#there’s obviously plenty of people who are just racist

[jewishbarbies]

Wyll’s romance IS boring but it has nothing to do with his skin color. Larian dropped the fucking ball with his character at all possible angles. he could’ve easily been an instant favorite without having to guilt people into liking him because they apparently could only add (1) black character, but they chose not to give him the same well rounded arc and romance as some of the other characters, and that’s infinitely more racist than just finding his romance storyline boring. don’t blame players for Larian’s fuck up.

[perpetuallyfive]

God, I'm so happy with what they did with Maddie Nolen.

I'm sure there will be plenty of people mad because obviously there was a weird backlash over a character who has sex with one half a ship, so I'm sure some people worry this will lead those people to feel justified in their initial response.

But ignoring people who can't emotionally regulate for a second, because those childish impulses aren't worth dictating the fun things a narrative can do: Maddie is SO INTERESTING as a character and she fills in a lot of the questions people seemed to have about the rest of the season.

Consider for a moment that it wasn't Caitlyn who convinced Vi to be an Enforcer. It was Maddie.

I know that some people took this line to be about Zaunites, a sort of obvious connection to the very racist idea of "one of the good ones," but since Maddie is talking about Marcus and his betrayal of the Enforcers just before this, I'm pretty sure her framing here is something else. The point she's making is specifically targeted at Vi's own beliefs and weaknesses, her desire to protect. That seems clear to me now with all we know about Maddie's capacity for manipulation.

She's not saying, "You're good, for a poor."

She's saying, "Wow, I agree with you, the Enforcers are really bad; it's so upsetting. I think you might be the only one who can change it, but only if you join us." This is what convinces Vi to do something she never thought she would.

Well, this and the fact that Caitlyn believes in her so much which, again, is information she gets fed to her directly from Maddie. It even seems like Maddie seeks her out just to say this, which on first viewing felt oddly convenient. Wow, Vi just happens to meet this naive girl who just happens to say exactly what she needs to hear to do something so out of character.

Except obviously none of it was coincidence. Everyone already knew how much Vi meant to Caitlyn and getting Caitlyn under control would require either controlling Vi or removing her from the equation. This was a push in that direction.

Then there's her more obvious role as the spy in Caitlyn's bed, there to reassure her that the Noxians are only trying to keep all of them safe. Then when Caitlyn expresses larger doubts, she's immediately ready to lay out an alternative. You could just give up, Maddie seems to whisper gently in her ear. Just reestablish things as they were before.

But she knows Caitlyn isn't going to go for that. She's not going to go back to the council as it was, because it's only going to remind her of the empty place her mother left behind. Maddie knows that Caitlyn isn't going to take this offer, which is precisely why she suggests it. She frames quitting as the only clear alternative to going along with everything Ambessa wants because she knows that Caitlyn will refuse, which leads her right back into alignment with Ambessa. She makes continued obedience into an active choice that Caitlyn affirms she's making.

Even Maddie's comments that suggest direct opposition to Ambessa — "you're our leader... I follow you" — are designed to frame herself and her true leader in direct opposition, just as Ambessa's own warning about entanglements is there to further that point. They both make a point of reminding Caitlyn that they are her true ally, isolating her further from anyone who isn't the devil and (other) devil on her shoulders.

This way Maddie and Ambessa can both tug at Caitlyn, pulling in what feels to her like opposite directions, all so that she lands precisely where they wanted her all along but with the illusion of active agency.

And look, I'm not saying my read on her is gospel, because I think they intentionally gave us enough room to really speculate and wonder about her, someone who could have been just a background nothing character but ends up being such a huge part of the second season. That's so interesting!

I especially love that she comes across as really naive and innocent, just some poor little thing swept up in the fervor, when in reality she's a true believer who has been manipulating things to go her way from the start.

[plaidos]

im not gonna pretend there aren’t racist femboys because obviously there are but at some point we as a transfeminine community are going to have to acknowledge that the narrative of the “white misogynist femboy trap on 4chan who hates being compared to trans women & is actually a cis man who dresses this way for his creepy fetish” is an internal community equivalent to autogynephilia. yes, there are racist trans people, yes there are conservative transphobic eggs whose toxic outlet for dysphoria is hatred & crossdressing — we do not need to attach it to a particular label for gender non-conformity (that plenty of non-white transfeminine people identify as), and we absolutely do not have to invoke the fictional caricature of the “fake tranny just doing it for his misogynistic fetish purposes”. i cannot believe i have to say this.

[nyxshadowhawk]

A Retrospective on Harry Potter

Why did I like it in the first place? What about it worked? Where do I go from here?

I have decided to give up Harry Potter.

J.K. Rowling’s reputation now stinks to high heaven. At this point, she is quite indefensible. And even if that weren’t the case, she is not someone that I would want to associate with anyway. Meanwhile, the internet has not only turned against her, but against Harry Potter itself. An innocent question on Reddit, about which Hogwarts Houses the ATLA characters would be in, got downvoted to oblivion. Innumerable Tumblr threads insist that fantasy fans should get into literally anything else (suggestions include Discworld, Earthsea, The Wheel of Time, and Percy Jackson). And now that Harry Potter is no longer a sacred cow, there has been a recent slew of video essays that rip it to shreds, attacking it for its poor worldbuilding, unoriginality, and the problematic ideas baked into the original books (like the whole SPEW thing), etc. Those criticisms always existed, but now they’re getting thrown into the limelight.

It pains me to see such an ignoble downfall of Harry Potter’s reputation. If Rowling had just kept her damn mouth shut, Harry Potter would have aged gracefully, becoming a beloved children’s classic. I'd still plan to introduce it to my own kids one day (after Rowling dies and the dust settles). It’s not surprising that not all aspects of it have aged well, since it’s been more than twenty years since its original publishing date, and everything starts to show its age after that long. I acknowledge that most of the criticisms of the series that I’ve seen lately are valid, and I’ve read plenty of better books. And yet, when I return to the books themselves, even with the knowledge of who JKR really is inside my head, I still really enjoy reading them! There’s still a lot about them that I think works!

None of the other things I’ve read have had as collossal of an impact upon my identity, my values, and my own writing as Harry Potter. It’s hard to move on from it, not just because it’s something I enjoy, but because I have to literally extract my identity from it. I don’t know who I’d be without Harry Potter. I don’t know what my work would look like without Harry Potter. I don’t know how to carry it with me as just another piece of media that I like, as opposed to a filter for who I am as a person. So, with all that in mind, I have to ask myself why I liked Harry Potter so much in the first place. If I’m going to move on from it, then I have to be able to define and isolate the things about it that I want to keep with me. Something about it obviously worked, on a massive scale. So what was it?

It’s not the worldbuilding. The worldbuilding is objectively quite terrible, especially in comparison to that of other fantasy writers who knew what they were doing. At best, it’s inconsistent and poorly thought-out, and at worst it’s insensitive or even racist. Is it the characters? The characters are, in my opinion, one of the stronger parts of the story. But I felt very called-out by one of the many online commentators, who said that anyone who identifies with Harry is too cowardly to write self-insert fic. (I do not remember who said it or even which site it was on, but I distinctly remember the phrase, “Reject Harry Potter, embrace Y/N.”) The reason why people get so invested in Harry Potter’s characters is because they’re easy to project upon, and it’s possible that my love of Harry comes more from over a decade’s worth of projection than anything else. The incessant arguments over characters like Snape, Dumbledore, and James Potter ultimately stem from the fact that these characters do not always come across the way Rowling wanted them to. As for the writing itself, it’s decent, but not spectacular. Harry Potter is something of a sandbox world, with less substance than it appears to have and a crapton of missed opportunities, making it ripe for fanfic. For more than ten years, I’ve been doing precisely that — using Harry Potter as a jumping-off point to fill in the gaps and develop my own ideas, some of which became my original projects.

So what does Harry Potter actually have that sets it apart? Why are people so desperate to be part of Harry Potter’s world if the worldbuilding is bad? What, specifically, is so compelling about it? I think that there’s one answer, one thing that is at the center of Potter-mania, and that has been the underlying drive of my love of it for the past decade and a half: the vibe.

Harry Potter’s vibe is immaculate.

You know what I mean, right? It’s not actually a product of any specific trope, but rather a series of aesthetic elements: The wizarding school in a grand castle, with its pointed windows and torches and suits of armor, ghosts and talking portraits and moving staircases, its Great Hall with floating candles and a ceiling that looks like the night sky, its hundreds of magically-concealed secret doorways. Dumbledore’s Office, behind the gryphon statue, with armillary spheres in every single shot. Deliberate archaisms that evoke the Middle Ages without going as far as a Ren Faire: characters wearing heavy robes, writing with quills and ink on parchment instead of paper, drinking from goblets, decorating with tapestries. Owls, cats, toads. Cauldrons simmering in a dungeon laboratory. Shelves piled with dusty tomes, scrolls, glass vials, crystal balls, hourglasses. Magical candy shaped like insects and amphibians. A library with a restricted section. A forbidden forest full of unicorns and werewolves. That is the Vibe.

There are five armillary spheres just in this shot. They are unequivocally the most Wizard of tabletop decor.

There’s more to it than just the aesthetic, though. The vibe is present in something that writers call soft worldbuilding.

There’s a phrase that writers use to describe magic systems, coined by Brandon Sanderson: hard magic and soft magic. Sanderson’s first law of magic is, “An author’s ability to solve problems with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.” A hard magic system has clearly-defined rules — you know where magic comes from, how it works and under which conditions, how the characters can use it, and what its limitations are. Examples of really good hard magic systems include Avatar: The Last Airbender and Fullmetal Alchemist. If the audience doesn’t understand the conditions under which magic can work, then using magic to get out of any kind of scrape risks feeling like the writer pulled something out of their ass. It begs the question, “Well, if they could do that, then why didn’t they do that before?”

You may come away from that thinking that having clearly-defined rules is always better worldbuilding than not having them, but this isn’t the case. Soft magic isn’t fully explained to the audience, but that doesn’t matter, because it isn’t trying to solve problems — its purpose is to be evocative. Soft magic enhances the atmosphere of a world by creating a sense of wonder. If your everyman protagonist is constantly running into cool magical shit that they don’t understand, then the world feels like it teems with magic, magic that is greater and more powerful than they know, leaving lots of secrets to uncover. Harry Potter, at least in the early books, excels at this. The soft magic in Harry Potter is what got me hooked, and I think it’s what a lot of other people liked about it, too.

The essence of soft magic is best summed up by this scene in the fourth film, in which Harry enters the Weasleys’ tiny tent at the Quidditch World Cup, only to find that it’s much bigger on the inside. His reaction is to smile and say, “I love magic.”

That’s it. That’s the essence of it. You don’t need to know the exact spell that makes the tent bigger on the inside. You don’t need to know how Dumbledore can make the food appear on the table with a flick of a wand, or how he can make a bunch of poofy sleeping bags appear with another flick. You don’t need to know how and why the portraits or wizard cards move. You don’t need to know how wizards can appear and disappear on a whim, or what the Deluminator is, or where the Sword of Gryffindor came from. You don’t need to know how the Room of Requirement works. Knowing these things defeats the purpose. It kills the vibe, that vibe being that there is a large and wondrous magical world around you that will always have more to discover.

One of the best “soft magic” moments in the books comes early in Philosopher’s Stone, when Harry is trying to navigate Hogwarts for the first time:

There were a hundred and forty-two staircases at Hogwarts: wide, sweeping ones; narrow, rickety ones; some that led somewhere different on a Friday; some with a vanishing step halfway up that you had to remember to jump. Then there were doors that wouldn't open unless you asked politely, or tickled them in exactly the right place, and doors that weren't really doors at all, but solid walls just pretending. It was also very hard to remember where anything was, because it all seemed to move around a lot. The people in the portraits kept going to visit each other, and Harry was sure the coats of armor could walk. —Philosopher’s Stone, Chapter 8

Many of these details don’t come back later in the series, which is a shame, because this one paragraph is super evocative! It establishes Hogwarts as an inherently magical place, in which the very architecture doesn’t conform to normal rules. Hogwarts seems like it would be exciting to explore (assuming you weren’t late for class), and it gets even better when you learn about all the secret rooms and passages. The games capitalized on this by building all the secret rooms behind bookcases, mirrors, illusory walls, etc. into the game world, and rewarding you for finding them. The utter fascination that produces is hard to overstate.

Another one of the most evocative moments in the first book is when Harry sees Diagon Alley for the first time, after passing through the magically sealed brick wall (the mechanics of which, again, are never explained). This is your first proper glimpse at the wizarding world and what it has to offer:

Harry wished he had about eight more eyes. He turned his head in every direction as they walked up the street, trying to look at everything at once: the shops, the things outside them, the people doing their shopping. A plump woman outside an Apothecary was shaking her head as they passed, saying, “Dragon liver, seventeen Sickles an ounce, they're mad....” A low, soft hooting came from a dark shop with a sign saying Eeylops Owl Emporium — Tawny, Screech, Barn, Brown, and Snowy. Several boys of about Harry's age had their noses pressed against a window with broomsticks in it. "Look," Harry heard one of them say, "the new Nimbus Two Thousand — fastest ever —" There were shops selling robes, shops selling telescopes and strange silver instruments Harry had never seen before, windows stacked with barrels of bat spleens and eels' eyes, tottering piles of spell books, quills, and rolls of parchment, potion bottles, globes of the moon.... —Philosopher’s Stone, Chapter 5

What works so well here is the magical weirdness of wizardishness juxtaposed against normalcy. Eeylops Owl Emporium is just a pet shop to wizards. A woman makes a very mundane complaint about the price of goods, but the goods happen to be dragon liver. Broomsticks are treated like cars. All of these small moments contribute to the feeling of the wizarding world being alive, inhabited, and also magical. It gets you to ask the question of what your life would be like if you were a wizard. What do wizards wear? What do they eat? What do they haggle over and complain about? What do they do for fun?

In Book 3, Harry enjoys Diagon Alley for a few weeks when he suddenly has free time, and we get to experience the wizarding world in a state of “normalcy,” when he isn’t trying to save the world. He gets free ice creams from Florean Fortescue, gazes longingly at the Firebolt, and engages with delightfully weird people. He’s a wizard, living a (briefly) normal wizard life among other wizards in wizard-land. And that is fun. It’s so fun, that people want that experience for themselves, enough for there to be several theme parks and other immersive experiences dedicated to recreating the world of Harry Potter.

One of the greatest things about Universal was its phenomenal attention to detail. You can hear Moaning Myrtle’s voice in the women’s bathroom, and only the women’s bathroom. The walls of the Three Broomsticks have shadows of a broom sweeping by itself and an owl flying projected against the wall, so convincingly that you’ll do a double take when you see it. Knockturn Alley is down a little secret tunnel off of the main street, and that’s where you have to go to buy Dark Arts-themed stuff. It’s really well done.

Another thing that contributes to the vibe, in my opinion, is that the wizarding world is slightly macabre. They eat candy shaped like frogs, flies, mice, and so forth, and they have gross-tasting jellybeans. In the film’s version of the Diagon Alley sequence above, there’s a random shot of a pet bat available for purchase. In the third film, when Harry is practicing the Patronus Charm with Lupin, the candles are shaped like human spines. In the first book, this is Petunia’s description of Lily’s behavior after she became a witch:

Oh, she got a letter just like that and disappeared off to that-that school, and came home every holiday with her pockets full of frog spawn, turning teacups into rats. I was the only one who saw her for what she was — a freak! —Philosopher’s Stone, Chapter 4

I remember reading this for the first time, and it just kind of made intuitive sense to me. I suppose it fits into the “eye of newt and toe of frog” association between magical people and gross things, but somehow it works. Unfortunately, this is retconned later with the knowledge that wizards can’t use magic outside school, but before that limitation gets imposed, the idea of Lily amusing herself by turning teacups into rats seems like an inherently witchy thing to do.

That association between magic and the macabre shows up elsewhere, as well. In The Owl House, Luz’s interest in gross things is one of the things that marks her as a “weirdo” in the real world. When she goes to the magical world of the Boiling Isles, weird and gross stuff is absolutely everywhere. That world’s vibe leans more towards the macabre than the whimsical, but it works because you sort of expect the gross stuff to exist alongside the concept of witches, and that they would be an intrinsic part of the world they inhabit. You don’t question it, because it’s part of the vibe.

(The Owl House is one of the few things I’ve encountered that has a similar vibe to Harry Potter, but it’s still not the same vibe. In fact, The Owl House outright mocks the expectation that magical worlds be whimsical, and directly mocks Harry Potter more than once. The overall vibe is much closer to Gravity Falls.)

The Harry Potter films utilize a lot of similar soft worldbuilding with the background details, especially in the early films that were still brightly-colored and whimsical. For example, the scene in Flourish and Blotts in the second film has impossibly-stacked piles of books and old-timey looking signs describing their subjects, which include things like “Celestial Studies” and “Unicorns.” When Harry arrives in the Burrow in the same film, one of the first things he sees is dishes washing themselves and knitting needles working by themselves, taking completely mundane things and instantly establishing them as magical. In that Patronus scene with Harry and Lupin, the spine-candles and a bunch of random orbs (and the obligatory giant armillary sphere) float around in the background. One small detail that I personally appreciate is the designs on the walls above the teacher’s table in the Great Hall, which are from an alchemical manuscript called the Ripley Scroll:

It’s all these little things that add up to produce The Vibe.

Obviously, much of the vibe is expressed very well in John Williams’ score for the first three Harry Potter films. The mystical minor key of the main theme, the tinkly glockenspiel, the strings, the rising and falling notes that mimic the fluttering of an owl, the flight of a broomstick, or the waving of a wand. That initial shot of the castle across the lake as the orchestra swells, as the children arrive at their wizarding school:

If you grew up with Harry Potter, just looking at this image gives you The Vibe. The nostalgia hit is definitely part of it, but The Vibe was already there, back when you were a child and you didn’t have nostalgia yet.

In my opinion, only Williams’ score captures this vibe — the later films, though their scores are very good, do not. But the soundtrack of the first two video games, by Jeremy Soule (the same person who did Skyrim) absolutely nails it. This, right here, is Harry Potter’s vibe, condensed and distilled:

This is why I feel invalidated by the common advice “just read another book.” I have read other books. I’ve read plenty of other books, many of which are wonderfully written and have left an impact on me. But there’s still only one Harry Potter. To date, there’s only other book that has filled me with a similarly intense longing for a fictional place, and that is The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern. That book deliberately prioritized atmosphere over everything else in the story, and actually lampshades this in-universe. The Night Circus has a plot and it has characters, but it’s not about its plot or characters. It’s about the setting and its atmosphere. It swallows you up and transports you to a fictional place that is so evocative and so magical that you just have to be part of it or you’ll die. And even then, The Night Circus has a different kind of vibe from Harry Potter. In this particular capacity, there’s nothing else like Harry Potter.

The thing is, I don’t think Rowling was being as deliberate as Erin Morgenstern. (In fact, given many of Rowling’s recent statements, I question how many of her creative choices were deliberated at all.) She was throwing random magical stuff into the background without thinking too hard about it, which works when you’re writing a kids’ story, but stops working when you try to age it up. Actually, scratch that — soft worldbuilding is definitely not just for kids! The Lord of the Rings has a soft magic system, for crying out loud, and Tolkien is the original archmage of worldbuilding. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you that prioritizing atmosphere over meticulousness is bad worldbuilding. That is a valid way to worldbuild! Not everything needs to be clearly explained, not everything needs to make sense. The problem is that Harry Potter doesn’t balance it well. Certain things do have to be explained in order for the magic to play an active role in the story (and the setting of a magic school lends itself to that kind of explanation), but no rules are ever established for the kinds of magic that need rules. When you begin thinking about the rules, you’re no longer just enjoying the magic for what it is. At worst, you begin running up against the Willing Suspension of Disbelief.

It wasn’t actually the “aging up” of the story that did it in, per se, but rather, the introduction of realism. The early books were heavily stylized, and the later books were less so. A heavily stylized story can more easily maintain the Willing Suspension of Disbelief. That’s why, for example, you don’t ask why the characters are singing in a musical — you just sort of accept the story’s outlandish internal logic, and the inherent melodrama of it doesn’t take you out of the story. Stylized stories are more concerned with being emotionally consistent over being logically consistent. The later Harry Potter books changed their emotional tone, but without changing the worldbuilding style to compensate.

In addition to the more mature themes and darker tone, Harry Potter introduced more realism as it went, but Rowling did not have the worldbuilding chops to pull this off. There’s the basic magic system stuff: When you begin thinking about it too hard, something like a Time-Turner stops being a fun magical device, and starts threatening to break the entire story. Then there’s the characters: Dumbledore leaving Harry on the Dursleys’ doorstep in the first book is an age-old fairy tale trope that goes unquestioned, but with the introduction of realism in the later books, it suddenly becomes abandonment of a child to an abusive family. The exaggerated stereotypes of characters like the Dursleys become tone-deaf. The fun school rivalry of the House system is suddenly lacking in nuance. And then there’s the shift in tone: The wizarding world that we were introduced to as a marvellous place is revealed to be dystopian. You start thinking about how impractical things like owl messengers are, you start wondering if Slytherin is being unjustly punished, the bad history appears glaringly obvious, the quaint archaisms become dangerously regressive. Oh, and the grand feasts are made through slave labor! The wizarding world suddenly feels small and backward instead of grand and marvellous. J.K. Rowling’s bigotry throws it all into an even harsher light.

This is why I’ve always preferred the early books and films to the later ones. There’s a lot of things I like about the later ones, but they’re not as stylized — they don’t have The Vibe. Thinking about things too hard is just a necessary condition of adulthood, but it’s still possible to tell a dark, mature story that is highly stylized. I really think JKR could have better pulled off that shift if she was a more competent worldbuilder. But it is painfully obvious that she did not think things through, and probably didn’t understand why she had to. In her defense, she did not know that her story would end up being one of the most scrutinized of all time. As it stands, her strength in worldbuilding was in the softer, smaller, deliberately unexplained moments of magic that were there just to provide atmosphere. And there were less and less of those as the books went along.

Pretty much all the Harry Potter-related content released since the last film — including Cursed Child, Fantastic Beasts, Hogwarts Mystery, Hogwarts Legacy, Magic Awakened, and that short-lived Pokemon Go thing — have been unsuccessful attempts at recreating The Vibe. In fact, the only piece of supplemental Potter content that I think had that Vibe down pat was the original Pottermore, back when it was more of an interactive game. And of course that got axed. That was right around the time things started going downhill.

Some of the art from Pottermore’s original Sorting quiz.

So what now? Well, that’s the question.

I think I can safely say that The Vibe was the reason I liked Harry Potter. It’s the thing I still like the most about it. I’ve spent years chasing it, like an elusive Patronus through a dark wood. If I can capture and distill that Vibe, and use drops of it in my own work, then perhaps I won’t need Harry Potter anymore.

I'm gonna write the story that I wish Harry Potter was, and when I'm a famous author, I won't become a bigot. I'll see you on the other side.

[doberbutts]

I remember reading a post that men are the oppressor class so why would they bother to dismantle systemic patriarchy when they actively benefit from its existence? And as I read it, I thought, Damn, so an entire half of the population can never conceivably help us, and the people who love men in their lives are doomed. It wasn't a helpful post. It basically felt, here's some actual material analysis on feminism and said, That trying to educate and make men be part of feminism is fundamentally a flawed effort, because again, they are the oppressor class, why should they care about uplifting the oppressed?

And it made me think about this very good pamphlet I read, explaining how the white worker remained complacent for so long because at least they weren't a Black slave. And that the author theorized the reason labor movements never truly created exceptional, radical change is because of internal racism (which I find true) and failure to uplift black people. And the author listed common outlooks/approaches to this problem, and one of them was: "We should ignore the white folks entirely and hold solidarity with only other POC, and the countries in the Global South. Who needs those wishy-washy white fragile leftists who don't care about what we think or want?" (roughly paraphrased.)

And the author said, This sounds like the most leftist and radical position, but it's totally flawed because it absolves us of our responsibility to dismantle white supremacy for the sake of our fellow marginalized people, and we are basically ignoring the problem. And that blew me away because this is a position so many activists have, to just ignore the white folks and focus entirely on our own movements. I wish I knew the name of the actual pamphlet, so I could quote entire passages at you.

But I feel this is the same for men. Obviously, we should prioritize and have women-led and women-focused feminism. But saying that men are an oppressor class so they can't reliably be counted upon in feminist activism--it's such a huge oversimplification. And mainly, I'm a Muslim, and I've been treated with plenty of misogyny from Muslim men. And also plenty of misogyny from Muslim women. And I love my male friends, I want men to be part of the movement, and I dunno. Thinking about communities, movements, and the various ways we fail each other and what it means to be truly intersectional keeps me up at night.

I don't know the pamphlet you're talking about but I've read and been taught similar. There's a reason much of my anti-racism is so feminist and most of my feminism is anti-racist. Many people coming at this problem from a truly intersectional angle have seen that there is no freedom to be had without joining hands across the community. Not picking and choosing our allies based off of identity but off of behavior.

As used in a previous example, a white abled moderately wealthy man saying "wow Healthcare sucks in this country, why does this system suck so bad" should be told "hey, this system sucks so bad because it's built off of sexism, racism, classism, and ableism. You want to improve the system? Fix those things and it will be much better in the long run" and not "shut up you're a man. Healthcare is always going to be better for you". The second response doesn't fix that Healthcare is still a problem even if you are at the "top" of the privilege ladder. If we want true change, we have to dismantle the entire system at it's core and build it up without the yuck, otherwise you're gunna get to the top and realize this place sucks too.

Something something if the crabs worked together to hold each other up, they could all get out of the bucket and be free.

[ugly-anarchist]

Alright, anon, I'm not posting your messages in 3 different posts so lets just break this down here

[Indented text is the anon message. This is going to be long as hell]

butch women and trans men are not oppressed for being masculine, they’re oppressed for being gender nonconforming females (not saying trans men are women, just stating how a patriarchal society sees them).

So, firstly, the thing I'm talking about isn't actually oppression on a systemic level. You're talking about how non-queer society sees us, I'm talking about how other queer people treat us. Butch lesbians have been pushed out of sapphic spaces for a loooong time. Butch lesbians are seen as scary, mean, violent, and inherently abusive within queer spaces. Which stems from a demonization of masculinity. I should know this. I identified as a butch bisexual sapphic for years. I know what this feels like. I was once told that people with "high T levels" are more likely to be abusive, which includes me because I'm intersex and have naturally high T.

Secondly, maybe don't try to define trans men's oppression for them? I'm not a trans guy either but I experience a lot of the same bullshit from society that they do and it's not just "being a gender non-conforming female" it's a lot more complex than that. And also just, in general, a very weird way to say it.

i’ve never heard a masc cis gay man complain about being welcome or not in queer spaces, to the point in which feminine cis gay men have complained about them writing “no sissies, masc4masc” in their bio on dating apps.

I have. I've heard plenty of stories about masc gay men and specifically bi men in queer spaces feeling very unwelcome because they were being treated like a threat. And some gay men being transphobic (because s*ssy is a transmisogynistic slur in this case) or having a preference for other mascs also isn't indicative of mascs being treated well?

Like I know a lot of butch4butches that have that preference specifically because they feel unwelcome or are treated badly by femmes. I don't know how you personally not hearing about it or what some people put on their dating profile proves here.

Also your complete lack of acknowledgement of bi men in this makes me doubt even more that your perspective on this is a valid one because that tells me you either don't know any bi men or you ignore them to such an extent that you forgot they existed.

claiming misandry or anti-masculinity exists is the same as saying that heterophobia exists because straight trans people are treated like shit.

Never said that misandry on its own exists, don't know where you got that.

People are treated like shit based on the fact that they are masc all the time. That is a thing that happens. I have experienced it, I've heard so many stories from other queer people who experience it. I don't know how saying "no you don't, I'm gonna tell you what you really experience" is at all an alright thing to do.

it’s not heterophobia, it’s transphobia/homophobia. in the same way that masc afab people being treated terribly is misogyny and homophobia, and has literally zero to do with misandry/“anti-masculinity”. if anti-masculinity or misandry existed, even straight cis heterosexual men would suffer from it.

So, like, I'm talking about anti-masculinity in the queer community. "If this is true here then it must be true with this different thing" is a really bad argument because you could use that to invalidate anything that is true.

For example: The definition of racism is "prejudice based on race" which technically that definition doesn't exclude white people but you don't see anyone arguing "if racism existed, even white people would suffer from it" or trying to say it's not really about race just to exclude white people. Like, obviously you can't be racist to white people and anyone who claims you can be is just making a bad-faith argument. I am looking pointedly at you when I say that, btw.

also, a lot of radfems are gender nonconforming women/butches and literally campaign for women to drop conformity to the patriarchal concept of femininity. gender critical conservatives are not radical feminists and y’all need to stop conflating the two because no matter what jk rowling says, in practice and in theory, they have very little to do with one another (and hate each other, at that).

There's actually two sides of the "radfem" spectrum and they're both just as bad. There's the ones who hate gender non-conforming women, specifically the ones who go on HRT, and claim they're gender traitors. And then there's the ones which you describe who usually shame women for liking feminine things. Both their beliefs usually go against the whole purpose of gender-nonconformity which is to be yourself and do what makes you happy, society be damned. People who are truly GNC don't judge others for presenting in a way that is typically considered "conforming" to their gender and don't campaign for other people to be like them?

Also... Are you defending radical feminism? Are you a radfem? Because that would make a whole lotta sense.

and one last thing,

Just so you know, this is how this anon began the final message. It is the longest one. Really said "one last thing" then sent me a whole 4 paragraphs.

please stop acting like “people who are attracted to men” are demonized in queer spaces, what a slap in the face to lesbians. the moment they have a little visibility y’all claim they are privileged and somehow bossing around/discriminating against gay men.

Never said that lesbians were the oppressor in this situation. There is no oppressor, it's fully lateral mistreatment. And like.. it's not about just gay men.

Bi women have been pushed out of and demonized within sapphic spaces for decades, actually. I should know. Because again. I'm a bi sapphic. We are seen as a range of things. Pretenders, abusers, invaders, the source of lesbian oppression, tricksters that try to force lesbians to fuck men, or just disgusting. Traitors. Again.

My own mother knows this because before she married my dad she was in sapphic spaces in the 90s. From her personal accounts, bi women were seen as the enemy and a lot of lesbians... weren't even lesbians. They were political lesbians. Women who rejected their attraction to men and only dated other women. Some of them were even straight. And they were considered more of lesbians than bi women were.

Even in the modern age, bi women are expected to shit on their own sexuality. They are expected to say "ew I hate that I like men" and never date or fuck a man to be accepted in queer spaces. Again, I know this because I'M LITERALLY BI.

gay men are literally the face of this community and continually disrespect sapphic/lesbians (see the billie lyric controversy, see the way they’re treating chappel roan, see the way they keep calling women b*tches with no regards on whether we like it or not, see the way they keep fraternizing with straight women that would literally cower in fear if they saw a butch lesbian in real life).

Yeah so misogynistic gay men are in fact a problem but I'm not talking about strictly gay men. I'm talking about the way masculine perceived traits are demonized within queer circles. Come on. I'm pretty sure cis gay men were barely talked about in my original post, why are you fixating on this so hard?

just because somebody who has literally no power over gay men whatsoever and has been traumatized by men her whole life airs out her frustration with her literal lifelong oppressors via tweet or tumblr post, doesn’t mean that suddenly the patriarchy doesn’t exist anymore and has not armed lesbians especially for the past thousands of years.

So I'm talking about the people telling me I'm inherently abusive or more likely to assault people based on the fact that I have high T levels... I'm not talking about people venting about their abuse at the hands of men.

I also never said the patriarchy doesn't exist... I feel like this message isn't about me anyone.

stop painting them as the mean bosses of the community when actually they are a very small, demonized minority who suffers every day at the hands of anyone in the world who likes men (straight women, gay men, even bi women like me).

Fascinating... So... I'm not doing that. Lesbians are not the "mean bosses" of the community. Some are just treating random people shitty for perceived masculine traits with no bearing on truth or reality. A lot of them aren't even lesbians. Like I never said this was a specifically lesbian issue. I said there was a problem in the community in general. So like... all people... not just lesbians.

Also, genuine question: How are you oppressing lesbians for being bi?

it’s such a warped, harmful view and a big stereotype, at that (lesbians are man-haters who hate women’s boyfriends!! what a progressive statement!! never has it been said before, and especially not by homophobic conservatives).

I mean I just didn't say that. I don't know how to respond to this because I just straight up didn't say that.

I just... This isn't about me anymore is it?

Who hurt you?

have some respect for once, a lesbian literally threw the first brick at Stonewall.

So... uh... we don't actually know for 100% certain who threw the first brick. Some say it was Marsha P. Johnson. Some say it was "gay street kids". Even if it was a lesbian... so? Just because one lesbian did a good thing doesn't mean other lesbians are incapable of being dicks to other people?

Idk, man, I never said that lesbians were the source of all evil. I just made a post about my own personal experiences and the experiences of people I know and have seen being talked about. I'm a bi, intersex, non-binary sapphic. I get shit on for the things that people perceive as masculine traits that I have and the fact that I like men. This happens a lot.

I don't know why me saying "hey please stop implying that there is something in my blood that makes me inherently abusive" is lesbophobic. Why is this about lesbians, actually? You made it about lesbians. Why are you using lesbians, a group you've stated you're not a part of, as a gotcha against me? Why are you using lesbians to silence me about my own experiences? Why is that okay?

[chocolatepot]

While I'm ranting about fandom, I have really mixed feelings about posts that are like "back in the day, we never cared about what anyone else was doing and you could write/draw/ship whatever you wanted with no backlash."

Because on the one hand, yeah, there was a much higher tolerance for dark content 10+ years ago, and I do miss that. Antis are bad, sui-baiting people for drawing cute art on one account and NSFW on another is bad, whump is excellent and I wish there were more of it.

On the other, said tolerance didn't exist everywhere and you're kidding yourself if you think it was a fandom-wide virtue. Ship wars were vicious and frequently involved judging female characters as sluts unworthy of $hero because they'd kissed another guy onscreen one time. There were plenty of places you weren't allowed to write anything but fluffy canon het or get judged. I think it mainly feels like there was some golden time of everyone being Okay With Anything just because we didn't have these massive sites where you were rubbing shoulders with everybody. On LJ, it was very easy to just interact with the other people who liked the same stuff as you.

And also on the other, the rise of antis/criticism of dark stuff/etc. went hand-in-hand with the rise of social justice awareness in fandom, and I have strong memories of people really resisting any analysis or discussion relating to bigotry or subconscious bias in canon or fanon because get out of here SJW! It's all made up and meaningless! Pretty much everyone was sorted into either the social-justice-aware camp or the called-people-SJW-unironically camp, and the former was going to be critical of what message your fic or fandom participation was carrying (in terms of sexist tropes, ship statistics, and so on) while the latter was going to be hostile to you saying you were offended or disturbed by anything at all.

I remember one time toward the end of Fandom_Wank (after UnfunnyBusiness had been split off to talk about conflicts involving -isms because people had come to recognize that not all drama is equal) when someone brought up an old wank involving people upset that in a particular fandom's AUs, the characters of color would frequently be turned into literal animals while the white characters were still human. Originally, they had been mocked because this was obviously trivial and not racist, it was just random chance which characters got turned into animals, etc. But at that time, post-RaceFail, everyone agreed that it was really messed up. And that's what I think about every time the "people used to not care about what you wrote" topic comes up.

[raiseyourbarkid]

when i first started watching 9-1-1, i was so excited to join the fandom.

s3 had just finished airing, so there was already plenty of fan content available, and i hurried over to ao3 and started reading the fics with the most kudos.

one of the very first ones i read involved Hen reaming Buck out for rescuing someone who didn't have a chance of surviving afterward. it felt oddly familiar, and then i realized—they basically copied the speech Gerrard gave in Hen Begins when she saved that woman in a landslide. they took the abuse that Hen endured because she was black woman, and gave it to Buck. took the words out of a racist misogynist's mouth and put them in Hen's, made her the abuser, just so Buck could be the victim.

that was one of the most popular fics at the time. that was my introduction to the 9-1-1 fandom. and unfortunately, it set a precedent for what to expect from it.

one of the next fics i read involved Buck's relationship with his father. this was before Buck Begins aired and we learned what his actual backstory was, so people liked to invent tragic backstories for him. nothing wrong with that in itself. except as i read this fic (another of the most-kudos'd at the time), i started to realize—they hadn't invented a backstory for Buck. they'd just stolen Chimney's and given it to him. because apparently the story was more tragic or meaningful if it happened to Buck instead of the asian man. (and as i recall, Chimney was made out to be a real jerk in that fic, too.)

and so it continued.

after that introduction, i always stayed on the fringes of the fandom. i still read some fic—obviously, not everyone was like that, and there were a lot of really good fanworks! but i didn't really engage beyond that. as i read more fic, another pattern was emerging: the fandom's treatment of women.

9-1-1 is far from the only fandom to have this problem. in several fandoms with popular mlm pairings, there is a lot of mistreatment of female characters, especially ones who are viewed as a "threat" to the pairing. but the way people reacted to these characters—namely, Abby, Taylor, and Ana—was somehow astounding to me. obviously none of them were perfect people—what character is?—but i couldn't imagine anything they'd done warranting the reaction i saw from fans. i had liked them as characters for the most part! i didn't see those romantic relationships working out in the long term, but i didn't see that as a reason to hate them, much less reach the levels of loathing the fandom seemed to. you'd think these women were cartoon villains, the way fandom portrayed them.

honestly, it had been YEARS since i'd seen a fandom with such bad misogyny, if ever. and somehow, i was surprised again. i'd foolishly believed that fans had been getting better about that kind of thing, about hating women over a ship. so many other fandoms managed to be kind to the women involved with the men they shipped, why was it so hard for this particular fandom?

and now all this.

Buck's finally in a queer relationship, but it's not the one people wanted, so the response is to be hateful and homophobic towards the other character involved? in what world does that make sense? how do people rationalize that to themselves?

i'm just exhausted. i'm realizing now that this fandom has never felt like a safe space and maybe never will.

in over 20 years of being in fandoms, i have NEVER been in one that was so determined to be hateful. and over a show that's predominantly about love and the power of human connections? it's downright baffling.

[a-dragons-journal]

hey, i know you’re na’vi link so i wanted to ask something. i’m questioning na’vi kin right now but can’t talk about it on my main blog because one of my friends follows me. they know about my alterhumanity and i post about it on that blog. however, i am white. very white. i’ve seen some people say that na’vi kin is cultural appropriation? i’m worried my alterhuman friends will try to accuse me of cultural appropriation if i confirm this kintype. any advice?

Okay, well, first off, I'm also white, so let's get that out of the way. However I have had this conversation with and have heard the opinions of Native American people with both opinions, so I can pass on my conclusions from that conversation, and if other people have opinions they want to add I welcome them to, especially Indigenous folks of course.

Thing number one: if it's not a choice, it can't be morally wrong. End of. You can't apply morality to things that aren't choices. You can engage with it in moral vs immoral ways, but simply having an identity that you didn't choose cannot be immoral.

Now obviously that doesn't apply to me, and it may or may not apply to you, so here's the rest of it:

Someone who's Na'vikin/link isn't claiming to be Indigenous here and now. We're not claiming to have direct experience with those struggles or the same amount of voice as Indigenous people do with regards to them. Na'vi are similar to and based on Indigenous people, but they aren't actually Indigenous people.

The Na'vi aren't based on any one Indigenous culture - although the Metkayina are much more heavily based on the Maori than anything else, the other clans we've seen aren't as specific, and are intentionally a mish-mash of dozens of Indigenous cultures. So... who is allowed to be Na'vikin/link, exactly? If the answer is "only people from the culture they're based on," then the real answer is no one. And about that:

This is really just a variant on the old "is kinning outside your race problematic" argument, and we came to a community-agreed-upon conclusion on that years ago: no. For a lot of reasons, including the above, and also the fact that if you're saying it's okay to identify as a wolf but not as a character of a different ethnicity than you... does that not imply that it's easier for a white person to connect that deeply with an animal than with a person of color? Is that not pretty damn problematic itself?

As a bonus round, if your answer then becomes "well, I guess you can be Na'vikin/link, but you shouldn't talk about it/engage with it in public": we know that suppressing kintypes is bad for you. We have learned this the hard way - how many stories are out there about how incredibly unhealthy that is for most people? You're now advocating for a known harm in order to avoid a hypothetical one. I don't think that's fair to anyone.

For what it's worth, I do think there are probably ways to engage with being a Na'vi that are appropriative, racist, and weird toward Indigenous people - just like there are plenty of ways to be a fan of the Na'vi that are appropriative, racist, and weird toward Indigenous people. But I don't think being a Na'vi is inherently that way. I don't think it's that hard to be Na'vi and be respectful of real-world Indigenous cultures that the Na'vi have parallels to. As long as you're not claiming to be Indigenous here and now, or have some ~special connection~ to Indigenous cultures because of your Na'vi 'type, or appropriating Indigenous things because they have Na'vi vibes, then I think you're fine.

But, as I said, I'm more than willing to hear other opinions if people have them! Please, add on in the notes. (I also feel like I'm forgetting a major point in my argument as to why it's fine for some reason, but can't get my hands around it, so hopefully I'm wrong and if not you might see an update to this post in the future when I remember. I've got a bit of a headache right now, so I'm a little bleary.)

[sepublic]

Say what you will about Hunter fans’ white favoritism and double standards, but at least they seem to like the show. Wittebane fans are on a whole different level of white favoritism and fandom misogyny compared to them, because they’re genuinely obsessed with the idea of an all-white cast, centered around two guys, in their racist colony; Eda’s there too, but without any of the depth, she’s only there to be a Girlboss, a Manic Pixie Dream Girl to the cardboard cutout. And it’s to the point where for many of them, it’s all they’ll talk about, instead of the actual source material, its colorful cast and worldbuilding, or onscreen stories.

I know misogyny and racism is in this fandom because people find it easier and more fun to make shit up for a cardboard cutout who makes about as much noise as one over like, Willow Park. It’s fun to speculate on parallels, but when canon contrasts Camila’s heartbreak over creating a hostile environment for her child, versus Philip’s racist hatred and murder of Caleb for having a mixed child? It’s obvious that people would rather rewrite Belos until he’s OOC and the exact opposite of everything he stands for, so they don’t have to talk about Camila Noceda. Because the only way they can truly enjoy this moment is under the veneer of that white guy and him alone.

Like jeez if you want two family members trying to survive after moving to Gravesfield, one repressing themselves and afraid they’re pushing away the other who can’t do that? If you want two siblings with a tragic fallout, where one of them stays with the status quo while missing the other, despite hurting them so badly? Or a child who cares so deeply, but that isn’t enough and that love can be cruel? Just enjoy the Nocedas, the Clawthorne sisters, the Collector.

Cavelyn? That's just Raeda, which even has a tragic element and is actually fleshed out. Raine has an actual personality unlike Blandest White Boy Caleb, and I've already compared Eda to Evelyn. If you want it tragic, there’s Bad End AUs, and I’ve seen Wittebane fans make plenty of Good End AUs so obviously there’s a double standard there. If you want an old hag to thirst over, oh hey look it’s Eda! If you want someone conventionally attractive, what about Darius?

Anything you want those white boys to be, some other characters with way more focus and screen time do it, and much better. The only thing Belos does better than everyone else is represent colonialism, racism, genocide, and evangelical delusions… But y’all don’t want to talk about that now do you? Maybe instead of making OTGW crossovers just talk about OTGW, y’all have plenty of media centered on white guys so why do you need to change TOH to be like that? It’s not suspect that y’all find Wittebanes compelling, it’s suspect that you find them more compelling over characters who actually display these traits as their focus.

Praising Belos’ character for traits that others actually display is just like Philip taking credit for others’ work, it’s funny how Belos fans say you can enjoy him critically but they don’t actually do that. They just go with this very basic Genocide Bad take but still subscribe to the same core sentiment as him; That colonial white guys are just naturally better and more interesting, and they deserve to take the spotlight away from women and/or PoC.

Belos talks hot shit about how Caleb betrayed him and while some don’t believe that’s the case, they still roll with the claim that the heartbroken feeling of being betrayed is primarily why Belos did all this, when really he did it because he was selfish and wanted to be a monster slaying hero, and his games prior to Evelyn’s arrival support this.

He was gonna do it with or without Caleb’s support, there’s just no winning for Caleb because either he would’ve continued being a witch hunter and it’s his fault for setting that example, or he abandoned poor Philip and Philip had no choice but to feel that way… As if racism isn’t the reason why he insists he can’t follow where Caleb is going, ergo Caleb is leaving him. Poor guy is simultaneously overrated and demonized by the same people for being a child who can’t override his racist brother’s free will.

I think it boils down to this: Despite already having Hunter, it’s not enough because Hunter’s relationships are all PoC or at least a white girl. But those Wittebanes, they’re white guys whose most important dynamic is another white guy, each other! And they’re adults so you can sexualize and ship yourself with them. And don’t even get me started on the Grimwalker OCs, the literally copy-pasted white guys!

[gingerylangylang1979]

Reddit and Twitter need this most but I won’t, because reasons

I have said before I don’t think ALL the Camry and Sydney hate is racially motivated but PLENTY of it is. It’s Richonne 2.0. This isn’t new to me.

There is the outright racist coded comments like claiming Sydney has to be a lesbian, has to be asexual, looks like Kendrick Lamar (yes, it was said), along with the inability to ever empathize with her character.

But I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about unconscious bias with people who don’t get that they feel the way they do because Sydney is black. So anyone reading this may want to take a moment and honestly examine what I’m saying.

Unconscious bias is, for example, the thing that leads doctors, sometimes even black ones, to presume that black people don’t feel pain in the same way whites do. It’s not necessarily malicious intentional action or obvious hatred towards us. It’s subtle perceptions that change how one views the nature and capabilities of black people while still being able to be friends with them, respect certain qualities about them, and maybe even at times be allies. But there is always something different in perception that is so invisible that you aren’t aware of it.

I've seen it in white people, strangers and acquaintances, making assumptions about what I’m into or should be, what my education and earnings are, and who I should be friends and lovers with. It’s the thinking we can always handle anything and not be burdened. It’s what is happening a lot with Sydney, especially with Carmy.

People are allowed to not like the ship. They don’t have to. I’m not going to assume everyone who doesn’t is racist. But for anyone who doesn’t I think it would be beneficial to examine a few things.

Viewing the first scene between them, how would you interpret Carmy’s taken aback, entranced, nervous reaction to seeing her? To me it obviously says attraction and surprise. If there is another explanation I’ve never heard it. People just gloss over that interaction and I think it’s a tell. It shows that people may not be able to see him showing signs of attraction to her because she doesn’t look like who you would expect him to be attracted to.

2. How would you explain the way Carmy is constantly looking at Sydney closely like he doesn’t look at anyone else? When we see her from his perspective she if glowy or hazy or out of focus. We don’t see that with any other characters he interacts with aside from that finale flashback with Mikey. He doesn’t look at Sugar like that. Syd is the only one who gets special framing. If you’ve never noticed, why?

3. If you think Syd could be a lesbian or asexual, why her and not for instance Tina, or others on the crew? Sex isn’t referenced a lot so why is it not being referenced with her any different than it not being referenced with others? Often people assume a woman who dresses tomboyish is just that. Why can’t that just be her style? I have plenty of women friends that are straight and sexual with a similar style.

4. Could you imagine the scenes with Syd and Carmy if a man was in Sydney’s place? What would you think of the vibe?

5. Could you see Ayo in the Claire role?

6. Could you see Jeremy and Ayo playing love interests in a totally different show?

7. If Molly Gordon plays Syd could you better picture her with Carmy?

8. When you see a dark skinned black woman in a couple with a white man IRL does it make you especially take notice or feel it’s a bit off?

9. Does the thought of Sydney and Carmy kissing or being intimate make you have an extreme reaction like eeew or gross? Maybe not so extreme does it make you feel awkward to think about it?

10. Do you often compare their relationship to siblings?

11. Can you recognize the Syd isn’t into Marcus romantically and has other options?

12. Can you only envision Sydney alone and not needing romance because her career is all she needs?

13. Do you think maybe Carmy could find her attractive if she looked more glamorous?

14. Could you more easily see Carmy into Syd if she was played by Zendaya or someone that looks similar?

15. Have you never seen a couple that looks like Syd and Carmy?

16. if you saw the Emmy magazine photo shoot did you not perceive the touchy pose with Ayo and Jeremy as sexually suggestive and think it’s an impossibility?

17. How do you think Clairs would react if she saw all of their interactions?

18. Is it easy to view Sydney as having complex motivations and emotions at the same time? Can you possibly see that she’s jealous of Claire because she distracted Carmy from business AND because she has feelings for Carmy? Is it possible to think she can view Carmy as a boss, mentor, and someone she is attracted too and that’s hard to process?

All of these things may not apply to your perception but if any do realize these are very common examples of how unconscious bias plays out when thinking of black women, especially in storytelling. This is a lot of what has historically been seen with similar ships and IRL mixed couples. That’s not to discount the numerous white man, white woman ships that people don’t like, but these things are consistently present with black women and white men presented in the media and celebrity couples. There is always more scrutiny with these pairings.

You may not have a context to understand that. You may have never been questioned in this way. You may be angered to think it’s possible this is a role in how you are viewing things, but it’s the truth based on lived experience and observation. It’s worth examining.

I’m not here to be hostile, I’m just trying to voice in a gentle way what so many here already know and you may not be aware of or ready to think about.

I’m not going to argue with anybody about it but any intelligent, respectful dialogue is welcome and encouraged.

[steaming-system-takes]

Well here's your first actually hot take:

The creation of this blog and the original call out post are symptoms of the holier-art-thou call-out mentality the system community is plagued with. Everyone jumps down your skin if you accidentally say even one thing a bit wrong.

I'm not defending those takes from pipinghot, the quality control was obviously shit. But the aggressive "agree with all my points or delete your blog" mentality kills discussion and has done nothing to actually correct the misinformation spread.

The call out post (like they all are) was just a bunch of angry ranting and ALSO DIDN'T CITE ANY SOURCES to correct the misinformation.

If you actually intend to do better than pipinghot, you should respond to misinformation with proper citations (no, "I've read the DSM" is not a citation) and let actual controveral community topics be discussed. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before someone's calling you out next.

I'm not counting this as one of our tagged takes, because I don't think you understand what we made this blog for.

This blog is not meant to debunk misinformation, there are plenty of blogs out there made for that exact purpose. This blog is to spark discussion, yes, but we've already pointed out that this blog is NOT being used for us to dictate what's right and wrong as we ARE NOT a professional or expert on system topics (nor will we claim to be). The reason we don't post misinformation is because there is genuinely enough misinformation being posted on this site already. We refuse to spread misinformation in any way shape or form. Like I said, there are plenty of other blogs out there dedicated to collecting misinformation and debunking them if that's what you're looking for. We're here to offer people a place to discuss nuanced system topics, which misinformation has no place in. That is why we refuse to post anything containing misinformation.

As for the call out post regarding pipinghot, every point made in it was valid. The point of that post was to bring light to how pipinghot neglected to properly make sure they weren't posting things that harmed the system community. They posted genuinely harmful things, and refused to change anything to ensure it wouldn't happen again. That is a valid reason for people to be upset and angry, especially for those who were triggered by some of their posts. Pipinghot was not a blog for debunking misinformation either. Pipinghot posted blatant misinformation as if it should be considered within nuanced topics. That is harmful. Pipinghot did not combat misinformation with sources. They participated in spreading misinformation. As I've said, the call out post was made to hold them accountable for their actions. Not because they "disagreed with someone's point" or made a simple mistake. These mistakes were not small or mundane. They caused genuine harm, and that needs to be talked about. Making a genuine mistake and posting MULTIPLE "hot takes" that have triggered and upset people are two drastically different things.

We are not wasting our time bringing any attention to misinformation. That is not what we made this blog for. It is not our responsibility to educate others. That is their responsibility. What is our responsibility is making sure our blog's content doesn't contain misinformation and is not harmful to the community. That is all we're concerned about. We will offer explanations on things if we feel we have the ability to do so, and if not we will allow someone else to do so. Knowing what we do and don't want on our platform and being responsible with it is not comparable to posting racist and triggering things on a blog that is meant to be void of misinformation and harmful content.

Yours truly, Mod Green

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

https://www.tumblr.com/burst-of-iridescent/740787422094376960/i-love-how-aangs-fans-want-so-badly-to-defend-and

Your thoughts?

Let's go through it by parts

"Aang is a monk, he shouldn't date/get married/have kids"

Aang is the LAST airbender. The LAST air-nomad. Even if he had made some vow of celibacy/not having kids/not getting married (which was never confirmed or even hinted at by the show), he made it under the assumption that this would affect solely his life, not result in the death of his entire culture once he passed away.

Much like he was given a pass to kill Ozai, he would also be given a pass to break his celibacy vow - which the show never says he made in the first place.

"The Air-nomads are not one to one with Tibetan monks, it makes no sense to get hung up on the pacism"

They are not one-to-one, much the other nations. But the Water Tribes are still indigenous people living in the poles, the Earth Kingdom is known for a great wall and there's a "made in Earth Kingdom joke", the Fire Nation has sun imagery everywhere, and air nomads are even meant to visually resemble tibetan monks.

More importantly, the show made sure to highlight that, to the nomads, pacifism IS a big part of their culture and belief system, and that Aang feels very conflicted over wanting to save the world but not liking the way he's expected to just disregard everything he was taught his whole life.

Comparing "Aang is a (tibetan) monk, therefore he is a pacifist so killing would be against his beliefs" to "Aang is a (tibetan) monk, therefore he shouldn't be dating" is absurd because, yes, Avatar did choose what parts of tibetan culture would be carried over to the story, and only ONE of these made the cut.

When people complay about "People are disgarding the fact that Aang was raised to be a pacifist when they expect him to just be cool with killing Ozai" they are not saying that because "Well, a tibetan monk wouldn't do that", they are saying it because CANONICALLY, Aang's air-nomad culture would be against it.

"Being critical of the air-nomad culture is not the same as disrespecting Tibet's culture"

This one is only truth depending on the circumstance.

Obviously being critical of something the air-nomads do, but the tibetan monks don't, is not racist against real people, nor is it racist in the first place if the criticism isn't fully based on "That's not how MY culture does things, therefore it's bad."

Being critical of something both air-nomads and real life tibetan monks do is automatically being critical of both, though obviously there's a difference between "I don't agree with this belief" and "I hate this entire group of people" (for exemple, saying "I hate the Fire Nation's imperialism because of all the suffering it caused, which was clearly inspired by Japan's imperialistic past that was also attrocious" is very different from saying "I hate japanese people").

Being "critical" of something both air-nomads and real life tibetan monks do because you're going out of your way to misrespresent their beliefs, and you talk about the air-nomads the way people who are prejudiced against Tibetan culture talk about them (which a lot of people in this fandom do without even realizing) IS very fucking racist against a real life group of people.

Again, to make the distinction clear, there's a difference between "I dislike this character who happens to be black" or even "I dislike this black character because the writers were racist, intentionally or accidentally, and thus made him an objectively poorly written character that I don't like seeing on screen" and "I hate this character because he is (insert racist belief against black people here)."

So yeah, A LOT of the hate towards Aang, especifically regarding his pacifism, comes from people being genuinely racist, and pointing that out is not absurd just because "Well, he technically isn't a Tibetan monk. He just looks like one, has plenty of the beliefs and traditions of one, the narrative largely treats him as one, and the audience is clearly excected to see him as such."

[yooniesim]

I know nobody gives a shit about this in comparison so posting a save file with uncredited builds in it, but reminder of that time @mapanou started calling me out of name and spewing hateful nazi ideology at me out of nowhere just bc i made a lukewarm criticism of a paywaller and I dared to say black people are often criticized more for being angry... but since only one of my parents are black that ain't allowed 😬 some of yall acted like this was okay but I didn't forget it, I notice how some of their friends are acting all betrayed now bc their homie turned out to be a sims content thief but you knew who you were laying down with clearly. You were glad to support an extremely nasty ass person when the vitriol was directed at me, but God forbid someone not credit a build! anyway guess who was struck down and it wasn't me bitch 💀

That aside, since the insufferable cunt had the nerve to mention the One Drop Rule, which has been used as a tool to discriminate against all black people and keep their mixed offspring othered for as many generations as possible, here's some sources on what it actually refers to (and some related articles about the struggles of mixed race people). It's a method of discrimination by white supremacists, not a way for mixed race people that you think are unworthy of speaking to "claim" to be black. If you're lurking, mapanou, i hope you and your friends read them and understand something you should have already at your "very big age".

One Drop Rule on Wikipedia (for the basic concept + more sources)

How The "One Drop Rule" Became a Tool of White Supremacy

How The Nazis Were Inspired by Jim Crow

Understanding the Stressors and Types of Discrimination That Can Affect Multiracial Individuals

Exploring Black mixed-race experiences of Black rejection

Not Enough Or Double The Prejudice: On Being Black & Asian American

Why Imposter Syndrome Goes Deep for Multiracial People

When Your Own Family Is Racist Toward You

^ the basic gist for the lazy. and just an added bit. I don't know if mapanou has ever seen me, because I barely know them and certainly didn't share with them, but I have been doxxed plenty and my pics probably shared to them by others and im obviously not white though i am light skinned. im very proud of my dark natural hair, brown eyes, thick lips and big nose that I all got from my father. I have nothing to prove nor hide about who I am. I am black and asian and white and I love every part of what makes me, me. I am mixed race and if you don't believe or like me as I am that's your problem not mine. just wanna clear that up for all the people that may have been confused about it. and for all my followers that are mixed, especially black and asian, I love you and you have a place here. your voices and experiences are valuable and you deserve to be heard. that's all I got to say.

[devine-fem]

I wanna hear you talk about JonJay. I just need to hear someone else’s dislike for it from someone that also actually reads comics and I’ve noticed you had JonJay DNI in ur bio.

WHEW. Listen disclaimer: If you like Jonjay. Do not read this. Also, do not interact with me because if you like Jonjay, you will not like me.

My issue is that I kind of like Jay’s fight against colonization but that is it. THAT IS IT. My problem is that it came about in such an awful way… like it’s like Representation 101 that you don’t do what Tom Taylor did with Jonjay… he created a character for another character to be queer and not only that made the characters boring…

The thing about Jonjay shippers is that a lot of the time the shippers enjoy the racist/bad writing version of Damian… they always weirdly speak like they hate Damian… Also, people who are an apologist for older!Jon… HAVE TO BE ILLITERATE… like there’s no way…

My friend was telling me that they’ve never met a Jonjay shipper who had good takes and good taste in media… it just doesn’t exist… and how hostile they are with young jon and damijon in general… I’m not going to lie… hating damijon and liking jonjay never made mathmatical sense to me… even if its not damijon… I’d prefer ANYTHING over jonjay… I trust that any other ship has plenty more substance… and no, it just… jay’s character exists to put down Jon’s… as long as Jay exists… Jon will never be able to grow and shine… read SSOKE and take a second to realize that the focus there is Jay and not Jon!! THAT IS WHY SSOKE IS SO BORING! like jonjay shippers only really care about jay anyway which makes no sense ???! thank you for telling me to rant because i dont get those people at all

AND PEOPLE WHO SHIP JONJAY AND HATE JON? it just makes no sense like wtf?? i guess it kinda makes sense because theres no way you like jonjay and actually gaf about jons character… you probably just like gay superman and thats it like… tom taylor hates good romance… its like dickbabs hurting babs… jonjay hurts jon…

im rambling but yeah, i hate jonjay… its the only ship i hate besides like obviously incest ships or tim x anyone LMAO but like its not about getting in the way of my ship, its about being a bad ship that is associated with the character assassination of my favorite character… i guess i kind of think of it the same way roy fans think of jayroy but also i like daminika (or my idea of daminika) so like its really not about “getting in the way of my ship” i really could care less… ships are fanon

dude. dude. listen. i saw a jonjay shipper say that damijon has no chemistry because they barely have chemistry as friends… talking about chemistry and bring a jonjay shipper is crazy? CHEMISTRY SALES BABE? adventures of jon kent couldn’t break 6 issues and you wanna talk about chemistry? the proof is in the pudding… the people dont like mid. dude. listen. jonjay shippers are just idiots… they have to be 😭 your brain cant be braining in order to like that bro. they be like “i love you 😐” LMAO LIKE JUST NO EMOTION LIKE WHO CAN ENJOY THAT. thank you jonjay for reminding us youre dating because honestly we could NOT tell. cant wait for you to disappear all year then reappear during june 😭

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

Me personally well I think that dog whistles are called dog whistles because a reasonable person might say them and you have to keep listening to find out what the person means.

Like I'm gonna use inner city crime rates as an example here but it's heavily applicable to other things. There are reasons to bring up the level of gun violence in a major inner city in the context of talking about gun control. Obviously more crimes in general happen in urban centers because of the sheer number of people per capita around. A mass shooting or gang violence is highly unlikely to occur in a rural area because who are you going to gang network with or massacre when your neighbor lives 3 miles away and there's no mass gatherings? However racists love to talk about gun violence in inner cities when they're actually talking about black people, because they associate blackness with criminality and for historical reasons black people are disproportionately more likely to live in major city centers in the northern US. So you might hear in one context the same statistics espoused by someone reasonable who just wants to clean up the guns, and in another context hear it from someone who is expressing a racist fear of inner cities. And the way to know the difference is to listen to the context around the statement.

The thing about fascists and racists is that their rhetoric changes quickly. They're opportunistic. They aren't acceptable in our current society so they rely on you not knowing what they are. Which means that if you just learn The Things That Fascists Say instead of actually analyzing why a speaker is saying what they are saying, you are gonna miss a lot of fascists. The example I used above is one that's usually a dog whistle but there's plenty of dog whistles that are usually not dog whistles. You need to learn to analyze speech and ask yourself why someone is saying what they are saying and what their goals are rather than look around for the right buzz words, because sometimes a fascist will use all the right lefty buzz words and still be trying to convince you genocide is cool