#this is a strawman argument

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

Genuinely would love to meet the "purely positive" dog trainers that aversive/balanced trainers keep talking about. You know, the ones that are so against using force that they just let their dogs walk into traffic.

Boy, they sure must lose a lot of dogs every year and honestly I'm amazed they're still alive themselves if they're getting dragged in front of a semi trailer every time they go out for a walk...

[t1sunfortunate]

I truly do think one of the largest pitfalls among the "media consumption is my passion" crowd is the tendency to treat characters as human beings with agency rather than narrative tools manipulated by the author

[areawest]

there are adults on tumblr today who genuinely believe that the US is the ONLY country in the world where different states have different laws. and I have to share the internet with these people. in 2024.

[televisionsyndrome]

i've seen sooo many people on the opposite side of this debate about BAH blogs say something like "so we should stop selling knives because they can be used to harm?" uh no, nobody said that. you literally just pulled that out of your ass.

1) nobody is arguing to get rid of BAH blogs, which is what this metaphor implies, and 2) adding a vetting process to a blog where people are giving out headmate templates is not analogous to banning knives because nothing is being removed. this argument is completely facetious and i don't understand how we got here.

so here's my metaphor to explain my opinion: look at the way guns/gun licenses in the US are sold in many states. it's typically a two week (give or take) waiting period and lots of paperwork. sometimes things like gun safety classes. sure, this doesn't stop all the shootings that could happen in these states, but by preventing people from just walking into a gun shop and getting both a gun license and a gun in the same day, these states are making it more difficult for gun violence to occur.

me saying that these blogs should have a vetting process is equivalent to that situation. not equivalent to banning knives lmfao???

[big-bad-shorty-king]

I need leftists to realize that if you wanna get people involved politically, you don't be a dickhead and say shit like "google is free" to people who are actually asking good-faith questions. Like "google is free for the news" my dumbass in politics, maybe give fucking suggestions on where a person can find accurate information, and don't jump down someone's throat who is asking in good-faith.

It's not willful ignorance if someone is actively changing their positions on things as they learn more, if you don't know something, how the fuck are you supposed to have an opinion on it.

[rwbyrg]

hi! noticed the ask by the anon about the reactions to rosegarden and i can't help but wonder...

do you think any of them would have some reservations because of the oz in oscar's head thing? i reckon there may be some slight lingering intensity for each member regarding him so there's a chance they could be wary... but more so for ruby and oscar, rather than exclusively ruby

I answered the last ask on the assumption that them becoming canon wouldn't happen until after the war is won and the Oz curse is broken. Simply because I don't think either of them have the time or capacity to tackle that sort of relationship before the main plot is resolved. So in the hypothetical situation that they would get together and it's before the curse is broken, I think there's a chance some of the people around them might be a bit wary. At least Qrow, Tai, and maybe Yang. However, with it being so close to the final fight, it would probably be the least of anyone's concerns at that time. "Seeing as the world might end in three weeks, so long as those two are happy for whatever time we have left, I don't really care if Oz is around for it or not", if you know what I mean?

That being said, I think I am too biased to answer this in a yes-and kind of way. I know you're probably asking in good faith, but in full transparency, I'm pretty jaded by how often this particular topic gets brought up. Since this is not the first time and probably won't be the last, I'm going to take this as an opportunity to share my stance on this idea as a whole.

Ozpin's place within Oscar and RG's stories is one of conflict; which is what all stories revolve around. And it is not, nor has it ever been, a deal breaker for RG's relationship to me. The Ozcarnation curse is an allegory for a few things. The first is simply growing up. RWBY is a coming of age story, and Oscar isn't the only one going through that arc. But this conflict and grief of how he doesn't get to choose the kind of person he wants to be - largely because of the people he's met and things he's experienced - is not unique to him. The curse is just a fantasized and exaggerated version of it.

The next one isn't so much an allegory as it is plainly stated in the text, but it's a story about choice. It's about how even when we are irreversibly changed by things outside our control, we can still choose who we want to be. Even when it's hard, even when the influences are strong, even when it's downright traumatic. Oscar's story is about self discovery and self acceptance; about choice and change. Regardless of if Oz fades into the background, or his curse is broken, or they become a blendy merge of the two of them, Oscar is still going to remain his own person in some way by the end of it. Because this is ultimately a happy story and that is the main driving conflict of his personal arc.

The assumption that Oscar is going to get absorbed or overwritten by Ozpin being such a common take in this fandom never ceases to confuse me because of that. It also confuses me because the show - while it doesn't fully explain the extent of the merge mechanics - has told us that Oz has had families in his previous lives by "learning to live with the souls with which he had been paired".

The other allegory I'll mention - of which I am not the first, nor necessarily the best, to be pointing out (here is a great example from a little while ago) - is one for plurality. Some of the friends I've made in RG spaces have DID and have spoken to me about how they interpret the Ozcar situation; how it's similar or different to their own experiences. Hearing those stories, once again, makes it really hard for me to see Ozpin as any sort of deal-breaking barrier to a rosegarden relationship. This idea that Oscar must be isolated from his friends and constantly scrutinized when showing interest towards any romantic partners because of Oz's presence lacks both imagination and compassion for me. Oscar never asked for this curse, he didn't do anything to deserve it, and to condemn him to a lonely life because of something like that seems really antithetical to the themes of this story and to the characters involved. While some characters within the story might have some doubts about the relationship, at the end of the day it is not up to them on what Ruby and Oscar decide to do for themselves.

Again, this isn't aimed at you, Anon. I just wanted to say my piece on it given how pervasive this topic is. I truly look forward to the day where folks can talk about RG without this being the first thought or argument that everyone jumps to.

[pynkhues]

When black people tell you that some of your talking points are racist, you should probably sit up and listen rather than slinging accusations of terfism back at them. Just a suggestion.

I mean, I have been listening, anon, and I've actually been reading pretty widely, and as I said yesterday in this post, which I assume is the one you're replying to, my talking points aren't being addressed at all. What's happening is that strawman arguments are being created for people to demonstrate my apparent racism which are built on things that I never said and would never argue, because it's easier to do that than actually engage with the nuances of what masculinity is and has been.

One of the ways that I've been listening was in regards actually to that post I was linked to yesterday which talked about the fact that Louis doesn't embody Black masculinity in 1910, which was genuinely an argument I was really curious to know more about, but because it was a stated point and no argument was actually mounted, I did / am doing my own research - I read Michele Mitchell's The Black Man's Burden: African Americans, Imperialism, and Notions of Racial Manhood 1890-1910 last night and I've read parts of Alexa Dagan's These Hard Times Gon' Kill You: Black masculinity, racial and intimate violence, and the blues in the Mississippi Delta, 1918-1945 with the intention of reading it in full over the next few weeks - and those have provided really useful context, so I'm very glad to have read the former and be reading the latter, but they don't support the argument that Louis doesn't mark traditional Black masculinity for the era. In fact they argue the opposite - particularly the first one that specifically goes into Black men being emasculated by white supremacy and the impact that had on Black masculinity, and the effect of class mobility being Black men would distance themselves from lower class Black men when they attained wealth, both things which I think are really present in Jacob's astonishing performance.

I've also previously read Jesmyn Ward's The Men We Reaped, Maxine Beneba Clarke's The Hate Race, and Clint Smith's excellent poetry collection, Counting Descent, among many others, which all explore topics of contemporary Black masculinity (although are broader explorations of Black history, life and identity), and yeah, obviously I don't have lived experience - I'm open about being white and Australian - but y'know. I'm not completely ignorant, and I am listening to voices. A lot of them actually. I just don't agree with you, and I'm not sure why that offends you so much that you've come into my inbox a couple of times now to say words to this effect (calling me a racist before saying 'just saying' / 'just a suggestion' is kind of a tell, anon), but I would say that when you send me asks like this that you're being disingenuous. I don't think you're asking me to listen, I think you're telling me to shut up, which really goes back to that point about this whole thing being an exercise in control, not conversation, which I made in that last post.

I'd also just pose a question to you too, if that's alright. Why is this request for self-reflection never one that goes both ways? I am interrogating my internal biases, are you? Do you ask yourself the question of why TERF rhetoric is really, really pervasive in these talking points? Do you think about why it is you try to apply heteronormative gender essentialism to a queer character / couple? Do you ask yourself why it's so important to you that this character be 'female-coded'? I can appreciate the challenge of that - trust me, working internally in this sort of way is a lot, I know how hard it can be to unpack this sort of thing, and I really do mean that genuinely, so I hope that you take it that way - and look, it can be really hard to know where to start, so here are a few resources, just in case you do want to explore this and maybe start tackling your own biases, because it's not enough to put TERFs DNI in your bio, and it's not enough to only be listening to the terminally online on tumblr.com (I say as someone who's often on here, haha):

Archer Magazine is a great magazine that explores gender and sexuality, with a really big focus on trans and non-binary identity and queer sexuality. There's a physical magazine, but they post a lot online for free. Here's the gender tag, if you want to have a look. I'd really recommend signing up for their e-news though.

TeenVogue's On Queer Fandom and the Radicalization of the Underdog

Who's Afraid of Gender? by Judith Butler

The Argonauts by Maggie Nelson is a really interesting read on her romantic relationship with the trans artist, Harry Dodge, and merges memoir and philosophy. It talks also about gender and parenthood in ways that might be interesting in regards to these particular conversations.

Of course, the documentary Paris is Burning, which is available to watch free on YouTube here.

I also haven't read this one yet, but a few friends have recently recommended Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender by Oyeronke Oyewumi that sounds genuinely pretty fascinating.

So, yes! Anyway. Not really sure how to close this one out, but again, just to reiterate, I've got no issue with you enjoying femme!Louis. Good for you, have fun, we interpret the character and the show differently. That's okay, anon, there are lots of people who like your interpretation more than mine, and I hope you guys have a great time with that in the hiatus and over the next season, but I'm gonna keep doing my thing over here.

[jack-of-aces]

I know this is nobody’s argument but the idea gripped me and would not leave my head.

[2-braincells]

one complaint abt vaggie's character is that she doesnt have much going on outside of being Charlie's Girlfriend. it could just be bad character writing, but it's also an interesting character trait. she was an angel exterminator, totally devoted to adam, doing whatever he says. once she gets kicked out, shed find something else to channel that devotion to. charlie's the perfect choice. it'd be fun to explore what vaggie would do if charlie left. she could have a whole character arc about finding who she is separate from charlie

[aurantiumred]

honestly id rather have someone shove me into a locker and force me to do their homework than use ai, at least the first only steals from one person.

[tubapun]

The thing that always gets me about the whole "when trans men are allowed in women's only spaces they're being degendered, which is just as bad as trans women being excluded" is like. But you chose to go in. You knew what would happen. And you said "eh, it's worth it for the community" or the drinks or whatever fucking thing the event/bar/meeting is about. Like you're actively participating in it yourself, and yet that makes it worse for you? Somehow? You choose the doors you walk through!! Maybe next time choose a door that doesn't have a body as it's welcome mat!!

[nightmareprincessrabbit]

Silly

Hopefully this isn’t too bad for main lmaooo

[viewpointb]

listen. harry brewis isn't exempt to criticism. however I think it's very ironic and telling how much people have been missing the very point of his video on plagiarism and turned his name on a new topic to exploit as of late. when i was trying to look up clips of harry's older videos this came up, and the contents were about the creator clearly being disapointed her line of work (drama youtube) was disregarded as sloppy and something with no effort put into it.

while I do understand her hurt, the thumbnail and title is inherently clickbaiting potential viewers, and her point comes off as a nitpick of a segment harry made out of his own frustration with content mills and how much situations on or between content creators can be so throughly exploited for "commentary" when people don't end up saying anything at all. I think that this is a prime example of the things harry deemed important to criticise. someone who clearly had a point to make about harry's video felt the need to make sure they could milk the shit out of it.

[bookwyrminspiration]

“But sometimes it feels like you don’t realize that it’s only a matter of time before something you do gets someone killed.” (Stellarlune 425-26)

“she couldn’t believe that Fitz had accused her of trying to get someone killed.” (428)

going to fist fight Sophie’s unreliable strawman narrator ass that’s not what he said at ALL

[coreplush]

"why is jax such an asshole? they should make him nicer in the show" SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP i need them to continue to cook if you make him so so niceys i will kill you

[mapswithoutwyoming]

I think a lot of tumblr leftists don't realize "military propaganda is a thing that exists" and "every soldier of an imperialist regime is wholly culpable for all of the atrocities that regime perpetrates" aren't actually beliefs that can coexist. it's like nuance is something that only applies when the stakes are low, and for the most important issues everything's black and white.