#making systemic change is very different than harassing individuals

[anendoandfriendo]

So, we have a LOT of gripes with this post but more just want to address then individually without giving the OP any harassment so:

These first and second paragraphs is fine honestly, we won't tell people how they should feel about their own experiences.

The problem starts at the next part where OP starts trying to tell people how they should feel about their own brain.

--------

Also we just REALLY need to get this out of the way woth no other comments —

"We don't label [implied word is diagnose] personality types"

LMAO try saying that to uhhhh — *checks notes* — people with PERSONALITY DISORDERS.

--------

People who generally live life functionally but who every now and then are reminded that they’re disabled and need help in very specific situations. Like somebody who doesn’t struggle much socially and who doesn’t need supports at school or work but who sometimes doesn’t have as much energy for doing the dishes because they’re exhausted from living as an autistic person in an allistic world.

Did you know that therapists require a diagnosis to see literally anyone, ever? At least in the United States?

By your logic the neurotypical idea that "nobody is normal" actually exists. Why is someone who goes to a therapist and is forced to get like, let's just say a depression diagnosis for the ease of thos conversation. Why are they allowed to get that diagnosis, do the therapy, then consider themselves completely neurotypical but an autistic person isn't allowed to do that?

Please make that make sense.

And if you didn't realize everyone who's ever gone to a therapist loses their neurotypical card and is lying to you (using YOUR OWN LOGIC these people would be lying/faking neurotypicality) then don't worry about that! We didn't know that either until this year.

Anyways, that leaves us two options: either everyone is disabled or these people are allowed to choose their neurotypes in spite of the system labeling them otherwise. We sincerely hope why you realize the former is more shitty and we do not have to explain to you even bodily autonomy you don't like is still an inalienable right.

--------

So if you’re like me, please don’t speak over higher support needs people. Recognise that, if you can generally live independently, you are lower support needs than a LOT of others.

Is this about the assholes who went "waaah!! Don't call yourselves nonverbal!!! You share the same brainbody!!!" yes and as a plural system, we are still DIFFERENT PEOPLE. SOME OF US ARE NONVERBAL AND CANNOT SPEAK WHEN FRONTING WITHOUT ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FROM ANOTHER HEADMATE. SOME OF US HAVE TO BODY DOIBLE EACH OTHER JUST TO GET THE DISHES DONE YOU DESCRIBED IN THIS POST.

YES WE DO STILL HOLD A JOB TAKIMG PHONE CALLS. BECAUSE THE VARIETY OF AUTISTICS IN OUR HEAD MAKES. IT. SO. WE. ARE. COLLECTIVELY. NON-DISORDERED.

We may be endogenic, but we would still not, in any way, survive the world as a singlet. We are low support needs on a fucking technicality because they confirmed us as an autistic person when the brainody was two!!!

Just because you do not benefit from a purely social model of disability doesn't mean there are autistics who straight up wouldn't have issues anymore if people just..accepted them and society in general was less shitty.

The ONLY!! WAY!!! We have seen this kind of statement be used is to gatekeep people like us who try to describe their experiences of plurmisia and its intersectionality with ableism.

We are a non-disordered autistic collectively with specific members in our system who ARE in fact disordered autistics. The only reason we don't have people who describe themselves as neurotypicals in this system is very specifically because they do indeed feel a change in them when they arrive here.

Yes! We are a lot lower in support needs! To the point we do not consider ourselves such! Because of our multiplicity. Not because our autism "isn't that bad" or anything like that.

------

TLDR:

Stop fucking telling people how to feel about their own experiences.

If youre trying to gatekeep what we think you are trying ro gatekeep, you're an asshole and need to stop. Maybe we are just lucky, who knows, but we have NEVER seen this kind of sentiment occur in a way that does not have an undercurrent of plurmisia and/or other ableism.

You can in fact be a nondisordered diagnosed person. It happens all of the time, otherwise therapists as an institution couldn't exist lmao.

Additionally, as far as we are concerned, there are, in fact, situations you can be simultaneously non-disordered and disordered.

How about you follow the advice you said to everyone else, and not tell no-support and low-support autistics how to feel about their experiences? You're a fucking hypocrite OP!

Someone or somesys with more experience analyzing this kind of thing from a mad pride lens and/or a bodily autonomy lens is absolutely free to add onto this but we're just. Tired. And also kinda we have to be at work in likeeee 10 to 20 minutes.

[perennialkarmaofficial]

DISCLAIMER - do not harass this individual, I don't condone harassment. Block and move on.

This is simply an educational post, nothing more. Kind of a call out to some stupid ass logic and analogy of this person's "intro" post, since they wanna share DNIs and shit on them so bad.

I personally have this person blocked, but through the power of blockage and accessibility on this site, I was able to retrieve what I remembered reading yesterday, to give my two cents.

With the logic of "DNIs are pointless" first and foremost, is like saying internet safety is pointless. DNIs and making clear boundaries, even though not everyone listens, are critical and important, especially in this day in age. Rules, even though they aren't taken into consideration for a small fraction of people, are still required to keep things safe and secure. That's the whole point of them, and just because a small portion of society doesn't always follow the law, doesn't mean they shouldn't exist either. That entire logic is hypocritical and ridiculous.

"DNIs shift the onus of curating your internet experience onto other people, making your comfort other peoples' responsibility" is like saying making boundaries for your person is putting your safety into other people's hands, and thus shouldn't exist. Boundaries, whether online or in the physical world, are important. It helps to keep you safe. Using that logic, is like saying you shouldn't make boundaries for your person, and because they can't read your mind, shouldn't exist at all. We create safe spaces for ourselves online as a practice of internet safety, which should be taught more of.

"On that note, DNIs are very ineffectual on sites like Tumblr" once again, this is being based on a small fraction of people who actively choose not to respect other people's boundaries. They are effective, just like physical boundaries. Not everyone will respect you, but just because a small portion of people don't, doesn't make it okay to shit on the entire prospect of self protection. It creates a layer of mental security, making oneself feel safer when traversing the scary world of the internet. That's just fact.

"The definition of interact also changes between person to person" it's almost like everyone has a different perspective on the world. You're right, OP, not everyone sees things the same way. That's also the beauty of language, it has different meanings to different people. People are also allowed to block other people and weed out the ones who they deem don't belong on their blog, or their space. If that upsets you, OP, I believe we have bigger problems here than whether or not someone creates a safe space for themselves.

I also find it heinously hypocritical how OP says it's okay to block people, but not voice their boundaries in a place that should be more carefully tread on. Especially minors, who sometimes get wrapped up in situations that could put their mental health at risk.

All I have to say outside of all of this, is using your time to shit on primarily minors (as an adult) who use the DNI system to practice internet safety, says more about your arrogance than anything else.

[russeliarat]

So like incredibly short intro for us three hosts. We would introduce you to other members of the system, but we have 100+, possibly way way more so it's very hard to get intros for everyone when we don't know half the people in the noggin'

~-------❁❋❁❋❁❋ .: ʚɞ

❁❋❁❋❁❋~~~~~~Russelia ~~~~~~❁❋❁❋❁❋

So I've been running this blog probably solo for more than a year now, so y'all already know me eheh. My name's Russelia, but call me Russ. I use they/them and flutter/flutterself, and lean very very feminine presenting. I'm the host/co-host, but also function as a main protector for my system, as well as a trauma holder. In headspace, I take the form of a humanoid moth and thus have an obsession with moths - I also have children in headspace whom are varying forms of moths. I'm some form of aroace.

I'm 17 years old but change with the body's age, and I'm taken by another host in a different system <3 I formed ~2020, took over as the primary host around 2021-2022 though was dissociated with our now 'higher up' headmate, and as of recently (July 2023) I gained Jash and Whole as my co-hosts!

Those who knew me as Redd, I was actually blurred with them through a large portion of 2021- April-ish 2023 and believed myself to be them, though they are a different headmate who has too many responsibilities to take the role of host/co-host anymore.

❁❋❁❋❁❋~~~~~~Whole~~~~~~❁❋❁❋❁❋

Writing with Russ's help since apparently no one writes properly enough for em /aff

I'm Whole, CCCC fictive and co-host to the system. 22 years old and I'm taken by another headmate. Because of how marriage works, I'm Russ's stepdad, but they compare us to best friends a lot because we knew each other far before I married their dad. I'm pan, I use he/him.

Formed around May this year (2023) and I function as front's protector and soother, though I'm also a 'higher up' as we like to call the role, I have an admin job for the system essentially - manage system and the new formers, layers, stuff like that, I just get to comfort people and sort out their issues to. We work like a well-oiled clock like that, eh? I prefer to stay silently watching but I'm not against putting my opinions and reblogs here and there.

(Fun fact, Russ thought I was a fever dream when I formed)

❁❋❁❋❁❋~~~~~~Jash~~~~~~❁❋❁❋❁❋

Hey, I'm Jash, I'm a Chonny Jash factive but treat me like I'm my own person (should be an obvious thing but you'd be surprised) I'm eternally stuck at age 20 for some reason, I'm also pan and use he/him pronouns. I'm married to Whole and share memories with Russelia which make us child and father. I function as a protector, comforter and Russ and Whole's co-host. I have an interest in feminine fashion believe it or not

I've got a lot of medical issues, I tend to prefer not to talk about medical issues and stuff, but I'm not totally against chatting about it. We are bodily disabled so at some point I've got to talk about the overlap, right? I'm a bit more vocal than Whole but not as much as Russ, so yk I'll talk here and there. I'm private about my personal life though so don't push it. I find it simply hilarious the entire line up of hosts is one big family, it's incredible. Line up of 'autotune Aussies' or something as Russ puts it /lh /aff

~-------❁❋❁❋❁❋ .: ʚɞ

If there's something we want to individually talk about, we'll use tags for our names:

(examples: -Jash, -Whole, -Russ)

But, if there is none, assume it's either Russ or a combo of all three of us. You'll occasionally see a post with new name tags pop up, these are our other headmates. You'll see this a lot when we're sending asks to our friends' blogs. You can ask about them, but don't expect them/us to answer. If they do, sometimes we'll have to keep information very minimal to protect them such as in the case of a vulnerable headmate or a little for example. Do not harass them for more information, we will not respond or block you depending on the severity.

Lots of people tend to front at once, at one point we have about 20 people in front and it gave us a huge migraine lol, so if a group of people want to talk about something, we'll put multiple names in tone tags. Some of em might decide to colour code each other, let us know if the colours are hard to see ^^

[cordycepsfem]

I am with you on the need for a more prominent anti pedophilia movement withing LGB spaces.

I think there is a weird problem within the LGBT community where two different groups see issues:

-Gay men have a LONG history of being classified as deviants and pedophiles for normal pieces of life. Consider for instance the aggressive anti sodomy laws compared to extremely lax (or non existent) age of consent and child marriage laws through much of the US until recently. The concern among some (particularly gay men) is the battle cry of "kill sex offenders! Prison for life for groomers!" Is that the definitions of both of those will be legally changed to encompass normal healthy behavior. Consider also how the idea of "child molestation" to most Americans conjures an image of a man molesting a boy, even though girls are MUCH more likely to be molested.

-Creeps and creep apologists (Yaniv, Long-Chu, etc).

There are still some very worrying child marriage laws in the US (and around the world)!

I agree that gay men do face unfounded scrutiny and accusations of being deviants/pedophiles, and that should not be wielded against them. However, I don't think that when gay men see a bill against pedophiles or child abusers, many of them immediately think, "Oh no, this will somehow harm me," whereas the literal first place I saw a post about Florida's child abuse law was in a quote tweet from a trans person complaining about how this would affect the trans community.

The problem there is that there is a very large, bizarre faction of the trans community who are terminally online. They don't see how suggesting that an anti-child abuse bill is "anti-trans" makes trans people as a whole look. I read that and cringed on behalf of my trans friends, who are not terminally online individuals, and who never cross my mind when I think about TRAs online.

The additional point about creeps is that they also make the trans community look bad by association, and many of them do it by exploiting the system. Yaniv got his name changed so it was legal for him to file harassment claims against people who "misgendered" him, and spent untold amounts of Canadian taxpayer dollars suing women of color, most of them immigrants, for not wanting to touch his balls. And it was entirely legal for him to do so!

Long-Chu and "Grace" Lavery wrote books about how being thought of as a woman was a sexual thrill for them, how being a "hole" was all that it meant to be a woman, how women are blank-eyed sex puppets... Lavery even had the gall to name his book about being a woman after his penis. But because they're men-who-claim-to-be-women, we must celebrate them, write articles about them, give them money, allow them to be professors where they teach undergraduates about pornographic writing.

You've got "Erin" Reed on Twitter who screams about genocide but can't read a legislative bill for shit, and "Alejandra" Caballero from Harvard who is made out to be some sort of legal expert but actually got called into the Senate to defend threats he made against the Supreme Court on Twitter (best lawyer). And Kevin "Kathryn" Gibes, who's had two "vaginas" made for him, because he let the first one close up, and if you're a US citizen, your tax dollars paid for both - and his breast enhancements; he makes no efforts to hide any of his fetishes and ties all of them to being trans.

And there's the big rubber boob shop teacher, and every male on a lesbian dating site, and every single individual who has ever made their presence known in a place it was not wanted on behalf of their super important "trans" or "queer" identity - whether it's "gay" trans men screaming about homophobia from actual gay men or "lesbian" trans women talking about how actual lesbians need to suck their dicks.

The problem with this is that there are huge scaffolds in place to support all of this madness, rather than make it meaningful for trans people to exist. There are hordes of mommies trying to trans their children, and because we want to love and protect children, of course that rallying cry about children needing health care must be heeded! And if so many people cry about genocide for so long and so often, there must be some sort of truth! If websites post headlines about trans people being murdered in the streets, without any justification for it being a hate crime, it still must have been one! If a legislator introduces a bill that even whiffs of trans, it's set out to kill all trans people! There's no room to call out weirdoes and creeps because they're driving the caravan.

The LGB should do its best to call out predators and pedophiles, to make our community unwelcome for those individuals, and speak out against situations or bills that look to actually harm gay and bisexual people, and cut off the TQ entirely. I have no doubt there are bad actors in the LGB, as there are in every community, but it is the job of those of us in that community to take responsibility and call them out, not to give them the microphone and let them dictate the score.

[multiplicity-positivity]

hi, feel free to not answer this or delete it if u want. i’m an anti-endo system, who’s been hurt a lot by the endo community before, however every once in a while i retake a look at both sides of syscourse and such, u know? anyways, in doing so, i’ve come across ur blog, and i want to say it seems like an awesome blog, particularly for inclusivity. u seem to be against misinfo and harassment and u help people, whether they are traumagenic or not. so thank u for being that type of blog. have a nice day :)

hey thanks! here on this blog we want to create a safe and inclusive environment for all systems. this includes both pro and anti endos (we’re all systems and we all deserve support). this is why we do try to keep syscourse off of this blog.

that being said, we’d like to say a final thing about syscourse and its presence here. it’s under a cut for accessibility (please don’t click to read if you are sensitive to syscourse!)

🐢 kip (and 🦇 kandi - this may be goths first time helping write a post here? rawr won’t be very active here in the future)

we reblogged that warmline warning post because we care about the health and safety of other systems. we don’t want anyone taken advantage of, and we encourage everyone to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. after doing research of our own, our system personally is not interested in supporting the plural association.

we try to keep syscourse off of this blog for the safety and well-being of others. i (and another member of my system) do have a syscourse blog where we’re happy to engage in discussion with all sides of the “syscourse debate” (@kipandkandicore). please interact with us there instead of here anyone who is interested in talking about syscourse!

we’re all multiple, plural, or systems. many of us are struggling, lonely, and in need of support, regardless of our stances on syscourse. there is so much hatred and anger towards each other within the plural community, and that can cause serious, long-lasting harm to fellow systems as well as really cloud one’s vision and make it harder to face facts. as we learn more about our disorder and meet other systems, we’re learning to accept some truths without dismissing the truths of others.

we believe in the theory of structural dissociation. we don’t believe that it is the only way to be plural (rather, one of many, many ways), but that doesn’t change the fact that there is research out there to back it up. we don’t believe in the demedicalization of complex dissociative disorders, but we do believe plurality as a concept and neurodiverse experience needs to be demedicalized, as there are many, many systems out there who do not need treatment, whose plurality does not cause distress, and who formed without trauma. we believe that it is hurtful and pointless to try and police the lived experience of others, and that individual systems are more capable of describing their lives than anyone else. so we will always vouch for the validity of all systems here, no matter what.

we believe that education and giving systems the tools to advocate for themselves in a singlet-dominated world will always be more productive than tearing each other down because of our differences. note that we ourselves are still learning, and while we will never claim to be experts, we will share resources we’ve encountered on plurality in all its forms and talk about what we’ve learned so far. we are always welcome to being corrected when misinformed, but our core beliefs on the treatment of others and the existence of non-traumagenic plurality are not up for debate.

we understand syscourse is a difficult, triggering topic for many, and we want this to be a positive space. that being said, we encourage anyone who wants to engage with us with intentions of discussion to hit us up over on @kipandkandicore :) we have a shared special interest in plurality and do enjoy engaging in these discussions, so please don’t be hesitate to reach out to us there.

[homosexuhauls]

I was reading your tags on that teacher being accused of sexual assault thing, and I was wondering what a teacher is supposed to do if a student admits to having feelings for them? Is simply telling them "oh, well, I'm your teacher and those feelings aren't going to go anywhere" not enough? Do they legit have to report it to somebody?

Surprisingly, I couldn't find any official guidance for how teachers should handle students with crushes. So maybe take my comments with a pinch of salt, it might not be required everywhere! The teachers I know, however, are required to report every disclosure or observation they notice, however seemingly minor or innocuous.

(Usually reports are made via an internal online portal, which would then pass up the chain of the command as necessary. So a minor disclosure might result in just a note being left in the system, but something major could be taken externally. However, if enough minor things are noted about a single student, that would also flag up in the system and result in potential escalation. I have no idea if this is how such observations are made in all schools, or just the ones my friends and family members work in, so ymmv.)

There are a few reasons for this, which I'll explain using the "student crushing on a teacher" scenario as an example. Obviously situations vary though, and the way a teacher handles a 7 year old with a crush would differ massively from handling a 15 year old with a crush! Some of the points below are irrelevant in most circumstances, but guidelines are intended to cover all manner of situations, not just the clear-cut ones. Teachers are always expected to use their discretion, but overall, it's better to overreport than underreport.

Transparency - It is very rarely appropriate for adults, especially teachers or those in positions of power, to keep secrets with children. By not reporting the student's crush, the teacher is inadvertently entering into a sort of pact of silence with the student. This can be dangerous, as in the situation with the falsely accused teacher - her silence between the first and second incidences left room for an alternative narrative to be concocted - but even where no accusations and/or abuse occur, it affects the teacher's position as a trustworthy adult.

Spotting patterns - A child who has a crush on a teacher at any age is most likely a minor thing, but a child who, for example, repeatedly discloses age-inappropriate expressions of affection towards a teacher, or teachers, might be a cause for alarm. This ties back into the transparency point, as teachers being open and reporting a student's behaviour can result in that potential vulnerability being addressed, whereas silence and secrecy might leave that student open to exploitation.

Preventing escalation - If other staff know about a student's crush on a teacher, they may be able to step in or make changes to prevent the student's inappropriate behaviour from escalating. This is mostly not necessary, most young kids and teens are just gonna be a bit giggly or silly when they fancy the teacher, or at most it might lead to some mild classroom disruption or teasing. But where it is showing signs of escalation, sexual harassment etc, colleague support is essential, and again going back to the transparency point (there's a pattern here haha), obtaining that support is a lot easier if everyone has been in the know the whole time.

Protecting oneself - Lots of schools discourage or even prohibit teachers from being alone with individual students. This isn't because teachers are likely to assault students, or students are likely to make false allegations. But it does reduce the possible windows of opportunity for either of these things to occur. Obviously this is to protect the students, which I'll get on to, but it's also done in order to protect teaching staff. A single accusation could potentially end a teacher's career (not a bad thing imo, just a necessary side effect of child safeguarding). Therefore, teachers must not be put in potentially compromising situations. But teachers must also protect themselves from potentially compromising situations, and a student having a crush on them is one of those.

Child safeguarding - Ultimately, this is the thing all the other points lead back to. A teacher must remember that they have power over their students, both as an adult in general and as an authority in their lives. A child admitting to you ("you" being the hypothetical teacher) that they have a crush on you could be a really big thing, they've made themselves incredibly vulnerable to you, an adult we've already established has a significant amount of authority and influence over them. Now you have even more sway and power over them. It's easy to cross boundaries or build inappropriate bonds without realising, and I'm not referring to sexual or romantic grooming by predatory adults. I'm just talking about power dynamics, vulnerable children and teens, and the adults navigating the difficult job of having a duty of care over those young people without getting inappropriately attached - or letting their students get inappropriately attached.

So overall it's a variety of things, but mostly a child welfare thing. Obviously in the case I was commenting on, the student's welfare wasn't as risk so much as the teacher's, and I want to make it absolutely clear that I don't blame her for any of the horrific things he did to her, she (of course) didn't deserve to be assaulted and my heart breaks for her because you can tell she was really just doing her best to support someone she assumed was vulnerable. But she definitely didn't act in the best way from a safeguarding perspective - once she realised her mistake in downloading Snapchat for him to contact her and tell her "his secret" (seriously, teachers, NEVER EVER DO THIS), she should have been the first one to bring the issue to her head of year/next in command. Both to protect the student she still believed was vulnerable, and to protect herself.

What I didn't even get to in this post, and what I really wanted to talk about, were the reasons (I believe) she didn't say anything, and why those reasons frustrated me. I think the reason she most likely didn't report her student's inappropriate behaviour - and to be clear, he did more than just innocently confess a crush, he was clearly trying to make advances whilst understanding the inappropriate nature of his actions - was because she was embarrassed. I know I'm making assumptions here, but I think we're all aware of the stereotypes invoked when teenage boys have crushes on their female teachers. There's an implied feeling that it's her fault for somehow enticing him, for looking or acting or dressing a certain way, the same victim blaming applied to all women and girls who find themselves lusted after by creepy men and boys, but amplified because she's his teacher, she should "know better" (know better than what? To care about her pupils? The horror). Aside from the embarrassment that her initial assessment of the situation was way off - and maybe a lil racist idk* - and the general ick of knowing a child/teen fancies you, I presume she felt the weight of that sexist judgement at some level. And while I understand and empathise with that, it worries me that a teacher cannot bring her safeguarding concerns to her colleagues for fear of the ramifications for her reputation and career due to pervasive misogyny. Maybe I'm way off though, who knows.

*not saying she's racist necessarily, just saying she may have potentially worried about being perceived as racist for making the initial assumption about her student being radicalised.

[stealth-liberal]

Ok, I don't care how you do things in *insert country here*, I just don't. Why? Because this isn't about that country. I do not begrudge other countries for doing things the way that they do, because I assume that they do those things for reasons that make sense to them.

1. Tipping. A lot of this boils down tipping. Tips on individual drinks are basically loose change. Holding a tab open results in 1 large tip versus a thousand itty-bitty tips that are harder to keep track of no matter what form they come in.

Somebody used the classic "I don't think server's wages should be so dependant on tips!" argument. I agree with you. They shouldn't be, bartenders and other servers should be paid a living wage and not be dependent on tips to live. But guess what? That isn't the world that people living in the United States have. It sucks but it is what it is. Vote for politicians who have an interest in doing away with this archaic financial system. DON'T punish and demonize bartenders for asking/needing customers to do things a certain way to make their lives easier/getting paid.

If that isn't what you intended to say, well, I am here to tell you that that is EXACTLY how you came off.

2. Bars during busy times get CROWDED, this is the same the world 'round. In the United States, there are certain systems in place that make transactions with cards take longer. It doesn't matter whether or not you think we should live in a cash only economy (like someone in the notes was screeching about) because we just... don't. This means that cashing out after every single drink takes time. Bars generally have no more than three bartenders at a time behind the bar. So, you do this, you slow things down to a crawl. Who gets blamed for the slower and slower service? The bartenders, that's who. I promise you that the customer is not subject to intoxicated people yelling at them for this, the bartender is.

And drunk/intoxicated people being rude is a UNIVERSAL THING, not an American specific problem.

Some countries do things differently and have different systems in place vis a vis tipping and how credit card/debit card transactions are processed. Good for them. I only care about that when I am in those countries, at a bar, and need to order a drink without being a total asshole about it.

The notes on this post are... reprehensible. It reads like overly entitled snot nosed brats who are only about making things easier for service staff till the moment it inconviences them. There's also a lot of frankly, very abelist language directed at how mentally challenged some of you think every last American is. The perfomativity is mind-boggling.

In short, when you are in someone else's country, pay the people there in the way they need to be paid. Even if you find it inconvient. Everyone needs to fucking eat, everyone deserves not to get harassed.

Right Americans, I need an explanation. What on Earth are these kids doing wrong? Surely this is normal?

[1ddiscourseoftheday]

Mon 1 Apr

Update theme of the day, me being cranky! We have entitled people treating Harry like an object, and reckless massaging of logic, two things that really chap my hide! April fools, the joke is on anyone who follows me for, well, jokes. Better luck tomorrow. Well let's get it over with...

First up, the Incident with Harry- I laughed about the stalkers getting in a fight in front of him in NY but even that was kind of a bummer honestly, and it turns out the reality was even worse. In fact, a jet lagged Harry came out of the restaurant where he had dinner after his big event, probably dead on his stylishly shod feet at this point, to a small crowd of fans. He understandably said he wasn't up for pictures, sad but okay it happens: at this point one of the fans STARTS YELLING AT HIM about it and condescendingly calls him "sweetie" in a tone that honestly makes me want to smack her. Poor Harry, not being a jerk unlike me I would snap and knowing it'd probably make international headlines if he refused, then has to smile for pictures cheek to cheek with these entitled creeps. The whole display is gross as hell, the idea that people feel such entitlement to anyone's time or body, regardless of their status as, for example, a celebrity; I think it would do (mostly female) fandom some real good to reflect on the ways it parallels female oppression and consider how being treated like an object who owes your body or smile to someone for any reason makes you feel. Is catcalling or grabbing strangers or pressuring in the face of a clear no ever okay? Is it something that's okay to do to men or to famous people just because the dynamic of oppression is different? Or do we want to be better than that rather than just flipping the roles? I know for sure that I at least want these particular boys who I care for to be treated with more respect than that.

Of course, there's more than simple interpersonal dynamics at play here- the chances are high that those fans were told where to wait for Harry by HSHQ, which would have fueled their sense of entitlement, as has been seen over and over again. The boys' management absolutely have power over what kind of behavior is tolerated- if they really started denying access to more people who behave badly, rather than continuing to invite them places and give them gifts, that behavior would stop. It's upsetting that that continues to not be a priority.

AND THAT'S NOT ALL I have even more ranting for you today! I didn't comment a lot on the NYC lousquatch vid cause I didn't really think it warranted it but it's still a hot topic and today people were going around saying that the pics of Louis at the footie game Sat were from an earlier date and were posted now to hide the fact that he was in NY so okay fine. Listen. Are you suggesting that the Hadley official football club AND the opposing team posted pictures on their official Facebook pages of a match that took place at a different time claiming it was the previous day's match and that just... worked? That no-one who follows them thought that was strange? Did they play a whole match that was kept secret to make this possible now? I think people are underestimating the football fandom and overestimating the extent to which LTHQ can manipulate the world, but okay, it was a small footie league I guess anything is possible, I'll keep going. The NYC video is of someone being papped which would be a very odd choice for a Louis who was theoretically sneaking around to be in NY and is honestly the biggest argument against for me, the person in the video is entering a different restaurant than the one Harry was seen exiting, video OP is a creep and a troll but even he said it wasn't Louis, the guy in the video was imo too skinny to be Louis, Harry flew home as quickly as possible alone on a public flight, and no, time zones and flight times do not really allow for Louis to have been in NYC the evening of the 29th and at that game the afternoon of the 30th.... Like yeah, maaaybe it's technically possible and I can muster up arguments to combat most of this but they require a lot of wild maybes and none of them remotely allow for the possibility that Louis is genuinely taking some time off for self care which I hope to god is the case, and I gotta say I think the simpler explanation is a lot more likely; that Louis is in London. And so is Harry now, after pretty obviously running himself completely ragged to manage that. And while Harry was gone Oli and Louis went out for the day. Anyway now more pics of Lou from that day are popping up so you would think it'd be a moot point but I thought that yesterday too AND I just saw someone wondering if the new ones were photoshopped so I'm just gonna leave this here.

Anyway the only funny thing I have today is imagining Louis' dismay at Pizza Hut calling him "fineapple", after his least favorite pizza topping. There's probably a topping joke to be made in there but despite what the rest of this post may make you think I'm not actually trying to get blocked by everyone in this fandom so I'll just let that one go by...

Meanwhile Niall was papped in London looking smoking hot tbh, but like Niall DO YOU MIND I'M BUSY WITH OTHER STUFF TODAY go be visible tomorrow!!

[olderthannetfic]

Hi! I know you're one of the older fans on Tumblr & I wanted to ask you about the anti movement. I'm 19 & when I see people talking about the ages of anti fans, they're often within the 14-25 age range & I have no idea why. I also feel it's a little unfair to say that younger fans tend to be antis, though it is understandable since I've also made mistakes when I didn't know things. Why do you think most antis are younger fans? What should younger fans who aren't antis do to be more involved?

Hee! I’m 40, which, tbh, actually isn’t that old for Tumblr (though it’s certainly old compared to the common perception of tumblr), so sure, I can probably answer this. I guess there are two questions here: 1. Is it true and 2. why, if so?

1. Experience suggests that antis do tend to be young... but it does not follow that young people tend to be antis. (You’d have to know the proportion of antis relative to the overall population of fandom, which we don’t. I think the majority of people of any age tend to want to read fic in peace and not be roped into endless wank.) I definitely see some ringleaders who are older and good at manipulating fandom trends for their own ends too.

2. Why would this be the case?

When I was in college, we used to joke about all the freshman year Marxists. It’s an eternal phenomenon: people who don’t have much experience learn a new thing and are on fire to change the world using the one tool in their toolbox. (To a man with a hammer, yadda yadda.) There’s no passion like the passion of the newly converted, and young people tend to have a lot more energy and often a lot more free time to yell on social media. Antis may be one expression of this among people currently in that age bracket. It’s not like people my age didn’t do other annoying-ass things when we were that age. You just don’t see it because it was 20 years ago, a lot of it was never online, and all the websites/platforms from then have been systematically destroyed. (Often by yahoo. Fuck yahoo.)

The other half of the reason, in my opinion, is that there have been concerted efforts to sway lefty/socially liberal people in specific--often TERFy--ways. It’s somewhat reminiscent of the right wing radicalization of gamer guys.

People are susceptible to it because their lives suck and because they don’t know enough history or have enough confidence to form their own opinions and stand up for them. Sure, some people are going to go hardcore for anti views no matter how much they know, but a lot of people are just being swept along with the tide because something sounds superficially pro-gay or pro-protecting kids or whatever.

I cannot emphasize enough that the things that make someone ripe for the alt right are the same things that make them ripe for cults and for various kinds of toxic fandom shit: it’s usually the smart, sensitive overthinkers who don’t have enough close actual friends and who aren’t in a good place in their lives.

---

So what can you do?

You can try to make fewer more significant friendships and make sure your support system isn’t people you only know because you currently share a fandom. Most of my offline friends are people I found through fandom meetups, don’t get me wrong. I’m all for making fandom your life and only hanging out with fandom people, but we’re just regular friends who have dinner parties and shit (well, when it’s not the plaguetimes). Most of the time, we don’t share specific ships or fandoms. It’s vitally important to have a real support network that can’t be ripped away by social media wank.

The next thing we can all do is publicly stand up for what we believe in and not cave to pressure just because someone yelled “think of the children”. It’s important to be clear about the real history and logic behind these things, whether it’s the history of censorship that inspires people to support AO3′s extremely permissive policies or the fact that ‘queer’ was a fully reclaimed umbrella term in the 90s.

It’s okay if we don’t all agree. What’s not okay is appeals to emotion and ignoring science. A lot of anti bullshit is like “Rape fantasies are an abnormal red flag”, and this goes against every damn thing we know about human sexuality.

Part of this is examining our own stances for illogic and hypocrisy. If thought crimes aren’t real, then all of them aren’t real. I see way too many “Okay, but that one gross kink though!” comments from people who claim to be on my side, and this is very silly.

Possibly the biggest thing, though, is that we as a planet need to start being savvier about shitty social media and how it’s destroying our mental health. I don’t have a good overall solution, and obviously, I’m still on tumblr, but we all really need to cut down the amount of time we’re on sites like Facebook and Twitter and probably tumblr too. The more it has an algorithm and the less it has moderation, the more it’s a problem. Individual discords and spaces that can have moderation are better. It’s fine if some of them are 100% antis. The point is to have multiple spaces with rules that suit different groups.

A thing you can do is make your own spaces: be the owner of a discord for your ship, not just a passive participant at the mercy of shitty mods in an existing one. Run a fic exchange with rules you think are sensible and be firm when people try to scream about problematique things you don’t agree are a problem. One of the most pernicious anti problems is mods breaking the rules of their own spaces (usually a “no kinkshaming” one) to cave to social pressure from the loudest, most assholish set of people in the server. They don’t know how many people quietly disapprove and quietly leave their fandoms because they only fear the loud harassers, not the silent toll of caving to them.

Honestly, the climate of fear is the big issue more than a bit of yelling: I routinely meet 20-somethings who live in fear of being canceled and shunned. You can help this by... not being like that with your friends. If they’re friends with a canceled person, don’t ask them to drop the canceled person or face the same fate. If you disagree about some fandom hot take, talk about it calmly and don’t act like the friendship will be over in 5 seconds and you’ll use all your knowledge of them against them in a public callout because they didn’t instantly agree.

Basically, have some self confidence and don’t be fucking terrified all the time... which can be a tall order and probably explains the age thing also.

[cacodaemonia]

okay but. when the vast majority of the "antis" are poc asking you to take a moment to consider the often racist tendencies behind your actions, have you considered that you /might/ be in the wrong here?

if you're doubling down on this stance because you feel you've been harassed, there are some really helpful and well worded posts i can send you if you're interested that explain some of the issues facing the tcw fandom at large! as a white person, they've been very helpful showing me some of the harmful aspects of fan engagement that i didn't have the words for

Ah yes, another anon with concrete proof of their claims.

Anyway, this is a good example of a whataboutism, where anon is trying to take my stance that sending death threats to real people over fictional ships is shitty, and turn it into me being racist.

It's a super common tactic in political arguments, and is often successful at burying the original point in layers of other, usually unrelated topics or accusations.

As I've said before, I'm not going to argue or try to change people's minds, because that's an exercise in futility.

The rest of this post, under the cut, is not directed at the fandom police (who, by not just blocking me, show how devoted they are to being angry over harmless internet content), but to others who might be at risk of being manipulated by their gaslighting.

So first, I apparently need to point out that shipping doesn't inherently have anything to do with race or racism. It can, for certain individuals, and there are obviously a plethora of nasty aspects of fandom that are racist and awful. But antis muddy the waters by crying wolf about others enjoying fictional space people who do not in any way represent a real world group and have no equivalent because they're millions of literal clones.

When they make such a fuss about something that is not harming anyone, they drown out the voices of those addressing actual problems. I know of several poc who have been driven out of fandom because they disagreed with the antis and were then shouted down and harassed for not caving to the arbitrary demands (much like religious extremists, who harm others if they don't conform to their religious creed).

As someone who has been heavily involved in political activism (not keyboard activism) for anti-racist causes and various other progressive issues for many years, it's easy to see through the attempts by antis to hide their obsession with policing fandom experiences of others behind the claim of 'speaking for poc.' Elevating the voices of those who have been historically marginalized is extremely important, but when they simply use that as an excuse to be hateful, they're not doing anyone any good.

Ask yourself: by harassing individuals (about whom they truly know nothing) online, how are the antis helping marginalized or disenfranchised groups? If they really wanted to create positive change, they could put their excessive energy toward fighting systemic racism and inequity by holding mass media and lawmakers accountable, rather than bullying fans who have no power and just happen to have slightly different views on fictional characters.

It's a way to get attention and feel powerful, plain and simple. They drag others down in order to feel superior—or whatever motivates people who enjoy harming others, idk.

I'm glad that the internet preserves this stuff, because maybe some antis will look back in a few years, after they've had enough life experience to understand that real world issues aren't black and white and can't be solved by screaming on the internet. Maybe some of them will realize how needlessly cruel they've been, and how much harm they've caused to real people who just want to share something they like with others.

I won't be responding to any other similar asks. I'm on Tumblr to have fun with fandom stuff, not to engage in the dumpster fire that is the real world or listen to poorly constructed arguments for why everything is 'problematic.'

[punkylilwitch]

Types of Witches

Traditional Witch - Traditional witches are witches who have a base in the history of witchcraft and the Old Craft that came before Wicca. 

They take a historical (traditional) approach to their practice and often will study their ancestors or other folklore attached to witchcraft. 

They want to honor the “old” ways of practicing their craft, and will often focus on working with the local history, nature, and spirits of where they are or where they’ve come from. 

Sea Witch - A sea witch has strong ties to water and the ocean and uses that element often in her practice. 

Sea and ocean magic will often use sand, shells, driftwood, or other elements that come from that place. 

Sea witches feel connected to water and ancient folklore involving sirens etc.

Kitchen Witch - Also known sometimes as a hearth witch or a home witch, kitchen witches create most of their magick in the home or in the kitchen. 

They are very home-based, often incredibly nurturing, and love to make their home a truly special and sacred space. 

Kitchen witches love to cook and brew and use herbs, sometimes gathered from their own garden. This does now, however, mean that they are the same as green witches.

When practicing they combine their own personal and individual magical energy with essential oils, herbs, food, and everyday objects to create their spells, rituals, and magic.

Hedge Witch - Hedge witches practice what’s known as “hedge jumping” which is venturing out of this world and into the Otherworld. 

Hedge witches can communicate with the spiritual world and can send messages between both worlds. 

Hedge witches practice astral projection as well as work with herbs and Earth based magic. 

But what makes them specifically a hedge witch is their ability to cross the “hedge” aka: the boundary between this world and the spirit world. 

It’s thought that the “flying on a broomstick” legend was a misunderstanding based on hedge witches “flying” into the spiritual realm.

Elemental Witch - Elemental witches study and practice based on the four elements: earth, air, wind, and fire. 

An elemental magic is work based on and honoring each element. 

An elemental witch may have an altar for each specific element. 

Elemental witches call on the elements when casting spells and performing rituals, and may even have an element that they personally identify with and work towards finding.

Ceremonial Witch - Ceremonial witches have many practices, but ceremonies and rituals are practices that they hold in especially high regard. 

Ceremonial magic is worked into most of the elements of their practice. 

They likely work a ritual or ceremony into whatever they’re casting or trying to accomplish. 

They often call on specific beings and spiritual entities to assist them with whatever they’re casting.

Green Witch - Also called garden witches or forest witches, green witches are highly connected to the earth the energy that it possesses. 

They may have their own garden where they grow their own herbs, but they also study their area and practice with local plants and their own environment. 

They use plants/greenery in their spells and magic and sometimes, even their cooking and in their home. This does not mean that they are the same as a kitchen witch however.

They are often very natural and love to be in nature and near anything “green”—plants, trees, flowers, etc. They do this to be as close to Mother Earth, and the spirit she encompasses, as possible.

They are likely to be in-tune with the seasons and often use natural materials to create their own magical tools. They most likely try to perform all their spellwork and rituals outside in nature when possible.

Hereditary Witch - A hereditary witch is a witch that was born into witchcraft. It is a part of their family and/or their lineage. 

Their magic and practice are passed down from previous generations, though they may work with their own individual practices as well or instead of their families. However, there is still choice. 

Hereditary witches must be born into witchcraft, but if you do not choose to practice witchcraft you won’t STILL be a hereditary witch. Just because someone is born in a witch family it does not necessarily mean that they will be more knowledgeable or powerful than a non-hereditary witch either.

Cosmic Witch - Cosmic witches are contemporary witches who look to the cosmos, astrology, and astronomy and work those elements and celestial energy into their practice. 

Also called “Star Witches”, these witches often follow the planets and the alignment of the stars and base their spells and rituals on the different placements.

Secular Witch - Secular witches still cast spells, use crystals, herbs, oils, and candles, but they don’t attach spirituality to their practice. 

Secular witches don’t worship a deity or higher being—their practice is entirely non-religious. 

They don’t believe in the power behind energy or that there is energy in their work. 

This isn’t to say that a secular witch CAN��T be spiritual, it’s simply that their work is not. The two are entirely separate.

Solitary Witch - A solitary witch can be any type of witch, but they choose to practice alone rather than with a coven. 

This could be by choice or because they haven’t found a group to work with yet.

A solitary witch can incorporate various different paths based on their interest and may or may not use witchcraft as part of a wider spiritual path or religion.

There are also legends that solitary witches are reincarnations of witches who have been practicing for generations and at puberty, their knowledge is awakened. 

Since they already remember and understand the craft, their need for a coven is less than a newer witch.

Eclectic Witch - An eclectic witch does not have one set religion, practice, tradition, or culture that they pull from. 

Their practice derives from many sources and, ultimately, becomes the witch’s own. 

They may worship a higher being, or their practice may be primarily secular, or it might be its own kind of spiritual. 

They rely on a variety of different cultures, beliefs, and systems to formulate their own personal witchcraft practice which may change and evolve over time. An eclectic witch ultimately makes their own “rules” with their practice—it is entirely unique based on the individual witch.

Other Witches Not Mentioned

Storm witches - work with weather and help create and guide storms

Specified witches - witches that work specially with magick like sex magick, glamor magick, divination, etc.

White witchcraft - witches with the goal of transcending the material world in favor of spiritual advancements.

Death Witches - work mainly in necromancy and with materials associated with death like grave dirt and bones.

Religious Witches - people who incorporate witchcraft as part of their religion/religious ceremonies/religious practices.

Bad Witches - witches who harass others, gatekeep, refuses criticism, appropriates other religions in favor of looking “worldly”,  uses age/time spent practicing witchcraft to talk down to or manipulate baby witches

Digital/Tech witches - a witch whose practice is located mostly online

Art/Craft witch - creator (and occasionally seller) of magickal tools and uses art to cast spells

Urban witches - witches who incorporate modern twists into their craft

Music witch - uses songs, poems, and chants to do magick (= more such as sigils on guitar picks) 

https://www.vondechii.com/post/the-different-types-of-witches-creating-magic-all-around-you

http://www.arcane-alchemy.com/blog/2018/6/26/10-types-of-witches

http://www.lunalunamagazine.com/dark/im-an-urban-witch-heres-how-it-works-for-me

[oscillatingdichotomy]

Gender is, unfortunately, something we contend with, and women do face discrimination much more then men. Gender shouldn’t be relevant but it is, but that doesn’t mean sex-specific experiences aren’t relevant. Is ridicule and harassment I’ve faced in the workplace not relevant because I’m not a woman? In terms of feminism, sure, but I still advocate for equality between the sexes and for those who don’t fit that system. Sex and gender-based discrimination are one of many reasons someone may get treated more poorly, including being seen as an outsider for not aligning to gender norms. Trans women often identify as that rather than just women possibly because there is a difference and they’re trying to exist outside of the binary rather than reinforcing it. Forcing someone to be on one side with no ability to switch rather than have their own category reinforces it as well.

I’m not transsexual not transgender, but I know many people who are, and it seems that their identities are typically more strongly tied into body dysmorphia of the sex organs than anything else. The gender-related interests often just follow or are the first sign of something being wrong, as those tend to develop before sex organs.

It’s definitely true that sex affects medical care, and it’s very interesting to hear that about intersex individuals, although some brief digging showed this:

One part says that intersex individuals can have some XX chromosomes and some XY, and says that this shows sex as either being on a spectrum or having a sort of ‘other’ category, rather than all intersex people being identifiable as one or the other - some even may appear as one sex on the outside but have the anatomy of the other sex on the inside. This all means that medical care affected by sex is complex, and when someone is born one sex and takes measures to change their sex organs to resemble a different sex (not become it - I think the reason gender is used for transgender individuals is specifically because sex can’t actually be changed, but as I said it doesn’t make sense to force someone to stick within a binary system that they don’t fit into simply because trying to align with who they are reinforces that system when they’re actually outside of it) they absolutely need to disclose that to medical professionals in order to receive the correct care - but hormone therapy does change the body to better align with the sex characteristics of the felt gender and changes medical care from what the born state of the body might need.

Finally, every trans (trans man and trans woman) and non-binary person I know is a huge advocate for women’s rights and supports a cause that doesn’t necessarily affect them but many biological women oppose transgenderism because they believe it threatens feminism. The real opposition is those who believe women are not equal, and that surely is not trans people.

[genderfluidtechnoblade]

i’ve been thinking about making this post for a while now but uh:

post about dsmp + drm content on this blog going forward + opinions on the driscourse

tws discussion of the drm situation. if you dont know what it is im not explaining it. w/e

tldr dsmp might show up occasionally but i havent cared about it since prison break anyways so no skin off my back, cdream is and has been my oc for months now at this point, not supporting drm individually, wanna see where it goes before dropping his associates

first of all. i think its important to believe what a victim says. so if this girl states that dream was inappropriately messaging her, including sexual conversations she wasnt comfortable with, i believe her. i do also believe that presumption of innocence is important for a justice system and a human right, however, so i want to wait for the outcome of the court case. it’s not that i don’t believe that dream was messaging her and that she was uncomfortable- i want the most information that is available to us about specifics and the verdict irt what exactly took place.

“oh but thats a cop out” thats how a justice system is supposed to work dumbass it’s not supposed to be a he said she said where you side with whichever person you like more. burden of proof is on the accuser. it’s good to believe as the default, because the alternative is defending a harasser/abuser, but there still needs to be substantiated evidence in order to confirm. “but the justice system is going to be biased against this young girl versus this wealthy man” yeah. and i dont know how to account for that. in an ideal world, which is not the one we live in, we get a verdict based on facts and not on which defendent is more likeable.

this is basically a long winded way of saying yeah i believe the girl saying dream messaged her and made her uncomfortable but theres a very large difference in criminality of dick picks versus grooming allegations, yk?

either way. there is enough here that i believe, without court standing, that what dream did was, at minimum, deeply irresponsible. (at maximum is court case shit).  he has a significant pattern of doing something with his platform that is deeply irresponsible. i feel pity for him because he was thrust into a very large spotlight very suddenly, but that pity wanes as years go on and behavior does not change and his platform only grows. dream has shown time and time again that he is incapable of handling his platform.

theres a reason that before i said i liked dream as a favorite creator when he wasnt being stupid. he does things constantly that show he is an immature person, and usually its low enough stakes that, in my opinion, i can get over it and continue to enjoy his content. however, with recent allegations being something more serious than being annoying about mcc, i can no longer in good conscience enjoy this man’s content. even if the court case rules him completely 100% innocent, i feel his irresponsibility in response to these allegations is too serious to ignore. i dont watch or support dream as a creator.

however, i dont want to completely drop his associates at this moment for two reasons. 1) presumption of innocence still stands until proven guilty, and i don’t feel comfortable condemning random internet celebrities via association to someone who’s court case has not been finished 2) said internet celebrities have not given their stance:tm: at this point, and at the moment i am fine with it while things are still technically up in the air. if they try defending dream after a proven guilt, however, then they’re gone. that simple. i understand this doesnt jive w everyone but thats how im approaching it.

on a related note i will still probably occasionally dsmp post. i’ve mostly phased out of it, as i was a techno lore frog, but the characters still bring me a modicum of joy. if someone has an issue w dsmp posting that isnt severe enough to consider unfollowing me, i can start tagging specifically dsmp posts for filtering. however, if youve ever talked to me, and as many people can attest, i have always cared very little for ccdream’s “intent” when it comes to cdream, and many of the things i find enjoyable about the character are largely accidental on his part. therefore i will still be cdream posting along with dsmp, not ignoring him.

if you want me to elaborate on any of these points i ask that you do it in dms cause this thing is annoying and long already. free to chat about difference of opinions but atm this is where i stand. so yeah.

[mojoflower]

WHY is fanfiction not the appropriate venue for your political or social battle?

We can all agree, I posit, that there are changes that need to be made in the world (racism, for example;  patriarchal inequalities;  rape culture;  capitalism;  plug in your personal cause here).

We can all ALSO agree, I think, that the way culture, media, etc. portray things influences a consumer on an unconscious level.

We can agree that, in real life, certain things are clearly bad:  abuse of others, non-consensual sex, systemic inequality, I can go on….

So.  Let me feel my way through this.  I, personally, feel like fanfiction (specifically on AO3, since that’s where I encounter it) is NOT an appropriate battleground for enforcing cultural change by:

Leaving comments about how someone’s work is (in your, the commenter’s, opinion) wrong, damaging, unfair, insensitive, etc.

Telling the writer they should change this or that.

Telling the writer they must add or delete tags.

Broadcasting your opinion of the writer’s egregiousness outside AO3 (twitter, for example, or here on tumblr).

Organizing a campaign of harassment against the author if they don’t change to suit your personal requirements.

First of all:

 Be the change you want to see.

Fanfiction, unlike any other media out there, is INDIVIDUAL.  It is one work, from one single person – voluntary and unpaid.  You yourself are one single person.  You can have as much influence as this writer.  Write the works you want to read, instead of demanding that the writer change to suit you.  This is how romance novels changed from non-con, non-condom-wearing, shudderingly unequal stories in the 70s and 80s to where they are now, for example.  New people started writing stories, and eventually established authors started changing, too (or dwindled away).

Remember that you know nothing about the author.

You don’t know their culture, their skin color, their age, their gender.  You don’t know their socioeconomic status or how much free time they have.  You don’t know their current mental or physical conditions.  You don’t know any of the things going on in their life.  AND.  You are not entitled to know these things.  When you lash out at an author for not doing research, for not editing, for… anything at all… you cannot assume that they’re not fourteen, not suicidal, not a native speaker, not disabled such that writing a single paragraph is a tremendous effort.  You don’t know they’re not in an abusive situation, or economic peril.  You do not have the right to tell them to change.  Whether you are asking them to change text, tone, tagging, ships, plot, you name it.  Anything.

Dead Dove:  Do Not Eat.

Don’t like, don’t read.  These are simple concepts, and the tagging system on AO3 helps you to avoid many triggers.  Simple common sense, once you're into a story that’s raising your hackles, will warn you away from the rest.  If you say, ‘no, this person can’t write that, it’s contributing to pain in the Real World’ then you are functioning as a censor.  I mean, at its most basic level, a censor is someone who strikes out passages in books or other media because it’s… immoral/bad/etc.  The problem is that morality is incredibly tailored to the group you’re in, and also incredibly fluid, shifting over time.  So… why do YOU get to be the censor and not the author?  What makes YOU the final word?  Seriously, think about it.

Fanfiction writers are the most vulnerable group you could target.

Which makes them easy prey, and possibly makes them the juiciest and most satisfying targets.  Address your anger to Hollywood or Simon & Schuster or Congress – and your voice will doubtless get lost in the shuffle.  Address it to an author on AO3 and you can deliver your blow personally, one on one, and witness the damage.  There is no professional buffer between your resentment and their reaction.

Who are fanfiction writers?  Overwhelmingly women, overwhelmingly queer, often very young and inexperienced.  Wow.  What a rewarding group to start slapping around.  You wouldn't be the only one to think so.  Seriously.  Aim your anger at someone who is STRONGER than you.  Not someone who is (likely) weaker than you.  You’re kicking a kitten, while a lion lounges behind you.

Censoring someone’s thoughts is bad.

People should be allowed to THINK.  And they can think whatever they want.  Whether and where and how it should be expressed is another matter.  AO3 is a safe place for whatever weird-ass thoughts you have.  It is expressly written into their mission statement.  AO3 was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED so that authors could have a place for their dead dove fics.

So.  Why is [your pet cause] okay on AO3 and not on a script in Hollywood?

AO3 requires membership before you can post anything, so it’s arguably private.  AO3 provides tools for readers to avoid works they might find triggering.  AO3 profits no one.  Follow the money, and there are your true culprits.  Not a housewife from Hoebokken.

Fanfiction writers make no money.  When they write, they are not lawmakers, filmmakers, teachers or preachers.  This is not their job.  They do not have a responsibility to the community, because they are vested with no power and no paycheck.  Please move your battlefield to one of these other venues.  Your fight will be harder, but it will also do a lot more good than traumatizing some naive  kid away from writing forever.

Fanfiction comprises an individual’s personal thoughts and personal works, written for their own enjoyment, shared only through AO3 to (presumably) like-minded readers.  Fanfics are a person’s fantasies and daydreams.  They might be an author’s therapeutic exercise.  Or someone trying to explore something new, whether it be cultures, ideas, sexualities or kinks.  Humans need a place where they can be wrong and make mistakes.  Think about that, I implore you.  If you are constantly pointing out someone’s errors, you may eventually either silence them forever, or instill in them permanent resentment.  This does not further your cause.

You have your personal cause.

I’ve seen a lot of them.  Incest is bad, you’re not allowed to write about it.  Pedophilia is bad, you’re not allowed to write about it.  Abusive relationships are bad, you’re not allowed to write about them.  Racism is bad, you’re not allowed to write about it.  Genderswap is transphobic, you’re not allowed to write about it.  A/B/O romanticizes damaging gender inequalities.  There are many.  If every single one of you got to stamp out your personal crusade, then fic would be scant on the ground and many people wouldn’t try to create anymore.  It’s stifling to creativity and terrifying to an author that they might slip up and be called out.  No one, as far as I know, likes to think of their fanfiction as something that will be turned in for a grade.

Your standards are your own.

What are the precise parameters of an abusive relationship?  Transphobia?  Racism?  Pedophilia?  Fetishism?  Where does dub-con become non-con?  No one is the mouthpiece for the whole world.  You are only the mouthpiece for yourself.

If you think to yourself that it’s not okay to tell someone they can’t write about, say, a gay relationship, but it IS okay to tell them they can’t write about a certain ship or dynamic (for Reasons), then maybe you should step back and check yourself and your entitlement to someone else’s endeavor.

In conclusion:

I’m not saying that racism doesn’t exist in fanfiction.  Or creepy sexual abuse, or glorification of harmful dynamics.  It certainly does.  I’m not trying to play semantics with you.

But when you see these things, when they bother you... back right out.

That’s it.  Just back out, ignore it and find a different fic.  (Or better yet, write your own!)  Shower the fics you approve of with love and comments about why you think they’re great.  Give them kudos and bookmarks and shout-outs on your blog.  Eventually, if your opinion is popular, authors who thought otherwise will realize that readership is looking for something different.  They’ll change or they won’t, but the body of work will change over time, and THAT is what you’re looking to accomplish.  Not to stamp out fanfiction altogether.

[jojotichakorn]

my thoughts and opinions on "lovely writer": criticizing the critic

tw for discussions of age gaps, rape, and sex

before i turn into the mean and constantly dissatisfied archer that we all know and hate, i just want to say that i liked this show. i think it's great, actually! gene and sib are appropriately cute, the premise is nice, and the attempt at criticizing the industry is... well, an attempt, which is better than nothing. moreover, "lovely writer" came with gifts because it gave me my new favorite character, so you can't go telling me i'm trying to completely obliterate it or something.

besides, this specific post isn't going to get into analyzing the show as a whole anyway. i won't be talking about any irrelevant plot points, cinematography, sound design, or anything like that, though i could probably write a post just as long as this one about that side of things as well. however, i am here to specifically look at the problematic things that were both criticized by the show and included in the show without any criticism. i'm going to talk about the more serious side of things here, which means i'm going to get serious. and i'm going to be harsh. very harsh.

gene and nubsib: yes's and no's

overall, the relationship between gene and sib was a fair attempt at showing something complex, yet ultimately quite healthy, which i appreciate. there were some things i was especially glad about. the fact that sib dated other people before settling on getting together with gene, for example, makes the whole situation a little less codependent. however, as much as this show prides itself on not wanting to romanticize problematic relationships, there are at least two major problems with genesib.

the age gap (and why it was not needed)

i've tried my very best to give this entire concept the benefit of the doubt. at first, i was convincing myself that they were simply close childhood friends, then i was trying my best to believe that even though sib did have a sort of crush on gene (which sometimes happens to little children), gene only saw him as his younger brother, but eventually, the show gave me no choice, but to deem the entire storyline problematic, because they did their best to romanticize that relationship - from gene's dad seeing the "early signs" to the counting and kissing the cheek turning to counting and full-on lip-locking in the last episode.

i could go into how this could all easily be mended if little sib was shown as kind of obsessed with his older friend, but gene was shown as not being anywhere near interested in the kid. but the real question is - why was the age gap needed at all?

i've researched the age of the boys during the flashbacks to the best of my ability and it seems that gene is 11 and sib is 6 or 7. if sib was the same age as gene (or maybe just one year younger, but not any more than that), not only would none of it feel weird, it would also be quite appropriate to explore that first glimpse of romantic feelings some of us experience exactly around that age. i don't think it's necessary for sib to be much younger than gene (children can be just as impressionable at 11 as they are at 7, and as for gene being surprisingly nice and helpful and the other kids not wanting to play with sib, he could have easily been - for example - bullied by his peers instead, which would have the same effect).

moving forward to the present, i don't think the lack of an age gap would affect the storyline that much either. even if they desperately needed sib to be a university student, they could have that one-year difference i've talked about before, which is not as significant. sib could be in his last year of uni, while gene could have easily written his very first novel during his university years, which would actually make more sense (since that guaranteed him employment and freedom to write after he finished uni; and i would rather believe that he had time to write his first novel in-between classes than in-between shifts at work, which he would surely need to have if he started writing after finishing university).

so that brings me back to my initial question - why was it needed? and much like the show often does, i will leave this one up for your interpretation because i do not have any sensible answers myself.

the issue with sex and consent

"but archer!" - i hear you exclaim - "lovely writer is known for explicitly denouncing rape romanticization in bls, how could there possibly be any problems with consent here?" and i hear you, my dear reader. and you aren't incorrect, "lovely writer" is indeed very explicit at calling out bls for having rape scenes (and i do appreciate that). however, as i'm sure you know, there are different ways in which consent can be taken from a person, and there are different non-consensual acts that someone might perform. for example, there are many different forms of coercion, such as the person being persuaded until they feel like they have no other choice, but to say yes. touching someone or kissing someone without asking for permission are also non-consensual acts. i can go on and on, there are many examples outside of what so many people consider rape.

now, what if i tell you that though there (thank the gods) has been no rape present in "lovely writer", not all scenes with gene and sib are consensual? well, that's what i'm telling you because it's the truth. both the first kissing scene and the scene where gene and sib "try out different poses" have clear coercion in them. the entire "joke" of the scene before gene and sib's first time is literally built upon the concept of "a person is trying to run away from someone, who wants to have sex with them" and it is NOT funny. the later reveal of gene actually looking up how to have sex seems to be there on purpose, to show that everything that's happened is "ok" because gene was thinking about it. as a sensible person, i will only accept actual enthusiastic consent and not someone possibly maybe probably considering it. not to mention that right before having sex, sib asks gene one last time if he is sure, which is great, except it is immediately followed by "i'm not going to let you change your mind anymore", which - daily reminder - you are allowed to stop having sex at any point during the act if you start feeling uncomfortable with it. that's absolutely normal.

now the problem that we seem to run into here is that "lovely writer" appears to think that it's ok to push someone to the limit until they either finally agree or confidently and loudly disagree. the drama has repeatedly shown us that actually forcing someone to have sex is not ok; however, persuading and otherwise coercing someone, as well as taking an approximate guess of them wanting to have sex based on some marginally related factors, is ok. i would like to once again remind everyone that all of that is not ok.

one more issue i want to bring up in connection with sex is something i wish was common knowledge: it is NOT supposed to hurt during your first time. whether you are planning to have vaginal or anal sex for the first time, it should not hurt. and if it does, something has definitely gone wrong and you need to stop. you are not supposed to experience any pain or discomfort during sex, including your first time (outside of desired and therefore intentionally inflicted pain, but that's not what i'm talking about here). i have seen this misconception brought up many times in bls along with the other person "thanking the person who got hurt for bearing the pain to bring them pleasure" and absolutely none of that is normal. stop. please, just... stop.

criticism of the BL industry

there are certainly quite a few things i liked about the way "lovely writer" criticized the many problems that surround bls. i think they dealt especially well with the fan aspect. the breaches of privacy that are considered normal, the toxicity of social media that encourages people to comment on other people's personal life, harass and stalk them - all of that was shown in its full glory (or rather horror) and clearly condemned. it was also interesting to see how easily everyone around sib fell into the routine of having to hide genesib's relationship, just because "that's what's supposed to be done in these situations" - even tum did that without thinking twice.

however, i have not spent the past three years hating gmm for a show trying to criticize the industry not to focus on criticizing the production company and everyone professionally involved with the making of bls. don't get me wrong - they didn't completely overlook that side of things, but i found the way they approached it dissatisfying.

like yes, tum fights with his sister (aka sib's manager) and calls her out for her terrible actions, and the publisher (bua) eventually apologizes for what she did, but all of that feels a bit too... personal. i do not care about these individual stories. i care about you saying that the whole system is broken because it very much is. i wanted manner of death but with the bl industry, and instead, i got an "uwu the fans are demanding we do this, and our hands our tied" (which is a lie) and "uwu i'm just trying to make money" (which i mean... if you feel ok milking even more money than you already have by doing something unethical and immoral, then be my guest, but also go fuck yourself). besides that, i didn't see any criticism of tabloids or exploitative celebrities either (both of which we had examples of in the show), and that was kind of disappointing.

coming back to the fans for a moment, i also think that the criticism of real people shipping was entirely unsuccessful. we basically mostly got an "oh, what if this person's partner thinks they are actually dating", which... if a bunch of people on the internet who do not know your boyfriend personally and make all their judgments from screenshots and their imagination can convince you that your boyfriend is cheating, i've got some bad news for you and also a number for a therapist. partly i know why it was so complicated for them to get into it properly - the issue with real people shipping is an issue of privacy, boundaries, the perception of celebrities, acceptable interests, and many other complex topics. however, it's better to not criticize something than to criticize it badly and inaccurately (because the latter usually leads to even more encouragement of whatever you were attempting to criticize).

aey: the flamboyant villain

aey certainly starts as a promisingly complex character, but the farther we go from his backstory and his family, the less complex and the more evil he gets. eventually, the trauma he goes through is no longer enough to give him a get-out-of-jail-free card, and he loses all remaining sympathy after sexually harassing gene and pretending to drug sib. and i did start this post by saying that i am not to analyze any plot points or characters from the show here; however, i'm saying all this to prove a point that aey is a clear villain in the show. this is further cemented by the fact that by the end of the show he loses the only two people who cared about him, and the very last moment with him in the show is literally just him crying for about 3 minutes. there was no redemption arc, no pity, no revenge - he was left alone and broken, clearly punished by the narrative. and i've got a bone to pick here as well.

one of the first things that we find out about aey is that he is gay, and quite openly so. he is repeatedly described as very feminine by many characters, he flirts with men, he talks about being good in bed, and his entire character is built upon being gay (half of it directly, and the other half due to the fact that his entire backstory and therefore personality is also built upon the fact that he is gay). he is - for the lack of a better term - the gayest character in the show and the only one who is loud about being gay not because he is in love but simply because it is a part of him and he doesn't want to hide it. and he is the villain. not the disgusting publisher or the terrible manager - no, this guy was specifically chosen to ruin everyone's lives. and i can't say i'm particularly happy about that. *british voice* seems a bit homophobic love

not quite queer enough

as i said, aey is openly gay. gene and sib also eventually say that they are gay, gene's father teep is queer, so are tiffy and mhok. but it just doesn't seem to come up as much as it would in real life. the only time anyone has a problem with any of the characters being queer is when we deal with the parents. but knowing actual queer thai actors in real life, we are all aware how hard it can be for them, but it has not come up even once for aey, gene or sib (with genesib only being a problem because they are a "non-shippable couple"). being queer is far from being a non-issue in the industry, and i found it incredibly weird that it was never brought up (and i would also prefer if they brought that up instead of showing the unaccepting parents plot for the millionth time).

same goes for the lack of conversation around queer people on set. i think we all have a wonderful example of how much better a bl can get simply when it involves a queer director and/or screenwriter (gods bless p'aof), gay actors, etc. i also thought it was a missed opportunity that gene being a gay man writing a bl novel was never highlighted. if anything, everyone made a big deal out of him being a man writing a bl - never mind that he is a gay man that is far more qualified to write bls than a straight woman.

in conclusion, there are simply not enough queer issues talked about here for a show that is about queer people facing difficulties while making a queer drama.

tiffy and tum: the good, the bad, and the ugly

overall, tiffy and tum are quite cool. outside of my own personal feelings, i really liked the clear reversal of gender roles they have going on: he knows lots about make-up, she knows nothing about it, he knows how to sew, she knows how to repair a car, etc.

tiffy is also a nice addition to the precious few queer girls we have in bls. however, the way her being bi is executed... it isn't great. when she first talks about dating girls to tum, she says things like "even though i look like this" (implying queer girls have a certain look?) and "maybe it seemed normal because i was at an all-girls school" (which wtf does that even mean?). i think the worst thing, though, was when she assumed tum was gay. my best guess is she thought so because she initially thought that tum and gene were a couple; however, she should be the first person to know that just because he likes men, it doesn't mean that he doesn't like women or any other gender. even though there was nothing explicitly leading me to make this conclusion, this whole thing did kind of feel like the old "flipping the switch" stereotype (meaning, she used to like women, but now she likes men, and both of them can't happen simultaneously).

make it make sense

i think i've never been more confused in my entire life than when i found out that the director of "lovely writer" also happens to be the director of "th*arnt*pe". and if at first, i was asking a lot of questions about this peculiar individual, who went from working on the worst rape-romanticizing show we have ever had to a show that explicitly states that rape is not normal. but the more i thought about it, the less i was interested in him, and the more i was interested in whoever made the decision to hire him. there are dozens of different directors that have worked specifically on bls, and even more that haven't. yet out of all those, you decided to choose this one. the dude, who before your show has only directed the show with the biggest rape-y vibes. that casts a particular kind of shade on the entire show that i simply do not like.

conclusion

at the end of the day, i think what "lovely writer" tried to do was very interesting. it succeeded in some ways and failed in others. frankly, i think this show could have easily been made better if someone queer was involved in making it. that's always true, but especially so, when we try to talk about the issues of making a queer drama. either way, it's certainly a good start to this conversation; however - as i said - i'm still waiting for my manner of death but with the bl industry. this was unfortunately not it.

[ilikekidsshows]

These cyberbullies who worship Chloe are not the first "mob of fans to be outraged by what happens in a story". Anon has seen this kind of collective outrage before--except in previous generations, it used to be in defense of the victims, rather than their tormentors. For example, when It's Your First Kiss, Charlie Brown aired in 1977, Charlie Brown got punished for losing a football game when it was Lucy's fault. Fans sent lots of angry letters to the TV stations about it in Charlie's defense.

(addendum) Besides, Chloe stans aren't abuse apologists, or even bully apologists--that would actually be an improvement. If someone has toxic principles that "some people deserve to be mistreated", at least the person HAS principles. What this anon actually thinks is happening is that they're "person I like apologists". For instance, I've seen one Chloe stan demand that Bakugo be punished, so the person does want bullying punished UNLESS they like the bully. Stans "make up morality as they go."

Writing a strongly-worded letter/email to the company actually responsible for a piece of media about your concerns with what messages said piece of media is sending people is very different from bullying and harassing a single person every single day. The person receiving that correspondence won't be receiving it as a personal attack for one thing, and writing such a thing will make sure you think about what you're saying and what you actually want before sending it instead of typing something in a couple of minutes and hitting "send". I see the "how" in your example as more respectable than the "why".

In my personal moral code bullying is never justified, because I believe that we should strive to do as little harm to others as possible and prioritize lessening the harm someone can do over punishing them for personal gratification. Bullying someone, even for "valid reasons", is not justified in my moral system. The reality is that bullying someone with a toxic belief system will not change their mind and will, in fact, only radicalize them and make them double down on those toxic beliefs. That's why the two ends of the political spectrum have been growing more and more extreme in the online space, because both sides are harassed by the other side so they double down and become more radicalized. Bullying doesn't put a stop to the harm caused by someone's toxic beliefs, there's a high chance it'll worsen it. So I can't even condone the bullying of "bad people", because it's been proven to be counterproductive to the betterment of society.

Also, since it's so hard to determine whether or not a claimed "wrong" has been committed by the target of a harassment campaign to begin with, it's best to just reject those campaigns on principle, so that there will be less later proven innocent victims. The outrage narratives are meant to make you not question and, a lot of the time, as soon as someone has questioned what was going on, it's come to light that the harassment was just bullying and the "crimes" we fabricated by a small group of people who like to launch these campaigns for the sake of clout or just for the high of "taking someone down".

So, you're right, anon, cyberbullies are not actually about protecting people or even some belief system, they just use the idea of defending something as a justification and smokescreen for their actual intentions, which are just to bully someone, and also to "recruit" people into their cause. Cyberbullying works the best when you can get an actual mob going. But, I don't think Chloé Stans are in it for the clout. I do think you're right that it's about their highly conditional moral code, and the condition is how they feel about a particular thing. This is why even people with a "valid reason to raise concerns" are suspect to me, because you can twist anything into being about the children when, in reality, it's about that person's own personal feelings about a character. And that’s in addition to the possibility of their arguments being fabricated.

People who are out to change media to suit their personal tastes think that they experience emotions differently from others, that theirs are more real and painful and important. "Chloé has to be redeemed because her being the antagonist she's always been hurts my feelings!" The implication that Thomas Astruc deserves to get harassed because he said something generalizing that hurt Chloé Stans’ feelings is all about this narrative based on hyper-individualism.

Modern western society is very individualistic. The good thing about this is that we're more likely to defend our rights. We think: "We exist, so we matter." The bad thing is that some people take that thinking to the extreme with: "I am the only person who truly exists, I am the only person who truly matters, and so everything should cater to my personal preferences or it's Objectively Bad and Morally Evil." Hyper-individualism, or toxic individualism, basically means that you experience the world around you so stuck inside your own head and your own emotions, that empathy and sympathy become impossible and you might even consider yourself above normal society. This mostly only happens online, though, where the idea of “society” and “other people” feels less real anyway, so we get entitled fans harassing content creators on twitter to make their ship canon etc.