#like you are allowed to talk about your opinions

[terrortwinz]

Consistency is so vitally important. Kids subconsciously crave the stability. That means follow through with what you said you’d do. That means stick to a schedule like it’s set in stone.

When they are tantruming, they are not at a place where they can listen so just be a safe person. Keep them safe. Help them calm if they allow it. Wait them out. When they finally calm, you can problem-solve. (“What happened?” - also don’t assume you know what happened because you witnessed it. Make them tell you what happened to set them off.)

Explain yourself to them. They can understand your reasoning. Don’t assume your directions or rules are clear and understandable to them. (“When you clean up your toys it makes it safe to walk in. It gives you room to play with other toys. We clean up so we can go to lunch.” Etc.)

Let them explain things to you that you already know about. Pretend you don’t know anything about their discovery. Let them talk. Remember that the world is still a place of wonder for them and don’t ruin it by being an adult piece of shit with only one perspective. Ask open-ended questions! It prompts their brains to critically think.

Don’t be afraid to pick the fight with kids but follow through and see it to the end. When you show up and set standards for them, they subconsciously know you’re a person whom they can trust because you care enough to not abandon them at their “worst”.

Don’t do everything for them - make them try first. Guide them.

Play with them. I cannot stress this enough. Kids learn through play. Play is how you spend quality time with them.

Let them get involved in what you’re doing - have them help with laundry (they can sort!), let them help with meals (science! Measuring!), let them help with cleaning. So much good learning happening while also getting in quality time.

Read books to them. Read the words. Examine the pictures. Identify the characters emotions. Explore problem-solving solutions. Try to remember what happens next. Act the book out. Go on a letter hunt. There’s no wrong way to read a book to kids except not doing it.

Remember, with kids, it’s not about you. It’s about them. Be present. Engage. Get to know them as people with interests and opinions that are all valid.

Their brains are little sponges - they pick up everything, so to reiterate the above, watch what you say.

How to talk to children

This is based on decades of experience as an uncle and as an older brother.

Never forget that children are just as much people as adults are.

Kids 10 years or younger (and sometimes older than that) don’t get sarcasm or irony, so don’t use them.

If a child has difficulty pronouncing a word, don’t copy their misprounciation when speaking to them. They can hear the word just fine. It could sound to them like you’re making fun of them.

(Yes, this means no babytalk)

Don’t be dismissive.

Listen to what they’re saying.

To get on the same eye-level, don’t bend over or squat: it seems condescending. Kneeling or sitting are better.

It should go without saying that you should respect children’s body autonomy. Don’t force affection on them.

Respect children’s emotional autonomy as well. Let them be angry. Let them be sad. Don’t force them to be happy.

Let children like things. Don’t run down the things they like just because you find them cringy.

Don’t think that you know better.

To children, adults are giants. Be a big friendly giant.

Don’t stifle children’s curiosity.

Don’t stifle children’s enthusiasm.

To quote Sondheim, “Be careful the words you say, children will listen.”

Don’t look down on children.

[lovemomhatepolice]

oscar piastri nswf alphabet (part 2) (minors DNI!)

navigation taglist requests

N = No (something they wouldn’t do, turn offs) Oscar is clear about his boundaries, both for himself and his partner. He absolutely refuses to engage in anything that seems coercive or disrespectful. Anything that involves humiliation, pain without prior discussion or crossing emotional boundaries is off the table. He rejects dishonesty in expressing desires and needs - open communication is crucial to him. Mutual comfort and consent always come first.

O = Oral (preference in giving or receiving, skill, etc.) Oscar is the type who doesn't choose whether he prefers to get or give. He knows that it flows from both sides and he really likes to stick to it. He's quite experienced, so he tries to catch what you like and loves to see your reaction. He's also a big fan of how you give something of yourself and go on your knees in front of him. He loves it when he can weave his fingers into your hair.

P = Pace (are they fast and rough? slow and sensual? etc.) Rather, he is the type who focuses on the sensuality of the whole act. Oscar likes privacy, peace and quiet. He loves how you have sex in a quiet place, away from people and the speed of the whole world. He likes to take his time, likes to focus on what he is doing and give you all the pleasure possible. But he also happens to be more freaky - for example, when you are both after alcohol, then he fires up harder. You're both in a torrent of electrifying glances at each other, an even heavier air than usual. Then his reins let go and he's not so laid back anymore

Q = Quickie (their opinions on quickies, how often, etc.) Oscar doesn't mind quick numbers, especially when time is tight or the moment is too irresistible to ignore. He loves the thrill and spontaneity of stealing a few hot minutes together, especially if it happens in an unexpected place. However, he doesn't want them to replace more intimate and drawn-out moments, because he values the deeper connection they bring.

R = Risk (are they game to experiment? do they take risks? etc.) He does not like risks. Oscar is such a balanced and secretive man that he wouldn't allow himself or you to take risks, such as being set upon by other people. He values his privacy too much to allow that to happen. And when it comes to risks, like lack of security, he's also rather against it. You're both young, so he wouldn't want a slip-up to happen to you

S = Stamina (how many rounds can they go for? how long do they last?) Oscar surprises with his stamina - he may seem laid back and relaxed, but when it comes to intimacy, he has impressive stamina. He can easily go two or three rounds in one session if the mood is right, with enough energy to make it exciting each time.

T = Toys (do they own toys? do they use them? on a partner or themselves?) It's not for him. Oscar is not fascinated by such toys. He's not against it - after all, everything is for people, but he doesn't need it. He thinks the same when it comes to your sex - he doesn't use any “boosters”. However, if you own something, he is not against you showing him…

U = Unfair (how much they like to tease) Oh, Oscar is a tease one. He loves to tease you, driving you crazy. All day long he can hook you up - whisper something naughty, touch you not-so-subtly on the butt or look at you with that one pattern he reserved especially for you. But rest assured, as unbearable as he is with this, he immediately returns the favor and does it brilliantly

V = Volume (how loud they are, what sounds they make, etc.) Maybe in everyday life Oscar is not very talkative and seems secretive, but I beg you. When things move to your bedroom, bathroom, living room, whatever - Oscar is unrecognizable. He turns into a whining mess, constantly whispers sweet nothings (or the less sweet ones) in your ear, and you could swear that's the moment when he's at his loudest

W = Wild card (a random headcanon for the character) I have already mentioned that Oscar is a master of aftercare. But how he loves it when you take the initiative and take care of him! Mostly he prefers to do it, but when you wash him or prepare his favorite food, or god forbid, stroke his hair and back, well he is in paradise

X = X-ray (let’s see what’s going on under those clothes) Hm, Oscar is rather normal sized. He's not very big, but he's definitely not small. For you, it's perfect and in any position you feel it filling you up quite as it should

Y = Yearning (how high is their sex drive?) Mm, his sex drive is stable. He's not too demanding and doesn't expect sex from you all the time, but he doesn't have little of it either. It all depends on the time he is currently in. If he happens to have more free time and you're next to him, he doesn't take his hands off you. Although he does it respectfully and does not impose himself, you know very well what he wants by those shining eyes of his

Z = Zzz (how quickly they fall asleep afterwards) He only falls asleep when he knows the aftercare has been properly done. He tries to fall asleep only when you are already sleeping safely next to him, but he happens to fall asleep before you do. This is especially true when you are the one cuddling him close, rather than him cuddling you. Then he doesn't need much - but he tries

A/N: part one if anyone missed it!!

I encourage you to give requests in the Christmas marathon! click here :) and in my celebration to the first thousand!

please do not copy and translate my works! in case of any issues related to this - I invite you to discuss privately :)

[dreamscapeee222]

Vi Headcannons

Vi x reader

Masterlist

Vi loves curling up with you after a long day, making sure you're comfortable and always having your back. After a tough day, she’ll hand you a hot drink and give you a soft smile, her way of making sure you're taken care of.

She shows her love through actions—like making sure you have everything you need or surprising you with small gestures like fixing something for you or leaving a note in your pocket. Sometimes, she'll leave a little treat on your pillow, letting you know she’s thinking of you.

Vi is fiercely protective of you, keeping you close in dangerous situations and always ensuring you're safe. When she feels especially protective, she’ll pull you close and softly tell you, “Stay close,” her voice calm and reassuring.

She loves teasing you, challenging you to races, cracking jokes, and making sure you both enjoy lighthearted moments. If she wins, she’ll laugh and say, “What’s the matter, getting slow on me?” Then, she’ll pull you into a hug, showing it's all in good fun.

Vi loves quiet nights together, wrapped up in each other's arms. After you steal her hoodie, she’ll give you a teasing smile before pulling you into a cuddle, her arms holding you close as you both relax.

Vi might not always say "I love you," but her eyes speak volumes, and she comes to you for support when she’s unsure, valuing your opinion above all. In moments of vulnerability, she’ll rest her head on your shoulder, murmuring her gratitude.

She’s your biggest cheerleader, encouraging you to pursue your dreams and offering a pep talk when needed. “You’ve got this,” she’ll say with a proud smile, watching you take on new challenges with confidence.

Her gestures of affection—like a hand on your back, a squeeze of your hand, or a kiss on the forehead—speak volumes about how much she cares. Even without many words, her presence is always comforting.

It can be hard but Vi will be willing to admit when she’s wrong and apologizes because your trust matters more than her pride. After a rough patch, she’ll pull you close, showing that her love for you always outweighs her pride.

In the middle of a quiet moment, Vi might reach for your hand without saying anything, her thumb gently tracing over your skin as she enjoys the peace with you. It's simple, but you both know what it means—comfort and closeness without needing words.

When she notices you're stressed, Vi will offer a reassuring touch, maybe rubbing your back or brushing a strand of hair from your face. She'll just say, “Breathe, cupcake,” and the weight of the world feels a little lighter when you're in her arms.

Vi loves those little moments of intimacy, like when she kisses you softly on the forehead, brushing your hair out of your eyes after a long day. It’s her way of showing affection without fanfare, just you and her in the quietest of spaces.

Sometimes, when the world is still, you and Vi will sit together in the dark, talking about everything and nothing. These quiet, late-night conversations allow you both to open up in a way you don’t with anyone else—no barriers, no rushing.

Vi can’t help but linger when she’s close to you, whether it’s her hand resting on your shoulder or her fingers brushing against yours. She’ll act like it’s nothing, but you know it’s just another way for her to show she’s right there with you.

After a long, rough day, when you’re feeling down, Vi might pull you into her lap, her arms wrapping around you tightly, as if she’s shielding you from the world. She’ll hold you there, not saying anything but offering all the warmth and protection you need.

"It'll be alright, cupcake. I promise."

While teasing you, Vi will pull you closer in a quick, unexpected hug, squeezing you tight before letting go with a grin. It's a mix of affection and playfulness, showing she loves being around you no matter the mood.

Sometimes, when you’re not paying attention, Vi will catch your gaze, her eyes soft and filled with love. She won't need to say a word; that look alone speaks volumes about how much she adores you, even in silence.

She loves you so much and as far as you know, there is nothing that will separate you from each other.

Requests may be sent. Only SFW.

[bugflies00]

im getting pissed off seeing some things on twitter but seriously, where did the idea that fans have to "address" or "have a conversation" about cc's relationships and friendships even come from? the idea that we have to decode red flags and we have to address "how weird things were in retrospect"? yes this is about tommy and WS, no matter what tommy alluded to in yesterdays video that was not permission to suddenly start talking about things that you have assumed were a given. we do not actually know what their relationship was like, and we never will unless tommy chooses to say something about it. that is the ONLY word you can take for it and its frankly weird to jump on a few things he said when he was clearly venting, and use that to construct your imaginary version of how things are behind the scenes. you can show support to tommy without digging further than he chose to share its really not that hard

i do not understand in what reality its somehow a fan, a STRANGER's, responsibility to a) closely examine a creator's relationship b) pick out supposed "red flags" and c) speculate on what this interpretation entails. thats invasive and creepy. you're allowed to privately have your own opinion of peoples relationships but we dont KNOW these people. we're fucking strangers.

if anyone was hurt, we're not involved! and you know what WOULDN'T fix that potential hurt? seeing people online wildly speculating and guessing and providing their own "take" like its a fucking tv show. i understand ccs put themselves forward in a manner not unlike reality tv sometimes, but that doesnt mean you dont owe them privacy.

and i understand its not always something malicious, sometimes its out of very misplaced genuine concern/anxiety for someone who you look up to. so i want to make it really clear that you, random fan, are not being "complicit" or whatever because you watched while a creator had a friendship that you, from behind your screen, consider as unhealthy with a younger creator. even if it later revealed that your analysis was correct. you are not complicit in this scenario because you are a stranger who is not involved and has zero responsibility.

do people genuinely think making all these posts help? do you think that tommyinnit is relying on his fans to analyse for him whether his friendships and relationships are healthy or not? do you really not see how thats not our job and is completely out of line? just be normal like honestly i think he's dealt with enough

[magicisrealandsoismyally]

Have you ever met a trans woman? In real life? Because it feels like you view us the exact same as you view cis men. And I don't blame you for being afraid, you're operating off a lack of information. I'm not saying you're automatically wrong, but I definitely feel like your opinions would be different if you actually knew and made efforts to understand and hear more trans voices.

You have a lot of focus on AMAB and AFAB, but sex isn't a set in stone reality. Plenty of AMABs don't have penises, and plenty of AFABS do. Bottom surgery fully exists, and your argument doesn't consider people who have genuinely, medically modified their sex. Are we going to segregate based on assigned sex at birth? Because that would be transphobia, inherently equating people's sex at birth to what gendered spaces they're allowed within. Are we going to segregate based on current sex? Because now we're checking people's genitals and locking community behind the ability to afford sex reassignment surgeries. At the end of the day, the idea of segregation is flawed and fascist. The patriarchy and elite defines and separates us based on sex as a way to have us at each others throats instead of the real issues.

"any more than 0 women is unacceptable as a sacrifice to validate AMAB identity/feelings"

I need you to understand that this is a transphobic statement. I'm not saying you're a bad person or anything. Internalized transphobia is something everyone has, even me. It's our duty as people fighting for a better world to realize that kinda thing. It feels like your idea of being a trans ally is allowing trans men into feminist spaces, but as long as you exclude all trans women, you're still being a transphobe. Being a trans ally isn't just about being nice to trans people or letting some of them into your spaces, it's about accepting their gender identity. You're not a trans ally by treating trans men like cis women and trans women like cis men. You're still assigning social gender to sex at birth. I'm not telling you this to say you're bad, I'm saying this to help you realize that your argument is transphobic.

If we define our society through our fear of other groups based entirely off things that people do not choose, sex, gender, race, cultural group, etc., you are just reinventing fascism. You cannot be free if you still choose to wear the chains. You are not going to become free with the tools of your oppressor. The more you define the world with biological sex, the more the patriarchy wins. Because they also assign traits to people based on biological sex. That's how we ended up like this. Real change comes from destroying their tools, not taking them for ourselves.

Racism, ableism, and sexism are all older than capitalism yes, but they're all products of fear and hatred encouraged by elites to keep people in line, to stop people from uniting against them. Capitalism is another in a long line of power structures using hatred as a tool to stop us from actually uniting against those with power. Trans women are not your enemy. Segregating yourself from us is not going to help you overcome these power structures.

I mean this in the kindest way I can, you are letting fear define your politics. Just like every fascist's supporters have. You are letting fear of a group you do not understand or interact with, define how you treat them. Please, talk to some transfems, it will do you some good. You have an idea of us in your mind that doesn't reflect who we are in the slightest. We are not men. We never have been.

I'm not against creating specific safe spaces if that's necessary, but your entire argument is laced with subtle transmisogyny, and it tells me you're not coming at this from a healthy mindset. Have a great day, and I really hope you can see what I'm seeing upon reflection.

"OP is a terf" is a thought-terminating cliche meant to keep you from questioning the status quo and keep you afraid of being labeled a heretic should you come to your own conclusions about anything.

[amaryllis-sagitta]

Hi again, going through the different endings of DAV, I was pretty surprised to hear Solas being all like "I am a god!!" when Rook beats him in a fight. I know he has pride issues but that felt so OOC to me?? I was wondering if you had an opinion on it?

Hi, thanks for asking again!

There are 3 tiny (or not so tiny?) moments that I think push the envelope on Solas's characterization in a way that allows us to portray him as more genuinely sinister than the main line established in Trespasser, post-Trespasser media and most of DATV, which is the "Pathetic, stubborn man ridden with massive unprocessed guilt and shame, who can't make a choice without some catastrophic collateral for the life of him, and the unforeseen consequences of his choices repeatedly push him to double-cross people and have them do his dirty work".

One moment that had me thinking is the third memory of the rebellion - I mentioned earlier how Solas's pose and facial expressions make him unduly smug when Felassan calls out that they were supposed to do better than send out an army of spirits, appealing to their nature in seemingly good faith, when they were really a distraction doomed to fail. It shocked me because it seems to strike at one of Solas's core values. It's supposed to hurt more in relation to spirits because we know how much Solas despises wasting, destroying or twisting spirit purpose. And yet, in his confrontation with Felassan, he seemed content, smug even, about achieving victory against Elgar'nan and didn't show a trace of regret.

Another moment is the jab in the Fade that "at least you have Varric to talk to", again with a smug sense of satisfaction. Learning about this line took me by surprise because for all the disingenuity Solas is capable of, I never had him for someone who takes delight in such petty cruelty, especially when the matter is also personal to him to a degree. Varric's death should have hurt him by virtue of their mutual respect gained in DAI, so has the game underdelivered in representing this? Or are we really pushing a narrative that he never really changed his mind on non-elves, or chose not to acknowledge them as people, so Varric was just a disposable fool?

The third specific moment that shows Solas in a worse light is the moment you mentioned in the ask. Though, watching this scene, I feel we need to cite the full sentence:

Rook: [...] I am not alone, but you will be. The Veil needs to be tied to the life force of an elvhen god. And now it is, Dread Wolf. Solas: You sneer at me as though you understand. You are mortal! Compared to you, to your infinitesimal existence, I AM A GOD!"

This is a conditional state of an ending, when you decide to fight him and at least the companions in your party have reached the Hero status, which means they survive Solas's counterattacks, so in the end Rook doesn't stand against him alone, and does not end up in the Fade prison with Solas. This is where Solas is at his most desperate, I think, because when Rook remains alone in the Fight ending, it's a pyrrhic victory. Solas doesn't lash out then, because he isn't done with Rook. The context of "I am a god" is that Rook will soon perish while The Dread Wolf will prevail for centuries still, and no mortals can stop him in a way that matters.

But could it also be a trigger for his greatest fear: that there's a realistic chance he can very nastily die alone with his regrets and self-loathing? Because he does not say he is immortal - he never bound a dragon, so he can't take advantage of the Evanuris perk. Neither does he accept a definition of godhood. It's a matter of scale and comparison; in this final moment, he's looking for a way to belittle Rook and their team.

In fact, the "I am a god" in this context represents the extreme of the views he's held about mortals before - arguably, before joining Inquisition. Though I think that even then, he had trouble humanizing races other than elvhen. If his mind has really swayed throughout DAI, it feels barely half a step towards acknowledging that mortal elves, especially the Dalish, might have a point in their approach to history. Then, in Tevinter Nights, he says to Charter that the elves who survive the un-Veiling might find the "new" world better. Not really a win.

I believe a proper background for this is found in two conversations. First, when Rook keeps poking at Solas's plan to tear down the Veil and he stops eluding the question, Rook says "Spoken like a god". Solas's reply in this moment frankly sounds... too deflective. Like it's coming from someone who genuinely needs someone to constantly whisper "Remember you are but a mortal, Caesar" in his ear.

The second moment is when, after having the loud argument with Elgar'nan to get Rook out of a Fade pocket of despair, Solas admits Elgar'nan is who he feared becoming - callous, tyrannical and contemptuous. I guess Solas's worst moments are supposed to show how close he really could get, because the "I am a god" most definitely defines an ego trip that comes from a place of great insecurity.

If I were a hater looking for a hook to make an uncharitable argument that "He was amoral all along and his gentler side was a mask that just waited to slip", I'd start there.

[loveandlegacy]

i think this is a little unfair as a critique because i generally do not see much value in being like "well i wish this story had just been a completely different thing instead of the story it was" like there are better ways to talk about how a narrative could be improved on its own merits rather than just saying "well do something different". BUT this is my blog where i get to say what i want and so: read the rest at your own risk wherein i talk about what i might have preferred to see with viktor's storyline

i think that if they were going to dispense with the variations of viktor's prior lore - which is totally fine to do tbh! - but they wanted to still stick to him feeling more alienated and indifferent to human needs/suffering but also superior to them and kind of outside of time without fully leaning into the timeloop cyborgism of it all, it would have been wise to make him somewhat more nihilistic on the order of doctor manhattan?

a: if he were outside of time in the way that doctor manhattan is, it would avoid the issue of a time loop (which generally tends to damage to a story in my opinion) and would still permit for some kind of epiphany about love a la what happens with doctor manhattan and laurie juspeczyk. it also would maintain viktor's ability to see into other people's pasts and memories or to walk among them in those past places. this might have even allowed us to get a fuller and more sensitive picture of sky as a person independent of viktor once he was unstuck from time or in quantum time or etc!

b: jon osterman is a physicist and, like viktor, goes through a transformation that basically makes him feel completely distant from humans and as if their fates are fixed in a hopeless cycle, he's obsessive about his research, and he generally behaves as if humanity is somewhat beneath him because of how he experiences time and space

obviously there are some differences. doctor manhattan never aims to build a perfect world of flawless nonsuffering. he decides to abandon humanity altogether, and the person with the questionable morals driven by a raging ego is adrian veidt, but honestly you could just blend the archetypes of the two and get a clearer sense of direction for viktor's story.

like obviously this is just my vibe. i think i like this better because doctor manhattan and adrian veidt, both of whom are deeply selfish and in veidt's case egomaniacal about how to 'fix' the world, are still realized in ways where both characters feels more complicated than how viktor's story played out in arcane. like even leaving off the league lore about him, i think the show either didn't have enough time to fully actualize the struggle in him between wanting to help and being sure he knew better than everyone else about how to help, or it was always just going to be too cartoon-villain simplistic with his army of evil robots. i think the latter is unlikely given that they worked pretty hard to paint silco, jinx, and more or less everyone else in the undercity in many shades of grey but who knows!

like most of what frustrated me by the end about viktor's story wasn't that he was doing cruel things, it was just that those cruel things felt goofy and flat compared to even the cruel things ambessa was doing for most of the season. i cite mandus from a machine for pigs a lot as a different possible comparison to viktor. mandus is another industrialist/inventor who ends up splitting his consciousness and decides the world is full of nothing but cruelty and that he knows better than everyone else and starts mutilating people and feeding them to each other to build a new world order. but even mandus, who traps people into forced-cannibalism, feels that he has more depth to him than viktor did for me by the end of the show. it may be how mandus's story is constructed and that his logic feels sadder than viktor's, or it may just be that again the writers had less time to deal with more storylines but! idk!

all in all i maintain that the machine herald arc was pretty disappointing and honestly kind of goofy/immature along with being like cringily ableist and relying on politically unsound tropes that mostly amount to 'hey watch out for communist zombies', so i'll be out here thinking about what might have made it land better for me

[glitter-stained]

Jason Todd Meta: My opinion on the csa headcanon

Does Jason's behaviour suggest he was a victim of csa?

There is very little, in terms of clinical signs, that’s going to point to csa specifically, because most symptoms, for psychiatric disorders, aren’t specific to one disorder or cause. One thing that’s usually a good hint would be children making very sexual statements/references/jokes/behaviours that are very inappropriate in context (a good example of this would be Roman Roy from Succession); night terrors are bed wettings amongst children/teenagers over a certain age. But that is absolutely not necessary: many, if not most victims of csa don’t display these specific signs, and a twelve years old that suffers from night terrors is not necessarily a victim of csa. The one thing that tells you for sure, in a person with trauma, that they have been a victim of csa, is that they’re telling you they have been a victim of csa. I’m insisting on that part because there’s a whole bunch of therapists (cough cough psychanalysts) that will tell you confidently that your psychiatric symptoms stem from a childhood sexual trauma (cherry on top of the shit cake if it’s incestuous) that you didn’t know about because you’ve repressed it. I repeat, that’s bullshit. If you meet a clinician who tells you that, RUN. So, a warning: this is probably the least “psychological analysis” of my “Jason psychological analysis posts”, because Jason’s symptoms do not allow us to conclude formally for or against a history of sexual abuse. But that doesn’t mean we can’t do some meta, make sure we're on the same page with what's analyzed here, some textual analysis, discuss what the csa headcanon does and does not imply in terms of his behaviour. I think it’s a good idea to start with it so we know where we’re standing with our analysis, regardless of the fact it’s maybe not the most interesting in terms of psychopathology and neuropsychology.

A couple of disclaimers:

I only talk about the comics I want to talk about. This is for two reasons, which are that 1) I do what I want and if I don’t like/don’t find something interesting, I’m not gonna waste time on it; and 2) I’ve been reading comics for a couple of months only, and there are, like, a lot of them. If there are comics you wanna see analysed under that lense, feel free to suggest them! I might not want to, but it also could be that I haven’t read them yet. Additionally, I'm not interested in questioning the morality of Jason's actions here. Ethics are fun, and I like talking about them sometimes, and morality sometimes has a place in talks about demonization but largely speaking this isn't the space for that. I separate talk about morality and psychology stuff as much as I can for a reason, so if you are looking here for excuses for his behaviour or arguments as to why he is a bad person, you're in the wrong place. Moral judgement is irrelevant here for the most part.

On the events of Red Hood: Lost Days:

Jason has, at some point in the comics, been a victim of csa. When Talia kisses Jason before pushing him off a cliff right after he got out of the Lazarus Pit, and when she initiates sex with him in Lost Days, that’s not consent!! That’s a grown woman taking advantage of a traumatized teenager who is, on top of that, deeply indebted to her. That’s a predatory act, with a steep power imbalance, it’s sexual assault, and on top of that there’s an element of suggested pseudo-incest. That decision was retconned, and thank god, because it was a brutal assassination of Talia’s character based on a good bit of racism, and also because the way it was portrayed doesn’t make it clear that Jason is a victim in a situation rather than that super annoying trope of “teenage guy gets to bang a hot MILF and hahaha lucky him”, writing a male character in a situation of SA without acknowledging it as SA or taking it seriously is one of the tropes I hate most, it reinforces stigmatisation and isolates victims. For all of these reasons, I’m not gonna include that element in my analysis, but it’s important to note that if you do include those scenes in your conception of it, then Jason is undeniably a victim of csa and everything discussed about it applies to him.

What if it were a lie?

I’ve said it before (and I’ll say it again), I deeply, violently hate headcanons/tropes where a character lies about being a victim of csa (whether it’s for manipulation, personal gain, any reason really I don’t care). It’s rare as fuck in real life, however it’s a common trope that feeds into fear of being wrongfully accused that causes push-back and increases social stigmatization. CSA is a painful thing associated with intense feelings of shame and already a deep fear of not being believed. Imagine making a considerable effort to seek help after something terrible happened/is happening to you, and you have to brave your fear of not being believed on top of that, and once you’ve made all that effort you get rejected and villainized because it’s just easier for the person you’re reaching out to not to believe it. So I’m awfully weary of this type of headcanon, and I think a general rule of thumb is “if your interpretation of what the character is saying is that he’s talking about how he was abused, especially if he’s talking about sexual assault, then it happened.” If you don’t like that, if you don’t feel like that’s good representation, then you can question the story, think it should be retconned, or rethink your interpretation of what the character says if it’s ambiguous, but hcing that the character lied about his assault is not a hypothesis we’re going to accept here no matter what. So we can start by scratching that one out: Jason never lies about being a victim of csa, or wilfully hints at it even though that’s untrue, at any point.

Two other ideas I’ve seen floating around that I think are worth mentioning:

No, just because Jason lived in the streets as a kid doesn’t mean the only way he survived was through underage prostitution. I genuinely don’t understand that idea, yes being a street kid makes you extremely vulnerable, yes it makes the risk of resolving to underage prostitution to survive higher but it’s absolutely not a fatality. That idea is, quite frankly, weird. Do you automatically assume if a real life person tells you they were in the streets for some time at a kid that they are a victim of csa? Also, I've seen the idea go around that because some people have a strong reading/hc of Jason as bi (which I have no problem with I love bi Jason), that would be an argument in favour of the csa hc. Please don’t do that. There’s no link between queer sexual orientations and childhood sexual abuse, that’s a harmful myth that we should work to deconstruct or, at the very least, not continue to vehiculate.

Another important thing to keep in mind: childhood sexual abuse =/= childhood sexual trauma.

Now, a traumagenic situation is a situation that might induce trauma (so development of, acute stress disorder, ptsd, cptsd, derealization, any traumatic pathology really). These situations exist on a continuum of probability to be traumatized by this situation. For example, a flood, a car accident, witnessing a murder and being sexually assaulted are all traumagenic situations, but the probability of developing trauma from them are very different. It hinges on personal, situational, social, and environmental risk factors (that have nothing to do with being weak, anybody can develop trauma). A definition for traumagenic situations can be found in the diagnostic criteria for ptsd in the dsm-5:

A. “Exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence in one (or more) of the following ways:

1. Directly experiencing the traumatic event(s).

2. Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others.

3. Learning that the traumatic event(s) occurred to a close family member or close friend. In cases of actual or threatened death of a family member or friend, the event(s) must have been violent or accidental.

4. Experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the traumatic event(s) (e.g., first responders collecting human remains; police officers repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). Note: Criterion A4 does not apply to exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures, unless this exposure is work related.”

Note that the this last criteria has been added from the DSM-5 in order to explain cases of PTSD observed in at-risk jobs like cops exposed to repeated detailed child abuse, first responders collecting human remains, or, crucially, vigilantes repeatedly exposed to brutal crimes. This means that Jason, when he works on the Dumpster Slasher case, when he is horrified to find Gloria in the immediate aftermath of her rape (and later finds her dead body, because witnessing the consequences of these traumatic events is also an important component of that second-hand trauma), is being exposed to a very traumagenic situation. As I said before, that doesn’t necessarily mean you will experience trauma (thank fuck for that), but there are factors that influence that. SA related situations has an already pretty high probability of inducing trauma. On top of that, age is a big factor in that: the younger you are, the less resources, emotional regulation, development and coping mechanisms to face the traumagenic event you have (though there is such a thing as “too young to have PTSD" -when your memory is simply not developed enough for the memory to traumatize you because you will not remember the event.) At fifteen, with his memory fully developed but his brain going through so much changes because of teenagehood and his past history, Jason would be at risk. On top of that, you’re more at risk to get traumatized if you’re already stressed out when the event happens, so Jason’s mental state at this point in his robin run is also a risk factor. All to say, it’s very plausible for Jason to have sexual trauma without being a victim of sexual abuse in relation to canon events. Besides, in headcanon territory when it comes to Jason’s childhood before Robin, there are so many ways to be exposed to sexual violence : witnessing/finding his mother being a victim (considering the position of extreme vulnerability Catherine was in), witnessing assault in the streets, being the victim of attempted SA and escaping, watching street kids get picked up and later find their bodies/being told by other kids, as a cautionary tale, in excruciating detail, testimonies of their own assault… Or for example, if we’re thinking about Arkham Knight, being constantly threatened with SA, it being hinted and joked about and hanging over him like a sword of Damocles is something I could see Joker and other inmates do that could definitely induce sexual trauma even if it doesn’t happen ; what matters most, in trauma, is that the fear is real. Mechanically, when we’re looking at the way trauma works even on a biological level, the overwhelming fear is at the core of the pathology. (This is also why you can develop PTSD after a psychotic episode.) Like, my point isn’t that one of these things happened to Jason, or that he has to have sexual trauma from the events of the Diplomat’s Son or anything -mostly just that this is a possibility, something very serious that happens and an important nuance that I never see in discussions on the csa headcanon, and while it’s not exactly what the debate is about, I think it’s something important to ponder.

Do you consider the csa hc to be canon?

So, there are a lot of Jason stories, and I’m very pro “not take in account what is said in comics you dislike in your conception of canon” because if I did that absolutely no bat character would be readable, I have to believe that no character is defined by their worst writers. And boy, does Jason have a lot of bad writing… On top of the personal retcons, there are also the canon retcons: like Battle for The Cowl is retconned… Unless someone decides to reinject/revamp it into the narrative (please don’t please don’t it’s irrecuperable let it lay with the Flying Todds where it belongs). So, let’s see. There are three writers/arcs that imply/mention the csa hc: Starlin’s writing of Jason’s post-crisis Robin Run (canon though some stuff in it seems to have been retconned), Winick’s writing in Green Arrow: Seeing Red (canon as far as I know), and Battle for the Cowl (retconned). It’s worth noting that one of those are considered to be foundational works for Jason’s character (Jason’s post crisis Robin Run and Starlin’s part in it), and another was written by Winick, who wrote the other two foundational Jason stories: Under The Red Hood and Red Hood: Lost Days. On a personal level, I’m very mitigated about what I like and accept about it. I base my whole love and characterization of Jason about his post-crisis Robin Run, I love that little guy so much, Starlin’s take on Jason’s Robin Run is absolutely canon to me (which does not mean I like Starlin as a writer, thank you very much). On the other hand of the spectrum, the only reason Battle for the Cowl isn’t my least favourite comic ever is because The Killing Joke exists, absolutely not canon, get this thing away from me. And then in the middle, my feelings on Seeing Red (on the entirety of Winick’s Jason really) vary depending on the day, because I do like a revenge story that challenges the status quo with tropes of “bad victim” and it sets up Jason as a character based on love rather than morals which I adore, but there are also some elements of psychophobia in the writing that I (who approach stories through the filter of psychopathology first and foremost) can’t just look past, and also the way it intertwines with classist stereotypes. So do I consider Seeing Red to be canon? In good faith, yes, but whether I’ll accept it as such really depends on the day. In terms of the csa headcanon: it’s heavily hinted in BTFC but not outright said, it’s there as a undercurrent in Starlin’s run because of his intention (to make Jason die of AIDS). And then we have Seeing Red. Basically Jason lists elements about Mia’s life, including her past with underage prostitution (so, just to be very clear, csa), and says they’re very similar, having both lived on the streets, and understand having to do bad things when it’s necessary. This is not the same as saying “I was a victim of csa”, and what he’s saying could be interpreted differently (we know that he was stealing tires, and “only what he needs to survive”, so he could have been referencing small-time theft.) So, it could be a reference to something else, I totally understand why some people want to interpret differently. It just… Feels like such a weird and weak argument to be equating boosting tires to underage prostitution, to me it’s very ooc (in comparison to UTH Jason), and it would feel like weak writing from someone like Winick. Aka it’s not technically canon, and you don’t have to accept it as such(I understand the mentality of "I'm rejecting this interpretation because it feels like demonization of csa victims" perfectly), but personally I think it takes a lot from Jason’s character in Seeing Red and from this story in general.

[chainfen]

I want to preface this with the fact that response came from myself and OP directly discussing this post, and me offering to further elaborate on my own opinions on a universe I too enjoy very much.

As I've delved into the HDG universe over the last few months, I've found myself struggling to understand why I find a lot of the writing I'm really enjoying to in some way still be unfulfilling. Reading this piece helped me realise that for a lot of them, it's because they simply do not cement themselves in fantasy. As a group of widely diverse both creators and readers, whether that be race, gender, sexuality- we are choosing to engage in a collective universe, with established boundaries and context, that is high fantastical. That's the entire point of it, is it not? the concept of being allowed to build a version of yourself that is your 'idealised' form; free from the economic constraints of capitalism, the socio-political constraints of wider society and social perception, for some even the limits unbreakable by species.

I don't, like you said, want to put down the idea that there is a catharsis and a rawness in being able to do that. The things I would do to be able to do that. The sheer escapism that the HDG universe offers me- a chronically ill, disabled, transsexual butch plural system, is something I would struggle to find anywhere else. But it feels like there is trend within the content in the universe to build it's women out of a generic base model, one that I see every day on every billboard all around me. There's an almost sterile nature to it, that makes me feel uncomfortable. A woman is small, submissive, feminine, hairless... perfect.

Tangential talk about noncon here, but it's relevant. I'm willing to roll with the idea that noncon as a concept exists within the HDG universe because the Affini believe that they do things for the best interest of the sophont in question- this is not something I'm trying to bring into question. However, as we know it is very thematic for this override of control to include egg cracking, HRT, removal of body hair and body modification that ranges from minor health related changes, to limb changes and additions, as well as full SRS. And whilst I as a reader can not only enjoy these elements, but understand the necessity of them within the storytelling, it once again removes me from the fact that this is meant to be fantasy.

What does it mean to 'be feminine' or be made 'girly'. How does one define those words? How does one separate them from gender, if you can? I can understand that the responses to those questions might be different for each person- but putting that aside, the only actual prerequisite to being 'girly' is to be a girl. I am not ignoring the social implications of being called 'girly' and it's wider use to often mean effeminate, or weak, but I am calling to attention the idea that there is no one look to what is perceived as 'girly'. In regards to femininity, as a GNC butch who has femininity often imposed on me societally because of my stature, there is a pain in the norm of associating these things with the ideal woman without a much wider commentary on why we feel the need to do this.

The Affini are bound by a collective and paternal duty to, well to put it short, care. To ensure the safety, happiness, and realised potential of all xenosophont races they domesticate, every individual, even those who resist it the most. I don't want to have to suspend my disbelief in my escapist fantasy world to believe that they, as an entire race, believe that the best way to treat the damage done to transgender Terrans is to reinforce and comply with the standard that caused them the very damage and trauma they're trying to undo in the first place? This idea of what a woman should be. This perfect model of ideal sterilised femininity who is gorgeous, ageless, hairless and always youthful. That the path to healing the insurmountable harm humanity has committed against transgender, non-binary, and GNC people is to reinforce their home world stereotype that was constructed around an imposed colonialist view of gender that centred the subjugation of women as a gender and ensuring they would be subordinate

and a note, for those in the comments saying OP is 'holier than thou' for the way they express their trans-femininity, or their thoughts on hair removal. I need you to reflect on the fact that your perception of an ideal woman is racist. I am not, in any way saying that it is wrong for you to feel the way you do or to want the things you want. But there needs to be a reflection on the values you apply to womanhood. Idealised white femininity intentionally devalues non Eurocentric features and labels them as masculine to dehumanise and devalue women of colour. You are not being radical or subversive by continuing to uphold these values in a fantasy universe that is meant to be for all.

Trans Feminism and the Human Domestication Guide

Or

Wishing on a misogynistic star won't make your dreams come true

Thesis: A running theme in some parts of the HDG sphere is the unintentional chase and valorisation of misogynistic standards for women in the pursuit of validation.

“The most radical thing that any of us can do is to stop projecting our beliefs about gender onto other people's behaviours and bodies”

― Julia Serano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity

I would like to open by declaring my own identities, both as a shield against a particular kind of bad faith criticism, but also to demonstrate that I’m operating in good faith here. I’m a fat, hairy, physically disabled, transgender, butch dyke who writes within the HDG setting with great joy and greater love for the community. I’m also hot as fuck. That established, I’ll continue:

There is a particularly pernicious lie that revolves around the state of women's bodies; that there is a correct way to have one and that those who do not meet these standards are unfeminine or otherwise worthless. It must have a vagina, of course, but it must also be white, thin, able, hairless, youthful, fit but not strong and, of course, soft.��

Trans feminism, and by that I direct my attention to feminist speech within trans and gender non-conformist spaces, has managed to, if not defeat, then at least combat one of the great evils of cis sexism, the necessity of the vagina. The ongoing and necessary validation of the girl cock as beautiful, as wonderful, as feminine is a wonderful, joyful thing. We (trans feminine people) exist as part of the spectrum of womanhood, and that means that our bodies also exist within and without that spectrum of womanhood as well. 

However, trans feminism of a particular kind has - rather than continue the work done to uplift the gock - has embraced a particular kind of ugly lie we’re taught. In many cases - due to a perceived desire to be as close to flawlessly woman as we can be - the focus will instead fall on a particular kind of trans feminine person who manages to engage with and evoke those standards aside from the obvious. To paraphrase Julia Serano in illustrating this point:

“Whether unconscious or deliberate, the gatekeepers clearly sought to … ensure that most people who did transition would not be “gender-ambiguous” in any way”

― Julia Serano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity 

One of the beauties of the class-G is that it allows the character to experience their body in an idealised form. I recognise and applaud this position, it is beautiful to see a writer able to imagine themselves completely idealised, completely transformed into something that doesn’t hurt. However, therein lies the rub; the ideal depicted displays some of that ugliness, some of the roots of misogyny that thread their ways through our brains like poison and make us into useful fools for its goals.

The thought that brought about this essay is a repeated phrasing that appears across several works within the HDG milieu; that to be hairless and soft is to be feminine. A character will have their body hair, all their body hair bar that on their head, removed and thus will be made ‘girly’. They, and other characters, may remark on how much more they feel like a woman, unconsciously or consciously linking womanhood to that hairlessness. 

You may note that this directly plays into another cis-sexist standard of beauty; that to be feminine requires a certain girlishness, a pubescent budding that belies the possibility of cellulite or wrinkles or the consequences of living a life where one is not simply a doll.

What is my objection to that? Surely, every writer has the right to depict their own wish fulfilment fantasies. Certainly yes, but also… one must ask at which point we celebrate their dreams and at what point we ask people to engage with their biases and question what they consider to be true. Women, all kinda of women, are hairy. Women have pubic hair, arm hair, leg hair, chest hair, even facial hair. The seeming desire to be completely hairless is as ‘unnatural’ a goal as any other, as ‘unnatural’ as any expectation set for us by the white supremacist culture most of us are steeped in. To return to whipping girl:

“Rather than question our own value judgments or notice the ways that we treat people differently based on their size, beauty, or gender, most of us reflexively react to these situations in a way that reinforces class boundaries: We focus on the presumed “artificiality” of the transformation the subject has undergone.”

― Julia Serano, Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity 

It must be noted that at least part of this problem is with what the reader brings to the table. When something goes unstated, we resort to the baseline of our biases and, due to the way society is structured, that baseline is generally white, thin and physically able. Beauty and femininity are racialised concepts, and I think we fall into traps headlong that white supremacy establishes for us. I am not the person to write an essay critiquing race in HDG, but I recognise the consequences of race and the expectations of white femininity on the work. Thus, then, we must consider the text, and the text is very often pretty clear about its characters.

How many protagonists of a human domestication guide story are textually fat? How many are stated in the text to be people of colour? How many of them are, if not stated to be, then implied through lack of mention, white, and thin? These questions ignore the many that are actively identified as those things. (I will pause here to note that Dog of War - notable as the most popular piece of work in the setting - features a protagonist who is both brown and fat, and I’m extremely happy to see it).

Collectively, as writers, we have seen a future where everyone is accepted and have created a world where the depictions of acceptance come with conformity to modern misogyny. We create a world without boundaries, where a person can be digitalised or made into a dog, and our characters are still aping their ancestors of five centuries prior in seeking validation of self. We are, I would argue (and borrowing heavily from Butler), ‘uncritically mimicking the strategy of the oppressor instead of offering a different set of terms.’

This is not, I would like to be clear, an attack on any particular story. You may recognise elements of several stories in this essay, and perhaps there are particular things I am drawing on, however, this essay does not charge the product of the writer's work with anything. That body of text can exist and be critiqued, but does not exist as a thoughtful, philosophical actor. Rather, I would charge us writers, all of us, with being more thoughtful as we engage with what femininity means to us and what is and is not feminine in a world where anything is possible.

Finally, a quote from Gender Outlaw that I direct at myself as much as anyone else:

“Let's stop pretending that we have all the answers, because when it comes to gender, none of us is fucking omniscient.”

― Kate Bornstein, Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation

[prolife-problems]

It’s so frustrating when people bring up their pro choice views in inappropriate settings. Like damn sorry you’re mad that a committee in your state is trying to combat infanticide, but we’re actually at work. We’re in an office, right now, and you’ve decided to violate the social contract so that I look like the jerk if I voice polite disagreement. You don’t know who has trauma surrounding childbirth or lost pregnancies. Maybe don’t bring up hot button political issues when I’m trying to discuss receivables

[imobsessed123]

Woah Keefe is so emotionally manipulative. Not like he got raised in a horrible household where being emotionally abused was the norm. Not like half of his ‘insulting’ things were just bad attempts to make people laugh because in his mind that’s one of the only things he’s good at. Not like he probably cries thinking about all the times he hurt people without even meaning to. Not like he says things that come across as manipulative without him meaning it to because again, saying things like that are normal to him. Not like he would do anything for his friends. Not like most of his decisions, in his mind at least, were to benefit everyone else. Not like he would probably rather die than be like his father. Of course not, that’s ridiculous!

[ganondoodle]

okay, bc i have seen this argument alot now (and it also seems to be the view point of aonuma himself..) is that "zelda cant do everything link does bc whats the point then"

and i take personal offense on that bc its a stupid argument (in. my. very. personal. opinion.- not judging people for liking it. its a ME thing)

whats the point? its that its her. its still a different character, different in story, background, personality, but i WANT to play zelda and she can do everything link does, why does she have to be so restricted and be bend over backwards to find some new way to make her 'useful' when link gets to do basically everything no questions asked (the only thing thats hers is like .. sealing power and sacrificial maiden, which i find a little underwhelming to say the least), if theres no point to it why are there always modders that model swap link with someone else, and in that case it has even less impact bc its an artificial model swap with no changes to the story (which can and should still be different when its the vanilla game with a different protagonist... its still a different character), clearly theres joy in just the model being a different one- and that isnt even to mention the story possibilities, since, again, its stil a different character

if we ever (never ... i know who we are talking about here) get to play as ganondorf i want to him to be just as versatile and active as link is, if we got a point and click adventure game for him instead bc 'whats the point' id be disappointed too- you can find any sort of excuse/explanation for zelda to be singled out but the fact remains it tracks with how female characters are often treated, and that hits a very sore spot for me

i guess i am unfortunately one of those annoying people that want to see female characters be treated exactly the same as male characters, possibly bc i am myself afab but identify as agender and have a deeply personal dislike for anything 'traditional' feminine bc i cannot and never will be able to truly live as myself in real life, it influences all of my work, my work is as just as much as my opinion on this, very personal

and in line with my point about modding, i see theres joy in just beign able to play as her even if its like this, i get that, i also get it for the creative aspect (though that mechanic worries me even more for the future bc it really seems to be the path now that -freedom = good, linear anything = bad-) it is a different idea and its not like i cant see that value- im not trying be "right" either, just bc i have that opinion doesnt mean i need everyone to agree, its a very personal thing, if you like it good for you! not for me though, and i think both of that is equally valid

i just personally wish she was allowed to be just like link, fight just like him but be different bc its still her and not him in the end- to be physically/playstyle like jsut like him, but you know ... as her, i dont think shed stop being zelda if she could wield a sword just like him

i dont really know how to get my point/feelings across, i dont want to step too much into personal stuff nor spam people with something that ultimately doesnt interest me alot, im just saddened by it really

(EDIT: bc i forgot to add this on here again; this isnt as much of a problem as it might sound like here, just the main topic i wanted to talk about; why im so uninterested in it is MAINLY bc i dont trust them to write anything interesting/care about lore anymore after totk, im always on the more pessimistic side that thinks its most likely worse than id hope and i know even the past games arent perfect or super interestingly written, but now its much more just a general distrust, together with everything like the price ... im just much less hopeful and cant get excited until i see more of it, like im waiting for the game to get out and reveal that its just as much of a mess and money i regret spending- kind of fear)

[peasant-player]

So hello !

I just saw this post about dfwbwfbbwfbwf.

I'm not really into things done like this.

Its important to always get both side of the coin.

Let me make a premise:

It is important to give people the chance to defend themselves.

Oddly when I send dfwbwfbbwfbwf the link of this they could not see it. The only reason they can't see this post must be because they are blocked.

That's not right.

At least give them the chance to say something for their defense or idk let them see this?

I of course asked them about their weird "favorites"!!

I also looked into their "favorites history" ( I never saw a post outside of the Tolkien fandom that has any RL controversy in it from them)

I saw some controversial "liked" post. Pro trump, Anti trump. Very mixed "like" history.

Not just right winged but also left winged stuff. Tons of cats.

I give you now some Screenshot of the conversation i had with them today after work.

I could not ask if I can post them.

Because they deactivated their blog.

I know that they have a strong "pro-feanorian" opinion but I also saw some very nasty and rude post from "anti-feanorians" tolkien fans. Both side have some very strongly voiced post out here.

Both opinions are allowed in the fandom!

Please let's all remember that fiction is fiction. It's fantasy. It's free space from this terrible world.

But also please think all twice before mindlessly liking post!

Do not support or encourage racist and all of that human waste. Please. That is real life!!!

Doom scrolling is not your friend.

But I encourage, if given the opportunity, to help them change their view. Don't try that with random online people but close mutuals or in real life!

I hope that i wrote this as neutral as possible. But just to make really sure for the people in the back.

I do not ,never will support racist ,anti trans or Homophobie.

I work with refugees. I had some very wild twenties with some nice women and men.

And I punched more then once a nazi.

But I also talked with people that had right winged views. Who changed their mind.

I met teenagers who are just blabbering what their parents said without a second thought.

Old folks who don't understand that making fun of genders and "woke stuff" is hurtful and helping the racist. who are just in this weird Facebook bubble and don't realize it..

Talking and being transparent is important!

Love you all ❤️

I understand that this website has a very fraught history with call-out posts, which is why I strongly hesitated to make this post. but there is a blogger in the silmarillion fandom who I have caught red-handed endorsing some truly hateful right-wing views

this user is @/dfwbwfbbwfbwf. the point of this post is not to target this user for harassment. the point of this post is to warn the fandom to protect ourselves from a hateful individual by blocking them. I do not condone any harassment, cyberbullying, or cruelty towards anyone in these screenshots

dfwbwfbbwfbwf has made their likes public. my receipts are screenshots of these likes. content includes genocide denial, anti-immigrant racism, homophobia, and transphobia

anti-palestine and genocide denial

anti-immigrant racism

transphobia

homophobia

conspiracies with far right dogwhistles

[monsterfuckermilligan]

i am not anti sam but i sometimes find myself hating sam because some samgirls are super into bio/gender essentialism whether or not they realize it. sam is a woman and dean is a man and sam is the victim and dean is his abuser like what show are you watching?

[britneyshakespeare]

people who like the beatles are allowed to talk a little shit now and again about the beatles. people who don't know anything about their music and say "i hate the beatles" bc they think the coda in hey jude is too long, aren't. hope this helps

[aquared]

looking at my sprites from like a couple months ago is crazy because i look at them and then look at my new ones and think God those suck im so glad i got better at art ( even though its been like . 3 months )