#trying to remember which ones are the minimally to not problematic ones

[incorrect-jojolands-quotes]

Hey dragona who's your favorite beauty ytber n why?

dragona says:

omg i hate to admit it but i was really into the beauty gurus up to dramageddon. i don't really watch beauty content as much anymore but i do watch a lot of some of the og/famous ones whenever i have time. beauty vault and simplynailogical are great, i gotta rep bretman rock because hawaiians gotta stick together. emily noel and nyma tang are sweethearts- i love nyma tang and her reviews! rawbeautykristi too! i only watch michelle and promise phan just for nostalgia nowadays but shout out to them for getting me hooked onto beauty stuff. i think i'm forgetting a bunch but yeah. these are just a few that i still keep tabs on. helping out at iko iko has been taking more of my time. :D

[todayisdeadinside]

the thing about proship/antiship discourse is its VERY new. im only 18, right? i remember being in the lego ninjago fandom as a kid, and the biggest ship was called greenflame. this ship is between the characters kai and lloyd, both 17 i believe, but lloyd was 10 when the show started and he was aged up to 17 using a magic tea.

greenflame back in the day was probably the biggest gay ship in the fandom, and the creators acknowledged and supported it multiple times. it was only ever beat out by the 1 canon straight ship, which at the time mightve only been semi-canon/leading into being canon.

i returned to the ninjago fandom a few years ago, and suddenly greenflame is considered problematic. why? because lloyd was aged up with a magic tea, and there was a debate about whether or not his brain was aged or just his body. now, let me remind you, these are legos. these are literally animated lego ninja.

i was surprised because of how big greenflame had been in my childhood. it was one of my first ships ever, and really helped me get into gay communities at a time where i was finding out i was queer. now its being shunned and called problematic, and people who read greenflame fics or make art of them together are... called pedophiles?? people drawing canonically same aged legos kissing. are being called pedophiles.

and this didnt just happen to the ninjago fandom. i watched in real time as harry potter went the same way. when i was younger, ships like snamione (snape x hermione) were huge for some reason alongside your typical drarry and all that. i, and a lot of other people, didnt like these ships. but back then, harassment wasnt even in the question. back then, i blocked people or chose not to look up snamione stuff. when i saw a ship i hated, i ignored it.

and people used to generally have that "dont like, dont read" mindset. when i was maybe 12 or 13 i wrote a fred weasley x george weasley fanfic and posted it to wattpad, and it got very minimal hate comments and a good bit of praise. i even showed it to a family member who thought it was cool, if a little weird. but now? if i were to post something like that? it would be attacked, i could be harassed, potentially doxxed or accused of being a terrible person in real life.

its not a case of people's shipping preferences changing, really. its a case of people's morals changing, airing towards purity culture and allowing harassment when you see find art you dont like. what used to be a culture of "live and let live" now is a culture of "if you dont engage in this fiction in what i deem as the morally perfect way, you will be shunned from the fandom and your real life reputation is 100% at risk." which IS NOT OKAY.

and yes, its very much because of the pandemic causing normies to enter fandom in major ways for the first time. i watched IN REAL TIME through the DSMP fandom as normal everyday people got super involved in a fandom, started using fandom sites like ao3, and changed the culture. they started making rules and trying to push their preferences onto other people's fanfic and fanart, and thus the proship community was born as a reaction to that unprecedented hate.

ive always liked to write about darker subjects, but ive never felt like my safety was in danger for it, until 2021 when i wrote a few romantic age gap fanfics about some youtubers and somebody in my real life found out. he was part of this moral purity crowd, and he spread rumours to my entire school that i was a pedophile for the fanfics i was writing. mind you, i was 15, and the characters were both older than me.

my fandom journey as a writer is a perfect exanple of how fandom culture has been fucked up by normies getting too close. when i was a kid, i wrote greenflame fic and had close friends i still talk to today who loved my work. when i was a bit older in the harry potter fandom, i wrote a twincest fic that overall was well recieved and wasnt used to try and judge my moral character. a few years ago as a teenager, i wrote some age gap fluff and GOT ACCUSED OF BEING A PEDO IN REAL LIFE because of my fanfictions. that is a crazy switch.

this whole post is a ramble/rant but i think i got my point across.

[andreal831]

top ten non-main (aka not series regulars) female characters in the TVDU?

Top Ten Non-Main Female Characters

These are just my opinions who I consider TVDU's top non-main female characters. Again, I haven't watched Legacies. I've also taken out any of the series main antagonists (Celeste, Qetsiyah, Dahlia, Aurora, etc.) because they just take over the list and they were main characters in their seasons. I can do a list of my top ten main female antagonists later.

Without further ado, here are the side characters that I thought were the best additions to the show. I also cheated and did 11.

11. Lisina

Out of all of the additions to TO Season 5, Lisina was the only one I really felt had any personality or purpose outside of just being conflict for the Mikaelsons. She was the only one that felt necessary. She reminds me of Vincent in the fact that she is fiercely loyal to her faction, but she also understands how important peace is to the Quarter. She has a strong set of morals and is willing to call others out on theirs.

I don't know if Hayley was technically still the Alpha of the Crescent Wolves, but she should have past it on the Lisina since Hayley had minimal to no contact with the wolves after Season 3. The Crescent Wolves desperately needed an Alpha like Lisina. She wasn't afraid of the other factions and could stand up for them, but again, had values she wouldn't waver on. She was the Alpha the pack was sorely missing for decades. I hate that they killed her for seemingly no reason.

10. Rose-Marie

Rose really came into the show as a way to bring the Mikaelson lore, which is funny since she actually knew very little about them. But still, she remains yet another character that died too soon. It was the one ship with Damon that I felt could have been healthy because she was a very self-assured person.

Rose was loyal to a fault. It sometimes made her do problematic things, like kidnaping a teenager and physically assaulting her, but she had a good heart. She quickly grew to care for people and became protective of them. She deserved better than a life on the run.

9. Eve

Eve was one of the only wolves I initially liked in TO. She was welcoming to Hayley without expecting anything from her. She just genuinely wanted to help Hayley find her place. Her death only served to isolate Hayley more. Eve was a kind hearted person to everyone. I also love that she had no fear of the Mikaelsons and was willing to put them in their place when deserved. Eve and Hayley would have done a great job caring for the pack together. I headcanon she was the one taking care of the pack's children while all of the parents were under Marcel's curse since she was one of the only adults we knew who hadn't triggered her werewolf gene.

I will never forgive Oliver for killing her. I've heard people feel bad for Oliver for how he dies, but I didn't have an ounce of remorse. He killed Eve in cold blood for power. She deserved better. We didn't even get to see her funeral or really show people grieving her.

8. Valerie Tulle

I recently wrote about Valerie, but then I rewatched Season 7 and remembered how much I truly enjoyed her character. Her background gave a lot more depth to Stefan and Lily. She had some hard edges, but with what she went through it's expected. But every time someone needed her, she was there. Even when Caroline was being petty to her, Valerie never hesitated to help her.

7. Sage

Sage was such an interesting character that didn't get enough screen time. I honestly didn't really care either way about Finn initially. He was just kind of there. But Sage made me feel like there must be something deeper than the version of Finn we saw. She was willing to wait 900 years for him, even after he left town without her in TVD.

I even loved how they showed that she had become a harder person trying to survive all of those centuries. We were able to feel her character development even with the limited time we saw her. I wish her and Finn had more time together. One thing I don't get is why she didn't seem to try and rescue Finn at any point. I get it would have been going up against the Mikaelsons, which isn't wise. But in 900 years, I feel like she would have been desperate enough to do it.

6. Keelin Malroux

While I hate how Keelin was introduced, I loved her character. She was a strong, intelligent woman who didn't let anyone tell her what to do. Which is why I did find her and Freya to come out of nowhere a bit. But she was a great addition to the Mikaelson family. She definitely leveled Freya out a bit. I also liked that she brought Freya more into the human world. Freya was very isolated in the supernatural world and Keelin showed her there was more to the world.

I only wish we could have seen Keelin in more situations than just with Freya. I wanted to see her interact with the Mikaelsons more or with the wolves.

5. Lexi Branson

I will never forgive Damon for what he did to Lexi. She had one episode in Season 1 but brought so much with her. She showed us that vampires could feed from humans but still be good. She was such a great friend to Stefan and would have been so protective of Elena and her friends. I just loved of free and fun Lexi was.

Every time Lexi was brought back, her only concern was her friend. To the point that she saved Damon, who treated her terribly and killed her, so that Stefan wouldn't lose his brother. Honestly, she should have saved herself. But that just wasn't who she was.

4. Jenna Sommers

Jenna may be pushing it as a "side character" since she was a regular character in the first two seasons, but she wasn't a series regular. Jenna was incredible. She was so young and in school, but she took over caring for her niece and nephew when her sister died. She was one of the best parental figures on the show.

I loved that we got to see all sides of Jenna. She was still young and wanted to have fun, but at the end of the day she put the kids first. She deserved more time knowing about the supernatural world. I wish she wasn't turned, but if she had to, I wish she had more time. She would have done everything to protect Elena and Jeremy and she did. She died trying to save Elena.

3. Sheila Bennett

Another potential main character. But even with her cameos, she wasn't a series regular. Sheila was such a badass witch and I hate that Bonnie didn't have more time to learn from her. Bonnie struggled so much initially because she was doing everything on her own. If it was up to Sheila, she would have been raising Bonnie to learn how to control her magic.

I swear the writers killed her off because they knew she wouldn't have let Bonnie do half the things she did. Sheila protected her granddaughter better than anyone. Also her and Bonnie together would have just been unstoppable. I loved their relationship.

2. Sophie Deveraux

When I first watch TO, I was so surprised by Sophie's death. I thought she was a series regular. She didn't deserve what Monique did to her after she sacrificed everything for Monique. Sophie was very similar to Jenna. She was wild and free, but as soon as her family needed her, she showed up.

Sophie was such a pivotal character in Season 1. The writers moved on too fast from her and Marcel. I wanted to see that play out more. Or even just show everyone react to her death. She deserved better.

1. Gia

This one probably isn't surprising. I love Gia. She was an important character in so many ways. She is the first recruit for Marcel and Josh when they are rebuilding their community. She is pivotal to the rebuilt. To the point that she helps Marcel bring Elijah into the fold. I wanted to see more of their community. Elijah and Marcel were finally on common ground and a big part of that was because of Gia. Gia had an ability to see people for who they are. She saw Marcel and Elijah for who they truly were and what they needed. I also just loved Elijah and Gia.

I loved that the vampire faction wasn't solely revolving around the Mikaelsons at this time. Gia should have lived to help Marcel continue to rebuild. After Season 1 the factions felt very disjointed and I think having main characters in each would have helped. It never felt like the Mikaelsons were a part of the vampire faction. They were their own and the vampire faction just kind of went away until they were needed.

[acti-veg]

Every time I see nonvegans calling us racist and saying we value non human animals over humans and talking about how indigenous people are often in situations where they need to hunt to survive (despite most of the people making this argument not being indigenous themselves), I think about this video we watched in my freshwater ecology class in uni that talked about the impacts of animal agriculture on freshwater systems and the disproportionate impacts it has on indigenous communities. This video had real indigenous people talking about the real life impacts nearby animal farms have on them and their community. In it they talked about how they feared for their health, how they were seeing how the pollution animal ag. caused deteriorated their quality of life, how they would beg the farmers to not spread their animals waste on certain days and how they would catch the farmers doing so purposefully on those days.

It just makes me feel so sick seeing this primarily nonindigenous audience so self assuredly talk over indigenous voices about their own issues and pat themselves on the backs while doing things that actively support and contribute to the issue. I'm white and I would never dream of trying to have a voice in the vegan debate in indigenous spaces because it's just not my place, and yet nonvegans feel so entitled to do so and think they are fighting against racism in bulldozing over actual indigenous people.

So many of these people talk about indigenous culture and lives in such an abstract way too. It reminds me of how health teachers in schools talk about LGBT+ people. Talking about them like their existence is theoretical and purely for the sake of discussion rather than a group of real living people. It's just so dehumanizing. And yet we are the ones who don't care. Literally all I want in life is for people to care about one another and for everyone do try and do their best to live in a way that is kind to others and minimalizes harm to all living things. But the people calling that wish racist won't do the bare minimum and listen to the people saying that this industry is actively hurting them.

The really important thing to avoid getting really angry over stuff like this is to remember that it's actually just an elaborate show for them. Nobody who has done even a cursory amount of research into the biggest threats to indigenous communities would be defending animal agriculture and blaming it on vegans; its all just a performative sham.

What it comes down to is the fact that they can't deal with our argument so they try to make us somehow Problematic so that they can cloak their discomfort in the language of social justice. It's the most banal and predictable response that it's not even worth getting annoyed over. They don't actually care about indigenous people, or quinoa farmers, or whatever else is their talking point of the week; they're just playing dress-up.

The indigenous people, the farmers, the 'children picking our crops' are not real people to them, they're just pawns. Sometimes they are literally made up, as happened with the quinoa argument, which somehow evolved from a clickbait article about Peruvian farmers being priced out due to western demand, to quinoa being picked by child slaves - which was never even the claim of the original (now widely debunked) article. They actually, frequently make up slaves to get mad over rather than discussing recognising any of the real victims of animal agriculture. That is the level of cognitive disonance that we are dealing with.

This performance is mostly directed at themselves and each other, rather than us, because what we advocate for presents a challenge to their identity as good people, as social justice advocates, as leftists, as animal lovers. It's why we see so much applause for bizarre and blatantly untrue claims circulated here every week, and so much aggression over seemingly obvious, basic facts when presented by vegans. If you can understand that it is just for show then you can put it in the proper context and find it pitiable rather than infuriating.

[buddiebeginz]

My question is: how did Lou get through 2020 without someone calling him out on his posts or him going through his social media to delete those problematic posts that could get him in trouble and/or disqualify him from jobs?

My guess anon is because he's just not a relevant enough "celebrity" (and I use that term very loosely when talking about him btw). For example he was on 911 before but his role was so irrelevant to the show as a whole there were people who didn't even remember right away who he was when they said they were bringing him back for s7. I even saw a few people get him confused with Gino Pesi who played Sal. And beyond 911 he hasn't acted in a lot of big name productions besides maybe SWAT and I think his role in that has been minimal especially as the seasons have gone on.

So there hasn't been this huge spotlight put on him. Even when I looked up stuff about him and his family (because his dad was pretty famous in the 70s) most of the focus has been on his dad and not him or his personal life.

It wasn't until season 7 of 911 when a lot more attention was placed on Lou, some of which was his own doing from all those cameos and other ways he kept communicating with his fans. Plus the bi buck storyline got a lot of attention so some of that spilled over onto him. Mostly though it was his fans and the chaos many of them have been wreaking. Even as much as some people don't like T*mmy and want to see Buck and Eddie together I don't think most Buddie shippers would have even cared about Lou if it wasn't for B/T fans making the 911 fandom hell.

Eventually people had enough and went looking for dirt they could dig up on Lou and came across his old insta posts. The main issue though isn't that he had old really problematic posts it's how he dealt with it after the fact. B/T stans try to say he was hacked but even if that was the case (which there's no proof he was) he should have put out some kind of statement on his insta. He should have acknowledged the old posts, taken them all down, and apologized for them. Instead he liked a tweet the day after where his fans made him out to be the victim.

Also I think he didn't delete those old posts years ago because he just doesn't care about them and likely probably still thinks they're funny. I still think it was him who sent that spitting on blind children post the night he was called out for his old insta posts. It fits in with the same brand of comedy he seemed to enjoy on his insta.

The other thing is and mind you I'm not an expert in any of this but celebrities generally have pr teams that help them deal with things like social media and help prevent them from doing anything online that could ruin their career. I'm not exactly sure how that all works with an actor as low down the totem pole as as Lou though.

Given all the things he did online over the course of s7 my guess is he didn't have a pr team or he had a shit one because he did a lot of stuff that made him look awful. Any pr team that knew what they were doing would have combed through his accounts looking for things like those old insta posts and taken them down. They also wouldn't have let him keep putting out those cameos especially after he was getting hate for calling T*mmy's racism and homophobia teasing. They certainly would have dealt with what happened on twitter that night that post about the blind children was sent regardless of what happened. I just highly doubt he has anyone working for him to worry about any of that stuff. It was far more likely that Tim and ABC told him to stop the cameos and to stop interacting with fans. This would also explain why some of those old posts are still up on his instagram because he doesn't have anyone telling him to take them down.

[oneshortdamnfuse]

after reading the reply you wrote out about the adults in billy's life and how they may have missed, ignored, or been ignorantly unaware of how he presented and walked around school, sports, etc. it made me think back to when i was a tiny but rather problematic child and how i got tossed around like an absolute bean bag by the adults in my life.

i was not a saint of a child. i bit and kicked and hit others. i got expelled from a daycare for it 😅. but one thing i remember most is once i had been caught, or been turned in by another kid/or blamed, or reacted to something. the response from the adult(s) in the room was not always very kind or gentle.

i can remember being dragged, picked up and carried like a sack of potatoes, hauled by my shirt collar or the seat of my pants to either the daycare or the principal's office. i remember being thrown in timeout so hard by a daycare worker that everytime she put me against a wall or door "to think about my actions" i'd hit my head and the breath would get knocked out of me. i can still see her red acrylic nails.

your post just made me think so much of this, because by the time i had a teacher or classroom aid or caretaker come after me it was because i was the "bad kid". the other kid may have said something extremely angering or hurtful but because i was the one who bit or slapped, i was the one that got manhandled. i was the one who was viewed as constant trouble. and those adults always looked like they'd had it with me. like they couldn't be angrier.

i also had a fair amount of bullies. i was pretty scrappy, but i was also very small. and when things would happen to me. when i got shoved against walls hard enough to hit my head that i saw stars, or when i got whipped in the face by a jump rope with the red and white hard plastic beads, i wasn't believed. or at the very least the other kid's behavior was minimized. because i was a child that was always in trouble, always in the office. so clearly i must've done something to provoke those attacks. i wasn't believed when a boy double my size followed me, cornered me, and choked me so hard my vision went black. i was 4 when that happened. the boy (and his parents) called me a liar. and my history of being a "bad kid" helped him.

how many adults especially in billy's childhood years pulled things like this on him? saw a kid throwing fists and just thought 'god not again. he's always the troublemaker.' and would then haul him to the office, and get mad at him all over again the next time it happened. getting angry at him, telling him what he should know not to do, but never once asking or thinking about why those little hands were formed into fists in the first place.

Ah, re: CPS / adult intervention or lack thereof? Yeah.

I feel you. I had similar experiences as a child. Always blamed for what other kids were doing (sometimes to me). It wouldn’t surprise me if Billy fell into the same category because adults probably didn’t even try to understand him even though everything he did was a giant red flag. Then he likely learned he couldn’t trust anyone to help him. His dad was his first bully. Then likely other adults. He may have been throwing punches at his peers, but adults who should have done something to help him spent their time punching down on him instead. He keeps telling Max that these are things “you learn” which is concerning, because then… who taught him? Or what life lessons taught him this? People don’t just become like that out of nowhere.

There’s no “bad kids,” just really bad “guidance” and/or lack of concern.

[everybody-loves-purdy]

Been thinking a lot about why Dustpelt doesn’t bother me as much as characters like Stormtail, Tigerheartstar, and Sharpclaw. First, I think it’s partly because the whole Dustfern setup started in the first arc, and the writing kind of gives me the vibe that the exact guidelines for how romance should work in the story’s world and what was appropriate behavior wasn’t set in stone as it is with the current arcs. That’s not say that it wouldn’t still be problematic, but it would at least be more understandable in a way. Second, I think it’s also because the readers don’t see Dustpelt trying to be romantically involved with Ferncloud while she was an apprentice. With characters like Tigerheartstar and Stormtail, they are actively engaged in flirtations with apprentices in books that were written well after the first arc, and by then we see that apprentices don’t become romantically involved until they’re warriors.

Apologies for the impromptu analysis of Dustfern, I don’t really ship them, but I’ve been trying to figure out why it didn’t bother me as much. I think it comes down to the fact that the worldbuilding concerning romance wasn’t entirely set in stone like it is now during the first arc, and because Dustpelt isn’t seen acting like Stormtail (at least from what I remember). Apologies if this is a bit muddled, I just kind of needed to get my thoughts down.

Yeah you do make some good points.

On the other hand though Dustpelt does start giving Fernpaw extra attention (that he doesn’t give his own apprentice, Ashpaw) as little as 10 days into her apprenticeship. I think the reason we don’t see it as much as Tigerheart and Stormtail is because Fireheart is minimally involved in Dustpelt and Fernpaw’s lives. Fireheart is basically completely oblivious to his clanmates, he doesn’t even realise his own nephew is into Bright until she gets injured. For him to even notice Dustpelt giving special attention to Fernpaw must mean it’s pretty obvious and goodness knows what Fireheart isn’t seeing that goes on between the two.

But like you say at least, as far as we know, Dustpelt didn’t actually engage in relations with an apprentice, he just waited and (most likely) groomed Fernpaw in the meantime. Which is also an absolutely awful option.

But what you say about the first arc writing not being set in stone is a very good point. But now since that universe has rules that have changed and evolved to where it’s explicitly being called out as inappropriate, I just wish someone from the team would retroactively look at things like DustFern and TigerDove and go “yeah they were weird, don’t engage in relationships like these kids” rather than just ignore it, and even support it in TigerDove’s case. Despite them literally being behind the line in Shadow that explicitly says that a warrior and apprentice engaging in a relationship is inappropriate. Unlike DustFern, TigerDove is still here, there is still time to get that message out there. Maybe if Ivypool does ever get her own book she can be the vessel out of which this message is portrayed.

I think Sharpclaw can be counted out of this specific conversation and put in one with Onestar, since I feel that “dating someone you helped raise after they become an adult” is different than “expressing romantic interest in a minor”. Both suck, but the latter is worse.

Why are there so many unintentionally written creeps in this franchise?

[rametarin]

Can I just say how this is being forcibly remembered?

We remember the Lynda Carters and such, but we aren't pointing and shaming at the voices for these moralist pushes, nor what they base their morality on. We just call them, "moralists," and vaguely point in the direction of history's more notorious ones, and aggregate understanding the shit they said and under what basis to those people that know, because they experienced it.

They based their entire moral framework on the idea that A.) Class Struggle Theory. "There must always be an oppressor and an Oppressed to consider outside of a socialist system" B.) Class can be race and sex or any other demography, so they declare whites oppressors, men oppressors, straights oppressors, the cisgendered to be oppressors, the able bodied as oppressors, meat eaters oppressors of vegetarians, and the sober oppressors of the narcotics addicts.

We remember why the religious nutters use fire and brimstone rhetoric and finger wagging shaming on the basis of NOT being Christian enough or cowtowing to whatever megachurch is claiming to speak for the Christian Interests at any given month or decade, as they try to appropriate the population and draw them by these implied shared interests to support people that share their values, but when Marxist social values are used to bully and harass and destroy peoples livelihoods, reputations and careers, people are hesitant to even call it for what it is.

Why? Because it looks bad in hindsight, when these social guerillas dial themselves back and appear to vanish from the media and from sight, and mass gaslight. "What? Are you still screaming about Marxist socialists, grandpa? Oh nooooo, red scare 2, electric boogaloo. *rolls eyes and smirks condescendingly. :^)*"

It's THEY that were the ones that polarized fandoms and tried to use positive pretenses as to why their values and their people should be the ones to draw the lines behind which everybody colors in. It's THEY that were the ones that decided to make examples of people that were "problematic" and "committing social HARM" by not doing as they were told, modulating the way they spoke, or choosing to cooperate with the new status quo they were imposing, such as considering even fictional accounts of things to somehow be harmful to society and aiding and abedding social ills as rape, incest and murder.

And also them redefining WHY these things were wrong; Trying to disentangle rape from any definition of negative beyond, "it violates their civil rights and is an expression of an oppressor class violating an oppressed" rather than, "it's one person assaulting another against their will and causing them damage." Right down to trying to define pedophilia as a crime and problem not because of the conventional reasons, but because of, "social power disparity." Trying to tackle every existing issue, co-opt the language, but divert it from reality and to reflect social power dynamics, not the imperative, objective reasons.

It wasn't just they were sex-negative, they were sex-negative in a way where sex wasn't even allowed to be imagined outside of their social hierarchal views that treated class like a real thing, rather than a mental tool to see things in ways that aren't real. To surrender power of thinking to their principles and philosophy, and ignore reality. To argue thinking OUTSIDE their paradigm was wrong and "of the oppressor."

And they gladly minimize this while trying to maximize names and movements that previously got all PURITANICAL about such things. Making their reasons and motivations vanish into the obscure while they allow one to make a logical leap that these kids running around yelling "KUNG POW PENIS!" and trying to blackmail or extort the makers of cartoons to make their ships canon or draw fat women fatter "to better rebel against society's cishetero Europeanstandards of beauty and femininity."

It's a soft and hidden revisionism of history.

I can't stress enough how much the John Green debacle was an early example of how cancel culture and purity culture combine to make people feel righteously justified to engage in harassment.

John Green, during his time on tumblr, committed the heinous sins of...being neurodivergent and talking openly about it, earnestly interacting with fans in a very direct and unfiltered way, and writing about teenagers navigating first love and sexuality while he himself was an adult. The worst things he ever did were be a little cringe or misspeak, for which he was always prompt to apologize (often whether he really needed to or not).

Yet despite the former two being things tumblr claimed to love and the last one being true of 99.99% of YA authors, in this case a large segment of tumblr users steeped in the early 2010s resurgence of purity culture decided that these things were suspicious and predatory, and used that as an excuse to justify some truly awful behavior.

Which is really all that cancel culture is: the normalization and even celebration of the process of misapplying morality or ethics to dehumanize someone for the express purpose of justifying whatever pain and suffering you want to inflict upon them. Basically, deciding "this person is bad, so I am exempt from affording them basic respect and human dignity, and am allowed to cross any and all otherwise uncrossable lines in order to punish them without damaging my own moral or ethical standing."

Contrary to popular tumblr lore, the infamous "cock monologue" was not the sum total of the harassment, or even the worst of it. Callout blogs issued long lists of "receipts" about how terrible John Green was, most if not all of which were either taken out of context or completely refutable. His works were torn to shreds by people who'd never read them, as evidenced by much of the criticism being obviously and blatantly counter to the actual contents of the books.

Not that it mattered. Once the John Green hate party reached a certain level of critical mass, it became less about who he actually was or what he'd done, and more about proving you were a good person by hating him. That's the natural conclusion of cancel culture, after all: virtue signalling by identifying yourself in opposition to the cancelled parties. They're bad, and I'm good, so I hate them! Or, more often: They're bad, and I hate them, so I'm good!

Before it was over with, John Green had been accused, with no evidence, of being everything from a Nazi to a pedophile and subjected to hate mail and death threats. He eventually left the site for the sake of his own mental health, and because he no longer felt comfortable engaging directly with fans in the same way he once had.

Yet even now, with the benefit of hindsight, and even among those who ostensibly reject purity culture and condem bullying and harassment, very few on tumblr take what was done to John Green as seriously as it should be taken or condemn it as thoroughly as it should be condemned. Which I think is something we need to at least consider doing, given the increasing rise of purity and cancel culture online, and given the recent influx of professional creators eager to interact with fans on a more direct level than they have on other social media.

And my concern is not purely, or even primarily, for the Mike Flanagans and Lynda Carters of the world. I'm far more concerned, actually, for the small, independent or self-published creators in this space, and how much even a very small level of visibility gives too many people a feeling of carte blanche to engage in harassment.

I myself have less than 3k followers on here, a handful of popular posts, and zero notoriety or consequence outside of tumblr whatsoever, and I've been repeatedly told to kill myself for saying such innocuous things as "I don't think censorship is the cure for the world's evils" and "maybe learning the history of communities you want to participate in would be a good idea."

Thankfully, all it took for me to stop the harassment that came my way was to block those few individuals. But there have been many instances over the years of small creators or just random tumblr users that got a bit popular being stalked, doxxed, swatted, and harassed to the point of leaving the site and dealing with serious mental health issues as a result. It has never been just John Green. John Green isn't even the worst example. And tumblr has never learned its lesson.

[jolybeautyofficial]

Clarifying the Confusion: Toners for Oily Skin Explained by Joly

At Joly Beauty, we know navigating the vast world of skincare can be overwhelming. Toners, in particular, often leave people wondering: "Do I even need one?" and "What exactly does it do?" Worry not, oily-skinned friends! Here, we'll clarify the role of toners and help you decide if a clarifying toner is right for your routine.

The Toner Myth:

Traditional toners often contained harsh alcohols that stripped the skin, leaving it feeling dry and irritated. This is especially problematic for oily skin, as it can trigger the skin to produce even more oil to compensate.

Joly Beauty's Philosophy on Toners:

At Joly Beauty, we believe in toners that enhance your cleansing routine, not replace it. Our clarifying toners are formulated with gentle, plant-based ingredients that:

Balance and Refine: They remove any leftover traces of cleanser or makeup without stripping away essential moisture. This helps to balance your skin's natural pH and refine the appearance of pores.

Exfoliate Gently: Some Joly Beauty toners contain gentle AHAs like lactic acid, which help to remove dead skin cells and promote a smoother, brighter complexion.

Hydrate and Soothe: We understand that even oily skin needs hydration. Our toners are infused with hydrating ingredients like hyaluronic acid and calming botanicals like chamomile to ensure your skin feels comfortable and soothed.

Is a Clarifying Toner Right for You?

If you have oily skin and experience any of the following, a clarifying toner could be a beneficial addition to your routine:

Enlarged Pores: Clarifying toners can help to minimize the appearance of enlarged pores, a common concern for oily skin.

Uneven Skin Texture: Gentle exfoliation with a toner can help to smooth out rough patches and promote a more radiant complexion.

Congested Skin: If you experience occasional breakouts, a clarifying toner can help to remove impurities and prevent future blemishes.

Joly Beauty's Clarifying Toner Options:

We offer several clarifying toner options depending on your specific needs:

Balancing Rosewater Toner: This gentle toner uses soothing rosewater and witch hazel to refine pores and balance your skin's natural oils.

Exfoliating Green Tea Toner: For those wanting a touch more exfoliation, this toner uses gentle AHAs and green tea extract to refine pores and brighten the complexion.

Mattifying Mint Toner: This invigorating toner uses mint and witch hazel to control shine and minimize the appearance of pores, leaving your skin feeling refreshed.

Remember, Consistency is Key:

For optimal results, use your clarifying toner twice daily after cleansing and before applying moisturizer. However, listen to your skin! If your skin ever feels tight or irritated, simply reduce usage or try a different toner from our gentle range.

Let Joly Beauty Help You Shine (Not Grease)!

Ready to embrace a clearer, more balanced complexion? Joly Beauty has a clarifying toner waiting to be your new skincare bestie. Explore our options online or reach out to our consultants for personalized recommendations. We're dedicated to helping you achieve the healthy, beautiful skin you deserve!

[howtousesoftethervpnonandroid]

why doesn't my vpn work on omegle

🔒🌍✨ Get 3 Months FREE VPN - Secure & Private Internet Access Worldwide! Click Here ✨🌍🔒

why doesn't my vpn work on omegle

VPN connectivity issues on Omegle

VPN connectivity issues on Omegle can be frustrating and problematic for users seeking anonymity and security. Omegle is a popular online platform for anonymous chatting and video calls, but some users encounter difficulties connecting to the service while using a VPN.

One common issue is that Omegle may block certain VPN servers to prevent misuse or spamming on the platform. This can result in users being unable to access Omegle while their VPN is active. To overcome this problem, users can try switching to a different VPN server or location to see if the issue persists.

Another issue with VPN connectivity on Omegle is slow connection speeds or frequent disconnections. VPNs route internet traffic through remote servers, which can sometimes lead to slower speeds and interruptions in the connection. Users experiencing this problem can try connecting to a server closer to their physical location or upgrading to a premium VPN service with faster servers.

It is essential to ensure that the VPN being used is compatible with Omegle to avoid any connectivity issues. Some VPNs may not work well with certain websites or platforms, leading to blocked access or unreliable connections. Users should research and choose a reputable VPN service that offers reliable connectivity and strong encryption to protect their anonymity while using Omegle.

In conclusion, VPN connectivity issues on Omegle can be overcome by troubleshooting the connection, switching servers, or upgrading to a more reliable VPN service. By addressing these issues, users can enjoy a secure and anonymous chatting experience on Omegle without interruptions.

Troubleshooting VPN problems on Omegle

Encountering VPN issues while trying to use Omegle can be frustrating, but with some troubleshooting, you can often resolve the issues and get back to connecting with people online. Here are some common problems you might encounter and their potential solutions:

Connection Drops: If your VPN connection keeps dropping while using Omegle, try switching to a different VPN server. Sometimes, the server you're connected to might be experiencing issues, so switching to another location can help stabilize your connection.

Slow Connection: Slow internet speeds can also affect your Omegle experience when using a VPN. Make sure you're connected to a server that's geographically close to your location to minimize latency. Additionally, you can try restarting your router or modem to see if that improves your connection speed.

Blocked Access: Some VPN servers might be blocked by Omegle, preventing you from accessing the site. If you encounter this issue, try connecting to a different VPN server or using a different VPN protocol. You can also try accessing Omegle without using a VPN to see if the problem persists.

IP Address Blacklisted: Omegle has strict policies regarding spam and abuse, and they might blacklist certain IP addresses if they detect suspicious activity. If you suspect your IP address has been blacklisted, you can try contacting Omegle support to resolve the issue. Alternatively, you can try using a different VPN provider to obtain a new IP address.

Browser Compatibility: Sometimes, compatibility issues between your browser and VPN client can cause problems when using Omegle. Try using a different browser or updating your current browser to the latest version to see if that resolves the issue.

By troubleshooting these common VPN problems, you can improve your Omegle experience and enjoy seamless connections with people from around the world. Remember to follow Omegle's community guidelines to ensure a positive and respectful experience for everyone.

Omegle VPN block solutions

Omegle is a popular platform for anonymous online chatting and meeting new people. However, many users have faced the issue of being blocked when trying to access Omegle while using a VPN. This can be frustrating for those who rely on VPNs for privacy and security reasons.

One of the main reasons why Omegle blocks VPN users is due to the high amount of spam and inappropriate behavior that occurs on the platform. Omegle uses IP tracking to detect and block users who violate their terms of service, and VPNs can trigger these blocks because they mask the user's true IP address.

If you find yourself blocked from Omegle while using a VPN, there are a few solutions you can try. First, you can try switching to a different VPN server or location. Sometimes, certain IP addresses or servers may be flagged by Omegle, so switching to a different one can help you bypass the block.

Another solution is to disable your VPN altogether and try accessing Omegle without it. While this may compromise your anonymity, it can sometimes be necessary to access certain websites or platforms that block VPN users.

Additionally, you can try clearing your browser cookies and cache, as these can sometimes trigger blockages on Omegle. By clearing this data, you may be able to access the site without any issues.

In conclusion, being blocked from Omegle while using a VPN can be a frustrating experience. However, by trying these solutions and experimenting with different settings, you may be able to bypass the block and continue enjoying the platform anonymously and securely.

Understanding Omegle's VPN detection mechanisms

Understanding Omegle's VPN detection mechanisms is crucial for users who wish to maintain their anonymity while using the platform. Omegle, a popular online chat website, has implemented various measures to detect and restrict the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) by its users.

One of the primary methods employed by Omegle to detect VPN usage is through IP address analysis. When a user connects to Omegle, their IP address is logged and analyzed. If the IP address matches those known to belong to VPN servers, Omegle may block or restrict access to the platform. This is because VPNs can mask a user's true IP address, allowing them to bypass geographical restrictions and potentially engage in malicious activities.

Additionally, Omegle may utilize techniques such as IP blacklisting, where known VPN IP addresses are added to a blacklist, preventing users connecting from those addresses from accessing the service. This approach helps Omegle maintain a safer and more secure environment for its users by minimizing the risks associated with VPN usage.

Furthermore, Omegle may employ behavioral analysis algorithms to identify patterns consistent with VPN usage. For example, users who rapidly switch between different IP addresses or exhibit other suspicious behaviors may be flagged for further scrutiny.

It's essential for users to be aware of Omegle's VPN detection mechanisms to avoid being blocked or restricted while using the platform. While VPNs can provide privacy and security benefits, they may not be compatible with all online services, including Omegle. By understanding how Omegle detects and responds to VPN usage, users can make informed decisions about their online anonymity and safety.

Optimizing VPN settings for Omegle

Omegle is a popular online platform for anonymous chatting and video calls. However, due to privacy concerns, many users choose to use a Virtual Private Network (VPN) while accessing Omegle. By configuring the VPN settings effectively, users can enhance their privacy and security while using the platform.

When optimizing VPN settings for Omegle, it is important to select a VPN service that offers high-speed connections and reliable servers. This ensures seamless video calls and chatting without interruptions. Additionally, choosing a VPN provider that has servers in various locations can help users bypass region restrictions on Omegle.

Another crucial aspect of optimizing VPN settings for Omegle is configuring the encryption protocols. Users should opt for VPN protocols like OpenVPN or IKEv2, which provide strong security features to safeguard their data and identity while chatting on Omegle.

Furthermore, enabling the kill switch feature on the VPN can prevent accidental exposure of users' IP addresses in case the VPN connection drops suddenly. This feature adds an extra layer of security and ensures that users remain anonymous while using Omegle.

In conclusion, optimizing VPN settings for Omegle is essential for users who prioritize their privacy and security while using the platform. By selecting a reliable VPN service, configuring encryption protocols, and enabling essential features like the kill switch, users can enjoy a safer and more private chatting experience on Omegle.

[scandalsavagefanfic]

Hello! I am a huge fan of ur writing. I've loved everything I've read of yours. I've read alot of what you've posted, except for a couple of the tags that are squicky for me (so I'm very thankful you tag very thoroughly). No judgement for the squick, it's just not for me. & when I'm having a bad day, I usually just go thru ur ao3 and find something to reread. I think about Therapy's Bruce & Jason every damn day. While I obvs appreciate ur darker more "problematic" content (I really vibe with some of the themes you write about bc of my own trauma, & so it's very cathartic to read about in a fictional setting), I am truly a sucker for ur more happy content. The Happily Ever After verse also lives in my head rent free. Idk more wholesome stuff just seems more special when you write it. Anyways. I would die for you. But the point of this ask is cause I'm curious as to why you don't like Urban Legends? I'm sorry if you already talked about it here or on twitter and I missed it. I was just wondering because I really enjoy your take on things and would love to hear why you dislike it. I've been enjoying it so far personally, but I am always open to DC comics criticism.

Aw thank you so much! I'm so flattered by everything you just said. You're so sweet ❤❤❤❤❤

I haven't talked about Urban Legends here or twitter (I haven't been very active in either place lately. Just a lot going on and no energy 😔) but I'm happy to do it here.

Before I start though, I just want to add a standard disclaimer and make it clear that if you like it, there's nothing wrong with that and you don't have to let me ruin it for you lol. Like what you like.

That said, since you asked...

I said this when I was talking about it on discord, that there is a difference between hope and expectation. I always hope that a new story centered on Jason (or anyone really, but things have been especially egregious for Jay for 15 years) will be good or at least treat the character with a minimal level of respect (to be honest, the bar is super fucking low). But my expectations always temper my hope, to keep it from getting unrealistic. Because my expectations are based on experience.

The long history of Jason Todd, since even before his resurrection, has been one of retroactively trying to make him "a bad seed" in order to absolve Bruce of any responsibility in his death.

I don't even expect DC or their writers to start honoring the fact that Jason was not an angry, reckless Robin (and less of the later than Dick or Tim and definitely Damian). There plenty of ways that retcon can be folded into his history and be compelling and sympathetic. And if they're going to stick with that retcon, I'm only asking that they do it in one of those compelling and sympathetic ways because Jason was 15 when he died, heroically, in one of the most selfless acts in comics, to save a woman who literally handed him over to be brutally murdered. He was 12 when Bruce plucked him off the streets, he'd been homeless and fending for himself for at least two years. I personally think that Jason's story hits harder for him and Bruce if their original, canon relationship, of Jason as starry-eyed and eager to learn and absolutely devoted to Bruce and Bruce to Jason, is preserved. But Jason's origins does leave room for a meaningful interpretation of him as angry and frustrated at the lack of meaningful results of Bruce's methods.

And that's really where my irritation at stories like Batman: Urban Legends, Cheer and Batman The Adventure Continues has it's roots.

Every time one of these stories comes out, I think (or hope, rather) that this will be the one that remembers and respects the origins of the Jason and the Red Hood, that takes into account the changed sensibilities of comics readers in the 30 years since Jason's death and the subtle, 20 year, retroactive campaign to make him the "bad Robin". The "born bad" trope is played out and literally no one likes the message it implies. That some kids are just bad eggs and there's nothing parents or the adults around them can do. Especially when it's played as the kid's fault. If Jason's time as Robin is going to be characterized by anger, then it should be rooted in anger at the social injustices he witnessed as he grew up in an impoverished, crime-ridden, area and the horrors he faced raising himself when every day was a battle for survival. There are topical, meaningful, stories to tell with that backdrop.

But those are never the stories we get.

⚠⚠ Spoilers for Batman: Urban Legends, Cheer ⚠⚠

I'm particularly disappointed in Urban Legends because for the first issue, it looked like that was the kind of story we were going to get. I was put off by the first flashback of Jason being mesmerized by Bruce's guns, and I got that feeling in my gut that it was a bad sign. Jason depicted as impatient and overconfident and the scene with the guns is heavy-handed foreshadowing that got my spidey-sense tingling. I had a inkling then (in the first three pages) of how this story was going to play out, but it was early and I could still see many narrative paths that could lead to a satisfying story. My concerns were soothed somewhat and the little flame of my hope fanned, with the flashback of Alfred scolding Bruce, with Barbara's concern for Jason. A bit of worry returned with the way Jason ruthlessly pursued an addict who didn't appear to be a dealer and with the ending of the issue. The stuff with the addict sat wrong with me but the ending was tempered some by how despicable Tyler's dad was written. The scene was clearly set so that the reader could sympathize with Jason's decision and the scene with the addict could be brushed aside as a side-effect of comics over-the-top need for constant action, so I still held hope.

Issue 2 made me uncomfortable and it's where my hope starts to take a backseat to my expectations. I can dismiss Jason's self-deprecating internal monologue as unreliable narration, except that the flashback reinforces his thought process to explicitly show that it's not unreliable narration, and should be taken at face value. Jason faces physical abuse at the hands of his mother's drug dealer and when the flashback continues later, Jason kills the drug dealer. To be clear, this is a pre-Bruce Jason. His mom is still alive. He's like... 10. He kills this guy for shoving his head into a wall and implying Jason's mother paid for her drugs with sex. This is a scene that serves a single purpose. To show that Jason has always been prone to violence.

In the spirit of full disclosure, there is the small chance the drug dealer might not be dead. But the story obviously wants the reader to think he is, and it hasn't done anything to change that yet.

Starlin already did this story with The Diplomat’s Son in 1988 and he did it infinitely better. AND that’s still technically canon. So now I’m supposed to believe that Jason lost his cool bad enough to kill two douche bags before his sweet 16? Like it’s totally normal for abused kids raised in poverty, who’ve led hard and heartbreaking lives to just... haul off and kill people? That’s bullshit, and when taken with the Jason in the third issue, who is little more than an idiot thug, this story is really doubling down on some fucked up stereotypes.

Which brings us to the most recent issue. I went into this installment with very low expectations. I thought this story was going to be about Jason, through this experience with Tyler, a young boy with a similar background to Jason's, coming to the realization that Bruce's way is the best way and that Bruce did his best by Jason.

That would be annoying (in no small part because it takes increasingly absurd levels of plot armor to keep Bruce's no kill rule relevant, let alone irrefutably right). But I can probably live with that, if only because maybe if Jason officially falls back into line with the Bats crusade, maybe I'll get stories that treat him with respect, stories that don't relegate him to comic relief, dumb brute, or a background body with no lines in a story about the Joker burning Gotham (like Jason would just fucking stand there quietly for that).

And that may still be where the story is going, Jason realizing Bruce is right.

But holy shit do I not have the right words to describe how fucking insulting and gross issue three is.

From start to finish--including the flashback--Jason is written as cruel and fucking stupid. Like straight up dumb.

The entire issue is Bruce explaining the fucking basics to Jason like it's his first day. And Jason flies off the fucking handle and terrorizes a doctor he knows isn't a part of making the Cheerdrops, beats the shit out of some random addicts, and finally, when he can't accomplish anything on his own because he's a dumb brute he calls Barbara for help and rushes in with no information where he's promptly incapacitated and must now wait to be rescued by Batman.

This panel is the least of the issues sins but I can’t screenshot the entire story but it’s representative of the tone for the whole issue (and retroactively tainted the prior two issues).

This is beyond insulting. The only conclusions Jason comes to in this issue are the ones Bruce leads him to by talking to him like he can’t make the simplest connections. And like... in this story Jason can’t make the simplest connections.

This (and the Jason throughout the entirety of this issue) is a far cry from the Jason we fell in love with in Under the Red Hood, who was competent and strategic and intelligent enough to seize control of Gotham’s underworld from Black Mask (who’s no fucking slouch, he’s the first and only person to unify organized crime in Gotham) AND elude and manipulate Bruce until the time and place of his choosing.

This is a far cry from even the Red Hood and the Outlaws Jason who is competent enough to fight the League of Shadows and Ra’s al Ghul (among very dangerous and skilled others) and smart enough to create antidotes for mind control nanotech viruses.

As he should be, by the way. Jason Todd is one of the best, most comprehensively trained fighters in DC’s stable of non powered vigilantes. He’s not irrational or hot headed. He’s pragmatic, tactically minded, and patient. He’s a detective. Right now. Has been since he was 12. Bruce doesn’t have to make him one because he already is. 

Jason is not a stupid thug who uses his fists because his brain doesn’t work. And I can’t tell you how so very exhausted I am by this narrative. 

This is actually the most egregious example of Jason’s skills and intelligence being not just undermined but dismissed entirely. Even Morrison’s Jason had some degree of competency. 

The one, single redeeming factor of this story is the art. It’s beautiful. And Marcus To is a godsend he seems to be one of only a couple of artists who remember that Jason was a child when he was Robin and I’m literally only buying this book because of him. 

Anyway, I’m sorry. I didn’t want that to come out so... um... passionately lol. I’m just very very tired. My intention with this isn’t to ruin it for you, if you like it, that’s fine. 

But this issue shot this story to the top of my "Vehemently Despise” list. 1) Batman: Urban Legends (Cheer), 2) Battle for the Cowl/Morrison’s Batman and Robin, 3) Batman The Adventure Continues.

I hope the next issues somehow salvage this dumpster fire. But I’m not expecting it.

(Damnit. That sounded harsh again. To reiterate, I’m not trying to judge anyone who enjoys it, I just personally hate it and you asked me why lol 😅)

[neverenoughmarauders]

The annoying thing is that I am going to come across as disagreeing with the OP's post, because I disagree with the arguments made. So let's start with the obvious and what I agree with: I don't think people should blindly defend Sirius and James bullying Snape - and certainly not idolize them for it. I think it's especially problematic as the defenders of the bullying often either minimizes Snape's sufferings, point to Snape's later behaviour (which is completely unfair on that young boy!) or otherwise seem to emphasise with Sirius and James ('they were just kids') but forget to apply the standard to Snape (when he was also just a kid).

However, some of us love the Marauders DESPITE the bullying, because we focus on the good aspects of the Marauders, such as their determination to help Remus, their willingness to join the Order of the Phoenix and do what is right. Remember that when Peter asks what could be gained by fighting against Voldemort when he was winning, Sirius and Remus answers to fight against what is wrong. Everyone in the Order was being slaughtered, but these boys would rather fight a losing battle for what is right, than live in a world that was wrong.

They were all children - and we need to either make allowances for both sides or none of them

I think it's okay to try to understand both sides, but I wouldn't want to idolize either - not even as children.

Snape wanted to be in Slytherin, the house of a blood supremacists - that's not the values of someone I would support. Especially as Snape shows us the values of all four houses: he is brave, he's loyal and hard working, he is clever, and he's cunning. He could have been anywhere yet already on the Hogwarts express, it's Slytherin that appeals to him. Problematic? Yes! Evil? No!('sometimes we sort too soon'). Reason for being bullied? Definitely not!

But I also will defend the fact that James and Sirius were also children. I hate the double standards in this debate, where one side is allowed to make mistakes and not the other.

Sirius spends his adolescence escaping a household that holds the same believes as Snape. I completely understand why Snape rubs him the wrong way. There is so little Sirius can control at home, but at school he has a more equal footing to those around him (yes, arguably it's unequal because Sirius is privileged and Snape is not, but I am arguing from Sirius' POV and I don't think he saw it that way). James is raised in a household that is marked by people Snape hold high as blood traitors, because of their (insane...) belief that they are not better than anyone else because they are purebloods. James detests the dark arts, and Snape we are told was fascinated by them. I don't know... I just - I get it? I get that children who see someone as evil try to fight that. ('Snape wasn't evil' - well, quite, but as children the world is a lot more antagonistic, which I think is reflected in children books with fights of good vs evil - so to Sirius and James, I think he was. Just as they were evil in his eyes). I don't agree with the means - I just... I can understand it.

I think a part of the discussion that is missing is that all this happened during the beginning of a war. Would we be having this discussion if we were reading about eg a school in Austria in the late 1930s and you had a group of boys that believed the country should be taken over by a Nazi Germany and a group that didn't, and the latter group excessively bullied the former? I'd argue it's still not okay - children often only reflect the a more limited set of views based on their upbringing - but to me it makes it understandable. I am not idolizing it.

And I won't hear the argument that James and Sirius bullied Snape because he was poor. James and Sirius completely ignored Snape until he started expressing the views about being in Slytherin. Again, it doesn't make it right, but this was a fight about ideology, handled by kids.

What gets me with this post and Snape apologists is when we start ignoring post-school Snape

This doesn't give Sirius or James any right in having bullied Snape, but since the OP mentions how Snape is redeemed by saving Harry, Snape post-school feels relevant too.

Snape was a Death Eater and people seem to forget what that implied: muggle torture, muggle murders, muggle sport/fun (as we saw during the World Cup in GOF) as well as the persecution of muggle-borns and Order members. Unlike Regulus, who barely made it to become Death Eater before he immediately wanted out (and this is a man who grew up idolizing Voldemort), Snape DIDN'T want out until Lily was about to die (and even then he hedged his bets). Snape gave up a prophesy that would condemn a family - including a baby boy - to their deaths. Like - it must be okay for us to say: that's terrible!!! And that is objectively worse than being a bully at 16 when the male brain isn't even fully developed yet?!

And I want to point out that Snape didn't turn in or give evidence (or at least not successful evidence) against Lucius Malfoy who he must have known was a Death Eater because they were good friends (and it's hinted at them being DEs together throughout the series).

Counter argument I can see here: Snape was playing the long game being a spy for when Voldemort came back. But I think Snape himself explains to us that he could have told Voldemort: 'I had to give evidence against Lucius - I was already discovered and it was the only way to win Albus' full trust'. Snape taunts Bella that his ability to play Albus' faithful servant has been far more appreciated and valued by their master than Bella's prison sentence - for all her loyalty.

The OP is wrong to say Snape didn't have friends - or at least people he hung out with. Sirius lists a whole bunch of them in GOF, Lily mentions he hangs out with Avery and Mulciber and Harry even witnesses how a much older Lucius extends a literal and metaphorical hand to Snape. JKR herself talks about that fact that Snape's downfall is wanting to belong. In Slytherin he found a gang. A gang he wasn't able to let go of, even when his best friend asked him to (and Lily's ask is for very valid reason!)

The argument I don't understand with the OP is that Snape 'repays' the mistreatment of Harry by saving him

Firstly, because what about Neville, Hermione, Colin Creevey (another muggle-born btw) and all the other people we see or it's implied Snape bullies. Also, if we're going to go down that route: James saved Snape's life. I don't think it's fair to say that the horrible treatment James gave Snape is wiped clean by saving his life, and I think most people who support Snape would agree with this. So why is this different? Because Snape save Harry multiple times? Harry is a child - and the child that's being targeted by a mass murderer. Snape is his teacher - I think keeping Harry on that broom for example, is really the least he could do (rather I wonder what the other teachers were doing...)

There are plenty of characters in the series who saves Harry's life or are willing to sacrifice their lives for him to stay alive - including all of the teachers at the Battle of Hogwarts. Keeping Harry alive is important for the future of the entire wizarding world.

We can't have it both ways. Either bullying is bad (I think it is) regardless of the good actions you do later (eg join the Order of the Phoenix for no other reason than 'it's the right thing to do' - cough - James and Sirius); or the good actions you do later clear you of the bad ones. In which case, you can idolize James and Sirius to your hearts desire because they do plenty of good stuff!

Snape is a complex character who despite being a hero in the story isn't good

This is what the author herself tells us about Snape: 'It's fun to write about Snape because he's a deeply horrible person' and she talks about how as a teacher, the 'worst, shabbiest thing you can do' is to bully children (draws parallel to Snape).

To minimise Snape's bullying is at minimum just as bad as to minimise James' and Sirius' bullying. Personally, I think it's worse. Snape is a teacher and thus undermining authority figures in general. Plus, except from Harry, I cannot understand why Snape choses to bully those he does. Whereas at least for Sirius and James, I will give them the fact that Snape represented the worst of wizard-kind with blood purity ideas and an interest in dark magic. Of course, WE know as readers that Snape was far more complex and pitiable.

I am not attempting to hate, but I am attempting to hate.

I would just like to voice my opinion, is all.

The Marauders Fandom, especially a concerning amount of fans, are deliberately being obtuse as to completely hate and bash on a victim of bullying [Severus Snape] and just idolize said bullies [The Mauraders, mostly James and Sirius] purely because of popularity and 'coolness' if one might say.

Yes, I do agree Severus has gone overboard on his mistreatment and unfairness to Harry but he has already repaid all his debts by SAVING mentioned CHILD again and again, and it was all because of his pure and immaculate love for Lily. His ONE and ONLY friend since childhood.

So, you all may continue to rave on about your favorite Marauder, but PLEASE don't view Severus as a constant villain and enemy.

The man just wants peace after being in a state of calculated chaos for so long. T-T

Thank you for reading! ^^

[This was brought on because of some TikTokers insane breach of behavior, stating Severus was and will 'always' be a villain in both Potters' lives. 💀]

[palmett-hoes]

We Need To Talk About Kevin

excuse the silly title, but it’s time for another long character analysis, this time on a character who holds a complicated place in the fandom consciousness: kevin

like every other character in aftg, i have a lot of criticisms for the way that the fandom tends to characterize kevin, because i feel like it tends to reduce a very complicated character down into very binary terms, that of either anal-retentive comic relief or a perfect, underappreciated innocent, both of which ignore his important flaws and the nuance of his character arc throughout the trilogy

now this meta is probably going to sound very, very critical of kevin, as i am focusing on his flaws. but i want to be clear that i don’t hate kevin, i don’t even dislike him. in fact i far prefer the deeply “problematic” kevin from canon to the highly sanitized version in the fandom, just like i prefer my andrew violent and unethical, my neil rude and messy, and my upperclassmen ableist and permissibly homophobic

one thing i really LOVE about aftg is how hypocritical every character is, because it’s honest. they all stand for something but fall a little flat of it in practice. they all hold the people around them to standards they don’t hold themselves to

they’re not simple characters. they reflect their trauma in ways that are not pretty or harmless, and they even reflect wider societal flaws that may not be logical or justifiable.

just like i do.

just like you do.

just like real people do.

---

so with that all squared away: kevin

let’s start with this: what is the essence of kevin’s character? what does he stand for? what is he about? when you simplify him out into a single idea, what is he?

answers will vary, but for me, kevin is an analysis of the idea that you can have everything, you can be rich and famous and talented and immensely lucky on top of it all, and you can still be abused

neil repeats this idea over and over. how he’s jealous of kevin. how he resents kevin. how he wishes he were kevin. because kevin had everything and neil had nothing

remember this?

and this?

and this?

kevin the star. kevin the sensation. kevin the media darling.

lucky kevin, talented kevin, beloved kevin

and then neil gets a little bit closer and learns that that’s not the whole story. kevin was isolated, his worth tied to his performance, his whole personhood tied to exy. the perfect boy who was forbidden from being too perfect, who had to walk on eggshells so as not to incur the wrath of his brother and guardian

but at the same time that doesn’t totally erase everything he did have

i think the fandom focuses a lot on kevin’s inferiority complex from being assigned second best, and not nearly as much on the idea that kevin was SECOND BEST, above everyone else

the fact that kevin had power and sway in the nest makes us deeply uncomfortable, because it complicates kevin’s status as a victim, but it’s the truth. kevin was the third most powerful person in the nest, above dozens of ravens, and not even an owned person like jean

we should attempt to reckon with the fact that kevin was not a passive player in the ravens’ power structure, but someone who was actively involved and benefited from it. the ravens were his pawns, too. his subordinates, there to critique and punish as he saw fit. they weren’t his equals and he didn’t have to view them as fellow people

even if you choose not to believe that kevin took advantage of this power in the way riko did, you still have to accept that it very much shaped his perception and way of connecting with others, which is obvious in how he interacts with the foxes

so let’s talk about kevin and his superiority complex

kevin is arrogant, self-centered, and entitled

it’s not all he is. he has other, better qualities. he’s dedicated, passionate, and - in his own way - caring. that doesn’t ERASE his flaws however

kevin believes himself to be correct 100% of the time. he thinks that his methods and his opinions should work for everyone simply because they work for him, and he tries heavily to push them onto other people. andrew remarks that neil will drive himself crazy trying to do things the way kevin tells him to, because he is simply a different kind of player than kevin. kevin’s methodology will never work for neil no matter how hard he tries and will just end up holding himself back if he keeps trying

andrew notices this, not kevin, because kevin believes that neil is simply not trying hard enough to do things the “right” way.

neil.

who tries harder than anyone to live up to kevin’s standards

he’s worse with the rest of the foxes, who unlike neil do not accept his methods unquestionably and don’t do backflips to make him happy.

the foxes recognize that kevin is talented and could have valuable things to teach them. kevin however thinks that he should have absolute authority over their training because his methods are “superior.” he thinks the foxes fail because they don’t listen to him and conform their playing styles to him

kevin also only approaches the upperclassmen on the court, and even there only with criticism and derision. he has never made any attempt to befriend them or get to know them in any way. he doesn’t need a rapport with them, he’s entitled to their obedience simply because he’s Kevin Day, The Son of Exy, The Best And Most Talented Of Them All

i’ve also written meta before about the assumptions kevin makes in his relationship with andrew. they have a deal that kevin will give andrew something to live for after he graduates. kevin, being who he is, decides that this thing MUST and WILL be exy, no matter how directly or indirectly andrew tells him this isn’t what he wants.

yet kevin never considers an alternative. he never asks andrew what he might want or never attempts to find anything else for him. they spend nearly every second of every day within arms reach of each other, yet kevin has never taken a moment to pay attention to andrew’s interests or preferences, anything that makes him tick. they know almost nothing personal about each other because kevin doesn’t believe any of that matters in giving andrew a future that makes him want to live. no. if it works for kevin it must work for everyone else. if kevin wants it everyone else must want it too

kevin’s relationships often become exclusionary. first with andrew, which i’ve just discussed. then with neil, kevin continually vies for more and more of his time, without regard for his health or concern for any other part of his life. he leaves neil with minimal time for school, pushes their practices late into the night depriving him of sleep, and discourages his efforts to spend time and make connections with the upperclassmen

now if at any point while reading this you, reader, wanted to argue that these things are because of the nest and kevin’s raven indoctrination, yes, you’re absolutely right, they are. it’s abundantly clear where and how each of these qualities developed, but once again, that doesn’t mean they’re not present. in fact, the clear connection between kevin’s flaws and his trauma is a sign of good character writing, showing the multiple dimensions of how our environments and experiences shape us

kevin’s anxiety, his obsessiveness, and his fear all come from the nest, but so does his condescension, his self-involvement, and his overbearing nature.

kevin was raised in a cult, but he was also from the very highest level of it. he comes from immense privilege in terms of his wealth, his influence, his fame, and his access to resources. materially, kevin has wanted for very little in his life, and his entitlement is very prominent in his character. none of this cancels out the abuse he suffered, but it’s also something i very rarely see addressed outside of being hinted at vaguely in a jokingly dismissive manner.

in fact, i often see takes on kevin that fully deny he has these traits at all, and that annoys me. i don’t like to see these wonderfully round characters flattened out, and there’s a particular irritating irony out of changing or misinterpreting a character’s personality in order to make them more palatable or more sympathetic in a series about how even people traumatized in unsympathetic ways are still deserving of help and decency

so

kevin can be a little morally gray,, as a treat

[subconscious-thoughts]

Not Hopeless

I read that getting rid of all the things that remind you of your ex is one way of helping yourself to move on. It helps because when you're trying to move on, you'll be reducing the possibilty of remembering them, which will minimize the occurences of depressive episodes.

This isn't only to mentally save you from the pain, or make you unconsciously repress your grief. It's something to help you focus on moving on.

So today I collected everything; from the books and clothes she gave me. I felt excited and sad at the same time. Excited because I'll be able to give myself some type of emotional freedom. But sad because that same emotional freedom, means the comfort of the chains of attachment will be severed... and we all know how annoyingly painful that can be.

I had a drink last night. I didn't get wasted but I drank enough that it made me start talking to myself. Saying things that sober me can't seem to admit to myself.

I realized underneath all the stupid and actually problematic arguments I had with her, even if she was a very superficial person, someone I couldn't trust, someone I could only trust to hurt me.

I admit... that at some point in time I actually wanted it to be her. I thought I could settle for her, unfortunately wishing someone to be someone they actually aren't can be draining for the well-wisher and wishing it so won't actually make it true. Lol, who fucking knew?

But I've forgiven her and myself for this part. Even if we were both somewhat delusional, even if we both knew deep down nothing was going to happen. We still tried, we might have been delusional but we were delusional together, we might not've gotten what we wanted to have but at least we both shared a dream for a while, and the thought comforts me. I think that's something I can count on as love.

Looking at all these gifts, memories started to flow. The moments of generosity. I hesitate and ask myself if I should really get rid of these gifts, all of a sudden my chest feels heavy and I feel like crying.

I have to do it.

She was my girl, and she loved me. Even if after all that time we spent together, feeling so undeserving of love. Even if I didn't entirely agree on how she loved. She still did in her cute little way, and that's something that I'd like to honor. It's a precious experience I'll respect and be grateful for.

The gifts are gone now; along with the memories that came with it. They're at home with the person that created it, and I hope that person is happy and in peace.

The space on the table where the gifts sat on is now just air and dust. It feels like a huge part of me is gone, this is the feeling all of the poets and literary writers keep describing with all their vernacular and metaphors when they're experiencing loss.

The void, I don't really care much on how much it's going to affect me. It feels familiar, I somewhat feel comfortably at home. I'm gonna sit here, and I'm wondering... Who or what is next?

[dearamericaroyaldiaries]

Is There a Posting Schedule? No. Come to Terms With That Fact.

Standing in the Light- 1763-1764, Catharine Carey Logan

(This edition is the best edition. There’s a reprint with yellow on the cover instead of green and the newest edition after the re-brand isn’t as good. None of them are.)

Protagonist Age: 12/13

Started- 1/4/2022

Finished- 2/21/2022

Summary: (I figure this might be a good idea to provide context for the #ReadingThoughts)

Quaker girl is terrified of Native American raids (which are retaliatory and fair [as much as any violence is] in context but terrifying for our protagonist). She gets ‘napped along with her little brother, resists integrating, and writes as a way of coping emotionally. After a few weeks/months she comes to see the Lenape as people and is further traumatized when her potential intended (another white person taken by the Lenape as a child and fully integrated into the society) and the rest of her adopted family are potentially murdered as she is “rescued.” Once reunited with her Quaker family she struggles to reintegrate because she is thoroughly traumatized.

#ReadingThoughts

I should figure out when to use thee vs thou vs thy vs thine. Today is not that day.

Catharine has a cute little crush on Jess Owens. (Spoiler alert: it doesn’t last.)

How stressful to live in fear of constant attack. (Pointedly ignoring the general ongoing state of the world.)

Did I miss that they got knocked out when they were taken? I’m not understanding why she’s lost track of time already.

Not loving the pervasive racism so far but I know (spoiler alert 2) that she grows out of these views. I also understand why she feels that way but I don’t have to like it.

“Why do feel better? Surely not because of the medical aid provided. That was clearly torture.” Kid, you’ve got some trauma blinders on.

THAT’S RIGHT, CATHATINE! He speaks English! (That’s what I thought but it’s been 20 years since I read this book. Cut me some slack.)

How does she know the baby is a boy?

What's a trout lily? Why is it called that? (They're pretty. I did not find why.)

I’m surprised Caty hasn’t had more to say about the baby’s father.

Welp. That escalated quickly. “Oh, I don’t know. Do I feel anything for him?” Ten minutes later: “I love him!”

Why do I see Caty as Amy March from Little Women? Kirsten Dunst Amy, not Florence Pugh Amy. It might be the portrait on the cover.

Well. These poor kids have been through too much.

Papa is trying. He’s trying to let them say what they need to say and process their experiences. This series stans dads so far.

Thoughts on the Afterward

The epilogue gave some closure but I want my full sweeping romances. I’m holding out hope that my favorites hold up and there are minimal Yikes moments when re-reading two decades later. Of the four I’m thinking of off the top of my head, I’m pretty sure two have questionable age differences, one has a marriage of a side character at a potentially questionable age without a questionable age gap, and the last one starts out with a questionable age difference BUT it ends with a much less questionable age gap. We’ll see if I remember correctly.

BUT I DIGRESS

Overall Thoughts After Reading

I love me some Mary Pope Osborne. She's a good writer. I don’t know if I’d feel okay reading this book aloud due to the ... problematic way Amer-Indians are discussed. Caty goes on a journey and learns her worldview was skewed, but some of the language used is NOT okay to use today.

This is one of the oldies and a goody. I want a mini-series about her experience where everyone lives, she marries Snow Hunter, they get her dad’s approval after the fact, and everyone has closure and is happy. Is that so much to ask? Gosh!

(Really, I wouldn’t mind an impeccably researched and produced series exploring each of these books.) 

(Also, there might be a fun extra that goes with this book. Standby to see if I do anything with it.)

Rating Scale

7/10 traumatic experiences

Other possible contenders: Strawberries (I don’t remember why I wrote this down,) Winter/Bird Themed Names, Faith Crises.

Photo Credit:

Cover: Me again!

Trout Lily:  tinyurl.com/2p84j2b9

[wenellyb]

hey! every now and then i've seen random posts about sebastian's comment/s on colin kap kneeling among other things, but i've never seen any source material or hard facts. do you have any posts about this or deconstruction of your own? i'd be very interested, ty!

Hey yourself😉!

So I've found the screenshot of the post (at the bottom) and just so you know he also posted an apolology but that one I couldn't find a screenshot of.

There are plenty of posts talking about this but I think most of them are old so it would take some time for me to find them.

If you want my opinion. The whole thing was f*cked up and I remember being extremely surprised and unfollowing him after that post.

And he did apologize, which is good and I do think he understands that that post was not great, but it wasn't my main issue.

When the whole story with Kaepernick happened it was a real eye opener and exposed a lot of racists even among celebrities. I'm looking at you Christopher Meloni. But not only him.

So Colin Kaepernick was to kneeling to protest against police violence and racism.

And a lot of people reacted like a lot of White people react when the topic of racism arise: deny everything and get defensive "How dare he protest blablabala" "He's so rich and he's saying White people are priviledged..." "How dare he say there is racism in this country". You know the usual.

But the thing is to me, the way he protested was the most respectful, and most peaceful way to protest and also so impactful. And some people had still a problem with it...I don't understand how ANYBODY could have a problem with it ... unless they were racist in one way or the other. That was the bar for me... I could not have respect ANYBODY who had a problem with him kneeling, because their message was clear “just sh*t up and play football”.

To me, anybody who had a problem with Colin Kaepernick taking a knee... was automatically problematic and the worst.

For other forms of protests there can always be arguments against it, lousy arguments, but arguements nevertheless: "They're blocking the streets" "There was violence during the protest",... etc... But what is your argument with having a man kneel during the National Anthem, to call out something as serious as police brutality.

To me it was clear that they just wanted Black Americans to shut up, and stay in their lane. "Sports have nothing to do with politics blablabla"

And unfortunately history proved Colin Kaepernick right, and I don't think anybody could voice bad opinions about him today, but at the time, a lot of people were criticizing him, calling him names, insulting him, and even some celebrities were talking about how disrespectful he was.

They cared more about the way he was voicing his protest, than the fact that racism was a real issue.

And because of the protests last year, I think a lot of people tend to forget about that time, but Kaepernick faced A LOT of backlash, A LOT and for what....??? Absolutely no justification. With the way some people reacted you would have thought he burned the American flag on a daily basis, or used it as toilet paper.

So having that in mind, it was really disheartening to see an actor you respect take part in that...

And just to be clear, this is my personal opinion, but I don't think Sebastian had any bad intention with that post (not like other celebrities who were outright criticizing Kaepernick, for some reason I only remember Chris Meloni lol). But the timing, and the content, even as a joke, even as a promotion tool for his movie was extremely bad. You also have to understand the context, and how there were a lot of people rooting against Kap.

Worst case scenerio Seb’s post was racist and best case scenario it was tone deaf.

I can only assume Sebastian watches the news in the US, so he must have known what the caption "take a knee" meant and still decided to post it... So maybe he wasn't ill-intentioned, but to him the topic was light enough that he could post it on his social media...

My main problem isn't even with Seb's post, it was a weird way to promote his movie, or a joke I don’t know. Artists do problematic stuff all the time, and it's up to the fans who support them to decide if they keep doing supporting him or not.

My main problem was and still is the reaction of the fandom, where White Seb stans think they know and understand racism better than anyone else. And honestly this is not me saying that Seb is racist, this is me saying that we should be allowed to voiced our opinions without being silenced or accused of trying to villainize him or cancel him blablabla .

But the Seb stans don't understand that and prefer to turn a blind eye.

I make difference between stans and fans. The Seb fans are the ones who are willing to listen, understand why some people might be offended and admit that their fav f*cked up. The stans are the annoying ones who yould rather keep their head in the sand.

And nobody is even asking to stop supporting Seb... If I cancel an actor, I will stop consuming his content, supporting him, paying to see his movies etc... But I'm not forcing anybody else to do it... But I would like to be free to voice my dislikes especially if that actor was being problematic... without the stans complaining about how "I don't know their fave"

I haven't cancelled Seb btw, I just don't feel like finding him excuses and glossing over the words and if I think that something he did was racist, I will say that it was racist, not "problematic" or "tactless" or "clumsy"...

I think that a lot of people are confused about what racism is, and think it is only White Supremacists who want to harm all non White people.

But it's not only that and in my opinion, there are many layers to racism. If you have "nothing against Blacl people" but there is a part of you that believes you or White people are better than Black people, well you are racist... If not hiw would you describe it? I have already told this story, but I have a friend who swore she wasn't racist and we even had a big debate about racism, and a few weeks later, her boyfriend told me that during a family dinner, she had talked about a common Black friend of theirs saying "She is pretty for a Black girl"... But if you ask my friend, she will say she isn't racist.

If you try to silence people calling out racism, you are contributing to it instead of fighting it.

Another example, I received a lot of "problematic" comments at work from coworkers on my hair, my origins etc, but when I talked about it to my friends and said those comments were racists.. they said that I was "overeacting" that those comments were harmless or just my colleagues being "ignorant". But one time, I was done with it and I wrote to HR about it losting all the comments I had received and the HR director called me and told me that those comments were racist full stop, he didn't try to minimize it or act like I was exagerrating.

And that's how I see the reactions of Seb stans whenever something from him re-sufaces, like my friends who just act like it is nothing.

Just so you know you are not helping when you do that.

They act as if we're suppoosed to accept that because "it's not that big of a deal". Who told you that? How do you determine what is a big deal or not? Especially when you have never dealt with racism?

Fandom behaves as if people who were hurt or offended by that post were overracting. "It was a joke" "It was a long time ago" "He would never do somthing racist"

How hard is it to say " I can see that my fave did something problematic, or that what he did was racist, and I would still like to support him but I understand that people were hirt"??? How hard is it to continue to stan your fave WITHOUT trying to silence people who call out the behavior.

And also the way they refuse to use the words is annoying... it's always "I'm sorry if anybody was offended", never "What I did/wrote was racist and I know better now". If no one wants to admit it when they do racist stuff... nobody will never get anywhere... Like my friend who is convinced that she isn't racist but goes around thinking that White Women are more beautiful than Black Women, and even says it when surrounded by her family. 

And people act like the people who were hurt have no reason to be hurt because he apologized, but I hope those people realize that it doesn’t work that way. An apology is great of course, but it doesn’t take out the hurt, or the feeling that if he was comfortable enough sharing this on social media, what is he comfortable doing in the safety of his close circle?, or remove the idea that maybe an actor you adored, and respected doesn’t view Black people struggles as a serious matter.

I personally don't hate Seb, far from it. And the reason why I have so many posts about him, calling him out or not, is that he is one of the very few White actors I'm interested in. I don't know him personally, but I enjoy his interviews with Anthony and enjoy his movies. But I'm not about to act like he is perfect like some of his stan do and also I have absolutely no issue with people who have "cancelled" him because of his past behavior, because I understand them and it's their choice, it's what works best for them... I don't want to force them to root for someone who maybe wouldn't root for us.

Last point, that I won't elaborate because I have already written way to much. There's a difference between people actively trying to be racist, and people who are racist and maybe don't realize it, or people who have prejudice but are working on it...

I hate it when White people act like the worst thing in the world is being accused of racism when the actual worst thing in the world is being racist. Because it shifts the conversation from... "Oh how can I improve myself and stop this racist thing I'm doing, or how can I work on this prejudice I have?" to "How dare you call me racist!!! I would never" all the while they continue doing the racist thing they do.

TL:DR: His Instagram post was f*cked up, and he apologized. And it's up to each person to decide if they still want to support him or not, but it would be great if thise who still support him stopped pretending that those whose don't are overreacting or had no reason of being offended.