#like I'm sorry but we are not a monolith and don't think the same way about issues???

[d1sc01nf3rn0]

I'm seeing a lot of people with neurodivergency, specially under the autism spectrum say that "Laios is annoying, never shuts up, is insensitive, and I can't stand him"; and the irony is not lost on me lmao.

[blakbonnet]

-

[soracities]

Hi, how do you manage to see children as good? I would like to, but I only see them as inconsiderate and terrifing in a way a military robot would be terrifing. Not evil, because they are wired that way and it's just who they are, but everyone would be better off avoiding them. I've been to therapy because I was bullied, but I didn't change my mind. I kinda feel like it's an elephant in the room and I am right. I'd like to hear the good stories as often as possible tho, maybe sth will change

I'm not coming for you, but with all due respect it's not "just who they are".

Children aren't military robots because they aren't lifeless hunks of machinery incapable of thought or feelings; they are human beings (like you were at that age) who are trying to make sense of the world around them (like you did at that age), and who want to be a part of that world and feel welcome in it (like you did at that age). They are not coded to do the same thing over and over with no input from anyone else, they are not machines singly wired for carnage: they watch, learn, adapt, respond and interact with things around them because these are smaller, younger versions of you and me learning what it means to exist on this planet in the first place with barely any filters, impulse control and absolutely no guidance on how to do this except what the environment around them (parents, friends, family, teachers) tell them is and isn't okay.

I don't believe this is a matter of inherent goodness or lack thereof--I don't believe anyone is inherently good or bad: what I believe is that we are all inherently social creatures who desperately want to be part of our communities and involved with other people. Children are no different. They want to learn, they want to help, they want to figure out where they belong in their little social units and they look to you to tell them where that is because they don't know yet. And if they are in an environment where bullying is okay (either because they were treated horribly and no one did anything or they see and hear others being treated horribly and no one did anything or they treated someone else horribly and no one did anything) than that is what they'll accept.

If you follow your logic that everyone is "better off "avoiding children--what then? How do you expect them to learn right from wrong if no one is volunteering to teach them? How do you expect bullying to stop if no one is taking the time to instill it in them that bullying is not okay? How do you expect them to ever learn to be kind and considerate when everyone around them makes it clear they're not wanted? How do you expect them to learn what any kind of care and responsibility looks like if everyone is avoiding them to begin with? How do you expect them to think for themselves and reach their own conclusions if you treat them all like a monolith? Every single adult is an ex-baby, an ex-child, an ex-teenager--how do you expect decent adults to come into this world if you avoid teaching all three of those?

I'm not saying any of this to dismiss what you went through or undermine the horror and the impact of it, and I genuinely am sorry you were put through so much. But the best way I can answer your question is with full honesty: and I think it is going to be difficult for you to find those "good stories" and be open to them if you are already convinced that you are right because of what happened to you, that children are automatically feral terrors and that everyone else is just pretending otherwise or ignoring the reality. I believe what I believe because I've spent years around kids and seen all sides of them. I know they can say horrible things. But I also know they learnt those horrible things from a careless adult, or another child exposed to a careless adult. Children can be terrifying--but they are terrifying to other children. And that terror is coming from a reactive and limited understanding of the world where so much of what happens to you often feels like it's coming from large, hidden, horrible forces you can't wrap your head around (because you can't, because your head is 8 years old). But the fact is adults are also terrifying to children. And which of those are you now?

I can't speculate on what you went through or how you processed it, but I think it's worth considering that you may still be looking at children through the eyes of the child you once were and the horrible experiences you had. Again, I'm not dismissing that pain--it's real and it happened to you, and I can absolutely understand your feelings and conclusions--but that doesn't mean they equate to objective conclusions or generalization about all children, especially since you were a child: would you look at yourself like something similar to a military robot? Would you want to have felt the adults around you thought it better to stay away from you? And what about the people in your life that you care about most? Can you imagine them when they were children, like you were? Would you think the same thing about them?

If you want to change your mind, you need to put yourself in situations where that opportunity arises without expecting that your belief is the default. If you can, ask teachers what their fondest memories are of teaching--what's the funniest thing they've heard, what's the kindest thing they've seen, what's surprised them most about kids? What have they learnt from kids (because you do learn--you learn all the time). Ask people who love children why they love children, or simply see if you can find discussions on forums where people share those stories. As I said, I've heard and seen kids do some awful things--but those are tiny compared to everything I've seen that is the opposite (boys giggling face to face on a hill, a tiny toddler waving at me on a bus, a child naming a slug that crept in through his window, a 9 year old boy trying to teach me morse code after having known me for 2 minutes despite how long it took me to understand). It might also help if you give yourself the opportunity to learn a little about child psychology--if people's experiences aren't enough for you, then maybe getting insights into how children's actual brains and minds work might. If you're curious, there's a documentary series from 2015 or so that follows 4, 5, and 6 years olds as they play and engage with each other here to try and understand what their world looks like.

Sincerely, I don't mean for any of this to sound harsh and I really hope it doesn't--but at the end of the day there isn't a secret, pure anecodte that will magically make you change your mind. Change isn't passive; it's something you decide to do and actively work on and that includes challenging your own beliefs by providing them with new and wider information. I'm not saying you have to become a kindergarten teacher to do this, or start spending all your time around children. But if we are going to survive in this world and forge any kind of lasting connections we have to be able to offer some amount of grace and understanding to each other and the people in our lives--and that goes doubly for the people who have barely even begun learning to be people at all.

[ca-suffit]

im sorry your takes are generally pretty great and i appreciate the space you make in fandom but i find the dismissal around lestat's queerness to be diminishing.

louis is a fantastic gay character and u r right about how he represents his queerness which is fabulously. he is mother he is fashion he is wife, a lot, and lestat is a lot more masc in aspects of their dynamic. louis also struggles with it, had internalized homophobia, and his relationship to his sexuality is fraught. now you can have that complexity and still be a "gay icon" sure but what i see here is a gay man existing. not every gay man existing has to be ~iconic~. louis is working on himself.

lestat is a different person and is going out there to make a mark on culture actively, regardless of why. he's not putting on a dress for five seconds (which btw was still pretty impactful in context but ok), he is being meaningfully gnc and making art. this is what queer culture is. it's frustrating to see this element diminished like it's just a meme or a bunch of people being thirsty.

im all for critiquing fandom being weirdos about it but i think the showrunners are doing something spectacular and pretending like fans are making lestat into something he is not just isn't the vibe.

reading this made me realize that I left out a sentence in this ask, so it did come off differently than I intended. I'd meant to say there's already been a lot of exploration of characters / ppl like lestat, but there's never been a character like louis before. I wasn't rly ever talking about lestat's queerness itself, I was talking about how he's prioritized bcuz he's white.

if u personally identity with him in this then that's ur right to, obviously. no group is a monolith and I was never trying to say one way is more "right" than the other. I rly do apologize if it came across like that, cuz I can see why it did.

"he's not putting on a dress for five seconds (which btw was still pretty impactful in context but ok)"

I don't rly know what u mean here bcuz within the show, nobody comments on the dress. ppl react to the baby but everything we know of the dress otherwise was only revealed by carol cutshall bts. I don't know what impact ur meaning here. to the tv audience, sure, but the NOLA audience?? or is it the fact he designed it in the first place.

tbh the thing I most noticed was that once again a white, european immigrant got to be center stage in an event that louis, as a black, louisiana native, isn't (like the card game lestat already had a place at more favored than louis earlier in S1). he also was able to wear that dress in public without public scorn (being european prbly helped here too, he's "other'd" but not the same way as louis is "other'd" for being black), which is something louis could never have done and actually survived at all. it's not that lestat doesn't experience homophobia otherwise, but he's still got a lot more room to confront it than louis, claudia, or armand would have, as ppl who would be confronting homophobia *and* racism with no access to white privilege (claudia literally dies in the same hour we see lestat confront a homophobe otherwise on his and louis' behalf and "win").

idk what they're going to explore for S3 yet, but what we've seen so far is....not that deep tbh. it's not even especially "queer." we're aware he is so we know it is, but straight men have worn makeup and flashy outfits and done homoerotic shit as musicians before too. very often. nothing we've seen from lestat so far has been pushing any boundary as a queer artist or making any kind of statement. I'm not trying to sound like a total bitch here, but a lot of what ur saying is pushing this white fandom agenda of the "importance" of so much that any white, queer character does that....just isn't. lestat's image and sound is taking a lot from other ppl in real music history who *were* doing groundbreaking things at the time, straight or not, but what he's doing is just wearing it as a costume rn. his lyrics even say "I'm an actor / in my makeup." like I said, S3 in full will bring more to the table, obviously, but for what we've seen so far....this hasn't said anything in any objective way that's "deep." u can still like it and identity with it, but idk how u'd argue that it's doing anything tbh. ur welcome to do it tho, I'm not trying to shut down the conversation here. I'm just giving my perspective. I *do* actually think this is stuff we should talk about exactly *bcuz* fandom rides so hard for it all the time. it should be explored why that is, what's the logic behind it. I rly am interested.

edit: wanted to add too that p much everyone we see in this show is queer and creative so literally why is nobody ever saying all this about louis' photography, claudia's acting and interest in fashion (or her general observations on the world thru so many diaries that are referenced in multiple ways as she's not around anymore to speak otherwise), armand's theatre work, madeleine's dressmaking. that's usually why ppl comment on lestat, bcuz he's the most noticed and praised but he's literally not the only one doing it at all.

[gayaest]

Hey! I've been loving your art for too long, I think what you're doing for the disabled community it's lovely, it's awesome, I'm so sorry that there are people giving you hate comments, keep doing what you do, keep including people, maybe I don't necessarily have the same diagnosis as your characters, as I have Tourette's and Autism only in regards of that, but... I think I can talk for many of us, that your art makes us really happy, I love seeing people go like ''Omg, this character is just like me!'' it makes my heart warm, thank you, for everything, seriously, I love representation, and you've done an amazing job on it.

Disabled people exist, we're everywhere, even if people don't notice it sometimes, even if people do realize sometimes and don't care, we are people, we are your friends, family, partners, we are everywhere, and we have the right to exist. <3

Thank you, It’s really nice and sweet to hear that. Sometimes it feels like I get consumed by hate comments, because due to the nature of what I post it is seen as “controversial” inherently, for being disabled people, or fat people, or people or color. It’s not fair, but that’s exactly what life is for me and people like me (my followers).

It’s okay not to share my diagnosis, I don’t expect it! (Though, I am autistic as well!) The disabled community is not a monolith, and that’s how I’ve gotten my art to the point it’s at! By listening to stories that aren’t my own.

Connection is key to community, and so is Listening. I always do my best with both (even if it means asking for repeats and research on my own when asked). It takes a lot of hard work, and my life is often consumed by researching disorders and understanding disabilities, but I wouldn’t have it any other way, because it has made me a understanding attentive person that tries to make everyone feel included somehow.

Thank you again, this is so sweet to hear. I appreciate it very much.

[intheholler]

Hi, sorry if this is a weird message but I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your blog.

I've never been to the appalachia region but I was born in Mississippi and only lived there for like 3 years before we moved. My mom was a travel nurse so we moved every year or two and I really loved living like that and being able to live in tons of different places but part of me is really upset that I never really belonged to a specific place.

When I was younger, I was thankful for not growing up in the south. I always heard other people talk about it, how it was nothing but inbred hillbillies and how everyone talked in a weird drawl and I was glad I never picked up the accent.

But now I'm so, so upset about it. I have a very slight accent sometimes and say y'all and ain't a lot but it's definitely not recognizable as a southern accent.

I want to sound like that, but it feels wrong to try and talk with that accent now, because my family doesn't sound like that and I don't live in the south anymore. Even though I was born there, it still feels like I'm not from there, you know? Like I would be stealing something that's not mine.

It just sucks. Especially when I hear people constantly talk shit about the south and how everyone there is stupid and ugly and racist and evil and it's like, ''Oh. Maybe if I lived there a few more years they would hate me like that too."

A lot of time I see people talking about how much it sucks to grow up in a certain culture, but I never see people talk about how much it sucks to grow up without a specific culture(s).

The worst thing is when people ask where I'm from or where I grew up, and I don't know what I'm supposed to say.

So thank you for your blog. I know the south and appalachia are different, with different cultures and climates and people, but it still makes me feel like I can experience something I never got to.

hi there. this is not weird at ALL.

its a topic very near to my heart really. thanks so much for sharing your story not only because it's yours and i want to know it, but because it resonates with me SO hard, and i don't really talk to anyone who was constantly on the move as a kid and questions their identity because of it.

long post below, as is usually the case with me and this subject.

first i wanna say: i agree that the deep south and appalachia are certainly unique from one another, but to me, they share more similarities than they do differences. your story only cements that in my mind.

we have similar politics, are embarrassed by similar stereotypes, have shameful collective histories. we have similar flavors of self-work and unlearning to do. even the accents overlap.

we also know the same struggle of trying to be louder than our region, how it feels to have our individual voices swallowed up by people who don't want to hear it because they've already decided what they think about us as if we are some monolith.

what i mean is you definitely belong in this community, and i'm so glad you are here!

now for the emotional bits: i hate making these sorts of asks about me, but i sometimes feel at a loss as how else to communicate my empathy in this specific situation.

i just hope my experience can extend a sense of solidarity and understanding to how you're feeling, as mine mirrors your own very closely. i can seriously like feel the pain radiating off of this ask and i just want you to feel seen and heard.

"The worst thing is when people ask where I'm from or where I grew up, and I don't know what I'm supposed to say."

this kicked me in the stomach, because same. it's why being "from appalachia" is so integral to my identity. i'm not from a town or even a state. all i have is the region.

i've talked about this before on here, but my dad was a contractor, and we moved every year or two as well. the longest i stayed in one town was three years, and it happened only once.

i agree that moving around a lot was good in some ways, but, like you, it left me without a sense of belonging.

looking back as an adult, i realize how badly all of that moving fucked me up. i don't have a hometown in the traditional sense. i'm not "from" anywhere.

a lot of my childhood belongings i no longer have because everything seemed to get lost in the moves. i feel like i am scattered across a region, and i am nowhere.

its so bad that, as silly as it is, i get irrationally upset at something as innocent as when i am with someone who has lived in a place most of their life, and they can easily give directions there because they know the place so well. i can't do that with anywhere and so i feel bitter.

i myself moved around consistently in appalachia/the south, though, so i still grew up in the area, as generally as one could. so i also spent most of my late childhood and preteen yearsgetting rid of the accent. i didn't want to sound "stupid" or be lumped in with the racists and the stereotypes of the region.

i thought it made me better than other kids who spoke with the accent, because back then, i hadn't started the self-work i have since undergone and ripped all that hateful internalized bullshit up.

i regret it every day now that i'm learning to love where i'm from--appalachia and the south as a region. i regret ever buying into what i was told about myself and getting rid of all markers of it.

i get it, anon. i really do and i love you and i'm sorry.

THIS IS ALL TO SAY VERY VERY LOUDLY:

you. are. from. there.

you were born in the south. you was raised by a presumably southern family. even if you wasn't, they had to take pieces of mississippi with them. culture is not a static thing--it goes where you go.

you can't steal what's already yours. the accent is yours to use. it feels awkward in your mouth when you try to get it back but that's just because it needs to get comfortable in there again. it doesn't mean you're faking or stealing. it means you are reconnecting, and reunions can sometimes be a little awkward.

don't hold yourself up to rigid standards or fall victim to any gatekeeping, outward or inward. only you get to define who you are, and it seems like you know who that is supposed to be.

i hope you can start to feel a little more at home in your identity. i know what a special hell it is. thank you so so much for being here <3333

[tododeku-or-bust]

Sorry if this is a weird question, but why do some Black Americans believe that they are the only Black people on the planet? I just had a situation on Twitter where someone tried to correct me saying that I am not Black because I am not American and then told me how I was supposed to classify myself in a sincerely imperialistic tone. Is there any context for this happening? I'm curious bc I am not familiar w/ the US context and this is the third time someone has tried to act like they know more about my race than I do. Like I'm sorry but I'm not gonna pretend I'm not Black. That's just how it is in my country, I don't understand why everyone has to change how things work because some people in the US are bothered [I don't know if this is helpful but to clarify I am the daughter of an Angolan father and a Brazilian mother. Both are Black]

I will admit, it makes me uncomfortable, and I don't appreciate the generalization, nor am I going to act like we all feel the same as your individual experiences on Twitter. We don't think we're the only Black people on the planet. I could ask the same of the world and why everyone thinks the people of color of the United States are all on the same page with its white citizens, when that too is incorrect and has far more nuance. 👀

That being said, yeah they were wrong to approach you that way about your identity. It might have been due to a misunderstanding; I actually just wrote a little about this in a recent lesson of mine, about the differentiation between the identities. Because there's "Black" as in Black people, and there's the identity of "Black" that Black Americans have.

Plus the diaspora wars is a whole thing, but I'm sorry I'm tired and I don't think I can explain it as well as others might be able to. You may be familiar with it already, anyway. I don't know why this Twitter stranger told you you weren't Black. I'm sorry for them doing so. They were wrong. But please don't treat us as a monolith based on your negative experience.

[peachjagiya]

I dont know if I will make sense, but even if I dont feel like im a "shipper" (just someone who really and genuinely finds the interactions and lore between two people suspicious), the way jkkrs treat their ship, the way they talk about it and misinterpret everything jkk do, just makes me doubt everything all together.

They are the breathing proof of things taken out of context, of ignoring debunking clues on purpose, of constructing narratives out of thin air. They are out there on twt, saying AYS episodes are finally proving jkk as a couple..? are we watching the same show? and if they are so beyond delulu, then, are we the same in the eyes of others? I am so disgusted by the forced sexual scenarios that im starting to hate shipping all together.

No that does make sense.

But shippers are just people. They have shipping in common but a thousand different approaches. A whole crowd at Harry Styles concert and only one person thinks it's ok to throw a water bottle. Doesn't mean all Harry Styles fans are crazy. It means one idiot threw a water bottle. You know?

Put it in the Taekook context: there's a difference between groups of TKKrs even. Casual or invested, aggressive or chilled out, argumentative or drama averse, fun or serious, thoughtful or unhinged, queer or heterosexual.

There's a difference between twitter TKKrs and tumblr TKKrs even. And then when you get on Tumblr, not every TKKr is part of a Tumblr hive mind! There are opinions and thoughts I hold that I'm sure other TKK blogs don't hold.

As a Tumblr TKKr, I note we don't tend to tear each other to shreds about differing opinions. We're maybe united in doing our best to not be dicks, I'm sure, and sometimes due to life experience, general age, attitude and outlook, we often align on things. But we're not a monolith. We don't all get in a big GC to decide our collective attitude. (AS FAR AS I KNOW?!)

There are definitely TKKrs acting the same as JMKKrs. And we're all side-eyeing them. But pointing at them as an indicator that all TKKrs must be like that is a slippery slope.

To let the shitty actions of one group under a category determine how you feel about a whole category feels like you'll just end up hating things more than you ever like things.

Find the group that you can chill with. But then you might not be invested enough to bother and that's ok too!

I hope you find a good balance that works and I'm sorry the scary side of shipping is making you feel this. 💜

[thatdeaffeel]

I have heard that some people in the Deaf community are opposed to research and efforts to restore or provide hearing to deaf people. Is this true? And if so, can you share some of the reasonings?

Sure.

I want to get a few things out of the way first.

First off let's acknowledge that being deaf and being a part of the deaf community are two different things. You do not need to be deaf to be part of the community, such as people who are raised in it like coda (child of deaf adult), or people who refuse classification as deaf because of their own severity or other personal reasons (hoh, single side deafness, partial deafness, apd, etc. the list is long and you are valid in however you choose to self-identity when experiencing hearing differences).

Second, it's always a good idea to remind everyone that we are not a monolith, there are as many deaf opinions as there are deaf people, and the same goes for the Big D. We don't agree on everything, there are deaf right-wing and deaf left-wing and everything in between. What you're going to read is the opinion of a singular deaf person. Please do not be fooled into believing that I am a source of authority nor that I speak for anyone other than myself. I am not an elected representative. I am often wrong, open and happy to be corrected in reblogs and replies. I'm going to be focussing on the UK, specifically because I am British and it's the experience and knowledge that I have, for people in other countries things will differ, and I respect and would welcome additions in the reblogs and replies! I could give a wider overview of global deaf society BUT it will be fractured and through the lens of my personal understanding as a mainstreamed British person and I really do not want to be yet another coloniser speaking for everyone, it's just not who I am.

Third, while the deaf community often restructure conversation around hearing differences as deaf gain it's a little difficult to talk using terminology outsiders and others don't understand so I will be saying hearing loss and other such things, but know that if you are in the deaf community I don't at all think you have lost anything, please don't take offence to this. As such, I'm not going to play word games, when I say deaf community I refer to big D and when I say deaf I refer to little d as the condition, that is going to continue going forward. It minimizes mistakes and prevents me from having to have lowercase characters at sentence starts, and I hope I can be forgiven. I understand the importance of the difference between the two and I know why it's done in context but re-adding that context into every conversation is at best tiring, and at worst gets in the way of the argument.

Okay so with that out of the way we have to do even more preparation (i am so sorry) by breaking down the question because the phrase, "people in the Deaf community are opposed to research and efforts to restore or provide hearing to deaf people" is NEBLOUS in the extreme.

The simple part of it, the essence of the question, about whether the deaf community is against the concept of a "cure" is very true, for the most part, the deaf community are against the concept of a cure because there is no cure for deafness. To ask for one is eugenics, to stop deafness you must stop deaf people from being born or created, neither of which is reasonably practicable without the usage of eugenics. Some people are born deaf and for them, a faculty of hearing can never be created by any means, these people cannot be left out of the conversation nor society as a whole. We WILL NOT be tolerating or condoning eugenics in this, if I see it, you will be forever blocked. Being deaf is a natural state for a lot of people, some born to it, others through accident or as the after-effect of illness. Whether or not deafness is a medical condition is a totally different question and whether there is anything to "restore" in the first place is an even bigger question that is not at all about the semantics of language and culture but of morality itself.

We have to start with a little history because in broad strokes deaf people have been the target of deeply ableist segregation for as long as we have existed. For the history of the first deaf school in my country please visit history-of-place for much more detail than I will add here. To keep it short and essential, through segregation came culture; deaf people found each other. Through shared language and experience a community blossomed and eventually, its own sets of values and beliefs.

A culture was formed as a response to ableism and segregation. Instead of being separated and abandoned, deaf people came together to support one another and find ways to exist fully as ourselves. We created a community so that when people were outcast or cast off from "normal" (hearing) society they had a place to call home, a place they can live and thrive.

Some of the values and beliefs that are inherent to deaf culture are that hearing loss is not a loss at all, it is the entryway to an entirely new way of life, one that is as rich, fulfilling, interesting and valuable, as any other. They believe, rightly so, that their culture is vital to the way of life for deaf people and that it should be protected, but also that the definition of being hearing as normal is a dangerous and false one. Many people are born without the required hardware to be able to hear and to create a society that is completely intolerant of deaf people is to create a society where someone is permanently forced to perform to fit in, they are at a permanent disadvantage when forced to be oral. Without the deaf community, that person will always feel left out, stuck, different and othered.

To a lot of people in the deaf community, the concept of "curing" deafness is deeply offensive. To them, it is not an affliction that should be pitied or altered, it is a simple fact of their body that they embrace, because it is a cultural signifier. They are deaf, they belong to the deaf community, and the deaf community is not something that should be "cured" out of society.

At the root of it all is the belief that people who are deaf should have the choice not to be abandoned by society, and that they should have a place to live, a place to exist. That they should not have to modify their body in order to belong. It is a belief centred on self-autonomy, which is where the moral quandary comes in.

You can see that this sits in pretty stark contrast to mainstream society, where people view deafness as a limiting disability, that to be deaf is to lose your capacity to function in society. This belief is an ableist one. It's similar to the autism community, mainstream society forces us, autistic people, to play pretend and to defer to their culture in order to fit in, they see as us less, as other. Inside autistic society and culture, we don't see ourselves as other, or as less than. We are just ourselves. We think differently to the mainstream and that is in no way a bad thing, it is JUST different.

To get you to see the deaf side of your question for a second, imagine we restructure it to being about an autistic person.

"I have heard that some people in the Autistic community are opposed to research and efforts to restore or provide neurotypical responses to autistic people."

You're starting from the assumption that there is anything to be restored.

Your position with this question is the assumption that hearing is a default when we know that there are a great many types of deafness, some of which that we are born into and that there is no meaningful medical way to create hearing for that person where it would otherwise have never existed in the first place. There is an oft-touted "cure" called the cochlear implant, but if you haven't done research on it yet, you should. The implant is very often MORE disabling than learning sign and joining deaf society, in part because it is an imperfect version of hearing but also because it represents a choice made FOR someone. Adult and young adult adopters of the implant more often than not reject it for the burdensome unintelligible noise generator that it is, due to far too few frequencies and other limitations of the device that we won't get into here. The best time to get an implant is as a child, long and far before the child will have the social awareness of the deaf community or the fulfilling life they can lead inside it, so the best time to get the best use out of the implant is when the child is at their least capable of deciding for themselves.

For a lot of the deaf community this position, that there is something to "cure" is deeply offensive.

As a trans person, I understand to the bottom of my being that people are not necessarily born who they will be when they grow up and that our starting configuration has nothing to do with who or what we are. The deaf community believes this too, by and large.

So it comes down to a moral question. Do you mainstream and force yourself away from a culture you can engage in, forever isolating yourself in a speaking society where you will have limited and othered status, or do you embrace and embed yourself into a subculture where you will be treated as an equal but where you are segregated, externally subjected to ableism and have to learn to interface with the speaking world.

It's a hard decision, right? It's WORSE when you're deciding on behalf of someone else, especially a child. See, most medical interventions in deafness are done on behalf of children, often babies, and they are the start of a pathway, toward the acceptance of the deaf community as a valid, genuine culture, or away and acceptance of a medical condition that can be treated so you can maintain your position in mainstream society no matter how tenuous that position may be.

Some inside the deaf community look at outcomes, some think any procedure at all is bad, some think what can be cured should be cured, and others still HATE the concept of a "cure" at all. I said before there are as many positions on this as there are deaf people and I stand by it.

Personally? I take the view that children who are deaf should be put in deaf schools, should learn the sign of their country, in my case bsl, should be taught to interface with hearing society and should get all the healthcare to ensure their continued existence without pain, suffering or undue harm. I believe that all deferrable interventions SHOULD BE DEFERRED, that they, the deaf person, as an individual, with all the rights and knowledge available of the communities they are choosing to belong to, should be the person to decide on how they are treated and what impact it will have. I have no stance on emergent care, we do what we can to stop people from dying.

I would not choose a cochlear implant for my child, I would educate them and let them choose for themselves. Constructing an ear out of cartilage? I let the child choose. Where possible, I let someone choose for themselves. Bodily autonomy is the most important thing to me.

I hope this helped. Your question is complex because it treats a cultural, ethical and moral question as a purely medical one, which in itself, makes it hard to answer.

[maschotch]

I was rewatching season 5 and I'm sorry but I find the episode immediately after hotch gets his shit wrecked by foyet so funny bc they're all treating him like he's this unhinged psycho like abdjfjds yeah I GET that that's what he was supposed to be like but the way they executed it, he really wasn't that out of order. It's just funny to me when he did like literally anything the other character on screen would look at him like 😧😦🫢

i actually find this soooo interesting for so many reasons.

foyet is the first "big bad" we really get for criminal minds. i've said a lot about whether this was a good directional shift for the show, but it was an interesting move to target the team leader first. hotch has, for the most part, gone largely unrecognized by the drama of the show so far. sure he's had his divorce blah blah, but he doesn't talk about it much. if he doesn't talk about it, the team's curiosity will fade sooner rather than later. that seems to be his strategy whenever something is going on with him. and it tends to work.

but now it's different. this was a serious event that happened. they can't help but recognize the severity of what just happened, and there's a palpable difference in the team dynamic because of it. so when everyone has their eyes on hotch, scrutinizing his every move, i don't think it's necessarily because he's acting different (even tho he is--even if his general risk assessment is the same, he's still initially snappier towards friends and strangers than they're used to seeing from him), but because they're aware of his presence in a way that they're not accustomed: he's vulnerable. he's not the unbreakable monolith of stability the team has believed him to be this whole time. i think a big reason why it hit the team so hard isn't just because of what happened, but the way their relationships have all developed up until now.

morgan and garcia are very clearly the most concerned out of everyone. beyond their closeness, i think that has a lot to do with both of them losing a parent/parents at a young age. seeing their leader--who they have so much respect and love for--severely wounded fucks them up!! hotch more or less holds a father figure role in both of their lives, and it's not something that appeared out of nowhere (and here i'll add reid since he doesn't have the trauma of a parent's death, but he does see hotch as a parental figure). it's the result of years and years of building trust, both in character and as a symbol of strength and security (which is now relevant to jj, whose whole character development is about trying to emulate that mythical strength). their faith is shaken in him--not because of his own actions, but because of their own idealized concept of him that was challenged by hotch's very very human fallibility. even emily, who doesn't rely on him emotionally the way the rest of the team does, is disturbed, but only because she sees him as a protector of the team--as a protector of the new chance of life she has with them. now that that's threatened, she needs to see his safety through with her own eyes (which is why she's the first to notice him missing, and the one who needs to drive him to and from work after this). he's the rock of the team, and no one expects the rock to crack.

i hate when rossi ends up the voice of reason, but in this case it really makes sense. he doesn't have any aggrandized notions of who hotch is: he watched hotch grow within the bau. rossi knows how to push hotch, when to push hotch, because he knows hotch won't break easy. even when hotch hates himself, like the original omnivore episode, rossi doesn't hesitate to shove a gun in hotch's hand and tell him to kill himself because he knows hotch would never. rossi's perfectly aware of the weaknesses hotch refuses to let the rest of the team see. when rossi tries to assuage derek's worries, it's not because he doesn't care, but because he knows not to stifle him. he knows hotch will get through this, he just needs time. i think everyone's reaction to hotch's return is perfectly emblematic of their relationship to him: morgan questions his authority suddenly because the inherent trust is lost. emily is above all worried about his safety because she knows that jeopardizes the team. reid is worried but he doesn't interfere because, as far as he's concerned, hotch can handle it. garcia is worried but doesn't interfere because she doesn't know how to help. jj's concern is more akin to pity because the bastion of strength she's respected for so long ended up being just as human as the rest of them. rossi's concern for hotch is on the back burner because he sees that the team is fracturing around the edges

i love 5x02 because we spend surprisingly little time on hotch dealing with his emotions; instead, we focus on the team dealing with hotch's vulnerability. they're fully aware of him for the first time, and they overreact to everything they would normally accept at face value. they rarely question his judgment before this because they trust him implicitly. he's proven himself, and it's heartbreaking that--through no fault of his own--he has to build that trust back. rossi says to derek "we have to show we have his back." derek interprets that as watching his back, to double check every decision and making sure he's alright based on those decisions. even jj knows that, given the heat he's getting from his superiors, that's the last thing hotch needs.

[sag-dab-sar]

Sorry i blocked u i was very upset at the hatred(miso) of synchretism i see on here. i’m jewish i don’t need their or anyone elses opinion on Open vs Closed. i don’t think nonjews need their opinions either. though you are keen to summon them. as a sumerian polytheist i disagree that Lilith has no place to be deified up from her demonic origins. I believe Inanna may forgive her for shitting up in that tree. I agree that pseudohistorical declarations are laughable but i dont think theyre harmful in religious context. We don’t go after the exodus lie, and shouldnt! Why any modern mythologies about lilith? Fraudulent behavior! Recreating christian persecution in a way.

I love lilith and to me lilith is as free as the chill of the swift starkissed winds! Despite our differences I pray may Peace be upon you :3

I have no problems with you blocking me, please block people like me if we upset you. My unease was being blocked after someone asked an open ended accusatory question—which I now realize you didn't do. I didn't realize that you used the word misosyncretism, I have dyslexia and misunderstood and thought you were saying I was a misogynist so I am sorry for that misunderstanding and will erase those tags.

🔹Not Needing Opinions🔹

If you don't need anyone's opinion on whether or not something is closed don't reblog a post saying a particular thing is open. You are inviting dissenting opinions— whether its from Jews or non-Jews— when you reblog someone else's post with your own opinion. If you don't want to discuss open vs closed then simply ignore posts that say Lilith is closed, block people who say she is closed, do whatever, but don't engage if it makes you upset.

People are going to have opinions and, again, my opinion is that Lilith is closed based on numerous Jewish voices I have listened to. I recognize not every person in a group is going to agree with each other because no group is a monolith, but I do my best to listen to the voices of a paticular culture and come to a conclusion.

🔹My Opinion🔹

Yes, I am "very keen to summon" my own opinions because its my blog. If I reblog and add to a post I'm giving an opinion... thats kind of the point of blogging.

My conclusion is that non-Jews worship Lilith as a part of cultural Christianity, an ahistorical mythology they refuse to admit is modern, ignore all open entities that still fit the bill, and I see a lot of antisemitism among them. As well as a lot of Islamaphobia & Chrsitophobia. It is a form of cultural appropriation for their own comfort because they cannot be bothered to learn actual history.

My observation is that the majority of Lilith worshippers don't actually care about Lil-demons, they use the demons as a tool to try and validate their worship as something rooted in a non-Jewish historical tradition, when it is not. Lil demons are a convenient excuse. In reality they cling to her because they see her as a feminist icon who stood up the the Big Bad Misogynistic Abrahamic God™.

There is no need for non-Jews to worship a Jewish figure ahistorically when there are plenty of actual Ancient Near Eastern Goddesses who are open.

Thats my opinion. Its what I'm standing by.

🔹Pseudo-history🔹

Now again, I'm not going to try and argue from the Jewish side it is not my place. But I can and will argue from a Sumerian Polytheism and accuracy in history side.

Lilith is not a member of the Lil demons, she is not Ardat-Lilî even if there are some similarities. I show information about Lil-demons here and they are not Lilith. Syncretism is not the problem that was common in the Ancient Near East— Inana, Nanaya, Ištar, Šaušga— as one example. There may be some connection between Lilith and Ardat Lilî: mainly influencing the characterization of the Hebrew Lilith in the Book of Isaiah, but there is no evidence they are one in the same. There is no evidence they were ever considered one in the same by any ancient people or traditions. The issue isn't syncretism its pseudo-history.

They were not syncretic in history. Lil demons come from Mesopotamian tradition which spans the 4th millennium BCE to the 1st millennium BCE; while the Sumerian language continued as a liturgical language for quite some time the Sumerian Civilization ended circa 2000-1700 BCE. Aside from the extremely minor mention in Isiah 34:14, the story most Lilith worshippers base her on comes from a midrash written at some point during the 1st millennium CE. This is a significant time difference and people just seem to wipe away time differences as if they don't matter, or they simply can't wrap their head around them.

Pseudo-history absolutely can be harmful and I absolutely abhor pseudo history and always will. I literally have an entire tag, #letsdebunk , for it and its been apart of my blogging since I started in 2017.

"We don't go after the Exodus lie"

Plenty do, plenty of Jews debate the historicity of stories in Jewish literature including the Tanakh, as do many Christians when reading the 'Old Testament'. (Also I would call it a myth not a lie). But whether or not Exodus actually happened in history is very different than making things up and claiming that it was a real religion and real mythology people once believed. Saying "Exodus is a story in the Tanakh and Old Testament and it says [insert story]," is different than saying "Lilith was originally a Sumerian Goddess of love and war," when she wasn't.

You are comparing apple to oranges. The fake history around Lilith is more akin to saying something like "Exodus is a story about how an ancient Egyptian God punished Egyptians for there bad deeds and Jewish slaves escaped while their was chaos and then they found a tribe worshiping a God named YHWH and adopted the religion of that tribe" <- that is not the story of Exodus its abunch of made up bullshit. Made up bullshit is what I consider most modern neo-pagan/left hand path/witch claims about Lilith.

Pseudo-history is used to culturally appropriate many things not just Lilith. It has many problems:

It's used to make bigoted claims against Jews, such as "the Jews killed Jesus" which is historically factually wrong and one of the most damaging sources of antisemitism in history.

Bigotry against Christians, by claiming their only role in history is oppression and the silencing of any Christian voices including POC the world over. Like the dumb St Patrick pagan persecution story which is listed as a false meme by Snopes but shows up as a real belief among neo-pagans. This is also extremely dangerous towards African Diaspora Religions that are syncretized with Christianity, as just one example of how Christophobia is dangerous.

Bigotry against Muslims, by claiming they have solely been a patriarchal oppressor that made no advancements to humanity and only offer "violent jihadism." Which is false and ignores actual Islamic history because real history is very inconvenient for the narrative

Its used to validate bullshit like the Burning Times, blood based witchcraft lineage, and a false sense of persecution among modern neo-pagans. A completely toxic belief.

Its used by feminists who claim a unsubstantiated matriarchal pre-historic religion destroyed by evil patriarchy. They use it to deny anyone who isn't a cis-woman from Goddess worship, witchcraft, and other neo-pagan traditions and claim transwomen and transfemmes are just another iteration of the evil patriarchy trying to taint there ancient Goddess faith. A faith that never existed. Pseudo-history as a tool of transphobia.

Its used by Wiccans and neo-pagans to ignore real Irish history. And add things like Ostara a made up holiday based on the Goddess "Ēsotre" of dubious historicity according to medieval historian Bede & Mabon's fabrication by Aiden Kelly based on the name of a Welsh folk hero.

Its used to fabricate stories about deities that may or may not be real, like Ēsotre mentioned above, and then connect her to the holiday of Easter, and then make a huge leap and connect that to real historical deities like Ištar. Which is also used as a false sense of persecution among neo-pagans.

It can be a weapon for racial/ethnic supremacists. For example, the idea that Hellenic Polytheism was a national religion unique to the Hellenes is pseudo-history used by the boarding on ethnic supremacist YSEE organization.

Not to mention all the horrific pseudo-history of the extremely antisemitic Satanism group that I won't name. That constantly claims Lucifer is a Sumerian God or whatever and spams the inboxes of neo-pagans/witches/polytheists.

Its used by new agers to validate their appropriation of traditions from Dharmic religions for their own inaccurate purposes.

Its used to support, often very racist, "ancient alien" claims.

I could keep going and going and going with fake history touted among neo-pagans, witches, polytheists, left hand path folk, occultists, and new agers that is dangerous but hopefully I've gotten my point across.

"Recreating Christian persecution in a way"

If its not abundantly clear from my above examples pseudo-history is used to fabricate a lot of Christian persecution claims that have serious negative impacts. I don't even know what you mean by this so honestly I'm not going to try arguing against it.

Bottom line: pseudo-history absolutely is harmful in a religious context.

🔹Sumerian Polytheism🔹

As for "deifying" her up in Sumerian Polytheism. No I am 100% against that. Don't deify up demons and claim its still Sumerian polytheism because it isn't— its modern demonolatry.

First, Lilith isn't Sumerian.

Second, demons have their place in Sumerian cosmology and I'm not going to deify them. If a demon was honored, such as Pazuzu, then I many honor them. But I will not view Sumerian/Mesopotamian demons as Diĝir.

Third, I am a revivalist with a heavy reconstructionist approach, I value the real history of Ancient Near Eastern religions, cosmologies, and mythologies with a particular focus on Sumerian times (Ur III and prior) for my own faith.

This means I will always stand against pseudo-history, debunk claims, and defend actual ANE & Sumerian history. Ancient cultures deserve to be respected and not lied about. Pseudo-history is a lie.

🔹Last Thoughts🔹

Please do not pray to Lilith for me the mention in the ask made me feel uncomfortable.

Just like the "recreating Christian persecution" sentence in your ask I don't understand the "fraudulent behavior" statement so I can't really address it.

Tone clarification: The tone of this post is meant to be informative and explanatory not hostile and argumentative.

---

TL;DR Lil demons are not Lilith. Lilith is Jewish and I stand by my opinion that she is apart of a closed tradition. Pseudo-history is dangerous and I will always reject it.

EDIT: After reading their tags on this (x) and their rhetoric in the first reply to this post I think its better for me to not interact with this person. So I've decided to block. They've stated their stance and its literally just strawman arguments, many false equivalences, and whataboutisms; I have no time or patience for that. But this post is still useful as a rebuke against pseudo- history in our communities so I'll leave it up, I worked hard on it. I also deleted the original response post since it's redundant now. [Edit 2] The person has been extremely ableist towards me more than once, threatened me, tried to bypass my blocks, wished violent death on me more than once. I did report them and tumblr took one of their posts down... which is not enough but I won't waste my time trying to get tumblr moderators to do their job.

-not audio proof read-

[sophieinwonderland]

the trend of former pro endos switching to calling themselves endo neutral pisses me off. like you obviously know we exist otherwise you wouldnt have been pro endo in the first place. but youre just calling yourself endo neutral now because youre scared to be associated with the "bad" pro endos. but why the hell arent you standing your ground, standing with your label, your community, and showing people not all pro endos are "bad"? instead you back out of the crossfire out of cowardice. if youre that scared of conflict, do not get into discourse! conflict is like 90% of discourse?! what are you gonna do when an endo neutral scandal happens and THAT label is "tainted"? will you finally leave syscourse? I would ask if you'd become anti endo, but that side already has a million scandals and problems with it im sure you wouldn't be able to touch with a 10 foot pole

ugh anyways. sorry this is angry and im using your askbox sort of as a confession box since you were talking about it. hope you dont mind more askbox bloat </3

It's no problem. I feel the same.

I'm not really sure how much of a trend it actually is. Even if there are a small handful of examples.

In my opinion though, if all it takes for you to decide to be "neutral" on a marginalized community is a few members doing things you don't like then you never really supported them to begin with.

I'm sorry, you want a community to basically be a monolith that all thinks the exact same way rather than a complex diverse group of people, and if they can't do that then they aren't worthy of your support anymore?

There is no community on Earth that is going to meet your standards. And we shouldn't be expected to.

Here is my theory on at least some of these former pro-endos.

I think that there are at least a few white knights out there who see endogenic systems more as just being a class of "victims" than actual human beings. And if we stray from the path of the perfect victim then it's decided that we no longer deserve help or support.

And it feels like for this group that they are super focused on being on the right side and, more importantly, being seen as being on the right side. That their actual motivations for leaving is just not wanting the association with anyone who could be less than perfect. To put it more bluntly, they are only allies insofar as it benefits their own image.

If your support of endogenic systems is conditional, and something that you plan on revoking the moment that you realize that they are actual people, I would rather not have it at all.

[velvetvexations]

I am genuinely not trying to start anything at all, just offer my perspective as another disabled and mentally ill/neurodivergent person, but to me and a lot of other disabled people the focus on people removing words like "stupid" and "insane" feels a bit...unnecessary, and also seems to have come more from outside our community than from within. I would much rather everyone, abled and disabled, spend their time actually working on good allyship, and I think insisting we must not say words that are so divorced from their original meaning no one actually pictures A Disabled Person when they use them just muddies the water. I'm queer and I feel the same about language in that context, some of the best allies I know don't get being trans or gay or know all the correct words, but they would fight to the death to protect me and people like me regardless, and a lot of people I have interacted with who are dead set on using Perfect Language and will attack anyone who doesn't are tar pits of cruel, regressive nonsense hiding behind the shiny veneer of progressive slogans and terminology.

I am not saying the other disabled people who have spoken up about this are wrong or weren't actually hurt by that language, we are not a monolith, what reads as ableist to one disabled person might be perfectly fine to another, we are not always going to agree. (I personally dislike 'delulu' and 'neurospicy' so I'm not even completely fine with all language in all contexts.) And ngl if you genuinely want to move away from that language for whatever reason, I commend it for sure, but I just wanted to offer an alternate perspective as a person who is physically disabled, neurodivergent, and has several learning disabilities, so that you can come to a more informed decision.

I hope this can help that discussion flourish better, regardless of what you decide to do. I genuinely am just trying to offer another perspective as a disabled person, that's it, no one has to agree with me. I just don't think the conversation is complete without voices from all "sides" of this topic.

I wanna make it clear just in case it isn't that I don't believe the anon is saying they suspect previous anons specifically of having been non-disabled, but just that it's something they often see coming from non-disabled people, which is a take I can relate to with the discourse I get into.

I think the anon that brought up the specific way I say "insane" is still essentially relating it to it's original meaning had a fair point. The extent to which that makes it bad per se might nonetheless be arguable, but I want to take people's feelings seriously and not continue doing things that make them uncomfortable in the face of other alternatives. Like, there will surely be times where I'm like, yeah, I'm sorry, I appreciate you so much but we're just on different pages here, but I think this is something with room to work on, maybe.

[ladymorghul]

Idk if you are on Reddit, but I used to be often and I actually liked the green sub (well, mostly) because it was great to have an opportunity to freely express pro green opinions without being downvoted into oblivion or insulted. When the show was more actual, the main sub was mostly a hellish experience for pro green fans, so it was nice to have our own safe space. However, my experience has started to change recently. There are too many divisions among the green fandom which isn't great, but that wouldn't be such a big problem if some fans were more tolerant toward other greens who don't completely agree with them in every single detail.

I've noticed (and this is not only on Reddit, but also on Tumblr, Twitter etc. ) that there is a certain narrative that apparently every green has to accept and follow or else will be accused of being a secret black, false green, show pleb (lol)...God forbid if you are not a book purist (because F&B is such a masterpiece lmao), or if you are pro Helaemond or anti Al*smond. Our hot milf witch rules (god, I hate the big titty girlfriend and milf hunter jokes), Helaemonds are primarily self inserts because Helaena is a blank canvas and Helaemonds don't actually like her as she is (according to one of the most recent threads) ... Also, you mustn't criticize Aegon at all. There are literally people who are trying to convince others that he was so great in the book and he would never force himself on a servant. Now, I agree that groping maids is not the same as being a clueless rapist like in the show and the showrunners did unfairly take things too far with him. I understand the frustration, but still, they had some basis for the rape decision (even if I dislike the way they executed it) in the same book these purists worship. They also claim he was as good warrior as the Conqueror himself and if you try to say that he was quite brave but that he was actually severely injured at the beginning of the war and had only one more fight at the end you will certainly be booed. Oh, and Daeron is one of the best Targaryens ever and Alicent's favourite (again, we obviously didn't read the same book) and the evil Sapochnik wanted to erase him only to prop up Aemond to whom he gave Daeron's best traits (again, complete bullshit). Furthermore, book!Alicent is an amazing and apparently more likeable?? character while in the show they totally ruined her. I agree only partially, I preferred her show version because in the book I didn't like her at all while in the show she is one of my favourites, however, her characterization in episodes 8 and 9 seriously annoyed me because of inconsistencies and Rhae fangirling. Still, they heavily exaggerate while criticising her show version. These are only some of the sacred rules apparently every green has to follow or else will be accused of not being the true green. Like, who gets to decide this? Idk, it really disappoints me because I thought that the sub doesn't need to be an eco chamber nor the green fans have to be monolithic hiveminds like black stans they like to criticize, even if they are on the same team. It's been a while since I commented or participated at all there because of these things and will probably do the same on other SM. I think I really need a break of this fandom.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, yours is one of the rare blogs I still like and follow and it seemed like a good place to vent😅. I know you've had some interesting experiences on SM so I believe you know at least partially what I'm talking about.

i get it.

and when i say i get it, i mean the part about there being made up rules of what a 'green' is and how if you're not following them, you will be accused of some bs stuff.

i guess it's partly why i call my self a greens enjoyer and not a green. i've seen plenty of opinions from 'greens' that i didn't like, from straight up unnecessary misogynistic comments (some of them by men who think that this fandom just gives them the pass to say anything) to really weird hypocritical opinions over ships. it's been... exhausting.

for anyone who's reading this going "but what about team black?": everyone knows my takes on tb stans. we're talking about greens right now because this is where we mostly hang out and it sucks that there's many people who fully believe they dictate who gets to enjoy the greens and how.

with me it started with anti targaryen sentiment. when i first started the show, i thought the story was gonna be rhaenyra fighting against her uncle for the throne. i didnt know anything about the dance of the dragons. of course, i started reading on the story very soon and watching the show and seeing the dynamic between rhaenyra and alicent, i easily attached myself to alicent because it seemed like genuinely no one was in her corner, even the people who were supposed to be.

but i still watched the show because of the idea that i'm watching targaryens fight each other and be unhinged and have dragons.

so you can imagine my surprise when i realized that maybe half the people who call themselves greens are staunchly anti targaryen. they don't like targaryens and they don't like dragons. it was a bit of a head scratcher for me. i knew why that was the case, because many of them were coming from game of thrones with an anti dany mindset and saw rhaenyra's side as the more targaryen side (even though in the beginning they were arguing with tb stans over it) and alicent's side is cooler because she and otto are hightowers and not targaryens.

that wasn't the case for me? i mean sure was i critical of dany many times? yes. but i still loved watching daenerys as a character. and i loved the idea of watching a new show that focuses on house targaryen and their dragons.

and then the whole targtower kids debate.... when the argument needed it, greenies were like "yes they're also targaryens" but then they'd hate on their targaryen side and then suddenly they legit started saying yes they're only hightowers because they're better than the other targaryens. to me it's such clownery.... i wanted to knock their heads together w the tb stans who were saying the targtowers kids are not targaryens.

then there's the greens, or more specifically, the aemond stans who babify aemond to such a degree that they speak about how alicent parentified him. those are usually super welcome in green spaces, even though their interest lies almost solely in aemond and whether or not he gets to meet al*s and how aemond is more special than the rest and he'll have his misunderstood storyline together w the only person who gets him al*s. weird that these people are far more welcome in green spaces than helaemonds. but i won't comment further.

and then the helaemond stuff happened. people dk this but i clocked helaemond immediately. i did not come after the show ended and were like omg wow this ship that i didn't notice. no. i immediately picked up on it. i didn't want to tweet about it because i knew it would start a fuss but others were shyly posting and i saw green moots call them all the possible names because of it. and then something weird happened... the same green moots who had been horrible to other people over helaemond started talking about helaeg*n. helaeg*n was interesting to me so i thought hey maybe they losened up a bit? no. no way, they were rabidly against any form of helaemond. i ended up losing 80% of my green moots. i was basically just in my own sphere doing my own thing because these people couldn't get over a difference of ship preference. they were shipping helaeg*n and aeg*nd and alysm*nd, all of them problematic in their own ways, but helaemond was somehow the devil. and i know people who have had the same experience. they were mostly leaning green, but when they started to ship helaemond, other greens jumped them.

about character opinions... i don't get it. i mean, i get it and i don't. i get team green's utter frustration with the writers because i feel that frustration myself and certain sections of the fandom do a lot to mock and poke at that frustration which causes even more frustration. that being said i believe it's impossible for there to be identical opinions on one side or the other, and this includes both tb and tg. imo if you're tg you should be mainly interested in the green characters and mainly invested in their story. i'm not saying you can't like other characters outside of them, but just that they're your main focus.

there's plenty of opinions, popular an unpopular, in green spaces that i disagree with. section of fandoms aren't, or at least they usually aren't, hiveminds. i mean i could be disagreeing even with you but that doesn't mean you're not also a fellow green enjoyer.

i don't really spend my time on that subreddit, but i've heard some stuff about it. i think sections of fandoms should be more tolerant of each other, especially on reddit that has a forum format.

and one last thing: i hate the secretly team black allegations. i've seen plenty of those, some addressed to me as well. it's funny because i've said it before but my blog changed some people's minds on alicent and did a lot to foster symopathetic alicent discussion when the fandom was going completely nuts. so it feels a bit moronic to watch someone raging bc of a ships accuse me of being secretly team black.

my only advice is.... take it all with a grain of salt. fandoms with sides like this one tend to be very cannibalistic and i have a feeling that the greens subreddit isn't the best place to post your opinions unless you're ready for aggressive replies. if you feel like you have opinions that you want to share in a safer space where everything isn't a battle, you could try making a house of the dragon sideblog. that wat, you can post your thoughts and even if you get nasty anons, you have the power to publish them or not, or to even turn off anons completely.

i would avoid twitter as well. it's chaotic and aggressive and when the fandom gets going, it can fry your brain.

[rollercoasterwords]

hey! I'm sorry if you've answered this/spoken about this before, and if so please just point me in the direction of your previous answer. but I recently had a trans friend who asked me to stop interacting with the wolfstar/marauders fandom. liking/reblogging posts and reading fanfics within the marauders fandom are the only way I interact with jkr/hp. I would not do anything to directly give her money, but my friend's argument is that every like and interaction with the fandom makes it more influential, which translates to more money. as well as not boycotting hp entirely is a slap in the face to trans people. so, I've stopped reblogging content because I don't want to negatively impact my friend or any other trans people, but I don't personally think I'm doing any harm through engaging with fanart/fanfic.

obviously you're engaged in the fandom, so I'm kinda looking to have my opinion validated... but I think you're very smart and that we share similar values, so I respect your thoughts and any advice you have for this situation. thank you <3

honestly anon if ur looking for like a nicely-wrapped post of "here's why it's okay to interact with harry potter fanfiction" then u have probably come to the wrong place, as this is a topic that i still have conflicted feelings about myself! but. if u want a little essay of my thoughts on the matter then here u go xx

so, first of all - yes, obviously i still interact with hp fandom. however, i'm not going to pretend that i don't understand your friend's point. i get the logic behind the argument that giving any attention to any sort of harry potter media in this day and age helps keep harry potter relevant, which contributes to jkr's influence, which is an influence she actively uses to hurt trans people. i understand why ur trans friend would feel hurt or ask u to stop interacting w hp media altogether.

however, trans people are not a monolith, and there are many trans people who continue to interact with hp in a variety of ways. for me, the space i've carved out in fandom over the past year or so has been a little online haven since i have to remain closeted irl for the most part. hp fanfic has been an important outlet for me to explore + express things abt my own trans identity. but i am also very aware that within the broader trans community, i am not one of those who is most vulnerable to jkr's rhetoric + politics. at the end of the day, there are trans people who don't care if you spend money on hp, there are trans people who don't care if u interact with fandom as long as u aren't spending money, there are trans people who think u shouldn't touch hp with a five-foot pole, and all manner of perspectives in between.

for me personally, there are caveats to my interaction with hp + the way i navigate the ethical minefield of jkr. i don't think there is any reason to ever financially contribute to hp, whether that's buying merch or games or going to hp themeparks or whatever, and i discourage people from interacting w hp within the context of any sort of profit economy. i try not to interact with hp in a way that will grow the popularity of the franchise in any way - i post fanfiction on ao3, where the people reading it are gonna be people who are already part of this space that are seeking it out, and i have this tumblr blog which is, essentially, the same deal. i'm not trying to advertise my fic or get people to suddenly develop a new interest in harry potter, if that makes sense. this is part of why tiktok remains a bit of an ethical quagmire for me, because i feel that the way people interact w fic on there often blurs the lines between being inside or outside of a profit economy.

i also think it's important, when interacting with hp in any way, to acknowledge jkr's influence and the inherent shittiness of the source material. i don't think it's enough to go "dobby wrote the books haha!" and act like we can just ignore jkr, bc her shitty politics are built into the book. i think it's important to engage critically and to consider how you're building off the source material and whether ur unintentionally perpetuating the biases in the text by copying and pasting them without further examination. i talk abt this more in this post

and, of course, i think it's important to vocally stand against jkr + her politics, and to support trans people within + outside of fandom spaces in whatever ways you can. i think it's important to stay educated + engage with theory + politics in a way that goes beyond retweeting posts or watching tiktok clips. jkr isn't just transphobic; her sexism, racism, classism, fatphobia, homophobia, ableism, antisemitism, and overall horrible neoliberal politics are very much built into the text of hp, and if u are not actively educating urself on these issues it's gonna be easier to just internalize them without realizing it.

for me, these are all considerations that affect the way i interact with hp + the extent to which i interact with hp. however, there are people out there who would probably tell me to get off my high horse + stop acting like there are more or less ~morally pure~ ways to interact with hp, bc at the end of the day there's no ethical consumption under capitalism and people writing hp fanfiction isn't really harmful in the grand scheme of things. there are other people who would tell me that it doesn't matter what mitigating factors i'm using to justify my hobby; any contribution that keeps people talking about hp keeps jkr relevant, and i should be able to find other shit to write about. and like....i understand the perspectives of both those people, y'know?

i honestly just think this is a decision where every individual needs to weigh the scales themselves and decide what they're okay with. it's not my job to police or justify the ways people do or don't interact w hp media; if someone's interacting with it in a way i don't like, then i block that person or just don't interact with them. if someone sees me interacting w hp fanfic + thinks that makes me a shitty person, then they can think that and we can go on living our separate lives. some trans people continue to find comfort + community in hp fandom spaces, other trans people feel deeply hurt by the continued existence of these spaces. there is no single answer to What Supports Everybody. your relationship with your friend is something specific to your situation that you'll need to take into account when weighing your own feelings about interacting with hp; the only advice i can really offer is that i think it's better to critically consider the various perspectives people have on this issue without reducing it to a black and white case of two sides where one must be right and one must be wrong.

[mchiti]

oh you're so right about the fairytale underdog narrative. they view these players as one-dimensional and they have no capacity to have a nuanced view of them like normal people or give them any benefit of the doubt the way they do with other footballers. it makes me sick. during the aboukhlal situation, a fairly popular football blog here posted '*extremely cautiously* at least we still have ghazali right?' and i was so confused bc i thought she was talking about the song lol. turns out she was talking about sabiri but of course couldn't remember his name lol and she said some people call him ghazali...ok sure. i sent a polite message that what she said was weird even if it was about sabiri because she was basically saying 'oh this one moroccan player has done something let's hope this other one i like is not the same'....as if they're a monolith.....anyway she ignored my message and then turned off anon when i sent a follow up lol. and made a post like 'i can always tell when someone actually cares about issues and when they just want to feel better about themselves'. like bro i have more in common with these muslim mena footballers than you (a white girl) do, why would i need to make myself feel better. i care about this because when you're racist against them it affects me. sorry for ranting but it's been weeks and this still bothers me so much and just makes me feel so disheartened. you don't have to post this if you don't want to, i know that situation caused you a lot of distress too. i think you understand me though

"some people call him ghazali" mmmmmmmh sis!!!!

in all seriousness anon ❤️

I'm thankful I haven't seen that post because I would have gone absolutely crazy wallah. I get angry at many things on here and I try to not dwell so much on it. I get angry at double standards, I get angry at (white) people clearly not understanding there is another side of the world that is not western, I get angry at people expecting people like me or you to distance ourselves from everything, as if white players didn't do lots of questionable shit all the time too. If mudryk hypes israel up more than once that's not a big deal, but hakim gets cancelled for a poor choice which was, unlike the other one, certainly not a political statement anyway. That really tells you pretty much what you need to know about what western, europeans and white people in general perceive as issues, and what they can blatantly close their eyes at. I see casual shit on here all the time and it's sooo normalised. And the world is so much bigger, with so much injustice, with so much struggles and genocides the football world often even finance.

They truly thing of the "Arab world" as one single monolith as someone even told me on here the other day so what do you expect (it's all Arab to them). They are going to see an entire group of players as one. And if your from any mena country you're thrown in that too. I can distance myself from them as I certainly do not go post about hak*mi. In other cases, like aboukhlal, I certainly don't agree with them but I try to be empathic of what might have lead to that (which is not even Islam in reality, it's diaspora struggles). With Ziyech this time around I'm just so annoyed at the general response because truly, you can say he made a poor choice by going to russia but he hasn't made any political statement and you see all those dutch white people talking about him as they would talk about any moroccan there...cause he's a thug "hanging out with criminals" to them. Cause he's maghrebi, muslim, son of immigrants. You know this is the same shit a lot of people have internalised, even when they think they don't, even on here. but yeah. They are the one who want to feel better about themselves, cause they joined the morocco bandwagon so they we could all say thanks to them for being "progressive" - yeah sure. Take care and apologies for the rant ♡♡