#it was perfectly normal for me to engage in a discussion on racism. i wasn't speaking on an issue i have no say in

[mogai-sunflowers]

Am I the only one who really hated the year where the "nobody asked thing" happened a ton? It was used against me a lot whenever I overshared and as an autistic person I have trouble regulating that so I just stopped talking at all.

YEAH IT'S SO RUDE AND FOR NO FUCKING REASON??????????????? one time someone said that exact thing to me and i had a panic attack and felt so horrible but now looking back on it....... yes! yes you DID ask!!! because you made a public post with an opinion and gave absolutely no instruction as to who you wanted to respond! this is on YOU! /nay anon

[mcl38]

f1twt has been popping off since the race ended too. someone posted a clip of lando asking his engineer to "SPEAK up" bc you know, his engineer was giving him important information about the tyres and gaps to other drivers at that point. heaven forbid lando want to actually hear that information. anyway they posted that clip with this big rant about how "if yuki told his race engineer to shut up, we/f1 would be attacking him instead of laughing about it" and i was genuinely sitting there reading all of the replies like. people just say things without even listening to the 5 second clips they're discussing anymore because you can very clearly hear him ask his engineer to SPEAK up. it doesn't even remotely sound like shut up. (not to mention lando had been asking will off and on the entire race to please speak louder because he was having trouble hearing him). but point is these people really just say anything without 1 second to check if it's really true. i also. idk. as a poc, find it rlly weird to be using the actual racism faced by drivers on the grid to push an agenda against a driver you don't like, instead of viewing it as it's own separate and real issue? like do u actually even care about the racism or is it just looking for reasons to hate and push an agenda against another driver u care about. anyway sorry this is long, that pissed me off since i saw it but there are 0 braincells among f1twt as a collective so i rlly did not want to say anything and have them coming at me fjskcks

ok this is kind of bizarre bc i DID see the post talking about lando telling will to shut up and how yuki would've been crucified for it, but it DIDNT include the clip in it. tbh u couldve seen a similar take but i actually think ur misremembering the post, mostly bc no one was picking on lando for the 'speak up' radio (even outside of that post), they were talking about when he cut will off somewhere in those last 20 laps saying "i see i see i see, i'm pushing mate". and then the yuki fan CONTINUED TO SAY that lando's radio was 'nothing serious', they were just pointing out the double standard of how the journos / comms / fandom / marko rinsed yuki and claimed he was not fit for f1 because of his 'angry' radios. i do think that fan was wrong bc lando very much got similar critiques after sochi21, but to be fair to them most fans on twt weren't watching f1 3 years ago so like i wouldn't hold it against them. idk like twitter IS full of idiotic takes & the algorithm will push the most annoying ppl ever onto ur timeline in order for u to take the ragebait and engage, but like. i rly dont think this fan was hating on lando in general or was even in the wrong for venting their frustrations w how yuki is constantly carricaturised and underestimated. which again - maybe im talking abt another fan but its unlikely bc its this one who caught ALL the flack from all my lando stan mutuals so i think its the tweet ur also referencing.

anyways i dont think its necessarily making it a race thing to point out if theres double standards between drivers (especially re: british bias) even though again i dont think in this case they were correct specifically abt lando. but i also wouldnt find it outlandish to consider the outrage re: yuki's swearing is part of a bigger pattern of how east asian men r treated. i think yuki has been infantilised and woobified bc of his race and height throughout his career, and the cognitive dissonance created when he swears a lot (perfectly normal for ppl who dont speak much english / are ESL to swear liberally) is bc ppl cant concieve of the innocent little baby yuki in their heads being an adult man who can use swear words. and i think in that respect his career & public perception has had a similar trajectory to lando (who is infantilised for different non-race-related reasons lol), which is why i have a lot of compassion for yuki fans who r frustrated with it. especially in a casual liveblog situation that wasn't meant to be a Big Statement. but idk maybe thats my yuki bias showing

[castielcommunism]

Out and out John hater here. John was raised in the 50's and early 60's. Things like casual misogyny, racism and homophobia were just starting to be seen as "unpopular opinions" during John's formative years. And John in the 70's while mostly a sweet guy (ignoring the fact he was in Vietnam) he really doesn't seem like the "radical new ideas" type. I think at BEST John conformed his opinion to his (Step?) Father the way Dean would after him. (But really, if John's Dad was in WWII he might feel compelled by family loyalty even if it's not something he would agree with), and in the early 2000's that kind of behaviour (misogyny, homophobia, etc) was common and normalized to the point that I myself (a bi woman) said those things!

Obviously none of that makes the way he treated Dean okay. But with John as Dean's only major connection to other people (not including Sam because he wasn't his connection yet) I don't blame him for having a lot of outdated beliefs he needed to unlearn. Sammy is MUCH more progressive after only a few years away, but John had less to do with Sammy.

not sure what prompted this but uh. well a couple things:

I’m not interested in figuring out John’s exact political beliefs because they largely don’t matter. Even if John had been an outspoken anti-war communist, he was still an abusive person. Reactionary politics don’t have a monopoly on abuse. Like, I’m not sure why there’s a push to make John this ultimate boogieman who was a horrible bigot and evil person. You don’t need to infuse his character with any additional bile to justify disliking him. He was abusive and neglectful towards his children, so that should be the focus of the discussion, not the quality of his character. “Abusive” is not an intrinsic part of a person’s like, essence or whatever, it’s a behaviour that you can identify, talk about, and in some cases, stop people from engaging in going forward.

Building from that, I think Dean’s interpersonal problems have a lot more to do with the fact that John was the only durable relationship in his life aside from Sam, the little brother he was forced to take care of. Again, it doesn’t matter what John talked about at the dinner table, the fact that Dean grew up basically friendless with very few nurturing relationships is a much bigger factor in how ill-adjusted he is as an adult. You are going to have a very skewed perception of the world no matter how much (or how little) your father talked politics with you.

Anti-racist, feminist, lgbt, and anti-war movements were alive and well during the time periods you mentioned, so “product of his time” arguments don’t really land for me. I think it’s perfectly fine to admit that you outgrew certain biases and bigotries that were normalised in your environment (I certainly did!), but it’s also true that movements against those bigotries have very long histories that don’t originate on 2015 twitter.

Again, I’m not sure what prompted this ask, and I’m not entirely sure what it’s trying to accomplish. This is also ignoring the non-diegetic reasons Dean says misogynistic or homophobic things on the show (the writers’ own biases, Dean being originally written as an intentionally sleazy guy to contrast with Sam, etc). So I guess I’m just not super concerned with trying to find in-universe explanations for why Dean called a woman a bitch or thinks being gay is bad, etc, especially if they rely on conjecture and headcanon. I think there’s enough canonical and metatextual explanations around already. You can also just like, acknowledge that some of the things he says and does are bad and fucked up without trying to rationalise or contextualise them. Not that context is irrelevant, but Dean’s origins don’t cancel out culpability.