#i'm a clear supremacist

[brokencolressmchn]

This is a genuine opinion piece but I think that:

Koujaku and Aoba were made for each other, they deserve each other and probably have the best, most healthiest relationship in the entire game

Koujaku almost worships Aoba and Aoba looks out for Koujaku in the ways he can. Their relationship starts out strong, and the game ends it in a place even stronger than before.

Also, while Clear's route might be my favourite one narratively... I think:

He can probably do better than Aoba

Aoba gets pretty short tempered with him at times (though it's pretty understandable since he starts out as a stranger... he does get more patient near the end of the route)

But a lot of Clear's time in his route is spent taking care of Aoba and Aoba not really knowing how to act about that. They don't have the small bonding moments that Koujaku and Noiz's route have- most of their relationship is moved forward by big emotional moments

Which is fine, but for my aroace ass it makes me feel like the relationship doesn't have as much as a foundation for me to "justify" it with

Clear's life revolves around Aoba because of his programming + eventually because of his feelings, but Aoba just isn't the same way

Even if they do fall in love and Aoba ends up getting pretty depressed when he's gone

Somehow it still feels "one sided" to me y'know? Can't really describe it much beyond that

[sybbi]

People will see the Star of David and be like "Is this Zionist propaganda?"

[hesitationss]

just scrolled thru an account harassing ppl for showing support for noury about being "anti ukr/aine" bcuz they tweet about palestine. they're saying they "don't give a shit about some random palestinian who lost their hand" and they said "germans were too kind to communists during ww2" i hate these nazi bitches!!! like the normalization of nazism is so incredibly fucked up and it's only going to get worse in europe and north america oh my god.

[catsnuggler]

I've noticed American white women have a hard time being themselves. All women in this patriarchal world have it bad, and I'm not saying that American white women are the most oppressed. They seem to be the ones who most adamantly force themselves into boxes, though, particularly whatever boxes the men in their lives want them to be crammed into. This is, of course, not the result of any biological factor, nor is it a factor of what land they were born on, nor is it a "racial" factor in the sense of race being something which immutably, biologically exists, as race doesn't immutably, biologically exist, and is simply a social construct which people are wrongly told is biological and immutable, and is violently enforced. No, if I could put my finger on it, white American women contort themselves so much because they want to stay in the graces of white American men, so as to simultaneously avoid abuse from white American men, and to stay on top of non-American, non-white women, to preserve what social status white American women have. This actually ruined one of my past romantic relationships. I didn't go bossing her or anything, but she clung to what I was simply because I was the white American man this white American woman loved, and she was raised in an evangelical background that demanded she conform to me, despite me not telling her what to be, despite me being a Heathen and an anarcho-communist, and despite me not even knowing how she was contorting herself. Eventually, she realized what was happening to her, and, for that and other reasons, our relationship ended. She was, of course, the victim, and I merely suffered some blowback from a grievous existential issue that she and many other white American women deal with, but should never have had to deal with. Still hurt, though. I later got into a relationship with another white American person who was coercively assigned female at birth, but realized they aren't even a woman, and aren't into men, and clearly, the fact that they even begun a relationship with me in the first place was because they were, unconsciously or otherwise, trying to contort themself into someone they weren't. Despite being a white American man, I am hesitant to go into any more relationships with any women who are, aside from their gender, otherwise of my demographic. My current partner is half-white, and of an evangelical background, but they know who they are, and while they love me and want to make me happy, they are also who they are, and stand up for themself, and I love them all the more for it. I'm happy to be in a relationship with someone who wants to hold my hand and stand beside me, not simply bow before me and wash my feet, despite herself. She also loves when I speak Spanish with her. Gods, I really need go become fluent. I love her so much.

[christianity-crucible]

Here is "progressive evangelical" Kristin Du Mez's "clear as mud" statement about her relationship to evangelical LGBTQphobia.

She is a very good writer. That I am not able to discern what her own evangelical conception of LGBTQ people's status should be within and outside "the Church" is probably intentional on her part.

I post this because this is completely typical of "progressive evangelicals". They describe some other evangelicals as homophobic, but don't say what they themselves think about the "clobber passages" in the Bible.

"Progressive evangelicals" are a new thing since I came out and was involved in gay activism decades ago. Back in the day, they were all straight up homophobes. There was not this current "nuance"/evasiveness.

I have more feelings and hopefully more to say about these people.

[marcusrobertobaq]

That's...

U got a point.

Once again thinking about the fact that Elijah's pool is red instead of the usual blue, and although it might absolutely be because he's a billionaire living in a designer house, I love to think it has something to do with blood. Something about not wanting the androids he lives with feeling like they're swimming in thirium. Because whenever I see it, it always reminds me of a pool full of human blood for a split second ; so why wouldn't it be the same for them ?

[historicity-was-already-taken]

I am posting and responding to this ask anonymously as I don't want anyone harassing its sender. This has already been communicated with the person who sent the ask.

I just want to thank you for being a light in the darkness of anti-semitism, especially on this website. I have found I am on this site a lot less ever since it was made clear that other leftists here are more anti-semitic than we ever knew possible, using very specific wording of our own trauma against us (i.e. saying stuff like "colonialism", "genocide/ethnic cleansing", and calling JEWISH PEOPLE Nazis). It feels like, at best, they know Hamas ≠ All or even most Palestinians, but think that they think all JEWS = Bibi; and at worst, agree with Hamas and think of him as some sort of "freedom fighter". So, thank you from one leftist Jew to another, just trying to keep afloat here. ❤️

You are very welcome; it's certainly been overwhelming, and I'm glad this can be a safe space for you.

I do want to push back on some of this ask, though. Specifically in regard to terms such as "colonialism," "apartheid," "genocide," and "ethnic cleansing."

The use of these terms is not inherently anti-Semitic. For a lot of people, these terms are the best ones they have access to describe what they are seeing. I do think such terms as “colonialism” and “apartheid” are overly simple in regard to the last ~3000 years of Jewish history, and that they cast the situation into an alien historical context which dilutes and uncomplicates the all the historical realities at stake, but I truly do not think that all who use these terms do so to cause Jewish people pain.

Further complicating the picture is that terms like "colonialism" aren’t completely wrong. Modern Zionism arose in the context of mid-nineteenth century European large-scale movements towards nationalism (ie, the creation of nation-states) and away from the multi-national empire. Jews—a subject of anti-Semitism and fifth columnist suspicions within those emergent European nations—reacted to all this by joining the nationalism game.

What’s ironic, is that those European Jews who founded contemporary Zionism were reacting to the exclusion and racial hatred with which Gentile Europeans treated them, and then once they had some settlements in Palestine, they deployed similar variants of racial hatred at both the Palestinian Arab population, and Middle Eastern Jewry.

The existence of a distinct people and ethnic group in Palestine before the aliyot were not something the first generation of Zionists were concerned with. Because they were part of the same shitty, white supremacist, pro-imperialistic intellectual European tradition to which they were responding as victimized parties. As time went on and Zionist thought spread across Ashkenazic communities, we can see some variants. Some forms of far-left Zionism in twentieth century Poland, for example, actively built the presence and rights of Palestinian Arabs into their ideology, some of them actively stating that Zionism could not be a success if it necessitated transforming Palestinian Arabs into a group of secondhand citizens and a cheap source of labor in their own home.

Those leftist strands of Zionism tended to be Socialist/Communist in nature, and centered around the idea of life in Eretz Yisrael as one of a series of self-sufficient communes. Thus when the 1930s hit and things start to go bad, the Zionists we see fleeing to Palestine tended to be of the more centrist and far right variants. The left wing, socialist movements, already operating as a collective, had a membership uncomfortable with fleeing to safety while the rest remained behind.

And that same socialist/communal attitude, is why those variants of Zionist thought never made it into the Israeli political mainstream; most of their members and proponents were murdered in the Holocaust in part because they refused to leave their comrades behind. The General Zionists and Zionist Revisionists who rode out the years of the Holocaust in Palestine therefore already had access to the avenues of power which would become important in 1948, when the British Empire shrugged off its responsibilities towards the regions it colonized and destabilized.

Now, as for ethnic cleansing. I can’t sugar-coat this: that’s what the Naqba was. It was ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs from their homes to make way for the Jewish State. The manipulative shit (but still somehow extremely prestigious) youth group I was in taught us that Arabs call it Naqba because they hate Jews and therefore existence of Jews in the Southern Levant was a tragedy, as was the fact that Hitler didn't finish the job.

That’s garbage: it’s called the Naqba because it was ethnic cleansing. And that's not the fault of the Holocaust survivors who made their way to Mandatory Palestine/Israel in the late 1940s--they lacked political power, and were often looked down upon by those who did; the Holocaust as part of Israeli National Mythology wasn't an immediate Thing.

If you spent your formative years around older Jewish folks of A Certain Generation, whose trauma has pretty much placed a permanent block on their ability to see some of what went down in 1948 for what it was, I can’t blame you for having that gut/cognitive dissonance reaction to the use of “ethnic cleansing” in the context of Israel and Palestine. I know those older folks. I loved them. They’re mostly gone now, and I miss them terribly. But their trauma-induced view of everything lives on in the ability of some younger Jews to properly name and understand what it is that happened in 1948.

It was ethnic cleansing.

Further, not only were Palestinian Arabs ethnically cleansed, but the Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) Jews who were forced by their governments to flee their homes of thousands of years and seek refuge in Israel throughout the second half of the twentieth century…the Western and Central European Jews in control of Israel and its institutions treated them like shit too. Hadassah actively stole the babies of Yemeni Jews, told the parents that their children were dead, and rehomed them to Ashkenazic couples. There were death certificates. Members of the Ethiopian Jewish community were forcibly sterilized, and their ongoing treatment by the State is racist and generally atrocious. And this analysis of the relationship between the Israel State, MENA Jewish populations, and different Ashkenazic groups in Israel is horribly short and overly simple.

As for genocide. I honestly don’t know. I do know many people, who are very much not Anti-Semites, who are calling what’s happening in Gaza right now genocide; many of these people are also Jewish. I know many others who refer to the experiences of Palestinians between 1948 and now as a slow genocide. Many of these people are also actively not anti-Semites, and many of them are Jewish.

So these terms, as uncomfortable as they may feel for people within the very specific Jewish generational background I believe we share, are not deployed as anti-Semitic weapons. Nazi comparisons? Yes. Swastikas superimposed over the Star of David? Yes. Very specific hook-nosed Jewish caricatures in relation to Israelis? Yes. Blood libel shit? Yes. These are all anti-Semitic, and are deployed to hurt and retraumatize Jewish people. But the rest are not nearly that simple.

And I didn’t learn this from like, Bad Evil Post-Modern Academics at Columbia University Who Hate Jews; I learned this from doing graduate-level work in the field of Modern Jewish History, and working in Jewish archives; this did not come from outside the building.

Now, as for Hamas as freedom fighters…that’s ignorant at best. Hamas’ charter clearly calls for the global destruction of the Jewish people [ETA: they edited this part out in 2017 for PR purposes], and their actions as rulers are horrifically, violently, homophobic, and seem to be more abut provoking Israel than they are about governing and protecting their people. But as you said, Hamas isn’t all Palestinians, and it’s also not all Palestinians who consider themselves freedom fighters. (A second reader of mine had the following commentary on this paragraph: "Might need a bit more complication around Hamas? I know that's not your area of expertise but it's worth mentioning that they were basically set up to undermine the PLO and what would become the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. You're right that they aren't representative of all Palestinian thought and resistance, and that they are on some fuck shit.")

So while I’m so glad that blog is a comfort to you, I encourage you to also take a step into some of your discomfort, and ask yourself where it comes from.

No one reading this post has my consent to use it to silence other Jewish people who are in different stages of their journey towards understanding how generational trauma has impacted their ability to grasp all of this. Further, if you choose to attack me for gently calling my people in, you're a piece of shit and I will be mean to you.

[v-risalab]

I watched "The Man with 1000 Kids" documentary on netflix, and it's staunch refusal to engage with the white supremacist core of the issue is frankly astounding.

This Dutch guy went around the world donating sperm under different names, and the documentary followed mostly families from the netherlands that recieved sperm from him.

These families picked this man out of everyone else because of his blonde hair and blue eyes, paying thousands of dollars to have kids with those traits. Because yes, apparently you can shop for the whitest man when you need sperm.

This guy's nickname was Viking. He uploaded youtube videos about how white privilege is not real and how traditional living is superior in every way. His partners in crime did this in Kenya with him in order to, and i'm quoting, "bleach africa". This had 0 attention drawn to it.

White supremacy permeated every minute of this documentary, how clear was that this guy was obsessed with racial purity and wanted to spread his aryan genes though the world. And how clear it also was that the families had the exact same interests in keeping the purity of their genes.

The documentary mumbled something about the guy wanting to have a legacy through his youtube channel, and ended claiming it all ended well because he got forbidden from donating more sperm and all the affected families are now a big happy family. This was said while showing images of the children playing together in some playground in the netherlands, of course all white.

At first I could not believe not a single minute was given to discuss what was actually going on. But then I thought that if these families had to confront his real motivations, they would also have to confront how fucked shopping for the whitest kid is. And that would never happen of course, after all this was just one bad guy and not a symptom of a fucked up system and set of values.

If anything, it is a great look into the lengths the families, the mass donor, and the documentary creators will go to avoid any sort of introspection or challenge to their violently racist beliefs. But it all ended well, right?

[genderkoolaid]

More directly, predstregon was banned for making posts calling for the CEO to "die a violent death" (exaggerated). The CEO made it clear it will ban anyone making death threats against the tumblr staff.

^ I mean. I'm not even a big fan of wishing death upon people, but this is not a death threat. It's not encouraging violence against someone. You could argue otherwise but that's both a weak argument on it's own imo and especially so when you consider the amount of self-identified nazis and white supremacists that are allowed to run free on this site.

[pluckyredhead]

Character Profile: Gregorio de la Vega and Hugh Dawkins (Extraño and Tasmanian Devil)

I was thinking that it's been too long since I've done a character profile, and then I realized that I don't think I've ever posted about DC's CANONICALLY MARRIED, HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT DILFS, a.k.a. Wizard Daddy and his furry husband. I'm so sorry. I've failed you all.

ANYWAY MEET GREGORIO AND HUGH:

Gregorio (on the right) is the first out superhero in comics, ever, from before the Comics Code even allowed gay characters. Hugh is DC's third gay superhero (Pied Piper came out a year before him) and the first canonically queer member of the Justice League. See? Historically significant!

CONTENT WARNING: Homophobia, racial stereotypes, attempted suicide, HIV/AIDS, and some particularly gory fridging (Hugh got better).

Gregorio de la Vega first appeared in Millennium #2. Now, they never actually use the word "gay" in the eight issue Millennium miniseries, but, well...

No, seriously, despite the fact that they never use words like "gay" or "homosexual" in the pages of the comic itself, the art and dialogue make Gregorio's sexuality very clear - and in case that wasn't enough, the editors do use the word "gay" in the letter columns.

Millennium was an event in which the Guardians and the Zamarons identified a group of diverse humans to be "the vanguard of human evolution" and gave them all superpowers. Gregorio is hanging out in a cantina in Peru when they show up to give him the news:

He's calling himself a fruit do you get it??? Honestly I love him so much. He's so extra.

I want to emphasize again how groundbreaking Gregorio is. Like, yes, obviously he is a raging stereotype and arguably a problematic one. But this was 1988. The Comics Code Authority would not be updated to permit queer characters until the following year (probably because of Gregorio, in large part). The fact that he existed at all, and not cloaked in layers upon layers of subtext, was a huge step forward. No, he's not perfect, but when you're the only canonically queer superhero in mainstream comics, that's an impossible ask.

Anyway. Gregorio's not super into the idea of being a main character at first, but after a self-loathing suicide attempt (Wally saves him), he decides fuck it, why not be a superhero, and joins the team that will become the New Guardians. He's granted his superpowers, which are generic magic ones, and takes the codename Extraño.

Unfortunately, in the spinoff series that followed Millennium, New Guardians, things get...uh...kind of rough. By which I mean that a) the original writer left, b) the new writer dialed Gregorio's gay stereotyping waaay back in favor of, um, Latino stereotyping instead (he stops calling everyone "honey" and starts calling them "amigo"), and c) the team is attacked by the Hemo-Goblin, an HIV-positive white supremacist vampire. Yes, really. It's fucking awful.

The Hemo-Goblin scratches Gregorio and bites Jet, a Black woman on the team. They both subsequently test positive for HIV. There are many letters from fans pointing out that it's nearly impossible to contract HIV that way, but the editors insisted that actually it was totally plausible, and then implied that probably Gregorio already had HIV because he was gay (even though he had tested negative earlier in the book). Then Jet dies. Again: it's fucking awful.

New Guardians was canceled soon after that and Gregorio pretty much disappeared. By the 2000s, he was viewed as basically an embarrassment, if anyone even remembered him at all: so stereotypical, so flamboyant, so offensive, so cringe. In the Love Is Love anthology, everyone's least favorite human Dan DiDio wrote a story where he claimed that Extraño died of AIDS back in the 80s, which...literally wasn't true??? The publisher of the goddamn company and even he assumed that the Cringey Stereotype must have died the Stereotypical Death.

And then in 2016, Gregorio got a makeover, courtesy of Steve Orlando and Fernando Blanco:

HELLO.

Yeah, so Gregorio is a silver fox now who hangs out with Apollo and Midnighter, does wizard shit, and lives in Lima with his husband and their adopted daughter. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT HUSBAND:

Could you tell he's Australian???

Hugh Dawkins, a.k.a. Tasmanian Devil (no relation to the Looney Tunes character except that they are both owned by WB and, obviously, Tasmanian) actually first appeared in the Super Friends tie-in comics to the cartoon of the same name, in 1977, as part of a plotline where the Justice League teamed up with a bunch of international superheroes.

As you can see above, Hugh, like the other international superheroes, is a massive stereotype. He's also a were-Tasmanian devil who can grow really big, like many Australians. (Even though he's been around for 50 years, there are very few panels of Hugh in human form, but if you need to know for reasons of all the fanfic I hope you are about to write: he's blond.)

In the late 80s, Hugh and the other international superheroes from this story were incorporated into the main DCU as a team called the Global Guardians. They became occasional supporting characters to the various Justice League International books, and some of them joined various Justice League branches. Others had random cameos here and there, and in a 1992 issue of Justice League Quarterly, Hugh's random cameo involved casually mentioning that he is gay:

Again, this is a big deal. It's only 1992, meaning the only canonically queer superheroes in mainstream comics are Extraño (1988), Pied Piper (1991), and Northstar (1992). And this is a Justice League book. AND IT'S 1992. When Hugh talks about things being hateful for gays, he's likely referring to the virulent homophobia in Tasmania at the time (homosexuality wouldn't be decriminalized there for another five years).

Which means it was also a big deal that Hugh went on to join the European branch of the Justice League shortly after this, making him the first canonically queer member of any branch of the League. Of course, his sexuality was never mentioned during the year and a half he was on the team...or in any comic...until 2006. And then it was a vaguely homophobic joke involving Hal Jordan. But still!

(There is a panel that I SWEAR exists from the JLI era of Hugh describing a total bullshit version of his origin which granted him "the power of 106 Tasmanian devils!" which I cannot for the life of me find but was the first thing that made me fall in love with this character. If you stumble across it, please let me know what issue number it is?)

Hugh then had the misfortune of next appearing...sort of...in the infamously awful Cry for Justice in 2009. I say sort of because it's revealed that the villain, Prometheus, has skinned him and turned him into a rug. So we only see his skin. The late 2000s were really, really rough, guys.

However, a year later he appeared in the Starman/Congorilla special and he was totally fine? Don't ask me how. Gorillas were involved. The issue ended with the possibility of him and Starman (the Mikaal Tomas version) hooking up, but then the New 52 happened, so that never came to anything.

...BUT WHO CARES, BECAUSE NOW HE'S MARRIED TO GREGORIO AND THEY HAVE A DAUGHTER AND THEY ARE IN LOVE.

The nickname! The clutching! I'm dying.

Did I mention the canon threesome with John Constantine?

HUGH LOVES HIS RIDICULOUS HUSBAND SO MUCH. Tragically the JLQ only showed up in these two stories but all the baby queer superheroes in the DCU call Gregorio "Tio" and it makes me want to weep. HE WAS ALL ALONE IN 1988 AND NOW HE HAS A FAMILY. I AM VERKLEMPT. 😭😭😭

Unfortunately Gregorio and Hugh are pretty much relegated to occasionally appearing in Pride specials these days, but maybe if we all wish really hard, DC will let Steve Orlando or Andrew Wheeler write a miniseries about how they met and fell in love. I think Nick Robles should draw it.

ANYWAY I LOVE THESE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT HUSBANDS, THE END.

[wee-chlo]

I'm rereading Harry Potter and it's baffling how people just... pretend Snape was a completely different person than who he actually was?

Granted, Alan Rickman's Snape and Book Snape are two genuinely different people, to the point that I think Movie Snape would be mildly disgusted by Book Snape. Movie Snape came off more as someone who was angry and spiteful to a select few for reasons that ranged from Understandable to Irrationally Petty, but generally very grim and stern, with a good heart beneath it all. Book Snape is a piece of shit.

Movie Snape doesn't have the same cruelty as Book Snape: his targeting of anyone other than Harry is framed in a more slapstick way and his teaching isn't neary as abusive. Neville being terrified of him doesn't have the same implicit showcasing of Snape being abusive but rather Snape being stern and unforgiving while Neville is meek and needs positive reinforcement to flourish.

Movie Snape is stoic, deadpan. I saw a clip of Rickman on YouTube and either he, a commenter, or both noted that a touchstone of Rickman's performance for Snape was that he didn't raise his voice. Not so in the books, where Snape's described several times loosing his temper and screaming, even shrieking. Snape is terrifyingly volatile in the books, in contrast to the movies where even at his most furious, most emotional, he remains in control of himself.

Book Snape is, unambiguously, just a bad person. Not just a bad teacher, a bad PERSON. He is a small, bitter, petty bully who shouldn't be anywhere near children, and honestly Dumbledore letting him near children is probably more of an indictment of Dumbledore's character than the fact that he used to be a wizard supremacist.

And to be clear, while teenage Snape isn't AS bad as adult Snape by virtue of being a teenager... he was also just Not Good. He ran around with Wizard Nazis. Lily called him out on that, on the fact that he was clearly ready and rearing to join Voldemort, that he used Dark Magic on other students alongside his death eater buddies, etc.

James and Co were little shits who teased and picked on students. But Remus and Sirius made a point that Snape and James had a uniquely, mutually hostile relationship. Remus and Sirius state directly that ultimately, one of the primary reasons James targeted Snape was because Snape was "up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts and James hated the Dark Arts".

I've seen people use the fact that James never apologized to Snape as an indictment of James' character but like... when and why would he have apologized?

Genuinely, I think if Snape had made a good faith effort to be a better person BEFORE the death of the Potters, James may have apologized. But Snape at the time of James' death was a literal wizard nazi and honestly? I can't see him feeling terribly bad about bullying him, or at least not feeling obliged to apologize. And even if he had, how would he have done so? Send an owl to wizard nazi HQ?

But I think the thing that made me bristle the most about the books was the gaslighting that happened in book 6.

Remus is... going through it in that book, fair enough, but when Harry is talking to him about his suspicious, he gently accuses Harry of "inheriting James' and Sirius' prejudice" and being "determined to hate [Snape]". Like.... I'm sorry, but did Remus get hit in the head? Are we supposed to just casually forget EVERYTHING SNAPE HAS SAID AND DONE TO HARRY IN THE LAST FIVE BOOKS?!

If anyone came into it with an inherited prejudice and a determination to hate, it was Snape.

Justice for Book 6 Harry, everyone's treating him like he's bonkers but he's right.

[vexwerewolf]

hey, I saw a post reblogged around hating the whole idea of no kink at pride and wanted to understand why that was, but noticed the comments were turned off, so I'm asking here. for reference I dont know very much about the subject and had the general idea that pride should be an all ages space, BUT (the but is very important) since I dont have much knowledge on the subject and can see you are very opinionated around it, id like to know why that is your stance from, well, someone who actually holds that stance.

No pressure to answer I simply want to understand why others hold this stance, the potential history behind it and if I am looking at things the wrong way, a chance to change my opinion

I hope all of this comes across correctly because im not trying to start internet discourse, just learn and have a well rounded understanding of a subject before taking a more solid stance

CW: discussion of sex, homophobia, kink, common anti-kink lies

Okay so if you're not read up on queer history, you have to understand that "deviant," "indecent" or "degenerate" sexuality is an accusation that's been used to repress queer people for pretty much as long as the concept has existed. It has often extended so far as to encompass any form of sex that isn't missionary cishet boning for the purpose of procreation, but it has always and by definition encompassed any and all ways that queer people have sex.

Now, I want to be clear that the LGBTQ+ community is not entirely about sex. Our community touches love, passion, art, gaming, basically every sphere of human experience, but it also includes sex. A lot of queer people like to have sex! Queer people, however, are judged for having and enjoying sex in a way that straight people simply aren't.

It's important to note that the concept of "degeneracy" is a vital component to white supremacist repression of queer people, because it inserts the necessary moral proposition that allows sex between two consenting adults to be labelled as harmful. As cynical as I am about the general public, it's actually pretty difficult to convince the average person that gay sex is something the government needs to repress in and of itself; any argument to this effect needs to come packaged with an additional, vaguely credible concern about social corrosion.

This is much easier to do with kinksters, because kinksters are weirder-looking than shirt-and-slacks queers (who, to be clear, are equally valid). But it's still difficult to make the average member of the public balk, because they'll say "well that sure is freaky but so long as they're doing it in private, who gives a shit?" So long as the people you're trying to stir up hate against aren't doing anything illegal, the average member of the public is gonna think you're the weird one for digging into other peoples' private sex lives.

Thus, the easiest avenue of attack is Pride, where it isn't in private. But it's a fucking deceitful canard. Straight people never have to answer for public displays of their sexuality, which are often far more gratuitous than some dude walking around in a pup mask.

[saintsenara]

what do you think about lucius and narcissa's marriage? are they a good match? do they fuck? do they love each other or are they only united by blood purity and their love for draco? they fascinate me

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

lucius and narcissa are absolutely a good match - and they clearly absolutely fuck. they are also clearly united predominately by their shared social values - their commitment to blood-supremacy [and i'm always amused by the tendency for fanon portrayals of narcissa to portray her as a less ardent blood-supremacist than lucius, when she's the one calling hermione "scum" in the middle of a shop...] and their commitment to the maintenance of the class system which governs the wizarding world [and the social conventions which underpin it] chief among them.

indeed, i think this interest in conformity to the expectations of the class system is the main thing lucius and narcissa have in common, and it's one of the most compelling routes into have a good look at the two of them as a couple.

narcissa is the most conventional of her sisters, and this is evidently connected to how flagrantly bellatrix and andromeda defy the norms they were raised to adhere to - andromeda by choosing to marry a muggleborn man on her own terms, bellatrix by spending the majority of her time in the exclusively male space of voldemort's inner circle.

lucius is also someone who is incredibly conventional. it's clear throughout canon that his insistence that he was under the imperius curse during the first war - rather than, like his brother- and sister-in-law, refusing to denounce voldemort - was because he didn't want to lose the comfortable, socially-prominent life he had by virtue of his name, wealth, and blood status, and voldemort goes to great lengths throughout half-blood prince and deathly hallows to punish him for this by specifically attacking the maintenance of social norms which lucius values so highly [by squatting in the malfoys' home, refusing to behave like a guest, and humiliating his host before his peers; by constantly emasculating lucius; by treating his son and heir as expendable; and so on].

and lucius and narcissa's turn against voldemort - as much as it's connected to their love for draco [and as much as they do seem to be sincerely good parents] - is also connected to their growing realisation that, if voldemort wins, they will be made pariahs, and will never again enjoy the life at the top of the pile they've had for so long.

and i find that such a compelling thread binding them together. they're immoral and venal and cruel... but, damn, they're a team.

[iamnmbr3]

Great answers! I do love the idea of Sirius as DADA teacher!

Here's another one for you: rank these characters from worst to best for the post of Minister of Magic

Albus Dumbledore

Lucius Malfoy

Sirius Black (again cause I love him and I read a fic about this once)

Minerva McGonagall

Barty Crouch Sr.

oh god. these clowns would all be such terrible minsters of magic. why are you doing this to me? ok fine. here goes.

Lucius Malfoy: I think because movie!Lucius was sort of toned down and defanged fandom sometimes forget what a nasty piece of work book!Lucius was before he had his downfall and got all sad and pathetic. Fanon!Lucius often gets turned into kind of a joke but book!Lucius was out there torturing muggles for fun by night while he had the ear of the Minister by day and was, seemingly, extremely adept at subtly spreading his pureblood supremacist agenda in government. (Honestly, better at it than Tom because unlike Tom he actually cared). Also in book 4 it's very clear that if he had gotten hold of Hermione - a fourteen year old child - on the World Cup grounds he would've attacked her without hesitation (been eager for it, in fact). Yeah he wasn't down with Voldemort's whole thing but that was more because of the effect it had on him personally. with Voldemort out of the picture he was top dog and he was doing just fine. All this to say, as Minister the policies he enacts are...not good to say the least. He'd be out there building a violent pureblood supremacist dictatorship in a heartbeat.

Albus Dumbledore: Albus says he can't be trusted with the power of being Minister and honestly...I believe him. He'd still play the same messed up manipulation games he plays in canon but on a much larger scale (while simultaneously feeling bad about it and telling himself it's for the greater good). He does some truly epic mental gymnastics to convince himself he needs to make himself dictator for life and then things spiral because obviously anyone who resists him is evil right? Right? Of course! The alternative is that he is wrong and he doesn't want to think about that. Also, he doesn't seem that bothered by house elf slavery and his ideas for getting nonhuman magical creatures on his side in canon seemed to involve asking nicely but not actually granting them rights. So I'm not super optimistic on that front. So yeah. This just turns into the whole of wizarding Britain getting gaslit and thrown into insane situations by a madman who seems so wholesome and lovable and yet... Also. Given how poorly organized the Order is I think it's safe to say that all other flaws aside, the man does not have a gift for management.

Barty Crouch Sr.: Listen. He ALSO sucks. Very clearly ok with slavery, not a fan of due process, and allowed Aurors to torture confessions out of suspects. His only saving grace is that he does love rules so he'd probably eventually step down and wouldn't make as many potentially damaging changes as Dumbledore.

Minerva McGonagall: Her no nonsense attitude ensures that any meeting she runs actually accomplishes things. She's smart. She's sane. She's stable. She doesn't care about ending slavery or changing the status quo, but she's a lot better than most of the options. She's not especially creative or good at political games though which often hampers her ability to carry out objectives and prevent bad actors (i.e. Lucius and his faction) from getting their way.

Sirius Black: What does the man who hates authority do when he finds himself in a position of ultimate authority? I don't know but I'd love to read about it! Sirius is actually pretty shrewd (contrary to fanon) and I think he'd actually turn out to be a natural at handling politics (much as he might hate it). He also understands traditional pureblood society (he is a Black after all) but he doesn't idolize it (he hates being a Black) which would allow him to understand and work with multiple factions. Additionally he can be forceful and authoritative. He's impatient, often biased and unfair, sometimes quite cruel, can be temperamental, and again, has 0 problem with slavery. So like. He's not good per say, but he's actually better than some of the others. (At least with him meetings are never dull because if he gets bored enough he just turns into a dog and eats the agenda).

[fdelopera]

Bigoted white Karen with a large online platform produces an overly long YouTube video where she spreads lies, conspiracy theories, and slander against an ethnic minority group that has been persecuted for over 2000 years. When she is called out for her bigotry, she doubles down and produces a four-hour hit piece against this ethnic minority group, which is riddled with disinformation, mistakes, and more lies.

Then when she's called out again on this four-hour rant, she pulls the "I have a ____ friend," and she claims that she consulted with two members of the ethnic minority group that she is slandering. Like a fucking coward, this white Karen hides behind the two people she claims to have spoken to. Moreover, she refuses to see the bigotry in tokenizing the two members of this ethnic minority group who agree with her white Karen ass.

Then when this white Karen is called out even further for spreading bigoted disinformation, she pulls a James Somerton, and she starts deleting parts of her videos without apologizing for the harm she has caused. And like James Somerton, she also deletes comments from people who point out her lies.

This is a clear-cut case of a bigoted white woman with a large online following trying to slander an ethnic minority group.

.

What I am describing, of course, is Jessie Gender's recent Jew-hate diatribes on her YouTube channel, but I have written it in a way that YOU, dear reader, get to find out if you are an antisemitic bigot too.

Read the above paragraphs knowing that I am talking about Jews, and see how you react.

Do you acknowledge that Jessie Gender's videos are filled with antisemitic bigotry and disinformation? Or do you equivocate and make excuses for her, once you know that I'm talking about Jews?

.

Dear reader, I am giving you an opportunity to learn from Jessie's mistakes. The best way to combat bigotry is to do exactly the opposite of what Jessie has done. Here are five suggestions:

1) Acknowledge that you are engaging in antisemitic bigotry. Admitting your own deeply rooted prejudice against Jews can sometimes be the hardest part. The very first step in combatting bigotry is to say (and mean!) five important words: "I'm. Sorry. I. Was. Wrong."

2) Don't tokenize Jews. Don't just look for two Jews who agree with your bigoted viewpoints. Instead, actually talk to many different Jews, including many Israeli Jews, to get a nuanced perspective of the struggles that Jewish people face.

3) When Jewish people (who are not the Jews you've tokenized) tell you, "Hey, you're being a bigot," actually listen to us! Don't discount us. Strive to learn from us. Don't double down on your prejudice.

4) Combat your own egotism. If you are an egotistical asshole like Jessie, when someone tells you, "Hey, you're being a bigot, and your bigotry is putting Jewish people's lives in danger," your first response may be to say, "No I'm not! How dare you call me a bigot!" This is a knee-jerk reply, and it comes from a place of hubris. Instead of doubling down, learn how to apologize. Then do the active work to listen to Jews so that you're not contributing to the Jew-hate that we face.

Remember, the five words that an egotistical person like Jessie struggles to say are: "I'm sorry. I was wrong." Don't be like Jessie. Be better.

5) Look at the company you are keeping. Maybe you're hanging out with Leftists who have secretly been watching Neo-Nazi videos, and they've been feeding you antisemitic talking points that actually come from far-right white supremacists like David Duke and Richard Spencer. Or maybe your Leftist friends have been scraping their Jew-hate rhetoric from Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is still used as a textbook throughout the Arab world. Or worse, maybe your Leftist friends have stolen their ideas word-for-word from Hitler's Mein Kampf.

If you spout Nazi rhetoric (and so many of you Hamasniks sound EXACTLY like Hitler), then guess what! Congratulations! You are a Jew-hating bigot!

This is a quote from Hitler's Mein Kampf, from 1925. And it could just as easily come from the mouth of a Hamasnik as it could from a Neo-Nazi today. Next year, it will be 100 years since Mein Kampf was published, and it feels like the Hamasnik movement has dragged us full circle, back to Nazi Germany:

The Jews domination in the state seems so assured that now not only can he call himself a Jew again, but he ruthlessly admits his ultimate national and political designs. A section of his race openly owns itself to be a foreign people, yet even here they lie. For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state [aka a Jewish State in the British Mandate of Palestine -- 99 years ago in 1925, when Hitler published Mein Kampf, Jews in Eretz Yisrael were called Palestinians], the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish State in Palestine [again, Palestine was the word Hitler was using for the British Mandate of Palestine, aka Eretz Yisrael] for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Yo Jessie Gender! Guess what, there's a cure if you find yourself sounding like Hitler! It's called EDUCATE YOUR DAMN SELF, YOU FUCKING BIGOT.

In conclusion, if you find yourself being a Jew-hating bigot on main, just remember this: the first step in overcoming your antisemitic prejudice is ADMITTING that you are a bigot.

Use Jessie's example as a warning. When people call you out for spreading Jew-hate and putting Jewish lives around the world in danger, don't double down. Instead, begin by saying these five vital words: "I'm sorry. I was wrong."

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

I wonder how long it will take for Taylor to drop Blake Lively from her squad, since she's getting so much backlash for the way she's promoting "it ends with us".

Or maybe Blake and Ryan's money and power and racism will keep them in Taylor's circle, despite the critisism.

Dear friend, I am wondering too.

I suppose time will tell-

Personally, I think that Swift will keep the friendship going because many people who support that nasty book, and Collen Hoover, also support Taylor Swift. There is a great deal of overlap between the three fandoms involved here Swift, Hoover, and Lively. That being said, I imagine it is more beneficial for her to publicly continue her friendship with Blake- so she will be labeled as a "stand-by-you" type of friend- at least it will be so within her own fandom bubble.

That narrative would also help her current image problem with people who think she is a flakey person- or a fair-weather friend.

Besides her image regulation, I imagine Swift will want to keep Lively as a friend for her deep pockets, connections to the elite of NYC, and her power in Hollywood. I think it's clear Swift has tried to break into acting a whole bunch of times- to very little avail- but clearly will still want to keep those business connections strong.

Thus- I don't really see Swift dropping Lively. Unless- of course, the media issues get worse.

But neither of them drew a line as racism- or at the very least being complicit in reenforcing white supremacist imagery in their work/ personal lives- so, ya know, birds of a feather flock together.

(I am watching this movie go up in flames with popcorn at the ready. I think Collen Hoover is a terrible writer. It is abhorrent to me that she was ever published at all. "It Ends with Us" sends a terrible message to young girls. The only reason this trash is getting a movie is because Blake Lively saw a cash-grab opportunity because the book is popular with bored middle-aged women or braindead tik-tokers. None of these people care about DV issues or protecting vulnerable women- it's all about "grab your florals and your gal pals for a cutesy rom-com about an abusive relationship." I'm so tired of all these morally corrupt people with deep pockets controlling what stories get told- and to who they are told. So, I am enjoying the fact that Lively is being caught out as a disingenuous person.)