way, I’d say you have yourself a date Mr Joyce… Should we call Will back now?”

Jack glanced through the shop window where Will was sat at the back, eyeing the two of you cautiously. “Give it a few more minutes. I think if we both stare at him for a while, the paranoia might break him.”

“What an interesting hypothesis.”

Like my work? Buy me a coffee and earn preview of the next fic, or commission me on the commissions page.

[freedom-of-fanfic]

I need your help friend, the fandom is at stake: can you do a quick recap of why shipping isn't activism? And I don't mean just in terms of antis, but also the anti-backlash where people defend their ships by trying to prove they're actually progressive (which would still imply you need to prove your ship is not harmful before shipping it). Fans may have good intentions and mean no harm, but social justice is not achieved through fantasy.

what a good question. let me see if I can do this justice with a good answer.

Why Shipping is Not Activism

(edited on August 6th, 2018, 1 year after initial writing)

First off: let’s define ‘shipping’ as ‘desiring two characters to have romantic and/or sexual interactions and using social media or fanworks to share this desire with others.’  So: specifically looking at shipping as a social activity here, because I hope we can all agree that ‘shipping it’ - simply wishing for two characters to have some kind of interaction in your head - is not activism because it’s thoughts, which on their own nobody else knows about and thus can’t have an impact.

Shipping as activism is mainly talked about in the context of being ‘queer/LGBT representation’, and everything else is treated as secondary.*  So I’ll be talking about this primarily from that POV.

Okay.

shipping is not activism because shipping doesn’t do two important things that activism does: 

shipping does not generate or act as mainstream representation

shipping does not increase awareness or change social values

and that’s okay. Shipping doesn’t need to do these things because shipping takes place in a microcosm. Fandom is but a tiny, tiny fraction of internet and social activity as a whole. No matter how ‘progressive’ we collectively are, only in the rarest cases will we make a meaningful impact on society as a whole.

Shipping serves a different, but no less important purpose, which I’ll get into below.

That’s the short version. the long version is below.

Shipping is not activism because: 

Shipping is a fandom-specific activity and fandom doesn’t make much of a social impact. We get talked about a lot by the creators because we’re the people most likely to have contact with them and provide feedback on their content; we have an impact on creators in that sense.  But apart from coming to cons and talking on social media, when we get mainstream attention it’s almost always to talk about how weird we are. Also, we don’t cause social change. We can fan over something that already exists, but we can’t cause a show with better representation to be created.

Because of this: 

Meaningful, mainstream representation of LGBT/queer relationships come from mainstream media, and fandom is not the main force acting on mainstream media productions.  Remember when korrasami became canon in the last few minutes of the last episode of Korra because the creators knew about the shippers? Congratulations: you’re looking at an outlier that took a lot of very specific circumstances and luck to have happen. And most importantly: it wasn’t done to please the shippers.  Shippers may have given them the idea, but it was done because canon korrasami would create visible bisexual/LGBT representation. It was possible because the show was only airing online, to a smaller audience, and because of the herculean efforts of LGBT/queer activists over the last century to get our collective visibility and acceptability as high as it is (and yes, we have a long way to go, but we’re miles past where we were even 10 years ago.)

Current fandom seems to carry the belief that if we just ship hard enough and loud enough, the creators of an ongoing mainstream media will reward us by making our favorite ship canon.** The reality is we rarely, if ever, make a meaningful impact on the direction that canon takes. We’re a small, small part of the consumer base - a loud one, but small!  We’re often not the aimed-at demographic, either, so pleasing us is the last thing the execs trying to make a buck are thinking about. The material we’re fanning over is already old news to producers; short canons are usually already finished by the time we receive it, and longer ones are at least a season ahead in production time. (If we do make an impact, we won’t see it for at least a year or more.)  Shows must meet decency standards, and LGBT/queer relationships are still seen as higher-rated than their cishet counterparts.  Executives care about what will sell ad space or toys more than what fandom wants.

The fact of the matter is we have the cause and effect backwards.

Ships being ‘good representation’ is a function of increased mainstream media representation of marginalized identities, not the other way around.  When media was entirely full of characters who were white cis men, we shipped white cis men. And as media slowly stops having nothing but white cis men, we’re … still shipping white cis men a lot, because there’s still a lot of them and there’s still a societal bias that tells us that white cis men are the most important/interesting people (and simultaneously, because they are unmarked, we can’t accidentally fall into stereotype pits while fanning them), but we’re shipping more and more non-white, non-cis, non-male characters too. 

Real social activism leads to increased media representation - like the reclaiming of the word ‘queer’ in the late 80′s/early 90′s leading to a TV show called ‘Queer as Folk’ and featuring gay characters. And increased media representation leads to more marginalized characters for fandom to ship.

While transformative fandom does, to an extent, change things from canon to represent ourselves more - or just to suit our fancy! - canon always reigns supreme and is the most widespread version of the characters.  Canon becoming more diverse will always have more of an effect on fandom than fandom being diverse/having diverse content will ever have on canon.

Besides:

The desire to see ships become canon is not primarily motivated by generating healthy representation of marginalized identities.  Fans have been wanting their favorite ships to become canon since the Stone Ages.  The Harry Potter fandom wars were all about what was most canon: Harry/Hermione, Hermione/Ron, or Harry/Ginny.  Notably: Draco/Harry is not one of the pairings I list, because nobody thought there was the remotest chance that Draco/Harry would ever become canon.  It’s only recently that LGBT/queer rep in particular has been making a meaningful appearance in mainstream media, and suddenly slash ships have entered the ‘will it be canon!?’ fray. And some mlm fans feel they have more ‘right’ to canon because mlm ships are LGBT/queer rep.

Here’s the thing: if this was really about representation, then we’d all be celebrating if any mlm pairing became canon. No matter which pairing is ‘more progressive’, any LGBT/queer canon representation is better than none. But (surprise!) it’s not; the ‘queer rep!’ battle cry is just an additional cannonball in the arsenal of ongoing ship wars.*** And I venture to say that most mlm shippers engaged in a ship war would rather see an unrelated het pairing become canon than their rival mlm ship.

And this is because: 

Shipping is not, and never has been, primarily about creating healthy marginalized representation.  

Don’t get me wrong: transformative fandom is heavily LGBT/queer/mentally ill/disabled/otherwise underrepresented, and we often create transformative fanworks that bring our identities into the story. That’s awesome self-fulfillment, and it can really bless and excite fellow fans who see fandom content that makes them feel more welcomed and recognized.  However.

Generating marginalized representation isn’t the primary motive for shipping. We ship out of love. We see the dynamics between two characters and think ‘oh, that’s hot’ or ‘I’d like to see more of that’. We ship for fun. We ship because we think two characters would look good together. We ship because we imagine ourselves as one character and have a crush on the other. We ship things for many, many reasons, many I haven’t mentioned here, maybe as many reasons as there are people in fandom doing shippy things.  And to that end, I’m sure that some people do decide what to ship purely because they believe it represents minority groups that need representation - but it would be too much to say that’s the main reason people ship things.

Shipping doesn’t need to be about creating healthy marginalized representation because:

Fiction is not reality; a person can ship the ‘right’ ships and still be a bigot IRL. and visa versa. Because we interact with fiction and reality in different ways, there are people who really love mlm ships but still think gay marriage is icky. On the other hand, a person can be the loudest activist for LGBT/queer causes in real life and only ship het ships in fandom, just because the dynamics of het ships pings their fancy more.

Shipping as activism preaches to the choir. Shipping being a fandom-specific activity, and many of us being oppressed ourselves, shipping the ‘right’ ship to increase awareness in the microcosm of fandom isn’t really accomplishing anything. Most of us are ourselves LGBT/queer, or friends with people who are LGBT/queer. Most of us are aware of how much pain the lack of representation in mainstream media brings on.  And most of us are sensitive to the fact that we’re not the only oppressed person in fandom space and are willing to learn more about how we can help other oppressed people.

If I could sum up the problems of current fandom, it’s that we assume that nobody else is #woke (even though most of us are sufferers). 

In that sense, shipping the ‘right’ ship doesn’t bring more awareness; it acts as a signal to others that you have awareness, and hopefully protects you from being erased or harassed as an ignorant asshole (’cishet’).

Most importantly:

Shipping isn’t activism, but it does something else great: it lets marginalized fans express and indulge themselves in any way that pleases them.  

- fandom is hugely made of underrepresented minorities, so shipping is a way that we express ourselves and relate to one another - whether those ships are ‘progressive’ or not. So, so many of us deal with social stigma or harassment or hate in our real lives; we consume media to get away from that, and we indulge in fandom to get away from that.  

Most of us are, just by existing and demanding space in the world, activists for the rights of the marginalized and oppressed. 

I’ve had some people disagree with me on this, but I stand by it. many people in fandom have orientations/identities/nd/etc that politicize our existence. When we are ‘out’ - when we are visible - and vocally demanding recognition for our lives by being visible and refusing to compromise, we are activists by existence. And many of us are allies, taking political action on behalf of others. and many of us are both - marginalized this way, allies to people marginalized that way. 

the actions we take as activists in the real world are the ones that matter - not fandom.

Fandom is a space for us to play with each other and connect over something fun and pleasant, and those fun and pleasant things don’t have to be activist things. We’re allowed to take a break.

The importance of activism and representation is to benefit the marginalized and oppressed, letting us be recognized and less stigmatized, and deconstructing the social and political structures that work against us leading fulfilling lives.  When we use shipping the ‘right’ ship as a bludgeon to attack one another, we are literally defeating the purpose of our own causes. We’re stigmatizing each other for our fandom interests. And we’re certainly not deconstructing any social structures that harm us!

In conclusion: The way we can be most activist in transformative fandom is, no joke, to care more about the fact that almost everyone else here is marginalized too than that one another’s ships aren’t marginalized enough.

fandom is different from the way it used to be: it’s more visible, more mixed with non-fandom, and easier to access. certainly, it’s important to make clear where we’re addressing relationship stuff for fandom versus relationship stuff for real life. there’s value in taking steps to counteract the harm done by lack of education about sex, consent, and healthy relationships, particularly as LGBT+/queer people, or people who need access to & information about reproductive health care taking care of one another in a world that doesn’t care enough about us. 

but educating each other doesn’t happen through a ship: it happens through open, friendly communication. shipping can open the door to communication, but it can’t substitute for straightforward honesty. 

Let’s foster healthy interaction and honest communication wherever we can: by celebrating each other and our creative endeavors - instead of creatively locking us down with terror of getting erased or driven out of fandom by demanding everything be treated as a teaching opportunity.

be kind to one another. 

(the rest of the world is not going to do it for us.)

–

*In talking about ships as representation we generally start with ‘this ship is queer/LGBT’ and then use all other axes of oppression to prove which ship is ‘more progressive’, i.e. - F1nnPoe and Ky1ux are both mlm, but F1nnPoe is more pure because it’s a black man and a Latino man as opposed to two white men. (Occasionally race will also be talked of as the primary point of value, depending on the fandom.)

**On a side note, this whole paragraph is also why it’s unlikely that fandom being ugly will ever cause a show to be cancelled or a pairing will get changed in canon because some fans were nastier than others. We’re like bugs with stingers: scary and painful but ultimately not that impactful (unless you’re allergic, I guess, but forget that part of the metaphor). 

***This is part of where the ‘I have to prove my ship is wholesome/their ship is evil’ stuff comes from: ‘proving’ to creators that your ship is the ‘better’ queer representation because it either covers more marginalized bases or is ‘more pure’, making it less objectionable for mainstream representation. (the joke is that bigots don’t care how pure an LGBT/queer ship is: they’re gonna still think it’s awful because it’s LGBT/queer.)

PS - I don’t think this answer really addresses why arguing about purity of ships is a bad plan, but this is already so long that I’ll address that somewhere else I think.

[goron-king-darunia]

Here's the thing. Cancel culture? Does make it harder to be funny. People on YouTube get canceled for the dumbest things sometimes, like shipping the wrong ship. HOWEVER. Cancel culture aside? Yeah. There are still loads of funny people who don't have to be offensive to be funny. John Mulaney is a prime example in both cases. One time John made a joke about his wife "being a bitch." Now, in context, it's actually really funny. He's not saying that because being bitchy is bad. He's saying it because he LOVES that she's bitchy. She sticks up for him. Her bitchiness is the joke in a positive way. A lot of people saw the joke out of context and were ready to cancel him without knowing the context. Imagine how fucking awful it would be if John Mulaney, one of the funniest men alive right now, got run off the internet because everyone thought he was a misogynist and hated his wife. But no, the difference between John's joke and other jokes like it is what saved him. Because if you listen to the full joke "'My wife is a bitch! And I don't like her!' Why would anyone ever say that? MY wife is a bitch and I fucking love her!" along with some following jokes, it becomes super clear that the punchline isn't "Nyeh nyeh, ball and chain, I hate my wife." the punchline is "You thought I was calling my wife a bitch like it's a bad thing? No! She told me I could say that and guess what? Let me do a 15 minute bit about how my wife is super tough and makes sure people treat me right. I'm a fucking doormat! Without my wife, I'd get treated like shit everywhere!" It's way different to say "My wife is a bitch, and I wish she would die, amirite, fellas?!" and say "My wife is a bitch and I'm so fucking lucky to have her." It's not being "offensive" necessarily that's the problem. "Punching down" is the problem. If your jokes are designed to denigrate, harass, offend or upset people who are already marginalized? That's "punching down." If your joke invites or inspires vitriol and negative stereotypes about an already marginalized group? That's punching down. If your jokes rely on you to single out one person and get the audience to heckle them for no reason? That's punching down. If the joke serves only to antagonize, shock, or offend? Yeah. The joke's probably not very good. But if the joke is "offensive" for the right reasons? (i.e. poking fun at the people in power, self-deprecating humor, insult humor against a willing volunteer, etc) Then that's okay. TL;DR: if you can be funny without being offensive? That's the best kind of humor. Anyone can enjoy it and no one will be mad. If your jokes are mostly inoffensive but some of them make people mad? That's still okay. No one is perfect and cancel culture needs to allow people to be human. But if your brand of "comedy" relies on insulting and degrading people? Or being sexist or racist? It's probably not that funny. Pick a different career.

https://twitter.com/melissaftw/status/1179077973762166784?s=21