#obviously not a lgbt specific topic but I wanted to talk about it

[letters-to-lgbt-kids]

My dear lgbt+ kids,

Can you have a healthy relationship with a narcissist?

Well, if you trust many social media posts, then the answer would be a resounding "No". Narcissistic is - apparently - a synonym for abusive, and of course you can't have a healthy relationship with an abusive partner!

But, well, social media is not always right. A lot of topics get oversimplified, terms get misused and black-or-white thinking is rampant - and "narcissistic means abusive" falls into all three of those pits.

Let's look at it a bit closer: "Abusive" describes a set of behaviors - while narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) describes, well, a personality disorder. It's a mental health condition.

I am not a trained mental health professional, so I'll use a medical source here. According to mayoclinic.org (link to article), symptoms and their intensity may vary from one affected person to the next (just like the exact symptoms and severity of depression or anxiety may vary!). A person with NPD may

have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance

have an excessive need for attention and admiration

have low/no empathy (struggle to understand or care about the feelings of others)

have low self-worth

be easily upset by criticism

struggle with social interactions

have difficulty managing their emotions

experience major problems dealing with stress 

And, again just like with other mental health conditions, NPD can negatively affect the person in a lot of areas of life. For example, struggling to manage their emotions and stress levels may make it hard for them to hold down a job and cause financial worries, or they may avoid participating in social events, which may lead to them becoming isolated and depressed etc. And yes, of course some symptoms may also lead to problems in romantic relationships.

Therapy for NPD usually centers around talk therapy, with the goal of helping the person to better understand and manage their emotions, to learn how to cope with self-worth issues, and to create/maintain healthy fulfilling relationships and communication with the people around them.

Now, you can look at all this and go "See? The social media posts are right! They are self-centered, have no empathy and are easily upset! That's abusive!" - but that'd be jumping to conclusions. None of those things are behaviors.

An autistic person may also easily get upset and they may also feel low empathy. So could a person with major depression. Yet, we do not treat "autistic" or "depressed" as a synonym for abusive. We do not assume that their symptoms will definitely lead to abusive behavior. So, why would that be different for people with NPD?

Am I saying no person with NPD has ever been abusive? Of course not. That'd be black-or-white thinking, too. What I am saying is: People with NPD are people. And people can show abusive behavior or they can not.

If someone who easily feels upset hits you, that's abuse... but hitting would be abuse, even if they didn't feel easily upset. A partner with or without NPD shouldn't be hitting you. If someone with no empathy degrades and insults you, that's abusive... but that would be abuse regardless of their ability to feel empathy. A partner with or without NPD shouldn't be degrading and insulting you.

A person could have NPD and behave abusive - but "some people are X and Y, so all people who are X must be Y" is a flawed logic.

So, let's circle back to the beginning: can you have a healthy relationship with a narcissist? Yeah. It will be a relationship with someone who has a mental health condition and that's something to be aware of because mental health conditions do affect everyday life (duh?).

You should set boundaries and take warning signs of abuse seriously - like you should do when you date anyone, regardless of health status.

With all my love,

Your Tumblr Dad

[bi-kisses]

hi may I ask what do you think about this tiktok? https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMY5UdYSV/ personally I find that they’re only trying to explain that NB/Queer people have always existed based on different cultural backgrounds but I wanted to ask what do you think of it

originally I was just gonna say what I always do about these ancient third genders being examples of homophobia, transphobia, and sexism. But I decided to actually prove that.

Their first point: Mesopotamia, 2000 BC. They had "neither male nor female" individuals who were "created by god".

In actuality: the gender roles were incredibly strict in their culture. Any form of deviance from "men stronk hunter, active and virile" meant you couldn't be a real man. If you actually look into their "neither male nor female" figures, you're met with:

feminine men who were forced under the "third gender" label to maintain strict masculine/feminine divide

an ambiguously-bodied cult god(dess), changing men to women/women to men as a way to again maintain masculinity and femininity's rigidity.

castrated castle servants

(source)

Second point: Egyptian "Sekhet", a third gender.

This one is SOOO funny because it just... isn't real? If you search for it online, the only thing that turns up is this absolutely referenceless "wikidata" article with a fun flag.

Did you mean: Sekhmet? Sekhmet is an Egyptian goddess, not at all ambiguously gendered, and not at all related to non binary genders.

Third point: Hijra, the Indian third gender.

I've talked about Hijra before but if you want the full breakdown;

This article's very first line says that Hijra are trans women. But the actual history of Hijra, the one that dates soooo far back historically, is of a god merging with his wife and becoming ambiguously sexed.

If you look at what makes someone Hijra, it's just... being LGBT. And in India, they're seen as vagabond and entertainers who roam around begging for money because of the discrimination and exploitation they face.

The New York Times goes into the modern Hijra, where their example is a bullied AFAB groomed into sex work at the age of 8. I'm not going to touch that. It is explained, however, that many Hijra exist in a sex work pyramid scheme with a top-dog Hijra getting all the money and offering protection to her many "chelas" and continue recruiting.

In fact, India legally recognizes all "transgender" people as being a third gender. Make of that what you will.

Fourth point: Scythians, a nomadic who heralded gender non conforming people as priests and warriors.

First of all, I'd like to say just how misleading the poster's segue into this point was? As if all Scythians were non binary? When that obviously wasn't the case. They had one form of "third gender", called Enarei or Anarya, which, I shit you not, translates to "unmanly". Telling on ourselves with this one.

From what I could find, this role was actually adopted by men who specifically couldn't have sex anymore for some reason. In legend, they came to be from an effeminacy curse from Aphrodite. There's very little information about this group and yet we can already see it's more of the same.

They also claim that Scythians had early HRT by using licorice root. I could find zero evidence for this, only an article that explained they used licorice root to stay hydrated in the desert.

Fifth point: Two Spirit, the native "umbrella" for non-"western" genders

I don't even want to explain at this point because it's such a dry topic, a long-beaten dead horse, but the term Two Spirits is a modern invention and the "genders" it encompasses are, likewise, ways to other or "explain" LGBT people.

You can look into any one of these genders for the proof, as I will do here: Take the wíŋkte, a contraction of a term that translates to "man who wants to be a woman". It's just... trans women. In the modern day, the same term basically just means gay man. Deviance from the typical male role meant you were classified as something totally other, as we can see, and if a trans woman wanted to, well, be a woman, she was instead ostracized from both sexes.

I've even had a native explain to me that 2S is a secondary role that has nothing to do with your sex or gender and is purely spiritual, not relevant to LGBT discussions whatsoever.

Their final point was literally "woman with a [penis] weapon", which derives from anglo-saxon history and was... insulting, from the little I could find. It wasn't an epic cool third gender, it was something to call trans/intersex people.

So we've reached the end. Now, the video itself isn't wrong, we've had the notion of non-binary genders and sexes for ages, but we also have the hindsight to understand these categories were sexist reinforcements of gender roles and a way to move the homosexuals and transsexuals into their own box that wouldn't disrupt the rest of society by trying to actually be perceived as, like, normal human beings.

Non binary today isn't overly different, unfortunately! For every person that claims it's a scientific phenomenon with androgynous dysphoria, there's a hundred more who describe it as not feeling like they "fit in" with other girls/guys.

Which is, again, just sexism and the enforcement of gender roles.

[crazycatsiren]

Okay I have a question about JK R*wling and oppressed voices and it makes me uncomfy and… I’m just gonna go on anon. Hope that’s okay.

So, I worked in a bookstore. So of course we sold HP stuff, it was B&N. Can’t get around that, I just never advertised it unless asked specifically about it because it was my job.

But then a new coworker was hired. I’ll call them V. V was non-binary and very, VERY active in the LGBT community and friendly. I really liked them and we seemed to have great convos. I considered them a friend.

But then the topic of HP came up and I mentioned how I don’t advertise HP any more than I absolutely have to for my job because of all the problematic elements within in and because of R*wling herself being very transphobic and just a terrible person. And V… went OFF.

V said I was white knighting for the trans and Jewish community (that I am not a part of) and that I should let them speak for themselves. And let people make their own choices, good or bad. They said that they still loved HP, even though they were non-binary, and that was their choice and that didn’t make them transphobic because they were under the gender queer umbrella.

V said that, when it comes to sensitive topics like these, I should keep my mouth shut. Because, since I am not a part of the oppressed communities, I am taking away their voice, in this case theirs. They said it was fine if I didn’t want to advertise HP, but I shouldn’t “trash it” to them (I don’t feel like I was) when they should be able to speak first.

And I guess I’m just asking for advice for situations like this? I don’t talk to V anymore, I’ve since quit that job, but it really stuck out to me. Because I felt really wrong-footed. And I get that I don’t want to speak over the people that are oppressed, but I didn’t feel like that’s what I was doing in that situation?

I guess… how do I stand up for people that are being hurt by others without taking their voice? How do I use my voice to uplift others and not speak over them? And how do I recognize when I’m talking over someone myself? Because I while I didn’t feel like I was doing that to V, V obviously felt like I was. And I’m just… I’m really confused tbh.

Any help would be appreciated…

You did nothing wrong.

Your former coworker, on the other hand, sounds like a boot licker grasping for excuses to justify not giving up their support for a shitty person, and weaponizing their queerness to evade accountability for shitty behaviors.

In my opinion, anybody who says anybody should keep their mouth shut when it comes to issues related to white supremacy, racism, bigotry, etc., is potentially dangerous. If they will try to silence you, then for damn sure they won't think twice about trying to silence us. Because silence is complicity. Silence is what makes the white supremacists' work all the more easy. Silence is the first tool that oppressors use to maintain power and continue oppression. Silence takes away our allies, because a silent ally is no ally.

[shatar-aethelwynn]

Well, I think that the rejection of homosexuality as a major sin is something constant in the Bible, from the destruction of Sodoma by the wrath of God to Paul's Letter to the Romans, in which homosexuality is seen as the fundamental sin of the pagans and the cause of their punishment by God and of their perdition. Btw, I saw your definition of henotheism. I think that we talk about henotheism when all the gods and goddesses of a pantheon are seen just as manifestations of One Supreme Deity.

Yes, the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin. And yes, it is pretty consistent about that, for all that it is only mentioned a small handful of times. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a "major" sin though. It's not talked about anywhere near as frequently as adultery, for example. People today make it into a far bigger issue than the Bible ever does. It's not even one of the Big 10 (but adultery is). Nor is it the “fundamental sin” of Romans. The fundamental sin is rejection of God (1:21-23). Paul views homosexuality as a consequence of that rejection, not as a cause of it.

Because this is such a controversial topic I would once again like to emphasize that the way the authors of the Biblical texts defined homosexuality was not the way we define it today. The social situation was different. The laws against homosexuality were about the social status of the participants, the roles of men in society, the importance of having children, and the social consequences of being the penetrated partner. It was about an action not an identity. And on the rare occasion that it comes up the biblical authors seem to list it with other acts of violence, abuse, or subversion/violation of the social order in some way. Bringing Paul into things doesn't clarify anything about Sodom because by that point you're dealing with Greek influences and that means needing to address pederasty and the age/power dynamics involved. And Sodom and Gomorrah weren’t Greek. In fact, people have been speculating for a while that pederasty specifically is what Paul is referring to (it’s an ongoing debate as the topic is obviously highly contentious). And guess what, Greek culture wasn’t just saying “love is love” either, since age and social status were important aspects in determining whether a homosexual relationship between men was socially permissible – too close in age or status and the answer was usually “no”. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it was not necessarily seen as an approved thing. So, we are left with the question of what does Paul refer to when he talks about homosexuality, because the only thing we know for sure is that it’s not what we mean when we talk about it today.

Which is part of why it is possible to be in one of the religions that uses the Bible as a sacred text and be pro-LGBT+, because we no longer live in a patriarchal society where the male head of house (because let’s be honest, the laws at least are exclusively concerned with men being involved) cannot be shown as submissive to another man without placing his dependents in a more vulnerable social position. Hooray for societal advance despite the distressingly large number who would like to go back to those days. We also need to bear in mind that while the conversation is currently dominated by the voices of Christians, Judaism has many centuries of study and commentary on the matter as well, and they haven’t always come to the same conclusions that the Christians did many years later. Appealing to Paul only works with Christians, and that’s before we get into the debates on whether some of the New Testament books were written to refute Paul. Or whether we should be attempting Systematic Theology in the first place (personally, I’d rather not).

As for the henotheism. You might want to look into panentheism or monism. Henotheism does not conflate the gods, they're all separate. There just happens to be one Supreme God who commands all the rest. Panentheism is similar to pantheism but it separates God from the rest of the world. Both are forms of monism, which is a series of beliefs that claim everything goes back to one supreme source. 

[h-c-u]

To the piece that left.

TW: SUICIDE.

First of all, I would love to thank everyone who sent me asks and messages since the day I've posted about my absence. I've replied to chats and explained to some of you what is happening in my life right now, and even though I won't be replying to any of the asks, because it would be just a copy-paste reply, I appreciate every single one of them, and you can consider this post as a reply. I will explain more under the cut, but again, please be warned:

TW: SUICIDE.

Over a week ago, a very close friend of mine took his own life and it took a toll on me. I have a great support system in place, and as much as it pains me to say it - it's not the first time I'm facing this specific event in my life. I obviously won't go into details on why, but to paint a broad picture - we live in a country that some time ago started implementing LGBT-free zones and even though I don't live in any of those regions - that mentality is still felt among some circles even in more progressive parts of Poland, especially in older generations. I hope I don't have to explain in more detail exactly how it's connected to the main topic today...

I will allow myself to be a bit vulnerable with you all here and share a letter I wrote to him and that I've shared with my friends after the funeral. It's not exactly pretty, and I'm not even sure if I should post it on a blog that contains mostly memes and fanfics, but it's a kind of spur of a-moment decision, and I honestly might delete it in few days, if I decide it was inappropriate. But for now - here we go.

To the piece that left.

Someone much more intelligent than me (whose name ironically, I don't remember now), once told me that we are a mosaic of people we love. That we're made of the things other people in our lives... I don't know if it's true for everyone, but I know it is for me; both small and significant items in me are copied or inspired by others. 

I still make the sandwiches in the exact same way as my mother does. I check the door the same way my nanny did when we left the house. When I write ys and gs, I still use the loop I saw one day on a coffee shop banner when I was 9. When I write on my computer, my fingers subconsciously position themselves in a way my piano teacher taught me as a way to relax the knuckles. Every time I do any of those things, my thoughts wander to the person I got it from, and even though some of them I never met, with some I haven't spoken with in years, they are still present in my life.

But now the piece that was you is missing from my daily life. 

I know you will be present in the mosaic of my mind and life forever, but I don't know how to make that shift from seeing you on a weekly basis, talking to you almost every day, and sending you shitty memes about psychology, philosophy, and linguistics, because we were the exact same humor in this area to having your present only in my thoughts and the habits I haven't discovered yet. 

You ripped yourself from my life just a few days ago, without giving me time to prepare, leaving a hole behind, but for me... it's just too soon to process it yet, so even though I see the hole, I feel how empty and cold it is, my brain glosses over the fact that it IS there and instead focuses on how it got there. 

I know what drove you to the decision you made, and I am truly sorry that there was so much pain in your life that you didn't see any other option than to end it. I'm sorry you were faced with such cruelty and injustice from people who were supposed to love you no matter what. And I am truly sorry that I didn't realize how much you were really struggling before it was too late. You said you don't want any of us to blame ourselves, but I still can't help it, because I called you just one day before you killed yourself... Maybe if I said something different, or talked with you just a few minutes longer, I wouldn't be writing this right now. And trust me, I know you would smack me just for thinking that, but I still can’t help wondering.

When we were saying goodbyes, I was left alone with you for a moment, and I held your hand... I know it was cold and lifeless, but I didn't feel it, because I kept wondering how it was possible that your skin was still so soft, even so long after your heart stopped beating... 

I saw your cuts... 

We talked about suicide because it was a close topic to both our hearts and how you always made fun of people cutting across the wrists because stopping this type of bleed was almost easy. 

Your cuts ran through the whole length of your forearms. 

You didn't want any chance of someone saving you...

I want to be angry, sad, furious, anything, but I can't... And I don't even feel guilty for being so numb to it... Maybe somewhere deep down I was expecting it all along? Maybe some part of me knew that I had to cherish every moment with you because there was a finite amount of them. I will never know the answer to that.

You were a huge part of not only my life but all of our friends. We were a beautiful picture made from millions of puzzle pieces that came together, and now your pieces are missing, and that beautiful picture is glitched, unrecognizable, and incomplete... I know that with time we will be forced to shift some our own pieces, cut out part of the picture completely, and maybe even fill them with pieces belonging to other people to make a completely new picture.

But you will never be gone... You shaped the edges of some of our pieces to fit yours and because of that - your presence will always be noticeable. 

During the time we collided, you left a mark on our lives that will always be there. And I can't help to start noticing the pieces of you in the mosaic of life; not only in my own but also in the people who love you. 

And as much as it pains me to say it - eventually we will learn to live without you. 

We will be ok.

I just really hope that you already are. 

[tharizdun-03]

The moral of Fruits Basket is "gender and sexual ambiguity and non-conformity can be solved by heterosexual love." Add some romanticization of pedophilic themes, with some poor handling of resolving abusive relationships -- and it's safe to say I did not like the final season.

There's a lot of small things you can talk about, but I think the series has two big issues. How it tackles queerness and how it tackles abusive relationships.

1) Queerness:

Every character with an ambiguous or non-conforming relationship to gender and sexuality is "solved" by the end and they settle with heterosexuality.

Akito and Ritsu are the worst offenders when it comes to the topic of gender. Both characters are non-conforming, their non-conformity is treated as either due to personality flaws and/or trauma from the Zodiac curse, and once these things are solved at the end of the story; they both become cisgender heterosexuals who are perfectly in line with their respective gender roles with no ambiguity or wiggle room whatsoever.

Momiji himself eventually grows up into a fully masculine expression, the narrative treating his gender non-conformity as a "phase he grows out of".

Don't get me wrong, it's nice to see someone like Akito overcome her internalized misogyny, but her becoming her true self, a genuine woman, is explicitly tied to her having a feminine appearance.

This isn't a big issue by itself, but combined with how Ritsu and Momiji change how they look to be more gender-conforming, it just adds up to heteronormativity. It's not a one-off thing where we can just say "well, maybe she just wanted longer hair."

This is a pattern that reveals prejudiced thinking.

Obviously, Fruits Basket is a very heterosexual-normative show. And I probably should have realized it'd be really reactionary about this sort of stuff cause it is baked into the premise which is, if I may remind you, that boys and girls can't hug and they can't date -- because of a supernatural curse.

But, if any characters were to be gay… you're good to go?

Literally lol. If you like the same sex in the Sohma family, then any problem with your romantic relationship is just erased. It immediately solves one of the biggest problems they have. And when your literal premise is set up this way, you have reactionary ideas baked into the very fundamentals of your story.

Moving on from the topic of gender to the topic of sexuality. Any homosexuality or bisexuality is portrayed, in the narrative, as a joke. Haru mentioning that he loves Yuki is supposed to be funny, Ayame's whole homo teasing thing is simply for jokes, other boys being attracted to Yuki and how they wish he was a girl, etc.

All of this stems from homophobia.

Homophobia isn't just that you viscerally hate gay people and want to take their rights away. But when your jokes are literally just homosexuality existing when the narrative itself doesn't seem to view homosexual desire as a valid form of desire, as to not be on the same level as heterosexual love, as to just be the butt of jokes -- that stems from homophobic thinking. The narrative teases the audience a lot about queer elements but doesn't consider same-sex relationships as a genuinely valid possibility.

Even just something as simple as Yuki’s non-traditional masculinity is treated as a joke. He’s made the butt of a bunch of jokes throughout the story for being a more feminine-looking guy.

Not once did the narrative include a same-sex relationship, yet it does make several pedophilic relationships canon.

I know what you're about to ask next.

"But Theodor, this was in the 90s. Are you seriously expecting canon LGBT characters? How is this any different from any other show that's queer-baiting a bit? Most anime don't have same-sex relationships. So why get mad about Fruits Basket specifically for it?"

Well, first of all. These things are still issues no matter when it was written, they should still be discussed and acknowledged.

Second of all, we actually had a prime opportunity to include canon LGBT stuff since this is a remake (the author already took away smoking because it's not seen as cool nowadays), so I don't think it being written in the 90s is an excuse cause the remake is done now and has changed other stuff it considered outdated. It simply doesn't think it's homophobic views fall into that category.

Third of all, my biggest reason as to why this bothers me so much isn't the lack of same-sex relationships (I mean, how rare is that in anime?), it's that literally EVERYONE ends up in a heterosexual one.

Literally every single character.

Even side characters we barely know. Barely any character is left properly single. And we make insane leaps where characters who should not even like each other, suddenly have to become another pair even if that's between an adult man and a high school girl.

Even if we ignore the lack of same-sex relationships, cause most anime don't have that, I think it speaks to what a conservative show this is -- that it views the resolutions women should have as getting with men. And every single woman has to end up with a man. Or better yet, has to end up with someone. That's just not traditional thinking, it's straight-up patriarchal and I've never seen a series go this far in pairing everyone up.

2) Resolving abusive relationships:

Shigure is… an unrepentant pedophile? It seems? He's known Akito since she was literally born, is at least six years older than her, first fell in love with her before she was even born through a dream he had foretelling her conception, and throughout her childhood has acted in behavior that is not… proper towards such a young girl.

I think Shigure is a groomer and a predator. I think, even if we were to debate the specifics of what he specifically did as she grew up and whether that qualifies as grooming or not, the series doesn't care to clarify that or even ask the question and instead romanticizes the relationship regardless. Even if we say he did not groom Akito (he straight up does but let's pretend he doesn't), he is still abusive towards her throughout the entire story and the narrative refuses to acknowledge her ending up with Shigure as a bad thing.

I also don't think the show actually handled Akito herself well either. Because she got off scot-free. She has done so much fucked up shit to individual people, but it’s all swept up into a single package of “she was a bad person but is changing for the better now” which misunderstands all of her wrongdoings by treating them as equal when they are not.

Her trying to kill two different people and torturing kids for months in a shed is not equal to her hitting Momiji once. We never see Akito actually answer to any of her victims (maybe Kureno it can be argued she talked to, but I largely blame him for sticking around there and for being an enabler that the story disguises as "kindness" lol) on an individual level. We don't get any scenes of her even reflecting on this.

The one time she admits to Arisa and Saki that she is the one who hurt Tohru; Saki says that Tohru does not blame her and then Arisa GIVES HER A HUG. I am NOT kidding.

I'm sorry, but Akito does not take any proper responsibility or accountability and it is a big failure in resolving the relationship to the single most abusive character in the entire story (who I frankly think is beyond forgiveness. You can't have Kureno sleeping with Akito, and still portray Akito as a lonely little girl who didn't deliberately terrorize children as an adolescent and adult -- it's both sexualizing and infantilizing her character). Akito can not just be met with immediate kindness and understanding.

Because the story does not properly resolve the abuse as specifically individual (instead of just treating it as collective), we don't get any proper heart-to-heart or specific reflections on her actions.

Even with someone like Kureno, whose flaw isn't that he's too nice or that he doesn't abandon Akito, it's that he stays with Akito and just obeys her completely.

That's not "not abandoning", that's enabling abuse. But this isn't something the story decides to really criticize him for. And I could list how almost every single core flaw of these characters was never really properly acknowledged or resolved for what they were. But then we'd be here all day long

I feel that I have to bring it up every time I'm negative about a show (because almost every single time, people paint me as if I'm moralizing people for liking shows I dislike).

You can obviously like Fruits Basket. It is a plenty charming slice-of-life with a good simmering slow burn of a plot about becoming better as a person and overcoming abuse. Most of the characters are charming and well-written.

I have particular issues with the execution of these parts and I speak authoritatively because I have strong feelings. But again, you can like whatever you like and draw whatever positive feelings you want from anything.

Again, shouldn't need to be said, but I feel like I always have to. Despite my annoyances, Fruits Basket probably still holds up very well as a primarily high-school-set shoujo manga that still appeals to a wide audience with a positive message. Unfortunately, it messes up things that I consider to be fundamental blocks that make it not click for me. Oh well, better luck next time.

[knightofdeer]

Hi hi, some additions from the inside!

(TL/DR: no, Stalin wasn't as bad as Hitler, not even as bad as emperors were, but he took steps back on almost all issues. That's not how communists shall act and that did make a lot of people mad during his time and soon after)

National minority rites regressed under Stalin. Not to Imperial times, obviously, but under Lenin the course was that every republic uses first and foremost the language and culture of their dominant nationality while minorities inside the republic are also encouraged to develop their cultures. Under Stalin it was "Russian culture is universal, it's also good to know culture of dominant nationality of the republic, everyone else is on their own". And like it's very important to have universal language for your citizens, but it expanded beyond that. Antisemitic component specifically happened closer to the end of his reign when almost all Jewish organisations were closed and the usage of Yiddish basically stopped (which is once again not even the level of Russian Empire, but that's positively not good).

Something similar happened to women's rights - things were not completely reversed, but a couple of steps back were taken, and Stalin himself declared "well, we achieved equality, no need to do more".

The post doesn't mention LGBT rights, but Stalin brought back sodomy laws. And while it didn't have enough time to bring fruits, in 1929 the Health Commissariat started some work regarding "situation and needs of transvestites", which considering the time probably also included proper transgender people.

Education and nutrition are undeniably true, fact.

Protection for industrial workers is also true. What this claim doesn't take into account is that ~40% of population were peasants, and they didn't live that well under Stalin. I am not going to talk about collectivization because it's a poisonous topic, but what's undeniably true is that Stalin imposed restrictions on internal movement of people, specifically that they required passports and peasants were not allowed to receive it at all (peasants had some rights for short-term business trips and they could get passport if they become industrial workers and in some other cases, but until 1974 most of them were still peasants and therefore basically prohibited from free movement).

Of course it's important to realize than most of those things (safe for passports) weren't invented by Stalin, they were codification of already existing prejudices, but that's absolutely not what communists shall do. Stalin became pretty controversial figure as soon as he died and therefore as soon as saying whatever you want about him became safe. There was a component of factional struggle inside the Party to it, but most of the people in the '50s and '60s either lived under Stalin or knew someone who did, so it wasn't completely fictional.

It is pretty true that a lot of modern criticism of Stalin is done not only from liberal standpoint but also paints Imperial Russia if not idyllic then at least far better then USSR, which is extremely false even for Stalin's times, but it would be very wrong to say that there isn't a lot of leftist criticism of Stalin.

And saying that the Reich was better makes a lot of sense if you headcanon yourself as German or at least Aryan Buerger and not some random Untermensch on potato fields in some far off province (or Jew, or gay, or whatever) which most of people who claim that they are equally bad do.

(Also purely anecdotally, when people bring up lack of consumer's goods in USSR they oftentimes compare it not to Imperial Russia and not even to contemporary Europe but to modern choice of consumer goods, which is like yeah 50-100 years later we live way more prosperous than we did back then, who could have guessed)

I wish more people read. Of course there were citizens within the USSR who despised Stalin and the CPSU and even called for their deaths, however this was a minority and often those who opposed the CPSU sympathized with either the Tsar or unfortunately Hitler, claiming that Hitler would liberate them.

Stalin and the CPSU enjoyed a majority of support from the citizens much to the chagrin of Liberals. Those who sympathized with Stalin and the CPSU often cited women's and national minority rights, worker protections and benefits, improving healthcare and nutrition and overwhelmingly access to education as reasons for their support. Those who were in opposition cited issues such as lack of consumer goods, lack of variety of consumer goods, unfair economic practices (such as welfare for the very poorest), the State's atheist sentiments, and the expansion of rights to national minorities including (and especially) the Jewish population.

Many Liberals will rush to defend fascism in a heartbeat either without realizing it (which is no excuse) or by lying to themselves as Fascism is preferable to Communism for them.

References :

"Popular Opinion in Stalin's Russia" by S. Davies

"Stalin's Constitution" by S. Lomb

"Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia" by R. Thurston

[ot3]

just as a general rule i think westerners - especially white ones - need to really be careful with wanting Gay Rep in stories told from a nonwestern perspective. not in a ‘you shouldnt expect gay rep from these undeveloped cultures :/’ way - obviously every culture on the planet has gay and trans people who have been telling their stories one way or another since antiquity. but more in the sense that every story has a limited scope and needing it to have the sort of politics You are concerned about in order to think it’s worth engaging with is gonna vastly limit the kind of ideas you’re exposed to 

like disco elysium has the privilege of being a 1,000,000+ word beast of a thing that is literally About it’s own political worldbuilding. this means there is not only ample space and ability to talk about how race and gay identity intersect with the larger communist ideology that’s the game’s actual Purpose, but that exploring these topics doesn’t feel like a tangent away from the core narrative, just an enriching of it

however, something that ISNT in that spot might have a much more difficult time making space for it and that shouldn’t necessarily be a dealbreaker

like, i’m gonna use encanto as a comparison because even though i probably can’t think of two pieces of media with less in common than encanto and disco elysium it’s just a very recent and very prominent example. 

i liked encanto i think it was the best disney movie that’s come out in almost a decade by a pretty significant margin. but i still think it’s pacing was pretty bad. almost nothing that could have been done about this though because the storytelling and character writing it was trying to do had a Lot more nuance than disney films normally do and there was just barely enough space for it in the film’s 90 minute runtime. 

some discourse i’ve seen second hand is basically concerns from colombians and other latin american people with the way white gay people are so intent to read the specific sort of Family Isolation some of these characters experience as queercoding or lgbt metaphor without any sort of regard for the larger family dynamics that are the movie’s core premise. 

like obviously there are no gay people in encanto because it’s a fucking disney movie and until faux-liberal centricism stops being profitable disney will never make anything truly progressive. but arguably more importantly than that it’s just not really the discussion the movie was trying to have. 

any piece of media can be looked at through a queer lens regardless of what representation may or may not exist in it but applying the lens of western queer analysis to media that tells a nonwestern story is a little bit on shaky and voyeuristic ground unless you’re being particularly careful. i don’t think it should be your primary means of engaging with those stories, and i definitely dont think it should be your only means. 

like i’ll bet queer colombians have a TON to say about the way this movie resonated with their experiences w/ their own family. and that’s always gonna be a much more coherent and meaningful exploration of any lgbt subtext than a white american person could bring to the table. 

like i think just in general we need to get out of the idea that something needs to reach a diversity quota in order to be worth engaging with. no narrative has the time to be about every kind of person. sometimes the person a story is about happens to not be you or anyone even a little bit like you, experiencing situations that you don’t fully understand. and you definitely should engage with these things but saying ‘what if this WAS about me’ isnt really the way to do it.

[letters-to-lgbt-kids]

My dear lgbt+ kids, 

“My therapist told me that, according to psychology, girls who often stay up til 3 am for no reason actually show a trauma response. You lacked a loving mother figure in childhood, so you deprive yourself of sleep because you weren’t taught to love yourself.” 

I came across that piece of info on social media recently, and I’d like to offer an addition: 

My therapist told me that, according to psychology, you can make up random things and pass them off as scientific… if you just put enough meaningless phrases in front of it. 

You probably caught the irony here. In fact, “according to psychology” and “my therapist told me” are completely meaningless phrases in my statement here! They make it seem like I’m presenting a scientific fact, but there’s no substance behind them. I’m just telling you my own thought. 

I did it on purpose and wanted you to catch it, but it can be more tricky to spot out there in the wild (or, well, on social media) - because intuitively, that quote up there sounds pretty trustworthy, doesn’t it? We are taught to look for a source and it conveniently provides one for us: psychology. Psychology says this, so it’s legit! 

But phrases like “according to psychology”, “my therapist says” or even “studies say” may only pose as sources. Let’s look into it a bit closer: 

“According to psychology” - Psychology is not really a source that can be quoted like that. Psychology is an immense field of study that covers lots of different areas (biological psychology, neuroscience, social psychology, behavioral psychology etc.), so who or what exactly is being cited here? A specific expert? A specific study? A specific book? 

“My therapist said” - in which context? Therapists usually give advice that’s tailored to the patient’s individual situation which likely looks different to yours (since no two people lead the exact same life), so how do you know this specific piece of information is also applicable to your situation (let alone applicable to everyone)?

The next one is especially tricky:

“Studies say” - studies can be a great source, but which study are we talking about? Who did the study? How was it done? How many people participated in it? Are the results generalizable in the way the post claims? (And before all that: is there even any specific study being cited at all here, or is this just a fully meaningless claim?) 

While we are on the topic of generalization: obviously I’m not trying to make some blanket statement that everyone who ever uses these phrases is a liar with evil intentions. Sometimes we just use simple phrases for complex concepts to make them more accessible or easily digestible, and that’s fine. 

And just as importantly, sometimes we are just human and make some thinking mistakes (such as “this connection my therapist made about MY childhood and MY behavior in adulthood must be applicable to everyone who shows that behavior. Making that connection helped me, so surely I’m helping others by posting about it!”) without any bad intentions. 

I’m just encouraging you to critically think about the information you read or share online - even beyond the basic “is there a source” check. 

With all my love, 

Your Tumblr Dad 

[opinated-user]

As a person with native heritage (albeit native Latin American rather than native North American), it makes me really uncomfortable to see LO throw around the slurs and derogatory terms aimed at native people in her discussions of anons allegedly sending her such things.

Obviously, Lily is allowed to defend herself if she's accused of not being ethnically native, but with her history of justifying her native status with blood quantum rather than tribe affiliation, mostly disregarding native issues in Canada unless the topic is breached by an ask, etc, it all amounts to LO using her ethnicity mostly as a shield.

A few weeks back she posted an image of an anon ask where most of the text was blacked out due to racism, yet she still went on to say the harmful terms that were in that ask. She could just tell her audience that ethnic slurs are being used against her rather than stating what they are. I can't help but feel uncomfortable with her bringing up those terms, even in the context of defending herself. Some of these slurs are ones I didn't even know existed until she brought them up.

Lily's using her native heritage to defend herself against alleged asks from racists, but in shielding herself from criticism, she's showing disregard for her native audience and orbiters.

indeed. i never knew that "pretendian" was a term until she brought it up and after that, i haven't seen anyone outside of her blog using it. not on any of our blogs, anons i have recieved myself or other spaces that were critical of her. i'm afraid she truly does not care about other native people, just like she doesn't care about other bisexual women, trans women or LGBT+ people unless she gets to use them on an argument on her favour. the only value those slurs have for her is that they manage to shock people into feeling sorry for her, even though they don't make any logical sense... why would anyone use a specific slur for Natives for someone they don't believe to be a Native in the first place? lastly, i want to make clear that when i talk about this i don't do it out of a whim or just to have another strand to bring her down. i do really think that for someone to claim to be part of a culture that has been persecuted, erased and genocided for so long should have at least some cultural shared connection with it, and find the frivolity that LO has treated the Cherokee identity for years to be deeply ignorant and offensive as a result.

[vetteldixon]

Seb’s long interview with The Race (published Oct. 12 2021)

Q – Is it easier to speak up about issues since leaving Ferrari?

Sebastian Vettel: I don’t think so. I have the feeling you speak up once because you get the question, then from there the next questions are going to be asked and I have no problem repeating. I have certain views on some things. Obviously, some of those things are my opinion and I can see that not everyone agrees but that’s the way I think and I’m happy to stand up for my opinion and equally I’m happy to hear other people’s opinions and learn in the process but there are certain things that we as a society are getting right and certain things that are wrong.

the rest under the cut!

Q – Some people start to change their views on some of these subjects at a specific moment. Has that happened to you?

SV: There’s not been a trauma, an event which has changed my view, no. We live in a time where certain things are very, very important for us to understand and to apply change and not just to talk about but to act because we don’t have a choice, there is no alternative. To maintain our lives and futures on this planet I think we need to take care of the planet more. That’s one thing. Then when it comes to human rights, equality, how we treat people, it’s a process. In younger years you don’t necessarily not see these things but you just grow up and mature and see more things and become more and more aware of certain things that are going on in the world. The disappointing thing for me is that we have had so many shortcomings, so many examples of things we did in a bad way yet we are so, so slow – in F1 terms – to apply change. It’s like doing the same mistake over and over again. In F1 you do it wrong and you can just lose some points and not win the championship. What does it matter?  But in the real world, we are hurting people, not taking care of people and it has a huge impact on their lives. Not just a result or points in a championship, but their chances going forwards in life. It’s a feeling of injustice and this feeling is not right and I’m happy to speak up on it.

Q – What are your views of the recent German elections?

SV: Whoever is going to be in charge, we need to start applying a lot of good things and set examples for the rest of the world. When it comes to the fight against the climate crisis and increasing social justice.

Those are two big points I see and they have huge impacts on other fields. I’m not an expert but that’s exactly what we want, to have a government in charge which has more expertise than previously and will help to finally ring the bell and start the 21st century. Certain people have had their chances in the past. They’ve been talking about the climate crisis but too little things happen. The Greens I would trust more to make things happen. The other thing is social justice. Not everyone has the luxury of living a life where you can choose how many times a week you will eat meat or have any discussion about whether the speed limit is right or wrong. We need to look out for those people. It’s only fair and just.

Q – The LGBT movement has different levels of acceptance in all the cultures we visit in F1. Do you think F1 should be more militant about it as a group? Should it be putting on a Pride display in the middle east, for example? Where should it be pitching to get that message across without alienating anyone?

SV: There are certain topics too big to neglect. We all agree – and it doesn’t matter where you come from – that it’s only fair to treat people equally. Countries have different rules in place, different governments, different backgrounds. I can’t speak for all the countries and be an expert because I don’t know.

But there are certain countries I think are no-go. We go to some of those places and roll out a red carpet with nice messages on it. I think it takes more than just words, I think it takes actions. You proposed [in your question] something and I don’t know what is the best way of communicating and not just relying on a flag which lies on the track for a couple of minutes, what the best action is. But certainly, I feel our sport could apply a lot of pressure and could be of immense help to spread that fairness around the globe even more. I think it’s not right to judge people or apply certain laws which differentiate people just because they happen to love a man instead of a woman or a woman instead of a man. That’s one thing, or the way they look, or their background or the things they believe in. I think any form of separation is wrong. We should be… we are so much richer because we have all that. Imagine if we were all the same. We wouldn’t progress. Imagine all the cars looked the same in F1, the same colour, the same aero bits. It would be boring and we’d never made progress. We’ve made progress because we were happy to apply different ideas, forms, cultures. Same for us.We have evolved so much as a species because we are all different and I think we should celebrate the differences rather than be afraid of it.

Q – A stock response from some is that sport should be neutral and not be involved in issues in the wider world because it brings people together more that way. How do you answer that?

SV: The trouble is that a sport, same as a country, is governed by individuals and they have individual opinions, backgrounds, whatever. It’s difficult but we have to find the perfect people to govern our sport and then find the right path for going forward. There’s more than just that interest of course.  There’s also a huge financial interest but I think at some points the people in charge need to ask themselves the question – does the sport have a moral compass and therefore can it say no to certain things, or do you just say yes to any big deal that’s around the corner? For the wrong reasons. That’s the bigger picture stuff.

Q – Are you ready to hear the criticism of people who say Vettel has gone green but is still running in F1?

SV: Sure and I think it’s valid because F1 is not green. We live in a time when we have innovations and possibilities to arguably make F1 green as well and not lose any of the spectacle, speed, challenge, passion. We have so many clever people and engineering power here, we could come up with solutions.

But the current regs are very exciting, the engine is super-efficient but it’s useless, it’s not going to be an engine formula that’s going to be on the road and which is going to be in your car when you decide to buy a new car.

Therefore, what is the relevance? There are certain things being talked about for future regulations that could shift the change into more relevant areas and if they come that’s a good thing. If they don’t come I’m not optimistic. I think F1 will disappear if they don’t come – and probably rightly so. Because we are at the stage where we know we’ve made mistakes and we have no time to keep doing mistakes.

Q – Are sustainable fuels the solution for the future?

SV: I’m not a specialist on all the fuels but I’d rather synthetic fuels than biofuels because with biofuels it’s a bit complicated but you need to source your carbon from somewhere. I think there could be some complications there. It’s definitely right F1 pursues renewable fuels, a usage for synthetic fuels but as it is now we have a content of only 10% of e-fuels in the car – which is not a revolution. You have been able to buy that at fuel pumps around the world for several years. It doesn’t match the ambitions that F1 has to be a technological lead. We react rather than be proactive and lead the way. I’m afraid we might be doing that with synthetic fuels as the engines will be frozen after 2022.There is some talk something might change but frozen until 25/26, so another five years of no progress which I think will put our sport under huge pressure because in those five years I think a lot of pressure will hopefully be applied around the world and putting things under pressure which haven’t applied any change.

Q – What do those changes need to be?

SV: I don’t have all the answers. But we have lots of engineers. If you look at mobility we could find a solution. We have more than 1 billion cars in the world fuelled with fossil fuels every day. Planes, trains, ships fuelled with fossil fuels. Finding a real alternative for them will have to be one of the solutions for the future other than electrifying cars of finding hydrogen powertrains or maybe something else a clever man or woman will invent in the future. I think F1 should be introducing synthetic fuels as soon as possible even if some of the regs are already done. We don’t have time to talk about personal interests or one manufacturer over the other and whether it has been concluded and there is a piece of paper. Because there is something much, much larger at stake and we could use our resources- intelligence of F1, all the clever people facilities and money. And don’t forget for the last 10 years we’ve spent a lot of money on an engine that basically has no relevance to the normal person on the road or the next generation of cars. Each manufacturer spent more than a billion developing those engines. Some of that money is around to push the right cases. I don’t know what the best solution is but we have to be doing it now rather than discussing it for the next five years.

Q – Is your post-F1 life coming into focus? Are you thinking of a campaigning role or moving into politics?

SV: No! Not being a fan of the media I’m not sure politics would be the right place for me. Look at my age and I’m not going to be around F1 for the next 10 years. For sure I’m thinking about what might be next. I’m easily captured by passionate people even if it’s things I don’t currently have an interest in. I can easily grow a new passion. For any sportsman or racing driver in the past, it’s been a big challenge to find something. The easiest way would be to become a Sky reporter and find yourself in the same place for the next few years. I don’t see myself doing that but I love the sport and don’t want to turn my back on it and say “never again”. For sure I’m thinking about other things. I have a family so it’s easy to have things to take care of when I retire.

[sazandorable]

About moderating and banning content on AO3!

Okay so! I haven’t had the spoons to do this for a while but I cracked and ranted about it on twitter which is... not... conducive to long rants, so!

This is a h u g e discussion part of the l o n g history that led to the creation of AO3, which older, more informed, and more articulate people have talked about at length and can be found around if you look (I reblog some of it in my AO3 and fandom history tags for the curious). So I won’t go into that here, nor into the practical reasons why it’s not even possible to put that system in place anyway.

Arbitrarily, or the purpose of this post, because it’s the biggest topic I’ve seen brought up lately, I’ll be talking about fic depicting underage characters in se*ual situations, but honestly I could hold the exact same conversation on literally any controversial content.

This is about why you, specifically, if you are a content creator and especially if you are marginalised and especially if you are queer and especially especially if you are sensitive to fiction depicting certain things... do not, actually, want a banning system on AO3.

What? Of course we do. There’s a lot of p*do shit on AO3 and p*do shit is gross. No one should condone that, wtf? It would be easy to do — just periodically delete the entire Underage tag!

What will happen if that is done is that people will re-upload and continue to write it, they’ll just stop tagging and you will run into it with zero warning nor ability to filter it out. Again, this is not a theoretical — we know this is what happens. When I was a teen, adult content (all adult content) was not allowed on FF.NET; it was everywhere regardless, and without tags. The exact same thing happened on tumblr when adult content was banned as well. It’s not a matter of “staff not handling it well” — it just doesn’t work.

To keep safe the people who need to be able to exclude that tag, that tag needs to exist and be used.

Well, shucks. A reporting system then?

A reporting system would operate in one of two ways:

-an algorithm, which would delete a lot of stuff we wouldn’t want it to delete.

-humans, which is... the bigger problem.

An algorithm sounds great. We do want it to delete everything.

Okay. What about the daddy k*nk fics between consenting adult characters? What about the fics featuring characters that are children in the canon but are adults in the fic? What about the fics about teenagers exploring their se*uality together, written by adults about the experiences they remember having or wish they could have had? What about the thousands of SasuNaru and Drarry and other shounen and YA fics that will get written, by teens or by people who remember being teens? What about the se*ually explicit fic written by teens who are se*ually active in real life? What about the fics about CSA as trauma, about healing from it? What about the fics written by survivors of CSA to cope about their trauma? What about the fics that clearly show that it’s evil and traumatic? What about the super dark, harrowing, but beautiful and artistic that I’m glad I read even though it fucked me up for days? What about the ones that were really shitty but also horribly hot?

Well, some of these are still not okay, but maybe some might be. It depends on how it’s written. We’ll have humans moderating content and deciding, then.

Okay.

The thing is, I don’t know which of the things I just listed were okay for you to be depicted in fiction and which were too much. Odds are I don’t agree with you. Odds are if I asked 10 people randomly picked off the street, not everyone would agree.

Odds are, even if AO3 arbitrarily decided on which of those are allowed and which are not, you would not agree with their choice, and you would still be unhappy with the decision. (Or you would be happy, but your friends wouldn’t.)

Odds are, different AO3 content moderators might not agree on whether a given fic qualifies or not — is it artistic enough? Does it show enough that these actions are evil and wrong? Can the author prove they’re a teenager? Can the author prove they are a CSA victim? Can the author prove that this is to help them cope with their trauma? The author seem to be functioning alright, they mustn’t really be traumatised!

You know what I mean! There’s absolute, objectively gross shit out there that is not artistic and should not be published.

I agree that there’s vile stuff out there that makes me sick and that I think is very clearly just ped*philic trash. But there is no way to, 1) stop those from getting published anyway, 2) take those down and preserve the safety of everything else.

If we start forbidding some things, there’s two ways to go about it.

One single, clear, arbitrary rule — for instance, absolutely no adult content featuring characters under 18 (leaving aside the fact that this would not even work for the reason cited above). So we lose all the stuff from teenagers, all the coming of age stories about adolescence, all the stuff from CSA survivors; people who need to write it can’t publish it anymore, and people who need to read it can’t anymore either (and as a cool bonus, they’re told it’s wrong and made to feel bad about it). Depending on whether the rules applies to characters that are under 18 in the canon, we lose entire fandoms.

Or, subjective moderation by humans, according to what they estimate to be gross.

Let’s assume all moderators can agree on what’s gross or not.

If there is a system in place to ban some underage works because “gross shit”, then that means other gross stuff can be taken down on account of being gross and harmful.

Yeah! Gross stuff should be taken down! Come on, surely everyone agrees on what’s gross and harmful.

Ah.

But the problem is.

Here is a list of things I have seen — with my eyes seen — called harmful to be depicted in fiction:

Murder

Non-con

Inc*st

Cannibalism

Torture

Self-harm

Mental illness

Drugs

Racism

K*nk

Non-negotiated k*nk, but healthy k*nk is ok

Spanking k*nk

BDSM where the woman is a bottom, but woman top is ok

Healthy depictions of BDSM

Unhealthy depictions of BDSM

Queer people doing bad things

Abusive relationships

Rival/Enemies to lovers

Redemption stories

A happy relationship between a 17 yo and an 18 yo

A happy relationship between a 20 yo and a 60 yo

A happy relationship between a boss and their employee, or a college teacher and a student

A happy relationship between a 14 yo boy and an older teenage boy, because that’s reminiscent of older men preying on younger gay boys IRL

Se*ual content featuring a character whose age is unclear in canon and some people headcanon them as being underage, some as being a young adult

Loving, consensual fluff between characters that are evil villains, because it romanticises them and their actions

Dark content shipping female characters

Fluffy content shipping female characters, because it’s misogynistic to act like lesbians are only soft all the time

Consensual s*x featuring a canonically asexual character, because it implies that all aces can and should still have se*

Fics about the same canonically asexual character hating s*x, because that erases the experience of s*x-positive aces

Shipping a character who is perceived by some fans as queer-coded with a character of a different s*x

The tendency to ship a black character with white characters

Fluffy drunk s*x, because that’s not actually consensual

Sleep s*x, because that’s not actually consensual

Trans characters not experiencing dysphoria, because that idealises the trans experience

Consensual s*x between adults that are not married

LGBT+ content, because kids shouldn’t see that.

I guarantee you: you, I, and 10 random people plucked from the street will not agree on what, in that list, is and isn’t okay to publish and consume fiction of.

So why should your taste be the one followed? Why should it be the taste of mods you don’t know? Why should anyone get to dictate? What if the mods think your OTP is gross and your NOTP is fine?

This is the slippery slope argument.

Yes, it is the slippery slope argument. Because we know it happens. Because we’ve been there, because I’ve seen it happen myself twice already and I’m not even thirty. Because we know people do complain loudly about all of these things.

And because the second there is a banning system in place, assholes will use the system to abuse it and get stuff they just don’t like taken down using the “it is gross” argument, and one day you’ll wake up and the beautiful fic that helped you come to terms with your abuse/trauma/identity/orientation/k*nk for feet will be taken down and wonderful vulnerable creative people will have been harassed out of fandom because they argued with 1 person who didn’t like their foot k*nk fic that happened to also feature, for instance, a CSA trauma backstory.

Again: not exaggerating. Not theoretical. It happens, we know it happens, AO3 was created literally because it happens.

I still fucking hate that stuff.

That is completely fine and normal. No one likes everything. Me too! Most of the dark stuff is niche and the creators know only few people will like it the same way they do.

(For the record, I get grossed out and triggered by fics about an asexual character who does not like s*x having s*x with their partner to make them happy. Deep in my gut everything screams that that’s fucked up, terrifying and harmful, how can people write that. But I recognise that there are people who love and need that, and I leave those people and their content alone.

OTOH, I read a lot of otherwise dark shit and I enjoy it in the same way I enjoyed, say, Hannibal, in the same way some people enjoy true crime documentaries, horror movies or r*pe fantasy k*nk. It helps me explore stuff that I like to see in fiction, in a safe, controlled way. I’m also asexual, 90% s*x-repulsed IRL, and, obviously, I would never abuse a child. For that matter, I wouldn’t kill and eat people, either, nor would I do 90% of the tamer k*nky stuff I read.

Of course, Hannibal was fucked up and lots of people probably think Hannibal was gross and should not have been aired — but as exemplified by the fact that it was created, aired and watched, lots of people thought it was fine, interesting and even fun to watch.)

You can and should curate your experience and protect yourself. The AO3 website now allows you to exclude certain tags, and people have developed tools to help with that such as plugins that save your filters or hide fics that contain certain words.

But no, it isn’t going to, and it shouldn’t, get banned.

[warriorsbutnotreally]

New Intro [for now]

Welcome to WarriorsButNotReally!

This is a fandom-centric blog and the more talkative counterpart to @allofthesecatsaregay , which contains all of my personal designs for the canon characters [and what I use when basing hypokits off of]

My name is Killian but I go by Kira/Kyra as well, due to it being a name I've been using for many years name. I'm a nonbinary trans man and I use he/they/fae pronouns. I'm also aroace.

You can find my main blog at @kyraamongtheshadows though I just mostly reblog things and very rarely post art..

.

My blog is not a safe place for pr*shippers/c0mshippers, MAPs / p*dophiles, TERFs, racists, LGBT-phobes, sexists, or ableists.

I'm also not comfortable with the shipping of real people or the romanization of violent criminals.

.

.

///What Can You Find Here?///

I have many topics that can be found through my various tags;

#AU - ranging from submitted ideas to me just rambling until a cohesive thought comes out, I can talk about all things warriors. I love talking about AUs and sharing ideas and helping inspire others with their own wonderful ideas - that's what this blog was made for after all!

#Discussions - more disorganized thoughts, though on more certain and specific topics. Ranging from serious to silly to even world building information [from my own headcanons]. Some are more rant-style and those contain information backing up on what has formed my opinion on certain topics.

#Hypos - though the most popular option is to send in ships people would like to see pairs of [which, don't get me wrong, I love doing] there is also the option for AU versions of certain cats [ie what if The Three were born to different parents] AND giving canon couples an extra litter! This also includes possible stories

* [more information about these below]

#Show Me! - want me to draw characters mentioned in AUs? just tell me who and I’ll draw em! This includes canon characters who I give different fates and not just kits that are given to couples.

#Help! - For any OC help! Need help thinking about names? Not sure about your OC? Need some appearances that fit names you like? Feel free to ask! I’m no expert, obviously, but I love designing and naming so I’m happy to be of assistance!

#Rate My OC! - Another fun OC one - give me your OC and their information and I’ll give my feelings! I’m not going to be scary or harsh, but rather just talk about things I like about the charater[s].

However! If you wish for actual critique, please be sure to state so. Otherwise it’ll be of the same energy of that cute dog twitter that rates dogs but with OC battle cats.

#Headcanons - I talk about my headcanons for characters and show some obvious favoritism to certain cats because they're comforting to me dfskaj

#Prefix - Detailed Prefix Talk, where I give information on my personal headcanoned prefixes that I use in this blog and in my own written Warriors works.

#Suffix - Detailed Suffix Talk, coming soon

#Writing Help - these are purely reblogs of random cat information, ranging from a little silly to serious. I try to keep any information in the tags of these posts, so feel free to keep an eye out!

#Becoming Warriors- just a more goofy thing because I wanted something that could help me relax. Pretty much a Warriors AU for other fandoms where I design other characters to be meow meows.

#Meowsic - where I share my own music to character ideas because I can and they're often empty headed rambles or short sentences

[also feel free to suggest posts! please only send the original posts, so not to repost from the original creators]

.

other than that, you can expect just me chatting

I'm willing to share thoughts, talk about opinions, and I try to give a chill, open environment where we can just talk and hang out, sharing things we like or dislike about this fandom we all share.

I will always try my best to be open with everyone and treat people with kindness, but this is subject to change.

HOWEVER, I do not allow hostility and I will shut down anyone who comes in with a close mind and bitterness. I want this blog to be a safe place for people of all ages who just want to relax and share their feelings.

tldr; this is a chill place. everyone is free to disagree with my feelings about things, just don't be an asshole about it

.

.

Family Tree For My Writing

note; this is only for canon-adjacent writing and may change depending on the AU

I will allow hypokits using my version of the family tree! however, you'll need to specify you want to use it.

this will also be a note for when I post the #request notifs

my RunningRunning AU has an entirely different family tree

.

.

///AUs///

a compiled list of the AUs I've done can be found here

.

.

///Headcanons///

all finished headcanons can be found here

.

.

///More On Hypos///

With the blog getting bigger, I did want to add more information here, as this is the most popular topic of my blog other than the AUs themselves and as such I wanted to add some disclaimers and additional information.

Firstly, I do allow repeat couples! I don't mind making more litters, giving different stories, etc! So if you see a ship I've done and wanted a new take with different kits, feel free to suggest away! [you can even suggest some predetermined plot as long as it doesn't need to become a full AU]

the kits created via hypos are free to use with credit. they aren't my own OCs and more 'free to use' characters

However, there is a blacklist on certain ships, due to my own personal comfort levels. I will not be explaining them on here and the list is subject to being updated at any time. The blacklist will be shown below with other information;

.

///Pre-existing Hypos///

all pre-existing hypos can be found here

///Did Once But Never Again///

Crowfeather x Harestar; x [forgot that Harespring was Breezepelt's age until I looked at his wiki page long after this was finished]

.

I also have a Blacklist, so please check that out

.

.

///Extra Hypo Notes///

I won't accept ships of;

Scourge [romance-repulsed aro-ace headcanon and shipping him gives me negative vibes for reasons I cannot explain]

Mousefur [another aro-ace headcanon but where I can put her in queer platonic relationships, I don't like the idea of giving her kits]

.

I'm highly careful of ships for;

Fidgetflake, Daisy, Nightheart, Hollyleaf, Ravenpaw, Puddleshine, Sneezecloud, Badgerfang [in living AUs], Mosskit [in living AUs], Tallstar, Frecklewish [MV], Sunbeam, Lightleap, Bugeater

these are comfort characters for me

.

.

///Disclaimer///

I'm free to remove requests that I have no ideas for / that I don't personally like without needing to explain myself

For the most part I've only needed to remove a small handful of things due to the latter reason, but the former is much more common

I'm also a slow writer with a fulltime job, so trying to stay active can be a bit hard, but I am constantly working on a bare minimum of two projects at a time in hopes that it increases the chances I can get things posted.

I ask that you don't post art/writing alongside that of Fullphilling's. This is for hugely personal reasons, esp since I've noticed their name spreading through the community again.

.

AUs take the longest, followed by Hypos as both require a lot of planning.

Discussions just kinda happen at random when I think about things.

Show Me!'s aren't common, but don't take as long as I'm showing off pre-existing written things.

Help! and Rate My OC! vary depending on the amount of details given.

Headcanons happen at random unless requested

Prefixes [and eventually suffixes] get done whenever I put aside the time and are usually done in small bulks

[northern-passage]

“you can tell the author was intending for it to be a Straight Relationship if you know what i mean” you’re absolutely right and you should say it thank you. like, i’m sure it’s super hard to write an if! i don’t think i could do it! but yeah, you can tell when authors are actually trying with the various romances versus… going through the diversity options for clicks ig.

yeah, hahaha, i'm glad you understand what i mean. i feel like every gay person has had that experience when playing a game... a very *looking into the camera like im on the office* moment.

it's something that could easily be fixed, too, imo... like it's really just the little things that make all the difference, but yeah most of these people don't actually care. like, i don't expect the romances to be Wildly different, obviously, they are still the same people, but there are some things that make me cringe as a reader when i see them. i think it becomes most prevalent in like... intimate scenes, if/when they are included, and you can tell this person has no idea what they are writing lmfao. and then stuff like that last anon brought up, where they just completely exclude certain lgbt identities because they refused to just pick up a single book on the topic.

more sinister examples would be like - choices is pretty bad for this - sidelining the gay characters, as well as the characters of color. now, personally, i don't think it's necessary for every RO/LI to have the exact same amount of "screen time" in each chapter, however, when i get to the end of the story it should have evened out... but a lot of times some ROs will literally just get less content, because the game spends all its effort on the white man RO, who has also been almost exclusively marketed as being straight even though he is romancable by all MCs. the marketing for choices, at least when i was last reading it (which to be fair was a long time ago) is painfully straight. it always is... until the company realizes they can make money off of the gay community.....

dragon age comes to mind as well, specifically sera, whose entire relationship quest consists of every other companion disapproving of the inquisitor being in a relationship with her. hello???? literally what were you thinking.... (bioware stop letting this man write your wlw characters oh my god) but this is why sensitivity readers are so important. like it literally takes just talking to one (1) gay person to fix some of this stuff.

obviously the racism from choices is an entirely different problem, and that's something other people far more qualified than me have already talked about, but it falls into the same thing of authors/game developers adding these characters just for the clicks and not because they actually want to add diversity to their story, and it's becoming more common now as, like i said, games realize they can make more money off of it.

at the end of the day i don't expect representation in games to be Perfect because that is not possible, again we already talked about it - everyone is going to have different experiences and connect with different portrayals - but damn..... at least try, you know? Make An Effort

[byler-forever-7]

I loved S4 V1 with all my heart but, I had a problem in the first two episodes and I wanted to share it and see what u think about it ig?

TW! Mentions of SA/@buse.

So, after I watched ST I saw someone posting about how the show should have a warning about the spiders for people who have arachnophobia... And so I know it's not the same but, I wanted to share my experience watching it and maybe ask you if I'm just projecting or it should have some kind of warning :/

In the first two episodes we get presented Chrissy's murd€r case and how everyone thought it was Eddie. So it's obvious the party needed to investigate because Max noticed something weird, but. The thing is that the scene most got me uncomfortable was when Max and Dustin talked about "what if Eddie didn't do it" and, watching someone talking about how a person was SO nice and SO friendly that he couldn't do it kind of made me feel bad, because my person was so nice, so LGBT friendly and feminist...

So I am a victim of sexual assault and watching a direct scene that questions if a "nice person" could do that stuff really affected me to the point I was feeling kind of anxious through out the first part of the plot, because, even if they DID say it could be a case like T3d B/undy, they reinforced this idea of how he was so much nice to Dustin that he couldn't do it.

In fact, the phrase of Max talking to Steve about it saying sth like "that's what we are trying to do" (discard Eddie was a m&rder3r) has stucked on my mind.

I'm not saying this topic about his innocence being made up to feel like he would NEVER be guilty because we saw that possibility on Max and Steve, and the spectator obviously knows he isn't so everything hits different. But I kind of wish someone would have warn me that they talk about the innocence of a type of crime like this.

And I wanted to ask your opinion(?

Because, one of the things that made me not enjoy Eddie's character is that, the person who did that to me was literally like him, (like so specifically it hurts lmao) and maybe I AM projecting so, I want to know ur opinion.

Do u guys think S4 should have a warning saying they talked about the innocence of a possible aggressor(?

Or am I just me, and my so specific case? Lmao

Sorry if this triggered u, I just wished someone would told me because I was so happy and suddenly I was watching how friends of an possible aggressor were trying to help a person who was also literally like my case. And my friends kept meeting him after what he did so, Am I projecting too much? Or someone felt the same??

[booasaur]

it's interesting to me that there hasn't actually been much mention of the fact that they're both girls with soljiwan, like obv it's understood to be the reason why it's harder for them, but they don't really explicitly reference it and seem to make it almost more about the fact that they've been friends for so long and don't want to jeopardize that. I wonder if that's part of them trying to dodge the censors, 'cause it feels like early days gay rep usually focuses on that part a lot more.

It hadn't really crossed my mind that this might be a way to get around censors, since the other recent kdramas still discussed homophobia. And I think it's still clear they like each other Like That so I'm not sure it helps with the censors?

It definitely is interesting and a deliberate choice but I actually assumed it was because they just didn't want to go into all that? Not in-depth anyway, it might yet briefly come up in the finale but they can hardly devote much time to it. Which is kind of the thing, they just don't seem to want to devote time to homophobia at all, it doesn't match the dreamy, introspective, intimate tone of the rest of the show.

It could also be similar reasoning to Schitt's Creek, where they specifically kept it out. Either way, intentionally or not, it's actually a pretty cool, helpful choice? Not to dismiss people's experiences with homophobia, obviously, but I think seeing rep like this is really helpful for both LGBT people AND everyone else? Because when people see homophobia, it's still normalizing that as the response, creating this expectation for both sides when the topic comes up, this template. But when you see something like this, it's as if that's already been dealt with. The war's already been won, we're past that now and dealing with other issues.

Of course, on the other hand, you only mentioned them both being girls, and there are ways to acknowledge that positively without only talking about homophobia. Again, I don't think they really want to go particularly political. You see the little rainbow/themed symbols here and there, in Sol's outfits especially, but I just don't think they want to go deeper. And maybe that's why it's been so good, it's being treated as a pure romance for specifically these two people and not really a list of generally applicable teachable moments and lessons on How Difficult It Is To Be Queer.