#(not to say that the other things people argue about are inherently stupid in terms of content…

[theres-whump-in-that-nebula]

Okay. I’m going away again; bye!

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

“And the relative simplicity of her music works with people who just want something mindlessly play in the background. It's also really easy for average people- who have no musical background- to sing along with. The lines are simple rhymes, and she never really uses any specialized vocal techniques like Vibrato. Basically, it's music for bland people who think salt is a spice.”

Some of your takes are valid and it’s healthy to critique anything that amasses such a large following in pop culture. However I would argue there is a way to do this without coming across as a pretentious undergraduate who read a few required and recommended readings from the syllabus and now sips their tea with a pinkie protruding. Let’s remember that tumblr is not inherently full of academics and defining anyone who hasn’t got a certain level of education as average or bland is such an Americanised, my way or the highway way of thinking.

It is possible to have differing opinions to others without insulting their intelligence or falsely presenting them in a certain way. Average people as a term in general, is quite elitist and classist. For example, I have a PHD in literature and am a classical musician. I work in publishing and academia.

That said, I still enjoy pop music, sometimes something can just be enjoyable and it’s not that deep.

Criticising Taylor Swift is low hanging fruit for a lit major who claims to be allied with as many causes as yourself. Or, if you do decide to continue with it, I hope you do it in a more articulated manner that focuses more on the quality of your arguments, and not just an assumption that those who oppose you are stupid or “bland” when I suspect the truth is much more complex than that, as it always is.

Best of luck with further studies. I hope to see more diverse content from you in the future, maybe some literary analysis of contemporary texts, or other artists who you deem intellectual enough to enjoy, or some recommendations.

Honestly- I do not know with which tone I should address this anon. I cannot tell if you are being hostile- but I certainly feel that you are being condescending.  

Thanks for at least direct quoting my words with which you draw issue. I appreciate it- some people send me critiques but fail to outline which of my posts is the problem.  

I can capitulate to exactly one of your points- and admit it is a good point- that I am overly sassy on occasion. The post you are angry about is just me chitchatting with someone about Swift’s live shows- it wasn’t a literary analysis. I cannot do an academic analysis of her live shows- but that does not mean I don’t have an opinion of them.  

Again- it was opinion not argument or analysis. Not a serious post. This is not a blog where I am going to speak like an academic all of the time. I’m here to have a little fun- and try to remind myself why I actually do love what I do for a living.

Generally speaking- I will try to make a more obvious, clear difference between what is just an opinion and what is a researched, literary argument on Taylor Swift in my future posting. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.  

There are some other things about your ask that I want to address, because it struck me as a bit unnecessary.  

You say that I’m “coming across as a pretentious undergraduate who read a few required and recommended readings from the syllabus and now sips their tea with a pinkie protruding” (para. 1). This is condescending. No, I did not simply “read a few required and recommended readings” to complete my education. You say you’ve got a PHd in the same discipline- and yet you want to tell me all I did for my degree was read a couple of books? You should know the kind of intellectual work that goes into real literary study. I am trying to show people with this blog, at least in some small way, that while literary study is not so straightforwardly quantifiably valuable like, for instance, physics- it is still a real discipline. With real requirements on argumentation and logic. It takes intellectual skill to wrestle with concepts in literary theory – but more so to apply them in synthesis and interpretation of textual evidence.   

SO, why are you essentially patting my head and saying “aw-cute she read some books and now thinks she’s smart?”   

To be clear- I am not in undergrad. I have finished two different degrees and am currently working on my third.

Why would you accuse me of classism and elitism predicated solely on a bad joke in a post wherein I am not even doing any real literary analysis? What prompted that? I made no effort to even pretend the post in question was little more than opinion- my real posts however, about literary analysis, I take great pains to research and edit those together with care.  

Also, “Americanized” what? Are you American? Because people ‘round here don’t care about what level of education you’ve got? The access to education varies remarkably state to state- and down into Latin American too- and we all know it. So, there is very much a culture of “help each other out when struggling” and not a culture of thinking that everyone of Earth needs to go through American University in order to matter. What are you talking about? Do you think American’s hold the monopoly on having Dogmatic views or “my way or the highway” thinking? That’s obviously not true- so what are you trying to say here?  

Did you miss the part of my Bio where I talk about being a teacher? I am a teacher in one of the poorest- most unfunded places in the country. My friend- I am repulsed by the idea of classism- I take my position in my community very seriously. Knowledge is not a stick with which I attempt to beat others down- Please understand that.  

Next, you say it is possible to critique without insulting people’s intelligence (para. 2). um, I did not insult anyone’s intelligence? I said their taste in music was bland, which does not correlate to an assumption on their intelligence. Um- I have also said many times that I like simple pop- music. Am I calling myself stupid because I’ve been listening to “Espresso” by Sabrina Carpenter on repeat? NOpe. It’s just a silly little song- and dancing to it makes me feel cute, young and free- but it’s still a bland song with no literary or moral value. What exactly is the problem here?  

Okay, within this same point you draw issue with my use of the word average, saying that “average people, as a term...is quite elitist and classist” (para.3). Okay, you misinterpreted my use of the word “average” here- as I was not referring to people as “average” because they have no education, or a different education compared to my own. I was only using the term in the most colloquial sense- meaning “in general” or “on average” as in the median percentage of people have no musical background- therefore they find simplistic pop music the easiest to digest and the simplest thing to play in the background or sing to on car trips. It’s pleasing to the ear because we don’t have too much “work” into understanding it- that's what I mean when I say it’s bland. 

If oatmeal was a type of music- it would be pop music. bland filler- but you know it can still be good.   

Okay, let’s talk about your final point “Taylor Swift is Low Hanging Fruit” (para. Whatever I can’t be bothered to count). Ummm? A billionaire musician who has massive worldwide acclaim and social impact is “low-hanging” to you? I mean yeah- she's clearly not worth study through the lens of poetical semiotics, or God forbid- Linguistic Morphology; however, there are several different ways a good analysis of her work could function- through feminist, Marxists, Post-colonialist, or anything under the umbrella of cultural studies. I also intend to do a rhetorical analysis on her use of “lower class” aesthetics and how that attracts the audience she wants. And, I’ve done a couple of syntactical analyses. However, I had to prop those up with a dichotomization of her work to someone with more impressive literary value, like Kendrick Lamar, because her work alone is not strong enough for that type of analysis.  

Apologies if I have written a return, you did not expect or want- perhaps, I should be less sensitive on the internet. I do often brush off people's condescension, especially when I notice that they are extremely young or just do not know anything at all about my field of study. Because why worry about uninformed opinions? I wanted to speak with you, however, because you do care. It is obvious, and I am glad that people do care. I admire you for caring about the integrity of the discipline- but I really wasn’t doing what you thought I was doing.  

 I admire anyone who also studies Literature, and you say you’re a classical musician, I think that’s so impressive! I love classical music! Rachmaninoff makes me feel insane! I love it! You know that one O’Hara poem? The one that is an ode to Rachmaninoff’s birthday that ends “you’ll never be mentally sober” because I feel that line in my bones. And don’t even get me started on Tchaikovsky- Truly, you might never hear the end of it. (CAnnoNS!!!!??? what a guy)

 I just wanted to clear up anything that you found offensive- but I also defended myself because you do know what I’m talking about when it comes to literary study- and so the conversation took priority over the other meaningless “hate” messages I get. And- boy howdy- I've been getting hate messages pretty much daily. 

Promise to no longer be condescending to me and I think we ought to be friends and not fight- let me start- what did you concentrate on for your PHd? 

 I, myself, focus on post-colonialism, feminist theory, and post-modernist thought in American Literature. I work mainly within US Multi-ethnic literature, though, outside of school, I have an intense fascination with medieval or ancient Literature- primarily, these days, classical Sanskrit poetry. Last year it was an obsession with old Norse literature- lol I like to switch things up. Have you ever read the Heliand? It’s about Viking Jesus- so cool and written in old Saxon! But, anyway, I think the unique prosody of Sanskrit is so neat-o. My other obsession is this one old french poem called "le roman de silence" what a crazy little gender-bending 13th century thing that is (haha). And this doesn't even get into my philosophical preoccupations- though I believe I will discuss those on my blog, too, at some point.

Anyway- perhaps I will talk about my more niche interests on this blog- all good things in time. I have no interest in solely focusing on Taylor Swift forever- but I do want to finish saying all the things I’ve been holding back for years. I think it’s important- because Swift holds such a massive influence over people. It’s healthy, as you said, to critique people like that.  

Okay- Sorry I talked soo long. Peace Out :)

[caparrucia]

I've gotten quite a few new followers recently, so I think one of my posts broke containment...

Lemme just.

Take a few proverbial shots in the air:

Trans rights are human rights.

Transmen are men, but they exist within the transphobic clutches of the patriarchy and pretending they have "male privilege" instead of being punished for failing to conform to toxic masculinity makes you sound like someone who's never been in touch with the community IRL.

Trans women are women! They're not inherently predatory and if such a thing as "male socialization" exists, it does not confer them power, but rather punishes them for failing to perform masculinity.

Nonbinary, genderqueer and genderfluid are distinct, valid and separate identities that often overlap but which do not constitute a "third gender" around which to build another stupid gender dichotomy.

Queer is not a slur, it's an umbrella term. If you do not wish to belong to the queer community that is your prerogative, but you do not get to tell MY community that we shouldn't exist because our language makes you uncomfortable.

Acephobia is fucking pathetic and you're a pathetic dork for committing it. Aces, Aros and Demis belong in the Queer community and their struggles are no less real because you want to be a dick about it.

I'm not American. The fact I'm forced to know and keep up with American politics while the average American pretends my country is either a tourist attraction or a humanitarian crisis zone, is in fact a sign of American colonialism and I'm not going to sugar coat it if it makes you uncomfortable to be reminded of it.

Mexican Americans are not Mexican. They're American, with Mexican ancestry. If you center their voices over my own people's when speaking about my own country, I will fucking fist-fight you.

Race is not a game of rock-paper-scissors and intersectionality is not about keeping score about whose opinions are deemed blanket correct without a second thought.

People's existence is not in itself an act of activism, so for the love of fuck, stop being weird to strangers who are just vibing and calling them "brave" and "inspirational" just because they allow themselves to exist in public. You sound like a tool.

Israel is committing a genocide. It is not antisemitic to point out that Israel is in fact doing a genocide. The solution to Israel committing a genocide is not to be antisemitic.

There are in fact several genocides currently on going: Sudan, Ukraine, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Syria, North Korea, Myanmar, India, China, Ethiopia and Congo, just to name a few. It is not racist to point it out. But it is racist to reduce any of them to merely a snarky remark in an attempt to prove how not racist you are. It is extra racist to say "other genocides" without acknowledging them specifically.

There's still hasn't been a situation where siding with the people committing the genocide turned out to be the right choice.

There's no such thing as a funny genocide joke.

No, not even that one. It's a genocide, it is inherently unfunny and if you consider that a challenge, you have lost the plot.

Primarily, though, this is a fandom blog.

Fandom is not activism and if you think it is, you owe me fucking reparations for the stupidity. If you argue about the well-being of fictional characters at the cost of real people, we're gonna have problems.

Neither you nor I are obligated to make every part of our presence online about the human rights violation of the hour. It's okay if you curate a space that exists only to make you feel better. This is my feel better corner. I will talk about things that are important to me, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated to talk about all the things that are important to me.

I reblog art I like, tumblr posts I find funny, the occasional rant and the fic I write in my spare time.

If you like my shit? Cool. Consider throwing a tip my way if you like.

But I'm not a news outlet, and unless I'm quoting extensively and providing and citing sources, I'm talking out of my ass because it's my own corner of the internet and that's what I do here.

I've been on the internet since 1998, I promise you whatever has you in a frothing rage is neither new nor unnuanced. Please assess if it's worth spending your limited time on this earth getting angry at strangers on the internet.

It sure as fuck isn't worth mine.

[eroticcannibal]

Hello, I was wondering about how to learn more about the subject matter of Zionism and the complexity of it as a term because your post about it interested me. For reference I'm not Jewish and I'm new to learning about it, though I'm staunchly against the genocide being committed against Palestinians by the Israeli government.

I've seen the way the term is used and I'm aware my information on the subject is limited, as is my personal stake in it as someone who is non-Jewish and non-Palestinian. When doing research on the subject of zionism as a historical movement, I find a lot of descriptions of it as a colonialist movement with the goal of developing an ethnostate. One sentence from the Wikipedia page on Zionism reads: "Zionist nationalism drew from a German ethnic-nationalist theory that people of common descent should seek separation and pursue the formation of their own state."

When thinking about forms of Zionism, and in relation to your post about it, what do you mean when talking about how it's a more complex issue than Zionism being bad inherently? Or is your belief more that people with Zionist beliefs should not be seen as inherently bad? I suppose I'm unsure how to conceptualize the idea of Zionism not having inherent issues if it is based on those ideas, though since I'm no historian, I'd like to learn more about the topic and complexities surrounding it.

Pre-emptively clarifying that you're under no obligation to reply, and that if I've said anything offensive, please let me know so I can learn, as that's not my intention. I'm also not trying to argue (people often think I am); I want to learn more about this topic, and I'd rather openly admit when I want to learn more rather than being performatively "educated". Thank you!

First of all thank you so much for being reasonable and curious about this

I will preface this with i am perpetually tired and a bit stupid and I dont always word things how I want to so everyone be patient and understanding especially on such a diversive topic. Ultimately everything I say is based on the view that genocide bad, peace good, people in power suck and normal people have more in common than they have differences.

Now I am not the person to go to for a proper explanation on the broadly accepted kinds of zionism and the history of it and how that feeds into the ideas around zionism that people believe *now*. Hopefully someone else can add something useful wrt that.

My experience is largely with individual zionists and their personal beliefs, motivations and actions, and what these people have made of zionism. I will also stress that I am not going to argue if zionism broadly, or any specific version of zionism, is right or wrong. I think it is a perfectly legitimate stance to argue that all forms of zionism may have inherent issues (show me an ideology that doesnt) and im certainly not informed enough to argue against that. (Maybe someone else can offer some input here). Not only is it fucking complicated, its something that does (in the case of "zionism that supports everything happening right now") and would (for any other form of zionism) affects so many different aspects of life for different groups with different priorities that I dont think anyone is going to come up with anything that everyone is happy with. (This is mostly just disclaimer for anyone pissing on the poor lol)

So when I say that zionism is too complex and broad a term to be viewed as inherently bad, I am talking about the specific nuances that individual zionists have with their beliefs. While not a zionist, I think what other tumblr users (typically those falsely accused of being zionists) said wrt being neither zionist nor antizionst helped it click in my mind how fuzzy the boundaries between these ideologies are, where you can explain your beliefs to a zionist and an anti zionist and both could think you are on "their side". Their is overlap in ideas, a state can exist in so many forms and ultimately the promise of israel to zionists is simply safety, that does not *have* to exist as a detriment to others.

I know zionists who just want to know they have somewhere to go if they need to. Others who value the Jewish claim to the area but not at the expense of palestinians who they believe also have a valid claim. I know others who *dont* believe palestinians have a valid claim but are not opposed to living alongside palestinians. Some support seperate states bordering each other due to fear of continued violence if everyone shared one state. Some simply do not see a way of dismantling Israel without the death of Israelis and non Israeli Jews who would otherwise flee there, so support the continued existance of Israel even if they are opposed to the idea of Israel. Some want to start over with something better. Some are ideologically zionist but think that everything that has happened so far has been done wrong and is doomed to failure. Some want a religious Jewish state and some only want to guarantee enough Jews in charge that it remains a haven for persecuted Jews. Some dont even want *that* and just seek a state in which some sort of constitution enshrines the right for Jews to seek safety regardless of who is actually in charge. And there are many, regardless of their particular flavour of zionism, who are educating, donating, protesting and doing direct action in support of palestinians. Very few genuinely believe that they will gain safety through genocide.

And of course with any broad ideology there will always be the extremists, those who do want palestinians dead. But this is far from representative of everyone.

But also while I wasn't explicitly trying to talk about it in that post, I do *also* think, even if someone is opposed to zionism in all its forms, it is important to not see zionists as inherently bad people. (To be clear, for this next bit i am strictly talking about the fears of Jewish zionists and their allies, not christian zionists or those weaponising zionism to support anti palestinian sentiment or antisemitism). Ultimately zionism comes from a place of cultural and current trauma. Much like I refuse to see someone with a general wariness or distrust of men due to trauma as a bad person unless they go full terf, I will not see a zionist as a bad person unless they are calling for genocide. Jews have every reason to fear for their safety and not trust any country other than Israel to protect them. History has shown that these fears are not unfounded. How can we expect Jews as a whole to reject zionism when so many feel it is their only hope for safety (especially when there is practically no talk of an alternative?) It is human to want yourself, your family and your community to be safe. I know that I would do far more than just hold a political belief, over far less than a proven history of my people being slaughtered, to protect far fewer than everyone I care about. As would most people.

(Slight tangent here but why this is so important to me is largely driven by my belief that understanding this is vital for peace so)

I also think it is simply not beneficial to palestinians to treat every zionist like their beliefs make them an inherently bad person. It further polarises things when you tell people that wanting safety means they support the very worst version of their ideology which makes them easier to radicalised because you strip them of any more moderate community support (again to make the terf analogy, they use the "if you are critical of men you are spouting terf ideology" shit as a way to recruit traumatised people), all this feeds into people pushing ideas like "all Jews must be zionists (for their own safety because no one else cares)" and therefore "all Jews are bad (because they are all zionists and zionists must support genocide)", creating that kind of fear will only lead to Israelis and palestinians being more fearful of and more radicalised against each other, which just fuels and supports violence. Us vs them has always been an effective method of radicalising people towards violence and supporting the violence a state commits. And like. Thats something that innocent normal people always lose on both sides and that only benefits people in power.

I genuinely believe that an effective way forward is to support peaceful zionism that addresses the trauma and legitimate fears that have led to zionism as an alternative for radicalised zionists (and more realistic than trying to push them towards anti zionism) but that cannot happen while all of zionism is seen as inherently genocidal.

(Also just to touch on christian zionism and the weaponising of zionism briefly, I think it does a disservice to the discussion when people do not distinguish between these and Jewish and Jewish supportive zionism. So much of the discourse around zionism, either explicitly or implicitly, targets Jewish zionism, when so much of what feeds the violence and especially financial and logistical support of violence is these other zionsims. There are more christian zionists specifically in the US alone than there are Jews in the world. And honestly it just kind of feels very wrong that these kinds of zionism get conflated to the detriment of Jews as a whole, when Christian zionism is motivated by the desire to harm Jews and weaponised zionism seeks to harm both sides.)

Anyway I hope I've addressed your questions properly (I struggle with long asks and long responses because memory issues and I have to keep scrolling up and down to reread anything). Feel free to re ask anything I missed or ask for clarification, hope I did not ramble too much on tangents. Its just one of those topics where you talk about one thing and you have to talk about everything else that connects to it.

And everyone else please be normal about this. Ultimately everyone involved in this conversation opposes genocide and supports peace, and I do not make my space welcoming to people who believe otherwise, so we can be civil and nuanced about this.

[nicklightbunny]

been meaning to ask for awhile now and now I feel brave enough to, can I hear about the fanverse incident

claps my hands together . so this might get long you’re just going to have to bear with me . some details may be foggy in my head because it’s been probably a year since ive cared or really paid much more attention than what my friends told me to it but this is , essentially , what i remember the most and what makes the fanverse a fucking disaster

so the fanverse predates the Republican donation stuff by about a year . when it was announced i think the games that stood out the most to people were the joy of creation , popgoes , candy’s , flumpty’s , and the fnaf 1 remaster ( that i’ll spend so much time on . there’s so much stuff on phisnom alone ) . TJOC and candy’s don’t really have a lot to say on them , because the creators are normal people ( ? ) who just wanted to make fnaf fan projects , and if they could make some money via assistance from Scott by means such as selling on steam and possible merchandise , of course they were gonna take it

i don’t wanna say that the cracks started to show when the creator of flumpty was outed as a pedophile and openly admitted to it and banned himself from any online space to go better himself or whatever , but i will say that you could probably guess things were only going to go downhill from there when Scott made no public statement . i guess if you’re a dick rider you can argue that fnaf has an audience of children who don’t really need to be hearing a lengthy statement from the series creator about how pedophilia is a bad thing because Obviously , but he Has made statements about that before . he cut ties with pinkypills ( supposedly ) because of her comics that portrayed william as a pedophile . this isn’t meant to come off as a defense of pinkypills because she’s a genuinely terrible person , but one would think that a real life human person grooming a minor and admitting to it would be worse than possibly having someone read a comic that would have others perceive your fictional character as a pedophile . moving on

popgoes is being developed by kane carter who’s his own brand of something . he has such a bad tendency of saying stupid shit on his Twitter and then when someone goes ‘hey man this sounds a little stupid’ he will bug out and post some heated rant before going nuclear and locking his account , rinse and repeat for however many years it’s been . <- that’s why i joke that i have beef with him . because he did that to me circa 2020 when i made a joke about his old sister location theory about it being an underground sex dungeon or something He just had to make sure i knew at 14 years old that he wasn’t serious ! and it was a product of lack of knowledge of the time or whatever . i don’t hold that against him btw i just think it’s objectively a little funny . i think in terms of fanverse reception popgoes is still held in a really high regard because it seems to be one of the only projects that’s still actually being fucking worked on . if kane carter wasn’t such a fucking bizarre guy on his Twitter im sure that he’d still have a crumb of good faith left to anyone other than the people who have been following him since he made popgoes as a one off thing and probably feel some sort of obligation to keep going

Stares At You . and phisnom . phisnom is a special guy . he was the one who was assigned to remake fnaf 1 but make it Scarier or something . i feel it’s important to say that phisnom has gone on record saying that redesigns ( such as the ones in analog horror ) that just take the base design but make it grimy and ‘scarier’ are lazy and don’t actually add anything to their base design . i don’t inherently disagree with his take but seriously look at this

yeah man you’re really dodging the ‘making it scarier just because’ allegations with this one . i honestly think that aside from the joy of creation which is just like a really impressive fan game this was probably the second most hyped up one because it was being sold as a remake to the first and it was being funded by Scott’s money . objectively for the time it felt a little bit cool and i drew fan art for it ( which i still think is cute . i wish that phisnom didn’t suck so much fucking cock and balls so that i didn’t feel bad about looking at it but it’s whatever )

where the problems with phisnom reach a head is that he’s a cunt . like really just a cunt i don’t know how else to put it . there’s nothing wrong with someone wanting to have an audience of adults or whatever especially if the thought of having an audience of children makes you uncomfortable there is Nothing wrong with that , but when you sign on to make a remake of FIVE NIGHTS AT FREDDYS you need to know what kind of fan base you’re signing up for .

phisnom’s twitter is 18+ , but he would get interactions from minors all the time . whether or not you blame the minors is up to you i guess but Again , when you’re posting about your five nights at Freddy’s project unless its just straight up porn it’s kind of absurd to think that everyone here is going to be a strong hearty adult . like let’s be so for real we all know the adults in the room aren’t funding your fan game .

what you probably heard is that after he played the ruin dlc he didn’t like it . since the dlc had just come out it had its recency bias and a kid replied to his tweet about it and then phisnom quote retweeted them and inadvertently sent his audience who aren’t stalking him for fnaf over to this child and send him gore and porn . obviously a person can’t control what their fan base does but when people were like ‘hey dude your community is sending a child gore and porn’ instead of making a tweet like ‘i don’t want you guys to do that’ he posted an ‘apology’ that just led back to a rick roll . obviously at this point he kind of just looks like an edgy child and people go to their lord and savior Scott Cawthon to get something done

by the way , i didn’t mention this yet , but this phisnom stuff happened in like July-august of last year , so it’s not like this was that long ago . that being said you also have to wonder Hey . where’s fnaf+ by now . because that was also the question that a lot of people ran back to . so you’re getting funded by both Scott cawthon and an audience of fans who are expecting a project that the creator himself managed to shit out in about a month , while you’ve been given three years to recreate some source material and you’re not done yet ? what’s taking so long ?

all of this combined into one melting pot led fnaf+ to getting canceled . go figure . scott never released his own statement on it because he’s off doing god knows but phisnom did , which basically said he’s done with fnaf and don’t ask about it or fnaf+ as a project anymore because he’s not completing it and he would like to do other project .

im sure there’s stuff i missed because of the aforementioned brain fog all the way at the start but yes . the fanverse is a fucking disaster . the joy of creation and candy’s are pretty good though

[system-of-a-feather]

Something that's worried us about fusion is how seemingly opposite or contradictory identities can become cohesive and integrated without causing further issues. From a trans perspective, some parts of us have dysphoria over the fact we have breasts now, others have dysphoria over the fact we haven't had surgery, and others still would have dysphoria if we were to have surgery.

I don't know if you have experiences with anything similar but if you have any insights into how bridging the gap may be possible it would really help <3

God yeah no, as a nonbinary system this shit fucking is hard so I feel you. I'm actually having to sit here a bit to think about how I would explain how thats ended up going with us. The short answer is, we kind of just stopped thinking too heavily about the long term goals as explicitly and trying to define our experiences into one box or another and rather than trying to debate what we'd do, we started to largely settle on "lets explore the options and be open to experiences on both and all ends and live out BOTH goals and see how / if our complex feelings on the matter change"

Because honestly - and I am hesitant to say this somewhat cause it might come off as upsetting, 'transphobic', or triggering to people who are more In the Depths of Dysphoria cause it really didn't help distressed parts in the past as much - but you would be surprised how much more okay and navigable topics are in practice than they are in your head. The world is a lot more diverse and things can be not that bad, not as bad, or completely different than you expect and with what dysphoria may tell you it would be - in both directions of 'no surgery' and 'yes surgery'.

I don't really think that fluidity of gender identity and expression really ever goes away, and honestly, it really doesn't have to. Your gender as confusing and complex and contradictory as it is, is still inherently cohesive in the sense gender doesn't have to be cohesive or permanent. Of course that doesn't help the situation with deciding permanent changes (like surgery), but at that point that's also just the curse of being nonbinary / genderfluid / bigender / polygender / pangender. And this isn't to downplay how uniquely frustrating it can be as a system, because god having those fluid changes have full on voices, personalities and identities DOES NOT help with it, but its to say that having that contradicting, confusing, and conflicting gender experience is not inherently pathological - at least not in the DID sense.

It's just stupid gender issues /affectionate /lh /being trans is suffering sometimes I swear to god/ /joking

The best way we've navigated this though is to just focus on the current present, focus on exploring and testing what is okay, helps, and hurts, focus on our current in-the-moment feelings about things as we explore it, focus on deeply understanding and talking to parts about how they are feeling in the current moment about things and keep that discussion open ended and genuinely accepting, and focus on what your feelings to their feelings are. It's a long process but explore, listen to yourself and listen to your parts WITHOUT trying to argue or push a long term future agenda or plan or anything. Just listen and focus on the present exploration.

Doing so largely helps paint a clearer image of your collective experiences and what are things that you Must Have and things that you Must Not Have as well as creative ways to Sometimes Have things and Sometimes Not Have things. You'd be pretty surprised how much exploration and focus on the present, short term possibilities can come up with some really creative ways to embrace a non-traditional expression and way of living that doesn't fit into boxes as clearly

And also, most importantly, work with a gender-informed therapist if you can cause they can be SUPER helpful in bridging and connecting experiences and adding suggestions.

[mykhanalysis]

Why Vanitas has one of the best, yet frustrating, death scene, in my opinion.

*✭˚･ﾟ✧*･ﾟ*✭˚･ﾟ✧*･ﾟ*✭˚･ﾟ✧*･ﾟ*✭˚･ﾟ✧*･ﾟ*

I want to share my comment that I left (and deleted) under a KH post discussing the deaths of the organization, so I pasted it here. I want to give credit to @demnocts because I reblogged their post because it summarized the scene so well.

*✭˚･ﾟ✧*･ﾟ*✭˚･ﾟ✧*･ﾟ*✭˚･ﾟ✧*･ﾟ*✭˚･ﾟ✧*･ﾟ*

Many people interpret Vanitas giving Sora and Ven the middle finger as his way of telling them to “fuck off” but to me, I believe he wasn't telling them to "fuck off"; rather, he was genuinely expressing the reality of his situation, accepting things as they were, and eventually finding closure.

If Vanitas had really wanted to be nasty about it, like Young Xehanort did, the scene would have been much shorter. Instead, we got a scene in which Vanitas remained calm throughout the conversation, calmly explaining and acknowledging his connections. He recognized Sora and Ventus as his brothers who complemented each other. Despite this acknowledgment, Vanitas refused to be swayed by their convictions and chose to remain true to himself.

—x—

In a world where Sora, Ven, and others have the freedom to choose their paths, whether it be the path of light or any other, it seems only fair that Vanitas should also have the right to choose the path of darkness. After all, he is a dark being himself, and it feels fitting for him to embrace his true nature. His decision is not inherently right or wrong; rather, it is a reflection of who he is at his core.

Anndd that's precisely why the conversation between Sora, Ven, and Vanitas annoyed me. It treated Vanitas' decision as ‘wrong’ or implied that he could have done ‘better’. It tried to undermine the validity of his decision.

Ironically, it was Sora and Ventus themselves who initially suggested to Vanitas that he could decide who he wanted to be. Yet, when Vanitas embraces his true nature and remains faithful to himself, they question him and become defensive. "And what you are is darkness?!" or "How is that okay? Vanitas?!” It seems as though Sora and Ventus were urging Vanitas to embrace a different path (standing on the side of the light), discouraging him from fully embracing his identity as darkness and suggesting that he could do better.

But, Darkness is his very nature and the way he came into existence. There is no room for compromise or finding a middle ground in his case. He is not a whole person in the same way that Sora and Ven are. Darkness is simply who he is. It would have been rather stupid for Vanitas to deny or reject that aspect of himself. So, instead, he acknowledges and wholeheartedly embraces it.

Vanitas was well aware that Sora and Ven had chosen to align themselves with the light. He never passed judgment on them, whereas Sora and Ven failed to extend the same acceptance towards him.

“The closer you get to the light, the greater your shadow becomes.”

—x—

Not only was that part annoying, but what bothered me further was Ven's comment, "We should be free to choose. Not just light, not just darkness". While he is right that anyone can be more than just light and darkness, I feel that Ven, of all people, shouldn't be the one to tell Vanitas this.

If Riku had said that to Vanitas, it would have made sense given what Riku had gone through and how he found closure. But, when Ventus said that to Vanitas, I couldn't help but laugh lol.

Neither of them had any say in their separation; it was an unfortunate circumstance for them. However, when it comes to certain aspects of their separation, it could be argued that Ven had the better outcome. Ven was less likely to be judged or shunned because he was inherently connected to the light. He has an advantage in terms of societal acceptance over Vanitas, who was born with the nature of darkness and negativity. Moreover, Ven was provided with nurturing care and proper healing after the separation. He found himself surrounded by companionship and support, which undoubtedly contributed to his well-being. This environment and the presence of individuals who cared for him allowed Ven to flourish and grow to an extent.

On the other hand, the less appealing aspects of their separation fell on Vanitas.

- He was born from not just one, but two chaotic elements: darkness and negativity. Vanitas was doomed to be anything but normal, let alone stable, due to this confluence of chaotic elements.

- Darkness and negativity were already stigmatized and viewed as undesirable traits, andddd Vanitas embodied both. DOUBLE HOMICIDE lmao ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

- As if being born from darkness and negativity couldn't get any more dire, the depths of his existence extends as his negative emotions leak out and manifest into physical monstrosities.

- Vanitas will always feel incomplete because he isn't a whole person. He felt a deep sense of dissatisfaction and emptiness, even after reconstructing his heart using negativity. The led him to attempt to extract Ven from within Sora, as absorbing his other half would complete and stabilize him.

- For four years, he was raised by Xehanort, a man who was neither virtuous nor morally upright. This is so self-explanatory. TRIPLE HOMICIDE.

(Off topic: Did you guys know that in dark road, Xehanort implied he was going to harm Vanitas, and even THEE, Vanitas, was shaken by the threat?)

Anyway, it is definitely easier for Ven to say that considering he ended up with the more advantageous share of their separation, while Vanitas was left to deal with the less appealing parts.

Even though I was annoyed by the conversation, I was satisfied that Vanitas went out the way he did. It’s refreshing to see an antagonist who isn’t easily swayed by the protagonist or the heroes. He remained true to his himself and embraced his role as a harbinger of chaos and evil.

[gaykey]

I'd guess i'd argue both opinions are true and missing the point of each other. Shinee have always been malleable which is part of what makes them great, their title tracks are never quite the same and they have the talent to dip their toes into anything. So HARD being this isn't inherently 'not shinee enough' in that there is no particular sound that is shinee. Shinee is about the intent and the talent.

At the same time, I think HARD does feel like SM forcing them to do something that SM is doing right now and it kind of reeks of that, so people are going to be disappointed. Of the NCT-style tts SM have put out, HARD is the only one I find tolerable and I think its because Shinee are so versatile and talented that they can almost make it not look stupid or sound quite so bad, but it doesn't "feel like shinee" in that it kind of feels like the company trying to make them sound like the other boy groups they have and it just doesn't work for me. It sounds like an NCT title track.

ok, very true and i would agree mostly

and i thought the same re: sm forcing the track on them, but then, they themselves really really wanted hard?

maybe it was because it was between juice and hard, and they felt like hard was the less shitty option? but, if shinee have enough sway to deny a tt that sm is forcing on them, you'd think they have enough to choose the title that they really do want.

and they picked hard.

and they've been so excited about hard.

also the 'it sounds like nct' thing.

at first i was in agreement, but after reading a lot of amber's posts, and realising kenzie produced - not demjointz - i'd say its more of an ode to first gen kpop.

kenzie is really well respected producer amongst shinee, as well as the korean music industry.

so yeah, i get why it could sound like an nct song at first (this is sm after all) but, i think there are ayers to it tbh

i think it's shinee, in terms of production, direction, intent, the hybrid style, the nostalgic elements, and that is the hill i have chosen to die on

[redheadbigshoes]

I hope to come off genuinely, but this post is literally just lesbophobic. Saying that butch/femme is heteronormative when it absolutely isn't. They're lesbian identities, not replicas of straight relationships. And no one is saying u can't be butch4butch or femme4femme. Not to mention butch doesn't mean masculine and femme doesn't mean feminine, an extremely common misconception among non-lesbians and even lesbians. There are plenty of femmes, for example, that are gnc. So, in this case, if a gnc femme is femme4butch, how does a relationship between two GNC lesbians equate to a mimic of heterosexuality? It doesn't. For sure, there are plenty of feminine femmes and plenty of masculine butches that date each other, but that's an individual preference and an expression of their gender and relationship to womanhood. And really, you would only think butch-femme relationships are "heteronormative" if you truly believe that it's a man-woman roleplaying type of relationship, which tells me you view butches as men, or trying to be men, which has never been the case. Plain lesbophobia and butchphobia. Not to mention literally No One is making anyone identify as butch or femme or stud or anything else. That's the silliest thing ever. Most lesbians don't ID as such so idk where this misconception came from.

I’ve never said being butch or femme is inherently heteronormative, I’m not responsible if you completely lack reading comprehension skills. I was responding to that anon who said people box us into stereotypes, they box us in heteronormative stereotypes. If you didn’t understand what I said you could’ve just asked, not straight come to me anonymously to call me lesbophobic simply because I complained about lesbians being forced to be put into boxes of femme or butch when a lot of us don’t fit in those.

I’ve never said people say you can’t be butch4butch or femme4femme, I complain about how people treat those preferences very differently than they treat butch4femme or femme4butch. Again, your assumptions are not my responsibility.

Butch doesn’t mean masculine (or femme doesn’t mean feminine), however the thing that connects being butch is masculinity just as the thing that connects femmes is femininity. If there was absolutely no criteria for those terms then they wouldn’t mean anything.

I’m sorry but I cannot argue with someone who jumps to assuming things and coming off very aggressively without trying to understand what I mean. You’re very welcome to leave my blog for your own sake and mine because I won’t waste my time with someone who thinks what they assumed of what I said is actually what I said. You can be stupid somewhere else.

[xqueerneurosisx]

Tbh I feel like when most people say "Narcissistic Abuse doesn't exist" they usually mean is that: a, People with are not inherently abusive, and b, What people call Narcissistic Abuse is a vague term referring to the identity of the abuser rather than the abuse itself.

I don't think (or at least hope) that anyone is meant to dismiss anyone's experiences, or that these patterns and abusive situations of this complexity don't exist, but a lot of people who regularly post about N. Abuse have often equate abusive behavior with NPD and have this "evil narcs!!" mentality, which is one hand not true, and on the other not what people clinically refer to as n. abuse.

Nonny, what the entire fuck else do you expect to happen, when people go into the NA tags, specifically to post shit like “Daily reminder: NA isn’t real~ uwu” and then when they, inevitably, are challenged on that, because NA is already treated as a real, clinical thing by professionals, no matter how many times they post it’s not real, they just go: “NA doesn’t exist, block me if you ~beeellieeeevveee in it~” Or WORSE! To other traumatized people, mind you. Like, even if they do mean ALL of that you’re saying, they’ve got the fucking worst way of showing it I’ve ever seen. Not to mention that’s the definition of gaslighting, so uh Oof?? On that one??

Hell, even when I got fed up and actually made a post about it, just outright asking people for a word to focus on, rbs went out of their way to tone police ME instead, and made sure to let me know just how stupid they thought it was of me to use a term that I didn’t fucking choose to make clinical in the first place.

And how the hell is “This is not real,” supposed to help that misinformation anyway?! If anything, that call is coming from inside the house, because there are those with NPD actually posting “How to deal with us,” shit out there too, so like how is telling everybody it’s not real even helpful to any of us?! Spoiler alert: it’s not. In fact, I’d argue that it does more harm than anything, because they also could just be correcting people that Being abusively Narcissistic is not the same as having NPD?? But for some reason, nobody even wants to remember the fact that “being narcissistic,” is a thing? Ya know the personality trait that still exists even without the disorder?? Same as how you can be depressed without inherently having MDD?? Like that’s just using the term NA to stigmatize, which sure, we can still change the words around to avoid the confusion, but that doesn’t change anything about those people doing that with the term, because that’s already a deliberate action on their part anyway! That already means they know the correct information and still chose to use it for stigma, which they’re still going to try to do, no matter what changes are made.

Listen, I’m not here to try and tell anyone else what they are and aren’t harmed by. It’s not my fucking place. I’m already tagging my posts including this answer with “Complex Abuse,” instead. But just like I can use that tag instead of NA, people can also use a different fucking statement to bring up what they want to say about the stigma, because all I see “NA doesn’t exist,” doing is: hurting other abuse survivors. And that’s fucked up.

[forgottenyear]

[this is kind of an open message to a friend in need. i have not been sure how to word this for a direct message]

--

I have a memory of my old therapist telling us to think about the ex-fiancée in human terms. We were still working from the old models inherited from the parents, and I suppose we were doing what the mother does about the father to this day – mythologizing them into some form of perfection.

The ex-fiancée told us we were abusive. (This is probably another reason I fear the previous parts.) I cannot argue if we were or not. But being first to accuse the other does not absolve the accuser. It was clearly a toxic relationship, and we were both wounded and ill-equipped from childhood.

Only a year or more passed before I became front. Things came to a head over the next decade, and I was accused of being abusive by my current partner. This time, however, exposed that my partner was taking advantage of my familiarity with the role of scapegoat.

It was around this time that I began saying to friends that if I was still being abused, after a decade, it had more to do with my choices than my partner’s. Something changed then. I could still look at myself and self-correct, but I think I finally accepted that I am not guilty of everything I am accused to be. I came out of this period with more people recognizing that I am a good person than not. It was an awkward time, and it has continued to be awkward for me.

This recent hospital visit brought about another change. When people who have only known me for a week at most say that they see me as a good and conscientious person, I have to accept there may be something to it. These were not loyal comrades of old saying these things.

And realizing that I was not the only front at the time of the hospital, I find that Angela was, perhaps, not best described by the ex-fiancée.

I am not sure there can be such redemption for the boy. His time was defined by the parents, the church, and the wider community. It continues to be difficult to separate myself from the labels. I still struggle with acceptance that I am not inherently bad, stupid, and worthless. It feels like an impossibility for them, coming from a reality in which good is bad and bad is good. A reality in which we were bad, and our abusers were good.

I know that we were not a healthy partner for the ex-fiancée. That much is inescapable. But this does not absolve them of anything. They were also unhealthy. We were two wounded children who knew nothing about how to care for one another’s wounds.

If I can rely on recent descriptions of myself, no matter how awkward I feel being described in this way, then I have grown at least a little from that time.

[helpmeimblorboing]

I fucking hate the terms "No gay shit" or "No homo", because like.. fine, you're cracking a joke by saying it, but it's a joke that is inherently rooted in toxic masculinity and homophobia. It shows that you see being gay as "undesirable".

Some would argue that it's less homophobia and more toxic masculinity. I would respond that that Venn diagram is almost a perfect circle

Lots of homophobia is actually misogyny in disguise. Men hating men for being like women

See also, the whole double standard with rape.

Sometimes when the perpetrator's a woman, you'll see people essentially assuming the "Not if they enjoyed it" argument automatically applies, because as a man, you're expected to always desired hetero-sex. But otherwise, and always if the perpetrator's another man, people will attack the victim for not being strong and masculine enough to fight off their assailant.

All of this directly harms men. But these people are too stupid to realize that

It's not masculinity/feminity either

In some minds there's "that which is to be dominated" and "that which dominates"

If you're raised to think masculinity dominates femininity then you will do anything to avoid appearing feminine (if you don't want to be dominated).

This is a reinforced thing among women, too. Actively looking for men that put down femininity around them, not because they specifically always want to be dominated, but the imperative is to find a guy that dominates other guys.

This also leads to parents who'll state up and down they don't care about gay people being gay until their children exhibit qualities they view as homosexual, and now it's the end of the world because that domination is coming for their children, in their mind.

It's also why the bigot sphere has basically no problem with trans men vs trans women.

It's all averages, of course. There are people who are super feminine who view "that which is to be dominated" as the biggest most masculine things they can find. It's just the particular strain that wins out among the most of us appears to be the other one.

Regardless, this leads to a culture where "being gay" = "being feminine" , and "being feminine" = "weak and undesirable", which manages to loop in sexism, toxic masculinity and homophobia

Almost impressive, were it not so depressing, and it is that culture which gives birth to jokes like "No homo" and "No gay shit"

TLDR : "No homo" and "No gay shit" were never funny and were always homophobic

[beesmygod]

THIS IS DEATH OF THE AUTHOR:

thought experiment: imagine a text whose author does not exist. the text simply appeared out of thin air one day, attributed to nobody and with absolutely no clear origin. let’s use the fanfiction “my immortal” as an example.

we cannot interview the author of “my immortal” (they’ve all been debunked, stick with the thought experiment right now). we can’t ask them their inspirations or the purpose of the text. we can’t investigate their lives to determine more information about how they came to develop the ideas within. we don’t know what influenced them, both in stylistic terms and thematic/ideological. the text simply exists without context.

how would we start to approach a literary critique of something like this? how do we determine meaning from it? the original essay regarding the “death of the author” concept argues in favor of reading a text in a way that prioritizes an individual’s interpretation versus approaching art as though there is one objective true meaning about each art piece. that is to say: what do YOU get out of it?

both of these means of approaching the text are valid (i won’t say equally bc let’s be real some motherfuckers have some really stupid individual interpretation based on ignorant readings) but both also serve different purposes and are trying to achieve different things. “death of the author” is not more valid, it’s just a more recent concept to be adopted in academia so its fresh and exciting to dig into.

if we were to take a look at “my immortal” using the original academic framework, we would be investigating what we do know about the author (both in the fictional biography that plays out in the authors notes and what little real info we might have) and the time period the text took place in (for example, we would examine fan fiction culture of the time, what bad fan fiction looked like in the early 2000s, what the harry potter fandom was doing that flavored this text, fan fiction specific dramas that influenced it, etc).

if we were to take a “death of the author” approach, we would each come away with different, but likely overlapping, interpretations of the text based entirely on its contents. i might look at how it treats women using a modern lens (as opposed to looking at it as a product of its time), or how clothing/bands are used as a means of demonstrating who in the cast is moral and who is not and how that ties into a greater consumer culture. or something. i dont care what you do. you get it, right.

EASY CHEAT SHEET:

“normal” critique: seeks a universal true meaning of a work by examining the circumstances in which a work was created and stressing the author’s intentions.

“death of the author” critique: seeks an individual interpretation of a work and stresses the importance of the reader’s influence on how they interpret the work.

VERY IMPORTANT: your individual interpretation is not inherently correct because you are using the “death of the author” framework to critique it. if your interpretation is inexplicable and you cannot communicate it to other people convincingly, then there’s a very real possibility your interpretation just sucks.

[c-is-for-circinate]

Like, is the gist "Real life pedophilia/incest/rape is bad, and stories saying these things are good are bad, but including these topics in a story isn't inherently bad, so the people being like 'hey, maybe Ao3 shouldn't have so much kiddie porn there's an entire category called "Underage"' are just overreacting and making things worse?" Because it feels like you're saying, "your negative reaction to this stuff is valid, but also you're annoying and prudish and bad and really you aren't valid."

So here’s the thing: it really does not sound like you're asking this question because you want my answer, it sounds like you want to be angry with me and have a fight. And fair enough! I'm not terribly interested in a fight, but apparently this is my day to dive into this topic as thoughtfully and honestly as I can be. Maybe I'll say something you haven't already heard from other people before. Maybe not! Only you, anonymous asker, know that.

To begin with, you got part of the gist right. Real life rape (including child abuse/child sexual abuse as well as incest) is bad. Stories about rape, about underage sex, and about incest, are stories.

They're stories. They're pixels on a screen. They're not real. Whether they claim that rape is good, or bad, or sexy, or melodramatic, or life-destroying, or a normal Tuesday afternoon. They're stories.

And having a negative reaction to them is valid. Stories can stir up powerful emotions in people. It is absolutely, 100%, fair and valid and even normal for there to be certain tropes, plot elements, events, and kinds of content that make you upset and that you never want to see in a story you read, ever. You don't have to want to read about sex. You don't have to want to read any of it. That doesn't make you bad.

There are tropes, plot elements, events, and kinds of content that upset me. There are stories I won't read. The same is true of literally everyone else I know. Even though I know the stories aren't real. Even though I know the things happening in them are happening to fictional characters, who do not exist, who I cannot protect and who also cannot be harmed because they're not real. Even then, I can be made sad and scared and upset and hurt by reading those stories. And that is okay and that is valid and I am not bad or wrong for being upset about the story I've read, and neither are you.

But that doesn't mean the story doesn't have value to somebody else. That doesn't mean the story isn't important to somebody else.

What I see most often coming from antis, possibly even including yourself, is an overwhelming desire to protect. They want to keep themselves and others--possibly people they know, possibly hypothetical people they may never meet--safe from being hurt by these stories. And that desire to protect, also, is normal. It's even admirable! The problem, though, the thing that does more harm than good, is when that desire to protect drives people to lash out against things that matter to other people.

There is a difference between actual rape and stories about rape. There is a difference between a story that could theoretically hurt somebody, someday (which is all stories, always), and a story that hurts you personally. And there is a difference between a story that hurts you personally, and a story that is inherently poisonous to everyone who touches it.

We know--absolutely, scientifically, incontrovertibly--that stories about rape do not make people rapists. Yes, even the stories where the rape is there to be sexy. Even stories where the person being raped is a child. Even then. Fiction is not the same thing as normalization; again, there are far smarter people who have written far more extensively on that topic than I, and next time I come across something that goes more into detail on this point I promise I will reblog it. If this really is the thing you're afraid of, I may not be the right person to convince you that this is an unfounded fear, but I know someone out there can elaborate on it.

(Unfounded, which is not the same thing as invalid. My mother's claustrophobia is unfounded; it flares up in many situations where there's no physical threat whatsoever, where she has plenty of space to move and air to breathe. It's still real. It still chokes her. It's still valid, she is not bad or broken to feel that way, and she still can't drive through certain tunnels. The fear is real. But the thing she's afraid of can't physically hurt her, and that is worth knowing in terms of how she deals with it.)

We know, absolutely, scientifically, and incontrovertibly, that stories about rape and many, many, many other things can hurt and even traumatize their readers. Even though the situation you're reacting to is not real and you receive no physical injury, you can still be hurt by it. The key word there, though, is readers. The fact that the horror genre is out there terrifying people who enjoy being terrified for fun does not damage me unless I do something stupid and try listening to the Magnus Archives again and end up tense and miserable and paranoid for the rest of the week. The fact that guacamole is apparently delicious to everybody else in the world does not hurt me unless I do something stupid and order the wrong thing at a restaurant, and end up itchy and miserable with a little trouble breathing for the rest of the night.

The fact that there are, yes, tens of thousands of fics on AO3 in which characters under the age of 18 have sex? It can't hurt you. Those fics do not hurt you by existing. They can only hurt you if you read them. They can only hurt anyone who reads them. That's why there is an 'Underage' tag--and it's worth noting, 'Underage' is a warning, not a category. Nobody wants you to get hurt reading the wrong fic, any more than the sushi chef wants my throat to swell up because I ordered something with avocado. Literally nobody wants that.

The flip side, of course, is that you hating each and every one of those fics individually and as a group doesn't actually hurt me, or anyone else who writes, reads, or enjoys them. By itself. You can hate anything you like, and fic writers can write anything they like, and it all comes out in the end, more or less. Except.

Except that reading fic is always, entirely, 100% opt-in, and online harassment isn't even opt-out. Some antis have a nasty habit of going after writers whose content they don't like; climbing into inboxes and comments sections, calling those writers nasty names, throwing around cruelties and aggression and insults. I know that's not the same thing as simply disliking a genre, or even passively disagreeing with its existence (although disliking a genre and disagreeing with its right to exist are also very different things). I know not all antis do that. I don't know you, anon, but based on the speed and aggressiveness of this response to my last post, I can't help but wonder if you would do that.

And that does hurt people. Just like it might hurt you if someone threw a bunch of content that makes you uncomfortable into your inbox. Including the harasser, actually--because getting into fights with strangers on the internet about things that make you angry, sad, defensive, and upset isn't good for anybody. Including both you and me.

Anyway, after yet another lengthy ramble, let's get the tl;dr response to your ask here: nobody is ever bad or wrong for disliking certain content in their stories, no matter what that content is. You and your emotions are valid. The "overreacting and making things worse" part isn't about what you feel, but what you do with it. Constantly engaging with places where the thing that upsets you will probably show up, even to argue and try to fight it, will make things worse in the sense that now you're spending way more time thinking about this thing that makes you upset and angry, thereby leaving you more upset and angry. Getting together with a bunch of your upset, angry friends to make your feelings everybody else's problem? Makes fandom a more toxic place for everyone else involved.

Don't read stuff that's going to hurt you. Don't make other people read stuff that's going to hurt them. That's the whole thing, really.

[headspace-hotel]

Given I agree with you on this issue, I'm curious what you think is really going on with the perceptions of a mass-stagnation in people's media interaction habits, because it feels like there's a real frustration there just being expressed in the worst, most snobby ways. (1/2)

My hypothesis is it's at least in part a reaction to how independent/transgressive artists are struggling so hard (You see this a lot in the critiques by Liz Ryerson & Sam Keeper) and an anger at people supporting big media franchises/fanworks instead of said small artists rotting in poverty, and partially a reaction of blaming fandom culture for enabling the monopolies currently strangling art b/c consumer-activism-mindset in the face of government failure's warped us all. (2/2). To be clear, I think the way they've chosen to respond are maladaptive at best and cruel and ableist at worst, especially when using mediums without percieved aesthetics of respectability as a punching bag, but I think they do need to be addressed or the asshole brigade's gonna steer this conversation off a cliff. (3/2)

Mostly, I have problems with the idea that there is something inherently inferior about fanfiction as a medium. There's no reason why that would be true. It's just a medium.

As for the reason why people increasingly read fan-fiction rather than books? I would argue that the people who "only read fanfiction" probably wouldn't be reading books anyway, and blaming individuals for the death of art is stupid when we've known for a long time that a significant percentage of adults do not read at all.

Why don't they read? I'm an American, and at least in my home state of Kentucky, the answer is very likely that they can't.

According to this report, a whole 40% of adults in my state can read on only a basic level. Included in that 40% is the nearly 15% of adults that are virtually illiterate. Other reports from this past year have said that almost a third of kids in Kentucky schools have basically no reading skills.

This is not a whole hell of a lot better than the rest of the U.S. Many, many adults in poorer communities in the U.S. barely attain the ability to read past an elementary school level.

Fanfiction might actually be a net gain in terms of how much people read in total. We just don't know. Many students do come out of high school hating reading, and/or barely able to read, and comparatively with fanfiction it's hard to find out what kinds of books you might be into.

Like I was privileged in that I grew up being read to CONSTANTLY and I was able to retain those skills.

But kids in American high schools are forced to read stuff like Moby Dick or the Scarlet Letter, they don't learn jack shit, and then they're thrown to the wolves.

Okay. What would a world where people who didn't properly learn to read in school could easily pick up reading look like?

Here's what really grinds my gears about disdainful posts about fanfiction: The people saying that books should have tags like on ao3 are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Some of the basic things that you look for when finding a book to read are the following: the tone, the types of character dynamics, the themes and subjects, potentially disturbing or triggering content you want to avoid.

There. That's Ao3 tags, ya pretentious asshats.

Frankly, a tagging system for books coming into more frequent usage would help both authors and readers. A huge amount of negative reviews on Amazon and Goodreads come from people who were just misled about what the book was going to contain. They looked at the cover and thought the book looked like it was going to have action and adventure, but it was primarily court intrigue and slow-burn romance.

A lot of authors get fucked over when their books are given misleading covers or marketed to the wrong sub-group and readers get disappointed.

On that note: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG OR NEW ABOUT READING FORMULAIC PLOTS OVER AND OVER.

I would like to direct the Bitch-and-complainers to the romance and crime/thriller sections of the library, THE LARGEST PORTION OF BOOKS ADULTS READ I might add.

There's a little niche for sweet romances about Amish girls in sunbonnets, and for angsty romances about detectives falling for the edgy asshole with a heart of gold. There's a niche for romances about women falling in love with dragon shapeshifter dudes, cowboys, cops, vampires, billionaires, you name it, there's a whole ass list about it on Goodreads. Romance readers know at a glance whether they're holding something sweet and chaste or steamy and kinky af, whether the sexy hero is going to be an edgy asshole or a sweetie, whether the heroine is getting in some illicit action in between escapades as a detective or whatever or if she's being courted by a gentlemanly figure who hopes to make her his wife.

Horrifying, I know, the concept of people seeking out specific dynamics and tropes they like and reading them over and over again.

If you're into, like, SFF stuff, though? It is hard as fuck to find specific types of book you like and seek them out. I say this as someone who reads more SFF than almost anybody I know. It's lawless. You have to DELVE.

And icky stuff and weird kinks are still there, they just aren't tagged! Last year I encountered both a book containing horribly detailed mpreg and a book where the love interest licked a puddle of a random stranger's piss.

[nyaacatboy]

so i'm currently in my bridgerton brainrot era specifically when it comes to s2 and lately i have been Thinking of a kanthony slightly-to-the-left-of-show-canon (i haven't read the books nobody sue me) au in which anthony, instead of being like "this is the year i find a bride :|" is going "this is the year that i Perfectly Head-Of-Household my sister's courtship & marriage" bc he fucked up so thoroughly with daphne that now he's thinking. time for take 2 with eloise. i'll get a wife when none of my sisters are debuting that year. kate is doing the same thing as canon but well. the tension is a bit different.

this of course means that anthony is Heavily Supervising eloise (violet in the background going "dear, i think you're suffocating her") while continually affirming that he is NOT on the market at the moment thankyouverymuch. his expectations of helping eloise range from worst case "she hates me forever & becomes a spinster" to best case "she marries really well and it's a credit to the bridgerton name" with a begrudging middle ground of "me and mom will wear her down enough to get married next season." so obviously, eloise is not going to get away with writing the names of authors on her dance card. oh no. oh no no no. anthony is introducing her to every single guy with the hopes that eloise is picky enough to pick a good one, he just has to get her in the range of the husbands she's picking. there is still the kanthony morning ride meet cute of course i'm not messing with perfection.

so, at the first ball, anthony has FINALLY gotten eloise corralled into filling up her dance card and she is dancing with some eligible young lord that anthony personally despises for Petty reasons but he's Not Making Daphne's-Courtship Errors Again So She Will Dance With People And Maybe Have Fun. he's watching her like a hawk from the edge of the dance floor because if there's one thing eloise is good at it's sneaking off. when, to his left, he hears a familiar voice say "It appears your matchmaking skills are as deficient as your horsemanship."

it's kate, who is also watching edwina dance and sizing up who she's dancing with. anthony, of course, has some clever retort about how less-suitable partners make the suitable ones look better by comparison. and they're off, trading gossip about everyone in the ton loud enough for everyone to hear in a series of complicated and increasingly stupid arguments about who would be better with who because of what pedigree and accounts and ugh. pen is sitting at the wall behind them hastily taking mental notes for lady whistledown.

this continues, of course, after that first ball. i imagine that anthony drops his whole "marriages don't need love" thing then, but him and kate are on good enough terms for it to be a friendly argument rather than a Horrific Dealbreaker. besides, she's not evaluating him as a husband, just as someone to talk with while she supervises her sister's courtship. they are exactly as stupid as in canon, but with a fun twist of actually going through courtship rituals with one another without realizing it. and doing so publicly, might i add. however, they're insistent on the fact that they are simply friends, nothing more throughout all of this. the reactions of the people around them start as "you're friends? i thought you hated each other" and evolve into "are you sure you guys are just friends." there are a ton of fun scenarios i imagine, esp with violet and anthony.

violet: where are you off to at this hour? it's so early.

anthony: i am going to call on the sharmas before eloise's suitors arrive. miss sharma has informed me that indian tea is inherently better than british and i should like to see if her claim is true.

violet: is that not the girl you were arguing with at last night's dance? i thought you would be sick of bickering with her by now.

anthony: well, i hope that this visit will put our argument to rest. good day, mother.

it is several weeks later that violet fully puts together the pieces that her son, who is apparently "off the market," talked with a girl all of the night and called on her the next morning.

meanwhile edwina is actually wise to what the hell is going on here bc she's not blinded by a crush on anthony (being the season's diamond just means you have a braincell ok) and so is teasing the living hell out of her sister for having the viscount as a suitor. i picture the sharmas being asked to dinner for similar, bullshit reasons. "oh you must see how eloquently gregory speaks latin if you are to judge my means of running a household miss sharma" "alas i would be remiss to dine at a house with a cook less gifted than the danbury's, i think i will be fine staying at home lord bridgerton" "well tell me your favorite dish miss sharma and i shall have our cook prepare it. if it is not to your liking you may assist me in hiring a new one." etc. etc. etc. yaknow. foreplay.

at some point in this endeavor, they are insulting each other as usual and kate says something insulting about his brothers. which, well, anthony is well aware that they're annoying little buggers, but he's the only one who gets to call them that. so he talks them up like nobody's business, and, just to drive the point home, suggests that they would each be suitable for edwina. after all, the family already has one diamond, why not two? kate says she'll give them a chance with her sister provided that they are not too much like their brother. i think it would be extremely hilarious if anthony tried to pressure his brothers into dancing with edwina, especially because i think colin would just run for the hills after what happened with marina while benedict would be like "you fucking hypocrite. i will do it for three bottles of brandy." (anthony, desperate to wipe the smirk off kate's face: "deal.")

so now as far as they are concerned, there is perfect plausible deniability for them to be spending so much goddamn time together (like half the town hasn't caught on already lmao). this of course means edwina is extremely sick of her sister's shit. also, by this point (pre-aubrey house stuff), eloise has figured out how to game the stupid dances through a combination of dancing with her brothers & the few noble men she can tolerate , foisting anyone she doesn't want to dance with onto penelope, and pretending to enjoy small talk while stuffing herself with food & drinks so that it looks like she's socializing. anthony (a complete fucking dumbass) is convinced that he's made a respectable lady out of eloise and lets his guard down a little bit.

lady danbury has been talking with edwina and knows exactly what is going on. she gets violet to announce that anthony is looking for a wife like in canon (although it is later in the season). he is immediately mobbed with debutantes & spends part of a ball miserably dancing. once he manages to free himself he runs over to kate, pulls her aside, explains the situation, and asks her to dance with him because she's the only interesting lady to dance with here. so, they dance and violet and lady danbury watch.

violet: i don't know why you thought announcing that would make anthony more willing to court, he's back with that sharma girl again.

lady danbury: yes, that means it's working.

violet: what do you mean it's-

*insert kate and anthony dancing in the most get-a-fucking-room, how-do-you-make-a-dance-this-formal-horny way*

violet: oh. OH. i see, lady danbury. we must see how this progresses.

yeah so they just dance with no one but each other for the rest of the dances. it's extremely fucking annoying to everyone because anthony's not giving anyone a chance and him and kate are using it somewhat as an excuse to spy on their little sisters more. eloise and edwina know what's up and keep exchanging looks across the dance floor as kate and anthony helicopter-older-sibling them. i imagine then that getting the sharmas to aubrey hall is a sort of mutual scheming thing. eloise lies that benedict and edwina are getting on well (they dance with one another once a ball to keep kanthony off their asses but edwina is really not interested in art movements and benedict is not interested in marriage) and so it would make sense for them to be invited to aubrey hall. anthony agrees & sends out the things. cue aubrey hall shenanigans. anthony and kate keep going off alone together, and they are way too stubborn to realise that at this point most people think they're engaged.

anthony: i am going to show lady sharma around the grounds some so that she can better understand her poor pall-mall strategy.

violet: oh, not without a chaperone i hope.

anthony: mothER, i am twenty-nine years of age, you can trUst that i have no intention of interfering with miss sharma's HONOR

*the entire table shares a look*

lady danbury: very well, but when people are here for the country ball you should ensure that they do not get the wrong idea.

bee sting, midnight library meeting, etc. they are horny motherfuckers indeed. violet asks anthony if he wants his father's engagement ring to give to kate, he unconvincingly tells her that she annoys him and he has no intention of marrying her. violet just gives him a Look. anthony says he will take it in case one of his brothers decides to declare their intentions. violet lets him knowing full well that her son is an idiot.

at the ball, kate dances with *gasp* someone else, leaving anthony to pine from across the dance floor as he dances with some debutante. he pulls her aside afterwards, asking if the dance was to her liking (in an extremely Jealous manner, of course). they bicker their way into the library, where they have a lovely damning sexually tense almost-kiss. daphne walks in on them as before, but anthony "i hate having emotional conversations" bridgerton simply decides that he is going to dance the night away with kate about it. he avoids her like the plague.

daphne: ah, brother, there you are! i wish to talk to you about a private matter, would you join me in the-

anthony: ms sharma i believe they are playing a quadrille next, is that not one of your favorite dances?

kate, not entirely sure what is going on here: it is indeed, i can't believe you remembered such a detail about my personal tastes, especially when it pertains to dancing. i thought you danced with me out of necessity, not desire.

*you can imagine the flirting and sexual tension that goes here*

basically, by the end of this trip they have both realized their feelings and are trying very hard to tamp them down. of course, penelope can't resist a good scandal, so the next edition of lady whistledown is heavily about them literally dancing the whole night together. finding eloise a husband has completely slipped from anthony's mind, so she is no longer foisting suitors onto pen but just plain running away from them as usual. pen has her Observation Time back and oh god. she writes them for filth. eloise hands anthony the lady whistledown with a shit-eating grin on her face and watches as her older brother is thrown into a rage about how he does not love her. were popcorn a thing in this era all of the bridgertons would be eating it as they watch anthony frantically deny any affections for kate while getting more and more unhinged.

cue a bridgerton-danbury Damage Control Dinner, where after all the awkward "how do we salvage this" conversation is done kanthony manage to sneak away to make out because. yaknow. it's Them. i think the boating scene and the falling-into-the-water bit should happen as in canon because. well. they don't exactly have wet t-shirt contests in the regency era. edwina's the one who tells kate not to stare though. then of course, several more sexually tense balls in which kanthony are now Determinedly staying apart from each other and eyefucking from across the dance floor. this does not deter lady whistledown although she cools it a bit. they still haven't properly talked about their feelings, but at the first ball of "let's remain separate" they certainly have a Talk. a heated talk.

at one of the soiree's, the queen is watching for whistledown & eloise sneaks off, getting caught with theo and of course. the queen threatens, eloise tells pen, and anthony decides he has the brilliant idea to distract people from him and kate that is holding a ball. no one shows like canon because eloise betrayal. so. um. yeah. Terrace Scene Time. basically proceeds like canon from here on out with the exception of we see the kanthony wedding because i want to see the kanthony wedding. that is all good night.