#doesn't mean they hate the minorities??????

[punkitt-is-here]

Hi, I'm genuinely looking for an explanation here and not looking for an argument /srs

Can you explain how calling a transfem a TERF for spreading ideology that I genuinely assumed was included in the definition of TERFism is othering ? Not to be that guy, but I'm autistic and I'm having a very hard time connecting the points you're making, and I genuinely want to learn and understand what you're saying /gen

Again, I do hope this doesn't come off as hostile, I am genuinely trying to learn and understand better, and I want to be able to fix misconceptions about what a TERF is in my own mind, and I haven't seen anyone bring this point up before /gen

You absolutely do not have to answer this, but I hope you have a fabulous rest of your day, and I do apologize for what I said, as it wasn't necessary for me to comment on the situation.

Yeah totally! Okay, I got a lot of this from Ibram X. Kendi's "How to be Antiracist"* where he talks about describing "racist" as an identity means that hardly anyone is going to ever "identify" with it, even if they are a racist. It's much more helpful to talk about actions being racist or anti-racist. Someone committing racist acts speaks far more to the vulnerability of anyone to cause harm, rather than it being something ONLY reserved for someone with the identity of "racist". For example, Clarence Thomas, a black man, has done untold amounts of harm to the black population in the US. If we subscribe to the "oh, (X) can't be racist, they are (a minority)" train of thought, it means people are less likely to understand that Clarence Thomas commits racist acts. In the same way, describing yourself as an anti-racist is not enough, as it can let people be comfortable with racist actions because they think "oh, I'm an anti-racist, I can't commit acts of racial harm." That's why it's more helpful to describe acts as racist and anti-racist rather than framing them as identities.

In a similar way, describing someone as the label of "TERF" can have a similar effect. Because it's specifically a label centered around being anti-trans, transgender people of all kinds will easily assume they cannot be transphobic, because the label of TERF is ideologically opposed to their existence. It invites ridicule rather than introspection. By saying actions can be transphobic, I think it helps a lot more because it's easier to understand that trans people can be transphobic. For example, Blaire White is right there. Despite being a trans woman, she is actively doing transphobic acts. By calling out an action as transphobic rather than describing someone as a "TERF", it helps fight back against the idea that being trans means you cannot be transphobic. For a super duper simple example, I can step on my dogs tail, but it doesn't mean I hate dogs, it means I committed an act of harm against my dog. Describing me as a dog-hater when I LOVE dogs would invite ridicule more than it would a tendency to watch my step when my dog is in the house. I hope this makes sense!

*I'm not trying to say the Black and Trans experience is exactly the same, just that like any oppressed group, there is a lot of overlap in tactics and thinking, especially for people who are Black and Trans. Reading about other groups can really give you a ton of helpful insight on how to work within your own identity!

[plunderbunny]

I'm a cishet man, so that of course colors my perceptions of these kinds of things, as well as my anxiety and depression in general, but I think it might be useful to offer my perspective here about this kind of thing.

My primary friend group is predominantly queer, and outside of that friend group many of my friends are queer, so the vast majority of my social interactions these days is in mostly LGBTQ groups or with queer people. I love them all dearly, but there are many, many occasions when I feel like there is a kind of... Enforced distance between them and me, based largely on my orientation and gender identity. When my queer friends say things like "are the straights okay", or spend time with straight family members in bad relationships and complain about "spending time with straight couples, where is the love?", or praise media by saying nothing other than "it's so gay" as though that gayness itself was an indicator of artistic and moral quality, or get frustrated by random people out in the world being jerks and complain about "cishet assholes", or groan and boo and complain when movies or games have straight couples in them, or say they would "rather die than play a man in a video game" (even as an exaggeration), or furry friends joking about how I "still think I'm cishet, how cute", or any number of other similar tiny things, it makes me feel as though I'm less important, less loved by them, less valuable or worthy of consideration, simply because of my orientation and gender identity, things entirely out of my own control.

Now, I'm not stupid, I know that they're not often saying these things to me specifically, or trying directly to put me down. When they say these things, they're generally talking to a queer audience, and from what I can tell these things are generally meant as an expression of LGBTQ support and/or an expression of frustration with being part of a minority group that faces all kinds of discrimination, bigotry, and oppression. But knowing that doesn't mean that it doesn't make me feel less loved by these people that I care about, just because I'm a cishet man. I think that there are ways that they could make similar shows of support and love for their LGBTQ friends without potentially alienating or othering their cishet friends, in the same way that I do my best not to alienate and other my queer friends. Which, full disclosure, I know that I'm not always the best at, ESPECIALLY in the past! People are always learning, I don't expect perfection from anyone (except myself but that's the depression talking again lol).

I don't think it's quite to the level of "irrational hatred" of men that OP was talking about, but more on the level of a bunch of little microaggressions that sit in my head and add up over time and make me feel like there's an impassable gulf between myself and many of the people I love. Yes, I understand that my queer friends don't have the enormous privilege I do of not being judged and hated by much of society based on just their identity, but I don't think that that makes me deserving of less respect just because I happen to share an identity with many of their oppressors.

"straw(wo)men, youre gonna make other trans girls scared youll turn against them" is really fucking wild for a trans woman with a huge platform to say.

[kirby-derb]

im a big fan of Au's LIKE huge fan of the like college au's, coffee shop au's and all of that

and recently my brother dragged, n yeah I mean dragged, into the call of duty little world

So: College Au and you can fight me this is real I've seen it

John Price: now i put some thought into it but I strongly believe his major is either something like political science or history. He's probably one of the older ones on campus, (28) but he lives in his own apartment a good five minutes walk away. He's not the best student, but he sits in the second row in lecture halls and he IS the one someone would go to for notes because he somehow remembers everything?? His free time is either filled with taking his sister's dog (she lives with him) for a walk or he's volunteering at the local history museum as a tour guide/kids party guide. Ahem now just like everyone else in the world he needs shcoalship money and he found that he's relatively okay at debate, so he tried oug and by the end of the semester he was the captain. It works out.

Kyle Garrick: DONT GET ME WRONG, Kyle is a genuis. However I think journalism with maybe a minor in pre-law is his speed. He started a semester late so many people assumed he wasn't thr brightest, which was wrong, he's currently head of the school paper and has an internship with the cities main news outlet. He's the golden child, right up front, hand raised with a question whenever he was confused (and the whole class was too but he had the guts to actually ask) with his free time he is either working out, or is at the school coffee shop, if there are no seats he WILL sit on the floor, headphones on and furiously typing away- he's writing a memoir.

Simon Riley: Psychology. I'm SORRY but you cannot look me dead and in the eyes and say that poor baby that was traumatized wouldn't wanna know how the brain worked so he could fix himself. And that's why he chose it too, so he could fix himself and maybe like a friend or two. He's a solid B, rarely an A or rarely a C student. He sits in the back, sometimes he looks asleep but no? Now he and his roommate are both nocturnal otherwise he would have a small light clipped onto his text book and study there, instead he will go study in the lecture rooms till the security guard will come- his name is Jim, he and Simon are buds. For free time he likes walking down to the boxing gym that's not too far away, it's attached to some apartment complex. Now for his extracurricular, which he very hesitantly did- but he was cornered by some nerd in engineering so- ugh, well he's apart of the unofficial rugby team.

Johnny MacTavish: said nerd in engineering. He's technically double majoring in mechanical and chemical, how he's alive no one knows. He does spend about 99% of his time in the lab/workshop, or if someone's TV breaks down he's there is about two shakes. When he isn't studying, building, fixing, playing rugby with the psych dude who totally isn't his type he's asleep. Hate to say it but he doesn't have any free time, nd he perfers it that way. He does play rugby, and he's trying to make an official team- however till then he's also a prime member in the robotics club, his professions are trying to become president but that's just...so much time, time he doesn't have.

Um yeah? This is my first post so if you find anything wrong with it or if you see i did something wrong please please let me know!

[ghost-on-a-string]

me when someone argues a bad take with an even worse take

[soraya-snape]

There was this HP creator on TikTok that I was starting to really like. But then she said that “Snape is not a good guy (OK kinda agree but the way she said it sounded more like “he is a bad or even really bad guy” which is obviously not true) and that he only tried to save Harry which was the least he could do” and this is the part where I was like?!?!?!

He might have started off only trying to save Harry (actually Lily at first) but then he actually tries to save the whole wizarding world. Like remember that time he told Dumbledore “Lately only those I couldn't save.” or when he tried to save Lupin at the beginning of DHp1 or told Phineas Niggelus Black to not call Hermione a mud blood. And let's not forget how he spied for Dumbledore during the first and second war, which is definitely more than the least he could do. I could go on but I think people with enough braincells get that he was not just trying to save that one boy but actively going against Voldemort's values and also kinda his own (or at least the once he was taught as a kid/teen). And like the example with Lupin shows also protecting those who, from his perspective might not deserve his help (considering Remus was a bystander at his bullying who actually had the power and the duty to stop it and also while mostly being civil towards Snape in later years still made his life extremely hard [I still love Remus but let's not ignore his flaws]).

Yes maybe he was a cruel teacher even bully to some of his students (we actually canonically only know of the trio and Neville) but at the same time also beloved and admired by some (mainly Slytherin but considering how badly they were treated by almost everyone else I actually think it's good of Snape to favour them especially considering what he went through during school simply because he was Slytherin. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should complain first about everyone mistreating the Slytherins before complaining about someone treating them nicely, even if it is unfair). 

But besides that his position in the second war (and also the end of the first one) on the good side is clear and not only to save Harry but also everyone he simply could save. And if you don't see it, maybe you should get your eyes checked, or I don't know...

[korrasera]

No, I caught the point of your post, I was just saying that you'd gotten it wrong because you're working from incorrect assumptions.

In the notes you mentioned that the patriarchy gives rise to sexism and that the patriarchy will not recognize trans identity. That sounded, to me, like the core of your position.

Both of those assumptions are wrong.

Patriarchal culture doesn't create sexism, it's sexism that creates a patriarchal culture. The patriarchy is just the social order that arises when sexism exists and privileges one gender over all others.

Transphobia isn't a requirement for patriarchy, despite the fact that sexism and transphobia coexist easily. People can reject sexism while embracing transphobia or vice versa. If someone rejects transphobia but still doesn't recognize sexism as a problem, they can absolutely recognize a trans man or trans masculine person as deserving of privilege.

Quick tangent: Even though zealous bigots will treat prejudice like a collectible card game, even people who don't want to be bigots can have a hard time recognizing all of the prejudice they may have learned.

Plenty of people oppose sexism but don't see a problem with racism, or embrace transphobia while categorically hating sexism. And that's not accounting for the way that prejudices, particularly systemic ones like racism, can shift over time as society becomes gradually less prejudiced as a whole.

As an example from the US, people of Irish and Italian descent were not considered to be white until the early 20th century. While they didn't face the degree of prejudice that African American, black, or indigenous people faced, they weren't considered white people until US society started to largely reject white supremacy.

Getting back to the point, I shared that study because the majority of the trans masculine people surveyed reported that they benefited from male privilege. It also discusses how they felt that being trans affected male privilege, sometimes in degree, sometimes in form.

While there were people surveyed who reported that they didn't benefit from male privilege, or that it wasn't possible for trans masculine people to benefit from male privilege, or even a few who said that male privilege didn't exist, they were in the minority.

That means it's a lived experience of some trans masculine people that they benefit from male privilege because they are recognized as men and benefit as a result.

Like I said, it's a complicated topic. I don't think it's possible to simplify it to an equation that says that trans men can never benefit from male privilege.

Saying trans men have male privilege "because they're men" is actually in itself cissexism, it is based on the assumption that because cis men have male privilege that having male privilege is a requirement to being a man. Trans men are men but that doesn't mean they're rewarded for their gender identity by society, because trans identity is never awarded under the patriarchy.

[phoenixcatch7]

The thing I like about my writing is that I never write a story the same way twice. Everything I write demands a different flow.

For example, of the two stories I'm writing now, one wanted present tense (which I am, it turns out, terrible at) and lots of Internet slang/grammar, and the other one decided it had to be made of very short snippets, with one or two longer scenes forming naturally and lots of run on sentences. Both of them I originally tried in my 'more typical' style and both times it failed miserably to click until I scrapped it entirely and restarted.

Ironically enough, the present tense one I'd been intending to write in more episodic bursts, and the snippets one is the start of a long and twisting story delving into deeper themes than I ever have before. But that's the way they wanted to be written! It's more thinking on my behalf than I might have wanted (I am truly fighting my instinct for past tense), but in return I'm finding a rhythm and pattern that's working so well!

I guess the morale of the story is that if you've just started a story or art piece or whatever but it's just not working out, try approaching it from an unusual angle, something you haven't tried before. Something about it isn't clicking, so try a new method entirely!

But most importantly, have a folder somewhere you can move all the little bits and pieces you made but had to take out. It's old advice, but the problem is usually further back than you think. Doesn't mean you have to lose your progress.

[uncanny-tranny]

It's always weird when people are like, "Oh, you being [x minority] made me stop hating/reconsider my bigotry toward [minority]!"

Not only is it weird from the standpoint of "wow, you hated me?" but it's weird to know that you displayed some type of behaviour that proved your humanity to them, and that if you stop displaying that behaviour for any reason, it's possible they'll just slide back into their hatred because they haven't fundamentally challenged why they hated you and your people.

It's fine to grow out of your bigotry, yes, but I'm completely understanding of people being weary of those who are so brazen about how much they hated people like you.

[the-acid-pear]

The thing about the painter analog that people don't get and makes them hate it is that at heart this isn't a serious horror story. This is pure gore not only for the sake of gore but for the sake of camp. Once I was talking of to my dad laughing at the guy who had his face sanded off and he was like yeah not new they did that in Jason already 🙄 which was later reinforced by UrbanSpook admitting this is inspired by those old 80s slasher which should tell you everything.

I'm saying this bc i saw a video pairing it with Playground and the incest game and while I don't know the second I watched a video on playground once and the difference is that that book is trying to tell a story and say something on top of the gore but the later makes it hard to care. Which is kind of the issue another "gone too far" piece of media my beloved A Serbian Film runs into where you cannot take yourself too seriously if you also want to show over the top violence or you'll lose the audience.

OF COURSE there are exceptions like Hostel, Saw and 😏 the human centipede ☺️ (cocksucker for that movie and it's more serious points, though it barely counts bc the gore is very tame save for in 2) and I couldn't exactly tell you what's the difference between what makes them work and what doesn't but still.

But I'm getting off topic I'm not here to say which media is good or not I'm here to point out the painter is not a serious story that asks you to care for the characters it's a over the top schlocky gore that asks you to go GROOOOSS or laugh at the over the top brutality it presents. Which is very standard in horror.

[olenoidedserratuspilled]

You spent this entire response talking about how, unfortunately, I wouldn't read it and surely I would block you

Because that is genuinely what I expected, and genuinely what the more long-term productive move in your end is.

and then at the end you basically asked me not to respond. Lol.

Yes, because I don't believe this conversation is productive to either of us, especially when you yourself stated that it's besides your original point. Keep reading if you like, but I know you are not going to shift on your stance, and neither am I in mine.

None of the examples you gave are using man-hating as a cover for anything, at least not successfully.

Emphasis on "Not successfully". The notes on all of those posts were full of the OOPs and their defenders arguing how their takes shouldn't be considered racist because they're only targeted men.

But women don't ask people not to complain about cisness or whiteness or wealth, just to stop singling out women and being misogynistic.

And I never said women should not complain about men. Only that the statement that TERFs like men is incorrect (it is), and that there very much are people who use man-hating to excuse actual bigotry to themselves and to their peers (there are).

Everyone else can complain about their oppressors, but women can't, because someone somewhere might use man-hating as a justification for something else.

I never said that. I only pointed out that it's something that happens, that it's something TERFs specifically do, and that it's a reason why the notion that TERFs like men is wrong.

If a woman makes a post about misogyny and singles out Indian men, it might because she's racist or it might be because she lives in India.

I wanna ask you if you saw any of the screenshots I posted and thought "Well, maybe that OOP is part of the racial minority they singled out". I don't think you did, because people talking about a racial minority they're part of tend not to paint them as demons or deserving of violence and death.

TERFs on the other hand, do that, and it is racist to do that. Pointing that out was the point of my post, and nothing else.

There is a long history of women of color being pressured to stay silent about misogyny within their own communities using the reasoning that the community must be united and any negativity will give ammo to racists. This puts women of color in a really difficult situation. It also serves to prevent them from forming solidarity with other women.

That's true, yes. It's also entirely unrelated to anything I said. Women of color are free to speak up against misogyny from men of color as long as they neither A) single them out as being somehow innately worse than white men (like the posts I showed) nor B) paint them as deserving of racially motivated violence for behaviors that aren't exclusive to their race (like the posts I showed).

Man-hating is not a good proxy for other kinds of bigotry.

Sure. It doesn't mean people don't use it as one. All I did was point out that they do.

You focused a lot on whether or not TERFs like men, which was really tangential to the actual point of this post.

Did you read the tags I was responding to? Because I was responding to a tag saying that TERFs like men. I focused on that because that's the statement I was responding to.

"TERFs like men actually" was referring to their eagerness to form relationships with right wing cis men to gain political power.

Right, so you can agree TERFs don't actually like men (especially not POC men), and that saying they do is just factually wrong. If you can agree with that statement, then you agree with my point, because that's the only point I'm making. You're also not the one who wrote those tags, so you don't know what their person meant.

Also, before it finally got taken down, a decent number of the posts on the TERF subreddit were from cis men claiming to be radical feminist allies who the TERFs gleefully and hypocritically pointed to as "one of the good ones" while they bonded over hating trans women.

Again, not remotely related to what I said. If what I posted doesn't count as evidence of TERFs disliking men, why should posts from a dead subreddit count towards evidence of them liking them? Didn't you just say this was just tangentially related to your post? If so, why is not conceding to that point seemingly so important?

TERFs live in the same society as everyone else (unfortunately) and in a society as patriarchal as ours, few people really hate men as much as they think they do.

Cool that you can read TERFs minds I guess, especially when I didn't think there'd be anything to read in there, but in my experience when somebody says something it's because they meant to say it.

Using man-hating as a shield for bigotry doesn't make a lot of sense because man-hating isn't socially accepted just about anywhere. It always gets pushback.

It is in TERF circles, and while TERFs do have many racist tendencies, a lot of them still at least performatively frown upon bold-faced racism that doesn't have "men" attached to it. They use man-hating as a shield for bigotry in the circles where it is socially accepted, and to justify it to themselves. That is the only point I'm making.

And TERFs spend a lot of time with the far right, where hating men is certainly not acceptable.

And they don't use man-hating rhetoric with them. They use it with themselves, with each other and to outsiders that are still receptive to it.

I don't know where you live, but on the anglophone internet man-hating is not generally accepted. And even when you do hear "I hate men," the power dynamics of patriarchy are such that it's just not a real problem.

Notice how I never said it is. That is just not a thing that I said. I only ever said that TERFs, specifically, hate men and use man-hating to excuse their own bigotry. You say you didn't mean to put words in my mouth, but you keep doing just that.

Quite often in hate movements like that, the ideology is a post-hoc justification for the bigotry. So the logic of men oppress women -> trans women are men -> trans women are bad because they oppress [cis] women may be what TERFs say but it's often not an honest representation of their thought process.

It is how they justify their thought process to themselves, to each other and to those they want to recruit, however. That is what I'm describing. That's the point I'm making.

TERFs will even say, disingenuously of course, that it would be fine if trans women would only live as gender non-conforming gay men. It's transness that transphobes despise, the act of existing while trans.

Yes, I'm aware. I've never said that wasn't the case, only that TERFs will use man-hating as a post-hoc justification for their own transphobia.

In general, a post that singles out transmascs is probably not okay, because the relevant part is that they are trans, and being cruel to trans people is… wait for it… transphobic.

Yes it is. It's transphobia that is being rationalized by the people doing it as acceptable because they're singling out men. That's the thing that I said is happening.

but that's an intracommunity issue that I'm honestly not qualified to speak on, because I'm cis. I only bring it up because I've dealt with analogous intracommunity in some communities I am a member of; it's a fairly universal concern but the particulars here are outside my lane.

That's cool, trans men still have to deal with takes like these, though:

These are people using man-hating to excuse their rancid behavior towards trans men. That is exactly the situation I described, and the one you claimed doesn't make sense and doesn't happen. And that you replied to by saying man-hating isn't a real problem - which is not a thing I said at any point, ever. Here or elsewhere.

I am not saying man-hating is a real problem

I am not saying you should not be allowed to do it

What I am saying is this:

A) Bad-faith actors have and continue to use it to excuse actual forms of bigotry. Even if you don't think they count, I've shown proof of it.

B) Whether or not it is relevant to the discussion, the statement of "TERFs like men actually" is just not factually true.

If this is what you wanted to read, I'll gladly say I agree with your original post's point. I simply reblogged to disagree with one person on the tags who said that TERFs like men, because that pure and simply isn't true.

If you're done putting words in my mouth, I do think we should stop talking here, because this is only tangentially related to your original point and fighting each other is a waste of time.

But I know you're not going to read this. And that you're not done putting words in my mouth.

Something I want this website specifically to reflect on! Are you mad at women for talking about men the same way you talk about cishets or neurotypicals? Why?

[apricusapollo]

harry styles didn't say "if you're happy doing what you're doing then nobody can tell you you're not successful" just so tiktok mfs can go around and call humanities majors "silly degrees" and how people who study arts, literature, history etc won't achieve anything in life

[mermaidsirennikita]

saw the "who's your most underrated Kleypas hero" question getting bandied about (again) today, and I must say, the only answers I'll accept are:

--John McKenna/Again the Magic (I'd argue that AtM is not the DEEP CUT newer Kleypas readers think it is; before I read it, it was definitely upheld as a classic of hers, but people who want the softer boys she writes in the Ravenels... may not like this one; however, McKenna fucks RIDICULOUS lbr)

--Alex, Lord Raiford/Then Came You (yes... he calls her a bitch.... and I'll be real this made me love him more... he carried her over his shoulder outta Craven's and bought her a bear I'm VERY confident in this choice)

--Kev Merripen/Seduce Me at Sunrise (thought he'd kill Win with his massive dick, tied her up and took her to his fuck cottage, is Heathcliff if Heathcliff wasn't horrible basically)

--Leo Hathaway/Married by Morning (fun bout wounded king, "haha" in the streets and "oh shit" in the sheets, notable for making Catherine ask him to touch her pussy in explicit and specific language)

[kindnessoverperfection]

I've found that, when interacting with others (or myself), it's useful to consider the lessons I'd want to teach a growing child.

If a child makes a mistake, I wouldn't want them to feel shame. I wouldn't yell at them, humiliate them, or in any way indicate to them that their mistake is a reflection of their worth or of who they are as a person.

Instead, I'd want them to associate the process with love and joy. If they say something that hurts someone's feelings, or otherwise ostracizes someone in some way, I'd compassionately explain to them. Ideally, they'd walk away knowing why they said / did it in the first place, how to handle similar situations in the future, and would accept the consequences (e.g. if a friend no longer wanted to hang out with them).

While the consequences may sometimes be painful, I'd do my best to instill in them that mistakes are human and natural, and that the process of learning from these mistakes is an opportunity to improve connections with others and express love.

I have a tendency towards excessive guilt. Memories in which I've said / done something ignorant or hurtful are infused with this guilt and shame- but ideally, I'd feel a sense of love and peace, and perhaps happiness, when looking back on them. Because they were moments of growth, moments I learned how to be more compassionate (even if the actual learning came years later).

So I'll put this out into the void:

When you make a mistake, that is not a reflection of you as a person. It is a moment in time, a moment which was informed by your past experiences. Humans are not static labels, or monsters in an RPG game. We are social creatures who live and learn and react and grow and experience and love. Be gentle with yourself and move forward knowing you're doing so in accordance with your values.

[celeste-the-witch]

I'm American, and I'm fully aware that lots of places have it worse than us. That doesn't mean we aren't oppressed. This is like the folks who say "oh you're depressed? Well, SOME people don't even get to eat!" Like, no shit. Other people's suffering doesn't cancel out mine. We both suffer, just for different reasons and different amounts. Your take is not very good.

Like, do you think every American is some rich old white dude? There's all kinds of minority groups here, and every single one faces oppression on a daily basis. Trans folks here are actively having right after right stripped from us, and you're saying this shit? We're being killed, stalked, sexually assaulted all just for being trans. Hate is spreading like a fucking wildfire through this shithole of a country. You're trans, you'd think you'd understand how it feels to be subjugated for it, but apparently, my suffering isn't good enough for you. I'll make sure to suffer more next time, my liege.

What an insanely out of touch and frankly bonkers take. Genuinely the most wild bullshit I've heard recently. "Sure, you're being subjugated by the government and killed just for being trans, but other people have it harder, so you're not REALLY oppressed." Insensitive ass mother fucker.

they're killing people in the third world so that usamericans can act oppressed online and become anticivs

[cringengl]

Guys help I found a henwill (Henry Creel x Will Byers) shipper out in the wild😭😭

They said that henwill was Persephone and Hades coded😭😭

[alectoperdita]

Do you prefer they do individual fics or like, only put one Fandom in a fic? I never do kinktober ficlets because I never know what format to do 😭

I think I'd prefer individual personally but that's just me. Makes summaries and tagging easier

Yeah, that's the way to do it in my opinion, publish as individual fics with their own titles and summaries. If the different chapters of a fic are not actually related to each other through narrative and character continuity, stop piling them together. As in the entire thing cannot be read in as one coherent narrative, I'm begging authors to reconsider.

If authors are still looking to connect them in some way, the series or collection functionalities are right there. If they care about the order in which things are read, use series because they have an ordering function.

It's not as if I'm entirely without sympathies for authors that do this. Titles and summaries are hard, and if they're doing a daily challenge, it's less work to throw it up as a new chapter of a work.

(I have also seen some authors talk about how dumping everything into one fic is "better for their stats", which yeah, I can see why that would be but still doesn't address my biggest complaints as a reader.)

As a frequent reader, though, I'm out of patience for this kind of behavior. (And original fiction smut writers seem especially bad about this.) I have my squicks filtered out while browsing, so all this ensures is that I never touch or see an author's kinktober prompt fill for "come inflation" because they put their fill for "watersports" in the same chaptered fic. Conversely, if I'm in the "double penetration" tag, then I don't feel incentivized to scan through 30 chapters to find the one 800 word long fic with that. Otherwise, all it guarantees for me is my eyes glazing over the wall of tags for a generically title "Kinktober 2023" fic with no discernible summary to draw my interest that updates once per day until I just get tired enough of scrolling past it repeatedly and mute the author completely.

And maybe I'm just overly anal, but it vexes me because it's a subpar reading/browsing experience to me.