myfandomrealitea - Tumblr blog

[myfandomrealitea]

Omegle Alternative: RoleChat

RoleChat.org

Similarities

Anonymous chatting

Ability to match by and save tags

Same chat page layout

Online users counter

Free to use

Easy navigation and layout

Differences

Ability to change your name

Limited to 30 tags

Ability to block and/or report chats and users

Ability to save names and cache tags to easily switch

Ability to use a starter prompt without having to constantly copy/paste (Type your prompt into the box. You or the other user can then send or view it by clicking the '/starter' button.)

Ability to use bold text, italics and underlined text

Ability to roleplay in either the 18+ or >18 chats

Current daily users averages at 350 at any given time. Active with multiple fandoms including Marvel, Genshin Impact, DC, animes, RPF, The Witcher, Teen Wolf and many more.

I've browsed multiple fandoms and so far haven't come across any of the issues that began cropping up with Omegle with the racist and homophobic copypasta bots. I'm not sure what if any infrastructure the site has in place for that if it happens, but so far in the fandom tags there doesn't seem to be any bots or spam at all for the ones I've browsed.

No issues with the site itself forcibly dropping your connection after a certain amount of time, either.

All in all, a 10/10 alternative and actually far better than Omegle itself.

[myfandomrealitea]

With my recent Harry Potter posts gaining traction, I just want to make an important note:

You are not a bad person for having enjoyed Harry Potter. You are not a bad person for finding it hard to let go of something so ingrained into your life. You are not a bad person for enjoying the overall story of Harry Potter despite the bigotry JK Rowling managed to smatter into it.

Nobody should be telling you that you are. Your past relationship with Harry Potter is not the issue.

The issue is what you and we all do moving forward with the new information and facts that we know.

And the facts are that JK Rowling is a rampant and proud bigot who is hellbent on using the fortune Harry Potter made her to actively pursue the entire trans community with hostile intent.

And she does not care. She is happy that she is doing it. She is happy that people oppose her because it gives her an excuse to play victim and paint trans people who oppose her as violent, aggressive and evil.

This is not about how you engaged with Harry Potter in the past. Or even how you engage with it privately. This is about whether or not you choose to contribute toward her mission and towards the persecution of trans people right now.

Because when you buy that licensed merch in the store, she gets part of the profit. When you go to Harry Potter World, she gets part of the profit. When you buy the Harry Potter game, she gets part of the profit.

And all of those things result in three consequences:

It shows the marketing departments that Harry Potter is still a cashcow.

It shows JK Rowling that she can say and do whatever the hell she wants and nothing is going to stop that money rolling in.

She is given a steady cashflow which she uses to bankroll anti-trans movements and spokespeople and government petitions.

That is the reality of your choice from here on out. That is why people are asking you to set aside what you once had with Harry Potter and to stand with the people she has made it her life's mission to destroy.

You don't even have to let go of it completely. Just let go of the interactions that directly fund JK Rowling. Just cut off the cashflow she's using to ruin the lives of people she's never even met.

Buy fanmade merchandise or learn how to make your own. If you're cosplaying? Buy unofficial cosplays or buy second-hand off resale websites. Same with other merchandise.

If you want to watch Harry Potter, there are hundreds of non-licensed steaming websites showing it which do not contribute royalty income to JK Rowling.

If you're writing Harry Potter fanfiction, use a site like AO3 which will defend you tooth and claw if she gets desperate and starts coming after fan creators.

Harry Potter might be the comforting memories of your childhood, but JK Rowling is an active threat to the literal livelihood of trans people. People who could lose legal rights and protections simply because of one vicious woman with a bigoted agenda and deep pockets.

All we're asking is that you compare your reasons for enjoying Harry Potter with the facts of why you should make a few simple, easy choices to avoid bankrolling her and determine which is more important.

Or rather, which one should be more important.

And make the right choice.

[myfandomrealitea]

If buying anything related to Harry Potter can be harmful because the creator can use the money to support bad things, why is it still famous? Why people still like it?

Because people are selfish and don't like being told what to do or being told they're making a bad choice.

When it first started coming out that JK Rowling was a bigot, people immediately began to use their own comfort and happiness as a defense for her actions and supporting her.

"Well Harry Potter made my childhood happy so I don't care what she does!" was a prominent argument.

People still like it because they can't separate their enjoyment of it from the reality of what Harry Potter is and who JK Rowling is. Its still famous because in its prime it was a fucking massive franchise. It held a monopoly on the movie market. It boomed. You can't just erase that kind of fame, especially when people still cling to it.

I can tell people until they're blue in the face that the money they give JK Rowling by purchasing licensed Harry Potter merch or streaming Harry Potter on official platforms or attending Harry Potter world or any of the other 38474 ways she's milked that cow for money that they're directly allowing her to keep funding these anti-trans movements and giving her a platform to spread hate but I can't actually make people do anything.

People have to stop being selfish enough to recognise that the issues and bigotry JK Rowling is perpetrating are far more important than the cozy little feelings they get from Harry Potter. People have to make the choice between their own feelings and the literal rights of human beings to exist and receive medical care, jobs, legal rights, ect.

[myfandomrealitea]

Would I be the asshole if I bought Harry Potter merch anyway or is it just antis or others shaming me? I'm not a fan of Harry Potter, I just want to buy what I want without being shamed into "supporting" bad things.

I don't want to be known as an Israeli supporter because I buy Starbucks.

The thing is, the issue with buying these things is that the money you give those companies then contributes to supporting something awful. Which means if you know that, and you're still willingly giving these companies money, you're either declaring you just don't care or you're declaring you support what they're doing.

Like I said; if you genuinely can't live without Harry Potter merch, buy it secondhand. Or buy fanmade merch where absolutely none of the money is being funnelled into anti-trans and anti-queer movements and goal corporations.

Here's a scenario for you:

I'm walking down the street and there are two stalls. Both are selling the same thing. One of the stalls has a notice saying all the money raised today will go into funding animal abuse. Dog fights, ect.

The other stall has a sign saying all the money raised today will go into funding the stall owner's ability to keep making products as an alternative to the other store, so you can get the same product without funding the horrific abuse of innocent animals.

Now again, remember: they sell the exact same thing. Exact same price.

So. Do you think I'm a bad person if I choose to buy from the stall that funds animal abuse? Even though I really, really love animals and have the option not even two feet away to make the same purchase knowing it means the other stall gets less money for their horrible goal?

Because that's what Starbucks and JK Rowling and Nestle and Chick-Fil-A do. When you buy their products, you're actually putting money in their pockets which then gives them the ability to fund things like anti-trans movements, conversation camps, child slavery and xenophobic wars.

JK Rowling can't donate 75k to anti-trans movements if she doesn't have 75k to donate.

You're not being "shamed into not supporting bad things." Frankly if you have to be shamed into not supporting those things I think that answers your question anyway. But you are being given facts to make choices with.

And you can't stop people from looking at the choice you made and deciding if that makes you a bad person or not.

[myfandomrealitea]

Hi. Victim of childhood sexual abuse here.

We were talking about pedophilia. Because that was the incoming accusation. Never once did I state all child rape is a crime of attraction, either.

I lost all respect for antis the day that one said outright said that I, a disabled, fully mature adult was 'basically a child' and any person who was attracted to me was basically a pedo. Because telling disabled people that others being attracted to them is inherently evil is a totally normal, non infantalizing thing to do, right? There's nothing ableist about saying disabled people are 'basically children' right??????

Antis and the media have watered down the meaning of pedophilia to basically nothing. Its a defunct term at this point. It just means anything and everything that anyone wants it to and it makes me so, so angry for the actual victims of true pedophilia and the actual people who are being victimised by the trend of using it as a battering ram.

Neurodivergency and disabilities being weaponised, too, is part of the problem, not a contribution toward a solution. The more you tell people that disabled and neurodivergent people are vulnerable and open to risk the more risk you actually expose them to.

And, frankly, the more you piss them off.

[myfandomrealitea]

According to the writer, A Serbian Film is a commentary/cynical parody of the post-war state of Serbia, and the emotionally dead, exploitative nature of the Balkan film landscape

Mm, interesting. I'll have to read some literary analysis on it and brush up on my history. It was briefly touched on in one of my college classes and used as an example of shock value and provocative media but my professor never actually expanded on its actual meaning, intent and message.

[myfandomrealitea]

I lost all respect for antis the day that one said outright said that I, a disabled, fully mature adult was 'basically a child' and any person who was attracted to me was basically a pedo. Because telling disabled people that others being attracted to them is inherently evil is a totally normal, non infantalizing thing to do, right? There's nothing ableist about saying disabled people are 'basically children' right??????

Antis and the media have watered down the meaning of pedophilia to basically nothing. Its a defunct term at this point. It just means anything and everything that anyone wants it to and it makes me so, so angry for the actual victims of true pedophilia and the actual people who are being victimised by the trend of using it as a battering ram.

Neurodivergency and disabilities being weaponised, too, is part of the problem, not a contribution toward a solution. The more you tell people that disabled and neurodivergent people are vulnerable and open to risk the more risk you actually expose them to.

And, frankly, the more you piss them off.

[myfandomrealitea]

Characters do not have to be redeemable.

I'm so, so sick of people absolutely trashing media and characters because they never get reformed or redeemed or become 'good.'

That's the whole fucking point, sometimes. That that character is bad. Characters who are genuinely, down to the bone, rotten to the core bad are part of the narrative too. They're valid too.

You're meant to hate them. You're meant to think of them as awful, evil people, because they are.

Narrative and story and development you disagree with doesn't inherently mean its bad or wrong.

Characters who balance between good and evil and ultimately choose evil are not storytelling failures. They're a narrative and story in their own right. They had the choice. They chose evil. That's the story. That's the narrative.

Media is predictable enough as it is. Pigeon-holing it even further by dictating that characters can't simply be bad or become bad is not the solution.

[myfandomrealitea]

You're allowed to feel sad, disappointed or lose some interest in a character because its no longer played by a specific actor or character.

(Obviously not talking about blatant racism here. Derail this and I'll scream.)

But I mean like. I see people shitting all over anyone who is losing interest in The Witcher because Henry Cavill is no longer Geralt, but at the same time actors will all have very unique ways of portraying the same character, and its perfectly fine to not feel the same way about how a different actor portrays or visualises the same character.

If you prefer the story and portrayal of Steve Rogers' Captain America over Sam Wilson's Captain America, that's fine! They're two completely different stories under the same mantle. You can absolutely respect the story and message of Sam Wilson's Captain America while still preferring the one Steve Rogers' Captain America told.

If you're in love with the way Henry Cavill depicts Geralt, you're not a bad person who holding onto that and choosing not to devalue Liam Hemsworth's interpretation by forcing yourself to consume media you no longer have a vested interest in.

Spider-Man is another prime example. While the core values and details of the Spider-Men stay the same, the specific stories and characters of each Spider-Man are supposed to be different. They're supposed to fit the narrative being told and the larger framework of the universe they are set in.

So many people hated on Tom Holland's Spider-Man because he wasn't the 'OG gutter rat broke bitch' but like. For one, we do actually see those aspects in the story still (Peter taking dumped items off the sidewalk, his small room, stressing about money and replacing things, ect) and for another, he's meant to be different because Spider-Man with The Avengers is different to Spider-Man alone.

Its meant to be a different depiction of the same character.

Its fine not to like one or to prefer the other but it doesn't make it bad media or a bad thing either way.

[myfandomrealitea]

Since it is literally a fireable offence to attempt to coerce, force, bribe or bully your patient into adopting your own values and views beyond the scope of law and ethics. Which, most ethics are covered by law regardless.

And on the basis of 'normal' and corrections, again, that depends on scope and how you are defining both.

E.g; if my client is unhealthily fixated on, say, BDSM as a means of self harm, my goal is not to try to 'normalify' them by villainising BDSM and attempting to steer them away from it and toward vanilla sex only.

My goal is to harmonise their relationship with BDSM and steer them towards healthier ways of engaging with it and using it as a means of safe outlet and catharsis over self harm. My goal is to get them to understand how and why they were using BDSM to self-harm and help them fix the root problem.

You just read my post and immediately launched into a bad faith misinterpretation of it that completely disregards the actual purpose of therapy and my post.

You don't become a therapist to force your patients to have the same individual views as you do or the same values or the same beliefs. You don't become a therapist because you have a very specific approach to something that you believe is the Only/Right one and you want to force them to comply.

Also; antis getting into specific professions with the at least partial intent of such activity is not a new thing. I'll have to dig around for the post but one such anti did brag on Tumblr years ago about trying to convert her patients into adopting her views and mindset and she rightfully got ripped to shreds over it.

So I'll repeat. Anyone and especially antis who declare they are going into a profession specifically with the intent of causing harm to or manipulating people into adopting their views need a serious reality check and possibly also a prison cell.

It is unethical. It is dangerous.

Antis who proudly proclaim they're going to become a therapist so they can shut down and manipulate and unethically target all the 'nasty proshippers' make me laugh because they're going to get two months into any sort of qualifying course and be slapped in the face by the reality that therapists are obligated to remain objective and impartial and will lose their license if they're found to be using their position to be unfairly bias or negatively target clients based on their own personal beliefs and values.

"Objectivity helps counsellors avoid personal biases and allows them to focus on the client's needs without imposing their own beliefs or values." - American Counselling Association

"Therapy should feel like an inclusive and safe place for clients. Clients need to feel safe and supported in their work. And while all therapists have inherent biases and personal preferences, it is never appropriate for them to engage in discrimination, racism, sexism, or other forms of prejudice with clients." - Medcircle

You do not get into therapy to correct people. You get into therapy to help them. Therapy is not about the therapist.

[myfandomrealitea]

Ok so...I've been thinking: is it true that there's an actual irredimable media?

IMO media is only truly bad when its specifically intended to cause harm or is just a blatant act of bigotry. Media is media. Media is supposed to tell a story, invoke thought, express things. Such things don't need redemption.

I mean I'll be blatantly honest and say after watching A Serbian Film I just... Didn't get it. If there was a message within it beyond the corrupt and horrific world of extreme pornography then it was lost on me. But assuming that was the message, the film did its job well. It told a story. The things shown in the film are the story. Contrary to my view, most people think its a horrific and damning piece of media that needs to be outlawed and everyone involved shot on sight.

Unless a piece of media was just a flagrant display of bigotry or something truly intended to be blatantly offensive with no ulterior goal, thinking of media as something that needs to be redeemed is just... Pointless, honestly.

JoJo Rabbit, for example. Many people were outraged that such a terrible era was turned into a slashy comedy, but those people also missed the very important messages conveyed in the movie. Does the film owe them redemption, or do they owe the film self-reflection?

[myfandomrealitea]

I've seen antis complaining about AO3's archive warnings bc it has the rape/non-con and underage warnings. Like, they're there for people who don't want to read fics with those topics to more easily hide them in their search. Instead of having to hide 1000 tags that relate to rape, you can just hide that one, it LITERALLY HELPS YOU NOT HAVING TO SEE THAT CONTENT WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING.

Antis: Omfg if you're going to write it at least take 1947473 precautions to make sure I never ever have to see it!!

Antis when you use the 1947473 precautions:

[myfandomrealitea]

Victims can be angry.

Victims can not want help for whatever reason.

Victims can be loud.

Victims can be aggressive.

Victims can be violent.

Victims can be emotional.

Victims can be stubborn.

This Hollywood perpetrated idea that victims can only be meek and silent and pitiful needs to be beaten to death with a hammer.

There is no such thing as the standard or typical victim. There is no such thing as a bad victim. Victimhood is not a one-size fits all.

If you believe victims shouldn't receive or are undeserving of compassion and help because they don't behave the way you think they should, you are no better than the person who made them a victim in the first place.

If you wish they died, or think they deserve what happened to them, or think they should have suffered more/should continue to suffer, you are no better than the person who made them a victim in the first place.

[myfandomrealitea]

Me: Hey so actually maybe treating children like fragile stupid little things who need to be sheltered from even basic life concepts is doing more harm than good. Antis, bigots and religious nuts: So you wanna fuck them? You wanna fuck the kids? Pedo.

[myfandomrealitea]

“Proshippers are dangerous to children!”

Me, reading “immoral” books since age 11, 16 now, yet to have killed, raped, or tortured anyone:

Children are not put in danger simply by exposure to specific things. In fact, for many things, the sooner we learn them the better. I know a lot of people are going to interpret this in bad faith and the worst possible way, but;

Children actually need to be exposed to things in order to actually understand them and properly learn about them in a safe manner that will set the groundwork for the rest of their life.

I'll use an example that has absolutely nothing to do with sex or anything 'proship.'

The good old 'the dog went to live on a farm' analogy. When I was younger and my pets died my parents always told me that my pets had gone to live with other families who needed hem more. That pets were like Nanny McPhee; they went where they were needed.

This devastated me.

I spent years wondering what I'd done wrong. Why I wasn't good enough. Why my beloved pets had decided I didn't need or love them anymore. Where had they gone? Why had they gone? Did they love their new families more than me?

Literal years spent plagued with torment until I hit a new school year and we learned properly about death in biology. Then I spent weeks feeling betrayed, ridiculed and stupid because my pets hadn't abandoned me for a more deserving family. They'd up and died.

And death is sad, yes. I would've been sad for weeks. Months, maybe. I'd miss them forever. But I understood death. I would've understood and accepted death far quicker than I did the notion that the pets I loved so much had simply up and decided to fuck off one day.

If my parents had been honest with me they could've used my pets' deaths as opportunities for literally so many things. How to understand and deal with grief. How to understand and accept death. How to mourn. How to reminisce. How to manage and process and understand and accept my emotions. How to ask for comfort and self-soothe.

Instead all they taught me was that they thought I was too stupid to understand things and that I could've trust a word they said anymore.

Honestly the overbearing safety net we trap children in only robs them of opportunities to be healthy, functioning, developed adults. Children do not need to be sheltered from the entire world until we suddenly drop-kick them into it at 16 or 18.

I'm not saying we need to start hounding eight year olds about pornography and fictional shipping. But what we do need to do is safely introduce them to the world they live in and give them the tools needed to live in it.

[myfandomrealitea]

I've come to the conclusion that antis think about pedophilia and children being involved in sex way, way more than proshippers do.

[myfandomrealitea]

My favorite thing is when I say something like;

"You do not owe people justifying why you consume a certain type of media."

And inevitably I'll get a hundred pissed off antis in the comments launching into accusations about defending pedophilia or defending 'beating it to kiddie porn.'

And its like. 90% of the time I'm thinking about about interspecies relationships or gory Hannigram murder fucking or omegaverse.