#i might start doing that with the more contentious topics | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

transmutationisms · 1 year ago

Note

how do i know what’s right?

i feel like i have zero critical thinking skills ;-;

a lot of the time when someone poses an idea or a theory they think they’re right, and so they use language that enforces that. but then someone refutes it, and uses language affirming what they believe and i see the point in their argument. and then it gets refuted again and again and again and im just confused.

hi great question. i would love it if there were a single easy litmus test to figure out who's 'right' and whose info i should trust! unfortunately things are rarely this easy, and it's actually completely normal to be overwhelmed by the amount of information being produced and shared, especially when it comes to topics you haven't researched/lived/etc. for most of us, this will be most topics!

i'd preface this by saying that i think your overall attitude here is actually a good one. you're framing it in a pretty self-deprecating way—but actually, imo this type of openness to discussion and disagreement is a really good place to start, esp when dealing with topics that are new to you. nobody enters a contentious debate with a fully fledged, defensible viewpoint. you might feel like you're just treading water here, making no progress toward being able to evaluate arguments for yourself, but i highly doubt that's true.

all of that said: while i again cannot give you a single litmus test for figuring out what's 'right', there are four pretty basic sets of questions that i automatically run through when encountering a new idea, source, topic, or argument: we can call these origin, purpose, value, and limitations.

origin: who's the author? do they have any institutional affiliations? who pays their salary? is this argument or paper funded in any way? is the argument dependent upon the author's social position or status (race, class, etc) and if so, are those factors being discussed clearly? does the author have ties to a particular nation-state or stakes in defending such a nation-state? what's the class character of the author and the argument? what's the social, economic, and intellectual context that gave rise to this argument or source?

purpose: why is this source or person disseminating this information or making this argument? are they trying to sell you anything? are their funders? are they trying to persuade you of a particular political viewpoint? keeping in mind the answers to the 'origin' questions, are there particular ideological positions you would expect to find in this source or argument, and are they present? what are the stakes for the author or source? what about for those who cite the source or further disseminate or publish it?

value: what does this source or argument accomplish well? what aspects of the argument are new to you and strike you as insightful? are there linkages being made that you haven't encountered elsewhere, and that you think are effectively and sufficiently defended? are there statistics or empirical data that might be useful to you in forming your own argument, even if you disagree with how this source or author is interpreting them? what does this argument or source tell you about the types of debates being had, and the rules of those debates?

limitations: where does this argument or source fail you or fall apart? are there obvious rhetorical fallacies you can identify? is the author forgetting or overlooking some piece of information that you know of from elsewhere? which viewpoints may be omitted? keeping in mind the answers to the 'purpose' questions, if this source is defending a particular ideology or political position, is that one you agree with? is it only defensible so long as the author omits or distorts certain pieces of information? are there points where the argument jumps from evidence to a conclusion that the evidence can't fully support? are there alternative explanations for the evidence?

over time you will often find that it becomes more and more automatic to ask yourself these questions. you will also find that the more you read/hear about a particular topic, the faster you can determine whether someone is presenting all of the evidence, presenting it fairly, and using it to fully defend the argument they ultimately want to make. and you will probably also find that at some point, you're able to synthesise your own argument by pulling the strong parts from multiple other people's viewpoints, combining them with your own thinking, and fitting them together in a way that adequately explains and materially analyses the issue at hand.

#sry if this feels kind of abstract lol fight between specificity and applicability #lit and literacy

2K notes · View notes

throw-down-enjoyer · 4 months ago

Text

Organ donation, compassion fatigue, and Japanese perspectives on brain death

I don’t think Shidou’s sin was actually a crime (as in, it was perfectly legal) and I’m going to explain why. This is essentially a very long Kirisaki Shidou Is Not An Organ Harvester post

To start: Shidou’s sin was convincing the families of braindead patients to donate their relatives’ organs. He confirms doing this in his T2 voice drama, and the way he words it makes it clear he thinks of it as murder. (He does say that this is only half of his sin, but we’ll get to the other half later.)

You know, I… continuously tried to persuade the relatives of braindead patients who were against organ transplants.

“In order to save the life of someone you don’t know, please let me kill your family member,” I told them.

It doesn’t even take much thinking to realize how cruel that is, but… I didn’t realize that until the very end.

Translation used: https://youtu.be/9xmokVJ-6x4?si=VgcIp5LCdNnUwqUW

Brain death is the irreversible, complete loss of brain function, meaning there’s no chance for a braindead patient to ever come back. Because of this, some people may feel that removing life support from a braindead patient doesn’t constitute murder. It definitely doesn’t constitute murder from a legal perspective, but it makes sense why someone might think of it as murder— especially in Japan.

Japanese perspectives on brain death

In evaluating Shidou’s case, we have to consider the cultural context within which it was written. Many people in Japan do not consider brain death as human death, and brain death cannot be declared without consent from the family and the intention to donate organs. In fact, braindead patients are not removed from life support until their heart stops beating. Shidou isn’t being dramatic when he frames his words as basically saying, “please let me kill your family member.”

Brain death is a very contentious topic in Japan—Doctors are put under scrutiny for declaring brain death and performing organ transplants. It’s important to know that in Japan, brain death only exists in relation to organ transplants. And only certain designated hospitals will do this. Even more so, if a person writes an advance directive asking to be taken off of life support in the case of brain death, doctors are not required to follow it. And many of them don’t, out of fear of the patient’s family lashing out at them.

Only in 2010 was Japan’s Organ Transplant Law revised so that organ transplants could be performed without prior consent from the brain dead patient (now only requiring consent from the family).

Here’s a couple of scholarly articles on the topic if you’d like to read more about it.

https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs12910-021-00626-2

https://doi.org/10.1353/nib.2022.0019

Another very important facet of this discussion is how low organ donation rates are in Japan. To give you an idea, here’s a chart showing the per million population of donations after brain death (DBD) and donations after cardiac death (DCD) in a few different countries.

Sourced from this article, which has some other interesting statistics as well: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tpr.2023.100131

As you can see, Japan’s rates are astronomically low in comparison to other countries. This helps to contextualize why Shidou had to try so hard to persuade families to donate, and why he later became extremely desperate when his wife’s life was on the line.

I’ve seen a lot of people confused about Shidou’s crime, and many speculations about him doing heinous things such as organ harvesting or purposefully botching surgeries—but I think this is because we’re approaching the case with a western perspective. As we know, many (if not all) of the Milgram prisoners represent a controversial social issue. Brain death is not nearly as divisive in western medicine as it is in Japan, so it’s easy to overlook the idea that all Shidou actually did was take organs from braindead patients. Perspectives on brain death in Japan have changed a lot in the past couple of decades, but it’s still quite controversial; because of this, I truly believe that this is the point of contention behind Shidou’s case, and there’s nothing more sinister secretly going on.

Compassion fatigue

Compassion fatigue is commonly thought to be the manifestation of secondary traumatic stress and burnout, caused by caring for others who are in stressful situations. This commonly affects people who work in healthcare.

I believe Shidou experienced compassion fatigue from working in the hospital, as he exhibits some of the symptoms—in particular, a reduced sense of empathy and a detachment from others.

I feel that Throw Down makes a lot of sense when you view it from this angle.

Lyrical analysis on Throw Down

Shidou expresses that he no longer remembers what it feels like to take away in order to give.

Pomegranates represent death in Greek mythology, and I believe that’s what they represent here too. Shidou has become desensitized to death; the pomegranate no longer has any flavor.

If it’s not needed, I’m not interested

Shidou only thought about what was physically necessary to keep a patient alive, and remained emotionally distant.

They’re dead either way, so it doesn’t really matter to him.

Now slowly close your eye, put your regret on display

Wish for being there for someone

With the same expression no matter who comes

This is the part that most makes me think of compassion fatigue—Shidou had difficulty expressing empathy for grieving families and had to fake it.

I don’t feel scared because I don’t know

Shidou didn’t understand what it was like to be in that situation. But now that it’s happened to him… he understands. And, looking back, he understands how unkind he had been about all of it. This is why he considers himself to be a murderer, why he truly believes that he has killed many people.

Ethics is a delusion

This is a line that definitely struck me as odd for awhile, but I think it makes sense in the context of his situation. His sin was not illegal—but is it ethical? That’s what all of this—whether you forgive him or not—hinges on.

The other half of Shidou’s sin

Going back to what I said earlier, Shidou’s sin wasn’t only convincing families to donate their relatives’ organs. His sin is also transplanting his son’s organs in an attempt to save his wife.

I believe that Shidou’s family got into a car accident, which resulted in his older child experiencing brain death and his wife being left in critical condition (and the younger child presumably died immediately). Considering the views surrounding brain death in Japan, it would have been difficult to find a donor, so Shidou became desperate enough to transplant his son’s organs. Since he’s the father, there wouldn’t have been any issues with receiving consent for the transplant.

Some people believe it’s the other way around—that he transplanted his wife’s organs into his son—but I believe otherwise, for multiple reasons.

In Shidou’s T1 voice drama, he expresses relief at the fact that his judgment is being determined by Es, who is a child. This makes sense if he feels that he killed his son.

Instead of being told by the law that I won’t be forgiven, I wanted a child like you, Es, to tell me that.

I feel sorry that you had to be given this role. And, I truly apologize for being so insistent about sentencing me to death as well… But, you’re perfect. You’ll give me the ending I’m most suited for.

Translation used: https://youtu.be/C4MiQ3V3YjQ?si=hPmlUkc6BfdcacNg

Additionally, a few scenes in Triage…

As stated before, I interpret the pomegranates to represent death. Shidou brings home three pomegranates, one for each of his family members. He later hands his son a price tag from the pomegranates—a representation of Shidou sentencing him to death.

And at the end of Throw Down, an organ tag falls out of the flower person. The name seems to read “Rei Kirisaki” and has XY marked, probably indicating that the donor is male.

Not to mention, it’s much more plausible for the flower person to represent Shidou’s wife rather than his son. When the person falls apart, there’s a shot of a red rose—the flower most known for representing romantic love—falling out of them.

Final thoughts and conclusion

To summarize: Shidou used to routinely try to persuade the families of braindead patients to donate their relatives’ organs. Despite that the prevailing thought in Japan is that brain death is not human death, Shidou did not think of it this way.

Shidou’s family later got into an accident; he transplanted his braindead son’s organs in an attempt to save his wife, but it was a failure, resulting in her death. This situation made him reflect on his past actions—he did not consider it murder before to discontinue life support on a patient, but now that he did it to his son, his perspective has changed. Everything he has done is within the confines of the law, but he is now burdened with immense guilt and thinks himself a murderer. Not just in regards to his son, but to all of the patients that he had pulled the plug on.

Side note: I don’t think having low empathy is inherently a bad thing (I have naturally low empathy), but in this context it would make sense for Shidou to feel bad about lacking empathy.

Side note 2: Shidou is a surgeon, so it is entirely possible he personally performed the transplant on his wife. Operating on family members isn’t illegal or anything, but is widely considered to be unethical and not really a good idea.

Well, that’s all I had to say—Feel free to either add on to this theory or debate me on it. This post ended up quite long, so thank you for reading!

#Milgram #Kirisaki Shidou #Shidou Kirisaki #theory #analysis #long post #vi posts

181 notes · View notes

writingwithcolor · 1 year ago

Text

Running Commentary: What is “ok to do” in Mixed-Culture Supernatural Fiction?

Dear readers:

Today we are trying something new. To give you some insight into our process in the Japanese moderator section, we are presenting our response in the form of running commentary to show you how we dissect and answer long asks. We hope this makes clear what points are useful and not useful when sending us a query. As always, this is for learning purposes, not callouts. Be prepared: this is a long one.

To summarize: the asker is looking to create a comic drawn in Japanese manga style, and has provided a long summary of the story and worldbuilding which involves a mix of “reimagined” Japanese yokai mythos and cultural symbols from many other sources. They have questions with respect to cultural appropriation, coding etiquette, and “what is and isn’t ok.”

Opening Comments

I know a common advice when it comes to the thing I am about to ask is to talk to people involved in __, but I struggle with opening up to strangers for reasons I'm uncomfortable explaining.

Marika (M): This is already a red flag. If you want to engage with another culture without talking to people from that culture, then research is going to be very challenging. You won’t have members of that culture to guide you towards sources and perspectives they feel most accurately represents public opinion. If I were in your shoes, I might start with tackling my discomfort when engaging with other people, if only to improve my work. If you aren’t ready to engage with a culture and its people directly, then I think you should wait until you are.

I should note, reaching out to the Japanese mod team at WWC does count as engagement, but WWC should not and cannot be the only point of contact because there is no single, legitimate cultural perspective.

Rina (R): Also, you don’t need to “open up” to strangers or talk to them in person to get perspectives. Asking specific research questions anonymously to a forum or on social media requires very little vulnerability. You managed to do it here on WWC. So give it a try!

Anyway, my question basically amounts to the what is and isn't ok [sic] in terms of depicting fantasy creatures and concepts outside of their respective culture.

R: So, the reason why we turn away rubber stamp questions by that ask “is XYZ okay?” is because “okay” & “not okay” 1) is vague and 2) creates a dichotomy where there isn’t one.

When we say something is “not okay,” do we mean:

It’s offensive to the general majority of XYZ group?

It’s contentious among people who ID in the group?

It has a potential to be interpreted in a certain negative way, but may not be a red flag to everyone?

Insetad try asking:

What are the reasons this subject is offensive?

What makes cultural appropriation bad?

When might it be “okay” to intentionally discuss a difficult or controversial topic?

What is your reason for including something that may be interpreted as offensive and can it be sufficiently justified?

What stereotypes or tropes might it be consistently identified as or associated with, and why?

When might it be justified to bring up these tropes?

With That In Mind...

Let’s get into the rest of the ask below.

…a story I've been working on in recent times is largely inspired off the Japanese yokai, and the setting is basically Earth in the far future, as far as when the next supercontinent may form. These yokai, although portrayed differently here, do retain their main characteristics [...] Included in this world are two goddesses of my own creation, primarily representing the sun and the moon. [...] There will be thirteen nations, named and based after the Chinese Zodiac, and the life force found in the living things in this world, called qi, comes in two forms that are always opposing each other but can never fully overpower the other, this being based off yin and yang. They're even directly named this; yin qi and yang qi.

M: This reads more like using Japanese and Chinese culture for the “aesthetics”, not the cultures themselves, which I personally feel falls under cultural appropriation. From a world-building/ coding standpoint, the actual use of concepts is workable, and, dare I say, typical, given how Chinese cosmology influences Japanese culture. However, naming a concept “yin qi” or “yang qi” is the equivalent of naming something “- charge” or “+ charge”, respectively. That you don’t seem aware of this tells me you are pretty early in your research phase. In that vein, we’ve covered translating terms and names from foreign languages in fantasy before. See the following article linked here for our recommendation against using RL terms outright but instead encouraging people to create their own conlangs.

R: Worldbuilding-wise, I think you would have to figure out the chicken-or-egg of the zodiac nations. Did the nations come first, and the zodiac later as an origin folk story (which you would have to rewrite to serve the nation-building narrative)? Did the zodiac come first, and the nations named (most likely re-named) by a political entity? What is the justification? Otherwise, again, it’s a shoehorning of aesthetics.

There is also a third, lesser known god based off of fox spirits and trickery and I imagined he's the patron deity of a family that honors and worships him, but his influence on them has transformed them into Kitsune-tsuki, which I depict as fox-like anthros.

M: Not related to this ask directly, but I have jokingly ranted about how often non-Japanese people prefer using imagery related to kitsune-tsuki in Japanese coded world-building (link). This makes me feel the same level of petty irritation. See my troll answer below for a similar experience.

R: Same. It’s boring tbh.

M: Troll Answer: I get that kitsune-tsuki are very sexy furries, but Japanese folklore has other sexy furries too! These underrepresented demographics also deserve recognition and appreciation!!

The plot of the story is this; modernization has left the goddesses neglected of their worship and forgotten, something that is necessary in this world to stop them from fighting each other. The Moon Goddess awakens first, punishing the humans by unleashing the yokai. Then the Sun Goddess wakes up to fight in humanity's defense…

M: This could feel rather like Shinto-like coding (Ex. the myth of Amaterasu and the Cave, or Tsukuyomi slaying Ukemochi), but something about this scenario feels a bit too binary in terms of themes of good v. evil, light v. dark to be Shinto. The plot also feels more Gaelic/ Nordic in influence for me as a person raised in a Japanese Buddhist and Hindu household. I imagine this dissonance could have been fixed with better guided research.

…but their fighting has caused a perma-eclipse and this world is in danger of ending. The yokai have run rampant; some are loyal to the Moon Goddess, and some aren't, and it lies to the main characters to bring balance back to Midgard. Yeah... the name of this future Earth is Midgard. I debate changing it since it and some other things I will mention sorta feel out of place.

R: Marika, looks like you were right on the Gaelic/Nordic influence /j

Also, worldbuilding question: if the Earth is in the far geologic future, how long has it been since modernization (19th-20th century)? Centuries? Millennia? How long has this fighting gone on for? What triggered the perma-eclipse, and why now? Why is this time depth necessary?

One of the main characters in question is a humanoid woman with wolf features named Ling, and she is a descendant of the dynasty that had first ruled the one of the nations, particularly the one based off the dragon zodiac. She accidentally summons the other main character to this world as she's praying at a shrine, a humanoid with dragon features--I call them drakon--named Angelynn.

[on the names of characters] is it appropriating by not having the world entirely based on [Chinese, Japanese, and Indian] influence? it's a little weird to me how worldwide the creatures are referred to as yokai, implying a strong Japanese influence not unlike how it is today with Western culture being so dominant, yet there are still names like Keith and Kiara.

M: I will give you credit for recognizing you have unconsciously veered towards white-washing/ race-bending: either presenting European cultural influences (drakons, Angelynn, Keith, Kiara, Midgard) as default or utilizing general E. Asian cultural influences and aesthetics for a Western-style story (Ling, qi, Chinese zodiac, yokai). I agree with you that this creates a sense of cultural dissonance. At this point, I’d say you have a clear choice: write a Western-style high fantasy using a background with which you have more familiarity, or get some better guidance on research with East Asian cultures so you can code the story more effectively.

The focus of this story is centered around meeting all these yokai and showing that there's more nuance to them than Ling believes, all while saving the world. But I worry if I'm appropriating these concepts and creatures by 1, drawing from more than one culture--I initially imagined that there would be a mix of Chinese, Japanese and Indian influence because according to a website I am getting the info on yokai from, the yokai in question already draw inspiration from or have been based on something in Chinese mythology or Hinduism [...]

R: Sure, some yokai have Chinese or Hindu parallels as that tends to happen with folk tales. But not all–some are unique to Japan, and some are more modern. Sometimes it’s very political–some people consider the Ainu Korpokkur as being a “Yokai of Japan” despite it belonging to the indigenous culture. It’s up to you to research, untangle, and understand these influences.

The fact that you bring up that the Asian continent has seen a lot of cultural exchange is not a sufficient reason to randomly combine influences for the sake of visual appeal or “coolness.” That is appropriation. These influences must be understood in their historical context so that you know how/why certain things combined or morphed into another, and what makes sense to combine/morph.

M: This also indicates that the character views the yokai as evil/inherently bad, which I would argue is not a typical stance for much Japanese folklore. Again, this shows a deficit in research.

2, reimagining these yokai in a new context even though I have done the research on them, because one thing I kept seeing in regards to cultural appropriation is that it's bad to do that […]

R: Refer above to my note on “okay” and “not okay.” The thing with folklore and fairy tales is that every–and I mean every–folk tale is reinterpreted with every new iteration of it. Reimagining in a new context is what people do every time they pass on a story or tell a story with the same plot or characters. Do not think of folklore as an “original” that is altered and rebooted, but rather a living document that gets added to. Reimagining is not the inherent issue. HOW you reimagine something matters.

So I suppose my question is...if someone were to do research upon the creature they want to use, given they are allowed to use it, and gained an understanding of what the creature or concept stood for, are they allowed to pick it apart and reimagine it? Alternatively, is it ok if it's explicitly pointed out that it is derivative of the original?

It has actually become my biggest fear that I may have internalized something that could both continue to do harm long after the fact and attract the wrong people to me work. I don't wanna let people down!

M: As Rina has noted several times, I think the problem is in trying to ID a set of specific variables and circumstances that make a thing “okay” or “not okay.” I want to recommend that you read my joking response about writing in secret rooms while wearing a disguise (Linked here). Who can you hurt if no one knows what you are doing? There’s a difference between creating for oneself and creating to share.

You have internalized a message incorrectly, but not the one you cite. The goal of many recommendations against cultural appropriation is to avoid causing direct harm to people who have seen their cultures demeaned, discredited and devalued, especially in shared spaces. Assessing cultural engagement, whether we are talking about appropriation, appreciation or exchange is not a measure of personal virtue or a collection of commandment style do’s and don’t’s. Rather, I believe engaging with other cultures is the state of mind of acknowledging that when using these cultures’ in one’s own work, there is value in consulting members of that culture and giving credit where credit is due. This will be challenging if you are only comfortable engaging with all of these cultures in a distanced, minimal capacity.

FWIW, I’ve written stories that probably will offend people from other cultures and backgrounds, but I don’t show them off. I don’t think writing these makes me a bad person, but I also don’t see the need to give unnecessary offense, so those stories are just for me, to be written and read in my own secret room. However, I’m not ashamed of having written them, and I’m also comfortable to “let people down” provided that my own shared work reflects my personal principles of what I consider to be sufficient research and engagement with other cultures, As a creator, my work wouldn’t be mine if I didn’t first please myself. I think the trick to the creator role is deciding what to keep private, what to share and what constitutes sufficient engagement.

P.S.

We’ve referenced the need for research multiple times in this ask, and in some of the other asks that have gone up this week, so we thought this would be a good place to plug a beginner’s guide to academic research created by the mod team.. Look for it soon under WWC’s pinned posts!

#japanese #chinese #fantasy #cultural appropriation #coding #worldbuilding #names #mythology #folklore #fairy tales #asks #running commentary #writeblr

600 notes · View notes

blubberquark · 2 months ago

Text

Worse than Trolls: Engagement Optimisers, Tourists, Socialisers, and Enablers

As I previously explained, most online content moderation falls under I-know-it-when-I-see-it. There is very little else to say. People know spam when they see it, and I don't need to define what spam is. Spammers know they are spamming, and are unable and thankfully unwilling to argue your moderation decisions.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are ever so slightly corrosive behaviours than can destabilise an online community in the long term, often without the perpetrators knowing it, or at least without bad faith, without ill intent.

Engagement Optimisers

Users naturally optimise engagement by responding to feedback. When posting memes and cat pictures is rewarded, users post more cat pictures. When posting memes is rewarded, users post more memes.

If your users start to do this on purpose, you might have a problem. For example, somebody might notice that clickbait titles lead to more click-through in forum threads. The people who give their threads vague and mysterious titles get more replies. The people who add a call to action to their OP get more replies: Please share your opinions in the comments below. The people who ask broad, open-ended and opinion-based questions are more likely to get more replies: What programming language should I learn?

If somebody says something contentious or inflammatory by accident, that's fine. You morally can't fault them for sincerely held beliefs or misconceptions, or for soliciting a broader base of opinion. Only when done on purpose, and systematically, it becomes dangerous.

You may end up with a situation where power users learn to play the game and play it better and better, at least better than most users. This can give the people who learned to game the system outsized influence, even when there is no algorithm or karma or no way to spend the karma, because they gain more mindshare and notoriety.

You may also experience a systemic change, because many or most users catch on, and start modifying their behaviour and post different content in order to get noticed.

Still there is the possibility that your users, through group dynamics nobody is consciously exploiting, reward and promote mostly cat pictures and stupid puns, even though no individual user comes to your forum for stupid puns and cat pictures.

Early on in the history of Reddit, this was recognised as a major problem. You could farm upvotes by posting something like "DAE eat chocolate ice cream?", "Upvote if you're going to vote for Ron Paul", or "Linux sucks! There are no good text editors!"

Reddit tried to curb this, somewhat unsuccessfully at first, then more successfully, but in the long run, they lost the battle against their own user base and entropy itself.

Compare this with YouTube, where a call to action is not just allowed, but encouraged by YouTube itself. It's regularly part of the latest set of official tips for creators to grow their audiences. YouTubers thus say "What are your opinions on this topic? Let me know in the comments below!" or "Please like and subscribe".

Tourists

Tourists come in to make drive-by comments in flame war threads. Tourists google a question, find your forum, post a single question, and leave forever when they get the right answer. Tourists come in from Reddit. Tourists don't play the game. Tourists don't read the forum. Tourists don't read the FAQ.

You can't really punish people for coming to your site or channel and making their first comment. I mean, you can, but then they will definitely not come back.

Churn is bad. Tourists are churn personified. If most content comes from tourists, then your community culture is defined by tourists. You lose the ability to shape the culture of your site. It's easy to deter tourists, but it's hard to do so without also deterring people who would otherwise have become proper contributors or community members.

If somebody joins your web site, doesn't read the rules, doesn't read the FAQ, creates more work for the moderators, and is a minor annoyance to the established users without ever rising to the level of a serious rule violation, it's easy for that person to say "We all have to start somewhere" or "You'll never attract new people if you keep enforcing the rules like that."

If you have rules about cross-posting or proper spelling and punctuation, you have to be firm. You cannot retreat every time somebody who hasn't read the rules asks "Why are you so mean to me?"

On the other hand, I remember multiple times when I hopped in an IRC to ask a question like "Is this a known bug? Should I wait for the next release?" or "Does anybody want to collaborate on a game jam next month? Is anybody considering joining Ludum Dare?" only to be told "We don't accept bug reports in here. Bug reports need to be entered into bugzilla in the proper format." or "Please post job postings in the jobs channel only!"

Socialisers

Socialisers talk about off-topic stuff only. They hang out in the off-topic board or channel, and they tell everybody about their youngest child, their morning commute, or the story of how they met their spouse. Socialisers rarely engage with the actual main topic of the community, but everybody knows them, because they post a lot of off-topic content.

As long as socialisers know that the forum is about, and know their stuff, it's fine. The guy whose youngest son just got into middle school and who met his wife when they both reached for the last bottle of herbal shampoo at the supermarket isn't really disrupting your anime forum as long as he watches anime. If he could comment about the different animation studios that worked on Sailor Moon, but chooses not to, he's fine. The problem with socialisers only becomes noticeable when they attract socialisers who do not know or care anything about the on-topic content. If that happens, your forum is no longer a forum where some Haskell programmers post their lunch, it's a forum to post pictures of your lunch.

Enablers

Enablers are one step worse than socialisers. They don't just don't contribute on-topic content, they make the discussion actively worse. If you have a rule such as "do no post a maths homework question" or "do not answer personal questions" or "do not ask other people to answer your question in a DM", the enabler will happily comply anyway. "It's no skin off my back" he says, as he answers the homework question. "It's no skin off my back" he says, as he paraphrases the FAQ again. The enabler will make a good-faith effort to answer bad-faith questions, and he will enable people who just can't be bothered to read the FAQ and follow the rules.

Now there may be multiple reasons why you're not allowed to answer personal questions, ranging from OPSEC about pet names and the colour of your car to professionalism, and depending on those, this may be a big deal or not. When it comes to homework or answering in a DM, the reasoning should be straightforward.

The worst kind of enabling is probably taking abuse in stride, and continuing the conversation. If somebody starts insulting the other people in the conversation, the least you could do is disengage. If somebody calls people names because they can't solve his problem, you should not enable him and try to help him, too.

The most subtle kind of enabling behaviour is a response to Cunningham-style trolling. When somebody posts "Linux sucks, there are no good text editors", then the last thing you should do is reward this kind of behaviour. When somebody posts "I can't solve this in Python, I guess C++ is just a better language. I think I should go back and use C++", then you should say "Good riddance, and may the gods have mercy on the C++ forum."

The most common kind of enabling is when people ask a question and can't be bothered to Google it first, and somebody copies the question into Google it and pastes the answer. The long-term consequence of such behaviour is not only a degraded quality of the conversation, but a forum culture where people regularly Google answers (or worse, ask ChatGPT) and paste the result without checking.

Maybe in the future, something like "I asked ChatGPT this, is this true" or "Copilot wrote this code, can you help debug it" will become more common, and humouring these kinds of people will become the most common toxic enabling behaviour.

Drama Magnets/Troll Feeders

Finally, there is a kind of person who enables trolls and harassers by being thin-skinned, very easy to make fun of, and by boosting every insult. There is a certain kind of person who will just endlessly complain about being wronged in small ways, and will take offence to small perceived slights. This allows a malicious actor to get out much more in terms of reactions than he puts in. If a troll can poke somebody once, and get dozens of "Ow ow" and "he poked me" and "woe is me, I have been poked" out of a target, that will only motivate him.

If somebody freely volunteers his weak spots, things he is self-conscious about, ways to rile him up in the form of a profile, carrd, or bio, then trolls will have it even easier.

So What?

Over time, too many enablers, tourists, or drama magnets may or may not ruin your online community. Over time, engagement optimisers can slowly but steadily ruin your community. Socialisers may not notice or care either way.

A code of conduct may protect your community against bad actors, but it can't protect your forum culture from clueless actors. It's incredibly hard to create a good set of punitive rules against this. As a moderator, it's emotionally difficult to enforce rules against this. You don't want to kick people while they are down, and you don't want to punish them for making popular content, even if it's just pictures of kittens and pictures of their lunch.

The only way you can achieve anything is by educating your users, and hoping they give a damn about forum culture.

#community management

13 notes · View notes

pb-dot · 4 months ago

Text

Film Friday: Godzilla Minus One

I never quite know what to think about Godzilla. The big radioactive bastard has held about every possible point at the Hero - Antihero - Villain spectrum at one point in his storied career of going ham on Tokyo. More well-read minds than me could probably write some rather insightful stuff about what has motivated the various shifts that has seen Godzilla be both a terrifying metaphor for the atomic bomb and a friend to children fighting enemies of humankind together with his amazing growing robot friend (and accompanying jazzy soundtrack.) Me, I have no idea, and basically only perk up when someone does Horror Movie-ass Godzilla again, such as today's movie, the somewhat confusingly numerated Godzilla Minus One.

It may not come as an incredible surprise to those of us familiar with world history that Japan 1945 wasn't a great place to be. Failed kamikaze pilot, if not "lapsed" is the correct term, Koichi knows this more than most. Not only did he chicken out of blowing himself and a big, but not cripplingly big, chunk of American naval equipment to kingdom come, his stop over at a pacific repair station turns into quite the clusterfuck as a local Cryptid known as Godzilla comes a'stomping. It might be sparse consolation that it's nothing to the Plus Sizes Fuckamajig that arises when US nuclear weapon tests causes Godzilla to grow to Tokyo-smashing size, strength and proclivity. It's now up to Koichi and his rag-tag band of post-war minesweepers to come up with a solution, before something larger and more merciless than they could imagine takes from them everything they know and love... again.

If I can fault the movie for anything, it does feel like it pulls its punches a mite in the moral greyness inherent to the setup. I recognize that a factually honest depiction of the Rape of Nanjing or some of the other shit that went down in Manchuria and Korea maybe isn't quite the path you go down in your big Atomic Lizard Smash movie, although I am undeniably reminded of how Godzilla in GMK is a vessel for vengeful WW2 soldiers. It does, however, tint the experience ever so slightly that basically every male character is ex-military, and a honorable, if demoralized lot.

Look, I'm not one to dictate how a country looks back at its history, with warts or without, I can only own the thoughts and associations that pass through my own labyrinthine head, and as such I will prepare to do so. From the little I've read on the topic, honoring dead WW2 soldiers is somewhat of a contentious topic in Japan, with the right-wing political figures in particular making somewhat of a show of it, and a degree of war crime denialism such an action requires. Whether this is in deference to tradition or in an attempt to drum up support of Japan forming their own army or whatever myopic yearning for a prelapsarian past the semi- and full fascists are on about in that particular corner of the world, I am sure I don't know as I lack context.

In light of this political pricklyness, I suppose it's good that the little bit we see from the end of WW2 is in the Pacific Theater. If nothing else because I suspect that experience sucked way harder for Japanese troops than anything on the mainland (also this isn't to suggest there weren't atrocities committed in the pacific theater, as what little research I have done suggest this is quite far from the truth.) Similarly, I do like how the movie seems set on rebuking the "honorable warrior's death"-idea that fueled the kamikaze attacks on a thematic level, rebuking the whole idea as the cold-hearted attempt to maintain authoritarian might with streams of lives that need not end. It's not amazingly nuanced stuff, but I do enjoy the "It's trivially simple to die for something. Choosing to LIVE for something is harder" -vibe that does a good job at selling a baseline humanity to the whole thing, especially as protagonist Koichi starts wondering if doing a kamikaze run on Big G himself is how he should atone for his cowardice in war.

Anyway, prickly political subtext handled with as much care as I can manage, let's close the chapter on that and get to the man of the hour, big G himself. The various ways in which Godzilla has been portrayed through the year are varied and exciting, but I do like the -1 version an awful lot. He's huge, for one, any Emmerichian attempts at tuning down the sheer leviathan mass of Godzilla is discarded in favor of the shock and awe of a creature so massive that it just moving breaks shit around it. And his Atomic Breath? Oh wow. Care has been taken to make this most B Movie Schlock-y of his ability something beyond mere biology. His spines glow with atomic power as he charges up the devastating attack, and although I will concede it maybe oversells the point slightly as these spines pop out and lock in as some kind of futuristic over-animated space gun ready to, if you pardon the ancient meme, fire his lazer. In short, the classic "Godzilla destroys the city" stuff has never looked better, and while I do consider it a bit of fan service that is perhaps in some ways incongruous with the tone the movie's trying for, the original Godzilla soundtrack still sounds chilling over scenes of amphibian megaviolence.

Speaking briefly on the non-godzilla, non-warcrime part of the movie, the story finds its heart with Noriko, a young woman who invites herself into Koichi's life in a way that feels very Haruki Murakami to me. She moves in to the ruins of his house after some business with a child switch-a-roo, and Koichi very pointedly doesn't kick her out. It's a Schroedinger's Relationship of sorts that forms. To all appearances Noriko and Koichi are living what might pass for a post-war domestic family life, but they're not married, not together in a romantic sense, and the child they raise aren't related to either of them by blood. It's a clever little touch to, I think, mirror how Japan is also built back together from the disparate pieces that are left after the destruction of WW2. It's also a frustrating new level to "Oh come on stop trying to fake date her and date her" kind of thing, as Koichi, deep as he is in his PTSD and survivor's guilt, refuses to commit himself to this ramshackle family he's ended up with. It's frustrating not because Koichi is acting out of character or like a jerk, even if he's a bit of one if I'm honest, but because we the audience have empathy for his ailments and want to see him get better. While the road this subplot takes is a bit fraught, it does lead to a rather sweet and satisfying ending as Koichi finally sheds the guilt and allows himself to live and love again. What can I say? I love Creature Feature-centered therapy.

So in short? Give Godzilla Minus One a look. It's perhaps the closest match to the 1951 original in tone that I've seen, and it wields a bevy of modern cinematic techniques in its quest to have that giant lizard fuck up Tokyo for the first time, again. There's also a brief bit that feels a bit like Jaws if the shark was Megalodon-sized and also radioactive, and who among us doesn't want to see such a thing?

#film friday #godzilla minus one #godzilla #I should learn more Asian WW2 history #but that's another topic for another day

12 notes · View notes

eclipsemeteor · 9 months ago

Text

Commander Is Subjective

Magic's becoming a monster of a game, franchise, and corporate beast that's growing and changing beyond comprehension. And further within that scope, Commander is always a contentious hot button topic due to its more lofty, somewhat ambiguous, and vibes focused goals.

Opinions both online and offline span across the entirety of the format and game, and while you can find amicable discussions among friends and collaborators, you'll find the sheer difference from an enfranchised player vs a disconnected one to be head-spinning. Thus, people look for some sort of structure that's concrete and easy to follow to make this disconnect less disorienting. But what else can you do beyond the format's mission statements and ban list?

My name's Cole, I'm a host of the Hero's Blade Vibe Check Podcast and the former host of Uncommon Commander. Playing commander since 2012 or so has given me a lot of perspective and opinions on Magic, but mostly (exclusively) on Commander.

(Of course, this means you should take my opinions as a player and consumer with a grain of salt, but also keep an open mind because what I'm gonna talk about is not based on cold hard facts and statistics, it's solely vibes and feels based. It's how I operate.)

(Thanks Mark Rosewater for this lovely meme template. We will now run with it)

Commander/EDH exists everywhere: Gameplay videos, podcasts, written articles, tweets, Tiktoks and actual games you experience. In most situations, you're always gonna hear or have an opinion on an individual card, a commander, a strategy, a color/color combination, or even on a person, while also hearing about someone's opinion on something you enjoy.

Commander at its core is about creative expression via deck building, how you bling out or customize your decks visual appearance and socialization! With 27,349 unique cards as of this posting (and excluding the ban list), there are many different permutations for self-expression.

(for example, I'm a big believer in Odric Blood-Cursed, and this is the deck that I've been tuning for 2 years. I've had a lot of fun with it, and have made heads turn)

With that many different ways to build a deck, you're bound to run into things you don't like, and sometimes they're not quantifiable.

The reason for this article, and no doubt others have discussed this at length and much better than I, is that Commander is first and foremost a social experience. It's meant for multiplayer, it's Singleton, and the only stakes are what you make. You start adding quantifiable or monetary incentives, you take away the spirit of Commander. If you make a narrower or broader ban list, you take away from the spirit of Commander. You try to enforce or advocate for a separate ban list, rules committee, etc?

You're right, you take away from the spirit of Commander.

What you make Commander is up to you, but it can't be what it's been for people since its inception without participating with other players. You can goldfish all day, but Magic doesn't exist without the Gathering. That means compromise, healthy discussion, an open mind and heart, and a line in the sand to say when an experience isn't for you. We can sit and discuss how social bans make no sense, so why doesn't the Rules Committee ban mass land destruction? Why does Sol Ring get a pass while Mana Vault doesn't?

At the end of the day, despite how we may socially desire structure, hard enforcement of rules might make this beloved format lose its luster. Looking at it with a finite perspective will deny you opportunities for growth and expansion. Looking at Universes Beyond as only a cash grab will deny you the ridiculousness of having a table consisting of Optimus Prime, Gandalf, Chun-Li and Cloud Strife, but also the well designed cards made with care by people.

None of this would exist without people making the cards, illustrating these stories, characters and landscapes. People who made the rules, people who made this format, and the people who sit down and play this format.

People, like you or I, who are flawed, and have expectations and choices that are different than what we want as individuals. They may be people you respect, you admire. They might be people you love, hate, or feel indifferent about. But they are still people who make this game work.

To like everyone you encounter would be a ridiculous ask, but I ask that you give people a chance when you can allow yourself, and know it's ok if you don't. But I think most people are a lot cooler than you think, if given the chance.

Whether you're as enfranchised as I am, or more or less so, what you owe yourself and the others you play with is a genuine enthusiasm for playing and engaging the format. Take chances where you can engage with new people, be patient as new cards enter your view, and try to find and foster friendships so that the next time, the games are even better when you learn about this game better through the lens of friendship and the Gathering.

Keep an open mind! Be excellent to each other.

#mtg #magic the gathering #edh #commander #magic: the gathering #writing #article

11 notes · View notes

taylortruther · 2 months ago

Note

Hi Rae, I need advice!

Context: Have a close friend who is going through a lot (terrible job/bad flatmates/no tight social circle apart from us high school friends/very contentious relationship with her family/struggling to get affordable healthcare in the US/mismanaged and scary finances). A lot of these issues are deep-seated, going back almost ten years.

Problem: Me and our other friend have always been her biggest "venting ground". Our group chat is literally that. But I'm so emotionally burnt out from her right now, it's making me resentful because I'm waking up every day to 10+ messages (we're in three different timezones).

I don't know what else to say other than "I'm sorry, that's awful" whenever we get some new despair-filled message. Saying "wow that sucks" and "I get you, it's frustrating" is really doing me in rn. (I suspect a big part of my resentment is also about the fact that I tend to be a very solutions-oriented person and for months we've been gently offering her solutions to some of the more easily fixable things in her life rn and she just *refuses* to use them. Example: She burns through her salary super fast and it stresses her out but will also message us about how theres a 500 dollar laser treatment she wants to get for herself as a birthday present. I told her to maybe think of a more affordable thing she could get herself and bracket the laser as a later wish. She didnt.).

I know I need to boundaries, but am not sure how express them without making her feel bad (is that even possible) and adding to her stress. Maybe I just need to keep saying "I'm sorry, that sucks" in 10x ways.

it sucks, but i think you need to be okay with her feelings being a little hurt. stop being so gentle, be a little tough! just because her feelings are hurt doesn't mean what you are doing is wrong - it's not! you're doing a good thing, you're trying to save your friendship by setting boundaries so you can continue being there for her.

the most straightforward thing, imo, would be to message her next time this happens, and say something like, "i know you are going through a really hard time, and it sounds really rough. i want to help find solutions for you, but it's hard to know how to help when you keep going in circles."

she will probably say, "i just need to vent, you are the only people i can talk to!"

and you can say, "i am happy to listen sometimes, but it's a lot of negativity to listen to without being able to help." maybe even talk on a, "i really want to tell you all about[x important thing in your life that i am guessing she never asks about]!"

you could also do some more passive things. when she gets started, say something like, "how are you planning on dealing with it?" and if she dismisses it, maybe say, "that sounds tough, you should do x. also, did i tell you all i'm going to [x important event] tomorrow?" LMAO like i'm literally laughing writing this out, because your friend is probably going to get upset. i find people who vent and vent and vent are often not the types that take kindly to this sort of thing. but honestly, if your friend is venting this much, she probably isn't much of a friend to you right now either, right? she's treating you like an object, just this big hole she can throw all her woes into, not a person/friend who she should also care about.

also, any of the above might make her just... drop the chat. so proceed knowing that.

you could also just like... not respond. or respond a little, but after a few courtesy messages, "heart" the message, say, "i'm so sorry you are going through that!" and then gently change the topic. this is probably what i would do.

also, most common, you could just fade her out. i don't necessarily recommend it, but if you find yourself just wanting to mute the chat... i can't really blame you.

#relation chips

6 notes · View notes

langernameohnebedeutung · 5 months ago

Note

Ok, giving you an update as I finish up Season 3!

Claiming Liv for BPD rep. With the mood and Personality swings (+ related interpersonal problems) I feel very seen :)

This might me just my Aro vision making it hard to see, but I don’t get MajorxLiv. Like with all the other pairs, there’s a path there or they shared interests and worked their way closer. But with these two we’re just told that they are meant for each other because ??? , but everytime they are together it’s just…why?

Liv has had better chemistry with every single one of her dead Boyfriends and she deserves better

Watching Blaine go from the main villain to that annoying bastard you can’t get rid of makes me so proud! I love characters like that! He’s the best, I wish him to never achieve his dreams! :D

On that note, the series has consistently fun villains. Good Job!

Big fan of the Meal montages that started with Season 2. And with how the brains keep their colour and consistency unless turned into mush. As brains are known to be x)

Fillmore-Graves has taught me that my armor for puns is still sore

I just like Jimmy, I’m glad he keeps showing up. He hates working with the Morgue Crew so much and it is so funny!

Fave episodes: “Astroburger” “Fifty Shades of Grey Matter” “Eternal Sunshine of the Caffeinated Mind” “Zombie Knows Best” “Looking for Mr. Goodbrain 1+2��

4 more days and 2 Season to go!

*braces for the LARP Episode*

!! You weren’t lying when you said you were speed-running! I was worried you might not be able to make it through the show before the end of June but you’re making headway!

- Oh, I love that (re: Liv BPD rep) – I never thought about it before but that is really interesting to explore! Tbh I often think of the zombism as a metaphor, e.g. Liv’s early zombism as a parallel to the PTSD symptoms that someone would experience after the boat party. And some specific brains having her adopt different neuro-types (e.g. the “hot mess brain” really struck a chord with me as someone with ADHD) – and the thing is, BPD would also make a lot of sense, especially with the age of onset often being in someone's 20s. Plus, it makes me even think in literal terms and not just metaphorical ones – Liv always seems to be more strongly affected by the brains than most other zombies on the show and I think it would have been interesting to explore how zombism and related brain-effects would interact with different mental health conditions and neurotypes. (The thing is, I have at least the working theory that the underlying personality as well as the willingness to engage with the new personality affects how and how strongly zombies are affected. A big example for me is Liv having a vision the very moment she ate one of Lowell's orphan brains while he could surpress it. Or in Conspiracy Weary, when Liv, Blaine and Don E are on the same brain and Liv does stuff like putting gum on her friends' webcams and wants to protect them, Don E likes to talk about celebrities (we see him do that on other occasions like with Christina Ricci or Gwyneth Paltrow) and Blaine is very opinionated on Tupac and the symbolism of Makaveli (music being a big deal to him)

-- The thing is, I think MajorxLiv might just be one of the most contentious topics in the fandom. I know people who really love them together and the tragedy and drama and the doomed-lover-ness of it all and I know others argue more from the point that such a major (ha!) point of the show is deconstructing the seemingly perfect life Liv had at the beginning of the show and he realisation that it wasn’t perfect at all and that she mostly lived for the expectations of others and didn't really have anything that mattered to her. And that part of that should have been realising that Major and her weren’t meant to be married-two-kids-picket fence and that they should have just embraced being friends and that it defeats the narrative. I also think it might be because they’re one of the only couples we don’t see originally falling in love – with Peyton and Ravi and Clive and Dale we see what attracted them to each other in the first place and watch their relationships develop (though I must say that I have more fun with Clive/Dale than with Peyton/Ravi but that’s no hate on the latter, I just enjoy the dynamic between Clive and Dale more). But Liv and Major were a thing from the beginning and you can tell that the writers very much prioritised them over other relationships these two had (rip Nathalie especially, you deserved so much better) which I alo think leads to some frustration. Personally, I don't really feel that strongly about it either way but I wish there were some aspects that they had gotten into more. Also, I wish they had prioritised Liv dealing with the deaths of so many of her boyfriends more?? Dude, the trauma of that. The guilt!

--- REAL. It goes from Blaine being a child-butchering monster to Blaine and Don E being the Pinky and the Brain of zombism (and also having the main-gang on speed dial). I like that they didn’t even go the route of redeeming Blaine or making him less evil. He actually continues to do things just as evil (and worse) than what he did in season 1. But even the morgue gang doesn’t really prioritise stopping or killing him anymore. I bet they run into each other in supermarkets or at the bank sometimes lmao.

I think it’s partially because he’s the long-distance runner of iZombie villains – most of the other baddies contain their evil to one season, maybe one-and-a-half. So it’s much easier to keep track of where they wronged you. With Blaine, the list is so long, it’s really hard to keep track of it all. Plus, a lot of his schemes don’t even directly affect the gang or they never learn about them. The show just gives like…a good amount of screen-times to tuning in to Shady Plots or the Scratching Post to show us what stupid schemes these two clowns are up to. (Also, I like that David Anders said that Blaine actually really likes the morgue squad and spending time with them. Those are his best friends who hate him <3)

----I also kind of dig that the meal montages really only started happening with season 2. Because early on, Liv’s zombie meals being more depressing (the instant noodles she does in the pilot for example) makes a lot of sense because she still feels defeated and lost being a zombie. But later on, she starts having fun with it! And I think it goes well with stuff like her refusing to tan or dye or putting on a scratchy wig – she really starts owning being a zombie and the fun meals are part of it!! I love that for her!

----- iZombie drinking game: Always taking a sip when there’s a silly pun somewhere. (doctors do not recommend this)

------- They put so much energy and thought and screen-time into their non-primary cast! Jimmy! Vampire Steve! Enzo! Johnny Frost! They’re just like: “here’s another perplexing little guy. We will not elaborate.”

--------- These are all fun! I always find it kind of hard to say which one of my favourite episodes are but I also really like The Whopper for all the drama happening there and Conspiracy Weary – Oh, and in season 4 you have Brainless in Seattle and Goon Struck coming up which I also really love (you might already be there, even. Not to spoil but: Major and Don E on a roadtrip! That was fun.). And in season 5 The Scratchmaker and the noir episode are really fun!

#izombie #fandom

5 notes · View notes

castlebyersafterdark · 5 months ago

Note

Do you think the byler fandom being majority female was a part of the reason why there is such a large backlash to spicy bylerism? I feel like if there were more gay and bi dudes, there'd be more tolerance and understanding of male sexuality beyond the cute romantic side of things. Also, I don't know the makeup of straight girls vs. lesbians vs. bi girls on here, but I'd imagine some lesbians might be a bit uncomfy with explicit sexual topics related to byler

Hmmmm I wouldn't necessarily go with that as the reasoning. We have to acknowledge statistics and traditional fandom demographics - fandom spaces where things like fanart and fanfic are the focus have kind of always skewed female? Am I incorrect? But those are the things I sought out in fandom, the art and the writing, creative outlets (alongside fighting with people on reddit and twitter haha which I don't do anymore!!)

Look at Steddie for example. There are currently 28k fics out of 94k Stranger Things fics. Around 29% of the fics in the fandom are that pairing. And almost a third of those fics are rated E. Wow!! Compare Byler. 11.5k fics. Only a mere 6% of the fics are rated E. I'm going to assume that the Steddie fandom is predominantly female as well as the Byler fandom????

I think it's an age/generation thing to be honest. I could be very well wrong. Unsure why the Byler fandom does skew lower, and that's totally fine, but from my observations, the people I've seen the most vocally anti-sex in media and in fandom tend to be teens/early 20s. Even if I know a bunch of Byler fans are older, but the vocal ones have skewed younger. Could be just what I've personally witnessed, but anyone let me know if I'm off base here?

And also the silly mindset that also coincides with the age trending possibility - with Byler being younger characters and the current backlash against all of that which was never present in the past. Not to bring up a fandom we all probably want to forget, but the HP fandom was huuuge for years, right? Those were high school age characters, infamously with tons of E rated content, to excess. A personal note, I got into fandom stuff through my older sister, and HP and anime were her big things. I know some of the fandom lore haha.

I do think if there were more bi and gay dudes who were vocal and into fanart and fic (we are out here though!! we just may not announce it! I sometimes played neutral over the years!), that strong personal convictions might combat the anti-sex and spicy or E rated content contentious people. That's why I'm glad to have started over and started fresh and honest here. Because I'm gained a backbone in this fandom now? I'd love for some silly anti person to try to tell me about myself, using my own sexuality against me when they're supposedly propping up a gay couple as a hobby interest through a fandom, but judging those who are interested in authenticity and the full spectrum of what relationships and 'shipping' means in fandom. Like. How dare. Hahaha.

To be honest, I'd just delete the comment or ask and they wouldn't get a chance at attention.

#also it needs to be said: i've been good friends with lesbian gals in fandom before or known some fave authors to be gay women #sometimes... they write the best m/m gay smut i've ever read and it blows my fucking mind hahaha #which is why occasionally i wish i had the writing skillset to give a little back and show the ladies some love in under repped ships #but i'm intimidated and idk how to tap into authentically writing something completely out of my wheelhouse hahahaha

3 notes · View notes

yvonne-rutherford · 7 months ago

Text

The Face of the Future

Location: St. Catherine's Date: 27 April, 2023 Mentions: @leylayilmazx Warnings: N/A

Yvonne wiggled for what was probably the hundredth time as she watched the ultrasound tech prepare the machine. Félix squeezed her hand with an amused chuckle. “I think this might go easier if you relax, Yve.”

Yvonne rolled her eyes and stuck her tongue out at him, but the technician pulled up her shirt and gave her the standard apologetic smile before she could respond to him. “I know you’re probably sick of hearing this by now, but it’s going to be a little cold.” The warning wasn’t enough to keep Yvonne from nearly jumping out of her skin as the jelly hit her bump.

The topic of finding out the gender proved to be more contentious than Yvonne expected. She’d readily agreed to Félix’s refusal to do an official gender reveal, but while he was set on keeping things a surprise, Yvonne wanted to know. They never officially fought over it, but it was a subject neither broached until her anatomy scan was scheduled. He never said why he changed his mind, but Yvonne suspected her inability to settle on a list of possible names was a contributing factor.

Both sets of eyes were glued to the monitor screen as the wand pressed down against her skin. It only took a moment of adjustment before the familiar silhouette filled the screen. Yvonne gasped, the only sound in the quiet room and she blinked furiously in a vain attempt to keep her tears firmly in their tear ducts. A quick glance to the side showed that Félix was less successful than she was at keeping his tears at bay.

The technician smiled at her and began talking when Yvonne nodded at her to go on. “Baby’s in a good position for us today…” Her narration faded to the background and Yvonne focused only on their baby. Days like these, she marveled at how much could change in three short years. From a scared kid clutching her sister’s hand, wondering how the hell she was going to raise a child as a single mother to a mother of soon-to-be three with her fiancé standing beside her, just as mesmerized by the screen.

The silhouette on the screen shifted to flash a quick peek between the legs. For the second time in a few short minutes, all the breath flooded out of her body as she stared at their baby…

“Girl. We’re having a girl.” Félix’s voice was quiet, barely louder than a whisper, yet it filled the entire room. There was no denying the tears welling up in either of their eyes at this point. A picture of their little girl was starting to form in Yvonne’s mind. Dark hair, just like Yvonne’s and Félix before the silver started taking over. She hoped she inherited his piercing green eyes as well.

“Would you like to hear her heartbeat?”

“Yeah, we would.” The technician hit a key and fast, strong thump-thumps filled the room. Yvonne didn’t believe in miracles, but the heartbeat playing was the strongest evidence she’d seen of their existence. The sound played for a few more seconds before another key was hit and silence took over. The technician removed the wand, wiped the jelly off of Yvonne’s abdomen, and handed her a print out.

“Dr. Yilmaz will be in shortly to discuss the results of your scan with you, but congratulations on your baby girl.” The second the technician walked out of the room, Yvonne turned her gaze to Félix. A smile that no doubt matched the one she could feel spread across her face graced her fiancé’s. He didn’t let go of the hand he was holding, but her did reach out to place his free hand on top of her abdomen as he leaned in to brush his lips softly against hers.

“Another girl. You’re really going to be outnumbered now,” Yvonne teased, reaching up to run her hand gently through the back of his hair.

“I’ll survive.” His eyes lit up even more when movement fluttered not once, but twice under his hand. “Seems like she already has some strong opinions. Just like her mother.”

Yvonne laid her hand on top of his and laced their fingers together. “If she could stop having those opinions against my bladder, I would greatly appreciate it.”

Félix leaned in once more to press a tender kiss to Yvonne’s forehead. She closed her eyes and squeezed his hand. Moments like these felt like a dream she was going to wake up any minute from, but even with her eyes closed the weight of his touch remained. “You know, now that we know, you’ve lost your excuse for not picking out a name.”

“I’m working on it, but nothing feels right yet.”

“Well, work faster. We can’t call her baby Rodriguez forever.” Yvonne rolled her eyes once again, a fond smile spread across her lips. This wasn’t anywhere close to the life she envisioned for herself when she moved to London four years ago, but it tasted just as sweet.

#self para #character development #the face of the future

4 notes · View notes

bilbobagginsomebabez · 7 months ago

Note

Hi! I’ve been following your blog for a bit and I’m wondering if you or anyone else could help me with an idea I have. I’m graduating from college in about a month (mid-May 2024) and I was thinking of using the opportunity (large-ish crowd, lots of cameras, important/official school event) to decorate the top of my graduation cap with something in support of ceasefire, peace/liberation, and an end to U.S. support of the Israeli government’s violence. My current/best idea so far is to have simple, black-and-white text reading “CEASEFIRE NOW” and maybe a little dove holding a branch that is green, red, and black. I understand that some people who are also disgusted with this violence (genocide) find problems with the call for “ceasefire now” but I don’t know what else to write—I want to make sure that the design is clear, succinct, and easy to read/see. I’ve thought about adding a small border of text around the edge of the cap, to say something like “END GENOCIDE” and “END U.S.-BACKED VIOLENCE” but I worry that would make the design too busy.

Is this a good design? Good text? Should I take a different approach? Any ideas would be greatly appreciated! Thank you and I hope you have a nice day :)

i'm guessing the ceasefire thing is related to "not a war -- an occupation" rhetoric, but i would not worry about that. very different groups there with very different considerations; effective rhetoric amongst online leftists is not effective rhetoric during an american graduation ceremony. tune your language to your audience and what they'll understand. a ceasefire is the next most immediate step to saving palestinian lives and is commonly understood language. it's fine.

as for the design, i'd pick either "END THE GENOCIDE" or "CEASEFIRE NOW" with a fact or two. kind of like this:

^this is ugly. don't use this. but be bold with what it says. its purpose is to make a strong point fast.

i don't mean for this to be patronizing at all, i just don't know where your experience level is regarding political action online vs in real life, where you live, your comfort with public speaking, etc. i'd like to warn you because sometimes people are surprised by it, but people may approach you about this. they may not choose to talk to their family about it later or post about it on social media or google it. the point of doing this publicly at a large event where it is unavoidable that people see it is to cause a reaction and to control the structure of the conversation that follows. their starting point is the one you chose. if you haven't spoken about or heard others speak about palestine in your community, don't underestimate how contentious this topic may be. someone may argue with you or even attempt to berate you. when making a public statement of your beliefs in this manner, you are inviting public discussion by starting a public discussion. an open-entry public discussion, where not everyone who enters will be well-mannered.

if you are approached, this is a limited contact type of activism; quick and dirty. the goal is to get them curious and questioning and hopefully refer them to stronger and more detailed sources. for this purpose, stronger and more detailed sources can be easy and digestible like a good social media account or youtube video. do NOT get bogged down in the details. do NOT dissect the whole history of the area. it is sufficient to address recent violence, it is not your job to cover the entire issue from start to finish, and you couldn't if you tried anyway.

i would operate on an assumption of good faith but prepare for bad faith attempts to debate. don't necessarily use terminology to determine good faith from bad faith. assume ignorance instead of malice where possible, and be prepared to control your temper if you have one. get your facts straight, and consider keeping a little notecard with talking points or specific numbers like you might for a speech class. a note on your phone. an album of screenshots. some sort of reference that you feel confident using.

though to be honest, the more likely result is a drawn out argument with a conservative family member at dinner. which is also important, if wildly unpleasant.

either way, be ready to talk about it, be ready to explain it, and be ready to challenge people you know directly and staunchly.

good luck!

this may be a useful quick and dirty talking point to sidestep antisemitism accusations: "Ethnostates are bad no matter which ethnicity is in charge. We know this. If you're confused: it's 2023. There are people everywhere. There is nowhere to establish an ethnostate where you will not have to forcibly remove people who already live there, which called ethnic cleansing. which is known under international law as genocide. Ethnostates are always bad."

3 notes · View notes

onecornerface · 5 months ago

Text

Leeja Miller's video on civil war is irresponsible & ridiculous + red flags

Leftwing Youtuber Leeja Miller’s recent video is mostly a decent video about why civil war is unlikely to happen in the United States despite polarization. However, some aspects of her video are severely irresponsible-- especially one batshit claim she makes within the first 10 seconds. Miller flatly asserts in the first 10 seconds:

“Political violence in the United States is at an all-time high.”

WTF? No it isn't! What do you even mean?? She doesn’t cite this claim with any evidence, and doesn’t clarify it with any metrics. The statement as written is definitely false, and I don't know any reading where it comes out as well-established.

For starters, she must mean only the last several decades-- obviously the American Civil War and much of its aftermath were more violent. I strongly suspect the 1960s-70s were too (at least by some metrics, but I don't know a lot about this). But she doesn’t even clarify this.

I'm going to harp on this statement a lot, because it's such a ridiculous and irresponsible assertion, and it's at the start of the video. She knows full well that most people only watch the first part of almost any video and not the entire thing, so almost all viewers will hear that statement.

I’m not even sure that it’s true within the last few decades. It sounds like the sort of statement she thinks she doesn’t need to earn, because so many people already assume it’s common sense. But a lot of “common sense” (even among progressives)—about topics like polarization, the criminal justice system, and even “misinformation” itself—is either false or highly suspect. Hate crime statistics are controversial, and categories like “terrorism” and “political violence” require a lot of caveats.

One possibility is that she might be implicitly referring to a single chart she later shows at 9:54 in the video, measuring "terrorist attacks" in the United States, which appear to spike in 2016 and remain high thereafter. But this can't justify her opening statement, for several reasons: (1) "terrorist" is of course a contentious category, (2) the start of the video is still uncited and does not clarify if it is referring to the later chart, (3) the chart only goes back to 2000 (so it doesn't support the "all-time high" claim-- and nor does a later terrorism chart starting from 1994), and (4) "terrorism" just is not the same as "political violence."

In several places, Miller cites a 2023 paper called "Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says" by Rachel Kleinfeld. This looks like a probably very good paper. I'll try to read it in full later. The better parts of Miller's video are probably cribbing mainly from this paper. But I looked over the paper, and it only affirms that political violence has increased in recent years-- which is quite bad, but says nothing about it being at an "all-time high."

It’s irresponsible for Miller to say “Political violence in the United States is at an all-time high” at the outset without any clarification, metrics, evidence, or caveats. She delves into a few relevant categories later in the video, but never really backs up the initial assertion. This is a serious omission.

Other Complaints -Imprecision, Bad Citational Practices, Red Flags More broadly, there are a bunch of points in the video that I’d like Miller to include a few more caveats on. For example, she mentions that over the years, a bunch of railroads have been “targeted” by cyber attacks and this seems worrying—but she doesn’t mention what impact these attacks did or didn’t have on railroad operations. So we’re left without any clear picture of how serious or nonserious the problem is. At least she cites a source onscreen here, so the viewer can research it further (albeit inconveniently, since it is not linked). But why not spend a few more seconds in the video to clarify the extent of the damage?

More broadly, Miller’s citations seem shoddy. She does cite various sources in the video itself (not for her opening assertion about "political violence" at an "all-time high", though!!), but there are no sources in the description below it. In this regard, she's even worse than Iilluminaughtii (who at least linked to a disorganized list of citations). I was hoping, in the aftermath of Hbomberguy’s video exposing the misinformation and plagiarism by Iilluminaughtii and James Somerton, that video essayists would start holding themselves and one another to a higher standard of citational rigor, accuracy, clarity, and accessibility. Apparently not! This still needs to happen!

Another red flag: Leeja Miller churns out a LOT of videos on a wide variety of topics on an extremely frequent basis. In light of the above stuff, this is now known to be a red flag that someone may be cutting corners on the research.

To be clear, I don't know who precisely is at fault here. According to the description, the research and writing are done by someone named Victoria Marchiony, so this may be on her. I'm focusing on Leeja Miller here, since she is the speaker and the face & name of the YouTube channel.

Irresponsible Sensationalist Clickbait Title + Thumbnail Finally, I think the title and thumbnail are really bad and reinforce the problem Miller criticizes. The video itself provides some decent reasons to be skeptical of the notion of impending civil war. This is an important topic. Many people are wildly exaggerating the likelihood of civil war, and causing needless fear.

But the question should have been answered in the title & thumbnail. Instead, the title and thumbnail both just provocatively ask “Is Civil War Coming?” without indicating that the answer is “probably not.” Some people will likely see the video’s title & thumbnail without watching it, and think to themselves “Wow, this person takes the idea of civil war seriously—I guess it’s serious” and thus come away increasing their fears of an upcoming civil war. So this kind of title & thumbnail is seriously irresponsible on Miller’s part.

#polarization #leeja miller #political violence #civil war #youtube

4 notes · View notes

louisisalarrie · 9 months ago

Note

People are saying Louis has a grace period where he can’t do/say anything - meaning contracts I guess - but he is saying something. He’s saying he’s not with Harry. Surely if he was under any kind of NDA he wouldn’t be able to comment at all??

I’m not an anti. I would love the boys to be together. I’m just suspicious of Louis’ random out bursts where he does seem p*ssed off at Larry. I mean if he really loves him, wouldn’t he just say nothing? If I were Harry, I think i’d be a bit insulted if my boyfriend continued to make public denials (and referred to it as childish conspiracies) whilst I kept quiet.

Also, is Louis annoyed at Larry in terms of being linked to Harry OR is it more related to the insinuation that Freddie isn’t his and he’s not really denying ever being with Harry?

I know this is a contentious topic but I wanted to ask. No judgement either way from me!

Heya anon! I’m gonna break this down a bit.

Louis’ online presence has been very yikes since the first Bullshit tweet. You could see the moment his Twitter started being controlled in one direction, with how different his content became, interacting with the boys (Harry) slowed right down, and his typing style and tone changed. Social media accounts, particular for influential people with a large following, are ran by PR folks on their team. It means the artist can have a more hands off approach, and doesn’t have to worry about posting marketing content at certain deadlines etc., and it’s the easiest reach to get news spread fast. Now, in terms of how much control an artist has over their accounts, differs depending on their contract with their team.

One Direction were the biggest of the big. And when you have 5 teenage boys with huge accounts, it’s pretty safe to say they didn’t want one of them accidentally posting something incriminating towards themselves, the band, or their team, so, they would’ve had very little freedom on their social media when they hit the big point of their career a bit down the track. However, control is not entirely taken over, as the artist still needs to look authentic. They need to connect with fans, get them engaged, and tweet them back. Then, they get trending on Twitter and that’s a win for them, obviously.

So this kind of social media handover is specified in their initial contract, with subcontracts specifying exactly what and how the PR team and the artist will use it. The artist might need to personally post at least 3 times a week across platforms, for example: one tweet replying to a fan, one promo tweet for their music, and one Instagram post/story that ties into whatever the narrative/promo is at that moment, and the contract might be more lax during the months where there isn’t anything to be marketed. Other than that, the team will take care of everything else. That’s their job after all, to market the artist!

So, what’s the best way to dispel rumours about a conspiracy theory when the people in question struggle to talk about the theory on camera? A tweet, of course! It goes straight out to the fans, spreads like wildfire, gets their name trending, and screenshots go straight to the media. The artist doesn’t wanna deal with the inevitable backlash and chaos that ensues after a tweet like that, so, the PR folks say “let’s try and get them to stop talking about larry, by talking about larry…” which makes 0 sense right? If larry isn’t real, they could just leave it alone. Hell, larry aren’t the only pairing in the world, and plenty of other people who have had theories about them like this have just… never commented. Even when they had a big fanbase of people like larries, who believe that they are in a stunt relationship/have been hiding a relationship with another famous person, they’ve just left it alone.

If you have a watch of the Four Hangout interview, where they are all asked if there are any rumours they’d like to deny, Louis and Harry are dead silent. That was the time to do it.

So I think maybe your question leaves out the contracts and closeting of larry, as you’ve said Harry would be pissed that his man has kept denying their relationship to the public (it has been far and few between, though). I would be too, but he’s not doing it on his own accord. the boys, and many other artists in the industry, have been victims of closeting/het pushes. Even just basic PR stunt relationships, that straight people have, are for marketing purposes. There are narratives in place so these artists keep their name in the media, keep looking attainable to a fanbase with young woman fawning over them, and keep selling records/movies whatever it might be. I won’t go deep into Louis and Harry’s stunt relationships and narratives, but it’s very obvious they’ve been victim to them.

So, two birds one stone, right? Deny a relationship that your fanbase has a theory on, on Twitter so there’s proof and it reaches those fanbases fast, while encouraging the stunt narrative the public sees of you, ticking the boxes above. It’s a quick Band-Aid for now, because the longer they don’t say anything, the easier it is for people to assume they’re together. So a little tweet here and there helps. And, unfortunately, Louis has always been the one in the firing line of denials.

Even in the early days of Larry, back in 1d, I think Harry only did one denial on his own, with niall and Liam. H+L did a couple together, and then @Louis_Tomlinson took the reins. Every larry denial on camera was hilarious, poorly responded to, and was laughed at by the fandom. It didn’t jolt us whatsoever, but when you can’t see the person behind the tweet, it is meant to cause a bit more doubt for us. Did he post this on his own accord? Was it PR? It’s not as easy as looking at their body language and seeing them stutter in a video, and that was the point of moving the denials off camera.

These “ask me anything” tweeting sprees that happen, are for the sole purpose of pushing narratives. Louis ticks off a couple of things on his list each time he does one, which are: talk about F, get rid of larry rumours by talking about larry rumours (it’s an absolute joke, the way they do that hahaha), and promo some new music. He also replies to fans about football and other stuff, but that’s because he always has to keep it as authentic as possible. And he does like talking to us, he just has a couple of obligations during this.

In terms of F and bbg, I believe that’s a stunt so I don’t think Louis is mad about people not believing it, so I can’t comment on that, unfortunately!

Now, NDAs. This term is thrown around A LOT in this fandom, and the actual way one works can get lost in translation through misinformation and overuse of contractual language that confuses folks who don’t have a deeper knowledge of entertainment law and the entertainment industry. NDAs are not a one page contract that states a couple of things that you can’t do, and you just scribble a signature. They are big documents that are overlooked by several lawyers and adjusted/assessed/edited over a long period of time, depending on the importance of why someone needs to sign one. There are already basic drafts for fans/crew who see something they shouldn’t see etc., but they are edited to be specific as possible to that situation, so there are no blurred lines. There are no mistakes. No loopholes. Everyone around the boys has signed one, which I’ve discussed a little bit about before.

When it comes to keeping a relationship under wraps from the public, both parties need to sign a separate copy, often times of the exact same document. But, NDAs are different to other PR and marketing contractual Agreements. NDAs say “hey, don’t talk about this thing or any other of these things! It can’t be leaked! If you do, there will be huge consequences and you’ve broken the contract and we will take all your money and sue you and you’ll never have a career again!”, while marketing and PR Agreements are “hey, so people are talking about you being in a secret relationship, and you’ve signed an NDA so you can’t say you are in one, so we’re gonna give you a fake relationship to help keep things quieter and hopefully dispel the beliefs (which will make it easier for you to not say anything if people leave the topic alone!!) and we can get some good marketing in and grow the band yada yada yada”. Which, they thought would work, but we’re still here haha. So the two can be mutually exclusive for artists like Harry and Louis, but their team will obviously just sign an NDA.

So, my advice is, don’t take everything at face value. Louis wouldn’t want to lose any fans, regardless of what they believe in. And same with Harry. They just have different narratives to appeal to different demographics.

#anon #answered #sorry this is all over the shop #bbg

4 notes · View notes

91vaults · 2 years ago

Text

From a Butch lesbian perspective: GC's tend to talk a lot about the "poor lesbians" but as I discovered when really interrogating gender, there is a long history of gender fluidity within the lesbian community. There were always he/him lesbians, lesbians who's only connection to the concept of womanhood was...well lesbianism (of which I count myself) lesbians who performed and experienced gender in a way different to many "biological women". Lesbians who experience gender dysphoria with the "biologically female" parts of their bodies. (I have a body type that lends itself well to androgyny, but lord knows how I might feel if it were different) . Some of them might have been trans men and were they around today and made the choice to transition that would not be a loss to lesbians. We tend to exist in the frameworks available to us at the time.

To put us all in the category of "biological women" and "biological men" limits us and denies our experience. I feel a disconnect from "womanhood" as most define it but this is not some attempt to "escape the sexism that women experience" I am not immune to sexism and will never be. Instead I pick and choose the parts that do speak to my experience. "Woman Adjacent" fits me just fine. It doesn't need to make sense to others.

The relentless pressures of compulsory heterosexuality can make us cling hard to ideas and labels. We are inundated with so much messaging that its all about men, relationships with men, that we'll "grow out of it" or bi phobic myths that girls will mess around with you for fun then go back to heterosexuality. It is natural then to define your lesbian identity more so as the absence of attraction to men rather than the presence of an attraction to women. AMAB people who identify otherwise feel like a threat to the definitions and categories we use to stand our ground in a patriarchal society. I used to feel like that, and balked at the idea of "Nonbinary lesbians" or other labels ("Demi boy??? what is this nonsense") and of course unlike me many lesbians, butch or otherwise identify strongly as women and have fought so hard to be recognized as such. And lets be real, if that's the case and you start being asked what your pronouns are all the time that's probably going to grind your gears (where and when we get asked our pronouns can be a prickly topic all across the LGBT+ spectrum but I digress)

It's also hard to deny that fear, however irrational: " what happens to us when the "lesbians" are all non binary or transmen?" we feel like a minority within a minority, our numbers ever so small and now seemingly shrinking, they'll be none of us left, will I die alone?

what's wrong withing being a lesbian?

makes sense on an emotional level if you've struggled to regain the title for yourself.

It need not be like that though. Lesbians aren't going anywhere, there are many queer woman under the umbrella regardless of how they may identify. Letting go of strict definitions does not erase yours or anyone's identity, rather it makes you more empathetic and understanding. The shifting of the framework in which we identify ourselves is not a threat. It's an opportunity for acceptance and perhaps even exploration.

and ultimately at the end of the day you do not have to date anyone you don't want to for any reason. As long as your not a jerk about it. Sex and connection is complicated and contentious and perhaps does not exist in a vacuum: but personal preference is personal preference.

When GC/TERF ideology is taken to its logical conclusion it hurts us all much more than the "bogey man" trans person in their heads ever could. They talk endlessly about the protection of women: which women? women who are gender non conforming? women who are unable to or do not wish to reproduce? intersex women? women who are subjected to invasive questioning of their gender because they are athletes and present a certain way? (that's not even getting into the ways this disproportionately affects WOC) they claim to understand the reasons and inner lives of those they call women who do not identify as such. To talk over them and insist their "dysfunction" is due to a need to escape sexism, rather than just who they are. (I don't hate or run away from womanhood..I just orbit around it with nothing more to say about it then "...huh, ok")

They are incredibly abelist against autistic people as if they have no understanding of themselves, as if their particular experience with gender is invalid.

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull calls for men with guns to guard women's restrooms. What do you suppose would happen if someone like me were to walk in? years ago in America a Masc women was accosted by a cop in a public restroom who demanded to see ID. A man in a female restroom harassing a woman....fancy that.

This is not about protecting women. This is about a hatred of a large portion of the LGBT+ community, its a repackaging of every homophobic trope they used in the past, before we collectively agreed the rights of gay people were not up for debate. It's about enforcing a strict veiw of gender based on biological essentialism, as nonsensical as it is harmful. As though they want to recreate Gilliead (given the alt right friends that's probably not far off the mark)

It might start that way for some, to express """concerns""" about women's issues, but it always seems to devolve into the same thing: obsessing over sexist and restrictive biological ideas about gender, misandry and obsessively nitpicking and mocking the physical appearance of those they hate (Feminism!!!!! :D )

Truly makes no sense.

#butch lesbian #lesbian #lgbt+#lgbt #terf #terfs #fuck terfs #gender #gender critical #trans #trans rights #transgender #queer women #amab #afab #gc #radical feminism #Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

14 notes · View notes