#may i direct you to literally anyone who talks about discourse

[rutadales]

in this fandom why is being drolo/drolo leaning acceptable but being a golo/sapolo gets you cancelled?

girl why did u send this twice 4 minutes apart and also to a foolish blog

[navree]

this is dc twitter discourse at the moment so i thought i'd ask your thoughts on it do you think red hood jason hurting children is ooc/a bad writing choice???

And this ladies and gents is why I avoid DC Twitter because I don't think I've seen any good takes there ever, no matter where you are. Sometimes people post panel compilations that hurt my heart, that's the like the only good thing to come out of it, I don't even click on the MAWS hashtag if it trends while the show is airing because last time I did it was people bitching that 25 year old Slade did not look or act the same way that current in his forties Slade does (not to mention, how can you complain about MAWS Slade? he's the best part about the show how did anyone not just fall over laughing with delight the second he showed up and proclaimed himself to be literal Slade Wilson?).

With that said, yeah I would consider that to be a bad writing choice. Talking about characterization for comics is hard because, as I've mentioned, comics is an incredibly decentralized creative medium in a way none others are. Movies, TV shows, novels, they all tend to have a main core group of people or even just one solitary person in charge of the creative direction, and for a lot of them, a very finite "this is where we start and this is where we end" mentality that comics do not. These characters have had constantly changing creative heads, with new directions and ideas for characterization attached, since their inception, and they've all been around for a very long time. This is why comics are kind of the only medium where you can, in fact, really pick and choose your canon, because the canon has changed so much depending on who is in charge at a giant company. Like, canonical eighties Batman characterization would be considered super OOC for someone writing canonical modern Batman, and vice versa. So talking about characterization is hard, especially with Jason when nobody has had any idea what to fucking do with him for decades at this point. But, when it comes to Red Hood Jason, there is something I consider gospel canon, which is the Under the Red Hood arc, since that is what nearly all subsequent canon imaginings of Jason take from. That is our gold standard here. And based on UTRH, yeah, Jason harming children is out of character and it is bad writing.

When Jason comes back, he has two very clear goals. Goal one: the Joker's gotta die, preferably Batman kills him so Jason gets concrete proof that he was loved and mourned (Jason is not mentally healthy so his thought process doesn't make sense just roll with it), but Jason is fine killing the man himself, so long as he dies. Goal two: essentially fulfill Batman's mission in a way where it actually accomplishes his goals. Jason outlines this pretty specifically in Batman #641, he tells Bruce "You. I'll be you. The you you're supposed to be." Jason's goal as the Red Hood is to make Gotham better (in his head), safer, and cleaner, but unlike Batman he is willing to take that goal as far as he can and will kill if necessary. What he wants is to just take Batman's mission to its logical extreme. Eradicate the various elements that have caused suffering in Gotham throughout the years, just with more permanence than Batman does, and less of a focus on rehabilitation, because you can't rehabilitate a dead person. And as part of this, Jason does not act unnecessarily. When he kills, it is people who (arguably) deserve it, and it is never innocents. It is always the criminal element, and people he believes are past the point of no return, as well as those who might be trying to stop him in that. His mission statement is literally "Death will come to those who deserve death, and death may come to those who stand in my way of doing what's right." and he means that. This is not a character you've created to then go out and harm children, because kids have not done anything to deserve it, and they are not the cause of the issues that he is trying to eliminate.

There's also the fact that Jason, even in his early Red Hood days where editorial just decided that he's a straight villain now, was never someone who went after kids, but in fact actively tried to help them. He makes it a point to tell his people that they do not sell drugs to kids and that if they do, he'll kill them (along with telling them not to get previously clean people hooked and only sell to repeats, which also paints him as someone who isn't just hurting others willy-nilly). The first person Jason ever kills, as seen in Red Hood: Lost Days, is a man who was involved in child trafficking, and he does it specifically because he wants to save those kids and future victims from him, and considers him scum of the Earth as a result (I think his name was Egan? Egon? idfk I don't reread Lost Days because I find their whole "look at fully adult Talia fucking the mentally ill sixteen year old under her care who is reliant on her for everything, how sexy" shtick abhorrent, and using Talia as their child rapist doubly so). So Jason, even at his most villainous, at his most "this is a bad dude" characterized, is someone who deliberately avoids harming innocents because it's not compatible with his mission or his personal code, and includes children very specifically in that.

It is also out of character and a bad writing choice because of Jason's own childhood. You might think a rebuttal to this is "Jason wants to kill/hurt criminals, what if kids are criminals" well guess what Jason was a kid criminal! It is actually illegal to steal parts off of people's cars, even if that person can afford it because he's Batman (to say nothing of the multiple very heavy handed hints dropped that Jason solicited as a prostitute during his time being homeless, which is also a crime, it is illegal and he would have been picked up by the cops for it if found out). Unless you want to argue that Jason thinks he himself should have been taken out with a Glock at the big of age of eleven for doing illegal things in the name of survival, you can't say that Jason's philosophy would allow him to harm children and remain in character or decently written, you just can't. Like, your other gospel for Jason's characterization should be his original Robin run from the 80s, since that's literally what introduced him to this world in the first fucking place, so duh. And there's nothing in that characterization to suggest that he would harm anyone unnecessarily, especially kids. Like, Robin Jason spares Two-Face's life, after having found out days ago that Two-Face murdered Willis Todd in cold blood; he tries to save Sheila Haywood's life after she straight up helps murder him; this isn't someone whose characterization allows for him to hurt children later in life. Especially once you factor in his struggles as a child, and how that most likely just breeds empathy for other children, especially children who are having a hard time.

Now, I can guess that some of this comes up in discussions of one of my most loathed subjects, the stupid bad stupid dumb stupid attack on fucking Titan's Tower. Now, even beyond the fact that the stupid attack on stupid Titan's Tower is less about Jason wanting to beat up children and more his specific issues with Bruce and the concept of Robin that can't be transplanted to other people, the attack itself is bad writing. It is out of character for Jason. It does not jive at all with his stated characterization and motivations that he himself outlined (also the only other closest thing to that is his fight with Mia Dearden, where he's pretty tame in just warning her to leave vigilantism and straight up beats her twice before letting her go relatively unscathed of his own free will, just saying) and it makes no sense. His issues are that the Joker is alive and Batman didn't do anything about it. Why the fuck would he care about Tim? Tim means nothing to him, he never even met the little dude, he doesn't have an issue with him. He doesn't even have an issue with the idea of Robin being passed down because Jason literally said he was perfectly content to not be Robin and just be Jason, and his problems don't arise from Robin! The issues at the heart of Jason's conflict with Bruce hinge on the Bruce and Jason relationship of father and son, not Batman and Robin! And not fucking Tim! Tim means nothing, he is a nonentity. The only reason this fuckass plot exists is because DC didn't know what to do with Jason and threw shit at the wall to see what would stick, similar to what we saw with that dumb plot with Nightwing from this time that also has similar issues, in that why would Jason care enough to cause problems for Dick, he doesn't have an issue with Dick, he legit interacts with Dick in UTRH and he's fine! (a better writing decision would have been post-UTRH Jason immediately writing the entire Batfam off and treating them as hostiles whenever they wander into Crime Alley and them having to regain his trust back/him agreeing to let down more and more barriers as time goes on and they all reconnect, but I was like seven when all this was being written so DC didn't seek my input) The fucking dumb Titan's Tower thing that people are gonna use to prove that Jason hurting kids isn't bad writing isn't even about Jason, the only reason this shit gets trotted out again and again is because Tim Drake has a lot of fans who are absolutely convinced their poor uwu baby has suffered more than Jesus when the only person in the Batfam who's suffered less than him is, like, Alfred (although I can make the argument that Alfred has still suffered more by having had to put up with Bruce Wayne almost singlehandedly for most of his adult life). It exists in people's minds even tho it is objectively bad writing and out of character for one of the main players because fanon Tim has to be the most special boy ever (and also because these people wanna use it to make Tim interesting which is impossible because nothing can make Tim interesting).

Jason hurting children deliberately is, indeed, bad writing. It is, in fact, incredibly out of character. It does not compute to his explicit motivations and how he was characterized in the stories that have since been used as a jumping off point for his characterization ever since. And ultimately, the thing is this: if Red Hood Jason is just trying to do Batman's job better than Batman, who is he doing it for if not children? Who is he trying to clean up Gotham for, make Gotham a better place for, if not her children? And if that's the case, as it obviously is, why on Earth would him then harming her children be any kind of good character writing or coherent characterization?

TL;DR, yes it is.

[folkwhore1998]

swear to be overdramatic and true to my...

lover

I am a pink girly through and through. Taylor's album aesthetics are so different from one another, and of course, I may be biased but I just love this album aesthetic so much. It completely screams summer. This is the album to roll the windows down and sing with your friends in the car, fall in love, yell at a man, cry... Who knows!

Miss. Americana highlights a large bit of the Lover era and Taylor's thoughts while making the album. The clip in that documentary where she discusses how this is really her last opportunity to do something big in music is so emotional to watch. Reason 1 is that it is a hard headspace to be in. Reason 2 is that it was the furthest thing from the truth. Seeing the shift in her stardom from then to now literally makes me emotional you guys. She had no idea what was going to happen for her. Don't get me wrong, she was already insanely successful, but things are so different for her now.

There is a lot of discourse about how reputation is the real Lover, and Lover is the anxiety that comes with being in love. Some have also said it is wearing the rose colored glasses and being blinded by love. Either way, it is a beautiful album that I will ride at dawn for.

It has a mix of everything... mushy love songs like Lover and Cornelia Street, songs with empowerment like The Man and You Need to Calm Down... self love with Me! and the deepest song being Soon You'll Get Better.

Soon You'll Get Better is a song that means so much to me. My Mom was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer when I was 19 and lost her when I was 22.For me, it was the song that got me through it. The song that encapsulates the helplessness of seeing someone you love be so sick but desperate to do everything and anything to have them get better. It goes back and fourth between denial, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

Denial: I'll just pretend it isn't real. I know delusion when I see it in the mirror. Anger: And I hate to make this all about me. But who am I supposed to talk to? What am I supposed to do, If there's no you? Bargaining: Holy orange bottles, each night I pray to you Desperate people find faith, so now I pray to Jesus too Depression: In doctor's-office-lighting, I didn't tell you I was scared Acceptance: This won't go back to normal, if it ever was It's been years of hoping, and I keep saying it because, Cause I have to

It is something you don't understand until it happens to you. I am heartbroken for anyone who understands while simultaneously being thankful I have someone who understands. It helps me to not feel so alone and I've never heard a song like it.

Here are my rankings for the album, Lover (Taylor's first fully owned album!!!)

Cornelia Street, Soon You'll Get Better (don't make me choose) Daylight Lover Cruel Summer Death By A Thousand Cuts Paper Rings Me! The Man London Boy You Need to Calm Down The Archer False God Miss Americana and The Heartbreak Prince Afterglow I Forgot That You Existed I Think He Knows It's Nice To Have a Friend

My favorite Lover Era Moments:

she's so real for this

one of my favorite performances

Here is the link to the beautiful framed print: I have a ton of these in my house. I print them at walgreens and put them in a frame! I get tons of compliments on them.

Here is a direct link to the storefront:

Here is a link to the lover live from paris vinyl costers:

Here is the direct link to the storefront:

@taylorswift @taylornation

[mxtxfanatic]

Why do you think Shen Qingqiu sees himself as selfish and lazy when he is a genuinely kind person ? where does it come from in your opinion, I mean ?

I think this perception comes from a combination of things: fanon, canon, and fandom issues, but I guess I should start by saying that I don’t believe that Shen Qingqiu seriously believes himself to be genuinely selfish and lazy person (also that being selfish and lazy precludes you from being kind).

Canon:

1) Shen Qingqiu has typical millennial self-depreciating humor. Most of what he says about himself is exaggeration and hyperbole. He is not being serious.

2) Shen Yuan acknowledges and accepts that he has inherited the sins of Shen Qingqiu along with his body, so a lot of times he’s also taking into account Shen Qingqiu’s actions as Shen Jiu when talking about his own. He’s considering Shen Qingqiu as a whole, not just from the moment he transmigrated in.

3) Shen Qingqiu never directly brags about himself or his achievements, so the self-depreciation sticks more in the mind of readers. He turned a purely aesthetic created by Shen Jiu into a fearsome weapon. He was accepted into a top civilian school as a teacher as soon as be stepped in, and he taught there for months. He has an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the world of PIDW. But because most of these we see through context, it makes it seem like he may not see his achievements as noteworthy, when he simply just.. does not brag. And this makes sense that he doesn’t when you remember that he’s already a revered shizun and sword cultivator. Why does he need to list off his skills and triumphs to anyone just to counter the jokes he makes in his mind?

Fanon:

Shen Qingqiu is not nearly as self-depreciating as fandom makes him out to be. A lot of it is just a direct misunderstanding of Shen Qingqiu’s character stemming from as early as his transmigration, where many readers assume that he is only motivated by “survival” despite Shen Qingqiu accepting the “inevitability” of his death before even laying eyes on Luo Binghe for the first time. This is just one of those situations where fandom has taken a relatively small and casual character trait and turned it into the character’s main personality.

Fandom-wise:

There’s a worrying amount of people in this fandom who seem to miss a lot of queues from story, which I feel like stems from two places that may intersect but aren’t mutually exclusive: 1) people are reading mxtx as their intro to cnovels when every mxtx novel is a critique and takedown of the genre it inhabits. If you don’t even know what’s typical of average Chinese webnovel writing, how are you able to pick up when an author is mocking something or playing around? Speaking on myself, svsss was my first cnovel, and there were a lot of things I either missed or misunderstood until my second reread after spending a year consuming any cnovel I could get my hands on. That added experience changed my understanding of svsss when I finally revisited it.

And 2) a lot of the English-speaking fanbase (which is mostly composed of white people from Western nations) have a worryingly hard time conceptualizing of Chinese people as people and not little robots or meme-machines, and that translates into the inability to see Chinese characters as anything but either illogically literal or callously glib and unfeeling, no nuance or in-between… unless it’s a character they personally vibe with, in which case only that character has nuance and complexity while the others are “boring” and “unnuanced.” I have no sympathy for or solution to these type of readers, but the fact that they tend to dominate book discourse is a massive problem.

[cios-correct-opinions]

@starrynightarchive

big ol tl;dr for anyone looking:

if ppl "not appreciating" female characters by creating content for them bc they don't want to bothers you that much? there's only one thing you can and should do:

MAKE YOUR OWN CONTENT OR APPRECIATION POSTS OR WHATEVER IT IS YOU THINK PEOPLE SHOULD DO INSTEAD AND STOP DEMANDING PEOPLE CHANGE THEIRS. IF YOUR FANDOM SPACE IS LACKING IN CONTENT YOU WANNA SEE? MAKE IT. DO IT. NOTHING'S STOPPING YOU EXCEPT YOURSELF.

but if you don't wanna do that and you don't wanna pay someone to, then stop complaining.

(note re: the discourse thing/me wanting to "start discourse": i only reblogged onto my "discourse" sideblog bc i didn't want this on my main blog. not bc i think it's automatically discourse. political stuff just goes over here now so i can keep the things more separated for my own sake)

op of the post blocked me but im genuinely baffled at this response

because how in the fuck did you gather ANY of that from me saying this

brother all i did was define what the word means. like i am so baffled as to how you decided that i was implying op was transphobic or some shit bc i absolutely was not!

nor was i trying to start discourse. i was literally just saying that, in my experience in the circles i'm in and the people i've seen, doing both is possible and they often do both. i'm not a huge fan of cis genderbends myself in any direction because if i'm gonna genderbend they're gonna be trans given that i am also trans

and then theres this that i said

which everyone seems to have completely ignored. bc that's the crux of this. it's not that they dislike the canon women it's that they want to take their blorbos they love the most and girl them because that's how fandom works. it's about self indulgence. fandom is supposed to be you doing what you love the most, and engaging with the characters you love the most, bc it's about fun

why are yall trying to force people to post abt characters they may not care for for a number of reasons? bc thats what this feels like. it feels like you want ppl to talk abt, post abt, write abt, draw abt, etc, characters they are not super passionate for, simply bc you believe they should, bc you think what they do in fandom is some kind of formula for their like, actual real world beliefs

i genuinely cannot stress enough to you guys that most peoples actions in fandom are almost entirely divorced from any political meaning. or at least, they were, until people started acting like that was a sin actually and that if you liked this character or if you liked too many male characters and not enough female ones that means youre secretly a misogynist who just hates women so much because you don't post about them all the time

most of my fandom blorboposting ends up being about a handful of any random assortment of characters because that's who my brain latches on to, but that doesn't say shit about my feelings about any other character. specifically in bsd, i mostly post and talk about literally two of the characters WAY more than the others bc they are my favorites. this includes ALL the other characters, just about. most of my fanworks are for them and will continue to be for them because they are my OTP and my top two in this series.

why is this important?

because someone genderbending a male character or multiple of them in order to see a CHARACTER THEY ALREADY THINK ABOUT 24/7 AND LIKE A LOT AND HAVE A DEEP ATTACHMENT TO, as a woman, does not mean they don't love and appreciate the canon women. holy shit. that's what i was criticizing in the original post.

also like. most of the ppl doing the genderbending i see are either women or like, somehow woman-aligned, or wlw/attracted to women in some way, etc. and most of them are making these genderbends bc theyre attracted to the canon character. it's self-indulgence it's ALMOST ALWAYS self-indulgence guys it's FANDOM that's what it's FOR you CANNOT FORCE SOMEONE TO CARE ABOUT A CHARACTER FOR ANY REASON AND STILL MAKE AN ETHICAL ARGUMENT OUT OF IT JFC

it wasn't meant to be discourse on my end either. i was trying to offer an alternate reason or perspective of approaching what op seemed to think was an issue given the wording of the post, by offering my personal experience. i also never said op was wrong, by the way, my expression of disbelief was also put alongside me going "maybe it's just the people i follow" because i tend to follow people who, when they do genderbends, are also avid fans of the canon women too, they just like the men they're genderbending more. hence why they're doing that.

this expectation within fandom that people must create content of female characters - or ANY characters - lest they be accused of despising them or not appreciating them is going to be the death of fandom and i'm so fucking serious. you CANNOT insist people spend their time making shit for FREE that they aren't 100% jazzed and excited about in FANDOM SPACES and then get mad when they don't do that and expect fandom to be something that continues for generations as it has in the past

and for the record seeing as how op reblogged with this which. where do i even start lmao. ik they've written me off as a woman-hating misogynist so i'm not expecting good faith arguments in response from them but, c'est la vie

[nexus-nebulae]

Hello!

We are the Nexus Nebulae (or Nexus Collective), a polychimera system of 400+. If you don't know who's fronting, you can just refer to us as Nexus, Nebula, Echo, or Guardian, they/them (plural form).

We accept all system origins here. We aren't debating it. Don't send discourse, we will immediately block you.

More information is packaged below vvv

Previously [echovoidsystem]

Bodily we are over 20. If you are a minor and us interacting makes you uncomfortable, feel free to say so and/or block us- we understand (/genuine).

We are physically disabled on multiple fronts, and have autism, ADHD, GAD, MaDD, and a handful of other things. We post about these things frequently. You can block the tags [#meds talk], [#doctor moment], [#not eating tw] and [#low health] if those particular things bother you.

We really really like getting asks and messages, however due to the aforementioned GAD we struggle answering them literally ever. So unless you ask a direct question that needs an answer, we might just never respond. Just know that we definitely saw it, and we definitely were happy about it, but we're just too much of a sopping wet cat to answer.

If you need to ask for certain trigger tags, feel free. We will never judge you, no matter how "weird" or obscure it is. Just know that certain things (e.g., swearing, all caps) are things we won't tag simply because they're too frequent of topics here, so at that point it may be better to just unfollow.

Also, we have multiple memory disorders, so there is a chance we may forget to add tags. We do usually manage to keep up with it though.

We currently have tags for [#emetophobia] and [#scopophobia].

SIDEBLOGS!

@thestarlightindex: our 'second main' where we mostly reblog terms we like and talk more in detail about our system & sources & MaDD

@echo-reblogs-creatures: self-explanatory. you want some Creatures?

System member sideblogs:

The Nameless Echoes, collectively: @nameless-beasts

The Hermitcraft/Empires Introjects™, collectively: @crowningachievementsmp

DNI-ish

We know DNIs don't work, but this is just a way for us to say what we do and don't support here. We block people we're uncomfortable with.

WE SUPPORT:

ALL system origins, be it nontraumagenic, created/tulpa, or anything else

ALL GOOD FAITH QUEER IDENTITIES. YES this includes all aspec people, INCLUDING CISHET ASPECS. YES this includes people with tertiary attractions. YES this includes mspec lesbians and gays. YES this includes xenogenders and neopronouns. YES this includes fags and dykes and she/hes and lesboys and he/him lesbians and multigender people and everything fucking else.

Sex work, drug addicts, people with stigmatized disorders such as ASPD or NPD. No, "narcissistic abuse" is not a fucking thing, stop being a fucking ableist.

Otherkin, or anyone who falls under the alterhuman label.

All races and religions (though we may be clumsy with this and accidentally say the wrong things. We're white, raised in a solely christian community, so we're still trying to learn how to shake off the bigotry our parents taught us. We genuinely want to learn and get better with this. If we say something wrong, please tell us, but please be patient with us and don't just yell. Most of the time we aren't even aware what we're saying is harmful. That isn't an excuse, but is an explanation.)

Other notes:

if you have "mcyt/dsmp" in your DNI we will just block you. We have introjects. Just leave us alone.

CREDITING

Dividers from here (eyestrain & flash warning for the blog this links to)

Current header was from google i don't know where it came from ;-;

Current pfp was edited by us :)

[theangryjikooker]

made me giggle a bit seeing people saying you're "spamming" the jikook tag with "negativity". i don't have shipper friends or interact with shippers; when it comes to this specific part of fandom it's just me, my RTs and the sort of big accounts i like. it's always a shock to get smacked with the reality that people are actually very much serious about this, it's not just a silly little thing to indulge in.

so people see a post of someone saying "i stopped entertaining the possibility that jikook could be something more than friends" in their favorite tag, so what?? have people lost the ability to scroll? is their peace that fragile?

i'm also thinking in general, not just this specific instance, i've always been someone that has to dig deep and go past whatever is popular in a fandom to reach the content or people i vibe with. scrolling past shit i don't like or even blocking has always been very ordinary for me, so i genuinely don't understand people that have to announce to everyone that they found something they don't vibe with in their little corner of fandom. welcome to the club lol.

idk as much as i always liked jikook, jikookers spaces have never been ideal to me because i came from the OG problematic shippers fandom aka 1d fans, so i really wanted my fan experience to be better than that (it ended up being sooo much worse but that's a discourse for another day). i've never made it anyone's problem but mine to deal with.

i feel like everyone on here could use a little drink of the "it's never that serious" juice.

Oh my word, thank you for this. Please be the voice to all my other anons who have trouble with this.

To god complex anon, this is directed at you. It’s quite puzzling to me that as a non-shipper, you have trouble grasping what comes easily to someone else. You seem to have an inability to compartmentalize my presence in a space densely populated by shippers, despite the fact that it isn’t their space. Tumblr isn’t inherently a shipping space; the Jikook tags aren’t solely geared towards those who ship them. Shippers have arrogantly claimed their right to the tag, have made it all about them when it’s not.

My criticism of shippers and their way of shipping is, quite literally, just that. Your submission seemed to indicate that you believe people who peruse or lurk these tags and read about Jikook are exclusively shippers. Not all of them are—a minority they may be, yes, but there are a number of us who respect Jkk and appreciate their interactions but don’t subscribe to the dogmatic ideologies of shippers. Naturally, most of us are going to overlap in areas where Jikook can be talked about. It’s truly not rocket science.

Now, if I were going into a Jikook private server, made specifically for Jkk shippers, and I expressed my opinions as gospel, then of course I’d be the asshole and I’d have zero right to be there. But on Tumblr? Seriously?

I would also argue that shippers have proven they have the god complex, because far too often (and they’re sitting in my inbox, ignored, as I have no time to repeat myself ad nauseum) I have to defend my ability to even express my opinions, critical though they may be. And the heinous part of it all is that they know people like me are in the minority; they know that they and the rest of their cult can dogpile what are essentially dissenters because they have the numbers and support on their side.

—

And to the rest of you who are choosing to be argumentative just to be argumentative, my use of the “bts shipping” tag is because this post (like many others) is talking about BTS shipping. This is grade school stuff, guys, come on.

—

I will also add—because a reminder is constantly needed—when I talk about “shippers”, I’m singling out the problematic ones who’ve made it their personality, who also happen to be the most vocal and are unable to mouth off in their own blog instead of harassing me on mine.

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

Okay so I feel like I may be swinging a bat at a hornets nest here, but please hear me out. I'm asking this genuinely and hoping for an actual discussion on this.

This is an excellent and insightful thread that I'd ask you to read in full first because I am writing this after reading it; however, this is definitely part of a larger conversation on tumblr so it's not a direct response to just this post. Also that thread is so long already and OP seems pretty done with it, so I don't want to blow it up (again.)

---

At what point does someone stop being culturally Xtian? Is there a threshold past which someone has actually done enough unpacking of Xtian ideas and assumptions to ever escape it? Do you have to literally join another culture to overwrite Xtian culture? Does that, by itself, actually even fix it?

I guess what I'm struggling with here is this: are we talking about a behavior that people engage in, and can therefore escape by not doing that behavior or thinking in that way anymore? Or are we talking about a set of privileges that one cannot ever truly leave behind?

If it's the former, then I think it would be more appropriate, more accurate, and more respectful (especially to survivors of Xtian religious abuse) to describe the behavior rather than the person. Because at the end of the day, this person, no matter how obnoxious - and trust me when I say I've been on the receiving end of this obnoxiousness and sometimes outright antisemitism plenty - isn't a Xtian* and isn't necessarily defined by this behavior. It's one thing if they define themselves by a bigoted behavior - a self-identified t//erf is a transphobe by their own definition, for example - but people whose identity is otherwise neutral are not, as a person, a/an [x] based on this particular example of their behavior. So if this is the case, perhaps saying "[x] thing you said comes from [y] culturally Xtian idea that is antisemitic," (for example) would be more productive and lead to a better conversation than simply saying "you're culturally Xtian and need to stop speaking over us on [x] issue."

This is also important because anyone can make culturally Xtian assumptions, even if they've never once been Xtian in their lives. Do you know how many Jewish-from-birth folks I've had to help unpack culturally Xtian ideas and internalized antisemitism that they were putting out into Jewish spaces? Especially (but far from only) assimilated Jews? It's not only a non-zero amount, but it comes up frequently. Because I've spent the last several years unpacking my own cultural Xtianity and intentionally assimilating into Jewish culture, thought, and religious ideas, I am hypersensitive to the intrusion of Xtian normative ideas and am able to explain the difference from personal experience in these conversations.

On the other hand, though, that brings me to possibility #2, which is that this is a privilege that is being described. If we're talking about the set of circumstances that one grew up with and the cultural assumptions one has baked into their emerging personality from birth, then I'm still, as a person who is now Jewish, more culturally Xtian than someone who was raised an atheist by atheists. My hard work over the last several years does not change where I came from, no matter how much I sometimes wish I could overwrite my past. I not only grew up as part of the privileged religious majority (and since I am white and was part of a mainline protestant denomination, I really was at the top of that pile) I still, to this day, know Xtian texts and religious practice and assumptions from the inside and can therefore speak to people who are coming from that place in a way that others without that privilege typically cannot.

That is still true, years after I finished converting, never mind started the process of de-Xtianizing my culture and worldview. Yet, I've never been accused of being culturally Xtian in discourse on here, and I feel like anyone who would do more than say, "hey - [x] particular thing you said seems to be coming from [y] Xtian assumption about the world. Can you clarify what you mean and/or maybe this is something you need to address?" is likely to get yelled at for how they are othering me as a ger. Even if what they're saying is true! Because it would be disrespectful to point it out by just flatly telling me I'm coming from a culturally Xtian place and need to put a lid on it.

So I guess I'll end by posing some questions for discussion. I am genuinely interested in people's different responses to this.

Is it possible for someone who has left Xtianity to no longer be considered culturally Xtian?

If so, what would it take for someone to reach that?

If not, why not?

Does the answer change if the person is an atheist/areligious/non-religious full stop, versus someone who has replaced it with another religion?

Does it matter what that new religion is? Must it have longstanding culture behind it, such as Judaism or Hinduism, or can it be a new and/or eclectic religion, such as many neo-pagan religions, Satanism, new age religions, etc.

What do our answers to these questions say about how we view and treat atheists, followers of new religions, and gerim?

Part of my concern with how we talk about this besides just the interfaith piece, is that it also gives Xtianity a whole lot more space and power to control the conversation about religion and interfaith discourse than it necessarily needs to, as well as sometimes starting a weird purity rabbit hole to try and get away from the "taint" of Xtian ideas. I'm just not sure we want to cede that much control, but obviously at the same time we need to be able to name Xtian privilege and the thoughts, behaviors, assumptions, and discourse that flow from it, so I'm not sure what the right balance here is.

(*For purposes of this thread I'm only talking about people who are not religiously Xtian, even though obviously Xtians engage in this behavior plenty and are the privileged religious group in the US.)

[vaspider]

I have a question, and you seem to be very good at explaining things. My understanding is that transfemme/transwoman/femme? are all the same, and mean someone who was assigned male at birth, and currently identifies as transgender. And the same for transmasc/transman/masc. Just, yknow, the other way around. Is that correct? Or am I getting my terminology wrong? I've always been kinda shakey on that, but wasn't sure who to ask without seeming rude, or like I was mocking them.

"Femme" is a word with multiple meanings. It can mean:

"Woman" - since it's just the word 'woman' in French, and this is where all of the other meanings come from.

"A femme lesbian, that is, someone who fits the 'femme' dynamic or presentation within a butch/femme relationship, or simply on their own." - This is regardless of actual gender, pronouns, cis, trans, whatever. Butch and femme in this context come to us from Polari, which is a theater cant from the UK commonly used by Travellers, theater people, sex workers, and queer folx (and all the intersections thereof). The butch/femme dynamic in lesbian (and gay!) relationships and communities goes back at least seventy-five years. This has way more context to it than I can cover in this, but, like, if you look at movies like Paris Is Burning or read any of the older lesbian zines, you'll see many many examples.

"A transfeminine person, that is, someone who was assigned male at birth and is moving in a feminine direction with their transition, or presents feminine rather than masculine OR a person who presents feminine regardless of gender." - 'Femme' is often used as a catch-all term for anyone who is "femme of center" when discussing gendered issues. This can include cis women, femme non-binary people regardless of gender at birth, binary trans women, and many other varieties as well.

You'll sometimes see "women and femmes" used to describe who belongs in a particular space, but this is falling out of favor, thankfully, as it was often used as a low-key misgendering of AFAB non-binary people and trans men. What people usually meant by that is "people with vaginas and also trans women I guess," and it ended up with a sort of 'woman lite' implication for the word 'non-binary' and excluding non-binary people who didn't present feminine enough (usually meaning 'they have a dick and are non-binary'). The whole phrase is a mess and I'm glad we're moving more toward talking about "marginalized genders."

My wording on this may not be perfect, and it may not match every single use of femme as other people understand it -- and I'm sure I've forgotten some usages of it. The point is that it's a contextual word. What it means often depends on the conversation at hand, who's having the conversation, what community they're part of (whether that's the lesbian community, the queer community, the trans community, what region or country they're from... ), etc. If you're confused by someone's use of 'femme' contextually, it doesn't hurt to ask for more information. (Though I would avoid saying things like 'define femme' bc that's often the sort of thing that TERFs and the baby-TERF exclusionists do, and you may come off unintentionally as one of them. Asking 'hey, I know this word has lots of contextual different meanings, would you mind clarifying for me' is probably better.)

That's one thing, honestly, I think we need to get a lot better at as a community -- and here I know I'm going on a tangent -- recognizing that a lot of our words are contextual, lots of them don't have single, fixed, universally-recognized meanings, that the US isn't the single defining experience of queerness and other countries use other terms which are as correct as ours, and that even regionally there are lots of different terms or slightly different definitions. This sort of dogmatic 'there is absolutely only one definition, and it's mine, and I'm going to redefine your experience and your identity if it doesn't fit my definition' is something I've seen far too much of lately, especially from younger queer folx.

I know it's like, really tempting to want to have singular rigid definitions for every word, but that doesn't fit people's experiences of gender or sexuality, and the trend I've seen toward literally telling people "you are not X, your experience doesn't fit X, you are Y," is some nasty-ass stuff and it really needs to stop. I've seen it most often with younger lesbians telling older (in some cases decades older) lesbians "you're wrong, you're bisexual/pansexual, you're not a lesbian," but I've also seen it with gender, people telling others what their gender is, and that's the shit that TERFs and other transphobes do, we can't be doing that to each other.

Anyway, femme means a lot of things, depending on context. Ask people if you're not sure. And before I hit post on this, let me make clear that I don't tolerate discourse around whether butch and femme are "lesbian exclusive" terms. They are not, they never have been, and if someone comes into my notes trying to start that old bullshit up again, they will not get the serotonin of a reply from me. They will get blocked without response.

[ranboo5]

whats 'the clip' and knifetrick?

Augh. Under the cut for shipping discourse and p/dophilia ment (nothing graphic or specific). Gets long bc I discuss my thoughts on DSMP shipping in general. You are setting me up fr anon

Some quick vocab -

intimacy here is used to refer to. Well. Any kind of intimacy between characters, of any sort, as an umbrella term /r, /p, and /qp here are used as shorteners to denote "romantic," "platonic," and "queerplatonic," both as adjectives And as verbs ("to /r" = "to portray romantically") shipping here is used to refer to any focused examination of intimacy between characters

And some clarity that Should follow from the essay next but may not - """anti-antis"""" and RPF writers delete forever

The Clip is from one of if not the? most recent Discord stage(s) Mr Live has done (which I missed when it was live RIP) wherein he issues a hard ban on shipping him ("do not ship me, in any way, with anyone!") which would less influence c!beeduo (which has been portrayed/stated to be romantic AND nonromantic both conflictingly for a while until being confirmed unconfirmed several months ago, that being the last was heard) without its direct invocation if he hadn't also cited for the reason as being underage ("'Cause, one, it's straight up pedophilia") which is! a) immediately applicable to At Least his DSMP character, Partially and b) while not Strictly True (should b obvious that portraying a relationship within the bounds of what it is in canon and in a nonsexual way is not That, and /r-ing c!beeduo etc was possible to do Appropriately again by remaining w/in the bounds of canon) is Clearly Indicative of the fact that baggage-wise it IS associated with people being fucking creeps

This Really complicates things bc like okay the apparent solution is "lol just don't /r it" but it's really like. A Worse issue than that bc like.

Okay the reason shipping in terms of fictional characters is a Different Bar is bc it's an examination of Intimacy and certain lines exist in certain dynamics of intimacy that Isn't Shown (which is the whole Within The Bounds Of Canon thing) which is important in a medium like DSMP because of the smaller gap + more personal relationship b/w character and streamer. Examining intimacy beyond th bounds of the consent that has been established in that regard is Weird at best and Violating And Creepy more often and, As Mentioned In Ranb's Stage, Literally Evil at worst

Which is why writing abt like. QPR or platonically intimate Techno and Philza (characters) is smth that is fine because that's smth that has been shown and repeatedly stated onscreen; it's in the bounds of canon n thus within th bounds of what the streamers've consented 2 be done with their characters. But writing T3chza making out or whatever is fucked up because it's smth that's beyond those consent barriers

And the thing is right

Slapping a /p on T3chza makeout doesn't. Make it less violating

Like what you CALL romantic is not the measure or whether it's past those barriers yk? And if it's indistinguishable, if it's in extrapolative territory that is Past The Bounds, it Does Not Matter how much you /p it EVEN IF IT IS TECHNICALLY PLATONIC y feel? Like at the end of the day placing a moratorium on some/all forms of shipping is placing a moratorium on certain examinings of intimacy

And okay 2 go back to Mr Live and his character. What it implies taken in context w/ older portrayals of c!beeduo and said by invoking smth that both evokes Really fucked up baggage (that does unfortunately exist btw I'm sorry if you didn't know that but People Really Do B Fucked Up Abt Beeduo) AND applies to his character is a revocation of consent to examining deep intimacies:tm: with his character, which is gonna apply regardless of the nature of that intimacy (even if nonromantic)

Like I don't /r c!beeduo myself, do not, never have, but I talk to people who have and have consumed content where they r background /r; I also don't think it matters. Like I don't Actively /r it and I don't Actively Not /r it because imho w/ the intimacy regarding c!beeduo that is plot relevant and character important whether that intimacy is /p /qp or /r doesn't really matter. I don't consider myself Less of a c!beeduo shipper than someone who /rs them because that would be dumb as hell and while none of the content I've made* is Intrinsically or Intentionally /r it certainly can be read tht way as much as it can be read /qp or /p. It's be dumb and hypocritical of me to like, dunk on ppl for /r-ing c!beeduo when I'm also invested in these two and my tonetags r not gonna suddenly Delete the picking apart I've done of the dynamic @ hand

Which Has Been. Within Bounds Of Canon. It's been what's been shown (sometimes to my great distress. There is a reason that the :canon_beeduo: emote looks the way it does) Directly Onscreen and in general keeping with the tone n intensity/directions of what they've Done With The Characters

HOWEVER

As mentioned up there. Revocation of consent

It makes. Full sense 2 me that Mr Live wants to place a moratorium or fullon ban on shipping his characters perhaps where he wouldn't have before because of the Unfortunately Very Extant trends of people being Fucking Weird about shipping his characters AND of using them as a Thinly Veiled Excuse to ship HIM, which. I should not have to explain why shipping real people is fucking abhorrent

THIS creates a problem which is a. Bit of a vacuum in interacting with what is a facet of c!Ranboo's arc, decision making, and character. Like you CAN have c!Ranboo w/o cbeeduo but you Can't Really have his plotline without examining c!beeduo. And as I mentioned earlier: even if your examination of c!beeduo is fully platonic, the significance of it To the plotline means that any examination of it and its relevance to the plotline and characters IS gonna be an examination of intimacy, which. Regardless of it's platonic, Is Still Shipping

Unless some HARD retconning happens it leaves this like. Hole in an aspect of c!Ranboo's arc and decisionmaking and it's very. Uncertain? God. Fucking months ago I was already kind of :huh. Does he know what the fuck he's doing: irt c!beeduo and desperately wishing for things to be cleared up and now it's only That Much Stronger

NOW. KNIFETRICK, FINALLY

Knifetrick (or, as it’s actually listed, Bishop’s Knife Trick) is a fic about "Ran and Jackie from The Pit TFTSMP" in a "canon-typical ambiguously romantic relationship." As you can tell from the scare quotes, especially if you've seen me vague, both of these are, to put it politely, Doubtful. I've read the fic; I will not be sharing my opinions because that would be neither productive nor responsible (I will just say I can't recommend it and leave it at that) but I WILL say the following that Is relevant to the conversation:

Ran's and Jackie's characterizations respectively have very little to do with characterizations from The Pit, and bear a dollar-store-version resemblance to tropes and personality motifs found in ESPECIALLY fanon c!beeduo, especially later in the fic. I would not go so far as to say they are Intentionally Literally Ranboo and Tubbo but they are transparent expies and were clearly written at LEAST unintentionally w/ c!beeduo in mind (esp since. Ran and Jackie barely interacted in The Pit), and for a readerbase that, as far as I can tell, is HUGELY dominated by /r c!beeduo shippers. Like. Sorry. This is off-brand c!beeduo.

The dynamic between the two is pretty unambiguously romantic, also; despite what the fic's white knights claim, romantic tropes and implications/motifs/imagery from at LEAST chapter two, and is very much explicitly romantic by the most recent chapter.

FROM CH1:

"And now, with raised eyebrows and a pursed lip, the newly named General Jackie observes Ran in such a way that makes the enderman’s skin crawl. Ran reminds himself that this kid, as short and harmless as he may look, is trained to kill. [...] Jackie narrows his eyes and tilts his head a little, as if he’s trying to read in between every one of Ran’s imperfect scales."

FROM CH2:

"It makes Ran’s skin itch with discomfort. [...] 'That actually doesn’t explain much of anything at all,' complains Jackie, and he pops a few croutons into his mouth with one hand. 'Tell me what you’re thinking, pretty-boy.'

"Ran feels his face flush, no doubt mildly glowing green.

"Yes, that was the other thing. The unnecessary compliments to his physical appearance.

"They don’t happen very often, and don’t seem to have very much meaning or intention behind them— Jackie often speaks like an unthinking kid— but when they do happen… they’re embarrassing. [...] It’s annoying how the rug is pulled out from under his feet in these moments when he’s 'embarrassed'. Like the conversation see-saw has temporarily shifted weight in the general’s favor."

I am not going to include excerpts from Chapter 6 because it's just the entire chapter.

I WILL SAY, HOWEVER, STEPPING ON THIS SCORPION BEFORE IT STINGS: they are not written in an RPFy manner and I don't think there's any grounds, including Vibes, of accusing Knifetrick of being like. Closet truthing or whatever. Also, while I think there's certainly Some Weirdness ESPECIALLY around the reaction, the romance itself is Not written in any way I'd call weird or problematic pre-clip; it's nothing inappropriate or like Weirdly Fetishy or whatever. Knifetrick is not #problematic or anything and I don't have beef with like the concept of liking it intrinsically; if I thought it was like. Abhorrent I wouldn't be sharing excerpts lmao dhjfnhdsbvdnfjh. Hence: if anyone uses this post or anyth like it to send harassment or bad faith ANYTHING to anyone involved with Knifetrick I will hunt you down in the fucking night even if it WAS #problematic that'd be the LITERAL OPPOSITE of productive and as it stands it's Literally Not. Essentially: Knifetrick is a (questionably-written /mean) fic using Ran and Jackie from The Pit as a vessel for a large chunk of the dynamics and headcanons of fanon /r c!beeduo in particular

And again, I would not call it problematic in any way (aside from the disingenuity of the insistence that it's TOTALLY UNRELATED TO BEEDUO and TOOOTALLY WASN'T INTENDED TO BE ROMANTIC GUYS like own your shit please)... IF it weren't for the advent of The Clip, which is calling in2 question the Entirety of the problem of /r-ing any variant of c!beeduo or any of Ranboo's characters at all

I really do not have an answer for this tbh. I genuinely wanna hear from the streamer on this more specifically because I like,,, I got no clue where 2 go from here? Do I just consider an arc retconned? Was it an issue of speaking abt a troubling subject kneejerk wise and I'm reading too much in2 it?

I just. I dunno

Tl;dr (AT LONG LAST)

- The Clip is a clip of a Discord stage where Ranboo (streamer) loudly explicitly decried shipping in a way that implicitly applies to characters he plays - This would be all well and good but is rendered complicated by the plot relevance of c!beeduo, which does not stop being shipping if it's /p'd due to it still necessarily being an examination of a particular intimacy in a way that is in canon hard to distinguish the /p, /qp, or /r nature of - Bishop's Knife Trick is an AO3 fic centered around using TFTSMP characters as /r c!beeduo expies which is not a bad thing in and of itself unless it also is covered under this moratorium - Things remain unclear until and unless we get clearer word from streamer, but considering Mr Live seems to be allergic to clarifying anything abt c!beeduo this is doubtful

*very little if any of the content I personally have made 4 c!beeduo has been posted publicly, for related reasons. You May have seen it if you're in servers w/ me, depending on Which Ones

[thedreadvampy]

ok look please understand that it is absolutely normal to want to live with your best friends, have casual sex with your friends, raise kids with your friends, and keep your friends as the most important people in your life.

whether it's a qpr or not, that's normal and it's healthy.

I think people are often encouraged to think that the historical, traditional expectation is to put your partner before your friends but that isn't...really true? men have very rarely been expected to have a stronger social connection with their partners than their friends, and the only reason women have been expected to centre romantic relationships is because they've historically been socially and financially dependent on making and maintaining a strong relationship.

that isn't to say that your partner shouldn't be as important as your friends. after all, at least in my social setting, relationships aren't a primarily financial and political arrangement - hopefully you are with your partner because they're a good friend to you as well as a partner.

like it's cheesy to say but Sam and Kofi are some of my best friends and that's a big part of our relationship. but like. they aren't the only friends I'm that close to. I'm differently close to, say, my friends Alex and Jake (who I think are probably the most important people in my life), or my friend Joe (who I've lived with in a mutually supportive way for 5 years), or my friend Courtney (who I hook up with regularly and love dearly) or my friend Lesedi (who I have very seriously considered co-parenting a child with) but I'm not less close to them.

and this isn't a Weird Me Thing either. like:

probably about half the people I know have housemates who they've lived with, moved house with multiple times, and who are as intimately involved with their lives as their romantic partners, often more

where I grew up and most places I've been, most people have "aunties" - your mum's best friends who stepped in to help with the kids and who are part of the family. I myself traveled down half the country regularly to help support a friend who was a lone parent while his son was little, from looking after a baby for days at a time to helping him look for daycares and booking doctors appointments, and that's super normal - when I and most of my friends were kids we were all used to spending up to 1/3 of our week at a parent's best friend's house. that's literally a big chunk of the role godparents play in many people's lives too. it takes a village to raise a child and formally or informally most cultures expect that the parents' close friends will chip in and love and care for the child.

Most adults I know have at least one friend who they carve out at least a few hours a week to spend time with - go to the cinema, go for a coffee, cook dinner, catch up and vent and offer emotional support.

Friends with benefits? totally a really thing whatever people tell you, it doesn't have to be emotionally romantic and often actively feels weird to be

It's normal to grieve when a friendship ends and it often affects people as deeply or more deeply than a relationship ending

like, this isn't to say that a lot of media messaging posits this sort of stuff as immature/less important (and for men, the dreaded A Bit Gay) but that messaging actively runs counter to how most people live their lives in the real world, and you know. in a film when someone finds a partner they become the Most Important Thing In Their Lives. in real life most of your friends will agree you're being kind of a jerk if you consistently blow them off in favour of your partner at any age.

and I think the thing that concerns me is the degree to which the idea that you're expected as an adult to choose between romance and maintaining close, meaningful friendships is uncritically absorbed and reflected in how a lot of otherwise very thoughtful people talk about relationships, romance, sex and friendships.

like if your expectation is that having intimate friendships can only happen if you don't have important/lasting romantic/sexual relationships, or that having a relationship means you can't have or want friendships deeper than casual hangouts and occasional Emotion Chats...like, that will harm you.

Not everyone wants or needs romantic/sexual relationships, true, but everyone, regardless of whether they also want that, needs supportive and meaningful and lasting friendships as part of a fully actualised social life. As I say, those needs might be met by some of the same people (I've been in a relationship with Sam for 9 years, but we've been friends since I was 14 and while I can imagine a life where we're not dating or having sex, I genuinely can't bear to imagine a life without his friendship) but emotionally close friendships are still a genuine need.

(plus honestly if the only place you can get emotional closeness is a sexual/romantic partner, that's a very vulnerable place to be in. both for you and for them. It's not good to only have one person you have a serious, close, mutually supportive emotional relationship with - ime most people do best with like 4 or 5 close friends minimum (one or more of whom may or may not be their sexual/romantic/queerplatonic partner)

and this is where I'm dipping a toe into the Spicy (shitty) Discourse, because I don't at a object to the idea of queerplatonic relationships (I don't necessarily understand them, but honestly I haven't understood anything since 1999) it worries me how many people defend the idea of qpps by saying WOULD YOU DO X WITH A FRIEND????

and I understand the defensive impact bc tbh when people say "explain the difference between a queerplatonic partner and a friend" they are very rarely asking in good faith - they've already decided that aro/ace people Just Want To Be Special and that qpps are a Stupid Tumblr Queer Concept.

and it's a shitty question anyway imo because like. I know there's a difference between friends-with-benefits and Girlfriends on an emotional level, or between a friend and a non-sexual romantic relationship. I know there's a difference and most of these people would agree but if you asked me to draw a hard line to define This is Not Romantic and This is Romantic I'd be stumped. it's an emotional reality not a behavioural one so it's not a clearcut concept and it may be different for everyone

B u t

When people respond to this (shitty, bad-faith) question by insisting "friends don't kiss! friends don't live together! friends don't co-raise kids!" they are just flatly Wrong. And it's a really weak argument because of that, because people will just say 'yeah we literally do, a qpp is a normal friendship, qed' and that's. Uh. Based on what's been said that's kind of a reasonable conclusion? because those things are all normal friendship things for a lot of adults.

there are many possible arguments for the term queerplatonic. it's about describing an emotional connection that isn't quite romantic. it's a way of clarifying that your intention is to commit to spending your life with someone. it's a way to define the expectations you have of your relationship. but ultimately it's not your job to justify this to anyone. many people (me included) might not understand exactly what a qpp means to you, but that doesn't mean we have any right to go 'that's meaningless' or talk it down if it isn't hurting anyone

but like. these specific types of defences of qpps (the "qpps are Important Vital Relationships and friends are just People You Don't Mind Spending Time With" attitude) are harmful, both to people not in qpps and to people in qpps

Exceptionalising the idea of having friends you love like family, who are the most important people in your life, who you might choose to live with or share your life with or be the person you'd trust with your children/your wellbeing/your health? That's dangerous!

and it takes us no closer to adequately valuing close friendships to say "close friendships are what QPPs are and they're a direct replacement for romantic/sexual partnerships". we can have both, and we should feel able have both. not necessarily both a qpp and a relationship, but both a life partner (sexual/romantic/queerplatonic) and other friends who are intimate parts of our lives and families. That's such a profoundly vital part of being queer particularly but also just of being, and it stresses me that people think that's a Special Kind of Relationship not a normal close friendship.

[serinemolecule]

Not to harp on the obvious, but the discussion feels hollow without it: the only reason some people - not all, maybe not most, but definitely some - push for "equality" and "inclusiveness" and etc. in tech is because it's seen as a desirable and powerful position. No one's been belly-aching about it back when it was fashionable to tell nerds to stop being fat and ugly and what a bunch of losers they are. It's only up for discussion now that there's something to be gained from it. It's hypocrisy.

(context: a lot of women-in-tech discourse)

I mean, I was belly-aching about it.

I like to say I was a feminist until I met other feminists. I definitely saw plenty of things nerds could be doing better for equality. But then the first time I met other feminists, they were harassing nerds and writing long essays about how nerds were even worse than average men (which still seems to me like an absolutely insane position).

That was... a really big crisis of faith there. I spent years reading feminist literature, trying to understand their point. And the crazy thing was, a lot of the principles and concepts do appeal to me. But then the way they’d apply it, talking about how privileged nerds were, or just using it as an excuse to be assholes to people, that’s always seemed wrong to me.

My approach at the time was just to try to understand it better in private, and never talk about it in public. This lasted until I read the SSC essays on social justice which I entirely agreed on, then I joined Tumblr to hit on Scott, and since then I started getting more comfortable with writing out my thoughts, but also the really bad SJ of the early 2010s just mostly faded away from the spaces I’m in. I still hear insane stories from other places (like the New York Times! wtf!) but it no longer feels like a crisis afflicting my own community, so I never wrote anything out.

Part of it’s that my community is the rats, now. SJWs may still exist here, but they don’t have a social power to turn us against each other. Whatever effect Topher’s tweet had on the rest of the world, it means he’s no longer welcome among rats anymore. We dismiss them with equanimity using the ancient proverb, “Haters gonna hate”.

Anyway, I suppose now’s as good a time as any for me to talk about what I think about feminist theory.

I get the impression that Scott is embarrassed by his old posts on gender politics, but I still endorse every word. Even the words people like to criticize the most, I endorse as an angry expression of “Why don’t you care about how many people your ideology is hurting?” That said:

Privilege theory – I remember encountering privilege theory and thinking “yes, this totally fits the model that normies are privileged and nerds are marginalized”, until I got to the part where they started talking about how privileged nerds were. I think the theory is still pretty good, and of course the practice about writing privilege checklists and using it to silence people is incredibly fucked up.

Patriarchy theory – Fortunately, no one talks about patriarchy theory anymore. It came from the radfems and it always seemed horrible to me. It's uncontroversially true that ruling class is mostly male, but patriarchy theory seems to just equivocate between that and insane conspiracy theories.

For example, “culture is built for the benefit of men at the expense of women” requires you to just dismiss everything that hurts men and helps women, to excuse that fashion policing is nearly solely perpetuated by other women, and even if it’s true, the fact that it is perpetuated by everyone means pointing the finger at a specific group will not help fix the problem. Did Kamala Harris exercise “girl power” when she kept black prisoners in jail past their release date? 

Cultural appropriation – The usual steelman I hear for this is “it sucks when white people take your culture for themselves, and yet still call it cringe when you practice your own culture” – but the only objectionable part is the latter! Stop objecting to the former part! There’s nothing wrong with culture mixing and it is in fact one of the most beautiful things in the world!

Part of it’s that I’m a first-gen immigrant, and cultural appropriation attitudes often come from insecurities second-gen immigrants have. Cultural appropriation just means I’m now an expert on your new culture and you’re not allowed to stop me from infodumping on it.

The other steelman is “misusing religious artifacts is bad” and I think to the extent that it’s bad, it’s bad whether you’re doing it to your own culture or to other cultures.

In general I think Halloween was, among other things, a great celebration of diversity that did not need to be cancelled, and I don’t think any costume was offensive to the majority of any culture.

Intersectionality – This word confused me for so long. People kept explaining it as “black women often have problems specific to their group that neither women’s groups nor black groups themselves are equipped to fight” which just seemed obviously true and didn’t seem like we needed a word for it.

Over the years, I’ve seen it be used as a reminder of “don’t forget how your activism affects other marginalized groups”, so it’s probably a useful concept to keep around.

Microaggressions – I think being oblivious to microaggressions is an autism thing, but I still think it’s insane to make them a political issue. Sure, you can vent about them, but acting like they’re on par with actual aggressions just seems like a losing cause.

On second thought, I don’t think I have a problem with making them a political issue in general. I think the whole tactic of SJWs being a hateful harassment mob makes the microaggressions thing just come off as especially petty.

I also think there’s a lot of competing access needs here. I actually really like infodumping about what kind of Asian I am to anyone willing to listen, and I think acting like the question is the root of all evil is really unfair, especially since literally everyone who’s ever asked has been happy to learn about the finer points about Chinese ethnic groups.

Isms as prejudice + power – People have mostly stopped discoursing about this, which is good. Language policing always seemed bad to me.

Objectification – SSC says everything I feel on the topic: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/17/my-objections-to-objectification/

The last time this came up in Discord, people said that objectification is more than the straw-man being criticized in this article, that it’s about people being entitled to your body or whatever. But I think the article does address that: “This is obviously a legitimate complaint. It’s just not a complaint about objectification.”

I got exposed to objectification as a criticism of hot girls in video games. And I just can’t see hot girls in video games as a bad thing.

Rape culture – [cw rape] This is an incredibly sensitive subject so I’m going to give you some time to stop reading here.

Our culture has a serious problem with rape. I think it’s important to understand that it’s usually committed by friends and family, that it’s depressingly common and has nearly definitely happened to people you know, that it’s usually committed by people who don’t think of what they’re doing as rape, and that all the discourse on it is really fucked up.

I also think that calling this “rape culture” entirely misses the point. I’m sympathetic that SSC doesn’t understand it: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/19/i-do-not-understand-rape-culture/

Our problem isn’t that we glorify rape. Our problem is that we consider it a special kind of evil so bad that of course no normal person would ever do it, and this makes it easy to rationalize that whatever this normal person did couldn’t have been rape, which causes huge harms.

I don’t have answers, but I think it’s incredibly clear that calling it “rape culture” doesn’t help.

In general, I don’t think feminist activism on the topic of rape goes in the right direction. The smug “consent is like tea” video has the exact same problem. People don’t need to hear more “normal people would never rape” messaging.

[hellomynameisbisexual]

As I spoke with other self-idenitified bisexuals throughout my college career, I realized that many, including myself, felt a dose of imposter syndrome in both gay and straight spaces. Whether it be comments from fellow queer folk invalidating our sexuality or the general queerphobia prevalent in the larger society, many bisexuals resent the heteronormative stereotypes imposed on them from both the gay and straight communities. Further research into the erasure of the bisexual community indicated that its impact on the mental and physical health of bisexual individuals is tangible.

The term “bisexuality” encompasses many sexual identities including queer and pansexual. According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), “Studies suggest that bisexuals comprise nearly half of all people who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual, making the bisexual population the single largest group within the LGBT community.” As the largest subset of the gay community, it is interesting to note that bisexuals are routinely discriminated against in the LGBT community as well as in the straight community. Despite being the largest population behind heterosexuals, studies suggest biphobia in all facets of society has facilitated the erasure of the bisexual community to the extent that bisexuals can expect to be systematically disadvantaged regarding their physical and mental health,

The prevalent stereotypes about bisexuality that keep bisexuals from coming out are noted in the essay “Bisexuality and Mental Health: Future Research Directions,” published in The Journal of Bisexuality in 2015: “It has been argued that bisexuality has been delegitimized by negative stereotypes, such as ‘bisexuality doesn’t exist as a sexual orientation,’ ‘bisexuals are sexually promiscuous,’ and ‘bisexuals are confused.’ Several studies have found that heterosexual, gay and lesbian individuals may all have negative attitudes toward bisexuality, indicating that bisexual individuals face double discrimination.” The authors, Persson & Pfaus, assert that bisexuals are hesitant to identify themselves for fear of backlash from all facets of society, a statement I can firmly attest to having been personally asked “Can’t you just pick one or the other?” by both gay and straight people. In a press release regarding a study focused on HIV/AIDS in the bisexual community, published in the American Journal for Preventative Medicine by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, researcher William Jeffries⁠ stated, “Societal biphobia is more prevalent than antigay sentiment.”

Biphobia is prevalent enough to keep bisexuals from coming out to their homosexual counterparts. Historically, homosexuality has been considered taboo and punished with imprisonment and even death; pro-gay movements all over the world trumpet the importance of acceptance and inclusivity, yet gay communities globally refuse to acknowledge bisexuality as a legitimate orientation and discriminate against bisexuals based on this belief. In her article “Inside, Outside, Nowhere: Bisexual Men and Women in the Gay and Lesbian Community,” Kirsten Mclean examined the impact of bisexual attitudes on a group of 60 Australian bisexual men and women, “in terms of their perceptions of, and participation in, the gay and lesbian community.” Analyzing the range of biphobic attitudes within that homosexual community, Mclean’s study attempted to expose how these attitudes effect bisexual participation in said community. She found that, “though some participants were active within the Australian gay and lesbian community, many were not, due to the belief that they would be rejected or discriminated against as bisexual. Furthermore, those who did participate in the gay and lesbian community tended to keep their bisexuality hidden, for fear of being made unwelcome.” I related so much to that sentiment, having been called a “tourist” at a local gay bar when I mustered up the nerve to go with my fiance, a cis bisexual man. We left shortly after, feeling exiled to a life of languishing among the straights at tacky sports bars.

Ostracization from the gay community encourages bisexuals to pursue opposite-sex partners and fade into heteronormative society. A Pew Research Survey conducted in 2013 revealed that 84% of bisexuals end up in hetero relationships. Award-winning bisexual writer Kristina Marusic discussed this statistic, asserting that hetero relationships among bisexuals does not delegitimize their preferences and that the odds of a bisexual having an opposite-sex partner “fall enormously in their favor… the [percentage of the population that is LGBTQ] is actually closer to a scant 3.8 percent. So not only is it statistically more likely that a bisexual person will wind up with a partner of the opposite sex; it’s equally likely that they’ll wind up with someone from the over 96 percent of the population who identifies as straight.” In an interview with the HRC, an anonymous bisexual said “I wish that more people inside the gay community itself would support my decision to call myself bisexual. I am not being selfish. I am not a liar. I am not gay. I am not straight. I am bisexual.” Additionally, according to Mclean, “a large number of gay men and lesbians still flat-out refuse to date bisexuals.” Thus, many bisexuals couple with opposite-sex partners and identify as straight despite their true orientation, as is reflected by Marusic’s statistics.

The idea that there are two exclusive sexualities, gay and straight, has effectively gagged bisexuals, preventing their self-identification in the heterosexual and homosexual communities and ensuring their assimilation into heteronormative society. In her study “Living Life in the Double Closet: Bisexual Youth Speak Out,” Mclean states, “Dominant public discourses endorse heterosexuality and homosexuality as legitimate sexual identities, but do not recognize that some people are neither exclusively heterosexual nor exclusively homosexual.” Mclean interviewed 22 young bisexual people living in Melbourne, Florida. A bisexual woman herself, Mclean employed an interpersonal, interview approach to this research because she was “examining a group that had thus far been both silenced in traditional research on sexuality, but had also, for the most part, silenced themselves.”

There is nothing quite like silencing oneself, no greater discomfort than suppressing an inherent part of who you are. When I was twelve, I was at a large sleepover at a close friend’s house. Her older sister was “watching” our group of a dozen or so girls. At some point, a large bag of assorted liquors was procured. I have always been impulsive: always picking “Dare,” never scared to sneak out and certain in every situation that I was indestructible. As a seventh grader intent on proving my invincibility, I drank eagerly and abundantly. After taking several shots that blazed through my undeveloped chest and sent unfamiliar chills up my spine, I opened my eyes to the stars spinning above me where I lay in the lawn, both exhilarated and terrified at the realization that I was “completely smashed.” My next decipherable memory depicts me sitting semi-upright in the RV parked near the side of the house, the drunken faces of a few of the other girls swimming in front of me as I swayed.

Truth or Dare. I remember thinking, “This should be good.”

I was dared to kiss the girl next to me, a close friend who was as wasted as I was. I recall the nervous flip of my stomach as my lips neared hers. The Dare and I smushed our faces together clumsily. I could taste the vodka and orange juice on her mouth. I found myself falling into the kiss and she seemed receptive. We made out passionately as the other girls leered at us in an inebriated stupor. Eventually, they left us alone in the RV. I woke up the next morning in a crumpled heap on the floor of the RV; my eyelids crunched as I opened them and my lips were so dry they cracked when I sat up and coughed. The Dare was still asleep on the RV couch; last night’s events played through my head as I gazed at her sleeping face. I felt lighter than I ever had, despite having the worst hangover of my existence. I stumbled out of the camper and entered the house; girls were draped all over the furniture, looking at pictures from the previous night and nursing headaches. The room quieted when I entered; they stared at me, their faces inscrutable. I scrubbed my face with my hands to dislodge the various body fluids dried there. Under heavy surveillance, I procured some water and sprawled on the living room floor, head pounding and hands clammy.

“Z, do you remember anything about last night?” Someone asked. I sat up and put a palm to my throbbing temple. “Not really, did anyone get hurt?” I asked, doing a headcount of the girls in the room to see who was missing. Only The Dare was absent. “No..” Another girl piped up, “But you and The Dare like, hooked up.” She giggled anxiously. I flinched at the thinly veiled disgust in her voice, shrinking further and further into myself as I saw it reflected in the eyes of many of the other girls. Instantly, I realized my mistake.

It was a harmless thing to kiss a girl as a dare. It was another, far more heinous thing to enjoy it.

Panic engulfed me as my pubescent brain scrambled to find a way to maintain my position in the social hierarchy of my seventh grade class. Stalling, I sipped my water. I imagined being one of the “dykes” at school, of losing every inch of social capital I’d managed to attain. Frigid tendrils wrapped around my heart and, for the first time in my life, I consciously gave in to cowardice.

I feigned surprise as best I could: “What the fuck are you talking about?” I said, doing a small spit take to really sell it. A titter travelled through the room and girls started talking at once. “During truth or dare!” “You got dared to kiss her and you did!” “You were literally all over each other!” “She touched your boobs!” Their exclamations overlapped, the cacophony splitting my skull open. I silenced them with a shout of my own⁠— “Oh em GEEEE!” I yelled, burying my face in my hands so they couldn’t see the humiliation there. “I was completely wasted, I don’t remember anything. Did she have as much to drink as me?” I said. I knew that she’d been as drunk as I was⁠ but⁠— as I’d known (and maybe even hoped) it could⁠— the question changed the tide of the conversation. “You’re right,” a girl said from the couch, “she like.. Took advantage of you.”

That was not what I’d said but I let her comment fester as the other girls eyed me sympathetically. They no longer saw a lesbian; they saw the victim of one. My insides clenched uncomfortably and I ran to the bathroom, where I emptied my stomach into the toilet bowl.

I felt close to death as I leaned against the bathroom sink, staring at myself in the mirror. I remember my face so vividly: the self-loathing, the repulsion, the guilt and loneliness so clear on my young features as I silently tried to justify what I’d just done. My cheeks were sallow and slick with shameful tears and perspiration as I sweated liquor from my pores.

Not invincible, after all.

The Dare and I’s friendship was never the same. When our classmates made cruel remarks about what happened, I didn’t defend her. I apologized profusely to her after I came out in high school, but I know that wasn’t enough for the trouble I caused her. Though we were just kids experimenting, the reactions of the other girls solidified my denial of my bisexual identity for years to come. I tentatively called myself Bi-curious to a few close friends, but I’d temper it with comments like, “I think girls are pretty but I would never date one.” and “I don’t know how lesbians do it, vaginas are so weird!” My internalized homophobia manifested as a total denial of my bisexual identity when that identity threatened to make me even more of an outsider at my predominately white, conservative middle school. I had boyfriends and a social circle, but suicidal thoughts became a daily occurrence as the hatred I felt for myself deepened.

My experience is more common than I could’ve ever imagined then. After polling and interviewing hundreds of adolescents, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) concluded that “bisexual youth were much less likely to be out to their families, friends, peers, and communities” than exclusively gay youth. Only 33 percent of UK bisexuals surveyed by the Scotland-based Equality Network felt comfortable telling their general practitioner about their sexual orientation, and nearly half had experienced biphobia when accessing health services. Though there are many variables that contribute to a person’s ability to come out⁠— including but not limited to social and political climate, familial relations, and personal values⁠— the UK’s statistics raise alarms about global attitudes regarding bisexuality and health concerns for bisexuals.

In the United States, lack of preventative care for queer folk begins in grade school, as proper sex education for students attracted to the same sex is sorely lacking. According to a 2017 report by Guttmacher Institute, of the 22 states that mandate sex-ed, only 12 are required to acknowledge sexual orientations. Of those 12 states, 9 mandate inclusive discussion of the different sexual orientations, and 3 “require only negative information on sexual orientation.” Poorly educated bisexuals are less likely to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases into adulthood. When The Dare and I were exploring each other, I had absolutely no frame of reference for what we were doing and how to do it safely aside from mainstream pornography tailored for hetero, cis male consumption. No lessons on safe queer sex were taught at my middle or high school; it angers me to know that is the norm.

Erasure impacts mental health as well as physical health for bisexual folk: according to the HRC, “Bisexual adults were also more likely to engage in self-harming behaviors, attempt suicide or think about suicide than heterosexuals, lesbians or gay men.” Bisexuals, especially adolescents, were also more likely to engage in risk taking behavior like alcohol and drug abuse, which negatively impacts both mental and physical health. HRC’s 2012 survey of LGTBQ youth found “only 5 percent of bisexual youth reported being very happy, compared to 8 percent of lesbian and gay youth and 21 percent of non-LGBT youth.” The HRC asserted that poor emotional well-being during adolescence translates into bisexual youth being “twice as likely” to experiment with drugs and alcohol. Furthermore, during research regarding the disparity between bisexual health and that of individuals in the exclusively gay and straight communities, the HRC found that “more than 40 percent of LGBT people of color identify as bisexual, and about half of transgender people describe their sexual orientation as bisexual or queer – making these groups vulnerable to further disparities that occur at the intersections of biphobia, racism and transphobia.”

The well-known yet oft-forgotten “Mother of Pride,” Brenda Howard, spent her life advocating against bi-erasure. She said, “The next time someone asks you why LGBT Pride marches exist or why Gay Pride Month is June tell them ‘A bisexual woman named Brenda Howard thought it should be.’” Until general attitudes in both the gay and straight communities change, bisexuals will continue to repress themselves and feel excluded from both groups. Bisexuals: never let the ignorance of others repress you. You aren’t confused, you aren’t inherently hypersexual and your queer identity is valid. Don’t let anyone, gay or straight, take away your seat at the Pride table.

[ryanberga]

At some point will you post some sort of transcript/verbatum of what was said for those of us who haven’t listened/can’t listen so we can understand the situation and what exactly was said in what context (no pressure because I know you said you haven’t listened to it either but some of us [me] are confused and only know that bad things were said but not like what and in what context) thank you for this blog wishing you a less stressful day

i went ahead and transcribed the entire last question for you so that you have the full context. this is 10-15 minutes worth of dialogue so apologies that it's so long! i cut out any irrelevant banter/jokes, and i stopped the transcript where i did because that's the end of the bulk of it. i bolded the parts that i (and most people) have taken issue with

Katie: [reading question] "Guys! I'm in a really sticky situation. For context, I live in rural Ireland, and I'm meant to be starting my first year at uni (you'd say college). My problem is that there's a girl in my friend group that I really despise. There's eight of us in total, so it's easy enough to stay clear of her, but moving to uni was meant to be the perfect time to be able to cut all ties. It's safe for us here in Ireland to be meeting outdoors and even indoors, and I had my friends over for camping a while ago. She didn't show, and it was the first time I felt comfortable in my friend group, as well as the fact that my friend group didn't split into two separate groups as it usually would. I want to go camping again with my friends because it would be such fun, but I don't want to invite her but at the same time don't want to be excluding someone. For context, the problem I have with her is that she can be very judgmental to the point of slut-shaming, as well as having homophobic and racist views. I recently had two friends inside the group come out to me, and one (a newer friend) is oblivious to her views, as she has been less outspoken in the recent year. I'm at a loss what to do because I hate confrontation and don't want to start any drama but am frankly uncomfortable with her. Is it mean to exclude her because who knows if we'll get to start uni and make new friends anytime soon?" [end question] Um, so I chose this because uhh... you know, I think it's a very relatable, common thing to have sort of a friend group that coalesces and to value the group a lot but to figure out over time that maybe somebody in it... you know, doesn't share your ideals or values and to sort of not know what to do when that comes up. And sort of bigger than this person's question, I also think that something that's sort of going on right now is that a lot of people are realizing that they have family or friends or people that they're close to in some capacity that maybe are not as woke as they could be and are maybe resistant to having conversations that they should be having or seeing things in a more progressive light, especially with a lot of what's been going on this year. Um, so it's a really tough thing, I think, to have somebody that you're close to have views that you can't support morally and, you know, with this person, it's easier in the sense that it doesn't sound like she's very close to this person, so if she could just cut her out of her life, it sounds like she'd be happy enough. For a lot of people, that is a tougher choice. So I wanted to talk about it because, um... you know, I think it's a really difficult situation to be in, and, you know, I think if it were me, with this particular group of friends, you know, look, I think if you were just disagreeing over, like, you know, liking peanut butter and jelly sandwiches versus peanut butter and fluff sandwiches, I'd just tell you to, like, get over it and, you know, make peace for the sake of the group because, you know, it's a group of friends, and you like everybody else, so whatever. But racist, homophobic views are not something to just, like, kind of ignore and push aside, especially if you've got friends in the group who literally could be really negatively affected by that. Um... you know, and there's a difference, too, if this person made a joke that they weren't aware of the ramifications of that could maybe be explained to them or maybe could sort of help them work through something, or if this person holds sincere, you know, sincerely racist or homophobic views that aren't—that go beyond ignorance that are, you know, rooted in something deeper. Um, and if it's the latter, you know, I would suggest talking to other friends and seeing if they're having similar impressions of this person, and, you know, if that's the case, you know, I do think that it would be worth finding other friends, you know. That's harsh, but you can't allow yourself and your friends to be influenced by somebody who isn't open to recognizing their humanity. [chuckles]

Katie (cont.): Uhh, and that's obviously the biggest and most dramatic, uhh, that that could go. If this person has maybe made an off-color joke or something and is just ignorant of the ramifications of that joke, don't know where it's origins are, don't know where it came from, then maybe try the softer approach first, try sitting with them one-on-one and being like, "Hey, so, you know, we've been friends for a while, and I've noticed that you've said a couple of things, and I just, you know, they've been offensive to me, and they've hurt me, and I just wanted to see what you meant by them," and sort of let them explain themselves, and if they're just like, "Oh, I didn't—it was just a joke!" then sort of talk to them, tell them why it's not just a joke, tell them why it could hurt people and, without outing anyone in your group, tell them that, you know, you maybe know people who might have been hurt by that. Um, and see if they could around because you're, you know, that would be giving them a chance to sort of realize that maybe they were on the other side of things when they didn't realize that they were, and it gives them a chance to have discourse and maybe see things differently. And, if they don't, well, you know... Yeah, you're going to uni, cut ties. Sorry.

Steven: That's a very tough question.

Shane: Are they going to uni with the person?

Katie: Uh, I think she was saying that they're going to uni and that was going to sort of break up the friend group, so she wasn't worried about it?

Shane: Oh. I see.

Katie: But because, um... Because, like, it's being delayed...

Shane: Mhm.

Steven: Yeah. Ohhh, I see.

Katie: She's sort of still hanging out with this group, and she's having a tough time with it.

Steven: Right. And wants to go camping.

Katie: And, yeah, specifically, she's got this last thing, she wants to have another camping trip with this group of friends. She just needs to not invite this person, but obviously that would probably be seen as a bit harsh by everybody. So. I don't know, that's my first blush at it. Do you guys have...?

Shane: Yeah, I mean, I would talk to them. I don't know if it's talking to them with, uh, other friends to make it seem like it's not, you know, a one-on-one thing, but I guess you also don't wanna... I don't know, it's very situational. I would definitely talk to them, and then, you know, try to communicate the weight of things, you know. Some people are very flippant with things. Also, you know, their empathy center kinda involves a little slower than others. Uh, some people are not intentionally malicious when they're younger, they just don't realize uh, you know, the impact of certain things, and, uh, I think people are capable of growing and learning, uh, which is great, especially young people. Um... but uh... you know, at a certain point, it's not your responsibility to... to... [chuckles] uh, force them to grow. Uh, so, I would say have a conversation with them. Try to push them in a direction, and if that's not working then maybe... maybe they have to be comfortable with the fact that you don't want to hang out with them anymore. You know?

Katie: Yeah. I agree.

Shane: That's what I'd say.

Katie: Mhm.

Steven: I mean, but the question really is how does this person do this camping trip or does—do you exclude her? Do you not—because I'm trying to think of the solution for that, and that's where I'm—I mean, frankly, I'm kind of stuck, too because, like you said, Shane, it's very situational. It's hard to really read into this because I have a lot of friends who are a little bit racist and a little homophobic, and I'm still friends with them. And I'm not saying that, uh, I'm still friends with them because of their values, I'm... I.... I just value them as people themselves, and I try to keep them around and try to, you know, educate them with what I can, but it's not something that, um... I don't want to... I don't know, I don't want to cut ties with everybody because of their belief system because I—frankly, I have a different value system from Katie and Shane and Ryan, like, we're—I think a lot of it is on a spectrum, but if this person is outwardly judgmental, it's really hard to say. It's hard for me to, uh, read into this because my initial reaction is to try to be as understanding as possible to this person, and to at least try to have a conversation, like Shane was saying. Um, and it would be mean to exclude her because it would be targeted at her specifically, but, um, the way to get ahead of that is... all you gotta do is be super passive-aggressive and find a camping spot that only allows seven people.

Shane: [laughs]

Katie: [laughs]

Steven: No, no, that's not the answer, that's not the answer! Don't do that! Um—

Shane: You probably wanna have the conversation before the camping trip.

Steven: Yes.

Katie: Yeah!

Shane: Ideally.

Steven: Just talk to the person directly. I think that's the only way to have to do it, and to, like, do it respectfully. Honestly? It's gonna hurt, it's gonna suck, and they may hate you forever, but it seems like you don't really care what they think about you anyway, so, uh, just have the hard conversation, but, when you do, don't come across it as "I am judging you for your judgmentalness." It's more like, "Hey, I want to do this out of, like, you know, because I care about you as a person, even though I don't believe everything you believe. I want you to change, and I want you to grow." And having that posture of patience is better and will come across a lot cleaner and maybe she won't be so defensive about her thoughts. It's a tough one.

[waynedunlaptheorgandonor]

That anon with that fucked up ask about Mmb, i hate to say it, but a lot of your posts as of late are feeding the C@ryl haters, dismissing those who aren’t as chill about the spoilers as you are as dramatic and telling people any negative theories about a female character is misogyny. You’re so smart and great at analysis and i love your writing and i usually love your meta, but, as of late, there’s an edge of mean and smug i’ve been surprised by. I get you’re frustrated w fandom, but jeez.

i 110% encourage anyone who finds my posts upsetting to unfollow or block me. i mean that genuinely. even if we're friends, i don't mind. my whole thing is that i want ppl to make fandom a place they want to be a part of, and if i'm spoiling the experience then exclude me from your narrative, that is totally fine, and i will never hold it against you.

and to be clear, i am totally understanding of people who are upset about the spoilers, and who don't wanna be positive bc they're feeling tired with everything, or they don't like the direction the characters are going, and there isn't a thing wrong with their pov. but i /do/ think there's something wrong with specifically targeting female characters and actors, however, especially when we've literally not seen anything they've done yet. there is a VAST difference between "i don't like this female character bc of X reasons that she's done in the show," vs "this woman interferes with my ship, ergo she's a bitch and she should die and i cannot believe the audacity of the actress to play such a horrible character." if you're not doing the latter then i'm not targeting you and you shouldn't be concerned.

you're never gonna see me go on a ten million words long discourse rant about this. i got all my obnoxious, militant activism out in college and am sort of at the point where i'm cynical and bitter lol. like i'll go to the protests but me and the rest of the old, cynical crew sort of just hang in the background sighing the whole time cuz we been here so long, and i'm the same way about internet discourse, which is probably why i come off as snarky. i'm too tired to teach intersectional feminism on a tumblr blog about a zombie apocalypse show, but i also have absolutely no qualms about pointing out privileged behavior when i see it. y'all are lucky i haven't bothered to touch the racism aspect, lmfao. you wanna see bitter, just try me on that one.

the point is, i'm going to be very understanding about how different people are affected by the way the story is progressing, and i am very self-aware that positivity is not what everyone wants right now, which is why i've said more than once that you definitely do not need to be up in this blog if it's upsetting you, i genuinely do not mind.

BUT!

when it comes to misogyny i am not going to be as nice. i'm not here to make you comfortable, and if me pointing out the rampant internalized misogyny not just in the caryl fandom, but p much every twd fandom (or like, any fandom that exists anywhere) makes you uncomfortable you may want to examine why that is. again, there is a clear difference between disliking a character bc you simply don't like their story and development, and disliking a character bc she's a woman and she makes you mad, and the latter don't fly on this blog, and never will

(i was telling my partner about all the spoilers, and you know what the first thing he said was? "god, i'd fucking hate to be that actress." this is not something i've made up, this is a very prominent problem, my dudes)

so i'm sorry if i seem mean, and in most circumstances i will be understanding and patient, and if you want to talk to me about a specific issue or have a specific question i will try and meet you where you're at with no judgement, but when it comes to the situation at large, i've been through this bullshit long enough (re: my entire gd life) to not have to be gentle about stuff like this anymore. especially not on my own blog. shit makes me mad, and i'm entitled to my anger, just as other people are entitled to theirs. i contain multitudes, bro, let me be a complex character, it's only fair

-diz

[cardentist]

this isn’t a proper discourse post, I Agree with a lot of what the op said but there’s specific things about it that get under my skin in a way that makes me want to talk about it, but I don’t want to engage with that post both because I don’t want to speak over the point that’s being made and frankly because I don’t want to be misinterpreted because of the point that’s being made in it.

so for context, I’ll just say that it was a long post about how a lack of engagement with women characters in fandom spaces is tied to misogyny. just be aware that I’m responding to something specific and not criticisms of this in general. (feel free to dm me if you want to see the post for yourself)

the rest of this is going to be rambly and a bit unfocused, so I want to get this out the door right at the top: it is not actually someone’s moral obligation to engage with or create fan content. all other points aside, what this amounts to is labeling people as bigoted for either not creating or engaging with content that you want to see, and while the individual may or may not be a bigot it’s not actually anyone’s job to tailor their fandom experience to cater to you. 

fandom is not activism. it’s not Wrong to point out that a lack of content about women in fandom is likely indicative of the influence of our misogynistic society. and suggesting that people examine their internalized biases isn’t just fine, it’s something that everyone should be doing all the time. but saying that it is literally someone’s “responsibility” to “make an effort” by consuming content about women or they’re bigoted is presenting the consumption of fan content as a moral litmus test that you pass and fail not by how you engage with content but by not engaging with all of the Correct content. 

judging people’s morality based on what characters they read meta for or look at fanart for is, a mistake. it Can Be Indicative of internalized biases but it is not, in and of itself, a moral failing that has to be corrected.

if you want more content to be created about women in fandom then you do it by spreading content about women in fandom, not by guilting people into engaging with it by saying that they’re bigots if they don’t. you encourage creation Through creation.

okay, now to address what Mainly set me off to inspire this post.

this post specifically went out of it’s way to present misogyny as the only answer for why this problem exists in fandom spaces. and while I absolutely agree that it’s a Factor, they left absolutely no room for nuance which included debunking “common excuses.” which, as you can probably guess, contained the things that ticked me off.

first off, you can’t judge that someone is disconnected from women in general based on their fandom consumption because the sum total of their being is not available on tumblr. 

people don’t always bear their souls in fandom spaces. just because they don’t actively post about a character or Characters doesn’t mean that they see them as lesser or that they don’t think about them. the idea that you can tell what a person’s moral beliefs are not based on what they’ve said or done but based on whether they engage with specific characters in a specific way in a specific space can Only work on the assumption that they engage with that space in a way that expresses the entirety of who they are or even their engagement with that specific media.

what I engage with on ao3 is different from what I engage with on tumblr, youtube, twitter, my friend’s dms, and my own head. people are going to engage with social media and fandom spaces specifically differently for different reasons. you can’t assume what the other parts of their lives look like based on this alone. 

second off, there can be other factors at play that influence people’s specific engagement with a fandom.

they specifically brought up the magnus archives as an example of a show with well written women. which while absolutely true, does Not mean that misogyny is the only option for why people wouldn’t engage with content about them as often. for me personally? a lot of fan content is soured because of how it presents jon. I relate to him very heavily as a neurodivergent and traumatized person, and he faces a Lot of victim blaming and dehumanization in the writing. sasha and martin are more or less the only main characters that Aren’t guilty of this, and sasha was out of the picture after season 1.

while this affects my enjoyment of fan content for these characters To Some Extent on it’s own (I love georgie, I love her a lot, but I can’t forget that she looked at someone and told them that they were better off dead because they couldn’t “choose” to not be abused), the bigger issue is fan content that Specifically doesn’t address the victim blaming and ableism as what it is, even presenting it as just Correct. 

this isn’t exclusive to the women in the show by any means, this is exactly why I avoid a lot of content about tim, but it affects a lot of the women who are main characters. that isn’t the Only reason, there’s more casual ableism and things that tear him down for other reasons (the prevalent theory that elias passed up on sasha because he’s afraid of how she’s More Competent In Jon In Every Single way. which comes with the unfortunate implications of jon being responsible for his own trauma because he just wasn’t competent enough to avoid it) but that’s the main one that squicks me out.

of course not all fan content does this, and I Do engage with content about these characters, but sometimes it’s easier to just stick with content that centers on my comfort character because it’s more likely to look at his character with the nuance required to see that it is victim blaming and ableism. 

it’s not enough to say that the characters are well rounded or well written and conclude that if someone isn’t consuming or creating content about them then it has to be due to misogyny and nothing else.

there’s also just like, the Obvious answer. two most prominent characters are two men that are in a canonical gay relationship, which draws in queer men/masc people on it’s own but the centering of their othering and trauma Particularly draws in traumatized queer people that are starved for content. georgie and melanie are both fleshed out characters in and of themselves, but their relationship with each other doesn’t have nearly as much direct screen time. and daisy and basira have a lot more screen time together and about each other, but their relationship is very intentionally non-canon because of its role as a commentary on cop pack mentality.

people are More Likely to create content for the more prominent relationship in the show and be drawn into the fandom through that relationship in the first place. I have no doubt that there Are misogynistic fans of the show, but focusing on the relationship and the characters that make you happy isn’t and indication that you’re one of them.

which brings us to the big one, the one that sparked me into writing this in the first place (and the last that I have time for if I’m being honest). the “common excuses” section in general is, extremely dismissive obviously but there’s only one section that genuinely upsets me. 

without copying and pasting what they said directly, it essentially boils down to this: while they recognize that gay and trans men are “allowed” to relate to men, they’re still Men which makes them misogynistic. Rather than acknowledge Why gay and trans men would engage with fan-content specifically that caters to them they present it as a given that it’s 100% due to misogyny anyways. they present queer men engaging with content about themselves as them treating women like they’re “unworthy of attention,” calling it a “patriarchal tendency” that they have to unlearn.

being gay and trans does not mean that you’re immune to misogyny, being a woman doesn’t even mean that you’re immune to misogyny, but that’s engaging in bad faith in a way that really puts a bad taste in my mouth. 

queer men aren’t just like, Special Men that have Extra Bonus Reasons to be relate to boys, they’re people who are more likely to Need fandom spaces to explore facets of themselves. and while you can Relate to any character, it feels good to be able to explore those aspect with characters that resemble you or how you see yourself.

when I first started actively seeking out fandom spaces in middle school I engaged with content about queer men more or less exclusively. at this point I had no concept of what trans people were, and wouldn’t begin openly considering that I might be a trans person until high school. I knew that I’d be happier as a gay man before I knew I could be a gay man, and that’s affected my relationship with fandom forever. 

I engage with most things pretty casually, reblogging meta and joke posts when I see them, but what I go out of my way to engage with is largely an expression of my gender identity and sexuality. I project myself onto a comfort character and then I Consume content for them because that was how I was able to express myself before I knew that I needed to. it’s not that girl characters aren’t “worthy” of me relating to them, it’s that I specifically go to certain fandom spaces to express and work through my gender and sexuality. that’s what I use those fandom spaces For.

I imagine that I’ll need this crutch less when I’m allowed to transition and if I ever find a relationship situation that works out for me. but also like, why should I? it’s not actually hurting anyone for me to explore my gender and sexuality through fanfic until the end of time. nor does it hurt anyone for me to focus on my comfort characters. 

fandom is personal comfort and entertainment, not a moral obligation. people absolutely should engage with women in media and real life with more nuance and energy than they do, but fandom spaces are not the place to police or judge that.