#i was gonna make a formal + more articulate post in the other blog but i haven't had the energy to do so

[ii-zi]

this might be a bit silly as nor can anyone here do anything about it and mostly likely neither sharing can just sharing it, but anyways

it's been a couple days, but every year during may and june i find myself unable to keep my mind off it

this past june 5th marked 14 years of the tragedy of the ABC daycare here in Sonora. 49 children died in a fire and several (between 80 and 120, depending on who you ask) are still suffering the consequences of the disaster.

it is well known, locally, that not only was this preventable, but was directly caused bc people in the govt decided it wasn't important to make sure the warehouse they had right behind said daycare was safe, or even up to code.

to this day, no one has been punished. again and again the families of the victims have marched, begging for anything to be done about it bc a tragedy of such magnitud should not go unpunished, yet nothing has been done.

there's signs about it everywhere. every single day since then the people responsible for it drive by the symbolic tombs plastered with the faces of the 49 babies that were killed due to their negligence, and they still haven't moved a finger.

there's so much i could say about it.

how it was just across the street from the building many of their parents worked in.

how their parents had to see the fire eating the building their children were in and not be able to do anything about it.

how they had just installed, in a building with no emergency exits, a new double door safety sistem that made it impossible to get out because you couldn't open both doors at the same time.

how the only reason why so many children survived was that a man rammed his truck against a wall and made a way for the teachers to get the children out.

how the government had been told very recently that the warehouse was a fire risk and the daycare building was not safe for either the children or workers, yet decided to keep operations open in both of them.

how you couldn't hear the cries of the children over the screaming of their parents outside the building.

how the building had not only polyurethane ceilings, but also plastic sheet and fabric covering its walls, which only helped the fire spread faster.

how the daycare didn't had a single smoke detector or fire extinguisher, and most of the children suffocated to death.

how only four years later we learnt that ABC and many other operating daycares subrogated by IMSS (Mexican Institute of Social Security) are owned directly and indirectly by families with political power (ABC owned particularly by Marcia Matilde Altagracia Gómez del Campo, cousin of Margarita Zavala, then Mexico's First Lady and currently Deputy of the Congress).

[nightswithkookmin]

chile i'm so glad i came across your blog, the amount of "i'm not going to assume they're dating" or "we can only draw certain conclusions but i can't say for sure" "we don't know their sexuality, BUT" type blogs i follow is getting kinda wack lmao. while i appreciate their perspective and nuanced takes i need to strike a balance. like let's get a lil delulu every once in a while. 💀

lol the im-not-a-shipper-but-call-jikook-boyfriends-every-other-post blogs are the funniest to me. the shipping hierarchy, so to speak is so weird. maybe just because im not a "shipping real people is bad" person i don't see the big deal. gonna get called delulu anyway, might as well go full out. they is gay/queer and they're fucking. i'm so sorry.

*also can we touch on the fact that shipping in this type of fandom (kpop) is kind of inevitable and unavoidable??! these boys are the other people we see them with day in and day out, interacting with each other and no one else. i feel like it's natural to ship when there's no other people around to break up everything, idk maybe someone can articulate this better than me. and people who are made to feel stupid for thinking that 2 members could actually be dating is so dumb. like is it really out of the realm of possibility that two people (jikook, cause all them other ships are....😬) who spent almost every waking minute together for like 8 years could fall in love. really?

/rant

It's the delulu hat for me

Lmho.

I guess for me being queer, I feel it's gaslighting for these people to be saying things like that. As silly as it is, it inadvertently deny and invalidate the existence and queerness of gay individuals and so I struggle with it.

This is the consequences of straight people in gay people business. They like defining gay parameters for us and it's like who asked you?? I feel people who say things like that are just plain ignorant or tone deaf or willfully homophobic.

I don't think everyone in BTS is gay but it makes me feel safe to see half the community assume them to be and celebrate them in that way. They are not cussing at them and threatening to leave the fandom or cancel them for this assumption and that is huge inspiration to me.

Those parts of the fandom are a safe space to be in as a queer army.

When people assume a person's queer sexuality they are simply admitting to themselves at the very least that LGBTQ EXISTS. This is important to me because I grew up in a community where LGBTQ didn't even exist in the collective consciousness of the people and EVERYONE IS AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED TO BE STRAIGHT AND EXPECTED TO BE.

People read people's sexuality all the time and have done so since time immemorial and a lot of the time when they have had a sexuality read it's in the lines of straight, cis, rich, poor, superior or inferior. And that is a problem for some of us too because that discrepancy in the assumptions is as a result of homophobia and heteronormativity.

That whole don't assume a person's queer sexuality debacle sounds to me like a boujee way of denormalizing and preventing the normalization of queerness disguised under care, disguised under intelligence and disguised under wokeness. Especially when straightness is the default setting in this giant blue bulb.

We need to radicalize that. We need to change the cis straight default setting and if you are perpetuating this narrative you really aren't helping the situation. SIT DOWN.

I'm rarely assumed to be queer in certain circles and while that makes me feel comfortable within those circles it often times make it hard for me to admit my queerness openly in those circles too because I fear I will lose that comfort and respect and love and privileges that comes with being percieved straight in those spaces.

When I started my blog, I noticed some people assumed I was white and would use certain black descriptors as slurs when describing other people to me. I quickly had to switch the formal way in which I wrote to a much casual tone so my blackness would show through. Don't get it twisted. She black. She blackidy black black.

Then on the other hand, I was hesitant to let my queerness be known too because being black, I was marginalized as it is- you is black, or sound black💀 you know how it is- it's that intersectionality of oppression at play. Double double homicide.

When certain people realized I was black POC minority, their attitude towards me changed. I had those who didn't so much understand what black language is or perhaps wasn't used to being in black spaces and were uncomfortable with my blackness- these would take offense at me saying certain things in certain ways. Like chilee relax Karen, all I said was these motherfukkers gay as shit and they gay. Why you acting like I called them twinks or sommin. Right there, I'm cancelled for calling Jikook motherfuckers. They get sirens and everything😭😭😭😭😭😭

Same vein, I struggle destraightening myself or correcting people who assume I'm straight because I fear they will treat me differently if they knew I wasn't.

Straight privilege exists in the same way as white or even pretty privilege may exist and because these exist there's that automatic conception of queer, poc, ugly, fat disemfranschismet to run along side it.

People treat you differently based on how they perceive you. That's a fact. And for queer people, perceiving us as straight is the only way we get to be treated as human by the masses. And a lot of us embrace that- straight until proven gay am I right 🤣🤣🤣🤣

It's the duper's delight for me. Untill you catch me with a 5'8 melanin skinned silk pressed auntie on my left nipple good luck proving I'm gay.

It can be fun, I akekeke when some people around me are totally oblivious to the fact and even sometimes defend my straightness with their dying breath when nasty friends throw them shades or try to out me unprovoked.

A lot of us don't want to admit we are gay because we don't want to be disenfranchised.

I speak for myself when I say this.

But 'Don't assume someone's sexuality' is a double edged censorship used for and against queer people. It seemly offers protection on the surface of it for queer people but underneath it promotes heteronormativity and standardizes straightness and it is also used to promote closet culture, under the disguise of care and concern for the autonomy of queer people but that is a fallacy because our autonomy has never mattered to anyone since the dawn of homophobia.

And I don't know where this interpretation comes from. Why do people not want to assume queer people's sexuality but it's ok to assume straight people's???

It feels like a hijacked movement to me.

THIS IS THE ACCURATE MOVEMENT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

Don't assume all people are straight. It's ok to assume some people are queer because queer people exists too.

It is wrong however to assume queerness based on how a person talks, walks, dresses or even on their body type. That is stereotyping. And stereotyping is wrong.

When it comes to Jikook, Jimin is often stereotyped as gay more so than Jungkook because they have different body structures. Jungkook is stereotyped too solely because of the way his wrists hang, or based on moments he's femininity shines through.

But I don't think shippers stereotype Jikook in that way at all. I dont think shippers believe Jikook are dating eachother simply because Jungkook applied setting powder to his face that one time. They assume they are gay only because they believe those two to be dating eachother. That is not stereotyping. If those two were heterosexuals I don't think people will accuse their shippers of stereotyping.

It's one thing to assume Kai is gay because he looks skinny and dances well. It's another to assume he is gay because in a relationship with Gdragon. And if people can't tell the difference between the two, they should get some education and stop talking about things they know nothing about or only know because they stumbled across user69 on Twitter. They are not helping.

Untill people get offended when people assume others are straight, that rhetoric doesn't matter in its inequality. If you ask me, everyone is gay until proven straight.

Yet how many people will take offense at that?

Assuming people can be gay is not delulu.

It's ok to assume people can be gay. It's wrong to stereotype them as gay. If you can't assume they are gay, don't assume they are straight and don't assume at all. Run with this sis.

Wait, they don't ship Jikook but they call Jikook boyfriends???????👀👀👀👀👀

The fake woke syndrome will kill people in this fandom with these mentally confused thought crisis bunch💀💀💀💀

Jikook themselves are shippers💀

Smh

GOLDY

[vanzhuo]

do you have any tips on how to start a writeblr, specifically how to meet more people and make some cool mutuals? :D i wanna start a writeblr but i don’t know anyone from the community and i feel like it’s not as fun without friends :(

ok so hey, first of all, i’m not good at articulating my thoughts well but here it goes -- there isn’t any one way to start a writeblr. when i’d started mine, i lounged around idly for a couple of months reblogging things from other writeblrs. when i finally mustered up wits to post an intro, some writeblrs reblogged and boosted it so that’s how many people found my blog. but like, at the beginning, i was clueless enough (don’t you dare laugh) to ask @semblanche what a taglist was because i was confused about why everyone was asking to be on it. so yeah. i’m gonna jot down a couple of things you should do if you want to like join the community under the cut since this is getting too long and you should all be saved from making the same mistakes i made at the start. and of course, some tips on networking around the community and finding new mutuals!

1. make an intro post. so the one thing i’ve learnt after changing blogs twice is, make an intro post you are satisfied with. it can be simple one, a text post where you use the header option to announce your writeblr (ex. if i were to make an intro, i’d say kalki’s writeblr) and then i’d put in my name, the kind of stuff i like to read, the kind of stuff i like to write and the wips i am writing. point is, it should be something you like, something that tells something about you. like the first time i did this, my intro said: this girl doesn’t know what she’s doing. the second time: she’s being too pretentious, move on people. so on and so forth. some people prefer using fancy images (i am some people) to introduce their blogs with an image post instead, but you’re fine with or without. one thing you should keep in mind is to like tag a few of your favorite blogs. i didn’t do this the first time round because i wasn’t sure what exactly i was doing but you should all know that if you tag your favorite blogs, then those blogs will (mostly, sometimes mentions mess up like it does with me and tumblr doesn’t notify you about being tagged) definitely reblog and boost it. that way, a lot of people will, if not engage with you, then at least know of your existence. here’s my intro post for this blog, if you want. it’s not very, um, formal because i was sleepy and thought it was funny. 

2. don’t be discouraged by the amount of notes on your intro. listen, i know we’d all feel bad if we had like 7 likes and 2 reblogs alright but don’t be discouraged. i mean now that i go back, my intro post has only about 36 notes. it really just depends on the timing. however, when you start posting content, those 10 people who’ve interacted with your post will like it and will reblog it for everyone to see and when people start seeing your content, they get interested and slowly, you’ll have more people to interact with and more people will discover your content and i think what i’m trying to say is that, the note count does matter but don’t be discouraged if it isn’t enough. it’ll take time but you’ll find a solid footing really soon, writeblr’s a really warm engaging place minus the anon hate people get sometimes. (see: @inheriting. all queen elle did was breathe, guys.) 

3. interact with other people and their content. so yes. it’s not a one side deal. if you want people to find your blog, you’ll have to start looking for more content too. when you see something good, reblog it or comment on it or even send an ask telling them it’s god tier content. that stuff makes up half the amount of serotonin in our brains. seriously. there’s nothing writers like more than people reblogging their posts with incoherent screaming or coming into their asks to tell them something they think is funny. you could even post something like: hey, i’m a new writeblr and i’m looking for content like (enter the genres or tropes you prefer) and if you have wips similar to this, then pls reblog this with their tags. i wanna start engaging more. something like that. yeah.

4. message other writeblrs? ok so this is a thing that i would not recommend doing ONLY because sometimes everything gets lost in my notifs and i don’t see messages for days and i know other writeblrs probably face this too. tumblr automatically reads them and doesn’t lmk and stuff like that. and secondly, most of us don’t really, like, answer dms all the time. sometimes i got something important to say so i’ll go to minnie @medusaswrites or to chel @starshots and scream about it and then when the topic of conversation closes, and it gets awkward (i do this so many times you don’t even know) we go back to ghosting private messages and instead blasting each other’s ask boxes with love. that’s just how this stuff works. but there are plenty of writeblrs who aren’t awkward with private messaging and they will LOVE to talk to you so there’s also that. honestly, i don’t know where i’m going with this so i’ll stop now. 

5. graphics and other things. ok so the main part, and the most important part, about a writeblr blog is the writing. so you’re a good writer, you’re a great writer. that’s not all though. sometimes you need to organize your blog. you use coded tags like tags for a particular character (say, my character tag for katya is oc: katya) and tags for a particular wip and inspo tags, resources tags, aesthetic tags, etc. this helps you organize your blog better. and finally, look, i know most people can’t do photoshop, either because it’s too expensive or too complicated and i get it. photoshop isn’t required honestly, there are tons of other things you can use. what mostly attracts attention is how attractive a blog can be. the layout for your blog for one. the picspam for your wip intro. that sort of thing. they are a couple of apps on phone that are free to use like picsart and canva (it’s on web too and honestly, the one thing you should use. it’s not like photoshop but it does the job and it does the job really well. if you want to ask someone about canva, you should go to raye @vigilantscar. she isn’t a writeblr but she’s good in that department.) also, if you’ve got something to ask about layouts or simple intro post demos and arrangement or the kind of pictures you should choose for them then slide into my dms, i’ll be happy to help.

i think that’s all? like true, writeblr isn’t fun without friends but this community is so nice and open that anyone can join anytime and you’d feel welcome. i also feel like i’ve not been able to get a few points across without sounding ignorant/awkward? or like i might have forgotten a few things? but honestly, i just woke up. also, i’m gonna tag a few blogs here that you should check out for good content in no particular order: @starshots @medusaswrites @carumens @vandorens @liarede @aelenko @inesnenci @kiesinger @medeaes @noloumna @emdrabbles and @inheriting. there are tons of other writeblrs with good content that i’m pretty sure i, with the memory of a goldfish, forgot to mention but. yeah. if you ever get round to posting an intro, tag me! i’ll be happy to interact! 

[adulthooliganism]

hey, it’s been a while since i made this post. i wanted to say a couple things.

1) if you’re seeing this part of the post, drop it. just leave. don’t bother. brian asked us to drop the discourse, i’m over it, i don’t care anymore.

2) as i say in the post, this is my opinion. i posted my opinion on my blog and that’s that. i explicitly said i do not speak for brian and that i do not speak for other mlm dudes. these are my thoughts and mine alone.

3) as i also said in the post, this wasn’t intended to stop anybody. people are going to say what they’re gonna say. i just wanted folks to think about it.

4) this post was the culmination of a lot of different factors and frankly i don’t want to get into each of them because it involves the privacy of certain individuals and i don’t want to put them on the spot like that. the important part: i wanted people to harass me about this instead of one of my followers (who is a minor). that was the main reason i even made the post.

5) a point i didn’t articulate properly was the oversexualization and objectification of online personalities as a whole. these are real human people. words mean things and i just wanted people to think about things. with dan howell coming forward about how phan shippers literally triggered his ptsd by digging so far into his personal life, i hope that some people will come around and realize how damaging things like this can really be. your words and actions can have real, tangible effects on these people. this includes digging into their past and pulling up old videos, posts, tweets, accounts, relationships, etc.

there’s no real end to this. i just wanted to clear things up, if you click on the original and come to see this. i’m leaving the post up and under a readmore because i don’t think i would be doing anybody any favors by deleting it. my actions have consequences, the damage is done, and i have to live with that.

(updated 06/20/2019)

So I decided to make a formal post about this since it’s... becoming a real sort of problem in this community, and I don’t think people understand why it’s a problem. As an adult and a mlm who is very active here, I feel like this is a post I should make (though, as I sorta talk about later in the post, I do not speak for all mlm/gay/queer men. I also do not speak for Brian. I speak from the place of a mlm dude who’s just... tired).

Please stop calling Brian a twink.

I get it. He’s a skinny, white, ambiguously-non-het dude. But what you need to keep in mind is that twink is a word that has its own history and meanings and connotations beyond a physical description.

The exact origins of the word ‘twink’ aren’t super clear but there’s really three sort of theories as to where it came from (all of which likely had some role in its place today), none of them great:

It is a derivative of an old British gay slang term “twank,” which was related to sexual promiscuity of young gay men who wanted to be dominated by any man.

It comes from the snack food Twinkies, which are junk and nothing of (nutritional) value to you, along with being filled with white cream, which frankly I don’t feel the need to explain further.

It is an acronym (likely more of a backronym, but regardless) for Teenage, White, Into No Kink. The implications of teenage and white are... not good!

The general agreement with the creation/initial usage of the word twink, as a whole, is young, white, and promiscuous. It is a term based in racism and ageism (and potentially pedophilia!). And most of all, it was intended to be demeaning. It was not a positive word. 

(a/n: this is not to say that people cannot claim the word for themselves. mlm/gay/queer masc-aligned folks can do whatever they want. but it is not a positive or cute word to ascribe to others, especially if you are not a mlm/gay/queer man.)

And honestly, calling some person you don’t know a twink just... it’s like when people reply to B or C-list celebrities on Twitter and call them idiots and stuff. That’s fine with your real friends, but not with literal strangers, ya know?

I know that this post isn’t going to stop anybody from doing anything. People are going to do and say whatever they want. But, if you take one thing away from this post, please think about things before you speak. As somebody who has had these sorts of labels ascribed to him without his consent or want (and has been outed in the past by words like this), I can tell you from personal experience that it is not a good feeling.

Just... chill out with that stuff. Especially if it’s in a space where Brian can easily see it (see: his twitter replies/mentions).

[motorcyclegirlfriends]

Was it rude? Sure. Was it offensive to lgbt+ fans? Yes.

Was it homophobic?

No.

It may have hurt you, as a wlw, to see them so casually disregard something you are so attached to. To see them so casually disregard something you’re so attached to because you are a woman who loves women.

But the truth of the matter is, they just saw it as a ship that isn’t going to be canon, but that everyone has gone crazy for.

This happened, not because they are homophobic, but because they don’t realize the impact even non-canon wlw ships have on wlw. 

They likely thought of it the way they think of other ships. Like typical ship wars, except there’s no reason for it because it’s not a part of the show they’re making.

Let’s break it down:

“They’re only friends. They’re not gonna get together, they’re only friends.”

This statement in and of itself was not homophobic.The shouting was cringy, but It could be said about any gender combo of a ship that isn’t going to happen, and there’s nothing inherent in it’s use that implies there is homophobia underlying it.

Heteronormativity, I suppose, in them assuming that Kara and Lena could never get together. (But it’s also true? They know that they’re not going to get together? They were never going to get together, and we all knew this.)

People are inserting a “we don’t like this ship because it’s gay” into the “they’re only friends!” that doesn’t exist at all. 

If an actor said this about a straight, non-canon ship, even in the shout-y way they did it, it wouldn’t be a big deal. It’d suck for the people who shipped it, but it wouldn’t be a mark against their character, really.

Take for instance, The 100’s Eliza Taylor’s pretty obvious annoyance at Bellarke. A lot of people ship this non-canon ship, are super invested in it, and she’s pretty apparent about her dislike of it.

But because it’s not a gay ship, it’s not a big deal.

Their misstep was in not realizing that this isn’t a straight ship, and that it has a deeper meaning to people. It’s something that Jeremy is finding out-

Uninformed, not homophobic. It’s like someone calling someone something that they didn’t know was a slur. You aren’t aware of the impact the words can have, and you don’t mean it in the way that would hurt them.

Side note: it’s easy to say “then they should just apologize and not make excuses.” But when the alternative to me explaining myself is the other person thinking I actually feel a certain way, a way that would hurt them and lessen my own character exponentially, I’d probably do the same thing. Defend myself, whilst recognizing that I hurt the other person and apologizing for that. I wouldn’t apologize for being homophobic if I wasn’t homophobic.

In my drafts, I have a response to someone asking if Kara and Lena could ever get together a few weeks ago, and it was a strong “No, do not put your hope in this possibility”.

It’s sucks that we can’t have two main wlw relationships on a mainstream show at this stage, but that’s the way the reality of the world is, especially coming from straight writers who want to write stories about themselves. Realistically, we need to look toward wlw writers for that kind of representation.

But if your anger is about the fact that they won’t get together even though they have chemistry, that we don’t have the option that heterosexual ships have of something developing because of chemistry, then I think your anger is misdirected at these cast members, who are simply aware of this fact and did not make it so.

Should you be angry at the writers? Maybe. I think it’s the industry, more than any individual creative team (producers are more accountable because they are the gatekeepers), at this point. Writers like to write things they relate to, so we need to get people in who are lgbt+ to handle these stories if we want more than one or two lgbt+ characters. 

What you should be angry at is that it looks like Ali Adler, a lesbian writer, was pushed out of the show.

Melissa’s comments, specifically:

Because this is a Kara/Melissa heavy blog.

“We’re only friends.”

Melissa was singing “a girlfriend” about Lena up until Jeremy shouted “They’re only friends!” 

Then she laughed at Jeremy’s comment, mimicked his shouting, and said “We’re only friends!”

Like .2 seconds ago, she was into it. 

Her stance didn’t shift from accepting to rejecting, she just joined in on a joke about how everyone loves these two characters together but they’ve been playing them as just friends.

(To me, this read like fake exasperation, playing that someone is repeatedly asking you if you’re into someone, but you’re not. I won’t argue that this is true, because we really can’t be sure, but that’s what my people-reading instincts are telling me about the situation?)

But as it stands, I don’t sense any hostility toward the concept of supercorp at all.

“That was brave.”

Melissa said this, not as “You’re so brave for standing up and going against the gays. It’s what we’re all thinking.”

She said it as, “You’re brave for saying that a ship that people are so so into is definitely not gonna happen when we’re expected to tiptoe around that fact as much as we can, to keep them watching. And for saying something against a group that has a really impactful presence online and who’s fans been known to harass people who are a threat to the ship (Rahul Kohli, anyone?).”

And Katie, a few minutes later, said that she and Melissa talked about how it was great that people could look at what they do and see something totally different from what they saw. And Melissa has enthusiastically agreed with the positive things that Katie has been saying on the matter.

She hasn’t said much herself, beyond that it’s cool that people can take away from it what they like and that she’s cool with it (plus when asked why people like supercorp so much, she said “A Luthor and a Super” which made me happy because it’s like an Iconic™ line from the show and a big way that I conceptualize them) but she’s a wallflower type and more comfortable directing people to others’ articulation of difficult topics than expressing them herself (like posting someone else’s comments about he US backing out of the Paris Agreement on her instagram, avoiding giving long speeches about her relationship with Chyler because it makes her emotional, letting Katie- who has more experience on this matter- take the wheel with explaining where they stand, liking Jeremy’s apology but not posting one of her own). She’s an introvert awkward type, not a Supergirl Hope Speech type. The only thing she really seems comfortable talking about is Kara’s characterization and growth, because it’s what she knows best and has lines ready to go.

As for Katie herself:

She laughed, and it wasn’t an awkward laugh. She thought it was funny. People have been posting pictures of her reaction that are misleading, but this was her initial laugh:

That’s a genuine laugh. Taking a single frame of a laughing face and adding the words “help me” over it will make anyone look like they’re faking being amuse. But this is a real laugh.

And it’s not the end of the world.

Because she didn’t think it would hurt anyone. At least not in that moment.

Later on, after thinking about it and having a lot more experience with these specific kinds of wlw fan situations than the rest of the cast, she re-emphasized her support. 

And Melissa agreed 100%.

The cast was not trying to mock anyone, but to say something dramatically in jest, not realizing that it’s actually hurtful. Like teasing someone about being short and then realizing that they are actually sensitive about it. The other person’s feelings are valid, but accusations that you hate short people are not.

There are other things that I have issue with that Jeremy said (and with Chris but I’m not gonna touch that). His use of the word “debunked”, as if Supercorp is a conspiracy theory, for example. His initial apology that was less empathetic than it was defensive (likely in response to aggressive as hell comments, to be fair).

But based on his follow up apologies, I think he’s starting to get where it went wrong, that fandom is really important to people and not a fickle thing, and even that his initial apology wasn’t good enough.

And Melissa isn’t going to post a formal apology. It’s not her style, she doesn’t write on social media like that at all. Even if she does feel bad that she hurt people’s feelings, her method of making it better will likely be saying positive things about Supercorp in the future. Which doesn’t make her fake or two faced, it makes her capable of growth and empathy.

They made a mistake and said something super insensitive, but not something homophobic. The intention and the knowledge behind words matters, and placing a double meaning of mal intent into those words (but of course absolving your fave of any connection to it) doesn’t help anyone.

[obiternihili]

I want to like ssc, but every time I go to the site to read stuff there's... something in the air that really rubs me the wrong way. And I'm not really confident in my ability to articulate it and definitely not in a way that would make ~respectable discourse~ or whatever it'd be called. Of course I'm gonna try because, ???, I'm a prick???

But it's like, not really that major anyways. Just maybe hopefully some insight to be had about people who don't like his writing style? I hope?

But like, if I tried to articulate it at all, he's too Sam Harris-y. That's something bad about EY, that's something bad about rationalists as a whole. That's something bad about para-rationalists as well, including fucking me so maybe I'm throwing stones. If you finish this, do please keep in mind that my opening paragraph is admitting that I don't really read him in a habitual aspect. Anyone can rub anyone else the wrong way and first impressions count for a disproportionate lot, even if it's multiple first impressions over a period of a few years. You can feed even a rational inference machine unrepresentative data, like the point of that post of mine that went viralish a little while ago But some Sam Harris-y traits:

We like to be married to our strawmen, even after it's been repeatedly explained to us that the strawman is (shockingly) not a good model of the inner motivations of the people we're criticizing. But unfortunately when you throw out strawmen, the most likely people to respond seem to be the most like the strawmen for some reason, which I feel is happening with the lazy garbage commies who go on hate campaigns against him (the serious ones ignore him actually). And I supposed that almost certainly what happens with me and ancap-types, but I don't really have evidence to support that like I feel I have with Scott's situation.

We have a tendency to talk about new studies like they're objectively correct while ignoring the consensus. That's... not how science works. It's especially common when the conclusion is convenient to our biases, which in Scott's case really seems to mean "is interesting" more than any particular ideology. But like for Harris types it's one thing to think pomo's influence on the sciences has issues, it's another to think that while also using the same philosophical tools to critique sciences that aren't achieving concordance. Like you're going too meta there and throwing the baby out with the bathwater instead of really doing the work to get out the good data in your own framework. It's probably my own biases in assessing my writing but I don't feel like I'm as guilty of this as I used to be, with my being worst at it ironically around the time I started reading rationalist-adjacent stuff; maybe it's because I came into this with a strong allergy to that kind of pattern from my own experiences in the atheism wars and alt-medicine.

Scott mostly just ignores trolls (and ineffectual critics) which is really good behavior, but Sam Harris types also have this tendency to mistake "trying to talk in a neuter tone" with "talking in a neuter tone" (and with Scott he doesn't seem to take a lot of blogging very formally to begin with, which, that's fine, it's incredibly fine, but it affects the synthesis of a wannabe neutral tone and laid back assumptions) and feel offense when someone else doesn't understand them or gets mind-killed early on. Instead of looking over their own work for their own weaknesses as a "neutral writer" they (we) instead have the unfortunate habit of talking about mind-killing like it's the other party's fault. Scott kind of gives off this vibe (I probably do too).

But this comes off as incredibly snide and condescending and is almost a pan-rationalist vice. Like I'd name names but this is already me being an ass as it is. Most of the people I follow do this to some degree, actually. And this might be a bad opinion, but, some topics are not neutral no matter how much you want them to be and your bias is gonna get the better of you if you don't mindfully wrestle with it. Maybe I over-anthropomorphize as well but ideas aren't to be trusted, because they want to take advantage of you so they get passed along; so do expect that they have ways of breaking into and fucking around with your cold, distant, neutral demeanor even if you think it's a game or at least you have no stake in the game.

To be honest - and maybe this is a terrible thing that negatively effects the strength of what I try to say - this is why I try to wear my biases on my sleeve. Because when I don't the impact tends to be heavier than I'm usually prepared to deal with. And when I see my thinking in plain english instead of trying to cover it up I generally feel like I'm handicapping myself when the discussion eventually devolves to tone. Because on there should be my own mistakes so I can avoid trying to be a hypocrite, instead of the shadows of my mistakes obscured even from me such that I defend myself as if I don't cast a shadow.

(Which - casting a shadow, as opposed to deity-like glowing radiance (and which I'm quick to point out radiant bodies also cast shadows, such that not even the gods are perfect even if it's not obvious) - is a metaphor I've used for imperfection and probably isn't an obvious metaphor, sorry if explaining this feels condescending)

There's also probably something to be said about ~revealed preferences~ but I don't really like that piece at all. It seems true to me that people that like certain models of the mind tend to think that way themselves, though, but in general I think the revealed preferences assumes people are more rational than they really are and that people's actions don't really correlate to their inner worlds. There might be *something* to the argument that if you give off the impression of being a reactionary (or tankie, or psycho, or narcissist, or pedo-lover or gay-hater or brown-people-genocider or [positive and neutral things I can't juxtapose against the previous because it would imply they're a natural set] or whatever) through the actions you take such as who you fight or policies you support or mistakes you're willing to make, it might be because you have reactionary (etc) pattern-matching biases in your writings creeping in from your own world, but like if inner worlds really correlated with actions I'd be dead so it'd probably come across as incredibly hypocritical to try to point out that it seems like model held to be true has negative implications and bullets you're willing to bite about yourself. Don't even know if Scott buys into that piece anyways, maybe barking up a wrong tree.

At least this shit is why places like r/badphilosophy have anti-Harris memes. Their applicability to rationalists and para-rationalists and really anyone is probably more of a subjective impressionistic thing than an absolute fact. Harris fans like to say he's taken out of context, for example. My own experiences with the guy are like he's like Marx - taken out of context, but the context gets taken out of context because he's kinda low key a pompous windbag and actually at the next level of context above the context looks like the smallest layer of context again. Like Marx's opiate of the masses quote.

-

Like I said I don't (habitually) read ssc tho. I'm particularly quick to confuse disagreement with moral failing probably, half this shit's probably not even characteristic of his writing and is just an incorrect set of impressions I've gotten over years of only reading his weakest pieces or second-and-triple hand exposure to him. I really like the anonymized-esque quasi-professional advice he's given on things like depression and he's had a number of jokes I've laughed at or points about non-psychiatric topics I've thought were well articulated. I don't have anything against him and he's a worker who does something I could never do with less free time than I could manage with blogging mostly casually in that free time, so like having lofty expectations that he caters to my preferred writing styles is dickish anyways.

I just tried reading stuff of his again yesterday while running errands because a reactionary-feeling blog was shitting on him, was put off by something I couldn't actually put my finger on while wanting to like him, and tried to describe nebulous gut feelings 12 hours later in a moment of lucidity while being woken up from medication side effects augmented by stupidly poorly managed time on my part, so take me with a boulder of salt

EDIT I also wanted to add a point about how people have this habit of talking about things like everyone else assumes the same points. I'm particularly atrocious at this and basically it can come off as really snide and patronizing if you don't and feels like going A > C because A > B without establishing or referencing why B > C but I forgot to add the point. Rationalist jargon is basically all about shorthanding A > C and Harris is particularly atrocious about it as well, and between it and the other Harris-y stuff is why everyone hates rationalists

[heywritebetter]

All of Your Characters Talk The Same

    People talk different. This sounds obvious, but you would be shocked how often I see people who don’t seem to understand the principle that their voice doesn’t come out of everyone else’s mouth—or at least, you’d think so from their writing. I don’t know where this problem comes from exactly. Perhaps it has its genesis in TV and Film, where Joss Whedon can write a full cast of characters that speak in glib, quippy banter, because he can rely on the actors to give character through their inflection and body language. Maybe it’s because all writers are shut in losers who only communicate with the outside world through furious rants scrawled on McDonald’s napkins. More likely though, it’s because the nuances of human communication are numerous and impossible to fully wrap one’s brain around. So if you don’t instantly understand the ins and outs of how people talk, congratulations, you’re basically a normal person. I’m not going to be able to teach you in one blog post what experts have tried and failed to understand for hundreds of years, but I’m gonna teach you how to damn well fake it.

    Now, first off, I should let you know that this article isn’t going to teach you how to write varied character voices. Good writers can do that, sure, but you’re probably never going to be a good writer. And that’s fine! Because, and I’m gonna let you in on a little industry secret here, most of your favorite writers probably aren’t good writers; they’re actually just good editors in disguise. It is almost impossible to write something well on your first try, at least without years of experience, and voice is one of the areas where that is most pronounced. If, in your first draft, everyone talks exactly like you, there’s absolutely no shame in that, so long as you recognize it and fix it in editing.

    “But you still haven’t told us how to fix it,” you screech, spiking your phone onto the sidewalk in a fit of defiant rage.

    Pipe down you petulant strawman, I’m getting to it. First off, when thinking about a character’s voice, it can often be helpful to think of… well, an actual voice. That is to say, a specific voice—of someone you know, of a famous person, of that wacky racist “Korean” impression your dad does, whatever. You would never go into a story without knowing what your characters look like, even down to details you wouldn’t need to describe, yet so many people will hop right in without ever deciding what their characters should sound like. If you have a voice in mind, then when you’re editing, be sure to reread the dialogue in the voice you’ve picked out for the character. If, for example, you wrote the line “forsooth my lord, the foul deed which you hath requested is done,” but you imagined the character to speak in the sultry tones of an aging Danny DeVito, then you know something is probably off. Note that if you’re writing in third person, you still need a voice for your narrator; even if they are detached, it ought to be consistently so.

    Of course, identifying the problem is just the first step to solving it. I can tell you that the gaping shotgun hole blasted in my TV is probably why it doesn’t work anymore, but I’ll be damned if I could fix it. But fret not, as unlike my attempt to fix my TV with pipe cleaners, a glass sheet, and some elmer's glue, there are shortcuts to dialogue editing that actually work!

    One thing to keep in mind is to always vary your vocabulary. Different people know different words, and moreover different people use different words at different times. For example, I am deeply insecure about my intelligence, thus my use of the words “petulant”, ”glib”, and “forsooth”. Others might take the fact that they have no idea what those words mean as a sign that they shouldn’t use them. Formality is also a player here; some people will speak very differently depending on the importance of a situation, while others may speak formally or informally most of the time.

    On the subject of formality, there’s also humor. When does your character feel comfortable telling jokes? What sort of jokes do they like to tell? There’s a big difference between the bookish nerd who makes esoteric literary references among close friends and the strange janitor who deals only in pineapple based humor and feels oddly compelled to do so at funerals. This is obviously critical when writing something comedic, as knowing the proper mouthpiece to deliver a joke through is very important for characterization, but even for more serious works it’s important. Most people tell jokes, at least sometimes, it’s a normal part of communication, and can often tell the audience a lot about a character. Fun fact: doctors, firemen, and other people who experience suffering and death on a day to day basis are known to often have very morbid senses of humor.

    As well, certain people are better at communicating and articulating certain ideas. Your awkward scientist may be able to come up with a succinct analogy to sum up the theoretical physics you googled to explain the space whozit threatening your starship, while struggling to understand or put into word their emotions; or perhaps your impulsive and brash hero may not be able to, in the moment, articulate quite why he’s mad enough to cleave a ogre in half lengthwise with a single stroke, but when he calms down he’ll realize he’s just having a bad case of the mondays. As a writer you have a certain perspective as to what motivates your characters to do what they do, but think of how you are in certain situations; you don’t always, in the moment, know what to say, and it's important to recognize that your characters may not either, and varying when between characters is a great way to make them feel different.

    Going back to something a little simpler, people tend to be drawn to certain turns of phrase. It’s not always something obvious, but if you pay attention you’ll notice that almost everyone has a few expressions or snowclones that they like to use in certain situations. Someone might frequently describe good things as “ace,” or express emphasis by say something was a “____ and a half,” or merely punctuate victories with a drawn out “ayyy”. You may think that feels forced and unrealistic, but people do it all the time, you just don’t notice unless you’re looking. In fact, everything I just listed comes from someone I know. The last one was me. I’m not very popular. The one thing to be careful about with this one is not to overdo it. Like I said, it’s subtle enough that we often don’t even notice people reusing phrases, and if you overdo it just becomes an obnoxious sitcom-ish catchphrase, and no one wants to write the next Steve Urkel. No one.

    Finally, an oft overlooked but very important way is looking at the sentence length, rhythm, and structure. A very educated or stuffy character may speak in long and intricate sentences, while an artist or a poet could speak in flowing organic prose, and a tribal warrior may speak in a staccato of short, blunt phrases. This is obviously one of the more tricky ones to get right, but as a writer you ought to get used to various sentence structures and their effects and uses, and not be afraid to apply that to dialogue.

    All of this may seem intimidating when laid out, but it doesn’t have to be scary. Don’t let this stuff bog you down when you’re writing, but if you find yourself wondering how to make your characters’ voices stronger in editing, remember these tips. Any one of them can have a drastic effect on the quality of your writing, and making each character speak in their own unique voice is one of the most important steps to making your story feel real. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to my day job. I’ve got a funeral home to clean, and I have a bit about a monk and a pineapple that’s gonna knock ‘em dead. Those of them that are not presently deceased, of course.