#more so for weird opinions than like discourse discourse but you know

[gizdathemxel]

*gripping my hands so hard on a young trans persons shoulders that their bones are about to break*

do not log on to 4chan.com. do not get involved in passing olympics. you will always lose. do not put afab/amab* in your bio, that is cisgender society trying to know your “real” gender. you do not exist to please cisgender people. there is no ‘right’ way to be trans. learn your goddamn history, listen to your elders. listen to other disenfranchised groups. listen to intersex people and check yourself for intersexism. listen to trans poc and check yourself for racism. listen to disabled people and check yourself for ableism. be open to learning always. labels are meant to fit you, not the other way around. you are not weird or predatory for simply being attracted to others. you’re fine if you’re not a skinny white twink or a barbie doll. you’re fine if your body is ‘weird’. you’re fine if you don’t have heavy or any dysphoria. it’s okay if you actually don’t want to transition or anything like that. life is worth living at any stage, you deserve to be happy. I SWEAR THAT YOU ARE OKAY!!!!!

*ok editing this bc i think there are some major misunderstandings here and also ignorance on my part so lemme clear the air. when i wrote “don’t put tme/tma” in ur bio i did NOT mean to say that discussions around transmisogyny aren’t important or that tme/tma cannot be helpful terminology, and i’m super sorry that it came off that way. also editing bc someone pointed out to me that the original phrasing of this post is very misinforming, so to also clarify, tme/tma was a term invented by transfems to talk about transfeminine experiences which i will admit that i was unfamiliar with the history of tme/tma as a term and was introduced to it through some really bad online queer discourse. but it’s always been of my opinion that discussion around all forms of bigotry, including transmisogyny, are important and need to be had. i explained in a rb, which i’ll link when i have more time, that my issue was with the way the term is used as only identification/oppression olympics rather than genuine nuanced discussion about the ways that transphobia/transmisogyny/transandrophobia/etc function and interact with each other. i advised young trans people to not put tma/tme in their bios, bc i know that the wrong people (not just cis people, but transphobes and assholes who just want to get under your skin) would use any indication of your direction of transition to try and misgender you. or specifically in the case of tma/tme, tell you that your experiences/thoughts are not valid or reasonable bc you were tma or tma.

i realize how not originally clarifying that makes me look stupid (and a transmisogynist), so seriously, i’m sorry for that major mishap. tma/tme are not inherently bad words and you are 1000% allowed to use whatever terminology fits you and your experiences best. so as another word of advice: please do not let some rando on the internet tell you how you should talk about your experiences

(also idgaf if you don’t “log on” to 4chan or that it’s “not a website”, the fact that any of you know that is shameful and upsetting)

[jamicha]

HELP! I ACCIDENTALLY ENGAGED IN FANDOM DISCOURSE !

somebody made a comment i dont like but it REAKED of internalized homophobia to me and weird projection and i couldn't contain the beast (stop myself from reply) and i may or may not have been a bit harsh and pointed out that fact. oops. i dont regret it but now ive decided to take this stance indefinitely til the day i die and i will die on this hill

(psst my full thoughts are in the tags if you wanna like look or smth)

[valdevia]

Very funny that tumblr is having discourse about whether my art is misinformation or not, after I've been posting it all over the internet for years without any controversy. So let's talk about it!

I know people arguing are a vocal minority, but I'm not going to dismiss anyone's concerns. It's an actually interesting topic that I really consider, and it touches some important issues in society. So here's my (rambly) two cents.

My art is meant to misdirect, in some way. Photomanipulation and the tone I typically use are meant to briefly confuse the person reading it into thinking they're hearing a real story, at least for a few seconds.

The Intended Experience™

In this sense, I feel like my art can be misinformation! And it's not only people who don't think critically about things like "how come I never heard about mermaids being real before?".

So, no disrespect to anyone that fell for one of my pieces! My work plays with reality, so if you fell for it for more than a minute, it just means my tone and style worked a little too well for you! And there are legitimate reasons to be confused when you see something online, too. For example, there are people who can have trouble telling real and fictional things apart. When you post something that goes out to a million people, you'll get one million different reactions.

That's why I always take care to make it really clear, outside the main piece and snippet of text, that my art is no more than fiction. There are tags, the tone of my account, even my profile picture is meant to reinforce this. I also have a website which, in part, is meant to capture the clicks of people to wonder if my stuff is real and google it, so they can find a real source that's clearly an art website. You can try googling "mycelium infection 1806" or "pupillosarcoma" to see how my website tends to appear first.

If I get this comment I know I've done something believable!

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that my art wholly constitutes misinformation. What we need to understand is that misinformation is not the same as disinformation. Misinformation is just incorrect information. It's your grandma seeing a little bit of a found footage movie on TV and thinking it really happened. She might be spooked, but nobody is harmed. Disinformation is false information that's purposefully crafted and spread in order to cause harm, division, or further a political view.

Now I ask you: what real world harm does my art create? The worst that can happen is that a tiny percentage of those that see it get a little scared thinking a weird bug is real, or that mushrooms really grow on faces, or that scientists have released millions of trilobites into the oceans. Is that really that bad?

Anyway, that's my take on the topic! I'm obviously biased, but this being my style, I do put a lot of thought into it and I'm always open to people's opinions! (Just don't scream at random people on the replies or you'll get blocked!)

[anghraine]

It's interesting (if often frustrating) to see the renewed Orc Discourse after the last few episodes of ROP. I've seen arguments that orcs have to be personifications of evil rather than people as such or else the ethics of our heroes' approach to them becomes much more fraught. Tolkien's work, as written, seems an odd choice to me for not wrangling with difficult questions, and of course, more diehard fans are going to immediately bring up Shagrat and Gorbag.

If you haven't read LOTR recently, Shagrat and Gorbag are two orcs who briefly have a conversation about how they're being screwed over by Sauron but have no other real options, about their opinions of mistakes that have been made, that they think Sauron himself has made one, but it's not safe to discuss because Sauron has spies in their own ranks. They reminisce about better times when they had more freedom and fantasize about a future when they can go elsewhere and set up a small-scale banditry operation rather than being involved in this huge-scale war. Eventually, however, they end up turning on each other.

Basically any time that someone brings up the "humanity" of this conversation, someone else will point out that they're still bad people. They're not at all guilty about what they're part of. They just resent the dangers to themselves, the pressure from above, failures of competence, the surveillance they're under, and their lack of realistic alternative options. The dream of another life mentioned in the conversation is still one of preying on innocent people, just on a much smaller and more immediate scale, etc.

I think this misses the reason it keeps getting brought up, though. The point is not that Shagrat and Gorbag are good people. The point is that they are people.

There's something very normal and recognizable about their resentment of their superiors, their fears of reprisal and betrayal that ultimately are realized, their dislike of this kind of industrial war machine that erases their individual work and contributions, the tinge of wistfulness in their hope of escape into a different kind of life. Their dialect is deliberately "common"—and there's a lot more to say about that and the fact that it's another commoner, Sam, who outwits them—but one of the main effects is to make them sound familiar and ordinary. And it's interesting that one of the points they specifically raise is that they're not going to get better treatment from "the good guys" so they can't defect, either.

This is self-interested, yes, but it's not the self-interest of some mystical being or spirit or whatnot, but of people.

Tolkien's later remarks tend to back this up. He said that female orcs do exist, but are rarely seen in the story because the characters only interact with the all-male warrior class of orcs. Whatever female orcs "do," it isn't going to war. Maybe they do a lot of the agricultural work that is apparently happening in distant parts of Mordor, maybe they are chiefly responsible for young orcs, maybe both and/or something else, we don't know. But we know they're out there and we know that they reproduce sexually and we know that they're not part of the orcish warrior class.

Regardless of all the problems with this, the idea that orcs have a gender-restricted warrior class at all and we're just not seeing any of their other classes because of where the story is set doesn't sound like automatons of evil. It sounds like an actual culture of people that we only see along the fringes.

And this whole matter of "but if they're people, we have to think about ethics, so they can't be people" is a weird circular argument that cannot account for what's in LOTR or for much of what Tolkien said afterwards. Yes, he struggled with The Problem of Orcs and how to reconcile it with his world building and his ethical system, but "maybe they're not people" is ultimately not a workable solution as far as LOTR goes and can't even account for much of the later evolution of his ideas, including explicit statements in his letters.

And in the end, the real response that comes to mind to that circular argument is "maybe you should think about ethics more."

[animentality]

Dude I'm so confused

Why are the redditors refugees here-

Whats up with the tag 196

AND WHY IS EVERYONE BEING SO NICE WITH THE TWITTER REFUGEES CAME WE GAVE THEM HELL (almost)

The Reddit refugees are here because several subreddits have gone private in protest of reddit's new policy of charging third party developers for access to its API.

Hence the term reddit blackout.

196 specifically was a very queer friendly subreddit that had one rule: that you post before you leave. 196 is trending because those Redditors have come here and they're basically sharing their memery here instead as they protest reddit's greed.

As for why we're welcoming them when Twitter refugees were seen with a little more irritation, well.

Think of the culture similarities.

Tumblr and reddit have far more in common than Tumblr and Twitter.

Twitter is about clout and manipulating algorithms and discourse in 280 characters or less. It's about bad takes that reach the right people and it forces you to see things you don't want to see and it's crawling with the worst people imaginable and you're forced to see them, all the time. They also brought bad tagging and 2016 Tumblr discourse with them, because Twitter culture really involves starting fights for clout and braindead opinions that no one really wants to come back to Tumblr culture.

There was a time when Tumblr did the same thing, but worse, with more words...but nowadays, it's really calmed down.

The worst people...went to Twitter after the porn ban. Ironically, it made the site less toxic and hostile.

But then they came back.

And it was like...hm. no thanks. Stay back where you came from.

But Tumblr and Reddit have much more in common.

Both have a more streamlined way of customizing your online feed. You can choose what subreddits you see on your home screen, just like Tumblr only shows you the content of your followers, on your dashboard, and in chronological order rather than what's trending. You can join a very specific weird niche group of freaks with a shared obsession, and not care about the rest of the site at all. You also don't have a character limit on either site, which lets you ramble more and share weird detailed stories.

Reddit might have karma, but like Tumblr, the majority of people are lurkers and not posters. It also allows you to downvote bad opinions, and moderators who have to adhere to certain guidelines of behavior, which means a lot of banning disruptive people.

Granted, sometimes their mods are power hungry, but. You know.

It does more to control its users than Tumblr do, and that's a good thing in terms of keeping toxicity and illegal shit off its subs.

Reddit also has a way more leftwing attitude than you would think.

It has a reputation for being full of incels but I honestly think that's outdated.

It's cleaned up its act quite a bit since the old days.

I see way more vile shit from Twitter and TikTok. Like seriously.

Twitter is crawling with conservative bots and propaganda machines and just outright inflammatory lies. TikTok literally has the worst comment sections I've ever seen, like edgy teenagers cracking racist and misogynistic humor and acting like it makes them different and special. Its algorithm also spoon feeds you garbage and is designed to be as addicting as possible.

At least reddit's culture, while chauvinistic and regressive in certain subcultures, is mostly on the tech positive, atheist libertarian side.

It can be a little pretentious and caustic about certain subjects, and a little full of itself. Some reddits are also very male leaning and disregard female concerns in favor of moaning about how men have it worse than anyone else on earth.

But for the most part?

...well.

I welcome them here, because if they left reddit in protest, then we always support protests. But 196 specifically is also a queer subreddit, and we support that even more.

Plus they're funny as fuck.

What's not to like, really?

You should welcome them with open arms too.

[verdantwyrm]

hello, i saw your post about how people should not censor out or analyse Jimmy for the fear that it’d look like excusing his actions, and honestly i agree. Particularly, what you said stood out to me, I think I will remember it from here on:

“Trying to constantly make out the fact that rapists are faceless monsters that have never been people completely ignores the fact that most of them are people we know and people we care about.”

ngl does kinda make me teary, very based take I haven’t seen anyone make yet. I’m a CSA and incest survivor, it’s easy to say rapists are horrible people and should die, but it’s more complex than that, especially if you grew up with them and care about them.

I wanted to share that post so bad, but I’m a coward reblogging hot takes in this fandom. Just know I screenshotted that post for personal keepings because it was so based.

There’s also one interpretation of Anya that I haven’t seen yet: the non-angry. It is understandable that people may feel empowerment drawing Anya killing Jimmy. My interpretation of her (because I’m projecting hard lmao), she may not be angry or killing Jimmy in her mind. “I don’t want revenge, I just want peace” type of thing. My version of Anya is just someone who doesn’t seek revenge towards Jimmy or berating Curly for not doing her justice; just someone who wants safety, a peace of mind. It’s kinda weird when I see art of Anya lowkey guiltripping a post-crash Curly, it just feels off. Anya doesn’t seem the kind to be vengeful anyway.

Sometimes I think something’s wrong with me for not feeling angry at my abusers just as others seem to be, but I remind myself that responses to trauma can be varying. Nothing’s wrong with the revenge interpretations, more power to those who feel empowered by it, but I would like to see the non-angry interpretation someday, especially on a soft-hearted character like Anya.

Hi Anon! Thank you so much for your question! And more importantly, from one survivor to another, I know more than most about how it feels to have someone you trusted or someone you were supposed to trust have them go and do something as awful as rape or assault, and it's true because that happens a lot. It's a part of grooming victims, so constantly trying to make out these people as faceless monsters who emerge to only do bad is detrimental to the fact that they can, will be and are the people you hold closest sometimes.

And I'm honestly just as teary-eyed thinking about how that resonates with people because it's a very uncomfortable truth that not a lot of people want to reckon with or even understand and completely ignore. I was much like you when it came to opinions like this, "fandom discourse" as people may say, and I was terrified of reblogging it or even making a suggestion towards it in fear of it being a bad take or one that doesn't even make sense, but after years of writing and reading, it's helped me a ton to grasp themes, nuance, metaphors- the like. That's why I post my own analysis: because I know and understand how much it means to have someone speak on such an overlooked thing. When you don't have someone doing that, or anyone to even bounce your ideas off of, you start to feel like you're stretching it or simply going mad.

I actually really, really dislike the interpretation that Anya is angry, resentful or has any revenge towards Curly, or that she has to be this, hysterical mad woman sent out to kill or hurt Jimmy. I don't believe she's either of this. Anya deserves peace, and I think it's extremely important to understand just how similar she is to Curly.

They're both victims to the same man, they both believe in the best of people (although to their own detriment in a way) they want to find peace, and fulfilment in their career and life. They're so alike in such delicate and intimate ways, that trying to constantly paint Curly as this great, horrible oppressor over her does way more harm than good.

I've mentioned in a couple of posts now that Curly's good heart and his kindness aren't inherently a bad thing, and that's because it isn't a bad thing. It was because Jimmy was so ready to abuse him every time he showed "weakness" and the fact that Pony Express probably had already been exploiting it for a very long time, that made It as catastrophic as it was. And that's not his fault, that's not Anya's either.

Curly’s biggest weakness is his forgiving nature. We all talk about how Anya is a victim of Jimmy, and she absolutely is, but so is Curly. His first immediate response Jimmy's reaction to Anya announcing her pregnancy is met with immense fear and anxiety with the added soundtrack of what could be equivalent to the sound of Curly's heart racing.

He is beyond terrified, and when he does finally get to Jimmy, he immediately fawns and freezes. He makes absolutely no mention of Anya or anyone else because all that mattered in that panicked situation was easing Jimmy down and resolving the situation. Curly was and has been a victim of Jimmy's abuse for a very long time on an emotional and mental aspect that clouded his judgements and perceptions in the scenario which devolved into physical abuse very quickly once Jimmy got his chance. It is also true that Curly had a responsibility to protect Anya as a crew mate and Captain but he failed due to bias towards his abusers, and his kind and forgiving nature of simply wanting to see the good in Jimmy, which is a manifest of his trauma and being a victim, also definitely something that Jimmy himself has instilled into Curly.

And like you say, it is perfectly fine to interpret her this way, but it feels very... out of character. This is the same character that so reverently believes that our worst moments don't make us monsters, and I don't think it's insane to apply this sentiment to Curly too, because his worst moment was simply being too forgiving to someone who deserved it the least- which is its own trauma response.

Again, so sorry for the long response, I've been sitting on this ask for a while simply because I wanted to answer the best I could, and I have a lot of feelings about Curly and Anya and how they're reflections of each other in being victims. Thank you so much for sending in an ask! ╰(*´︶`*)╯

[goddessxdivine]

SydCarmy’s sex life based on this @thoughtfulchaos773 reply:

love this take because i also see a lot of ppl saying syd is the dominant one. and i don’t disagree but …. she’s the golden retriever. i think the black cat/golden retriever dynamic suits Carmy and Sydney, respectively. the black cat/golden retriever are both dominant and leaders but it just depends on when. this dynamic has two people that are dominant in different ways at different times, especially depending on their mood.

in the black cat/golden retriever dynamic, i think syd is dominant in a golden retriever way. black cat can be seen as more nonchalant than golden retriever. black cat isn’t always going to bring the excitement so they can hang back while golden retriever does the talking and socializing but black cat can take the reins when necessary. whereas golden retriever is more sociable and energetic so its easier to consider them as dominant. but when golden retriever has used up all their energy, black cat can step up in the role of being dominant.

i think syd and carm are that het relationship we see often in real life, the one where the woman is the more lively one and she’s headstrong. think about the kind of girl who has her opinions and will voice them, and has her own threshold for the kind of bullshit she’ll accept. again, she’s headstrong. which to everyone else makes her the leader of their relationship. this may be true. she may oftentimes steer the ship except in the bedroom

for some reason the only real life example i can think of is Rihanna. there’s this discourse of whether Rihanna is dominant or submissive sexually (it’s no one’s business really, but for the purposes of this). if you’ve seen the conversation around this then you’re familiar with the idea that Rihanna is a strong woman, who is a leader, and doesn’t take bullshit. in the bedroom, however, she does not mind being led at all.

the kind of woman who will go toe to toe with a man over what they consider worth it, is the same woman who will let a man she considers worth it to tell her “lay down, spread your legs, let me see that throbbing juicy puss”

not trying to be weird as i say this, but i speak from personal experience. and the conversation feels reductive and the verbiage feels like a setback for women’s rights advancement lmao but bear with me. as someone who is considered “a mouthy woman”, the only time I’ll allow a man to tell me to shut up is sexually. I’d never let a man talk to me crazy. matter of fact, most men i come across learn quickly that I don’t play those games lol but when it comes to sex, there something enticing about a man who knows how to take the lead. and this doesn’t mean he has a lengthy resume of sexual experience. it just means that he knows how to be in command.

this to me, is Sydney and Carmy’s relationship. the way people are socially can be but is not always telling of how they are in the bedroom. specifically in social situations, you may see Syd be more talkative and command the room (think: the Ever funeral) but that doesn't necessarily mean she's always in command. i think sexually it’s 60/40 (not a real estimate lol) where he’s dominant at least 60% of the time and the other 40% is left to circumstance. unless your romantic relationship has an established "this is my dom, i am a sub" dynamic, most relationships are going to shift between who takes the lead. this is where I can see the "Syd is a dom and Carm is her sub" idea.

sexually, Carmy is likely to be so in tune with Syd and her body that he’s the metronome ensuring the tempo and the pitch of her sexual pleasure. this is where i think the "Carmy is a munch" idea is very accurate. he wants to make her feel good and know he's the reason she does. but because the dynamic shifts who is in the lead, there are times where she's the one saying "lay down . i want to make you feel good" or "get on your knees, eat me"

tl:dr Carmy is usually more sexually dominant than Syd but they switch

[vexwerewolf]

hey, I saw a post reblogged around hating the whole idea of no kink at pride and wanted to understand why that was, but noticed the comments were turned off, so I'm asking here. for reference I dont know very much about the subject and had the general idea that pride should be an all ages space, BUT (the but is very important) since I dont have much knowledge on the subject and can see you are very opinionated around it, id like to know why that is your stance from, well, someone who actually holds that stance.

No pressure to answer I simply want to understand why others hold this stance, the potential history behind it and if I am looking at things the wrong way, a chance to change my opinion

I hope all of this comes across correctly because im not trying to start internet discourse, just learn and have a well rounded understanding of a subject before taking a more solid stance

CW: discussion of sex, homophobia, kink, common anti-kink lies

Okay so if you're not read up on queer history, you have to understand that "deviant," "indecent" or "degenerate" sexuality is an accusation that's been used to repress queer people for pretty much as long as the concept has existed. It has often extended so far as to encompass any form of sex that isn't missionary cishet boning for the purpose of procreation, but it has always and by definition encompassed any and all ways that queer people have sex.

Now, I want to be clear that the LGBTQ+ community is not entirely about sex. Our community touches love, passion, art, gaming, basically every sphere of human experience, but it also includes sex. A lot of queer people like to have sex! Queer people, however, are judged for having and enjoying sex in a way that straight people simply aren't.

It's important to note that the concept of "degeneracy" is a vital component to white supremacist repression of queer people, because it inserts the necessary moral proposition that allows sex between two consenting adults to be labelled as harmful. As cynical as I am about the general public, it's actually pretty difficult to convince the average person that gay sex is something the government needs to repress in and of itself; any argument to this effect needs to come packaged with an additional, vaguely credible concern about social corrosion.

This is much easier to do with kinksters, because kinksters are weirder-looking than shirt-and-slacks queers (who, to be clear, are equally valid). But it's still difficult to make the average member of the public balk, because they'll say "well that sure is freaky but so long as they're doing it in private, who gives a shit?" So long as the people you're trying to stir up hate against aren't doing anything illegal, the average member of the public is gonna think you're the weird one for digging into other peoples' private sex lives.

Thus, the easiest avenue of attack is Pride, where it isn't in private. But it's a fucking deceitful canard. Straight people never have to answer for public displays of their sexuality, which are often far more gratuitous than some dude walking around in a pup mask.

[theamberplumbob]

My Thoughts on Inzoi

I figured since my post about the whole Inzoi terms of service debacle blew up in a way that I never would have predicted, I should probably give a more nuanced explanation of my stance on the game and the discourse around it in general.

First off, I will just say right off the bat that I am not a fan of Inzoi, and unless some very big changes are made to the game, I am not interested in playing it.

I also want to make clear that my dislike of Inzoi is NOT motivated by any sort of love or loyalty to EA or The Sims. If there's one good thing to come out of Inzoi its breaking the monopoly that EA has over the life sim genera and giving The Sims competition. I also want to say that I despise EA for what it has done to the Sims franchise, and while I have played an absurd amount of hours in The Sims 4, I think it is objectively a bad product.

My biggest problem with Inzoi, first and foremost, is it's the use of AI. Inzoi allows players to use generative AI to make custom textures, designs, and paintings within the game. You may not agree with me on this but I am fully of the opinion that real artists should have been hired and paid to create all of the textures/paintings/designs for this game. Allowing players to upload their own photos and videos is one thing, but Krafton, a multi billion dollar company, chose to not support real, professional artists so they could save what is essentially pennies to them. All this results in, frankly, ugly and uncanny looking generated designs plastered all over the furniture and decor. For this reason alone I do not support Inzoi, but there's so much more to it than that.

There's also the fact that we have no idea how their AI is trained. Krafton apparently has an "AI Ethics Committee," but we have no clue what their actual code of ethics are. While it's bad faith to assume, they could be using stolen artwork for their AI. It is also very likely that whatever images you upload into the game, as well as any use of their facial scanning feature, could also be used as material to train their AI. This could lead to all sorts of ethical and legal issues I don't even know where to begin.

Secondly, I have to say, looking at the early access footage from youtubers and everything else I've heard about the game, it feels like its only going to repeat most of TS4's mistakes. In youtuber NotMalcolm's most recent video he discusses Inzoi's overly sanitized approach to various aspects of life, most notably that you can't try for a baby unless you are already married (source). Just like TS4, Inzoi is appealing to a younger demographic and sanding down the rougher aspects of life in order to cater to them. I fear that Krafton is likely taking it a step further and not only watering down the game for the sake of potential child players, but also using them as an excuse to enforcing extremely traditional values on its players. I have no interest in playing a life sim that only allows me to play out a single, socially acceptable way of living.

It also, like TS4, feels like a Young Adult Wish Fulfillment Sim™. The gameplay looks shallow, and it feels like it exists more to make aesthetic screenshots than it does to be an actual game.

I think when people say that Inzoi is missing the "quirky weirdness" of the Sims, what they actually mean is that Inzoi is devoid of personality. One thing that stuck out to me immediately is that the animations are so stiff, robotic, and lifeless. Again, everything is made to be ~*Aesthetic*~ with no regard to an actual sense of identity or personality.

I know people will say that its only in early access, but given how close public early access is to release, I highly doubt any significant changes are going to be made to improve what will be given to us when the time comes.

On a similar note, there's the fact that Krafton has never made a game before now that hasn't been riddled with micro transactions. I personally predict that Inzoi's monetization strategy will be just as, if not more predatory than TS4's is. The fact that we are drawing so close to public early access and have not heard a single word on their method of monetization speaks volumes. I simply do not trust it.

Now, of course, I need to elaborate on the whole Terms of Service Situation. I understand fully that Krafton's terms of service is industry standard and not too dissimilar to EAs, however, this post highlights that whats really concerning about Krafton's ToS is how difficult and confusing it is for players to access and review it. I find it understandable that Krafton's proud use of AI makes people a lot more nervous as to what their data could potentially be used for, and are going to be a lot more weary of Inzoi's ToS. Though I understand that it is only speculation, many have made the assumption that Krafton may use user's personal data to train AI.

I did not expect my post on the subject to make so much traction, and I now regret how impulsively I made the post. I feel I've contributed to fear mongering, even though I feel my concerns at the time were valid and I felt like people had the right to know. I could have done more research and given more of an explanation for what my concerns were instead of basically saying "Yikes..." and leaving it at that.

I was also told through an anonymous ask that the auto accepting of the ToS on closing the game was a bug that had apparently been fixed the first day the character creation trial was available. I of course cannot verify this myself, but I will take them on good faith.

I would also like to touch on two other talking points that have been very prevalent in the Inzoi discourse:

Diversity - I think this links back to my previous point about the game's goal of being as ~*aesthetic*~ (and marketable) as possible at the detriment of everything else. The game is clearly catering to a very specific, very pale and thin standard of Korean beauty, and I think that everything that doesn't conform to that standard was sidelined as a result. I will be fair and say that the Inzoi team still has ample opportunity to fix this and add more options over time. TS4 was also severely lacking on release, but over the years has made great strides in regards to representation. However I would have hoped that Inzoi, a game planning to release in early access in 2024, would do a lot better than a game that was initially released in 2014.

Partnership with Curseforge - I've seen many people accuse critics of Inzoi's partnership with Curseforge of being hypocritical, since TS4 also has a partnership with them. Of course, one would have to ignore the massive, community wide boycott of Curseforge, and the pressure the community has put on CC creators to stop using the platform for that claim to hold any water. I also think there is a notable difference in EA choosing to partner with Curseforge before the Israel/Palestine conflict began, and Krafton actively choosing to partner with Curseforge now, during an active genocide taking place, in which Curseforge's parent company, Overwolf, actively advocates for and donates to those committing said genocide.

In conclusion, there are a lot of valid reasons to not like/be suspicious of Inzoi. Of course I can't tell you what to do or what games you play, nor can I force you to agree with me, but don't be so quick to write off or demonize those who are simply trying to raise awareness or drawing boundaries regarding Inzoi and those who choose to make content with it.

I also encourage you to consider the points I've made and maybe think twice before investing yourself in yet another game that will very likely exploit your attachment to it in the very same way that EA and the Sims has. You need to make them deserve your time and money, which is why I'm encouraging you to advocate for a better and more ethical game.

You deserve better. We all do.

[okayidontcare]

The Issue of Consent and Severance Discourse as a Whole

Spoilers for S2E4

So, I never post on Tumblr (and barely on other platforms for that matter). I am a lurker, and, as such, I see a variety of different takes about different things on a daily basis. I am prone to hyperfixations in media as a whole and, right now, I am obsessed with Severance.

So, I watched the new episode as soon as it was out and as soon as I watched the Mark/Helena sex scene and the reveal that it was in fact Helena all along, I knew it would create a discourse that would be unbearable, not because of the discussion itself but by the way people engage with this show (more on that later),  and I feel the need to express my feelings and my view on the subject.

Was SA or Wasn’t?

It… I don’t know. No one does. That’s the point. 

The show wants us to ponder about the autonomy of the innies and the outies, it raises this question not only in relation to the narrative of the show but in a sort of philosophical conundrum. And I think the way to discuss this has to be done with two things in mind: (a) with respect for other opinions and interpretations and (b) that we will never get a clearcut answer.

We can’t affirm Helena is a rapist, we can’t affirm she isn’t. What we can do is debate about it. Engaging with it with logic, as in, thinking that there is a logical explanation for something that is emotional in nature is counter productive. Let me demonstrate:

If Helena and Helly are different people then it’s SA. Then innie Mark didn’t cheat on Gemma and Irving saying that to him was wrong.

But, if Helena and Helly are the same person, it isn’t SA. So Mark cheated on Gemma and Irving was justified in what he said.

Do any of these sentences feel true to the show? 

Frankly, I don’t think so, because it doesn’t feel true to the emotional truth of the show. Because it is weird that Mark slept with someone else, but it is because this version of him doesn’t really know Gemma. But he also has a connection with Ms. Casey, because of the outie life. He also has a connection with Helena, because he knows Helly, but it’s weird because Helena is different from Helly. It’s a bit hypocritical of Irving to imply that Mark and Helly’s relationship is wrong when he was ready to blow up Burt’s marriage in the season 1 finale, but he is also right to point out it’s off putting to see them flirting. It is all these things at the same time. 

Because, from my point of view, they are different people and the same person at the same time. And I don’t think any of us can wrap our minds around this concept, it’s like Schrödinger’s Cat but about human nature instead of quantum physics. That’s what makes it fun, because not even the characters know what to make of it, so we see the emotional fallout of Severance rather than the ethical/moral one. And, to me, that is more interesting.

So we should discuss it, but also know that we’ll never reach a conclusion, because that would be oversimplifying the show and I think it just makes our conversation around Severance shallow. It’s a detriment to the show and to us. 

Let’s hear each other out, give different opinions, have productive debates about the show and what is saying about identity and humanity, about how it reflects on us. Don’t say to someone that has a different opinion than you that they are “watching the show wrong”, that they are “media illiterate”, like your interpretation is the only right one. If you do that, I’m sorry, but I don’t think you are actually engaging with the text, I think you are using Severance as a way to feel smarter than other people.

Let’s not treat our fellow internet users as the outies treat the innies. It’s easy to dehumanize people that we only perceive by their words on a screen, but behind each MDR profile picture is a real person with their own perspective that may not always align with yours and that’s okay, they are worthy of the same amount of respect as everyone else.

So I’ll say, at last, you are free to disagree with me. You are free to say that there is a definitive answer, that it was SA or wasn’t SA, that the innies and outies are the same person or they aren’t. I actually want to hear your take, I just ask that, when you type it, be respectful and understand that I have the right to disagree with you just as you have the right to disagree with me.

[theshypinkflower]

What *is* your opinion on EP? I mean this is technically a safe space since it's yours

I don't really like him (I think their pronouns are he/him???)

There's not only the accusational stuff, but their writing is just...bad

The art i can slide, it looks weird but he's seemed to make progress and it's just art, we all start somewhere

But the writing is just...blah. There's plot holes, his female characters seem so 2d, and not to mention there's a lot of gross content. I get that this is a horror porn game and I shouldn't be judging people's paras but even I think the incest isn't needed. It provides nothing for the story. Like there's a fine line between good dark writing and just stuff that's just fetish content and shock value (which is what a lot of EP's writing feels like, fetish content). Which I guess have some irony to it since this a horroporn fandom, and I do have bias to certain paras. Keep that in mind. I can go into a whole rant involving BTD and the ethics of it but that's not for today.

A lot of this fandom rides on what splatterpunk gifted us, the freedom to write without censorship. That's what AO3 is for, and while I agree with that (I frequently go back to the saying "censorship is the father of ignorance"), I still think that his writing is not free from crticism. My main problem is the plot holes. For instance, how does Jack get the bodies into the basement without even his spouse noticing? Have they seriously been married for so long that MC never stepped foot into the basement? How does Ellen know of Jack's behaviors with the bodies? Sure she can stalk him and see that he's carrying a dead body into his house but how does she KNOW he's fucking them? Because it seems there's no second entrance into the basement where she can sneak from, and I don't think she's been to his house before.

Chris's story feels so flat and doesn't interest me at all, especially with the unneeded incest. Like, for Sano and Akira you can write some incest in there. Two brothers alone in the world, separated from their birth parents and can only rely on each other. You could write some sort of codependency issue in there and it'd be WAY better than just throwing incest into it. Besides, the Vincent is Akira plot thing makes no sense and it just comes off as EP trying to write incest without receiving backlash. Also why is MC such a major bitch to Chris and to everyone else you have the option of being a bitch? It's unique in the sense no one has done only bitch options, but not everyone wants to be a total asshole to Chris. I mean if Chris were my character I would've had MC be worried about what his boxing career is doing to his body and try and get him to back out of an upcoming boxing competition (I can more in depth but this is not what this rant is about).

There's just a lot of unrealistic behaviors in his characters, the writing is bland in some areas, and there's a lot of changes to it. So it's kind of like, "Okay well what IS the real story?" Like Sano and Akira's homelife changes so frequently that it's kind of easy to get lost. In terms of a good person that's not really up to me. I'm not fully up to date with his accusations I just know about some of the discourse between him and Gato and he sounded like shit during it. But I'm not his judge, jury, or executioner.

[all-for-the-game-confessions]

idk if it's mean to say and I don't mean it meanly at all. I think there's a weird culture of trauma dumping in this fandom though.

especially when any kind of discourse comes up, ppl seem to feel the need to 'prove' they can talk on a topic/have more authority than others on a topic by telling stories about how they've been through things the discourse is related to.

like when there was discourse around kevin/jean/riko and the cult thing or whatever. and there were ppl giving their opinions, but also a bunch of ppl chiming in to tell traumatic stories about them being in a cult. and it's not that I don't want ppl to speak about their experiences, but rather, I just think it's crazy that some ppl seen to think its relatively normal to jump into a conversation about fictional ppl with real stories about very triggering subjects with no warning whatsoever.

they also often assume by default that anyone who won't speak openly about going through traumatic shit hasn't been through it. which I don't think is good or fair.

I'm not trying to single ppl out either. it's not all the people who were in a cult or only them, its just the first example I could think of. it happens with basically everything though! from rape to homophobia to being abused by your parents, and so on.

I think the bigger problem which I briefly touched on is that it often comes with the assumption that those who don't speak openly about experiencing these things are assumed to not have experienced them. and ppl who do speak openly about it, will often explicitly make those assumptions.

bringing it back to the cult thing cuz it's the example I started with - I remember somebody would make a post (with admittedly a bad take), and then somebody would respond with their take + the fact that they'd been in a cult & add on a bit at the end being like "you wouldn't write a take like this [the original bad take] if you knew what it was like to be in a cult". and while I understand the frustration of ppl saying stupid or offensive or ignorant stuff, it's also stupid, offensive, and ignorant to make the automatic assumption that because someone's take/opinion on a tough subject differs from yours then that means they haven't been through similar experiences to you. because many ppl can experience the same thing and come out with differing opinions.

I just think it sets a bad precedent. it's also often completely unfair to the person they're saying this stuff to, even if they hadn't experienced that stuff themselves. because it also now means that the person hearing the trauma dumping has to respond with perfect civility, be perfectly calm and understanding, or else they'll be seen as not taking the person's experiences seriously. and while I obviously think you should handle somebody telling you their bad experiences with kindness, understanding, etc, this expectation is a little unfair sometimes because it often expects the listener to be perfectly nice, while the person doing the trauma dumping gets away with not being civil back. like they can throw stuff like "fuck you, you stupid bitch" or whatever into their post, essentially freely insult the other person, but the person hearing it can't do anything similar back without looking like The Asshole.

even if u are perfectly calm & understanding anyway, you can still look like The Bad Person if u continue to even respectfully disagree, becuz the trauma dumping person can just say something like "I experienced x and told you My Opinion and you still disagree 😡". and unless you want to openly admit you've also experienced x, you can't rlly defend urself.

all this to say. I don't think it's good to have this attitude of only being able to speak on things or having authority over others to speak on things if you've experienced said things. becuz on a platform like this, the only way to know if somebody has had those experiences is if they tell you. so it sets this expectation to talk about it. and I think it's normal not to want to talk about the bad shit you've been through with strangers on the Internet for brownie points. additionally. everybody's been through shit. it might not be the same shit as you, but it's important to remember that. we should all be trying to not make bold assumptions about people we don't know just because they think differently to us.

.

[purrpl-png]

What is your opinion on Beast x Ancient?

sighhh deep down i knew someday ill have to answer this question😞

i dont really like participating in ship discourses and it turned out a little longer than i thought, so im placing it undercut for those who are interested enough to read what i think

the answer is that its not for me. at least not in a romantic way. at least not for now. i was never really a fan of ships with complicated/toxic dynamics or hero x villain or rivals at all. for example, i never liked billford or tomtord or even sonadow and stuff like that. not that theyre entirely bad, its just not for me and gives me discomfort, because i was in toxic relationships myself and i just can't help but associate them with my personal experience. this includes beast x ancient and even some of the beast x beast too with the way i portay beasts characters in my mind, but its not about them

honestly, i am not really into shipping in general as i cant really understand or process the concept of shipping in my mind as a whole, if it makes sense. like i personally never truly understood the exact point of it nor felt the urge to ship. but i do understand that shipping plays a huge role in every fandom and its just how it is, people having fun, even if i am somewhere far away from all this. ofc i drew a couple of 'shipey' things out of pure joke or to play with some dynamics for fun (ex. my shadowbill animation and buttervelvet post), but never went any further than that. doesnt mean that i dont ship anything at all, trust me, i actually love some ships, but its not like HUGE for me and is very rare, it's just very difficult to explain exactly

dont get me wrong, id LIE if i said that i dont like to see beasts and ancients interact with each other. id lie if i said i dont enjoy the possibility of many interesting scenarios between them and an idea of slow redemption arcs either. all these parallels and tragic doomed soulmates stuff is SICK AF, i like their dynamics and contrasts between the characters. their bond is like a foundation of life itself; their virtues cannot exist without each other, no matter how much they like it or not and theyre complete opposites, but at the same time theres NO ONE whos is more similar to them than they are to each other. all of them are the only perfect match to confront each other and its such a peak cinema i wish more people didnt sleep on, because theres SO much you can do with it💔

unfortunately, i saw a lot of people romantize/fetishize very weird things iykwim... ive seen some HORRENDOUS bad terrible uncomfortable stuff i wish i didnt, that i clearly dont support and dont interact with :( it even made me block some of the tags. and while im still here, i want to remind that i have pr0ship in my dni, so if youre a pr0shipper reading this, please, unfollow/block me, because ive seen some interacting with my posts before😞

and just to add, of course i know that most of beast x ancient shippers dont do that, because some of my online AND irl friends i knew for YEARS and i sure know they wouldnt hurt a fly in their life and dont approve of such things at all either, liked beast x ancient, but i still prefer not to engage with it anyway just in case. lets just say i am extremely neutral/apathetic to everything unless its something bad and harmful

thank you for listening to my little yap session, i hope any of it made sense, i am not really much of a public talker honestly and interacting with any fandoms and people in it usually gives me some kind of anxiety and mixed feelings, because im struggling with comprehending peoples attention. its been like that for years and ongoing even now, but im really trying to open up a little as a person and not just a rando who usually drops their drawings once in a while and disappears until the next time lol

[funhouse-mirror-barbie]

My problem with Sallie May—a discussion of representation:

There’s been some discourse around Sallie May lately that’s gotten me thinking more about her. Not really as a character, but what her purpose is in the narrative and how she’s treated by the fandom and the show’s creators.

Sallie May is an interesting case study in representation without depth, and I wanted to talk a little more about what that means.

OPINION DISCLAIMER—I’m gonna be talking about how I personally view lgbtq+ and queer representation and what I consider to be well-rounded representation vs. empty or shallow representation.

Also. I am only one member of the queer community—I don’t speak for all lgbtq+ people, and I am DEFINITELY NOT trying to talk over other’s experiences. My opinions are my own, and if you agree with me, cool! And if you don’t agree with me, that’s great too!!

Also also. I don’t think I should have to say this but, this is NOT a personal attack on ANYONE involved w/i the production and creation of Helluva Boss. This is my own analysis, b/c I like to talk about media and the ways we interact with and interpret it.

So, with all of that out of the way, if you’re interested in my analysis, let’s talk about Sallie May!! (TLDR @ end of post)

First do want to make it clear that my issue is not actually with her like…existing. Or with her general characterization. Mostly because, even with Hell’s Belles, she still doesn’t really have a very strong characterization to begin with, and isn’t a fully-fleshed out character.

In her initial appearance she was a bit-character, bordering on just being a straight up background character. She had three lines in her debut (and to date, ONLY) appearance in the show proper.

Until Hell’s Belles we knew next to nothing about her other than that she likes violence and also that she has a neighborhood body count? Which. I don’t know if they were trying to imply that she’s a serial killer, I doubt that was the intent. Or maybe they were. I can’t know.

Regardless, I honestly believe they didn’t really think the implications of that writing decision through at all. There’s a very real and very harmful “trans serial killer/murderer” trope in media, and while the impact is definitely lessened by the vast majority of HB characters being violent murderers—it still feels weird having the only trans character we’ve seen at this point be literally INTRODUCED to the audience by the fact that she’s a murderer, and to then be given NO further information on her.

Luckily, we DID get more information about Sallie, even if it was still very little and surface level. In Hell’s Belles we learn that Sallie May and Millie used to be a lot closer, and that Sallie May felt left behind when Millie moved to the big city.

In the short, Sallie May expresses her frustration with having to pick up the slack around their family’s ranch, and that she’s been lonely without Millie there. Millie and Sally have a little heart to heart and are able to make up, and the short ends.

This is a nice little piece of backstory, and does give us slightly more insight into Sallie May and what her life is like, but because the episode is a short, we still really don’t get to know her as a person.

Like Millie, Sallie May doesn’t have any real depth. We only know starter information about her, like that she cares about her family, and that she’s violent.

But unlike Millie, Sallie May is a minor character. She has (at the time of my writing this) appeared in ONE episode of the actual show, and one short. She is a minor character, and the ONLY transgender character in the show with a name and lines.

So. Okay. Why does literally any of that matter??? Who cares if Sallie May is an under-developed minor background character??

Well, in my opinion, it matters because the show-runners frame and treat Sallie May as if she is a main character, without actually writing her—or any trans character for that matter—as a main character.

This really rubs me the wrong way, because it comes across as tokenism.

In my opinion since she was introduced, Sallie May has become a token transgender character—an excuse for the HB writers to not write or develop more transgender, nonbinary, and gender diverse characters and stories, because they already have one.

I worry that, if anyone rightfully points out that HB is severely lacking in gender-diverse characters and storylines, the creators and fandom will point to Sallie May as “proof” that they do have representation.

If HB is as radically queer and LGBTQ+ friendly as it claims to be, why do we only have ONE named trans character in the show’s 5 years of existence?

Due to all of the above, I find I can’t agree with people who praise the show for its representation, because of how stunted it is. I just don’t think I, or anyone, should have to read sources outside of the narrative to learn important parts of a character’s identity.

I feel this very deeply as a lesbian and nonbinary person—I understand that most of the women characters in Helluva Boss are sapphic, but I ONLY know that because of the HB Pride Print that came out just this year. I have not actually gotten to SEE any of these character’s sexualities fully represented, and it’s because of this that I struggle to see myself represented in HB in any way.

I do need to clarify that what I am NOT SAYING is that no one can feel represented by Sallie May, or that if they do, they’ve been tricked somehow by writers into thinking they got more representation than they actually did.

Sallie May is a very popular character, and because of that I honestly would like to see more of her. I want to see more of her because she’s the only trans character on the show, and I want her to be properly developed.

I talked previously about how I enjoyed Hell’s Belles, but wished we had gotten to see more of Sallie and Millie’s relationship in the actual show. Their relationship has a lot of potential to show the unique ways in which siblings interact and navigate conflict, but we only got to see a few seconds of them interacting in Sallie’s debut. The short gives us an idea of what Sallie’s personality is like, but it’s so brief that I still don’t feel like we really KNOW her on a deeper level.

To me, three lines + one short with a brief backstory doesn’t feel like the sort of amazing representation that fans of the show laud Helluva Boss for.

As a series that often boasts about its queer and trans rep and inclusivity, I can’t help but feel like Sallie May should either have been a main character from the very beginning, or that she shouldn’t have been trotted out like some sort of bastion of trans representation, when the only indication she is trans is her horns/white roots.

And yes. As a genderqueer gay I KNOW that it can be extremely tiring to have all of our stories revolve around our struggles and ONLY be about being LGBTQ+. I also want to see a variety of stories about queer people like me going on adventures and getting to do things that don’t revolve around our struggles. But I also want to still actually see myself represented.

Not just know outside the story that, “oh that character is nonbinary, but it will not be mentioned in the narrative in any way and will not ever be important in the context of this character I’m supposed to see myself in.”

Madeline Maye talked about this specifically in her critique of Helluva Boss, and her pointing this out was kind of what made me realize that, yeah. Anyone watching Helluva Boss for the first time would probably have NO IDEA that Sallie Mae is a transgender woman.

It also made me realize that the only reason I knew that Sallie May was trans was because her VA, Morgana Ignis, who is also a trans woman, tweeted about it, and the official Helluva Boss Twitter retweeted it.

The original tweet is hidden now (Ignis has since left Twitter—idk why, I genuinely hope it wasn’t due to harassment—that’s never okay) but I was able to confirm that this was the case based on the HB wiki, and the official HB’s retweet still being up:

The only confirmation we’ve ever had that Sallie May is transgender has been outside of the show—either from social media Q&As and the show’s wiki or merch—

Sallie May has a LOT of merch. Like a lot, this isn’t even all of it. And yes, SOME of the merch is from the recently released “Hell’s Belles” short, but the vast majority of it is from the 3 years since her initial introduction.

The vast majority of it is also highly sexualized, and highlights Sallie’s penis through her swimsuit. Now, I’m aware that Morgana Ignis requested this, and I honestly don’t have too much of an opinion on it. I’m not a trans woman, and I’ve seen multiple opinions from trans women on this design choice for Sally’s merch. I’ve seen some trans women say that they liked and felt represented by this choice, and some say that they felt objectified and that it made them dysphoric. This is one of those situations where I don’t think everyone can be pleased—like I said at the beginning of this post, LGBTQ+ people are as diverse in their opinions as we are in our identities and self-expression, and I think everyone’s feelings regarding Sallie’s portrayals in the merch are valid.

I bring it up because, other than the wiki explaining that Sallie May has “male horns”, this is the only other way to confirm that Sally is trans, as it is never acknowledged in the story. I bring it up because I don’t think merch should be the only way an LGBTQ character’s identity is validated.

I assume that all of Sallie Mae’s merch is because of her popularity, but I also can’t help but wonder if this has contributed to the impression that Sallie is a main character, when, in the narrative so far, she is still a minor one.

I don’t believe that when she was originally created to be a “token trans” character, but since her introduction, there have not been any main characters that are transgender, nonbinary, or genderqueer.

We’ve only had one other trans character with a speaking role—this imp:

Who is FTM. He seems to know Blitz from a while back, and talks Blitz into staying at the party. Then he watches him drunkenly make out with random people with another (I assume) trans imp who is probably MTF:

(Also—as an aside, this scene kinda bothers me?? I don’t THINK this was the intention at all, but having a VERY CLEARLY drunk off of his ass Blitz, who can’t meaningfully consent at this time, being watched, and almost like…leered at by two of the only visibly trans characters in the show…it feels gross. Like why are two of the only other confirmed trans characters voyeuristically watching a drunk man who can’t consent making out? It would be one thing if we had a story full of different trans characters who acted in all sorts of different ways, but at this time these two are 2/3rds of the show’s ENTIRE trans rep. With the other 1/3rd being introduced to us as a serial killer. Like. Guys. What is it that you’re trying to say?)

Apparently Sallie May’s VA has stated the below on Social Media, and stated that there’s a lot more coming for Sallie May in the future. And that’s great!!! I really really want to believe that.

But I look at the above and can’t help but wonder…if this is the case, why did it take three years for her to get another appearance? In just a short? Why wasn’t she given more focus and importance from the very beginning, in her introductory episode? If her original appearance wasn’t representative of her and Millie’s relationship then why did they even write it that way???

I want to believe all of the above—that Sallie May actually WILL get to become a main character. But I look at the way she’s been barely portrayed, and the way that she’s basically been used to just sell merch, and it makes me sad.

I would love to see more of her, more of any trans characters that aren’t 2 second background characters, but I honestly have a hard time believing we ever will when the episodes take as long as the do to come out, and the when the episodes focus so heavily on shipping pre-existing pairings.

As a lesbian, I would love to see Sallie May get a girlfriend, but given Spindlehorse’s track record with lackluster sapphic pairings and representation, I don’t have much hope of seeing that either.

I just. If you managed to get all the way through this heinously long post, thank you for reading. If you didn’t, that’s very fair (lol) and I’ve got the tldr for you here—

TLDR:

—My issue with Sallie May is not actually with Sallie May at all. It’s with the fact that we don’t get enough of Sallie May, or any trans characters, for that matter.

—You can, of course, feel represented by any character, but I think it’s important to ask yourself how you are being represented, and if you are actually being represented.

—Not every queer/trans/lgbt story has to explicitly be about being queer. The stories in which we are represented should be as diverse and vibrant as all the members of our community. But, I still want to actually be able to tell and to see that the characters are lgbtq+. If a character is a lesbian or sapphic, I want to see her show an interest in other women. If a character is transgender I want to see that acknowledged by the narrative, whether it’s the character mentioning their transition or just saying they’re trans. I want to SEE myself and other queer identities. Not just know that they’re there.

[crimeronan]

kitkat this is mean but i do at this point assume that anyone who gets mad about the aphobia episode of housemd, which is late in s8, is simply and straightforwardly racist, homophobic, intersexist, etc. like if that is the one (1) bad thing you think is worth talking about - a single, one-off episode that was admittedly terrible but nothing like the constant and unrelenting greatest bigotry hit parade that is the show as a whole - i simply don't think that is an opinion i will be listening to. THERE'S BIGGER PROBLEMS!!!!

my perspective on this is, i think, both a little kinder AND a lot meaner than yours -- i 100% think that the Vast Majority of people who never shut up about the asexuality episode have simply..... never watched house MD. like, i really think that's it. they just have not seen the show. the only thing they KNOW about the show is the asexuality episode.

in fact, i'd say that 80% of people who derail my ableism posts EXPLICITLY tag or comment some variation of, "i'd never watch this / i already knew the show was bad / this doesn't surprise me because of the asexuality episode."

so it's not like.... necessarily that they think asexuality is the Only Thing Anyone Can Ever Talk About. it's just that it's the only thing they ever HAVE seen anyone talk about. and they're parroting whatever they've heard.

without. knowing. anything. about. the show.

like. it's just that they legitimately, honest to God somehow think that the asexuality episode was DIFFERENT, and that asexuals were UNIQUELY maligned, because they Literally Have Not Watched The Source Material. and so they don't know how often it happened. to everyone. or how systemic it was. or how cruel the writers were on a constant basis.

i think that this is the truest read of all this discourse. at the very least, it's the only read that makes me Not Actively Homicidal, so it is the one i must cling to.

there are a LOT of viral posts about house MD that criticize the asexuality episode without criticizing anything else. and those DO make me raise my eyebrows, bc presumably the OPs have watched the whole show, and so i'm like. why do you seem to take issue with the asexuality stuff but Not any of the other stuff.

BUT. if i am being good faith and nice to people... i figure it's, like, Ffffine.... for asexual people to make their own posts about house MD. since i am making my own posts about ableism in house MD. talking about one thing is fine. even if it makes me raise my eyebrows. bc as you said, it's one ep late in season 8 that sucks but. is not, uh. it's not the core of the show.

it DOES vex me that discussion of the treatment of asexuality gets SOOOO MUCH MORE VIRAL TRACTION HERE than any discussion of ableism, but it doesn't surprise me, exactly... about 50ish percent of this website is ace (last i knew?), and a MUCH smaller percentage is chronically ill. and on top of that, sooo many chronically ill ppl exist in a weird space with criticism of house MD in the first place, because he's the Pain Blorbo who's a Sick Doctor, he's like the only ornery bitchy chronic illness representation a lot of people have experienced, and that often Means Things to ppl with chronic illness. and so sometimes they feel Weird And Uncomfortable acknowledging that the show is also, um. really really reaaaalllyyyyy mean and cruel.

and just generally. not great. to us.

so. the posts about ableism..... don't circulate. at least not outside of very specific chronic illness circles. bc you have to be Nuanced about the chronic illness stuff, there's a lot of Uncomfortable Feelings involved, and the asexuality stuff is MUCH more straightforwardly terrible ragebait, which is very easy to get mad about & reblog with tags about how you are mad.

With All Of That Said.

i DO think that if people read a post that's being critical of how house MD hurts disabled/chronically ill people, or they read a post about any of the other many many many Many evil bigoted episodes in the series, and their ONLY takeaway is to type, "well, i knew it was bad because i heard about the asexuality thing!"

....i DO think that is thoughtless and cruel. and i do think that people should stop doing that.

and i have locked numerous posts because of people doing that.

and if people start doing that in my notes again, i will be instablocking and possibly locking more posts. because. please.

you do NOT have to say, "i already knew it was bad because X," or, "did you know it was also bad about X??" when the post is not about X. i was not talking about X. i agree that X is bad, but i would like to talk about Y right now, and this kind of smug kneejerk "i consume media the right way <3 i know that it's bad when it's bad" response makes it.... impossible.

like. i am being Earnest As Fuck about ableism and my own life experiences and the horrific structural inequality/oppression/violence/etc in the medical system. it's written about a TV show, but it's not Actually About A TV Show. you know?? my thoughts about house MD are my thoughts about The Actual Real Life Medical System and Actual Real Life Doctors. I'm Trying To Say Something Important .

now is NOT the time for, "oh, yeah, and the asexuality episode was bad!"

NOOOO..... FOCUS ON THE WORDS I JUST SAID INSTEAD. BLEASE,

[ravinoforre]

So I saw an opinion on a character that I, respectfully, don't agree with at all, and it isn't the first time I've come across this particular take either. I don't like nor want fandom discourse, making counter points to arguments in general make me nervous, but as someone particularly attached to them and their related characters, I have a lot of thoughts I want to get out there in the hopes that maybe they can be seen from a more positive perspective. So um, here they are. Get comfortable, this is gonna be a long one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Defense of Lily (Pokémon XD).

Those of you who've played this might already know what I'm referring to, so I'm just going to rip off the proverbial band-aid. Right at the start of the game, as you, the player, are being introduced to her, one of the first things she says is;

...and ok yeah, I admit. This is kind of a weird thing for her to say (in front of her son too, oops). This is usually one of two instances that people latch onto to prove she's an awful mother, but there is, at least in my opinion, some hidden context to her words. First of all, she's not wrong; the whole lab does in fact constantly sing their praises and fawn over both these kids (which is adorable tbh). Secondly, it's not unreasonable for her to believe that lots of inflated praise on a child, no matter how well meaning, may have negative consequences on their development. A kid receiving a constant stream of "you're so cool/special/talented" may end up with an inflated ego and become depressed, or even lash out in anger, if that praise either stops or something comes along to disprove it (like failing a test or making a mistake).

(Side note, I came across some partially related studies (x), (x) and an article from a parental psychologist (x) that go into different types of praise given to children; person, or ability praise ("you're so clever") vs process, or effort praise ("you worked really hard"), their effect on self esteem, personal growth, and performance, and how ability praise actually negatively effects a child's sense of worth compared to effort praise or even no praise at all. It's a lot to go through right now and this post is already going to be super long, but I mention them here because I'll go into something later that you may find rather interesting. I know I do. They're fascinating reads, too, I would recommend!)

Now listen up! Lily, contrary to the belief that she's a cold-hearted mother who shuns her offspring, actually does praise and engage with her children! Throughout the story, she'll talk to Michael and say some interesting and wonderful things as his adventure continues! The problem is that unfortunately, a lot of this proof is hidden throughout each story beat in a section of the lab that is no longer required to enter to progress (and most people won't bother to go back and speak to their own mother who apparently "hates" them). Off to find Jovi:

🥹 baby... Before saving Phenac City:

🥺😭euuhhbbebeh father mentioned During the Phenac City hostage situation:

After the Phenac stuff:

"I'm proud of you." You literally cannot get a more explicit form of praise than I'm proud of you. Hell, I can't even recall a time my own mother told me that. Fucking hell. Also. Pampered?! You hear that? She's practically contradicting those accursed two lines! By her own admission, the kids are pampered babies! Her concern isn't that people will spoil them—because they're already spoiled!

(Jovi is a pampered baby princess). I think Lily's worry in her comment is that may roll too far; it's like she says—spoiled rotten.

Ok one more example for this section:

(disclaimer: these screenshots are from the romhack XG which is why her name isn't in all caps; trust me, this same line is in base XD too) Remember the types of praise I mentioned earlier? Ability (person) praise and effort (process) praise? And how the former could be damaging to a child's self esteem? Do you notice anything particular about the way she speaks to Michael and praises him? "You've become an outstanding trainer in your own right." Not "You're so strong." "You're doing so much for the good of others." "Your courage will save the Shadow Pokémon." Not "You're so brave." "You did it all by yourself without anyone's help." She's praising his actionable efforts! She's applying process praise! (Pleeease read those studies and article, at least the first study I linked, it's genuinely insightful and fascinating, and it's even more amazing that an example of it is featured in a video game by a character most people won't interact with beyond necessity! I love this game! So! Fuckinhg!! Much!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-

Ahem. She's also not saying that people shouldn't praise her kids either; only that she wishes it wasn't gushing praise all the time. Too much of a good thing could be harmful, after all. Let's see...

Sounds reasonable so far, right?

...Galactic peace?! My brother in Arceus, all he did was beat you in a friendly Pokémon battle—a battle that Michael's already been led to believe he'd win anyway thanks to that previous comment from his coach (those screen caps are in chronological order)! Even without the fact that by this point he's midway through a dangerous fight against a criminal organization, it's probably not a good idea to give a developing young teen a literal God complex; what if he gets so full of himself he genuinely believes he's unbeatable... and then loses? That child's mental state is going to plummet. So even if you don't agree with Lily's praise comments, you might at least better understand where her concerns are coming from if this is potentially the kind of thing that's being told to her kids regularly.

Moving on, try putting yourself in her shoes a moment. She's a working, grieving, single mother of two who, according to an NPC in the lab "has an exceptionally high sense of responsibility".

As a scientist with the necessary expertise, she has the heavy task of helping realise a sensitive project—sensitive not just in terms of urgency (as Krane predicts Cipher is going to be a threat again), but also in terms of emotional weight; this project was something her late [husband] poured everything into until his death, so both her and Krane continued on with it; by the time the game starts, they're agonisingly close to completion. And time is of the essence. Quick tangent: watch the cut scene post Krane kidnap again. The camera rests on Lily an awfully long time. The father of her children died before this project was finished, and now Krane, a close friend of both of theirs, has been taken away by force. Both her children have witnessed something traumatic. Her daughter is sobbing. She's literally being told the situation is "hopeless" by a colleague. Imagine the sheer anguish this woman must be going through before having to push through all of it and take complete charge for the sake of finishing the project. For the morale of the entire lab staff. For the sake of keeping her kids calm. For the fate of the region itself. Anyway, because of this project, and how close they are to finishing, she isn't able to afford much, if any, time off to spend with her kids "this instant". It's probably why the lab staff have pitched in to help look after them (which must make her feel pretty damn guilty with that high sense of responsibility of hers). It's why she asks her son to go find his little sister in her stead.

And this brings me to point number two that I've seen used countless times to slander her:

She just lets Jovi run off on her own, and doesn't care what her kids are up to.

Which... no, sorry, hang on here. Lily isn't letting Jovi run off on her own. For starters, both her and Krane believe she's in or somewhere outside the lab grounds, playing hide and seek with the caretaker, Adon.

A game of hide and seek (particularly if they're taking turns hiding) is likely why nobody's seen her since lunch, by the way, and not Lily not giving a damn about the whereabouts of her child. And when she's found and brought home again, Lily says this;

This implies she's spoken to her daughter about running off on her own before, and we do later get to know that Jovi has a habit of running off ahead; she runs off down the steps in Gateon ahead of her brother, she rushes off to deliver the machine part by herself to the chamber, and even though Michael is the one asked, she runs off to go see Datan—despite Lily telling her she doesn't need to do that. This means if Jovi gets invested in something, it's apparently hard to stop her. Visiting Kaminko's is a recent fixation of hers, and if Adon is already aware of where else she might have gone off to if she's nowhere on lab grounds, it might mean she's been there before (that, or Adon was the one who caved and told Jovi where to find the place). I might even speculate and say Lily has specifically told Jovi before about not running off to the manor. Anyway, check out what she says when you find the little runaway but come back empty handed.

The heart-sinking realisation and disappointment in that "...Oh" alone....

So no, Lily isn't letting her young child run off on her own—Jovi is disobeying her mother. She's either used the game of hide and seek as an excuse to dip (and then forgot about Adon entirely), or she got bored midway through and decided to head to her new place of interest despite any of her mother's previous objections. (And before anyone says anything, no, that doesn't mean Jovi is a bad kid, either. She's, what, around 7 yrs old? She is doing typical little kid things, emulating her older brother, and discovering and pushing her boundaries as she grows up. I have seen some putrid, abysmal hate for her over the years too. She is a child, leave her alone.) Onto the second half of the above statement; she doesn't care what her kids are doing. As in, Michael is on a treacherous journey against a dangerous group of people and she's totally ok with letting her kid do that (as if that isn't the case with practically every mainline entry protag mother but alright, I'll bite).

Introducing one of my favourite exchanges with her in the game. During this time, the purify chamber still isn't complete, and they'll need to use an alternate way of purifying Shadow Pokémon until then—the Relic Stone in Agate Village.

oh it worries her, does it? You know what happens when No is selected?

And then she drops the conversation. There's no endless loop to get him to go, which would have been the more convenient thing for the devs to implement. But this was a very deliberate choice that tells me more about a character than I've seen done in a video game before. She's respecting her son's decision to stay home. She is not forcing him to do something he isn't comfortable with. Of course, as a video game, the purpose is to progress to the next story beat. So he has to go. Better talk to her again.

I don't even think I need to add any extra commentary, this should really speak for itself at this point.

I've also reached the image limit on this post so it's probably time I wrapped this up, so in conclusion; is Lily a bad mother, as I've seen people claim? No, and I believe I've showcased plenty to prove she isn't. She's not perfect, no parent is, but she's a damn sight more involved in her children's lives than the mainline moms, who are often nothing more than out of the way Pokémon Centers that don't acknowledge their child's journey in any meaningful way. So then, was she in the right for saying what she did at the start of the game, right after Krane praises her son, who is in earshot of this conversation? Well... also no. She could have picked a better time and place to bring it up, honestly. But God forbid a woman make a mistake or voice a concern, lest her be mischaracterized and demonized forever by two unfortunately worded lines of dialogue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Michael, you're finally going off to the ultimate battle, aren't you? You've really grown in stature. As your mother, it makes me feel conflicted. I'm happy and proud on one hand, but I'm also a little sad. Go and get rid of Cipher, and make it quick! And come home safely."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you've managed to reach the end of my ramblings, I'd like to say thank you. Hopefully I've given you some food for thought. Maybe I've even changed your mind about her. And even if I haven't, I appreciate you taking the time to read this regardless.