#one of the things that bothers me so much about this discourse is like… why are so upset that people aren’t obsessed with a ship

[xeemaee]

Just saw someone call dungeon meshi “a show about women” as a way to complain about mlm shipping in the fandom and girl… if this is a show about women to you? you simply need to watch more shows, like stand up! You deserve better female representation than a show where there are two main female characters and one of them is missing for 80-90% of the series! Stand up! You deserve better than this! Go read the locked tomb! Please you deserve better than to see DUNGEON MESHI as a show about women

[chocolate-cream-soldier]

//rant.

[mr-ribbit]

gonna rant again bc im seeing a lot of trans women on my dash having to carry the heavy lifting to argue for their basic respect and a lot of other queer people who want to ??? get mad about that apparently. for the record as usual: im tme, im not speaking for anyone besides myself and my perspectives, but I am trying to reach out to fellow tme people to level with y'all from inside the house.

i thought we all got past the 'calling people gendered terms when theyve asked you to stop' thing in like. 2012. i swear we were allllll on board with not calling women dude anymore, nerfing sir and ma'am, neutralizing collective terms for groups, and all of that was like, during the onceler era. that's how we got off-putting shit like folx into the mix - remember???? why are we here again.

to those who I've seen claiming that they REALLY genuinely don't want to offend anyone, and that theyre trying to understand the dude thing, and they don't want to be seen as transmisogynistic when they aren't: ok. let's talk about it. step one, stop sending that really loaded anon to a trans woman you don't know, and close that in-group hatepost with 100 replies from people name-dropping trans bloggers they don't like. try to open your mind and assume for the duration of this post that I am not cynically trying manipulate thousands of tumblr users into making Bro the next big swear word, but a fellow queer human being who thinks you're all being pretty intentionally obtuse about an upsetting trend in our community

to be clear: this post is about the issue of trans women being called bro, dude, man, etc., particularly in recent tumblr discourse about transmisogyny, and the backlash they face if they get upset about it. this is also maybe moreso about the shitty ass excuses I see tme people make for why they supposedly can't stop doing this.

so let's go through some of the things I've been seeing people say they don't understand, supposedly in earnest, about this issue

"I DIDNT USE DUDE AS A MASCULINE TERM. I CALL EVERYONE BRO. MAN IS A GENDER NEUTRAL TERM"

I'm not actually going to exhaust my list of reasons why dude/bro/man are not strictly neutral, but you should be pretty aware that all words have context. Dude might be seen as neutral in many contexts, sure, but 'woman who is frequently called a man by others' is a situation where the context adds extra meaning to your words, just like calling someone "sweetie" might be neutral in some cases, but if you've got the context of knowing that's your coworker who's half your age, it's a bit less neutral. If you're not capable of reading that context and being tasteful about when you say dude, then you need to at least be ready to respond gracefully when someone asks you to stop. This is the part I'd rather focus on.

"BUT I DIDNT MEAN IT THAT WAY. IM NOT TRANSPHOBIC"

I think you should consider broadening your perspective *beyond* your intention behind the word. people may already understand that you meant the word neutrally and therefore didn't have transmisogynistic intent, but that's not really the entire scope of what people are saying. if that's your only concern, you're just trying to clear your record, not actually listen to what they're saying.

there are lots of words people don't enjoy being called, and in most cases, when they say 'pls don't call me that', people respect that and move on. even if the word isn't a slur, if it hurts someone's feelings, we all as a society have agreed that it's pretty shitty to keep calling them that. if your friend asked you not to call them 'buddy' anymore because their dead grandparent called them that, or something equivalently personal, you'd probably respect that instead of telling them 'but I call everyone buddy!!' right? even if you didn't really understand why it bothered them so much?

there is a prominent tendency for trans women to be denied this privilege, and when they ask not to be called dude or bro, people don't seem to respect this request as much as they would in other situations. when I accidentally use a gendered word and someone tells me they don't like it, I try to respond with something like "my bad, I didn't mean it as misgendering but I can see you were still bothered by it, so I'll try not to keep saying it. sorry!" and most people are willing to accept that. when trans women ask people this favor, a lot of people get VERY defensive, and treat the request as inane or unfair, instead of just apologizing and moving on. this is why people are upset when this happens, and it's why people are calling your actions transmisogynistic

also like you might not be doing this, but a lot of people DO use dude and bro in an intentionally gendered way to make trans women uncomfortable. it's a power play bigots use to talk down to them or otherwise maliciously harass them. do you know what arguments they use to defend that behavior when called out on it? 'oh I call everyone that' 'dude is gender neutral calm down' 'dont overreact its just a word'. by acting like this, youre all just giving credence to those same arguments.

"WELL THEY SHOULDNT GET SO MAD AT ME WHEN I DIDNT MEAN ANY HARM"

they can get as mad as they want!! also, are you sure they're 'mad'? or are they just expressing their feelings about a negative topic to you, and it makes you feel bad, so you have to make them out to be unreasonably emotional? how do you think they should have phrased 'dont call me that' to better spare *your* feelings?

also like, in most cases, these women do not knowww you. if your main response to someone saying you disrespected them is to say "I didnt mean it that way, I meant it in a friendly neutral way", well that's NOT YOUR FRIEND! she has no idea what your opinions are or what you think of her!!! she has no reason to assume you only upset her in a friendly way and not a bad unfriendly way! but she did get upset, and she did the one thing she can do which is *tell you what upset her* and your response is to say "well actually you shouldn't be upset at all"??????

and another thing:

it's not just the issue of using the word 'dude', it's because you're coming off extremely dismissive of women who have asked you to stop doing something that harms them, and because your argument is basically that they just shouldn't be so bothered by it. or that they're stupid, irrational, or otherwise crazy for telling you that it bothered them at all, just because you Technically used a gender neutral word according to Your Rules. be honest, does that seem fair? If people were calling you something that bothered you enough to ask them to stop, and they responded like this, how would it make you feel?

focusing solely on your intent and what the words mean when you use them is the same thing as saying "just get over it". no woman should need to Prove to you that 'dude' is gendered for you to care about what she's saying. the fact that you're asking people to do that sucks and makes you look bad, which is why people are arguing with you and calling you a misogynist.

especially those of you who are only doing this with trans women who are actively arguing with. you're wielding misgendering as a cudgel and we can all see it, grow up please.

[goerhoejtbiddernaeppelillehund]

Okay. I'm going to weigh in on some Dead Boy Detectives shipping discourse. (Oh gods I'll probably regret this)

First of all, love the show so so much, please go watch it if you haven't already. Good supernatural mysteries, excellent queer rep, what more could you ask for?

Now. I've stumbled across several DBD posts where peoples reaction to Charles and Crystal flirting have been somewhat unpleasant. A lot of "Ugh, ewww, noooo don't, that's wrong, you're not supposed to do that!"

And look, I'm a Payneland shipper as much as the next person, but it doesn't sit right with me. Now there's a whole can of worms about how Crystal as a character has been received by parts of the fandom and how that's part of a much larger pattern and someone more qualified than me should definitely go into that.

I personally found the romance between Charles and Crystal rather sweet. Sure it's awkward and imperfect, but that, to me, just makes it feel more real. One of the few things in the show that reminds you that these characters are actually supposed to be teenagers. And while it does create tension between Charles and Edwin, I don't feel like it, in any way, overshadows or prevents their very real and intimate relationship.

But it seems to me like some people feel that way, like Crystal is an obstacle to Charles and Edwin getting together. Which, aside from giving me supernatural flashbacks, seems rather narrow minded to a bi and polyam person like myself.

I think it especially bothers me because the fandom has almost unanimously agreed on Charles being bisexual and praised him for it, which is apparently all well and good in the abstract, but as soon as he actually starts performing bisexuality it's "ewww, get away from the girl and back to the Edwardian twink." Particularly jarring since none of the men/cats/birds making advances on Edwin have gotten as much backlash ('ve seen some, but not nearly as much).

Any other bi people feel like they recognise something there?

TLDR: Watch and Rewatch DBD, and next time you're annoyed at Charles and Crystal flirting, maybe try examining exactly why that bothers you.

[myfandomrealitea]

okay, so- this is coming from someone who really hasn't engaged in fandom discourse, especially regarding shipping and such. I dearly hope this doesn't come across as bait or troll, I'm genuinely curious and want to learn. apologies for the possibly-dumb question, but I really just need to ask-

what is proshipping? and what are 'antis'?

you know how it is, when you ask around you always get a biased answer one way or another. "proshippers are pedos" "proshippers all condone incest" "proship Bad and if you interact You Are Bad" (i think these are 'anti' points of view? am i using that term right? that's the rhetoric ive mainly heard). but despite all of that, i don't know if ive ever actually gotten a straight answer as to just.. what it factually is. because it doesn't feel like the sort of thing that you can boil down to insults or accusations or whatnot. it's all just very confusing to me, especially because i come from a place that essentially just told me to avoid like the plague and never look back. sorry, this became a bit of a ramble, lol. thank you so much in advance, i hope i'm not being a bother or insulting with this ^^;

The modern term; 'proship' (s.a; 'proshipping' and 'profiction') is an evolution of an earlier fandom acronym known as: 'SALS.'

Ship And Let Ship

SALS was one of the earliest fandom adoptions and interpretations of the concept of not bullying others for what they shipped or their fandom interests, and not trying to control or dictate what was "allowed" to be shipped or enjoyed. The most notable origin of SALS was during the early years of accessible fandom via Star Trek, and the present homophobia and misogyny in a largely male-dominated community.

As woman became more involved in fandom spaces, the presence of 'other' ships and pairings began to increase. M/M, F/F that wasn't purely for sexual gratification, and M/O and F/O (where 'O' is Other) pairings were popular amongst women, much as they still are today.

Not only did the presence of women in a "male space" receive a not insignificantly negative reaction, so too did them filling the fandom space with their shipping content. Now; sexism and misogyny and homophobia were not entirely to blame. Again as is still very much present today, people simply Did Not Like Certain Ships or Characters. And as they still do today, they'd spread hate about them and to the people who did enjoy them.

Thus: the birth of SALS.

(In other words: I like what I like and it has fuck all to do with you. Shut up and move on.)

Back then, SALS was mostly contained to just that. Ships and characters. Since back in that era 'taboo topics' and 'sexual content' were still pretty covert, people weren't exactly arguing the merits of incest in public forums and at conventions.

However, as all things do, the internet evolved. Society evolved. Media evolved. And so too did 'SALS' evolve in keeping with the new culture and subjects present in fandom spaces.

Suddenly it wasn't just ships and characters to be advocated for. It was themes. Subjects. Kinks. Plots. The more things people found to enjoy, so too did the more things people found to hate.

'Proship' is actually grammatically pro-ship. As in; in support of shipping. This is why I always state that the modern conceptions of proshipping would more accurately be coined profiction. It is no longer just about ships, but fiction as a whole.

However; the core value and sole inherent point of being proship, SALS, profiction and so forth remains exactly the same:

[I/We] believe you have no right to harm others over the [ship/content] they create or consume and [I/we] do not have the right to dictate what is or is not allowed in fandom spaces.

That's it. Don't harass people for what they enjoy fictionally. Don't try to force them into not enjoying or being able to enjoy it.

Of course, the modern adaption varies wildly in terms of 'additional values' thanks to the evolution of the term and what it can encompass. However, there is certainly no obligation to:

Create or consume content you are uncomfortable with.

Create or consume content regarded as 'taboo' or 'triggering.' Such as incest.

Be involved with any aforementioned content beyond turning a blind eye if its not your thing.

Inherently, anyone who says they're 'neutral' on the matter but firmly believes in minding their own business is just a proshipper refusing to use the label if you're taking the term solely at its core value.

In terms of 'antis' they're just the antithesis of the above. Antis are people who generally believe that fiction is irrevocably tied in with who you are, what you believe/condone, and that real-life limitations and values should also apply to fiction.

Although, its is heavy debated and it wildly varies per individual to the degree this is taken.

(E.g: some 'antis' believe you should only write rape fic if you are a victim using it as catharsis or education. Other 'antis' believe there's absolutely no excuse or reason to write rape fic at all.)

Antis typically believe that enjoyment or being invested in content which is regarded as harmful or illegal in real life is morally unsound and reflects that you're a bad or morally unsound person.

Although I disagree, I can honestly say in some aspects I do understand this reasoning. I don't agree, but I do understand why people may come to that conclusion.

As with proshippers, antis vary from people who simply ignore and block content they don't agree with to radicals.

'Anti' is again a prefix. Although modern adoption of the term uses it as a singular signifier, it would grammatically be anti-[fandom], anti-[character], ect. As was commonly used in the past.

The rhetoric that all proshippers are pedophiles or support incest is common-spread and effective 'anti' propaganda. Similar to how so many people believe 'proship' inherently signifies that you must create and/or consume taboo or darker content.

It doesn't.

¹ Proship may also be accurately termed as simply: 'anti-harassment.' ² Its important to note the 'definition' of these terms may vary wildly depending on the individual. However, detailed above is the most historical use and evolution of the terms and their definitions.

[foone]

(Sorry if this sounds mean) If you’re ace why are you looking for mind control erotica? This isn’t a bad faith question, as someone who’s aro but not ace I’m genuinely curious. Maybe expounding on it would help your followers point you at new things?

Also have you read Human Domestication Guide? It’s very mind controlly, though it does have pet stuff if you hate that or whatever.

Short answer: it's complicated.

So to answer in reverse order: I have read some HDG stories: not enough to remember what I read, but in general I like them. And petplay doesn't bother me. So I'll probably read more in future, it's just that it never triggered that "I should read all of this!" urge in me. Which isn't an indicator of how much I like it/the quality of it, that's just a thing that sometimes happens to my brain.

As for why I'm reading mind control erotica despite being asexual... It's complicated (as you might guess).

Basically I'm asexual in the "not attracted to men or women (or anything else/between)" sense. I don't experience sexual attraction, at all.

But that's only one part of sexuality. It may be the primary part for allosexuals, but it obviously can't be for me. I'm still interested in some sexual things, and I'm interested in them for sexual reasons, but it's just that those reasons are never "this person is hot" or "this sex is hot".

Like, not to give a complete listing of my kinks or anything, consider basic rope bondage as a fetish. You could look at the fetish from multiple angles:

It's sexy getting tied up, because of the physical sensation of being tied up.

It's sexy to be tied up, because you don't have control.

It's sexy to tie someone up, because of how they look tied up.

It's sexy to have someone tied up, because you have control and they don't.

It's sexy to have sex while tied up, because you can't resist it (in the scene. This is fantasy, there are safewords)

It's sexy to fuck someone tied up, because they can't resist (in the scene, fantasy, safewords)

And then in fiction you can do the last two minus the watsonian-bdsm: it's not a scene. (I won't discuss this further because discourse)

Only 5 and 6 really need sex itself to be a part of it. You can have the eroticism of bondage and no one has sex, or needs to be attracted to anybody.

I don't have a huge amount of experience here, but from what I've heard this isn't that uncommon in the bdsm community: there's plenty of people who show up at bdsm events solely for "non-sexual" tying/getting tied.

Anyway, once you understand that you can have a kink (even one that seems sexual) for reasons other than sexual attraction/sex* itself, you can probably see why an asexual person might still want to read about it.

Also there's elements of, like, exploration of personal impossibilities? As jms said:

So I cannot forgive. Which makes the notion of writing a character who CAN forgive momentarily attractive...because it allows me to explore in great detail something of which I am utterly incapable. I cannot fly, so I would write of birds and starships and kites; I cannot play an instrument, so I would write of composers and dancers; and I cannot forgive, so I would write of priests and monks and Minbari...

It can be interesting reading stories of people doing things you can't for reasons you never experience, obeying urges you don't have.

* "sex" is also a difficult thing to define, because especially in BDSM terms it gets very fuzzy. What things count as sex? Generally when I say like "they're spending too much time on the sex" or "the mind control is just an excuse to get to the sex", I'm defining sex as something like "some kind of insertion/licking/vibrating for sexual purposes", when many allosexuals (especially, uhh... What's the word for non-bdsm people? Them) would define it more narrowly, and many BDSM kinksters would define it more widely, including a lot of the things I'm not here: I've heard people call getting tied up or impact play as sex, for example.

Anyway you'd think this sort of perspective I've got on erotic fiction, where I'm here for the non-sex sexual fetish things, would be more common? After all, I'm talking about literature here. I tend to associate the allosexual attraction urge as a visual thing: this person looks sexy, so you experience sexual attraction towards them.

I can see how that'd work if you're talking about visual mediums: movies and photos of real people, even drawn images, but this is just words. I guess maybe people without aphantasia can imagine how someone looks from their description, and can experience some attraction based on that? I don't know. I've never really experienced attraction to written characters, so I can't say how it works. Feel free to enlighten me, anyone who does.

But you can definitely tell reading erotica which stories are "this is a sexy story because it has sexy people in it doing sexy things (sometimes kinkily)" and which are "this kink is the primary focus: any sex they have is in service of the kink, or is just a momentary distraction from the kink". I prefer the latter, by far.

Anyways, I think maybe I'm giving everyone a slightly misleading impression of how much I'm into mind control. It's more that I've found a few stories that actually were interesting to me for a couple reasons (first person submissive perspective, rules-based mind control, some worldbuilding) and then I've been looking for other stories that explore the same ideas as well (or better: the particular ones I liked had a little too much bimboification focus for me, which isn't one of my kinks) and failing. Thus I complain a lot about not being able to find the sort of stories I want.

Which, you know, makes sense? I'm an asexual reading through porn. Despite my explanation in this post, this is still not a great fit for me, so of course I'm disappointed. It'd be like if I was scrolling through a football site and not liking football, complaining about how much sports focus this site has. It's a little silly, you know?

But I'm a lot silly, so I continue.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for telling a school counselor about what my friend does online?

I (F minor) am in middle school. I have a group of friends, about 8 people, but this is about one girl in specific we can call Annie. All of us are mutuals on tumblr, twitter, etc. and we have a discord server too.

All of us are into a lot of the same things, like art, anime, video games, and have a lot of the same hobbies. Most of us also struggle with mental health stuff like anxiety and/or depression so we regularly talk to our school counselor (F, Idk how old she is).

Anyways, we're all really close and we get along really well for the most part, but lately Annie has been doing stuff that really bothers and worries us.

She's VERY into internet discourse. Has 10 paragraph long DNI page, is constantly starting fights with other people, etc. She usually argues about stuff like LGBT+ rights, womens rights, etc. but also a LOT of fandom discourse which is my biggest concern.

A lot of my other friends reblog/retweet stuff like anime gifs, fanart, memes, etc. but pretty much every post I see from Annie is her fighting with someone over shipping or something like that.

A lot of the posts are basically:

Her talking about how disgusting a certain ship or character is

How everyone who likes that specific thing is a degenerate, or freak, or pedo or groomer.

How if you like problematic ships you need to get a therapist, or you deserve to be hurt. Once I saw her arguing with someone who said they write certain stuff due to trauma and she said "You don't have trauma, you're either lying or you actually liked it and that's why you write such disgusting nasty shit"

Fighting with random people and accusing them of being a predator or a pedo

Breaking her own DNI (which says adults, proshitters, etc. DNI) and then getting mad at the other person for responding

It's really upsetting to see because she does this CONSTANTLY. She never seems to use tumblr/twitter to do things she actually likes. I never see her reblog gifs or memes or just silly lighthearted posts about stuff she enjoys.

It's especially upsetting because we're minors and she TELLS PEOPLE THAT. Like she's arguging with people that she thinks are pedos or child predators, while openly telling people her actual age. To me that's like covering yourself in bloody steaks and then jumping into water full of sharks.

I was really starting to get concerned because even in our private discord server she's always talking about how much she hates these people or whatever and how they should die, a lot of the time she says things like "they should get the wall" or "I hope their nasty fanfics happen to them irl that would teach them lol" and it really freaks me out.

She also talks about seeing the "child porn" that these people make which as far as I'm aware is drawings of characters but it still freaks me out how open and calm she is about looking at what she THINKS is child porn. I asked her if it's child porn why is it being linked in callout posts for other people (including minors!) to see and not being reported to the FBI but she just gets mad and changes the subject.

Me and our other friends have mentioned before that we don't like hearing about this kind of stuff but then she just gets mad and goes offline or gives us the silent treatment at school.

A month or so ago I got so fed up and upset, that I took a bunch of screenshots of her tumblr account and discord messages. One thing to note is that her username is VERY specific.

It's a combination of her first and last name and her birth year. Most people will not know that, but if you know her name and birthday, it's easy to tell it's her. She also goes by her real name online which I also screenshotted as proof it's her.

I brought all this to the school counselor, and I told her how worried I was about Annie, and how I think she's doing something really unsafe. Not only is she confronting people she thinks are child predators/groomers, she's telling people they deserve to get hurt in really awful ways, and looking at porn and I don't think this is good for her mental health.

The counselor at first was like "Idk are you SURE it's her? It could be anyone online!" But I insisted that it was and explained the username thing and that this was our private discord server so obviously I know it's her.

She thanked me for letting her know and told me I was being a good friend and then we talked about how I was doing, and then I left. I kind of forgot about it until a week later.

Annie wasn't online at all and I was kind of worried, but then I saw her on Monday at school. I was with our other friends and we called out her name so she would see us and come over and she LOST IT. She started screaming at us and telling us how awful we were, and how we ruined her life.

Idk what exactly happened, but apparently the counselor talked to her and her parents got involved? Her parents now monitor her internet usage, they have child safety stuff on the browsers, and she's only allowed on certain websites for doing research for school, or watching videos on youtube on their account so they can see what videos she's watching, or playing games on steam.

She said that her parents are also putting her in therapy once a week now (with an actual therapist, not the counselor) and she's only allowed to go out with an adult chaperone (either her older sister or one of her parents).

But... None of our friends know it was me who told the counselor. Annie has other friends besides us, so they're also "suspects" for being the snitch. It seems like half of our friends are relieved that Annie is kept away from that kind of stuff and the other half are mad at whoever the snitch is for ratting Annie out and resulting in her having less privacy/freedom.

At first I was happy that Annie was getting help and being kept away from this but now I feel really conflicted. I feel so disgusting talking to her and our other friends and pretending nothing happened, knowing that I was the one who told the counselor.

Annie still talks to us but she's a lot less open. We still have our discord server but apparently her parents will read through the messages to make sure she's not talking about anything bad and that she's only talking to us and not strangers.

What are these acronyms?

[tumblingxelian]

Chloe Bourgeois - Not a Typical Mean Girl

No, I am not going to sit here and talks about Chloe's family, or issues, or one writers seeming obsession with her. No!

I am here to discuss what I think is a very common misunderstanding about Chloe's character and the show in fandom that often crops up in discussion regarding her.

Namely that the thing Chloe needs most is to be chastised, rejected & punished for her mean behavior, that will sort her out!

As though that wasn't already a thing that happens?

Bear with me and I'll explain that claim first:

The school does not like punishing any students. The only reason Alya was punished for coordinating an effort to break into Chloe's locker is because Chloe threatened the principle. The only reason Marinette was almost expelled was because Lila framed her for cheating, theft & assault all in one day & she still needed to make a scene of the whole affair. There's one teacher that punishes students, but she does so unfairly, cruelly and haphazardly and in season 1, Chloe was not shown getting any special treatment from her. Special treatment from the faculty was not a thing unless we are counting later retcons.

So now that the faculty is out of the way, wat I mean is that Chloe is not a typical mean girl because she is not popular.

In stuff like Mean Girls, Heathers and so on, the usual standard is that the mean girls are mean, but they are also revered, beloved, popular in one way or another despite their horrible behavior.

This is not the case with Chloe.

Even in Season 1 where only Marinette & Nino seems to start the season disliking Chloe. (Her presence unpleasant but hardly traumatic given the Origins level bickering) Chloe was still not widely well liked by the class or school.

She had one friend in Sabrina and a second oh so briefly in Adrien, which did let her absorb some of his celebrity by proximity. But within 48 hours of having him she lost him; with Adrien becoming more distant to divorce himself from her behavior.

That's it and while one can say her haughty attitude and ego are the reason we know from season 2 she is aware everyone hates her & it upsets her.

S1-Chloe did get invited to some class events, but even then her presence was not largely welcomed with most far less prone to be patient with her than they were with others even if they exhibited similar behavior. Such as Kim bullying Ivan, or Nino expressing blatant frustration with Mylene, ETC.

By late season 2 she was pretty much entirely segregated from her peers, barring Sabrina, and her presence welcomed with shades of disinterest, disdain or outright hostility. Sometimes evoked on her part or just in general.

This is a big difference from the usual Mean Girls = Popular Girls trend but I often don't see it acknowledged in fandom discourse.

This especially feels to be the case given so often I see people arguing Chloe "needs" to be rejected, or told her behavior is bad, or that no one likes her... But she is, all the time, she is entirely aware people don't like her and unhappy about it.

The issue is not that her bad behavior is being rewarded in school. The issue is that bad behavior is what she was taught at home and what is encouraged there and what is shown to work for her parents. But it doesn't work for her and she doesn't know why, because no one really bothers to teach her why. hey just get angry and snap at her or ignore her.

& sure you can say its not her peers job to explain morality o empathy to someone who was explicitly taught by their father how to cheat at & win elections by intimidation. But the fact is no one at home is going to do so because they are modelling, encouraging & teaching the opposite up until it impacts 'them' personally.

Not sure if there's a greater point to this, but...

I often find people acting like the thing Chloe needs is for her bad behavior not to be 'rewarded' or 'indulged' by her class and to instead be 'rejected' and for her to face 'consequences'.

But she does! That's basically all she does; & When she doesn't usually an Akuma tries to murder her anyway!

So yeah, Chloe isn't a typical mean girl.

She's actually deeply unpopular among classmates and the school has a discipline issue all over, it didn't come from her.

More negativity is not going to magically make her "better".

[velvetvexations]

Have you seen the interaction between gwemmieee and faggy—butch circling your feed yet? What a mess

@gwemmieee I'm gonna tag you here because your pinned asks that people talk to you when they have issues with what you say. It seems like you might be tired of discussing the subject, though, and I encourage you to ignore this if you would you would rather. It's essentially my take on the first few things you said and why I feel like they weren't great and people were right to be bothered by it, but you don't seem like a terrible person and it's more important that you take care of yourself than throw yourself into endless argument.

@faggy--butch I'll also tag you if this feels relevant to you, lmk if you'd rather I take it out

-----

I generally keep discourse off my feed because if I follow someone who talks about the intercommunity stuff I can handle they inevitably talk about the stuff that's triggering for me. There are several people I'd love to be mutual with otherwise.

I'd heard about it but did not realize it was quite that...extensive. Mm. I'm not sure if my perspective as another transfem would help or not since she seems in a rough place over it. I'll say there her things in her original reply that faggy--butch didn't even mention that I didn't like, like claiming trans men have problems getting access to certain spaces but trans women can't exist anywhere. That's pretty dire and if not for the insistence that she believes in the validity of transandrophobia would probably be enough to get me to be mean to her, but it seems like she was genuinely trying to be negotiable, and that's an important distinction when a lot of people really are treating transmasc issues as so much lesser in comparison to transfems.

The problem is that "transandrophobes bad" is not really a negotiable position. In what way are "baby transfems" being "vilified"? It's not a matter of not being up to date. Some of the things not only transfems but also self-identified TMEs - note that the OP did not say transfems - are really vile and cruel. To jump onto a post saying that to protest that one shouldn't be too mean to them back feels...weird.

Like;

However, if a trans masc wants to hold any baby trans fem to an unreasonably high standard of always knowing what is and isn't OK to say, and what feelings are not OK to voice, instead of engaging in good faith and trying to hear them, validate them, educate them, and NOT control them, that's kinda fucked up.

That's just not happening. That's not what's going on. To say transandrophobes simply "don't know what is and isn't okay to say, and what feelings are not OK to voice" really truly is treating them like literal babies. It may not be what she meant to say but it's so hard to understand a meaning to those initial posts that aren't saying one should never get mad at a trans woman for anything they say or do because being treated like a bad person is traumatic.

She seems to have gone on to have a better conversation about it with others where she understood more of what was being said and was able to clarify her thoughts more, but that still ends with blaming others for coming in too hot and I don't think that tracks at all. Even if she didn't mean to say something, she still said what she said and it's not really fair to turn that around as everyone just misunderstanding her and it not being her fault for that.

[sleepysnk]

there’s some things i really wanted to talk about especially regarding my account and tumblr as a whole, so i decided to finally make this post as a way to sort of vent out my feelings on some things.

i’m not gonna lie, tumblr has become a very different place from what it was. i started creating content 3 years ago and it’s gone through so many changes (much expected). however, i don’t think tumblr has really changed for the better, especially when it comes to content creators. this used to be a really safe space for me to come on and create works for fandoms that i enjoyed, but recently, that safe space hasn’t felt, well, safe anymore. there is constant discourse everywhere on this platform and i’ve found that many people here are just extremely bitter? it’s almost like it’s become a mean girl center and it makes it difficult to interact with others.

obviously, this doesn’t go for everyone. i’m not trying to come at people specifically or cause issues, but i have seen my fair share of problems with people on here and some of it is just completely ridiculous.

next, i’d like to discuss the elephant in the room and that’s the lack of interaction/support to writers. it is just mind blowing to me that we as creators have to BEG our followers to reblog or even send us asks. obviously, some people are new to tumblr and don’t understand it’s algorithm, but there are people on here who just simply chose not to reblog for some reason?? it’s not only discouraging, but it puts less confidence in writers and then we aren’t motivated to create content. i’ve said this before, but there is no reason why a 2k note fic should have only 100 or so reblogs. likes mean nothing on this platform. it’s not Twitter. i genuinely have gotten so tired of repeating myself that i don’t even say it anymore because i know it won’t be acknowledged.

i understand people have lives, i do too, but it isn’t hard to send an ask to a writer about literally anything. i think the last time i had an anon ask was weeks ago and i genuinely get disappointed when i ask for interactions just to receive nothing? no one is obligated to speak with me or send me asks by any means, but a little “hey! how are you?” goes a long way. i probably sound ridiculous, but it’s just how i feel about the matter.

another thing that bothers me is when a writer doesn’t write smut or suggestive content, they hardly get any interaction. i’ve seen it myself before and i’m not sure why people just ignore greatly written fics?? i understand that smut is the main appeal. trust me, i 100% get it, but fluff writers hardly get any attention and some of the best fics i’ve read weren’t even smut related. i’m not saying every person here has to read fluff or angst fics by any means, but it makes me sad that people write these fics to hardly get any interaction because it isn’t smut content. the least y’all can do is reblog it.

to discuss my account, i honestly don’t really feel the most happy here. i don’t have as much motivation as i used to and i have contemplated removing my account, but i have some great fics i’d rather not have be deleted. i might start a new account for a fresh start, but i’m still not 100% on it.

and if you read this till the end, thank you! i probably sound like a whiny baby but i just wanted to express some of my feelings because it’s been weighing on me a lot recently.

[gracexthoughts]

Okay, I have a lot of thoughts about the Percy Jackson show and the discourse I have been seeing about it. This is going to be long and possibly all over the place but I just want to share. If you disagree, that’s fine. Just don’t hate because you have a different opinion. Deal?

I want to start this by saying I am a new fan. I did not read the PJO books when I was a kid. I watched the first two episodes when they came out in Dec purely out of curiosity and was just immediately in love with the world. So in true ADHD hyperfixation fashion, I devoured Percy Jackson and the Olympians and Heroes of Olympus books and I am currently on Book 1 of Trials of Apollo. And maybe it's because I am a newer fan but a lot of the gripes I see about PJOTV just don’t make sense to me and I feel like they really are just rooted in nostalgia. Watching the show and all the interviews of the cast and crew, it is clear to me they wrote this season with the intention and hope that they would get to make all 5 seasons, and possibly even further. I can see how all the changes make sense when looking at the narrative as a whole. They are really setting up this world and this story in a way that I think lends more to the future of this narrative better than The Lighting Thief book does.

I also want to say I have yet to find a book to screen adaptation that is beat for beat accurate. So much of what works in novels, especially novels told in first person, just does not translate to third person screen adaptations. Ultimately, literature and film/TV are art forms and what works for one may not work for another and the creators are allowed to make changes, especially when it is for the overall good of the product.

To start, the exposition dumping didn’t really bother me that much although I agree it is there and noticeable. Now, I watched the first two episodes before reading the books but after reading the books, I think the exposition is just as noticeable in the books as it is in the show. Percy walks into this world without knowing or believing in any of it. In the book, he learns about this world through the people around him explaining it in dialogue. It is just condensed a little more in the show which makes it feel a little heavier. Nonetheless, fantasy tends to have a lot of exposition because there are a lot of things you as a reader/ viewer need to know at the start of the story. It is part of the nature of the genre, especially when it is intended for a younger audience. Exposition that seems clunky to an older viewer is probably not going to feel the same way to a younger audience member (which is the target audience).

The biggest complaint I see, and disagree with, is that the kids are “too smart which ruins the suspense.” Annabeth has been at camp since she was 7 and it is clear, both in the books and the show, she is determined to prove that she is strong and capable and intelligent. She has been training to go out on a quest since she was 7 years old. Annabeth would have been studying these monsters and these myths so of course she can figure out the traps. They aren’t that hard to figure out, even for someone who isn’t super knowledgeable about Greek mythology.

Grover’s job is a protector of demigods. It makes sense he knows these myths like the back of his hand. I imagine that after Thalia, Grover would have studied and worked so hard to prove he was ready for another chance. Grover in the books also fell a little flat in The Lighting Thief to me because it seemed like most of his personality was just to be scared and funny until later books. I love what they did with Grover in the show because he feels like an actual character with his own goals, intelligence, trauma and authority.

Now onto Percy… I have so many thoughts about Show Percy so bear with me.

While I was reading the books, I was confused as to why Sally didn’t teach Percy about Greek mythology. Book Sally seemed to just hope Percy being attacked by monsters and going to camp isn’t going to happen or just assumes that when it does happen, Percy will figure it out. Sally always knew what would happen to her son, at least to some extent, so why wouldn’t she do everything in her power to prepare her son for this life she knows is inevitable? I loved the addition of her teaching Percy about Greek Mythology and Ancient Greek because it makes so much sense because I never saw her as a just “sit back and wait” kind of character. Percy is her son, her baby, her miracle. She is terrified for him (which we see in EP 7 in the flashbacks) and, to me, it makes sense she would do everything in her mortal power to prepare him in a way that doesn’t scare him or reveal to him who he actually is. (It is also such a beautiful call back to Rick telling his son these stories as a kid, like I just think that is beautiful).

While on the subject of Ancient Greek, I saw someone complain how Percy doesn’t inherently know Ancient Greek in the Olympus scene in EP 8. “Poseidon and Zeus looked at each other. They had a quick, intense discussion in Ancient Greek. I only caught one word. Father.” - The Lightning Thief, page 343. This moment was literally pulled straight from the book! Percy talks about Annabeth tutoring him in Ancient Greek in the book (The Lighting Thief, page 107) and I loved how the show changed it to be his mom that taught him because of the previous reasons I gave above.

In general, Percy is an unreliable narrator. We see that in The Last Olympian when Rachel painted him defeating Antaeus. Percy is shocked at how he looks. We also see this in Heroes of Olympus where he is constantly talked about as this powerful and sometimes scary person whereas Percy never describes himself as anything other than kind of mediocre. Percy is constantly underestimating his intelligence and power in his POV because at his core he is still an insecure kid who was bullied and uses humor as a defense mechanism. But no matter what he thinks, he is smart and powerful and capable and I love that we get to see that in the show because it isn’t in first person.

In the books I was constantly frustrated that they weren’t seeing the traps. Aunty Em’s is so clearly out of place and weird and creepy but the Book Trio just ignores it? Also the Medusa story change was beautiful and needed and added so much depth to what was a very simple scene in the books. The Crusty’s scene was jarring at first, but in hindsight it didn't bother me either because Hermes told them about the entrance. Why wouldn’t he tell them about the trap too? The way Hermes is portrayed, I get the sense that he really wants Percy to succeed, in the books and show, and that he is holding onto hope that somehow, someway, he can still save his son. Why would he send them somewhere just to lead them into a trap that does not benefit Hermes in any way? (And us not seeing that conversation happen is showing and not telling BTW)

Also, the overall claim that Percy, Annabeth and Grover know everything is just… wrong. (@pareiwheeler made a post about this that really made me realize this so go read their post too: https://www.tumblr.com/pareiwheeler/740600563986808832/theres-know-mystery-or-suspense-they-know) They know the small things but the big things? They didn’t think Luke was the thief, they didn't know it was Kronos, they didn’t know they would lose the fourth pearl, they didn’t know the casino would mess with time, they didn’t know the shoes were a trap, etc etc. They walk into these situations thinking they are prepared, thinking they know everything they need to but they DON’T And that is where the suspense lies, in the overarching storyline that is the driving force of the plot. Not in these moment to moment scenes that are not the main conflict.

Now onto the smaller changes that, in my opinion, benefit the overall narrative of this story.

Missing the solstice deadline: Not only is Percy choosing to continue the quest despite missing the deadline such a great character moment for him but this ups the stakes so much!! Zeus and Poseidon are currently at war for the last two episodes of the show and even if they don’t talk about it much, that knowledge is still there in the characters' heads and in the viewers’. Every moment they take in the Underworld, you are watching with the knowledge that war is raging above. And it's a great way to show the kind of hero Percy is and what he will become. Percy doesn’t care he “failed” because he didn’t come all this way just to run back to camp with his tail tucked between his legs because that is not Percy. Percy sneaks out of camp twice to go on quests he was not invited on because he will not let someone’s rules get in his way while he is protecting people he cares about. Percy doesn’t want war to happen so with even the slightest chance he can stop Zeus and Poseidon, he takes it! Also the addition of Poseidon stepping in and saving Percy from Zeus was beautiful.

I also loved that Poseidon gave them 4 pearls instead of 3 because such a small detail shows how Poseidon cares about Percy and Sally. And, plot wise, it didn’t change anything. Percy still left the Underworld without his mom. But starting with 4 pearls gives them hope that they actually can complete the quest AND save Sally. Percy leaving the Underworld without Sally is so much more impactful in the show than the books because of this tiny detail change.

The fact that the pearls take them to the east coast rather than the west coast works well too. I loved that they returned to the cabin because of how important that cabin is not only to Percy and Sally but also to Poseidon.

Hermes being added to the Lotus Casino and bringing in Luke’s background earlier on was beautiful and Lin Manuel Miranda’s performance was one of the standouts for me. It is such a beautiful moment and you can see the anguish in Hermes at his feeling powerless and I think it sets up Percy learning about Luke’s family in The Last Olympian in a great way. This is one of those moments where you can tell the writers and showrunners are playing the long game with this series.

Last but not least, the change in the betrayal scene. I love it. I do. Not only in the changes in the way it happens but how they characterized Luke. Luke clearly does not want to hurt Percy, he wants Percy to help him and to come with Luke because he cares about him. The prophecy states “You shall be betrayed by one who calls you a friend” and Luke in the book didn’t really seem to care about Percy or view him as a friend at the end of it. But Show Luke? He cares about Percy and he is heartbroken that Percy doesn’t side with him. Also the addition of Annabeth hearing Luke’s betrayal first hand was brilliant, in my opinion. Not only were Walker, Charlie and Leah ACTING but it was so much more impactful that Annabeth sees Luke turn and chooses Percy in that moment. And I don’t think it will change much of Annabeth’s actions in the future because you can see how hurt she is and how desperately she still wants him to come back and be good.

Anyway, I think the show is brilliantly done. That isn’t to say it doesn’t have its faults but nothing is perfect and if you were expecting this show to be 100% perfect then I think you just set your expectations too high because that is not realistic.

If you made it to the end of this, I love you. The Percy Jackson brain rot is real and if we don’t get an S2 announcement soon I’m going to riot

[kerrikins]

The casting for 4 Minutes, the trailer and the subsequent discourse in the fandom has really reminded me of how far the BL sphere has to go in terms of working past stereotypes and bias. (I'll note here that I actually don't know how much of this has gone on here on Tumblr, I'm mostly talking about what I've seen on Twitter and Tiktok).

From the start it weirded me out to see people say stuff like 'obviously it's JesBible' as soon as the casting was announced. Because like - based on WHAT? Regardless of what turns out to be the case (or what we've seen from the trailer, now), at that point the ONLY thing to go on was stereotypes. Jes is taller and a bit bigger so therefore 'obviously' he's the top, right?

Gross. (And oh, I really need the BL world to give me a show with a big masculine bottom and a shorter top just to see some of these small minds struggle to wrap around the concept, lol.)

Then there's been the absolute obsession with the topic of 'omg is it JesBible or BibleJes' ever since the announcement. I expected it from the fandom, but the extent that it's gone on and then also hearing it from the media as well this week was so off-putting. It's reminded me that people really don't like it when they aren't given immediate confirmation of their biases and pre-defined boxes, and they don't like not being given answers, either.

I'll pause here to say that oh, I so appreciate how both Bible and Jes have handled this. They've both made it clear that it doesn't matter, that it's not relevant. Bible even said at one point that 'BibleJes or JesBible doesn't matter, you should think more about whether it's GreatTyme or TymeGreat', haha. (Also, I just want to say that I agree with what one of my friends on Twitter said - maybe, just maybe, 4 Minutes will be the show where we start rejecting this rigid defining of pairs based on who's supposed to be 'the top' or 'the bottom'? Because personally I think BibleJes and GreatTyme sound a lot better than the other way around, lol.)

Another thing I've seen come up is 'oh it's weird to see Bible being a bottom', 'it's weird to see Bible being submissive'.

Girl, what?

He's an actor. Why would he not play a variety of roles! I never see people say 'oh, it's weird to see ____ play a villain', or at least it isn't something that's been said very often, so why is this coming up here? Again: stereotypes (and a bit of fetishization, probably).

As for submissive - one day people will realize that where body parts are going has nothing to do with submission and the world will be a happier place 😭

This is why I would really like to see BLs incorporate something that I haven't seen much of: switching. Both in terms of changing up what role the actors are playing, but also just straight up acknowledging that not all queer couples stick to rigid top/bottom roles! Of course some do, but some don't, and representation of that might help dispel some of this nonsense.

There's also always a faint whiff of bottom shaming that goes on in these conversations, a view that being a bottom is 'lesser' or 'weaker' and it really bothers me. It's insulting to the actors giving their all to the roles but it's also really insulting to all the queer men out there who are being viewed that way according to sexual preferences. (And that's without even touching on the heavy, heavy whiff of sexism and misogyny attached to all of this, because I'm sure we've all seen people refer to the bottom as 'the wife', etc).

Honestly, it just deepens my admiration for Jes and Bible in taking this on. Jes has already gotten a question about how his lakorn viewers will see him now and I think he fielded that admirably, talking about how he's an actor and he hopes/thinks they'll realize that. There's also a bit of an assumption that lakorn is a 'step up' from BL so I love to see him defying that. He's been very firm on handling the media, too - he had an interview yesterday and TWICE had to shoot them down on the 'BibleJes or JesBible' nonsense.

And of course, Bible, my baby - oh, I admire him in doing this. So many BL acting pairs stick to rigid roles and here he is, in only his second role, being willing to defy those and challenge how the fandom perceives him and take on all the weirdness and hate that he's inevitably going to get through at him. I've already seen some people expressing dismay and saying they can't/don't want to see him in this sort of role, and I'm sure he had to be aware that he was opening himself up to that. I'm so proud that he did it anyway and I hope those people reconsider their notions around top/bottom and their expectation that actors stay in neat little boxes.

And all the above is without even touching on all the delays and the history with 4 Minutes, which already made it a bit messy in the first place.

ANYWAY. I don't really know how to wrap this up, since I'm partly just venting here to get this off my chest. But I really hope that this opens up some conversations in the BL space and creates some change for the better.

[alpaca-clouds]

The Thing About The Age of the Characters in Digimon

Okay, let me talk about one thing in the western Digimon Fandom, that has always bothered me. And it has to do with something very weird: The age of the characters in the first four seasons.

See, in a lot of western fandom discourse there is this idea that the main characters in Tamers are 1 year younger than the characters in Adventure, 02, and Frontier. This mostly originates with one thing: The Japanese dub of the other three seasons do not give any age for the characters, as they introduce themselves saying just their grade in primary school. Tamers meanwhile gives official ages for the characters (with pretty much everyone but Shaochung and Ryou being 10). While the western versions of the other seasons gave an age for the main characters, making the Goggle Boys 11 years in their respective seasons.

However... This does not make them a year older.

See, most of the main characters in the first four seasons of Digimon are 5th graders. This maintains to Taichi, Sora and Yamato in Adventure, to Daisuke, Hikari, Takeru and Ken in 02, the entire main cast in Tamers, and Takuya, Izumi, Kouichi and Kouji in Frontier.

What does this mean for age? Well, basically it means that these characters should have been 10 by the 1st of April of the year that they entered 5th grade. To be exact, it means the birthdays should be like this:

Taichi, Yamato, Sora: Between April 1st 1988, and March 31st 1989 (through Sora's birthday being recent in movie 2, which takes place during spring vacation, we can assume her birthday is in March 1989)

Koushirou, Mimi: Between April 1st 1989, and March 31st 1990

Jyou: Between April 1st 1987 and March 31st 1988

Takeru, Hikari, Daisuke, Ken: Between April 1st 1991 and March 31st 1992

Iori: Between April 1st 1993 and March 31st 1994

Miyako: May 21st to about June 21st 1990 (we know her star sign is Gemini)

Takato, Jianliang, Ruki, Hirokazu, Kenta, Iori: Between April 1st 1990 and March 31st 1991 (this should also be true for Junpei in Frontier)

Shaochung: Between April 1st 1993 and March 31st 1994

Ryou (Tamers Version): Between April 1st 1986 and March 31st 1987

Takuya, Izumi, Kouichi, Kouji: Between April 1st 1991 and March 31st 1992

Tomoki: Between April 1st 1994 and March 31st 1995

And yes, if you have autistic knowledge of this franchise, you will know that there is in some cases stuff that does not make sense.

Notably the fact that within the old Artbook with the character reference pictures 02 Sora is referenced to be 14 years old. However, that book has been released years later, and the information came from Seki Hiromi, so I am fairly certain this is just her not quite realizing that Sora's birthday is somewhat confirmed to be in March through movie 2. (The same is also true for Ruki, who also has her birthday in movie 6, which also takes place during the spring vacation. However, other than with movie 2, which is confirmed as canon for the series through 02, the canonicity of movie 6 is a lot more doubtful, as there are several ways in which it contradicts the canon of the show.)

The other thing is one very specific for Tamers.

See, Tamers is unique in giving the ages of the characters. And in fact with every screenplay of the series (which have been digitally distributed and are most available and actually super interesting for some background information) in the list of characters showing up in that episode most ages are given. This is why we know the ages of the parents in Tamers. However: Tamers takes place over the time between April 2001 and late February or early March 2002, so over the course of a roughly year. And even in the last episodes the ages for all characters are still the same as by episode 1. However, I assume this is just simply an oversight, that nobody has thought about. At least this is a lot more likely than none of the main characters (including the adults) having had their birthday before March. lol

So yeah. Generally speaking: All four goggle boys are 10 or 11 in their respective season. 5th graders at the very least.

[mariacallous]

You’ve studied Russian information warfare pretty extensively. A few weeks ago the Justice Department indicted two employees of the Russian state media outlet RT for their role in surreptitiously funding a right-wing US media outfit as part of a foreign-influence-peddling scheme, which saw them pull the wool over a bunch of right-wing media personalities. Do you think this type of thing is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Russian information warfare?

Of course. It’s the tip of the iceberg, and I want to refer back to 2016. It was much bigger in 2016 than we recognized at the time. The things that the Obama administration was concerned with—like the actual penetration of state voting systems and stuff—that was really just nothing compared to all of the internet stuff they had going. And we basically caught zilcho of that before the election itself. And I think the federal government is more aware of it this time, but also the Russians are doing different things this time, no doubt.

I’m afraid what I think is that there are probably an awful lot of people who are doing this—including people who are much more important in the media than those guys—and that there’s just no way we’re going to catch very many of them before November. That’s my gut feeling.

While we’re on Russia, I do want to talk about Ukraine, especially since you’re there right now. I think one of the most unfortunate aspects of [the media’s coverage of] foreign wars—the Ukraine war and also the Israel-Hamas war—is just the way they inevitably fade into the background of the American news cycle, especially if no American boots are on the ground. I’m curious if this dynamic frustrates you as a historian.

Oh, a couple points there. One is, I’m going to point out slightly mean-spiritedly that the stories about war fatigue in Ukraine began in March 2022. As a historian, I am a little bit upset at journalists. I don’t mean the good ones. I don’t mean the guys I just saw who just came back from the front. [I mean] the people who are sitting in DC or New York or wherever, who immediately ginned up this notion of war fatigue and kept asking everybody from the beginning, “When are you going to get tired of this war?” We turned war fatigue into a topos almost instantaneously. And I found that really irresponsible because you’re affecting the discourse. But also, I feel like there was a kind of inbuilt laziness into it. If war fatigue sets in right away, then you have an excuse never to go to the country, and you have an excuse never to figure out what’s going on, and you have an excuse never to figure out why it’s important.

So I was really upset by that, and also because there’s just something so odd about Americans being tired of this war. We can get bored of it or whatever, but how can we be tired? We’re not doing a damn thing. We’re doing nothing. I mean, there’s some great individual Americans who are volunteering and giving supplies and stuff, but as a country, we’re not doing a damn thing. I mean, a tiny percentage of our defense budget—which would be going to other stuff anyway—insead goes to Ukraine.

And by the way, Ukrainians understand that Americans have other things to think about. I was not very far from the front three days ago talking to soldiers, and their basic attitude about the election and us was, like, “Yeah, you got your own things to think about. We understand. It’s not your war.” But as a historian, the thing which troubles me is pace, because with time, all kinds of resources wear down. And the most painful is the Ukrainian human resource. That’s probably a terribly euphemistic word, but people die and people get wounded and people get traumatized. Your own side runs out of stuff.

We were played by the Russians, psychologically, about the way wars are fought. And that stretched out the war. That’s the thing which bothers me most. You win wars with pace and you win wars with surprise. You don’t win wars by allowing the other side to dictate what the rules are and stretching everything out, which is basically what’s happened. And with that has come a certain amount of American distraction and changing the subject and impatience. I think journalists have made a mistake by making it into a kind of consumer thing where they’re sort of instructing the public that it’s okay to be bored or fatigued. And then I think the Biden administration made a mistake by not doing things at pace and allowing every decision to take weeks and months and so on.

What do you think another Trump presidency would mean for the war and for America’s commitment to Ukraine?

I think Trump switches sides and puts American power on the Russian side, effectively. I think Trump cuts off. He’s a bad dealmaker—that’s the problem. I mean, he’s a good entertainer. He’s very talented; he’s very charismatic. In his way, he’s very intelligent, but he’s not a good dealmaker. And a) ending wars is not a deal the way that buying a building is a deal, and b) even if it were, he’s consistently made bad deals his whole career and lost out and gone bankrupt.

So you can’t really trust him with something like this, even if his intentions were good—and I don’t think his intentions are good. Going back to the strongman thing, I think he believes that it’s right and good that the strong defeat and dominate the weak. And I think in his instinctual view of the world, Putin is pretty much the paradigmatic strongman—the one that he admires the most. And because he thinks Putin is strong, Putin will win. The sad irony of all this is that we are so much stronger than Russia. And in my view, the only way Russia can really win is if we flip or if we do nothing. So, because Trump himself is so psychologically weak and wants to look up to another strongman, I think he’s going to flip. But even if I’m wrong about that, I think he’s incompetent to deal with a situation like this. Because he wants the quick affirmation of a deal. And if the other side knows you’re in a hurry, then you’ve already lost from the beginning.

Timothy Snyder Explains How Americans Might Adapt to Fascism Under Trump

[sharp-rosee]

Hey funny story: I haven't been around Tumblr at all for months, but today someone told me menalez had deactivated or something so I came on here and looked it up. First result was a post by you, i checked out your blog and wouldn't you know it your most recent post had you defending me post mortem lmfao. I sent an anon to the other woman too but it seems she won't post it so to clarify to you: when I supposedly said "studies showing violence suffered by bisexuals are cringe and useless" what I remember thinking about that is that those studies that I've seen are never used to try to understand why bisexuals suffer such insane rates of violence (more than homosexuals) and trying to stop it. I've only seen them be used as battering rams in discourse when homosexuals criticize bisexuals. Which is crazy for such a serious issue and totally trivializes it lol. Also that my explanation for it was that such studies show that many abused people incorrectly id as bi for a time. You can disagree or wtv just those were my points, she made it sound like I'm cheering on women beating if they're bi or something. Also your defense of me (thanks queen lol) is accurate if you were wondering. I used to be sorta pro strict separatism but I outgrew the anger/ denial phase of "most women will partner with men" and reached acceptance. Most people are built for romantic partnership, that's just human nature, I can't be hating het women just because their lot in life in that means they're more likely to be abused. Just because I'm not drawn to men, or even much to romance, doesn't mean I should act like that's everyone else too and judge them on that standard, I accept reality and want women to be safe within that rather than pointlessly hate on them and get all worked up because some women have boyfriends..

Well I'm also a mean asshole, I'm sure you noticed, and I definitely would give the bi girlies on radblr a hard time here at the time lol. I don't have the "one side" sort of takes on this divide on radblr. It was funny but I can't feel the energy to that anymore since leaving tumblr, way too few bis or gays irl to care about that stuff. But at the end of the day these are my actual takes on all that disk horse. Funny to see it immediately on such a causal stroll around here lol

-sleep3r4gent

QUEEN I used to follow you ♡ at least when I was crypto a few years back I did.

Also, I'm glad you clarified because the way some women on here seem to hallucinate things they read almost makes me feel insane as well. Like you sending an ask saying you never thought of a certain perspective is not indicative of you agreeing and obviously one can change their opinions over time.

I really have no opinion either way tbh, I myself am straight and in a relationship, and have had others on my last blog send some anons calling me a "dick worshipper" and other misogynistic BS, but they stopped once I didn't let it bother me much. It's so obviously a group of trolls that it's embarrassing that they still believe it enough to keep bringing back the same users, some like you who aren't even misogynistic, to further their persecution complex.

It even is more annoying because these are the women who made Mena/Moideater leave, the above drama is a big reason why. The way radblr will still reblog posts from very racist blogs and not bat an eye but then freak out over a clique of women who aren't even radfems really does show what demographic makes up this site.

I know it gets exhausting to be involved in arguments, but it's nice to know you're still somewhat around. I hope you, Mena and Moid come back someday. If not I understand. But I'll never forget any of them and I haven't forgotten you 😭😭😭

[emaistome]

Alicent and her "liberation"

I wholeheartedly believe that to tell a feminist story, you have to at least tell a story that make sense, this is unfortunately not what Ryan Condal and his team did with Alicent Hightower, in season two of HOTD.

I kept defending them and their choices, until that last scene of season two, and although it breaks my heart that Alicent “sacrificed” Aegon, I have to admit that the things she said around it bother me a bit more.

Before anything, I want to point out that the patriarchy is not some fable, some story that they tell women to make them be submissive; it’s a setting that affects the lives of every living woman in the world (both the real world and asoif). It restricts the freedom of women, and put their very lives at stakes all the time. It manifests itself everywhere, so much that it’s easy to make people believe that “It’s just the order of things”. Sure, women can try to fight against these rules, like Rhaenyra (to a certain extent) who did not care about the prejudice against women and their sexuality, and vied for the throne despite having bastards. Or like Rhaenys, Visenya and Alyssane who despite all of their faults, did try to make the lives of women in the seven kingdoms better.

Alicent did believe that men were more fit to rule, while she thought that women were supposed to “guide them gently”. Although she believed that Rhaenyra should sit the Iron Throne, and she also tried to be named regent, so it’s inconsistent, but I digress. However, I don’t blame her for that. Alicent did not make these rules; these rules existed long before she was born, and that’s what she has been taught since she was a child. Alicent suffered a lot from them. In fact all her life, all she did was trying to make a better life for herself and her children under these rules. For the entire season one, Alicent was shown as the person who suffered more from gendered oppression in the show. Her reasoning for taking the throne was valid her actions were understandable and motivated by self preservation. If they Rhaenyra took it, she would need to kill all of Alicent’s children.

Somehow, season two episode height, had her apologizing for all the actions she made out of self-preservation. And you can smell that some 21st century writer was the mind behind her reasoning, but I’ll say more on that later.

Multiple people in charge of the show, talked about Alicent needing to be humbled. Why does she need to be humbled and apologize for her sins? While a man like Viserys, who cut his wife to take a child out of her and raped Alicent is glorified. They had her recite all the misogynistic criticism the general audience had against her, and apologize for it.

Alicent tried to be the perfect friend for Rhaenyra, more than she should have. For some reason people still find ways to blame her. She was groomed since she was 14 by Viserys and Otto; she is blamed for that, as if she had any agency in the situation.

Alicent should betray her family, disobey her father to protect Rhaenyra, do the opposite of what she was told since she was a child. And it would still not mean anything because neither her, nor Rhaenyra have power in the situation.

She was raped by Viserys as a 15/16 years old girl, again it must be her fault as a 15 years old girl, and she manipulated poor old Viserys who had no idea that he was grooming a young girl. And they always use the argument that it was fine at the time. The discourse around it resembles the discourse around Lolita when it was first published more than 50 years ago, and people still haven’t moved from blaming young girls for the actions of the men around them.

If they have a little bit of conscience, they will tell you that they feel bad for Alicent when she was a child, but not for the adult she became. But the adult is the direct result of the abuse that she suffered when she was a child. And again she fears that her children could be killed, a valid fear. Why would I blame her for doing what she could to save her family? Apparently Ryan Condal and Sara Heiss, think that she should apologize for that. “I lost my way; or rather it was taken away from me.” Implies that she realizes that getting married and having babies was never what she wanted, but something that was forced on her. But in the same scene (just like in the entire season), she praises Viserys even thought he was the main person who took her agency away from her. And I understand that victims can cope by idealizing their abusers, but viserys did not abuse only her, he abused her and her children, and clearly didn’t value her sacrifices. I think it came to that point where she didn’t even need a “liberation arc” to realize that, yet she still praises him.

Let’s talk about her plans to run away. This is where the writing started to feel the most like a 21st century pseudo-feminist was in charge of this writing and was more attached to the idea of Alicent being free, instead of real freedom. Alicent planned to runaway with her daughter and her granddaughter to “breathe the open air, and finally be free”, but she doesn’t plan any money? It’s as if they were trying to make her sound dumb because Aegon and Larys were also planning to runaway but somehow they knew they had money somewhere. But Alicent? Nothing. I’m actually not nitpicking. The patriarchy actively refuses to grant women power or money, so that they could stay bound to the men around them, to their family. And she doesn’t have any skill to survive when she “wanders in the wilderness” she was raised a highborn lady in a castle life in the wilderness, without any family to protect her would kill her and her autistic daughter and granddaughter. Women usually stay in abusive environments not only because they were brainwashed, but also because they feared that the world outside might be less kinder to them. It takes a minimum of logic to understand that the patriarchy can’t be kinder to a lowborn unknown woman than Alicent who sat in the royal small council, where only her and Rhaenyra sat as women in the seven kingdoms. She is still top two, of the most privileged women in Westeros, running away would not make her situation better.

We have a a history of women actually running away from Westeros and not being free from the patriarchy. Saerra was sold to a brothel, Jorah’s wife was some man’s concubine and Daenerys, had all her money being stolen and was sold as a child bride to Khal Drogo.

There is not a single way to make that scene work, it’s not feminist, as it realizes nothing but making one of the most intelligent characters appear very dumb. And I’d rather have Alicent be misogynistic and intelligent than having her be liberated and dumb. Women in real life can be misogynistic and perpetuate the system that made them suffer because that the only way they can survive. But also how can I blame her for her own oppression, how can I ask her to apologize for her actions as a victim.