#(and how harmful forced conformity is)

[ghostlycleric]

I’m pretty sure Mike and El are the only couple in the show that don’t have shared interests.

Lucas and Max: Arcade games

Dustin and Suzie: Science/Technology

Jonathan and Nancy: Documenting life (Through Photography/Journalism)

Joyce and Hopper: Investigation (Hop was a cop, Joyce is Joyce) +caring for their kids

Mike and El are never given any interest that they both have and do together. Their relationship isn’t even given much volume beyond their trauma bonding. They actually went out of their way to have El dismissing Mike’s interests and only have El gain her own when she’s away from Mike.

With every other couple we have scenes of their shared interests adding to their relationship. Scenes that prove that their dynamic is rooted in a real, not-purely-physical connection.

There is one other couple who didn’t have shared interests… (*cough* Steve and Nancy *cough* who are broken up *cough*).

Mike and Will by default have a lot of shared interests. They’d be the only best friends to lovers in the show (which is actually crazy in a show with so many couples and friendships). DnD, despite being the root of the party itself, is specifically tied to these two in an interesting way. They’ve used dnd a few times as text above a more romantic subtext, which I feel like deserves its own post.

(I feel like it’s worth noting that technically they have Art (writing and painting), but Mike’s interest in writing has never been specifically confirmed in the show, so I’m not counting that.)

I’d be really interested in seeing canon byler having an isolated interest in season 5 that goes beyond subtext. Even if it’s still dnd, just isolated.

[drdemonprince]

to the anon asking why trans women don't have male privilege.

well. a lot of you are gonna be shocked to hear this one, but it's incredibly clear why not if you listen to trans women's experiences.

trans women have written at length about being sexually victimized, othered, subjected to violence for gender non-conformity, internalizing transmisogynistic cultural norms, being socially excluded and penalized for their failure to be adequate "cis men" and much more. if you are a person who has experienced misogyny but are not a trans woman you really have got to spend a lot of time reading transfeminist writing about this stuff, because your understanding of gender based oppression will always be woefully incomplete if you don't know what a lot of trans women go through and trust them as a reputable source.

here are some texts that i recommend just off the dome

Here's a thread from Grace Lavery about how even before she came out as a trans woman, men perceived her as an acceptable target for sexual assault in much the same way they do women of all kinds.

Here's a book from Laura Kate Dale about how her Autism was never recognized when she was a child because she met all the hallmarks of "female Autism" as a young closet trans girl.

Here's Jules Gill-Peterson on what transmisogyny is, how it functions, and how it affects the entire course of trans women's lives.

Here's Julia Serano's foundational text that introduced the concept of transmisogyny which explains at length how transmisogyny is so baked into our culture that it influences everyone and harms trans women long before they come out.

There's also just, you know, the base logic that queer people still suffer from homophobia and transphobia as kids before they even *know* they are queer. That's not exactly controversial. In fact the very fact that presumed straightness and cisness is forced upon everyone to the extent that a person must "come out" as anything else is a clear demonstration that trans women suffer from transmisogyny at every point in their lives. Being told you are not permitted to be yourself, that people like you do not even exist, is a pretty core experience of oppression and mimics what a lot of other groups of oppressed women (for example, lesbians) go through.

I will also clarify that trans men often experience privileges related to transmasculinity before they even come out! People never quite treated me the way they treated cis women, I've written about that before, and while structurally trans men do experience misogyny, their positionality is different in all kinds of subtle ways.

[ocean-breeze-pier]

I really despise how gendered stuff is and how it comes back to bite you in the ass as a trans person. And I don’t mean in the typical “feminine afab” “masculine amab” way that’s imposed on us based on our agab. Yes of course this sucks but I mean it in a different way. I hate that being a binary trans person means binary assumptions are placed on me. As a trans guy it’s assumed I want facial hair when I don’t. It’s assumed I want short hair when I don’t. It’s assumed I will have “male interests” (whatever the fuck that means) and I don’t. Which of course is where Those™️ types of trans people will appear and accuse me of not really being trans.

It’s annoying that I don’t get the privilege of being gnc because I’m a trans guy that doesn’t pass which is used against me. There are medical and personal and financial reasons I’m not taking hormones and some people seem to think I need to compensate by conforming to masculinity. I hate that I’m being forced into a box just like I was when I used to think I was cis. Part of this is why I didn’t realize I was a trans guy for awhile. I thought I had to be nonbinary bc I didn’t deserve to identify as a trans guy since I didn’t look like one. And people push that rhetoric and it’s so harmful. It literally delayed me realizing who I truly am.

Just let trans people exist however they want. I don’t want to have to alter everything about me to be seen as a man. I want to be seen as a man right now because I am one.

[danatron1]

Help trans people in the UK!

TERF island sucks, however thousands of innocent people are harmed by their tyranny. Have sympathy for brits like me who would rather be born anywhere else.

An unprecedented attack on trans rights took place last Wednesday, with the UK Supreme Court writing trans people out of the Equality Act by redefining "woman" to only mean assigned female at birth.

Protests erupted across the country, with thousands taking to the streets to fight for trans rights. With our current government, our suffering falls on deaf ears.

It won't be enough to just fight in the streets, but we need to fight in the courts. The UK Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, with no chance of appeal. However, there is hope.

The European Court of Human Rights can step in if we can get them to recognise this blatant violation of human rights. Leaving the EU doesn't get you out of it! This legal case will be time consuming and expensive, so please donate all that you can to help us win this fight. We're fighting JK Rowling money, but together we can make a difference!

If you can't donate, please share instead!

If you need to know how bad this situation really is, keep reading.

The Supreme Court's ruling, where 3 men decided what "woman" means, puts all women at risk. Male police officers in the UK now have the power to strip search any women they believe to be trans.

It is an offence to enter a single sex bathroom and changing room different from your birth sex, but also to enter one where your presence is "likely to cause offence". This leaves trans men and women with nowhere to go, as well as gender-non conforming cis people.

Non-binary people naturally have zero legal recognition whatsoever, the existence of trans men has been ignored again, and intersex people have been written out of existence.

Trans people are always sent to male prisons regardless of sex. If you don't know the horiffic ramifications of this, Google v-coding.

Gender Recognition Certificates, which were supposed to update your legal sex for all purposes, have been rendered functionally worthless. Trans people are being forced into their assigned sex at birth.

Trans women are banned from rape crisis shelters, domestic abuse protection, and discrimination claims such as equal pay. Trans women have also unsurprisingly been banned from Women's sports.

Trans women are banned from all lesbian groups and organisations, and not just that, cis women are too if they're dating a trans woman. The court ruled that "lesbian" means "AFAB attracted to AFAB", making cis women dating trans women legally straight. The definition also means bi women aren't a thing in UK law now - just a sidenote!

Trans people sent to hospital wards are now always housed according to their assigned sex at birth, regardless of their comfort.

If you're a trans minor, your life is even harder. Puberty blockers and HRT, despite being completely safe and legal for cis people, are banned nation wide for trans youth. The only "help" offered is conversion therapy, which the government calls "exploratory therapy".

And if you're thinking "well, people won't comply" or "My workplace is friendly," then I regret to inform you that this isn't allowed. The UK expects all organisations to update their policies to be trans exclusionary by this summer, and the so-called "Equality and Human Rights Commission" has announced they will persue any organisation which doesn't immediately comply.

By the way, earlier this year the EHRC made the trans panic defense legal. Even kissing someone without disclosing that you're trans is enough to get you convicted with sexual assault. Trans people must always out themselves before any relationship forms or be charged with a sex crime.

Any organisation with bathrooms, changing rooms, rape crisis centres, etc. will be for Ed to exclude trans people. If an organisation lets a trans woman (who in UK law is now legally a man) into a women-only space, they lose the right to operate the single sex space, and can be successfully sued for not letting cis men into it.

The EHRC's recommendation? Trans people use their "powers of advocacy" to request "third spaces" with regards to toilets. THIS IS NOT A JOKE.

We CAN put a stop to this. We CAN defeat transphobia. Bigotry has fallen before and it can fall again. Be the side history remembers fondly.

We'll let you mock our accent if you stop innocent people from suffering first.

DONATE

[dreamsmearcampaign]

This Is A Smear Campaign: Open Your Eyes

Many of you have most likely seen this post (x) detailing how to spot a smear campaign. But, recognizing the signs is difficult for many who are already entrenched. With OP’s permission (x), we’ve gone through the 7 major steps of a smear campaign and documented how this situation is a smear campaign designed to unjustly hurt a victim.

How to spot a smear campaign

Victim’s “crimes” (x)(x) are enlarged: even small missteps are treated as if only the worst person on the planet would do such a thing

Accusations against the victim are a reach, aka, victim did ‘this little thing’ but it actually means they’re a misogynist/pedophile/Tr*mp supporter/homophobe (x), even when the victim’s actions never conformed to those crimes (x)(x)

Victim’s actions are misinterpreted (x) in the worst possible way: anything the victim has done was taken as an offense and intentions are read as hostile and manipulative, regardless of how clear they are (x)

Victim’s actions have been taken out of context (x); ie, victim said something cruel to someone (x), but they take out the context of the victim being abused, threatened, forced into defense mode (x) and finally attacking out of desperation (x) to defend themselves (x) and get free

Victim commonly gets provoked into giving a bad reaction (x), (anyone gets defensive if they’re accused of the crimes (x)(x) they never did, or simply triggering insults until they snap), and the reaction has always been the new ‘proof’ that the victim is in fact, evil and guilty

A lot of pressure has been put on fans to react ‘correctly’ to the smear campaign; if fans don’t accept to demonize the victim at once, fans get scrutinized, shamed for their lack of morality, told that they support all these horrid things and that they are just as despicable (x)(x)

Trends of people have banded together based on their demonization (x)(x)(x) of the victim; they’ve set a standard where you’re accepted and welcome if only you also will demonize and hate the victim, and if you don’t, you’re blocked, cast out, and accused of causing harm

Over 20 sources from this week alone depict how Tommy and Tubbo are heading a smear campaign against Dream.

This is most likely not intentional. The initial smear campaign is suspected to have started in 2021 by an alt-right chat room (x). But, their actions are negligent and hurtful to an undeserving person. Their disregard for the consequences of their actions have led to threats against Dream and Dream fans and family. 

This is not okay.

So, how do you prevent it from happening again?

Do not fall for smear campaigns. 

If a large number of people agree that a person is the worst, but their story is exaggerated, out of context, sounds fictional, and doesn’t show any proof, and the people switch from being enraged to eager, doubt it. Participating in a smear campaign will help the abusers isolate and abuse someone, and you do not want to be a part of it. They will also smear anyone who stands up to their abuse, so you’re helping the abusers to create a place where pointing out abuse gets you cast out of the community

In the case of Dream, refrain from making false posts about Dream. Even jokes, like those made by Harry, Aimsey, and Tommy, have led to child endangerment. Call out creators for their misbehavior: educate them on why a joke is in ill-tase. And, if they don’t respond, boycott their content. There are lovely creators who are making great series you can watch right now (like Hermitcraft, Empires SMP, etc). Make your voice heard by taking away their voice.

In Tommy’s video, he said he can admit when he “[fucks] up.” If that is true, he should apologize for, whether intentionally or unintentionally, engaging in a tactical scheme to hurt a person. The same goes for Tubbo and his fans. Recognize the actions you’ve caused. Realize what your words do. Apologize, and move on.

We thank you all for educating yourselves: have a good night :)

[the-shipper-center]

How to know if you've been manipulated into believing you are an anti

> Guilt by Association:

If you've been told that liking certain content automatically makes you a bad person or aligns you with harmful groups, that's a red flag. This tactic plays on guilt and can push you to reject things based on fear, not your own beliefs.

> Pressure to Conform

Have you ever felt like you must agree with a group or face being ostracized or attacked? Manipulation often relies on social pressure to force people into one perspective.

> Misinformation

If the arguments against proship rely on scare tactics or misinformation (like over-generalizing harmful behavior or falsely equating fiction to reality), that’s a sign that you may have been influenced through fear rather than facts.

> Silencing Nuanced Conversations

If you’ve noticed that discussions around proship/anti-ship in your circles discourage nuance, critical thinking, or even hearing out differing opinions, it’s likely you’ve been steered into a rigid belief system.

> Disconnecting from Your Own Likes

If you once enjoyed certain ships or fictional works but now feel uncomfortable or ashamed to admit it(without any clear personal reason)ask yourself if that shame was imposed from outside.

> Shaming for Thought Crimes

If you've been made to feel guilty or ashamed for simply thinking about a ship or idea, even if you’ve never acted on it, that’s a form of thought policing. This tactic implies that even private enjoyment of fiction is wrong and that you're only “good” if your thoughts align with a certain group.

> Cult-Like Group Dynamics

Does the community you’re involved in enforce strict rules about what can and can’t be enjoyed, isolating or attacking anyone who doesn’t follow the norm? Manipulative groups often demand loyalty to a single cause or belief system, punishing deviation with social exclusion, harassment, or cancellation.

> You Feel Conflicted

If deep down you still enjoy certain ships or fandom content but feel torn between your personal enjoyment and the pressure to conform, take this as a sign. Internal conflict often arises when you’re being pushed into beliefs that don’t align with your authentic self.

> Over-reliance on “Influencers”

If you’ve formed your opinions solely based on what online personalities or fandom influencers have said, you might want to rethink. Influencers can sometimes push their own agendas, and it’s important to critically evaluate their claims rather than blindly accepting them.

> Redefining Terms

Have you noticed how certain communities redefine words like “abuse” or “harm” to fit their agenda? Manipulators often blur the line between fiction and reality by changing definitions. For instance, enjoying a fictional ship doesn’t mean supporting real-life harm, but some people will try to convince you otherwise to gain control over the narrative.

> Fear of Being “Canceled”

If your fear of being attacked or “canceled” is driving you to adopt anti-proship views, then your stance is likely based on external pressure, not personal conviction. The fear of social backlash can force people into silence or compliance, even when they don’t truly agree with the anti-proship movement.

> Gaslighting

If people in your fandom spaces make you question your own enjoyment of ships, telling you that your feelings are “wrong” or that “you don’t realize how harmful that content is,” you might be experiencing gaslighting. They’re trying to make you doubt your own tastes and values, convincing you to adopt theirs instead.

> Virtue Signaling

Does your involvement with anti-proship ideas feel more about proving that you’re “good” or “moral” in the eyes of others? Virtue signaling often relies on outwardly showing alignment with the “correct” opinion without encouraging deeper thought.

> Isolation

If you’ve been cut off from friends or fandoms that are proship, ask yourself if this was really your choice. Manipulators often push you to distance yourself from people or spaces that don’t align with their views, isolating you in a controlled environment where your new beliefs are constantly reinforced.

> Moral Panic Culture

Have you noticed how anti-proship rhetoric mirrors larger societal moral panics, where certain ideas or interests are exaggerated to be dangerous or harmful? These movements often rely on fear-mongering, claiming that enjoying fictional content can lead to real-world harm, without concrete evidence to support it. Being swept up in a moral panic can make you feel like you’re doing the “right” thing, but it often stifles critical thinking.

> The “Right Way” to Fandom

If you’ve been told there’s only one way to enjoy fandom and that anything outside of those strict guidelines is wrong, you’ve likely encountered gatekeeping. Fandom is about exploring different interests, genres, and relationships. There’s no “right” or “wrong” way to engage with fictional content, but manipulation tactics thrive by enforcing rigid boundaries and shaming those who deviate.

Vs the ACTUAL Antis - how they behave?

In many fandom spaces, the term "anti" refers to individuals or groups who position themselves against certain ships, content, or fan activities, often on moral grounds. However, beneath the surface of this "moral crusade," many antis engage in harmful behaviors that revolve around bullying and censorship rather than promoting genuine discourse or protecting others from harm.

> The Focus on Bullying

Antis often claim their actions are about "protecting" people, especially minors, from harmful content. However, what they’re really doing is targeting and harassing individuals who enjoy certain ships or tropes they dislike.

Public Shaming: Antis will often single out and publicly humiliate individuals over their fandom interests, especially if they engage with “problematic” ships or tropes. This public shaming can include doxxing (releasing personal information), starting harassment campaigns, and rallying others to dogpile their target.

Harassment and Threats: Instead of engaging in productive conversation or respecting different views, antis frequently resort to sending hate messages, insults, and even death threats to people who engage in content they think is inappropriate. This extreme bullying behavior shows that the goal isn’t about morality—it’s about control.

Name-Calling and Labels: Antis are quick to label anyone who disagrees with them as dangerous or morally corrupt. They’ll often call people “abusers,” “pedophiles,” or “incest apologists” simply for enjoying certain fictional ships, even if those claims have no basis in reality.

> Censorship Over Discussion

Antis don’t engage in thoughtful dialogue or debate—they aim to censor and silence any opinions that don’t align with theirs.

Mass Reporting: One common tactic is organizing mass reporting campaigns to get fan art, fanfiction, or even entire blogs taken down. They’ll flag content they disagree with, often manipulating platform policies to enforce bans or removals, regardless of whether the content actually violates terms of service.

Policing Tags and Spaces: Antis frequently attempt to take control of fandom spaces by policing tags, platforms, and even fan events. They demand that certain ships or content be removed or banned, claiming that those things "shouldn't exist," and attacking creators who refuse to comply with their demands.

Gatekeeping: Antis often act as gatekeepers, deciding who is “allowed” to participate in fandom and who isn’t. They’ll dictate what types of content are "acceptable" and label any content or creator they disagree with as problematic, often pushing for full exclusion of that person or fandom from certain spaces.

> Hypocrisy in Morality Policing

Claiming to Protect While Harming: While antis claim they are trying to protect marginalized groups or young people from harmful content, they’re actually perpetuating harm by bullying, attacking, and driving people away from fandom spaces.

Attacking Minors: Ironically, many antis target the very people they claim to protect. Minors who engage with fandom content—whether they’re artists, writers, or just fans—are often harassed, attacked, and shamed for their interests, even if those interests are completely harmless. Antis frequently ignore the well-being of the people they supposedly advocate for, focusing instead on being “right.”

> Bullying and Censorship Aren't Fandom Values

At its core, fandom is about creativity, exploration, and community. It’s a space where people can engage with fiction in personal ways, often as a means of expressing themselves or processing difficult emotions. Antis, however, turn fandom into a battleground for moral purity, where bullying and censorship are used to force conformity.

If your fandom experience is being dictated by fear of harassment or being censored, it’s important to step back and recognize that this behavior is not normal or healthy. Fandom should be a place of joy, not a place of judgment. No one should be bullied for their fictional preferences, and everyone deserves the freedom to engage with media in their own way. Don’t let antis rob you of the freedom to explore and create.

[dansemacabre]

i’ve been thinking about “sixer, it would eat you alive” since i read it and. man. every layer you peel back makes it worse. im not a bill apologist but. shit

if you (1) take it at face value, it paints bill as an apologetic murderer in his single (and maybe sole) open moment of regret. he doesn’t let his walls down often- only with ford do we even get to see the remnant of his galaxy, see the “actual remorse” ford describes, get just a hint of his origins. but he does it, because he thinks ford should know.

if you (2) take it from ford’s point of view, as something he committed to journal three, like. wow. imagine being so committed to a being that you’d hunt down and kill the monster that destroyed his home, only to (assumably) figure out later that that being was the monster. the small moments of trust, the “good times”, are so key to manipulation. how long did ford hold onto that one shred of vulnerability? no wonder ford stayed for as long as he did. in his eyes, bill was a survivor. ford wanted to survive too.

(slight tw below for unreality- any time i mention our reality, i mean “our reality” as a narrative device used in the book of bill as a proxy for the idea of bill being in our reality, since he can’t actually be in our reality. all of this is a fictional theory about a show/book with fictional contents!)

but if you (3) remember that “even his lies are lies” and absolutely Nothing bill says should be trusted. Whoo boy. if i read tbob right the book itself is being created in the theraprism (even tho it shows up with the ciphertologists at some point? idk that’s a whole other post). it’s meant to show what the reader wants to see; it manifests in our reality as what the collective fandom wants to see. so if we want to see truth, if we want to see where bill ended up and who he actually is, there’s a non-zero chance that the whole interaction was a complete fabrication.

imagine bill, stuck in the actively harmful, probably earth-illegal theraprism, once again being forced to be “fixed” and molded into something more palatable, being forced to conform no matter how much it hurts. (i know natural uncontrollable mutation ≠ just so much murder and destruction and chaos, but. you can’t ignore the similarities. bill has obviously been thinking about those silly straws.)

he looks back on everything that went wrong, back on his relationship with ford, back through every dimension where he wins. would that one moment, that one truth amid centuries of lies, have saved him from purgatory? if he had just been open? shown his damage? maybe he did think of his parents, or his henchmaniacs (especially the oracle). people who he might have once opened up to. maybe he just wanted to open up to someone again.

so in his own weird way, stuck in a cell, he reshaped reality again. in this reality, for this fleeting moment, he had been someone worth believing. and ford had listened, hell, ford had wanted to help. looking back, knowing how he treated ford, knowing how ford ended up because of it, maybe bill would have said the most honest thing he’d ever told ford: i am the monster, i am not worth your time or belief, and i will eat you alive.

[willelworld]

thinking about will byers, who’d always been visibly different, forced to conform at a young age by his father- but quickly learns that he doesn’t need to like or do something because people think he should. his mother cherishes his sensitivity, nurtures his kindness, encourages his artistry and love of colorful creations and clothes. his brother tells him he can like whatever he wants, that being a freak is cool and conforming is lame, and that he’ll love him no matter what.

will byers doesn’t pretend to be someone he’s not. he is authentic and open about what he enjoys and how he expresses himself - D&D, art, comic books and games, his clothing and style, his nerdiness - he never treats these as bad things or something to “grow out of”. will has a good idea of who he is, what he likes, and how he expresses this to the world. he never tries to conform due to social pressure, especially not when it comes from his closest friends.

thinking about mike wheeler, whose family voted for reagan, whose father is emotionally absent, and who rarely leans on his family members for support. mike wheeler, who has to be told he likes el in s1, and pushed to say he loves her in s3. who believes the root of his relationship problems is social pressure from “mouthbreathers” rather than his own actions. who is deeply insecure about his usefulness to his friends, and believes the only way his girlfriend will stay with him is if he “just said that one thing” and told her what she wanted to hear.

mike wheeler pretends to not like d&d anymore in s3 to try to “grow up” as he begins a relationship with a girl for the first time. he shows up to california in a silly outfit he thinks will help him fit in, one that’s explicitly called “a shitty knock-off” to his face. he lies his way through a love confession that doesn’t magically save the world like he wanted it to. the first person to tell him that it’s okay to be different and that conformity is harmful dies.

which one of these people sound more likely to have a self-acceptance arc in s5?

[lurkiestvoid]

I have a couple things to say about the current tidal wave of harassment happening in the VG fandom bc of, apparently, surveys? Mostly for my DA mutuals and their moots:

Hey hi. I'm Jack. I know I'm not super active in the fandom and my presence is spotty at best; I promise I'm trying, it's a wild combination of anxieties and trauma and agoraphobia and digital privacy. I'm obviously not any kind of authority on fandom or community.

But I've been in lots of communities, and been involved in community/action organization irl. I have a moderate amount of experience, here, and that's where I'm speaking from. Cut for length but formatted for skimming:

1.) You can safely assume the vast majority of this "VG crit" is bad faith, and block liberally.

I've been seeing the kind of shit being sent y'all's way, and every. single. post. I've seen in this manner, the posts/anons throwing around "leftist" terms and "morality" and shit, are all chock full of red flags most often associated with saboteurs.

It's not good-faith criticism of a video game when it posits things like "There's no way anyone could enjoy this game ever without a baseline comfort for oppression" to imply fans are just Evil and Bad (character assassination), or that all fans/devs are "racist," "sexist," "xenophobic," etc (weaponized in-group vocabulary), among other things. This is further evidenced by the fact that they have now doxxed several people (terroristic 'mob justice', attempt at forced conformity/high control group).

2) While it's possible that maybe even most of these assholes are real genuine people who are just emotionally dysregulated and need to fucking touch grass, it is virtually guaranteed a non-zero amount of them are intentional antagonists, for one reason or another.

I know, the whole 'theyre not real' thing feels like trying to remove the blame from people doing literal harm and instead point to a vague conspiracy of bots as the culprit, but it's actually extremely common; as of 2025 more than half of all internet traffic is non-human and over a third is malicious. (Source: 2025 Bad Bot Report)

The thing about bad-faith community sabotage is that it's contagious. Just one or two assholes (who may or may not have multiple profiles, a suite of bots, etc) is enough to stir the pot, and because this is the internet, like-minded individuals will flock to them and parrot their dogshit witty one-liners and punchy "analysis" purely for the dopamine of "righteous" dog-piling, giving saboteurs a whole crowd to not only hide within, but a platform from which to amplify their toxins.

That's also what makes it virtually impossible to hunt them down. Witch hunts and callouts are a legitimate division tactic, because they often end up ostracizing innocent randos or peripheral participants rather than the few people at the core of it all. It makes for great amounts of infighting and high levels of suspicion, with a very low chance of success.

The only way to shut them down in digital spaces is to, essentially, stonewall them: do not engage, do not amplify, and curate them out of your existence. They will simply starve.

3.) Bad-faith antagonists and saboteurs REQUIRE "normal" interests and activity to blend in outside of their toxic behaviors.

It can sound maybe unhinged to assume trolls/antagonists have it thought out this thoroughly, but the best ones are multipurpose and well-disguised. Think of it as a marketable skill to certain types, called "evil social media marketing" where their whole goal is disruption and division. How much engagement can they generate? How effective are they at polarization? How long did it take them to get discovered/banned/kicked out, if at all?

This phenomenon isn't unique to the Dragon Age community in the slightest, and these strategies aren't new; they're actually decades-old but I've found if I mention that history by name those posts mysteriously disappear but it rhymes with "shmointel-bro" and it's a whole literal How-To manual that explains how to effectively disrupt and destroy grassroots movements and communities.

Anyways since this kind of thing is a little more "visible" on places like Reddit, it's easier to see in action there: like checking someone's user profile and finding they post random harmless comments in random hobby/interest subreddits, but they'll have one or two Specific Fandoms that they spend all their time leaving hate comments and ragebait. You can then scroll through their history and see things like, oh, this person has literally never played these games before the newest release. Or, what a surprise, they're also posting in the 'critical' subreddit, and oh look, they're enticing others to "raid" the fan sub because it's fun and free.

Sometimes, these folks will buy or even just hack regular randos' Reddit profiles, so theyll have an unsuspicious/hobbyist comment history to hide behind; these are a little harder to pinpoint, but things like a wide gap in comment history before they returned to spend weeks/months hyper-focusing on trolling a specific group, etc, can be flags.

However, Tumblr doesn't work like Reddit, so all we have to go on are usually recent posts/activity mixed in with all the reblogs of random content.

Trolls, definitely. Absolutely. "Fans?" "Community members?" No, not in the slightest. They have zero interest in community building, and they find community destruction to be fun or "good".

Saboteurs. Block and ignore.

The ones that don't "diversify" their "interests" and spread out their activity are more quickly flagged as bots and antagonists, and end up banned before they can do enough damage; these are the basic haters and trolls that don't do this shit like a full-time job. It is vitally important that saboteur profiles/blogs/etc seem as real and genuine as possible, for as long as possible.

4) The "why" comes back to that "marketable skill."

These kinds of bad-faith agents and their bot minions/duplicate profiles are very, very valuable for many, many organizations and many, many purposes. This isn't conspiracy so much as an open secret often called by other names: "PR campaigns," "astroturfing," "culture war," etc etc.

People get paid to do this shit. The better they are, the more they get paid. Sometimes they do it for free -- going back to the contagion of antagonism, tons of regular trolls and maladjusted goobers will happily jump on that bandwagon just for funsies, or for that "righteous" feeling. It's like superpowered fertilizer for the invasive, toxic weeds planted by random assholes.

But the paid ones, the roots, probably don't actually give a shit about anything they say. They don't care about this game, or that game, or that tv show, or that celebrity, or this or that Cause, or this or that stock ticker; they might not even know hardly anything about it, might just be frankensourcing their "opinions" from the community itself.

They don't actually give a shit about whatever 'discourse' about any particular topic, but they're here because you DO care, and because it's just another job to them, more metrics to put on their resumé. The more active/more popular a community, the more hype or socmed mentions about it, the more likely they are to flock in droves and set up camp on one side of the aisle or other (or both).

5) Healthy communities require pruning sometimes.

I know it's tempting to throw the doors open wide and just ask everyone to behave, and that digital spaces are unique in that you often can't just ask someone to remove themselves the way you can at irl actions, and that there is a very fine line to walk between tolerance and intolerance.

However, this is the paradox of tolerance: too much of it allows intolerance and bad-faith to creep in, and it's always contagious.

Curation =/= censorship. Pruning antagonists =/= censorship. Intolerance of antagonism =/= censorship. Those people are free to continue the discussions away from you, you have no power to actually force them to shut up (nor vice versa), and if they're Real Genuine Extra-Salty People they'll just continue bitching amongst themselves, elsewhere. The Antagonists will always seek to come back, though, whether by using sideblogs/accts to get around blocks or by spamming anons or threats, etc. They REQUIRE access to your community to be EFFECTIVE at their goals, and being shut out can make them act out wildly in desperation.

This is already hella long so a quick rundown of other signs/behaviors to watch out for:

- the massive astroturfing campaign of negative reviews immediately on release, often parroting each other (strong sign money is involved somewhere)

- thought-terminating "critique" with heavy moral implications ('if you like this game at all you're racist/not an ally/a bad person/etc')

- logical fallacies (STRONG contender, easy ragebait: black-and-white thinking, moving goalposts, refusing burden of proof, etc)

- outright false "critique" ('this has NEVER been mentioned before' when it has, 'this wasn't addressed at all' when it was, etc; more easy ragebait)

- weaponized in-group vocabulary, virtue signaling

- character assassination and smear campaigns

TL;DR: the antagonism on display in our community since VG released is majorly inorganic bad-faith deliberate division; you don't have to tolerate it, and actually probably shouldn't.

[crossdreamers]

Norwegian Conservatives defend the use of the Pride flag against proposed ban in schools

The Norwegian Christian People's Party wants to ban the Pride flag in public schools. The Conservative Party wants to protect the rainbow flag.

For an American trying to get to grips with the Norwegian party landscape the Norwegian right wing may be more than a little confusing.

At the moment there are no less than four parties that might be designated as "conservative": The Conservative Party (Høyre), the Christian People's Party (KrF) and The Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet) are all considered right wing. There is also the Center Party (Senterpartiet), which pretends to be centrist, but is in fact a right wing, rural, populist party.

Supporters of the centrist Conservative Party would normally fit well within the Democratic Party in the US. The Progress Party is a populist anti-immigrant party, but unlike the MAGA movement it is in support of public social welfare (i.e. a strong state).

As far as LGBTQ issues go, they have all claimed that they are pro-LGBTQ, to the point of leaders taking part in Pride parades.

The Christian People's Party moves to the right

The Christian People's Party have, however, for the last few years been gradually moving from the center to the more extreme right and has now adapted what can only be seen as an explicit anti-LGBTQ standpoint.

The party is now in support of banning the use of the Pride flag in public schools. Note that nearly all Norwegian schools are publicly owned.

David Hansen, KrF's first candidate for parliament in Østfold, protested, calling this a "Viktor Orban"-policy. He is right. KrF is clearly trying to gain support by appealing to traditionalist conformity and fear of those outside the cis/het norm, just like Orban.

Dag-Inge Ulstein is moving the Christian People's Party to the right. (Photo: Frilansering CC)

In the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten KrF's leader, Dag-Inge Ulstein, make use of an old right wing populist trick, presenting the Norwegian flag as a symbol uniting all the people of Norway. In other words: There is no need for a Pride flag, which only causes confusion and uncertainty.

He tries to connect the Pride flag to the main Norwegian LGBTQ-organization Fri, which is supporting "surrogacy, liberalization of gender reassignment and abolition of the sex purchase law." Since Fri is political, the flag becomes political, as Ulstein sees it.

In other words: The Norwegian flag is not political, because it apparently represents values KrF, a political party, can stand behind, while the Pride flag should be banned in schools, because it is political.

Politics are political, and fighting for social inclusion of marginalized groups has been the explicit goal of all Norwegian governments for decades.

The last time a party tried to appeal to some kind of national unity "outside politics" in Norway, was Vidkun Quisling's National Unity Party (Nasjonal samling) in the 1930s. Quisling is not a good role model for any democratic party.

Politicians support the use of the rainbow flag

As far as we can see, representatives for most of the other Norwegian parties have criticized KrF for this move.

Alexander Papas of the Socialist Left Party says:

"Removing the pride flag from schoolyards is not creating peace. It is giving in to the forces that want to make queer people invisible – and who would rather see them as non-existent."

Julianne Ferskaug of the Liberals says:

"In many countries we are now seeing how human rights are being undermined, and queer people are being used as scapegoats in a larger political game. Making the safety of queer youth a political issue is harmful and protects no one."

Frøya Skjold of the Green Party (Miljøpartiet De Grønne) also supports the use of the flag in schools.

Anti-LGBTQ tendencies

We have not found a response to the proposal from the populist Progress Party yet, but last year local representatives united with the Marxist Red Party (Rødt) in order to ban the use of the Pride flag in Oslo. The Progress Party has supported a ban of the public use of the Pride flag in several municipalities.

The Center Party's MP Jenny Klinge, a Norwegian TERF, has promoted policies similar to the one of KrF. However, the party officially supports "initiatives and plans aimed at increasing acceptance of LGBT+ people in all communities and strengthening efforts against hate crime."

Conservative support of the Pride flag

For Americans it might be interesting to see how Tina Bru, deputy leader of the Conservative Party, addresses the KrF proposal.

Tina Bru (Photo: Hans Kristian Thorbjørnsen CC)

Bru argues that children do not need protection from love and tolerance but rather from intolerance, hatred, and rhetoric that fuels discriminatory attitudes.

She brings up the 2022 homophobic and transphobic terrorist attack in Oslo, as well as other incidents of hate crimes against LGBTQ+ individuals, including attacks, bullying, and exclusion faced by queer children and teenagers in Norway.

She emphasizes the importance of schools being safe spaces for all students, especially those who may already feel marginalized.

Bru argues that banning the Pride flag sends a harmful message to children who have same-sex parents or are struggling with their identity.

She refutes claims that exposure to LGBTQ+ themes would influence children’s sexual orientation, stressing that inclusion fosters respect rather than changes identity:

"No one becomes queer because they see a rainbow flag waving. No one becomes queer from learning that we should treat everyone with respect. No one becomes queer from including queer love in the community."

She expresses frustration that the same debate surfaces every year, with opponents spreading conspiracy theories about the Pride movement. She maintains that the flag represents freedom, safety, and the right to love without fear.:

"It is not an option for my children to grow up in a society where we were unable to stand against the forces that want to hide all colors."

Americans conservatives could learn a lot from the real conservatives of Norway.

[drdemonprince]

I learned about "pressured speech" and read up on it a bit. I saw myself in this lit. but it felt unfair and patronizing. I'm and AuDHDer, afab, and Black. I have known since I was young that people find it tedious, annoying, and unimportant when I talk, so I've learned to talk to very fast in the hopes that people might find me less annoying and listen to me. But, I didn't see any of this reflected in the literature. My Q: are the speech pathologists buggin, or is it me who should chill out?

I think a *lot* of speech language pathology involves targeting the individual for standing out in some noticeable way rather than focusing on the social exclusion & judgement that's actually the source of their communication problems.

Lots of gay kids get sent to the speech language pathologist at school purely for having the gay lisp (which is different from other forms of lisps, and doesn't really affect comprehensability!), for instance.

Relatedly, for a long time I believed that there was no such thing as "proper posture" or correct form for doing most activities; it all seemed like ableism and conformity to me. As an undiagnosed Autistic kid, I was constantly getting sent into special classes to correct how I held a pen, sat, carried myself, and so on, and all it ever did was make me feel defective and othered, when I was perfectly content prior to that "treatment" to just let my body do whatever it did. So I am with you on principle that a lot of what gets pathologized is unfairly targeted.

However, my recent experience of having a severe injury caused by unaddressed hypermobility AND what I've learned from working closely with a voice teacher who specializes in trans voices & pathology have convinced me to walk back a bit from my older belief that proper posture is completely fake, proper body movement forms aren't real, there is no "correct" way to speak and it's all equally valid diversity that has needlessly been pathologized.

Two things are true at once, I feel: completely benign differences in how people move/hold their body/speak/etc are being treated as pathological simply because they look different, AND people can really harm their bodies in a lasting way from misuse. Misuse is often caused by unaccommodated disability, trauma, dysphoria, stigma, or the holding in of stress.

It is not your body that is pathological -- it's how you have been treated, and your body responds to that.

It sounds like you have had quietly, pervasively traumatic experiences that have hampered your ability to communicate with other people in a relaxed way, and your way of coping with repeated hostility (speaking really fast) could potentially cause vocal damage and breathing problems as well as tension in your abs, throat, neck, upper back, and even your pelvic floor (this stuff really is all connected!).

I speak "too" rapidly too, because I am anxious with racing thoughts and I don't believe that people will listen to me, and that (among other quirks in how I speak, such as forcibly lowering my pitch using my tongue) has caused me to have a REALLY tight throat that can barely expel air correctly, a tight jaw, trouble exhaling, and what my singing teacher said were just about the tensest back and shoulder that she's ever seen. So if you're pushing your speech out rapidly the way that I did, you probably *are* causing yourself a lot of pain and strain that makes it harder not just to communicate, but also to just be in the world.

Some questions to consider:

Do you find the act of speaking exhausting? Do you run out of the energy to continue a conversation sooner than most people do?

When you speak, do you feel like you are pushing air out with your abs by force? (speaking *should* feel like the air is flowing through your vocal cords effortlessly, with about the same effort as passive breathing).

Do you experience a lot of vocal cracking/trouble controlling your pitch at either high or low notes?

When you breathe, does it feel like you're never really getting a full breath, either because you can't take enough air in, or you can't let it all out?

Do you feel like you have run out of breath at the end of a sentence pretty often?

Are your shoulders hunched?

Do you have "tech neck" posture?

Are your abs tight?

Is your pelvic floor tight? Do you find it difficult to relax enough to insert anything you want to into your vagina?

Does your jaw feel tense?

If yes to a majority of these, you probably *are* speaking in a way that causes you significant strain. And that is because your body is carrying a TON of stress and trauma from people mistreating you! This stuff takes a real TOLL. If your brain has come to expect that nobody cares about you and no one will listen to you, then your body has learned that message too, and that affects how you carry yourself.

But!!! You can undo a lot of this stuff and de-stress your body, and you don't have to focus on changing your speech or making yourself more in alignment with what is considered "normal." You can just start with body relaxation, breathing exercises, jaw massage, using a lacrosse ball to roll out your upper back tension, using a foam roller to relax your abs, doing some gentle kegels, etc.

In the past several months I have been learning a LOT about this subject and making major strides but I'm not confident enough to write about it formally yet. Watch this space!!

[metamorphesque]

I don't know how unpopular this opinion is but I strongly hold the position that society today seems unable to differentiate "Art" from entertainment, and this blurring of lines harms both. _ what do you mean?

What I mean to say is that society nowadays fails to recognize the fundamental differences between art and entertainment. Thinking that they are the same or interchangeable does a disservice to both. To me, it's not an "art vs. entertainment" situation. Rather than opposing them, the distinction lies in recognizing their complementary roles because a healthy individual needs both art and entertainment, but for very different reasons.

Entertainment, of course, entertains us; it delights and validates us by affirming our existing beliefs and emotions. It's there to make us feel good — a safe space that doesn't challenge us, as it has been created specifically for our needs and is catering to our preferences. However, it leaves us unchanged and not transformed. Entertainment is produced because there is a public demand for it.

Art, on the other hand, is meant to change and transform us. It's not always delightful, entertaining or self-affirming. On the contrary, it can sometimes feel like an attack on our beliefs and the reality we think we’re living in. Art can be uncomfortable, even disruptive, and by being so, it forces us to engage with it on a deeper level, challenging our perspectives and encouraging us to evolve. Unlike entertainment, art is not made because there is public demand for it. To be more precise, the demand for art exists, but it doesn't come from us — the public; art meets the demands of the time. Real artists are those who can discern the lessons and demands of the time and make them digestible for the public. While entertainment caters to an audience’s desires, art challenges its audience, often presenting ideas or emotions they may not have asked for but need to confront. It’s not about pleasing or fulfilling expectations; instead, art serves as a catalyst for intellectual and emotional growth, pushing society to reflect, adapt and progress.

My beloved Armenian poet Paruyr Sevak has a very thought-provoking piece that, I think, is about real artists. I'll present a rough translation: "They come unoften, yet never too late. / They are born at exactly the right time. / And they get ahead of time itself, / Which is why they are not forgiven".

The role of a true artist goes far beyond technical skill or the ability to produce aesthetically pleasing works that will be liked by many and, thus, make a fortune. A true artist serves as a visionary, a truth-teller and a catalyst for change. They push us to reflect deeply and think critically about the world around us. This is why, in the absence of such people (and I strongly believe that we live in such times), individuals become more susceptible to propaganda, manipulation or conformity, as there are fewer voices prompting them to critically examine their environment. Additionally, without these voices, society loses touch with its emotional depth, becoming more disconnected, indifferent and apathetic to the suffering or experiences of others.

True artists are what we need today. There are many discussions held online about whether today’s celebrities should address "political" issues and the problems we face as humans.

My answer to this is no, at least not for everyone that society considers an "artist." Most of these individuals are mere entertainers who are there solely for entertainment purposes (I would be quick to add that some of them even fail at that). Dozens of them can't even form comprehensive sentences in their mother tongues; how can we expect them to express trustworthy opinions on grave issues? This is one of the reasons why it is highly dangerous to confuse entertainment with art.

[henry-fox-biggest-stan]

Dead Poets Society, a queer-coded movie from 1989 about conformity. I said, oh I’m sure.

(@bylerfiles @abs-blabs @toivostardust here it is)

Let’s start with

Both take place in a very conservative place (Welton/Hawkins)

It’s set in 1959, same year of the creel murders

A group of friends, who don’t fit in social rules

There’s a club between the friends, innocent, but that it’s seen as wrong and evil and something that should be stopped.

The truth being, they use the club to read poetry/play a fantasy game

(couldn’t find a good picture of hellfire😔)

Also, everyone blaming Keating and saying he influenced the students and that he basically killed Neil vs everyone blaming Eddie saying he killed Chrissy. Both Neil/Chrissy were lying, Neil is lying to his father (who accuses keating of being responsible for Neil’s death) and Chrissy lying to Jason about the drugs (hiding the truth, you could say) and Jason holding Eddie responsible.

Then Eddie is killed and everyone remembers him as a murderer and Keating is fired and blamed for everything, but many students still love him.

And if we’re going with Keating/Eddie then the s5 leaks of Dustin picking up fights with jocks and getting hurt also fit. Charlie almost got spelled for pulling a prank on the principal, cause that’s what he thought Keating meant when he said carpe diem. Knox got beat up by a jock because he kissed Chris’ forehead despite her being asleep and having a bf, because that’s what he thought Keating meant with carpe diem.

But,

In this case, since Eddie is a bit of a hypocrite and we see him fighting with Jason on ep1, maybe it is what he wanted, but it still will lead to Dustin getting hurt and realize it’s not how things should go on.

If the other leaks of the others getting mad at Dustin for putting himself (and themselves) in danger are true, then another similarity, cause the rest of the group is pissed that Charlie signed under the name of “the dead poets society” without asking them, putting them all in danger.

Also, forced conformity is killing the kids vs Neil dying because of forced conformity…

Of course, we also have the “amazing teacher with fun classes who students love and who helps students outside of school” trope with mr Clarke, although I can’t find any more similarities between mr Clarke and mr Keating.

Now to other characters

Todd is quiet, and so is Will

Todd/Will has a talent he’s not 100% confident in

Also the only birthday we see (and is mentioned) in dps is Todd’s. Todd gets a desk set for his birthday gifted by his parents. He’s sad cause he already has one and that just shows how his parents don’t even care to remember or even know what he likes. Neil appears and comforts him.

Will’s birthday is… completely different. But we have the similarity of them being the only characters who’s birthday is shown, ig.

You could even say that Todd’s dad calling him $5.98 is similar to Lonnie calling Will homophobic slurs (the insults aren’t similar, but they’re still made with intention to harm)

Personality-wise, Will is more similar to Todd, but I do think he resembles Neil more ("what??? tumblr user "henry-fox-biggest-stan" what do you mean??”). Let me explain.

Both Neil and Will wearing a costume with a silly hat

And Neil being forced to give up acting by his father and Will being forced to stop playing dnd in s3 by Lucas and Mike who don’t want to play. Happens while they both are wearing a costume (tbh, I don’t think this is a dps reference, but who knows)

Both Neil and Will having non-typically masculine interests (theatre, art)

Both of them are afraid of telling the truth (Neil to his father, Will to Mike)

Also, could I say that Will having fun playing dnd before going home and being kidnapped is a parallel to Neil having fun at the play before going home and killing himself?

After all, both were unwilling to go home and were forced to by a parent (Neil’s father/Mike’s mom)

Neil’s death and Will’s kidnapping happen while they both have their (abusive) father’s gun in hand. I mean c’mon.

It also happens at night, when Neil/Will is alone. Neil had to go from his bedroom to his father's office and Will had to go from his house to the shed.

Neil dies from suicide. Will “dies” and people think it was a suicide (or an accident). However, Will comes back.

Also since we’ve established that Mr Perry = Lonnie then we have both Lonnie and Mr Perry guilt tripping Neil/Jonathan with their moms (both moms are also smokers!)

And the Perry’s are poor, just like the Byers’. Neil felt pressure to go to Harvard and become a doctor to be able to support his family financially, which reminds me of Jonathan working night shifts since he was 15 to help financially at home.

Todd/Mike’s grief is shown in more detail than other character’s, denying Neil/Will’s death and leaving the rest of the group, stading in their (now half empty) shared room and looking at his drawings, making us pay more attention to their grief

Todd meeting Neil on his first day at Welton, when he didn’t know anyone and definitely felt scared and filled with anxiety (and, having no friends and parents who don’t care, we know he also felt lonely) vs Mike meeting Will on his first day of kindergarten, when he didn’t know anyone, and felt scared and lonely.

We have Jeff as the golden, perfect child and Todd as his younger brother who cannot live up to him. Reminds me of Nancy (good grades, usually well-behaved —specially if compared with Mike who got caught plagiarizing an essay or writing in the school bathroom) vs Mike. Karen loves all her children tho.

Todd is a writer, a poet. Mike wants to be a writer, and he’s the dm, the narrator, the one creating the stories.

Todd also wears blue a lot, which is Mike’s colour.

Neil/Mike has a passion that he’s forced to give up for conformity

Neil, Todd, Cameron, and ig Knox are not very thrilled about the fact that Charlie is trying to sneak girls into their club. Reminds me of Mike being very against Max joining in s2.

We also have

Neil/Max who helped Todd/El to truly live, who became his/her closest friend and showed him/her the joys of friendship and having fun. Also, Neil/Max who eventually dies/ends up in a coma. But in this universe, Todd gets a chance to save him (El doing her weird cpr on Max)

The focus on Charlie’s empty seat vs the focus on Will’s empty seat (also works with the scene of Nancy looking at Barb’s empty seat)

Chet is on a party with his gf, Chris. Chris ends up falling asleep and Knox kisses her forehead.

Steve is on a party with his gf, Nancy. Nancy is super drunk and after a fight between them, she’s practically falling asleep. Jonathan takes her home to sleep.

(Both involve a sleeping girl with a bf)

You could also say, Chet/Steve throwing a party in his house, Chris/Nancy attending. Knox/Jonathan are there and do something lowkey creepy (Knox kissing an unconscious girl, Jonathan taking photos of Nancy accidentally). Chet/Steve gets mad and Chet beats up Knox and Steve breaks Jonathan’s camera. Both Knox and Jonathan apologize to Chris/Nancy for what they did.

Chris/Nancy ends up being endgame with Knox/Jonathan

Also

Knox/Eddie is threatened by Chet/Jason, because of something involving Chris/Chrissy

Knox/Lucas being in love with Chris/Max. Lucas being called a stalker by Max vs Knox being a stalker. Knox going to Chris’ cheerleader practice to look at her (she doesn’t know he’s there) and following her into her school vs Lucas talking to Max at school and her making references to stalking. Everything about stalking in st tbh

Oh and Knox brings her flowers aswell (which she does NOT appreciate)

A first kiss, that happens while dancing (except, snowball was all conformity, inside school and only dancing in pairs. In dps, the dancing scene is outside of school, outside the oppressive environment, and everyone is dancing with everyone).

(Mileven is technically not a first kiss, but whatever)

(I have a theory of s5 ending with a dance scene like the one in dps, so maybe we’ll get a knox/chris parallel with byler??)

Neil is celebrated by the whole group after he got his big moment in the play (Puck’s final monologue) / Lucas is celebrated by the whole team after he got his big moment in the game (scoring and winning)

Neil’s mood goes down while in the play when he notices that his dad went to see him / Lucas’ mood goes down before the game when he notices that his friends didn’t go to see him

Neil sees his dad after the play, fully bringing his mood down / Lucas sees his friends after the game, fully bringing his mood down

Both Meeks and Pitts and Dustin manage to create a radio that works

I guess you could say war veteran mr perry = war veteran victor creel

Mr Perry wanted to send Neil to military school, just like how Virginia wanted to send Henry to Brenner. Both Neil and Henry rebelled against this, but in different ways. Neil killed himself, Henry killed his family.

Also smth smth the AV club being founded by Bob but we only see the party participating, same to how the dead poets society was founded by Keating but we only see the poets participating.

And since we’re talking about Keating/Bob

Keating encouraging Neil to join the play and this being what kills him (because his father doesn’t approve and is going to punish him severely) vs Bob telling Will stand up to the mf and this being what makes Will get possessed.

Neither Keating nor Bob wanted the outcomes that came out, they both wanted to help, but they fucked up cause they didn’t know the whole truth (Keating thought Neil had told his father and had his permission and Bob had no idea about all the supernatural and just thought it was a normal nightmare).

Ok this one is a joke but I had to add it

+

Whatever’s going on with Todd and time vs Mike/Will and time vs all the time lines and time traveling references in st. (Mike always being late, for example)

I don’t think it was a dps reference tho, it’s obviously inspired by time travel media, but I wanted to mention Todd’s time weirdness because no one talks about it

Also

Staring at you, Lonnie Byers.

The duffers: huh… what if we make a show inspired by cult classic media, but we make the main characters who die survive and be happy? (Neil, Frodo, Laura Palmer)

To finish, the main message of stranger things:

[egg-emperor]

It's not an exaggeration that puritanism and anti sex is becoming so common and almost the norm in online spaces. It's a trend to make anti sex jokes with all the stupid gooner shit that people throw at anyone expressing a natural healthy interest in sex (that term being misused and turned into some cringe tiktok twt term makes me wanna kms I hate using it). It's common for teens, younger adults, or even people in their 30s to share all the exact views and spread the same rhetoric puritans, conservatives, and christofascists do. They'd love you for that but at the same time once you've served your purpose they'll eat your face too

It'd come as no surprise if a lot of these people had no issues with the stupid laws both the US and UK are currently trying to enact to control, restrict, or fully block and censor various nsfw content and sites (as well as anything vaguely deemed adult being hit by it like sources of info like fucking Wikipedia). Because it's just another attempt to purify and sanitize the internet, and punish and force people to share their personal information and ID if they want the smallest amount of freedom to access what they please- disguised as "think of the children". As if we should have to be punished for parents not taking responsibility and caring for their children properly anyway

But it makes no sense when these anti sex puritans are against it because it's "going to censor queer stuff/we're going to have no privacy!" You should've cared anyway and realized censoring things you don't like and sharing personal info about people you don't like was a bad idea too. This is literally what you asked for. It was always going to lead to that. When people start restricting and censoring the things you personally don't like, it will extend to the things you like getting the same treatment. There's no picking and choosing with this. It was always going to become this and now you're shocked to realize it was always against you too while you were all too happy to throw others under the bus

That's why I'm happy to have a blog like this where I'm openly expressing that I'm the weirdo sex freak y'all demonize (granted I still can't do it as much as I want to on this one but there are various other parts of the internet y'all might find me where you can get more hehe) and reminding people that it's not a sinful thing because all that shit is fake. We should fight for freedom of expression and embrace ourselves loudly as ever when everything wants to stop us and silence us. At least y'all made me prepared for this when you'd give me callouts and public kink shaming for my sexual expression and tried to censor my work and get me kicked out of communities that preached acceptance and solidarity then spat in my face. Society and the law itself is just doing the same thing. Sit and think about that. Do you still really think you're the good guys?

It ain't much for me to have a silly blog talking about fucking an egg shaped man but it's a shot at exercising that freedom of expression that they are actively attempting to strip away from us. It delights me when people get angry because of how much I sexualize the characters I like and call me a pervert sex freak for my kinks because it means I'm not conforming to this bullshit. I don't want my stuff to be comfortable to people who want to censor and control others and think they deserve harm and breaches of personal info, I don't want to be family advertiser friendly, I don't want conservative puritan christofascists' approval. It's a small but still important act of defiance against it. Join me in it 🤝

[sparkel-dog]

i get really fucking sick of the notion that “if youre against egg jokes or if you claim that egg jokes are harmful, youre repeating the same propaganda that evil trannies just want to convert cis people >:( “

kindly shut the fuck up 🔥🔥 I am trans🔥🔥 i know other trans people who are uncomfortable with egg jokes 🔥🔥 of course we are not trying to perpetuate a harmful stereotype, i am still allowed to criticize yalls behavior!

Egg jokes are fine if youre referring to yourself or other people who you have their permission to joke that way! like if you and your trans friend group are cool with it, then by all means go ahead! but i get so sick of seeing egg jokes about gender non conforming cis people. i hate the stereotype that “if you like nail polish or dresses or something you must be a girl” or shit like that. stop acting like a fucking cishet person who wants to enforce gender roles and shove people into boxes!

let people come to their own journey of self discovery. i see so many people say “uhh but egg jokes can help you realize you’re trans” okay but 90% of the jokes that i see are just teasing people and assuming their gender 0-0 there is a difference between actually offering someone advice (“hey if youre having those feelings, it might mean this or that about your gender identity”) and just being unhelpful and annoying or outright rude.

not to mention the biggest thing: egg jokes can just further confuse people or make them feel uncomfortable. it can pressure trans people to come out when theyre not ready or make them feel like a stranger is trying to decide their gender for them. Before i realized i was trans, sometimes people would joke about me being trans (wow youre the only cis one in a friend group of trans people? lol not for long) and it just confused me more because my identity is Not simple! It’s not just “trans guy” or “nonbinary guy” even it was more complicated than that, hard to put labels on, and having people joke about that shit just made me more reluctant to explore that part of myself. i have seen other trans people feel the same way.

If you truly think someone is an egg, you shouldnt try to crack it open before its ready to hatch!

also i have seen people be like “booo why are you centering cis people’s feelings above your own :/ who cares if cis people get offended over trans people joking they might be trans” just. yall sound immature and RUDE. EVERYONE’S identity should be respected: cis people, trans people, whatever. if a cis person was making jokes about a trans person like that (like “oh haha youre a trans guy but youre wearing a dress? are you really trans at all? :)” ) yall would go FUCKING BANANAS over how insanely rude and transphobic that behavior is. so why is it okay the other way around.

grrrr just makes me mad. “its just s joke we’re not trying to force people to change their genders” words have meanings and impact and you should think about how harmful “jokes” can be. its not a hard concept to grasp when conservative comedians are making bigoted jokes that its still shitty even if “its just s joke”. jokes can enforce certain ways of thinking and can be hurtful.

just get consent before joking that someone is an egg 😭 like i know cis allies who are completely fine being called eggs 😭 and there are trans people who love joking about their own egg moments, thats perfectly fine! just stop assuming you know a stranger better than they know themselves by making those jokes about people you barely know

[deathlygristly]

A thing that has always confused me: how so many people argue that causing serious harm and misery and death to others isn't evil because the people doing it aren't aiming to do evil things.

I've never understood why that matters. If you traumatize someone they are traumatized no matter how you justify your abuse to yourself. If you cause people to die, whether directly by your hand or indirectly with your vote and/or support of policies that kill people, they do not come back to life because you "didn't set out to be evil" or because you "aren't a cackling villain from a children's cartoon."

The results of your actions are the results of your actions. The results don't change because you weren't self-aware of the evil you were enacting.

Since a story about an unvaccinated child dying of measles is making the rounds today, I'll use that as an example.

The child is dead. The child will not come back to life because their parents say they had some reason for not vaccinating other than being aware of their active desire for the child to die. The child will not come back to life because people sharing antivaxx propaganda online "just wanted to feel included in a community." The child will not come back to life because someone just wanted to win an election, or someone just wanted to make money, or whatever. The child is dead due to human evil, and there is no way for that child to come back to life because some of the humans involved somewhere in that chain of evil "didn't think of themselves as evil."

It's like that line from Star Trek 6: "What you want is irrelevant. What you've chosen is at hand!"

I don't know. Maybe it's the autism and thus the inability to understand neurotypical conformity. Maybe it's the somehow growing up in a family and a culture that never tried to force an ideology on me. But I can't imagine not having agency. I can't imagine not being able to make a choice at each part of that chain of evil.

It's possible to not choose to make money from spreading antivaxx propaganda. It's possible to choose other communities to belong to than ones that promote antivaxx propaganda. It's possible, even if you are stuck in an IRL antivaxx community, to listen to medical professionals and to read up on the history and science of disease transmission and immunization and vaccination. Libraries are free.

There's older people who remember a time before certain vaccinations were common that you can talk to. There's people your own age who got vaccinated that you can talk to. If you yourself are vaccinated you can notice how you lived to adulthood and you did not die of measles.

And of course it is extremely possible to choose to not run an election campaign on propaganda that kills children.

I don't know. Maybe my Belief at the bottom of this is that the base of human evil is not believing in reality and not acting in accordance with it, and that not believing in reality is an active choice. And maybe that's only my Belief because I had the privilege to always believe in reality, because I never had people touting an anti-reality ideology around me. I don't know.

Still though, I think causing unnecessary harm and trauma and suffering and death is evil, even if you justify it to yourself in some way. Justifying it to yourself doesn't change the reality that other living beings suffered and died due to your actions.