#which. is not the case!!!!!!! people do not say those things to me because they don't want to even slightly entertain that idea !!!!!!!

[inkfire-scribe]

As a recovering conservative, I might be able to shed some light on this most puzzling of questions, at least from a religious perspective. (And don't get me wrong, there are plenty of non-religious conservatives - the alt-right is liberally (haha) sprinkled with atheists and always has been. But I can't speak with any accuracy on that particular view, so I won't.)

From a Christian extremist point of view, the purpose of their existence is to spread "the Good News" and convert as many people as possible, because anyone they fail to convert will be tortured for eternity after they die and that's a personal failing they don't want to live with. This is born of several conflicting and not necessarily biblical beliefs:

That unbelievers are sent to hell

That hell is a place of eternal punishment

That there is no way to not go to hell unless you follow a specific set of steps or (in more extreme cases) a certain set of rules

That a failure to evangelize MIGHT be a Sin Against God and

That if conversion is not possible then making others Follow The Rules is at least a step in the right direction

With specific issues (i.e. abortion) they very sincerely believe that even a shitty or short life is better than no life at all. They believe that there is a moral difference between choosing to end a life and allowing a life to end (one is a sin while the other is more of a personal failing but not necessarily something that will "stain your soul") and curiously the negative aspects of allowing rather than choosing are glossed over when the person doing the allowing is nominally "protecting the unborn."

It's a complex web of beliefs that feeds into a particular understanding of the world. They see a world in which it is any Christian's moral duty to eradicate sin, not just from their own lives but from the lives of everyone around them. That's how you get mothers who insist they "did their best" while also blaming their own children for the manifestations of the trauma the mother herself inflicted on them.

(This is for the Americans in the audience.) Many of the everyday things in life that extremists consider "sin," like smoking weed, drinking hard liquor, getting a tattoo, etc. were branded as "bad" not by the Bible, but by social movements. In the '40s it was dancing and loud, unfamiliar music. In the '50s, it was laziness and cowardice (aka, being tired and scared). In the '60s it was drugs and promiscuity. A lot of what we're dealing with now is a direct outgrowth of the Reagan era, where the President declared in no uncertain terms that being addicted to very addictive substances was the fault of the lazy, unmotivated, free-loading poor folk who would rather spend their unemployment benefits on drugs and alcohol than on diapers and food. And to be extremely clear: this claim has No Basis in Fact. No reputable study at any point in any country has ever found that people who get benefits from the government are spending their cash on non-essential items in any meaningful quantities.

But it's those beliefs, pushed into the mainstream by religious fanatics and conservative extremists, that guided us to where we are today - a society in which an extremist religious faction are trying to impose their standards on everyone, regardless of faith or creed. They have been told for decades now that they are the victims, that they are under attack, that they have to "fight for their rights". So now they're defensive, combative, and absolutely convinced that they know the Truth.

I can't tell you how to get through to them. I can't tell you how to talk to them, even. I got out because I'd only ever been in due to ignorance. Once someone showed me the data and shared the logic that showed I was in the wrong, I changed my mind. Not everyone will - in fact, most people won't.

All I can say is... if you're talking to someone who believes they have the right to dictate what others can and can't do with their bodies, the most unsettling thing you can do is to point out to them what they're saying.

Because removing another person's bodily autonomy never sounds like a noble good deed.

Here’s the thing I think conservatives don’t understand: I don’t care what someone else does with their own body.

You wanna get surgery or take medication to make you look a certain way? Okay. I don’t care

You wanna ctrl+alt+delete that clump of cells in your uterus. Sure. I don’t care.

You wanna use meds to block a natural aspect of your body’s system? Alright by me. I. Don’t. Care.

I don’t care because it’s not my body

“But what if they regret it?” So? Let them regret it. That’s their choice to live with.

“But what if that baby would have grown up to cure cancer?” Kinda short sighted on God’s part to only put that potential in one baby, yeah? (Also … you can’t cure cancer, but that’s a level of nuance for a different time)

“But what if they want to use that function in the future?” Funny thing about meds: you can just stop fucking taking them and things usually go back to normal.

I DON’T CARE WHAT ANOTHER HUMAN BEING DOES WITH THEIR OWN BODY! I don’t care 🤷‍♀️ it’s not my body so why should I have a say in it?

The choice is not “being left up to the states instead of the federal government”, it’s that the choice is being taken away from individuals.

Why the fuck to they care so much what other people do with their own shit??

[dykedvonte]

You ever just see a Mouthwashing take that makes you want to bang your head into a wall? I literally just saw someone claim Curly couldn't have been emotionally abused by Jimmy before the crash because he was in a higher position of power than Jimmy.

-Shrimp Anon

The mouthwashing fandom has shown me that people genuinely do believe that certain types of abuse are not as detrimental as other types especially when they deem those immune/resistant, ergo, believing one is objectively worse no matter how it affects the person nor the intersections of power, history and dynamics at play.

Get ready cause this is a yap session:

Cause like it's heavily implied that Curly and Jimmy's friendship was toxic and abusive, pointedly in the direction of how Jimmy uses Curly's belief/comfort in him. Curly wasn't forced to enable Jimmy but he was emotional and mentally on edge around him in almost every scene in some way. Mental and emotional abuse are not contingent on what positions you have at work. Yeah, he's Jimmy's boss but he was Jimmy's friend first and it's like getting into Psych discussion to talk about how social power tends to overshadow any perceived organizational power in the human mind. People are concerned about their jobs ofc but they tend to hang onto and put more value/investment into their personal relationships, hence why there tends to be laws and restrictions around mixing the two.

I always see the sentiments that "Curly is a grown ass man", "Curly is bigger than Jimmy", "Curly is Jimmy's boss", "He just needed a backbone" as criticisms of Curly and while I do agree that on the surface level all of these to be true and viable ways Curly could've taken more control of the situation, I often look at the parallels of Anya and Curly as victims of Jimmy pre/post crash.

The way Jimmy talks to Anya post crash is how he talked to Curly in the pre-crash segments. It's hard to pin-point mainly because we know he hates and wants nothing to do with Anya compared to his contrary but similarly handled obsessions with Curly. It's a weird sort of "honey-moon" effect of abuse Jimmy does in terms of emotional and mental victimization. He is always horrid to Anya, always talking down or questioning her abilities and thoughts in a situation, this of course includes the harassment and assault. However, he has a moment of attempted gentleness/conditioning when he question her about the mouthwash when she's contemplating drinking it at the table. The key difference is he has no personal investment in Jimmy outside wanting nothing to do with him, meaning there is no sort of romanticized version of him that he can condition her off of. He knows this, hence, why he always reverts to trying to make her to scared to oppose him.

This sort of give and take of "kindness" doesn't work on her because she knows he is just doing it to take more from her than whatever he could possibly give but it reflects even the "softer" scenes between him and Curly where he always rewords or rephrases Curly's sentiments and concerns to sound more shallow. He is feigning a deeper understanding by reworking Curly's emotions into something bad and needing to be hidden. Everything is laced with envy and resentment, an outburst just around the corner, I mean he even slams the table in the birthday party scene, a tactic in emotional manipulation to set the victim on edge and cloud their ability to respond. Even if Curly knows Jimmy won't get physical in that moment, the physical actions is intended to make him back down in the confrontation in case it does. This is something that is just not person specific. It ingrains itself into how you interact with the world and life and it shows in major and minor ways with Curly.

Post-crash, the abusive nature is more in tandem to the physical victimization Anya went through and the stripping of voice and autonomy we see take place. Like the parasite in HFIM, Jimmy speaks for Curly most of the time and puts words in his mouth, similarly to how he takes Anya's plans as his own. He very commonly, with the both of them mind you, supplements the worst aspects of himself into them; pettiness, selfishness, lack of understanding... And tries to cover himself with their best qualities; kindness, planning, initiative, etc...

These parallel are just to say that positional power has little to do with if a person can be abused and how it can even be flipped to further the abuse. There is no doubt that Curly could've picked up on Jimmy's envy of his position hence another reason he never confronted him as a Captain but as a friend as doing so would immediately put Jimmy in a space to be confrontational/combative.

I think the disdain some people have when they talk about the heavily implied if not implicitly stated emotional/mental abuse Curly experienced being Jimmy's friend is when treating it as an excuse to why he didn't do more. I can understand that completely because it is not an excuse to why he didn't do more but is a very real reason people in his position in these scenarios can experience whether in the context of a work or social environment. However, I also think the way people talk about it really does demonstrate a bigger problem when talking about abuse when somehow who is/was abused is either part of the issue or enabled it.

Harkening back to the sentiments about Curly's inaction regarding Jimmy, I think the exact phrases I used/have seen show how there is an inherent belief that it is easier to overpower the effects of emotional/mental abuse that go in tandem with the perception of Curly as someone who should be able to. There is not an age you suddenly stop being susceptible to abuse nor a set point or low where you realize how it has affected you. You don't suddenly know to stand up or put a face on to face your abuser nor admit that you inadvertently enabled them to subjugate someone else to the same treatment. Maybe it's my psych brain but their is this growing belief that direct action is somehow easy or always the best method with the game shows you instances where it is not always the case. In real life that rings true too. He should have done more, but it's not impossible to see why he struggled to find a way or didn't even if it makes us mad.

It's not easy to suddenly gain a "back-bone". You don't immediately want to resort to aggression, especially if it mirrors the type you were a victim to. You don't want to believe you allowed yourself to be treated this bad, let it get that bad or allowed something bad to happen to someone else. It is easy to be in denial, to retreat to your thoughts or make excuses to avoid the painful truth. It's frustrating but in a way we know is relatable. It why we both hate and love Curly for it. We know we'd be better, we think we'd be better, we like to think we wouldn't falter in the same ways but it's always easier to say that from the outside looking in. It's easy to see what he was doing wrong because we are seeing it, not him, but the game really does make you picture what you would do if this was your raw reality and it's why this debate about Curly seems so never ending/contradictory. We can all say what we'd do but bottom line is that's much different when you're in the moment with all the emotions and human feelings attached.

I personally think Mouthwashing tackles the themes of rape culture, enabling, toxic masculinity, types of abuse and patriarchy in ways that are meant to deconstruct the typical straightforward views we mostly have of these concepts and how little subtilities of them are just as, if not more, detrimental than the overt/obvious parts. The game deals with the idea of little details and bigger picture in a way to show that sometimes the bigger picture is not the issue but the little details that make it up. It's why I have a personal dislike of depictions of Jimmy as the typical horrible person who would of course do something like this because the game is about noticing the little warning signs, the foreshadowing and foresight.

It's why I dislike the typical discussion of "bro code" and "boys will be boys" for the game because the game makes a point to avoid the standard depictions of such. It is about the type of men who still enable despite not condoning, agreeing or even perpetuating harmful beliefs because they can't see the little details or the ways it seeps into their everyday. The severity is not obvious to them as it was not obvious to Curly, Swansea or even Daisuke the way it was to a woman like Anya. There are little details about Jimmy that should ring alarms but if you are too naive like Daisuke, too distant like Swansea or too conditioned like Curly, they are just off markers.

There is 100% more constructive/concise ways to say "Curly was a victim of Jimmy's abuse on an emotional and mental aspect that clouded his judgements and perceptions in the scenario" while also critiquing on the side of "Curly still had a responsibility to protect Anya as a crew mate and Captain that he failed to do due to biases and stigma's he failed to surpass" without the weird condemnation people give him about should've knowing better than to let himself be manipulated by a person he considered a close, if not family/best-friend and had his own reasons to trust initially. Also stop being weird about victims of abuse in general with this fandom, like sorry not everyone has a like social epiphany the moment someone's nasty to them. People are treating it like you immediately know when you are in a toxic relationship immediately or comprehend when a person is actively dangerous and either it's your fault for not knowing how to leave/cut them off or you deserve it. Like the hypocrisy of people believing how certain fans treat the story reflect their irl views but not their own is crazy.

End statement is: I honestly don't even know man, I've been writing this too long and just like no man on that ship was perfect or really helped Anya when it mattered and I feel like pitting them against each other in discussion on who did the least or most or how it was justified sucks cause in the end Anya always did the most and best thing for herself.

[ophanstears]

🍀

I know that Clover's gender is up to interpretation (the devs DID say so themselves) but I still feel weird when people make them exclusively male or female LOL Like it's TECHNICALLY fine??? but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

more in tags as usual because I am a yapper. i am so sorry for having strong opinions about gender and representation. i am usually more fun than this 🥲🥲🥲🥲

[justchillandshipit]

Sometimes I feel unsatisfied with the answers in interviews. They bring me down. I'm not saying there is anything inherently bad in them or the actor doesn't interview well. In fact, in Oliver S's case, he interviews fantastically. It's really just that he can't say because he doesn't know or isn't allowed to say what the situation is with Buddie.

Here is the thing, and I've said this before. The show has already shown me that Buck and Eddie are in love. It reads to me as romantic love. I have a lot of respect for the character of Buck, and I do see and believe you shouldn't attach his sexuality to a specific person. Buck would be bisexual if Eddie existed as a character or not. I can respect that. However, this is a fictional character in a fictional show, and he was not introduced as a bi-character first. We were shown his feelings and attachments long before we had him as a canon bi-character.

For the show not to acknowledge that those feelings are already there is a disservice to the storytelling and viewers. I know a lot of people can twist anything into, "Hey this is proof," but no it isn't. Not really. I want to support the actors by viewing as these episodes air, but I'm really not built for that. I think I would be a happier viewer if I watched all of the episodes as a marathon. It would allow me to see the journey without the speculation of will they/won't they in between.

With that in mind, if we don't get confirmation on Eddie tonight which would make an eventual Buddie canon possible, then I will likely not continue watching in March. I will wait until all the episodes air and watch in one go.

[weemietime]

https://www.tumblr.com/weemietime/767670429687152640?source=share

I suppose it was easy for me to fall into the Hamasnik trap due to my habit of black and white thinking, which I wish I could blame on my autism, my ocd, or my horrible mental state, but I’m just incredibly stupid lol. But yeah, I was very much a hamasnik myself.

For some reason my mind refused to accept or recognise the nuance of a history that I wasn't even well versed on in the first place. I also think that the constant reductionism presented to me played a part. There’s a lot of reductionism that goes on within the Hamasnik circles, and it goes hand in hand with anti intellectualism. Statements like “this isn’t complex! How can you see these videos of these Palestinian children (videos that I later found out were actually from Syria, but I couldn’t tell, I just ate it up) and think that Israel/Palestine is complex!”

The whole thing of blocking everyone who has a different opinion or ideology (the ideology in question being Zionism, or at least what hamasniks consider to be Zionism) from you and refusing to follow certain news channels because they’ve shown sympathy for those who have a different ideology from you, refusing to read certain books from authors who have expressed empathy for those same people, all of this together effectively creates an echo chamber of the same opinions and views being regurgitated over and over and over again constantly.

Then sprinkle in constant videos of people dying and blood everywhere, videos that you don’t even know where the people are from, whether they be from Gaza, from Syria, Lebanon, or Yemen, but it doesn’t matter because they speak Arabic so it MUST be about the Gazans specifically according to the Hamasnik group you’re apart of, all of these videos you’re being told to constantly watch over and over again because according to the Hamasnik cult you’re in, “if you look away from the violence even ONCE, you’re complicit in genocide! You’re personally responsible for genocide if you look away! The people in Gaza never get a mental health break or comfort so why should you?”

That very same rhetoric is the reason why a lot of you Jewish people can’t find yourself able to escape on fandom spaces and shit like that, the antisemitism you encounter in spaces you thought you were safe in? Yeah it’s because these people are being told that they have to constantly talk about what’s going on in every single space they’re in and that they can’t look away because if they do, they’re considered complicit in the killing of Gazans so they have to let everyone else know the same.

There are a lot of people who are purposefully antisemitic, don’t get me wrong, this isn’t me excusing anyone. I’m just saying that a number of these people genuinely believe that they’re doing something for the greater good by constantly being antisemitic. They don’t consider themselves antisemitic because the echo chamber they’re in has convinced them that Jewish people aren’t experiencing anything, that Jewish people are fine. That it’s the “big bad” that they’re hurting, not the Jews. It’s the “big and scary Zionists!” At least that’s what happened in my case. Constantly told that if I took a break even once, the blood of the Gazans, the blood of every. single. person in Gaza, would be on my own two hands.

You might not believe me, but when you’ve trapped a person in an echo chamber like that, it’s very easy to convince them that an entire country is evil, that every single Israeli is wicked and corrupt and should die and that anyone who expresses an ounce of empathy for them is a “Zionist” and should die as well.

You could’ve told me anything a few months ago. Absolutely anything bad about Israelis and I would’ve believed you. Because I’d scroll social media and see videos of children dying, people being beaten, buildings being destroyed, everything. Then I’d scroll some more and see videos of Israelis doing everyday things, videos of people having fun, videos of people eating, etc, and I found it so unfair that they (according to hamasnik rhetoric) were living in absolute peace while Palestinians are dying right next to them. Then I’d scroll some more and see videos of the IDF (I actually don’t even know if the videos were even of the IDF or not, but as I said, you could’ve told me anything and I’d have believed you. I genuinely believed that it was the IDF) shooting people, beating people, etc. And I was told to look at these videos everyday, every hour, every minute, every second. A lot of the Hamasnik mouthpieces take advantage of the average westerner’s inability to understand Arabic or Hebrew, so there’s a lot of mistranslated videos of Israelis saying they want every Arab dead, a lot of mistranslated Al Jazeera videos of people in Amsterdam for example, saying “يهودي قذر" (dirty Jew) with the wrong captions on and then us non Arabic speaking cult trapped people are none the wiser to what that means because we refuse to engage with any sources that won’t fit our narrative, because we’re complicit in death if we step outside the narrative.

I don’t believe that Zionists should die, but I did. I don’t believe that the hostages should suffer, but I did. I truly believed the worst of things, and perpetuated horrible antisemitism, because I genuinely believed that I was doing good. I found myself justifying unspeakable acts, and saying unspeakable things, things that I would have whole heartedly condemned prior, because I genuinely thought I was doing something right. For example, prior to me falling into that cultish trap, I would’ve wholeheartedly condemned saying a slur coined by David fucking Duke. But after? As I said, I was doing and saying unspeakable things.

I would watch videos from Hamasniks everyday, perpetuate antisemitism everyday, go to sleep and dream about that stuff, and wake up and do it all again, first thing in the morning. A vicious cycle.

And unknowingly somewhere else around the world, some Jewish or Israeli person would wake up, witness antisemitism everyday, witness people wishing the worst upon the hostages, the Jews, the Israelis, the Zionists, everyday, go to sleep terrified for what’s happening to their people, and wake up and see it all again first thing in the morning. Another vicious cycle.

I wish I had a better answer for you, I do. An answer that’s more digestible and less disturbing. I wish I could undo everything that I’ve said and done to the people I’ve hurt whether that be in real life or online. I truly am sorry, and I wish that an apology would fix everything, but it won’t. I wish that all the pain I inflicted on all the Jewish people and Israeli people could be taken away and that I would feel that pain tenfold.

If it’s any consolation or solace, I hate myself more than any of you combined. There is nobody who hates me more than me at this current moment in time and I absolutely do deserve every ounce of pain inflicted upon me, whether it be mental or physical. If you wish death upon me, just know that I do agree with you, but unfortunately previous attempts have failed.

I deleted all of my old posts from that period of time to avoid people getting hurt by them anymore, but I think I’ve done too much damage for me to be a good ally, so I just say nothing now, but I truly do wish the best for all of you and I wish that all of this would stop and that the hostages will be found, hopefully alive.

My apologies for writing a whole Bible in your asks, I truly didn’t mean to.

TLDR - reductionism and anti-intellectualism combined with trapping yourself in an echo chamber of regurgitated rhetoric and constantly regurgitating said rhetoric is a quick way to find yourself dabbling in extremism.

To avoid falling into a trap such as this, avoid generalisations of races, ethnic groups, and the like, look for nuance, try hear people out even when you don’t understand them, instead of blocking them (this is in reference to me blocking every single person who opposed my hamasnik ideology at the time. You should probably block hamasniks, they tend to harass Jewish people a lot), and remember that if someone tells you that a whole war isn’t complex, they’re lying. It absolutely is.

I hope you've been able to see the other responses your other ask has gotten as well! Truly, you aren't someone who I hate. Personally, I do forgive you. Other people may not, and that's their right. But I know first-hand what it's like to be radicalized and to not only commit to extreme rhetoric but also extreme actions. I've learned to have compassion for myself, and I hope that with time you will undergo a similar process.

Someone else said it, "you can't hate yourself into being a better person." All of us, as beings, grow with love and kindness. War is hard it's horrific, and hellish. You're constantly exposed to this violent imagery, this extreme rhetoric, and your whole friend groups are getting in on it. I understand exactly how it happens, and I do have sympathy for it.

To me, the most important part of your story isn't the worst shit you've ever done. It's this part. The part where you learn how to be better, and so you do better, and reach out across the divides and bridge those gaps that have formed. That is a very human story.

[fraternum-momentum]

(if this was already asked im so sorry! i cant with tumblrs search thingy) hii!!! i havent drawn in ""my style"" in years, but your art has inspired me to try again. do you have any tips on how to develop it and become more consistent? much love and thanks <3333

hello !!! dw i don't think this has been asked beforee so ur good :3

imo you can't really brute force developing your own style. i think it slowly develops over time the more media you consume and get inspired by ! (i mean, i'm still trying to find my style so yk,,)

in my case, i tend to gravitate towards more semi-realistic styles, so i would need to develop my fundamentals (gestures, anatomy, line of action, etc, etc..) first as a base point. i would say learning your fundamentals is important even if you want your style to be super cartoony bc it really does help when it comes to deciding which parts you want to exaggerate and stylize and stuff. (it may be boring for some people but i promise u it rlly does help a lot !!!)

btw ur anatomy doesn't have to be perfect on the get go when u want to try stylizing 😭 shit even my anatomy was p bad before i started drawing in my 'style' so dont be discouraged !

@/atie1225 @/jasminjaegerart @/quietgom @/AmiThompson_h

ok when it comes to stylizing what i find helpful is copying certain aspects of an art style i like. ur not stealing their whole thing btw !! but u should try to analyze what parts of someone's style that you like !

like for example, i like how Alfons Mucha does hair, so i implement it in how i draw. i remember i liked how Ken Wakui does noses bc its simple enough, so that's what i currently do, i liked the nose bridge lines thing from mha and jjba so i added it to my drawings, and so on and so forth

obv these arent all my influences, there's probably thousands of artists i like, shows i've watched, comics and manga i've read that influenced me etc etc and our art styles are just a mish mash of all of that ! it's actually super cool to see how different people draw depending on what influenced them so ykkk

as for consistency don't be afraid to use your own art as references ! shit even i have a couple of my drawings in my inspo board because of how much i like them and sometimes i would look over and try to remember how i did those LMFAO

but idkkk i don't think you have to strictly adhere to your style. imo experimenting is good and seeing how it changes over time is super cool ! so you shouldn't stress urself out about that :3 eventually you'll develop the habit of sticking to your style, it just takes a bit of time !!

i think that's all, i hope this helps :3

heres the drawing by itself bc i kinda like it

[creatingblackcharacters]

hi there; first, thank you for making this blog and all the lessons you do, i really appreciate them as a Black person because it highlights a lot of struggles i face with fandoms in general, and why i dont interact more in certain spaces. it makes me feel seen

with regards to your questions, i'd also like answers to them from nonblack fans, especially nonblack anime fans. i don't even mean consuming anime with overtly racist caricatures of black characters (because numerous anime fans pirate their anime and never send a cent to the creators anyway), i mean how can they make fanworks of it?

how can they look at something that they are told is wildly offensive, but then defend with "well, this is how it looks in canon"? where is the line drawn between what's okay and what isn't? as long as it's slow and gradual, is there no line at all?

these are probably just rehashings of your own followup questions, so please excuse that, but i do have an anecdote

i joined a casual anime server the other day and a lot of folks were lamenting one Black character's racist design and how often those on social media will replicate it without thinking/caring. The thing that struck me is that, I've checked this character's tumblr tag regularly for a long time. There are always people who will post art/fanworks of this character with his racist design. Yet hardly ever, if ever, (outside of Black fans) have I seen any of these folks- the ones in the discord server- try to talk to artists/writers/fan creators/etc via asks/replies/etc. There's a notable amount of people in that server and a notable amount that agreed the design was outright racist and that they'll never make fanworks like that, and yet still silence

i'm not entirely sure what would be the line, or the "okay, that's enough" moment to spur any of these folks into action. i'm not sure if there is one. the only reason i don't make my own "hey what is wrong with all of you" post and blow up is because I've made a wonderful little friend group in this fandom who get it, and I don't want them to get caught up in whatever happens if I were to make a post like that

And this is just for getting people to stop using the canon design of the character, i.e., to stop drawing him as a racist caricature. This isn't touching on the people who 1) lighten his skintone [he's been horribly whitewashed over time, which has been reflected in some fanarts and fan merch], or 2) give him a looser hair/straight hair texture, rather than his type 4 hair (there's also #3, which is fanfiction with straight up slurs, and horribly racist writing in it that my friend heavily warned me not to read, but that was more of a one-off case and I've had the creator blocked a long time now).

my point being, we (Black fans) can't even get folks to stop with the caricatures, which we have to start with, and then there's even more of an annoying uphill battle with the other stuff. I'm just so tired of all of this; it makes me want delete my own works and turn away from fandom all together because i can't stand it.

trying for polite and assuming ignorance hardly ever works, speaking bluntly doesnt work at all, making public posts hardly goes anywhere (partly because of how rarely people reblog things anymore, partly because it makes people 'uncomfortable' to share this information with others). Black fans so obviously need help to combat this, and yet it's like sitting at a tea party and hearing all these pretty words in this one setting, yet nobody does anything different/better when the party's over/outside this setting.

sorry for dooming a bit, but like, genuinely i would like to know where the line is for nonblack folks? what is the point/are the points where you would speak up against antiblack racism? have you ever considered speaking up? if there's ever a moment you recognized antiblack racism and didn't say anything, why didn't you? did you consider how your lack of speaking up might affect your fellow Black fans? or how Black fans may be interpret this as silent agreement with the racists/with the racist 'norm'?

..those could maybe be alternative ways of asking your last followup question?

(if i've made any blunders or overstepped here, please let me know!)

No, I'm glad you spoke up! I too would like to see answers!

[cheapshrimpysheep]

Your Yuu is and will ALWAYS be valid!

For anyone who might need to read this.

I saw a tweet about this and some people talking about it here on tumblr, and I honestly feel like I'm saying something obvious but I want to reiterate the following:

Schrodinger's Yuu: All Prefects are canon and not at the same time. Self Inserts included and especially.

The anime, manga, and novel are adaptations, correct? Which means the game's story will always be the original story, right? (this is a rhetorical question)

This isn't even a case of a series, book or movie where fans simply start imagining themselves in a story that has nothing to do with them.

NO, we didn't make ourselves the main characters of the story, the GAME made us the main characters of the story. One of the main mechanics of the game is to insert ourselves into that world.

Self Inserts or OCs prefects have always been part of the game experience and story.

All this to say that no matter what prefects appear in the anime or appeared in the manga, they are not the real prefects because there is no "real/canon" prefect, because both they and we are ALL the "real/canon" prefect. The character default name is literally Yu/Yuu (You).

And that's not just something we decided, it was always the intention of the game. They knows our names and wishes us a happy birthday.

And if you want to ship yourself with the characters, guess what, you can! I myself can't help but do it. Because let's face it the game kinda indulges you to do that. And if you don't want to do it, you can not do it too!

So whatever comes with the anime release, don't let potential new annoying "fans" ruin your enjoyment of Twisted Wonderland when the game itself wants you to be able to enjoy it this way. ❤️

The only people who can tell you what is canon or not are the people who make the game, not other fans like you or me. Whatever fans say are opinions, not facts, just like this post, you choose to give it whatever importance you want.

And at the end of the day Twisted Wonderland is just a game: the most important thing is that YOU HAVE FUN however you want, not who is right about something. 😘❤️❤️❤️

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk *mic drop*.

JOKING 😅😂

*comes back and pick up the mic again*

PS: And if there really wasn't going to be any kind of potentially friendly/romantic relationship with the player, explain the Valentine's Day merch. With messages written by the characters to those who buy the product! 😂 (it's a rhetorical question)

[warningsine]

Listen, I don't hate him either. In fact, during some of my male Shepard playthroughs, I saved him, because I enjoyed their flirting in ME3. But boy, is he a generic noodle.

I don't care which one of the two players save. That's their prerogative.

But. But.

Unfortunately, this "Ashley sucks" trend isn't TikTok specific.

Male fanboys on Reddit and people of all genders on here have been viciously hating on her since the games came out.

She's far from my favorite character in the trilogy, but the fandom's sexist treatment of her has made me turn the chair and defend her more than once over the years.

Unsurprisingly enough, there's an overlap between individuals who still call Ashley "the space racist" and those who hate Miranda (due to her being a "Cerberus bitch," never mind that she flips TIM off, never mind that she tries to bring the organization down herself) and slutshame her.

As if it's the character's fault she was designed for the male fans thus that stupid catsuit (also see: Seven of Nine on "Voyager," Jeri Ryan couldn't breathe in that shit) and those equally stupid shots of her ass. Remember when the fanboys threw a fit because those shots were removed from the "Legendary Edition"?

By the way, the creators quite literally told Yvonne Strahovski (a natural blonde that dyes her hair) that Miranda was gonna have black hair, because she was "supposed to be a femme fatale."

(Never mind that the character is more than a caricature; that she's amongst the most sensitive and insecure ME characters when you let Shepard know her.)

And they, of course, ignored that as gorgeous as the actress is, she doesn't have balloon breasts and ass.

But back to Ashley.

"She's xenophobic."

She does make some rather unfortunate comments, it has to be said, but people throw things out of proportion, because Ashley dares to be outspoken; a female character that doesn't suck Shepard's dick/vagina and challenges them. (She's one of the few squadmates that does this in all of the games, which I personally find refreshing. The blind hero worship makes me roll my eyes at times.)

When renegade Shepard says to an Hanar, "Because you're a big stupid jellyfish!" then everyone laughs. That's not xenophobic, that's badass and true.

When Wrex and Mordin (the fandom faves, my faves) say very, very xenophobic shit, then that's fine and dandy.

When Garrus, the ex cop, does it? The same.

Oh, the double standards of it all.

People love taking Ashley's lines out of context and/or before she gets her own character development.

"That bitch shot Wrex on Virmire."

Meanwhile, that's 100% on the player. Is it the character's fault that you didn't do Wrex's side mission and don't have enough paragon/renegade points to make him stand down?

In that case, Ashley does her job, i.e., protecting her Commander from an enraged Krogan with a gun, when Shepard doesn't pull the trigger themselves.

Also, notice how ME1 Ashley is one of the few characters--if not the only one other than Shepard, I'll have to refresh my memory--that doesn't dehumanize Wrex; she calls him by his name instead of "the Krogan."

"That bitch trash talks Shepard on Horizon."

Oh, you mean when she expresses her doubts about the human terrorist organization (that she righteously hates) bringing back a dead Shepard back to life? When Miranda herself tells Shepard that she wanted to use a chip to control them?

Wow, how evil of Ash to question why her cyborg of a Commander all of a sudden aligns with the cartoonishly evil organization that uses refugees to create Reaper abominations (third game).

Kaidan does the exact same thing on Horizon btw. His call out comes off as milder because he has a different personality.

The way I have to make sure I don’t get on Mass Effect tiktok because they ALWAYS end up hating on Ashley is so annoying. I swear people played the og Mass Effect once, killed Ashley during that play through and just never thought about her again besides miss remembering her comments.

How many times do I have to say it people. ‘I can’t tell the Aliens from the animals’ is triggered by being around Keepers. In universe there is a on going conversation about what the hell the keepers even are so while her comment is in poor taste she isn’t talking about any sentient being.

The ‘Bear Vs Dog’ monologue is a metaphor where humans are the dogs and the person is the Council. Her point is that the council would throw humans under the bus in a heartbeat and Oh, come ME3 she is completely right.

If you bring her along to the conversation with the  terra firma guy she makes it extremely clear that she doesn’t like them in anyway, even before she gets character development. She the hates her grandfather being used by them and strongly opposes them uses his history to promote their racist messages.

ALL the teammates in the og Mass Effect said dumb shit. Garrus in particular makes some shity comments. Because a group of random wildly different characters that start off distrusting each other but grow to love one another like family is a huge part of all the games.

But oh, Ashley is a woman so she gets to die while the boring soft boy gets to live.

[thefanciestborrower]

I think one of my favorite things about Superman is how quick he is to throw himself into the front lines of any fight. That’s not to say he jumps into fights of course, but any time he’s with the league he’s so, so quick to volunteer to do any and all heavy lifting. In fact, he pretty much assumes that’s the case for any fight. He’s there to tackle the biggest guy on the field, because he can take it while his friends might not be able to. He’s the one watching their back and tanking the grunts while they stealth mission in or track down the head of the operation. It’s such an interesting concept to see this incredibly sweet, mild mannered guy being the one with the most brute strength of anyone.

And you know, that’s one of the reason he’s such an appealing pred to me. This guy, who’s so soft and tender with his friends and civilians, would sooner take the brunt of a literal asteroid himself than let it harm those he cares about (which is pretty much everyone tbh). He wouldn’t hesitate to use his body as a living safe house for anyone who needed it, because that’s just what he does. He protects people. Sometimes that means keeping them inside himself for a moment, but it’s always ALWAYS for their sake and never for his.

[mikuni14]

Our Youth - Ep 3

This series is doing things to me people!!

Gosh, I have so many emotions watching Our Youth, which so beautifully shows youth and its complexity and ambiguity ✨

I really like their slowly crystallizing relationship, based a bit on a subconscious realization that in their world of emptiness, fake relationships without any real content, they are starting to finally be with someone, finally belonging to someone with whom they build something lasting, something based on real, true "substance", where feelings and emotions appear - not always good - but always true. I'm sure that Minase misses something permanent in his life, someone who waits for him every day. And Haruki misses someone who saw him at his worst, and is still there.

I'm not surprised that Minase is unable to give up on Harukawa, because he has eyes only for him, focuses only on him, and they have something they share together, something real, their secrets, sad or bad stuff that only they know, their own bubble. I'm also not surprised by Minase's very telling reaction to Harukawa having other people girls in his life 😊

Jin's life is so perfect and proper, he's perfect, his surroundings, his grades, his appearance, even his smell. Everything is perfect… and empty. (It's interesting that Hirukawa wanted to fit into his life with his smell, I interpret it in a million ways).

I admire Haruka, there's an extraordinary honesty, sensitivity, vulnerability and courage in him that attracts his friends and Minase. I love watching scenes with him, when he simply says what he feels, acts according to his needs and beliefs, even those that seem strange.

Btw, it's interesting this return to the word "weird/strange", which always appears in the context of their, hm, relationship. "Am I strange?". Well, I interpret this one in one way only tho :) I'm also very interested in the fact that Minase has already asked directly twice whether Harukawa likes him, always in connection with kisses, and that Harukawa answers evasively, when usually he's so open, hmmm.

The final scene is something for which I will always respect JBL, they simply know how to do it. 💯

What fascinates me is the uniqueness of this relationship and the uniqueness of Haruki. Usually in such cases the bad boy keeps people at a distance, protects his privacy, his secrets, rejects the helping hand, is lonely, mysterious and gloomy. And his love interest is nice, seeks him out, chases after him, wants to help him. And here Minase is cold and imposing distance, and Haruki is a very rare type of bad boy, a victim of a domestic abuse, who clings to Minase, seeks his company, is super open end even fun with him, is capable of anything, just to be with him, even to his own harm and humiliation (which I have the impression he doesn't even notice he's doing to himself).

I just love them both ok? I love Haruki with his honesty and patheticness, I love Jin with his inability to say "no" to Haruki, how he always gives in to him, I love their relationship: so compelling, lovely and pretty but with that alluring hint of darkness, aggression and kinkiness that only Japan can spice up their BLs.. 💖 Last time I was this obsessed with I Cannot Reach You 🥺

[timkontheunsure]

A CBT look at Blitz's core beliefs

Boring explanationy bit

Ok first off a core belief is this how the world works sort of thought. It has a ton of evidence on it side, or some big life altering event. Acting within is designed to kept you safe. And everyone has good and bad ones.

Think of it as of a short bit of base code running in the background, helping you go with your gut. A quick a short cut, but one that's got a lot of logic and past facts behind it.

They're mostly set up in childhood. So if you have an abusive parent, or trauma, you can get ones that become unhelpful for you in other situations. Like with people that really care about you.

A distortion is a little different. They affect how you look at the wold based off your mood, and are always negative. They specifically don't have a lot of evidence on their side. Like a prism that makes things a little different than what's really there.

They are an action to do based on your mood: catastrophizing (when everybody I love leaves me next year)

Black & white thinking (yes there's all this evidence showing Stolas cares, but that doesn't count as it just sex).

Thought spiraling (this one goes to Moxxie heh)

Or snap judgments based only only how your mood is (Ghostfuckers is fun and sexy, so we should take the case when I know they don't exist).

Blitz's core beliefs

So 'all royals are assholes' and 'no royal will care about an imp' are a core beliefs. Because this is definitely true, the 1% don't give a fig. (Stolas and Ozzie are basically round errors from what we've seen).

"I'm going to die alone" is also one.

So is "I make everyone's lives worse"

But his good ones are: "we don't get rid of family",

Ok with these two good ones we're going to have to go into rules for life. Blitz core belief is about family sticks together and protects each other. That's his code that always wants to run.

But he's also got evidence that family will kick you out for not being good enough, and hurting/killing people on accident. When you get code clashing you get cognitive dissidence, which physically hurts.

So you do a patch to reduce that pain. A rule to live by. 'If X is right and Y is right, then the variable that off is me.'

'We don't get rid of family, but we do get rid of me = I'm the only one who we can get rid of'.

With Loona it's we get orphanage lady saying words that could have come straight out of Cash's mouth. (I want Blitz to get a song telling that git off so hard).

Those hit Blitz hard, so hard he changed his mind on adopting a small little child, to a older teenage. CBT says that when something hits that hard it's because it hit at least 1 core belief. He sees himself in Loona in that moment, and never want another kid to be gotten rid of.

And other one could be bad or good depending on what's around it. 'I will be of use to family/people I love'. Blitz needs to feel useful to the people he loves, especially with growing in a family business working from being a kid.

And the rule Blitz has made for himself between the "I'm going to die alone" + 'I will be of use to family' = 'But maybe if I'm useful they won't abandoned of me yet'

(Also how sad it is that Blitz feels he's only allowed help, and support if it's a tit for tat, favours for favours exchange).

So everyone has a mixed bag of these good and bad. The problem happened when trauma responses give you ones that don't help you in a new situation. Like say a demon prince falling head over heels for him.

The idea of CBT is that if your struggling to look at what's changed since the core beliefs were set up. And if it isn't keeping you safe anymore, then you try to replace the old one with a new one; that has new evidence that backs it up. A update.

Like how Millie shows Blitz concrete examples of him improving her life. Just telling him he hasn't wrecked her life wouldn't work.

(This is one of reasons why Stolas' confection doesn't stick with Blitz. Blitz needs to know reasons why someone like Stolas loves him. It why he asks him in apology tour. Stolas tell your boy why he's so amazing for flips' sake).

Millie shows how joining IMP positively improved her live. "He gave me so much...A career, a husband, a future. And now...He's my best friend."

And Blitz helping Millie through alot of her own negative self talk she had. That 'she's not good enough', 'she's only the muscle', 'that Pride's too fancy for imps', and 'no imp works for them selves'.

These we're all Millie's core beliefs before joining IMP, if she still had these Rolando's words would have hurt her. But through having the support and example of Blitz she's removed those old bits of code.

When see her mum it obvious where and why she has these ideas about herself. Lynn describes her full time job, being employed direct by a company; as "Freelance". Because Imps can't work for themselves. (Even if she is impressed by Blitz). It's like different between working for Uber, instead of taxi firm. No protections, and an unsafe unstable job.

She pulls up her daughter's valid explanation why she lost the fight as "Excuses!", because Millie was "'raised better than that' as the muscle of the team.

She's very against Moxxie for being too week, and not having the same melee skills as Millie.

It obvious that she wants her daughter to have a similar life as her, where she keeps her head down, and has a partner that is able to defend Millie. This because there's a level of safety in this crab bucket attitude. She'd very unlikely to come to the notice of higher-ups. Like how Stolas being very involved in IMP and with Blitz.

But Blitz talked Millie round, and also showed her that she doesn't have to pigeon hole herself like that. She has years of evidence that Blitz could do it, and him pointing out how good she is when she fell back into thinking of herself as just the muscle.

Rolando's trying to exploit vulnerability that she's updated against. (It's super ineffective).

Ok after that sight side tangent of with Millie's head, back to Blitz's.

The "your going to die alone" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, tripping Blitz up alot. Because it comes twofold for his fear of hurting his loved ones, making their life worse, and his fear of abandonment. Because he was abandoned, that did happen.

Making him feel like he has it to push away the people he love for there own, and that they'll leave him eventually so might as well push them away now. He's got a lot of previous evidence tied to this.

It's going to take more then Fizz and Millie telling him he didn't ruin theirs, for him to start to be able to unpick this. Because he's still certain it's true. Even if he's improved the lives of most of the people he knows.

And even Fizz who were directly effected by the mistake Blitz still punishing himself for, has told him that being made disabled didn't ruin his life.

There's a whole debate in my head whether Barbie would have had such trouble with addiction; if she wasn't assuming/told that her brother started the fire on purpose, that killed their mum. I'm honestly not sure. But it does seem like her resentment over it has made it harder on her. And that all seems to stem from Cash abuse. (I'm sure Cash is the one to tell Blitz Fizz said he'd die alone).

Ok on to how the these are interacting/fucking up his relationship to Stolas. Blitz is definitely is afraid to love Stolas for a number of reasons. (You knew I'd get there at somepoint right 😛).

Cus a whole load are clashes together for him, making it really difficult for him because about see things from the outside. with the "royal demons don't give a shit about guys like us" one.

Making Blitz rationalize that it's gotta be about the sex, and being of use. Anything that shows this assumption is wrong has to be disregarded with distortion.

But when Stolas takes sex off the table, and still talking about feeling, and relationships; it makes Blitz's fear of abandonment go turbo. It's not rational but it's the only rule Blitz has that might make Stolas keep him.

He feels like that sex is all he has to give to a prince after all. And he wanted Stolas to stay for a long while now. It's not a grimoire his hallucinations put on a golden pedestal after all. And there a a lot of similarity to how Stolas and his Mama vanish.

(Debøra pør favør pointed out this emotion damage so now you have to suffer too 😭https://x.com/_Choco_torta/status/1859028103772955135)

"I'm going to die alone" and 'I must be of use' Blitz freaks out badly in queen Bee after Ozzie's. Blitz believed that he's be rejected by Stolas, he's been shoved back into the box of it just being about lust.

Because he wants more, but feels he's unworthy, it's got him hurt coming and going. He's got to shut down any attempt by Stolas to have something real. But he was also hurt constantly feeling sex is all that he's got to offer, and all Stolas would want.

"I make everyone's lives worse" and "We don't get get rid of family". Ok this is into theory level but think Master Mind and Sinsmas are going hit these last two harddddd. (We're one week from mastermind).

It looks likely that Stolas is going to lose Via, face punishment for the illegal deal, and be dragged for the affair. With Via swallowing a lot gaslighting about not being loved by Stolas (lines from the trailer).

Blitz will probably going assume it's another another life he's made worse, where he's caused them to lose their own family. Don't think this will play well with last guy he fell in love with he blow up.

It's going to make it much harder for him to remove the idea; that that him loving some will only hurt them.

Alot of the reasons Blitz thought it was ok to get close to Stolas are tied up in these beliefs. He assumes Stolas was powerful and immortal, so couldn't be hurt physically like Fizz or Mumma.

He assumed that a prince would never fall for an imp, so only he could get hurt emotionally. It couldn't end the same way as Verosika. Blitz thinking he's the only one to be able to be hurt, and get to be useful not just to Stolas, but provide a better life for his whole family. It would seem like a bargain. (And the self punishment aspect probably wasn't going be a off for him, cus Blitz thinks he deserves it).

This season seems slow be eroding that pedestal Blitz put Stolas on (and vice versa). It's hurts, and it's knocking the stuffing out of both of them; but it's bring Stolas to earth for Blitz. Making his more of a real person in his eyes.

Eh probably a lot way to go, but I'm here for it.

(was very loosely based on this post, because it got me thinking about distortions vs core beliefs. But then I went off on a whole thing, so thought it would be weird to put it as a reblog. Still loved @akirathedramaqueen analysis and would recommend giving it a read 😀)

[ropebunnykant]

after watching the first episode, there are a loooot of things that stand out to me in terms of characterization in parallel to taming and i think i’m coming to the conclusion that actually all of them are katherine

wild thing to say i know, and obviously fadel fits the storytelling role (character needing to be tied down in order for sibling to be able to have a partner) but weirdly enough, he is the least like katherine in personality

style actually mimics petruchio’s personality quite a lot - he’s loud and unabashed and stubborn. but those are also traits of katherine. part of the reason petruchio is able to “tame” katherine is because he matches her wits and isn’t afraid to stand toe to toe with her - they’re a lot alike at the end of the day.

and with bison, he is being portrayed to be the wildcard between him and fadel when katherine is meant to be the wildcard. she’s unpredictable and violent and is the cause of a lot of bianca’s grief and that’s exactly the case with bison for fadel. he gets drunk, shoots wildly at karaoke, and then they have to move and fadel is pissed about it! and like bison also has bianca traits as well, but their dynamic seems totally switched from the play

as for kant, his personality seems less like katherine’s, but he is also another instance of needing to be “tamed.” a reformed criminal trying to get his record scrubbed. not to mention he literally has katherine’s line tattooed on his back - “if i be waspish, best beware my sting,” which i find fascinating in its own right. especially because it’s written on a tattoo of what appear to be angel wings when he actually has a bee tattoo on his chest. and like the line itself makes sense out of context because it implies people need to be weary of him - ie bison needs to be weary of trusting him - but in context it’s even more interesting because petruchio’s response is “my remedy is then to pluck it out.” he will pluck out her stinger - he will tame her. bison will tame him!

and with fadel i’m honestly kind of fascinated by the fact that despite being the katherine, the shrew, the one that needs to be tamed - he is arguably the calmest among the bunch, with the most patience? like yes, he physically dragged style out of the restaurant, but that was after style was the worst customer ever and if this was a true katherine, he would have thrown him out immediately. i do wonder if it’s because jojo is leaning into the idea of katherine being misunderstood, which is a very popular idea. that for some reason everyone thinks of fadel as this wild card, this shrew, but he’s actually just kind of a guy that will flip if his patience is really tested. it’s a little early to really tell but it’s interesting either way!

[creatingblackcharacters]

What do you think makes y'all not say anything?

Often if I don't say something, it's because I'm not in that particular fandom and don't want to give any engagement to that person because I find it incredibly distasteful. Either that or it's not the original artist posting the image and I can't find them.

Why do you think your peers are comfortable with what they're doing?

I'm not sure, but usually if it's someone I know or is inside my space I point it out and give constructive feedback. I wonder if it's purposeful ignorance, sort of like how people pretend to be bad at chores to get away with it?

Why is it so safe to be antiblack in these fan spaces?

I think people feel comfortable being anti Black when creators and artists don't shut that shit down.

If it's just ignorance, why is educating oneself not a priority when it is offered?

Probably because people don't want to face the fact their behavior isn't okay. It reminds me of a toddler who doesn't want to admit they broke something so they blame it on the pets.

Does it not bother you?

It bothers me immensely! But I don't often see these things, usually only finding them when scrolling Google images or on Pinterest whenever I'm looking for references. In which case I don't know who the artist is and feel too disappointed in humanity to go searching for them.

What is the boundary to where you feel you would be bothered enough to speak up?

If it's someone within my space, someone I know through mutuals, common friends, or someone I have interacted with prior I would confront them. Based on that interaction I'll either help or give up on them.

I also feel like it depends on the severity, if it's something a little more subtle I'm more likely to privately DM and say "hey, you should probably fix [x]"

But if it's an egregious error such as skin lightening or white-washing features I'm more likely to comment publicly and encourage my friends to speak up as well.

Am I asking the wrong questions?

I think you're asking the right questions, but I think a lot of people also don't want to answer them truthfully. Or with their names attached (I can't help but feel uneasy about my name being attached but I know it's an opportunity for me to grow if my viewpoint is inappropriate or inaccurate)

What questions should I be asking, and what exactly do you think the answers would be to those questions?

I think the question that is missing is, "Why are creators allowing their fans and fan spaces to be anti-Black and not protecting their own fans?"

In my opinion, creators have to protect their minority groups in their fan spaces. If you let one nazi in a bar, it'll become a nazi bar, y'know?

I don't think creators are fully at fault for everything their fan spaces do, but I do think they have a responsibility to shut down shit and point out that they don't stand for that.

If people who have the power and strength speak up and make it cringey and shameful to be anti-Black, then people will follow suit. I think people who white wash are super cringe. Like what are you??? Afraid of melanin? Go get skin cancer, stinky. /Silly

Genuine question- why do you need to be in a fandom to call out racism if you see it there?

What happens when it's the creator who is also racist, especially when they are comfortable with the fan base that is on the same page? What will be the creator's motivation to change if their fan base is okay with their behavior in exchange for their content?

I agree about the creators, yes. More questions to consider: If the creator allows Nazis into their bar, yes it's a Nazi bar. But if the other patrons know Nazis attend this bar uncalled out, and still go to it knowing full well that they're not the ones in danger if they say nothing... What makes them not a participating Nazi? Because they have power too, more than they think, and aren't using it!

Also you shouldn't joke about cancer 😅

[infiniteglitterfall]

Okay, EVERYONE, listen.

This feels like roughly the one hundredth time that I've seen someone on this earth complain about the antisemitism on Wikipedia. And I need us all to understand just one thing:

WE ARE WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!!

Every single one of us has just as much power to edit that freaking page and put in the information from the Holocaust Encyclopedia as whoever fucked it up did.

You don't even need to make a Wikipedia account.

(But it's easier to keep track of what you change, and discuss changes with people, if you do.)

You can add anything you can back up with a citation.

(You can, in fact, also add things you CAN'T back up with a citation. As I'm sure we've all noticed. And I might as well point out here that you can ALSO add things you can't back up, and put in citations that DO NOT BACK UP WHAT YOU SAID.

You shouldn't. And hopefully, people like me will notice and change it. But you CAN.

My point here is actually that when you're doing research about something important and complicated, you should always click through to see what the source cited really says.

Because frequently, someone will be wrong about either what they're writing, or whether their source backs it up. This happens in academic papers too. Critical thinking is hard.)

You write whatever you want. You type the period. Then you type in your citation.

Under the cut, I'll show you how. It's really easy. Or you can use Wikipedia's guide!

It even lets you preview your changes before you finish, so you know if you're making a mess.

And there's a place where you can briefly explain why you're editing it. Like "adding details about Nazi connections," or "correcting punctuation."

And yes. Not all of us can edit every article on Wikipedia; "controversial" topics are frequently locked so that only "extended-confirmed" editors can change them. (Which just means "people who are logged in and have made at least 500 edits.")

But you can join in the discussions on those articles.

And on Wikipedia, "they're too Zionist!" is not an acceptable argument.

Sometimes people "watch" an article to get notified when it changes. (You can do this too!)

Sometimes they do that so they can revert the exact kind of change you're there to make.

But they have to put in a reason for reverting it. Which means you can also change it back, argue them out of it, or make changes to make it work. (example under the cut!)

The way you add a citation/reference looks like html gibberish salad. But it basically goes:

put in a tag that says "ref," so it automatically gets added to the list of references cited at the bottom of the Wikipedia page;

put in "cite" and what you're citing, like a book, a video, a website, a journal. Getting the type right doesn't really seem to be a big deal. In this case, you want to put "web."

And then there are a fuckton of different things you can add, which get separated by pipes. Pipes are that long vertical line that's probably above your enter key: |

You need the URL. That's... kind of all you need.

pro tip: going back in to add more details to the citation later counts as more edits!

Even though you only NEEEEED the URL, it's really good to add other details like the title of the page (if there is one), the publisher (Holocaust Encyclopedia), the day you looked at it (because websites can change over time), and it's especially nice to go dig up an archived version of the site and the date of the archive. Because links break.

oh yeah and my favorite thing to add: a quote from your source, so that people don't have to click through to verify what it says! this can be a great way to add more information that seems too long for the Wikipedia article.

So, broken up with lots of space for easier reading, it looks like this. We'll pretend we're doing one on Heinrich Himmler, because I have no idea who anon was looking at:

<ref> {{cite web | url = https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/heinrich-himmler | access-date = November 19, 2024}} </ref>

That's a very short "I just found this url, today" version. Here's a more thorough citation:

<ref>{{cite web | url = https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/heinrich-himmler | access-date = November 19, 2024 | publisher = Holocaust Encyclopedia | title = Heinrich Himmler | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20241008214021/https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/heinrich-himmler | archive-date = October 8, 2024 | quote = As Reichsführer SS, Himmler received authority directly from Hitler to carry out ideological policies that the laws of the state might not permit. This ideologically rooted “Führer authority” enabled authorization of indefinite incarceration and mass murder.}}</ref>

I bet someone out there even knows of a website where you can paste in the url you're citing, and get all that code automatically generated for you.

Oh - here's my example of getting into a silly debate about something that should be cut and dried, and changing shit to make it work!

I came across the page for GUPS, the General Union of Palestinian Students. It made the ludicrous statement that the group OFFICIALLY started in the 1950s, but had been around since the 1920s.

I was like: ok, there's no place that says this other than their cited source, a now-gone website for the San Francisco State University chapter of GUPS. There were no universities in Palestine in the 1920s. This is clearly not true.

I took that part out. Someone REVERTED IT, and told me that all I'd proven was that it wasn't logical, not that the citation was wrong!

We argued back and forth a bit. I ended up finding a fuckton of Arabic-language sources with more information, and showing that none of them talked about it starting in the 1920s. This person said, "no, that source says it started in the 1950s, and evolved from this other group that started in the same Egyptian university, which had started in the 1920s! It never said that it had started in PALESTINE in the '20s!"

I haven't even dealt with that one yet lmao. Normally, I would probably just demand a source that showed the original group had started in the 1920s, and then maybe change it to like "it evolved from this other non-palestinian student group that started in 192X."

But the thing is... while I was doing all this digging, I found soooo much information about how GUPS was connected to the PLO. How it had become a part of the PLO when the PLO was an active terrorist organization. All kinds of crap.

And you can fucking bet that all of it is going into the article.

This thing is going to end up being a detailed piece about every terrible thing GUPS and the PLO have ever done.

It's going to be beautiful. And nobody will ever be able to argue that any of it is incorrect. It will go from "this is a normal club that goes sooo far back, it's considered the first Palestinian group ever" to "this is a normal terrorist club that was rooted in the movement to terrorize Jews, like in the 30s when X happened, like in the late 30s when Y happened, like this series of PLO massacres in this decade, like--"

went to wikipedia to fact check somethings about a guy from ww2 era history and it had been edited beyond belief to erase this person's connections with nazi germany. the second google result is the holocaust encyclopedia page all about his horrible crimes in the nazi regime. but on wikipeida, his description is vague and mild and barely mentions it. it's so worrying. I hate it. what happens when gen z only reads wikipedia pages and denounces any sources that are "too zionist" like a holocaust museum's encyclopedia? thank g-d for jewish historians, what would we do without them, but i'm so so scared that our history is going to be rewritten because no one will listen to us on our own history.

.

[ilovedthestars]

i understand and appreciate the sentiment behind them but god, as someone in the process of getting an art degree and intending to pursue a career in art, those "don't get a job doing what you love because you'll start to hate it" posts are depressing