#this isn’t even a strawman i KNOW someone like this

[disteal]

Me: man it’s kind of terrifying to live in the frontier of AI generated media. Like as if it wasn’t hard enough to navigate a hypernormalised late capitalism, already so full of misinformation it’s basically pure noise. Now there’s hundreds of cheap, dubiously sourced generators for everything from art to nudes to eerily accurate replicated voices. It’s not hard to imagine the worst case scenarios for any one of these, as it just makes existing fraud/scalping ludicrously easier, faster and more accessible, but on this scale? It seems inevitable that ai generated images overwhelm us to the point not trusting any images or videos you see of war, or a country, or a classical painting, or a historical event is a future that is rapidly approaching. And I especially don’t like how many of these data libraries are being managed and owned by nazis.

Some booger on tumblr: omfg the misinformation I can’t. Actually if you knew anything about ai you’d know the sprinkl.io and grimble engines are ethically trained and this is pure fearmongering. God it’s sad to see how much female hysteria exists on this website 🙄 hope you don’t wrap everyone else up in your period meltdown

[foropinionssake]

i have a question for you, and i’m genuinely curious.

do you think womanhood should be defined by the ability to reproduce/have children rather than by living within the social role of womanhood, such as wanting to be called “she?” and for women who can’t reproduce, or who have had a hysterectomy, etc. are they still women? what about people who, in every way, have happily inhabited the role of being a man and even you would call them “he” if you didn’t know they were trans, but they could still technically give birth. is someone living fully as a man actually a woman because of one thing that their body could potentially do? is someone living fully and happily as a woman not a woman because of one thing their body cannot do?

i think these questions are good to think about, because it is just a fact that many trans women get called “woman” and “she” by strangers without a second thought, and they respond to that term and feel happy and comforted by it. throughout the whole interaction, there is no claim made about what genitals, dna, or birth-capabilities they have. you have probably had countless conversations like this too, where you were called “she” without having claimed anything about your body or anyone needing to verify. this is because the word “she” is not being used to refer to genitals etc, it is just being used to indicate that you look and act in ways that make you read to others as a woman. that is, most often, the truth being recognized.

with that in mind, it’s easier to see that, when a trans woman asks to be called she, the truth being told is “i like to be called she and seen as a woman,” not “i was born female and have the capacity to give birth and have xx chromosomes.” i have many close and dear trans friends, and none of them actually deny or disbelieve their own biology. in fact, they are painfully aware of their biology. they acknowledge the truth that certain hormones and surgeries can change some things about their body and not others, thus making it easier for them to integrate into the social role that feels natural for them. i have never heard a trans woman claim that hormones or surgery can let them give birth. all of my trans friends, are fully cognizant of the reality of their biology and the limited capacity of science.

what i see is you falling into a strawman argument, assuming that trans people believe false things about their bodies, like trans women claiming they can give birth or have xx chromosomes

it made me realize that maybe you hear the word woman and you think “birth giver, child bearer” rather than “full human person who’s body is none of my business and who chooses to inhabit the social role of womanhood.” i don’t blame you, because our patriarchal society has taught us that the former is all women are for. but as women, there are so many sexist messages we are taught that we have to unlearn. i mean, think of your own experience. wouldn’t you rather have other people see you as a whole person who has connection to womanhood, rather than just a source for babies? isn’t it more affirming to have people see your womanhood as the complex way you purposely and naturally step into the world and show up each day, rather than just a medical category that was thrust upon you at birth by a patriarchal medical system that wanted to determine who you would be? because i know what i prefer. and, in my experience, that is all trans women are asking.

anyway, i am just sending this out of curiosity, so lmk your thoughts. maybe we can have a conversation, but i won’t engage with hostility. i hope you’re having a nice day :)

Women are adult females. Men are adult males. The ability to have children has nothing to do with making someone male or female besides the fact that males biologically cannot get pregnant and birth babies. I am a woman and I’m choosing not to have children, that doesn’t make me less of a woman. The entire issue here is people are mistaking gender roles with gender. You can change your gender roles. You cannot change your gender itself. You are born with it.

[suffersinfandom]

I was going to make some embarrassing, fluffy New Year post about how grateful I am for OFMD and this fandom and how cool it is to be here and participating for the first time ever (I mean, I made some goofy meme edits for BSG and Star Wars, but I sure as heck wasn’t brave enough to share actual thoughts). I was going to type about how awesome and smart and funny so many of the people I follow here are and how much I love all of the meta and art and fanfic, and I was going to go on about how important OFMD is to me and how much it’s brightened up my life.

But then I logged on and remembered how flawed this fandom is, too. It makes me sad to see all of the insults and personal attacks in a fandom that is -- or at least claims to be -- more queer and more accepting and more invested in kindness and goodness than any other I’ve come across. 

There’s the block button, I know (believe me, I use it every time I come across someone who goes on about how abusive Ed is because I absolutely won’t entertain that), but the hostility runs deep and blocking alone isn’t fixing anything. People act like the mere existence of interpretations that contradict their own are direct attacks on their character, and they retaliate by calling people idiots with zero reading comprehension and abuse apologists and cruel sadists who wouldn’t know suffering if it bit them on the dick and so on. It’s not enough to disagree; we have to tear people down and insult them and make everyone angrier by showing our followers strawman arguments being tossed around by ~the other side~. 

Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely abhorrent takes that demonstrate, at best, ignorance on the part of the person making it. We should call those out! 

Idk, I just wish we could have discussions and disagreements without attacking actual human people. Like, I love it when people engage with things they don’t agree with in good faith and pick apart arguments and make new points. I even love passive-aggressive indirect responses to bad takes. Those can be very fun and, tbh, it’s not a fandom without a little pettiness, as a treat.

But it sucks to scroll around and see people in your fandom throwing out very personal insults and attacking others for interpreting things differently or thinking a fake guy is a piece of shit, y’know? I want better for us. We deserve better. 

Also, just to be clear, this isn’t in response to anything specific, okay? I was just generally set off when I scrolled through the OFMD tag today and saw yet another “well, if you don’t see things the way I do, you’re a stupid piece of shit who loves abuse” post from someone I hadn’t gotten around to blocking yet. Not to get personal, but as someone who was regularly called an abusive, stupid piece of shit by someone who was genuinely abusing me when I had the nerve to challenge them, that kind of thing can be legit triggering if it hits at the wrong time.

Also also: I do feel all of those things that I mentioned in the first paragraph! I’m so grateful for OFMD and the fans of it! There are so many brilliant and talented people around here, and I know I wouldn’t be as bummed about the unsavory parts of OFMD fandom if I didn’t love it so much as a whole. 

[charmanderxerneas]

I wish trans people would stop making egg jokes about people other than themselves or people they have permission from. It’s fuckin annoying to assume “Oh this cis person is secretly trans they just don’t know it yet haha” “oh this cis person only hangs out with trans people or is doing something outside of the gender norm? 👀🥚…” fucking stop it.

If someone says they’re cis, they’re cis. Full stop. Just like if someone says they’re trans, they’re trans and you shouldn’t fucking question it further. You don’t know someone else’s gender identity better than they know themselves and it’s arrogant to think otherwise. We should be trying to break down gender norms and allow people to explore gender more freely, even cis people. If a cis guy wants to participate in things that the patriarchy has tried to make only for girls (like painting nails or wearing dresses) it doesn’t mean he’s trans, it means he’s wearing whatever he wants and we shouldn’t be trying to gender shit like that anyways. You don’t want people challenging you on your gender identity- why would you do that to a cis person even as a joke?

It’s just annoying. I’ve seen discourse lately were trans people get So Upset about being told “Don’t make egg jokes about people who say theyre cis, its direspectful” and genuinely have seen dumbass takes like “thats transphobic of you to say. dont compare egg jokes to something as bad as a trans person’s identity being questioned.” I am a fucking trans person and I am telling you that those jokes are not okay unless you have the person’s permission. You ARE questioning a cis person’s gender identity in spite of what they say, which is almost as bad as questioning a trans person’s identity in spite of what they say. Give people some fucking respect. Or ive seen people claim that’s close to “implying trans people are evilly trying to convert others” thats not what i’m saying, please don’t fuckin strawman my argument. There are people who believe that and thats bad but there’s a difference between actually pressuring someone’s gender identity and making jokes. I don’t think theres any mal intent with jokes but like. IMO You shouldnt be questioning peoples identity even as a joke.

It doesn’t matter if the person does later end up being trans or not. What matters is giving them the respect in the moment. Before I figured out I was trans, if people made egg jokes about me it would have been slightly uncomfortable even if true because my relationship to gender is complicated and people pointing fingers going “lol trans” and trying to jokingly assign your gender to you is. Bad. It would have just made me more confused.

In my opinion the only time egg jokes are okay is: 1) If you are talking about yourself and reflecting upon your own experiences (I think it’s perfectly fine to look back on past stuff and go Lol How Did I Not Realize Sooner?) or 2) If you’re talking about someone else’s experiences, just make sure they’re okay with you joking about that. Just ask. its that simple.

If you’re doing it out of genuinely thinking someone is trans: I wouldn’t present it as a joke because you’re trying to be serious but also I would not suggest that to them unless they outright ask you for advice because again: You don’t know someone else’s identity better than they know themselves. It just isn’t your place

[thenightling]

The Casual sexism in the Wednesday Hate

 There is a large faction of people who react negatively the moment something appeals to teenage girls.   I'm not saying Twilight is great literature (not by a long shot) but you see it a lot with the Twilight hate.  half the things they hate about it contradict themselves.   For example:  "Edward doesn't act like a vampire!"  immediately followed by "He watches Bella sleep. It's creepy."  Yes, vampires tend to do that. Do you know how many depictions of Dracula and Barnabas Collins do that?  Angel in Buffy did that, no one made a fuss.  Or how about "Edward's too old for her!" Yeah, I will reference you back to Angel from Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

Also even the romantic depictions of Dracula.  He's five hundred years old and Mina is usually depicted between the ages of seventeen to twenty-one at the oldest. Again, I'm not saying Twilight is any good. Hell, I hate that when wounded they crack or shatter like porcelain plates.  But when you start to notice the contrary complaints you start to realize it's not even really about the content.  It's because it's something popular among teenage girls so that "Must mean it's bad!"       Getting back to Wednesday, Most of the complaints are strawman at best.  Either saying things like "Wednesday wouldn't do that!" (with the Piranha). The Hell she wouldn't!    Or "Wednesday wouldn't defend Pugsley from bullies. She'd join in."  Someone ACTUALLY said that to me!  There are DECADES of depictions of Wednesday taking on bullies who go after Pugsley because "No one hurts Pugsley but me."  That's actually an old line.   It's not new.  Even Cain has said it in regard to Abel in at least one of The Sandman spin-off comics.     Or "They made it woke. Wednesday was never woke!" clearly that one has never seen Addams Family Values or the Thanksgiving Pageant.     Or "There was never anything supernatural about the Addamses."  Yeah, uh, huh.   How many times are we told Grandmama and Aunt Ophelia are witches?   And about about Thing and Lurch and Cousin it?   Or how about the fact that Uncle Fester has controlled electricity since the 60s?   Or It's from Tim Burton. He hasn't do anything good in years.  No.  He hasn't.  But this was actually really good.   This was the best thing he's done since 2005's Corpse Bride.  Or even the self-righteous "It's racist because the black characters are antagonists."  Once you point out they're really not you get a "Yeah, but it looked like they'd be antagonists and that's problematic in and of itself.  Meanwhile it's a who-done-it.  And everyone looked antagonistic in the first episodes, even Gomez!    Or the other self-righteous "It isn't queer enough!"  Eugene has two mothers and Enid's mother wanted to send her to "conversion therapy camp."   It wasn't overtly gay but it's a gay metaphor.  And there will probably be openly gay kids. There's a lot that hasn't been explored yet.   So far we've only seen two characters struggling with romances.  Give it time. Someone commented about Wednesday and how unrealistic it is for girls to fight each other for popularity or over boys.  Umm...That's not in there... At all... No one fights each other over boys in this.  There's no competing for a boy's affection.  And the only time Wednesday fights the popular girl it's a duel in the Fencing class.   The popular girl is actually nice and saves her classmates in the final episode.    And of course "It's just a rip off of Harry Potter." or "Riverdale" or "Sabrina" and pretty much the only similarity is "There's a school!  And Supernatural stuff!"   Yes, The Worst Witch beat you to it, and even Dracula made reference to Scholomance, a mythical magick school in Eastern Europe.  It's okay to dislike Wednesday.  But I think some of the hate is nothing more than "Eww, teenage girls like it so it must be bad." or you assume it's only for teenage girls, never mind that Tim Burton's work has always transcended demographics.

[voidify333]

People saying “Romeo and Juliet are idiots, that’s the reason the tragedy happens, if I was in their position I would simply just not end my life over a 3 day teenage relationship lmaooooo” actually annoys me even more than people saying “R&J is a great love story”

Like they’re both incorrect and shallow readings of the text but the “great love story” reading is just immature (and tbh I have never actually seen someone state it, outside of song lyrics using their names to evoke the archetypal lovers??? I’ve seen it more often just used as a strawman by people saying the other thing), and comes from a place of sincerity, while the “they’re just idiots” reading is cruel and mean-spirited and comes from a place of irony poisoned bullshit and MISSES THE POINT OF THE STORY

The central thematic idea of the play is that feuds, and hatred more generally, are pointless things that lead to tragic bloodshed.

If not for the feud, Romeo and Juliet could have courted openly, then they’d either get married with no drama or break up over non-fatal drama and marry other people. However, in the world of the play, there is a feud, so the only way for them to explore their attraction to each other is to double down on it to the max, which in the end leaves 6 people dead including them.

THIS IS THE CORE OF THE TRAGEDY and it KILLS me to see people trivialise it down to insulting the leads’ intelligence

Sure you can argue they acted foolishly by doubling down. But anyone who isn’t aroace knows that crushes make you do reckless things, and this is especially true when you’re a teenager experiencing these feelings for the first time

Kids, children, should be allowed to behave foolishly without people ending up dead— the deaths in this story are the fault of the Montague and Capulet ancestors who started the feud, not the kids

[sunnist4rs]

Intro Post

Hiya, welcome to my blog!! You can call me Sunni, that’s not my real name but I know people can get pretty crazy when it comes to politics so I’m not comfy using my main username for this blog right now. I’m a teenager so I’m still working out where I stand morally and politically so keep in mind that my views can and will change frequently.

I grew up in Australia until recently when I moved to Spain however my family and I have been planning/preparing our whole lives to live here. I identify as Hispanic as I am pretty involved in the culture and community. If you believe that this label doesn’t apply to me because of my genes that’s fine, it’s your opinion but this country means a lot to me so this is how I identify.

This intro is pretty out of date (I now identify as a radfem) so please keep that in mind while reading.

Blog Purpose:

Now onto the nitty gritty stuff; this blog is for politics keep in mind since I’m not American I of course don’t know lots about their policies. But, I know on the internet the political climate is heavily influenced by what happens in that country so I try my best to understand/keep up to date with American politics, at least the basics.

My political background:

My family and I grew up huge liberals, we used to watch pride on the TV/irl every single year for as long as I can remember. However last year my mum started to become more radical feminist in here beliefs, I remember I’d defend the trans movement with all the same stupid talking points until eventually I started watching more YouTube channels like Acheeto (I was already a fan of him for a while cuz I found him really funny even though I disagreed with him).

For a while my beliefs aligned pretty well with those displayed in a Think Before You Sleep video. Now, I’m sort of torn because my mum is radfem and I naturally want to stand with her but then I’m also still an anti 4th wave feminism. So I’m not sure where I sit with that topic but in general I stand with her.

On this account I’m gonna probably gonna reblog a good amount of TERF stuff even though I’m unsure if I stand with all their opinions. I hope people from that community aren’t gonna be judgemental of me just because I’m not 100% with them right now as I do agree with a lot of what they say.

Some opinions:

The topics I am sure on my stance with are mostly facts>feelings things such as;

Obesity isn’t genetic it’s caused by an over-eating disorder, if you want to maintain a healthy weight you have to deal with the addiction, then make sure you eat healthy food and exercise (both these things are so much fun and so amazing i guarantee it’s easier than you think).

Being transexual is a mental disorder and I feel so bad that you have to deal with that. To people like Blare White, I love you. But, to the many trans people who spread misinformation and gr00m kids into transitioning instead of dealing with their insecurities/mental health issues or try deny biology to force your way into woman’s sports and spaces, I don’t like you.

DNI:

I believe in free speech (the only good thing about America istg) so there’s no DNI for this blog. Everyone is welcome just please maintain basic human decency and civil discussion when in disagreement with me or someone else here. Mudslinging and strawmanning is not civil, treat others the way you want to be treated, respect is important. If you’re rude and don’t display basic decency in debate/interactions I’ll just block you. Also keep in mind that I am a minor so NSFW accounts need to stay away for legal reasons.

Tags:

I don’t have many consistent tags on this blog but my main ones are;

#Sunni posts- for my posts

#Sunni answers- for asks

#Sunni speaks- for when I add onto someone else’s post (sometimes in the tags)

#Sunni reblogs- for when I reblog something

Fave posts:

[shaftking]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5Jind9pJjV/?igsh=MTBzNTA3dGt2eGN0Nw==

This is annoying since as we know, nb isn’t even progressive. If it said “respectful,” that’d be one thing, I guess, but the fact that it says “progressive” gets on my nerves. Not to mention the amount of passive aggressive people in the comments showcasing their privilege and ignorance 🙄

The strawmanning in the comments is crazy too like far be it from me to defend boomers but frankly they’re right about how entitled nonbinary people are calling not getting called they them and neopronouns or changing pronouns daily.

They/them has existed as a singular for a while but it’s only really used in a certain specific context often when you genuinely have no idea if that wallet someone dropped belonged to a man or a woman. Like we call a baby “it” before it’s born a maybe shortly after but would never call a child or a whole adult “it” unless trying to be intentionally insulting or demeaning.

[irritatednick]

Your Bullying Doesn't Reveal Our "Hypocrisy": The Body Positivity Backlash, The Scourge of Healthism, and Why Our Language Around Fat is Really Dumb

I wrote this on my WordPress blog 2 years ago and I wanted to share it elsewhere. ...Enjoy?

Content Warning for fat talk, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, and infamous bigot Matt Walsh.

I happened to come across asshole Matt Walsh’s video about his perceived hypocrisy of body positivity activists and it’s so strawman-y it’s ridiculous. Now, I kinda didn’t know who Walsh was before this, but after a Google I found out he’s offered many inflammatory hot takes about a bunch of people, including trans people and sex workers, so his fat prejudice is less surprising.

The description for Matt Walsh’s YouTube video The Body Positivity Movement Is Confused (I’m not linking it; search for it if you must) reads:

”According to the Left, you are not allowed to criticize the fact that Americans are coming out of COVID lockdown with some extra pounds, despite it being objectively unhealthy. This doesn’t quite add up given that the body positivity movement tells us we are supposed to be proud of being heavier.”

Wow. FUN.

I felt compelled to watch the video to get more context for this claim, and I ended up watching the whole damn thing. Nine minutes of pure joy. Anyway, Walsh’s issue seems to be with MSM articles for having the audacity to condemn fat shaming toward people who became fatter during COVID-19 shutdowns. If this is his understanding – that Leftists are against criticizing people for getting fatter in the pandemic – then to me it makes perfect sense that BOPO activists, who are “proud of being heavier”, would… not like it? Perhaps Walsh is conflating overt criticism of peoples’ fat with any acknowledgement of fat gain. It should be obvious to him, and to anyone, that if you think "big is beautiful" then you would not like people telling you your fat gain is wrong or bad.

I think what he means though is that simply being told you’re fatter is seen as triggering, and that such a trigger doesn’t square with BOPO. I find it hard to believe that most people who want to have a chat about your fatter body are just making a neutral observation, or that the reason they bring it up at all isn’t because they’ve been conditioned to “watch out” for fat. But this whole thing is a straw man that is contingent upon the second part of the video description, the idea that BOPO equates to fat pride. Someone who is proud of having a fat body likely won’t bat an eye if someone close to them mentions they've gained weight. But fat acceptance / body neutrality covers a range of body beliefs, from “get fatter if you want to because we have body autonomy” to “be considerate because fat growth happens outside of your control whether you like it or not”. Admittedly, body-neutral��people may not want to hear any comments about their fat, because it reminds them about their continued discrimination or because, unlike the fat-proud, they believe your fat size/shape is a neutral descriptor and shouldn’t indicate anything about your worth or your personality. Still, this idea that even fat-proud people had oughtn’t even be shaken up by CRITICISM for their fat is really ignorant – that being triggered would necessarily mean that they “know deep down” that they don’t want to be fat, and not that… you know… having past and continued experience of discrimination for your fatness doesn’t still suck even if you otherwise like your fat body.

But Matt Walsh’s beef with body positivity isn’t really about hypocrisy. He rejects the premise outright that we should give fat people a break, and the first reason he gives is that, well, he thinks it’s unfair. Walsh doesn’t think it’s a given that just being confined to your neighborhood is enough of an “excuse” to let yourself become fatter. He said he and others exercised plenty during the shutdown and that he’s in better shape than when it began; people actually shame him for “bragging” about his pandemic fitness progress. He is appalled that feeling good about his own accomplishments can be perceived as a microaggression, and he’s not about to use any social discretion to protect people’s feelings. He goes on to say that in his experience, he’s been in and out of shape, and that some embarrassment is appropriate when you fatten up. It’s “motivating”. Similar to what I’ve heard from self-hating fat people, Walsh claims to know what it feels like to be fatter and unfit. He believes the social narrative that you should “fix” these things with your own hands; to do so demonstrates good moral character. But people like Walsh believe your health is chiefly a “personal responsibility”, so if he has to work hard at fixing his body, he’s not gonna let anyone else off the hook. Unlike actual fat people, however, it is not clear from this video that Walsh’s fears about his body and worth come from the lived experience as a fat person who’s faced the plethora of discrimination that comes with it. It’s not that he drank the Kool-Aid; he is so hard on himself only because fat stigma exists. He doesn’t want to become one of these fat people, to have the fat experience – the kind of experience you can only get from consistent prejudice and discrimination in society and not, as Walsh likely believes, limited to the consequences of your own controllable shortcomings.

Now, Walsh does not “recommend depression and self-loathing” about it. Oh heavens no. He thinks “stewing” and “dwelling” on your embarrassment is bad, sure, but assumes most people should be able to get past it. If you suffer from mental illness, you may have a hard time doing that (this might actually be perseverating). And even if you don’t live with a psychiatric disorder, I think any fat person who endures concern trolling and social exclusion on a daily basis will eventually come to “stew” over their bad bodies. Walsh explicitly states he believes that your fat is something you can and should control, and that being fat is bad for you (though of course he doesn’t specify what metric he’d use to determine who exactly has crossed this fatness threshold). Walsh believes in the “calories in, calories out” model of adiposity – which has faced renewed challenge by researchers – and he takes for granted the idea that a lean (and therefore healthy) body must be EARNED through constant effort, saying:

“The body positivity movement is just one long way around having to go for a jog.”

This assertion implies that we should accept its corollary: if you’re unwilling to put in the effort, you don’t deserve a healthy body. Furthermore, it’s evident from how Walsh talks about fat people that he believes this earned health makes thin people virtuous. As such, fat people must lack virtue.

Toward the end of the video, Walsh gets to his thesis:

”We are… both making excuses for weight gain… and going to great lengths to make sure that people don’t feel bad for their weight gain. And yet at the same time, the body positivity movement tells us that we should be proud of our bodies, no matter their shape… no matter how many extra pounds of lard may be draped over them.”

I so appreciate Walsh’s imagery here. Delicious.

Still, his rhetoric brings together several distinct and important concepts that are integral to fatphobic society all in one convenient clause. Analyzing each word here can illuminate how flawed these concepts are:

Extra When do we consider fat to be extra? Is fat extra in a location, or at some amount? Which locations, and what amount? What is the line between the fat someone needs to be a person and fat that is “bad” for them? I’m not saying you can’t parse that out, or that the answer is NEVER relevant. But you can’t just throw that word around, especially if, ostensibly, we’re concerned about people’s health here. A wrong answer could be deadly. Among other issues, gender policing is afoot. A lot of times, we don’t like where a woman’s fat is located if it makes her look more masculine (e.g., in her belly); we don’t like where a man’s fat is located if it makes him look more feminine (e.g., in his chest).

Pounds We are accustomed to measuring an entire tissue in terms of weight, which is odd because:

A) The weight exerted by your fat tissue is only one factor clinicians need to know in order to determine IF your fat is dysfunctional and, if so, HOW the dysfunction is affecting you. The problem isn’t simply joint stress from having “too much fat” or internal pressure on organs, and even here knowing someone’s weight/BMI won’t tell you if your adipose is messing with your insides (e.g., if you have fatty liver disease or sleep apnea). That’s because – and if you knew about the science of adipose you’d know this – skin fat takes the lipid burden away from visceral fat, and if this subcutaneous organ isn’t doing its job, you’ll look thinner and weigh less but you'll have diseased fat on the inside, and you may not realize.

B) Adiposity is a feature we mostly notice as a spatial phenomenon – both a dimensional one, like height, and a shape-based one, like sex or age. Yet we don’t usually keep track of our own linear measurements, nor do we solicit others’ (women may take issue with my claim here). As it so happens, if you really want to nitpick about someone’s body, you can measure fatness more directly with tape measure and skin calipers than with a scale. This bias for assessing weight instead of size/shape may be a kind of denial. “Sure you can SEE that I’m fat, but my weight? Who knows!” I think it also ties into how we see fat as transferrable, mobile, and external – not a fixture of our bodies like our muscles and bones. This reductionist conception of the discrete pound, or even the inch, also functions to enforce the notion of fat as an adjustable and isolatable feature of the human body whose sole and exclusive manipulation is both possible and uniquely consequential. Neither of these assertions has good supporting evidence. I recommend Zoe B’s video on nutrition science and the food industry for more info, where she discusses the conceptions of the calorie and the macronutrient and how they’ve been applied.

Lard A double-whammy, this word manages to both ignore the integral, vital, and intractable nature of adipose in favor of its lipid contents, and also reinforce the degrading and partly racist origins of fat stigma by comparing a person to an animal at the same time!

Draped over Yet again, this phrase reinforces the idea that fat is external to the body and both concealing and restraining. Fat is something you wear, not something you have. The “real you” is inside.

Walsh says people want “pity” for their “obesity”, but they still want to “celebrate” it. And he sees this as a logical contradiction, as hypocrisy. He concludes the video by urging fat people to solicit pity – even though he doesn’t think fat people deserve pity – for their own sake.

Because, you know, he cares.

He’d rather them feel entitled and claim to be victims than deny that “being obese is a bad thing”. Passionate fat-enthusiasts may want to “celebrate” fatness. Though they almost certainly don’t want your pity. Even still (scratching my head, dumbfounded here) you surely CAN hold the view that your body is beautiful FOR being fat – or even believe only people who are fat can be beautiful – and also acknowledge the fucked-up ways fat people are treated by a society that wants to keep them down. You can absolutely hold the belief that experiencing fat discrimination does not necessarily mean your fat is diseased or unhealthy, and still call out discrimination against your body type.

Thanks for reading everyone. If anyone vibes, let me know.

[solena2]

I posted 16,877 times in 2022

That's 319 more posts than 2021!

40 posts created (0%)

16,837 posts reblogged (100%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@droppingartintotheinfinite

@dotted-ink

@patronsaintofdemons

@prokopetz

@pindl3

I tagged 1,505 of my posts in 2022

#shameless self promotion - 186 posts

#pog art - 121 posts

#stories - 118 posts

#my art - 104 posts

#goncharov - 96 posts

#sol arts - 79 posts

#undertale - 53 posts

#utmv - 47 posts

#need to know - 41 posts

#the post - 41 posts

Longest Tag: 138 characters

#prev: no i’m pretty sure the homestuck days are worse. and there’s a good shot there’s something even bigger than that that i don’t recall

My Top Posts in 2022:

#5

Just saw someone claim that saying “not all men” and saying “hating men is bad because all gender essentialism is bad” are inherently the same idea and didn’t want to derail the post, but I think there’s a genuine discussion to be had here, so

Hot take, apparently, but the problem with “not all men” rhetoric has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of the statement. Like, we can all agree that not every single man, (or the majority of men) assaults women, right?

The problem with people saying “not all men” isn’t that the statement they’re making is wrong, it’s that they’re engaging in bad faith and obfuscating the actual debate. Because no, not all men, but also “every man has assaulted a woman” was never the point the opposing movement was trying to make. Dudebros just acted like it was because there’s no way to oppose the statement “assaulting women is bad, actually” without sounding like a tone deaf asshole, so they built a strawman to mock instead.

But the post that prompted me to write this wasn’t written by a dudebro. It was written by a terf.

And the problem with terf ideology, also known as the core of terf ideology, is that they really do believe that all men are bad, inherently, by virtue of being men. They view gender as a moral alignment, with men on the “bad” side and women on the “good”, and any deviation from that binary as misguided at best and malicious infiltration at worst.

Which is why they hate trans women, view trans men as confused, and either treat nonbinary people as “women-lite” or, more often, refuse to acknowledge them entirely.

So why is that a bad thing?

Because being real here, that’s a question that needs answered. The seeds of terf ideology grew in fertile soil, and knowing what led to that is important. Knowing the conditions under which radical feminism thrives is what gives us the insight to root it out early.

The same time that “not all men” rhetoric was popular with the right, significant parts of the left were beginning to respond with “yes, all men”. Partially out of frustration at first, I think, at least for those unfamiliar to such statements. (As many of us were, at the time.) People embracing the “man hating lesbian” stereotype and similar things used to discredit them. Going “you know what, maybe I do hate men, maybe I should hate men, maybe everyone should.” because they were hurting and tired of being hurt and when sexism is such a prevalent issue it is genuinely difficult to oppose the statement.

It’s very easy to take a hatred of misogyny and translate it to a hatred of men, because misogyny is synonymous with men, right? Built by men and perpetrated by men and kept alive by men.

So shouldn’t men be sorry for it? Shouldn’t they attempt to atone, whether or not they, personally, have bought into it? It’s certainly true that all men benefit from misogyny, so shouldn’t all men be treated with suspicion?

It’s easy to see why terfs believe what they do, in the end. Their beliefs are based in personal pain and anger and trauma so often.

The problem, as it often is, is that it’s not that simple. “All men benefit from misogyny” is not a true statement, and “all men benefit from misogyny and need to atone for it” is worse.

Any man who’s been called a fag, for example, is not reaping the benefits of misogyny. Any man who doesn’t fit in the cookie cutter mold and is punished for it, whether that’s a drag queen or a gay man or a cis straight man who just likes the fucking color pink, men are just as socially shackled by misogyny as women are, top of the gender bullshit food chain or not.

Misandry is just as bad as misogyny ideologically. The reason it’s rarely as much of a problem has nothing to do with the inherent qualities of womanhood. Systemic misandry isn’t often a problem because we haven’t historically had much of it.

Feminism is not and never has been an attempt to invert the status quo, place women on top, and call it a day assuming the exact same bullshit won’t arise. Feminism is a fight for equality, a fight where we try to liberate everyone, lift everyone up instead of pulling each other down.

We are not crabs in a bucket.

“Trans-exclusionary radical feminism” is what happens when someone decides pulling other people down is easier than lifting them up.

It’s an ideology built on assuming you’re the only victim that matters.

You’re not. Oppression isn’t a competition.

Stop trying to pull us back into the bucket. It does nothing constructive for anyone.

9 notes - Posted June 8, 2022

#4

Love the genre of tumblr post where op mocks people who make popular posts and then gets like 50k and has to grapple with the fact that they’ve become the clown they were laughing at

The karma is 10/10 every single time

9 notes - Posted June 8, 2022

#3

Dracula: tells his good friend Jonathan Harker to absolutely under no circumstances fall asleep anywhere other than his room

Jonathan:

11 notes - Posted May 15, 2022

#2

My mom: this looks like your character’s hat!

Me: my character?

My mom: yeah! The one with the wings who you always draw?

Me: wh

Me: you mean Philza Minecraft?

Me, looking closer at the vase: ...actually, I think I’d pay to see that

15 notes - Posted January 1, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

Saw a post about which books the batfam would read that was Wrong so I’m throwing my hat into the ring

So first, Bruce. Bruce has No Life aside from the whole “pretending to be an entirely different person in public” thing, and as such he reads precisely three things. 1: shitty romance novels. He says it’s because they’re the kind of thing his persona would read so he needs to be able to talk about them if asked but he secretly likes them. 2: anything nonfiction. Put literally any nonfiction book in front of him and he will have finished it within an hour, regardless of length. 3: Agatha Christie. He’s read all of her books multiple times and got all of his kids into her work as well.

Next is Dick. Dick doesn’t read much, because this man has absolutely no free time ever. Like, day job as a cop, night job as a vigilante, and a social life? He doesn’t sleep and he definitely doesn’t have hobbies. He does really like comics though. He owns pretty much every Calvin and Hobbes collection ever published, along with a respectable amount of Foxtrot and some Dilbert stuff he regretted buying after doing some research into the author. He also has a semi-secret pulp fiction addiction, especially the weird horror thinkpiece ones that you always regret reading when you try to sleep.

Jason, unlike Dick, reads constantly. He loves books, he is a massive literature nerd. Since he lives on his own, he gets a lot more alone time than the others, and he spends most of it reading. Jane Austen is his favorite, but he also likes other romance novels of that era more than he’ll readily admit. He also loves Frankenstein, partially because he projects on the monster and partially because he finds the fact that Mary Shelley started writing it in order to avoid having to talk to Oscar Wilde hilarious. He mostly reads classics, but he’s got a soft spot for more recent coming of age stories. He read The Girl Who Could Fly when he was like 12 and it’s stuck with him since.

Barbara really likes sci-fi/fantasy novels with heavy worldbuilding and intricate plotlines. Any time she hears about a series that’s five books in and still hasn’t fully revealed the main plot, her eyes go wide because she knows what she’s doing until 3 AM that night. Because of this, she’s also recently gotten into plot heavy isekai series, though she slightly regrets it due to how exhausting all the harem bullshit can get in a lot of them. She can’t read any book with hacking in it because the inaccuracies kill her inside. She also loved The Martian, but like, who in the batfam wouldn’t, honestly.

Tim, being a heathen, Doesn’t Read. He’ll pick up a book on something if it’s the only way to get the information, but he mostly engages with media by watching video essays and/or reading the sparknotes. He just doesn’t focus well on books. If Jason every successfully bullies him into giving audiobooks a chance, though, he’ll probably get into them a lot more, since it’s just the format he has trouble with.

Steph is one of those people who specifically seeks out terribly written stories because she thinks they’re hilarious. The worse a book is, the more she loves it. She mostly goes for bad YA dystopia novels, since they’re easy to find, but anything that manages to be so bad it’s good is up her alley. She also reads vigilante rpf, mostly because of the faces people make when she forces them to read fanfiction of themselves. Wattpad is her favorite site in the whole world.

Cass has trouble with reading, on account of her whole Thing, so when she wants to read something she’ll bully someone else into reading it to her. She likes fantasy novels, with a noticeable trend toward anything remotely similar in vibe to The Last Unicorn. Jason introduced her to The Chronicles of Narnia and she loved it.

Damian reads horse girl books. He pretends it’s because he’s mocking the “infantile characters” and “plebeian obsession with friendship” but everyone knows the real reason is that he’s pissed he didn’t grow up in a time when riding a horse everywhere was practical. He’s also read just about everything by Tamora Pierce or Anne Mccaffrey, though he won’t admit to it because he’s ashamed of genuinely enjoying stories with predominate messages of love, hope, and caring for each other. Recently he’s gotten into Diane Duane’s Young Wizards series and he’s completely addicted.

Alfred, if asked, will profess that he’s read every butler’s handbook every created. This is probably true, but his real interest lies in bodice rippers. No one knows this except for Bruce, who found one of his stashes on accident when he was 9 and almost ending up reading some extremely steamy porn before Alfred caught him and moved his secret cache off the property.

47 notes - Posted June 14, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

[ziracona]

Sometimes those ‘this position is sooo stupid and to prove it, I’m going to write the same argument but about a different but similar topic’ posts are really funny and accurate, but I see more and more of them that just throw themselves into false equivalency and get accepted as just as funny and right and it gets exhausting.

I wish people didn’t so often seem to fall for things in the same /form/ as something previously true and presented the same way to them, as being absolutely definitely true without any need to think it over yourself. Like you could false equivalency about anything on the planet and do a good job of making it sound believable. That’s why it’s a popular logical fallacy.

But it is kind of a big deal. I mean, reading comprehension—especially when it comes to things used very intentionally and tactically to convert beliefs and shift the truth—anyways is. But like, false equivalence I see specifically used IRL a lot for bigotry, even compared to other fallacies. Sure, some things like “Please be respectful about my gender identity. It’s really important to me that I identify as a helicopter and it’s not hurting anyone, so it’s not much effort to ask you to remember. Machine is a real gender identity. Please respect that and use heli/copter, and consider making someone with my same pronouns next time you create art, because it always help to have helicopter rep!” might be easily recognizable to /you/ as the idiotic bigotry and 3 separate logical fallacies it clearly is, but to an 11 year old who doesn’t know better and is just trying to learn abstract concepts they’re new to, it probably isn’t.

“Men aren’t privileged! They don’t regularly make more money and there’s no wage gap haha what wage gap? There’s not normalization of entitlement to women’s bodies, or victim blaming of violence towards them. Lol huh? They aren’t prioritized for jobs. Haha what do you mean doctors take their complaints more seriously?” — is a funny use of accurate facts and sarcasm about society using the form “I am going to state lies about facts to prove a point,” — but — “Men aren’t bad and privileged! They don’t like, regularly make more money and do nothing to change the system that prefers them, and there’s no wage gap haha what wage gap? It’s not like men wake up and oppress women every day. Women just maybe aren’t as good? There’s not constant predatory entitlement to women’s bodies by men, what do you mean that’s a male thing and men excuse away violence by other men en mass by victim blaming the violence they inflict on women. Men aren’t bad they wouldn’t do that. Lol huh? Men are not out here prioritizing other men for jobs to keep women out of power and uphold the status quo. Haha what do you mean doctors even take men’s complaints more seriously so even women’s ability to survive is constantly under attack by men haha whaaaat?” Sounds pretty damn similar, but it’s not the same thing at all. Doesn’t take much to change the argument, and create a false equivalency between a truth (these statements are false in part or whole) and an untrue outcome (ergo the opposite is true).

The first comments on social structure, not individuals’ goodness or intent, keeps to one idea instead of trying to tie two arguments together, and is the exact reverse of the opinion it’s making fun of instead of trying to use a more true stance to make a less true or extreme one sound entirely baseless. But it takes very little change to the language for a very charged argument that sounds similar, but is arguing a totally separate kind of point (men are bad bc male privilege exists, instead of society has male privilege), ties two arguments together when they are not innately (men are bad, & male privilege is real), is not the opposite of the argument it mocks (mocking ‘men aren’t bad’ by strawmanning it as the same as saying ‘men don’t have privilege,’ which is inaccurate as an equivalence), and is logically hollow. — IE ‘men aren’t bad, they wouldn’t do that’ uses a false equivalency for the subject of its own sentence. ‘Men’ here is used to mean ‘all men in the world,’ but ‘they’ — supposedly the same subject — is used to mean ‘no man ever.’ The sentence here is ‘all men aren’t bad, ergo no men do bad things,’ which is false in both true delivery and sarcasm form. Because they’ve changed the meaning of their plural from ‘all’ to ‘some’ within the same sentence, to try to make a logically sound seeming argument, cloaked by humor to draw attention from the flaws.)

And all this to say I’m really sick of seeing this one specifically all the damn time.

[themelodicenigma]

"Luffy isn't shown to be attracted to anyone so he can't fall in love"

Oh, was he supposed to be drooling at the mouth over any man or woman that he runs across? Or spend 100 chapters in a circular romantic drama? Lol I won't strawman this thing ofc, but at the same time, the above point is laughable to me because it's very inconsequential. Anyone who has tenure in reading manga of all kinds, especially Shonen, knows showing a character actively being attracted to or vying for a romantic interest means NOTHING.

It's a classic trope played on. I mean hek, I've seen it used on female characters too. Take a goal oriented, simple yet strong-minded protagonist, and have them end up in a relationship (or hint thereof) in the same vein of their own simplicity? It's always easy work. It usually works so well because the character themselves typically comes with the ability to befriend and gain connections with others. It's just written in the most direct, uncomplicated way when they decide to see that differently and in the "romantic function" for someone.

Goku and Toriko were probably the funniest examples. You could throw Vegeta in there because him getting Bulma pregnant and really not BEING with her was also as sporadic. Soma has all the romantic subtext with Erina despite it not going all the way in directly expressing it (the author even wanted to write them being married), and Natsu's personality + bond and romantic storytelling with Lucy is enough said.

Their stories aren't exactly romantic dramas and being romantic isn't a direct goal of theirs, but that has never stopped an author from being able to make it happen. In cases like Soma or Natsu, if you're a romantic, you'd likely want it to be with someone the protagonist is super close to despite not drooling after them for the entire story. Because for characters who establish strong emotional connections, they don't really need to do that for it to be applied when/how they want it to.

Of course, who YOU want this to be for Luffy is up to you and all. Go nuts shippers. I'm not even a huge shipper in general (like, disposition-wise), but even I am on the Luffy and Nami boat myself because all corresponding material is the most flexible for it. Plus, I do like all these said materials too. I'd also point out that, uh hello, Nami doesn't exactly spend her time in romantic chases either, and yet people still want to ship her with Sanji while making the point about Luffy? Makes no sense. But, if you saw Hancock for Luffy similar to that of Chichi for Goku, then I understand too. @warlordgab has written more extensive things on this, with also all the materials to even talk about, if you want to check them out.

However, this idea of "charcacter shows no attraction to anyone means they can't have romance" is a really weird take. Not every character is Senku XD And you'd be surprised, even if they were, if a mangaka wants it to happen, oh boy it'll happen.

And probably be so simply dumb and hilarious.

[archaeologistic]

Ok, but really, (assuming this actually happened) she went up to a guy (who is supposedly her friend) to ask him about “penised [fake] lesbians” and then immediately follows that up by asking him whether he knows his male (hetero) friends’ kinks and sexual preferences.

Which…is a generally sensitive topic even WITHOUT the weird and bigoted starting point that is only vaguely related EVEN IF you’re willing to commit to the insane level of mental gymnastics needed to get from trans lesbians to “straight men” “pretending” to be lesbians to…the kinks of straight men who sleep with straight and bi women. And…because she is SO concerned with not acknowledging trans women as women, she switched over from saying that trans lesbians are sleeping with (“legitimate”) cis lesbians to sleeping with women attracted to men (straight or bi). Because to say that trans women (“straight men”) are sleeping with lesbians would be to indirectly say that these cisgender lesbians are, themselves, recognizing trans women as legitimate women.

This is a side note, but even at this point her entire argument falls apart. Because she’s trying to say that “real” lesbians are being victimized by being forced to sleep with trans women, but also refuses to admit that any lesbians acknowledge trans women as women, so really the people trans women are sleeping with are straight or bi women…who are attracted to men (and maybe also women)…so they’re still sleeping with someone of their preferred gender…Where are the victims here (apart form the misgendered trans women)??

Anyways, going back to this insane tweet. After approaching her “friend” with this nonsense, Joanne THEN goes on to construct a fictional straw man of getting a bunch of bi/straight women talking about (and presumably mocking) the kinks of the men they’ve slept with. Which…is not cool, regardless of what someone’s gender is. All to bring up that some cis men are into cross dressing during sex.

Of course her friend was uncomfortable!! That’s such a weird and awkward conversation!! Imagine you go out to coffee with your friend from work or something and they start THIS hell of a conversation, just…out of the blue.

And her friend being uncomfortable is supposedly a sign of…what, exactly? Joanne comes up with three reasons:

1. The idea that women talk about the kinks of people they slept with made him upset. Yeah, understandable. That’s fucking rude.

2. That he thinks she’s proving him wrong/ignorant and doesn’t like it? I really can’t laugh harder at this. Her tweet was such a rambling, incoherent mess that I had to read it several times to even begin to see how she could think her one sided conversation was thematically consistent. I can’t imagine how hard it must’ve been for this man to piece together what was happening in real time.

3. That he “found the whole subject ick.” Uh, yeah Joanne, NO SHIT. I showed my partner this post and the idea of that conversation happening made HIM uncomfortable.

The only reason I can even kinda believe this actually happened and isn’t just a creative writing exercise is because her women-talking-about-kink strawman (and general publicized writing) is so bad that I’m not sure if she could’ve come up with this story on her own.

“i sexually harassed this guy and he was uncomfortable! this is somehow trans women’s fault!”

[miraculouscontent]

Anonymous asked:

Considering how divisive Ephemeral has been, what is your opinion about it? Other than that the show (Astruc) is running itself?

An episode that could’ve been really good, but is dragged down by the “100″ gimmick, ridiculous reaches to get to the point they want, hurried pacing, and its endless need to gush over Chat Noir, insisting that Ladybug needs him when this season has showed the exact opposite.

In its effort to convince people of the love square, the show again showcases that the writers are garbage at convincing people of anything when they do this little thing called trying, which is why Lukanette ends up coming out on top in the end; specifically because they’re not trying.

I don’t even know what the intention was with the scene Luka and Marinette had where he “convinces her” (unintentionally) to love AdriChat, because instead of Marinette coming to the conclusion on her own to show that this love isn’t a question to her, it comes off like she blended Adrien+Chat in her head, realized that Adrien (the side she “loved”) wasn’t who she thought, and sought out someone to tell her how to feel. The transition is too jarring for it to be anything else, and when even the writers seem to recognize that Marinette can’t decide that she loves AdriChat wholly all on her own, there’s a problem that the writers won’t say outright but we can see.

And rather than Ladybug being allowed to make an informed decision with all the information about Chat (i.e: threatening to let Paris drown if he doesn’t know secrets that aren’t his to know) while Su-Han gives an actual argument (ex: “Is it a good idea to have a cat who might not be able to show up for battle?”), Ladybug is just there to shut Su-Han up and claim that her and Chat Noir are excellent heroes (I agree with 50% of that statement) while Su-Han is a borderline strawman. His arguments specifically designed to be easy to argue with and of course he never learns Chat’s identity because he probably wouldn’t even stand someone like Adrien (who’s super busy) wielding a miraculous. The guy isn’t even wearing the shoes Marinette gave him, for crying out loud, and him knowing could’ve made the episode worth something.

Instead, it’s just filler episode that does everything wrong except for Luka, Lukanette, and explaining why the love square is trash.

Overall, average/below-average.

Anonymous asked:

While unfortunate, I'm very glad the whole rising sun thing was the tipping point for people to realize whats been going on with the show

Yeah, it’s super unfortunate. Issues like that are always uncomfortable and extend so far beyond the usual territory the show offends.

[riverdale-retread]

Riverdale S6B Ep #108 (“Ex Libris”)

This episode is supposed to be about library books, but actually this seems to be the Season of the Reggie Mantle Ascendancy!

Barchie are not pregnant.  Betty is worried about carrying on her dire family legacy.  Archie thinks that Fred having been a ‘good father’ will somehow just carry on through him, even though he is categorically such a different man from what Fred was. 

Veronica, smarting from being rejected by someone she never very much valued, goes on the offensive to attack Reggie as he’s packing to leave.  Reggie suddenly gives as good as he gets to point out that Veronica has killed a husband and a father, which doesn’t really make her the most promising girlfriend material.  “You’ve never spared my feelings before,” is such a damning assessment you can get from someone breaking up with you, isn’t it? (Consider the stark contrast to how Jabitha are constantly sparing each other from their own distress!). 

But. 

I am having SUCH A GOOD TIME with Reggie just laying Veronica out flat like this. I don’t know why this is happening, but I am here for it!  The mercilessly accurate way he lays out Veronica’s tendency to latch on to men?  The way he’s so articulate and calm?   Nice!

This is the library book episode of Riverdale.

Percival, accompanied by deputies with shotguns (!) visits each of the main residence of Riverdale to demand the return of library books they checked out as children, in commemoration of the library itself being shut down.   When someone is unable to produce the book on demand, Percival takes something valuable as ‘collateral.’

Jughead:  Metamorphosis ←→ the inscribed Baxter Bros. book his grandpa wrote & sent him

Archie: Songwriting From The Heart  ←→ Archie’s guitar (Percival has a nugget of palladium)

Veronica: Kiss of the Spider Woman by Manuel Puig  ←→  Hiram’s portrait.

Chery: Flowers in the Attic ←→ Jason’s body

Betty:  Small Engine Repairs  ←→ Her diary

Reggie:  ACTUALLY HAS THE BOOK.  Dyslexia. 

My first thought was “Do they not have ebay?” but later it’s revealed that there is some form of ebay in Riverdale, so that’s good.

Interesting things are revealed.  

Thousands of dollars is a dire threat to Archie and Jughead, but of no consequence to Veronica.  Jail time matters to Veronica. 

Cheryl is a great match for Percival.  I hope Tabitha figures out that Cheryl should be at the forefront of the fight against Percival. 

Betty I think is supposed to be being persecuted by Alice. But this actually makes me feel contempt for Betty. Alice is being exactly how she always was, and it’s not clear why the fuck Betty keeps letting this happen?  I want to respect Betty, Riverdale, so please, let her move out of this stupid house.

Percival says what I said last episode about Reggie Mantle, after making a very wonderful unexpected-delight sound when Reggie produces his book.  “There’s more than meets the eye with you.”  Reggie and Percival also have the same haircut.

Jughead convenes a meeting, which means they meet at the Jabitha residence. (Tabitha is out of town trying to get Pop’s declared a landmark).  Why don’t they have all their meetings here?    He launches into a speech about the benefits of reading which is very funny coming from a TV show.  That books are ‘terrifying’ to would-be-despots. Are they though?  This is such a Cold-War Stalinist kind of strawman we’re positing, and even then, were those guys actually afraid of books? 

CHERYL HAS VISITED HOBO AND HIS NEW BRIDE AT THEIR RESIDENCE.  I was actually quite shocked by this.   She says the only worthwhile thing (Sorry, Jughead, but your speech, inclusive of the factoids about how ‘some states’ deal with overdue library books etc was just filler).  “There’s a whiff of sorcery about all of this.”  And yet - AND YET - possibly for the first time ever, Cheryl and Jughead agree completely about something:  Books are immensely powerful.  Cheryl, the one who never accepts fate as handed to her, is the one better suited than Jughead (always fated to die) to perceive that what Percival has on them are both intimate knowledge about their formative years and objects of personal importance, which as a witch she would think are imbued with magical powers. 

Percival, in conversation with Kevin, calls the OG Riverdale Five “demagogues.” His mission is to punish them for their hypocrisy, and torture them a bit.  Kevin is such shit, because he suddenly is worried about their well being. 

Kevin:  Lord of the Flies (no collateral).

Percival’s magic (sorcery, whatever) is done by lighting candles and reciting Latin. He’s of the Nana Rose school of witchcraft.

Archie gets mocked by his stupid meathead students at the RROTC about his guitar playing, festival participating past.  Reggie can’t read anything without the dyslexia book.  Betty develops an extreme sensitivity to bleach scents, to the extent that she hallucinates her father.  Veronica sees a spider on her portrait but when she whacks at it, it’s gone. 

Sidebar:   Veronica is, just like Jughead, often a bit wrong about the literary references she uses, and now the way the show uses The Kiss if the Spider Woman is in alignment with that.  Is this an intentional joke about how Veronica Lodge has never read a book by Riverdale? Because if so, I love this.  By the same token, while he’s looking for Metamorphosis on Riverdale Ebay, Jughead starts to develop a painful looking eczema on his hands.  Which is also not what happens in Metamorphosis, so this is a second joke, this time about Jughead Jones also never having read a book!  (Ok well not quite. Jughead is shown reading Dune, for example, and flipping through lots of texts about serial killers.) I barely watched this scene where Jughead’s hands are coming apart in his, um, hands, because I cannot cope with horror, but I am pretty sure a fingernail comes off.

Betty goes to claim her diary back from Percival. He refuses to give it up but permits her to read it in the shop redolent with the scent of bleach.  

Cheryl, wearing stiletto heels in her own house alone, hearings the sounds of a girl giggling and goes looking for the source.  The sounds that identify Heather for Cheryl are two fold, actually: Girlish giggling and orgasmic sighing.  OK, Cheryl. Yup.  Whatever it is that was sitting under the sheets on the bed in her attic dematerializes into a pile of scarlet rose petals. 

Percival plays the cello (rather than the guitar he confiscated), forcing Archie to hallucinate a very creepy Miss Grundy zombie doing the same in the music room.  Meanwhile, Jughead’s skin condition gets worse and DUDES Jughead never read Metamorphosis. He must’ve carried that book around like a talisman to keep himself tethered to the world while he was homeless, because THIS IS NOT HOW GREGOR SAMSA TURNS INTO A BUG OK?  This is however how Jeff Goldblum turns into a fly in that one movie with Geena Davis (the correct reference that Jughead makes is to Cronenberg, not Kafka.)

Reggie ascendancy is still with us (somewhat) and I want to keep hoping for the best.  He wants his dyslexia book back.  Reggie has intuitively made the leap that Cheryl (an actual witch) has done - that this is a magical object for him.  I will permanently adore Reggie and place him above all others for the way he has absolutely no interest whatsoever in dealing a parting blow to Veronica Lodge, even though he acknowledges that their break up was brutal. Unfortunately, Percival (like Hiram, like the wise guys, like Veronica) has cottoned on to Reggie’s extreme usefulness as a henchman.  Percival uses the voice on him to deliver a (cursed?) glamerge egg to Veronica. 

Back with Archie, Betty tells Archie about another one of her repressed childhood memories.  She associates the smell of bleach with Hal’s serial killer ways.  Unlike the time she had to brain a cat with a rock, she just simply didn’t understand what she was witnessing because she was a child.   

Betty Cooper has the most vainglorious egotism of anyone on this show, and because I was very similar, I am going to call her out.  Betty thinks she’s the smartest, most perceptive, most responsible person on the planet, and that because she is gifted with these massive, exceptional brain powers she owes it to humanity to be on top of shit all the time.  “It was right under my nose. And I missed it.”  She says this about something that happened when she was 12.  By the same token, Alice missed this too, but Betty truly believes she’s smarter than all other people who have existed, so Alice is excused her blindness. One of the ways to break out of this way of thinking is to remind yourself that you’re not that special.  It’s very liberating.  I’d like that for Betty, for someone to tell her that she is just not that exceptional, so she can relax.

When Betty asks Archie if something strange happened to him, he lies at first (“Nothing”) and then amends to say “Nothing I want to talk about” but the blinding egotism that Betty suffers from makes her a bad listener.  Why is she so incompetent as an investigator?  Nothing I want to talk about means something did happen, but she just glides on by.  Of course, the reason Archie can’t bring up his Grundy related trauma is because Betty was such an asshole about it when she first discovered it.  She’d been enraged at the time that Archie didn’t want to be sexual with her, so he’s not comfortable talking about it now.  

Jughead goes to Sketch Alley. He finds a lone man, Hank, who spookily says that the clearly magic spell that Percival put on the homeless there was worded to leave Hank out (“He said walk. It’s the one thing I can’t do.”)  Jughead Jones doesn’t believe in magic yet, so he impatiently asks to see if there’s a way to find Doc so he can try to get the book he didn’t read back from his old friend.  Everyone walked to California!  Is this deus ex machina homeless man in a wheelchair some sort of guardian angel?    The stuff he says sounds absolutely sarcastic (“I may have a number for a payphone on Venice Beach”) but it’s meant to be sincere!

Veronica has received the Glamerge egg left by Reggie.  Despite being subjected to the Voice, Reggie didn’t deliver the egg in person.  Smithers can’t find the Puig book, so Veronica namechecks The Strand in NYC which made me sad.  The Strand NYC 2022 is not the place it used to be in days of yore that made it famous.  (Fun Note! They got declared a landmark against their will, which then fucked up its entire business plan of having lots of old and rare books. It’s now just a Barnes and Noble type business inside the building that used to house the true Strand.)  When Veronica opens the egg, she hallucinates spiders spewing out of it, but the moment passes. 

Moose had the copy of the Lord of the Flies!   When he hands it back to Kevin, Kevin says the saddest thing:  That he identified with Piggy and still does, no matter what transformation he was able to bring about on his external physical self.

Cheryl calls the next meeting, bringing everyone to Thornhill. What follows is a very sober exposition dump about how the magic Percival is using works. When Cheryl asks if this resonates with anyone, the only one with enough honesty, emotional courage and open heartedness  (because he STILL trusts all these people!) is Jughead.  His hands look very messed up. Jughead Jones’ biggest fear is that he’s going to die alone having only written one book. (This better not be foreshadowing or I swear to GOD).

The alternatives that Cheryl lays out are pretty stark as well as being surprisingly sensible.  Either fulfill the demands of the spell (Find Library Books, Get Back Personal Totems) or face their demons.  Archie absolutely does not feel ready to face his demons, so he breaks into the shop to just steal back his item.  Percival is way ahead of him.  He’s left a note on the cursed cello for Archie, mocking him.

Jughead goes back to see the (so far ) not an angel deus ex machina man that is Hank, who apparently really has gotten in touch with Doc in Venice Beach via payphone.  Doc has sold the book to a Barney’s Book Barn in Allentown. Allentown is real, the bookshop is not.  

Some smugfaced asshole among Archie’s RROTC class mocks Archie because somehow he’s figured out that Archie had a sexual relationship with Grundy.  Archie absolutely gets triggered, threatens a kid, and then violently destroys a cello when he is engulfed with memories of Grundy.  Did the showmakers know at this point that S7 would be the last one for the show?  Bringing up Grundy now (and using the S1 footage) is very odd.

Next comes the most upsetting thing I’ve ever seen on Riverdale.  Percival seduces Kevin by promising a release from past demons of bad self image and self esteem and then they kiss and I find this repellent. The show has figured out two was to gross me out now - Foni’s male-female bisexual kiss (which they couldn’t even bear to show me in bright lighting) and now this.  A kiss between two objectively good looking men (Percival and Kevin) that gave me the absolute heebie jeebies. 

Just to twist the knife, Archie has to deal with Betty coming home wearing the heart shaped Kubrik’s Lolita sunglasses that Grundy used to wear.  Betty is very appropriate to Archie, using the right language (he’s right to be triggered, because he was groomed).   Is this the show’s apology for their very outdated “hot for teacher” storyline back in S1?

Jughead, looking exactly like he did when he went to the underground movie party, is on the most urgent used bookstore browsing of his life.  

Veronica did exactly as Reggie suggested. She’s called Heraldo over to not have to be alone.  The next morning, Heraldo is dead.  He suffered a very bad death too from the looks of him.  Veronica’s first action after the removal of Heraldo’s corpse is to call Reggie to yell at him.  (”Idiot!” “You fool!”)

Betty’s FBI office uses faxes.  The other TBK victim who survived said that the killer always left a light on for her.   This triggers a second memory for Betty involving her dad.  He leaves a nightlight on, before telling his little daughter that they are both monsters.  Betty decides that they need to look for a serial killer with a daughter.

Jughead has found the books. 

To make up to me for the deeply upsetting Percival-Kevin kiss scene, Riverdale gifted me with Reggie (REGGIE ASCENDANCY! I AM HERE FOR IT!) confronting Percival.  First, Reggie checked the egg before giving it to Veronica, even though (let me say this again) he was being compelled by “The Voice.”  KING.  Second, the way he asks Percival if he’s a wizard means he’s smarter than the rest of the ‘core’ members put together because they all needed to be TOLD by Cheryl what was going on, more than once.  Reggie just figured it out by himself.   He wants  to learn. 

All together at the Jabitha residence, Jughead is congratulated by Cheryl for finding the books “With his bookish ways.” She calls him Nerd not Hobo, which I think is a step up in her estimation.  Archie, still enraged, says that if Percival doesn’t keep his end of the bargain he will commit murder via arson.  This turns on Jughead, of course, leading him to give Archie the most inappropriately loving smile in response to such an outburst.  Veronica doesn’t want the Hiram portrait back.  Cheryl says they have to perform a ‘ritual’ when they get the things back. 

At the Curiosity Shop, Percival smarmily offers to give everything back to everyone except Veronica, who makes a grand statement: No one has power over me. 

Oh dear. Famous last words??

Right before Cheryl’s ritual, Betty tells Archie that she is now finally aware that she is an absolute font of repressed memories.  Cheryl’s suggestion is to set the whole set of things on fire.  Jughead does not want to set the book on fire - because it’s a book, because it’s his grandpa’s, because he’s sentimental about remembrance, and about legacy.  So that’s Hiram’s portrait and the first Baxter Bros. book still in play.

Meanwhile, Percival is being super cute and making a list of his besties in his notebook.  A. Cooper, T. Keller. F Andrews. K. Keller. R. Mantle.   

Doctor Curdle Jr. tells Veronica that though Heraldo did actually die of a black widow spider venom, he wasn’t bitten by a spider.  The venom entered Heraldo’s body through his lips.  We zoom in on Veronica’s unhappy, pretty mouth.  (Um. Shout out to the Tumblrinas who pointed out that Curdle Jr. looked as unhappy as he did because he did not want to discuss any other points of entry on Heraldo’s body that made contact with Veronica’s. I understand what you meant now.)

[wolf-queer-discourse]

Adventures in Aphobia #1

So I was scrolling through Tumblr the other day (a regrettable mistake as always), and I had the great pleasure of seeing this joyous post.

*deep breath*

Not gonna lie, posts like this make me real pissed. Pissed because the person who posted this exists in a space where they feel comfortable enough to post this online. Pissed because these posts are so common and often face little backlash. And pissed because there’s nothing better than allosexuals condescendingly explaining to asexual people why they’re dirty attention whores who invent their own oppression. Ace people deserve to be defended against this horseshit. Young people see these posts, and it’s extremely damaging to have your identity be nothing more than fuel for people in discourse to mock you and demand you bled in order for them to notice your pain.

Anger aside, many people do not see why this post is wrong, so why is it? Let’s unpack this clusterfuck of bigotry:

“would love to see substantive evidence of systematic “aphobia” that isn’t actually just misogyny, toxic masculinity, or rpe culture.”

God damn, we are not mincing our words here XD. A few things: systematic in bold, which tells you if you do not make a blood sacrifice on the altar of queer pain you will not be taken seriously. Potential nitpick, but systemic and systematic are not the same thing. I believe systemic is the word they’re looking for. Systematic implies a lot more intentionality that can be hard to prove. Systemic merely means that systems, in their current state, do aphobic things, which they absolutely do.

“Aphobia” in quotes is absolutely rich. Not only will this person refuse to acknowledge systemic aphobia, which is only one type, but this poster casts clear doubt upon the mere concept of aphobia in and of itself. We love to see it.

There’s a lot to unpack here. The statement, as clearly condescending as intended, is sort of correct, though it doesn’t mean a whole lot. Systemic oppression is about the systems in a society (government, healthcare, etc) discriminating against people. Systemic oppression is not bigotry faced on a person-to-person level. In short, systematic oppression is something a person experiences in their overall life, while personal discrimination is experienced on a personal level by people who are not singularly in control of the systems. This post boils down the negative comments ace people face into being called “weird”, which is an understatement for sure, but calling a gay person weird isn’t systemic oppression either.

It’s still bad and discriminatory.

This is such a snotty way to dismiss aphobia as some mere, insignificant comment with no meaning as if it doesn’t reinforce society’s painful aphobic views in the same way casual homophobic comments reinforce heteronormativity and society’s hostility toward gay people.

Ace people face discrimination in healthcare, most notably, which is systemic discrimination, but the systemic discrimination of asexuals really ought to be its own post if I’m to nosedive into it. Even if ace people faced no systemic discrimination, it wouldn’t make this point anymore correct. Discrimination is a perfectly valid reason to feel disregarded by society, and often only ace people are denied the right to feel this way and are instead gaslit into admitting what they face is no big deal and they’re just making it up for attention.

The experience of being pressured to have sex when you’re allo vs ace is very different. The vast majority of allo people do not plan to be celibate their whole lives. Many ace people do not want to have sex, ever. “Waiting for sex” in much of western society and in Christianity is seen as pure and honorable. Yet being asexual and never wanting sex is seen as a deviant disorder and people are accused of robbing their partner of sex forever.

There’s really a specific flavor of sexual pressure that is unique to ace people. Sex being to “fix” someone or because they “just need to try it”.

In this respect, aphobic sexual pressure is better compared to that faced by gay people and lesbians. Lesbians especially often can face this same struggle, men pressuring them to have sex because they think lesbians just need to “try it” or to “fix them”. I can imagine this poster would have no issue acknowledging lesbophobia being the root of lesbians coerced into sex with men, yet she does not give ace people the same.

Imagine if someone said (and knowing our fucked world, someone probably has): “Lesbophobia doesn’t exist. It’s just misogyny. Straight women are coerced into sex too!”

It’d be pathetic bullshit. Toxic masculinity, misogyny and many other issues can all tangle into combined messes with other forms of bigotry. Lesbophobia is an experience that deserves to be recognized apart from misogyny, even if the two are linked. Please stop erasing ace people’s experiences with this when it’s not the same thing.

Honestly, though, this post, as trashy as it is, if anything, is perhaps, really asking: Is there any type of aphobic experience that’s inherently exclusive to ace people?

I still wager to go say, yes, yes there is, but I must make an important point first:

Most experiences of queer discrimination are not limited to queer people.

Homophobia and transphobia are both experienced by cishets in certain instances. Feminine straight men can be victims of homophobic harassment. This does not disprove the fact that it’s homophobia just because a straight man is the victim of it. A tall cis woman with broad shoulders and a lower voice may be the victim of transphobic remarks or comments. The basis of these comments is rooted in transphobia, however, so the fact that the victim is cis does not erase the transphobia.

People who argue that experiences ace people complain about can be experienced by allosexuals are not poking a legitimate hole in doing this. Certain experiences related to aphobia can and are experienced by allosexuals. If you do not acknowledge this, then homophobia and transphobia aren’t real because cishet people have sometimes experienced them.

Despite cishets sometimes experiencing queerphobia, most of us acknowledge that their experience of that bigotry, however unfortunate, is not the same as that experienced by actual queer people. It’d be quite homophobic for a feminine straight man to claim he knew just as much about the gay experience as an actual gay man. Similarly, when allosexual people relate experiences that were rooted in aphobia, it’s overstepping a line when they claim asexual discrimination isn’t real because they experienced elements of it too.

Cishet (cishet including allosexuals) people do not experience their doctors telling them their sexuality might be a disorder or caused by trauma. Allo queer people can experience this with their sexualities too.

“using sex appeal to sell products is misogyny, it is not engineered to gross sex-repulsed people, it is meant to objectify women.”

This is a strawman thinner than my last nerve. Uh, what? What ace people are you seeing that literally think sex appeal was engineered to gross-out sex-repulsed people?? I don’t think this is a core argument??

Yes, sex-repulsed ace people sometimes complain about sex appeal in media being uncomfortable. But that’s it. Every time an ace person shares a discomfort of theirs doesn’t mean it’s the entire basis of their oppression. For the love of God, let ace people discuss their experiences without being blow-torched over not being oppressed enough with an individual discomfort. 

BONUS ROUND

(This was in the tags)

“Completely vilifies celibate individuals” 

...no…? What…? Huh…? 

The most charitable interpretation of this vague accusation is that the poster means celibate people face aphobia as well, due to not wanting to have sex. I have no idea how this “vilifies” anyone, but that aside, as said before: people who are not queer can face aphobia. Also worth noting that society treats celibate people way better than ace people, which is really another example of aphobia. Celibate people can be told they’re missing out (which could be at very least related to aphobic ideals), but they’re rarely called broken. Celibacy is seen more as a respected, controlled ideal in allo people, but when ace people want to do it, they’re just mentally ill.

Anyway, the post was aphobic trash, and it needs to be debunked more often. Mocking ace people online is not a good look anymore, guys. Don't be ugly.