#which honestly could've been its own post; i was just thinking abt the two points together bc i saw a post that made them together—

[aeide-thea]

very much an off-the-cuff post so there may well be bugs, i'm still workshopping my thinking here, but—

i seem to see posts fairly regularly in which a member of some marginalized group A is objecting to attempts by less marginalized group B to make connections between discrimination against A and harm experienced by B (the main thing i have in mind here is when people attempt to align themselves with visibly-trans people by pointing out the ways that transphobic legislation also impacts gnc cis people, theatrical crossdressing, &c, but there are definitely also examples along other axes)—

and like. the main objection i've seen from A is 'why do they have to connect my experience to their experience in order to care about it? why can't they just agree that i shouldn't be discriminated against as a matter of, like, compassion for fellow humanity?'

and this reaction does honestly always just seem a little, idk, naive to me?? like, i don't know, it's gotten very popular ime to complain about normies' clumsy attempts to Understand Instead of Just Accepting [this feels potentially linked to like. the way many of us now prefer silently clicking 'like' to producing our own original, maybe clumsy, responses? but don't @ me on that point], probably because a lot of the time they aren't genuinely seeking to Understand but just to point out all the ways our queerness &c doesn't fit their received (unexaminedly conservative) understanding of the world, which feels to us (very reasonably!) like renewed pressure from the establishment to make ourselves fit that established framework, and so we resist… but at the same time, idk, maybe i'm just outing myself as lesser-than-thou here, but for every sort of person i was raised to distrust and have since arrived at genuine loving acceptance/appreciation of, it's involved first coming to understand their frame of reference at least a little? not to say that there isn't a place for shutting up and listening while you're still working to understand, because there definitely is! but i do kind of think this idea that's become popular in certain liberal circles of like, 'you don't have to understand my experience, you just have to respect it,' is fine and true for keeping peace with strangers, but really isn't a recipe for winning friends or influencing people—it's a recipe for keeping people at arm's length where they can't hit you. and then people turn around and want to apply that rule to coalition-building, and get all shocked-pikachu-face when others seek to identify more active points of connection.

...

another ~Radical Objection to Liberal Approaches~ i've seen, though often not specifically in this context (of discussing the way attempts to oppress A have knock-on effects for B), is like—'there's no point in deconstructing their logic because it's fundamentally illogical! insert that sartre quote abt anti-semites!' and like. no, there's absolutely no point in debating their logic with them. but fundamentally when people assert a logical resistance to bigoted positions they are not doing it to Own The Bigots, imo, or at any rate shouldn't be; they're (we're) doing it to reaffirm the basis of their/our own camp's position, namely, we see your knee-jerk fears and reject them; we substitute instead a patient allegiance to logic, that reasons its way into compassion.

that said, obviously there's a conversation to be had here about, like, platforming bad positions, and to what extent deconstructing them is implicitly platforming them! but. i do think that complaining that logic won't win over bigots is missing the very fundamental point that the logic isn't for the bigots: it's for us. we're talking to ourselves; we're affirming ourselves. and yeah, we need to understand that this sort of intra-party discussion doesn't, on its own, constitute sufficient activism! messages need to be communicated beyond the bounds of the party! but i do think i disagree that there's no place for it.

[eyes-inthe-skies]

can u rank all the saw movies? or at least the ones u saw (pun intended)?

Thanks for my first asked and for being my #1 fan of all time!!

Luckily I actually just had a conversation with my friend Abt this that sees me prepared for this task I'm about to overcomplicate.

(Post Script: God I went on for a while strap in gang)n

1: Saw X (possibly the objectively Greatest Saw movie. Tobin Bell is fascinating to watch bring humanity to this murderer, Shawnee Smith is so beloved and I LOVE the kills in this one. Top teir)

2: Saw 2004 (Classic, what's to be said that hasn't already been said. Carey Elwes does a rly bad American accent, Shawnee Smith makes Amanda the single most iconic woman in fiction just by sitting there. This movie caused me a lot of distress as a child and that fascinated me so thoroughly that I think it may have been a defining moment of my horror fanatasism despite not watching the full film till a decade later. I could go on.)

3: Saw 6 (I don't know if this is controversial or not, but Saw 6 is genuinely a high point of the series to me. I love watching William Eastons trap plot, which is not something I can say for most other Saw films. And that fucking ending man! Saw 6 is very personal to me in that I too would love to stab the man who killed my father with hydrochloric acid filled needles and watch him melt from the outside. Very fun scenes with John, Hoffman getting his mouth ripped open is hot, etc etc)

4: Saw 3 ( only reason this isn't 3 Is because Jeff makes me chew through pencils I hate this guy. People are NOT JOKING ABOUT THE YURI. ITS ACTUALLY REAL. I love love lOVED Amanda in this movie, I don't think I blinked the entire time, I love seeing everything crash down around her and John until there's nothing left but blood and bones and flesh, and not a single soul went to heaven that night, etc etc.)

5: Saw 4 (I don't know why but I love saw 4 actually, I think Hoffman, strahm, Perez and Rigg were all rly fun to watch. I love the spy x spy ass soap opera plot. I LOVED seeing Eric Matthews head get exploded between two ice blocks. FUCK YES. Again this trap plot I actually really dig which helps with the watchability of the thing, plus Hoffman hot who said that)

6: Saw 2 (I know this is insane I know I wish I liked this movie more but the only good thing is setting up Amanda as jigsaws successor, some nice time with John kramer being a cunty old man, and also establishing I hate Donnie whalbergs stupid fucking face. Don't at me.)

7: Saw 5 (I literally don't remember what happened in saw v. I had to look it up. It's honestly not the worst, Hoffman and Strahm are pretty enjoyable once again, but it's completely unremarkable, I don't have anything to say Abt this movie.)

8: Jigsaw (Trap plot makes me want to rip my own eyes out. "Plot twist" is dumb and falls apart. Fucking. Jigsaws Nephew. Whatever man.)

9: Saw 3d (Probably one of the worst actual movies I've seen. I love Larry coming back don't get me wrong, he's very cunty, you know. But they literally barely use him till the end, which is a mistake. The fucking Bobby Dagan plot could've been interesting but it wasn't due to him being not at all helpful and the end is genuinely maddening. Also I HATE THE HOME DEPOT TRAP GRRR GRR DO YOU JESR ME GRRGRE)

Spiral- I have not seen spiral.