#but it's HARD to make a deeply personal post about how people's discourse is making me feel lost and hurt and alone

[aromantic-pantyanarchy]

It's me. I'm the cis, heterosexual, aromantic man. I will never marry, I will never be married, I will grow into middle age and elder age and I will die unmarried. I will be forced to support a household of myself on only my wages alone for the rest of my life. I will be asked about women and marriage and children by my family for the rest of my life (or men, the progressive ones might say). I may not ever come out to them. I feel like I burned my coming out on something stupid. I don't want to explain it. I don't want to run them through the definitions and intricacies. I don't want the acceptance without understanding, placating me with ceased questions and poor explanations to other, drunk adults.

I like my hair to be long, I spent a year with it dyed a golden blonde with dark roots because I like the trashy party girl aesthetic. I want to dye it again with pink tips. I like painting my nails, black and blue are my favorite colors. I like wearing chokers. I also like wearing baggy jeans and ratty hoodies. I like having stubble. I like having chest hair. I like having a square jaw and broad shoulders. I wish I had a flatter stomach and a thinner profile frame. I don't know what this makes me, perhaps this is something no more GNC than Machine Gun Kelly. I think about this a lot, how queer my appearance truly is. I should think about it less. I have thought long and hard about if I could be trans or if I could be non-binary or if I could be genderqueer and the conclusion I ultimately came to is that I most enjoy being a man open to whatever self-expression I want.

I don't date, but I've thought about it. I would like to meet people, and I would like to have sex with them. But I don't want to hurt them. I fear if I explain what I am beforehand it'll scare them away. I fear if I explain after they'll feel manipulated or abused. I don't know how many people in the dating scene want what I want. I fear my own lack of experience will make me a bad lay, an embarrassing story to tell to confidants in hindsight. I fear my own virginity, a boundary to those I wish to be like. All of these fears are baseless, as I've not been able to even begin a single relationship in my life. Despite this I still heavily identify with terms like "slut" and "manwhore" and "thot" because my interests lay so deeply within casual sex, sex without great intimacy or emotion. This may be some form of stolen valor. I hope the true sluts are not too mad at me.

I made this blog several years ago because a mutual of mine reblogged memes making fun of aro and ace people, making fun of the concept of aphobia, and in addition well known aphobes. I didn't feel comfortable talking about aro stuff on my main blog, for as little as I talk about it. Living through the ace discourse of the 2016 era has largely caused me to cringe in embarrassment any time I am forced to discuss my orientation with people who aren't aro or ace themselves. I no longer follow this person. I unfollowed many people I was mutuals with from that time, most of them because they posted too often about how much they hated men and I didn't want to see that, some because our interests simply drifted too far apart, only one for explicit aphobia reasons. (Also one because they became a "both sides are bad, any vote is wasted" libertarian, but that's unrelated.)

I guess at this point I don't care deeply about what strangers on the internet think of me. If a trusted friend told me that they don't think I'm truly queer that may hurt. But I am going to continue to use the word for myself. I take up no resources. I go to events that are open to me. If an event was not open to me, I think I'd not want to go anyways. I am not a hypothetical, I am not a strawman, I am a person with lived experiences both within and exterior to the queer community. If you hate me, I will permit you to continue to do so. But ultimately, I am who I am, I cannot change these facts, and I would not choose to do so even if I could.

[olderthannetfic]

another round of "smut in my native language is so bad" bs coming from Europeans (im saying Europeans bc they're by far the largest section that complains about this openly. I'm sure Latin Americans and Asians have similar takes wrt their languages but they're not as loud about it) and I came across this gem, and I paraphrase: "I cant even imagine having sex with someone from my country because I'd have to listen to their dirty talk, that's why I only fuck foreigners who speak English"

... what?

every single of these stupid posts - esp if they come from monolingual EFL speakers - about mocking languages - be they Germanic, Slavic, Romance, or Celtic - is just in such bad taste to me, and the reason as to why this hits European languages primarily is pretty much the same as every single food discourse of people (primarily Americans, be they white or not!) making fun of traditional European dishes - because they cant say the same thing about "strange" Asian or African dishes without being correctly called out as xenophobic racists and/or they simply have none of that on their radar (as we all know, everyone online is American, and if they're not American, they're European. If you're not American or European, you're a spy, and if you're not a spy either, you don't exist bc these other countries speak neither english nor do they have internet, phones or free time)

if you're already giggling about how strange and unerotic (? lol) French, German, Polish or whatever sound, I dont even wanna know what you think about the sexiness potential of a language where you cant even read the script but won't be saying that because This will be the straw that breaks the camel's back

but getting off my little soapbox and pivoting back to the paraphrased quote:

when this comes from smug EFL speakers, im annoyed and they can catch some blocks, but ESL speakers joining in on this? oh boy, you are unspeakably... sad to me? i genuinely dont know how you are living and talking to people on a daily basis in that native language you hate so much, but then again, at royal courts, French used to be in so everyone learned it. but the specific of only ever being intimate with foreigners BECAUSE of them not speaking your language... this is just so fucking weird to me in a way i can't put my finger on. it feels so deeply insecure in yourself and while i guess this person is free to do whatever they like and fuck whoever they want to... 🫥. i guess

maybe im the asshole for trying to psychoanalyse that person but the general attitude, be it specific about smut or some "hihi haha, naeeee, imäginé spèåking likë thåt" bullshit, just needs to be carried into its grave already (as does the food discourse, for that matter)

--

English wasn't good for writing things down... until it was. I know it's hard to be the trail blazer who goes "Actually, our vernacular is awesome!", but I wish more people would try.

(Side note: Are we using EFL and ESL the same way? EFL = English as a Foreign Language, and is a term for teaching English in a non-English majority context. ESL = English as a Second Language and is used more to talk about teaching English to immigrants to the US or another English-speaking place. I think some places also just use EFL where I'd use ESL.)

[wetcatspellcaster]

Not sure if this was ever asked so sorry if that’s the case but - how do you feel about Ascended Astarions character (as a player not in the context of Rosalie per say), do you see why some people understand the appeal and not to poke the bear but do you think that AA blowing up on social media may have contributed more to the discourse over the characterizations?

hmmm. how many people can I upset in one ask? my aim is literally none, and yet I'm 3 predrinks in and feeling very silly, and if any ask is going to do it it'll be this one.

under the cut not bc I'm a coward, but bc this is a long post.

so first off, anon, thank you for asking the question! I'm going to be quite honest and direct, which means that I might not give you the answer you want or want to hear, as I'm not certain what your motivations for asking this question might be. but, as this is something I have thought very deeply about, I always welcome the opportunity to talk about it, so thank you for being interested in my thoughts.

firstly, yes. of course I see the appeal of Ascended Astarion. To be quite frank, I do not have the infinite free time to be wasting, writing 100s of 1000s of words of fic about something I don't see the appeal of. despite the unprecedented reaction to Pieces that I had no way of predicting, I don't write for attention or clout - I wrote Pieces bc I liked Ascended Astarion, and I wanted to write for him. I love villain/heroine, I love gothic romance, I love vampires, I love tsundere and yandere dynamics, and I love writing flirtatious dialogue. Ascended Astarion caters to all of these things perfectly for me.

Pieces is a thesis (lol, rhyme), on the appeal I see in Ascended Astarion's character. I loved writing his character. And, if we want to be really candid, I lovingly crafted many, many lines of dialogue in which an attractive man who was obsessed/downbad for the heroine, no matter what she did or how good a person she was, promising her a life of safety where he'd be the one to dirty his hands for her, and she'd never have to work hard or try or put in effort or work herself to the bone ever again.... in the final year of my PhD thesis submission. in case it's not clear who's id I was feeding then, I will say the quiet part out loud: I was very, very tired. I am not a good person the way that my Tav is a good person. These speeches waiver Rosalie's resolve bc they would absolutely work on me.

So, when I get asks like this, asking me if I like Ascended Astarion.... I have to wonder. I'm not mad about being asked, but it does make me worry... what am I doing wrong? what am I doing that suggests I don't like him? or that I don't obviously find him hot?

And every single time, it comes down to one thing: Pieces makes a moral judgement on his character. lmao.

We live in a period of fandom culture where people either think or want their morality and attraction to line up perfectly. People feel bad - or are made to feel bad - about finding 'problematic' characters or dynamics attractive. and conversely, people also seem to think that if they find something hot, it can't be bad or wrong or problematic, bc that would make them a bad person. ergo, if I say something is bad in a fic, there's no way I'm horny for it. bc I said it's bad.

beloveds, I don't really ascribe to this. for one thing, morality is only at play in Pieces bc I wanted to write a gothic romance, and ideas of virtue - and the yearning to both preserve and be virtue's corruption - are a central motif of that genre. its what makes phantom of the opera horny. it's what makes all the labyrinth fanfiction i have bookmarked horny. it's what makes nosferatu, to some extent, horny. if anything, Pieces was trying to show how many ideas of virtue are just self-destructive repression - I said in asks at the very beginning, that if Rosalie was a little more well-adjusted and a little less depressed, she would've just fucked Ascended Astarion in chapter 7 and that would actually have been the healthier decision, because it would've gotten all that shame out of her system.

but secondly... girlies. morality and attraction rarely, if ever, line up, and to police such things isn't just a headlong dive into purity culture it's a headlong dive into puritanical thinking. i do think that if people find certain things attractive - particularly around race and its fetishisation - they should do the work to examine what cultural biases and privileges are at play in their own attraction and do their own mental inventory, perhaps even understand why there are consequences to this way of thinking, particularly in today's political climate, and accept that others are going to be extremely extremely uncomfortable or not want to associate with you as a result. i think that this is especially true when it relates to how you treat real people in the real world, and if fiction contributes to stereotyping or encourages people to treat certain groups as less than people, then this should be examined. but my guys, Astarion is the whitest of white boys. white man of the century, even. and the bleed of anti-culture into every facet of media consumption, to the point where people feel like what is 'good' and 'moral' and what is 'hot' should align, is insane to me. it will literally never work, and it does in fact contribute to the conservative curve of culture more generally.

to be frank, i don't think it's about Astarion blowing up on social media that made ascended diskhorse so radioactive. tumblr is the only social media I use, and if it still made it's way to me without a tiktok, a twitter, ora bluesky, then clearly it's more than that. if you want my opinion, I think it's because Larian created a character who's central of his arc is desire and a relationship to desire, which people find relatable from a number of angles, many of which are personally charged... and then the ending to that arc involves a moral choice. then, people found him hot in both aspects that result out of that moral choice, and we enter the torment nexus of morality/purity culture where people have to find moral justifications for what they find hot. when really... it's ok to find it hot. get the cop out of your brain, and enjoy your devil's sacrament. the fact that my ascended fic is my most popular story suggests that a lot of people are at that sacrament in the first place.

(but howlsmovinglibrary, you created a redemption arc story! you resouled him rather than admit that's who he is! you contributed to that puritanical thinking! it must mean you hate ascended astarion!)

beloveds. I just love spike/buffy and villain/heroine. that's what's hot to me. which vampire gets resouled after several seasons of adjusting his moral code out of insane levels of romantic pining? and again, please look at exhibit A: all my labyrinth bookmarks.

hopefully, this answers your question. if I'm going to end this ask on my most honest opinion, I do think that Ascension is Astarion's evil ending. but I don't think that, because of the dynamic he has with Tav. I do not particularly care about discourse that calls it abusive, possessive, etc. This is a man made of pixels. We're in a fictional, imaginary space.

For me, what makes the ascended ending 'evil' is the fact that it involves a moral event horizon of 7000 deaths. I personally believe that what makes characters and villains interesting is identifying their points of no return, (in my other villain/heroine works, one takes place with that moral event horizon happening, and the other one it's averted, so this is already a preoccupation of mine), and... the ascension ritual feels like that, to me. You get confronted with the manifestation of Astarion's trauma and guilt over his victimisation under Cazador, but also his knowledge that he was somewhat complicit in extending that out to others, and you can choose to either free him from that by forgiving him, or free him from that by erasing it all from existence. Neither of those choices are wholly good or wholly bad, but the fact that one of them results in the death of 7000 people kind of tips the scale for me personally, honestly.

but... does identifying that as a moral event horizon within a fictional story where characters will deliberately have brutal turning points that give the player ultimate agency in the 'fantasy protagonist' rpg mean that I don't understand the appeal? no. absolutely not. I see the appeal of both the character, and honestly, the decision itself. the power fantasy of murdering your abuser brutally, taking his power, and erasing all evidence of your own oppression is so completely understandable!! that's why Astarion is such a cool character!!! bc he has such sympathetic, clear motives for what he does, even when those choices are villainous or bad.

honestly, I think my most controversial take in this entire discussion is that I don't think the 'morality' conversation of Astarion's character should revolve around his relationship with Tav or another companion at all. it should be about that moment, not what comes after.

anyway. that's my rant. sorry anon if it wasn't what you wanted, or if this feels a little intense in any way. As I say, Im tipsy, and this is something I've overthought and can infodump on for hours. thank you for being interested xx

[pishifuzul]

i'm not trying to mine you for anything, to be clear, i don't want to be rude or asking to much and i don't want to be presumptuous, but i know you've probably thought through this and i'm personally attempting to currently, and i wanted to know how you felt about it. you, at least presumably based on the things you post and the way you discuss her, are involved in a ~24/7 incestuous d/s type relationship or something adjacent to it. I am as well. I'd like to know what you think the psychological and political implications are for both sides of this dynamic. i don't think anything could drag me out of it, because it feels too good, but i struggle to really delve into the topic myself due to how primordial and fundamental the impetus seems to be, and how unwilling i am to confront the idea that it might be "bad" or something. In essence, i'm asking you how you've thought of your participation in such a dynamic and what that means for you and yours, how it reflects on you, in as much as you're willing to discuss it. i know this can be deeply personal, so if you're unwilling to broach the topic in any detail you can (obviously) discard this ask.

my baby and i talked about this one for a while. you've presented me with a sort of conundrum, because contrary to your presumption, i've not thought about the relationship in those terms (viz. "psychological and political implications") at all and nor has she. in fact, you would have a hard time selling me on any duty or motive to think about it. my initial instinct on reading this ask was that i don't care about the "implications" in the slightest and it is not a question i have any theoretical interest in. but that's unhelpful, and there is in fact more to say here—just maybe not what you might be looking for

first, there is the question of etiology, i.e. "why do i like this?". maybe in years past this would have appealed to a psychologizing streak in me, but these days it's just an academic question i have no desire to pursue. it feels good, and it's irrelevant to me why, except inasmuch as i can figure out how to make it feel better. but then we're talking about something else.

second, and of more interest to me, is your concern about "what this means for" or "how it reflects on" you. this is still not a question i struggle with because i don't need an answer to it. but i can see a trail upstream of this question, originating in moralizing discourses of the sinner and the sinned, the predator and the prey, the monster and the innocent. there is a pervasive framing of the dom as pathological and the sub as angelic (aside, i don't think of my relationship in d/s terms, though it "technically" fits the template). within this frame the dom is perpetually implicated in wrongdoing, even if it is "consensual", and the sub is absolved of any responsibility. everybody wants the older girl, but nobody is allowed to want the younger one. i've seen people absorb this rhetoric into shame and guilt for occupying the latter position; i've also seen it, more insidiously, absorbed by the former to shed all duty to the partner. from this there issues a need that people feel to justify or explain or legitimize or even just analyze "the implications" of what they are doing lest they fall on the wrong side of morally acceptable kink. as we all know tho, these sides are artificial and conventional. and the dom needs aftercare too. so i don't have answer for you, except to ask: why is this something that occupies your thoughts so much in the first place? what is it that drives you to figure this out? why are the implications of concern to you? more pointedly, why must there be any implications at all?

i don't know if you've read serious weakness, but i posted once that nobody has understood me until they've understood the grip tria has on insul. if that's intelligible to you, then that's my short answer. i'm not worried about implications, because what i have going on is a closed loop with much more balance than some might assume.

[starlight-bread-blog]

My Interpetation of The Southern Raiders: Part 1 – A\ang

Warning: The views expressed in this analysis will be very critical of Aang. If you aren't critical of him in this episode, you aren't going to enjoy this post. This is your chance to leave. I probably won't have a debate for personal reasons.

——————

The Southern Raiders is probably one of the most discussed episodes in the fandom. Everyone knows Zuko Alone is great, but the discussion surrounding this episode is a war zone. In this essay I will try to answer every question posed in the discourse. This is part 1 out of three. In this part, I will discuss A\ang. I believe that understanding both Zuko and Aang's decisions in this episode will give us great insight into Katara's. Because the this episode is hers.

——————

1. Is Aang's philosophy of forgiveness valid?

(1) "Revenge is like a two-headed rat viper. While you watch your enemy go down, you're being poisoned yourself".

(2) "You do have a choice: forgiveness". // "It's easy to do nothing, but it's hard to forgive". // "Forgiveness is the first step you have to take to begin healing".

This philosophy is indeed morally sound. Revenge comes from rage, a negative emotion that causes harm in the long run. Forgiveness is letting go of that rage, which is healing. I cannot write a full thesis, this essay is not about that. But on paper, I do agree with A\ang. He's right to say that letting go of rage is a better alternative than getting consumed by it. (However, his philosophy might not help some).

——————

2. Was A\ang being insensitive when talking to Katara?

First I must reiterate, a lot of people frame the conflict of the episode as one regarding the ethics of murder. In my interpretation, it is not. During this episode Katara was in a deeply emotional place. Her rage stemmed from intense grief and those around her should treat her as a mourner - with great sensitivity.

Now, was Aang being this sensitive with Katara? Well, in my opinion, very much so.

Imagine a scenario where A\ang just happens to meet Haru, and he's about to go on a quest to find revenge on who imprisoned his father. He tries to help him with the following sentences:

(1) Um ... and what exactly do you think this will accomplish?

(2) Wait! Stop! I do understand. You're feeling unbelievable pain and rage. How do you think I felt about the sandbenders when they stole Appa? How do you think I felt about the Fire Nation when I found out what happened to my people?

(3) I don't think so. I think it's about getting revenge.

(4) Haru, you sound like Jet.

(5) The monks used to say that revenge is like a two-headed rat viper. While you watch your enemy go down, you're being poisoned yourself.

(6) Haru, you do have a choice: forgiveness.

(7) No, it's not. It's easy to do nothing, but it's hard to forgive.

(8) You did the right thing. Forgiveness is the first step you have to take to begin healing.

Everything makes sense, right? The pieces fit.He just talks about his cultura\personal values, nothing about what Katara needs at the moment. He could have had this exact conversation with Haru without changing a thing.

Therefore his lines are impersonal and thus preachy. In this conversation he doesn’t show signs of trying to convince Katara not to end her mother’s killer because she is, fundamentally, a good person and couldn’t live having committed murder. He shows signs of trying to make her obey his cultural ethos. This is highly insensitive. Katara was in a very emotional place, filled with rage and grief. And his response was, intentionally or not, to impose his own cultural principles onto her.

But his lines weren’t insensitive just because they were preachy, some of them were judgmental and even harsh. When A\ang is first confronted with Katara’s intentions, he says:

A\ang: Um ... and what exactly do you think this will accomplish?

You can tell from his tone and how the rest of the conversation plays out that he does know what Katara thinks this will accomplish. He asks the question as a form of disapproval - that he thinks that going after Yon Rha won’t accomplish anything. He’s not being genuine, he’s casting judgment on her. He’s almost looking down on her and Zuko, looking down from a moral high ground and sarcastically interrogating the two. Another line that sticks out is

A\ang: Katara, you sound like Jet.

He says she sounds like the man who wanted to flood an entire village full of innocent civilians. He’s insulting her, and greatly so, all the while wanting to keep a moral high ground. This is incredibly rude and condescending.

In the next scene, right after the intense argument concludes, it appears as though A\ang comes around to the journey Katara was about to go through.

A\ang: I wasn't planning to. This is a journey you need to take. You need to face this man.But when you do, please don't choose revenge. Let your anger out, and then let it go. Forgive him.

While he’s still discouraging Katara, it’s not outright condescending. But it’s as clear as day that he’d just preferred if she didn’t go on the journey at all. When he sees Zuko and Katara taking Appa to find Yon Rha, he says:

A\ang: So you were just gonna take Appa anyway?

Clearly disapproving of Katara. He doesn’t want her to go on the journey to find inner peace, he wants her to forgive the man who killed her mother right here and right now. He couldn’t change her mind on the subject, so he’ll advise her the next best thing. It is worth noting that in the beginning, before he advises her, he cracks a joke.

A\ang: It's okay, because I forgive you. [Pauses.] That give you any ideas?

Overall, A\ang’s behavior is unsympathetic and callous.Instead of placing his focus on Katara’s wellbeing, he preaches about Air Nomad teachings and goes as far as insulting her. Even when he comes around, it’s not because he realized his mistakes, it’s because he knew he couldn’t change her mind. And then he makes a humorous remark while giving him his supposed new found advice. The answer is: Yes. Aang was very insensitive when talking to Katara.

——————

3. Did A\ang know what Katara needed?

I don’t think he did. A\ang thought Katara needed to forgive Yon Rha, and as we previously established, without going after him. But even if we look at his second advice, she still doesn’t follow it.

A\ang: This is a journey you need to take. You need to face this man. [Katara situates herself on Appa's head.] But when you do, please don't choose revenge. Let your anger out, and then let it go. Forgive him.

Katara explicitly didn’t forgive Yon Rha, and yet the whole point of the ending is that she’s in a better place now. No matter what Zuko says, A\ang didn’t know what Katara needed. And considering that his lines in the episode were as impersonal as they were, it isn’t a surprise.

——————

In conclusion, A\ang’s behavior in The Southern Raiders is questionable at best. He might have had pure intentions, and had a good message, but the way he put out the message was degrading and preachy. And in the end, he didn’t know what was the right thing for Katara.

Continued

[evesaintyves]

one of the most confusing aspects of the "make harry potter characters straight again" discourse that's been circulating for the past few months is the assertion that the only reason people headcanon Tonks as queer is the fact that she's introduced with short hair and that's a lesbian stereotype. i mean, i think that's self-evidently silly and an incredibly shallow reading of her character, but i've elaborated on some personal and canonical reasons that i write tonks that way here and here; @saintsenara summarizes this discourse beautifully here as well. i've seen a number of deeply queerphobic takes on this, including entire metas that insinuate that it would be a disgusting self-betrayal for tonks to use her shapeshifting abilities to, for example, change her sex; imagine how trans people in your readership might feel about that.

but beyond that, the logical extension of this argument is that queer people recognizing and making a space for themselves in fiction is discriminatory somehow - insisting that everyone is canonically heterosexual because of their endgame relationship, however, occupies some kind of moral high ground. i understand that much of this is a reaction to wolfstar and jegulus and how silly, annoying and sometimes actively hostile, fetishistic, and misogynistic those fandoms can be - tons of legitimate criticisms here! - but i think we should acknowledge that canon-compliant fic is also absolutely rotten with misogyny, poor characterization, etc. further, there's a sinister through-line in this discourse that people who just want to see characters be straight and make babies are being persecuted by having to countenance queer readings at all - i've literally seen the word 'heterophobia' bandied about - and it's hard not to notice the parallels with some of the real-life backlash against increased queer visibility, which has actual, life-altering consequences for some of us irl. like, some of these posts are just fandom-specific jordan petersen tweets - the woke mob won't let you be straight and have babies anymore!! especially ridiculous to someone living in a place where a miscarriage is a potential criminal offense and federal courts have had to intervene to prevent drag performers and trans people from ending up on the sex-offender registry.

it's been really disappointing to see the vicious enthusiasm with which the remadora fandom has embraced these posts, and it's incredibly alienating as a queer author and reader who just wants to scroll my fucking feed without ten different reblogs of bad-faith arguments that queer imaginings of hp characters are not just personally irritating to you but are somehow destroying canon, fandom, and the very fabric of society (won't somebody think of the endangered institution of heterosexual male friendship?!); you may not mean to direct this kind of thing at your queer readership, but you are, we see it, and it's unmistakeable that there are a lot of ugly unexamined ideas about us behind all those fuck-jkr bios.

[atthecenterofeverything]

i don't actually care when the argument "this terminally online person is clearly arguing about something that doesn't matter at all in the real world and has no material basis, if they had real problems or were doing something real in their community they would stop discoursing and care about real issues" is applied to a situation where I agree - I've seen it deployed over and over by the most annoying liberal leftists in existence to shut down discussions of transmisogyny, family abolition, and any communist theory or project that goes too much against "common sense". I've never seen a "discourse prediction" post supposed to make fun of crazy discourse that did not include at some point a very important topic that is just treated as out there by most ppl bc it affects people who are not considered full human members of society.

hatereading people who trigger this kind of reaction in you is fine but I can't handle ppl who repeatedly invoke this line of thinking without 1. recognizing the capacity in themselves (and myself too of course) to care deeply and argue about things that don't really matter and 2. occasionally questioning their own assumptions when encountering ideas that seem to go "too far" or be "impractical".

which is not to say you should give every random poster a deep thorough analysis but ignoring them instead of screenshotting and mocking and boasting of how offline and detached from discourse you are (as a tumblr user.......) and how this person needs to do hard manual labor instead (hm.) is ime more productive to nourishing the "ruthless criticism of all that exists" practice in yourself

[daddyduncan69]

One of my recent posts got a few comments about media literacy being dead and Neil being an unreliable narrator so I want to clear some things up.

Firstly, media literacy isn't dead becuase it cannot die. Also, I am not a big fan of fear mongering. Humans have always sought to understand and communicate with each other about the things we create. It is a skill that can be taught and should be practiced. There is no one right way to do it. And, while I think the education system fails so many of us (something something to make us easier to control something something), I also think that there are tons of resources to help us learn without the need for an official "teacher". So, instead of pessimistically saying is it "dead" (especially on someone's textual analysis post, like... are you saying I prove it's dead becuase I don't have media literacy? are you agreeing with me and therefore proving yourself wrong? do I not count for some reason? i don't think I get it), engage in discourse about media that you love. And I mean actual discourse, not just fighting on social media about whether or not everyone should "like" your favorite character. Ask yourself "what is the effect of this rhetorical device in the text?" "is the text trying to make me like or not like this character? is it working, why or why not," (do not ask "why did the author do this?" because that is not relevant nor are you a mind reader). Take free online Literature classes from colleges that help you learn how to analyze. Invite others to do it with you. Join or start a book club. Engage in various types of media, not just YA, fantasy, fiction, etc. Consider kindly rebutting or offering a counter point to other people's interpretations, bringing actual textual evidence to back up your points. Use Google Scholar to access free scholarly articles to see academic prospectives on various medias that are not just from social media or blogs. Your local library may even have subscriptions to paid sights like JSTOR or collections of essays that would let you access articles that are otherwise behind a paywall. All of these things can help improve your own media literacy and, in turn, will help improve the media literacy of the people around you.

Secondly, the point of my other post was NOT that Neil is an unreliable narrator. I've seen a lot of people make this claim so I wanted to chime in. Unreliable narrators are marked by a few characteristics, some of which are exaggeration, detachment from reality, naivety, and deception of the reader. I don't believe Neil falls into any of these categories. I would be open to arguments that claim he does, but it would be hard to sway me because I can't find any textual evidence to support it. This is an important distinction to me because the larger claim I make in that post is that ALL narration, 1st person, 3rd person, omniscient, limited, etc is biased- all of it. It is CRUCIAL as readers to identify a narrators biases and consider the text through that lens. If you aren't practicing doing that (or only doing it when the narrator is "unreliable") you can easily fall into the trap of saying "well Neil says Kevin is a coward so he is", which is obviously an issue in the grand scheme of textual analysis. However, you can also easily fall into the trap of saying "Neil is an unreliable narrator because he is wrong about things/lies to people/has trauma so you can't trust him". I believe that Neil tells us as the reader the truth in his narration almost 100% of the time, Neil just lies to the other characters 24/7. So, as readers we should take what he says in his internal monologue at face value but question the motives behind his dialogue with other characters.

Anyway, that was a long winded, probably boring monologue about critical textual analysis. I devote maybe 16 out of my 18 waking hours to thinking about this, so thanks for hanging in there to read it all. I just care so deeply that we as a culture continue to grow these skills without shaming those who haven't had the same opportunities to learn how to do it or making the act of learning how to feel hopeless or doomed.

[rhaegars-cervix]

I'd like to adress something you said about rhae/elia in a post, it's not my intention to come off as adversarial here, I just think it is an interesting topic of conversation

Obviously shaming a medieval woman in front of the realm, running away with someone else when his son was just born etc. were bad moves that hurt elia personally, but some people speak as if doing that would be fine if it was to a woman who failed at being a wife"

I think the reason that some fans feel the need to emphasize Elia's virtues comes from the fact that there is a number of rhaelya shippers who do engage in quite a lot of Elia bashing. Although this has improved along the years, it is still very much out there.

Just to be clear, I'm not generalizing this behavior to everyone that ships Rhaelya, everything should be taken in with nuance and in a case by case basis. But unfortunately there are people whose enjoyment of the ship seems to be attached to derision of Elia. In their eyes Elia is just a sickly kitchen drab, Lyanna is the one who was loved by Rhaegar and therefore only one who matters in the story.

One of the most prolific comissioners of rhaelya art constantly posts on twitter about how Elia and her kids are khia (which is stan lingo for irrelevant), how Lyanna's legacy lives on through her on through her son and her clone, Arya (not my words btw, theirs) because she is George's favorite as opposed to Elia who has no impact on the story and no legacy (fuck the dornish plot line I guess lol)

When you think about it, Elia's only "sins" in this story are: 1. being part of a arranged marriage (which applies to a majority of noble women in Westeros) 2. Having health issues completely out of her control. And the thing is, people do judge Elia in the narrative as a failed wife. Jon Con calls her unworthy of Rhaegar due to her difficulties in labour, Cersei calls her feeble and with a very racist tone lists her "black eyes" as undesirable along with her flat chest, there's the very mean spirited kitchen drab comment from Barristan. What do all these people have in common? They deeply idealize Rhaegar and do not condemn his actions. And the funny thing is, some people in the fandom take this at face value and buy 100% the idea that Elia was inapropriate for Rhaegar, that she was indeed a failure of a wife, and that those who criticise his treatment of her in any way are just delusional.

You have done very interesting gender analysis on both Rhaegar and Lyanna, but I do think that there's also something to reflect about with Elia with regards to this topic. It feels so tragic to me that she came from the realm where women have the most freedom, where women are considered equally capable of ruling as men are - something that inherently contradicts the westerosi gender construct. And yet, as a result of multiple overlaping circunstances, she ends up condemned to a brutal end of gendered violence, remembered later as the inadequate wife, not truly worth of the silver prince. That just makes me sad.

And honestly, I don't think this reading of Elia as inadequate is Martin's authorial intent, I feel he wants to convey the utter tragedy of this sexist feudal system (as it the case in Lyanna's arc as well) But for some reason, there's fandom discourse out there adopting wholesale the biased perspectives of characters within the narrative who are shaped by the sexist values of their society

So this why people go a little hard on highlighting Elia's virtues, I don't think it is about turning her into a perfect trad wife, I think it is about countering some of the insane discourse that still gets thrown Elia's way and maybe some people end up overcorrecting in way that is limiting to the character's discussion a whole. While very much not ideal, I do understand the place this comes from in some regards

this is very thoughtful, i understand where you’re coming from! the thing is i wish this fandom was rid of discourse that gives too much importance to people engaging with the source material through so many layers of chronically online fandombrain they end up sounding completely insane to normal people. so i try to ignore it. “people call elia a khia unworthy of rhaegar” well i don’t. do that. and i don’t care about the opinions of anyone who does. they frankly sound mean and crazy

[imagine-a-sanctuary-like-this]

My (cautious) thoughts about the Good Omens/NG happenings

I've not been in the Good Omens fandom for a couple years. Season 2 briefly re-ignited my interest, but after watching it, I basically lost interest for good. A mix of things drove me away, I think mostly that (1) I thought Season 2 quite poorly-written, and, more relevant to this post, (2) I'd grown a little tired of the Neil Gaiman idolizing that I'd seen in the online fandom spaces.

So that said, I care little about the S3 90-minute-feature situation (though I'm glad the remaining fans will get some closure). And, of course, I do not know if Gaiman actually did all what he's being accused of - that doesn't really matter to what I'm about to discuss. More interestingly, this puts me in mind of something that's been bothering me about many fandom spaces, and I wanted to pen (digital pen?) my thoughts.

To me, what seems to be going on right now's a good demonstration of why over-attaching yourself to a fandom and idolizing creators, especially those that you see as your 'political ally', is probably not a great idea. From what I've seen, GOmens fans aren't just upset but rather deeply personally betrayed. This reminds me (distantly) of the Joss Whedon craze when BTVS fans basically elevated him to 'writing god'/genius status, and all but worshipped him (as seen in many notes to fanfics written in the early 2000s).

In my view, a similar but much more personal 'idolization' happened with Gaiman. (more under the line thingie)

A lot of fandom discourse (that I've seen) doesn't seem to get that creators, no matter how politically aligned with one's own views, aren't fictional characters, they aren't one's friends, nor are they 'comfort people'. I mean, I guess they could be insofar as you make them into your 'comfort people', but it's through no action of theirs. Nothing wrong (of course) in taking comfort in an author's work, but clearly for many it's a far more personal thing that just that.

Another thing: interacting with the creator's work and social media presence, one is NOT interacting with them, nor really getting to know them. Sometimes fandoms seem to forget this and kind of just perpetuate this made-up version of the author that shares very little with the actual human being that exists somewhere out there in the world, has flaws (small or... not so small), and probably occasionally acts dishonest, petty, judgmental, selfish, etc. in the best of cases. That it doesn't happen publicly doesn't mean it never happens at all. Attaching oneself to a made-up, idealized version of an author (making it 'YOUR Neil Gailman', 'YOUR comfort author') probably feels nice, but it kind of distorts reality. Makes you feel like the author's a lot personally closer to you than they actually are, like you know them better than you actually do.

It makes sense why this happens: no one likes to feel that the creator of something they love's not a great person. At least, it's hard to come to terms with this suddenly. I had a similar (though much less intense) experience with this one creator, S, whose content on medieval armor/weaponry I enjoyed very much. Later, S turned out to be... not such a great person. And yeah, it felt unpleasant, precisely because I liked the guy's content AND I liked his public persona, and ended up disappointed in both. Because I liked both in connection to each other, not independently. In this case, it didn't take long to separate the artist from the content, but in cases like GOmens emotional investment runs much more intense.

But so I think this is a big part of what's happening here with the NG situation: quite a few GO fans have let it get to that stage where they've identified so strongly with a creator through his works, political support and public persona that they felt like they actually deeply knew them. All the info going against that seems to come as not just a disappointment because NG did something immoral (which, if the allegations are true, he obviously did!) but rather a very personal betrayal. The sentiment I'm seeing seems to be less 'oh, this guy I liked isn't really who I thought he was, this sucks', and more 'I have been betrayed/hurt/deceived', as in 'me, personally'.

On the same note, I feel like this relates, too, to the 'x is so precious', 'x needs to be protected at all costs', 'x can do no wrong' kind of mentality about favourite authors, which seemed pervasive in the GO community (at least when I used to run in those fandom circles a couple years back).

So in my mind, we're seeing (and, in some cases, feeling) the natural conclusion to undue author idolization. It never really pays to forget that authors, like all public figures, only show a small part of themselves, and letting your imagination get away from you with just that part... well. Maybe not a great idea?

(I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this! Leave a comment if you disagree, think I've missed an important or interesting detail, or just to express your take on this)

[ichliebemeinkissen]

If I didn't image it, I think I saw some of your posts mentioning that you don't find the word "transmisogyny" efficient. Can you elaborate on that?

Hmm I don't remember saying that, but I am sure I said something similar.

The closest to this that I believe is that the word has been watered down so much that I hardly find it useful to use in my own discussions.

.

Nobody can agree the definition of it, people have started to use it as a buzz word for discourse, & I think with everything going on around discussions of transmisogyny it just gets in the way. It's hard to have any genuine discussion about these issues & from my perspective it just creates confusion & mess. When people say "transmisogyny" you don't even know what defintion they're using anymore.

The term transmisogyny is almost as useless as the term "problematic" in the sense that most conversations around it are fucked. Everyone's talking past each other, people wanna use it as a buzzword, & without enough context you can't even really tell what people are saying anymore.

.

I have always been a huge supporter of making new words. If you have a phenomenom that doesn't have a word placed to it it could be hard to make wider discussions about that. New words help communication. However, in situations like the word transmisogyny people have completely forgot to actually give a fuck about the discussion, & it just makes communication harder.

So, for me personally I don't find it helpful for my communication to others. I don't care if other people use it, context clues usually makes it more clear on how they are using the term, but I rather be straight to the point.

.

If I'm talking about misogyny intersecting with transphobia I'll call it transphobic misogyny or misogynistic transphobia. If I'm talking about transfem specific issues I rather just tag it transfem issues. (<-most common ways people choose to define the term..) I think the word can be a beautiful tool for discussion, but nobody is using it that way & it makes me incredibly anguished to see.

Additionally, even with people issues with the OG lit that coined it, I feel like the word & thus the conversations around this type of discrimination & bigotry could have really evolved to talk about bigger issues & connect our communities in discussions around oppression & the complexities around it. .

To me, the word's concept is beautiful & hopeful because it gives puts a name to something & aids in discussion around it. However, it's not being widely used as a tool for understanding other people's experiences & sharing your own, thus giving everyone a more informed perspective on how the world treats us. It's being used in a myriad of ways, but typically in online discussions not a helpful one. I love & support everyone who uses the term to actually try and discuss things & I try my best to do things too, however as a person if you were to ask me if I thought the word was useful, I'd say I have mixed opinions.

It has everything right to be useful, people just refuse to actually care about the use. These days it's mainly being used by people who have a misunderstanding of what it means or just as a full on buzzword for their shitty queercourse & it saddens me deeply.

[ribby16]

I am definitely behind on The Bear compared to most people on here (just started the show last week and got to s3e02 yesterday), but I have a lot of thoughts and just want to put them out there.

I came into the show with little to no idea of what it was about. I didn’t even watch a trailer prior to starting the show. Just got a lot of tiktoks on my fyp talking about how they were excited to watch the new 3rd season so I finally gave the show a try. I must say, going in blind, I was most definitely deeply into season 1. The subject matter of The Bear was really not something I had deeply considered before (fine dining/being a chef), but I became so engrossed in learning about it from the show.

However season 2 is really what blew me away. “Fishes” is probably the best episode of TV I have a watched in a long, long time. As someone who also has a dysfunctional parent, seeing that behavior on a show really hit so hard for me. The awkward silences and tension leading to the inevitable blowup was so relatable and just so fucking real and raw.

And that is when I started to see the show from the writers’ perspective, from Carmy’s perspective. I really, deeply understood and related to why Carmy is the way that he is, and why he puts his blood, sweat, and tears into his work. He has more reason than most to do so. And that’s when even though I have been shipping sydcarmy since s1e01 (yes, I shipped them organically without being influenced by internet discourse that I hadn’t even looked at prior to watching the show, so that should say something) I am okay with them not getting in a romantic relationship in the show.

This is not one of those “we need more platonic relationships in media” soap boxing posts. What Syd and Carmy have is more than platonic, period. The symbolism and moments that the directors and writers have intentionally chosen to show truly display this and there’s little to no room for misinterpretation. Hell, even in the acting you can see that what they have is different. The way Carmy stares at Syd, the looks he gives her, I don’t believe it’s purely platonic. And that brings me to Claire, who is not just a distraction in the sense that Carmy forgot to do major things in the restaurant because he was focused on her (which is totally Carmy’s fault by the way). Claire is a reminder of Carmy’s dysfunctional family and his shitty relationship with his mom. The writers did not give Claire enough meat in her role to be the catalyst that pushes Carmy to break free from his trauma and be better. They gave that role to Sydney.

That being said, I don’t think Syd and Carmy getting together romantically is what will make the show complete. They are both damaged in different ways and damage + damage usually doesn’t equal a good romantic relationship.

What I do want, is for Syd and Carmy to get their partnership back in season 4. To work well the way they always have together, to focus on their baby that is the restaurant. Getting this partnership back is what I believe can push Carmy to be who he wants to be. We see multiple moments throughout the show where Carmy acts crazy with his team in a moment of weakness and then immediately regrets it. I can relate to that so much it almost hurts. The feeling of becoming like the parent who destroyed your childhood begets the worst kind of self-loathing.

I want to see Carmy’s personal growth and I want to see Sydney get over her fear of failure and get her so well-deserved success. As much as I deeply want to see them together, I am okay with satiating that need with fanfiction (lmao) as long as the show shows the character arcs that we deserve. I am rooting for Syd and Carmy in every which way, along with all the other characters whom I have grown to love as well.

[edenfenixblogs]

outside of the general principles of credibility and fact-checking (or including those if you want) and looking for commitment to peace and shared prosperity like you mentioned in your pinned, do you have any other advice on gauging the reliability of sources regarding israel/palestine? or any particular sources you recommend as reliable or warn against as unreliable? there's so much misinfo and disinfo out there that i often end up getting overwhelmed and sharing nothing specific - and i know that's not exactly helpful, i'm just not sure where to start.

This is SUCH a good and important question!!! Thank you so much for asking it. I’ve been waiting until after work today to answer, so I can give it the attention it deserves.

This is an incredibly complex topic. It is completely ok to tackle only one item of this at a time. It is ok to spend more time listening than speaking. It is ok to only do basic fact checking until these things become second nature. It seems like a lot. But it actually becomes quite simple when you realize that, as a member of a non-affected group, your only job is to steer the conversation toward truth and peace.

That means most of what you are doing is rejecting sources and individuals engaging in bad faith discourse by simply not engaging with them. Your next most common task will be to publicly fact check bad faith discourse or incorrect information that has spread too far.

It is tempting to become outraged when you become familiar with bad faith discourse and data and see it spread widely. However, remember that this is incredibly complex and even the most experienced people get things wrong on this subject all the time. If you notice an error in what appears to be someone trying to bring attention to a cause they care deeply about, approach with kindness first. Always.

Try a reblog or a personal message with a link to the problematic post and say something like,

Hey. I care a lot about [issue] too. And I am trying really hard to make sure everything being spread right now is verifiable and accurate so nobody gets upset about things that aren’t true. Did you know that [thing you said+link to the post where you said it] was actually proven false by [reliable source+link to that source]? I’m really glad that didn’t happen. Of course, terrible things are still happening [to Palestinians/Israelis/Jews/Muslims/Arabs] on/in [college campuses/diaspora/Palestine/Israel/etc] there all the time. But at least nobody has to suffer through [incorrect info]. By the way, I’ve found a lovely organization run by actual Palestinians/Israelis/Arabs/Muslims/Jews working together to find peace for all. Check it out, I think it has promise! [link to reliable cause/organization]

Here is a wonderful site for MENA-based organizations geared toward fostering a shared peaceful future in a variety of ways.

Give the poster a chance to self correct. You will be wrong in the future. Model the way you would like to be informed of an error.

I briefly touched on the basics of identifying any source as reliable here. I won’t reiterate because this may be a long post and I wanna save space. But it contains the basics of what I learned in college.

One of the most important things to keep in mind is that no source is objective. No source is without bias. And there is no way to make any source objective or without bias.

News is written by people. And all people have viewpoints. Giving all voices in a conflict equal importance is not inherently unbiased, because that risks giving support to more harmful ideas and equating harmful ideas, ideologies, and organizations with reasonable ones. Likewise, asserting that one viewpoint is correct and being unwavering in this belief no matter what is obviously no way to cultivate a balanced and well informed viewpoint.

Your job is to use critical thinking skills to examine the level of bias in a piece of media as well as how responsibly the source handles that bias. Your job is also to do your best to be aware of bias as well as what bias is relevant to the subject matter being reported. A source that is left leaning, but never shares fake information and is always verifiable is preferable to a source that is moderate but consistently shares half truths or faulty information.

Sometimes, information from a less than ideal source can be shared, but if you are sharing that source, you must explicitly state that source’s flaws and why you chose to share that information anyway. And if you are unable to find a better source, you should state that you are sharing information that may be incomplete or inaccurate and you are happy to update the post you are sharing if and when more information or confirmation from a more reliable source emerges. There are very limited situations where this is appropriate. Usually I would suggest not sharing information from such sources at all unless it can be backed up by better information.

One example of such a case is information about antisemitic hate crimes from the ADL. The ADL has a very problematic history and one should be aware of it when they share statistical data from the organization. However, that doesn’t make their information inherently unusable. It makes their information inherently suspect, though. In order for anything shared from the ADL to be worth sharing, you should be able to evaluate the data collection method and the sources of the data. And if there is any information in the data you are sharing that is not appropriate, you should explicitly draw attention to it, not try to hide it.

Case Study: Global Antisemitic Incidents in the Wake of Hamas’ War on Israel

This list contains very useful data on incidents of antisemitic violence against Jews in diaspora since 10/7/2023. I trust this data because: it links to each individual news source it references, often with pictures of the attacker/attack/incident and time stamps. It’s data is open to questioning and its sources are available to check individually. This is in line with the ADL’s mission statement of tracking antisemitism. Documenting antisemitism is not an inherently biased practice nor do I have any reason to believe that they lie about the antisemitic incidents they document. As that is not one of the things that critics accuse the ADL of, I do not see a reason to question its record on antisemitic incident reporting. I have never heard a critic make a substantiated claim against their formally collected data as falsified. I am willing to be proven wrong on this, but I will interrogate a source claiming this as thoroughly as I interrogate the ADL as a source itself. I am skeptical of this source because: the title of the article uses extremely biased language that makes the war seem one sided. The advantage of this source is: it is one of the few sources existing that collects data on antisemitic violence and hate incidents of Jews in diaspora. A sign of good faith from the organization: they dedicate a page to addressing criticisms of their organization, which means they feel confident that criticisms of them will stand up to scrutiny. It is not sufficient to use this page to absolve them of any of the listed criticisms, but it should help you find articles that critique the ADL as well as relevant information that supports their defense. Thus, you must come to your own conclusion on whether or not that information is trustworthy on the matter you are commenting on. A sign of possible bad faith from the organization: their page devoted to confronting myths and inaccuracies about their organization’s history does not address accusations about supporting South African Apartheid or failing to call the Armenian Genocide a genocide. An acknowledgment of my own limitations: I am not an expert in South African Apartheid in any way nor am I an expert on the Armenia genocide. Any other relevant information: Any reputable news sources verify information before reporting. If a news source that is verifiably responsible in its reporting cites information from the ADL, I will assume they have made adequate inquiries to verify that information as accurate enough to report. For example, if AP reported information and cited the ADL statistics, I would assume that the ADL made sure the data fit its high standard for reportage.

Conclusion: I find the ADL to be a trustworthy enough source of data about antisemitic attacks and incidents on Jews in diaspora, but only in cases where their sources and/or methodology are made public and/or another more regulated or otherwise more reliable source of statistical information partners with them. Because I lack expertise on South African Apartheid on the Armenian Genocide, I will not share information from the ADL about Palestinian apartheid, segregation, oppression, or genocide (until or unless I become more well-versed in these topics or am able to devote substantial energy into fact checking each claim in what I share. If I ever choose to do this, I will share every source I used to verify the information so that others may check my work and inform me if I’m wrong. At this time, I do not foresee a situation where I would refer to the ADL for matters about Palestinian concerns). The ADL in general and the linked source in particular seems to be an overall worthwhile source to cite on matters of antisemitism. The ADL does not meet my standards of a reliable source on Palestinian suffering. Check each link/source on an ADL source you want to share and form an informed conclusion on its reliability before sharing.

Also, be aware that primary sources with biased information are extremely valuable but never objective on their own. A tweet from the IDF or a statement from a released Palestinian prisoner may both be true! But sharing them as if they are definitely true without fact checking the information through the most trustworthy sources available is irresponsible. Do not share any social media information as fact. You are free to share social media information and publicly explore its implications in a responsible manner, but it is not responsible to discuss them as facts.

Case study: When something in Gaza or Israel is bombed, be sure that you know who the key players and commentators are.

When the IDF releases a statement blaming Hamas for bombing their own citizens, know that the IDF has a vested interest in not being perceived as an aggressor. When the Ministry of Health in Gaza accuses the Israeli military of being responsible for the attack, be aware that the Ministry of Health in Gaza is run by Hamas and is not a third party neutral source. Do not post anything about an event like this until the information is fully vetted by a neutral third party source (or as neutral as you are likely to find on such a hot button issue).

The best way you can help during an emerging story is to urge others to wait for full details, call out people irresponsibly casting blame before the facts are in (especially politicians), and repeatedly verify every source of information as they are named so that you know if they are trustworthy. Do not trust politicians who espouse inflammatory and prematurely accusatory information and do not make a public retraction and apology when they are found to be wrong.

That said, it is always appropriate to express sorrow for loss of life. You do not need to accuse a killer in order to do this.

There are also sites geared toward helping you identify the source itself fairly. Note: sites like these will help you evaluate the publication or news entity (eg New York Times, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, etc.). They won’t help you evaluate an individual journalist or article.

Some sites to help you verify credibility:

Media Bias Fact Check: Allows you to verify sources based on the news source’s political bias in terms of a left-right spectrum as well as by their reliability on matters of science, their use of questionable sources, and use of satire. Also, you can check how reliably factual the source’s reporting is. You can also sort by country, media type, general credibility, and how well trafficked the source is. They also publicly offer insight into their methodology of coming to these conclusions.

The Associated Press (AP) fact checks individual claims. Other news organizations fact checking claims include Reuters, The Washington Post and AFP. While AP is a gold standard and generally reliable, be aware that news organizations are also subject to bias. The advantage is that news organizations have investigative reporters on staff to investigate claims. The disadvantage is the bias inherent to the publication itself.

Other third party cites checking facts in news reports and in politics include:

FactCheck.org

Politifact

Snopes

Lakehead University offers an entire site devoted to developing media literacy as well as many ways to search fact checking sites. So does Kansas State University, and UMass Amherst. Many universities offer sites like this. I urge you to look into them.

Once you find a news or data source you trust, do a quick google search on the journalist’s name and a relevant phrase to the aspect of the conflict being reported on. For example The Newspaper Tribune Times Chronicle may be trustworthy. Veteran reporter, Ima Journalist may have written an article about Israel Bombing Gaza. So, before sharing it, just Google: “Ima journalist” + Israel Palestine Jews antisemitism Islamophobia. Make sure you don’t see something like “Ima Journalist photographed screaming ‘Hitler was actually a super good guy!’ anywhere in her history. When satisfied, feel free to share the story.

Other points to keep in mind:

Be aware of crappy tactics on both sides of the i/p conflict.

The IDF is often accused of excessive violence and planting evidence on Palestinians. This often leads to Palestinians being unfairly accused of terrorist intent and criminal violence.

Hamas uses civilians as human shields — both by using individual humans as shields and also launching bombs from civilian buildings (like hospitals, preschools, and libraries), building militaristic infrastructure in or beneath those same civilian buildings, and instigating conflict with IDF soldiers positioned near residential and civilian locations. This allows Hamas to escape criticism by framing the IDF as mindlessly bloodthirsty and eager to kill Palestinian civilians.

And finally, make sure accusations and talking points never conform to antisemitic conspiracy theories.

The universal aspects of antisemitic conspiracy theories (detailed more fully in the source linked above and also in another post I made) are:

Accusing Jews of replacing another group or population

Accusing Jews of pretending to be something they are not

Accusing Jews of dominating or attempting to dominate a prominent or essential aspect of a society or the world at large.

Accusing Jewish people of genocide and bloodlust in pursuit of personal gain

Accusing Jews of undue privilege or if appropriating something belonging to others.

Dehumanizing Jews by grouping them under a collective name or identity.

I hope this helps! Feel free to share it!

[fushiglow]

if you don't mind me asking, who are your favorite romantic relationship's couples in books/ manga/ anime/movies/tv series (can be canon or non-canon)? Why you love them? Sorry if you've answered this question before......Thanks....

When I'm hyperfixating on a special interest, I find it really hard to remember anything that previously held my attention lol — so I'm struggling to answer this question, anon! I'm not a huge shipper usually, and I'm incredibly unenthusiastic about ship wars so I generally don't get involved.

That said, there are tons of ships I like in Jujutsu Kaisen. SatoSugu and Megumi are pretty much all I post about on here, but I've gained a few followers recently so it's probably worth saying because I've seen a lot of ship discourse elsewhere in the fandom recently:

If you're reading this and you really hate any of the ships I mention in this post, feel free to unfollow if it's that big a deal to you.

I'm really not interested in arguing about ships — because it just isn't that deep, I have limited free time to give to fandom and I'd rather spend it on things I love — so please don't get into that with me. However, if it's not a big deal to you, great to have you around! ♥

So, Jujutsu Kaisen ships I like below the cut:

Obviously, SatoSugu* has really captured my imagination. I don't think I've ever shipped anything as hard as I ship those two, but I talk about them all the time so I won't go into any more detail.

Other than that, I like GojoHime which I know is blasphemy for a SatoSugu shipper (I'm kidding, there's a bunch of us who ship both) but I don't think one has to preclude the other (after all, Gojo has two hands 👀). I've written two canonverse fics for GojoHime, and I've gently implied a former romantic relationship between SatoSugu in both.

I think lots of people read too deeply into the "she hates him" thing. Is he a bit of a dick to her? Absolutely, but treating Utahime like she's just a victim of the terrible Gojo Satoru takes away from her character — because she gives as good as she gets! I adore the contradiction in how she presents herself as this prim and proper miko, but she's actually a little firecracker who loses her temper easily and throws things at people and drinks heavily. Don't take that away from her, it's what makes her fun!

To me, it's obvious that their dynamic is designed to provide comic relief, but they trust each other when it comes down to it. In fact, I'd argue their bickering is evidence of that — if you're a polite person, you don't bicker with people you're not comfortable with. More than that, I like how Utahime is set up as a bit of a foil to Gojo. It's been said before, but there's a poetry in her technique making the 'strongest' stronger, especially considering that he goes to this character he's historically called weak to ask for help in the biggest fight of his life. Delicious!

Beyond that, I casually enjoy a bunch of other JJK ships. I don't actively seek out or create content for them, but I enjoy some of the art and fic when I come across it. Namely:

SaShiSu, in any configuration. SatoShoko is appealing to me for reasons I touched on in response to a question about Gojo's relationship with Shoko. SuguShoko is hot, simply because I think both characters are hot and they look hot together lol. I can even get behind poly SaShiSu!

OkkoFushi, because of Megumi's ~one line~ about respecting his senpai. It's essentially a crack ship, but I have the silliest little headcanon that Gojo brought Megumi to meet the first years sometime during JJK 0 and Megumi developed his first crush — see this adorable art for reference.

ItaFushi, ItaJun, and YutaMaki because they're all harmless and adorable.

GojoKen, because I love the potential for toxic angst.

KenTen, because "goodbye, old friend" — I'm sorry, what??? 👀

ShokoHime and ChosoYuki because they're all sexy as hell.

NobaMai, because they have sizzling chemistry.

KiraKari and MechaMiwa, because they're both canon as far as I'm concerned.

ShiuToji, because they're "business partners" — sure, guys!!

NanaGo, purely for the cute single dads art.

SukuGo, but only in a non-canon setting. They should have been besties in canon though 😔

Finally, the controversial one. Sukuna can stay the hell away from Megumi in canon (🥲) but I quite like SukuFushi in a specific AU setting — especially if Yuji and Sukuna are brothers in it! I have a soft spot for the Itadori twins, and I'm into the idea of big bully Sukuna meeting his match in his brat of a brother's quiet best friend with the deceptively sharp tongue (and knuckles).

However, I personally find that a lot of people mischaracterise Megumi in his ships and take away the aspects of his character that I really love (come on, he beat people the hell up at school!) so I'm not super into Megumi ships in general, despite the fact that he's my best boy.

As you can see, I'm really not that fussy about ships. In the past, I've definitely read fic featuring a side pairing that I'm not super into, but it won't stop me reading a good fic if there's a pairing I don't like in it. Sometimes, if it's well-written, I might even end up a fan!

Outside of JJK, there really isn't much. I don't follow many other animanga, but I think AkiAngel is a gorgeous ship and EreMika is cute although a bit bland. I think that's it though... Sorry this wasn't really what you asked for, but thank you for the question! ♥

*I just use the popular ship name, but I don't have any strong preferences when it comes to sexual dynamics so the name order isn't important to me — that goes for all the ships I like!

[bookwyrminspiration]

Excuse me hi new anon sorry for all the discourse talk on your blog lately but you can’t seriously think that someone being pro life has more impact on others than someone posting possibly triggering art.

I’ve noticed that they put the proper tags on it now to make it blockable which is definitely good and makes it better

But also someone who is pro life and literally doesn’t even post about it is NOT HURTING ANYONE

that’s literally a thought. A belief. Thoughtcrime is not a thing 1984 is a dystopia btw

Whereas posting something is an action that will inevitably impact others—actually art is SUPPOSED to impact others—be that in a positive, negative, or nuanced neutral sort of way.

So posting art is objectively more impactful on other real life people than holding pro life beliefs and never even rlly posting about them

Again thoughtcrime is not a thing

Honestly my biggest issue with the art initially was that it was put in the main tag with no trigger warnings at all, meaning someone scrolling through the main tag who has things triggering to them blocked would have to see it……..

Anyway yeah the two situations definitely aren’t comparable, but NOT in the way that you seemed to think.

Sorry if this feels kinda confrontational but I’m also pro life, have never once posted about it ever, and am deeply disturbed by the idea that me holding a belief and never saying it ever is somehow considered a heinous crime that impacts others terribly, while posting possibly triggering art without trigger warnings totally impacts nobody

Alright, Nonsie, let's break this down.

I'm well aware thought crime isn't real and wholeheartedly agree

No one has said you're a criminal for being pro-life, nor that it's a crime

The impacts/harm I'm talking about extend beyond just posting/holding a belief

Being pro-life contributes to a community and environment that allows harm and control to be enacted against real and vulnerable people

Being pro-life/pro-choice is a belief centered on real people--what a person's body can be used for, if it's their own, and who gets to decide that. Very closely tied to beliefs on abortion, who gets to make choices about who's bodies, etc. You're right that simply holding a belief is passive, and your thoughts are not crimes.

However, the actions that accompany those beliefs/that are because of those beliefs (not necessarily yours, general population) are impactful. I apologize if I wasn't clear when I said "the people being debated about are real and harmed by it." The "it" is not your belief, but the societal and legal consequences that come from your belief.

Public opinion (such as people being pro-life, and public opinion is decided by numbers) decides who is in office, and who is in office dictates laws and legality, and that determines what's easily and readily available/how people will act.

A pro-life person acts based on that--perhaps votes for mayors/representatives/presidents/etc. who are against abortion. And then those authorities pro-life individuals elected at least in part because of their pro-life beliefs (an election won because of community, numbers, and environment), create a society where abortion is less accessible, where sex education is less thorough, where contraceptive/sexual health is expensive/hard to find, etc. We've seen this consistently across the US

Real people suffer from it and they do not have the simple choice to disengage. We've consistently said block and move on regarding online media--but you can't pick and chose which of your country's laws apply to you. You can chose to ignore them if possible and deal with the risk, but you don't get an opt out button. And moving to different cities/states/countries is not an easy solution.

I am considering all this in my discussions. Belief informs action, and pro-life beliefs have historically and continue to impact real people in harmful ways--and to be used as a foot in the door for further harm, such as anti-trans legislation.

I am not saying you are an awful criminal hurting people by being pro-life in your head--though you may lose friendships if people learn of it. I am saying media should not be restricted, and an untagged post does not change that. And I am saying the harm of seeing an uncomfortable image/fic (and being uncomfortable does not equal being hamred), even if untagged, is not comparable to the real life societal consequences of pro-life beliefs.

You may not be of the age or ability right now to vote or petition or otherwise, and as such the action part does not yet apply to you, but if you continue being pro-life then someday it will.

I'll also say this. I don't think being pro-life is evil. I think it can be well-intentioned, but is misguided and ineffective. Wanting fewer abortions is fine--I'd also love that. Getting an abortion isn't fun, and having to make that choice is excruciating for many. But banning and criminalizing abortions (which is the ideology associated with pro-life) does not achieve that and in fact makes it worse.

And, as with fiction, there is no moderation that can reliably dictate what is best for the individual/family/etc. in every situation. Someone will always be hurt when others are making choices about their lives and bodies for them. Including the children intended to be protected.

That, however, is its own can of worms.

I think you mean well, Nonsie, but may have reacted a bit quickly to what I said--you've argued against multiple points (thought crime, being a criminal) that I did not actually make. I own that there were parts I could've been more clear, but I stand by what I've said, and hopefully you better understand what I meant.

And just in case: like with that other poster, people are going to form opinions and see you in certain ways based on your beliefs. Including if you don't act on it, but just think that way. That's how it works for everyone.

Thanks :)

[velvetvexations]

Can I also just say I deeply appreciate how willing you are to listen and be understanding when something a Velvet Nationer says doesn't necessarily jive with your perception of that thing, so long as we approach it like, you know, with honest intent? I love that you don't compromise your own opinions, but you're not closed off to the idea that things might be perceived differently by others. It makes this feel like a genuinely safe place to come and chat.

I'm really glad! I think listening to other people when they're clearly being honest with you is important. I always say that if even a cishet person came to me about something I said about cishet people hurting their feelings I'll take that seriously - I may not necessarily agree to make changes to my behavior or rhetoric, but I'm not going to pretend like privilege makes you emotionally invincible or that these things always follow a logical structure, so I will empathize with them and see what can be done about the situation even when it's only an apology that we're on separate pages.

Occasionally I can be worried about how things will be received if it's outside the normal discourse I talk about, particularly when I worry I'm being too lenient to a take I disagree with but maybe I should be more aggressive about. And then I still worry about being too aggressive sometimes. But as far as my anxiety in that regard goes you can 🎶 blame it on my N-P-D baby 🎶 lol, I know it's irrational.

On the negative side, this is also why I have a really hard time with TIRFs occasionally.

Recently I had a private interaction with the kinna TERF that just swaps "man and woman" with "AMAB and AFAB", and she was trying very hard to be "nice", saying she really thought the both of us were good people who just didn't agree on the best way forward. And she was like "oh wow, you're an author, I should buy the book and read it" and it was just. Really stressful because I want so badly to believe people are good when given the opportunity. And she followed me and liked a few posts and I blocked her because I hit my limit of what I could handle. I wasn't willing to continue meeting her halfway and tolerating her dangerous beliefs that sex separation would always be necessary because AMAB people would always have biological leverage over AFABs, even if she was capable of presenting herself as a non-freak who didn't just rabidly spit hatred at trans women or want to detransition anyone, at least openly.

She was exceptional, though. Most TIRFs of that variety are, at best, completely fucking bonkers like the one I bring up occasionally who thought non-passing trans women are privileged over cis women - yet even she, as completely wack she was, I found difficult to try and start an argument with because her incredibly warped vision of reality was presented in such ( ◡‿◡ *) tones that it short-circuited my brain and I found it difficult to come down on her like I would have needed to if I engaged.

I think you might be able to blame that case at least partially on my NPD as well, since it's also putting me in the position of like, me having to be the angry aggressive one while she would be like "( ╥ω╥ ) but I'm so nice" and that would fuck with me a lot.

But in general my NPD is useful here, because it makes me always want to be The Best Person, which means the most kind and caring and saint-like person ever, except with bad people, to whom I'm a punishing angel of righteous fury. At the very least it sets that as my goal even when I don't always attain it.

This was a lot of words to say that I just try really hard to be nice and sometimes that's stressful in and of itself lol. But I'm really, really happy people are comfortable with me and my space.