#decried as bad representation

[disconnectedkat]

On Judging Older Rep By Today's Standards

This wall of text inspired by this take that bioware are pussies for not having an all-pan romance cast until Veilguard. This idea that all past representation is mediocre or bad because today's is better is very irksome. I'm irked.

To begin, a little history:

Bioware has been including queer romance in their games since the early 2000s. First in 2004, when they released Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. This game had a character you could recruit named Juhani. Juhani would become the first LGBTQ+ Star Wars character. She could be romanced by a female player character, though it basically amounted to a couple lines of dialogue. Why so little? Because it was 2004 and they practically had to sneak even that much in.

In 2007, Mass Effect 1 released. This game had arguably the 'safest' queer rep, an attractive woman kissing and having a fade-to-black implied sex scene with another attractive (alien) woman. A while later a mainstream media outlet (Fox News, you may have heard of them) ran a hit piece on the game. They ran the usual stuff, degenerate porn simulator, think of the children, etc. This was a big deal, as having a mainstream, large and popular (unfortunately) news channel targeting your game is not great for several reasons.

Keep in mind this was the, again, arguably the safest queer rep you could go for, and it still received that level of attack.

In 2009 Dragon Age: Origins released. Not much to say here, some time had passed and DA managed to avoid the targeted hate that Mass Effect received, despite having a bisexual man and woman as romantic options.

Mass Effect 2 is believed to have suffered the most from the Fox News debacle. Jack was originally planned as a pansexual character, and while I don't recall if the devs have stated exactly why that was cut, the obvious guess is they feared another round of attacks.

Alrighty, history recap over. Now to address the issue:

"They should've done it years ago." Well, they actually did with DA2 and it received a good amount of flak. Because that was 2010, and this is 2024. Representation is a social thing. It changes and grows as we do. In 2004 Juhani, with a minimal amount of actual content, became the first LGBT Star Wars character. You do what you can and try to push the envelope a little more each time. People struggled and fought for all that old rep you see as not good enough by today's standards.

"They bowed to the bigots because of money." Games, and all media, take money to create. They then need to make money to create more. There would be no Veilguard without the successes of previous games. And unfortunately, in the past that sometimes meant choosing your battles. Frustration is understandable, but misplaced.

None of this is to say that Bioware, (or any company or media, this post is just focusing on them) is beyond reproach as long as they're trying. There will always be things to criticise, and areas to improve, of course. But that isn't what I'm seeing here.

This to me is indicative of a common sentiment I've been seeing far too often in queer and leftist spaces recently, people judging older rep by today's standards and decrying it and it's creators without understanding the history.

[tcoaal]

Do you think Andrew is actually, canonically trans?

Why so?

And do you think he would be bad representation for trans?

haha sorry this is gonna get longer than intended

canonically? nah, i highly doubt Nemlei has any actual interest in exploring LGBT topics using TCOAAL, i think if she was she was we would've gotten like, some stuff by now and more outwardly queer themes in TCOAAL's writing.

that being said, it is really fun to think about- @cannibal-pentecost could talk about this a lot better than me since she's been a lot more devoted to the hc, but there are... a lot of little things that shows Andrew having a complicated relationship with masculinity that has resonated with me and other trans women, one of the best new things being him remarking how "girly" it is to kill himself by cutting in one of the endings towards Shots and Such.

that being said... you know, that last question is a really funny one to me, and the real reason i wanted to answer this.

strictly speaking? yeah. he's an incestious cannibal who can in Decay literally murder a child for no reason other than frustration, is implied to have coerced his ex into a sexual relationship she didn't want, and a Bunch Of Other Bad Things. Andrew would be terrible trans rep.

... but what does that even mean, anymore?

we're always trannies in their eyes. to society. being a trans woman, living in transmisogyny: every single day is a struggle to not be a tranny. because there's a difference to the world.

the polite (but confidant, but not too confidant), socially respectable (you must not have kinks that defy society's expectations or must be an uwu soft bean), noble (you must have never done anything bad ever) trans woman. and a dime-in-a-dozen problematic tranny. one is a "woman" society barely tolerates at absolute best, while the other is a "woman" to society that is free to demean and use as the reason why to demean all the "good" trans women, even by those who we should call our sisters. the more i think about it, the more i think about the lie sold to me that i so earnestly believed- that we must love all trans women unconditionally when our own sisters will so often throw us under the bus and offer up us dime-in-a-dozen problematic trannies as a sacrifice so they can feel safe. i can't even post this in the trans tags, i don't feel like getting into another drama with randos.

i know it's not too related to this but you know. once, a trans lesbian hc blog got hacked by transmisogynists. i saved every single post to save that work before i started uploading it again. i was into happy sugar life at the time.

this ask alone inflicted trauma that hasn't faded after almost 7 years lol. i was literally an anti that had a complicated relationship with HSL and i was decried as a problematic tranny for it.

so what does good trans rep really mean? what does it mean for us to write good representation as opposed to bad representation?

so what if Andrew Graves would be the scummiest trans woman ever. so what if she'd be awful representation. we'll still just be trannies to them. something barely tolerated at best.

... so if she is one, what's so wrong with that? let her be bad representation. it's fine. it doesn't really matter. and i will defend people's rights to be able to headcanon what they want

[darklinaforever]

I guess with some people's logic, if I'm fatphobic just for daring to say that Rhaenyra isn't fat according to her official portraits. Remember the word OFICCIEL in there ! Approved by GRRM ! Does Rhaenyra look fat to you in these pictures ?! I imagine that with this logic, GRRM is fatphobic for daring to validate these official representations of his main character in the dance ? Seriously, what is your problem ? At no point do I say that being fat is a bad thing, those who know me know that I am absolutely the opposite. I am content here to reestablish the truth about the canonical body of Rhaenyra. Some refuse to admit that Rhaenyra is described as fat in the text due to propaganda against her, under the pretext that Aegon II and Helaena are also overweight. Except that they, unlike Rhaenyra, we don't insist on it and we don't take the opportunity to talk about it negatively and demonize her in relation to it / make fun of her. That's all the difference. What the text does in relation to Rhaenyra's weight is in fact a fatphobic treatment. And the reason behind this treatment is simple. Rhaenyra is an heiress and a wife. How dare she ?! The goal is to decriminalize it in a mysoginal way. So in addition to the text sources' treatment of Rhaenyra being fatphobic, they are mysoginous. Is that what you are defending ? Do you even know how to read ? The truth is that Rhaenyra suffered fat shaming for daring to gain weight during her 6 pregnancies. And we know, it doesn't take much in a mysoginian society to say that a woman is fat for just a few added kilos. Objectively, Rhaenyra is not a fat woman at all, and I don't see the harm in telling this simple truth ?! It's ridiculous ! We have the official portraits of Rhaenyra ! What are these people trying to deny and defend ?! Yes, Rhaenyra could have really been fat and unfortunately demonized for it. A shameful thing and one that totally could have been the case with the maeters pro greens. But the official portraits / representations prove that this is pure bullshit and that there was nothing fat about Rhaenyra, even after her 6 pregnancies. This is literally the truth. How fatphobic is that ? So these official representations of Rhaenyra are fatphobic for these people ?! They just prove that the maesters tried to portray Rhaenyra as she was not to demonize her further / decried her in yet another mysogistic way.

[roguetelepaths]

Just based on recent discourse in the Severance fandom I feel like we need to have a similar conversation about miscarriage/infertility plots to the one the internet has been having about sex scenes so here I am, your friendly neighborhood sex averse aroace who cannot have children and is truly very happy about that fact, to start that conversation

(disclaimer — this is a post about writing. it is about real human experiences only inasmuch as it is about the tendency of online communities to decry any representation of these issues as inherently sexist and regressive. do not be weird on this post I swear to FUCK)

So here are some facts about plotlines that center conception, pregnancy, childbirth, and the inability of a person to do any or all of those things. please try to enjoy all of them equally💧

if you live in a childfree bubble you might not know this but these are experiences that affect real people. not everyone just has children because they feel like they have to. some people actually want kids

yes even queer people

if you are a person who wants children, not being able to conceive or carry a child IS ACTUALLY A VERY EMOTIONALLY AFFECTING EXPERIENCE

(and not even in the ways you would think! there are trans people who have dysphoria around not being able to get pregnant or father a child)

miscarriage of a wanted pregnancy is devastating. infertility can be just as devastating if it happens to certain people

there IS a sexist way to write infertility/miscarriage plotlines! see Joss Whedon's weird trashfire in Age of Ultron which probably ignited a lot of the hatred for infertility plotlines we see today. but there are wrong ways to do lots of things.

there are also non-sexist ways. see Yennefer in The Witcher as an example— it's not even really about wanting a child for her, it's about wanting a choice— but also, desire for a child being part of it doesn't automatically make it a Bad Plot

there are a lot of things Severance did right— the decision to try fertility treatments was Gemma's decision, and Mark not only does not resent her for not being able to conceive, he's the one who suggests she stop when he sees it's becoming too much of an emotional burden on her. people who think Mark resented Gemma for not being able to get pregnant are seeing what they expect to see.

people who are unilaterally against infertility and miscarriage plots sound the exact same as people who are unilaterally against sex scenes in movies

what we need is a wider variety of them, written by women and queer people, about varying experiences with those topics, because they are experiences that need to be openly talked about and destigmatized

and that includes experiences like my experience of being a 14 year old closeted ace kid in a very evangelical family and feeling genuine relief at being given the news that it was medically inadvisable for me to try to have children

but it ALSO includes the experiences of people for whom that same news is distressing and heartbreaking

anyway that concludes our wellness session goodbye

[paragonrobits]

recently found out a well known Youtuber who has been deeply critical of Steven Universe in ways that I really fucking hate has apparently now criticized Delicious In Dungeon/Dungeon Meshi's character Laios as being a sociopath for, apparently, not being emotionally demonstrative and because he is a lovable weirdo who is all about his special interests, decrying him as a sociopath

Laios reads as EXTREMELY on the autistic spectrum; if he's not canonically intended to read that way, I'll be deeply surprised, and frankly this is not at all unsurprising to hear from this specific critic, though it DID anger me so much i almost went into a hatewatching frenzy just to see what the bullshit was, but i restrained myself because pouring acid into your brain does you no good

this instead illustrates a central point i tend to have with the mentality people like this critic have: they're dicks to autistic people, particularly those who cannot or will not mask to pretend to be allistic. They are what they are, and those people like me prefer not to stress ourselves out constantly pretending to be Normal because these particular allistic people hate someone obviously different from them

and that's what it really boils down to, isn't it?

Laios isn't like the Normal person; he's loud, often off putting without meaning to be, genuinely passionate and very compassionate without expressing it in a way the allistics might consider familiar. His character arc is all about caring for his sister, doing whatever he can to save her; its very textually obvious that he's not heartless.

But because he doesn't act like what these kind of people expect Normalcy to be like, they think he's an inherently bad person, or that he's a sociopath or whatever term they feel like bringing out.

I really can't stand allistics who have this kind of instant distrust and hatred towards someone that doesn't act Normal to them. It's the logical extreme of the way these people constantly complain about things being insufficiently pure (and if they are, they complain that its boring); going from constantly taking the absolute worst interpretation of someone to seeing a character who is undeniably heroic but is cheerfully weird, deeply passionate about a thing that is not especially popular or normalized, and not like the viewer, and doesn't emote like other people, and they conclude this character MUST be evil or fundamentally incapable of morality.

In short, the way they talk about a character who reads as autistic sounds exactly like the way those people talk about actual autistic people.

EDIT: since initially composing this post i found out this person is autistic, or claims to be so and ???????? that is BAFFLING, how the fuck can you be on the spectrum and still be this hostile to people like you is baffling, but they also think that Sheldon Cooper is good autistic representation (And that Family Guy has better LGBT representation than Steven Universe) so I don't know why anyone thinks their opinion matters beyond a case study for poor media literacy.

(personally I'm inclined to think this person is not on the spectrum at all but claims it for clout purposes, which seems to be a trend with this person in particular)

[magentagalaxies]

tonight was night two of the buddy tour!!! the show went SUPER (i mean yeah scott forgot his lines several times and he accidentally ate the olive in his martini and kept having to spit it out off the edge of the stage but the audience loved it and he was able to work these "mistakes" into the bits so they never detracted from the comedy)

this show was also the first one with all four members of our tour-roadtrip-squad together (scott, me, lou (the opening comedian), and robin (the show's director). lou was at the first show but the past 2 travel days were just scott and me) and yeah i'm gonna miss having scott all to myself for over 48 hours straight but i'm actually loving the dynamic the four of us have??? like i was definitely a bit nervous about having a full tour party at first bc "king" was just me and scott but damn these guys are funny and super supportive and also it's so much easier to get ready for a show when i'm not the only one running around talking to the venue

but also i've realized i might just have to make a spoiler-y post overanalyzing some aspect of scott's new show every night bc holy fuck even tho it's still a work in progress this show has the potential to become one of the best things scott's ever created.

but tonight's spoiler-y meta analysis is about the song that plays after the show, which was actually my suggestion! (first show had a different song, but after that show i told scott it needs to be "believe" by cher and i was so right)

ok first off "believe" by cher is such a bop. like it has such fun energy, i can't help but dance to it (in fact instead of running backstage to congratulate scott after tonight's show like i usually do i stayed and danced to it in the audience as people were leaving). i've always thought it would be great opening/closing music for a comedy show it gets the audience so pumped

but textually, it works bc once scott transitions from buddy into standup as himself, he does a bit about how one of the only things he and his father had in common was their love of cher, and how he arranged for his dad to meet cher on his 90th birthday. and since his father has now passed away it's a bit of a tribute to him.

but even thematically. yes "believe" is a fun dance song, but it's also a breakup song.

and so much of this show has to do with scott feeling rejected--mostly by amazon censoring so many of his buddy cole monologues, but also by the general "queer community" who have never really embraced scott or buddy as an icon bc of bullshit "bad representation" arguments. it's a dance song, but it's also angry and hurt, and accepting that you can't give your entire soul to make someone else like you

but more than that, it's a hopeful song

"believe" is pissed off and hurt, but it's also affirming that you deserve better and you will be able to find something better, and for as shitty as the amazon situation was, this feeling of moving on is what scott's moving towards throughout the show. and the "i don't need you anymore" could be a pissed off decrying of amazon (like "fuck you for telling me what will offend people, i'm gonna do my show live across the country and bring it to the people who love it")

but also? it could just be acceptance and setting a boundary, like scott's perspective on buddy during the transitional scene. "i don't need you anymore, bc i'm able to stop using you as a shield from speaking my truth as myself. but just bc i don't need you doesn't mean i'm not keeping you around"

but the general refrain "do you believe in life after love?" means this song is generally about wondering how things will be after a massive change. do you believe in life after amazon's abuse? ("life" for both buddy and scott). do you believe in life after buddy? (once scott decides to do the show as himself). do you believe in life after those close to you have passed away? (scott telling the story about his dad and their complicated but ultimately positive relationship)

this song hits different hearing it while scott takes a bow after a show that brilliantly tackles everything he's been through in the past few years with both humor and heart. but mostly it's just a fucking bop

[mycochaotix]

My “real”nonbinary friends and fam, please read this and tell me your thoughts!!! —r/nonbinary user commented:

“I feel that Blair White and others like her are calling out bad behavior and demanding personal accountability. We all can live our lives as we see fit, but demanding nullification of sexual orientation in relation to one's gender or having a melt down over misgender pronouns without self realization about how we present ourselves is narcissistic and provides our detectors against the lgbt+ community with reason to vilify us.

Non-binary people are not the problem, to be clear. It's people who believe being non-binary qualifies them for special victimhood status and who go on public forums to decry society's ills for not recognizing their non-binary lifestyle on sight that creates this negativity.

If you know you are emotionally mature enough to get through your day and live your truth without being angry someone isn't into you or that the days your presentation may lean one way or the other on the gender spectrum and gracefully correct and move on, you know you aren't the problem.”

- they were downvoted many times when I saw rhe comment, so I asked chatgpt why and replied to them:

“Asked ChatGPT why your comment is being downvoted, it said: “This comment appears to express a negative view towards individuals, particularly non-binary people, who assert their gender identity and seek recognition. The use of terms like "meltdown" and the implication that asserting ‘one's gender identity is narcissistic’ may be perceived as dismissive or transphobic by some. “ 🤷🏽”

- they responded to my comment with:

“I mean, if you like feel that someone crying over a stranger at a fast food restaurant calling them "Ma'am" while taking their order on Tik Tok is good representation, we're at an impasse. That's not real life and it doesn't represent real non-binary people.

Edit: More importantly, if we ourselves do not call out bad behavior in our own community and ensure that negative representation isn't the only viewable commodity, we're practically committing self harm.”

- i replied with:

“Up until this comment, I havent made a personal belief claim about your comments. Just saw you being downvoted and wanted to understand why :) hence why I asked chatgpt.

Honestly, your comment reflects that you seem to be trying to police or gatekeep what anyone gets offended by. Why does that matter. Most non binary people i know are too concerned about being hate crimed to actually get offended at a mcdonalds worker incorrectly assuming their gender… much less asserting their correct pronouns when being misgendered.

Your use of “real non binary people” is quite problematic tbh. I think you may have an insulated understanding of Queer people thats influencing your perspective in an unhelpful way. Im a real non binary person and I disagree with your perspective and characterization of non binary people. Your edit is something im not comfortable addressing specifically tbh, I process it as problematic and not worth pursuing as you seem set in your beliefs.

Your feelings, and mine, and whatever queer scapegoat you are bringing up from tiktok, all matter and are valid. You dont know the trauma history of the person who is offended at being misgendered. To be misgendered is uncomfortable, especially for trans folkx and especially for those who are aware of the insane, incessant gender norms, mores and expectations on us at all times.

Calling out bad behavior is fine, but looking at situations empathetically, and from as many perspectives as you can, is going to aid you on identifying behavior thats could be a meaningful change to call out , and behavior that you just dont like and want to stop someone from doing because of your discomfort.”

—

Queer, and specifically: Transfam, please tell me if im far off here … or what yall think!

-mcx

———

update:

[wellofdean]

Such a good article:

When I work with younger writers, I am frequently amazed by how quickly peer feedback sessions turn into a process of identifying which characters did or said insensitive things. Sometimes the writers rush to defend the character, but often they apologize shamefacedly for their own blind spot, and the discussion swerves into how to fix the morals of the piece. The suggestion that the values of a character can be neither the values of the writer, nor the entire point of the piece, seems more and more surprising — and apt to trigger discomfort. While I typically share the progressive political views of my students, I’m troubled by their concern for righteousness over complexity. They do not want to be seen representing any values they do not personally hold. The result is that, in a moment in which our world has never felt so fast-changing and bewildering, our stories are getting simpler, less nuanced and less able to engage with the realities through which we’re living.

Good stories give us moral clarity by allowing us to process complexity, not by spelling it out, and reading this really interesting article, I can't help thinking of the contrast between the operatic and somehow brain-melting nature of the romance in Supernatural, which was always clear and present, even if it was complicated, subterranean and interdicted, vs the simple, unimpeachable simplicity of something like 9-1-1, which ok, it's clear, uncomplicated queer representation and that is nice! Yes! Sure. Ok. But for me? It cannot hold a candle to the 12 years of highly charged yearning that took place on a show that some members of the fandom still decry as homophobic and accuse of queerbaiting its audience on a regular basis.

For the record, I think it did neither! It told a complex, queer story that required its audience to think, feel and empathize with its characters. It involved me in ways that something like 9-1-1 simply does not, because it ASKED something of me as a viewer.

I'd say the same of about the deep seam of misogyny that runs through Supernatural, and the way the show went from replicating it, sometimes unconsciously, to consciously depicting it as something killing that separates our beloved characters from every softer, consoling feeling, and every authentic desire they have. Is that really 'misogyny', or is it a story that has some legitmate real estate in something that is good for a world without gender hierarchy? Again, it asks me to process it and decide.

Even with the charge of racism, which is, I would say, the most legitimate criticism of Supernatural, the way race was treated carelessly and sometimes in very predictably ugly ways on Supernatural prompts us all to reflect on it -- to call it out and see how unacceptable it is. Is art that shows us our own faces in the mirror bad art, or is it useful to us? There is a difference between moral clarity and moral simplicity.

Supernatural is a genuinely interesting cultural artifact in this regard -- it grew up with us into our present, and it's still going someplace. I think it does teach us moral lessons, particularly in the way it centres non-compliance with hegemony and authentic love of all kinds as the strongest force in its world. But those are not simple things.

Anyway. Just a thought.

[jadejedi]

Romance Book Review: Red, White, and Royal Blue (Casey McQuinston)

JJ’s rating: 5/5

How feral did it make me: 4/5

My book reviews

I have been seeing a lot of negativity around this book and the movie for a while now, and that has made me want to review this book. I will say it’s been a couple of years since I’ve read it last, but I have read it multiple times. The first time I read it I literally could not put it down; I had the audiobook and the ebook so I could read wherever I was lol. 

I genuinely love this book. I think it is a great romance novel and I LOVE Alex and Henry so so much. I think a lot of the negativity is coming from a couple of places. First of all: the politics. Yes, you heard it here folks: the gay rom-com known as Red, White, and Royal Blue is not the next “Communist Manifesto”. Shocking, I know. But McQuinston was clearly not trying to write something politically revolutionary?? So, I don’t understand why that is being held against this book. From my understanding, they wrote this book after the 2016 election as a way of coping, essentially. To me, it is not at all different from something like Parks and Recreation, which is easily as much of a liberal utopia as RWRB. I said this in my review of Victoria Goddard’s The Hands of the Emperor, and I’ll say it here: not every work of fiction needs to have a radical political statement. Even if it features politics. It’s okay to have a book that is just about two young men falling in love against this dramatic political backdrop. Is it a bit cringe? Maybe?? But who cares!!! What isn’t cringe these days?? God. Also, it’s not like this book paints a super pretty picture of the monarchy in particular.

Sure, it's escapism, but so what?? What's wrong with a bit of escapism?

I think the other place some of the negativity is coming from is from the crowd who kind of wants to police what is and isn’t “good queer representation”. If a work isn’t “good enough” (i.e. doesn’t resonate with them personally) they will decry it as “bad representation”. I saw this happen with Simon vs. the Homosapien’s Agenda and the movie, Love, Simon. Like those works, I have occasionally seen RWRB condemned as sort of gay fiction for straight people. As if there is only one way to be queer. As if there is only one queer story. I acknowledge our need for a wide range of experiences portrayed in the media, but to say that we as a society no longer have a need for coming out stories is a bold fucking claim to be perfectly honest. RWRB was one of the first queer romance books I read, and it really meant a lot to me at the time, and continues to do so. I think that there is value in portraying both Alex’s journey of self-discovery and Henry’s journey of realizing that he doesn’t have to be unhappy in his life, that he deserves to be able to openly love who he loves. 

So, with all of that out of the way, here’s the summary. Alex Claremont-Diaz is the son of the first female president of the USA and she is about to be up for reelection. Alex is widely beloved, he’s got a bright future in politics ahead of him, and everything seems to be going his way. Except he keeps getting put in the path of his nemesis, the younger Prince of England, Prince Henry. Henry, who is so cold and uppity and standoffish and Alex is definitely not attracted to him. Nope. Not a bit. 

This book has everything you want in a romance book. Lovable characters, leads with genuine chemistry, lots of heart and emotion, a good dose of humor, and LOVE LETTERS. And HISTORICAL LOVE LETTERS. God. Even though, as I said above, this book is not a revolutionary political story, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t deal with deep and interesting topics. It deals with multicultural relationships, what it means to have a legacy and how much we get to dictate what that legacy is, and some of the realities of being a queer person in the public eye. 

I love this book, and I think if you are a romance reader or just love a good queer romance with a genuinely happy ending, this is the book for you.

[shotofchinaco]

If you’ve ever wondered why it seems like every other station on your dial is Christian rock, EMF [the Educational Media Foundation] is a big part of your answer. From its headquarters in a Nashville suburb (the organization is slowly relocating from its longtime home of California), EMF plays the generic sounds of contemporary Christian music, or “CCM.” It is a genre that everyone from artists and critics to church leaders have decried as being somewhere between “the absolute worst” and “doctrinally unsound.” But the Educational Media Foundation has quietly become the country’s fastest-growing radio chain and second-largest station owner in the country, bested only by iHeartRadio. With hundreds of cookie-cutter stations branded as “K-LOVE,” as well as its smaller chain of “Air1” stations, EMF broadcasts on more than 1,000 signals across all 50 states and some U.S. territories, reaching an estimated 18 million listeners a week.  On the surface, EMF’s broadcasts are glaringly apolitical. They opt instead for their trite brand of Christian rock, all teed off by the same, small cast of nationally syndicated, Anywhere-USA DJs who smile through everything from squeaky-clean jokes about the drink sizes at Starbucks to prayers asking God to watch over those who have donated to the organization. But behind its politically neutral facade, the organization — and the CCM industry more broadly — appears to be an inherently conservative project. Many right-wing Christian culture bearers have long believed in the “Breitbart Doctrine” — the idea that, to change politics, you must first change culture — and have fought for decades to build a parallel popular culture free of sharp edges, hard questions, or representations of lives that veer from the straight and narrow.

[...] But EMF’s story isn’t just about bad music taking over the airwaves in service of a cultural vision that is overwhelmingly white, straight, and artistically regressive. It’s also the story of the near-demise of local radio — a longtime haven for new music, artistic outcasts, and political dialogue — at the hands of a tax-avoiding not-for-profit organization that appears to operate like a very-much-for-profit media mega-corporation. For decades, EMF has hidden behind a veneer of uncoolness while honing a signature technique: At big commercial stations and small, beloved community-radio stations alike, they’ve offered the owners an undeniable sum of money, wiped out the local presence, and replaced it with unmanned transmitters.

[gingerylangylang1979]

Can we raise the bar for who to consider role models? I don't care if they are marginalized and rich.

Are women and POC so thirsty for role models that we have to accept any shenanigans because someone is wealthy? I find this especially irksome when their behavior is actually damaging to their identity group. How many times do we let craziness slide because, "Oh, they are a great business person." I'm tired of seeing women let themselves be hypersexualized and set crazy beauty standards but it's ok because they are girl bosses. I'm tired of seeing black men who decry racism in one breath and in the next breath they are mocking our community and disparaging black women. But it's ok because they are playing the game and make millions. I'm tired of politicians who do nothing for the communities they represent, except talk, get held up as saviors and worshipped. Like, literally portraits and statues commissioned like they are Medici's and shit when most of them are all so bought and sold they should be stamped with their brand sponsors.

I'm seeing more people call out this type of shit but really it comes down to people valuing money and clout over human dignity. And I don't care how underrepresented a group is, call people out for what they are because bad representation doesn't equal progress.

[broodwoof]

this is apropos of nothing other than this being on my mind a lot lately and finally feeling like i have the spoons to explain my pov. it might be a little discoursey? i don't really think it is, more conversational/observational and personal than anything else, but ymmv and that's fine.

the primary metric i use to analyze any kind of media is, ig i can call it congruence. is it congruent? does it make sense internally?

and i think that's part of why i like da so much, even the painful or grim aspects. the world feels congruent. and it feels that way in part because it isn't, because in-world there are interpretations, biases, limited povs. no one is all-knowing and omniscient, and even the hardest facts are treated as questionable.

the characters, too. this is why i say - and mean - that i like all da characters. i don't like all characters from all media all the time forever; but i do almost universally like characters who make sense. they don't have to be good, or pure, or interesting, or funny; they don't have to be palatable, even.

and this also ties into why i like the heavy subjects they tackle, although i don't really have the headspace to play dao or da2 anymore bc of how heavy they are about certain things; but that's a personal mental health thing and knowing my own limits atm, not an opposition to the content they show.

because a lot of stuff is just like... it will have value for some people. i have seen people praise and decry the exact same thing too many times now. not just with da, but with anything. i do feel it's worth pointing out offensive stuff, i'm not saying otherwise, but i also think purity politics has slipped into a lot of mainstream conversations about the type of content that's permissible in media and i do not like that.

what one person sees as being needlessly grim and harmful, another will see as cathartic. neither are wrong, but making it so that such things cannot be shown or those who enjoy them are shamed isn't helpful to anyone. there's just so much nuance among people. and a lot of the time it's not some theoretical super-privileged person who just doesn't give a shit about anyone else steepling their fingers with glee over representations of heavy content, it's people who have experienced some version of that.

like, i listen to people. i stay quiet and i listen most of the time. and i have seen many people who have experienced a form of oppression or a kind of fear in their life appreciating representations of that in media. including specifically in dragon age.

so i'm always going to be a proponent of representing stuff, including stuff that's uncomfortable, heavy, grim, whatever you want to call it. how it's presented does matter, but realistically, it's not always that easy to judge a good v. bad presentation of stuff.

[sroloc--elbisivni]

not to like. have a hot take about discourse on main but i've been thinking recently about how singularly unhelpful it is to gauge 'good representation' based on personal experience. to use a real example, i'm trans, and i don't consider myself as having a deadname. i vastly prefer using a chosen name in public or a professional environment but generally, for close friends and family and paperwork reasons, i'm fine with answering to my birthname. they're both my names. notice i'm NOT saying 'and therefore anyone who anyone who writes a character who has a deadname is bad rep because it doesn't align with my experience.' and i am ALSO not saying 'therefore i should not expect to see my own experiences depicted in fiction because it is Bad Representation.' just like. there are more things in heaven and earth horatio than are dreamt of in your lived experience. 'bad representation' is kind of meaningless as a phrase to me now because of how often i see it used by someone decrying something that doesn't align with their own life.

[aprilflowers2040]

While I said in a previous post, I'd talk about my trip to Israel, I feel it's necessary to dive into issues when it comes to aspects of the Pro-Palestinian movement. So consider this as me swapping around parts 2 and 3.

While a majority of people in the movement are in it with the best of intentions, it shouldn't be ignored that there are those within it that are there for less then pure reasons. For starters, while not as prevalent as in the Pro-Israel, there have been neo-Nazis who have decided that their islamophobia and Arab-based xenophobia is secondary to their hatred of Jewish people.

I re-posted a video before talking about the subject so I will re-blog it after this is posted. In summary, it's how genuine anger towards the Likud led government of Israel is co-opted in certain circles to sneak in classic antisemitic talking points, such as Jewish people controlling the media, that the Jewish Diaspora and Israel are to be conflated with one another, by both antisemites, and extreme Zionists.

this goes into my next point, that there are those who proclaim support for Palestine, yet downplay the religious, ethnic and historical connections Jewish people have to the region in order to justify their own viewpoints, that extend to a denial of any nation-state representation. While I'm more for unity unless under certain circumstances, unfortunately, we live in a post-Balfour world, so we deal with the cards dealt. However, I digress.

Back to the matter of weaponized Pro-Palestinian elements. A trend I notice with far too much frequency in posts proclaiming Pro-Palestine is "Death to Israel" or referring to Israel as "IsNotReal" or "Israhell". This isn't even with any effort on my part, but seems to be baked into elements of the Pro-Palestine fringe. This is troubling given the above mentioned conflation of Jews and Israel. It seems downright hypocritical for people like this profess a desire to recognize Palestinian statehood, which it rightfully deserves and is now receiving, while denying Israel's own existence. While Likad propaganda isn't exactly in short supply on social media ,see the litany of porn bots on Tumblr and Twitter, there has also been enough disinformation from people who support Palestine that it should raise eyebrows. For example, footage of people in Ben Gurion Airport which was used to proclaim that people were fleeing back to places like the United States and that they were settlers, when in reality it was people returning home from Passover celebrations. However, it's not only those on the far-right that are spreading falsehoods. There are those in left-wing circles that ascribe to a "West = bad" mentality. While this isn't entirely wrong, as Western governments, including and especially the United States, have used their power for their own selfish interests, the views of Tankies are so black and white, that it borders on pure brain rot. This especially is apparent in their contrasting feelings when it comes to places like China and Russia compared to Israel. Each is currently enacting genocide, with China's CCP against the Uyghur people, Russia's Putin against the Russian queer population and the people of Ukraine, and of course Israel's Likud government on the Palestinians. However, while Tankies are quick to decry Israeli crimes, they remain slavishly loyal and excusatory about the crimes of Russia and China because they aren't "western powers" (looking at you, Hasanabi. Check out Lonerbox's videos on him and his Russian dick riding), which basically results in cutting your nose to spite your face, or in this case supporting one group of authoritarians to spite another group of authoritarians. Thus it extends to apologia towards Hamas and the actions of Palestinian groups both past and present, that used outright terrorism to get what they wanted. If these same people support Palestinian independence while preciously saying that Ukraine should kowtow to Russia's own territorial invasions, turn and run for the hills.

Which brings me to Hamas and previous Palestinian leaderships. Oh God, where do I even start. Firstly, I should clarify that I believe that armed resistance isn't an inherently bad thing. There are times where it's the only solution remaining. However, what you do with it can still be judged, and in this case, Palestinian "liberation" groups have shown a far too common trend of targeting civilian populations such as what happened on Oct.7th. It would be one thing if it was on military or government spaces, yet these actions on civilians screams of utter cowardice on the parts of Hamas. While both the IDF and Hamas have done these things, I've only noticed the IDF being called out, and although their blatant disregard for life should be decried, it's troubling how identical behavior by Hamas and other Palestinian leadership has been swept under the rug for the sake of "support". Hamas has its origins in the Muslim Brotherhood which is a very ultra-orthodox sect of Islam that has multiple bigoted aspects to it which include antisemitism, which Hamas inherited from its parent movement after separating, that wasn't "officially" removed until 2017 (I have their manifesto linked above twice just to be sure of any inconstancies given these are translations.). As for previous incidents, the Munich terrorist attack of 1972, where a combined group of the Palestinian extremist group Black September alongside West German Neo-Nazis killed eleven Israeli Olympics athletes and coaches. While it has been weaponized for darker purposes, it should be noted that while the Palestinian factions had every right to be upset by the destruction of their communities which was what led to this event, their way of dealing with it was horrifically misplaced.

For those who say that Hamas doesn't represent all Palestinians, then you are correct. They don't. They were elected in 2006 before a large portion of Palestine's current population were even born, and yet here they must suffer because the leaders they never elected, chose to break a ceasefire and murder 1,200 people and kidnap 240 more, that opened the gates of Hell upon them from an equally genocidal government with a trigger happy military, and a civilian population primed by 2,000 years of exile and (understandable) generational trauma at the hands of multiple countries and empires, mixed with propaganda and exposure to only the worst of Palestinian society in the form of terrorism to explode in anger with zero consideration for the innocent. That being said, there are Israelis and Jews who support Palestinian struggles that also point out that the Likud don't represent them either, yet those of bad faith are willing to blind themselves to this fact.

This went on longer then I meant it to, if I'm being honest. I wish this was more put together, but this was something I feel I needed to talk about. Still, for those wishing to learn more, I've linked to other sources that are more articulate. For now, I leave it here. Next time, I will get to my critiques of Israel outside of its "relationship" with Palestine.

I just want this to end. I want things to heal. All we can do is take action however we can, and cling onto hope for those who are gone, and those who continue on.

[artist-issues]

I mostly agree with your points about representation, that we should be able to appreciate characters that we don’t personally relate to, and I would NEVER decry something for lack of representation, nor applaud something purely on the basis of representation. However, I certainly do think that there is a place for people saying that they want to see their life experience reflected in the media. As an autistic, Australian and young Christian woman, I rarely see any media that reflects even one of those identities in a realistic way, and when I do I get super excited, because it’s nice to occasionally hear an Aussie accent, see people acknowledge that women can be autistic too, and know that some people see Christians as real people, not just bigoted, religious fanatics. So I definitely think that while representation in and of itself is no mark of a work’s quality, I would not go so far as to say it doesn’t matter.

@mymanyfandomramblings I appreciate your thoughts and I agree with the spirit of them (don’t want to rush into discourse without establishing that.)

But I don’t think that representation is a mark of a work’s quality—OR that it matters. After all, the word “matters” is so important when we talk about this. What does representation (of life experience, specifically) matter for?

I’m worried that what we mean when we say “representation matters” is just “representation matters for the end goal of: communicating the most meaningful parts of my identity to others.”

Please don’t take this flippantly: what I’m about to say has more hope of being understood graciously between Christians than anywhere else. From one Christian to another, take it as me just trying (maybe rudely) to change the aim of the spotlights in your brain (like others have done for me:)

Why does it matter that you’re Australian? Why does it matter that you’re a female? Why does it even matter that you’re autistic? Are those the most important, fundamental things about you? So important that it’s more than just “nice” to represent them to others—it’s necessary?

Why does it feel so nice to have those things acknowledged by others? It’s not bad that it feels nice…but why does it feel so nice? So important?

The most meaningful part of your identity (which is what we talk like representation matters for) isn’t your identity at all. It’s Christ’s.

If what we believe is that “in the image of God He created them,” and as Christian, that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” then why do we get enough sense of identity and recognition out of any other traits to feel so strongly about them? To demand that, in the most public of stages and every corner of media, those traits be reflected?

If all we believe is that everything aside from our image-bearing of God is just secondary, then why are we campaigning so hard for people to recognize those secondary traits?

It’s like baking the world’s greatest cake and inviting everyone to try it, but becoming outraged if they decide to eat that cake with a spoon instead of a fork. Why in the world would you care if someone eats the cake with a spoon or a fork, if the main thing is, eat the world’s greatest cake?

What’s the main thing? What’s the most important part of our identities? What does representation matter for? Is just to make certain parts of us (but not all) that we assign value to feel nice and recognized? Why do we need people to recognize those certain parts? Why do we consider those certain parts so important to our “identities” at all? And maybe, why are we so obsessed with people seeing and thinking of us the way we want them to see and think of us?

The most important part of your identity is in Christ. Who you are is wrapped up in Him. When you keep that in the spotlight, then it’s very easy to say that representing everything off in the shadows, like skin color or nationality or even experiences, doesn’t matter.

[sloanout]

There's a very terrible category of Veilguard 'critical' post I see now and then that basically boils down to "DATV is morally bad because it's plot is an analogue for blood libel and blatantly antisemitic." I think there are certainly things to critique with how Veilguard handled its story but just... really? It's so tiring to see Voltron fandom levels of reach in an attempt to equate a thing you don't like to ontological evil. You do not need to invent moral or political rationale for not liking something. Just own that you didn't enjoy the game. I promise it will be okay.

Fandom spaces really need to knock it off with dragging serious real world issues into petty online squabbles. Yes, bigotry intentional or otherwise can worm its way into media and deserves to be discussed - but those real discussions are cheapened by the people that make shadow puppets in an attempt to win inconsequential internet arguments or rationalize why the new game in a series didn't live up to their expectations. Most of the time these grave claims aren't made in an effort to address and inform about unconscious bias or blatant prejudice - they're meant to shut down any sort of discussion by casting the people that disagree with you as ignorant at best and monsters co-signing the projected injustice at worst.

Yes, waaaay back David Gaider said that they took inspiration from the Jewish diaspora when making the Dalish - but the Dalish are not one-to-one representations of the Jewish diaspora - they're not a one-to-one portrayal of anything. In the same breath he mentioned that the Romani people were another original inspiration, and that as the idea evolved more and more inspiration was taken from the Indigenous peoples of North America. You don't get to throw out the other parts just because they're inconvenient for you. No where in these call outs for 'blood libel in veilguard" do I see any mention of these other groups and the stereotypes and prejudices that plague their portrayals in media. And that's pretty transparently because most of these people don't actually care. They just want to say Veil Guard Bad and point to bigotry to justify their stance and take the moral high ground... for not liking a video game.

If they actually wanted to talk about how Antisemitism could have influenced Dragon Age's narrative, they would have to decry Inquisition too - Trespasser is when all this came to light, after all. Never mind that seeds and clues regarding the Evanuris and the Blight have been present throughout the whole damn series. No, it's just this one title that's the issue. Because it's the one they didn't like.

We should be having these conversations. Fandom spaces should be open to thoughtful critique, and people should be able to recognize the flaws and mishandled topics in the writing of the things they enjoy without it becoming a question of the sanctity of their own soul. I'd love to see some actual energy for discussions about the Dalish as a portrayal of Indigenous peoples. But people don't seem to be concerned with that, probably in part because it's not a flashy hot button issue in many people's minds right now.

And don't even get me started on the whole "veilguard is an inherently conservative story because it says oppressed people wanting to return to an era where they weren't oppressed is bad." Y'all remind me of that study that found English majors couldn't critically engage with the text they were reading. No one is saying the Dales were bad. They're not even really saying Arlathan was bad. The whole point since Trespasser has been, very specifically, the Evanuris are bad because they were violent tyrants. Don't sit there trying to tell me the story that is blatantly saying "Tyrants bad, collaboration and communication between diverse groups good" is a conservative story. Criticize in good faith or go home.