#not about any specific discourse topic

[system-of-a-feather]

I was honestly thinking about it and I think my opinion on a lot of things boils down to "it is entirely fair to cut anyone out of your life who doesn't respect the version and expression of you that makes you the happiest" and I think that probably extends to almost all "expressions" only with the caveat that I don't see it as a moral mandate to respect every expression someone offers and I don't think its inherently wrong to not accept someones expression if it also requires you to reject an aspect of yourself in your happiest version.

Do I think either of these are always the most healthy rules to live by? No. But do I think its fair rules and expectations? Yeah.

You can't force someone to change essential parts of who they are (may the rejection be bigotted or based) in favor of your identity / expression but you also can't tell someone to not express / identify the way that makes them happy and expect them to still like you

In the end, not everyone is fit to get along with everyone and thats okay and fine so long as that is respected.

Like if it makes TERFs and shit happy to ID as TERFs and be TERFs, its within my realm of control to make them stop, nor can I blame them if they hate me - but they also can't be mad if I also hate them and block them cause its not their right to force me to accept them in my life

I absolutely do not have to agree or respect anyone, but I can't be surprised when someone whose expression I don't like and hate returns it back to me.

[statementlou]

I feel like when people ask famous personalities to participate in activism, they may be influenced by the parasocial relationships they have formed with these celebrities and not that they really care about what is going on. They expect famous individuals to act as role models or representatives of their beliefs. That's why I think, it is crucial to maintain a critical perspective and not depend solely on celebrities for activism. This can result in a passive approach to social change and disregard the significance of collaborative action and personal engagement. The majority of celebrities don't care lol even who speak up about it publicly. Their reality is different from ours, like Gigi Hadid also drank Starbucks the other day, Bella Hadid worked with a lot of Zionist brands and did a photo shoot with them recently, etc etc. And let me not start on stans culture... the worst thing ever

Okay this is fascinating because yes! I agree with you so much! But then I was completely floored by the choice of the HADIDS (literal Palestinians who never shut up about the cause) as examples- but actually I love it because I think it opens up two really really important points that maybe get to the heart of the whole issue. Gigi and Bella Hadid are, as I said, literally Palestinian, and have throughout their public lives (not just recently) never been silent or backed down in defense of Palestine even when it has very publicly lost them (Bella primarily) jobs and opportunities, and they both continue to be outspoken even while literally targeted and threatened by zionists. Pretty much everything anyone has wanted or asked for from any celebrity, right?! But here we have, first of all, Gigi having all of that discounted because she bought Starbucks, a brand that is not even an official boycott! I feel like this is a perfect example of prioritizing performative and symbolic activism over actions with material impact, if someone who has been so consistent and stalwart can see all that dismissed because they spent $5 on a coffee (that, again, has no material financial relationship to Israel). I personally think that on a scale of good done vs harm, Gigi can afford a lot of problematic coffees, and this is not even getting into the Hadid families finances which involve huge amounts of money being used and moved around in ways that do more to help the cause than any image choice can unbalance. And then you say that Bella has worked with zionist brands- I don't know anything about this so I can't speak to it. Given that we are also apparently considering starbucks a zionist brand despite the company not operating in or having any ties to Israel, I would question what this means. But it doesn't matter- I think the point is that consumer/ individual purity isn't possible! No one is making pure consumer choices, no matter how many brands they boycott, and certainly no celebrity can continue to be one without having unsavory connections. I think that BY DEFINITION no celebrity is politically pure because if they cut all those ties, THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE A CELEBRITY. Whether the pursuit of purity is realistic or desirable is a much bigger issue, but the point is that as you say, looking to celebrities to be activists will end only in disappointment. Their job is to entertain in specific ways and they do that; if that's not working for you, then consume some other celebrity's product (persona). As I have said from the start, if you want to stan Louis because he is talented and hot and kind and smart and fun then you are in luck! But if you are looking for an activist spokesperson, he is not going to be that, and yelling at him (or people who don't consider that a deal breaker) isn't going to change that.

[pocketramblr]

Dash simulator

Blog 1: lol anyone else seeing a lot of strawberries in new recipes now? sometimes its fun but i really dont get the appeal of adding it to everything. why did you make strawberry garlic bread

Blog 2: u kno im not a fan of strawberries, i really like the rich sweet and sour notes from oranges, oranges and chocolate is such a good combo. i altered a recipe for a smoothie with oranges last week and it was soooo good ill give you my notes if you want Reblogged by: Blog 1: ahaha yesss i love chocolate and oranges

Blog 3: I canNOT believe the hate im seeing to strawberries right now, like, you know guys know the rule don't like don't bake right?? you know you can hit the back button right?? honestly what's wrong with yall

Open draft- wait guys you know there's a difference between leaving a comment on a recipe saying you hate strawberries and the recipe writer should never use them, and going to your own blog to say you don't really like strawberries, without naming any specific people or recipes right? you know there's a difference right?? - Save - Post - Discard

Draft discarded

Blog 4: why is everyone jumping on the strawberry hate train right now. what is wrong with you. Reblogged by: Blog 5: I knowwww like guys some people stop baking because of reading things like that, please stop it, if you don't like strawberries you can be quiet about it

Open draft- im so sorry if anyone's getting sent mean messages or comments about what they're writing and baking, but i'm literally not seeing any of that and if you are, please use the block button. but someone making a post on their own blog is not that, and if you can't see the irony in you being allowed to complain on personal blogs but not them i can't help you... - save- post- discard

Draft discarded

Blog 2: are strawberries even in season?

Blog 6: woo cherry pie!

[madtomedgar]

It's sure something that every post about violence, civilians, human rights, pacifism, war, or activism strategies is now assumed to be a post about IP and proof of the poster's secret evil beliefs. Especially if the Op is Jewish or has Jewish mutuals. Definitely this won't have negative ripple effects.

[ineffablefool]

The lil corner of the Good Omens fandom that I generally see is getting more and more into publicly declaring that That Theory I Dislike Is Bad And People Who Ascribe To It Should Feel Bad, and I don't know if it's really new, or if I was just lucky enough to generally be missed with that shit the last four years.

Different people's brains work differently, which means they will notice things, form interpretations, maybe come to extremely firm conclusions, all different from each others'. Different from mine, different from yours.

I get that some people think that they have the brain which produces the Objectively Superior theories (and/or which can easily determine which other people's theories are the Objectively Inferior ones). I just really missed the memo where Your Interpretation Is Not My Interpretation (And That's Okay) was dragged out back and fucking shot.

Anyway this blog is an "I may not agree with your theory but you may trust that I won't publicly heap scorn upon the very idea of having it" zone if anyone was wondering.

[thornshadowwolf]

A few recent discourse things I've seen have gone like

Post: Hey we in <niche group> have, in our attempts to get away from the pervasive "x is bad" rhetoric that permeates society, have overcorrected and are seriously saying "y is bad" instead. This isn't great, especially since associating "y is bad" attitudes with <niche group> makes people discount <niche group> as just "the anti-y group" and makes y people want to engage less with <niche group> when really we should all be working together. Joking about it is not perfect but that's not a big deal, but some of you are serious about it and that's when it becomes an actual problem. <niche group> we can do better.

Every response: I can't believe you people think "y is bad" is a systemic problem that permeates society, and that "x is bad" rhetoric doesn't exist! Nobody outside of <niche group> says "y is bad" and if you think so you need to get out more. Not everything that happens is a systemic issue.

[penultimate-step]

as of late i am feeling very exhausted by online discourse. the structural incentives of social media make it so that everything is constantly at maximum importance, everything no matter the topic is the most important thing, but simultaneously it doesn't matter, it's all just posts, nobody has any power and nothing should be taken seriously, the contradiction of it all wears on me until I wonder what I'm even trying to do here.

[wild-at-mind]

If you ever see me becoming one of those transmisandry people, please fucking call me out immediately.

[unnamed-atlas]

I will never go back and delete old posts here even if i think they were stupid bc I am so glad this blog exists as a physical record of the ways I have grown as a person over the years and it's nice to look back on the ways I thought when I was 15 and know that I am actually a lot more different now than I sometimes think I am. That being said. I do wish I could reach through the screen and grab my 15 y/o self by the shoulders and shake them and tell them half of that shit was never that serious lmao

[gingerswagfreckles]

I know everything that can be said on this topic has been said to death and no one but Jews will ever acknowledge it but it is still absolutely infuriating how every brand of gentile from every part of the political spectrum has collaborated to turn the word "Nazi" into a generic word for "fascist" or "bad person" or "person I don't like." Nazism isn't just fucking fascism and it isn't a synonym for bad person. It's a specific ideology that is centered at its root around blaming Jews for every problem in the world and wanting to exterminate them.

No, generic racist Republicans are not "Nazis." No, TERFs are not "Nazis." No, your crappy corrupt European leader is not a "Nazi." No, cops are not "Nazis." You know why they aren't Nazis? Because their entire ideology and behavior, as harmful as it may be to certain groups, is not centered around hating JEWS.

Nazism is an ideology centered around hating JEWS. Other people and groups may be caught in the crossfire, but ultimately, a Nazi's goal is to exterminate Jews, and you cannot just ignore that! I read a 12 paragraph essay yesterday written by a gentile analyzing the reasons people in Nazi Germany flocked to Nazism, and antisemitism wasn't mentioned as a motivation even once! They thought it was all because of gender norms and sexual repression! Oh my god!

The comfort with which gentiles have near universally divorced Nazism from antisemitism in colloquial speech is a direct precursor to the separation of Nazism from antisemitism in academic discourse. It's a direct predecessor to the rise of institutionalized antisemitism that we are seeing happen in real time now, because you have all gotten so used to appropriating Jewish trauma and Jewish oppression to the extent that you have convinced yourselves it isn't even uniquely real. That antisemitism doesn't exist as a specific bigotry that stands on it's own, that antisemitism is always some kind of footnote tied to some other, more important form of oppression. Do you think that Jews don't see what is happening here, that we don't see the deliberate generalization of Jew hatred and appropriation of the language we can use to refer to it? Jewish trauma becomes everyone's trauma, Jewish oppression becomes everyone's oppression, and soon enough the world at large has stolen the language of Jewish oppression right out of our mouths, until huge swaths of people can say "Jews are the new Nazis" and not see anything absurd about that at all.

Because you won't. Fucking. Acknowledge. What Nazism actually is. You won't fucking acknowledge that any ideology is specifically targeted at JEWS, and not YOU. Stop it!! Stop it! Cut it the fuck out. Nazism cannot be divorced from antisemitism and the insistence that it not only can be but MUST be by gentiles just shows how deeply ignorant and biased against Jews most of you really are.

[kissofhoon]

THE WAY I LOVED YOU !

(づ๑•ᴗ•๑)づ♡ ⠀ ── ⠀𝗢𝗥 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗐𝖺𝗒 𝖾𝗇𝗁𝗒𝗉𝖾𝗇 𝗅𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗌 𝘆͟𝗼͟𝘂

𝙜𝖾͟𝗇͟𝗋͟𝖾 𝖿𝗅𝗎𝖿𝖿, 𝖾𝗌𝗍. 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗁𝗂𝗉 𝒘𝗈͟𝗋͟𝖽 𝒄𝗈͟𝗎͟𝗇͟𝗍 𝟣𝟣𝟧𝟩 𝗐𝗈𝗋𝖽𝗌 𝒘𝖺͟𝗋͟𝗇͟𝗂͟𝗇͟𝗀͟𝗌. 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗈𝖿-𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖽 𝒏𝗈͟𝗍͟𝖾͟𝗌. 𝗁𝖾𝖾𝗃𝖺𝗄𝖾 𝖻𝖺𝖻𝗒𝗀𝗂𝗋𝗅 𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖺! ( 𝓵𝗂𝖻𝗋𝖺𝗋𝗒 )

─────────────────────────

𝗛𝗘𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗨𝗡𝗚 loves you as if you were a goddess. he worships the ground you walk on, worships you in complete totality. every waking thought and every thought before he goes to sleep is just you. you, you, YOU. everywhere he goes, he’s reminded of you. if the boys mention something you like, he’ll bring you up and shift the conversation topic to YOU just so he gush about you. he’ll even bring you up randomly in conversation, which does annoy the members a bit but he’s just sooooo in love that it makes them laugh. i swear this man’s personality revolves around you like… partially because you like to baby him, and he likes it too! whenever he’s out with the boys, he’ll see something and go “yn would like this” and then he’ll buy it and give it to you, or he’ll take a picture of it and send it to you and go “this reminded me of you :D should i buy it?” and if you say no, he’ll buy it anyway. HE JUST CAN’T HELP IT!!!! you have so many knick-knacks that he bought, you don’t know where to put it anymore. so he buys you a shelf specifically for his things and builds it just for you! he does a lot of things for you because a pretty person like you shouldn’t have to lift a finger, and as your boyfriend he has to serve you.

𝗝𝗔𝗬 loves you the same way noah loves allie in the notebook. he’ll do anything for you, including building a house from the ground up. though, whenever you have your little disagreements and discourses, he doesn’t turn to kissing and making up. he instead allows you to cool off, cooking up your favorite meal as an apology before the two of you talk it out when you’re feeling levelheaded. he’s big on gift giving too, always buying things you mention whenever you’re together and gifting it to you a few days after you’ve mentioned it. you never grow used to it since you always feel bad he’s spending so much money on you, but that’s okay to him. he loves seeing the look on your face after he’s surprised you time and time again.

𝗝𝗔𝗞𝗘 loves you the same way a little schoolboy loves a girl on the school playground; he follows you around like a lost puppy whenever you go out together, giggles whenever you show him any affection, sulks when you don’t pay attention to him. he’s just absolutely smitten about you. and he’s not afraid to show you off either. he constantly brags about how amazing his partner is, and how anything they do is pure art, and how pretty they are, practically just gushing over you to the point the boys tease him for how head over heels he is. but the moment you show him off, he gets all shy and lets out the cutest giggles known to man. he never stops smiling or giggling when you’re around, and it warms your heart knowing you landed the bestest boy possible.

𝗦𝗨𝗡𝗚𝗛𝗢𝗢𝗡 loves you protectively and instinctively. he can be a jealous man, but not to the point where it’s suffocating. he won’t dictate what you wear or who you hang out with or what you do, but he does have to know where you are in case of an emergency. you both share locations, and constantly text each other when you’re both out, so if you ever forget to update him, it throws him for a loop and he grows worried. sometimes he’ll spam you, but only to see if you’re okay. sometimes it leads to the both of you bumping heads, but he means well. he always does! whenever you’re out in public, he’ll hold you by the waist and glares at anyone that dares to lay their eyes on you. his cold demeanor towards strangers drive them away from you, which is his goal. and if people approach you when he’s not around, and it’s clear they’re making you uncomfortable, he’ll come up behind you and stare them down. he’s like your personal guard, but behind closed doors, he’s the biggest softie, constantly being coddled by you.

𝗦𝗨𝗡𝗢𝗢 loves you the same way best friends love each other. you were best friends before you started dating, and still remain each other’s best friends to this day. he’ll invite you over for sleepovers, you two get to gossip while he does your skincare and you do his nails, you even play fight over the remote before he shrieks and makes you give up the remote so he can put on his favorite show. sometimes the boys get confused because they have never once seen you display any sort of romantic affection, but that’s not what relationships solely are about. you guys show your affection in different ways, whether it’s small random gifts from time to time, the sleepovers you have, or the fun dates you guys go on. he doesn’t forget to tell how much he loves you whenever you guys spend your time together, just in case you had your doubts. because he does love you, and he’ll let you know every time after he presses the softest kiss to your lips or forehead.

𝗝𝗨𝗡𝗚𝗪𝗢𝗡 loves you the same way cats love each other. sometimes he’ll be overly affectionate when it’s just the two of you, letting you rest on him when you’re exhausted from your date, his hand delicately rubbing your back in comfort. he won’t change the position the both of you are in, opting to hug you close as if you were to leave him. sometimes, when you two are hanging with his friends or yours, he’ll link pinkies with you and never leave your side, following you anywhere and everywhere. on days where you’re not feeling so fantastic, he’ll take care of you — from feeding you, to helping you bathe, asking if you’re comfortable with him doing so. he’s so gentle with you, as if you’re a gem that he’s afraid may fall and break. he does everything to make sure you’re content and satisfied, but it’s not that hard since you’re always happy when he’s around.

𝗥𝗜𝗞𝗜 loves you in a playful manner — constantly teasing you relentlessly, pulling pranks when you don’t expect it, calling you names like booger and stink instead names like babe or sweetheart. you always return his energy, making fun of his height and laughing at old snack combinations, but at times it can be a little.. too much, and he notices that it doesn’t make you as happy as it makes him, so he dials it back. he’ll call you cute pet names from time to time, compliment you whenever you do something he finds cute or whenever you looking your best (or your worst, but he will poke fun whenever you look like you went to hell and back), sometimes under his breath when he thinks you can’t hear him, but you do and it brings a smile to your face.

─────────────────────────

© kissofhoon, 2024

[renthony]

On "Consuming Content"

Every now and then a post crosses my feed that follows the vein of, "you have to do things other than consume media or else you'll be a dumb person who doesn't know anything about how the real world works and does nothing but pointless fandom stuff."

I hate those posts for three major reasons, not counting the inherent ableism and classism of "you must have approved Smart People hobbies or else you're worthless" rhetoric:

You don't know what people do or talk about outside of what you see on their social media. Responding to fandom communities on a fandom-driven website as if all these people are one-note cardboard cutouts of people is asinine. In many cases this genre of post feels like repackaged 2012 tumblr "not like other girls" and hipster discourse. Yes, yes, you think you're better than everyone else on this website because your hobbies are less mainstream, more morally pure, and have greater intellectual merit, we get it.

What do you even mean by consuming content? As someone who purposely avoids using the phrase "consuming content" because I find the term too vague to be useful, please be more specific. Are you including every single form of media engagement and art enjoyment? Are you just talking about mainstream TV and film? What about novels? Plays and scripts? Nonfiction books and instruction manuals? Do you mean to imply that going to a book club is a worthless non-hobby? Are you including academic reading? Are you including going to the art museum? Going to the theatre, concerts, or other performances? Taped liveshows? Watching sports events on TV? Are you including news media? Are you including YouTube tutorials about how to do various tasks, crafts, or other hobbies? Are you including trade magazines? Are you including industry publications in various fields? What constitutes "content," and what constitutes "consuming" in this discourse? Define it. "Consuming content" is a nothing phrase that people use to mean multiple different things depending on what they, personally, judge as valid media. It's a buzzword at best, and when the same buzzword can be used to describe both "idly scrolling social media" and "reading and discussing a book," it's a meaningless phrase.

As an artist and author, if engaging with media is bad and worthless, am I supposed to conclude that making it is equally worthless? If "consuming content" is a bad, lazy, worthless, fake hobby, what makes creating art a worthwhile pursuit? If I am constantly being told as an artist that engaging with media isn't a worthwhile pursuit in its own right, and the people who want to engage with my art are just brainless fandom losers, what incentive do I have to make that art anymore? Furthermore, to everyone reading this paragraph and thinking, "that's not what content creation is," I refer you to bullet #2: If the phrase "make content" can be used to mean "low-effort posts made to advertise cheap and useless products" as well as "being a novelist" or "getting a gig as a writer on a TV show," it's a meaningless phrase.

None of that is even getting into issues such as the way influencers are preyed on by both brands and targeted harassment from trolls. Influencer culture has major issues, but boiling those issues down to "stupid vapid young people who are too lazy to make real art or get real jobs" (which is a mindset I see frequently online) is unhelpful. So many people pursue influencer deals because they're living in poverty but are skilled at various social media and advertising related tasks, and just like any worker, they're being exploited because they need to eat. Labor rights for influencers are a huge topic that entertainment industry unions have been actively discussing and working toward. (Related links for further info: [x] [x] [x] [x])

"Consuming content is not a hobby" is a worthless statement unless you define what you mean by both "consuming" and "content." Quite frankly, you also need to define "hobby," because if you're putting requirements on what is and isn't allowed to be a "real" hobby, you mostly just seem like you're moving goalposts and defining "worthwhile hobby" as "hobby I, personally, think is good." Use more specific language to articulate your actual problems with the entertainment industry, the art world, influencer culture, or whatever else you're actually upset by.

Media and fandom can involve any number of enriching, satisfying hobbies that take up a perfectly acceptable and healthy space in someone's life. If you aren't into it, go find hobbies you do like and stop policing how other people spend their precious free time in this nightmare hellscape of a world.

[beemovieerotica]

hey! I've been enjoying your recent posts regarding transmisogyny and how that overlaps with the "anyone can be any gender if they want to be" idea. as someone who identifies as transfeminine, I haven't been a fan of the latter argument, but I never the words for why exactly, and I think everything you've been discussing has really aligned with how I feel and understand the situation. I was wondering if you knew of any resources on this topic that aren't internet discourse? (Not that internet discourse is not a valid way to discuss topics like this, I would just rather have something holistic and not have to trace a giant web of information.) Like what are you drawing from, responding to, etc.?

to clarify: anyone can be any gender they want to. woman, man, masc, fem, nonbinary, genderfluid, whatever people want to opt into or none of the above.

but "trans woman" and "trans man" are not themselves genders. "trans" describes the specific divergence between the gender that was ascribed to someone by society versus the one that they are. to suggest that "trans woman" is gender choice in the same pool as "woman" that anyone can pick from is to say that trans women aren't actually women, but a third thing that exists in a separate category.

the road that all of this goes down is that the amab transmasc / afab transfem argument is suggesting that trans men and trans women are vibes + aesthetics that can be achieved by a particular combination of behaviors + presentation choices, rather than the terms being succinct descriptions of someone's relationship to gender in society, which we currently don't have substitutes for.

I genuinely don't think the people who use these terms in the way described above have thought through the consequences of diluting this language - but yeah this is a long tangent. I haven't seen resources on this, I'm currently just responding to the internet bubble I live in, which isn't great, I realize. I can take 2 steps outside where everyone understands these terms as intended and I don't have to argue about it.

[redvexillum]

PSA: RACISM, BIGOTRY, ENTITLEMENT IN HAZBIN HOTEL FANDOM

CONTENT WARNING: Inflammatory hate speech, White hate, political baiting, gaslighting, racism, death threats

The messages I’ve received and am addressing below contain upsetting and harmful language that has no place in any community. If these topics are distressing to you, please prioritize your well-being and feel free to stop reading here. Thank you for taking care of yourself.

I never imagined I would find myself addressing this, but here we are. This post is regarding my recent story, Stay With Me, which has stirred up unexpected controversy due to my decision to imply the reader’s race as white. I want to clarify that this choice was made purely for plot purposes.

The story is set in 1920s Louisiana, a time and place where racial and class dynamics were deeply significant. This backdrop was essential to the narrative’s themes of tension and forbidden love, as it explores the societal barriers that would have made a relationship between Alastor and the reader virtually impossible. The decision to depict the reader as an upper-class white individual was not arbitrary—it was intentional, aimed at heightening the drama and emotional weight of their story.

I deeply value the Hazbin Hotel fandom and the x-reader community. Writing for this space has brought me immense joy, and I’ve formed wonderful connections with both readers and fellow writers. That’s why receiving such hateful and inflammatory messages has been incredibly disheartening. The accusations of racism, the vitriol, and the twisting of my creative choices into something they were never meant to be—this has shaken me more than I can express.

To the anonymous senders of these messages: I want to make it clear that my work comes from a place of love and passion. My intention has always been to tell compelling stories that explore complex emotions, societal norms, and the human condition—stories that resonate with readers on a deeper level. To reduce my work to a political agenda or an act of prejudice is deeply hurtful and entirely unfounded.

I want to echo sentiments shared by Kit (please check out her explanation here), another writer in the fandom, who also explored the racial and class dynamics between characters. Like them, I am fascinated by the tension and drama that arise from star-crossed love stories, particularly when societal laws and prejudices forbid such relationships. Writing the reader as white in this context wasn’t about excluding or favoring anyone—it was about creating an authentic narrative rooted in the realities of the era.

For those questioning why I made this choice, I ask: if you can suspend disbelief to fall in love with a cannibalistic, asexual deer demon, why is the reader’s race—chosen for specific plot reasons—the line you cannot cross? My goal as a writer is to craft stories that make sense within their own context. The entitlement to demand otherwise, or to impose personal prejudices onto my work, is unfair and unwarranted.

I hate that I’ve had to turn off anonymous asks. Some of the most heartfelt and hilarious messages I’ve received have come from anonymous users, and losing that connection with my readers pains me. But unfortunately, the actions of a loud, hateful minority have left me with no choice. I will not entertain further discourse on this matter after this post.

To those who have supported me, who have read my stories and shared kind words: thank you. Your encouragement is what keeps me going. Writing for this fandom has been a labor of love, and I pour my heart and soul into every piece I create—for free, might I add. It’s devastating to feel that love overshadowed by hostility.

I won’t let this stop me from creating, but I’d be lying if I said it hasn’t made me question my place here. To anyone who feels entitled to tear down what others create out of hatred or spite: I hope you take a moment to reflect on the harm your words can cause.

To my true supporters: I appreciate you more than words can express. Your kindness reminds me why I love writing in the first place. Thank you for standing by me.

[legalkimchi]

Please learn more than just a Phrase.

I don't expect people to be subject matter experts on issues of global politics.

But false equivalency is rampant in online discourse regarding three major conflicts in the world today. I am using the word conflict in this post, however, when applicable, i will use other words to describe specifics. (Nuance folks... it's a thing)

So i start off with an assumption that most people don't understand the basics of most international events. As an american, i only know some of the stuff that is happening within my own nation. This is not an insult to you, dear reader. Rather, it is a position we all must realize we are in. You do not understand most world issues.

You just don't.

you aren't there. it isn't your life. you don't have the academic background.

I saw a post recently calling for "freedom for Palestine, Sudan, and Congo."

And it bothered me. Not because i am opposed to peace, (how is asking for ceasefire a bad thing?) but rather because i believe simplifying the conflicts with this wording showcases the ignorance of the differences.

Not all conflicts are the same.

In palestine, we have a convoluted mess where two groups claim a territory as home. getting into the in-depth story of this conflict takes time. Foundational elements of it take place thousands of years ago, but the conflict itself is only about 75 years old. So it is a long and short story. Currently, the sovereign state of Israel is engaging in a genocide in Gaza. Asking for freedom for palestinians makes sense. they live in an apartheid state and would like a state of their own. they wish to be free of occupation. you can argue with the details, be pro-israel, or whatever, but that is the basic ask of palestinians. (if you want to get into anti-semetic regional sentiment or the desire of certain groups to eradicate the israeli jewish population or Israel as a nation that's a different topic, not the point of what i'm talking about.)

In the Congo and Sudan, it is a different story.

Let's start with the Congo. First of all, Which Congo?

Let's please understand that there is the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Republic of the Congo is a former french colony. Then there is Democratic Republic of the Congo. Some of us might remember this country as Zaire.

the DRC is the congo we are talking about in the news. This was a former belgian colony and the atrocities committed by the belgians there rival any genocide in human history. i've seen estimates between 5 million and 20 million deaths. some estimates state the population of native congolese were cut in HALF. since the turbulent start of the country after their independence in 1960, the country knew relative peace until the 1990s. Then a mixture of a weak central government and the Rwandan Civil war (which had it's own genocide you may have heard about) spilled over into what was then Zaire. Zaire dissolved, and the DRC took it's place, But the wars have been raging off an on since then. earlier this year, more civil war violence erupted AGAIN. This displaced millions, AGAIN. while the DRC is a bit of an autocratic and repressive regime, the rebel groups are groups with ties with the Rwandan government and the other group with ties to Isis. It's awful all the way down.

Sudan has had an ongoing civil war for over 20 years. I remember this because i helped lead some anti-genocide protests regarding Darfur when i was in college 20 years ago. I've been following this conflict for nearly my entire adult life. you may have heard about this with regards to the Save Darfur coalition regarding the genocide in Darfur. Well, that genocide has continued (albeit with less intensity) for 20 years. the civil war lasted until 2021, but restarted in a different form in late 2023. the conflict is now between two different sides of the military government fighting each other.

It is an awful conflict full of awful leaders. Sudan's government suffered a revolution in 2019 from a dictator, only to have that government overthrown in a coup by the current dictator. The Sudanese military is supported by folks like Russia and North Korea. you might see that among the other countries that support sudan, bunch of communist countries, and you might think "hey, maybe al-Burhan is a leftist".

no... no he is not.

He is a military despot. He has no ties to any real ideology. He just runs sudan as a military dictator.

So who is opposing him?

The Rapid Support Forces. and you may be thinking "ok, so they are the good guys? trying to overthrow the dictator?"

No... They are the ones that instigated the Genocide in Darfur.

This is a situation is "no matter who wins, the people of Sudan lose."

So when folks claim these are all the same. Or wonder why folks talk about one and not the other.

there are reasons. These are very different conflicts. Please learn about them. It matters more than spouting some 4 word slogan calling for "freedom."

Find out what the people of these areas actually need. Learn more about what is happening. My description above is incomplete. I may even get some things wrong. I am trying to keep informed, but I am not an expert, nor do i live there. Raise voices from the region and find out if there are ways to help.

[transmutationisms]

do u have any particular academic sources problematizing the view that cis women cannot build muscle to the same extent cis men can or are otherwise incapable of being as physically strong. its ok if not love u

id start with testosterone: an unauthorised biography and follow their actual footnotes in the sports chapter... u could also try looking thru the literature on sports doping since this is an area where a lot of discourses of sexuation & ideas about hormones etc collide, but on the history side at least, sport hasn't always been treated as like a serious topic of study & a lot of the existing lit on it is pretty superficial, plus it's still kind of an odd duck out because historians of science tend to compartmentalise it into technology or medicine subtopics. so idrk what all is out there. but yeah i think most of these quasi scientific claims about gendered sport performance tend to be justified (at least rhetorically) by appeal to hormones, so i think you'll find the most useful material by reading anything that contextualises or problematises the binarist & essentialist claims made about them, even if you can't find much that's specifically tackling the question of muscle / sport performance