#except when it’s like. in an ableist way which I’ve seen lol

[barbreypilled]

I love how Johanna in every post-mockingjay baby book fic is just

[mittensmorgul]

it has been bothering me all morning but like

we saw bobby in heaven, and he looked like bobby always has, yet when sam got to heaven he was reset to what he looked like before dean died

REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE IMPLICATIONS AHEAD:

to be clear, I have no opposition to the concept of Heaven, and to the soul earning some sort of peaceful and comforting rest in an afterlife, but I’m really gonna have to politely ask people to stop coming directly to my inbox attempting to convince me that this was a “happy ending” for Dean. He deserved to LIVE, because no matter how perfect heaven was tailored to him personally, to feel satisfying and fulfilling to him, that... almost makes it even worse to me.

I’m not expecting people who are happy with it, or who did manage to find something good in it to actually read this, or to really consider the way I (and from what I’ve seen, most everyone I know) see this. But attempting to convince people who are horrified by it all, or arguing with people who are attempting to reconcile what we see as utterly baffling or entirely unsatisfying about this ending (or worse, actually traumatizing) is unnecessary and unwanted. Please stop trying to make people who are processing the end of a show we’d hoped would have the guts to finally free the characters through something other than death, and trying to reconcile the fact that the story of hope, of found family, of free will over destiny they’d fought the entire series for was not a lie, as the finale made it feel to us.

If people are finding inconsistencies in the story (because hooBOY was it inconsistent), if they’re arguing against details in the story, it’s not because they want folks who are happy with the story to come around to being unhappy with it. It’s because THIS IS HOW WE PROCESS TRAUMA. We explain, we justify to ourselves, so that we can actually continue feeling good about this story in our own lives. For some of us, this means actually coming to a point where we can feel the story had no power to continue to actively harm us. If you don’t feel bad about this finale, then consider yourself lucky, and maybe sit down rather than continually attempting to invalidate why we feel traumatized in the first place.

Okay, that’s out of the way, on to the ridiculousness of my brain:

1. if the idea that everyone in heaven gets reset to a more youthful state, then why not bobby? so that’s out as a theory. I mean, it’s kind of a surface-level nice theory that you wouldn’t have to spend heaven eternity bedridden and sick and dying, but as a basepoint for Heaven this is... it’s got a lot of ableist undercurrents to it and I don’t think there was actually a satisfying way to handle/depict this on screen to start with... the whole “all your problems will be fixed in heaven” is right below the surface here, and I’m not even gonna start explaining how disgusting that is as a message to be sending...

(that said... was sam’s blurry wife un-blurred in heaven? or was she even ever real at all and would Sam even look for her in Heaven now? asking the real questions here... >.>)

2. is this actually a heaven where people take on the appearances that dean specifically recalls them with? or does this effect possibly work for everyone that way, and what we see is only Dean’s pov? Like... would Dean himself possibly see something different than say, John would if he looked at Sam? Would John see the last version of Sam he remembered from s1, and Sam see himself completely different in a mirror or something? This falls into my previous understanding of Heaven-- the memorex version-- where everyone sees what they want to in a dimension that really doesn’t translate to a human’s perception of space-time. And I mean, if that’s actually the case, then I need people to recognize that this isn’t really any different than Old Heaven, except for the cubicle farm aspect and being able to make new memories with people. But that it’s still effectively an isolating experience if each soul’s reality is just... slightly off, even in these seemingly minor ways. It’s dimensionally enforced peace through manipulation of perception. And thanks, I hate it. It’s not true free will, but the pacifying enforcement of a perception of it as being free will.

3. Was this actually just a production choice so they wouldn’t have to drag the party city wig out to the woods for the final day of filming? Which, lol that has some potential for hilarity as a crack post, but also... as a production choice just has the greater effect of breaking the fourth wall (which that final drone shot effectively did anyway), which in turn renders the entire episode one long series of production choices rather than narrative consistency choices, and is all the more reason we have to just... not care about any of it if we’re actively choosing to do that.

All of these sorts of inconvenient facts and readings are there, in canon, for us to consider. The most unfortunate implication of all for me is that the episode as a whole then becomes suspect as “reality” for the characters, and therein lies my actual problem with the finale. The details are rendered irrelevant, the characters themselves are rendered irrelevant, and the story ultimately had no meaning whatsoever. And for those of us who cannot reconcile these things, we’d rather just be able to toss the finale out and keep the 326 episodes that did actually have meaning for us.

[kitkatopinions]

It's hilarious how half the Rwby simps will say 'No, you don't understand! Ironwood's a classic example of how a good man can become evil!' and the other half will say 'No, you don't understand! Ironwood's a classic example of how an evil person can hide in plain sight for years!' Even the simps and bootlickers can't agree on the moral of his story

Honestly, I and other RWDE posters have consistently got contradictory 'explanations' for tons of stuff. And obviously, part of the reason for that is that RWBY fans - and even RWBY simps - do have different opinions and think different things and come to different conclusions just like RWDE posters do.

Of course, there are some big differences between RWDE posters and RWBY simps. Most IW fans aren't demanding that everyone else love him, whereas anti-IW people try to bully others into hating him. Most RWDE posters aren't demanding that everyone hate RWBY, or stop posting about liking it (although there are a couple exceptions,) but a lot of RWBY simps frequently demand that everyone like RWBY or at the very least stop posting about why they have problems with it. But that's not quite the point.

RWBY simps have lots of different ideas, but it is funny to post or to see other people post criticism of RWBY, and then to see multiple people in the comments tell us "this is the obvious solution to that so it isn't a flaw" while all of them are presenting different solutions. For instance, the Penny problem! Many people were complaining that Penny getting a flesh body didn't make sense, and had both people saying that obviously Penny's soul had just conjured up her own flesh body by using its aura, and people saying that obviously Ambrosius had made her a body because he was preventing himself from killing. In both cases, the RWDE posters complaining about the problem were mocked and treated like they were stupid or lying for not believing the 'obvious' conclusion that others had drawn.

For another example, Yang not being shown telling anyone about Raven being the Spring Maiden. People were complaining that Yang being furious at Ozpin for keeping information secret while she herself had yet to tell anyone about Raven was hypocritical, and they had both people telling them that obviously Yang had already told everyone about Raven off screen, and people saying that obviously Yang would tell them later when it comes up again, and also people saying that obviously the Raven information didn't really matter anymore because it'd never come up again so it was unfair to say Yang had done something when said thing would never matter to the plot now.

And then obviously, with Ironwood, we got loads of completely contradictory 'explanations.'

"Ironwood losing his arm was a sign of his lost humanity not because of the arm itself, but because he was impatient and had it removed unnecessarily," "Ironwood losing his arm was a sign of his lost humanity not because of the arm itself, but because Ironwood was internally ableist and saw having prosthetics as a bad thing," "Ironwood losing his arm was a sign of his lost humanity not because of the arm itself, but because Ironwood didn't care about losing his arm, proving that he's heartless," "Ironwood losing his arm was a sign of his lost humanity not because of the arm itself, but because it represented Ironwood embracing/relying on mechanics and robotics." (Side note, I'll never get over the ableism in some of the replies there that I and others have got, and the constant attempts to justify the ableist comment the writers made.)

Of course, none of the people demanding that RWDE posters believe their headcanons ever demand that other Anti-IW people with different headcanons believe them, or call them stupid for not having come to that same conclusion. Because it's not actually even about people agreeing with them on how, it's just that they want everyone to believe the narrative of the show. So it doesn't matter to them if someone comes to the conclusion "Ironwood was always a villain and he was only ever lying when he did anything good in order to manipulate people into following them," or "Ironwood's fall makes sense because of the emotional and physical exhaustion he was going through," even if they're yelling at and berating others for not believing "Ironwood's fall to villainy was about him becoming power hungry over time and turning into a dictator even though he started the show as a good person." Any theory is fine, so long as it's Anti-IW, because if it isn't, then you're clearly saying the show isn't perfect and are therefore point blank wrong (even if their only 'explanations' are based in headcanons.)

But what's even funnier are the people who either change their 'explanations' mid debate, or contradict themselves mid-sentence!

"Ruby is different from Oz because she only lied to James because she didn't know if she could trust him, and once he proved himself and she was on board with him, she let him in. Ruby knew from the start that there was something shifty going on and never really agreed with him, she was only working with him out of necessity and didn't want to write him off right away, she was showing she trusted him by working with him, but he wasn't trusting her back."

"Ironwood was over-emotional and over reacted, so how were Ruby and the others supposed to trust that he'd do the right thing? Ironwood relied way too much on his mind and was blocking out his emotions, which you can see contrasted in characters like Ruby, Nora, and Robyn. And he's clearly way too compromised to be in charge in the first place, I mean, he's so affected by his fear that he's letting it control him, that's why Ruby needed to take charge."

"I think it was actually really heroic of Ruby to denounce Ironwood because she had seen he was already acting like a dictator, I mean did you miss that he had soldiers in Mantle, and was clearly trying to enforce things like a curfew? I don't know how anyone can believe Ironwood was good in volume seven, what with how he wasn't doing enough to protect the people of Mantle and keep them safe from the Grimm. And on top of that, he wasn't getting global communications restored fast enough, which proves he doesn't care about uniting the world like Ruby does."

Like, guys... It's actually really funny. Ironwood can't do anything right for RWBY simps, they'll try their very darnedest to convince people that everything he did was the wrong thing and that everything that Ruby and her team did was the right thing, even if they're literally contradicting themselves. And tbh, these conversations can end one of two ways. The nicer conversations will end with a 'well, agree to disagree' or a 'well, I can't see your point and you probably can't see mine.' I've both gotten and given these statements, and I'm actually fairly happy with them, because it's at least peaceful (this is most common with people who are just fans, rather than simps.) The meaner RWBY simps will leave with 'well, you're just stupid,' or 'well, you're just stubborn,' or 'well, you're just too busy simping for Ironwood to listen to reason.' And the meanest ones will send hate anons! I've only gotten a few, but others experience literal harassments, like regularly receiving anons from people who are attacking them for criticizing RWBY or liking Ironwood. RWBY simps, just like Ruby herself, will consider anyone the enemy if they don't agree with her and don't want her to be able to do what she wants with no arguments.

They rarely ever admit they're wrong about anything, even when their contradictions are pointed out to them. Luckily, I haven't gotten many comments from RWBY simps lately. I think I've blocked most of them that are regular posters these days, but I still see them on other people's posts sometimes, and it's always fun to see the comment sections of other RWDE posters, and see them responding to someone that I can't see lol. I'm always like "Oh, I must've blocked that one! Sounds like they're saying some trippy stuff."

[trutimeline]

idislikecispeople, The Most Infamous Dyscourse Blogger: Part 1.0, Rumors

idislikecispeople, also known as many names throughout her time on Tumblr (such as Adele, Kat, Mami, Samantha and Sayaka), was a former Tumblr blogger who became infamous for coining the term "tucute", among many other controversial things she has posted on her blogs. This was supposed to be one, very long masterpost about her, but Tumblr's post editor is a bitch and won't let me do that.

In this post, I'll be debunking or confirming rumors commonly spread about idislikecispeople. The rest of my posts about her will each be dedicated to a specific controversial belief she held or situations she got into. For simplicity's sake, I'll be referring to idislikecispeople as Kat for the rest of this post and future ones.

Rumors

Kat Coined the Terms "Truscum" and "Tucute"

Verdict: Partially True

Kat coined the term tucute, but she did not coin the terms truscum or transmedicalist.

Here's a screenshot of Kat's original definition of a tucute:

Transcript:

What is Tucute?

What does tucute mean?

Tucute is basically just the opposite of truscum, it’s a term and community for trans, nonbinary, and/or non-cis individuals created to separate anti-truscum from truscum and to serve as a safe place from truscum and from cis people, where they believe that being trans requires dysphoria, we do not,where they think that being trans is a medical condition, we do not,and where they deny numerous gender identities on the basis that it “discredits the trans community” we do not.

What are the prerequisites to be a part of the tucute community?

You have to be trans, nonbinary, and/or non-cis in general

You have to accept all pronouns and gender identities

You haveto believe that dysphoria is not necessary to be trans

You have to dislike truscum

You cannot side with truscum or believe in their ideology

You cannot misgender anyone no matter how mad they make you

You cannot be an ableist whatsoever

Did you invent the tucute community? Why?

I indeed did coin the tucute term and community and anyone who says otherwise are creeps who are trying to steal it from me and redefine it for their own nefarious doings. I started this community so anti-truscum could separate themselves from truscum and cis people who are a part of the truscum community, it serves as a safe space from both truscum and cis people.

I’m cis, can I be tucute if I believe in your movement and want to help?

No, you can’t be tucute if you’re cis, you can only be a tucute ally, and you need to be sure to never speak for or over a trans person.

I see a lot of tucuties being just as harmful as truscum, what will you do about it?

There isn’t much I can do to them other than ask them to stop aligning with the tucute community, and of course, that doesn’t mean they will. Also be noted that truscum and cis people will pretend to be tucute just to tarnish the name of the tucute community, so tread lightly, you might be talking to a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Spread the word, use the tag #tucute and join the army today!

[A digital drawing of Sayaka Miki from Puella Magi Madoka Magica in her magical girl form, with a banner underneath her reading "Tucute 4 U!"]

(source) (source)

Kat Was a Cisgender Woman Who Lied About Being a Transgender Woman

Verdict: False

This rumor primarily comes from a post on Kat's oldest known Tumblr blog, chromaghost, where she claims that she wasn't MTF and only tagged a selfie as such because she thought that transgender people were "cool".

Transcript:

Anonymous asked: are you a mtf? i seen it tagged on one of your photos.

No lol. I wanted to post it to the tag because transgender people are cool :3

(source) (source) (source)

However, Kat addressed this post and made it clear she very much was a transgender woman multiple times on her later blogs. This claim can also be confirmed with nude photos Kat posted online, which I don't feel comfortable spreading, so you'll just have to trust me on that one. I also don't feel comfortable directly encouraging you to go and dig up those nudes, as most of her nude photos were either taken when she was a minor, spread without her consent and/or were uploaded because people pressured her into posting nudes to "prove" she was a transgender woman.

Transcript:

Anonymous asked: you bound with ace bandage in one of your selfies. i don't know what to think about you anymore. according to some people you're a 27 year old cis woman scamming us, but you say you're a 22 year old trans woman. i want to trust you but i don't know if i can. i'm sorry.

Rest assured I’m not 27 years old lol. What you’re referring to is a less than graceful ~art piece~ we did (”Playing a Boy” or something) on deviantART when we were 16/17 (?) and really ill-informed. I ask you to not take that as how I stand currently – as I have learned so much more since, and I have a penis and I was designated male at birth because of it (feel free to purchase a passcode to our nsfw blog to see for yourself). At the time we were developing breast tissue but still had to appear as a ‘boy.’ Don’t bind with Ace bandages, kids, it can damage your rib cage, something we didn’t know at the time.

(source) (source)

Transcript:

[A picture of two prescriptions, estradiol and spironolactone, both prescribed to Adele Sheffield.]

grandtran still gonna think I photoshopped it or what

(source)

Transcript:

Anonymous asked: In other words, you aren't gonna cough up the pics because you know you can't fake that shit because you're actually cis. Cool. BTW why do you keep changing your story about the blog, and if the blog was run by you when you were in denial about being trans because of self hate, why were the pics tagged mtf and you were constantly saying trans people were cool?

Yeah I’m not gonna do something for y’all and get nothing in return except more doubt from you, you see how one sided that kind of request is? Also its technically considered sexual harassment, just because its on the internet, you’re a coward (whats your username btw?), and you think I’m cis and you want me to prove time and time again to you that I’m dmab doesn’t justify sexually soliciting someone when they’re not comfortable in being solicited – for free no less.

At first I genuinely had no memory of that blog, it was only active for all of 2 months and for some reason I moved onto a new email and new tumblr, and I haven’t the foggiest why. As for the whole “me claiming to not be ~mtf~” I don’t have any memories from that time, I can only assume it was a lot of dysphoria fueled self-hatred and wanting to be seen/pass as a cis girl lesbian.

If you’re really gonna solicit nudes from a trans woman (a second time) as they do sex work to try and stay on their feet without offering anything in return just so your transmisogynistic ass can get off to trying to tell me my dick is fake isn’t classy at all. I perish the thought of what you’re parents would think of this behavior from you. But yeah, feel free to send some money to my paypal so I can get the gender markers on my records changed because that’s gonna cost a lot apparently, and I’ll definitely send you the dick pics you want. :)

(source) (source) (source)

Transcript:

[A picture of a a hospital bracelet on Kat's wrist. The patient's name is Adele Sheffield and her sex is labeled as "M".]

(source)

Kat Lied About Having Diabetes To Get Money From Tumblr Users

Verdict: False

This doesn't need much commentary from me, just view the screenshots below.

Transcript:

To the people who keep harping on me buying a $15 video game for my mental health 7 MONTHS ago “with my donation money,” well, here you go, some proof, links and screenshots provided

So for everyone spreading misinformation about me spending $15 on a video game for my mental health, here’s a full list of reasons why there is no way, shape, or form I spent my paypal money on it:

Yes, I spent $15 of my own money after selling one of my possessions, not denying it:

[A screenshot of a Tumblr post by Kat where she shows off a copy of Fall Out: New Vegas, marked with a price of $14.99. The date of the post is marked as July 21, 2014 at 06:28.39 PM.]

Be sure to look at the date, July 21st, 2014 6:28 PM. Now lets look at my first donation post asking for help:

[A screenshot of a Tumblr post by Kat where she asks for donations to be able to afford insulin because she has no insurance. The date of the post is marked as July 20, 2014 at 08:14.00 PM.]

Hmm, one day before the purchase of said game, July 20th 2014 at 8:14 PM. Now, I’ve never heard of a video game store — much less a non-chain video game store accepting payment for video games in the form of virtual Amazon gift cards, have you? Oh, but you’re gonna say, “well you bought the game with your paypal donations anyway!” Well, here’s exhibit C:

[Another screenshot of a separate post made by Kat where she is also asking for donations to be able to afford insulin. The date of the post is marked as July 23, 2014 at 12:27.46 PM.]

Again, looking at the date of this posting which is the original donations post, you can see it was posted on July 23rd, 2014 at 12:27 PM, a full 2 days after I had bought the game. Now, if there’s no way for me to use Amazon gift cards for a real life video game store, then how can I go back in time a minimum of 2 full days to give past me $15 to buy said game, hm? This isn’t even accounting for the fact that I didn’t even have my own bank account associated with it until over a week later, and it surely doesn’t account for the fact that it takes up to 5 days to transfer from paypal to your bank account. All the dates are linked to the original unedited posts so you can see for yourself, and for added measure my first deposit was on August 14th, 2014:

[A screenshot of a deposit made by Kat. The date is marked as 08/14/14.]

Oh but yeah, anti-sjs, truscum, and the like took damniwishidthoughtofabettername’s postthey used to gaslight us with misinformation and you all bought it. Tell me how I could misuse donations that I could not use outside of Amazon and money I didn’t even start receiving until a full two days later, let alone the fact that there’s no way I could have transferred said money and used it two days prior as of the date of the paypal donations post.

I hope some of y’all could reblog this and get the word out, I’m sick and tired of people buying into that misinformation that person did solely to gaslight me as a means to try and disrupt my donations drive.

(source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source)

Transcript:

[A selfie of Kat holding up a vial of Novolin to the camera.]

Hey anon, I don’t feel comfy giving you my receipts (because doxxing is a thing) but here you go, a selfie with my most recent insulin purchase. 👽

(source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source) (source)

Transcript:

Anonymous asked: Getting desperate for money again I see. How is your fake diabetes lately. I bet your blood sugar is like 800 this time and you're still able to be alive somehow.

You got me, I’m ~totally faking~

[A selfie of Kat. In the background several items used by diabetics are seen such as insulin syringes, glucose tablets, a blood sugar tester and test strips.]

[A picture that gives us a closer look at the background of the previous selfie.]

[A selfie of Kat holding up two vials, one of Lantus and the other of Humalog.]

Gee, must be one dedicated faker, right? To have hundreds of dollars of insulin equipment and insulin itself. Hmmm… Insulin syringes, glucose tablets, a blood sugar tester and test strips.. oh and insulin, hmmmm….

Oh and because you didn’t learn from last time you don’t die instantly when your blood sugar goes over 600 lol, something anyone who studies endocrinology can tell you, and I would know, being a diabetic, having to be hospitalized numerous times for ketoacidosis where the blood sugar has been too high for too long. Things you clearly do not know and you’re just jumping on the disableist bandwagon. I have an idea of who you are anyway, just doing this for future reference.

(source)

[mcrmadness]

This is just me talking about (my) asexuality and aromanticism and mainly about how I figured I'm aroace. I'm from Finland and recently turned 30 so my experience and "lgbt+ history" might not be what you know it as, especially if you are not from Europe, or if your native language is English.

Also this is highly personal, so I doubt anyone here will have 100% same experience. But that's fine because remember: we're all individuals here and these are NEVER universal. You're still valid even if you wouldn't relate to what being aspec is to me.

It might be IS a long post so beware, but I've just been feeling like writing down some thoughts so here we go...

What I have been able to track is that I was 17, in 2008, when I first stumbled upon the term "asexuality". I don't remember exactly how, but I just remember reading about it and immediately going "yeah that's me". But what I do remember is that no one talked it being about sexual attraction. Basically how understood it was: asexuality = sex-repulsion.

I was 17, and somehow I knew I was sex-repulsed, but at the same time also thought I'm just a minor, so it's normal to be sex-repulsed. But even after turning 18, I don't recall ever feeling sexual attraction. I didn't think of myself as a "late bloomer" but just as someone who just has no interest towards sex. At some point I became really anxious of men, however. Nothing has ever happened to me* but still I, for some reason, developed terrible fear of men. I'm afab and just did not want to be seen as an object, and it made, still makes me, terrified to think someone might look at me and have Emotions. I know that we can't control our brains, I mean, I can't look at someone and force myself to feel attraction - just like those who do feel attraction, can't force themselves to stop feeling attraction. They can only control their actions. But yeah, I also had horrible (sexual) intrusive thoughts due to my generalized anxiety disorder at some point, which did not really help. They got a bit better when I came into terms with my asexuality and aromanticism, but sometimes they still come at me and it's never fun, but at least they're not as strong as what they used to be.

*(Unless if you can count that as sexual harrasment when, CW, I was 11 and a classmate was "into" me and tried to touch my face and talk "sweet things" to me but made it into a show despite me being uncomfortable and usually crying cos as a neurodivergent I didn't know how else to react.)

But anyway, back to the topic. So for years I understood asexuality as sex-repulsion, but I guess it's because I, well, am a sex-repulsed ace. So if I'm sex-repulsed, why would I then look at someone and feel something if I'm repulsed by the thing anyway? Like, it probably can't get any simpler than this :D And I know today that it's not as simple anymore. But that was 2008, at school (in ~2005) they only talked about gays a little, on one page in a sex.ed. book that otherwise was maybe 100 pages long. Only one page. About gays. And it was basically "Some boys like boys or some girls like girls and it's totally fine." and that was it, but the overall assumption was that everyone likes someone. And also there were no romantic orientations. Liking someone = both sexually and romantically. Not liking = not a thing except when you were depressed or otherwise mentally ill, or autistic or mentally disabled (which is a SUPER ableist take btw). I don't remember teachers ever talking about this, but it could also just be my adhd, maybe they did mention, but I just don't remember. At least in my notebooks there is no mention of this, everything was very much heteronormative and amatonormative, and also there was only two genders. I don't remember ever hearing about transgender people, apart from foreign documentaries and in them they were always portrayed as some shocking freaks of the nature, and loads of wrong terms were used. And this is still the mid and late 2000s we're talking about!

So this takes us to the other part aka aromanticism. Back then asexuality was not only sex-repulsion but also merged together with aromanticism, because people didn't talk about romantic orientations yet. So asexuality was not only sex-repulsion, but also you simply just not wanting a relationship. Again, nothing about attraction, just someone who did not care about sex nor relationships. A "forever single", if you will.

This was already annoying me a lot back then because I was really annoyed by sex "running the world". I was so angry because why is asexual the only sexuality that doesn't like sex? All the other sexualities had the assumption of them always wanting to have sex. Like, even think about someone who is straight, you hear that someone is straight, and you automatically assume(d) that oh they're into sex too cos why wouldn't they be. This was really driving me nuts because I was sure there are people who want to have a partner, but never want to have sex! I was still experiencing crushes, and I knew for sure it was nothing sexual, so it annoyed me that just because I'm asexual, it means I can't have crushes. That's why I actually called myself as "asexual bi" for a while, because "bisexual" indicated I would have not been sex-repulsed and I wanted to point out that I'm NOT into sexual things, at all - and remember that this was still the late 2000s or early 2010s and I had not heard of romantic orientations yet! So I was up to something, there just were no terms for that yet! Today that would be called bi-/panromantic asexual.

I haven't been able to track the exact date or even year when did I figure out I'm aromantic, or when did I hear about romantic orientations for the first time. From the messages I've been able to find, I was already in my early 20s. Aka somewhere around maybe 2011-2013. In those, I have still been wondering what I am or if I even want to have a relationship, not being really able to tell what I wanted or didn't want. Again, no one told me romantic orientations are about ATTRACTION and not about whether you have commitment issues or not (this as a half-joke, cos I have severe commitment issues with everything :D I need to feel free!).

Anyway, I do remember my key moment with aromanticism, or the "aromantic awakening" as you could call it too, was when I was 17 or 18. Or maybe I was older? I don't know, I have time blindness. Anyway, I had this one online friend I had a "crush" on (I think it was just undiagnosed adhd's person hyperfixation) and I even told her about it. Everything just is super shady, from those years, I was not really on my best and there are so many overlapping memories that feel like different alternative universes instead of memories on a same timeline. Anyway, I just remember at some point thinking about this girl and I thought about some "romantic" stuff, like kissing, and I just remember my brain going "NOOOOOPE!" I had wanted to meet with her some day so bad, but when I started thinking about actually meeting with her, I started to nope the fuck out. All I had in my head was awkward embarrassing "first kiss" scenarios from movies and I just was not having it! I basically went "lol I guess I'm aro too, then XD" but I still don't remember when did I have this realization. Was I 17? Or was I, say, 22? I guess I need to go through my old MSN Messenger and Skype convos some day to investigate this further because I really want to know. I couldn't even find anything from my Tumblr from those times (I registered here in 2011), but I don't know if that's just me not tagging or Tumblr search functioning normally (aka it never finds anything).

But yeah, I am touch-repulsed. And kiss-repulsed, and romance-repulsed, too, (unless it's my OTP we're talking about). I'm still not exactly sure if I'm touch repulsed because I'm aromantic, or if I'm aromantic because I'm touch-repulsed. I only know that because of my sensory issues (I'm neurodivergent), I have never liked touching nor being touched. Even as a little kid I hated hugs and never liked sitting on anyone's lap. I only tolerated my parents, mainly my mom, because they were my safe place as an extremely shy baby/toddler/kid, who was especially wary about men. I can't explain the latter, but there was something about adult men that caused me (as a baby) to hide my face against my mom's shoulder if they talked to me. I did that to everyone I didn't know, but especially to men I didn't know. No idea why.

I also remember how my siblings loved to sit on people's laps and were always climbing onto their laps, and I didn't like this. And once my (late) grandma was so touched when she asked me if I want to sit on her lap (I was maybe 5-7?) and I agreed just to make her happy. I still remember how it felt, and I did not like it at all, but it still made my grandma so happy that I THINK she almost cried when she told my mom I actually agreed to sit on her lap. I'm not sure how real this last part of the memory is because I was so young. But I do remember thinking I do that for a change because I knew my grandma would be happy.

So yeah, my touch-repulsion is not exactly a new thing but just something that has been a part of my personality forever. But is that the core reason for why I only feel aesthetic attraction? I never look at people and feel like I wanna touch. More of the opposite, the idea of having to touch them or them touching me makes me go "eeewww". If you have seen that video of a gibbon shaking their whole body after seeing a rat in their exhibit? That's what I feel like when I think about touching or being touched, in just any way, also platonically.

The only time I feel "sensual attraction" is when I see photos or videos of animals. The urge to pet a tiger is insane. But the feel of another human's skin or muscle (or hair or whatever) is very repulsive to me.

I still remember how disgusting it felt to e.g. sit on a cousin's lap. We sometimes used swings like this, and somehow I was aware of it not feeling nice, but still not doing anything about it cos it also was okay? Only later I have realized I really, really loathe the texture of human skin. Or the warmth and overall feeling of a human body. For example, I was at least 7 or younger when I sat on my cousin's lap while we were sitting on a swing and STILL, after over 20 years, I have that all in my body memory. I remember how the thigh bone felt under my legs and how freaking disgusting the muscles felt inbetween. Also at school, on the 1st grade, we often had to walk in a line of twos after the teacher and hold the pair's hand so no one gets lost. My then-friend had so ridiculously dry skin that the only thing I could think of was how I felt like throwing up because the skin on her palm felt so damn disgusting. I still can feel that in my hand when I think of it. That's one of my "core memories" from 1st grade - how disgusting the human skin can feel like.

I don't think I have ever felt actual romantic attraction towards anyone. It's really difficult to differentiate because as I mentioned, I get those people hyperfixations easily. I guess it's the same hormones but I never really want to do anything with them? I guess it's the emotional intimacy that "attracts" me and what gets me excited, but I'm still not exactly sure what emotional intimacy means to me. I don't exactly fall into the QPR category either, in a way I wish I had a best friend whose best friend also I would be, and that neither would have anyone else who is "better" than the other one. But the only intimacy there would be emotional intimacy, nothing else. And I need my freedom so I wouldn't move in with any human being, either.

Sometimes I've thought my "ideal partner" would be a robot because if I get annoyed, I could just turn it off and stuff into a closet and leave there, and if I felt like not having a "relationship" anymore, I could just remove the harddrive and destroy the robot, or both. That way I would be the only one with the memories, and I wouldn't have to worry about someone out there knowing things about me, things that only the closest can know, and I'm really afraid of letting anyone close in case it won't work (also with regular friendships) because I can't stop thinking about how much I wish I had that MIB memory cancelling device so that they would again know almost nothing, or at least much much less about me. There's already one friendship that ended a few years ago and I still keep thinking about how I wish I could take everything back and how I wish they delete(d) all the files and drawings and stuff I sent them. There are so many things about me I wish I never told them, now as we are no longer friends. Back then it felt like "of course this is gonna last a lifetime!" but turns out that nope, not all friendships will.

I guess it's time to stop rambling. This post is really long already. If you read it all the way here: congrats. And thanks. You probably just wasted your time but... that's on you I guess :DDD But yeah, some thoughts from a 30-years-old aroace who has been aware of their identity for at least or almost 10 years now.

[xxtha-blog]

Traits People in the Fandom like to give Dream that instantly turn me away from their comics.

Wow, that's a long title. Okay, did you ever just want to hear me complain? If so, you came to the right place!

Im on a little salt bregade right now with my exasperation at lack of enjoyable Dream content in this fandom so this isn't some in depth analysis post or some if you give Dream these traits, you're a bad writer and need to stop. No. This is just a: here's some character traits people commonly write Dream with that severely conflict with the character I love him for, thus making me incapable of enjoying whatever 'Dream' they're writing because to me it doesn't look like Dream at all. And also why I don't like it and why I think this happens so frequently. And because this is just my opinion, you can either agree or ignore me. (And I mean, second one is a good option lol)

Jerkish - The classic asshole Dream. The one that says 'all this bad things that happened to me? Pffttsgsf I don't want to be a better person so I'm going to be a dick to everyone else.' This is probably the most common and usually comes with a lot of the other traits I'm about to mention

Sarcastic - This ones not that bad and if it's the only one I'll usually be fine with it, but he isn't sarcastic or passive aggressive, his closest trait to this is that he's stubborn. He's not going to shoot back something to make someone upset or because he's mad at them, even Nightmare, he's going to say something that might contend with someone for the purpose of making that person think about the bad or negative thing they're doing and won't stop until the person is either rethinking their originally negative position or is growing too negative for it to be rational to keep pressing and will try something else. In one it's a good intention, and with sarcasm it's this 'I need to get back at them and I don't care if it helps the situation or makes it worse' intention. And Dream is always the former.

Violent - The Dream that's always ready to get into a fight no matter what. Talking calmly? what's that?

Unsympathetic/Insensitive - this one is super easy to slip by the radar of a lot of people, so I often get people who ask me why I don't like certain ways people write Dream and it's usually because of this. This is him not understanding or sympathizing with someone else's situation even if it differs from his own, mainly for harmless things. People not wanting to do something because they're uncomfortable and Dream being written as trying to get them to do it to the point they get upset. A negative or toxic stubbornness, so to speak. Which really sucks because Dream is one of the sweetest most sensitive character I've seen and it gets rid of all that nuance.

Egotistical - :( I really don't like this one. It's your typical, I'm better than you, (usually toward Nightmare). It makes me sad. Combine unsympathetic and egotistical together and you get the jerk Dream that hates negativity and thinks negative people are bad.

Ableist - Hear me out, this isn't the same as people saying canon Dream is ableist for like, not being friends with Ink? (Wheeze). it's the type of Dream that purposefully targets someone's mental illnesses in cruel or unfair ways, usually Nightmare.

Neglectful - The Dream that says fuck protecting positivity lmao. And I need not say more.

Cowardly - The Dream that either won't own up to the problems he caused, pretends he never caused problems, and/or won't do anything to stop problems occuring.

Underhanded - the type of Dream that won't talk shit to someone's face but will make either subtly or blatantly mean comments about them behind their back.

Stupid - The type of Dream that makes decisions that will clearly cause the suffering of a lot of people for stupid reasons and/or the type of Dream that couldn't solve a 2x2 rubix cube and relies on everyone else to solve things for him because people think lack of knowledge = stupidity in the original. Which isn't true.

Selfish - The type of Dream that makes decisions that will clearly cause the suffering of other people for selfish or self absorbed reasons.

Controlling - I see this one so much and it hurts me. It's most likely due to people trying to make his desire to do good negative in this way, but directly conflicts with the fact it does no good if he becomes a toxic asshole with it. It's the type of Dream that won't let anyone do anything he doesn't deemed 100% positivity approved and becomes a toxic, controlling, manipulative asshole. Usually with a relationship bonus. ;')

Dense - Another negative stubbornness. A Dream that can't see when something's clearly making someone upset.

Overbearing - a branch of insensitive and stupid. the 'Everything is great! Isn't everything great! You're suffering? No! Everything is great and happy, be happy! I'm ALWAYS happy' Dream. Toxic positivity.

Irritable - The Dream that gets really angry at people for some reason? Normally because they're being negative or just not taking him seriously. This contends with Dream's canon in the sense that instead of getting angry he gets more sad/upset rather than some dry anger, and only when someone is being really cruel. I never like seeing a purely angry Dream. I'd rather him break down into tears, asking quietly why someone is doing this, instead of scream insults at them. Because we all know taking your anger out on someone helps solve problems and doesn't escalate situations.

Venegeful - The Dream that won't stop until the people who have wronged him or are doing wrong are either punished or dead. What's helping people be better, am I right?

Unforgiving - The Dream that never forgives people for wrongdoings and/or actively brings up past mistakes for no good reason, or just to get back at someone, usually to Nightmare. Often used as some moral superiority complex.

Smug - whenever he's right, he'll make sure you know it.

Overlycompetitive - the sore winner that wants to challenge people all the time, that'll rub it in their face when he's better. A subcategory of smug. This isn't to say canon Dream is never competitive, its just to say he isn't a dick about it.

I think a lot of people give them these traits because they think he's not 'flawed' enough. Like, they don't see to understand that 'good' traits can be flaws, or as we've seen here, think Dream's other good traits should be made into even more flaws, which directly conflict with his core morals and motivations.

I know a lot of people just write him like this for fun, and that's fine. I like Swap Dream by song-song-a actually, I think he's cool. There are a couple of exceptions where it's set up well enough that this isn't the Dream I know that I dont get fucking whiplash while reading. I'm not saying its wrong to write him like this, I'm just saying it's not enjoyable for me.

For the most part, it turns me away from the comic, or au, or am, almost instantly. I'm not interested in reading about Dream becomes an asshole edition 600. and it wouldn't be a problem for me if almost anyone wrote him well like every other character gets the liberty of.

Like, I also hate Chibi Blueberry but at least there's a ton of good Swap content out there so I'm not here talking about Chibi Blueberry lol.

Anyways, I'll probably add more traits if I think of any, so if you're trying to write Dream close to canon, you can use this as a what not to do post I guess. Otherwise enjoy my rant xD.

[nothorses]

So I have a question/something I'd like your input on, since I feel like you'd have something interesting to say about this.

Anyways, some background: i'm in a child and youth care program in a rather left leaning, relatively progressive college, in a rather left leaning/progressive city.

It's actually been a very validating experience so far--I feel so much more accepted here then at my last school, which, while it was located relatively close to the city, had a rather more conservative student body and faculty. I had to fight for accomodation and acceptance, and I didn't end up going to my convocation since, when I had asked, they said they wouldn't call my prefered name when I'd get the certificate at the ceremony, or use the right name on it (they made it seem that their hands were completely tied, even though I know of other schools who've done this exact thing, incl the school I'm at now, without needing proof of a legal name change).

Anyways, at this school, i'm even having instructors I don't even know well going to bat for me and using their connections to get the help I needed when I was having trouble with my name being displayed wrong in the online classroom. Like, thank god for having CYC's as profs, right?

So, to my point: one of our classes is all about inclusion and anti oppressive practices. It's literally the name of the class. I actually enjoy the class a fair bit--despite classes being virtual, my class is sharing a lot and there's a lot of bonding and openness going on in the virtual lecture space. It's encouraged me to be open about my own troubles as a trans person, and people have been v supportive.

In a recent lecture, we start talking about the different terms of discrimination against various groups that face oppression (like, racism, albleism, etc). So she asks us: what is the term for discrimination against trans people? And I say Transphobia. Because that's the term I see most often, and the one I say myself. Apparently the Proper term now is cissexism (or cisgenderism?), and I got chided for saying transphobia.

I went and turned my mic on and basically said that I feel like transphobia is the term the general population is only Just started to take seriously, and the instructor argued that as we're in an academic circle, and as CYCs, it's our job to use the most progressive terms to move things forward, and that we shouldn't be conflating the discrimination trans people face with a phobia. Since, not only does it validate the fear of trans people, but it's not fair to those that have legitimate phobias.

I dropped it there, but I was brave and I asked to speak with the instructor after class.

During that talk, I pretty much said that it's hard being probably the only trans person in at least first year, and being visible and open as one, and having to be told the "right" term to use for my own experiences. She could relate, she said, as she's a black woman, and have faced probably similar experiences from white people correcting her on terms she uses for her own experiences. She did say though, as she's in the role of an instructor, it is her job to educate herself, think on what they're saying, and potentially make changes to her language.

But, she also said she can't speak for my experiences, and she won't make me change my language.

I was appreciative, and I talked about things I've personally faced, and how, even just 10 years ago, trans people were treated so frequently as a joke. Even on screen deaths were funny in media. I brought up that the trans panic defense was still considered a valid defense to use in court not long ago (and still probably is in some places), and someone won a case recently that way. Even just the term "transphobia" is only just recently been taken seriously, in my eyes, while before it was often brushed off as not a legitimate concern. Even when I was first coming out, I was told I was just confused, or trans people were just doing it for attention. I still face open glares sometimes, purposeful misgendering, fights with my sister about some of her transphobic views she refuses to question... And while it was hard to be that vulnerable, the conversation ended on a very good note.

I personally don't feel ready to change this language. But I don't really know if I was in the right to argue all of this. I'm only one trans person, I don't want to talk over those who've probably fought to switch the language away from "transphobia" as the valid term. But, i'm in an awkward position of being an unofficial spokesperson as the token trans guy in the class, talking to a lot of folks who've admitted I am the first trans person they've met. So, i dunno, i'm weird with conflict and I was wondering what you're thoughts were on all of this.

This is kind of a tricky one for a lot of reasons, tbh? And I have... a few thoughts. This is already super long, so under the cut it goes!

The first thing is that “transphobia” and “cissexism” aren’t actually interchangeable; they’re different concepts. “Transphobia” refers to bigotry against trans people or transness in general, while “cissexism” or “cisgenderism” is appealing to (or is) the wider system of oppression. (x)

That’s not to say those words are actually used that way in practice, because they’re not, and I certainly don’t use them that way every time either. Like you said, “transphobia” is the word people more often understand. When I’m writing for or talking to audiences that don’t already have a strong background in trans theory, I stick to “transphobia” for clarity’s sake.

But if you’re positioning yourself as an educational authority on the subject, and even going so far as to correct trans people on those terms- you should know that. If your question is “which term refers to discrimination against trans people?”, your answer is reliant upon how you choose to define “discrimination” in that context.

It’s also reasonable to assume people would answer with the first term if they don’t know both of them, and what she’s set up sounds like an unfair “gotcha!” meant to cow uninformed cis people.

And tbh, I take issue with that. There’s a great essay on this- The Cycle of Socialization by Bobbie Harro. The core of this cycle, which allows oppression to continue and encourages its perpetuation, includes confusion and insecurity: oppression is complex, and big, and people are afraid of taking a stand and doing it wrong. They are insecure in their knowledge and position, and afraid that if they try, they’ll get it wrong, and they’ll be punished. So they stay silent. What is that “gotcha!” moment doing except enforcing that fear and silence?

The other thing here are her reasons for using “cissexism” instead. She’s absolutely right that there is dialogue about what terms to use, and her listed reasons are informed and well-educated. I don’t know how I feel about the discussion myself, honestly, as I’ve seen it from the start and I’ve watched it play out for multiple years.

I don’t know if I agree that it’s ableist, part of that being that the “-phobic” thing was originally created as a “compassionate justification” for people’s bigotry against gay people (though there is the “-misic/misia” replacement for “-phobia” if you prefer). That’s still problematic for different reasons; like she said, it might validate bigotry as “fear”. “Cissexism” illustrates bigotry as enforcing a system rather than being honestly rooted in feelings, and that’s generally a good thing, imo.

But, y’know, “transphobia” is what people readily understand, and punishing people for using it is counterproductive. Using “transphobia” as a starting point for a discussion and an understanding is helpful, too; it connects these ideas back to what people already know. It meets them where they are. If you want to add “cissexism” to their vocabulary from there, please do! But that shouldn’t be rooted in shame.

I don’t know if any of this is helpful, but I thought I’d throw out what seemed to be the core of the issue to me, in case it resonated with you. If you still feel weird about the interaction, it might be worth it to address that with her again; she seems like she’s genuinely trying, and cares, and like she’s open to making changes. If nothing else, you might be able to sort out what’s still bugging you and address it as a feelings issue, rather than a language one, if that works better for you.

Good luck! And sorry for the super long answer, lol.

[jyndor]

(Imperialism etc anon) Ok I get where you're coming from! Thank you for being understanding. While Zutara is obviously not inherently racist or anything there are zutara interpretations that *are* racist (example: fire lady katara which I can get into) and it does need to be acknowledged that Zuko's status as fire nation royalty does create a power imbalance between him and Katara. Now, this is a conversation that has a lot of nuance to it but it seems like the people harassing you are (1/2)

(2/2) just repeating some genuine critique they saw without understanding what it means just to say that they're right, harassing people in the process. I did not have that context when sending that first ask and I apologize, since anons harassing you and others are clearly doing it out of bad faith. I just didn't like the leveraging of concepts that really matter in real life (colonialism, etc), ykwim? But I get what you were trying to do.

hey anon I’m finally getting to you after 84 years XD

so first off, I want to be careful about how I approach this because I understand that as a white person (even if my ancestors experienced imperialism) in the US I absolutely benefit from imperialism and don’t want to like, idk, whitesplain XD so if anyone gets annoyed with any way I say anything, just lmk and I’ll rework it. and I also do understand that these are real world issues that are far more consequential than messaging in media (although I do think it’s very important that we challenge messages in media because of media’s influence on our thinking and politics).

but before I talk about zuko and his relationship to fire nation imperialism, and then later fire lady katara and why it isn’t INHERENTLY racist but definitely can be, I want to talk about the atla fandom and how we got here. like, why I assume that most anons who come at zutara shippers are asshats acting in bad faith. if you already know fandom history, skip this section.

1. atla and the fandom has always been kind of shitty and racist

so IDK if everyone is familiar with the history of the ship war in atla fandom, but it’s regarded as one of the nastiest ship wars in fandom history which I agree lol. atla’s creators were some of the first to interact with the fandom the way they did - back then it wasn’t all that common for creators to get into twitter feuds with fans and boundaries were respected more than they are now imo. but for better or worse, and it is a mixed bag, bryke interacted with fandom a lot. certainly at cons but also on social media.

but honestly things really got extra mean in fan spaces when bryke made a “joke” atla season 4 slideshow out of fan art (some of which was really sexual in nature and totally inappropriate) that mocked fans’ creations, but especially zutara fanart and zutara itself. it was pretty tasteless especially considering how most zutara fans were teen girls, and featured some art of sokka saying that if you think zuko and katara would be good together, you’re doomed to have failed relationships. that’s where the whole “dark and mysterious” bs came from, which does describe some zutara fic but not even most of it lol. I actually do respect bryke a lot despite my criticism of them, but I don’t think I’ll ever get over that shit. like even if you hate zutara, even if it’s a joke, we were kids. and they were adults, and the whole thing was nasty.

however, the ship war was chaotic and messy, but it does feel worse now. maybe it’s because back then the fandom was MOSTLY teens and kids, and I don’t think that’s true now. we were all trying to prove our ship was best with like, content from the show and theories and all that, and now it’s like... whose ship is ~problematic lol it’s a show by white us americans appropriating from various cultures impacted negatively by us/british imperialism that they then profited off of, of course it’s racist. that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about that, and in fact many poc have been saying this shit for years - that atla is racist and colorist at many times (guru pathik anyone?) and no one really listened.

if fans are complaining only about zutara, then I’m automatically writing them off as being insincere or ignorant. and since most of these people are anonymous, I have no idea if they are having substantive discourse about colorism in avatar or cultural appropriation (even if it is mostly appreciative). if you are on anon, I have no context about what you actually think except for what you give me. and that definitely is how I view anons in general but especially within the atla fandom because for all 13-ish years I’ve been in it, it’s been messy. that’s why zutara fans have isolated ourselves from the rest of fandom, because the rest of fandom has been really nasty to us. like did we give back some nastiness? absolutely.

but I would hazard a guess that most anti-zutara shippers don’t know about the conversations we have had in this community to make it safer for people of color, conversations that centered poc and woc especially. hey, that’s okay - not to compare zutara to r*ylo because eurgh but like, idk what discourse the r*ylos have about their community. no idea, I don’t go looking for it. and I don’t go to the tags and harass r*ylos - even though they harass the fuck out of everyone else.

2. so zuko and his privilege

undoubtedly zuko as fire lord is in a fairly privileged position LMFAO. but during the show zuko is very clearly exiled - he holds very little political power in the fire nation EXCEPT for during the first season when he is in command of a ship that ozai gave him on a punishment quest lol like yeah he does terrible things and he of all people would not excuse his actions even if he was a traumatized kid, that’s the point of his arc - that he got some exposure to the rest of the world and worked to be better. and the only reason he was exiled at all was because he cares about people - he didn’t question fire nation supremacy at 13, but he sure did question the morality of his people being lead to slaughter.

but after zuko and iroh defect from the fire nation and stop hunting aang, he has next to no power, in any kind of way. like the guy is a political refugee. and yes, he goes back to the fire nation for like five minutes before realizing that he hates everything about fire nation hegemony and that he wants to end his father’s reign of terror, like that isn’t exactly someone who is going to be well esteemed by the powerful elites when he returns and takes the throne.

and I disregard the comics because they suck lol but zuko does have power as the fire lord, but he limits his power. like compared to ozai, phoenix asshole? azula? for the rest of the world, zuko is kind of an ideal leader for a former colonizing/imperialistic nation to have - someone who worked to end that tyranny, who is anti-imperialist, who believes in justice and equality, who wants to make things right for the peoples who his family oppressed.

I do think it is important to talk about power dynamics and imbalances in relationships - for instance, one could argue that mai is at a significant disadvantage in her relationship with zuko. sure she is from a powerful family but not as powerful as zuko’s. sokka? hah forget it. he’s just as disadvantaged as katara is politically speaking. toph? well, she’s definitely not as powerful politically as zuko - her family tried to silence her for years because of her disability. and oh, she’s disabled so it might be ableist for zuko to strike up a relationship with her when they’re both adults. forgetting of course that toph and sokka and katara and suki and mai are not going to be shy about their wants and needs, that these relationships are not likely to be coercive by nature of the show they’re in and the characters they involve. this is not bill clinton with monica creepiness. like, you’d have to write the relationship that way.

the only person who arguably has more political power than zuko is aang. I guess zuko can’t ever be in a relationship with anyone other than aang. and zuko’s family massacred aang’s people so I guess we can’t ship zukaang. now I know you’re not saying that, context matters. power dynamics are important. but you can’t take away the agency of characters - katara, who is essentially a princess, has agency and can choose who she wants to be with. strictly speaking, aang is more powerful than anyone in terms of political power - he’s the avatar - and of course the dynamic is different by nature of aang not being from a line of oppressors, but there still is a power imbalance in their relationship. and I don’t know how many k/ataang shippers have discourse~ on that. not that I really feel like they NEED to, um idk what they talk about lol I’m not in those circles.

3. fire lady katara is in the eye of the beholder

so fire lady katara is not inherently bad or racist, it’s essentially like saying michelle obama shouldn’t have been first lady of the us (now I get that like the obamas being in power didn’t mean black people are not marginalized lol). you can have conversations about whether or not individual versions of fire lady katara are fucked up, and I’m superrrr open to that because I’ve seen it be kinda shitty before. i’m just gonna leave this link to @shewhotellsstories and her post on this.

but often times katara as fire lady is very dominant in global/fire nation/water tribe politics, she’s a game changer ambassador (that is probably the most popular headcanon I see), she holds on to her culture (and many fans have designed her being in her wt colors, zuko is respectful af to her, she and zuko spend extended periods in the swt, etc. like... it just depends on the way it’s written.

also leaving this response by @avatarnerdkiller to the idea of katara being a prize figurehead.

anyway, thanks for your patience anon and I am curious to see if you see this or even feel like responding after all this time XD

[angeloncewas]

ohoho opinion time? let's go

obviously liking build mart or not is heavily dependent on who you're watching because you're more likely to enjoy a certain game, if the person you're watching is having fun. as someone who has consistently watched false's pov live (false my queen 🖐️), i like build mart. at the same time, it is kind of a shitty game and i 100% get why people, especially people like dream, would hate it. i'd hate it to of i were there, bro, memory? shit.

but like. i don't care? i usually don't care about stuff like this tbh but, as my track record suggests, i did go down some,, interesting people's blogs and posts and opinions on the matter

main big thing i see (mainly on tumblr btw bc i can't stand twt) are people wanting build mart removed or changed, mainly for dream. which imo is fair, a large reason parkour warrior was changed to tag was actually because of grian, and the way grian reacted to parkour warrior is very reminiscent to how dream treats build mart ngl. but like,, they did change build mart? between seasons? it wasn't a big change, but i remember literally everyone i watched (pvpers and builders) said the new change made it so much better. and i don't think they're going to remove it, just like they're not going to remove a lot of the pvp games. people prefer different games and that's just like,, how it is ig

big thing is dream's reaction, largely because he is one of the biggest people on mcc and has such a vocal disdain for build mart, so what he says, a lot of people will go with (kinda like mid game voting y'know, just with more dts) which is what creates the discourse, people mainly parroting what their favourite little meow meow says. and ofc this fandom is.. a wild one, so discourse is Discourse and the actual problem gets so skewed. i've seen people say noxcrew is ableist because of build mart? and that they're favouring hermits? which is. strange. bc if you look at the amount of pvp games i'd say they're more definetly not

imo i like build mart, i don't think it should be removed, unless there's another building (or ngl even redstone) based game that can replace it, but even then a lot of the pvpers are still gonna hate it, so there's no real winning here, just like grian still hates parkour tag. at the end of the day, it is still literally a minecraft tournament, and this is getting blown way out of proportion, but discourse is expected, and actually a lot of the time very civil. people just like arguing, let's be real lol.

anyway

feel free to disagree with me here, i love ur opinions and i like changing mine

-rabbithole

Appreciate the compliment afjdsk and I hope you're well, rabbithole anon ! I'll answer under the cut for length :)

> While it's definitely true that the streamer in question effects how you see the game, I don't think it's entirely up to that (not that you're saying it is, just my opinion). It's kind of boring to watch on the admin stream even though they can see any perspective they'd like, and the rush of winning imo is dampened by the activity itself even when the people are exceling. I haven't watched False though, so it's totally possible that she adds something special.

> I've seen some weird-ass thread on this topic too lol. Why y'all being so personal about a game you're not even in PLEASE /lh

> Dream was lying (affectionate) when he said that it hasn't been changed in ages, but I really don't know if the changes are enough. I actually say this as a Wilbur viewer - I remember him saying that the carts were definitely the problem after the first time they played the new map, but I'm pretty sure he hasn't exactly had stellar reviews of the game since. It doesn't feel much different, except for in aesthetic.

> That being said I don't have a solution to offer as an alternative. I don't think it should be removed unless they had a replacement equivalent ready, but I also can't say that it's perfect as-is, y'know?

> I've never seen people saying either of those things personally, but I don't doubt that they're out there and it's weird as fuck lol.

> I don't wanna keep rehashing the same arguments, but I guess my issue is the sort of "shut up and smile" mentality people have toward Dream. Not saying you do, just in general - why is Wilbur allowed to constantly scream about how Ace Race is a shitty fucking broken-ass game that needs to be burned in a fire while Dream can't even say he might opt out for his own enjoyment next time ? I know they're different people with different audiences, but I just don't like assigning that kind of responsibility based on coincidence and what have you

> People need to chill out and watch every single MCC VOD <3 ajfkds

(Sorry I'm not more convincing - I feel like I've said my piece since I never really had strong Build Mart beliefs to begin with - but I really appreciate your perspective and I hope you had a good MCC day lol)

[sixties-doctor-who-stan]

Genesis of the Daleks is Trash, and Here’s Why

Okay, so I first watched Genesis of the Daleks back in 2016 and I was… disappointed to say the least. I didn’t hate it or anything but I guess I had been told this was THE best Dalek story in Classic Who so I had been very hyped to see it. So of course disappointment was inevitable.

So, five years later me and my partner were watching it together and I had low expectations. But a part of me thought, ‘maybe I’ll like it more if I don’t overhype it’…

If anything, I liked it less this time.

It starts well, I’ll give it that. The bit with the Time Lord is interesting – they won’t leave the Doctor alone! They made his last self do their bidding and yet this keep him on a chain… ugh… fuck the Time Lords. But anyway, the war of attrition is a REALLY interesting idea – technology downgrading over time in a war is a cool concept that I wish had been explored after Episode 1 but it’s not.

And another thing to give props to is the part where the Doctor steps on a grenade. That… that was tense. One of the tensest and grimmest things I’ve ever seen in Doctor Who. Tom Baker and Ian Marter played the terror and danger of it so well. The mains are all pretty solid in this story – nothing to complain about to be honest.

Honestly it falls apart when the bloody Daleks turn up. I’m not the biggest fan of the Daleks to be honest, but there are quite a few Dalek stories I love so whatever. But they don’t do anything apart from being Davros’s henchmen until the end of Episode 6. Which, I get it, that’s the point. It doesn’t make them feel any more impactful.

I also hate the gunmetal look, but that’s a petty point.

Another (arguably) petty point is that I think a Genesis of the Daleks was 100% not needed. We don’t need their friggin backstory! The few lines in The Daleks was sufficient and (imo) more interesting! The continuity errors don’t bother me that much to be honest, because it had been 12 years in a time before reruns so whatever.

What does bother me is that the Kaleds are mostly against making the Daleks completely evil and that the Daleks have a sole creator. I feel like that weakens the whole Nazi thing (despite the story trying to evoke it) because the whole thing is the Nazis were a movement. Hitler was the focal point but he didn’t invent their hatred. I suppose the Daleks eventually superseding their creator works well enough as it is, good thing Davros was a one-time character.

Ah, Davros. Being honest, I wouldn’t be making this post if it wasn’t for this fucking character. Like… holy shit he is SO ableist! Let’s bullet point all the ableist things about Davros:

- He has multiple disabilities (blind, can’t walk, has facial disfigurements, only has use of one arm, arm he has use of has a tremor, requires life support) and is the most evil character in the story

- All of the other Kaleds look human, except for him. WHY?

- The Doctor threatens to kill him by turning off his life support system – this is a problem because the hero is threatening to kill someone in a way that many of disabled people in real like have been killed by their carers who have gotten away with it because no-one cares about disabled people.

- The Doctor should have just held a gun to his head (‘oh but the Doctor wouldn’t do that’ – interesting what’s seen as violent and what’s not eh?)

- The Doctor realises that Nyder knows the combination to Davros’s safe because Davros wouldn’t be able to reach it… why? Why wouldn’t he have a safe he could reach himself? The Doctor should have just pointed out that Davros had trusted the tape recording to Nyder, so clearly Nyder must have put it in the safe.

In isolation, I like Nyder and Davros’s relationship. Nyder is completely loyal and never betrays him, I think that’s an interesting villain dynamic. The only other two Kaled I liked were Ravon – his bloodthirstiness was unsettling and then helping the Doctor and Harry because he was pissed off with Nyder (I assume). Pity we never see him again (what happens to him? He’s not in the dome, so maybe he survived?)

The other Kaleds… they’re just so friggin dull.

I guess I quite like Bettan and Sevrin, though to be honest I think the main reason I remember Bettan is because she’s the only other woman in the story.

Something else that massively bothered me is the ending. It felt very confused, so they’ve sealed the Daleks in the bunker but they’ll eventually get out. And what happens to the Thals? In the original story it’s said that there was a mass mutation, but there was no neutron bomb here. I know it’s said that there will be more mutations in the future but they don’t make that clear. Also, shouldn’t there be mass radiation everywhere? But there isn’t (except in the rocket, but don’t worry Sarah and Sevrin are fine!)

The ‘do I have that right scene’… it’s fine. It’s funny because the Doctor actually goes back to kill the embryos lol. But… thing is that wouldn’t have done anything since they are destroyed (not by the Doctor because the story can’t have the hero actually do the morally grey thing… well except make a disabled man asphyxiate, that’s fine). It seems the thing that would have destroyed the Daleks is that red button that Davros almost pushes before he’s definitely permanently killed. But that never seems to occur to the Doctor.

Okay, this is longer than I meant it to be. But basically, the story kind of plods along (like quite a few Terry Nation scripts), it has some interesting half-baked ideas (the war of attrition), over focus on dull characters (Gharman and the other Kaleds) and a REALLY ableist villain that I am glad never makes a return…

… right?

[panvani]

this is something i noticed about that sibling trope... i believe authors somehow think that it adds complexity to their character and makes them “human” but.... they do such a bad job at it lol.

I mean... All tropes are tools. The one I was talking about doesn't have a specific name (to my knowledge), but the reason it developed was because a bunch of authors had a common problem of wanting to develop their characters, and the cultural conditions were right. I think it's a trope that's easier to criticize as same-y and cheap as someone who A. has no younger siblings and B. has no real immersion in the culture of its origin. Japanese culture places more emphasis on the relationship between siblings, and particularly on their order of birth (hence why Japanese literally doesn't have a way to refer to your sibling without specifying gender and their age in relation to you.)

A lot of the time with that trope we're meant to understand the elder sibling is incurring some cost for not abandoning or outright killing their sibling (and I can't think of an example of this trope where it wasn't at least very likely the younger would die without the older's protection, and the older was not entirely cognizant of that/thinking in those terms.) The situation has more nuance than, say, a parent being made to choose between their child and their personal well-being, as almost anyone would say the parent was a bad person for abandoning their child. A sibling isn't the natural caretaker of a child, especially when their age gap is negligible (twins are common in a lot of animanga I've read, but the smallest age gap I've seen for this setup is one year*- most have a more noticeable gap).

There's also, as I noted in other posts, other factors which tend to contribute to this trope. In most examples, the younger suffers some sort of disability or disease that makes them hard to care for/unable to fend for themselves. In the vast majority of cases, the younger sibling is female (I can think of one exception). I cannot think of a single example where the older sibling is not male. Most people- especially men who are not disabled- at least passively prioritized the lives of able bodied men over disabled people and/or women. The issue of gender is especially important in Japan, where gender takes priority over even age in determining one's rank in the family.

Thus the older sibling's choice to not abandon their younger sibling is treated as some great active good- as opposed to the simple passive decision to not let their sibling die. That's what annoys me about this trope. The payoff is nearly always identical, and in the process completely ignores the feelings and value of the younger sibling in a way that's almost always either passively ableist, passively misogynistic, or both. No matter how the trope is set up, the same-y execution of "... So the older is actually a really good person!" makes it obnoxious and cheap.

Tl;dr yeah, because of Japanese ideals of older/younger sibling relations, and because of factors which often also affect the trope like misogyny and ableism.

[margotverger]

top 5 best hannibal takes and worst hannibal takes. go

okay i’m going to do this generally on what other people’s takes (that i’ve seen or read somewhere) are because none of my hannibal takes are bad. 

top 5 best:

that margot should have been butch in the tv show and that the margot/alana romance could have been developed a little more, i’ll elaborate more on the butch angle in top 5 worst, but i think while i enjoy marlana in s3 (who doesn’t) i do think that there could have been a Little More to it, especially since there was admittedly a lot of gratuitous metaphorical work on a visual or verbal level in early s3 that didn’t... really do much after the first few, and that i think bryan fuller definitely got a bit self-indulgent. while i love s3 i think it was weaker because it got quite ensnared in feeling like it had to explain everyone’s individual recovery (not a bad thing necessarily and the looping narrative definitely had this feeling of “time has been changed, mutilated, adjusted after mizumono”, but on a narrative level it could have probably still been achieved but left more room for things to. Happen) and i think that some of the excess could have been trimmed to allow for more margot-alana development beyond simply talking about taking revenge, i would have loved to see some genuine conversation that only affected both of them that made us realise just why alana would raise the child with her, why they would get marriedーalana having very little dating life and presumably trauma around relationships since her immediate ex tried to murder her and is also a serial killer, and margot having been traumatised repeatedly due to being a lesbian in a very homophobic family, they deserved some space in order to explore why exactly they mean a lot to each other. even a singular scene that didn’t depend on taking vengeance on the men who hurt them would have given us enough i think. 

lara jean chorostecki’s hot take (implied) that freddie would have a wife. groundbreaking. love that. regardless of bryan fuller i am assuming with full confidence that freddie lounds has a wife after the timeskip

autistic will graham. enough said. hugh dancy’s only stupid thing was saying will isn’t autistic. that was a sin. will graham is autistic

lesbian abigail hobbs. lesbian abigail hobbs!

the hot take that hannibal doesn’t do its women characters justice, this isn’t just about deaths (i do agree that for the gothic horror narrative characters are doomed to some extent, and i don’t overly grieve over deaths that came too early, so i’m not too fussed) but on a writing level, bryan fuller definitely tries to portray himself as a very woman-positive author who introduces feminine energy - and he does! but at the same time there is a lack in developing relationships between women, and for a story to truly give space to be a genuinely woman-positive story there needs to be strong relationships between women that don’t depend on men; obviously since hannibal’s presence is insidious and infects everything, as is his luciferian ways, and will’s often the binding agent, this can’t be entirely avoided but regardless of hannibal they can exist, on some small level, individually. we saw that a lot in s1! between abigail and freddie and alana and abigail mostly, plus there was a small glimpse at it in season 3 with bedelia and chiyoh (underrated imo i would love to see further into why bedelia has her views of chiyoh and what that means ... i hope they interact again if hannibal s4 comes to pass!). so it proves there is room for it. it doesn’t need to be every episode or even have a huge arc but seeing hannibal pass the bechdel test more than like. twice a season would be nice!

top 5 worst takes:

that bedannibal is more romantic than hannigram (lol)... i love bedelia and bedannibal a lot but that’s just. hm. incorrect

that hannibal has never loved anybody except will. i’ve wrote about this before but i think that’s a deliberate misunderstanding of the character hannibal. what is unique about hannibal and will’s relationship is not the presence of love but the presence of being changed by that love; transformation is at its core, the openness to being adjusted or altered... recognition, seeing, understanding, and that allowing compassion not only for the other (in hannibal’s case) but for the self (in will’s case). hannibal loves a lot, but his love is not separate from crueltyーi think this is where people misunderstand. just because he is willing to hurt or harm people isn’t, in the narrative (not in real life), because he doesn’t love them. his cruelty is because he loves people enough he wants to bring them to the height of their being, in extremis. he loved alana, which is why he showed her a chance at mercy. he loved bedelia. he loved jack. he loved abigail! he loved bella especially, and he genuinely mourned. these went beyond fascinations; these were genuine expressions of affection, love, whether they be platonic or romantic or familial. hannibal’s flaw is not that he is incapable of love. and personally i think to disrespect his relationships with other characters (who are all women, black or both lol) in order to further isolate the white m/m relationship is... not ideal. not a sign that someone is wholly prejudiced but i think it’s something we should be critical about, especially when hannibal through word of god is confirmed to love other people. 

bryan fuller’s own take that margot being femme is somehow less prejudiced or problematic than if she was butch. i haven’t read the book yet but i already know that margot’s portrayal as a butch lesbian was problematic but thomas harris is . undoubtedly prejudiced in many ways and that’s a fault of him, not a fault of the existence of being butchーbeing butch isn’t just a “stereotype” it’s a genuine mode of existence, it’s an intricate relationship with gender, sexuality and love, and butchness deserves to be represented as something beautiful, desirable and complex... instead of just deciding she should be conventionally feminine because that’s somehow more progressive. but then again he also made her have sex with a man so you know. lol

ANY take that involves over-analysing who is a top or who is a bottom and then rendering the characters into homophobic/fetishistic stereotypes. it’s ugly! it’s weird! keep that shit away from me. also any take involving “dark!will”. again that just does the character of will disrespect lol. the whole point of will is that he is morally complex and perhaps beyond the human scopeーhe is not just an echo of hannibal... i’ve seen one too many fics where will just becomes a savage brutal unfeeling murderer who only cares about hannibal after s3. like please watch the show

that hannibal is a narcissist/sociopath... or any other ableist interpretations. not every villain is a narcissistic (a genuine disorder) sociopath (just another word associated with npd etc) just because they do bad things. they’re very real disorders that people deal with and are infinitely more complex than just a character having a god complex and killing people. the whole point about hannibal is that he exceeds what is considered neurodivergent and while i don’t mind if people with similar disorders relate to him (much like how i relate to will’s autistic traits) i think a lot of bad comes from people throwing the label sociopath around because it becomes dehumanising and leads to further stigma against truly vulnerable people. 

basically any trope that just does a character a disservice or neglects the actual story in further of fetishistic thinking, prejudiced thinking, ableist thinking... will graham can be autistic because of his empathy (i’ve seen it implied that he can’t be because of it when, as a very empathetic autistic person, hyper-empathy is a very common if not universal symptom, it just appears differently) and hannibal is not a sociopath just because he kills and eats people. and we should all have a little sip of critical thinking juice

[akhilaous-a]

Or the Star Wars writer's don't "acknowledge" disabilities because they're still people? That they can still do stuff as non-disabled people? I know people who don't let disabilities stand in their way. They just get over it and get on with their lives. No one bugs them over it. I work with a few disabled people, actually at my supermarket. No one bats an eye at them. They can still do stuff like before. They're not letting their disability stand in their way. Maybe you should do the same?

so usually i just delete hate/nonsense after screencapping and making fun of the message with my friends

but. i wanna know what kind of brainrot you have that you see a post by a disabled person (that's me, i'm the disabled person) that you do not follow (which is clear by the fact that it's been at least 24 hours since the last time that post was on my followers' dashes) talking about ableism, right? which is fucking rampant, by the way, because nobody except disabled people and our loved ones actually give a shit about ableism, because we're not seen as people.

so you see this post, and it makes you just so mad, because like so many bigots, you don't see disabled people as people. and you've known a few disabled people in passing (because you obviously do not have close friendships with a disabled person, otherwise you would not act like this) and they don't trust you enough to actually tell you about their experiences as a disabled person in a world that is literally constantly trying to erase and murder them (because death is better than life as a disabled person, according to many) so you think that somehow you, an abled person, have any right to try to talk over someone's experiences. because, again, you do not see disabled people as people.

so you go "i am going to go to this person's inbox, and send them an ask, and i am going to jump through the ridiculous hoops that tumblr has put in place to send people asks, because i'm a terrible person" and you send me a paragraph of ableist nonsense. and that's what you decided to do? okay.

frankly, i don't know what i expected from a fandom where some of the biggest hobbies are "let's ship women with their abusers" and "let's ship master/padawan ships" and "well hang on, maybe the group that's a literal nazi allegory weren't so bad, actually" but like. lol

okay! now that i've made fun of you for four paragraphs, let's break it down point by point. (don’t worry, i’m still going to be making fun of you throughout the rest of this <3)

"star wars writers don't acknowledge disabilities because they're still people"

disabled people, shockingly enough, are people. we deserve to exist. we deserve to see ourselves reflected in media. (and as one of my friends said, it's absurd to imagine you making this argument about another oppressed minority. "well, we erase the bit they face discrimination for because they're still people" are you joking?)

"they can still do stuff as non-disabled people"

firstly the word you're looking for is "able bodied" and secondly yes, disabled people are capable of doing things... but we still deserve to exist as disabled people, and we shouldn't be forced to hide our disabilities in order to make people feel good about themselves.

"i know people who don't let disabilities stand in their way"

personal anecdote time: there was a period of my life, roughly three years ago, where i very much bought into the "not like OTHER disabled people" bullshit. this caused me to do things such as hiking long trails, ignoring the fact that my body was literally screaming in agony the entire time, and kayaking long rivers, ignoring the fact that my hip and shoulders kept dislocating and were, as before, sending pain signals throughout my entire body. i did this because i thought i needed to. i did this because i had some very deeply embedded internalized ableism. so if you know people who "don't let disabilities stand in their way" and are proud of it, they have internalized ableism.

"they just get over it and get on with their lives"

shit, dude, you're so right. i'm so sorry. lemme just get over my disability and get on with my life. bye bye, wheelchair! hello, the rest of my life! ableist piece of shit.

"no one bugs them over it"

i literally guarantee that people do "bug them over it" because ableism is so deeply rooted in our society that most people are ableist. like, you literally cannot escape ableism.

"i work with a few disabled people at my supermarket"

aha! so you WORK with disabled people, which proves that us useless cripples who don't have a job are just not TRYING hard enough to be useful cogs in capitalism's machine! maybe if we tried harder to overcome our disabilities, we too can be a member of a glorious capitalist society! you're not supposed to deepthroat the boot, jackass.

"no one bats an eye at them"

again, i guarantee that that isn't the case. abled people are obsessed with either desperately trying to prove that they see us poor cripples as actual people OR with trying to pretend they don't see us at all.

"they can still do stuff like before"

i feel like i've heard this one already.....

"they're not letting their disability stand in their way"

i DEFINITELY have heard this one before, but this time i get to point out that "not letting their disability stand in their way" with direct reference with having to work in order to survive in this capitalist hellscape... shouldn't be the argument you want to make. ditto with the "don't deepthroat the boot, jackass"

"maybe you should do the same"

i literally did, actually, not that i have to justify myself to an ableist piece of shit like you. not only did i literally call myself an "adventurous cripple" but i also had a job! a job that i am 100% confident worsened my disability. up until a little over a year and a half ago, i used a cane to walk and to work. having a job (and needing to walk to and from work) worsened my body to the point that i had to quit my job (which, by the way, i actually really enjoyed) because my disability got to the point where i could no longer walk for more than about ten feet. so i started using my wheelchair every day instead of just when it was unbearable, and funnily enough my quality of life got better. "not letting my disability stand in my way" actively worsened my quality of life, and accepting my disability and changing my life to reflect that made me feel like i had a life worth living again.

so in conclusion: fuck you.

[2009dan]

i have a question for you, what reaction would you have if it turns out that dan is, let's say, not really a good person irl? there are people who knew/know him personally and they described him as an "asshole", "dick", "pretentious", "rude", "catty" and "full of himself". would you still like him as much if he actually turned out to be an asshole?

I'm not naive enough to think dan is the perfect person. if he were a bad person irl I'd obviously like him less, but I think all the negative comments can be taken with a pinch of salt. I can tell that he can be interpreted as stuck up and pretentious because of the way he talks about his interests - in his liveshows he's said stuff like 'not that any of you would know about this but.....' and 'no one knows about this thing but I rly like it blah blah' and I can tell that would be annoying. also, dan seems like he would be quite reserved and withdrawn in social situations, which in a YouTube convention context where 'smaller' youtubers meet him and he responds with anything other than HI GUYS OMG HOW R U the smaller youtubers might interpret this as being stuck up because he's one of the more established youtubers. I have been watching dan for 8 years - every video, every liveshow, every radio show and literally all available content before 2015 I have seen (lowkey fell off the wagon after the gaming channel started). I've met him twice and spoken to him on the phone. I know i don't have any leverage to say I ACTUALLY know him, but I think after all these years I have a pretty fucking good idea of what he's like. I know he's not a perfect super nice Angel human, he's kind of an ass and I can SEE that, but to me that's part of his appeal. during ii he constantly shaded he phandom and if anyone else were able to see this they'd be like OMG he's such a cunt!!! but to me it made me like him more lol. obviously if it were ever revealed he was sexist ableist abusive whatever I'd drop him like its hot but I really truly think dan is a good person. I'm hyper aware of celebrity personalities and the way they're marketed and I basically am very skeptical and cynical of everyone, EXCEPT dan. I feel like I can trust him after all these years tbh. everyone has tempers everyone has bad days and with someone who's entire life and career is based on your PERSONALITY it's a lot of pressure especially when there's a LOT of eyes on you

[hawkate]

i'm heavily disabled and i'm fine with cassandra's storyline

Hey, there!

As I said in a previous ask, I’m not disabled, so it’s not for me to say if it is or isn’t ableist, but I’ve asked my wifey @disabledravenreyes about this and this is what she told me (under a read more bc it’s long lol):

Disclaimer: Chloe wants to stress that different interpretations can be valid, so this in no way negates your point of view, and also how she’s disabled and not chronically ill, like Cassandra is.

“Was she always terminally ill, or did you originally meet her as an abled woman? A lot of shows will introduce an abled character, get the audience to invest in them as an abled person (which makes it easy for viewers to see them as actual fully formed people, rather than a walking tragedy), then decide to exploit the ~tragedy of disability or chronic illness to spice things up with a little angst. Then, when they feel they've milked that for all the drama they can, the character will either be written out, sidelined, or (most often) magically cured and the whole thing is forgotten about except for the occasional reference. 

That, in and of itself, is a very prevalent and harmful ableist trope that has real world consequences for disabled and chronically ill people, and it manages to both misrepresent us while also stealing our stories and giving them (the parts that are convenient anyway) to abled actors playing characters that spend most of their time abled. Sometimes chronically ill or disabled people will find something identify with in these characters because it's some of the only representation we've got, or maybe there's one or two more realistic scenes that resonated with them, but overall, not good rep. 

On top of that, you've got these new magical powers that came from her "incurable" tumour. There are certain situations where superpowers coming from chronic illnesses or disability can be done right, in an empowering way, but a) it's complicated and delicate and abled people are always fucking it up (I'm looking at you, Veronica Roth), and b) this isn't that. I mean first of all they didn't even have the decency to keep her chronically ill, so the powers aren't linked to and fuelled by her status/identity as a chronically ill woman—that just becomes a conveniently dramatic/interesting way to have brought them about. 

Chronically ill and disabled people don't get compensated for our illnesses/disabilities. We don't get rewarded for gritting our teeth and bearing through the hard stuff. We don't get cured at the last minute, once it's the right moment for the plot or we've personally developed enough. That's another big ableist trope: using disability or chronic illness as a kind of trial for the characters, which—once they've learned the appropriate lesson or shown enough strength or whatever—is lifted and they are made "whole" and abled again. Cassandra herself isn't just made "whole", she even gets rewarded for her struggle with new and improved powers. 

Also, if she wasn't originally abled it's even worse, because it's a more obvious statement on how much better and stronger and more useful and more worthy we chronically ill/disabled people would be if they could just "cure" us. Tbh the idea of a "curing" us (which essentially means wiping disabled and chronically ill people out—just not through death) is so intrenched in society and the way it's traditionally portrayed us that it's almost always going to be ableist in fiction, and abled writers should really just stop going there. 

 Now, as you pointed out, it is possible to interpret things differently, and that person has a right to their interpretation, but it's certainly not the only valid one, and I would agree with you that it's got some ableist stuff going on underneath. Also keep in mind that I haven't seen the show so I don't know all the details (though tbh I don't think details would change too much in this case), and that I am disabled but not chronically ill. While we do fall under the same general umbrella of marginalization and deal with a lot of the same tropes, there are some nuances and experiences specific to both groups. For whatever my opinion means though, I've gotta agree with you. Sounds ableist.”

I don’t think I’d have been able to explain it as beautifully and eloquently as Chloe has, so I’m leaving her words here because I wholeheartedly agree with her in this matter.

Thank you so much for taking your time and energy to explain this to me, Chloe! You are always so patient :) I love you

[finsterhund]

First impressions of sleep clinic

yeah it’s super long. TLDR I am doing the test at the clinic after all! Turns out the actual people who work there are nice and good and kind.

Very nice looking building but completely inaccessible. Especially by bus, especially with ice on the pavement. Getting from the closest bus stop to the clinic is a death trap across a broken up busy road with its crosswalks entirely faded. Big trucks driving past. Lots of ice on the sidewalk so had to walk on the road. If I had to use a mobility aid getting here would be entirely impossible. At least during the winter and without a car.

Had to switch buses several times to get here too. Two hours total. Meant I had to get up way too early. If I fall asleep during my sleep study intake appointment do I automatically fail?

Desk receptionist super nice. Like super super super nice. Very nice with intake form. Said about my stuffed animals and that the doctor will make an exception. And that the policy was stupid. So even the people who work here know that. Knew who Spot (Eric Hill) was. Talked about my Spot for a bit.

There is no wifi here. I have to wait for thirty minutes until my appointment actually starts.

Despite how evil the paperwork and robot calls were it is very very nice here. The actual workers here are super kind.

If I'm allowed light and stuffed animals I may actually do the test here and not bring a machine home.

I'm so relieved that once I got to interact with the actual people here they're good. I was so scared that since their policies online and phone calls were awful that they'd be as well but the workers are actually nice.

There's 10 minutes until my appointment to talk in-depth with two doctors so we will see.

Anxious but feeling a lot better knowing there's regular people here and not just unfeeling machines.

Also they measured my height and I grew one centimeter since the last time I measured my height.

I am still a manlet though.

I inexplicably have tummy pain. Probably stress. It gets worse when I'm more stressed so I'm pretty sure that's what it is.

I wish this was all over and done with still. I want to look at the animation Warden made me some more. I have the render of Spot saved to my phone though so I can look at that.

I just want to go back home and go back to sleep and snuggle my stuffed animals and watch YouTube and post memes and relax and maybe get McDonald's because I have craved quarter pounder BLT for approximately one week.

I wish I had the cuddle clone right now.

Five minutes until appointment now. Apparently it will be two hours long. OOF. OOF OOF OOF.

The only problem with this facility is it is the most boring ass adult looking ass facility I've ever seen. Nothing but boring magazines to read, the interior decorator is afraid of color, the chairs are these uncomfy black squares. There's nothing to do and I am incredibly bored. At least it is bright and clean. These are both very good positives.

One minute left. Good. Good good good.

Talked to the first doctor. As I expected that consisted of asking everything that was already on the massive book of paper work that I had filled out. But they were super nice. Will be accommodating my stuffed animals but possibly not the light. Fear.

I mentioned I might not be able to sleep at all and they said that was expected but they'd still get data about brain waves and stuff.

I got to see the sleep rooms. They are super nice looking but the blankets don't look too comfortable. Definitely not sterile medical blankets though so the weird "stuffed animals are a health concern" makes even less sense because obviously they need to switch out the blankets anyways.

I had to describe my night terrors which I absolutely hate doing because it involves talking about my birth father. I was fortunately not expected to go into explicit detail about reoccurring theming in them though thankfully. Also asked if I was abused as a child (as if that wasn't obvious) and I also hate talking about the specifics so I just said my default "I don't wanna talk about it" statement which is "my mother was neglectful and my birth father should be in prison" which gets the message across pretty well I think while also doesn't invade my privacy.

I am all jittery but also yawning and wish I could sleep.

Why can't they do the test right now lol?

Well as it turns out this is to specifically test how I sleep at night. Not during the day. So I'd be getting a good sleep in the day and thus skewing the results.

I wish I had something to eat right now I am hungry.

So so hungry.

I had the thought that during the sleep test I won't have food so unless I get to eat right before coming I will be hungry as well.

I wish access to meals was more regular.

I keep thinking about the quarter pounder BLT. Damn you McDonald's.

So I'm anxious about the sleep test, I'm sleepy, I wish I could go home, I'm hungry. I'm anxious about food for both right now and tomorrow, and I just am on edge in general. But this appointment has been going much better than I was expecting.

Also I mean it when I said the interior decorator hates color. The most colorful things here are the electrode nodes (they showed me it was cool) and the kleenex box on the table.

There's a decorative pot on the table but instead of fake plants it's got coffee stir sticks in it. I'm dead fucking serious. There's a wicker basket full of dead branches on the floor. I long for green. Where is the green?

THERE ARE FLOWERS IN THE OTHER WAITING ROOM

I REPEAT

They're these ugly white things that remind me of the dreaded menace known as cauliflower but they're there.

Also the cancellation fee for this appointment is 200 dollars.

But for the overnight one?

FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS

FIVE. HUNDRED. DOLLARS.

I can't have iced tea after noon tomorrow.

Hell world hell world hell world

There are blue walls in the bathroom!!

We have blue! I repeat!! We have blue!!!

Okay so I will get to bring a nightlight

I will also be bringing multiple dogs and they will decide which one I get to sleep with. I am bringing:

Whisky

Fishy Tiny

Sunny

And one of the new mini-Spots I got yesterday.

I am anticipating that because the mini-Spots are small and literally brand new that that one will be chosen. Smaller than I'd prefer but they look like Spot which is its own important superpower to have.

One thing that did piss me off and I wish I would have gotten a picture of it is a piece of paper saying how best to sleep that was up in the meeting room. It was all ableist/neurotypical stuff that failed to take things like hypersensitivity, financial class, and personal comfort into account.

The last points were literally "animals ruin your sleep there is no reason to have an animal in the bedroom"

And "light distracts you." The classic nyctophile propaganda.

The first one is especially insulting. How come sleeping with another human is okay but sleeping with a companion animal isn't? That's bullshit. I would sleep soundly with a pupper. I know full well that this is something I can have my service dog trained to assist me with is deep pressure therapy when lying down. I've seen videos of PTSD service dog treatment that the dog is used to combat the night terrors. Why is the drugs I take accepted but the dog not? Insulting. I'm pretty sure my dog will be a better solution than continuing to increase my dose would be.

Also I hate that it was all "the only thing you should do in your bedroom is sleep and (gross adult stuff)" like what if I can't fucking afford my own apartment and my bedroom IS my ENTIRE living space? Ok boomer.

A lot of this feels like an Ok boomer moment to be honest. The papers are outdated bullcrap but the actual young adult doctors here are smart and know what's up. Every doctor has been smart and accessible and kind. Even if the paperwork has been some of the most insulting crap I've read.

"ThERe iS nO rEAsoN tO hAvE aN AnIMaL in YoUR bEDroOM." Shut up. Idiot.

So I was out all day. Then we went to the book store and found something to show Warden. Then my phone died. I was hungry but the sandwiches there by themselves costed as much as a full meal at a fast food restaurant. So that's not worth it.

So the only thing I had to eat all day was three carrot sticks.

Then we went home and I am super tired.

I hope we get something to eat tonight.

I am napping now.