#i think all the nations have this phenomenon to an extent

[hetagrammy]

I love it when the British Isles Siblings are written or drawn to have something just a little… off about them. Their ears have the slightest point to them, their eyes have this curious glow about them, they have a way with animals that while helpful is just a little unnatural, they have these brief episodes of divination, etc. Things that make it hard to really judge humans for thinking they were changelings when they were children.

[tempesttz]

i feel like causing problems today: correcting actual endogenic misinformation on the anti endo blog about "correcting misinformation"

WARNING: VERY LONG POST ABOUT SYSCOURSE BELOW THE CUT! you have been warned. stay safe! :3c

[/image id: screenshot of tumblr blog @antimisinfo, the blog's profile picture, and the blog's header stating "correcting misinformation." end id.] (before we get into this, some of these images will be very bright! i will try to provide accurate image ids to every screenshot i post. stay safe!) okay so see this account right? op has no clue what they're talking about. addressing pronouns right now, i was going to refer to them by their preferred collective pronouns but i can't find them? i checked their carrd and their alters all had different pronouns and their about me just says this

[/image id: text stating, "horned haters is a subsystem filled with alters who hate endos / pro-endos. our whole system does but we are more passionate about it and plan to try make as many safe spaces for anti-endos as we possibly can!" end id.] so at least i know they prefer alters. cool [happy] so far okay whatever they REALLY hate endogenic systems thats cool thats whatever nothing new there but

[/image id: five images of different flags, likely did/osdd related, anti endo related, or something similar. text underneath flags states "system hot takes," "anti endo support group," "anti endo system terms," "agre and littles safespace," and "fictive stuff." end id.] jegus dude you weren't joking about being passionate about hating. this is like, grade a hater here. but i digress this probably isn't the post to be screwing around on i'll keep the screwing to a minimum i promise. that being said i don't promise to be nice, i do not owe anyone kindness, especially when they are not kind to me. i will try to be polite. so this is already splendid right but you would think with this many accounts dedicated to hating endogenic systems (they also own anti endo vents, i think?) they would at least know what they're talking about, right? right?????

[/image id: text reading "so what are endos? endos or endogenics are people who claim to have did/osdd without trauma or claim to have alters/be a system without having did/osdd." end id.] source: endos / endogenics and why they aren't valid, may 8 2024 for the sake of convenience, i'm going to be referring to did/osdd as osddid from now on. okay so first of all, anyone who claims to be endogenic while having osddid is almost definitely also traumagenic and has reasons rooted in trauma, those two things aren't mutually exclusive. endogenic is a broad, personal label. an endogenic system with did could be one with a lot of created alters or headmates. or just two created alters, headmates, etc. who knows! it's a very personal label after all. that being said, to have osddid, you have to have some form of trauma in almost every case, because trauma is what causes the dissociation, amnesia and other symptoms of osddid. anyone who's arguing to the contrary is wrong. you cannot have osddid without trauma? "so tempy, endogenic systems aren't real! they don't have osddid!" wrong. you can be a system without having osddid. for just one example, sourced from the national library of medicine, pubmed central, "multiplicity can be placed along a continuum between identity disturbance and dissociative identity disorder (did), although most systems function relatively well in everyday life. Further research is needed to explore this phenomenon, especially in terms of the extent to which multiplicity can be regarded as a healthy way of coping." (2017) taking some bookmarks from your sixth grade english class (which i can only hope you have passed by now, if you are on this website,) we are going to use some inferences. if multiplicity isn't dissociative identity disorder, but it is a state of being multiple and a system, what do you have? a system without osddid. "but tempy, that doesn't mention osdd!" that's because osdd wasn't a medical term before the dsm-5. not to mention, it stresses that "...most systems function relatively well in everyday life..." and that "...multiplicity can be regarded as a healthy way of coping." osdd is a disorder and an osdd system's plurality is disordered. non-disordered plurality is a thing that exists, and almost all non-traumagenic plurals are non-disordered! so we're already off to a terrible start. op isn't creating a distinction between plurality and osddid, likely because they believe that osddid is the only way to be plural. this not only was disproved above by a literal scientific article on a .gov website, but also the icd-11.

[/image id: text stating "boundary with normality (threshold):" which then moves a line down to a bullet point stating "the presence of two or more distinct personality states does not always indicate the presence of a mental disorder. in certain circumstances (e.g., as experienced by 'mediums' or other culturally accepted spiritual practitioners) the presence of multiple personality states is not experienced as aversive and is not associated with impairment in functioning. a diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder should not be assigned in these cases." end id.] so someone can experience multiple personality states without it being part of a mental disorder. and it's not dissociative identity disorder, and it can't be otherwise specified dissociative disorder, so... i wonder what it could be? well, many things! all under the wonderful way-too-vague umbrella that is endogenic plurality. oh, you need more proof? how about we look to a book written by eric yarbrough, a psychiatrist who specializes in lgbtq issues:

[/image id: text reading "the phenomenon of plurality is unknown to most mental health clinicians. most professionals know this condition as dissociative identity disorder (american psychiatric association 2013), although plurality and dissociative identity disorder are not exactly the same. being plural, or having two or more people existing in one body or space, is just one part of the diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder. many people who are plural do not experience distress from the existence of others within themselves." end id.] what was that, psychiatrist eric yarbrough in your book transgender mental health which was published by the american psychiatric association?

[/image id: text reading "plurality is a more patient-centered approach to what has historically been referred to as dissociative identities. this is not the same as the dsm-5 diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder (american psychiatric association 2013). plurality makes up just one part of the larger diagnosis and does not necessarily cause distress. although many people who are plural have a history of trauma, there are just as many who do not. a plural system is a collection of all the alters present. with some people these alters might come and go, whereas with others they are static and waiting to be discovered." end id.] this is not the same as the dsm-5 diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder, huh? it's just one part of a larger diagnosis and doesn't necessarily cause distress, huh? still not convinced? rapid fire! zarah eve, sarah parry: "not all multiplicity is based in trauma" (2021) mick cooper: "neuropsychological research has demonstrated the inherently divisible nature of the brain and consciousness" (unsure, likely pre-2013) zarah eve, kim hayes, sarah perry: "multiplicity experiences are phenomenologically distinct from clinical dissociative experiences" (2023)

kymbra clayton: "there may be in the general population a large number of people with [multiplicity] who are high-functioning, relatively free of overt psychopathology, and no more in need of treatment than most of their peers. they may not have abuse histories and may have evolved a creative and adaptive multiplicity." (possibly 2005)

the entire endogenic and non-traumagenic resources google doc, created by a diagnosed traumagenic system can we at least establish there's been a recorded medical existence of healthy, non-disordered multiplicity in psychiatric fields and that this isn't something that someone just made up on tumblr one day? okay, cool, thanks. now i wonder if there's a word for that. oh wait. it's called non-disordered plurality and tends to be much more common in non-traumagenic systems. by now you've probably forgotten the actual reason this post exists, so back to antimisinfo!

[/image id: text reading "why is this bad? this is misinformation because as far as science knows did/osdd is a trauma based disorder (specifically caused by trauma in early childhood, which is speculated to be 1-9 / 1-12 years old) and your brain would not split/create alters without reason. you cannot have alters without having a disorder, this is common sense as it's not normal to have alters. to add onto this endos also take over our communities and teal our terms. (we'll make a post with further information on that in the future.)" end id.] okay so first off non-disordered systems exist, let's stop talking about osddid as if it's the only way plurals can exist. second off, you can be multiple without having a disorder, it's literally highlighted in the icd-11 that non-disordered multiplicity exists. see above for disproving that. this is not common sense, because as seen above people can experience multiplicity without it being disordered, therefore meaning it is "normal," though not realistically normal as all plurals are a minority. normal =/= bad/disordered. cool? cool now, onto "endos take over our communities and steal our terms." i have no clue what terms op is talking about (tried to find their elaboration on those terms but it seems they haven't posted it), nor have i ever gotten an actual comprehensive list of terms they think we're stealing, but here we go: the terms traumagenic and endogenic were created by an endogenic system

[/image id: text reads "an important part of the development of these terms involves our journey towards identifying as plural. we have used a lot of terms for ourselves over the last thirty years; since 2014, we have identified as endogenic, but have known we were plural since at least 1990. the road" text cuts off. end id.] the term plural can be traced back to 2003 and even in its oldest records recognize the existence of non-traumagenic plurality. it has always been an inclusive term

[/image id: header reads "heart's home." text next to it reads "join date: january 02, 2003." text underneath reads, "this is my site for people that have mpd did, {;} also i agree that not all is cause by trauma. {;} i was on the ring from ring world and did not know this was moved." end id.] introject is a psychiatry-focused word, meaning that it could be claimed to be osddid exclusive, however multiple communities have used them in tandem for years. it can be traced back to this glossary which was written before the dsm-5, or pre-2013.

[/image id: text reads "introject - introjection occurs when a person (singlet or plural) internalizes another person (real or fictional) into his or her mental space. in classical psychology, the introject is usually a parent, whose advice for good or ill becomes integrated into the person's moral system. more broadly, many people experience introjects as a kind of muse, inspiring them to creativity or self-improvement (a psychologist would call this an "internalized imago"). (psychiatric)". new line. new line text reads, ""introject" is seen as derogatory by some, because it is a psychiatric word and seems to imply that such people of necessity are unreal. They prefer terms like walk-in, soulbond, or fictive. having an introject does not necessarily mean you're multiple. it is an experience common to singlets and plurals. some multiple systems report adopting people from books, films, or real life, making them part of the group and allowing them to take the front if they desire." so, having introjects hasn't even always been seen as a fully plural experience! singlets used to be considered to be able to have introjects too! isn't that cool? not to mention, they also have a definition for fictive in there, recognized as a wider plural term! cool, cross that off the list... oh? what's this?

[/image id: text reads "system - a group of persons in one body. also, the operating system by which a group governs itself. multiples have many different names for this: group, collective, clan, household (or house), family, etc. (may have originated with a few multiples writing for the amateur press; we first read it in an early mpd book.)" end id.] so non-disordered plurals have used the term system since ever too... not to mention, hey, look at this term!

[/image id: text reads "empowerment is for all multiples. It is not only for natural (non-trauma) multiples; you can be empowered and be a multiple who was born as one person and split due to child abuse. In fact, if that's your situation, empowerment is a wonderful thing for you, and is something your therapist (if any) ought to be encouraging." end id.] wow... non-trauma multiples. look at that. is that enough terms? if you want me to look up more, feel free to suggest anything the endogenic community is "stealing" that haven't been used synonymously and consistently in both traumagenic and endogenic spaces since before traumagenic and endogenic were terms. okay back to misinformation.

[/image id: text is a link that reads "there is also a carrd that explains why endos are bad and debunks a few myths if anyone is interested in it! if not continue reading." end id.] i didn't need to click on this to know it was the why endos are bad carrd. this is the most touted anti endo carrd in existence. i'm so sick of seeing it i'm not even addressing it today. it's wrong and blames endogenic systems for systemic issues like "making actual systems be less believed." not a verbatim quote, but you can go read it for yourself and then scroll up and read everything i just said again.

i've never actually seen another anti-endo carrd. which is saying something, because there's a lot of endogenic carrds, some better than others. carrds in general aren't reputable in most situations, unless they cite other sources, which the why endos are bad carrd doesn't. it cites a google doc about cultural appropriation and the theory of structural dissociation, which is about osddid, not non traumagenic plurality. it also implies that anyone identifying as endogenic has been lied to, is traumagenic and in denial, is a singlet who's experiencing a factitious disorder or other disorder misleading them, or are a singlet faking because they think it's "fun." no comment, i'll talk about it in length another day.

[/image id: text reads, "why can't you have did/osdd or alters without trauma? as far as science knows did/osdd is a trauma disorder and in order to have alters in the first place you require dissociation, which is also a trauma (or stress) response. here are tons of medically reviewed sources that say this:" image ends. end id.] once again, not osdddid. also, "as far as science knows..." see above. science knows about non-disordered plurality. op goes on to list a bunch of articles about dissociative identity disorder, that talk about dissociative identity disorder. they are wonderful articles about dissociative identity disorder and prove that individuals with dissociative identity disorder (and by extension otherwise specified dissociative disorder) experience that disorder due to trauma. that being said... non-disordered multiplicity is a thing, and endogenic systems still don't have osddid. seeing a pattern?

[/image id: text reads, "what about religious beliefs / tulpamancy? first people are not required to believe or participate in your religious beliefs (and religious beliefs are not exempt from criticism) and second tulpamancy is a closed buddhist practice that has nothing to do with being a system and should not be compared to being a system nor should it be included / involved in system communities. Note that the dsm-v also says that in order to have did; "the disturbance is not a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice." <- this does not mean it's possible to have alters due to a religious thing, if anything it says they cannot be counted as alters / as a system." end id.] okay so i corrected this in the image id, but op actually wrote "tuplamancy" twice. lol first off, tulpamancy isn't a closed buddhist practice. a tulpa is a theosophical term that was originally inspired by the tibetan buddhist nirmāṇakāya, translated as in tibetan as sprul-pa. "the western understanding of tulpas was developed by twentieth-century european mystical explorers, who interpreted the idea independently of buddhahood," according to wikipedia, sourced from tracking the tulpa (2015). a google search could tell you this. did you research any of the communities you are attempting to debunk past listening to what people who agree with you say? if you've decided in the past three months that google is your friend, i would google "echo chamber." second off, people absolutely are not required to believe or participate in your religious beliefs, and religious beliefs are subject to criticism. however, they should also be respected. this post, along with most other things you have had to say, have not respected spiritual plurals. not to mention, not all non-traumagenic plurals are spiritual. not to mention, not all tulpamancers are spiritual, in fact, most aren't. "modern practitioners, who call themselves "tulpamancers", use the term to refer to a type of willed imaginary friend which practitioners consider to be sentient and relatively independent. modern practitioners predominantly consider tulpas to be a psychological rather than a paranormal concept. the idea became an important belief in theosophy." see: wikipedia again. i mean, if you want me to go find scientific articles about this i can but wikipedia has plenty. go check the sources on wikipedia. this should have been the first thing you did if you wanted to "combat misinformation," by doing actual research before posting. op then starts talking about did. see: not all plurals are disordered. op also takes the time to shit on spiritual multiplicity again, which i will rightly ignore, refer to two paragraphs ago. it's midnight and i would like to finish writing by 1am.

[/image id: text reads, "to add on, no you cannot pray to be a system or transition into being a system. if you were to pray and one day magically become a system you are either in denial or you've convinced yourself you're something you're not. believing you can be a system without trauma or that you can become a system by praying is like believing you can get autism from vaccines or drinking too much dairy milk, that's just not how it works." end id.] this is a half-truth! you cannot pray to become a system unless you count spiritual possession (and frankly that responsibility lies on the individual in question), and you cannot pray to have osddid as that's a dissociative disorder that stems from childhood. you technically can transition to being plural (created systems are a thing, intentional and unintentional creation of headmates has been recorded dutifully since at least the early 1900s (see: tracking the tulpa, 2015). for the sake of it, here's a sciencedirect article about authors who experience different forms of hearing their characters in their head, who's recounts all sound very similar to non-disordered plurality. "believing you can be a system without trauma or that you can become a system by praying is like believing you can get autism from vaccines or drinking too much dairy milk, that's just not how it works." maybe if all plurality is disordered. it isn't. see above when i showed multiple examples of non-disordered multiplicity. believing that all plurality is disordered is like insisting that god created everything on earth after being presented with the theory of evolution. the analogy goes both ways.

[/image id: text reads, "what about mixed origin systems? Mixed origin systems are not a thing. did/osdd forms purely from trauma, you can't form from a mix of trauma and not trauma, that's not how it works. if you identify as mixed origin you are likely in denial and really need to come to terms with the fact that you are either traumatized or you're not a system at all." ] okay so first of all people can be traumatized past the age of twelve. ooh burn i know crazy. not to mention, plurality in general is known to be experienced by neurodivergent individuals, who as a minority are more likely to experience some form of trauma. this isn't a controversial statement, right? i don't have to prove this, right? cool great thanks. oh hey i just found a really flat ginger ale this will now fuel the rest of this post. there's this crazy concept, some people can be traumatized without it causing them to be disordered. or, a person with osddid could have created headmates, therefore making some of their system of non-traumagenic origin. personally, i was a system before i was traumatized. this caused my plurality to have some very trauma-based aspects, trauma holders and trauma-focused roles. that being said, my plurality (mostly lol) isn't disordered and my first recorded headmate was a created/spontaneous headmate at the age of ~nine.~ isn't that cool? anyways i've been medically recognized as plural so you can't fakeclaim me [silly] i dont have osddid. don't fit the diagnostic criteria. but i've been experiencing headmates since 9 and have recognized my plurality since 12. i'm 18. most of my headmates can be sourced to when i was 13-15, as that's when i experienced the most trauma (i'm better now stay safe though yall). that's decidedly after the gracious "1-12" estimate you gave, op. not to mention, we created headmates intentionally at the age of 12. so what's up with that op? what am i? okay i'm done being anectodal, i just took the opportunity to parry a personal opinion with a personal anecdote just to further drive the nail in that people like this exist and are living breathing sentient individuals with lives outside the screen and many of us have been plural since ever. i sourced non-traumagenic multiplicity to before the dsm-5 just in this post alone, not to mention tulpamancy (many tulpamancers don't consider themselves plural/multiple or part of the community).

[/image id: text reads, "what about other kinds of origins? Other origins like "willowgenic" and all that bullshit? Yeah no, same thing as endos, not possible. look above for all the proof you need, did/osdd is only caused by trauma. traumagenic is the only valid origin." end id.] i dunno if i told you this but did/osdd isn't the only form of plurality because not all plurality is disordered. also, spelling every origin you don't agree with incorrectly in a post that's supposed to be informational doesn't lend to your credibility. it's spelled willogenic. you're welcome. also, the word "traumagenic" was created by an endogenic system (see above, during "endos are stealing our terms," first link). you're appropriating our terms, buddy. [silly]

[/image id: text reads, "but I gave myself did! / but I created my own alters! no you didn't. that isn't possible, you cannot turn yourself into a did/osdd system and creating alters is a coping mechanism, not something you do for fun, sources on this;" text ends. end id.] half truth! you can't give yourself osddid because it's a dissociative disorder that forms due to childhood trauma. you can, however, create alters/headmates. see above when i talked about tulpamancy. op goes on to link more resources about dissociative identity disorder that don't mention other forms of plurality. not all plurals are disordered, let's move on.

[/image id: text reads, "isn't being a system like the same as being trans or being lgbtq? no, many endos compared the two but they are completely different. Being lgbtq is an identity, it's something you are born as. being a system is a debilitating disorder caused by severe trauma, it is counted as a disability which is;" text ends. end id.] first off i gotta say it again, not all plurality is disordered. op goes on to explain why did is a disability, which is true. that's just true. but again. not all plurality is disordered. second off, half truth! being a system is not the same as being lgbtq! that being said, a lot of systems are part of the lgbtq community, both due to its known effects on gender and sexuality and because a lot of them are neurodivergent. speaking on the internet plural community here, anyways. a lot of anti endos are referred to as "sysmeds" as a reference to "transmeds," people who believe that all people who are transgender must have a disorder in the form of gender dysphoria. sysmeds are people who believe that all people who are systems must have a disorder in the form of osddid.... same thing different font debunked not all systems are disordered. anyways.

[/image id: text reads, "but the dsm-v says that trauma isn't required! no, the dsm-v actually says csa isn't required, there are other forms of trauma that don't involve csa or child abuse. To act as if it saying that the trauma isn't always ca or child abuse means that it doesn't require trauma at all is extremely invalidating to those who are traumatized in ways that don't involve child abuse or csa." end id.] both of you are wrong jesus christ. okay so first of all the dsm-v heavily implies that trauma is basically required in order to have osddid.

[/image id: text reading "dissociative identity disorder is associated with overwhelming experiences, traumatic events, and/or abuse occurring in childhood. the full disorder may manifest at al-" text cuts off. end id.]

[/image id: text reads, "the dissociative disorders are frequently found in the aftermath of trauma, and many of the symptoms, including embarrassment and confusion about the symptoms or a desire to hide them, are influenced by the proximity to trauma. in dsm-5, the dissociative disorders are placed next to, but are not part of, the trauma- and stressor-related disorders, reflecting the close relationship between these diagnostic classes. both acute stress disorder" text cuts off. end id.] second of all the part of the dsm-5 that goes over dissociative identity disorder doesn't mention sexual violence once. the best i can assume this claim came from is an old belief that most dissociative identity disorder trauma if not all is inherently sexual.

[/image id: text reads, "promoted by charismatic individuals such as cornelia wilbur -- that multiplicity was almost always caused by severe, repeated child abuse, usually sexual, and was an extreme form of dissociation." end id.] so... where did you get this info, op? you didn't give us a source, after all. and again.... not all plurality is disordered. so this is a pointless argument to make. shit, i'm out of ginger ale. and it's 1am. it's okay i'm basically done right? uh, right?

[/image id: text reads, "but this source claims endos exist / did doesn't require trauma! most of those sources are extremely old and / or made by endos (or pro endos) themselves. (we'll make a more in-depth post on this topic some other time, but for now this is all we have to say on it)" end id.] first off i dated every source i cited, most are post-2013 and the newest is from last september (sep 2023). the oldest is ~2003. you're welcome. second, if you denounce every source given matter how reputable because it's "written by pro endos," you'll only end up listening to people in your own community. hey, remember when i asked you to google "echo chamber?" also, i'm waiting for that post, op. also also, for the sake of it, not all plurality is disordered, so why are we mentioning did again? oh yeah, because you don't believe in non-disordered plurality. is that because all the sources proving their existence are pro endo? hey, fun challenge, if you're over the age of 21 and find yourself wishing to, take a shot every time i reiterate not all plurality is disordered. [joking]

[/image id: text reads, "but we don't know everything about the human brain! you're right, we don't. the brain is mysterious, but we do know enough to know that it doesn't do these kinds of things for no reason. we know the brain reacts to trauma and we know what the difference between a normal brain and a disordered brain is. just because we don't know everything doesn't give people an excuse to jump to conclusions and spread misinformation. it is better to stick to what science currently knows which is the theory of structural dissociation, which is the current theory about how did/osdd forms, and so far no one has been able to disprove it. and before someone says it, no it is not only a theory, it is a scientific theory which is;" end id.] hey i have this fun concept for you not all plurality is disordered. also, just to throw it out there, otto van der hart, the guy who created the theory of structural dissociation referencing the haunted self and doing so along with ellert neijenhuis, suzette boon and kathy steele, had his license revoked years ago for abusing his plural patients. not to mention they promote only referring to the "client" and not the "parts," and only referring to alters as "parts of the client." i recommend reading this article on power to the plurals, and if you feel like some extra reading, you can also check out this old article about how psych professionals used to be encouraged to bait or purposefully leave information out or use different names for integration to attempt to coerce their plural patients into final fusion. in conclusion, not all plurality is disordered, source your shit, and if you're going to talk about only dissociative disorders at least get your claims right. thank you. stop spreading misinformation.

dave got a blinkie for his post so now i want one

[/image id: green and yellow blinkie gif with the words "written by jade harley!" in pixelpoiiz font. end id.]

[/image id: blinkie with a dark blue, almost black background featuring multiple stars, one of which twinkles. contains text reading "written by kankri." in the pixeloid sans font. end id.]

[rotzaprachim]

the thing about “secret israeli restaurants” is americans are generally more positive to israelis than arabs so a vague restaurant is more likely to be hiding arab origins than israeli

pretty sure the og tweet poster was Canadian but yeahhhhh I read it and blinked about the antisemitism but I also read it and blinked about the fact that like bro… are you…. are you that fucking unaware about the extent of anti-Arab and anti-middle eastern racism in the us&canada? Are you that fucking obtuse? Oh my god. It literally doesn’t fucking matter what “origins” the restaurants are “hinting at” but I couldn’t fucking process how a white Canadian would think that “people who simply describe themselves/their business establishment as “middle eastern” or “Mediterranean” are inherently sketchy” is in any way a productive idea to have for literally anyone

a) a restaurant/establishment describing themselves as “Mediterranean” or “middle eastern” would be inherently sketchy and suspicious (as loaded as “middle eastern” itself is, “Mediterranean” can often be taken more positively in the west and anglophone/francophone worlds, after all nutritionists have been going on about the “Mediterranean diet) for a while) but also

B) that those people would inherently be (in his opinion) Zionists and/or Israelis

also feel this person has big “have never interacted with middle eastern person in my life” because as much as xenophobia and various other issues pushes people to go for either the “Mediterranean/middle eastern” marker, there’s plenty of other reasons why establishments go for those identifiers like.

1) a lottttt of Mediterranean diaspora families, due to immigration and intermarriage, really are franco-lebanese, or palestinain-Greek, or Ashkenazi Jewish and Algerian, or Moroccan Spaniards, or something like that, (check the Arabs, Jews, and Italians of the greater nyc area lol) and

2) in diasporic situations one (1) grocery store or deli often services OR competes with others for a broader market share, I’ve lived places where I regularly shopped at a Turkish/greek/arab grocery store (Labelled itself “Mediterranean”) and a Persian/armenian/arab grocery store (Labelled itself “middle eastern groceries”) because it would be dishonest to say that these grocery stores are for any one “nationality!” Walk into many a Mediterranean or middle eastern grocery store or deli and you’ll see Turkish products from Germany, maghrebi Jewish products from France, halal versions of jamón and chorizo, and labneh from lebanon next to Greek and Persian yogurt. My favorite local market once had an entire NOT HALAL!!!!! Fridge Labelled in three languages to store the frozen pork products for the Greek and Romanian markets next to the general halal cheese boreks.

I’m not saying this is the case everywhere or like it’s all peachy perfect in diaspora but this just comes across as someone who has a lot of political Ideas about Mediterranean & middle eastern people but haven’t met them in real life. Also it’s a love letter to the diaspora grocery store with 6+ ethnicities inside them and an entire wall of tomato pastes. If there’s one in your city you should patronize them! (Also note the fantastic phenomenon of the “Black Sea” grocery, the mass halal Mart, and the particular greater London ��Indian Bangladeshi Sri Lankan Persian Pakistani polish” mart

Also lol gonna have to lol at the “I’m so angry these diaspora Israelis would hide their nationality in order to avoid harassment because I want to boycott and harass them”

[eruverse]

As someone who focuses on HWS Russia/Russia personifications, I know of this phenomenon regarding certain headcanons in which natives simply don’t agree with foreigners:

Foreigners: yeah HWS Russia should’ve only begun as Moscow

Russians: that doesn’t make sense, Russian history started in Novgorod

How do you deal with this? But tbh if some foreigner tells to my face that my country’s history only began from Majapahit onward I would want to slap them kinda. Because the heck is foreigner’s place to do this, as if they’re more valid than me who is a native and who likely knows more than them.

1) History isn’t only about a set of facts but also how these things are perceived. So the differences are also valid to an extent

2) If you want to focus on a country in nationverse I think you should be prepared to learn the natives’ perspectives on how they see their own country. A nation isn’t only about strict history but also myths culture beliefs ideologies etc etc

3) Yes yes this is Russia and there’s a righteous limit to land grabbing and perceiving history but tbh I have a hard time understanding why whether Russia began as Moscow or Novgorod (which is now Russia anw) is contested and this is politically driven in a lot of ppl

Tbh this is why in my own hcs I have Ivan being different from other principalities and I have my own for Moscow. Ivan represents the whole principalities on the Russian side and he was Novgorod at the same time he was Moscow Tver Ryazan etc etc. Also less headache for me that way

Also my own understanding of Russian history of this time period: the principalities were too intertwined for me it’s kinda too tricky to disentangle them and that’s why having Ivan representing all of them while at the same time these principalities were having their own personification is a nice middle ground

Anyway this isn’t the only thing in which Russians and non-Russians disagree on on Russia headcanons/history portrayals and things to my observation (they disagree on a lot obviously) but for me this is a funny one

[kyouka-supremacy]

Good day/evening!

Sorry for the long post, but I was wondering what your opinion is on whether BSD is critical about law enforcement? I saw people on twt saying that BSD is a story that is critical abt the government, and that the Hunting Dogs (especially Jouno) proves Asagiri has criticisms of police.

But personally I disagree since BSD also has positive depictions of police, like Ranpo's friend. And a major plot point was relying on 'good officers' to turn against the 'bad ones' when it comes to believing the ADA. There's also the way the ADA is also a law enforcement agency (albeit a privately owned one). And the way Fukuchi is an antagonist not because he is a member of the military but instead secretly a terrorist. Jouno explicitly bringing up police brutality is probably the best evidence that bsd is critical of police, but it's also the same chapter where he fought against the real antagonist Fukuchi, sort of giving him a redemption (and also Tetcho saying Jouno is actually good)

I guess I'm cynical about whether BSD is really as critical as people believe. But I liked your previous posts on BSD's treatment of female characters and nationalism, so I wanted to hear your thoughts on this too

Have a great day!

Hello, thank you for your question! I need to preface this by saying that I'm not an expert on the subject, so please forgive me - and feel free to correct me - if anything I say is misguided by possible misconceptions I may have internalized.

For the most part, Anon, I must agree with you. The first time I read the take about bsd beingcritical of police brutality - if I remember correctly, it was from a screenshot from Twitter that made some rounds here when chapter 100.5 was released -, I thought it was a huge case of erroneous recontextualization. Very likely, it was coming from an usamerican person projecting a very usamerican issue to a book that is not american, nor destined to an american audience, nor intended to make of american issues its focus. Not saying police brutality is a phenomenon exclusive to the usa, but, as far as my limited knowledge goes, it definitely isn't in Japan to an extent that goes close to what it's like in the usa (it's also a phenomenon deeply rooted in a kind of racism Japan simply wouldn't have the chance to know, because Japanese society doesn't know the kind of multiethnicism that is present in the usa).

I don't think bsd is, at least intentionally, critical of any police or military structure. You already pointed all the most relevant arguments on why it isn't: most police officers are usually framed sympathetically (hell, even when they are criminals they're framed sympathetically, see chapter 6 (although there the criminal being an officer was more of a coincidence than anything) ), a good chunk of police is supporting the main cast by now, and even the part that isn't isn't doing so because they're police specifically, but rather because the whole world think they're terrorists due to reality-rewriting powers of this magic book™. About the Hunting Dogs, at first they were introduced in a mostly villainous light; but, now that we got to know them, they hardly use as critic of military police. Tetchou is undoubtedly honourable and just. Teruko has been established to always be putting civilians safety before anything (chapter 75), and it's also stated that despite her methods she helped drastically decrease criminality (can't remember where for the love of me but it's there somewhere). Tachihara has always been a character that is vastly sympathetic to the audience, and by now his loyalty doesn't even lie with the government anymore so I don't think I need to get to him. About Jouno, I think a point was made even before his redemption: Jouno is not military. I mean, he may wear the uniform, but as stated in chapter 93 he was recluted by Fukuchi appositely because he was a criminal, and he was never supposed to become a rightful paladin; the fact that he ended up being one is but a mere unintentional coincidence, and even then he isn't there to be representative of military police, nor is his sadism. I'm not counting Fukuchi as military because his loyalty clearly belongs to the cause / the doa, but let's take a moment to acknowledge how ironic it is that he's also the only character who openly crticicizes the military system, and he's the big villain.

I don't think bsd is critical of law enforcement or government (Special Division for Unusual Powers is framed positively and, as you mentioned, the ada itself is an organization affiliate to the government); if anything, I think the military and police systems in bsd are once again expressions of bsd's main core, that there's nothing completely good or completely bad, and just like people constantly oscillate between the two, law enforcement structures also have both valorous and corrupt members in their ranks.

Also like, peoples, bsd is kinda right wing, and right wing is historically very close and supportive of military circles (see, for example, how fascism goes hand in hand with military imaginary). The biggest enemy of the biggest arc in bsd so far is literally an anarchist who among other things vastly criticizes the military system, so take that as you will. I feel like the overall implicit take away of this arc will be “it's true that law enforcement agencies do horrible things, but we must accept it because it's necessary to mantain peace and stability”, but feel free to disagree with me on this.

[pokemon-academy-official]

I was wondering if kanto and johto have always been so close (obv in terms of diplomatic relationship, Ik they"re physically close) or if there have been conflicts between.. i was also wondering why paldea and kitakami have such close relationships too bc theyre quite far apart

Thank you for the question! Let's talk about interregional diplomacy!

In General

The largest diplomatic event in recent history was the Great Pokémon War, involving many regions, most notably Kanto and Unova. Afterwards, there was certainly some tension, but there thankfully haven't been any large-scale conflicts between regions since, and all major regions are decently friendly with one another!

That's not to say everyone is the best of friends, of course. There are certainly disagreements, but all-out war is the last thing on anyone's mind.

Paldea and Kitakami

Before we get to the real meat and potatoes, you mentioned the "close relationship" between Paldea and Kitakami. We found this interesting since there really isn't much of one to speak of. Outside of the Terestal phenomenon, the two regions share very little in common. While there are no conflicts between them, their relationship isn't especially close.

You may have been thinking of an expedition to the Kitakami region featuring students from Naranja-Uva and Blueberry Academies, during which an interesting truth was discovered regarding Ogerpon and the Loyal Three! (Read here for more information: [a link to an article on a Sinnoan news site, detailing the events of The Teal Mask])

Kanto and Johto

Now then...

Kanto and Johto share a very long history, which we will be massively simplifying and summarizing here. (Apologies to any history enthusiasts for the omissions. If it's any consolation, we offer a much more in-depth course on this very topic at our Kanto, Johto, Hoenn, and Sinnoh campuses!)

As is common for directly neighboring regions, Kanto and Johto have a history of both alliances and feuds. While most outright fighting was mitigated by the mountains between the regions, several naval battles are recorded. These conflicts could range in cause from trade disputes to retaliation against a perceived invasion, to an influential family being angry with someone from the other region. They also ranged in scope, from a single battle lasting 20 minutes to several years of near endless fighting. The nearby Hoenn and Sinnoh regions (and, to a much lesser extent, Kitakami) had similar "on again off again" relationships. This all culminated in the War of Nations, in which each region fought both with and against each other at least twice over.

When the fighting finally ended, all of the involved regions agreed to remain allied for perpetuity, and this has held to this day. By the time of the Great Pokémon War, the regions had been nearly as friendly as they are today for several decades and were of course close allies both during this conflict and since.

One minor issue has arisen, however. When Routes 26 and 27 were established, Johto took issue with Kanto claiming Mt. Silver. Even among debate regarding the practicality of this claim, Johto did not desist. Eventually, Kanto relented. Today, Mt. Silver is a piece of Johto that is not directly accessible from any other part of Johto, and the route leading to it, Route 28, is Kantonian. This has led to some confusion among travelers, but considering the open border between the two regions it is of little consequence.

[faroreswinds]

There's been a recent critique of what's being called the "social justice villain/puppykicker" where a villain who is framed - or at the very least believed by the audience - to have a righteous cause in their actions has to remind the audience that they're a villain by performing some evil deeds. Do you think there are people who view Ed*lgard and to an extent anyone who works with her as this? Cause it somewhat explains where the "Ed*lgard was right" "Ed*lgard's war is a revolution" takes come from. Plus another part of the "social justice villain/puppykicker" critique is that the heroes who oppose the villain are criticized for "maintaining the status quo" which is what people accuse Dimitri of doing (even though he wants change, has mentioned it multiple times, and a couple endings shows he does change things).

I mean, based off your description of the phenomenon, it sounds right to me.

Houses, and especially Hopes, frames Edelgard's war as at least somewhat justified. Only Dimitri's route really pushes back on the ideology of the war's basis, but even then Dimitri "sympathizes" with Edelgard to a degree.

The game rarely every goes "You know, maybe trying to conquer other nations is a bad thing." It's criticism is more "Maybe we shouldn't kill people to make changes to the system." Which is still a good criticism, mind you, but that's basically the only criticism it makes.

Part of that is the game's treatment of Foldan. The developers seem to have forgotten that Foldan is not a single nation, but three. The game, and fans, discuss the three nations as a package deal. It would be like me saying "You know the problems of North America? It's the healthcare system!" as if that has any legitimate meaning. North America has several nations in it, and they all have their own healthcare systems.

But that's basically what Houses does. Replace "North America" with "Foldan", and "healthcare" with "the Church" and that's pretty much what the game does. "You know the problems of Foldan? It's the Church!".

But the Church exists differently in each nation. In the Empire, it has basically no relationship with them anymore. In the Kingdom, it is a major ally and influence. And in the Alliance, it's just... there, I guess, but no one pays it any mind.

But the game seems to ignore these differences. It insists that the Church is the source for all of Foldan's problems.

Now, if the game had actually built itself around this idea properly, I would have no complaints. Let's say... Edelgard really only wanted to stop the Church from influencing the Empire. Let's say the Church was controlling Emperors for generations and she wanted to break those chains. But in the process, she had to go up against the Kingdom because they are allies with the Church, and the Alliance decided to enter the war on their own to get a piece of land-pie.

Well then, I would have no complaints about Edelgard starting a war.

But that's not what she does. She says it's just to take down the Church, but if that's true then why did she try to also take over the Alliance and the Kingdom? Come on, son, that's too much.

I can't blame fans too much on this one. The game really wants us to sympathize with her. Even freaking Seteth- the man who saw multiple wars already and had his daughter kidnapped by Edelgard- is all like "maybe she's not so bad after all." Brah.

[letsrilakkusu-blog]

Favorite recent reads - Part 1

I was an avid reader as a child but once I got to middle school and high school, there was so much assigned reading that I no longer did it for enjoyment, and once I got to college and didn't have any English or literature classes, I pretty much stopped reading altogether. The pandemic and the passing of a close friend who loved to read motivated me to start again. So, following up my post about A Little Life, I thought I'd share some of my favorite books that I've read in the past two years.

Note: I get overwhelmed when I have too many choices available, and there is an infinite amount of books. So to narrow my options, I focus mostly on works by Asian authors, whether they are translated or originally written in English.

A Tale for the Time Being by Ruth Ozeki

An absolutely breathtaking story of a writer (Ruth) who finds the diary of 16-year-old Nao washed up on the Canadian shore as part of what she believes is the aftermath of the March 2011 tsunami. I love the way the narrative switches back and forth between Nao's diary entries and Ruth's experience reading them. Nao's story is ruthless and touches on everything from assimilation issues, school bullying, suicide, Japanese nationalism during WWII, and Zen Buddhism. I felt myself as an extension of Ruth, getting heavily invested in Nao's life and her fate. While I may not have gotten the answers I wanted from the novel's ending, it was magical and open-ended enough to leave me feeling hopeful and uplifted.

No Longer Human by Osamu Dazai

One of my favorite anime series is Bungou Stray Dogs, which follows a group of individuals gifted with special powers who solve mysteries and protect Yokohama from dangerous organizations, but the characters are all named after real Japanese authors or poets and derive their powers from their respective works. My favorite character is Dazai, based on the real Osamu Dazai, and whose power "No Longer Human" neutralizes all other powers, so naturally when I started my reading journey I knew I wanted to check out this classic.

Shit is dark. It follows one man, Oba, who feels that he is disqualified as a human being because he is so different from others, which results in a fear and anxiety that plague him and his relationships as he heads toward a downward spiral of drinking, drug use, and mental instability. It's fiction but pulls heavily from events from Dazai's actual life. It is unflinching in its depiction of what were most likely his true feelings of alienation in this world that he felt he had no place in, and he took his life shortly after it was published. I felt incredibly uneasy while reading but couldn't stop.

Kim Jiyoung, Born 1982 by Cho Nam-Joo

Kim Jiyoung, a woman, a wife, a mother, starts experiencing a strange phenomenon in which she impersonates other women in her life with eerie accuracy, with no memory of doing so. Her concerned husband decides to have her get psychiatric help, and the novel gives a straightforward history of her life up until that point.

Mostly, this book made me mad. As a woman, reading about the things Jiyoung experienced because she is a woman - a stalker who insisted that she must have been interested in him because she smiled at him in class one time, discrimination during job-hunting, the pressure to have stop working and have a child - was truly upsetting and I'm thankful that I haven't experienced such things to the same extent. Still, as wife anticipating having a child in the future, I really felt Jiyoung's question to her husband: "You said don’t just think about what I’ll be giving up. I’m putting my youth, health, job, colleagues, social networks, career plans, and future on the line. No wonder all I can think about are the things I’m giving up. But what about you? What do you lose by gaining a child?"

Part 2 to follow!

[douchebagbrainwaves]

BEATING THE RESOURCEFUL

To get into a good college, from which one can't be fired is worth money; exchanging the two is one of the defining qualities of an asshole. Depends what you mean by exist. And what do they have to say everything you think, it may be heretical or whatever modern equivalent, but might even exacerbate them. But maybe the older generation would laugh at me for saying that 2 2 is 5, or that pro-Israel groups are compiling dossiers on those who speak out against Israeli human rights abuses, or about people being sued for violating the DMCA, part of me wants to say, All right, you bastards, bring it on. Indeed, the really interesting question is not what will happen to movies. If we could look into the past. Beyond the moderately useful generalization that human nature doesn't change much, the unfortunate fact is that change is hard to bear. Let me see and decide for myself. To the extent that winning is a matter of degree. East Coast universities are not far behind, and British universities only a little behind them. But seeing what startups are really like will at least initially experience the other side of this phenomenon, where the center of gravity had shifted by then that one found people confident enough to treat Aristotle's work as a catalog of mistakes. The other reason networks like live shows is that they're cheaper to produce.

Now that so many judge themselves by it. The problem is, there are so many things you can't say. For him, I now realize, this was supposed to work one's way up the corporate ladder. I had some more honest motives as well. Letting just 10,000 startup founders into the country each year could have a visible effect on the economy that it would be to start new silicon valleys. It seems like it should be straightforward. Or would super-angel has some of the most common emails we get is from people asking if we can help them set up a local clone of Y Combinator. I'll be rich.

An easy job from which one can't be fired is worth money; exchanging the two is one of the reasons, though they may constrain you a bit, because they pick later, when there's more performance to measure. Works like the Metaphysics. And the business of selling information to consumers has always been a fussy place, a town of i dotters and t crossers, where you're liable to get both your grammar and your ideas corrected in the same position as someone buying technology for large organizations don't care if they pay a fortune for mediocre software. Computers are a familiar example. He brought up something called Revenue Loop, which Viaweb had been working on when they bought us. Whatever we think that will later seem ridiculous, I want to do this. I managed to write 'The Crucible,Arthur Miller wrote, but looking back I have often wished I'd had the temperament to do an absurd comedy, which is the one based on the founders. And they make a lot of people who could have made it easier for Twitter to spread. People will watch what they want. Is seed funding not merely national, but international? If all you need to raise money.

When I said at the beginning that if you own the channel, there's a lot they can do things that super-angels would quibble about valuations. For example, many suspect that venture capital firms are biased against female founders. When you find something you can't say, what do you do with it? Maybe that will help, if you take the trouble to write them to read like articles. It took me a while to grasp this, but reacted simply by not studying philosophy, rather than becoming philosophy professors. So I bet it would help a lot of things for the better. And why did one want to do it efficiently. Likewise its reincarnation as political correctness. A round they want a lot. This pattern suggests that attitudes at Stanford and Berkeley are not an anomaly, but a famous speaker.

Anything so admired and so difficult to read must have something in it, but they haven't followed it to its conclusion. Users prefer it not just because we make people move for Y Combinator, when an idea is described as good. So he proposes there are two kinds of theoretical knowledge: some that's useful in practical matters and some that isn't. So if you're going to make something people want. If a self-consciously cool people who want to meet him. But the truth is, no one knows yet, not even the VCs and super-angels who invest in them. So don't include your housemate in your startup because he'd feel left out otherwise. Plus they were always so relieved. In the car world, there has simultaneously been a huge increase in the pool of startup founders. Were you nodding in agreement, thinking stupid investors a few paragraphs ago when I was growing up. All the super-angels who invest in angel rounds can blow up the valuations for angels and super-angels are ruling out taking VC money you hire a sales force to do that would just leave and do it somewhere else. Scientists go looking for trouble.

But there is a trick for not dying en route. In the times when they weren't, and it's unclear whether anyone could be. The investors who invested when you had no money were taking more risk, and can identify them as fashions. In 18 months, they got press hits in over 60 different publications. Audiences like to be swept off their feet by a vigorous stream of words. The Economist costs $7 for 86 pages, or 8. Moral fashions don't seem to be effectively infinite, at least some super-angels and VCs has become hopelessly blurred. Unfortunately, though public acquirers are structurally identical to pooled-risk company management companies got together and agreed to allow their clients to exchange shares in all their pools.

Everyone encourages you to grow up rich or even upper middle class to get rich is to start startups than could before. Wearing suits, we're told, will make us 3. What makes good food? And the old system meant people had to deal with than VCs. If we assume 4 people per startup, which is what the situation deserved. It depends on investors, because until you're profitable that's who you have to tease apart the components. Whatever the outcome, the conflict between VCs and super-angels, and they bounced back.

[leonbloder]

Old Faithful

During my day-long visit to Yellowstone National Park, I was determined to see all the main sites I could visit. Because I arrived at the crack of dawn, I got the chance to do so long before the buses filled with mostly pasty-white tourists arrived with their hordes of children.  

If I sound a bit like a curmudgeon, it's because I am one, at least when it comes to buses filled with tourists and screaming kids who ignore the safety signs. 

But at long last, I found my way to Old Faithful, the famous geyser that erupts on a reasonably consistent schedule every 35-120 minutes.�� The National Park Service can predict the eruption schedule within plus or minus ten minutes, which is remarkable. 

As fate would have it, I arrived soon after Old Faithful erupted, so I had a long wait.  

I took advantage of the time to visit the gift shop, scope out some hiking trails, refill my water bottles, and then find a good spot to view the event. 

The eruption began slowly at first.  Water began to bubble up and spill over the side of the geyser's crater, and the crowd started to "Oooooo!" and "Aaaaahhh!" only to be forced to wait a bit longer.  

The crowd dissipated quickly as Old Faithful began to subside and go back on the clock for the next eruption.  I walked with them and listened to the chatter of the people around me. 

"Wasn't that cool?" a dad asked his teenage daughter.  "It was okay," she replied. 

"Check that off the list!" a guy in front of me told his girlfriend. "That was a long wait," she replied. 

As I continued to walk and listen, I sensed that most of us missed something important about what we had just witnessed.  

Seeing this incredible natural phenomenon, which has thrilled millions of people in years gone by, may have been anticlimactic for most people who came to see it that day.  

It wasn't all that miraculous to them.  

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that I had the same tendencies and wondered if I had the chance to see Old Faithful again, if I wouldn't try harder to time it better so I didn't have to wait. 

Our culture has an immediacy that can't be ignored. We have become used to not having to wait. In addition, our senses have become deadened to a certain extent by the incredible things that often happen right under our noses—miracles that should amaze us. 

So we live our lives thinking that miracles are only things that happened a long time ago, recorded by people who were too easily impressed. We feel a kind of superiority about this view as people who aren't easily entertained and are too wise to be fooled.  

What might be surprising is that even in ancient times, many people who witnessed the miraculous held the same view.  

Many of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' miracles also included statements about those who refused to believe what they had seen was miraculous.  Jesus often pointed this out, sometimes with a degree of sadness. 

Miracles are all around us, though. We can see them in Creation, experience them through incredible advances in Science and Technology, and find them in medicines that cure what used to be a death sentence. 

However, we have come to see these things through a jaundiced lens rather than clear-eyed and filled with wonder.  

We should take the time each day to pause and reflect on the miraculous nature of the world around us.  We should push back from our desire for immediacy and learn to wait and watch.  We should learn to see better, let the wonder of our world renew our souls, and find hope in all of it.

May we all learn what it means to practice this.  And may the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all, now and forever. Amen.    

[liskantope]

I'm getting exhausted from this thread, but I do feel I have one last loop to close and owe you a reblog/response here; I think your reblog was a good one and might wind up shifting my position significantly.

I think to some extent we're talking past each other here.

We certainly were talking past each other, including in the six-months-ago thread when you interpreted my complaint about "identity-centrism" in terms of the "born this way" vs. "choice" debate, while I was trying to talk about a phenomenon I see as entirely different. Now, however, I think we're on the same page about what I've meant and the points you make do address it, and I appreciate that.

I do remember people going around chortling, "What's next, people are going to think they have a right to marry whom- or whatever they want now?" I remember how my middle school best friend -turned- super conservative by the end of high school made some crack about people arguing next for marriage rights between humans and Great Danes.

And you're right. This is just what it sounds like when people are trying to deride rhetoric that relies on "X is whatever someone claims it is" -type reasoning (where X = love). This is maybe the most effective hole-poking of my initial thesis in this whole thread. And I do see why I might sound to you exactly like those conservatives and pessimistic liberals of two decades ago.

But here's the thing: this rhetoric you're citing is only the rhetoric issuing from the anti-gay side, and just because it purports to mock something coming from the pro-gay side, it doesn't necessarily imply that said thing was coming from the pro-gay side in any substantial amount. At least, I wasn't noticing a ton of "love is automatically whatever someone claims it is" stuff, and so I dismissed the "are people going to start marrying their toasters?" stuff as a stupid slippery-slope argument. In other words, since (as I believed) it wasn't lambasting something that actually existed, to me at the time it came off as weak and petulant, which made me glad.

Now, a bunch of people in this thread have me halfway convinced that there was just an awful lot I wasn't noticing at the time, so I don't know. The arguments I do remember hearing from the pro-gay side were often along the lines of "We're not saying that marriage should just be between any number of parties of any sort at all; we're saying that a loving, committed same-sex couple as all the same salient characteristics of a loving, committed opposite-sex couple" and then pointing to real evidence of this. Actually, your post triggered a memory of most of a decade later, when gay marriage was legalized at the national level and Jon Stewart played a clip of a conservative saying, "What's next, legalizing marriages between more than two people?", and Stewart, rather than being forced to shrug his shoulders as "love is whatever" might require, rebutted by pointing to real differences between the natures of being gay and of being poly. (This point is not to imply that I'm not open to the idea of legalizing marriage between more than two people, though clearly Stewart wasn't.)

But maybe you and others are right. And so I'll try to drop the constant invocation of my memories from that time.

Since I'm talking to you, I may as well briefly address what you said in my thread six months ago. By now it would be retreading old ground to explain why my complaint is quite distinct from the "born that way" vs. "choice" debate, and I think we're past that now, but I'll just say again that one hundred percent absolutely I remember that being a huge thing, going all the way from heated arguments I was having with people in high school and college to the presidential candidates discussing it in one of the debates (and yes, I did all of my growing up in the US). So given that you understood me to be forgetting it ever happened, I absolutely don't blame you at all for your subtly exasperated tone in that post.

Okay, obviously… Well, no, I was going to say that there’s not a direct parallel here because people don’t generally accuse homosexuals of hiding their actual orientation, but then I realized, like, yeah… People say that Bisexuals are actually just deluded heterosexuals or deluded homosexuals, and a big part of the last couple of decades of LGBT stuff has involved bisexuals asserting that their sexuality is real.

I actually agree that there's a certain aspect of the "fixation on internally-defined identities" thing going on in the struggles over who counts as bisexual as well as a number of other sexual orientation labels, and I guess some of it annoys me although seems relatively inconsequential and I certainly don't believe the bisexuality visibility movement is doing any kind of real harm in how it champions a righteous cause. And I believe that the horde of further sexual orientation terminology out there nowadays can be used quite meaningfully and usefully, provided that people don't get bogged down in treating them as central identity labels rather than just additional descriptors (hey, I used "reciproromantic" to describe myself just the other day! which might actually be an invention based on "reciprosexual" being the actually existing term?). All that said, again (*cue collective eye roll*) I don't remember ever so much as hearing of bi-erasure or related things until well past college, even after one of my main social groups in college was a gay group (perhaps the group being composed mainly of gay men and straight women and not exactly being a queer group had something to do with that?). I have not known this to be "a big part" rather than a quite minor part of mainstream gay activism two decades ago. But I'm learning that there might be quite a lot I don't know/remember.

Half a year ago, I got myself involved in a thread which compared trans rights to gay rights and tried to make a case that, in terms of arguments for each, the issues are not as directly comparable as a lot of people seem to think. A lot of my perspective comes from a sort of an empathy I feel with the non- religiously conservative, non- radical feminist motivations for doubting some of what this social movement is pushing for, particularly with regard to its disconnect with how more traditional people view identity categories.

This portion of a recent interview on the YouTube channel Nonzero (see until 47:43) is a stunningly crystal-clear illustration of the attitude and motivation I was trying to describe at the time, so much so that I think it's instructive and kind of fascinating to watch, even if it's almost so extreme and ridiculous as to come across as parody. (Warning: a certain kind of non-conservative, non-TERFy transphobia, which I'll quote bits of below.)

The interviewee, Norman Finkelstein, feels violently averse to using "they/them" pronouns purely because it would be implicitly affirming what in his mind is an untruth. (Presumably he would not want to refer to a male-presenting student as "she" or a female-presenting student as "he", for a similar reason, but this doesn't directly come up.) He appears to have no other motive, but the motive of not liking to "play along" with someone else's factual untruth is plenty for him. There is no particular social conservatism evident in him; he states plainly that he's fine with androgyny, of people dressing/presenting any way they wish, and that stuff doesn't bother him in the slightest, because that doesn't involve saying things that are untrue. Politically and philosophically he is obviously left-leaning, pro-science, and non/anti-religious in most areas: he repeatedly likens affirming someone's gender identity to affirming that the world is flat or that climate change isn't real or "all the craziness you attribute to the Trump base". Not pronouncing things that imply a factual untruth or deny objective reality is sacred to him as a professor and an intellectual, is what he is saying.

Also, this:

I'm not insulting anyone. If I'm calling you a "he", it's not like I'm calling you the N word or I'm calling you a c*** or something. It's just a relatively stable identifier.

Notice how completely uncomprehending Finkelstein is of the notion that not affirming someone's claimed identity (on the basis of what he believes to be objective reality or established definitions of words) could possibly be an insult or convey lack of respect or qualify as dehumanizing treatment of someone else. That a refusal to affirm someone's claimed identity (on the basis that it denies objective reality) is somehow a form of dehumanization is a completely unfathomable concept to many.

Now I find Finkelstein's perspective flawed on at least half a dozen counts, and fallacious on a particular fundamental level in conflating different types of "objective facts" (something that Robert Wright, who takes a much more reasonable, kind, and open-minded agnostic view on all of this, gently tried to push back on him about). I do think Finkelstein had some good points later in the excerpt about not forcing jarring changes in language down everyone's throats -- this is how I feel about artificial and ugly terms like Latinx, for instance, and I would have had some issues with xie/xir and the like becoming widespread nonbinary pronouns -- but in my opinion these points can't be applied well to using singular "they" for nonbinary people. Moreover, Finkelstein comes across as hardly more than a crusty, curmudgeonly jackass throughout, one who proudly and stubbornly adheres to a disagreeable absolutist view and refuses to open his mind to where his defense of that view might be flawed.

(More minor point: in arguing that mispronouning someone isn't a form of insult, he compares it to factually saying someone's hair is white or that their muscular dystrophy will prevent them from running a 4-minute mile. But, while maybe "insult" or "dehumanization" wouldn't be the best way to describe these things, they are certainly rude in certain contexts: you probably shouldn't call attention to someone's hair being white if they are sensitive about aging, for instance. Similarly, calling a nonbinary but male-presenting person "he" is pretty unkind if they don't want to present as male and are sensitive about it. But Finkelstein clearly isn't the kind of person to prioritize others' feelings over his duty towards "objective reality" in this way.)

But I contend that this is simply an extreme and rather dickish version of how tons and tons of people think, because in terms of the history of social justice and civil rights movements, it is brand new for a movement to be so heavily based in the objective truth of internally-felt identities and accusing people of fundamental dehumanization when they refuse to affirm them. And yet, activist rhetoric sounds as if this is simply part of how identities always worked and what dehumanization always meant, rather than something that appeared on the scene just yesterday.

There is certainly still a major constituency of conservatively religious people who believe that everyone should only do with their bodies what their bodies were "created to do" or whatever, but conservative Christianity is very weakened in our culture since it lost the last major culture war, and I think a lot of people in that camp still also fall into the category of finding it incomprehensible nonsense to say that an identity category is whatever each of us says it is and that it's dehumanizing ever to imply otherwise. I believe it's simply a misconception to assume that the pushback against trans activism is comprised mainly of fundamentalists and TERFs. Norman Finkelstein is an (albeit extreme) example of someone who appears to be neither, and my perception at least in the US is that most people are neither, but that a great many Americans, if not a majority, don't really get the "identity is whatever you say it is" concept and at best are bemusedly humoring it as long as it doesn't get too much into their faces.

(On each day of this past weekend, I was in a different public place -- a bar restaurant and a coffee shop -- and overheard part of a conversation about how "the people in such-and-such social group over there all ask about and share pronouns and a bunch of them go by 'they'", and in context this wasn't being attacked in any way, but it was being treated as bemusing and only semi-comprehensible.)

As Tumblr user Bambamramfan once said, people (particularly scientific-minded, non-faith-y people) really don't like to assert things they don't actually believe (don't have time to look up the post right now; the way they phrased it was something like "Americans don't like to lie about what they believe" and it was in the context of lesser-of-two-evils voting, a topic on which I emphatically disagreed with Bambambramfan, but I consider that particular point to be wise). I wish this were more recognized in social justice activism communities in general, and both that more rhetoric were crafted and ideological assumptions were more carefully examined with it in mind.

I'll end by saying, as I've probably said before, that I'm not claiming just because certain ideological assumptions in trans right activism are fundamentally brand new, that they are wrong or shouldn't become adopted by the wider community. Lots of fundamental ideological assumptions that we are obviously better off for making the default, such as "people owning other people is a gross moral evil", were once brand new at least on a society-wide scale. What I complain about is activists completely refusing to acknowledge or even be aware of this novelty, and so refusing to critically examine it, to defend it on its own merits, or to meet others where they're at.

[militantinremission]

What exactly is the LGBTQ... Agenda?

I begin this by stating that ALL PHENOMENON comes into existence at THE WILL & THE WAY of The Most High. Homosexual, Lesbian, & Transgender behavior is NOT 'unnatural', but it isn't 'common' either. The Majority of what We call Reality, is based on the integration of masculine & feminine forces. In humans, Men & Wo(mb)Men compliment each other. They close a spiritual circuit. When We consider the role that Yang & Yin (Shu & Tefnut) plays in shaping Ones 'temperment', We can see how some individuals may have a disproportionate mix of these forces. In Kemet (Kamit/ Ancient Egypt), The Kamau featured this duality prominently w/ colossal statues of Kings & Queens of that Era. They were depicted as Equals.

When looking at the LGTBQ... Community from a global perspective, we're talking about less than 1% of the World's Population. From this angle, this Community is a small Minority Group, mostly found in Western(ized) Populations. Among the Non- Western Nations of the World, the most liberal may accept the Right of Expression of their LGBTQ... Population, but they're not adopting that culture into their Social Mores. The question arises: Why is the LGBTQ... Agenda being mainstreamed into Western Culture? And why is there a focus on 'Black Masculinity'? Individuals like Billy Porter try to paint Black Men as 'bullies', but are We? And what does he mean by 'bully'? Traditionally, bullies prey on the weak & defenseless; but that's a far cry from being an 'Oppressor'.

Bayard Rustin can be credited w/ tethering the Struggle of Black America w/ The Gay Rights Movement. He called that Movement 'The New Civil Rights Movement'. He also called Gays & Lesbians 'The New Niggers'... Is this accurate? Gay Men & Lesbians had Freedom of Expression behind Closed Doors. Most adopted a 'Mainstream' persona in Public. White Gays & Lesbians in particular, enjoyed THE SAME Rights & Privileges as Straight White Men & Women. White Trans Individuals were mostly Crossdressers; Gender Changing Surgery was not as advanced as it is today. Even they could mingle w/ Mainstream Society & enjoy the same Rights & Privileges.

While I agree that some Trans Individuals are persecuted to some extent for being different, a lot of the attacks against them stem from trying to engage w/ heterosexual Men who thought they were interacting w/ a 'cis- gender' Female. For whatever reason, They fail to see that THIS is a violation. They feel that they have the Right to misrepresent themselves to these Men, & are quick to cry foul when a heterosexual Man reacts to this misrepresentation negatively. They fail to understand The Fact that while they have a Right of Expression, others also have the same Right. If a Trans Individual learns that they are interacting w/ a heterosexual Man, why not tell him the truth, & let him make his own decision? There are Men out there who are attracted to Transgender individuals; why can't they pursue relationships w/ these Men?

A recurring Issue affecting the Trans Gender Community, is whether Trans Gender individuals have the Right to compete in Female Athletics. A number of these athletes have rose to fame by breaking Records held by 'cis- gender' females; is this fair? The argument, is that Men undergoing transition still preserve their masculine biochemistry. They may be more frail than the average Man, but they're more robust than the average Woman. Women have been fighting for equality in Athletics for decades; does this necessitate a new category of Sports, that takes Transgender Athletes into consideration? This is part of a larger narrative: Are Trans Gender Individuals that identify as Female actually Women? Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson couldn't answer this question during her Confirmation Hearing. This looks like a Trick Bag for future debate on the subject. It's not that complicated to me.

Trans Gender Individuals have the Right of Expression, but I don't think they really know what that means. They have the Freedom of their Pursuit of Happiness; if it means identifying w/ the opposite sex, so be it. That doesn't mean that Others are required to accept their Self Image. The Truth of The Matter, is that Women are Biochemically & Spiritually complicated Beings. Gender Reassignment, Hormone Therapy, & Uterine Transplants(???) aren't enough to make a Man into a Woman. It's actually pretty insulting. I remember Old School 'Trannies' who did their thing, & didn't care what ANYONE thought about them. What happened to that sentiment?

The LGBTQ... Agenda confuses Me. What is the End Goal? I'm old enough to remember 'The Gay Rights Movement'. That was about Respect. Gays, Lesbians, & Trans Individuals were being harassed & beaten for just being themselves. They were fighting for The Right of Expression. The LGBTQ... Agenda feels different. This Agenda feels like Social Indoctrination. If We follow statistics, 7% of the American population, & 20%- 25% of Gen. Z identify as LGBTQ... Why is the majority of what We are exposed to, as a Society, LGBTQ... driven?

As a Heterosexual Black Man, I am concerned w/ the proliferation of Black LGBTQ images & the lack of Black heterosexual couples. As a Community, We have been attacked by various forms of genocide. Breaking down traditional Black Families, & the Covenant between Black Men & Women has been a long term goal of White Supremacy. We know that there are staunch racists w/i the LGBTQ... Community. Gay Men & Lesbians were also Slaveholders. I don't have the exact #s, but it looks like for every heterosexual Black Couple seen 'On Screen', We are shown 3 Black interracial & 3 Black Gay/ Lesbian Couples. Is this an accurate depiction of the Indigenous Black American Community? What is clear, is that We are being targeted... I have always held the philosophy of 'Free to be', as long as U respect My Right of Expression. As a heterosexual [Dominant] Black Man, I feel my Right being threatened.

Society deems Black Masculinity as 'toxic', while Gay Black Men are deemed acceptable. When We factor in Prison/ Convict Leasing, Black Men make about 51 Cents for every Dollar that a White Man makes. Gay Black Men however, make about The Same as White Men. Billy Porter wants to represent A Black Male perspective, while wearing a dress; then he critiques those who contest his representation. They're bullies & homophobes that can't accept a multifaceted expression of 'masculinity'. He ignores The Fact that Black Masculinity has been stereotyped in Movies, Television Shows, Music Videos, & Publications for decades. There was NEVER a 'multifaceted' approach to Black Masculinity. There was a multifaceted approach to how a Black Man tried to take care of his Family.

I have to reiterate The Fact that The LGBTQ... Community deserves The Right Of Expression. My issue w/ The LGBTQ... Agenda, is the heavy handed feel of it. This Movement is more aggressive than The Gay Rights Movement that preceded it. That Movement seemed to be more about Gay, Lesbian, & Trans Individuals having their Own Place & Space to express themselves. I remember speaking w/ Gay Men back in the 80s, & how they stressed The Fact that they were MEN, that just happened to have an affinity for other Men. Today's Gay Man presents a more effeminate image. Ricky Martin & Neal Patrick Harris types have been overshadowed by more flamboyant personalities; prominent among this group, are Gay Black Men.

A Hot Button Issue w/ The LGBTQ... Agenda, is the perceived indoctrination of prepubescent children. The Gay/ Lesbian Agenda seems to have taken a back seat to The Debate over whether children should undergo Gender Reassignment Surgery. I'm of The School of Thought that believes that children should be allowed to be children. Why are We teaching Our children about Sexuality in Elementary School? Why is THIS even an issue? Children are in a perpetual developmental state; thoughts & feelings they have today, may be very different from what they think & feel 5Yrs from now.

Children are also in a Period of Discovery. They are learning about their sexual identity, & how to navigate Social Mores as that individual. Introducing alternate Sexual Identities complicates an already complicated period. I understand the Transgender argument that young boys & girls that identify w/ the opposite sex are being left behind. My issue, is that these individuals were allowed to have a childhood, grow up, & then decide how they want to live as adults. Why can't today's children have the same freedom? Mainstream Media is focusing on 'Drag Queen Story Time', but it's deeper than that.

I'm old enough to remember when The Gay Man's Health Crisis started going into Elementary & Junior High Schools in NYC. 1978 was a Watershed year for 'Gay Bashing'. The wanton attacks on Gay Men led many to take Martial Arts & Self Defense Classes. Others joined Gyms to bulk up. This led to the phenomenon of 'Body Sculpting'. The rationale at the time, was a belief that familiarizing young children w/ Gay/ Lesbian Culture, would help reduce the prospect of homophobic attacks in the future. They were right. By 1984, Eddie Murphy is joking about social relations between Straight & Gay Men.

I personally think that Disco Music & Larry LeVan (R.I.P.) did more to bridge the gap between Straight & Gay Cultures, but Millennials & Gen Z have been much more accepting of the Gay/ Lesbian/ Transgender individual's Right of Expression. My question, is why isn't this enough? The LGBTQ... Community has amassed considerable Political Power & 'Social Capital'. Included are:

The Right to Exist

The Right of Expression

The Right of Autonomy, &

The Right to your Own Place & Space.

From a Indigenous/ Black American perspective, this group has attained more Freedom in 50Yrs, than We have in the last 159Yrs. It's a bit confounding, when you consider how This Community already had these Rights (as Whitefolk); it's apparent that They wanted Social Acceptance as a Counter Culture.

What concerns me, is the push to incorporate a 'Counter Culture' into the Social Mainstream. I accept LGBTQ... Culture, like I accept the variety of Ethnic Cultures that I am exposed to. That said, i'm not trying to integrate those Cultures into My Experience. My Right of Expression, is supposed to give me Freedom of Choice. The obvious indoctrination of children into LGBTQ... Culture by School Teachers, & Corporations like Disney, needs to be called out. Teachers need to double down on Reading, Writing, & Arithmetic; when do they have time to talk about Sexuality? The smug comments of a Disney Producer regarding the placement of 'Gay Images' (i.e. 2 Men kissing) in Programs that target children, isn't very funny.

Disney has a long history of Racism; both of the Disney Brothers were Racists. That said, the Disney Legacy has been that of 'Child Friendly Entertainment'. Parents need to be more attentive about the Programs that their children watch, but they put their faith in Disney providing mainstream values in their programming. LGBTQ... Culture isn't Mainstream, regardless of how many Directors, Producers, Actors, & Crew Members from that Community are involved in a Project. These subversive acts only fuel the rhetoric associating LGBTQ... Culture w/ Pedophilia. Rumors of including NAMBLA under the LGBTQ... Umbrella doesn't help matters.

The Era of the 'Latch Key Child' means that Parents aren't available to reinforce Family Values on their children, like previous generations. This is offered more as a fact, than an excuse for today's Parents. Children are learning their Social Skills from Teachers, Television, & The Internet. This Case is especially true in Indigenous Black American Families. The proliferation of Black Gay Couples on Television Shows & Commercials, to the extent that they overshadow Black Heterosexual Couples, just isn't realistic. This representation doesn't reflect the Indigenous Black American population. The majority of Indigenous Black Families have relatives that are in 'The Life', but most are heterosexual. While We cannot deny that some of Our Black LGBTQ Family had a rough journey w/ little support, many had the love & support of their family. Our Black Gay/ Lesbian/ Transgender family members needed All the support We could offer; They tended to be the loudest voices in The Movement.

The Stonewall Riot that sparked The Gay Rights Movement, was sparked when 2 Trans Individuals of Color were brutally attacked by NYPD officers. Black Gay, Lesbian, & Trans Individuals were at the vanguard of that Movement; unlike their White counterparts, they could not simply blend into Society. One would think that some measure of gratitude (i.e. Uplift) would be bestowed on this group, but 50Yrs later, this segment of the LGBTQ... Community STILL lives in poverty. As it is w/ The Indigenous Black Community, a few Black LGBTQ individuals are spotlighted, but the majority of The Community has a lower Quality Of Life than their Non- Black counterparts. Many argue that they are discriminated against because of their Sexual Identity, but it seems pretty clear that Race trumps Sexuality.

This plot to separate Blackfolk by sexual preference may achieve moderate success, but it will ultimately fail. Black LGBTQ individuals are Black First. Their Non- Black counterparts aren't fighting the same battle. White Supremacy doesn't differentiate between Straight or Gay. Black Gays & Lesbians are fighting the same Enemy as Heterosexual Black Men & Women. If they stay 'On Code', NO ONE CARES about what they do behind closed doors. The love & support that Marcel Dixon is receiving, is proof of this... Indigenous Black Men have an experience in AmeriKKKa that may explain the homophobic tendencies of some. Lil Nas X, is a throwback to the Era of 'Buck Breaking' or 'Slave Seasoning' Plantations. The ideal Black Man was either: a Buck, a Fighter, a Plantation Worker, or a Sex Toy- complete w/ dress & powdered wig.

Some White Men took joy in humiliating Black Men; especially in front of Black Women. It sent a clear message that he can't protect her, if he can't protect himself. This was probably the 1st crack in the foundation of The Covenant between Black Men & Women. As a Community, We collectively have a Genetic Memory, & some Black Men may conjure up past atrocities when they think about Gay relationships (Post Traumatic Slave Disorder). The genetic memory is one of Black Men being dominated, humiliated, & sodomized. Is it really surprising that 'Men' may rebel against that narrative? Child Predators exist in Every Community, & some Black Men may have bad experiences from their childhood. Gay Men flirting w/ heterosexual Black Men may unknowingly trigger these thoughts; but is it homophobic?

It's curious how the fight for Gay & Lesbian Rights morphed into the Big Tent of the LGBTQ... Movement. More curious, is how Trans Issues take precedence over Gay or Lesbian Issues. The LGBTQ... infiltration of BLM benefited Trans Individuals far more than Gays or Lesbians. We didn't hear: 'Gay or Lesbian Lives Matter' at those Protests. Trans Organizations received the lion's share of the money dispensed by BLM; far more than the Black Grassroot Organizations that supported BLM & kept them relevant. How will Gays & Lesbians factor into the future of the LGBTQ... Agenda? They are adding 'letters' to their acronym, but these groups appear to be Sex Cults.

Inclusion of these groups may bolster the overall numbers, but the LGBTQ... Movement runs the risk of losing Societal Support. Gays, Lesbians, & Trans Gender Individuals have worked & fought over 50Yrs for acceptance. They had to overcome numerous stigmas & stereotypes along the way. Polyamorism & Pedophilia were the biggest of those stereotypes. Why would they even consider inclusion of groups regarded as Socially Deviant? Gay Designers dominate Men's Fashion, but putting Male Entertainers in dresses, & clothing Today's Men in tight 'Female Cuts' may not be enough to sway Public Opinion on what is deemed 'deviant behavior'. From a Black Perspective, it looks like this Movement has been co-opted by 'Others' that are intent on pushing The Envelope, until Society pushes back.

Justice Clarence Thomas' comments regarding Gay Marriage sounds like 'Others' are waiting on Public Opinion to shift. It would behoove the LGBTQ... Community not to help.

[eruverse]

I really have to read up more, so think of this as a working observation, but in all honesty I disagree when people say, for example, Golden Horde and the subsequent states born from it as just ‘Turkic’ the way I disagree when people say they were only ‘Mongol’?

So the term ‘Turk’ has existed since Göktürk Khaganate but this was a very exclusive term only applied to tribes who were part of it. Uyghurs didn’t call themselves Turk even tho they spoke Turkic language, Kyrgyzes also didn’t call themselves Turk etc etc. Tribes that were fully parts of Turkic Khaganates (first and second) were Qipchaqs, Oghuzes, Karluks, maybe there were more. So you could say that these tribes were Turks (btw, now Turkey makes sense because the people there descended from Oghuz tribes. You see?)

Golden Horde was a mix of Qipchaqs (mostly, even tho there were some other Turkic people) and Mongol. The people there quickly adopted significant Turkic leanings because Turkic speakers were majority. Does that mean they were ONLY Turkic? Hey, now where did you think Golden Horde get its political system and legitimacy from? They got it from the Mongols. From the Golden Family aka Chinggis Khan’s prestigious lineage. They were massively serious about this because for a few centuries afterwards, even after Golden Horde dissolved, only the Borjigins could be Khan in Post-Mongol Central-Inner Asia. A state without a Borjigin ruler would quickly be side-eyed by its neighbors, to the extent that Tamerlane, who was not of Borjigin even though he was of a (Turkified) Mongol tribe, had to achieve a lot and be better than others (including at political plays) just so that he could claim certain legitimacy for his nation, and even then he couldn’t dare call himself Khan! He was only an Emir.

Latching onto Mongol Golden lineage for legitimacy was a common tactic, and as such during the time these states would have certain leanings toward the Mongols. It was just beneficial for them, lol. I’m not saying they called themselves purely Mongol, but they knew they were part of a prestigious Mongol legacy and thus actively used it for their own agenda. The rest I think they called themselves what they wanted to call themselves by; the people of Golden Horde were called people of Batu’s ulus, Orda’s ulus, etc. When Uzbek Khan came on they were called Uzbeks. When Kazakhs came on they called themselves Kazakhs, etc. Even when they had adopted all Turkic culture, converted to Islam, and spoke Turkic languages. You could say that many of them were mostly only called by the name of their tribes/ethnicity.

The term ‘Turkic’ is very much loaded with political or other agenda and from my observation it’s a more recent phenomenon to use it to refer to ABSOLUTELY all Turkic speakers. It wasn’t the case then in the past, at all. Therefore when people say Golden Horde and its subsequent states were fully ‘Turkified’ I have to ask myself like — what kind of ‘Turkic’ you mean here? What context? Which time period (important!)? For example Kazakhs as successors of Golden Horde call themselves Turkic these days and this is valid of course, but did they call themselves Turk when Borjigin Khans were in charge during Khanate era? Show me the evidence? CONTEXT MY DUDES. CONTEXT!!

Calling Golden Horde and its subsequent states especially during Khanate era as only Turkic is as much coping as calling them only Mongol, methinks. They were Turko-Mongols, period. Turko-Mongol tradition is a legit term and it was a thing that actually existed. I beg y’all to use it more. AND STOP COPING. IT’S KINDA UGLY.

[theculturedmarxist]

The word “fascism” has been much in the news of late. Here is a chart of the year 2019 from Google Trends:

Interestingly, usage is more or less flat until the first spike, when President Trump put tanks on the National Mall for July 4, and then a second, larger spike, when he gave his Greenville, NC speech, and the crowd chanted, of Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, “send them back.” Omar reacted as follows:

Omar is a serious person and that’s a serious charge, so it’s worth looking at. Certainly my left/liberal corner of the Twittersphere was consumed by the word “fascism,” to the extent that RussiaRussiaRussia was drowned out. Notably, however, the two spikes, and the resulting moral panic, were caused by symbols: Tanks on the mall, and a speech. (Interestingly, words about the border, like “concentration camps,” and “fascism” do not spike simultaneously, even though one might expect them to. We’ll see more about symbols in the Appendix.) However, although fascist deliverables often have excellent symbolism — graphic treatments especially — fascism is about more than symbols, although you might not know it from the ruminations of our symbol-manipulating poltical class.

So I thought it would be worthwhile to take a deeper look at the work of Columbia historian Robert O. Paxton, who is a scholar of fascism. Basically, this post will be the notes for the class I wish I had taken with him; Paxton writes as lucidly as another great scholar of fascism, Richard J. Evans, author of The Coming of the Third Reich and two wonderful successor volumes. I’m going to quote great slabs mostly from Paxton’s article “The Five Stages of Fascism” (The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 1. Mar., 1998, pp. 1-23), but also from his later book, The Anatomy of Fascism (2004). “Five Stages” is only 24 pages, and easy, so do consider reading it in full, because I’m not really doing it justice; I’m leaving out all the historiography, for example.

And so to Paxton. I’m selecting passages partly when they contain useful ideas I just don’t see in today’s discourse, but mostly to give us tools to assess the current “conjuncture,” as we say.

Fascism and Democracy

From the Five Stages of Fascism, page 3:

The fascist phenomenon was poorly understood at the beginning in part because it was unexpected. Until the end of the nineteenth century, most political thinkers believed that widening the vote would inevitably benefit democracy and socialism. Friedrich Engels, noting the rapid rise of the socialist vote in Germany and France, was sure that time and numbers were on his side. Writing the preface for a new edition in 1895 of Karl Marx’s Class Struggles in France, he declared that “if it continues in this fashion, we will conquer the major part of the middle classes and the peasantry and will become the decisive power.” It took two generations before the Left understood that fascism is, after all, an authentic mass popular enthusiasm and not merely [1] a clever manipulation of populist emotions by the reactionary Right or [2] by capitalism in crisis.

I think most “hot take” analysis by liberals would fall into the bucket labeled [1]; by the left, label [2]. I think the idea that democracy is, as it were, the host body for fascism deserves some thought. Certainly there was no fascism as such until democracy was well advanced.

Fascism: Made in America?

From the Five Stages of Fascism, page 12:

But it is further back in American history that one comes upon the earliest phenomenon that seems functionally related to fascism: the Ku Klux Klan. Just after the Civil War, some former Confederate officers, fearing the vote given to African Americans by the Radical Reconstructionists in 1867, set up a militia to restore an overturned social order. The Klan constituted an alternate civic authority, parallel to the legal state, which, in its founders’ eyes, no longer defended their community’s legitimate interests. In its adoption of a uniform (white robe and hood), as well as its techniques of intimidation and its conviction that violence was justified in the cause of the group’s destiny, the first version of the Klan in the defeated American South was a remarkable preview of the way fascist movements were to function in interwar Europe. It is arguable, at least, that fascism (understood functionally) was born in the late 1860s in the American South.

(As an aside: It’s probably coincidence, but Civil War tactics, especially by the time of the Overland Campaign, were also a “remarkable preview” of World War I. Intuitively, I feel that fascism does not take hold of the body politic without a lot of organic damage, whether in the entrenchments of the Civil War, the trenches of World War I, or — just possibly — the opioid crisis, deaths of despair, and falling life expectancy.) Hitler’s American Model shows that Nazi jurists and lawyers came to America to research Jim Crow, and thought very highly of the legislation; they saw Jim Crow as an example of modernity — how advanced the United States was. Of course, by their lights, Jim Crow was misdirected.

Mutability of Fascism

From the Five Stages of Fascism, page 4:

[Individual cases of fascism] differ in space because each national variant of fascism draws its legitimacy, as we shall see, not from some universal scripture but from what it considers the most authentic elements of its own community identity. Religion, for example, would certainly play a much greater role in an authentic fascism in the United States than in the first European fascisms, which were pagan for contingent historical reasons. They differ in time because of the transformations and accommodations demanded of those movements that seek power.

And page 5:

Fascists deny any legitimacy to universal principles to such a point that they even neglect proselytism. Authentic fascism is not for export. Particular national variants of fascism differ far more profoundly one from another in themes and symbols than do the national variants of the true “isms.” The most conspicuous of these variations, one that leads some to deny the validity of the very concept of generic fascism, concerns the nature of the indispensable enemy: within Mediterranean fascisms, socialists and colonized peoples are more salient enemies than is the Jewry. Drawing their slogans and their symbols from the patriotic repertory of one particular community, fascisms are radically unique in their speech and insignia. They fit badly into any system of universal intellectual principles.

One result of the “Lost Cause” propaganda and the historiography of the Dunning School — William Dunning, ironically enough, professed at Columbia as well — is that the notion that there might already have been an American Fascism (see above) is not available to us. Hence, we often see Nazis (and generally Nazis, not even Mussolini) as the quintessential fascists. The argument can be made that globalization has, in fact, created fascism of export — some in my Twitterverse had no problem believing that Trump was simultaneously a Russian puppet and a fascist — but I just don’t see how that helps fascism to root itself (see below) in any given country, which is a requirement for it to grow.

The Stages of Fascism

From the Five Stages of Fascism, page 11:

But one must compare what is comparable. A regime where fascism exercises power is hardly comparable to a sect of dissident intellectuals. We must distinguish the different stages of fascism in time. It has long been standard to point to the difference between movements and regimes. I believe we can usefully distinguish more stages than that, if we look clearly at the very different sociopolitical processes involved in each stage. I propose to isolate five of them: (1) the initial creation of fascist movements; (2) their rooting as parties in a political system; (3) the acquisition of power; (4) the exercise of power; and, finally, in the longer term, (5) radicalization or entropy.

And stage 2, the importance of parties, pages 12-13:

The second stage—rooting, in which a fascist movement becomes a party capable of acting decisively on the political scene—happens relatively rarely. At this stage, comparison becomes rewarding: one can contrast successes with failures. Success depends on certain relatively precise conditions: the weakness of a liberal state, whose inadequacies seems to condemn the nation to disorder, decline, or humiliation; and political deadlock because the Right, the heir to power but unable to continue to wield it alone, refuses to accept a growing Left as a legitimate governing partner. Some fascist leaders, in their turn, are willing to reposition their movements in alliances with these frightened conservatives, a step that pays handsomely in political power, at the cost of disaffection among some of the early antibourgeois militants.

That underlined portion does seem familar, doesn’t it? However, it’s worth noting that there’s no “seem” to American decline; how is a nation with dropping life expectancy not in decline? It’s also worth noting that “frightened conservatives” doesn’t necessarily equal Republicans; it was not, after all, the Republican Party that painted the anti-semitism target on Ilhan Omar’s back. It’s worth asking, then, whether centrist Democrats would seek a bipartisan alliance against the left.

Fascism Today

Here is Paxton’s first definition of fascism, from the Five Stages of Fascism pages 22-23:

Where is the “fascism minimum” in all this? Has generic fascism evaporated in this analysis? It is by a functional definition of fascism that we can escape from these quandaries. Fascism is a system of political authority and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stands accused of producing division and decline. Its complex tensions (political revolution versus social restoration, order versus aggressive expansionism, mass enthusiasm versus civic submission) are hard to understand solely by reading its propaganda. One must observe it in daily operation….

And his second, from The Anatomy of Fascism, page 218:

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim- hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

Speaking as an amateur, I think the two definitions map to each other, and both to the present day (“liberal democracy stands accused” v. “abandons democratic liberties,” but I like the second one much better, because the language is crisper, and is testable. For example, “redemptive violence”: During Reconstruction, the states that came under control of the former Slave Power, a process achieved by great violence, were referred to as “redeemed.”

More from the Five Stages of Fascism, page 23:

Can fascism still exist today, in spite of the humiliating defeat of Hitler and Mussolini, the declining availability of the war option in a nuclear age, the seemingly irreversible globalization of the economy, and the triumph of in- dividualistic consumerism? After ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, the rise of exclusionary nationalisms in postcommunist Eastern Europe, the “skinhead” phenomenon in Britain, Germany, Scandinavia, and Italy, and the election of `Mirko Tremaglia, a veteran of the Republic of Salo, as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Italian Parliament during the Berlusconi government, it would be hard to answer “no” to that question. The most interesting cases today, however, are not those that imitate the exotic colored-shirt movements of an earlier generation. New functional equivalents of fascism would probably work best, as George Orwell reminded us, clad in the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and time. An authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black; in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days, anti-Islamic; in Russia and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile. We may legitimately conclude, for example, that the skinheads are functional equivalents of Hitler’s SA and Mussolini’s squadristi: only if important elements of the conservative elite begin to cultivate them as weapons against some internal enemy, such as immigrants.

Rather prescient for 1998, I must say. (And much as I loathe black bloc, it may be that they have their place in making these “functional equivalents” less easy to form.) Nevertheless, we do not have a “mass-based party of committed nationalist militants,” Yet. Paxton goes on:

The right questions to ask of today’s neo- or protofascisms are those appropriate for the second and third stages of the fascist cycle. Are they becoming rooted as parties that represent major interests and feelings and wield major influence on the political scene? [TBD] Is the economic or constitutional system in a state of blockage apparently insoluble by existing authorities? [Yes] Is a rapid political mobilization threatening to escape the control of traditional elites, to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers in order to stay in charge? [TBD] It is by answering those kinds of questions, grounded in a proper historical understanding of the processes at work in past fascisms, and not by checking the color of the shirts or seeking traces of the rhetoric of the national-syndicalist dissidents of the opening of the twentieth century, that we may be able to recognize our own day’s functional equivalents of fascism.

And from Anatomy, page 218:

Fascism exists at the level of Stage One within all democratic countries—not excluding the United States. “Giving up free institutions,” especially the freedoms of unpopular groups, is recurrently attractive to citizens of Western democracies, including some Americans. We know from tracing its path that fascism does not require a spectacular “march” on some capital to take root; seemingly anodyne decisions to tolerate lawless treatment of national “enemies” is enough. Something very close to classical fascism has reached Stage Two in a few deeply troubled societies. Its further progress is not inevitable, however. Further fascist advances toward power depend in part upon the severity of a crisis, but also very largely upon human choices, especially the choices of those holding economic, social, and political power.

Our immune system kills off little cancers all the time; a metastatizing tumor takes a lot of effort to create. Stage One fascisms are little cancers, killed off by a healthy body politic. Stage Two fascisms, without treatment, will metastatize.

Conclusion

I think we’re somewhere in Stage Two: Rooting — or, to be optimistic, Uprooting. I invite the views of readers!

APPENDIX I: “Cosmopolitan”

Stoller tweeted, of a speech by possible Trump 2.0 Josh Hawley:

Then ensued the most moralizing and banal Twitter discussion I’ve seen in some time, and that’s saying something. Hawley used the word “cosmopolitican” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry here), which Stoller’s detractors felt proved Hawley was sending an anti-semitic dog whistle, and hence Stoller, in defending him, was an anti-semite too. (Paxton: “not by checking the color of the shirts or seeking traces of the rhetoric….”). To show how useless the entire episode was, I’ll quote The Nation’s Jeet Heer:

Of course, the view that “all politics is based on a division between friend and foe” could be traced right back to Nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt, whose doctrine that was, and so Heer could be said to be sending an anti-semitic dog whistle. Of course that’s absurd, because context matters. Our symbol manipulating professional friends in the political class would do far better to look at function instead of checking their Index Expurgatorius of words suitable for censure and calling out. Liberals, and the left, have been calling out “dog whistles” for twenty years, at least. It hasn’t gotten them anywhere. Yet still they do it!

[froshele]

Thank you so much for replying! :) I think that's very understandable and in my understanding more or less the way all syncretism works (and I think some national Orthodox Christianity actually has more god-saints than Catholicism maybe, going purely by the metric that they just put the iconography and behaviour of a recognizable deity onto a freshly baked new saint) but when you get far enough into Book of Hours you begin to see the phenomenon I mean :0

Which is like!! Explicit reference to the Hours as divine in their own right, like the church is still the church and for some reason the normal church recognizes it, but the entire familiar cast of Christian religion is replaced with Hours. The stained glass is of them and they have a liturgy which for some reason is either regarded as compatible with or outright replaced the normal Rites in this history

There's even theology drama in the vein of the Chancel and the other triad competing for the role that in our world is for the Trinity, which reads as a contradiction of the mystery-faith syncretism implied in CS - the VATICAN!!!! The VATICAN APPROVED version of a manuscript about which Hours are supreme! This is a universe where the canon as at least regarded by the Vatican includes these beings and to some extent replaces or merges them with the core personages of the faith

There's a hegemonic and apparently normatively-regarded-as-Catholic Church of the Unconquered Sun! What's up with _that,_ is what I'm asking - I thought it was syncretic coy little mystery cults all the way down!

Fascinating and insane worldbuilding choices in this lore! Thank you once again for your reply :)

does anybody have any theories on how religion actually works in the secret histories universe?

obviously my ocs that touch this sort of thing are either secular magicians (because i don't know enough about other people's religions to hourify them) or strange hasidic types (because i do know the one i was raised with, quite well actually, and i can ruin some 1930s khaverte's life in a maximally heartrending way if you just give me some time to reread whatever the hell was happening in georgia in the exile dlc) so for them it literally doesn't matter

but I kind of assumed based on CS (one of your occultist friends is a Catholic priest who seems to only talk about his Hour stuff to you) that for the most part the Hours had nothing to do with the canons of religions in this History, and their additions are all suppressed heresies? I just found a Vatican-approved text about Hours and a bunch of churches and naves and things in Hush House, though

I did some worldbuilding around Jewish astrology and my little fool rabbis' personal beliefs ("Ah! You are a Scorpion of the Sixth Hour? And I am a Fish born in the hour of the Unconquered Sun! : )") for Fanfictional Purposes but I had generally speaking assumed that they had to be extremely isolated and somewhat fringe-believing people who aired their fucked up minhagim and insane metaphysics only in specific company

BUT NO? the laity knows about hours? there are churches in universe where the laity worship hours, which apparently so much doesn't conflict with this universe's Christian doctrine that the VATICAN is A HUB FOR ONE OF THEM? Catholic orthodoxy in this universe INCLUDES THE HOURS? IN WHAT WAY PRAY TELL. IN WHAT WAY. I THOUGHT THE SUPPRESSION BUREAU WANTED NO ONE TO KNOW ANY OF THIS BUT APPARENTLY THE AVERAGE CITIZEN IS FREE TO KNOW AN EXPURGATED VERSION OF THE TRUTH ?

i think probably based on the Tigrines and so on Judaism in this universe recognizes them in some capacity but just doesn't view the Hours as divine (there is canon precedent for the idea), like they're in the same emotional realm as planets and stars in being heavenly but subordinate to a greater all encompassing power, which I guess is why we kind of got kinassigned Rose by the narrative

BUT HELLO WHAT IS EVERYONE ELSE DOING. WHAT IS UP WITH THE STAINED GLASS MADRUGAD???? WHY DOES THE CHURCH RECTOR OUR FRIEND THE PERFECTLY NORMAL CHURCH RECTOR KNOW ABOUT THE PRINCIPLE ILLUMINANT. what are your thoughts about all this tumblr i slaver and hunger to know

[potteresque-ire]

Happy Pride! 🏳️‍🌈  (June is Pride Month where I am 😊) For the occasion, may I recommend this animated musical short, 秘密港 Safe Haven, by the Beijing Queer Chorus (北京酷兒合唱團)? Published on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia (IDAHOBIT; May 17th, 2021),  the animation, with its lovely (and at times, heartbreaking) song, is about a queer person and their friend who tries to offer their support. The lyrics is English-subbed.

(Below the cut: a wish for the c-queer community; conception of Safe Haven, as explained by the Beijing Queer Chorus; CW/TW for homophobia, violence and forced abortion)

Background for my wish: with the recent Chinese government’s aggressive turnaround in its population control policy to combat its declining birth rate—on 2021/05/31, China further lifted the cap of number of children allowed per couple from 2 to 3 (the number was 1 for almost four decades, 1978-2015; the population control measure has therefore been colloquially called the “One Child Policy”), younger generations of Chinese are already feeling the pressure and fearing the consequences of non-compliance (for example, if the state levies heavy fines on non-child-bearers).   

While I have not yet read articles that directly connect the major policy shift with the c-queer community, I imagine it may bring both relief and additional challenges. The relief will likely take time to come; the challenges, meanwhile,  will likely be immediate. 

This has to do with the root of antagonism against homosexuality in Chinese societies. Unlike in their Western counterparts, Chinese queers have consistently reported that family, instead of societal, pressure as the greatest challenge they face (societal pressure includes that from religion, from government etc). C-queers are expected to abide to the heteronormative traditions of opposite-sex marriage and child-bearing, in a collectivistic, conformist environment still strongly influenced by the Confucian notion that continuing the bloodline is the primary responsibility of a filial child. Men, especially, are under heavy pressure to carry on their family surname. Those who fail to do so are seen as irresponsible at best, moral failures at worst. They suffer anything and everything from constant nagging from their relatives, to ostracisation, to disownment. 

A better known consequence of this cultural antagonism against homosexuality in the tragic Tongqi (同妻 “homo-wives”) phenomenon that is, perhaps, unique to China. 

Tongqi are straight women who unknowingly entered marriage with closeted gay man, who often learn about their spouse’s sexuality only after the filial obligation of having children has been fulfilled. It’s a form of marriage fraud; women who file for divorce, however, are likely to lose custody of their child(ren) under Chinese laws, and so many of them keep mum. The gay men involved are also victims in many cases; the lack of public, open education and discussion of queer topics in the country mean even the queers themselves may not have a full understanding of their own queerness, believe that “straightening” themselves is something they can do with sufficient willpower and love for their family. 

As one may expect, these marriages are mostly unsatisfying; psychiatric issues and intimate partner violence (IPV), which include verbal, emotional and physical abuse, have also been frequently reported. Just how prevalent are Tongqi’s in China that, in turn, reflect how many gay men in China are pressured to remain in the closet and get married? The following numbers may serve as comparison. In 2010, the percentage of gay men married to heterosexual women in the US was 15-25%. In China and in 2018, meanwhile, the reowned Chinese sexologist, sociologist and LGBT rights activist, Li Yinhe (李銀河), quoted an estimate of 80% of China’s ~ 20 million gay men were married to heterosexual wives; i.e. the Tongqi population amounted to ~16 million. Literature has reported a similar estimated size of the Tongqi population—at 13+ million, in 2016. 

(Reason for the numbers being estimates: the exact size of the c-queer community isn’t known. China’s decennial census questionnaire from late last year (2020) once again excluded questions about its own LGBT+ community. "Room mate” is how many c-queers have to refer to their partners).

While the Chinese government decriminalised homosexuality in 1997 and its current laws carry no clauses that target the queer community—the official stance of Chinese government on homosexuality is currently 不支持，不反對，不提倡 “not supporting, not opposing, not advocating”—what may seem to be its non-queer-related policies have indirectly but majorly impacted the lives of c-queers. In particular, the “One Child Policy” has been hypothesised to exacerbate the challenge faced by c-queers, as the only child becomes the sole “next generation” available for producing grandchildren and extending the family bloodline. 

Hence, my expectation / hope that the relaxation of "One Child Policy”, by lifting the cap on the number of children a couple can have, will bring relief to the LGBT+ population—even if the relief will only come years down the road, as the newer generations of c-queers will then have siblings to share their filial responsibilities. 

However, this also explains my worry for now, for the immediate months and years to come, for not only c-queers but the younger generations of Chinese in general. My worry is about how, exactly, the state intends to drive its birth rate upward, and the hardship the new policies may bring. 

The practices of China’s population control policies have historically been brutal. Forced, late-term abortions were common, for example. This is reflected in the country’s birth control propaganda banners, commonly seen in Chinese villages until late 2000s, which were infamous for their verbal violence:

“Beat it out! Abort it! Miscarry it! Just cannot give birth to it!”

Fines, which were levied on offenders of the One Child Policy, may seem like a better option but can place an unbearable burden on poorer families, of which there remain many in China. Premier Li Keqiang reported, in May 2020, that >40% of China’s population—600 million—are living with a monthly income of ~$140 USD or below, despite the glitz often seen in the country’s entertainment productions. Using One Child Policy era fines for reference, the famous Chinese director 張藝謀 Zhang Yimou was fined 7.48 million RMB (~$1.17 million USD) for his three children, in 2013. Defying the new population control policies may therefore be a privilege reserved for the very powerful and very rich. And the government is likely to be aggressive in enforcing its new policies—the social media accounts of > 20 feminist activists, who advocate for reproductive freedom among other women’s rights, have already been shut down in the recent weeks. 

Will the Chinese government find ways to penalise members of the queer community who do not contribute to the new baby count? Will it turn a blind(er) eye to the Tongqi 同妻 (and to a lesser extent, Tongfu 同夫 ~ heterosexual men married to lesbian women) tragedies happening every day? It’s impossible to say yet.

For this year, therefore, I wish the c-queer community this—I wish it to be safe from the reach of China’s population control policies, whatever they will be. 

Back to the animated short, Safe Haven, which is about coming out. In 2016, a 18,000 people survey by the United Nations Development Programme reported only 5% of Chinese queers had come out to people outside their families. Only 15% have come out to their families. A more recent survey reports a significant improvement in these percentages, with ~50% of gays, bisexuals and transgenders and 70% of lesbians having come out to their families (Table 2). Fully out queers remain rare (<10%).

There’s still, therefore, a long way to go. With queers often being out (if they’re out at all) only to their most immediate/intimate social circles, with the state’s censorship of LGBT+ presentation in visual media, many (especially older generations of) non-queers in China haven’t seen a living, breathing, outwardly queer person before. The process of coming out, by extension—what it means, what it takes for both the giver and receiver of the message—may have never entered the thoughts of these non-queers before.

What should they say? What should they do? What words and actions will convey support? What won’t?

Safe Haven is about these questions. I’ll end this post with a translation of the Weibo post in which the animated short was first published, in which Beijing Queer Chorus explained the project’s conception:

#517 IDAHOBIT# Do you remember how it was like, the first time you came out of the closet, or someone came out of the closet to you? Who was that person? What did you say at the time, and how did that person react?

The person who voluntarily exposes their heart requires courage. The person who receives the message may have their own heart filled with unease. 

Maybe, both are thinking: “What should I do?”

Coming out is such an important occasion. It can, perhaps, change a relationship forever.

Some will welcome warmth and hugs. Some others will get their first taste of homophobia. Yet some others will find neither.

After a queer person came out to their friend, they got, in return, “Don’t worry. I’ll still treat you as a friend.” It made them uncomfortable for a long time. But their straight family and friends didn’t understand. How could this be not a kind thing to say?

What is gay-friendly? What is homophobic? It appears that everyone has their own standards. The same words and behaviours transmit warmth to some, deep offence to others.

So, when we’re talking about “homophobia”, what are we talking about?

To commemorate this years #517 IDAHOBIT#, the Beijing Queer Chorus interviewed its tens of members and their relatives and friends, in hopes of investigating the difference in perspectives between homosexuals and straight people. How can this barrier be crossed, how can they work together to take care of the valuable relationships.

In the stories of all interviewees, a warmth like this can be felt: even with the risks, there remain those who are brave enough to display their true self; even with the misunderstandings, there remain those willing to keep the secrets of others, willing to learn to understand a whole new world.

We condensed these stories into an original, animated musical short, Safe Haven.

We hope every boat riding the winds and waves can find a harbour to unload their secrets. We also hope every person has enough gentle strength to be the safe haven for others. 

We offer our best wishes to every queer who lets their heart be seen ~ may your courage reap its rewards.

We thank every friend and family who have treated these hidden matters of the heart seriously. You make the world a better place.