#that's the real danger of censorship I think

[homestuckconfession]

Honestly, I think it’s inauthentic to read homestuck censored, especially on your first read. It’s like putting your [you, general, not you, confession blog owner] head in the sand because the author said something uncomfortable. If you’re unwilling to confront the art as it was made, what’s the point in reading it? You’re doing a disservice to yourself by refusing to acknowledge the truth of how the comic was written. Also. The future-arachnidsGrip joke is funny.

.

[wreckedhoney]

^^ "coming to the conclusion that positioning the "can people enjoy things that would be immoral IRL in their fiction" debate as a proship v anti fandom debate is akin to pretending that "should we have the death penalty" is a discussion that only matters in Death Note discourse"

not proshipper not anti but a secret third thing (person who has a career in the media and, through covering legislative politics, has watched "associating with problematic fiction or entertainment is an indicator of moral degeneracy" rapidly become a mainstream GOP position that they are encoding in legislation to target the queer community under the guise of protecting children, thus coming to the conclusion that positioning the "can people enjoy things that would be immoral IRL in their fiction" debate as a proship v anti fandom debate is akin to pretending that "should we have the death penalty" is a discussion that only matters in Death Note discourse — the extent and manner to which fiction affects reality is an issue that is immediately relevant to today's US politics, and to summarize my opinions on the matter in fandom terms would be to diminish the ways this debate is affecting america Right The Fuck Now. and i have stopped taking "this person is bad for shipping the wrong anime thing and being horny about it" in any sort of good faith ever since I saw it literally used as part of a GOP smear campaign against a transgender state legislator in an attempt to defend the right from backlash after they used their supermajority in the Montana house to prevent her from speaking on the floor. Anyway I think everyone on this site, especially Americans, could benefit from ceasing to think in proship v anti vocabulary and instead developing coherent political positions on the nature of fiction that do not directly align with current fascist political tactics)

[incorrectbatfam]

How does the batfam celebrate the TikTok ban?

So my two cents that no one asked for is that a TikTok ban is actually Not A Good Thing. A lot of small businesses and artists (including my own band) rely on TikTok for marketing and growing an audience. TikTok is also a source of community for people from marginalized groups who might not feel safe expressing themselves in real life, especially younger folks. Not to mention the amount of real-time news we get that other sites suppress, such as the raw footage from Gaza or people organizing healthcare protests.

Does TikTok have issues specific to its platform? Undeniably. It's a digital meth house where I got flagged for the using the fuck word in a lyric. But when you find yourself dealing with a meth house, you don't take a wrecking ball to it and evict the residents. Banning Tiktok won't stop the widespread trends that other social media sites have now adopted. We still have short-form content. We still have algorithms tailoring our feed for the maximum dopamine rush while bombarding us with ads. Companies are still harvesting and selling our data. The worst people you can think of still have a Wi-Fi connection.

What will happen if TikTok is banned is that all these people and all these problems will be dispersed even further, making them even harder to address. All the while, it sets a dangerous new precedent for government censorship and the level of power it has over our information and communication. I don't know about you, but the shit I can't access worries me a lot more than all the shit I can.

[drinksglue]

Running back into the room with "AND ANOTHER THING"

In regards to the "not anti, not proship, but a third thing":

Many neutrals will openly interact with antis who are aggressive against pro-shippers, all in the name of "well, I don't care about the discourse, so I don't care that they're antis"

I need you to understand that the flaw with this is that it frames the anti mindset as an acceptable viewpoint to have. It isn't.

Imagine if I said "I don't care about the arguments between librarians and Moms For Liberty, and I think they just need to calm down. I support neither! Just stop fighting!" and then exchanged friendly emails with M4L members. This would be utterly ridiculous, wouldn't it? It would mean that I find their beliefs to be valid opinions to hold, and not dangerous rhetoric that, taken to its logical conclusion, would result in mass censorship.

This is even worse in the case of people who "used to be" pro-ship/pro-fiction, presumably knowing how bad this can get and how it affects people IN REAL LIFE, who still chose to go "neutral" and start interacting with antis. You know what they do, you know how they doxx and stalk and threaten people, and you know how they've caused a lot of mentally vulnerable people to take their own lives, and you're going to give them ANY kind of voice in fandom?

To be "neutral" tells me you don't give a single shit about the people who are being targeted over stupid fandom bullshit that was practically never an issue pre-2015. And the few times that it was... well, that's actually why AO3 exists now.

You want the discourse to stop? The only way that's going to happen at this point is if you snuff out as much interaction with fancops as possible. Avoid interacting with them directly as much as possible, do not reblog their posts or their art no matter how innocuous it is, do not allow them into your fandom spaces. Exclude them from fandom entirely, methodically ostracize them. Block, block, block, and block some more. Doing this will mean we only have to deal with the most extreme of cases that involve mass-brigading and block evading.

That's still a tall order of course, but I can guarantee you fandom spaces will improve in quality if you refuse to make a space for fancops at the table.

Sorry. I'm tired of pretending "neutrals" are anything other than Fancop-Lite.

[marshemillow]

For the millionth time, you do not have to call yourself "proship," but if you refuse to stand in solidarity with proshippers, then you are excusing harassment. Sorry if you don't like hearing that.

"I don't like sexists OR feminists, because they BOTH just keep making discourse about insular bullshit that doesn't really matter! I think we should have equality, but I also think SOME women should be subjected to misogyny, but only if they're bad obviously!!! Why can't these two groups just agree to a compromise and stop fighting???" Like you have to be joking, right? Please tell me you are joking.

"But fascism is a real problem that can't be encompassed by fandom labels-" I NEVER WANTED TO BE AN ACTIVIST!!! I LITERALLY JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THIS FUCKING HOBBY BACK!!! STOP TRYING TO FORCE ME TO BE A REAL ACTIVIST AGAINST MY FUCKING WILL!!! I'M IN DANGER HERE TOO!!! IT'S NOT THAT CRAZY FOR ME TO WANT AN ESCAPE FROM REAL PROBLEMS!!! NOT EVERY SPACE HAS TO BE FULL OF REAL POLITICS HOLY SHIT YOU ARE THE REASON WHY EVERYONE HAS ACTIVIST BURNOUT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T JUST LET PEOPLE HAVE A FUCKING BREAK!!!

Proshippers are kind to me and like to write fiction. Antis want to skin me alive with a vegetable peeler and then rape my dead body. Do you seriously want to "both sides" this bullshit??? You really think it's both groups' fault that this wank won't end???

"But these labels are meaningless because nobody can agree on a definition!" Literally every proshipper gives the exact same definition. Seriously, proshippers outnumber antis in fandom more than 10 to 1, if a thousand people inside the group give the same definition and ten people outside the group give conflicting definitions, how can you seriously just throw up your hands and say "nobody can agree on a definition!!!" like yes we do, I don't know what you're talking about.

"But proshippers harass people too!" And I am against that, but you can't deny that the foundation of the anti mindset is built upon the idea that people who write bad fanfiction deserve to be harassed. They literally CELEBRATE when people kill themselves. They've fed needles to people before!!! Yes there are good antis and there are bad proshippers, but to act like that means both sides are just as bad is fucking absurd and I genuinely don't know how people can't see it.

"But there's nuance!!!" Please tell me what nuance there is between harassing people for their ships and not doing that. Please tell me what nuance there is between censoring "gross" fiction and not doing that. Have you ever heard of the Civil War in the United States? You can't just crowbar a middle ground into an issue where no middle ground exists! Some harassment is still harassment! Some censorship is still censorship!

"But I don't like underage/incest/whatever bad fiction!" Cool! Neither do I! I still think it shouldn't be censored!

"But we have to draw a line somewhere!" Yes, and that line is whatever hurts real people. Any fiction that doesn't require hurting real people to write should be allowed. If Game of Thrones can't normalize incest, then NOTHING CAN.

"But lolicon is pedophilia!" Do you know how hard it is for CSA survivors in real life to hear that the worst thing that ever happened to them is just as bad as watching cartoons? They're already subjected to feelings of being "ruined" because of purity culture, don't insult them on top of that!

"But-" IF YOU REFUSE TO STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH PROSHIPPERS, THEN YOU ARE EXCUSING HARASSMENT.

The least you could do is stop fucking talking about it. You know, the same thing you do with everything else you don't understand? You clearly don't understand the issue, so just drop it!!!

[kseniyagreen]

And no one in the world can see through you...

I think one of the most important and acute themes of the drama is the desire to be seen, to be real for someone. The desire is so greedy and desperate that many heroes are ready to die for it.

Because without this feeling of being seen and understood, they feel like they are in an endless dream. Not so real. And for the opportunity to become real, they are ready to pay with pain and life.

Ying Lei and Bai Jiu both died trying to do something meaningful for their special person. Striving to be the one who changes something - himself, alone. And maybe that's why they were so reckless.

Li Lun sacrificed his immortal existence to become a real man for one day - the man Zhao Yuanzhou will not forget.

The bird goddess understands that this Fei is not real - and understanding this, she kind of see the real Fei in her heart.

And therefore she feels it as if they are finally together.

This is a desperate, beautiful but painful desire to have someone who sees you and whom you see, someone who will illuminate the darkness of your loneliness, especially acute and painful for those who are used to feeling like an "anomaly".

The drama also raises the social aspect - about how anomalies are not accepted by society, are seen distortedly and falsely, and this experience of social invisibility makes the desire to find someone who will see and understand the real you even stronger - sometimes dangerous and even destructive.

All the characters are in some sense are dreamers in a dream and puppets in a play.

And in this play you can go beyond the given role, show a glimmer of your true self only at the moment when your role ends. And every hero here dies looking at the one for whom they wants to become real most of all.

This interestingly reflects the fact that under censorship, a lot can only be shown at the cost of the hero's death. Like queer couples in censored dramas, they usually die in the finale (at least one of them). Antiheroes who reject the laws of this world's also usually assert their right for sympathy with a selfless death.

But in reality, a person asserts themself and finds understanding not through death, but through life. It is not the final sacrifice, but the path traveled that matters.

And this is where I see the meaning of Zhao Yuanzhou's path.

He could have died in the middle of the story - and the villain would not have received his power, and the world might not have needed to be saved.

But then ZYZ would have died unrecognized and misunderstood, lonely.

But thanks to the path traveled, he finds someone who sees him, who understands him, who loves him and makes him real.

And for Zhuo Yichen, this is no less important - for someone who was afraid of his dreams and therefore lived as if in a dream, for someone who was afraid of that unconscious part of himself. And therefore, diligently fulfilling his social role, he did not get close to anyone.

But the more alive and real they become together, the tighter the web of fate becomes. As if resisting their desire to be together.

And yet I would like to think that this desire and their mutual reality turns out to be stronger than the tragic scenario.

Like at the moment when Zhuo Yichen was supposed to die together with the villain, but did not die because the Zhao Yuanzhou's spell "recognized" him.

This desire to stretch the thread of connection through all obstacles, barriers and through death itself is very tangible in the way they're holding hands.

And this courage not to let go even when it seems the universe itself is separating you plays a key role in the finale.

"I recognize only the principles of my heart," says Li Lun.

And I like to think that along with his power, he passed on to Zhuo Yichen a part of his rebellious spirit and gave Yichen the courage to resist fate.

Yichen too manages to save part of Yuanzhou's soul because he knows that soul truly. They manage to pull this theme of mutual recognition into a situation as far away from an act of love as possible.

This "I knew you would do this" "and I knew you would do this, and that's why I do something else" and "you're still so..." - as both recognition of "it's you" and surprise and recognition anew.

They are both tied with ropes to their roles, like puppets of a demon who fulfills wishes. But they see each other beyond these roles. And with his final act, Zhuo Yichen seems to connect their destinies beyond the boundary where their roles end.

Zhao Yuanzhou had to fulfill his role as a sacred sacrifice and leave. Zhuo Yichen had to fulfill his role as an instrument on which Yuanzhou would make his sacrifice. But Yichen, taking on an active role in a situation of impossible choice, goes beyond the role of an instrument - and thanks to this, he can do what does not fit into this role.

Save Zhao Yuanzhou's life and connect their fates beyond the fulfillment of the prophecy.

And now they're both free.

[literallymechanical]

Just finished Alien Clay, the new standalone novel by Adrian Tchaikovsky. Reads a bit like Annihilation meets Baru Cormorant. I've been on a real Tchaikovsky kick this year, and I think this one might be my favorite.

Far-future science fiction where political dissidents are put on one-way sleeper ships to lethally dangerous exoplanets as prison labor. The protagonist, Professor Arton Daghdev, has been shipped off to Imno 27g, colloquially known as "Kiln," as part of the Mandate's crackdown on "seditious" academia.

As one would expect from Tchaikovsky, the book is equal parts political screed and speculative biology worldbuilding exercise, both of which he knocks out of the park. Alien Clay is one of the more overtly radical Tchaikovsky books I've read so far – the story is divided into three parts, "Liberté," "Égalité," and "Fraternité," it's not exactly subtle.

I think this book rises above the rest because of the protagonist. Daghdev's first-person narration is playful, wry, and bitter all at once, and the core of his revolutionary ideas center around state control of the philosophy of science, more so than literal academic censorship. That's a subject I don't see tackled often in fiction.

If you're a fan of fungal body horror, political revolution, and academics who can take a punch, this is the book for you.

[letters-to-lgbt-kids]

My dear lgbt+ kids, 

If you sometimes come across the term “banned books” but don’t really know what it means, here’s a simple little introduction to the topic: 

“Banned books” refers to books that have been censored or removed from libraries, schools, or bookstores due to objections from certain groups or individuals.

When we read that definition, I think a really common and understandable response is: „whoa, okay, these must be really bad books full of dangerous ideas!“… and in some way, that’s true. 

Because, you see, to someone with a homophobic worldview, any book with a gay character is really bad and dangerous. And to a child abuser, any book that educates children on consent is really bad and dangerous. 

Among the top reasons for book bans are lgbt+ content, sexual content (including sexual education or education on sexual abuse), themes of racism and themes like drug use or addiction. Over the years, many books with significant cultural and educational value have faced bans - and this continues to be an issue all around the world, including in the US. 

When books are banned, it restricts the access to information people (including kids and teenagers) need to understand themselves and others. This negatively affects queer people and other marginalized groups (for example people of color or disabled people) but it also impacts everyone else. Diversity in literature enriches our understanding of the diversity of real life. It helps to build empathy, compassion, kindness and understanding. Access to different stories and viewpoints is vital for an inclusive society. 

Censoring queer books in particular also normalizes the message that queer experiences are inappropriate or “dirty” - which, again, is really beneficial to homophobes and transphobes. If it feels safe for them to say that queer books harm children, it paves the way for all other kinds of discrimination and harassment of queer people. 

Now you may think “this all makes sense when it comes to books with gay characters! But didn’t you also mention stuff like sexual abuse and addiction and racism up there? These are indeed bad and dangerous things!” 

I think this is another really common thought. These things happen in real life and it can be uncomfortable to even think about them. But that’s precisely why we need books about those “uncomfortable” topics! 

We may not like the idea that a child hears about racism or abuse - but in a world where kids can experience racism and abuse, they also need to be able to read about racism and abuse. They need to be able to say “this is what’s happening to me and this is not okay”. We need to be able to name bad things when they happen to us or when we witness them happening to others. We need an understanding of and a language for bad things. That’s the only way to fight the bad things. 

Another thought you may have is “Okay, and now what? I don’t have the power to do anything about all this anyway”, and honestly I wouldn’t blame you for that one either. Hearing about book bans (on top of all the other negative stuff we hear about) can feel really depressing. But there are things you can do to push back and help keep diverse stories accessible - even if you are young or have limited resources! 

Some ideas: 

use your public library (many public libraries actively resist censorship and make banned books available!) 

use a digital library (services like Libby and Project Gutenberg offer free access to many books) 

look out for online petitions or letter-writing campaigns by organizations that oppose book bans (for example PEN in America) 

look up if there are any “little free libraries” in your area (free book-sharing box operating on the honor system: anyone can take or leave a book for no cost) 

look up if there are any book swapping events in your area 

take part in reading groups, book clubs etc. (either in person or online) 

And of course the big one: if you can afford to buy books - make a point to buy banned books (or more generally, queer books and books from marginalized authors and books on topics that frequently get banned)! As a starting point, you can find lists of banned books online. Wikipedia has one, for example. 

If you have a bigger budget, you could even buy multiple copies and put some in your local “little free library” or bring them to book-swapping events or gift them to friends etc! (You could also ask your local public library (or school library or prison library or youth center or women’s shelter etc) if they take book donations, but you may want to hold off on buying before they say yes - not all of them can accept donations!).

Happy reading and resisting!

With all my love, 

Your Tumblr Dad 

[blanketforcas]

Would you call yourself a proshipper then? Are you fine with people shipping incest, pedophilia, abuse etc? because what proshipping really stands for is having zero restrictions as to what is allowed in shipping, even harmful and taboo things, and if you aren’t fine with all that, or “pro” that, I’d be seriously cautious using that term. Because that’s what proshipping actually is, not what “antis” have made it out to be.

yes anon i don't believe thought crimes are real.

and you know what makes life so easy for us folks who are easily squicked out by "problematic" content? the fact that you can simply not go looking for it and block the tags you need to block!

there have always been people who enjoy things in fiction (fiction!) that they would never even consider in real life. that is and has never been a problem. the actual harmful thing is when people advocate for censorship cause censorship only leads to people finding loopholes. and you know what will suck for you and me, anon, when it comes to that? those tags we blocked won't work anymore.

i'd encourage you to research the dangers of censorship, cause that is what you're promoting. you think you're being helpful but what you're actually doing by posing the question "what content is so harmful we should ban it and shame everyone who engages in it?" is giving a gun to the oppressor who will eventually think that you're too problematic too.

[anonymousredactedconfessions]

Let's have a talk, shall we?

Major Trigger Warning for rape, false accusations, and mentions of child sex crimes

I let you guys get away with a lot of shit. I let you be a little bitter, or mean spirited, or pissed off. I let you guys vent and let out grievances and complain for the sake of complaining. And i do all of this because it is important to have a space that you can do so without fear of judgement, it is unhealthy for you to bottle up negative emotions. I provide this in a public space because with the way this fandom is, if I didn't many of you would be pressured into not doing so at all. This fandom has a habit of ostracizing those who have differing opinions and interpretations, those who wish to critique the art they consume, those who have unpopular opinions, and all of it is done with the utmost aggression and vitriol. The things that have been said to some of the people in this fandom genuinely makes me lose faith in humanity if i think about it too hard.

This blog exists explicitly to counteract that. I refuse to encourage or enable it. What you are doing is actively dangerous, and I won't be having it in the space I curate within this fandom.

If you haven't noticed, this is one of my rules:

It means that you are not allowed to come in my inbox and accuse people of serious harm over this fiction.

You will not come and accuse people of something as egregious as rape apologia in my inbox. You will not accuse people of rape, abuse, assault, or child abuse/rape/exploitation in my inbox.

These are serious real world issues, and the reason they are bad is because they cause direct harm to real living people who can feel pain and can be violated. Your disgust holds absolutely no ethical weight. At All. You should have the mental, emotional, and intellectual capability to understand the ethical difference between allegories for rape, stories with/about rape, erotica of rape, and actual real life people being raped. Making accusations of this weight over make believe is abhorrent, and as a matter of fact, it shows that you don't treat these tragedies with the weight or gravity that they deserve. If you believe that it is appropriate to accuse someone of violating another person like so because of the creation of or opinions about art, then you have some serious learning and growing to do as a person if you wish to navigate these topics with any level of maturity or respect towards victims.

There is no good that comes out of accusations such as these. They only ever serve to:

Demonstrate to victims that the tragedy of their abuse is as trivial as fanfiction/art that you deem nasty (but is ultimately ethical), or even something as inconsequential as someones' love for a fictional character.

Shame those who love these characters, or this art, or creating, into hiding their opinions for fear of harassment and serious accusations when they have done zero harm by enjoying it.

Stifle creation and participation in fandoms.

Limit the spread of ideas, interpretations, critique/criticism, and general opinions in the fandom, which just turns fandoms into boring echo chambers devoid of variety and creativity.

Encourage actual censorship and moral policing. (More on that on this reblog by @escapedaudios on a post of mine. Thank you Escaped for your two cents, they are much appreciated 💖)

Spread the incredibly harmful idea that people are defined by the art they enjoy. You cannot accurately judge a person’s values or morals based on what tropes and themes they enjoy in fiction. You create an environment and culture incredibly dangerous for vulnerable individuals (like minors) when you tell them that they can know who is safe to trust based on whether they consume "the good kind" or "the bad kind" of fiction. This makes it so very easy for predators to virtue signal about fiction to lure in potential victims to abuse.

The majority of you are very good and well behaved when it comes to this, but the amount of people i have had come into my inbox and accuse others of being rapists with no evidence other than "they made X" or "they like Y" is not zero. And i will not be satisfied until it is.

This is all i have to say about the subject.

[proshippers-against-censorship]

https://www.tumblr.com/proshippers-against-censorship/762170991820652544/idc-if-a-teenager-has-sexual-thoughts-or-thirsts?source=share You can delete this if you want, but I think it should be mentioned just how fucking harmful the idea that children expressing sexual attraction towards an underaged FICTIONAL character is because that exact mindset literally had me planning my suicide at fourteen because I was convinced I was ontologically evil for thinking Ash Ketchum is kind of hot. Like it sounds kind of funny when I say it out loud but I'm serious when I say that I genuinely was. Like I'm good now obviously, but wow. It literally could've been it for me because I was so desperate to conform to these standards of purity and thought crime that the internet forces people to conform to

This is a topic that I feel needs to be way more focused upon, definitely.

Children shouldn't be condemned for liking children. And it's really, REALLY fucking weird to say that kids should only feel attraction to adults.

I'd almost dare to say that such a thing sets real kids up to be in danger from predators.

[meroniichan]

the OCD and impostor syndrome combo is dreadful. i spent years isolating myself from people because i thought that i could be a danger to others even when i had no harmful intentions. i thought that by having certain thoughts, i was a bad person. i secretly indulged in proship content, then i'd go back to living my 'normal' anti life where everything was pure and clean, because i felt like i had to be in order to keep my friends. i worried that one day they'd find out and chase me off the internet.

i was shocked and relieved when my therapist told me that having thoughts about incest was common in OCD. i was surprised to hear that she encouraged having a safe outlet for it, like creating art, reading, or writing about incest. as long as i wasn't causing harm to anyone, then it'd be okay.

i opened up to some of my friends about it, and i was expecting them all to ditch me afterwards. they didn't. they understood and had expressed that they've felt similarly before, and that they were also afraid of harassment. others said that while they didn't enjoy or partake in the things that i do, they respect me regardless and understand that they don't have to indulge in the things i like just to be my friend. i label myself as proship, but it doesn't define who i am.

i cannot stress this enough: people need an outlet. forcing them to hide their thoughts and isolate from others in case they could harm people hurts them more than it helps anyone. antis love to think that we're forcing their convoluted definition of proship onto them when in reality, proshippers could not care less about what people are doing so long as it doesn't bother them. the antis bother them first. they're the ones who want censorship to exist. they want to force us to hide.

i can thank people for drawing l0lisho because it kept my brother at bay after he used me. he knew that it was wrong to act on his little brother and wanted to quit, so he found an alternative to satisfy his urges. if he didn't, my abuse could've went on for much longer. fiction saves. it will always be better to turn to fiction than to inflict harm on real life people.

[r4wnz]

Radqueers trying to paint a picture of being comorbid with profic beliefs is SO dangerous to proshippers.

I'll never understand how these things got roped together but I suppose the radqueer community is already quite infamous for using false equivalence for acceptance. (Their tendency of comparing homophobia, slavery and ableism to anti paras) Literally an antishipper mindset to think your fictional beliefs reflect your real ones. Sure, every radqueer should be proship, but not every proship will be radqueer—very few of us are, I find.

Yeah someone who's apart of a community that largely grooms children is going to be okay with seeing those tropes in fiction because... if they are okay with it in reality why wouldn't they be okay with it in fiction??? That would be unbelievably stupid.

But proship beliefs say absolutely NOTHING about queer identities it's literally just anti harassment/censorship belief.

Insinuating proship is comorbid with radqueer beliefs is going to result in even more harassment of us. If anti-shipper think we are pedophiles over FICTION, seeing people who ACTUALLY encourage real pedophilia they're going to tear Us apart even though we have nothing to do with that community.

If we receive death/rape/torture threats, doxxing, and witch hunting over emotional speculation what do you think will happen to us when pro contact paraphiles represent our community???

~

(originally this post was expressing confusion on smth regarding radqueer beliefs however I've been informed that what I was thinking of was radinclus! but I still agree heavily with the other part of my post so I decided to edit rather than delete as I think it's important to talk about!! apologies for issues in text- I've been fighting with Tumblrs post editor it's been majorly laggy)

[pastryjay]

I know some OFMD fans have become more biased against Izzy content, Izzy fans, and Con himself due to two years of discourse, and I get it, but that is not an excuse for this. Some people have to be more careful/ respectful of the way they talk about Con O'Neill.

Context: he streamed a workshop about creative insults titled 'How To f*ck off with Con O'Neill'. This was explicitly stated to be for people 18+ only. At one point, he was seen briefly wearing only boxer shorts and a t-shirt in his own home. This was in a non-sexual context - he was just sitting down. Now, he's being called out for sexual harrassment and indecent exposure because of that.

Firstly, i'd like to say that anybody loudly offended by this 'incident' has made it clear that they didn't attend the workshop, and those who did attend are fine with it. The Venn diagram of people who wanted to attend that event and people who love Con's cheeky humour is a circle. Con knows his audience and his audience know him. You, random person who doesn't like Con much anyway, don't have to like it but it making you uncomfortable doesn't mean it is morally wrong.

It's important to note that Con O'Neill is open about being queer and proud about that. He is not shy about his sexuality or willing to censor his queerness e.g. he's not afraid to make suggestive (but not overly explicit) jokes or show his support for queer fanart. That is a good thing! It reeks of homophobia seeing him getting accused of being perverted just for existing as himself. It's not the first time either. In the past, OFMD fans have called him gross, a freak and creepy for sharing suggestive fanart to his Instagram.

It's wild to see all the focus on a cheeky, harmless moment when there are so, so many real issues in the world. Countless people are out there committing real sexual harrassment daily. Focusing on this queer man over nothing is dangerous. Accusing queer people of preying on those around them just by existing is literally right-wing rhetoric. Especially as there is a bigger push than ever from right-wing politicians to paint queer people as dangerous predators. Censorship, homophobia and puritanism is not welcome in the fandom for a show about queer joy.

Lastly, To the people mad about this: Why are you fine with anybody posting thirst traps online or people existing in swimwear in public, but you cry about 'not consenting' to seeing a queer man in boxer shorts and a shirt? Why are you upset about Con doing this, but love it when Rhys Darby posts shirtless photos to his Insta stories for fans? Why is it okay for most people to be comfortable in their sexuality/ their own body... but not Con?

I know the kind of people who need to see this probably won't take any of it on board, but it is really uncomfortable to see the way some people are talking. If many people like myself (I have been very critical of some Izzy fans and mostly avoid Izzy content) disagree with you, maybe you should re-think what you are saying.

[technofeudalism]

i am not in any way trying to justify or downplay the severity of the social media censorship. it's a significant problem. but... you don't need to stay on a platform and constantly wring your hands over what phrase they're going to ban next. it's directionless. just leave.

if you come across blatant censorship, either cut your losses, move onto a different platform and get the app off your phone or you can try to muddle through it. but don't linger and wait for it to get better. it probably won't. whatever social media isn't already compromised very well may be in the next 4 years. you're not going to be able to counter-message against this and you're probably exposing yourself to needless risk by continuing to use the compromised platform.

the fact is that activism and community organizing has existed as long as civilization itself. the first labor strike can be dated to 1157 BC in Ancient Egypt. unpaid laborers staged a sit-in against Pharaoh Ramesses III. and in the end, they got their wages. it's also believed that basic "human rights" laws, although as the article points out that is stretching the definition, have existed since 1750 BC in Babylon. the big social media companies have given us the benefits of being able to organize faster and at a much wider scale, but you should have never, ever become dependent on them.

misinformation is dangerous. governmental censorship can also present an obvious danger to a society's ability to determine fact from fiction. but you would be mistaken if you think that this is, or has ever been, unique to social media, or even a new phenomenon.

this should be your wake up call that, Google, Netflix, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft alone generate 57% of the world's internet traffic. 6 corporations own 90% the world's media. and two even bigger corporations own 90% of those corporations.

the house of cards could totally collapse overnight and you'd be powerless to stop it. the ship has unfortunately sailed on corporate media conglomerates. you should call out misinformation when you see it, but at some point you have to organize to stop it.

if you want the censorship to stop (hopefully because you understand it's a prelude to something far worse), the actions you are going to have to take will be offline in the real world. you've obviously noticed a pattern with social media. assume it's all been poisoned.

[kseniyagreen]

Episode 33 comments. Part 2

Bai Jiu's death is the hardest.

They weren't joking when they talked about living in contradictions. And in Bai Jiu's line, these contradictions are very well expressed.

Bai Jiu's main theme is the fear of disappearing. But this fear is actually contradictory, and the whole essence of this contradiction is well expressed in Bai Jiu's love of hide and seek and bells.

When we are afraid of disintegration, we want to hide from danger in a safe place. But when we hide, the fear of disappearing turns into another side - what if this place turns out to be too safe? What if I am never found? What if I disappear from the world in my safe hiding place?

Bai Jiu went through this horror when he was "safely hidden" in his own body - "under the protection" of the big bad wolf Li Lun. And after going through this, he became braver.

In the end, the boy who sought to hide from destruction breaks through the barrier to what is hidden towards destruction - in order to save what is dear to him.

The drama really does constantly return to this theme of affirming one's real existence in death - in the desire to be real as if death does not exist.

And look how the scene with the barrier of Bai Jiu and the scene with the barrier between ZYZ and ZYC are paralleled.

They have their own impossible struggle at this moment, with fate, which constantly puts them in these positions.

They are all trying to break through the barrier with their love. So that what can't work - works. And what should work - doesn't work. On one strong-willed desire.

This scene is so intense - even the villain turns away.

I remember seeing this shot somewhere in spoilers. I thought it is ZYZ's death scene. Makes sense.

The hand moment is symbolic - these scenes run throughout the drama.

But I also can't help but think that if ZYZ and ZYC were just friends, they would definitely hug after this.

But they can't hug as friends in the true nature of their relationship, and they can't hug as lovers because of censorship.

But at least the hands and looks convey the intensity.