#there's ageism (and they think this is normal)

[simandy]

I always think about remaking my twitter account but then i remember twitter people exist and....

[mlgrace]

i won’t pretend to be an expert on these issues i’m speaking from anecdotal experience here but. i really do think a lot of things could improve if people shifted their view of child abuse from “something that only bad and evil people can do” to “something that happens frequently because of the way society views children in general”. like, child abuse is bad and evil but there r moderate, mild mannered, everyday people u know who engage in it. because this society teaches that it’s socially acceptable and necessary to enact physical violence onto children. u can tell a friend or colleague or family member “child abuse is bad” and they’ll agree but it’s also likely that their idea of child abuse doesn’t include things like striking children with an object or verbally abusing them. it’s not at all surprising how common child abuse is when u live in a world where “is hitting ur kids bad actually???” is an ongoing debate and not a given.

[counterspellthisyoucasual]

When does the cycle of abuse become a cycle? Is it when a 20 year old copies the business practices that she’s been apart of for a decade? Since she was a 10 year old herself?

Like, I don’t want to defend Jojo Siwa, but also, I’ve seen so many people getting mad at her because she’s never known anything else. Yes shes technically and adult but she’s still influenced by her mother and 20 isn’t that old, I feel like we should give this 20 year old who has been in predatory show business since she was 10 a bit of a break.

[loki-wants-an-army]

He's immortal but not ageless, someone who has been through a lot but is still here. I really like that

leave him alone!!!!!

[theivorybilledwoodpecker]

The people who say Charles Edwards is too old to play Celebrimbor remind me of the people who flipped out over Ismael Cruz Córdova playing Arondir. And the ones who got pissed that the uruks were portrayed with more nuance than they were in the books.

Like, obviously racism is worse than ageism, but they're still incredibly wrong.

Tolkien's works have sexism, ageism, and racism in them because he lived in a time when those were accepted as normal. But that doesn't make it right.

I don't think we should throw out all problematic literature, but we should read it critically instead of accepting the author's views unquestioningly or trying to bend over to find a way to justify it. And if you are bothered an adaptation that doesn't perfectly align with the source text and the change that bothers you is one that makes the story more inclusive and less bigoted...well, maybe you should question your own beliefs instead of the adaptation writers/directors.

[infamous-if]

i had to block a few anons (or maybe it was just the one?) because im getting the prickling sense that their "mc is pathetic" argument is not being done in good faith and they keep sending me stuff trying to insist that mc is a pathetic loser, but i do want to say that you are not a failure just because you haven't achieved world domination by the time you're 25.

g getting famous at like 15? is the radical thing and it's not normal lmao hence why they're called a 'wunderkind' in the demo, it's not the standard! even victoria, after a career of modeling, is just starting out as an actress. Soft Violence aren't even super famous, but people think that Soft Violence being a little more successful than mc's band means they're misfit alley level...they are not.

i think there is a lesson to be learned here and i think it's rooted in ageism and the idea that life is over after you hit 30. it's not! granted, i am guilty of feeling like this because society forces hustle culture on all of us and they act like the younger you are, the more valid your success is, but it doesn't matter what age you reached success, just that you didn't give up :) there's a lot that we don't know at 20 that we do at 30, as well, and a big portion of that is to try and give up and try again.

i don't think mc is a loser. i love mc <3 more than all the other characters.

mc is also a character who has to go through their own story arc, which means ~transformation~ it's basic writing! and that's why MC may not be at the point that people want but...you're judging MC from the prologue and the first chapter. why would they be successful if the whole premise of this IF is...a competition to get famous? that line of logic doesn’t really make sense to me but alas!

that's all. no more talking about this im begging you because my head hurts from this conversation but the anons are insistent lol.

[sreegs]

i've seen people talking about this before: growing up online in the 90s and 2000s, you didn't give any personal info away including your age. that was normal defensiveness (and frankly we should still do that).

i was just thinking about my experience with that and how, many times, in my little groups of forum buddies and people I met in other online spaces, it was a SHOCK to learn their age. obviously most of them were older than me, but i guess what i didn't really think about is how that helped me be friendly with older people who are just there to enjoy things the same way you are.

now i'm on the other side of that equation. the people i run into online are more likely to be younger than me by a decade or two. there's books to be written about these topics, ageism and your presence online, but i guess what i'm getting at is: if someone in your circle of acquaintances, discord or blogs or what have you, is like 20, 30, 40 years older than you, and they're just being their pleasant self, it's not weird. treat them like you would anyone else.

same thing goes for people younger than you. don't be condescending in either direction. it wasn't long ago that you simply didn't know the other person's age. and truly, you still don't. but, yeah. the obvious thing to add here is, this is different if they're being creepy or making you uncomfortable through their behavior. but their existence isn't an affront to you if they aren't doing anything wrong

[slutforpringles]

What do you think is actually behind the Danny bashing on social media and Reddit lately?

I find it really puzzling, to put it mildly. As if the decision over an RBR or VCARB seat is simple enough to decide 4 races into a 24-race season, which it certainly isn’t.

Some of the Yuki and Liam fans seem to be really young, and for some of them, there seems to be some sort of weird ageism involved in their anti-Ricciardo ranting.

But some of it seems to be an enjoyment of tearing someone down who’s always been popular, despite him not misusing or abusing that popularity

IDK - what are your thoughts, please?

Hey anon! This is actually a really interesting question, and I’d be really interested to hear other people’s thoughts and opinions on too. I think probably how much time you spend online and on which online platforms does probably affect your viewpoint, and obviously this is just my take on the growing anti-DR sentiment based on what I’ve seen/ experienced. 

I think it’s definitely multi-faceted, which is partly why there’s so much of it at the moment, because multiple situations/things have fed into the Daniel hatred. 

I think a very large percentage of it is simply the influx of new fans into the sport that have only seen Daniel drive from the McL era onwards. 

I think a lot of people are consuming more and more F1 content from non-trustworthy sources (e.g. instagram and twitter update accounts, non-reputable websites) that use clickbait and unsubstantiated rumours to create maximum drama. I think this has been particularly tricky for Daniel, because his popularity has made him a super target since 2021 for this.

I think there's a growing sentiment of annoyance at the limited number of seats available to enter F1, particularly for fans of younger drivers who have watched them go through the feeder series and feel it is unfair that they aren’t being given a chance in F1. I think this has become even louder since F1 rejected Andretti’s bid, and I think struggling or older drivers become a much easier target for expressing that frustration than an entire sport/regulatory body.

I think the more recent wave of fans being more critical of driver’s public opinions and thoughts on social/political/moral issues has probably increased scrutiny on Daniel, too. And while I completely agree with fans expecting more and better from drivers, I think there’s a huge amount of hypocrisy and recency bias when it comes to some very vocal online fans and fanbases, which I think also underscores how many of them are part of the new wave of F1 fans. (E.g. I see ample criticism of Daniel from fans of driver’s who refused to kneel during 2020 that are clearly totally unaware that Daniel was one of the loudest supporters of Lewis during 2020 and BLM protests)

I think it’s also just part and parcel of the growing extreme polarisation of the internet. It seems people are becoming far more used to extreme polarisation in general, and the echo chambers of social media and the wider internet algorithms are only continuing to exaggerate that. People also seem to be less and less civil online, and while places like twitter have been a toxic wasteland for a long time, that toxicity and complete lack of normal human interaction has started to affect other online spaces too.

And yeah I do agree that there seems to be a certain percentage of fans that just seem to enjoy revelling in a driver’s struggles, and love to tear down someone who seems to be a happy bubbly person. And while some of that is maybe inherent sports tribalism (which I’m not really on board with tbh), I really think it’s reached a whole new low.

OK sorry I didn't mean for this to be such a long response! Hope that answers your question and I’d love to hear if anyone else has other thoughts/opinions too!! 🙂

[lindsay00000008]

Pet whump society headcanons

CW: Dehumanization, systemic pet whump, ableism (mention of “changelings”), allusion to apartheid with “pet only” facilities, ageism and allusion to putting pets down, yeah it gets pretty dark

How are pets dressed?

Pets would have a specific vibe of clothing or hairstyle, so it would be easy to pick them out of a crowd or sense they don’t belong. I’m thinking “fun” haircuts like wolf cut, mohawk, elaborate braids and buns. Or hairstyles that are very easy to maintain, shaved or effortlessly short and messy.

Clothing would be an overcommitment to a certain aesthetic, depending on the owner’s tastes. Usually bold and gaudy, or an uncomfortable style made to show off the pet’s best qualities.

The punk crowd could keep wearing these too, to show solidarity against pet ownership. And boomers get angry at the youths for dressing like pets just because it’s “trendy”.

That may also cause clashes with the cops or pet control departments, if they keep stopping people who “look like” pets.

Do pets have to crawl?

I mentioned in my story about Honey that only rich assholes with too much time on their hands make their pets “trot” on hands and knees everywhere they go. While it’s wrong to make your pet walk upright for too long (can be dangerous and exhausting), it’s not a good idea for them to trot outside or in most public places, as the ground is dangerous and unsanitary. Most of the time it’s acceptable for them to walk. That is, unless they’re inside a house, in which case it’s up to the house owner to determine.

Sort of like “a no-shoes household” —not everybody cares, but it’s generally polite and acceptable for pets to trot then, even if they wouldn’t normally. Sometimes the same holds true for working/service pets, made to trot within an office or classroom, whereas they would stand and walk around the rest of the facility with their owner.

They’ll generally sit or kneel on the ground when not moving, whether in public (on a train, at a restaurant, in a library) or in private. Many public places have designated plastic or rubber pads for pets to sit on, next to human seats and below tables.

Do pets use their hands?

I also made a note that while pets are still considered to have “hands” and not generally prevented from using them (not bound into paws or anything), it’s generally frowned upon and considered bad training if a pet uses it’s hands. This is because pets are silly little creatures who don’t know their own strength, and tend to hurt themselves or others if allowed the same mobility a human has. They’re basically allowed to use them as a primate might, holding food (not utensils) and drinking from them, moving a pillow or playing with a toy. But they shouldn’t be opening doors or doing more complex things like using tools (drawing/writing implements, hairbrush/toothbrush etc).

How long have pets been around?

Pet theory has been around for hundreds of years, but emerged as an evidence-based sociological/governmental designation comparatively recently. Pets have been scientifically classed and evaluated for since the late 1800s, although for many years after, only the upper class was able to afford evaluations for their family and peers. The caretaking of pets was seen as both luxury and philanthropy. While some families were shocked to learn that theirs included pets, many understood the necessity of revealing pets through scientific inquiry, as research would later show the rapid quality of life increase for pets who no longer have to play “changeling” and were treated appropriately with medication and training. It became common for rich families to evaluate prospective matches and employees for pet classification, and they often adopted those who were discovered, a generous act lauded by many pet conservationists. Nowadays pets are more commonly found and more affordably adopted, as testing procedures have simplified and become mandatory for most jobs and some cultural events, such as acquiring a marriage license or passport.

Do pets speak?

Pets are trained to rely on their caretaker to provide, and to not focus on their confusing pet thoughts. It isn’t good for a pet to engage in prolonged communication, so giving a pet small commands is most appropriate. Pets should be encouraged to reply with expressions, actions, or humming vocalizations. Some owners choose to correct their pet’s unnecessary vocalizations by trimming the hyoid bone, docking (shortening) the tongue, or (for the wealthier owners) undergoing a procedure in which a selective aphasia is triggered in the pet’s brain, keeping their comprehension in tact but limiting output ability.

Pet peeve question: pet hygiene?

Well trained pets can use the same restroom facilities as humans do. Because they’re not so dexterous with their hands, bidets are a universal commodity (lol idk - guys I really don’t want to make any pet owners rely on diapers or soemthing eugh)

It’s recommended that owners alternate sponge bathing and fully bathing their pets, checking their hygiene daily. They should also consistently brush their pet’s teeth and/or give them brushing toys to gnaw on.

It’s recommended that pets visit a care center for checkup every three months once fully trained, to ensure both physical and emotional well-being.

Pets in training should return to their home facility at least twice a week to get proper care.

Are there any older pets?

As pets age their appearance and mobility can suffer, as well as their emotional and mental well-being. While pet research is advancing and always finding new solutions to prolong the wellbeing of a pet, current projections note that a pet’s lifespan is generally between 25 and 35 years, depending on the age of pet status acknowledgement. If pets are found at a later age and do not receive proper care in time, they will generally suffer complications and resist training, requiring end of life care earlier than a well-trained and stable pet.

[chaotic-archaeologist]

long time follower, first time asker... i really need some wisdom or encouragement right now. i'm in my 30s and have been working on a bachelor's degree for years, in fits and starts, with a lot of setbacks. (finally landed on history with religious studies minor, but i used to study anthropology as well.) the thing is, i recently watched a guest lecture by a wonderful religious scholar (dr. francesca stavrakopoulou) and she was so... inspiring? erudite? smart? she was incredible to listen to, she seemed so in touch with her field and was able to draw amazing connections and answer questions with references to multiple religions and languages off the top of her head, was able to recommend peers of hers by name for other specialities, it was really inspiring.

but as awesome as she was, after the lecture was finished i was a little devastated because i feel like i will never be able to achieve that level of ease and expertise no matter how much i study. i feel like a fraud, i feel like my adhd is holding me back and turning my brain into swiss cheese. it's already taking me so much longer to get a bachelor's than it should and i'm painfully aware you have to have a PhD to really work as a historian; i feel like i'm so far behind that i'll never catch up and that as i get older i'll just get worse at learning... is this imposter syndrome? am i just struggling with a plateau and need to push harder to reach the next level? am i just not cut out for academia? have other academics also struggled with this? what do i do? :( i love this field more than anything, i have wanted to study people and history since i was in high school. i don't even know what i would do with my life if not this, but i just don't know if i'm completely out of my league and living in a fantasy land or if having a career as a historian is really still possible...

You know what, I'm really glad you asked this question.

I had a very similar experience recently, where I went to an academic talk that was so well done it left me thinking well shit, I'll never be able to do something like that. But you know what? I really do think that's the imposter syndrome talking.

I'm a fan of the four stages of learning. Unconscious incompetence, conscious incompetence, conscious competence, and unconscious competence.

You and I, as upper level students, are maybe somewhere on the cusp of conscious incompetence and conscious competence, which is not an especially comfortable place to be. We're aware of how much we don't know, and when we do things, we have to try really hard to be good at them.

The talks we both watched were given by people at the level of unconscious competence. And you know how they got to that level? By doing a PhD and spending a really long time immersed in the literature. They started their learning journeys earlier, and so they know more than we do right now. Which is normal!!! At this point in our careers, we are not expected to be able to do work like this, and there's a reason for that—we're not ready yet. But with time, we will get there.

(Psst, you know what the biggest prerequisite for giving a talk like that is? It's passion and a genuine interest in your field. You can't learn that, or force it if it's not there. And it sounds like you've got it covered.)

So now I'd like to address your fears of being too old. I totally understand—ageism is real, and it's especially hard in college settings where everyone around you tends to be 1) much younger, and 2) on the high school -> college track. Not being on that track is not a moral failing. The higher education system in the United States is very hostile to anyone who doesn't perfectly fit into the university's machinery. That is a problem with academia, not with you.

I know plenty of nontraditional students who have gotten their degrees at varying ages. When they give you your diploma, it won't have your age on it or how long it took you to get your degree. What matters is that you've earned it, not when. Better now than never. Don't give up.

I would like you to try to do on thing for me: look back through your life and make a list of all the moments where you had an "aha" moment. When you realized this was something you wanted to do for the rest of your life. When you did something and felt good about it. And I do really mean write! it! down! Keep this list (and add to it) so you can look back at it. I pay attention to stuff like this when I write in my journal so I can remind myself during low moments.

Congratulations, it sounds like you're passionate about something enough to pursue it doggedly, even when things are difficult! That's something special that not everyone gets to have. I think you owe it to yourself to do your very best to pursue your dream.

-Reid

[mask131]

So many lasting Greek mythology misinterpretation today could be avoided so simply if people just thought about what they are saying and doing. Really, it's just a question of thinking in a logical way.

Like Medusa, you know? There are so many people who literaly didn't notice that there was a slight problem when you said on one side "Medusa was the daughter of primordial two gods, and the sister of many monsters and dragons of Greek mythology" and on the other "She was a regular human priestess turned into a monster by the gods". For them it was just... normal, I guess? When the answer to this incoherence is just quite simple: Medusa started out, in Greek mythology, as a divine monster born out of the primordial forces of the world ; the story of Medusa as a human priestess comes from Roman literature when they reinvented the Greek myths. People just confused the two: as simple as that.

But people don't want to look at the incoherences of the "popular culture" version of mythology, apparently. I was doing this post initially upon seeing yet again depictions of Zeus and Poseidon as old men with white beards. Which is something that always bugs me for one simple reason: Everybody agrees and says the Greek gods are eternally young and cannot age. Why then are Zeus and Poseidon, THE gods by default, always depicted as old men?

For many people it's simple and clear-cut, somehow, but it is such a massive incoherence, especially since all the other gods are shown as young. And the answer is so simple if people just bothered looking for it: Zeus and Poseidon, were bearded men in Ancient Greek art, but had BLACK beards (or "blue" depending on if you understand literaly the Homeric names). They were adult men, but not OLD men (as opposed to the "beardless youth", who were basically in their 20s whereas the "bearded gods" are like... in their 30s or something).

The whole "old thing" is just resulting on the HUGE reinvention Europe made of Greek mythology from the Renaissance onward, mixing the "All Greek statues are white, so the gods were white-like" misunderstanding with the old, "acceptable" concept that god-rulers had to be like the Biblical or Christian patriarchs, elderly men with white or grey beards.

I don't mind per se the idea of Zeus or Poseidon being an older guy, because it is indeed now part of popular culture and it has been around for too many centuries to ignore or reject. Plus, it can be a good way to fight the ageism inherent to Greek mythology by depicting gods as elderly but still beautiful and "perfect" (which is what Renaissance art onward actually did). But it doesn't change the fact that it is not accurate to Greek mythology, and that it is HUGE and ancient misunderstanding.

Like Dionysos or Aphrodite being fat - it is something acceptable and understandable today, and it is justifiable in many ways (from cultural precedent to positive evolutions of our modern era)... But it is still a reinvention of Greek mythology, and not a faithful reproduction or an accurate depiction of how the Greek gods were. Because Ancient Greeks were fatphobic as fuck, to use modern terms. But beyond that, we enter into the whole debate of the artistic freedom, and the importance of reinventing and playing with myths and legends to keep them "alive", and that's an entirely different topic.

(Funnily enough, since I am bringing the Aphrodite business: yes, making her fat or middle-aged is not accurate to how the Greeks saw her, and is bringing modern era ideals, if Renaissance can be considered "modern", to Ancient matters. At least with the Romans, there's something justifiable because they had a "mother-goddess" thing going on with Venus, but for the Greeks Aphrodite was young and fat was ugliness, that's for certain. HOWEVER! The funny thing is that all those comics and movies depicting Aphrodite as a literal pin-up with a tiny waist but a huge butt and enormous boobs is just as inaccurate and "wrong" compared to the Ancient Greeks beauty canon. Because while Ancient Greeks hated people being too fat or too skinny, considering this "ugly", they also disliked people being too "developed". When a guy was too muscular, or had too large of a dick, he was considered ugly and visually "vulgar" (which is why grotesque figure like the satyrs had these huge sexual organs, and statues of the gods had tiny ones ; and Herakles doesn't look as much of a bodybuilder as super-hero comics depict him). So to have Aphrodite as just big boobs and butt on a stick is basically also making a goddess that the Ancient Greeks would have deemed ugly and "vulgar"/"grotesque", if not repulsive.

So you know... We can criticize the mainstream media alongside the new reinventions of today, because EVERYBODY'S WRONG and that's the fun of it Xp)

[not-goldy]

But why Jimin is feeling some type about turning 30 🤔 He doesn't have a biological clock ticking to get pregnant, he's a man who according according society doesn't reach their 'expiry date any time soon, he got everything settled financially and family wise, he got supportive parents but he lived majority of his life away from them... now even if he wants to have them here he's perfectly capable to do so. He still looks dropdead gorgeous... actually older he becomes prettier and graceful he turns. His body is still young and beautiful, He already got a partner who is so understanding and makes him feel the best no matter how he looks or his age.

I don't see Tae, who's same age as him focusing on turning 30 much.. he's still having fun, dating best girls out there, all set to enjoy after he retun from MS too. Like he should..because 30 is still very young in my book lol

Biological clock to get pregnant....

Ha🤣

A. He's human

B. Different backgrounds Different directions in life

Tae doesn't have chronic backpain does he??

Tae's career is not woven around his ability to dance his ass off and contour his body into impossible shapes does he? He dances sure and he's good sure but he's not Jimin 🥴

Watch BTS Island or whatever that show was I think they talked about these things- vmin I mean.

Remember he said he hated working out but then had to learn to love it because he needed to work on his form. He said he was becoming weak- he is not just a pretty face. He is not the type of idol you'd give a mic and a seat center stage to perform.

He is Beyonce. He is a spectacle

He will always be a spectacle unfortunately

Losing weight, dieting, fixing his teeth tweaking that- can't do that all his life that's just sad if he has to😢

So he is gonna reminisce and wonder if he should keep doing this or choose a different part- as he said he did before in the past when BTS was going through stuff.

He's gonna reinvent himself take stock reevaluate and shit. 30 is a milestone I suppose most idols do that before they decide to go all in for the long ride- you wouldn't want to look back at 40 and regret certain things you know?

This is where I start ranting bout the impossible beauty standards and performance expectations yall have of him- HE IS SOMEONE'S SON NOT AN OBJECT FOR YOUR ADMIRATION

And before you tell me this idol don't do that that person don't do that- THAT PERSON IS NOT JIMIN AND YOU KNOW DEAD WELL YOU HOLD JIMIN TO A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD THAN TEHM DONT LIE

And let's not forget 30 is primarily when an Idols career is assumed to have come to an end in kpop- sure there are new trends of older idols breaking the stereotypes but let's not act like age isn't a huge part of Kpop and that newer younger, much much younger idols are popping up on the scene- they may not be as seasoned or as talented but that will not stop toxic stans perpetuating ageism against BTS.

Its very normal for an idol of JMs caliber to put some thoughts into what he wants to do with his life at this point- if the company isn't going to be any helpful to his career and he doesn't have his age playing in his favor then boy or girl he very much has a right to ponder over his age. He's human.

If he's queer and wants a family then he very much has to worry about that too. And don't be fooled, men do experience low sperm count as they age and other erectile disfunction as they age too it's not just women like they try to portray.

They grow grey hairs and they go bald 🙄

Their bodies change dramatically with age too🥲

I can go on and on but he's just human doing what normal humans do.

[confused-rat]

My takeaway of Catradora coming across as "siscon" was from the both of them being daughter-figures to Shadow Weaver, Lily had to dig around and make shit up to call them sisters literally. We are not the same.

In all seriousness, I feel Nimona is a better example of ND's work as a creator. And admittedly much of the spop fandom left a bad taste in my mouth for things like attacking and degrading anybody who happened to enjoy "OG She-Ra" genuinely.

I still hate Lily's brand of toxicity far more than whatever petty shipcourse and other fandom slapfights. She's among the exact personality types who actively make it worse for everybody.

I'm pretty sure that one kid on twitter who made redesigns/reimaginings inspired by the original show wouldn't have gotten harassed by *ADULT* spop fanatics if people like Lily hadn't contributed to that being a normalized behavior in online fandom circles (the Ink Rose incident, anyone!?)

I get why people would’ve gotten those vibes. I always saw the situation as like. An orphanage-type situation/military camp with a bunch of kids being raised by a matron-like figure.

Comparing their situation to incest would be like. Comparing these couples below to it, just cause they grew up in the same environment with the same parental/adult figures.

I think it’s up to the characters/persons themselves to define their relationship in these cases, and if Catra and Adora didn’t consider themselves sisters—neither should we.

The toxic side of fandoms are a plague, so I completely understand. (What’s wrong with OG She-Ra? Why hate the thing that gave us SPOP? Why hate older people in fandom at all, seriously, stop the ageism please.)

And agreed, Lily might’ve not been related to the SPOP one herself, but she’s contributed several times in the past to the toxic mindset that bullying children because of fandom disagreements is somehow okay. She likes to use examples of fandom bullying to prove her points in trashing shows, but she’s honestly a hypocrite.

[youmakethelight]

I've never been in a fandom before so don't know what it's normally like. But I honestly thought, stupidly, that I could just make a silly little account and post silly little thoughts about my fave show and characters atm.

Totally stupid of me I guess, but I didn't expect people I've never met to start targeting and tearing apart my lighthearted commentaries. Didn't expect those same people to taint how I feel about other characters in the show I also enjoyed (rick, michonne, maggie, BETH etc.).

I didn't expect to be made to feel so utterly beneath the rest of the human population bc I dared to lean into the fun I was having watching these characters, and even daring to hope for their story development.

Being in this fandom was so fun for like 3 days and now it's been 1 month and I've only felt increasingly worse and more hated for reasons I don't even know.

It's stopped being fun and feels so serious now. People's mental health is suffering, people are being retraumatised with abusive experiences, bullying is happening among grown adults, ageism and misogyny are being grossly normalised, and so many opposing and strong claims and attacks are being thrown around that I sometimes don't even know what to think about anything anymore. At the same time, I love seeing all the creativity and thoughtfulness happening in this space. It's so weird here. How do I just get the good stuff? How do we all?

I'd been enjoying twd in peace for years. I never felt like my personal thoughts about liking carol and daryl or liking connie or michonne or however else I reacted to things was a problem or wrong. I started posting on here with the same mindset, just enjoying my own business. It's a fictional tv show, I didn't think it was that serious. But boy was I wrong.

Idk why I'm writing this honestly. I'm just getting my thoughts out. I feel like I can't do anything here now without anticipating someone judging me for it and thinking they have a right to be rude. Bye.

[psychabolition]

today my therapist said to me i was upsetting her and she was sad with me bc i was throwing my problems on her YOURE MY THERAPIST DEAL WITH IT

then she was repeating it and saying "youre making me sad/youre making me upset" and she threatened to tell my father about my sh problems if i didnt tell her how i was feeling (i literally cant recognize my feelings it isnt that hard to understand some people have trouble identifying emotions bro)

she also said i was being difficult and she hated "rebellious teens" and she would refuse to work with me if i got rebellious

and then when i told her to talk about me making her sad with HER therapist, she said it wasnt nice. ok what youre doing also isnt nice

idk if it was to guilt trip me or anything but im js kinda annoyed lmao like bro youre in your 40s and works in therapy for like 20 years learn to deal with your own job

✔️ ageism/youth discrimination

✔️ denying you autonomy and disbelieving that you know yourself and what you need best because youre "the patient"

✔️ not being able to materially help you so she blamed you for the problems you face

✔️ trying to coerce you into neuronormativity by threatening you

Average therapist honestly 😂😭 . I also experienced something really similiar hahaha . Like one time a therapist of mine also repeatedly told me how he feels bad and upset when I talk to him about my problems??? I told him that this seems really unprofessional to me and why the fuck he talks about his feelings in my therapy session . Like am I not there to talk about MY feelings? Who cares about how hes feeling ?(I literally asked him that). I also asked him if it isnt literally his job to listen to me ?

Yk what his explanation for his weird behavior was ???? He said that what hes doing is a "therapeutic technique" that should make me realize that my behavior is wrong. It should make me realize that the experiences Im talking about sound disturbing and that he thinks I should realize that Im arrogant and thats why "no one likes me"😭 and that he wanted to show me that I should change "this behavior" by literally reacting disgusted by me and also by straight up telling me that he feels "uncomfortable and upset" 💀💀💀 . Like he literally just tried to make me act more "normal" and say more "normal" things by being visibly and openly repulsed of me and my experiences. Like ???my therapist literally tried to bully me into showing the "correct" behavior basically 😂😂(==which is not talking about my disturbing problems i guess ??). I bet yours is doing and thinking the same. istg. All therapists are the same. Like the situation just sounds so similiar that Im sure that she thinks shes being a good therapist by doing this .

[ruminativerabbi]

Anti-Judaism Then and Now

On Sesame Street, they used to sing a song that challenged young viewers to decide “which of these things belong together.” The idea was that the youngsters would be presented with a group of things all but one of which belonged to the same group. But the trick, of course, was that the specific nature of the group wasn’t revealed—so the young viewer had to notice that there were three vegetables on the screen and one piece of fruit, or three garden tools and a frying pan. You get the idea. All of the things belonged together but one didn’t. It wasn’t that complicated. But the tune is still stuck in my head and I don’t think I’ve heard the song in at least thirty years.

In the grown-up world, there are also all sorts of groups made up of things that are presented as “belonging together.” Some are obvious and indisputable. But others are far more iffy.

Languages, for example, are in the first category. Danish, Japanese, Laotian, and Yiddish all belong in the same group; each is an artificial code devised by a specific national or ethnic group to label the things of the world. You really can compare the Japanese word for apple with the Danish word because both really are the same thing: a sound unrelated in any organic way to the thing it denotes that a specific group of people have decided to use nonetheless to denote that thing. Languages are all codes, all artificial, and all each other’s equals. The world’s languages, therefore, really are each other’s equivalents

Other groups, not so much. Religion comes right to mind in that regard: we regularly refer to the world’s religions as each other’s equivalents, but is that really so? In what sense, truly, is Judaism the Jewish version of Hinduism or Buddhism? Is Chanukah the Jewish Christmas? Is the New Testament the Christian version of the Koran in the same sense that the Danish word for cherry is the Danish version of the French word for that same thing? You see what I mean: the notion that the religions of the world are each other’s equivalents hardly makes any sense at all.

But what about prejudices of various sorts? Are racism and homophobia each other’s equivalents, distinguished only by the target of the bigot’s irrational dislike? Are sexism and ageism the same thing, only different with respect to the specific being discriminated against? And where does anti-Semitism, with its weird medial capital letter and its off-base etymology (because it denotes discrimination against Jews, not other Semites), where does anti-Semitism fit in? Is it the same as other forms of discrimination, differing only with respect to the target?

I suppose my readers know why this has been on my mind lately.

Last week I wrote about that grotesque congressional hearing in which the presidents of three of America’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning, including two of the so-called Ivies, could not bring themselves to label the most extreme form of anti-Semitism there is, the version that calls not for discrimination against Jews but for their actual murder—they could not bring themselves unequivocally and unambiguously to say that that calls for genocide directed against Jews have no place on their campuses. The president of the University of Pennsylvania paid with her position for her unwillingness to condemn genocide clearly and forcefully. But hundreds and hundreds of faculty members at Harvard, perhaps the nation’s most prestigious college, spoke out forcefully in support of their president despite her unwillingness to say clearly that calling for the murder of Jews is not the kind of speech that any normal person would imagine to be protected by the First Amendment.

At a time when anti-Semitism is surging, it strikes me that treating different versions of prejudice as each other’s equivalent is probably more harmful an approach than a realistic one. That is what led to the moral fog that apparently enveloped the leaders of three of our nation’s finest academies and made them unable simply and plainly to condemn calls for genocide directed against Jewish people.

I think we should probably begin to deal with this matter in our own backyard. And to that end, I would like to recommend three books and a fourth to my readers: the three are “about” anti-Semitism (and each is remarkable in its own way) and the fourth is a novel that I’ve mentioned many times in these letters, the one that led me to understand personally what anti-Semitism actually is and how it can thrive even in the ranks of the highly civilized, educated, and cultured.

The first book is by the late Rosemary Ruether, known as a feminist and as a Catholic theologian, but also the author of Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism, published by Seabury Press in 1974 and still in print. This was not the first serious study of anti-Semitism I read—that would have been Léon Poliakoff’s four-volume work, The History of Anti-Semitism, which also had a formative effect on my adolescent self. But Ruether’s book was different: less about anti-Semitism itself and more about the way that anti-Jewish prejudice was such a basic part of the theological worldview of so many of the most formative Christian authors that the task of eliminating it from Western culture would require a repudiation of some of the basic tenets set forth by some of the most famous early Christian authors. I was stunned by her book when I read it: stunned, but also truly challenged. In think, even, that my decision to specialize in the history of the early Church as one of my sub-specialties when I completed by doctorate in ancient Judaism was a function of reading that book and needing—and wanting—to know these texts (and, through them, their authors) personally and up close. Jewish readers—or any readers—concerned about anti-Semitism could do a lot worse than to start with Ruether’s book.

And from there I’d go on to David Nirenberg’s book, Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition, published by W.W. Norton in 2013. This too is something anyone even marginally concerned about anti-Semitism in the world should read. The book is not that long, but it is rich and exceptionally thought-provoking; its author describes his thesis clearly in one sentence, however: “Anti-Judaism should not be understood as some archaic or irrational closet in the vast edifices of Western thought,” but rather as one of the “basic tools with which that edifice was constructed.” Using detailed, thoughtful, and deliberate prose, Nirenberg lays out his argument that Western civilization rests on a foundation of anti-Judaism so deeply embedded in the Western psyche as to make it possible for people who have doctorates from Harvard to feel uncertain about condemning genocide—the ultimate anti-Semitic gesture—unequivocally and forcefully. This would be a good book too for every Jewish citizen—and for all who consider themselves allies of the Jewish people—to read and take to heart. Anti-Judaism is deeply engrained in Western culture. To eradicate it—even temporarily, let alone permanently—will require a serious realignment of Western values and beliefs. Can it be done? Other features of Western culture have fallen away over the centuries, so I suppose it can be. But how to accomplish such a feat—the best ideas will come from people who have read books like Nirenberg’s and taken them to heart.

And the final book I would like to recommend is James Carroll’s, Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews, published by Mariner Books in 2001. The author, a former Roman Catholic priest, makes a compelling argument that the roots of anti-Semitism are to be found in the basic Christian belief that the redemption of the world will follow the conversion of the world’s Jews to Christianity. I was surprised when I read the book by a lot of things, but not least how convincingly the author presses his argument that the belief that the redemption of the world is being impeded by the phenomenon of stubborn Jews refusing to abandon Judaism is the soil in which all Western anti-Semitism is rooted. It’s an easier book to read than either Ruether’s or Nirenberg’s—written more for a lay audience and clearly intended by its author to be a bestseller, which it indeed became—but no less an interesting and enlightening one.

So that is my counsel for American Jews feeling uncertain how to respond to this surge of anti-Semitic incidents on our nation’s streets and particularly on the campuses of even our most prestigious universities. Read these books. Learn the history that is, even today, legitimizing anti-Jewish sentiments even among people who themselves are not sufficiently educated to understand what is motivating their feelings about Jews and about Judaism. None of these reads will be especially pleasant. But all will be stirring and inspiring. And from understanding will come, perhaps, a path forward. Any physician will tell you that even the greatest doctor has to know what’s wrong with a patient before attempting to initiate the healing process. Perhaps that is what is needed now: not rallies or White House dinners (or not just those things), but a slow, painstaking analysis of where this all is coming from and an equally well-thought-out plan for combatting anti-Jewish prejudice rooted in the nature of the beast we would all like to see fenced in, tamed, and then ultimately slain.

And the novel? My go-to piece of Jewish literature, André Schwarz-Bart’s The Last of the Just, was published in Stephen Becker’s English translation by Athenaeum in 1960, just one year after the publication of the French original. A novel that spans a full millennium, the book traces the history of a single Jewish family, the Levys, and tells the specific story of the individual member of the family in each generation who serves as one of the thirty-six just people for whose sake the world exists. (The book begins in eleventh century England and ends at Auschwitz, where the last of the just perishes.) I read the book when I was a boy and have returned to it a dozen times over the years. No book that I can think of explains anti-Semitism from the inside—from within the bosom of a Jewish family that is defined by the prejudice directed against it—more intensely, more movingly, or more devastatingly. This is definitely not a book for children. I was probably too young to encounter such a book when I did, but it is also true that, more than anything else, it was that book that set me on the path that I followed into adulthood. (And that is probably just as true spiritually and emotionally, as it is professionally.) I was too young, perhaps, to process the story correctly. But when I was done reading even that first time as a sixteen-year-old, I knew what path I wished to follow. The Last of the Just is not a book I would exactly characterize as enjoyable reading. But it is riveting, challenging, and galvanizing. To face the future with courage and resolve, the American Jewish community needs to look far back into the past so as to understand the challenges it now faces. And then, armed with that knowledge, to find a path forward into a brighter and better world.