#if her critics are transphobes for lying i mean

[locrit-returns]

so are Lily and her stans lesbophobic for lying about @saiscribbles all the time?... is Lily antisemitic for lying and shitting on Rebecca Sugar?... just wondering...

[chaifootsteps]

Wait, can you explain to me why a lot of people seem to hate vivziepop? Like, I've seen people saying she stole stuff, she's underpaying people, not properly taking care of spindlehorse, etc... I always thought that people just hated on her for being succesful and maybe for her fanbase(? (I mean as I people bringing up stuff that she did a REALLY long time ago and try to cancel her for that, that's a whole other conversation tho) and I'm genuinely confused, I don't know about any of this situations. (I'm sorry if this bothers you, don't feel obligated to respond, and for my english )

Oh god, the Vivzie rabbit hole goes down for miles; it's actually hard to condense it. Here are some of the big ones.

She's a notorious thief and terrible at crediting people. Salem the Squidder was the latest victim of this, but her then-friend Ken basically wrote half the pilot for her, and when they asked for credit, she turned on them and started spreading slander. Also misgendered them, which brings us to...

2. She's transphobic. Really transphobic.

3. She's notorious for underpaying, overworking, and generally mistreating her employees, which is why she's constantly having to advertise for new ones.

4. When she's not accusing her critics of being homophobes (which she does often), she intentionally eggs on the worst elements of her fanbase, liking inflammatory tweets and generally throwing gasoline on the fire. She once liked a tweet calling her critics "subhuman" and recently took a shot at anyone who likes Stella.

5. She basically screwed over her entire pilot crew, from her voice actors (cutting a bunch of them including Michael Kovach because she hated Ashley Nichols and then lying for years about the reason why) to her staff.

6. Lies about being a small time creator who pulled herself up by her bootstraps, the implication being that anyone else can do the same. In reality, Vivzie comes from a very wealthy family and as of this writing lives in a house that cost over a million dollars.

7. Had this to say about her former friend, Kyra, the creator of Chikn Nuggit.

She's incredibly manipulative and abusive. She thinks absolutely nothing of hurting people, has left a trail of them in her wake, and has only gotten away with it for this long because people are afraid of her and her nutcase fanbase.

[mopeing]

It really frustrates me when I go into threads about JK Rowling, because there are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate her, but most of the comments are completely made up reasons? Please don't lie and spread misinformation even about people you dislike, because it'll make your own position look weaker under scrutiny.

If you need to lie to make a point, people will think it's because you don't have one. So don't lie in the first place.

Not reasons to hate JKR:

- there is a star of David on the floor of Gringotts bank. This was in the movies, it was not described in the books. Unless evidence comes out that she asked Chris Columbus or whoever for that detail to be included, it is not evidence of antisemitism (that is not to say that the goblins in general aren't problematic though)

- she didn't say Hermione was black all along, she said casting a black actress as Hermione doesn't contradict her description (although it does)

- all the retconning and "oh actually X character was Y all along" after the series has ended. This isn't "problematic", it's just cringe. Nothing to get mad about

- she did not retcon Dumbledore as being gay after the series ended. I distinctly remember this being a topic of discussion while the 6th book was coming out. She didn't include it explicitly in the books, but it wasn't an after-the-fact change (Although it is a valid criticism that not including it explicitly in the books means it isn't representation)

- Seamus Finnegan being a clumsy Irishman who makes things explode. This was in the movies, not the books. In the books it was often Neville who was used for this comic relief

- she's a bad writer. I'm not saying this is incorrect, just that it's not a reason to hate her. People don't deserve hate for being bad at something, she deserves hate because she is a bad person. Please do not conflate these two; it is possible for bad people to make good art and it's possible for good people to make poor art. A lot of this insistence comes from people who used to be big fans of Harry Potter who now that they don't like her any more are now saying "well the books were shit all along anyway..." It just seems performative tbh.

- a trans character in Hogwarts Legacy being named "Sirona Ryan". Honestly this is the biggest stretch I've ever seen. Look - there's plenty of things to criticise about this game. The fact that one of the early writers was apparently a bit fashy and is responsible for the leaning even further into the goblin antisemitism for example. But this one character? I highly doubt JKR even had to approve of details that small, let alone the fact that the name likely isn't problematic at all. If you're reading this and, like me, you have no clue whatsoever what is apparently wrong with the name - it begins with "Sir" - implying that trans women are actually men, and ends with "Aryan" - implying that trans people are nazis. At this point, people are actively looking for things to get mad about even when they're not there. I'm not even sure the "sir" in "Sirona" is even supposed to be pronounced like the English word. How about getting mad about the actual obvious actually harmful things she does instead???

Actual reasons to hate her:

- her transphobic tweets

- the fatphobia in the books

- her transphobic articles

- the whole "Hermione is dumb for being anti-slavery" subplot

- her transphobic actions

- lack of regard for other cultures, whether it's the naming of foreign characters and places, or the fact that the wizarding Irish government apparently still isn't independent of the UK's

- her defending and associating with people more mask-off transphobic than she is

- she is a billionaire, and there are no good billionaires

Inb4 "how dare you defend this bad person" - correcting misinformation about a bad person is not defending them. Good people should also care about intellectual honesty. It isn't good to lie about someone just because the person you're lying about is bad.

[abloobloobloo]

This is actually pissing me off

(EDIT: just fixed a small but pretty critical mistake in the fourth paragraph after the content warning here. The responses I'm looking at here are from person A, not B.)

Content Warning: Abuse (including graphic descriptions of CSA)

Hoo fucking boy.

So I've been following a situation where someone who I'll simply name Person A. This person released a bunch of DMs with someone I'll simply name Person B, stating that they showed B emotionally abusing A.

They did not, in fact, show B emotionally abusing A. What they did show was Person B being extraordinarily understanding and accommodating while A was... not doing that.

And hoo boy, A's responses to people pointing this out were so, SO fucking annoying.

I'll leave the gory details under a read below because there are some brief but GRAPHIC descriptions of abuse given by Person B below. Read at your own risk.

First, there's this laughably disingenuous retort:

Literally where the fuck is B mocking you in this screenshot, A? She is literally just explaining her perspective and understanding that you might have a different one: that's how differences in planning tend to be hashed out??? This makes absolutely no sense as a response.

Even more so... later in these DMs, when they basically just turned into giant essays lobbed at each other, B gave another reason: because giant essays like that were harder for her to parse in text! Like.... come to fuck on!!!

"Cruel and sadistic manner?" Are you fucking joking? Is this for real? Are you reading the same fucking DMs everyone else is reading? Where the fuck can you find a SINGLE trace of cruelty and sadism in B's messages, let alone this excerpt???????

Especially when A's continued retort is, I shit you not, "I'm not uncharitable to people I dislike, I'm uncharitable to everyone!"

Buddy. Buddy. That only further proves B's point.

Especially considering that her point was that you were comparing a situation of abuse to your own experiences of abuse as then saying it wasn't bad because it wasn't as bad as your situation. That is literally arguing from a perspective that lacks objectivity. Also the assertions that she "doesn't know what empathy is nor sympathy quite frankly" are fucking laughable but whatever.

And, well, probably the most galling part:

What sex abuse acts did you mention, you say? Well I'll tell you.

For the final time: MASSIVE TRIGGER WARNING FOR GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS OF CSA. I MEAN IT.

In the DMs in question, image 63 has this passage from A, in which they describes multiple sex abuse acts inflicted upon them:

The detail in this message is objectively, blatantly triggering. There's really no other word. People have given trigger warnings for far less detail than A gives in this message. And for them to pretend they didn't say any of this either (and later straight-up saying they NEVER gave detailed accounts of their ritual abuse, which I'm only letting it slide because it possibly could've been referring to a different situation than the message above) means they somehow don't remember writing this at all (which I suppose is possible; they are a system, after all), or are just blatantly lying. If it's the former, then these later statements strike me as astonishingly negligent and indicative of shocking hubris. If the latter, it's actually fucking disgusting. Get your shit together.

And that's not even getting into the extraordinarily disturbing way A weaponizes accusations of pedophilia against person B for literally no reason, which becomes a hundred times more disturbing when combined with the fact that B is a trans woman, and such spurious accusations are often wielded as transphobic and particularly transmisogynist attacks.

and then the fucking cherry on top of this shit sundae:

calling people "subhuman," eh? Bloody hell.

[aonomiki]

one of these days the fandom is gonna stop lying about happiness charge.

"blue returns megumi's feelings/is leading her on!" wow crazy how that literally never happened.

"the love triangle ruins everything!" the love triangle lasted for a single episode and it wasn't even a bad episode.

"mirage is a child!" she is literally not.

"uuuugh, there's so much het focus" I mean. yeah? and? sorry you guys tricked yourselves into mistakenly thinking precure is a yuri anime but that's kind of a you problem actually.

like. there's plenty of valid criticisms about happiness charge. it sucks that most of the international precure are pale, and that the episode focused on the only two that aren't is saddled by a transphobic stereotype in madame momere. it could have expanded on red's backstory more! whatever the hell was going on with the animation in episode 10! yuko could have used more character focused episodes!

but like. the stuff hachapre gets racked over the coals for just. literally is not true. but instead of giving it a shot and watching it for themselves, people just assume this stuff is true and don't even question it. like. y'all. c'mon.

[danganfan42069]

Why i hc Chihiro as transfem (but also think that nb and transmasc hcs are pretty neat too!)

A few warnings first, since you're here to read it I recommend reading these paragraphs extra to avoid stress for you and me :)

To be honest I'm not posting my opinion with the intention of changing someone's opinion or starting some kind of debate, I just want to express my opinion and that's all. It's like a public diary, it's one of the definitions of a blog after all ^_^

This isn't exactly a theory or an attempt to change anyone's mind and I know that none of this is canon and most likely not intended as I see it. I'm just want to talk in more detail about my headcanons and my lines of thoughts on them.

I already made a post with a carrd and article about transfem Chihiro and I also made a post about what I disagree with, now I would like to make a post that would be the parts that I agree with carrd and more other opinions of mine about it. (I will mostly use she/her for Chihiro since I hc her as transfem)

I see a lot of people talking that they think Chapter 2 had great critics about gender stereotypes and... I have to disagree.

In my interpretation I understood that Chihiro thinks that feminine = weakness, fragile lack of strength and that's it. And then she wants to become strong by running away from everything feminine.

This thought was never refuted and it was never explicitly established that women can also be strong, we have Sakura but she is seen as an exception and still doubted that she is a (cis) woman.

About this part, it seems to me that the writers simply have this transphobic mindset and see trans people as insecure with their own gender (this art could explain it in better words) or think that trans people are lying to everyone about their gender (when in reality is opposite, we feel like we are lying when we are in the closet and saying we identify with agab)

Just like I said before, it feels like the transphobic mindset where trans people are lying and insecure and being "just a phase"

And Mondo is a great ally (yes he killed her but it wasn't out of transphobia but an attack of anger and stress) and tried his best to keep Chihiro's secret

One thing I see a lot is people saying that hc Chihiro as transfem is erasing her entire backstory but it's important to remember that her backstory is completely fictional and nothing like this has ever happened in real life. Chihiro doesn't exist, but the people (mostly trans) who relate to her (the transcoded part of the character, I mean) exist.

This is why many people "reclaim" or hc Chihiro as transfem, transmasc and/or nonbinary. Chihiro is a very transcoded character, whether intentionally or not.

Despite not having Chihiro's hc be non-binary or transmasc, I understand where they're coming from. I can only remember the song Am I a Girl by Poppy for the non-binary headcanon. And for transmasc it's a cool interpretation too (still has the problem but feminine=weak but I'm sure whoever has this hc re-imagines that part in a non-sexist way) where Chihiro kinda comes out of the closet in chapter 2 to Mondo and wants to be himself. As I said before, Chihiro is a very trans coded character, like it or not, then every interpretation that trans people have about this character is valid. People can relate to this in a lot of very different ways and that's ok.

To me, anything is more interesting and makes more sense than a cis man in the closet. This is too nonsense to me. I know there are many things in the game that are also nonsense but I have my personal limits like everyone else (Ps: Not saying that whoever has the hc of Chihiro being a cis man is invalid because this is canon lol, its just not my cup of tea)

In summary, I have this headcanon of her being transfem because from the beginning she is presented as a woman and in all the merchs she continues to be treated as such, so that's what makes the most sense to me. Maybe if it was established that feminine doesn't equal weakness, maybe she would stay the same. And just look at the picture of her with her dad! He supports her unconditionally! It's a very beautiful thing to see and makes me happy.

I like to look at this scene as if someone were misgendering her, she wouldn't mind.

Edit: I found an excellent post that makes some great points too, here are some highlights:

[tea-with-evan-and-me]

Something that really annoyed me about Simon is that like a year ago @/evysnosefreckle sent him some information that explains why mutual abuse doesn’t exist and he accepted that, but then said that we can’t say for certain who was at fault because “we don’t know” despite the heaping amount of evidence against Emma not only from the night she was arrested but from many other incidents as well. If he took a second to look into their relationship he would see that, if he actually took the blinders off. Then when Angelica Ross spoke out against Emma and he said “Ok now that there’s evidence that’s actually against Emma Roberts (someone’s accounts rather than just assumptions) fuck her,” someone replied to him and said we’ve been saying this to you. He said in response, “lord don’t jump on people when nobody came out about anything. all you have are photos and reports. When someone comes OUT ABOUT SOMETHING, then believe them, don’t slam them into the ground for shit neither of us know” and also “When nobody comes out to share their side and all we have are pictures and reports, then yeah, I’ll try my best to be neutral. But when people actually come out and Say shit? Believe them”

None of that makes any logical sense, pictures and reports (reports are people “coming out and saying something” so???) ARE evidence that can be used against someone. And there have been people coming out and saying stuff against Emma, specifically about her abusing Evan, for years! He would have known that if he actually looked into it and didn’t decide to just “stay neutral” for really no justifiable reason.

Another thing, that I’m remembering now as I’m writing this, is the way he talks about Evan’s intentions with Dahmer. Simon was saying that he doesn’t believe Evan actually cares because “he’s never talked about the victims.” Which makes me wonder if he listens to anything Evan says at all?? Evan has talked about them and the meaning of the show hundreds of times now. Evan was the one who told Ryan in the first place that the show can’t be anything close to the tone that AHS is, that it needs to be respectful. Not only did both Ryan and Evan say that, but also the casting director said that when he was talking to Evan about the role Evan was hesitant and had concerns about what I mentioned above. I’m assuming Simon has only watched like 2 interviews about Dahmer and hasn’t read a single interview with Evan where he really talks in depth about everything.

So yeah there’s my dissertation. It really gets on my nerves how Simon acts like he knows everything and he’s right and everyone else “just can’t accept any criticism” when in reality he actually knows nothing and just spouts out really misinformed and misconstrued information.

oh my god, thank you. you’re absolutely right and the way he acts like he has absolutely no proof, evidence or facts to draw any sort of conclusion is such an act. he literally only needed one person, angelica ross, to determine that emma roberts was a bad person. what if angelica was lying? you’re really basing your judgment of another person on a singular individual with a story? as several have already stated, the reason he stopped defending emma is because she said something transphobic and simon is trans himself. he does not give a single shit about her abusing evan and he purposely acted/acts obtuse about the situation to remain neutral and to continuously call evan’s character into question. this is despicable. he throws around his own victimhood as a shield which is also despicable. he needs to own up to his harmful behavior and apologize, if not to evan, to everyone else who has had to witness him perpetuating lies about him and about the dynamic of domestic violence. the falsehoods he’s spread about a VICTIM is not acceptable. he stated they both had “wounds” when there had NEVER been ANY such a report anywhere. the only wounded person was evan with a bloody nose and bite mark. he used this misleading and false language on purpose to legitimize his faulty rhetoric about evan being abusive. not to mention liking a post wishing literal harm on the man.

[mr-ribbit]

I mean, I blocked her after learning about how awful she was from numerous posts with evidence. So, I'm good there. I didn't bring up her racism to "shame you". You wanted to know who the bigots were that I mentioned so I gave a specific answer and a lil info in case just a name wasn't good enough. When I said I don't care that she's trans I meant, I'm not about to overlook her shit behavior just because she's trans like others do. I obviously mentioned her being trans because that's all she, you, and the rest talk about whenever she's being called out or criticized for something. You guys make it impossible to not mention it.

I only bothered to leave a message in the first place because of the bullying happening from this side. [Not specifically you!]. That person never did what they were accused of, even apologized for the misunderstanding, and txttle & co. still went out of their way to spread the post that had been deleted and act like that op never censored her name in an attempt to avoid any drama in the first place. I don't care for popular people weaponizing their fans like that. But whatever. I'm not trying to convince you to hate her. I'm moving on. I did read the rest of your post and see some of the points you're getting at. And I do apologize for initially telling you to fuck off.

i see, you're right that that was less of a non sequitur than I initially read it as, but I still think its not really relevant to the broader discussion here. bringing up every single past grievance a specific blogger has done (even if you're just bringing it up in your mind) when we're talking about the specific problem of csa being wielded too quickly against people is an example of what I would call uncharitable and unfair.

i won't speak for others, but the reason I brought up transness in this conversation, and think it's relevant to others like it, is because the initial posts that started this particular debate are partially about being trans. when someone says "im trans and i feel that my sexuality is frequently conflated with abuse", and the response is a complete stranger calling that person an abuser, you can see how I might want to explain the effects of transmisogyny while exploring the issue. it's not the only thing I brought up - in fact my post was largely about how even if you do not think you're acting transphobic, that doesn't make it ok to be mean to people anyway. but when you get upset that it was brought into the discussion, and claim it's being used as a "shield" or for "special treatment", you are conflating the concept of speaking up about transmisogyny with lying. this, understandably, will make people want to defend the concept of transmisogyny to you, even if they do not think you specifically care about that part.

i don't really think anyone should be bullied or harassed in general, even if they do something that makes me upset. however, i do think there is a bit of a simplification happening here. i don't believe txttletale or any specific blogger that I've seen speaking on these issues has done anything in this situation besides respond to accusations, and those responses are obviously going to be defending themselves. they may also be angry or upset in nature, since being accused of something awful you didn't do by people you don't know is upsetting to experience.

since making the original post, that person may have apologized but he's also made several posts continuing to make the same accusations again and again, and continuing to say that just because he isn't trying to be transphobic that it's okay. it's not okay. it's also not okay to see other people come to defense of someone and assume that they are only doing it because of some kind of blind trans loyalty, rather than the fact that they're sincerely upset about something that affects their lives too. a lot of people have made posts explaining this extremely earnestly and extremely patiently, and they are almost always taken in bad faith or ignored. the same people have made posts about how nobody listens to them on these issues, and those posts are also used to start drama.

i also sincerely do not believe that txttletale has used her follower count to send haters at this person. she was being talked about by someone to a group of people who all knew who she was and was making fun of her in the notes. she talked about the problem on her blog, because she did not agree with what was being said about her and wanted to correct it. whether or not the original post was deleted, you guys don't get to just decide when it's time for someone to shut up about being called a pedophile in public. if she's still getting hate too, why does the other guy get to keep talking about it but she isn't?

im glad you're letting go, I think it's probably for the best. you say you have her blocked, but youve spent a lot of time talking to me, someone you have repeatedly pointed out might not be sending the hate or might not be the problem, about her. that's an example of what I've been calling an overreaction disproportionate to the problem. you don't like her, so block her and people that talk about her. or blacklist the name. spending time in someone else's inbox, or putting up censored screenshots about a person you hate isn't a good way to deal with that feeling. it's harassment. even if you're not sending it to her, sending it to me where she can obviously see it or posting screenshots of her posts with mean accusations on them is still hurtful and mean and unnecessary for you to do with your time.

thanks for the apology, I understand things get heated but I hope you understand sometimes that means people will respond in a heated manner in return. i appreciate that you were willing to talk to me a little more maturely about this, but I still think you should consider how quickly you jump to conclusions about other people you know. or don't, but idk, don't spend so much energy on hate.

[lzrdprsn]

Tell me more about rain dove?

I mean, there's not a lot more to say than what I already said. In the mid-2010s, Rain Dove was like the first like really popular nonbinary "influencer." At least, the first super popular one that I remember. They would post on insta/Twitter posts like "messages between me and the conservative woman who accused my internet presence of turning her son trans." There was one time where they alleged that they'd been pepper sprayed in a public restroom and that the person who'd done it had sent them DMs. Or people would "reach out" to them about their own experiences or asking for help to support family/friends that had come out. At one point, Rain Dove was popular enough that they got asked to do TedTalks about being nonbinary. They claimed to have gone to Berkeley for Genetic Engineering. They claimed that they were a fire fighter and fought the really bad wild fires in California. A few years later, turns out Rain totally lied about being a fire fighter, lied about going to Berkeley, lied about their degree, etc. So then it was like, "Well, if you lied about all that, what else did you lie about?" And it turns out a lot of the claims about conversations and run ins with transphobes that they allegedly had don't actually hold up under a microscope.

At one point, they'd posted an apology video, but I can't find it now (I'll post it if I find it). I guess my point is just that knowing all of that about them, it makes me wonder about their motives and the validity of some of their most recent comment, claims, and actions regarding Gaza and Palestine.

I'm not saying they're lying about anything now, but I am saying that maybe we should take what they say with a generous grain of salt and a critical lense.

EDIT: The "Exposing Myself: Sharing Secrets and Lies" video has been made private.

Here is an NBC article about all this.

[opinated-user]

LO weaponizing transphobia against trans people

i haven't seen not a single soul trying to make that argument. this does not mean it's not possible that some anon that LO didn't write herself did. but considering her track record of sending herself anons or lying about them on the most bizarre ways possible, it does make it even more possible that LO once again is lying to try to paint the people pointing out her transphobia as the real transphobes. either way, real or not, this is still minimizing her own transphobia. she "already explained" that she did intentionally misgender EOT because to her she acted like a "debate bro" and didn't deserve to have her gender respected. she might not remember saying those words exactly, but the internet does and will forever remaind there.

"i don't remember what their pronouns are. i keep defaulting to he because all of his behaviour is just like fucking Vaush kind of behaviour." (Lolo) "who is absence of thought?" "just some fucking debate bro" LO further justifies her transphobia by making it seem like she ever asked for Ethel's pronouns (she didn't) and that Ethel refused to give them (making Ethel's fault that LO was transphobic). LO just knew that Ethel was trans (impossible to miss seeing that she has the trans flag on all of her videos) and defaulted to he because she's transphobic. "they used to get on my ass about me misgendering them like... i have no idea who you're. you're misgendering me! okay, what are your pronouns? silence!" then LO further admits that she did knew her pronouns and Ethel told her. "i'm sure they told me 2 years ago when they were raging on my stream chat but i have forgotten since then." to further support the notion that LO intentionally and maliciously misgendered EOT, anyone can refer to her personal twitter:

or the about of her youtube channel:

but since LO cares so much about unfair accusations of predation towards trans people and how that makes someone a TERF, wonder if she's ever going to apoligize for this disgusting post where she implied that Jess, one of her critics on youtube, was a danger towards her own child.

right after accusing her of being a deadbeat parent with zero evidence of her own.

transphobia against trans people we personally dislike is still transphobia and morally wrong.

[frostluvrs]

the hate jules gets is honestly so ridiculous i’m so serious when i say some euphoria stans (especially the ones on tiktok and twitter) need euphoria taken away from them and i cannot wait until this season is done especially after last episode.

the fact that anyone watched that scene of rue speaking to her and PRAISED rue for it is absolutely insane especially bc i promise you that is not what sam levinson wanted you to come out of it thinking that rue was correct. i promise you he does not want you to think for example rue was correct in going off on jules about leaving in s1. jules is NOT RESPONSIBILE for rue’s sobriety and being depended on by her when she shouldn’t have been and rue relapsing is not her fault. she needed to do what was right for her and she literally explained it all in her special episode.

idk how does anyone watched that entire scene in general and wasn’t just incredibly upset and uncomfortable the entire time you were at some point rooting for rue is that scene ? praising her? wtf is wrong with ppl 😭😭

and ppl saying “jules has the audacity to say she loves her after cheating” “she showed up in elliot’s clothes” “she thinks she can snitch on rue after what she did” like you cannot be serious

her cheating does not mean she wants rue to DIE and it doesn’t mean she doesn’t love her either and WHO GAF ABOUT CLOTHES SHE WAS WEARING it was not the time to care about that. like you can’t be serious ????

and ppl shitting on her for telling her mom. what else was she supposed to do? talking to rue about it first would have been a disaster. she did the right thing she’s a literal teenage girl like what else is she suppose to do? let rue overdose? not say anything? what so the same ppl shitting on her for saying something can shit on her for not saying something and blames her for rue overdosing ? bc we all know they would. jules cant win with this fandom. she didn’t want rue to DIE no one cares about cheating or clothing or whether her saying she loves her is truthful or not.

also the fact ppl were hating her for it bc the suitcase could get rue in trouble? SHE DIDNT EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE SUITCASE DO YOU WATCH THE SHOW AT ALL

ppl have now been using jules cheating as an excuse to bash her and comment on every (correct) defense of her with “yea she still cheated though” like i promsie you cheating is not the worst thing someone did on this show and most of y’all’s favs on this show have done just the same amount of bullshit and bad things.

like ppl have BEEN WAITNG for a reason to jump on her and now that it’s finally here they’ll milk it forever. the fact jules haters are always like "we're not transphobic we just hate her/she's annoying" since s1 when they had no reason to hate her as much as they did and now that she cheated so many of them are like “i can finally hate her now publicly” like they’re all so transparent and so many ppl can keep claiming every week they aren’t transphobic and ppl are making a problem where it isn’t but your reactions to her vs every other character that has done just as much bullshit (and more actually) is very telling. especially when so many of them are like “i always hated jules for some reason” or “she’s always annoyed me” like oh i think i can tell you the reason you felt that way but you won’t like hearing it.

the sudden cal sympathizers and stans after his episode? like oh you can understand him but you can’t understand the reasons jules does what does like oh okay! and oh you hate jules but like cal now and think he’s funny bc of that stupid terribly written speech to his family in episode 4? you cant be serious.

it’s just ridiculous and she’s held to such high standards compared to every other character and this one fuck up is going to follow her forever on the show. and ppl are LYING when they say other characters get just as much criticism as her like no they do not especially when jules gets the most unwarranted hate out of every character since s1.

it’s not even just jules either it’s other characters in this show ppl have terrible takes on like rue and rue when it comes to her addiction and addiction in general like a lot of you need to be banned from watching this show.

[givemearmstopraywith]

thoughts on what jk rowling said?

terfs, this post is not for you 

tw sexual assault mention

first of all, i’m so tired. im just so tired.

jkr rails against misogyny while simultaneously promoting transmisogyny and invalidating the experience of thousands of people. transmisogyny is simply misogyny because trans women are biological women. she is a hypocrite and willfully ignorant. 

if the numbers in youth seeking hrt have gone up over 4000% perhaps its because hrt is now more readily available than it was even ten years ago, and people with gender dysphoria are finally able to access the support and acceptance they need and deserve. her assertions are insane (and lisa littman’s paper has been repeatedly shown to only barely rely on scientific fact). 

i do agree that there is an attack on womanhood in this era but its hardly new: it’s merely an evolving beast that has existed for centuries that comes from the patriarchy and it affects trans women, trans men, non-binary, and gnc people as much as it affects afab women. non-cis people are a threat to the patriarchy because they shake the very foundation upon which misogyny has been built: marginalization based upon arbitrary gender roles structured upon the existence physical sex characteristics. alongside women of colour, trans women are very literally the backbone of third wave feminism and i will not stand for them to be repeatedly marginalized from womanhood, especially by someone of jkr’s stature.

additionally, as a survivor of sexual assault i find it audacious and disturbing that jkr would use her own experience as a sexual assault survivor to somehow bolster her (incorrect) opinions and exempt her from criticism. 

finally: i asked my mother, who is jkr’s age and was also a single mother, what her thoughts were on jkr’s statements in light of the fact she (jkr, not my mother) grew up extremely middle class and got her degree from oxford. her responses were as follows:

“a flaming transphobe”

“that lying bitch”

“just a poser”

“a goddamn yahoo”

lastly: im afab, i’m relatively comfortable in identifying as a cis woman, i’ve identified otherwise in the past but that doesn’t mean that my thoughts are all that important in this case. it’s more important to be elevating the voices of trans people where this is concerned, because they’re the ones we need to be listening to. so please turn to trans people, and trans women, for their thoughts on this.

[kob131]

Hey remember when Soku said he was gonna stop talking about RWBY?

Guess who got caught lying?

https://sokumotanaka.tumblr.com/post/184748210112/phazonfire-the-rwde-tag-is-so-fucking

I don’t know what tag you’re looking through about the homophobia thing considering the majority of the people seem to be gay and would probably call you out if they saw this.

I don’t remember you guys ever calling anyone out for calling Illa a ‘psycho lesbian’ because villain + gay = psycho lesbian apparently.

Oh wait, which tag is it that says that? hm...

Look people doing rewrites on the series is a non problem, and the dumbest gripe.

so is 99% of what you fuckers pull. Like bitching that a catgirl was put into a catsuit.

But rwby isn’t well written some is allowed to watch it to fix it to reconstruct or deconstruct it there is no harm to this and the series could benefit from a rewrite.

Too bad you assholes break the show EVEN FURTHER when you do rewrite shit *cough* RE:RWBY *cough*.

If you don’t like it don’t go through the constructive criticism tag just to cry cause someone doesn’t wanna kiss rwby’s butt like you do.

Last time constructive criticism existed in the RWDE tag: 900 BC.

Yeah sure.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://sokumotanaka.tumblr.com/post/612590859661295616/your-idea-of-nit-picking-is-not-the-correct-use-of

I don't know how to tell some of ya'll that just because you constantly argue against criticism and the other person gets tried to talking to a brick wall doesn't mean you win.

This ain't your preschool, this requires critical thinking skills which some of ya'll clearly lack.

And just because you reject facts and demand that your delusions are true doesn’t make the other person a brick wall. You just don’t understand how to debate.

Your idea of nit picking is not the correct use of the term. Nor do whoever you are know what is and isn’t criticism on a subject. 

Nit picking. Noun. “looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily.“

Literally all you do.

Also I’m only an asshole to people who are assholes back. So don’t pretend like you know me and mind your own? Deal? Deal.

Sorry Soku, that makes you a sexist, racist, transphobic Nazi. You know, since that’s MY Modius Operandi.

Also your blog is FILLED with bad political takes so you’re  the LAST person I wanna hear tall about “not picking”

“Can white people approiate basic human decency?”

Remember that take on your old blog?

Now what were you saying about politics...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://sokumotanaka.tumblr.com/post/611875463897497600/i-didnt-watch-vol-7-thank-god-but-a-friend-of

I didn’t watch vol 7 thank god,-

So you have no idea what you’re about to say? Got it.

but a friend of mine on my discord mentioned flynt and neon returning (with Ik finally) and boy they really gave the catgirl a hoodie with cat ears on it? And Blake has a catsuit? Miles, Kerry, Shane and Monty always talked about how “subtle” they are with things like scenes and designs and they put both the catgirls in outfits that are so on the nose it might as well be a part of your skin.

Where was that said again?

Also that;s not were the term catsuits come from.  It comes from cat burglars using them.

Isn’t that like going “Hey black guy put these big lips on over your other lips? Or the black guy having a fucking basketball printed on their jacket?” Good lord, in a world where people can be born with cat ears, and tails don’t you think it’s kinda freaking disgusting that these exist where humans can wear them? 

And before you say that’s the point, in a world where none of the faunus get to say how they feel about these things and don’t have real life minority reactions to things like white dudes walking around with grills and fros and crap it kinda isn’t when the faunus girl wears a hoodie depicting one of the features of her own race that they were hunted down and slaughtered for.

Considering that it’d be no different than a white person getting cornrows-

Also it kind of is since black people walk around emphasizing their DARK SKIN, which is the basis of their discrimination.

You’re just race obsessed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://sokumotanaka.tumblr.com/post/611637391064694784/hmm-funny-that-the-rich-white-girl-who-was-racist

Hmm funny that the rich white girl who was racist gets an overpowered semblance that shares alot of feats like her team like being able to make runes that increase speed, Platforms, Remove gravity, shoot projectiles, Make people stick to them etc etc. Oh and she has the ability to summon monsters that show feats of strength that rivals one of her partners.

Meanwhile the minority character is shown to fuck up alot, gets treated like shit and never gets an apology from said racist, get nerfed constantly, have her weapon poorly sautared back together while the rest of her team gets upgrades and has the weakest semblance of the three.

Seems alittle off white writers.

And who has the better fight record than the other?

... The minority?

Hm, seems off black complainer.

Oh did that sound racist? Hm, dunno why it sound considering you said the SAME THING

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://sokumotanaka.tumblr.com/post/611636922643857408/so-let-me-get-this-straight-vol-7-has-ended-and

So Let me get this straight, vol 7 has ended and apparently they lost the one relic they had, still haven’t found the newer one or did but still have to deal with Ironwood and several others. Cinder is still alive, Neo is siding with her out of fear? When she wanted vengeance and could team up with rwby.

this is volume 7 of supposedly 10 so three more seasons and they still haven’t sat down and talked about what they’re supposed to to against the immortal grimm lady, they don’t know where the relic at beacon is and ozpin’s still ghosting them, and they’re foolishly gathering them all in one spot instead of taking the maiden and the relic and putting both of them on the farest corners of the planet? I thought they were going to atlas to meet with someone Weiss knew as the Anton Sokolov Play dishonored! of their world to build a rocket and send at least one rocket into a black hole and never have an issue with Salem again.

three more seasons and a plan hasn’t even been formed to deal with her or the relics, Emerald and Mercury are doing nothing, Cinder has no goal except to be the new adam and chase the heros and get her ass kicked, Hazel’s doing nothing, The comms are down and we haven’t heard a peep from whoever runs Vacuo, Blake and Ruby have still had barely any interaction, Weiss hasn’t apologized for her racism, We never addressed how and why did Raven appear in Yang’s dreams, Why did ren from shields over his hands and show off feats of strength that rival yangs or his weird ability to sense tyrian? Neo’s eyes changed color when she saw Raven and her teleport ability. Lore Like how semblance, Lien (the money that looks like credit cards but has zero numbers on it work) The examples of agriculture, Flora and Fauna, dust and so on.

A. Haven’t they said it’s more like twelve?

B. Nope, Ozpin’s back. But hey, who needs to actually KNOW what you’re talking about?

C. Can’t do that, don’t know where the Spring Maiden is. Would have known this if you watched Volume 6.

D. They never said that and expressly said they were meeting with Ironwood to get the relic somewhere secure. Gee, that’s the THIRD thing you’ve gotten wrong. Hm...

E.So Soku, how does Quirks affect agiculture? What were the original Quirks like? Who had the first Quirk? What was life like for people when Quirks were uncommon? Hm? Nothing is said?

MHA is shit, SOku said so.

But sure, three more seasons to cram that all in AND a plan and character interaction/Growth and so on, this is a lovely mess of a show.

And as you have shown, you paid attention to 0% of it so how would you know?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So how’s that tar and feather treatment treating you Soku? Because I have so many more ways of humiliating you, happy showcase them as long as you open that bitchy little mouth of yours.

So go ahead and keep posting. It just lets me indulge my sadism without remorse.

[blakelywintersfield]

what do you think about cancel culture?

So it took me a while to answer this ask ‘cause I have... a lot to say about the subject.

There’s a lot to unpack when it comes to cancel culture. Its roots I like to believe are well intended -- a means to alert vulnerable groups about individuals that have a history of hurting them. But people have taken it... way too far.

I think it’s important to hold people accountable for their actions. There’s a lot of people who get away with horrible things, simply because they produce likeable material (makeup, music, movies, entertainment, etc.). People like Jeffree Star, PewDiePie, and Kat Von D have gotten away with their horrific treatment of others for years because people enjoy their content -- and two out of three of them still are wildly successful. What pushes people over the limit? Often times it’s a matter of what white people take major issue in. In Kat’s case, being anti-vax. Is being anti-vax bad? Hell yeah it is. As someone who’s immuno-compromised it literally could lead to an early, painful, slow death for me. And don’t get me wrong, I wanna die, but not from something that takes months of suffering. But people blatantly ignored her other awful acts -- such as her antisemitic actions (telling her former boss to “burn in hell jewbag” (sic) in the form of writing on a photo she left for him and drawing a Nazi symbol on it), complacency in victim blaming (her neo-Nazi husband blames his daughter’s rape on his daughter), denying and viciously responding to criticisms about her pedophilic makeup names (”Underage Red”, “Lolita”, second not in reference to the Japanese style but the book), and actively killing her pets (she killed one cat by leaving a house full of burning candles -- cat knocked down the candles, house went up in flames, cat died; she also was found forcing a vegan diet onto her cats -- I’m unsure if this has continued but I believe one of her cats died from it). All of these are huge reasons to “cancel” her -- to boycott her products. But people didn’t actively hate her until she came out as anti-vax, something that effects the majority. And that’s part of the issue with cancel culture: people pick and choose what’s acceptable depending on how badly it effects them personally.

Let’s focus on the other two mentioned: Jeffree and Felix. Jeffree has a very, very, veryyyyy long past of being a racist piece of shit. Not even lowkey ignorant white person racist (i.e. ”I didn’t know making fun of AAE and viewing dreadlocks as trashy was racist”). I’m talking straight up using the n-slur, with the hard -er too, towards a black woman. And this was recent, too. There just haven’t been any physical references beforehand, only personal accounts. But people have defended him -- and still defend him -- on these actions, because he apologized. But then he’ll do it again a month later. And there’ll be definitive proof of it. He’ll keep doing it over, and over, and over again. And people will continue to excuse him because he keeps apologizing! That’s not how apologies work! As someone who’s been abused, apologies mean nothing if you don’t actively work on fixing what you’re apologizing for!! My abusers would apologize and then do the exact same thing again so many times that I lost count long ago! And of course, Shane Dawson hasn’t helped because he’s head over heels for the guy, so he’s been using his popularity to try and clear his name -- which is ironic, considering he’s been under fire for being racist in the past too. The only difference is he actually cleaned his act up, until now, of course. Because now, instead of creating racist content himself, he’s defending a chronically racist shitbag. And people continue to defend him, because his shitty actions effects mainly black women -- a minority in comparison to the amount of white people in the states. Jeffree continues to be wildly successful because his problematic behavior only effects a minority, and that’s... not okay.

Felix has a very similar history to Jeffree, but with antisemitism, and in my opinion he’s even worse because he’ll apologize then do something nice like donate to a charity. And that would be fantastic if he wouldn’t continue to do antisemitic things like actively support white supremacists. People continue to defend him because he does charitable things, but I constantly remind people that abusive people aren’t abusive 24/7 -- that’s literally how they get away with abuse. They abuse, then take you out for a fancy date, kiss you gently and tell you how beautiful you are. Then they do something abusive. It’s an endless cycle. And that’s honestly what Felix does. Apologize, do something really fucking nice, and then repeat his shitty action. And he has other extremely influential people defend him -- it’s why I had to stop following JackSepticEye and Markiplier. They continuously vouched for him. They continuously defended him. And they did it in the form of saying “he’s a really good person, I know him personally, he’s really fucking sweet and nice”. That’s what people say about the partner of someone really close to me! Their friends defend them all the time, but they’ve never seen how they treat my friend. They don’t know about how they are in a relationship. And that’s all we ever hear about abusers. No one wants to accept that their longtime friend is shitty. But Mark and Sean contribute to the toxic ideology of “defend your friends to the end”. And it disenfranchises those effected because 1) they’re not Jewish, they have absolutely no say in the matter, and 2) they’re abusing their popularity to keep their friend from being properly criticized. I don’t think either of them are shitty people, per se, but they’re being extremely toxic by not letting their friend see that they’re a repeat offender and need to either work on their shit or face the music. Mark and Sean both have the power to make Felix change if they just give him the ultimatum of “us or this”.

But I digress. The main issue highlighted here is that people who actually do bad things and continue to do bad things aren’t being held accountable because people don’t care to acknowledge what doesn’t directly effect them. This is the first main issue with cancel culture.

Let’s focus on another man under scrutiny: John Lennon. Now, let me put out there for disclaimer purposes that this man is far from perfect and has problematic parts to him as well. He’s done some shitty things. But cancel culture looooooooves to dig at this man. To put it crudely, they really enjoy beating this dead... man. And mainly over one really bad thing he did, which was hit his wife. However, people love to 1) over-exaggerate it, and 2) completely ignore how he handled the aftermath. Cancel culture often refers to him as a “wife beater”, as though this were a chronic habit or that he severely brutalized his wife. But they conveniently ignore that he apologized, both to her and publicly, taught himself about domestic abuse and spoke up for women’s rights, and even wrote multiple songs about how he fucked up and he shouldn’t be excuse for what he did. And, most importantly, his wife forgave him. The victim in this situation forgave him, and people still dig into this one thing and use it as their reason to hate him and his band to this day. Genuine criticism of him and what he’s done have gone to the wayside because of this one fact with no context, and it’s a huge phenomena because people, for whatever reason, love to hate popular things. Like I said, he’s done shitty things! He wasn’t perfect! But to use one issue that was literally resolved to hate him is just a lazy excuse to hate what’s popular, and that comes to our second issue with cancel culture: people want to hate what’s popular and will go to any lengths to excuse their hatred, even if issues that have been resolved.

The last main issue I have is that cancel culture is often set up in very black and white terms. Person does bad thing, they’re bad, end of discussion. But that’s... not how life works. Not at all. I know religion isn’t universal, especially Christianity, but there’s one point in Christianity that is universal: humans are flawed. No human being to have ever existed is perfect. And with the rise of technology and social media, a lot of mistakes have a permanent proof out there. Be it through tweets, tumblr or Facebook posts, Instagram or Snapchat stories, whatever it is, there is proof. And people like to take it way too far.

For example... well, I’ll use myself. There’s good things to not being tumblr famous, and I’m blessed with that, because I used to be a major shithead. Well. Okay, I still am, but I was bigoted, uninformed, and had a lot of internalized issues. For anyone that doesn’t know, I was raised in a conservative Christian household where my father was Southern Baptist and my mother had been raised Catholic (her personal religious views are much more lax though, thankfully). Both came from small towns in Illinois and Missouri respectively, and their parents, the same. I was aggressively homophobic and transphobic (ironic, eh?), covertly racist and sexist, and just overall a really shitty person. And while I didn’t join tumblr until after I’d finally started to grow, a lot of people on here are younger -- some even lying about their age and joining before they’re 13. And like me, many of these kids are in close-minded households. And for the longest time I refused to listen to other people because of the good ol’ backfire effect, but once I began to accept I was wrong, I learned. Of course I still have learning to do -- I always do. I always will. And that’s okay. But if I were 12 year old me on tumblr today, I would, well. I would’ve probably killed myself by now, because of all the bullying and hate for being a shithead child. A shithead, yes. But a child. Someone that’s going to be ignorant to a lot of things because they haven’t been alive for as long. And not everyone has informed parents that make it a point to teach them. Adults are a little harder to forgive, I’ll admit, but children have a lot more potential to learn and grow, and we often treat them just like adults.

The final issue with cancel culture is that it gives no room for improvement and no assumption of someone’s innocence. While it hurts to be on the victim end, we as a whole are obligated to correct the issue. I personally would like it to be those not effected doing that (i.e. someone making a transphobic comment having other cis people explain why it’s transphobic and isn’t okay), but regardless, we need to assume innocent until guilty with these kinds of things. It’s not easy, sure, but if I had been on tumblr while I was a shitty kid parroting my dad’s awful world views, cancel culture would’ve labeled me a piece of shit with no chance of redemption, and if I didn’t kill myself there’s no fucking way in hell I would’ve learned, because that kind of treatment would’ve stuck with me and made it harder for me to listen to the other side’s reasoning, even if they were right. We need to approach people in a manner of calm education, instead of ready to kill. In no way am I saying this is an easy thing to do, but unless they’ve refused to open themselves up in any way whatsoever, immediately chalking someone up as a lost cause is just... counter-productive. We have to acknowledge that people are flawed, and can learn and grow. We need to give people space to improve. It’s not all or nothing.

All in all, cancel culture has a good base, but its execution has become irrational and a means to justify hating those that really don’t deserve it, while turning a blind eye to those that actually are problematic. There’s a lot to be improved on.

[adorkablegrrl-blog1]

Regarding Andrew Blake

So I deleted my last post because it was truly a TL;DR word vomit that made me, personally, seem incredibly manic and disorganized. I was pissed when I was writing it, because I keep seeing AB’s stan, Chris, making comments calling my best friend’s honesty and integrity into question. And, while I feel like everyone in the “Andy Awareness” biosphere has been doing a good job of calling that nonsense out for what it is (thank you @theteablogger​, thank you @kumquatwriter​, thank you @returnofthenecromommycon) seeing Molly and/or Chris and/or any of our friends who interacted with AB dragged in any capacity makes me feel quite stabby. It’s probably the pregnancy hormones that have exacerbated it to the word vomit state... I blame everything on pregnancy hormones right now. As is fair. I am growing a human.

I have pretty much said what I needed/wanted to say about the chronology and facts of what happened with Andy in LA here, so I’m not going to rehash the entire timeline. Besides it’s not my story to tell, really. It’s Molly’s. And, she’s doing a fine job of doing just that. And, I have been assured by her that she is not afraid of or worried about being dragged by either AB or his minions. (I still worry, but I will take her word at that and try to not go Mama Bear on people talking shit about her unless she asks me to.) 

That being said, as a witness to these events, there are a couple of important things I feel like I want to share. These are conclusions I came to after spending an ungodly amount of time going down the Andrew Blake rabbit hole this past weekend to try to wrap my mind around the largeness of this mindfuck of a story which is his life.

#1: Andy has all the hallmarks of an addict -- in so much as he “lies, cries, and denies.” He lies about his past and present circumstances. He cries/deflects/minimizes to make it seem like he’s a victim of gossip and mean-spirited people projecting their own personal problems/experiences onto his behavior, and when confronted with the truth he denies that he has done either of the previous two actions. He also claims frequently to be reformed with no tangible evidence that he actually is (further signs of an active addict.)

I have intimate experience with addicts. Both those who are active in their addiction and those who are in successful recovery. And, I am here to tell you -- that the number one bedrock, hallmark, tenant of recovery is accountability. You have to be completely transparent about your life, where you are at, your past mistakes, and your present struggles. If you are lying about ANY of this, you are not a recovering addict. If you are minimizing your behavior (past/present) you are not a recovering addict. If you are deflecting responsibility for what you do and have done onto other people... you are not a recovering addict. Andrew Blake is not out of fandom. He is not done with leading cults. He is not done using people for money, connections, concrete daily needs for living. This has been clearly demonstrated by not only how he behaved in the past, but how he behaved with us before we even KNEW his past. And, this behavior was enough to set me on edge (and I only met him IRL twice) and set at least 8 other people outside myself, Molly, and Chris on edge. We were all creeped out by him, none of us wanted him around...  Here is a brief list of 5 major things he lied to me directly about: 1. He said he’d never been to LA before and acted shocked at how expensive living here was.

2. He said he was working “in-house” for the summer for an established costumer who was working on a “big” project. For those not familiar with the industry, that implies he was working in a more permanent capacity, for a film or television production -OR- that he was a staff member at one of LA’s various large costume production houses. That was not the case, he was doing piece work on an “as needed” basis and that alone was not foundation enough to warrant moving to LA for. (Nor was it lined up before he got to LA, to my understanding.)

3. He said he was staying the whole summer with Molly and Chris. Which was not true. As Molly told me, after I questioned her as to why she’d let someone live rent free for three months, that she had agreed to let him stay a week in exchange for a costume commission.

4. He said he had more costuming experience than he did. And, in fact, pointed me to an IMDB page for a different Andrew Blake who is an established costume designer in the UK. (And, my fault lies in believing this, as I didn’t do more than just look briefly at the page and go “oh cool, he has an IMDB page and some experience, he might be good to recommend to [name redacted] as a second assistant or something.” Had I looked more in-depth I would have realized his lie IMMEDIATELY and brought it to Molly’s attention.)

5. He told me he was 23. I believed him. He told me he was a cis-gendered man who was born a cis-gendered man. I believed him. He has a young face. I do not question people’s gender... though it gave me great pause to find out that he was transgender, presenting as cis, making transphobic and homophobic comments to my good friends. And, when confronted with those lies, he has either said “oh no, no- you misunderstood me, that’s not what I said, that’s not what I meant” (gaslighting 101) or directed his minions/stans to try to discredit those confronting him with his lies. This is addict behavior 101. 

#2 He is SO not out of fandom...

Of course he knew who the Because Science guy was when questioning my friend C about her boyfriend (the Because Science guy.) Of course he pushed Molly to introduce him to the Critical Role cast (including that RIDICULOUS menu he suggested for a dinner party... hamsters and peacocks? JFC.) Of course when he found out that both Molly and I ran close with the Geek & Sundry crowd (Molly still does, I do not convention or comic con or podcast anymore due to stuff) and that we know Wil Wheaton and Stan Lee (frankly, who doesn’t?) he pushed us to make introductions. BECAUSE HE’S NOT OUT OF FANDOM.

It was suggested by one of his stans that he wanted to make those connections because it would bring him costuming work. Um. No. Celebrities have ZERO, zilch, nada, niente, nothing to do with hiring staff at the level Andrew was/is at. Knowing celebrities is only good for two things: 1. Getting into parties, B. Stroking your own ego and sense of self-importance in a very impersonal and tough industry. And, sometimes actual friendship, but rarely. Also one rule those of us who know and/or are friends with famous people follow is that we don’t introduce randos to them, no matter how big a fan, how well intentioned we believe them to be. And, given the stalky-stalk-mcstalkerson-from stalksylvania-ness of AB’s LoTR and SPN fandom scams (and, possibly a Bucky Barnes/Avengers scam? I am unclear how close he did or did not get to Sebastian Stan) -- it’s as obvious as the nose on my face why he actually wanted those introductions. And, that is not only creepy AF, but it is calculated and not at all about getting costuming work.

#3 He’s NOT DONE with being a cult leader...

Like I said up top (I know, this one is TL;DR, too... Sorry, I have things to say) I went down the Andy Blake rabbit hole this weekend and read as much of the information out there about supernova shitstorm of a life he leads that I could before my head exploded. That includes the incredibly trainwreck-y book that was written about the LoTR scam; Abbey and Diamond’s accounts of their time with them (which ripped my heart out, I cannot even,) and the horrifying account of AB’s involvement in and exacerbation of the circumstances/climate which lead to Brittney’s murder (which is ghastly.)

What I noticed about all these circumstances was a pattern. Specifically, a pattern about how Andy interacts with couples. He finds someone who is kind and has empathy and other good attributes who shares a geeky aspect with him; he engenders himself to them and lovebombs them and disorients them and ingratiates himself into their social circle; he then moves into this person’s real life space; he creates conflict and friction between the person and their significant other or friends, thusly isolating them, making it into a “them against us” situation; and, finally he maneuvers into that that person of importance’s place in his target’s life. He then builds an insular group of people around them who share the “them against us” mentality. And, then the real fuckery begins...

He clearly did this with Abbey, he clearly did this with Brittney, he seems to being doing this with his Chief Stan... and, based on the behavior I observed, he was trying to do that with Molly AND if he hadn’t succeeded he had already decided he was going to move in on the relationship of another couple within our social circle.

This is horrifying to me to consider. Though I am proud of Molly and Chris that they recognized what was going on (before they were told about AB’s actual past and before they realized the scope of his lies.) But, it garners the thought of “what would have happened had he succeeded?” Was he trying to install himself into the LA cosplay scene and create a new cult around some fandom or another? I think he was. He surely targeted the group who he thought most likely to accept or tolerate his nonsense. He didn’t count on the fact that we’re all really close, already, and we are also adults who are pretty established in LA, in our careers, and in “the scene” and we’ve seen enough of this kind of bullshit before (though not on such an epic scale) to immediately throw up red flags when a pattern begins to appear. Where would his manipulations have led had he been successful? I don’t care to speculate other than saying it would not have been good. Which leads me to my conclusion:

#4 Andrew Blake is still dangerous....

This might seem like a given. In fact, it is a fact. And, though I honestly wish nothing more than he actually was being sincere about his desire to reform his life and start fresh, his behavior -- even in this narrow two week span of time -- belies his actual intentions. Is his pathology a sickness or is it deliberate? I don’t know how to tell. As someone with mental illness issues, I resent him blaming his bad behavior on mental illness, so I don’t think that’s true. Is it possible he is a sociopath or has a BPD that he cannot control? Maybe? But, then again, much of what he has done in the past and present show a particular cold calculation designed to best manipulate emotions and behavior of others. Some are pathetic and transparent (like The Stickening) and some are more insidious (I’ll leave others to detail those instances since I have only heard about them second hand, not experienced it myself.) Further I’m not a qualified diagnostician, so I cannot speculate on his mental stability, other than to critically look at what he has put out about himself.

I will say this, however -- personally, due to a really intense triplet of tragedies, in 2015 I had a complete nervous breakdown. Of which I was totally incognizant, but which was observed by those close to me. They intervened and pretty much strong armed me into treatment. For about a year I had a “care team” because I was considered very fragile and it was thought that I might backslide into my breakdown psychosis. That care team was in weekly, if not daily, contact with me, my husband, my parents, my friends -- and, EVERYONE had a list of warning signs to be on the lookout for that would indicate that I needed more help and support and possibly a medical intervention. And, given my diagnosis (C-PTSD, Major Depression, Social Anxiety, General Anxiety) it required the utmost focus and work from me... I couldn’t even think about making major changes to my life, let alone being social, I was in (sometimes daily) therapy and trying to recover for a whole year before I could even think outside myself enough to make changes to my work, residence, relationships, etc. And, I was never outwardly destructive, but the intervention and treatment was that intense.

I’ve read various pieces around the different blogs about AB saying he has a care team and that he’s being held accountable and that he’s better and in treatment and he’s burned fandom to the ground, etc.... all I know is this: If that is true, and multiple people have “had productive conversations” (and, yes I’m the one who talked for two hours to Chris whatshisname) with people who are supposedly on said care team (though, has someone called the Players about this LA nonsense?) saying they had witnessed troubling behavior patterns that were indicative of a serious backslide.... and the care team haven’t acted on implementing an intervention for him? That calls into question if said care team actually exists and/or if he was or is in any kind of treatment for whatever his problems actually are. Are his problems actually diagnosed or just an additional layer to his “backstory” he made up to garner sympathy? Having been there, done that, got the t-shirt with serious, in-depth mental health care, I’m guessing the latter. It just doesn’t pass the sniff test. Anyhoodle... there are my eighty-bajillion words about Andrew Blake. I am hoping that now that I’ve spit them out I can stop ruminating on his latest fuckery and it’s impact in my group. Mostly, we here in LA are just glad AF that we excised him from our lives so quickly and with such precision. And, we hope that the pro-Andy stans leave Molly and Chris and the rest of our community alone. He ain’t welcome around these parts. If you have questions, comments, please don’t hesitate. Please be aware that any aggressive, mean spirited shit will not be acknowledged. Otherwise this is the one and only Andy Blake specific post I am going to ever make on Tumblr. Because I just don’t have the time or bandwidth for this brand of crazy anymore.

[ceeceestudiesstuff]

Oppression and Gender Dynamics in the works of Ken Levine: System Shock 2

As a student of Gender Studies, one learns about how the culture we live in is shaped by power dynamics, including (but not limited to) those based on gender. This extends to all areas of our culture, including the entertainment media we consume. If we wish to challenge these power dynamics, we must be willing to criticize the entertainment we enjoy. This includes video games.

When I was growing up, my favorite video game was the critically-acclaimed survival-horror-cyberpunk-role-playing-shooter System Shock 2. The thick atmosphere, constant tension and deep gameplay makes for a truly engrossing experience. But engrossing entertainment is not inconsequential; narratives and recurring elements within narratives can shape the way we understand the world and our values, expectations and interactions with others. This is why media criticism is a powerful transformative tool for social activists.

Upon a recent playthrough of System Shock 2, I decided to employ a critical approach; I came to the conclusion that the game's plot is inextricably interwoven with deeply misogynist themes. Then again, what else should I expect from Ken Levine? Levine, after all, created BioShock, which glorified the work of the infamous misogynist Ayn Rand (who not only filled her excruciatingly-terrible prose with rape scenes but also valorized the oppressive Capitalist system which marginalizes women through confining them to unpaid housework (work which is never reflected in economist's GDP figures, and is thus discarded as insignificant)). Yet even before BioShock, Levine laced his narratives with Patriarchy's privileging of the masculine and denigration of the feminine.

System Shock 2's player character is, unsurprisingly, a white male with a gun. This player character is given no characterization and not even any dialogue beyond one spoken word at the very end; the developers thus expected people to simply identify with the character on the grounds of the character's whiteness and maleness. Some Gamergaters defend these "blank slate" characters as lacking identity or as treating identity as inconsequential, but this strikes me as nothing more than an excuse for erasure; the message delivered by System Shock 2's player character is that "white males are the norm, and the developers presumed that this game would only be played by white males."

Said character's possession of a gun is another problematic aspect of the game; first, these weapons often represent a phallic symbol. Feminist Carol J. Clover, author of Men, Women and Chainsaws: Gender In The Modern Horror Film, argues that in horror films, the "Final Girl" is identified with by even male audience members due to her eventually acquiring a weapon; Clover called this phallic appropriation. System Shock 2 may be a video game rather than a film, and the player character may be male rather than female, but if Clover's association of acquiring weapons with acquiring masculinity holds true, we can see System Shock 2 (alongside effectively all other First Person Shooters) as perpetuating a narrative of masculinization through weaponry (tellingly, System Shock 2's weapons are all varieties of either firearm or are long objects like laser swords or stalactites of crystal). And what are weapons without their use? In System Shock 2, the player encounters threats and deals with them through this weaponry; negotiation or diplomacy or other forms of non-violent conflict resolution are simply not present, probably because they do not involve weaponry and thus are fundamentally feminine.

Carol Gilligan, Harvard's first professor of Gender Studies, wrote in her work In A Different Voice that women care about the social and relational. Whereas males privilege "rights" and "reason" in ethical calculus, women believe in an ethics of care, which helps explain why women (and feminists in particular) gravitate towards anti-oppression activism. Women thus support nonviolent solutions and cooperation over violence and competition. In System Shock 2, only the masculine means of conflict resolution (violence, conquest, defeating one's enemy) is available to the player character. Implicitly, this casts the feminine means of conflict resolution (diplomacy, compromise and coexistence) as inferior, which in turn perpetuates the Patriarchal values system that feminists oppose. Our society already portrays the feminine means of conflict resolution as worthless and weak, and in our war-ravaged world this message can only end up prolonging violent conflict. Not to mention that our society already portrays the feminine anything as frivolous, incompetent, trivial, ineffectual and ultimately unworthy of being taken seriously; System Shock 2 thus perpetuates our culture's devaluation of women.

That said, the above critiques can be applied to almost every single First Person Shooter, and even many Third Person Shooters; the genres seem to always star a white dude with a gun solving problems in a dudely way and thus proving that he is a real dude, and not one of those cooties-ridden girls (because girls are inferior and thus anything that is like girls is inferior). However, System Shock 2 is misogynist on a level far greater than this.

System Shock 2's misogyny is baked into its very plotline. Warning: spoilers follow.

At its very core, what System Shock 2 revels in is an attack on females in positions of power. The storyline has two main villains; a biological hive-mind called The Many and, naturally, the malevolent artificial intelligence known as SHODAN. I shall start with The Many first.

The Many are biological, yet they are like The Borg from Star Trek; they are an explicitly collectivist hive-mind that believe individuality amounts to tyranny. As Gilligan argued, the masculine voice is individualistic, and a feminine approach to ethics prioritizes the relational and social; The Many are thus implicitly feminized due to being a collective. Not only that, but The Many are born from eggs in their larval stage; eggs are commonly associated with femininity (due to female birds laying eggs, to human female reproductive cells being called "ovum" (i.e. eggs), etc.). In addition, during the later parts of the story, The Many manage to construct their own body and this body contains a womb; The Many itself is a mother.

In one particularly offensive sequence, the player character travels through The Many's womb and kills the eggs lying within; the right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy belongs solely to the woman, yet in this segment of the game a male usurps a woman's right to choose. I find it hard to see this sequence as anything other than a male fantasy of controlling women's bodies; the player character may be performing "abortions" yet is doing so out of patriarchal motivations (and, as we all know, if it were men who were able to get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament).

Some defenders of System Shock 2 would claim that The Many is not feminine, but is rather portrayed androgynously due to how The Many is voiced by both female and male voices layered over each other; this argument ignores that we live in a world where males fear the barest hint of anything "feminine." The gender roles demand that men prove they are "real men" through systematically removing any "femininity" within themselves (it is telling how, in the later stages of the game, Captain William Diego (who's military, gruffly-voiced and extremely masculine) cuts The Many's parasite out of his body) and demeaning anything associated with the feminine outside themselves; masculinity is misogyny. Thus, androgynous voicing is not masculine enough to appease the patriarchy; anything less than pure masculinity is socially classified as femininity. The Many's androgynous voicing only demonstrates that The Many is coded as feminine (and the conflation of androgyny with femininity is clearly a transphobic feature of our society's gender binary).

So The Many is thus a representative of the feminine; it is communal and relational, it has a womb, and its androgynous voicing only proves it lacks the absense of femininity necessary to be "masculinized."

And the player character is tasked to destroy The Many through stereotypically masculine means. The player character is ultimately sent through The Many's body to take control of its private functions, to control its fertility, and in the end to kill it.

Yet The Many is not the only mother in the story; SHODAN is the mother of The Many. SHODAN is voiced by a woman and referred to with feminine pronouns, so the game outright characterizes her as a woman even if it makes little sense for an AI to have a gender.

SHODAN's characterization is even more disturbingly misogynist than that of The Many. The Many merely wishes to assimilate; SHODAN plots genocide against the human race. In System Shock 2, SHODAN is portrayed as a manipulative liar (a long running negative trope about women). SHODAN believes herself to be "a Goddess, destined to inherit the earth" as the game's introductory cinematic tells us. In the last level of the game, SHODAN acquires the power to remake reality itself to her own specifications (due to the player character's finishing off of The Many allowing her to sieze control of a starship's warp drive engine); what messages does this convey about women with power?

The message is that women lust for power, that they will do anything necessary to obtain it, and that when they have it they will use it for evil purposes. They will not tolerate any insubordination, they do not value or care for any other life, they only wish for control. They have no moral principles. The message amounts to "all women are dangerous bitches." This kind of mentality is rife within our society; clearly the suspicion people have about women in power has hampered Hillary Clinton's political career, and if it weren't for this paranoia about females with power we wouldn't have needed Sheryl Sandberg's #BanBossy campaign.

Another way in which SHODAN's characterization is misogynistic is in how she is portrayed as, by metaphor, a rapist. A twist in the plot reveals that the player character was knocked out by a robot SHODAN controlled, before having intrusive cybernetic implants forcibly implanted within his skull. This rape metaphor is only emphasized by how the US version's box for the game included the line "she doesn't need a body; she's got yours" printed on it. Whilst women absolutely can commit rape, the vast majority of rape is committed by men against women, as an assertion of male control over female's bodies; System Shock 2 gender-flips this, yet in doing so not only reinforces the aforementioned paranoia over women with power, but glosses over the fact that this horrendous crime very rarely happens to men (and when it does, it is usually other men who perpetrate it). This marginalizes how gendered rape is in the real world. Finally, as System Shock 2 is an horror game, what does it tell us about our society that a gender-flip of the status quo is considered so deeply disturbing? Women live under the omnipresent threat of rape, even for something as trivial as commenting on a video game, and as the Elliot Rodger incident showed, we socialize men to see women's bodies as rightfully belonging to them; in our society this is considered the natural order. Reversing this 'natural order' causes men to fear what they truly hope to avoid; the prospect of being treated how they treat women.

Yet in a bizarre way, SHODAN serves as a mother character not only to The Many but also to the player character; SHODAN's symbolic "rape" of the character was also her way of "rebirthing" him into a new form, blessed with a suite of cybernetic implants that help him survive the challenges he faces. SHODAN guides the player character, initially through the image of Dr. Janice Polito (also a woman) but later as herself; she tells the player character what his goals are. She rewards him for doing so, and punishes him in one situation if he (i.e. the player controlling him) disobeys her. As System Shock 2 is an RPG, he "grows" under her guidance; he acquires skills which make him more powerful.

So what is the ultimate fantasy of System Shock 2, then? A critical component to understanding this fantasy is that back when the game was made (1998), gaming was more or less the exclusive playground of white male teenagers. The white male player character is obviously intended for this demographic to project themselves into.

This player character is then sent to assert his masculinity through violence, as a way of overpowering and eventually conquering characters who are archetypal female authority figures; the mother is an authority figure to her child. The Goddess is by definition worshipped. And System Shock 2 sends you against both; one which is unremittingly hostile and will stop at nothing to "rebirth" you via their "new flesh" (symbolically shoving you back into the womb), and another who's "rebirthing" of you was a symbolic rape, who lies to you and manipulates you into giving her absolute power to kill or reshape all biological life to her own preferences.

Our white teenage male audience will almost certainly be living with their mother (the father may be substantially more distant due to either divorce or work commitments). Their teachers are more likely than not to be more female than male. The audience has lived with female authority figures, and in a misogynist culture where men are promoted as women's superiors, the audience hates this. The teenage male player is not living out some gender-neutral fantasy of rebellion, but rather a gendered fantasy of masculine conquest of the feminine authority. The player character slaughters a maternal figure, even invades said figure's body and exerts control over said body's womb. Then the player character has to fight a second maternal figure and use the masculine means of violence to keep her from power that is far too dangerous for a female to have. The white male player character, using the male means of violence, who grows more powerful the more weapons he amasses, is encouraged to destroy two embodiments of femininity presented as tyrannical, manipulative, and unfit to hold the power they do.

System Shock 2 is precisely why we needed #BanBossy and still need similar initiatives; our culture teaches men that they are entitled to rule women, and so they feel resentment when women rule them. So System Shock 2 presents male players with two female authority figures to attack, to disempower in the most intimate of ways, and ultimately to exert power over in order to re-establish the patriarchal norm. System Shock 2 is a nerd's dream of payback against his mother for not buying him that X-Men figurine he craves so badly. System Shock 2 reflects the same mindset that thinks Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted with power, but that Sanders (or, heaven forbid, Trump) would be a positive step. System Shock 2's villains represent a laundry list of every single rationalization that the patriarchy deploys to keep women out of powerful positions, and presents players with an heroic fantasy of asserting masculinity's rightful place at the top.

For those who think I am overstating the case, I would suggest they look at the game's closing cinematic; it becomes clear from this that the game is not interested in a situation where neither sex has power over each other. At the climax of the game, SHODAN offers the player character a chance to rule together. The player character will thus be free from a feminine overlord; were the fantasy of System Shock 2 merely about being free from feminine authority, the player would be satisfied by the player character taking the offer. Instead, the player character states the only word he says in the entire game; a frankly immature "nah" (thus displaying the kind of childish attitude one would expect from the game's target audience). He then, in a climactic act of assertion of his male power, raises his weapon and fires it, causing SHODAN to be destroyed and thus re-establishing masculinity as supreme. Equality was not enough.

And whilst The Many never offered such an equality, the fact that the process of destroying them required invading and controlling their very body and bodily functions only underscores the male-supremacist nature of System Shock 2's story.

In summary and conclusion, System Shock 2's gameplay is (as usual for shooters) implicitly misogynist through constructing a world where only masculine traits are useful and valuable. This, however, is not nearly as sexist as the game's plot, which is premised on a view that the "natural order" of things is for females to be subordinated to males, that women can never be trusted with power, and that for women to exercise power over men is an object of unfathomable horror. This gives context to the gameplay, where the player character employs traditionally masculine means to not merely escape feminine authority but to conquer it and thus exert male authority over the feminine (even the feminine body), thus re-establishing the patriarchal status quo. System Shock 2 is a symbolically-matricidal revenge fantasy built out of the resentment of young white men who feel that they've been denied their "rightful place" as women's rulers. This game is the crystalization of the MRA worldview.

Gamergate may have only been around since August of 2014, but misogyny in gaming goes back much further. Women cannot afford to spare "classics" from criticism. Progress towards gender justice, and therefore the safety of women's lives, is more important than the feelings of fanbases.