#good faith asks

[newnitz]

im hindu, a jewish ally (i'm trying my best to be by educating myself from proper sources) and an x men fan and idk. magneto becomes more and more correct every day to me

I can't bring myself to truly say it because of the Kahanist undertones in his portrayal and the dark side of what Begin has been part of, but damn if it isn't tempting. I can see Hindus relating to the notion considering what your being subjected to in Bangladesh 💔

[hindulivesmatter]

Again😭u aren't actually answering my doubt at all.

You are saying Hindu lives matter in a Hindu dominant country.

And this is not a hate mail,a genuine question,I wanna see ur perspective as to why u are saying this.

Again I am actually proud of you for opening such a blog (I'll let u in on a thing...i follow u too) so no way in hell I am hating on u.

Rather I am happy to see someone take initiative to show the world,what Hinduism truly is and what's not.

You do realise that Hindus being a majority doesn’t protect them from being persecuted? You do realise that we were a majority when the Islamic invaders took over and they still oppressed us? You do realise that a few British people ruled over us even tho we were a majority? Also you do realise that there are Hindu minorities in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh that are being persecuted and ethnically cleansed??

I appreciate you coming in good faith but like come on. Go through my blog at least once before coming into my inbox like this.

[shorthaltsjester]

when people think delilah just completely takes over and laudna has no control. when people think jester is just an uwu child who has been manipulated by every man she’s met. when people think vex is an empty husk of daddy issues without her brother by her side. when people think fjord is an arrogant asshole who doesn’t pay attention to the party around him. when people think scanlan saying that vox machina doesn’t care about him is an accurate assessment.

[erinwantstowrite]

will peter be like an older brother to miles in lof ?

absolutely he is

there's about an 11 year difference between them (Miles is 14, Peter is 25), so it's a lot more like the older brother type of relationship that Peter has with Tim (despite Tim being his uncle). Peter has mentored(ish) other young heroes by this point (mostly in the Bats' universe) but since Miles is another Spider-Man, Peter takes up most of the responsibility in making sure Miles is safe and teaching him the ropes. That's HIS sassy child genius, thank you, and he's not a sidekick, he's Spider-Man.

He was also adamant that Miles tell his parents immediately, and gets along great with Rio and Jeff.

Which is HILARIOUS to me because at this point in time, Peter has built up a persona for the public eye just like the Bats did. In Rio and Jeff's eyes, they're gobsmacked that the clumsy, scatterbrained, and "scaredy-cat" kid that Tony Stark adopted a while ago is Spider-Man. (Technically, none of this is a lie. Because Peter is a terrible liar unless it's For the Jokes, and often comes across this way even if he hadn't meant to.) They're wondering how he pulled that off since he's the same age as Spider-Man, who is known to be an Avenger, and associates in the same circles as Peter. It helps that Peter and Spider-Man have been in a social media war, and that Peter works at the Daily Bugle that is known for disliking Spider-Man. Peter's been taking lessons for years atp to keep his identity safe. Which is also bonus points to Peter, because the two can tell that secret identities mean everything to him, but he told them who he was in a heartbeat (literally the very first thing he did when he found Miles).

In other words: Peter was ecstatic to become a teacher for his own matching superhero kid and it's one of the most important bonds in his life. That's his baby brother now!!

[canisalbus]

Can I ask how Vasco reacted to hearing about Machete’s assassination? :o did he put on a brave face? Was he inconsolable? Does he imagine that if he were there, he could’ve done something (even if that isn’t true? I imagine it would be tortuous mentally and emotionally for him, poor lad

He most likely went through a mental breakdown, followed by years of paralyzing grief and depression. Vasco had proven to be outstandingly resilient and optimistic in adversity, putting on a brave face was his second nature. But this was his final 'break the unbreakable' moment. He turned withdrawn and apathetic. He had never lost anyone this abruptly before, and he became visibly paranoid about the safety and health of his family while failing to look after his own wellbeing.

Of course he kept rewinding the events in his head and second-guessing himself about whether he could've prevented this outcome somehow, even when everyone who knew about his situation kept telling him there was no reason for him to blame himself for it. He struggled with the suddenness of it, and the lack of closure, and couldn't get over thinking how the love of his life had died alone, surprised, scared and in pain, and that there was absolutely nothing he could do to remedy that. Ludovica's support was invaluable to him. Since he couldn't mourn openly she was one of the few people who were there for him.

Eventually he came to terms with what had happened and learned to live with it, and even though he slowly regained his good-humoured personality, he never fully recovered back to his previous self.

[color-palettes]

I know the color palettes are user submitted, but do you have any standards for them or anything? Because some of these are ugly as hell.

the standards are in the template and format. i think 'ugly' palettes offer a lot of value in learning and experimentation. exercising your brain by working with unconventional color palettes or even just colors you don't normally use can be very helpful i think!

[fant-asm4]

rewatching orym’s visit with the wildmother and i’ve just gotta say that some of y’all really let your personal christian trauma get in the way of a beautiful, heartbreaking, terrifying scene

[txttletale]

about the "people are allowed to be cis" like i kind of get the optics & context but I do think it's important to recognize that a gender journey can end at the same place it started. Often-times it doesn't because the journey starts due to discomfort with one's gender but in my mind it's the same as questioning any other belief, it's good to do it even if you end up still holding that belief.

The 'problems' faced by cis people who have questioned their gender are not nearly as big as those experienced by trans people but it's still something that happens, particularly among people in trans communities. I think this idea also sort of intersects with the idea of people wanting representation, and the idea of somebody questioning their gender sort of implies they're going to be trans so then there can be disappointment.

Some of this is speculative, and i haven't seen the original post so maybe i'm missing something but your post really hit weird because it's not telling people they can be cis it's saying you can dip your foot in the pool of transgenderism and not go all the way in. Like obviously that's less urgent than people shooting at those in the pool but just dismissing it is kind of weird

people are told it is okay to be cis literally from the moment they are born. i dont want to be harsh but literally everything you're saying could be coming out of the mouth of a conversion therapist -- the current term used to sanitize conversion therapy in the UK is in fact "exploratory therapy". "well we shouldn't rush them into transness we should give them time to decide in case they're actually cis after all" is the #1 talking point undergirding the total annihilation of trans healthcare for young people in the UK. trans people are already told at every single step of the way that it's okay to change their minds and be cis. they are told this by parents and teachers and peers who say "it's just a phase". they are told this by media outlets panicking about """rapid-onset gender dysphoria""". they are told this over and over again by transohobic medical systems that tell them that they should think about whether maybe they're just autistic or gay or they need to have more sex. every single part of our brutally transphobic society is already screaming "IT'S OKAY TO JUST BE CIS" in everyone's ears every second they exist in it. there is never a need to add your voice to that chorus.

[gummi-ships]

Kingdom Hearts 3 - The Caribbean

[gay-otlc]

This is a take I've seen fairly often- that trans men & mascs only think they experience transandrophobia because they refuse to accept that what they're experiencing is misogyny.

It's also a completely ridiculous take. The fact that trans men/mascs are targeted by misogyny is a fundamental part of transandrophobia theory. Trans men/mascs, and others who regularly discuss transandrophobia, emphasize over and over again the ways in which trans men/mascs experience misogyny. For example, the idea that they are women and therefore are too stupid and brainwashed to be trusted about their genders, or the sense of entitlement to trans men/mascs' bodies (how dare you ruin your perfect breasts, how dare you transition in a way that makes you unable to carry children, how dare you not be the beautiful woman i want you to be).

In fact, the people who deny that trans men/mascs experience misogyny tend to be the same people who argue against the concept of transandrophobia. They insist that trans men receive male privilege, and in fact actually benefit from misogyny rather than suffer from it.

When trans men/mascs point the ways that they are affected by misogyny, they are accused of spreading TERF rhetoric (as though acknowledging the ways in which people who were assigned female at birth are oppressed automatically means you believe in "sex consciousness" and "afab unity" against anyone assigned male at birth"), or accused of implying that trans women aren't affected by misogyny (they absolutely are, the belief that trans men and women can't both be affected by misogyny stems from oppositional sexism)

All this to say: The people who talk about transandrophobia are well aware that trans men/mascs suffer from misogyny, and aren't denying this out of dysphoria or internalized misogyny- they aren't denying this at all. The people who deny that trans men/mascs suffer from misogyny are the people who believe transandrophobia doesn't exist.

And, transandrophobia isn't "just misogyny." Misogyny is a crucial component of transandrophobia- again, no one who talkes about transandrophobia is denying this- but not the only component.

Trans men/mascs being denied access to gynecological healthcare (that cis women are able to access) because they appear to be men, or have their gender legally changed to male isn't "just misogyny."

Trans men/mascs to losing their friends, support, and abuse and mental health resources when they come out and transition, or reach a point of being "too masculine," isn't "just misogyny".

The belief that going on testosterone will make trans men/mascs dangerous and violent, and the negative rhetoric about bottom surgery, isn't "just misogyny."

Being called a gender traitor and accused siding with the enemy and only transitioning to gain male privilege isn't "just misogyny."

Trans men/mascs being impregnated specifically as a method of forcing them to detransition isn't "just misogyny."

Choosing to use a women's bathroom (either due to safety concerns or transphobic laws) and being kicked out or assaulted for looking male isn't "just misogyny."

Trans men/mascs getting violently attacked because "if you want to be a man so bad, I'll beat you up like one" isn't "just misogyny."

People who talk about transandrophobia very much recognize that trans men/mascs experience misogyny (and are trying to get people who deny transandrophobia to recognize this as well), and there are aspects of transandrophobia that go beyond "just misogyny." Neither of these things contradict each other. In conclusion, "'transandrophobia' is just misogyny but transmascs don't want to admit it" is completely false all around, so I wish it wasn't such a commonly held belief.

[genderkoolaid]

i’ve been seeing that “nooo tboy mutual don’t reblog that transandrophobia post, there are so many other non-reactionary frameworks that you can use to understand your experiences” post go around (unfortunately from. a lot of my mutuals.)

and it’s really frustrating to me bc like. i would love to hear them!!! i would love to discuss different lenses of viewing the specific kind of oppression that transmascs face, i would love to learn about different perspectives!!

but so much of what’s out there either 1) doesn’t include us at all or 2) insists that our oppression isn’t anything more than transphobia, or that it’s just misdirected transmisogyny, or that it’s just transphobia and misogyny, but no discussion of how transphobia and misogyny interact to specifically impact transmascs. it just feels so disingenuous and dismissive because whenever we talk about our experiences, no matter what language we use, we’re shut down over and over and over again.

Godddd I saw that post the other day and could not help but roll my eyes. Saying there's "so many other frameworks" to use disregards a fundamental reason why this framework is being created in the first place: transmascs, across different ages and races and other variables, feeling silenced and absent in other models of society, even those claiming to be for trans-feminist. Like if you are trying to convince trans guys to not use the term transandrophobia maybe start by acknowledging the absence of proper frameworks to discuss the unique position of trans men & mascs. & you know damn well none of these people will acknowledge how every other iteration of "transandrophobia" ALSO got shut down for being Problematic™, including "isomisogyny" which was literally just misogyny with a prefix attached to assure cis women that we would never DARE to imply that transmascs might be oppressed by the same social force as them!

But that's the problem with people trying to make the discussion of anti transmasculinity palatable! They want to have a version of this discussion that isn't threatening at all to the deeply ingrained anti (trans)masculinity in queer spaces. Literally any criticism, no matter how lukewarm or carefully handled, is labeled "reactionary." After you get rid of everything that people hate about transandrophobia theory you are left with none of the things that make it valuable to transmascs + everyone else who benefits from this discussion.

[newnitz]

I came across a post today by tikkunolamresistance (yeah, that alone should tell you what you're in for) linking to an article from last year titled 'Jewish settlers stole my house. It's not my fault they're Jewish' by Mohammed El-Kurd. And I was just struck by the sheer lack of self-awareness or accountability in it. This is an excerpt from towards the end.

'Here is where I stand. There is a Jew who lives–by force—in half of my home in Jerusalem, and he does so by “divine decree.” Many others reside—by force—in Palestinian houses, while their owners linger in refugee camps. It isn’t my fault that they are Jewish. I have zero interest in memorizing or apologizing for centuries-old tropes created by Europeans, or in giving semantics more heft than they warrant, chiefly when millions of us confront real, tangible oppression, living behind cement walls, or under siege, or in exile, and living with woes too expansive to summarize. I’m tired of the impulse to preemptively distance myself from something of which I am not guilty, and particularly tired of the assumption that I’m inherently bigoted. I’m tired of the pearl-clutching pretense that should such animosity exist, its existence would be inexplicable and rootless. Most of all, I’m tired of the false equivalence between semantic violence and systemic violence.'

"Centuries-old tropes created by Europeans" and "real, tangible oppression". I mean...for fuck's sake. Zero acknowledgement of the fact that the Palestinians were active participants in the oppression of Jews alongside those Europeans. Nor that the only reason he thinks of Jews being oppressed as not a "real, tangible" thing, is because they were forced to militarize to fight off those who would attempt to repeat that oppression.

Not to mention many of these houses were actually stolen from Jews. Like they killed and displaced us in our own land for centuries.

[thethiefandtheairbender]

Had a good chat with my partner about it today that maybe let me put a finger on what's always bugged me about "we're here to fix canon" attitudes being so prevalent in fandom (especially in the past 10ish years) throughout my life. This is not to say there's never a time or place for that (I've written fix its myself, or the occasional meta on how something could be fixed/improved) or that people are wrong to (we're anti fandom policing). It's also not an issue to me on the basis of "I love my blorbo in canon and fandom mischaracterizes them in the name of 'fixing' them" etc as it is just... coming from a fundamentally different perspective for story analysis / interaction than most (not all) people in fandom, I think.

One of the reasons I enjoyed getting my English degree was because I was finally being encouraged to and taught in alignment with what my brain had always be inclined to do: you always assume that there's a reason, and a good reason, for the story to do whatever it's doing. It assumes that the story is already exactly what it is supposed to be as it is supposed to be, and it's up to you to find the reasons Why.

The story was boring, or made you feel uncomfortable/bad, or you couldn't root for a character or relationship? All of that, at least at the beginning, doesn't really Matter. You assume that the story is paced fine, you assume the discomfort was intentional or part of something broader (historical shit that hasn't aged well) or that the dichotomy of "I feel invested or not invested" isn't useful. And in doing so, you replace all that with asking why.

An example I'll use is 1984 by George Orwell. I read that book in high school and I fucking hated it. Normally, I like the protagonist the most in anything I watch/read, but in that book, I loathed both the two leads and were actively rooting for them to be captured and tortured so the book could end faster; it was an actively miserable affair. I don't think that was necessarily the author's intention (certain amount of death of the author is baked in, but for a lot of the texts I was reading, we didn't even know the author or anything substantial about them, i.e. Beowulf) but, more importantly, I don't think any of those things are Flaws or downsides in the text.

Part of this is because 1984 is a dystopian novel (if a romcom book breaks genre convention that badly where you're miserable reading it, yeah, maybe something went wrong, but more on that in a minute) but even then it doesn't really matter on the basis of genre; I'm sure some people read 1984 and felt fascinated/excited while reading.

Rather, the focus becomes: what do I find so unlikeable about the protagonists? Why would they be written that way (on purpose)? What does it say about the society they live in? What does it say about their characterization, social stratification, etc etc? If a character does something that I think is non-sensical, why? Have I missed something? Should I watch retrospectively for clues? Is there another way to engage and to understand? Is what I label as confusion potentially a, or the, Point?

It is only after finding the reasons, and/or finding them unsuitable, that I let my subjective feelings into play. While a story can have great merit on the basis of relatability, relatability or "this aligns with my worldview / expectations / desires / etc." is not the be-all end-all of discerning quality

For example, I'm never going to be a fan of Jane and Rochester (she's 18, he's her 40 year old employer who routinely lies to her) but there are reasons, Good reasons, they get together in Jane Eyre (a book so subjectively boring I struggled through it twice) in response to both when the book was written and with the book's themes / symbols / their characterization. If they didn't end up together, it would be a fundamentally different story; it would not be Jane Eyre. So objectively, it's fine and an understandably massive influence on the western literary canon; subjectively, it's so fucking bad and I'm so glad I never have to read it again. But if I stopped there with my lack of interest or dislike of the main romance, I'd be missing out on what the text has to offer as well, the text.

This applies to more modern day stuff as well. I don't like Double Trouble from SheRa as nonbinary representation, and I'm nonbinary myself; however, I can acknowledge that the things I don't like about them were probably simultaneously empowering and exactly what the author (who is also nonbinary) wanted to be per his own experience of gender. Having a "I assume the text is right" mindset means that I can hold space for my own feelings/analysis (i.e. I also did not like Catra's arc, as I think she needed to learn other things / be written under a different lens) while holding space for the text as is (under the canonical lens of Catra learning it's never too late to be saved, I think her arc is conclusive and well done). And these two viewpoints aren't fundamentally opposed, but can coexist as analytical soup, being equally true / having equal value under the subjective (my view) and more 'objective' (the canon text's construction, or what I / the scholarly consensus, if it exists, believes it to be, anyway) at the same time.

Again, none of this is to say that you can't take issue with a canon text, or want to change something. I remember one time I was watching a show where their refusal to explore a romantic relationship between the female lead and her guy best friend was actively making the show worse; I understood their reasonings of wanting to put them with other people to explore their relationships, and wanting to emphasize a male-female friendship at the core of the story, and I still wanted them to put the two together as a Ship instead for various reasons. But that doesn't mean my line of thinking would've been Objectively Better—assuming if they had been paired together would've been executed in the manner I'd enjoy, or that them being paired with other people couldn't have been executed in ways I would've enjoyed more—merely that I likely would've enjoyed the series more per my own subjective preferences.

What I see in fandom sometimes is that people, understandably, aren't approaching at the start from a "the story always has a good reason" as much as they are speed-running from a "this didn't make sense to me or felt bad/off" and maybe examining why (which is supremely useful!) but not going back to examine the other side of the coin as to why the story would do it anyway.

Because sometimes the story—or a part of a story—is still 'bad' to us. It's just worthwhile to look at why it's 'good,' too.

[stil-lindigo]

How will calling in sick for a week help Palestine?

hi anon. the crux of the global strike is the fact that Palestine's genocide, at the hands of the UK and the US and Australia and a host of other countries, is funded by taxpayer money. disrupting the economy for an extended amount of time that isn't simply limited to one day pressures the people in charge to acknowledge civil unrest in their homecountries.

I understand that people still have bills to pay that won't magically go away for a global strike, but there are many of us who are in privileged enough positions where we can afford to cut out unnecessary spending and minimise hours worked. this would overall be a stronger movement if the world was significantly more unionised, but that unfortunately isn't the case and we'll have to make do with the resources we currently have.

[erinwantstowrite]

got bored and had lof on my my mind here are my humble offerings:

this SENT me i love the henry danger memes 😭

[miquellah]

shadow of the erdtree lore and characterization is so fucking good when u dont have someone in ur ear saying it sucks