#the way this is phrased like an argument but WHO on tumblr will argue with most of this

[karinyosa]

i love gus in both shows but i think his story “matches” a lot better with the others in bcs than in brba because although both shows are about people who justify increasingly harmful things to themselves, in brba the fatal flaw is more like ego, specifically with our main character (ego as in a projection of the self rather than just vanity, ego as an inflated idea of oneself in terms of an investment in the self as father/husband/provider/archetypical good man, an investment in legacy, in pride), whereas bcs is for the most part, about a bunch of people that do bad things for someone they love in some way, however twisted the logic. and i guess the ego thing applies to walter more than anyone else in brba, he is kind of contrasted with most people in the show, and while you could argue much of the cartel is also driven by some form of ego, that’s not really explored and they are kind of just a conglomerate of baddies in brba, and i guess you could also argue that gus’ ego is in his ambition, that his pride is apparent in his massive fast food empire and his immaculate reputation. HOWEVER. i think that the core, the soft underbelly of gus’ story being firmly rooted in max pairs a LOT better with bcs’ way of writing about relationships and changes the meaning of some of those things. the meth lab was THEIR plan, not just his. doing it successfully means the success of max’s ambitions in ADDITION to his. he remains in search of a cook for YEARS, because that was max’s job. the cook has to be a chemist and totally up to par because MAX was a chemist. los pollos HERMANOS. dedicado a MAX. and of course the revenge itself. more than his own ego, everything he does is a monument to max. he dedicates himself to this entirely, revoking his own emotions and needs, just kind of coldly functioning for this one purpose. and of course you could say that that is also still ego-serving because it’s still holding yourself up this false ideal. but at the very least it’s a very different show of ego than walter’s. compare that with jimmy and ice station zebra, jimmy and the time machine, jimmy getting into law AT ALL, jimmy confessing. the transformation from the name of the child gus once was to gustavo fring, and the transformation from jimmy mcgill to saul goodman. guys. guys. i know it’s been said but guys

[flagellant]

I remember you being something of a scholar on christian theology. I have a question if you don't mind. My tumblr is full of people clowning on american conservative catholics that are angry that the pope basically fired that bishop in Texas, and the tumblr posters saying "lol u disagree with the pope that makes you disagree w/ god's word" or "that makes u a protestant" etc etc.

And while I do enjoy dunking on the trad caths, I think I heard at some point that the pope isn't always talking with his authority as god's most special boy on earth. That most of the time he is just being a human and therefore could be wrong/make errors. Not that I care about the jerk bishop losing his job, but I'm curious, how do we know when the pope is or is not talking with the authority of God backing him up? Does he have to say a special phrase at the start and end of the speech, or hold both hands up above his head, or something?

Okay so what you're referring to here is actually the concept known as papal infallibility, which is one of my favorite pieces of Catholic canon for one very simple reason:

You learn about it as being essentially the Pope is God's most special boy on Earth and what he says is always directly spoken to him from God and therefore is infallible. And if you are like me when you first hear about this concept, you will immediately get trapped in shower arguments for the rest of your life fantasizing about calling the Pope homophobic and arguing for the Catholic church to please stop being so goddamned homophobic all the time.

This is when you learn that papal infallibility is much more fallible than it is made out to be, and this is basically the source of the issue with Strickland, Torres, and any other Bishop that Francyman has decided to give the boot. See, papal infallibility isn't merely a divine play-pretend godmode button, it's a complex and intricate place within theological debate and Vatican hierarchical bureaucratic structure.

Without going into too much of a in-depth explanation, another way to think of papal infallibility is that it's essentially the Holy Roman Catholic version of the President of the United States declaring an executive order that bypasses the Senate. Infallibility is used for similar reasons--it's got a semi-strict set of rules attached to its usage, which means that the Pope is not constantly infallible, but rather that the Pope as God's chosen elect on Earth therefore commands His greatest attention, which allows the Pope direct intercession and communication with God on paths that the Church as a body should walk.

There are usually supposed to be bureaucratic machinations for dethrocking or deposing a bishop, much of which is directly connected to confirming and providing direct evidence for certain crimes that the Holy See would consider too serious to allow him to continue serving in his position. But the Pope is the divinely elected God-Emperor Best Favorite of Oily Josh and his Daddio Self, so generally speaking when it comes to the Pope, there's always the option baked in for him to say "Fuck you I'm the Pope and you're going to do what I say without precedent".

This is the core of the issue for the current Strickland debacle--there might not be hard-and-fast written rules stating that Strickland can be removed from office through traditional means, but Francis doesn't approve of what he's preaching and using his office for since it's causing the minorest of itty-bitty issues with his principled stance of being The Pope That Liberals Might Vaguely Not Hate As Much. So he's functionally exercising a form of papal infallibility by skipping over procedures and etiquette to tell Strickland "Fuck you I'm the Pope and you're going to do what I say without precedent", and Strickland is going "But I thought you would only do that to bishops who belong to brown countries :(", and here we are.

[aspd-culture]

Heya, idk if this is a valid question or is really dumb, but like, does the age at which ASPD behavior starts to show have to be strictly 15?

I have been wondering whether I should get officially diagnosed, since the media and general societal representation of it doesn’t seem as reflecting of me (with exception of a few) but I do relate extremely closely to most of the diagnosing criteria. Although??? The physical aggression thing?? Like I have those impulses and plenty of them, but I just don’t follow through with most because of convenience. That sort of thing is one of the main things that makes me doubt whether I do actually have it. (Same with impulsive behaviors etc)

But my main point/ask is the age thing. As a very young child I was pretty sweet? Ig? Like I wasn’t an aggressive child, rather pretty passive. As far as I recall, my symptoms started when I was about 15-16, when I was starting to process that mine was a traumatic situation? and earlier than that I was just an edgy teen, I guess? I sure had some of the symptons way earlier, but the main ones/ the ones that I feel are more prominent in me didn’t show up until a bit later? I’m not sure. So my question is, does it mean it can’t be ASPD?

Also your page is lifesaving. Thanks man.

Note: due to the way copy and pasting criteria works on tumblr, this post will be written exclusively in plain text, as copying and pasting it all over again would take forever, but I want this post to be accessible still.

I haaaate the way the DSM phrases criteria. Absolutely no worries, it is confusing as heck and you wouldn't be the first person at all to ask about this.

So, the symptoms of Conduct Disorder or Oppositional Defiant Disorder (DSM criteria below) need to show by or before the age of 15. (I do not know if Intermittent Explosive Disorder satisfies this criteria, but it very well may.) That means they may start when you're a toddler, or they may start when you're 14.5. Anywhere in there, you have to qualify for one of those two disorders, but you also do not have to have been diagnosed with them.

Also, having had been an "edgy teen" definitely could have been those symptoms showing themselves. The reason ASPD can't be diagnosed before 18 is because teenage edginess could either be symptoms or be normal, and the only real way to tell is if it continues past teenage and into adulthood.

The diagnostic criteria of Oppostional Defiant Disorder is as follows, quoted from the DSM-V TR:

A. A pattern of angry/iritable mood, argumentative/defiant behavior, or vindictiveness lasting at least 6 months as evidenced by at least four symptoms from any of the following categories, and exhibited during interaction with at least one individual who is not a sibling.

Angry/lrritable Mood

1. Often loses temper

2. Is often touchy or easily annoyed

3. Is often angry and resentful.

Argumentative/Defiant Behavior

4. Often argues with authority figures or, for children and adolescents, with adults.

5. Often actively defies or refuses to comply with requests from authority figures or with rules

6. Often deliberately annoys others

7. Often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior.

Vindictiveness

8. Has been spiteful or vindictive at least twice within the past 6 months

Note: The persistence and frequency of these behaviors should be used to distinguish a behavior that is within normal limits from a behavior that is symptomatic. For children younger than 5 years, the behavior should occur on most days for a period of at least 6 months unless otherwise noted (Criterion A8). For individuals 5 years or older, the behavior should occur at least once per week for at least 6 months, unless otherwise noted (Criterion A8). While these frequency criteria provide guidance on a minimal level of frequency to define symptoms, other factors should also be considered, such as whether the frequency and intensity of the behaviors are outside a range that is normative for the individual's developmental level, gender, and culture.

B. The disturbance in behavior is associated with distress in the individual or others in his or her immediate social context (e.g., family, peer group, work colleagues), or it impacts negatively on social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning

C. The behaviors do not occur exclusively during the course of a psychotic substance use, depressive, or bipolar disorder. Also, the criteria are not met for disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.

[End quote]

Conduct disorder's criteria more clearly shows the lead-in to ASPD.

The diagnostic criteria for Conduct Disorder is as follows, quoted from the DSM-V TR:

A. A repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated, as manifested by the presence of at least three of the following 15 criteria in the past 12 months from any of the categories below, with at least one criterion present in the past 6 months:

Aggression to People and Animals

1. Often bullies, threatens, or intimidates others.

2. Often initiates physical fights.

3. Has used a weapon that can cause serious physical harm to others (e.g., a bat, brick, broken bottle, knife, gun)

4. Has been physically cruel to people

5. Has been physically cruel to animals

6. Has stolen while confronting a victim (e.g., mugging, purse snatching, extortion, armed robbery)

7. Has forced someone into sexual activity

Destruction of Property

8. Has deliberately engaged in fire setting with the intention of causing serious damage.

9. Has deliberately destroyed others' property (other than by fire setting).

Deceitfulness or Theft

10. Has broken into someone else's house, building, or car.

11. Often lies to obtain goods or favors or to avoid obligations (i.e., "cons' others).

12. Has stolen items of nontrivial value without confronting a victim (e.g. shoplifting, but without breaking and entering; forgery)

Serious Violations of Rules

13. Often stays out at night despite parental prohibitions, beginning before age 13 years.

14. Has run away from home overnight at least twice while living in the parental or parental surrogate home, or once without returning for a lengthy period

15. Is often truant from school, beginning before age 13 years

B. The disturbance in behavior causes clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning

C. If the individual is age 18 years or older, criteria are not met for antisocial personality disorder.

[Skipping a bit of the quote which specifies codes for the various ages CD can present. It is worth noting that these are *not* criteria, they are specifications to be noted in the file of the person being diagnosed with conduct disorder to accurately describe their experience. As you'll see, these specifications are flags as to whether a child/teen with conduct disorder should be evaluated for ASPD upon reaching adulthood.]

Specify if:

With limited prosocial emotions: To qualify for this specifier, an individual must have displayed at least two of the following characteristics persistently over at least 12 months and in multiple relationships and settings. These characteristics reflect the individual's typical pattern of interpersonal and emotional functioning over this period and not just occasional occurrences in some situations. Thus, to assess the criteria for the specifier, multiple information sources are necessary. In addition to the individual's self-report, it is necessary to consider reports by others who have known the individual for extended periods of time (e.g., parents, teachers, co-workers, extended family members, peers).

Lack of remorse or guilt: Does not feel bad or guilty when he or she does something wrong (exclude remorse when expressed only when caught and/or facing punishment). The individual shows a general lack of concern about the negative consequences of his or her actions. For example, the individual is not remorseful after hurting someone or does not care about the consequences of breaking rules.

Callous-lack of empathy: Disregards and is unconcerned about the feelings of others. The individual is described as cold and uncaring. The individual appears more concerned about the effects of his or her actions on himself or herself, rather than their effects on others, even when they result in substantial harm to others.

Unconcerned about performance: Does not show concern about poor/problematic performance at school, at work, or in other important activities. The individual does not put forth the effort necessary to perform well, even when expectations are clear, and typically blames others for his or her poor performance.

Shallow or deficient affect: Does not express feelings or show emotions to others, except in ways that seem shallow, insincere, or superficial (e.g. actions contradict the emotion displayed; can turn emotions "on" or "off" quickly) or when emotional expressions are used for gain (e.g., emotions displayed to manipulate or intimidate others).

Specify current severity:

Mild: Few if any conduct problems in excess of those required to make the diagnosis are present, and conduct problems cause relatively minor harm to others (e.g., lying, truancy, staying out after dark without permission, other rule breaking)

Moderate: The number of conduct problems and the effect on others are intermediate between those specified in "mild" and those in "severe" (e.g. stealing without confronting a victim, vandalism)

Severe: Many conduct problems in excess of those required to make the diagnosis are present, or conduct problems cause considerable harm to others (e.g., forced sex, physical cruelty, use of a weapon, stealing while confronting a victim, breaking and entering).

[End of Quote]

As you can see, the criteria required before age 15 is not as intense as many professionals describe it. Remember that you are only required to have shown 3 out of the total 15 criteria in there. There is even a whole specifier for Conduct Disorder that is mild and only includes things like lying, basic rule-breaking, and/or staying out past curfew.

Acts of physical aggression are not actually required for ASPD at all, it's just that many prosocials see that being one of the possible symptoms and fixate on it, thus pushing everyone with ASPD into the box of physical aggresion. You absolutely can have ASPD and never act on any violent thoughts or urges.

I was also a very sweet and passive child, developing most of my externalized ASPD symptoms (rule breaking, disrespectful behavior/actions, challenging authority, etc) around age 13. However, the internal symptoms were there for me much younger - easily bored with poor handling of boredom, lack of empathetic reactions, difficulty apologizing/showing remorse due to not really feeling it, becoming very angry but not showing it, resulting for me in self destructive behaviors like cheek biting or controlled destructive behaviors like breaking something that wouldn't be missed (pencils and pens mostly for me).

Regardless of what symptoms were shown when, symptoms are still symptoms, and if you had enough for Conduct Disorder or Oppositional Defiant Disorder before your 16th birthday, you are well within possibility of having ASPD. Keep in mind that the lying, manipulation, etc that can qualify for Conduct Disorder doesn't have to be grandiose or destructive except where it is explicitly stated in the criteria that it does (such as fire setting only counting for the destruction of property criteria if you meant to damage something with said fire).

It's so easy to count yourself out of ASPD because you don't fit the stereotypes or public perception of ASPD, but I assure you that there are many, many ways something as complex as a personality disorder can show itself.

It is absolutely a great thing, however, that you are covering your bases and making sure to do the research to see if this is what you have. That is the basis of an informed self-dx, should you come to the conclusion that you have ASPD.

Now, as for actually getting diagnosed, your mileage may vary with professionals. Many have bias against pwASPD ingrained into their practice, and won't diagnose you with it even though you have it if you aren't/weren't violent, law-breaking, or if they just think you "seem far too kind to have ASPD" (a real quote a former professional said to me a few months before I was diagnosed by my long-time psychiatrist). This doesn't mean you don't have ASPD. If they can't give you other explanations that make sense, and if their reasons for denying you that diagnosis are based in stigma or anything other than actual criteria, then you are well within your rights to continue being self-dx.

A professional should be able to explain, using criteria, why you don't have a disorder you think you may have. If they're doing their job, they should be willing to explain to you what their reasons are and point you in the direction they think may be causing the symptoms. And no, "just acting like a teenager" isn't good enough if enough symptoms have persisted into adulthood for you to meet the criteria for ASPD.

I hope this helps, apologies for it being so long.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for implying my sister’s a transphobe?

For context: i’m a nonbinary girl and at the time had recently broken up with my trans girlfriend of a year. I also have very different political stances than my sister, which historically makes me very frustrated (she’s a liberal so very into making sure people have rights but never acknowledging the structural problems that cause minority hatred/prejudice).

So my sister and i were playing a videogame together and having a great and fun time. We were switching the game and there was an add for Hogwarts Legacy on her home screen, which we both saw. I genuinely don’t remember who commented on it first. Either i said something like “ugh, please don’t get that godawful game” or she said something like “oh i wanna get/play this game”. Knowing me it was probably the former. A throwaway comment for sure. Either way, that started a little argument between us.

More context: my sister and i both grew up as avid potterheads. I was even more obsessed with it than her, as a lonely middle schooler with no friends, harry potter was my favorite avenue of escapism and basically my main coping method. Which is why i was so devastated when, in 2020, i found out about all the terf shit jkr had been posting and supporting. It felt like losing a close friend, and so it’s a subject around which i have a lot of pain thinking/talking about. But my sister (cishet) usually thinks I’m overreacting. She doesn’t support jkr’s rhetoric but doesn’t think that supporting her or her work monetarily is a bad thing whatsoever. Mainly she believes it simply won’t make a difference to her bottom line.

Anywho, we were arguing about Hogwarts Legacy and how i think that she shouldn’t give jkr any money regardless of how closely she was involved with the production, since she’s getting profit from it regardless. Sister brings up that she’s seen trans people who want to buy and play the game, and that i’m not the authority on the issue. I tell her that the people saying that are not the majority of the community, and that maybe she should listen to the person who’s actually trans and sitting right next to her. She disagrees, and i say “then just don’t call yourself an ally”. I don’t quite remember what she said, but the argument didn’t last long after that.

We continued playing whatever videogame, and then i excused myself to have dinner. When i came back k stopped by her room to share a fun fact, and she confronted me about how much it hurt her that i said she wasn’t an ally. She told me that she had put in real work by taking an intersectionality class in college, and by attending trans rights protests — all of which i’ve never done (mostly because of mental health issues i won’t get into). She was crying and upset, and i told her i was sorry for having that conversation at a bad time, and for how i phrased my thoughts, but that i didn’t take back what i said about her not being an ally and to say i was would be lying. I didn’t say much more because i saw how upset she was and didn’t think that was a good time to argue about my opinions - so we decided to talk about it later when she was calmer.

I still haven’t started that conversation because i haven’t decided if what i said was unnecessary and made me an asshole, or if what i said was justified and she needed to hear it. It’s been a few months now and we’re both back in college and living hours away from each other in different countries.

So, tumblr, AITA?

What are these acronyms?

[feybeasts]

“This doesn’t matter” is one of the most misunderstood coping statements in the English language. Co-opted by dimestore nihilists to throw up their hands in defeat, by pessimistic souses to throw things they cannot or do not wish to understand into the same pile of meaninglessness, it has become the stock phrase of the bitter, the feckless, the jaded.

But what if I told you such definitions are inherently wrongheaded? What if I told you that “This doesn’t matter” is, in fact, a phrase that can help organize your thoughts, quiet your fears, help you live with a world that is often loud and distressingly complex?

You see, it comes down to one of the peculiarities of the human mind. This particular peculiarity, both in the lives of the neurotypical and in my particularly frustrating autistic brain, is such; we like to define things.

No, that’s not too strong a statement- we NEED to define things, at least, that’s what our pattern-seeking lizard brainstems tell us. Everything must be understood, categorized, sorted and solved. There can BE no unanswered questions, there can BE no open statements. Either something is solved, or it’s an aggravating and stressful mystery, and it is in the latter case that, I hope, I can help to enlighten you to the great value in “this doesn’t matter”.

To give an example for our means- there’s a good post out there showing a map of the world where the south pole is up top. Now, for those of you who have been through the public education system in the US, I think you can feel the immediate thought that springs into your head on hearing that- “well, THAT isn’t right! The north is up!”

I know some of you, however- let’s be real, this is Tumblr- MOST of you answer that first statement in your own heads- or perhaps aloud- with a second, more “correct” statement: “No, it’s wrong because there’s no ‘up’ and ‘down’ in space.”

And while this point can be argued against the former, with both sides on that post bringing up all sorts of arguments about why the maps are the way they are or which projection is more correct, here’s where I arrived:

“Oh, it doesn’t matter”

This is not, as so often the statement is used, me dismissing the points being made on both sides, playing the devil’s advocate, or everyone’s favorite strawman, the “moderate.” No, the reason I think this, and the reason I talk about it here, is because that’s the point I think the south-up map makes, and that other posters made later in the thread when they shared other projections.

It doesn’t matter because as long as the map is correct and readable, its orientation is meaningless. It doesn’t matter which end is up, because it’s correct regardless. And that. THAT. Is where “it doesn’t matter” is such a powerful statement- it isn’t a dismissal of an argument or the sides taken, it is a reminder to yourself that the argument, the very human need to find the “right answer” is invalid in that case- the answer doesn’t matter because it’s not a question with one answer.

It is complex, it is variable depending on perspective.

It doesn’t matter.

And there it is, friends- the key to so very many things, so many arguments, so many complex issues- it doesn’t matter not because it has no answer or nobody has the “right” answer, but because to “answer” it is unimportant in relation to simply finding the perspective that works best for you.

When you can identify those situations, when you can look at something complex and subjective and see past the arguments and the shouting matches and the diatribes, you are free of that instinctual need to “solve” it.

You realize the answer to the question your lizard brain is posing, the category it fits, is that “It doesn’t matter”

And that, friends, is often an answer in itself.

In life, in love, in identity, in philosophy, your answer to the question is often just as much your own as someone else’s answer is theirs. The question of who is right, the puzzle of who has the “correct” take on it is meaningless, it’s not a question at all, because there isn’t a right one, only a million little arguments that do nothing at all but to hurt people by having them.

Sometimes, all you need to do is look at that “question” and tell yourself “Oh. It doesn’t matter. I just have to love them anyways.”

And when you do that? Well… you can devote a lot more of yourself to the things that matter the most. 💖

[mojoflower]

heyy there, im new to tumblr & i was learning to use it & ur post introducing people to tumblr came up and i read it. i just have a question, i read somewhere else that it is not welcome to disagree/argue w someone in my reblog of their post. say someone idk posts ab t swift & matty healy (controversial topic) & i reblog disagreeing, would that be seen as improper etiquette, as just spreading negativity? sry for the random q but u seem like u'd know. u can msg me to answer if u'd rather <3

Hello, @ashtraygrrrl and welcome! I'm glad that my post was helpful, what a lovely thing to hear.

We so happy to have you, and thanks for asking about things when you're unsure.

What you're talking about here is called (not-so-fondly) 'hijacking a post'. That can mean either using your re-blog to attack the OP (Original Poster)'s post or using your re-blog to just... say something completely unrelated. In either of these cases, if the hijack takes off, the OP is suddenly in the wildly upsetting position of getting hammered with potentially vicious reblogs that become totally out of their control. And that's a cruel thing to do to someone.

If you need to make your counter-argument, then use your own original post to do so, and tag it appropriately, so that the people who are interested can find it. (This does NOT mean tagging the OP.)

Now use your judgement, of course. The OP might be a mutual and y'all might have the kind of rapport where this is perfectly fine. Or you might be on a 'Yes, and' post where your random detour is appropriate and appreciated.

Mostly, just remember that you don't know anything about the OP, and err on the side of kindness. Then, hopefully, the community will treat you in the same way, and Tumblr stays fun and inclusive rather than toxic.

A good rule of thumb is to treat posts (whether they be random thoughts, art, fic, meta, etc.) like dishes at a potluck. If you don't like it, you don't shout about it, make a scene and cause that cook feel terrible... you just move on and sample the next one.

Remember to liberally use the 'Block' feature. It doesn't hurt anyone to do so (the blocked person/tag/phrase never even knows it) and helps your blood pressure and enjoyment.

[wizardnuke]

im talking about the essay grade again and i got off topic and started talking about the lit analysis potential inthe vast majority of fanfictionbjust. Ignore

i feel like it's such a humblebrag for me to be like "i don't understand how i continually get really good grades in english" because i understand objectively that 1) i am very good at analysis and/or. finding quotes to support whatever the fuck thesis i decided would be easy to support (see: "good at analysis") (i think i honestly just randomly hit the jackpot on "good thesis" but on god i just looked at macbeth and gawain respectively and was like Ah. Women's Wrongs. Easy Peasy) and 2) i know from looking at other people's essays that i am just kind of. marginally-to-a-lot better at grammar and phrasing/understand the very specific madlibs-style layout i have to use and what vocabulary that i need to be putting out. it's madlibs. there's a really technical and specific layout that needs to be followed and i just kind of follow it. it's not hard. it is boring. if i could write academic papers on the shit i'm actually interested in they'd be worthless because it's niche and/or wild tumblr user conjecture. anyone who seriously writes on. hold on i need to generate a thesis. "the cyclic nature of abuse and its direct correlation to homoeroticism in cn's supernatural" could u fucking imagine. that's hilarious. that's some hackjob shit no matter how well i could keep a straight face on the matter because all that people care about is Old Shit. i have no real vested interest in actual literary works beyond "they're important and better than people think". i have extremely strong feelings on a lot of modern works, generally movies and shows and niche dnd webshows, i cannot make a career in that shit, my english prof thinks fanfic is bullshit and i see where he's coming from! i don't think it's bullshit. but. the academic perspective on fanfiction is like "they're not making original work" because the setting/adjacent themes and characters r lifted from another work and there's no real originality in it except that the best fics i've read are like.. an alternate form of literary analysis that is so far from actual essay writing that it's unrecognizable. but people can see the themes and the motifs and rehash them in a way that is absolutely a kind of analysis of the original work, but with flourishes and new ideas and batshit choices that the og media either couldn't make/didn't feel like making/tentacle sex wasn't really thematically fitting but an author decided "hey what if i put themes into this consentacles fic" and like, i want to argue that that's legit. sometimes. but i am not going to do that bc i sound objectively insane and also sometimes it is just not that deep and that will be brought up as an argument and i just don't care enough to explain that it's still an art form even if it's not that deep. is "fun and funky fresh" not a common motivator. if "new interpretations" of works like shakespeare and shit where they plunk the characters into a modern setting and fuck with the phrasing is seen as a viable art form/type of analysis then fanfic is an art form/analysis adjacent to that. not all of it though. some of it is something else that is worse. not that i think that is in itself bad. fanfic is a hobby. can't make a career out of that. but people have made careers out of that by changing the names and setting and publishing books. and that's viable apparently. i just personally am insane and enjoy writing very serious and/or emotionally driven meta on dnd shows. i like themes and motifs and i think that while a quickly written meta post on the tragedy inherent in redemption arcs that hit 50k is absolutely not as academically sound as a cited paper on a similar subject, there's Something To It and there's got to be some kind of potential in it. i like stories. idk if i could make a living out of talking about stories especially from the insane angle that i tend to hit stories at. the possibility of making it a genuine career is driven down below ground after i take into consideration my insanity about modern stories vs my neutrality on older ones. what am i talking abt. bf is yelling for me bye

[edwardseymour]

2, 3, 10, 12, & 13 😈

🔥 choose violence ask game 🔥

2. a compelling argument for why your fave would never top or bottom

katherine howard stands out in basically all of her relationships as dominant/forthright in what she wants, with a sharp turn of phrase that suggests that while flirtations were fun for her, she had a capability to be mean when she willed it. she comes across as genuinely charming and charismatic, with a consistent attentiveness, but she also reliably has an edge to her in her relationships — she was arguably callous with dereham, and criticised culpeper repeatedly while also mocking bess harvey. i don’t generally like the way g.russell talks about her wrt her relationships, but i do like the way he described katherine as proud and proud and enjoying “one-upmanship in her flirtations”. do with that what you will.

3. screenshot or description of the worst take you ve seen on tumblr

not going to screenshot but there are soo many that are frankly baffling. the first to come to mind is the claim that poor henry viii must’ve been so offended by coa and her camp publicly dragging his baby brother’s name through the mud/throwing arthur under the bus. which begs the question: what, exactly, prompted coa to do that, pray tell? i really would love to know! very wilfully obtuse considering she was called to discuss the validity of her first marriage because henry viii disregarded the dispensation from the pope, and (arguably unnecessarily) made consummation a fundamental point of contention in annulling her second. that's on him. frankly, the whole ‘she used arthur’ argument really relies on an assumption that coa was lying about her sexual history when it suited her — as opposed to her being forced to once more defend her honour. (i guess it’s not surprising seeing as i have also seen posts insinuating that she had an inappropriate relationship with her confessor). moreover, why should we care if she was lying, or if she used arthur? atp, everyone involved is bones, and personally, i don’t give a single solitary shit if her defending herself denied henry from having a male heir, because monarchy is actually bullshit ❤️ it’s definitely not the worst but it’s so stupid and so funny to me.

10. worst part of fanon

the white feminism (read as: racism) lol.

this answer is definitely prompted by trastamara fandom’s disregard for poc/iberian muslims, but to bring it back to the tudors (and because i am dedicated to e1 stans catching strays) whatever the fuck certain elizabeth i stans have going on is rancid. the whole argument about whether or not elizabeth i should be held accountable for funding three slaving voyages was a profoundly bleak period in fandom, and seeing someone argue that it was “only three slave ships”… well. i hate it here, i absolutely hate it here.

12. the unpopular character that you actually like and why more people should like them

i don’t know if he counts as unpopular, but he’s not popular and the level of vitriol aimed at him relative to actual surviving historical fact makes me want to say henry vii, to be honest? the man was fascinating and generally successful in a way others compared against him (r3, h8) can’t always claim to be. regardless of whether or not people like him, how strongly some people hate him is wild. i’ve seen people claim he “inherited his rapist tendencies from his father” — an insane thing to say, not least because there is no evidence of rape connected to him. it just exposes the terminal brainworms and cringe that ricardians and h8 stans have… sad sad tears of a clown, truly. the fact that pointing out the very real, repeatedly historically recorded trend of calling henry vii ‘y daroganwr’ in multiple awdls got dismissed as “lionising” him… genuinely think people who actively dislike henry vii are stupid, end of discussion.

13. worst blorboficiation

at the moment, eustace chapuys is coming to mind. the tudors making him this sort of paternal figure, and moral crusader fighting for mary (and coa) was well done — but wildly inaccurate. the fact that his misogyny shapes and colours our perception of the tudor court world really must be recognised. if nothing else, i think recognising chapuys as a flawed, inconsistent and hypocritical figure makes him significantly more interesting. this is the man who belligerently called anne boleyn a whore, “concubine”, and the “english messalina”, and dismissed elizabeth as a bastard — to the point of having egregiously violent fantasies about them — whilst having an illegitimate son, himself. it’s very difficult to read his dispatches (many of which are often easily disproven and full of erroneous claims) and not be struck by the constant stream of potent and constant misogyny.

[nicolemossmer]

The Bourriaud and Gergel readings assigned this week really made me think about ownership and copyright within art and other industries. It became apparent to me that the way that industries view what is considered copyright varies significantly. For example, the Gergel reading discusses Richard Prince, who controversially took screenshots of public account’s Instagram posts and printed them out for profit without their consent or significant alteration to the images. This has been seen as controversial. Yet, in the music industry artists commonly “sample” music from other songs. This is most commonly done in the rap industry. In fact, some sub genres of music within EDM are entirely dedicated to only using prior created music. 

But if we were to compare this to writing this would be an entirely different story. I am writing this post after several other people in my class have already submitted their responses to Tumblr. If I were to copy and paste the response of my classmate, but I changed the font color and added a funny catch phrase at the bottom I would likely be given a stern warning. If I did it again, I might even be sent to the Office of Community Standards and if I continued to do so I could be suspended from the school. But in artistry, there seems to be a gray area for this. From my observations, it appears that the industry tends to favor the “copier” rather than the “original creator.” While some theorists like Bourriaud argue that, “The material they manipulate is no longer primary,” artists like Richard Prince are still able to profit and gain notoriety off of their work (Bourriaud, 7). There are few repercussions within the industry to regulate this. 

Thinking about this more I realized the issue in the art industry. Rap music is able to get away with sampling music because it is done openly and rappers rarely claim a sample as their own. In my example of writing a response above, I could be exempt from any honor code violation if I were to cite my source properly. So long as I do not claim the work to be mine and I correctly name the original creator, then society seems to almost always deem this as okay. I think that this is where art needs to draw the line. Consent and citations are critical for the “reproduction” of art to be ethical. Gergel underscores the former aspect and points out that, “while copyright law concerns the rights of the owner, what about the rights of the subject?” Art has not only offered little protections for creators but also has failed in many ways to protect the rights of the subjects of materials. Issues of this can also be found in Richard Prince’s Instagram artworks.

For my Tumblr share this week I chose to share a comic that discusses plagiarism. In it, the little boy is asking how to cite a source in his paper to an adult who notices that several of the pages of his paper are copied entirely. The adult explains that it is “plagiarism unless you put it in your words,” to which the boy replies, “I did. By coincidence they are exactly the same.” I felt that this comic fits so perfectly into the discussion of whether reproduction of another should be considered not as “plagiarism.” The child’s response to the adult’s concerns feels like the response that many artists would give after being confronted about reproduction in artwork. I think that it points to Bourriaud’s argument that like the boy’s paper, reproduced art forms are no longer “primary” or “original” pieces of art. They are derived and sometimes directly copied from prior work and as such I believe should be cited and give credit to the original creator.  

[faustocosgrove]

Lawn People

i think i’ve read this book before, but i also remember thinking that last time i read this book, so either this is the third time i’ve read this book or else i’ve got echoing deja vu.

Of all the “science books written for the general public” I’ve cracked open this is the driest. It’s also got the least amount of new information. i mean, compared to the tumblr anti lawn post that i got this book recommended from the book does in fact have like, data. but there’s just so much reiteration of like, things anyone who has to interact with lawns would know. and like that makes sense because it’s written scientifically, but the intended audience is people who have to interact with lawns. like there’s no camaraderie between the author as a lawn person and the audience as lawn people.

okay, this is going to be a really really bad comparison, but in the introduction of Braiding Sweetgrass Robin Wall Kimmerer shares a story of her teaching and all the white kids in her class were unable to come up with a positive interaction between humans and nature. and me, as a white person, also could not come up with a positive interaction between humans and nature. and then Kimmerer spends the rest of the book essentially teaching the audience A) some positive interactions between humans and nature in like a factual rote memorization level but also B) smacking the idea of “humans are evil and only hurt the environment” out of your noggin to make space for the mindset that positive interactions are possible and and active thing you can like go do.

i don’t think immersion is the right word but like i feel like i was a part of the world which is a phrase normally reserved for fantasy writing and i mean Kimmerer is literally writing about reality - Earth, the planet i’m currently sitting my butt on. but Lawn People takes the scientific sterile approach and it’s kind of asking you, the reader to take yourself out of your own lawn mindset and just look at the data. But like, Lawn People is also kind of arguing that the ideal “American Lawn” has negative consequences, but the ideal “American Lawn” is something that people only do in like the suburbs or those city people who move to the country and cosplay as cowboys and drive shiny pick up trucks. So there’s a class element and I am not part of that class. But it also doesn’t argue any effective way for me as a non “American Lawn” person to smack some sense into someone who dumps chemicals on their lawn for fear of a dandelion. Heck, it doesn’t really make much of an argument to people who live in suburbs who are currently dumping chemicals for how to get out of the chemical loop, since the book acknowledges that lawn chemical appliers statistically know more about the health hazards of lawn chemicals than a non “American Lawn” haver.

[beamloaddirective]

B01: Why I Write

Title: Why I Write Author: George Orwell History: Found at a library sale in October

If my piece on Chuck Klosterman’s “The Nineties” from last year indicates anything, it is that I have little sense of how to write about books in a non-academic essay sense. I am not in the habit of reading book reviews outside of those published in journals (maybe that’s a habit I should get into. Come to think of it, I’m not in the habit of reading reviews of any medium at the moment. Maybe that’s another habit I should get into.) Forgive me if I’m shaky to start out with here.

Orwell is a writer with whom I have limited experience. I wasn’t in the classes that read 1984 and did the whole accompanying ‘Big Brother is Watching’ game in high school, and I know that I own a copy of and at least at some point started reading a collection of his essays (it’s in my huge stack of books in the profile picture) sometime since the start of college, mainly because I read his essay on being in boarding school in a narrative essay collection I was assigned for one of my creative nonfiction classes back in college. I was struck then by how much weight and complexity he could infuse into the emotional experience surrounding wetting oneself as a youth, and that’s been my primary memory of his work as a writer and a thinker to this point, a fact which I’m sure he’d be happy to know.

This collection features a few essays written in the 1940s, mostly discursive/argumentative essays about England’s cultural existence, England’s place in World War II and Europe, socialism, and patriotism. 

Orwell is refreshingly straightforward. He dictates in the collection’s last essay, “Politics and the English Language,” that he values precision highly, and it’s reflected in each of these. We might call him “brutally honest” nowadays, or more accurately ten years ago we might’ve called him that, back when that tendency was seen as a genuine virtue and not an annoying front for callousness, i.e. back when we used that phrase without scare quotes. He’s so adept at stating or defining something precisely in a single sentence and building off of it. It makes me miss teaching, I want to use his essays to illustrate the value of a good thesis statement. A great example was in Part II of “The Lion and the Unicorn” – 

What this war has demonstrated is that private capitalism – that is, an economic system in which land, factories, mines and transport are owned privately and operated solely for profit – does not work.

Which is gorgeous as a thesis statement. Orwell states his argument and defines the main term of the argument precisely before elaborating. He states this, he states the claims which build up the argument, the reader can agree, disagree, be enlightened, be disgusted, whatever, but there’s no kvetching to it. Especially in comparison to so much editorial writing I’ve read recently, I liked reading a man confidently (and competently) state his argument the way that Orwell did here. I couldn’t immediately think of who Orwell’s writing is contrasted with in my mind here, but as I write this reflection, I keep thinking of reading The Athletic’s college football columns during the first half of this season before I realized I hated each of the primary columnists, and I might even be thinking of lengthy Tumblr and Reddit posts by non-professional writers. That is probably the answer: I don’t seek out enough good writers to begin with. It’s my own fault that I dislike so much of the writing I read. I know where I can find good writing, or at least I know where I keep finding the type of writing that makes me want to grind my knuckles into the desk in front of me until I hit the bone, and yet I often choose the latter.

Orwell’s opinions do not align so neatly into modern defined scaffolding. He’s a socialist and an imperialist and he values patriotism. Through modern eyes these immediately struck me as contradictory opinions, but he argues precisely and thoroughly. His argument about England continuing to occupy India reminded me of contemporary arguments on the American presence in the Middle East, but I came around to his argument on patriotism’s role in getting a mass of people on board with a broader mission. The one thing I envy about him writing in that era (and I mean the one thing. I don’t envy him writing that with airstrikes landing in the streets around him) is that achieving his ideological mission seemed much simpler and more feasible in his era. In a much less connected world, the list of simple steps he lays out for his socialist vision struck me as feasible, and some of those steps around state ownership seemed to have come to fruition in the UK. I don’t envy the modern socialist rhetorician, as a pragmatic approach like Orwell lays out feels difficult in such a complex and interconnected world. 

I should clarify that the depth of my knowledge around these topics during Orwell’s era is limited if that isn’t already clear.

I appreciated Orwell’s criticisms of his contemporaries, even if I didn’t know who he was specifically criticizing. There was something fun about reading criticisms that I could imagine a modern writer like Freddie DeBoer or Max Read making towards similar groups in a Substack post – The middle and upper management classes are built on nepotism and are fundamentally incompetent. The intellectuals are annoying and so stuck in idealism that they’re functionally useless. I read criticisms like this all the time from modern cultural critics. That was maybe the most interesting aspect of reading this book: How many of his criticisms have reflections in the modern day. 

I’ll end on my favorite section (fitting given my profession), “Politics and the English Language.” I like that he succinctly lays out his main criticisms with contemporary writing: “The first is staleness of imagery: the other is lack of precision.” His complaints on staleness touched on something that frustrates me about modern writing as well. I think of my frustrations with reading Defector, a site whose mission as a sports-based subscriber-funded cooperative I admire but whose writers I dislike reading because of these sort of rhetorical handrails they hold on to, so many of them adopted from old tweets (‘it’s good, actually’ or ‘you can have a little whatever, as a treat’ or ‘types of guys’), which were grating to me initially (and clearly aren’t to their reader-base) and only grew annoying as time and language has progressed. It’s a champagne problem that the people on my side politically write in a way I find annoying, but it’s pushed me to try to write differently myself. Orwell credits this to an innate issue with writing under any orthodoxy. 

The conflict between he and I (and my central criticism of my own writing at the moment, though I have so much fun doing it that I don’t want to stop it) comes from an inability to be precise and direct in much of my work. I’ve worked on it in this post, I don’t know if it’s come through. Precision, in political writing, or even just in basic argumentative writing, has significant benefits, but I’m fine as it stands with my creative essays leaning purple. Once I get the final Football Hell essay published, I might try to take these lessons into account.

What I want to take from this work comes from this passage:

A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?

I hope to make asking these questions into a habit going forward.

[hua-fei-hua]

the main reason i don’t take “i’m a native speaker of the source language” as the be-all, end-all for translation arguments in fandom specifically (as in, between fans who are not professional or even hobbyist translators) is bc, well. sometimes.......... native speakers............ are bad at their own language, too.

[kenobster]

Using the gracious example provided by @sou-kiva, I find that people who are anti-anakin tend to make arguments that (1) appeal to one's emotion with a nefarious (and often puritanical) agenda; (2) misrepresent or flat-out act in bad faith against alternative opinions; and (3) focus their best argument on the most irrelevant parts of the discussion to conceal their lack of supporting evidence.

Interestingly, sou-kiva's argument utilizes pathos almost exclusively, even though the post she's arguing with is operating (hopefully) via logos (in relation to the analysis of a narrative). Throughout her post, sou-kiva's points consist of a diction, subject matter, and style that are meant to evoke strong emotion in the reader and blind them to the actual logistics of what is being said.

Even her very first statement (aka "Anakin is an abusive, fascist murderer who [sic] had already fallen by [the time of] the Tusken massacre") strikes a tone with the word "fascist" (and to a lesser extent with "abusive" and "murderer"). Accusing things (yes "things" because Anakin is a character, a narrative element, a thing, not a person) of being fascist has become tumblr's way of uniting like-minded users against acts of injustice against marginalized people in the real world and has erupted lately into an emotional bandwagon with little fact-checking or sources. Whether in support of the term or against it, I think any long-time tumblr user is familiar with the evocative nature of the term at this point. However, in her post, sou-kiva does not elaborate on why she is using the term "fascist" to describe Anakin. She neither defines nor backs this opinion with any kind of supporting evidence, which implies her use of the term is for its shock value rather than its accuracy. (Coming soon at a blog near you: Why Anakin is not a Fascist... but this is beside the point.)

Other examples of sou-kiva's pathos include:

"you don't MURDER KIDS!!!"

First, Anakin is a murderer of Tuskens and Jedi, not children. Some of the Tuskens and Jedi were children, yes, but far from all of them were. Murdering children purely for being children was never Anakin's intention. In fact, singling the children out of his lengthy list of victims misrepresents his true motivations. At worst, it aligns with the sexist, queerphobic, and racist agendas of puritanical witch-hunting campaigns.

Second, the fact that this emotionally evocative phrase is put in all caps is not lost on me. The capitalization implies a judgment beyond the narrative scope of my post, and levels a subtle accusation onto any person who disagrees with sou-kiva. In other words, she is implying such a person is in need of an extra reminder on how "murdering children" is not okay (two extra reminders actually, the second being the exclamation points). At the very least, the capitalization is an immediate emotional signpost with little argumentative merit.



"he emotionally blackmailed, gaslight & threatened [Padme] ONSCREEN"

Again, hot-button words (i.e. "emotionally blackmailed" and "gaslit") that any long-term tumblr user will recognize as evocative. Interestingly, the use of all caps here has almost the opposite effect as above. In the previous example, capitalization is used to invoke horror and, thus, draw more attention. In this example, however, the capitalization is applied to a fairly innocuous word (onscreen as opposed to what? onscreen is already an assumption when discussing Star Wars). This is sou-kiva's way of concealing the fact that she has little supporting evidence. Examples, quotes, screenshots, etc. would all give a more rational emphasis to the word "onscreen." Capitalizing "onscreen" only grants the word an emotional emphasis--which makes it transparently absent of factual support. Thus, the words "emotionally blackmailed" and "gaslit" become even more suspicious.



Another interesting observation about sou-kiva's argument (which I've already briefly spoken on) is how she oversimplifies or straight-up misrepresents my arguments or their context. There are many examples, but I would like to suggest the three most notable ones.

"You don't deny that the Jedi genocide was a tragedy... so that's some credit to you. But claiming that Anakin was not at fault... is something I can't get behind. Not after the children lay dead in their beds. Not after the elderly [were] shot in the halls. Not after the protectors of the innocent were murdered..."

This one is the worst offenders lmao. First of all, (unless you've caught me running around Charlottesville with a torch or some such,) saying my opinion on genocide does "some credit to me" is a wildly inappropriate thing to say to a stranger. Even though it looks like a net positive, sou-kiva (by unnecessarily raising the subject at all) has actually shed doubt upon my character. It's a similar technique that a lawyer in a movie might use--asking a question, even if the judge overrules, simply to make the jury think about the answer. In other words, no one reads the statement "OP's opinion on genocide does some credit to them" without also wondering why OP's opinion on genocide was a point of contention at all.

Second of all, sou-kiva paints a very clever black-and-white dichotomy here. On one side, she explicitly equates "claiming Anakin is not at fault" (don't think I didn't notice the connotation of the word "claim" btw) to "(potentially) supporting genocide." She does this without giving any reasoning behind how those two things are connected. On the other side of her dichotomy, she promotes moral rectitude by saying how she not only won't agree with the previous opinion but that she can't. As if it's a physical impossibility for anyone who is a Good Person™ to pick any side other than hers (which is why I am only granted "some" credit.)

Worst of all, she takes this flawed dichotomy and attributes terrible imagery to the side she has staked my opinion on. By "claiming" Anakin isn't to blame (which I never did btw but more on that in a second), I have now aligned myself with the image of children lying dead in their beds. I am now someone who doesn't care if the elderly were shot in the halls or if protectors of the innocent are murdered. In sou-kiva's world, if someone "claims" Anakin isn't to blame (or apparently even if they don't claim that), then they not only become a supporter of genocide but they are also complicit in the image of literal dead children, shot elders, and murdered innocents. Yeah, now that's sure as hell not a huge emotional incentive to agree with her or else, amirite?

Narrative scope. Many of her rebukes stem from opinions she supports from evidence in TCW. The very first line of my original post, however, already narrowed the discussion to the prequel trilogy movies only ("The thing about Anakin (in prequel trilogy movies)..."). The only time my post ever veers from a discussion of the prequel trilogy alone is when I briefly discuss the original trilogy near the end. I deliberately never brought up TCW or even the ROTS novelization (which is something that would have actually enhanced my argument) because of how narrowly I wanted to define my subject matter. To include TCW would be like writing a thesis for a master's degree, nty.

Because of my decision to focus on those specific movies, sou-kiva's choice to use evidence outside of the prequel trilogy is an act of bad faith. While I would absolutely stand by my argument in TCW, my original post did not factor TCW in at all; thus, I never got to present my supporting evidence for TCW--which sou-kiva took full advantage of. When arguing against a thesis (unless you have a very good reason), you must refute facts within the scope that OP defined. Sou-kiva argued against my thesis with evidence existing outside of my scope... which is not only like having a completely different discussion than the one I'm having... but it also implies sou-kiva failed to find any contrary evidence within my scope (or in other words, within the prequel trilogy). If I had been allowed the time and space to support my thesis in the scope of TCW, then I wonder if she would be faced with a similar lack of evidence to refute me.



Responsibility or who is to blame. As mentioned earlier, sou-kiva regularly asserts that I claimed Anakin is not responsible for his actions; however, this is not an opinion my original post ever contained. For the sand people massacre, I explicitly blame Anakin for his actions in the line "it is his choice." On top of this, I'd like to point out that sou-kiva spends a great deal of time arguing about whether Anakin feels "remorse" for the sand people massacre; how can I possibly argue Anakin felt remorse for something that I'm simultaneously arguing he isn't responsible for, I wonder?

For the Jedi massacre, I could argue that the lines "executor of such horrific violence" and "commits terrible crimes" are evidence of whom I deem worthy of blame--but the subject disinterests me and would simply be contributing to sou-kiva's bad faith tactics. As described above, sou-kiva establishes a dichotomy of "blaming" versus "not blaming" Anakin, which misrepresents my argument entirely. My argument does not support one stance or another. In fact, it chooses a secret third stance in the following line: "Who is to blame is such a boring, irrelevant question when we have such a fascinating character." In other words, the point is that I don't care whether Anakin is to blame or not. I could not give one single shit if you held a gun to my head, my friends. ;)

My refusal to either ask or answer the question was an extremely deliberate decision on my part. There are a few reasons behind this decision (including in protest of the trend that ignores (or insists on) fictional dehumanizing acts of violence/abuse/etc committed against a villain simply because they are a villain... which applies to quite a lot of sou-kiva's argument and gives me huge concerns about her character.... but this is an intense subject for some other time), but I'll go with the simplest. If you have to ask who is to blame in a narrative, then you have already failed English/Storytelling/Reading Comprehension 101. The narrative doesn't care who is to blame. The narrative cares how Anakin feels about it, how Obi-Wan feels about it, how Palpatine feels about it, how Padme feels about it, etc. I refuse to answer questions about whether/how much I blame Anakin for the fall of the Jedi because (unless we're reading Crime & Punishment or some shit... and even then tbh), it's irrelevant and non-constructive to a discussion of the story itself. Which leads me to my next point...



Finally, sou-kiva's argument is only at its best when it is arguing with the irrelevant and broader points of my post, likely because she is unwilling or unable to risk arguing with the points I made that do cite examples. This gives her argument the illusion of looking stronger because it seems like she's pointing out a lot of holes. In actuality, however, (1) the key points of my thesis were not really argued with at all; thus, my thesis still stands with or without the irrelevant/broader statements... and (2) unfortunately for sou-kiva, my anxiety would never allow me to make a public post on tumblr(dot)com unless I could think of supporting evidence for every single one of my statements. So, for funsies, I thought I could rectify these "holes" right now. :)

Narrative elements. Another time sou-kiva misrepresents my argument is when she uses the evocative imagery of Anakin's murders (dead children, shot elders, etc.) to imply that one should not feel sad for the "poor little uwu baby." In other words, sou-kiva does not feel compassion for Anakin because she feels a greater and more overwhelming compassion for the characters which Anakin slaughtered. That is a fair feeling to have. I have no problem with that. However, sou-kiva's argument is operating under the assumption that everyone should experience the same feeling that she did while watching the prequel trilogy and that everyone should feel no empathy for Anakin as a result. This is an unfair expectation because everyone has different experiences and will connect with different things while watching the prequel trilogy. It's also a wildly incorrect expectation (at least based on the amount of Anakin fans in existence).

In my original post, I state the following: "because it’s fiction (aka the victims of his actions are narrative elements, not people), I’m allowed to feel unashamedly devastated for him." If Anakin and his victims were people and not narrative elements, prioritizing Anakin's feelings over his victims' feelings would be a terrible thing to do. However, that is exactly why fiction exists--to isolate pieces of human nature into a sandbox and examine them and contemplate them and relate to them. It's an innovative activity that breeds an increase in empathy, not a decrease. Anakin's crimes are entirely victimless. I do grieve for the Jedi, yes--but the Jedi are not actual victims. They're characters. They are no more real than Anakin himself is. Thus, if I feel bad for Anakin, that does not make me a proponent of murder. In this safe, narrative space, I am allowed to explore my compassion for him and the ways I relate to him without worry of any harm that can come from it.

Sou-kiva paints people who feel this way for a fictional killer as misguided/apathetic/complicit in fictional murder. It's not only a flawed argument itself; it's also a misrepresentation of my argument. I am arguing that the very nature of a narrative allows the audience to feel bad for both killer and victim, not just one or the other. The statement "you should feel bad for victims of genocide" is not a good-faith argument against a point claiming that characters are not victims at all. To truly argue against my feelings for Anakin and the Jedi, sou-kiva would first have to argue that characters are people. And that is an argument that I don't think can be made.

(Note: Any argument that falls under the emotional evocative or bad faith category is going to get discarded because it's already trash. Only valid arguments will be considered here.)

"You also claim that he's a 'good person by default.' ...how?"

So glad you asked! Here you go:

The entire premise of TPM: to recap, Anakin, a nine-year-old boy, offered to risk his life by competing in a dangerous podrace and put his well-being into jeopardy by lying to his slave-master, and all to help several strangers he'd never met before, even with the clear understanding that he would receive no reward in return. The epitome of a good and selfless act.

In TPM: "Mom, you've always said the biggest problem in this universe is that nobody helps each other," Anakin says as an in-universe reminder to his mom to persuade him to let him do the above.... and as an out-of-universe statement by the author to show that this is one of Anakin's core principles.

In TPM, Anakin's life dream is a wish to free all the slaves (selfless because he wishes this even after he is freed).

In TPM, Anakin built a droid to help his mom with housework. This was his creation, but he still left this droid to help his mom after he left.

In TPM, Anakin met Qui-Gon & co because he was helping Jar Jar Binks escape an escalating situation with a madman despite no promise of reward. (This was before he knew Qui-Gon was a Jedi, too... Would you have helped Jar Jar Binks? Idk that I would have lol.)

In TPM, Anakin saves Qui-Gon & co from a sandstorm by bringing them to his home, even though they never ask or expect him to do so. He's just persistently looking out for them.

In AOTC, Obi-Wan confirms that Anakin rescued him from a Gundark pit.

In AOTC, Anakin does not murder/dismember/kill Watto... I think he should. As a treat.

In AOTC, Anakin is having a very hormonal teenage crisis. It happens to the best of us.

In ROTS, Anakin is stressed about the lives of clones being lost in the starfighter battle and wants to help them. He says, "I'm going to go help them out." Obi-Wan rightly convinces him not to for the greater good of the mission, but even then, Anakin clearly mourns the opportunity to help save lives.

In ROTS, Anakin takes great personal risk to save Obi-Wan from buzz droids.

In ROTS, Anakin rescues the Chancellor all while carrying Obi-Wan unconscious on his back (even though the Chancellor tells him not to). In fact, Obi-Wan confirms upwards of nine examples of times Anakin saved his life.

In ROTS, despite the fact that Anakin has every reason to flip the fuck out about becoming a father, Anakin makes the correct choice to reassure his pregnant wife that everything will be okay and that he wants this baby.

The whole reason Anakin is frustrated with the Senate in both AOTC and ROTS is because they have demonstrated a sluggishly slow and ineffective pace to help people. Anakin's wish for a more powerful leader to make decisions stems from his desire for people to be helped.

In ROTJ, Anakin is willing to do whatever it takes to save his son, even if it results in his own death.

"You claim that he 'listens for feedback [and asks] for advice'. But he doesn't. When we see him talk to say, Yoda, about his visions, he gives some half-hearted claim about having 'dreams'. How was Yoda to know that he meant visions? You also say that he 'tries to improve when he realizes he's wrong'. Oh, he apologises, but how often does he actually improve, grow & learn from his mistakes?" (emphasis added)

First of all, I have no idea what the "dreams" versus "visions" thing has to do with my argument at all, but okay. Noted, lol. Second of all, oh, but he does:

In TPM, Anakin listens to Qui-Gon's advice and his mother's advice for the entire podrace and beyond.

In TPM, Anakin ducks when Qui-Gon tells him to duck.

In TPM, Anakin has been so reticent to his mom's feedback (aka "the biggest problem in the universe") that he actually reverses her argument in order to persuade her.

There's a brilliant post about Anakin and Mace Windu's relationship in AOTC that I will have to find and reblog someday. (I'll come back later and link if I find it.) Suffice to say, Mace Windu, on behalf of the council, tasks Anakin with taking Padme off-world to better protect her. Anakin asks for advice: "As the leader of the opposition, it will be very difficult to get Senator Amidala to leave the capital." Mace Windu provides feedback: "Anakin, Go to the Senate and ask Chancellor Palpatine to speak with her about this matter." Anakin follows this advice.

In AOTC, Padme interrupts their kiss to revoke her consent. Anakin does not raise the subject at any point after this, unless she does first, showing further reticence for feedback.

In AOTC, Anakin is about to ditch Obi-Wan in the fight against Count Dooku in order to chase after Padme, which is very un-Jedi-like of him. Obi-Wan and Anakin have a huge argument, in which Obi-Wan finishes with the feedback: "Come to your senses! What would Padme do if she were in your position?" Anakin responds, "She would do her duty." And then he does his duty.

In AOTC, Anakin charges after Count Dooku against Obi-Wan's advice, and he loses his arm... which I imagine was quite a bit of feedback. In ROTS, he agrees to "do it together" with Obi-Wan, showing that he has improved, grown, and learned from his mistakes.

In ROTS, he listens to Obi-Wan's feedback & instructions pretty much at all times during the mission to save the Chancellor.

In ROTS, he throws a tantrum in the Jedi Council chamber because they won't make him a Jedi Master. He is told, "Take a seat, young Skywalker" by Mace Windu. He is told, "Oh, calm down, Anakin, you have been given a great honor" by Obi-Wan. From that point onward, Anakin does not throw tantrums in the Jedi Council chamber. In fact, he apologizes to Obi-Wan for being "arrogant" and "ungrateful." He follows through on this apology by showing respectful deference in further council meetings (i.e. he does not argue, even after he does not get his way with the line "The Chancellor suggests that I lead the campaign [against Utapu]"). He also respectfully obeys Mace Windu's every instruction afterward, up to the moment Palpatine forces him to a breaking point.

Every single time he defends the Jedi against Chancellor Palpatine's propaganda, Anakin is displaying huge amounts of bravery, strength, self-improvement, and growth.

In ROTJ, Luke repeatedly gives him advice amounting to "Us fighting is wrong. Stawp." Anakin listens. He stops.

Again, it's important to note that this exercise was for sheer enjoyment of the task, not necessity. Take out any single one of these above statements, and my central post would still stand; thus, even though sou-kiva managed to challenge ambiguities, she did not manage to effectively argue against my original post.

Bonus round. Even though the utter annihilation of someone's cartoonish take has already occurred, I can't help but find delight in the moments when sou-kiva actually provides points for my argument, rather than for hers.

"He is the Villain Controlled By His Fear."

Lol, sou-kiva, please, you really outdid yourself this time.... YES absolutely, Anakin is the villain controlled by his fear, you are correct. Anakin fell because he feared the idea of Padme dying. However, Darth Vader is not only the villain of ROTS; he is also the villain for the entirety of the Original Trilogy. At the beginning of ANH, Padme has been long dead. His worst fear has already come to pass.... as of like.... two decades ago. So sou-kiva, I wonder--what do you think Vader is afraid of now? What fear is so powerful, so overwhelming, so all-consuming, that it "controls" his villainy and leads him to continued acts of evil? The villain controlled by fear, indeed, but fear of what? Might it even start with P? Maybe even rhyme with 'alpatine'*? Who can say.

*Why I think Vader is afraid of Palpatine would require an analysis of ROTJ and is beyond the scope of this post. However, your point, sou-kiva is already contradicted with or without that. Because Anakin's fear by the time of ANH is already over and you fail to define another.

"Just because your 'support system' is taken way, you don't MURDER KIDS!!!"

... um... yes... yes, you do actually... I think maybe sou-kiva hasn't done a lot of research on why people commit crimes.

(Not that Anakin's "murdering" of "kids" can't also be a metaphor for more trivial immoral actions in the real world... and not that I wasn't suggesting this exact metaphor as the basis for the entire support system commentary... but whatever. I'm not gonna beat a man while they're down.)

"If he felt true remorse about the first massacre, he would have told the Council and asked for redemption/rehabilitation."

Boy, oh boy, I think maybe sou-kiva doesn't know what remorse is? Here, let me help. Merriam-Webster defines remorse as "prolonged and insistent self-reproach and mental anguish for past wrongs and especially for those whose consequences cannot be remedied." To simplify this definition, remorse is a feeling someone can have, not an action someone must take. Like, you don't have to go down and apologize to the Walmart store clerk in order to feel remorse for stealing five years ago... You can just... regret it... of your own free will... The Walmart Gods can't stop you...

But let's pretend we define remorse like sou-kiva does. Let's pretend remorse means "telling an authority figure what you did wrong." Even then, by her logic, Anakin does show remorse. Not only does Anakin tell Padme (a Senator of the Galactic Republic) that he killed the sand people pretty much thirty seconds after doing so.... he also tells Palpatine (the fucking Chancellor of the Galactic fucking Republic, oh my god D:). So yeah, even by sou-kiva's fucked-up definition, Anakin Skywalker showed fucking remorse lmao. Goddamn, sou-kiva. You really fucking handed me that one.

[not a quote just a screenshot of her blog below]

SNORTS. ARE YOU FUCKING TELLING ME YOU'RE A JINX FAN? ARE YOU FUCKING--

The thing about Anakin (in prequel trilogy movies) is that he actually is a really good person by default. He is a war hero for a reason; he cares so deeply and unconditionally. Sure, he's a little careless sometimes and a little impulsive. He makes mistakes and bad calls and sometimes he needs to get his hormones under fucking control. But overall, he's very much trying to do a good job. He listens to feedback, he asks for advice, and he apologizes and tries to improve when he realizes he's wrong. 

Really, he only ever crosses unforgivable lines when two very specific criteria are met: (1) when the most sensitive points of his trauma are being put under an immense amount of pressure; (2) when his support system, for whatever reason, is absent. 

And even when those two criteria are met, he still struggles not to cross those lines as hard as he can for as long he can--until he eventually just snaps under the pressure.

Example #1, the Sand People massacre. Long before going to Tatooine, Anakin’s trauma points were already under an extreme amount of pressure. He was having nightmares about his mom--reminding him of his childhood as a slave and of the slavery in which he’d left her behind. When Anakin does go to Tatooine, his support system consists solely of a girl whom he does like and does trust but whom he doesn’t know very well. Old wounds continue to reopen as he takes his first steps into Mos Epsa and speaks with Watto, a being who owned and abused him. Anakin has no reason whatsoever to think Watto isn’t the orchestrator of his mother’s torment. But does he kill, dismember, or otherwise attack Watto? No. He remains polite. So polite, in fact, that it’s unsettling.

When he hears about his mother's capture and torture from the Lars family, Anakin is, suffice to say, upset. To rescue her, he goes alone (no support system). Even with his mother actively being brutalized (trauma), Anakin does not arrive with the intention of violence. He does not massacre the entire village in an attempt to rescue her. His plan is clearly to sneak in unnoticed, grab her, and sneak out. Even after seeing her strung up, at no point does his plan seem to change… Until she dies. In that moment, his mom, the epitome of his failure to free all the slaves, has just taken her last breath. He is completely alone. His mom has practically been slaughtered. His mom. Thus, his trauma hits a breaking point, and his usual support system is out of sight. 

He snaps. 

It is his choice, yes, but it is the result of a decade of abuse and generational trauma. It is also very much a mistake/accident… In other words, it is not an example of his true values and beliefs; it is an example of their temporary absence.*

*Evidence supporting this is in the scene with the line “to be angry is to be human,” but that’s a subject that needs its own whole ass post. I’ll link it later if I ever write it.

Example #2, the Jedi massacre. There are so many posts on the subject already that I'm not going to spend time detailing every single instance in which Palpatine isolates Anakin or manipulates Anakin into isolating himself. But a brief overview: sowing distrust in the Jedi Council, creating a narrative of deceit around the Jedi Order, orchestrating events to get Obi-Wan dead/offworld, and associating the dark side of the Force with Padme’s presence (via suggestions that only a Sith Lord can save her). With that, Anakin's entire support system is crippled. Unlike in AOTC, he is surrounded by loved ones, yes, but they can’t help him. By Palpatine's design, Anakin eventually bars each of them from entry.

Meanwhile, Palpatine is putting his trauma under extreme pressure and manipulating the shit out of him. Starting on the Invisible Hand itself, when Palpatine encourages Anakin to kill Dooku.* The movie explicitly connects this scene to the sand people massacre, which immediately establishes an awakening of old trauma. Wounds reopen, and Palpatine presses on them and he presses on them and he presses on them. Padme’s looming death becomes the symbol of his past trauma (of what he failed to protect and what he did as a result). And through Palpatine’s misinformation campaign, the Jedi become the perpetrators of this trauma, rather than the support system.

*For reasons beyond the scope of this post, I do not consider Count Dooku's murder to be an example of Anakin crossing an unforgivable line. I consider it to be an example of Anakin making a bad call. Even so, one could easily argue that his support system was absent and that his pressure points were being targeted in this scene, too. But I find that argument uninteresting because it doesn't apply imo.

Still, Anakin resists. Still, he tries again and again to retain his ideals. He seeks advice from Yoda. He listens to Obi-Wan's feedback and apologizes. He opens up to Padme. He initially rejects Sith Lord Palpatine. He tries to do the right thing by telling Mace Windu and letting the Council handle things. Because that's who he is--that's his true nature. Anakin is alone in the Council chambers (no support system) when Palpatine taunts him with Padme's inevitable death (trauma). And still, he resists. He races to Palpatine's office, but does he immediately kill, dismember, or otherwise attack Mace Windu? No. Even as Palpatine continues to press on his trauma (“I have the power to save the one you love!”), Anakin tries to reason with Mace. However much he is rationalizing the truth to his benefit, he is still trying to get out of this trap. He even admits the core of it in the end: “I need him!” Even then, even when Mace rightly goes for the killing blow, Anakin is still resisting! He attacks, he dismembers, but he doesn't kill. He makes an impulsive, ill-thought-out, almost reflexive decision (supported by the horror in the line “What have I done?!”). It’s as if Palpatine has shoved him right up against that unforgivable line, and Anakin is using his last inch of space to not teeter over it. 

Then Palpatine kills Mace Windu. In his mind, Anakin has nothing left after that. In his mind, he is responsible for getting Mace killed (trauma), and he doesn’t see how the Jedi can possibly forgive him (no support system). In his mind, his wife is dying (trauma), and he is alone in the presence of his abuser (no support system).

He snaps.

Unlike in AOTC, this does not happen by accident. These events were deliberately and continuously manufactured by a Sith Lord with an agenda. Palpatine directs Anakin’s explosion onto the Jedi Order, where Anakin compounds upon his trauma with more murder and more death. He becomes isolated to Palpatine's manipulations by killing (or enraging) his entire support system.

Afterward, Palpatine has all of the fuel he needs to make Anakin snap and snap and snap, over and over, for a very long time.

Who is to blame is such a boring, irrelevant question when we have such a fascinating character. The prequel trilogy gives us a complicated villain who is simultaneously the executor of such horrific violence and also the boy who wanted to free all the slaves. A villain who kills a part of himself every time he kills another. A villain who is so horrifically victimized even whilst he commits his terrible crimes. And because it's fiction (aka the victims of his actions are narrative elements, not people), I'm allowed to feel unashamedly devastated for him. I’m allowed to see the truth: that Darth Vader is only the suit he wears. The mask concealing the good person underneath. The Jedi Order was Anakin’s family, too, and you should feel sorry that he lost them. You should feel sorry for the way he is abused in ROTS. Darth Vader doesn’t represent who Anakin is or what he believes, and blame is irrelevant to this truth.

Because support systems matter. They matter to people who have gone through trauma. Yes, sometimes they are even the ONLY difference between the choice to do good and the choice to do bad. Sometimes, all that is necessary to prevent a heinous crime is to help them before they snap. I think people are uncomfortable with Anakin because that kind of helplessness is a really hard thing to admit. It's not fun to realize that you could have made similar choices if you had been in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong person. Research has shown people greatly prefer to attribute their accomplishments to their own actions and choices in life. It makes sense. The realization that external factors may have played a role in everything we take pride in is scary--but this fear leads us to the bias that we could never become Darth Vader. Even if we were raised as a slave, even if our loved ones were taken from us, even if our sense of reality was being manipulated and distorted--somehow we would not be broken. We would remain Anakin Skywalker.

It's a comforting fantasy for people who have done nothing wrong.

As someone who is human, someone who has made mistakes and bad calls and who regrets the times I might have crossed lines, I find a lot more comfort in the message George Lucas provides. The prequel trilogy is a story about the harm someone (anyone) can do if they're not careful. Anakin becomes Darth Vader not because he’s innately evil but rather because he’s under extreme pressure and no one is able to help him. In contrast, the original trilogy offers compassion and an opportunity for self-forgiveness. Darth Vader chooses to become Anakin simply because one person looked at what he'd done and said, "Stop. This isn't you." In the face of how helpless and dangerous every one of us can be, I find Anakin’s story to be really meaningful, and I wish more of us appreciated it.

[rayshippouuchiha]

Ray, sorry for dropping in, but you gotta hear this bullshit I got to "enjoy" on my first day off.

A while ago, I made a post about asexuality and how it impacts people like me (aroace) in the real world and in online spaces (general stuff, no we are not fancy straight and no we are not straight spies sent into queer spaces to infiltrate and no we are not molested or traumatized and no, fucking us does not turn us "normal"). Just, you know, phrased better.

And this whole ass CHILD went up in my DM's to argue with me. Normally, I don't care, but the real kicker? They have "bisexual" (and their age, thats how I knew they are a child) written right there in their blog yet they PROUDLY regurgitated biphobic rhetoric to my face by simply changing the "bi" into "ace" and thought they did something! As if I don't know biphobic talking points when I see them with my own damn eyes! The "basically straight" and "you can pass as straight" was a very "nice" touch to the whole shitshow. Then they proudly finished up the whole tirade with "and I know you're not lgbt because you called yourself queer, no gay does that 🙄"

I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH BULLSHIT BEFORE IN MY LIFE

I though shit like this only happened in like homophobic facebook groups, not to my own damn face and unprovoked on TUMBLR DOT COM. Some children should NOT be on the internet and it fucking shows. I swear if they came here from that damn bird app, I will fucking lose it.

Nevermind that, had to vent and I trust you, you are a very cool and kind person. How has your day been?

Oh trust me darling I completely understand the need to vent after something like that.

At the risk of sounding like an internet old, it has been buck ass wild to watch so much of the younger generations just willfully ignore not only long established internet/fandom decorum but to just willfully ignore the realities of social issues like queer history because it doesn't fit into whatever social media sanitized version of queerness they think is reality.

And, to be honest, it's not even the ignorance itself that bothers me. Because we were all young and misinformed and raw in some way or another once upon a time. We had the passion but not the nuance, the drive but not the vocabulary, etc etc.

What bothers me is this deep trend I've been seeing where there's just this absolute unwillingness to learn.

I'm seeing it in queer spaces and I'm seeing it in fandom spaces and in the numerous ways those things cross over.

Kids who think they get to define what queerness is for everyone including their elders, who think they can come into clearly marked adult-only spaces and expect to be catered to, etc etc.

It's honestly sad and frustrating because I'm having to watch these kids dig up arguments that were already settled, argue things that were just considered unwritten law, and spout so many conservative/TERF/purity culture/homo-bi-ace-etc-phobic talking points while not even realizing that they are only arguing for their own oppression.

It's frightening in a lot of ways and it's one of the reasons why I push so hard to police my own corner of the internet and not put up with any of it in my spaces.

[elcorhamletlive]

I have so much RL shit to do so of course I went on tumblr to procrastinate, but after seeing some hot takes I felt compelled to write a post about "trauma bonding", and why the way fandom uses this expression is so strange and potentially harmful

basically, at its heart, it's a misconception. "trauma bonding" is the term used to describe the relationship that forms between a victim and an abuser. it's not unusual for victims to feel emotionally connected to their abusers, which can make proccessing their abuse for what it is really difficult and painful. it's one of the things that make it hard for victims to leave their abusers in the first place.

in the hellscape of fandom discourse, "trauma bonding" is often employed to describe a completely different situation. people use it to mean "two characters who went through the same/similar trauma and bonded over it". this is typically not phrased as a neutral statement; instead, "it was trauma bonding" seems to be employed as a way to argue against canon romantic relationships, with the intent to diminish them and/or portray them as unhealthy.

the main reason this is bad is that words mean things, and the term you're bastardising for petty fandom drama is actually an important concept for analysis of abusive dynamics in real life. it also demonstrates how shallowness and performativity guides fandom discourse, because people use words they don't know the mean of in order to pathologize any petty fandom shit they don't like, in order to make their opinions seem more righteous or intelligent.

the secondary reason this bothers me, in particular, is that what is suggested by this argument flattens the possibilities of human relationships. the generous perspective of the "it's just trauma bonding" talking point is that the people spouting it mean to say "having the same trauma as someone is not a basis for a romantic relationship". which, in itself, of course is true.

but just because something isn't the sole basis for a relationship, it doesn't mean experiencing it is bad, or that any relationship that can develop from it is automatically unhealthy and toxic. a relationship is composed of multiple elements, there's no "one thing" that can sustain it all. for example, having shared interests/hobbies is also not a basis for a relationship in itself, but it can serve as a jumping off point for the development of something deeper. in a similar vein, finding someone who has experienced similar pain as you, while not enough to sustain a relationship in itself, can be an immensely positive, cathardic, validating experience. support groups exist for a reason. sometimes all you need is to be around someone who understands.

to me the fact that people in fandom don't seem to realise that evidences how shallow this taking point is. what is a found family, if not a group of people who bond over their shared experience of being ostracized? yet you don't see this "trauma bonding" discourse directed towards this trope fandom loves so much. it is only employed in the context of it being weaponised as a serious-sounding buzzword in the service of shipping. and it is used to sustain a weak, blatantly wrong perspective of human relationships.

[kelleah-meah]

Someone posted this image on Pinterest ...

... as someone who follows a lot of bohemia-focused accounts on Tumblr and Instagram ... I like it, aesthetically speaking. It doesn't match me perfectly because my hair isn't long and straight, I would never wear boots with heels that thick, and I don't wear sleeveless anything without a jacket or cardigan. But I liked it, so I saved it to one of my boards.

The person who created/originally posted it seems to appreciate the hippie life, past and present, and I can understand and respect that. Hippie culture is problematic as much as any other (sub)culture, but it has its merits.

But what caught my eye was the comments responding to the image, including one where someone posted an "improved" version of the image with the Black Lives Matter banner removed.

Now, I have made a New Year's Resolution to spend less of my energy arguing or debating with folks online, and instead use that energy to create something that brings me joy or a sense of accomplishment. But I first saw this Pinterest post last year, so I hadn't arrived at that decision yet.

When I tried to call out the not-so-subtle way in which white supremacists try to sneak their dogma into every conversation or online interaction, Pinterest refused to post my comment. So I tried editing it to remove the phrase "white supremacist" assuming they flag that phrase as unacceptable in any context. Pinterest still wouldn't post it.

So I decided to post a more subtle, less obvious criticism of why the comments are toxic. Pinterest allowed it.

Fast forward to today, and I see this image offered on my homepage based on my interests ...

And once again, the comments are ... unfortunate. There are accusations ranging from the label "POC edition" being problematic to someone insisting that the moodboard is promoting segregation.

I'm not sure how that person landed at the idea that acknowledging that Dark Academia has an unfortunate pro-Eurocentric bias is the same as promoting segregation. It kind of reminds me of how racist people often accuse anyone who addresses the issue of racism of being racist.

It's not a "POC edition" in that only POC are meant to engage in it. It's simply recognizing that a divide exists within the aesthetic, and then attempts to suggest ways in which people can close that divide. (Granted, it could've been a little better like recommend specific books, films, artists, teas, coffees, musicians, etc. and branch out of Asia/Middle East more.)

But to accuse the creator of being divisive ignores the fact that there are countless memes that recommend the same Eurocentric and Euro-American literature, music, films, art, etc. for this aesthetic. Recognizing something doesn't create separation.

No one is saying only POC should partake in the above. It's simply acknowledging that POC contribute to this aesthetic as well, and here are just a few ways you can incorporate those contributions into your life.

Well, apparently Pinterest didn't like that statement either. I wasn't being combative or argumentative, but Pinterest wouldn't let me post. Apparently it's OK for others to criticize anything that focuses on addressing racial and ethnic inequality, but Pinterest doesn't like it when you respond to those criticisms.

But that's OK. It makes me question whether I'll continue using my Pinterest account after this year, but that's OK. I have plenty of places I can express myself, and maybe, just maybe joy and a sense of accomplishment will come with it.