#the answer is racism

[maeve-on-mustafar]

Somehow, it’s always ancient POC who are somehow incapable of accomplishing anything without “alien” intervention. But I wonder why that is? 🤔

[mizufae]

Grumble mumble Eddie, a white boy clearly coded and destined to die from the first thirty seconds of his appearance, who smells like store brand spaghettios and warm beer, who excitedly attempts to sell hard drugs to a distressed girl, is fandom darling and fap bank immortal and character most likely to randomly show up in a fanwork when you search another character’s name. AND YET, Argyle, a really loyal best friend, hilarious weirdo, kind and empathetic dude, with truly incredible beautiful hair, a whimsical fashion sense, and a commitment to having new experiences and encouraging others to do the same, who DOES NOT DIE and yet remains mysterious in terms of backstory and motivation, is barely even mentioned in the vast majority of fanworks, let alone fantasized about or hyped up or talked about in terms of his future role in the story or over tagged or played around with. WHY COULD THIS BE

[whetstonefires]

I was . . . deeply disturbed by the art of Luce you reblogged. I understand having issues with the Catholic church; I'm not Catholic and have a long list of disagreements with them myself. But I don't think artwork of a little girl (even a fictional one) dying brutally is going to convince Catholics that they're wrong about anything. I don't think it's going to help anyone. For my part, it mostly made me feel sick and sad.

in isolation i wouldn't like it much either on those grounds, but as you could see in the post it was a reworking of an existing notable work on the subject of 'missionary getting eaten by wild animals,' and thus very clearly part of an ongoing artistic dialogue about colonialism.

so yeah this one is in the category of 'art that's not for you' and definitely not about convincing catholics of anything.

this one is 'making fun of catholic church for attempting to use a cutesy avatar to sanitize their historical atrocities.' different conversation.

[idylls-of-the-divine-romance]

I say, "Ableism is bad." You say, "Ableists all live in their mom's basements and don't contribute anything to society!"

I say, "Misogyny is bad." You say, "Fuck all men."

I say, "Homophobia is bad." You say, "All religious people should be shot in the streets."

I say, "Racism is bad." You say, "White people are the devil."

I say, "Murder is bad." You say, "I hate any idiotic bitch who disagrees with this."

I say, "Body shaming is bad." You say, "Everyone who disagrees is ugly and has small dick energy."

I say, "Fascism is bad." You say, "Yeah, kill all nazis!"

To which I say: you do not know why ableism, misogyny, homophobia, racism, murder, and body shaming, and fascism are wrong.

Go, go and meditate on why these things are wrong and don't come back until you arrive at the answer.

[transrevolutions]

usamerican liberals will tell you that if you don't wholeheartedly support biden/harris/walz/[insert establishment democrat] you're playing "purity politics" and need to settle for the "lesser of two evils". and then in the same breath they will turn around and say that if gazans didn't want to be genocided they "should've just overthrown hamas". like why do you have a different set of rules for usamericans vs everyone else.

[ellstersmash]

[...] Perhaps the toughest choice: whether or not Harding or Davrin will lead a distraction team and, ultimately, die. Why these choices and why these companions?

Epler: [...] I'll say for the other choice, we knew Harding had to be one of them, and then we had to ask ourselves: we've got a fan favorite returning character from Inquisition. Who could possibly equal that in terms of making this difficult choice? It's like, well, Assan.

[aimfor-theheart]

Why is it that dc such as r@pe, sa, and incest is totally okay to write about and romanticize but y’all draw the line at racism, fat phobia, and homophobia *talking about the writings creators make, not personal beliefs*? Whats the difference between these things? All of them are hurtful and affect people in real life, so why is everybody on here choosing and picking one and not the other? Do writers on here think that they are not comparable or that one is okay to romanticize and the other is going way too far?

Im just genuinely curious as I have seen this topic be brought up again and again, which has made me realize this and Id like to see it from someone else's pov.

hi! there is a lot to answer and unpack here and i have every intention of doing so underneath the cut. forgive me if this gets long, but you’ve asked me 4 very massive questions that i think warrant detail, nuance, and thought. there is a lot i’d like to say here.

that being said, mind the content warnings and protect yourself.

cw: mentions of rape, incest, racism, homophobia, fat phobia, discourse in general

firstly, i am going to choose to give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you are actually curious in hearing another side and you are not simply looking to stir a pot or pick a fight with beliefs you have no intention of changing or having an open discussion on. your accusatory tone in the first half indicates otherwise and kindly, i am not an idiot. but i want to earnestly talk to you about this and again, will think better of you than you perhaps have indicated you think of me.

secondly, you do not have to censor words like rape in my inbox. that sort of censorship has become wildly popular because of tik tok and other money-hungry social media that also desperately want to silence people. do you know why you have to censor words like that on tik tok? or words like genocide? suicide? racism? 1. so that they can make money and market and push their squeaky clean algorithms but 2. and perhaps worse, so they can silence victims. if social media platforms and capitalism and the systems of powers had it their way, you would never utter these words again—whether to call someone out for justice or to have an open discussion like this one. i encourage you greatly to think critically about this and how you choose to use censorship and why.

now, to your questions.

to preface, i am interpreting this ask as being anti-dark content in fiction as you state that ALL these subjects harm people in real life. or at least, you are being critical of all dark content in fiction and the way writers engage with them, effectively ‘picking and choosing’ which are deemed acceptable and which aren’t, when they are all hurtful. i apologize if that wasn’t your intention/what you believe, but regardless, i’ll endeavor to answer you.

i personally have drawn no lines about dark content nor spoken about any of these topics specifically really, which indicates to me you have a different narrative and/or are coming from more inflammatory arguments that are always circling fandom lately. in the post i most recently reblogged, i spoke mostly of violence. which, of course, all of those things can be. but i didn’t name one of those topics in particular.

regardless, i don’t believe in the censorship of any dark content in art, but rather advocate strongly for critical analysis on a case-by-case basis. in general, i encourage thinking critically about every aspect of the world around you.

i do not believe that rape, incest, and sa are okay to write about or create art about but racism, homophobia, and fat phobia are not. i believe all of those topics are ones that can, should, and will be explored in the safety of art. all to varying degrees of success, earnestness, impact, and intent. you’re right that these are real things, that can hurt people, and the fictional work about them can have impact on our society that is tangible but the actual art or fiction created is not real. and again, this is all to varying degrees on a case-by-case basis.

art and fiction also historically and massively do discuss these dark content topics and have actively swayed the public’s opinion on matters, whether for better or for worse. throwing away all dark content in art and fiction because it is ‘harmful’ is deeply, deeply dangerous and reductive. a lot of art that engages with dark content actually makes very succinct points about it—i think of vladimir nabokov’s lolita or octavia butler’s bloodchild or speak by laurie halse anderson.

this is where we must exorcise critical thinking. some pieces of work will handle dark content poorly—white saviors making art on racism. men making art about a woman’s experiences that (as you are so interested in) romanticize her pain. etc. etc. and some art will handle it’s dark content incredibly and be transformative, perhaps even revolutionary in how we talk, perceive, or acknowledge systems of oppression, violence, and dark content in this world. some dark content in fiction will have damaging beliefs and effects on society, some will not—we must also look at scope for this, at the writer perhaps, the historical moment, their audience etc.

(for example, there is a significant difference in a main stream male writer, writing of a woman’s experience with rape in a published book in a way that makes it sound romanticized, sold to thousands and thousands of general public vs. a woman using fanfic to explore rape, take control of it, or whatever in a fanfic for a small online community where there are warnings on it. indicating she is aware of its potential damage in a way her male counterpart is not…)

but i still believe in dark contents’ existence in art. of course there is differences between all of these topics you brought up, but i don’t think their differences matter in this answer. i believe in their right to be explored in art. i am talking broadly of media/art here, which i think is the more relevant conversation, but i think you are actually more interested in a much smaller scale of people. ie. fandom. ie. mostly marginalized people in small communities online writing and creating dark content.

people will choose and pick which ones they’d like to create art over and which ones they don’t, which ones they read and which ones they don’t. there’s no ‘hard line’ drawn anywhere. and i can’t control it and neither can you. perhaps you think violence is okay to be explored in fanfic, but racism isn’t. someone else will have different preferences. i do not believe in its censorship.

now, let’s move onto your interest in romanticization and what i think you are more pointing to, which is fandom. you are specifically referring to people in fandom who write about rape, incest, etc. and ‘romanticize’ it—ie. they write about it in a way that is a fantasy. it is perhaps supposed to be horny or sexy. so let’s talk about it.

i must remind you that these topics you’ve brought up (rape, incest, sa) being written are fiction and it is (most often) done by someone marginalized who has either experienced this or is in threat of experiencing this under a patriarchy. i assure you, they are aware of its harm. hence the copious warnings in fandom spaces.

if i can be candid, sometimes i think that people forget how systems of oppression work when discussing fandom and whether dark content being created should be allowed or not.

for example, i sometimes think people who are anti-dark content in fandom believe that a woman or afab person writing a fictional fanfic about rape or sexual violence then influences people to go out and rape people or that women actually like it. when the reality, in fandom spaces, is that rape and sexual violence happen frequently under the patriarchy and then these women in fandom write fictional fanfic in response to cope, explore, take control of, etc. etc.

to insinuate that women or afab people (which fandom mostly is) exploring dark content safely in fiction then causes their own oppression and harm or trauma is rather victim-blame-y to me. fandom exploring dark content does not cause these things to happen in our society….these actions (rape, incest, sa) happen in our society or systems of power and fandom reacts to them in their art by exploring it in dark content. do you understand what i’m trying to say?

it’s not a matter of what is ‘okay’ to romanticize and what isn’t. i do not think the romanticization that fandom does with dark content (ie. my kidnapper actually loves me! or this sexual act that i did not consent to…maybe feels good) is not actually romanticizing but coping because of the systems of power that i described above. and this can be coping with anything—shame of sexuality, shame of fantasies, trauma, fear, etc. etc.

as i said in my tags in that post i reblogged and as plato said, dark content in art is a safe place to explore what would otherwise be harmful and dangerous in real life. it is cathartic. potentially even, a purging.

and even if it isn’t all that—maybe it just is trashy fantasy. it is still playing pretend. it is still fiction and in fandom spaces, it is still most likely being created by a marginalized person. and again, even if it isn’t, we don’t get to censor it. we can be critical of it or wary or whatever, but to censor it, is a slippery, slippery slope. do deem some topics as “acceptable” and others as “unacceptable” is dangerous.

just like kids play pretend where they ‘fight’ or ‘kill’ or ‘kidnap’ or ‘shoot’ each other in games of cops and robbers or heroes and villains, they are safely exploring adventure, dark content, fantasy, tragedy, and higher emotions. adults can do the same in fiction and with adult topics like sex.

and at the end of the day, we don’t get to demand the credentials to do so either. we don’t get to censor them or control them and nor should we be allowed to. i cannot stress enough that i encourage you to be critical of censorship or the absolute disgust in dark content and at those (again—often marginalized people) who engage with it in fandom. i believe it is deeply puritanical, conservative, and dangerous.

you don’t have to like dark content or consume it at all and fandom makes it easy not to with all the warnings and tags, but you cannot control others or police them. nor should you want to.

and at the end of the day, i have some questions for you. you don’t have to respond to this, perhaps they’re just things to think about. what is the end goal here? what is the point in harassing, shaming, attacking, criticizing, or interrogating people in fandom spaces who create or support dark content? do you believe that if it is purged from fandom, it will be purged from our society? if you want it purged from society—shouldn’t you start there rather than in the inbox of marginalized writers in fandom? people in fandom did not create rape, incest, and sa nor do they in their exploration of fiction…they are merely reacting to a world that did create it.

i hope at no point i came off as rude to you, as was not my intention. i intended to stand up for myself and respectfully state my opinions and thoughts on this matter. i’m sorry it got long, but also i don’t believe in being brief on such complex matters. i am a writer who engages critically with the world around me and sometimes, things cannot be made into short, snappy answers. sometimes, we must unpack.

genuinely wishing you well.

[blushedfemmes]

ok but can we talk about how the current wave of resentment towards “pillow princesses” has become like. straight up femmephobia and people being weirdly shitty towards femmes online / calling us spoiled and damn near evil because butches wanna take care of us and how dare we

yes we can and we can also talk about how a lot of people use femmes as a receptacle for their unexamined internalized misogyny. i have experienced this directly from a masc queer partner in the past, and on a casual/subtle basis my entire life, both from cishet women and from fellow queer people. and i will go ahead and say this is a femme-specific problem (at least in the context of these posts) because people will often use the way we present and our mannerisms and what we might prefer in bed as an excuse to belittle us, because the urge to belittle women (or that which we perceive to be woman-shaped, consciously or not) is so prevalent. in other queer people it will come out as ‘well i just think they’re being selfish in bed, i think they’re being spoiled/entitled, i think they look childish and stupid dressed that way, i think they’re scared of looking queer, i think they’re dressing for the male gaze, i think they’re acting like a stereotype, (and especially if it’s a femme transfem) i think they’re being too binary-gender conforming and therefore oppressive/predictable/bad, etc etc’ and all this plus more for femmes of color whose femme expression doesn’t ‘make sense’ to any given white person or immediately read to a white person as queer or lesbian

and it really is about gut reactions and never about the truth. femmes often exercise a great deal of care in our interactions with butches or with anyone, and we often derive immense satisfaction in caring for our partners. of course femmes can be shitty. femmes can be selfish. we are an enormous and complex group of people and, furthermore, everyone is capable of causing harm, i know i have. but the times when i have personally experienced this brand of femmephobia it is almost always because of assumptions that people made because they already had a gut reaction to me and how i dress and what i like, and they’re making up reasons to justify it.

there is no end to the excuses people will make in their minds to justify treating femmes badly, because they saw a woman-shape and decided to use us as a dumping ground for internalized misogyny. and yes it is a particularly stinging betrayal, because it happens the most in our own queer communities, where we long to be accepted.

[genderqueerdykes]

apologies if this is not the place to do so, but I need to talk about being biracial. I deal with a sort of anti-whiteness where I feel genuinely disgusting for not being just black. I feel like a traitor to the black community for having white heritage too and have thought about darkening my skin to hide the traces of a part of me I wish wasn't there. It's like. A sort of racial dysphoria and I don't feel like an adequate black person. It gets really distressing sometimes when I remember my skintone is caused by partial whiteness. Have you ever dealt with this too? I know it isn't an experience unique to me to feel not POC 'enough', but it gets so intense for me that I resent the people responsible for my birth.

i do get where you're coming from, and this is an okay thing to vent about

the unfortunate thing about being mixed race is that there will be people on both sides that will be upset with you- you will encounter white folk who find you too black, and black folk who find you too white. colorism is a big problem and comes from both ends of the spectrum. unfortunately, for whatever reason, interracial relationships and biracial children can really set people off and it's not exclusive to white people. i have unfortunately seen other black folk absolutely tear into mixed black people, especially if they're light skinned. i think what happens is folks start seeing you as a white person masquerading as something you're not, when it couldn't be farther from the truth.

one of my friends for the longest time was white and afro-latino (honduran), and his own family and friends would tell him that he was basically only a white person, despite the fact that his skin was light brown, he had an afro, black facial features, and a black dad who had no white relatives. he himself literally told me that he viewed himself as entirely white because he wasn't "black enough". i felt so sad and angry for him but i didn't know how to word it at the time. i wanted him to be able to be proud of all of the parts of himself, but instead, literally his own friends and family were berating him telling him he wasn't black enough to be proud of that part of himself. every time he told me that he was "too white" to consider himself black, i just wanted to cry. he used to ask me to massage his scalp and help trim his hair. i remember how beautiful his afro was, he took very good care of his hair. he had so much to be proud of and people guilted him out of it.

i feel this as well, i have a hard time wanting to consider myself a person of color at all because folks focus so hard on skin tone. the thing is, when people are biracial, they can look like ANY possible combination of traits from their parents and relatives. sometimes, an interracial black and white couple will have children that look entirely black or entirely white. my neighbor is an older white woman whose current partner is black, and they have a black son. if i didn't know she was white, i wouldve assumed her son had 2 black parents. he doesn't look mixed in the slightest

i have more white in me than i do black, as my father was also mixed, so its hard for me to speak with confidence about this part of myself without feeling like i'll be judged, especially considering that i have not been in the same room as my father in over a decade, and before that, i was not allowed to see him for years due to my parents having a nasty divorce. it took until i was going through a photo album at my sister's house that i saw my dad again for the first time in years and realized he was not white. when i had asked my mom if my dad was black as a child, she told me no and that he "just has a white guy afro".

i went through a lot of gaslighting about being mixed, and i still do. people focus only on my skin tone, and especially how light my face is. it makes me super hesitant to speak about this part of myself, even though i've met other extremely light skinned mixed people. another friend of mine is mixed white/Mexican and he was even more pale than me. he was constantly profiled as just white, but when he would go home at night, his Mexican mother only spoke spanish to him, and he spoke it back just fine. whenever people looked at him they assumed he was 100% white and it really opened my eyes to how diverse mixed people can and do look.

sorry for such a long response, but i just wanted to say that i feel you. it's hard. there's pressure on all sides. there will be white people and black people alike that will feel like you're a "traitor", as if you controlled the people who made you. you had no hand in who gave life to you- these are factors beyond your control, and you don't deserve to feel like an outcast and like you're doing something wrong

you can't control your genetics, nor can you predict what genetics someone has just by looking at them. i'm sorry youve been made to feel this way, but i hope it gets easier for you. i know it's tough to feel like an outcast or a bother on all sides. you shouldn't have to feel like you're stepping on someone's toes just because you were born mixed. you deserve to live a life where you are proud of who you are. i hope things get a bit easier for you soon

[creature-wizard]

LOL, you shitheads again? You must really love getting your asses kicked if you're coming to me, of all people.

For anybody unaware, the Satanists behind the website mentioned in this ask are a bunch of openly antisemitic conspiracy theorists appropriating Eastern traditions, and they've been trying to advertise themselves and increase their SEO by sending asks like these. Each ask is tailored to appeal to whatever they think your beliefs might be, but they all follow a similar template that goes something like:

What do you think of [URL redacted]? They claim to follow [insert gods here], they [something about supporting abortion], and they're the largest [insert group here] group in the world."

The spirituality promoted on this website is rooted in deeply antisemitic conspiracy theories and pseudohistory. If I addressed every single claim they made, I'd be here all day, so I'm going to stick to a few examples:

They claim that Satanism isn't a reaction to Christianity, but is in fact older than Christianity. This is straight-up pseudohistorical bullshit.

They claim that Jews have perpetrated a grand conspiracy to conceal true spiritual knowledge from the masses. They outright cite The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a Czarist hoax created to justify violence against Russian Jews in the late 19th century. They claim that Christianity is a Jewish tool of world domination and mind control.

They claim that "Jewish ritual murder" is a thing. This is blood libel, an old conspiracy theory used to demonize Jews.

They claim that Jesus was a fictional creation made out of tropes "stolen" from various pagan gods. There is no actual evidence for this; it's another conspiracy theory. For a scholarly look at what most probably happened, I recommend How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee by Bart D. Erhman. Or if you can't get your hands on the books, just look into Dr. Ehrman's videos/lectures on the topic on YouTube.

They push the extremely racist ancient aliens bullshit, claiming that the pagan gods were actually aliens.

They claim that the serpent actually represents human DNA, life force, and kundalini. This is a conspiracy theory that disregards the diversity of lore about serpents in various belief systems and traditions around the world, and culturally appropriates from Eastern traditions.

Their idea of what constitutes genuine Satanic practices is basically New Agers' bastardized versions of Eastern concepts and practices.

They claim that the "Tree of Life" is actually a stolen pagan symbol that maps the human soul. Again, an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that disregards the actual significance of trees within the various traditions that involve them.

They claim that the Pentateuch was ripped off from the five suits of the tarot, and that tarot has ancient origins with alchemical significance. Tarot was actually invented in the 15th century for playing games. Mystical symbolism was applied by occultists in the 18th century.

The creators of the site apparently believe that the Simon Necronomicon is a genuine translation of older documents. It's not. The Necronomicon was a literary device created by HP Lovecraft; every text purporting to be a translation of the Necronomicon is a modern creation.

If you get an anon message like this in your inbox, do not post it. These people want you to share their URL to get more publicity and spread their antisemitic conspirituality. Don't give them what they want.

[positivelyamazonian]

So yesterday I started playing the remasters starting with Tomb Raider 1 and this popped up...

"The games in this collection contain offensive depictions of people and cultures rooted in racial and ethnic prejudices. These stereotypes are deeply harmful, inexcusable, and do not align with our values at Crystal Dynamics."

“Rather than removing this content, we have chosen to present it here in its original form, unaltered, in the hopes that we may acknowledge its harmful impact and learn from it.”

Honestly, I don't understand what's wrong with the originals, what's so prejudiced and harmful? Like that's so disrespectful to Core! Why does Crystal Dynamics have to put their two cents in on a project they didn't even make at first!? 😞

It is a general disclaimer for those former products which contain some details that didn't age well, or can be called out, and rightly so, nowadays. As much as we love the classics, everyone knows that what Lara basically does in her travels is to steal cultural and historic heritage from other cultures and civilizations and take them to the First World without consulting the political/intellectual authorities of the countries she travels to.

Most of time she's not that covetous of the artifact itself but of the thrill of getting it, that's why lots of times she just gives it away to museums or renounces to achieving it if the cost is too high and the consequences too terrible.

And there's the detail of having to kill the local habitants of these places most of times - even if in self-defense - to achieve it, so you add murder to the fact of robbing.

I think this is what this disclaimer is addressing. And for once, it's OK. That is what Tomb Raider was in the 90s. Today I'm sure it would be addressed differently, though I don't see many differences with the present reboot - Laraboot's manor is still full of plundered artifacts, even if coming from her father, or am I wrong?

Anyway, disclaimers are fine. Better than to alter the original product, which is what they've done til yet. But let's not allow this wander away from what is: acknowledging the original saga's shortcomings is not cancelling the whole product. And frankly I don't think Crystal either is having the high ground here anyway. I saw more horrid colonialist shit in LAU trilogy as well.

[dimehun]

Read through Batman : Batman and Son, now I am plagued with many thoughts. The horrors of getting blown up with a missile and getting a complete organ transplant is never brought up again !!

[maxedes]

another note on the yuki situation

his whole radio message thing wasn‘t as bad as everyone always said. if you look at all his onboards compared to everyone else’s they are pretty similar. they just mentioned it once, then always played those onboards because it became a running gag and then it got made into his whole personality. it was just a fucking straw man argument to justify not moving him up all along.

and even if it was an valid argument - which it is not - no one fucking cares if e.g. max throws a tantrum on the radio because he delivers results all the time. so how is the same curtesy not extended to yuki?

[kutputli]

It kills me how those stans and even "normal" iwtv fans are like "stop being mean to SR!!!!" and we're over here talking about racism 😭 He is sitting pretty with his golden globe fyc whilst iwtv stans plug their eyes and ears to the racism behind it. I haven't seen even a fraction of the concern for Assad who has to go to set every day knowing his employer places his white costars above him no matter how outstanding he is. And I'm sure they will be completely normal if/when SR doesn't get nominated. Lots of "see, you guys were acting up and being meanies to our beloved prince for nothing!" coming our way when him not being nominated won't change anything because it's always first and foremost been about AMC's racism for us

So confession: me and the mutuals have a community where we often enjoy being mean about SR.

You know why that's perfectly fine?

Because we have no structural power over him! We don't take it to any of his socials, we don't even intrude into any fannish tags!

AMC is not a fan! AMC is a for-profit corporation with immense structural power over Assad Zaman - a young South Asian actor who has just got his first possible breakout role!

AMC being racist to Assad cannot compare in any shape or form to fans 'being mean' to Sam. Even if it was fans rolling up in his socials (which DO NOT DO OBVS) to tell him he wasn't all that, it would still not compare with your workplace supervisors telling you that your white colleague who did much less work than you deserved an award and you didn't.

People really need to understand that acting is a profession and media making is an industry and the same standards of equitable treatment that apply to any workforce apply to shows they love.

[pseudophan]

i know i’ve sent you two asks about the phandom racism and i’m certain others have also sent you asks, will you ever address it?

i’ve been thinking about this a lot recently with everything that’s been going on in the phandom, particularly on twitter although racism is by no means a twitter exclusive phenomenon and acting like everyone on tumblr is perfect would be disingenuous. i agree i can and should be doing more, and many years ago when i was less perpetually afraid of saying something wrong i was a lot better at it, but these days i find myself avoiding anything and everything that’s at all uncomfortable because i know i SEVERELY lack the emotional maturity to deal with it if i fuck it up. none of this should be about me but i’m painfully aware that the second i feel attacked in any way, usually doesn’t mean anyone is actually attacking me, i get obnoxiously petulant and suddenly it’s ‘well SORRY that i’m not PERFECT i guess i’ll DIE’. which is fucking stupid and embarrassing and not remotely productive. and then five minutes later i come to my senses and panic cause why did i say that? i know no one is actually attacking me, there is no reason to act like this. but in the moment i don’t have that reflection, and in desperately trying to avoid getting in trouble by saying the wrong thing i think i’ve gone too far the other way by not saying anything at all and now seem like i just don’t give a fuck. how i do or don’t come across is obviously not the issue at hand here, but i know i’ve got somewhat of a platform and it’s a shame i’m not using it the way it could be used, and i really do want to improve that.

the phandom often prides itself on being an inclusive and diverse space, and while that is true on the surface we don’t get to embrace that if we can’t even make sure everyone feels safe here

(please don't take this as my attempt to address the racism, this is all just me really poorly explaining why i haven't, if that makes sense)

[fiercynn]

on otw's $2.5 million budget surplus: for fuck's sake do something with our money

the recent ddos attack on ao3 illustrated that the otw (@transformativeworks) has amazing volunteers who were able to get things up and running again after a cyberattack. and i’ve seen a bunch of different people urging others to donate to otw in light of the attack.

the problem? not only are the volunteers not going to get any of the money, but the otw likely isn’t going to do anything else with it, because they already have more than $2.5 million in budget surplus that they have not been transparent about with their members, and that they have no plans for.

yup. we’ve known for years that otw had at least $1 million in their “reserves”; they’ve said so at their last two public finance meetings in 2021 and 2022. but a few months ago, @manogirl and i went digging a little deeper because we suspected that there was even more. 

and we were right. from the documentation available, our estimate is that at the beginning of 2023, they had $2,585,841 that was not dedicated to any purpose. this does not include money they had budgeted to spend in 2023 on regular expenses. just extra. (keep reading to see how we got that figure.)

equally appalling? they have all this money and are barely earning any interest on it. satsuma on dreamwidth looked at their 2021 tax returns and found that only ~$10k of their money is held in an interest-bearing savings account, which resulted in them earning only $90 in interest income for 2021. the rest of it is not in interest-bearing accounts. it is just sitting there.

looking at all the crises and dysfunction that have been discussed and uncovered over the past few months - racist harassment and the three-year-old promise to hire a diversity consultant; the mistreatment of volunteers by the otw board both related to last year’s CSEM attacks, and, separately, mistreatment and racism towards chinese and chinese diaspora volunteers both in the past and recently with the closure of the otw’s weibo account; and of course, this latest ddos attack - all of this indicates that there is severe dysfunction within the org. and donors throwing more money at the organization clearly isn’t helping.

the otw board needs to get its shit together and hire people to help with these things. this is not a new idea - there’s been talk for years about hiring paid staff, and in fact, at their july 2021 board meeting, otw said they would be appointing a volunteer who would be known as the “paid staff officer”, to come up with a plan for hiring paid staff. (to be clear, the “paid staff officer” would be an unpaid volunteer.) it’s been two years since that commitment. they have not, to my knowledge, appointed that officer yet.

it’s infuriating, because otw’s “scrappiness” as an organization is constantly used to defend their obstruction of action on things like racism, and this ddos attack will be used to further that agenda as well. but otw doesn’t need to be scrappy. they are well-resourced and could be using that money to set up more sustainable systems, instead of burning out and mistreating their volunteers, and reneging on commitments to address racism and harassment.

at the very least, if they’re not going to do anything with their massive budget surplus, they should stop taking more of people’s money. but we’d rather they did something useful with it.

if you want to see this change, the otw finance commitee holds a public meeting where you can ask questions and give them feedback. last year it was in mid-october. you do not have to be an otw member to attend. i'll definitely be making noise about it once the date is announced, but you can also follow otw's socials.

one brief aside: at the time of posting, a lot of these links are not working because the otw's website is still down. i copied these links from a twitter thread i made in the past and they should all be correct, so you just may have to wait until the site is back up to look at them.

now, to debunk some common excuses that people (not otw representatives, mind you, but just people on the internet who have decided to defend the org) give when confronted with how much money otw has:

MYTH: otw needs to keep $2.5 million in cash reserves in case of an emergency or unexpected revenue shortfall. REALITY: it’s true that nonprofits do need SOME cash reserves for those cases. typical practice is to have 3-6 months’ worth of operating expenses. otw’s current operating expenses are ~$520,000/year, so 6 months would be $260,000. (and, in fact, when i was told by an otw finance committee member that they had $1 million, they were intending 25% of that to be for emergencies, around $250,000). if you were being REALLY cautious, you could have reserves up to one to two years. but $2.5 million is enough for almost FIVE YEARS OF OPERATING EXPENSES. that is an absurd amount to be hoarding, especially when otw’s history of fundraising is that they always exceed their goals, and always make more money in donations than they need for their expenses within a given year. MYTH: they need this money for legal costs if they get sued. REALITY: otw gets most of their legal expenses donated, which is also not listed in their budget, but is in their audited financial statements. in 2021, the most recent financial statement we have, you can see on page 10 that they received just over $230k in donated legal expenses. they do budget some minor legal expenses yearly: in 2023 they’ve budgeted a little over $5k for “registration fees for conferences and hearings and funds set aside for legal filings if necessary, as well as an allocated share of newly adopted OTW-wide productivity tools”. however they do not have a history of even spending that much: in 2022, they had budgeted $4k for legal expenses and only spent $244 (see cell C29 of the budget spreadsheet). they have never been sued, and they do not appear to budget for litigation costs. and when, in the past, they’ve been asked about what their reserves are for (back in fall 2022 when the finance committee told me they had $1 million in reserves, even though this was patently false given their tax documents for 2021), litigation costs were not brought up.  MYTH: they just haven’t had enough time to figure out investment options. REALITY: they clearly have at least one savings account set up to generate interest, which only has $10k in it. even if they haven’t figured out a full investment portfolio, why wouldn’t they put more money in that account? in the u.s., the federal deposit insurance corporation (FDIC) insures bank accounts up to $250,000, so they should have at least that much in there. absurd. also, they have had plenty of time even for a larger portfolio. if you search “investment” on their site, you’ll see that they’ve been talking for YEARS about investing their reserves. more specifically, at both their 2021 and 2022 finance meetings, they said that they needed more time to research investment options. as usual, they have had far more time than they need.  MYTH: they need this money for new servers. REALITY: otw does in fact include expenses for new servers and server maintenance in their yearly budget reports. you can see this in their 2023 budget spreadsheet if you go to the sheet “program expenses” - under “archive of our own”, you’ll see server expenses. the $2.5 million is money that is EXTRA to their listed expenses and revenue in that spreadsheet.

finally, see below where we’ve given more context on otw’s budgeting and showed our work in coming up with these numbers.

showing our work

firstly, i should note for the record that i sent a message to the otw finance committee through the contact us form on the otw website on may 11, 2023 to ask them to state the amount in their reserves.

it has been two months and i have still not received a response (which i find funny, because at the last otw board meeting in early july, the board specifically said to use that form to contact the finance commitee if we had questions about the 2023 budget), so @manogirl and i were forced to do our own math. we've had this work checked by a number of people, but of course we were only able to work with the information the otw has made publicly available.

a few things you need to know about the otw’s budgeting:

they release yearly budget reports on their website (here’s their most recent one, which shows what they project for 2023 and their “actuals” for 2022), but they do not include their surplus in this report - they only include the revenue and expenses for each year

they also provide both their yearly audited financial statements and their yearly tax returns (form 990s) on their reports & governing documents page, but currently, the most recent statements we have are from 2021

otw typically raises more money in donations than they need within a year, so their surplus is always growing 

they have used the term “reserves” in the past to talk about money, but we don’t know exactly what they mean by “reserves” - is there a dedicated account that they consider their reserves?

because of these uncertainties, the goal for @manogirl and i was was to figure out how much of a budget surplus OTW had at the beginning of 2023, and because we don’t know how they define “reserves”, we defined it as how much they had in liquid assets that were not being dedicated for a specific purpose in their budget. (liquid assets are anything that can be converted into cash quickly – e.g. not equipment like their servers, nor anything that would be held in a long-term investment account, etc)

the first document we looked at was their 2021 audited financial statement. the key number is on page 11, under the section on liquidity, where it lists their end-of-year liquid assets as $2,315,841.

so at the end of 2021, they had over $2.3 million in liquid assets.

but since their 2022 audited financial statement isn’t up, we had to turn to their 2023 budget, and specifically, to their 2023 budget spreadsheet, where they show the “actuals” (what they actually raised & spent in each line item) for 2022 in column C. as i mentioned, they don’t list their reserves in this spreadsheet - only the revenue generated & expenses paid within that year, not anything carrying over from the previous year unless clearly outlined.

so at the bottom you’ll see that their net income (revenue minus expenses) in 2022 was $493,564.94, and that they then transferred $400,000 of that to the reserves sometime in 2022.

and the remaining $93,564.94, their adjusted net income for 2022, presumably carries over to help pay initial expenses in 2023 before they started earning more revenue. they also transferred $130,000 of their reserves BACK to help with that at the start of 2023.

so now we have the numbers we need to calculate the surplus (including reserves) at the start of 2023:

$2,315,841 (liquid assets at end of 2021) + $400,000 (transferred to reserve in 2022) - $130,000 (transferred from reserve in 2023) = $2,585,841 USD at the start of 2023

so that’s our math. otw had $2.5 million at the beginning of this year in surplus, in addition to around $223k (last year’s $93.5k in income and the $130k they transferred back from the reserves at the beginning 2023) to fund their expenses for the first half of this year. this does not even include the hundreds of thousands they raised in april 2023 during their fundraising drive.

okay the main part of our documentation is done, but if you want to read a little bit more about what @manogirl and i learned from doing this deep dive, here are a few additional thoughts/nuggets:

first of all, OTW is incorporated in the u.s. state of delaware, which is interesting because as @manogirl researched, delaware is a tax haven where 501c3 nonprofits don’t have to pay any business tax. plus, in many u.s. states, nonprofits have a limit on the amount of money they can keep without spending, but this too is not the case in delaware. of course, incorporating in delaware to take advantage of those benefits is not illegal! but it is very savvy, a characteristic that seems to have not continued with their financial management past their original incorporation lol

next, some more detail on their finances from their 2023 budget spreadsheet. let’s start with revenue.

the most interesting thing to me here is that while their spring and fall membership drive donations bring in the most, non-drive donations are also substantial. also their “total unrestricted net revenue received” is $975,638.36 in cell C16. however, for some reason, when they calculate their net income for the year, they use cell 12, “total unrestricted revenue” ($1,012,543.42) instead. the difference between those two cells is that cell 12 is the amount before their transaction fees are subtracted. but i have no idea why the transaction fees would be ignored when calculating their net income. is this an error?

next, their expenses, which came out to $518,978.48. not too much surprised me here except how low their legal advocacy spending still is, plus  the fact that they’d given francesca coppa a grant for her book on the history of fanvidding, lol. (i’ve written more about this; so has wistfuljane on dreamwidth if you scroll down a bit from here).

it’s also interesting to look at what they’ve budgeted (both the revenue & expenses they’ve expected going into the year) for 2022. in every revenue category, they have exceeded their goal, except for $50 in “other income”. and in most of their expenses categories they have overestimated their needs, except for going over about $700 in the transformative works & cultures, & about $500 for development. this just shows how much they are able to meet their yearly expenses (overestimated) with the revenue generated each year (underestimated), & still have substantial amounts left over (almost half of revenue transferred to reserves)

so that’s what we’ve found. if anyone else notices weird things in their budgeting, please let us know!