#DO NOT get racist about this in the notes

[bougiebutchbitch]

I'm not in the ofmd fandom but I am intrigued by the drama. spill the tea?

OH GOD OKAY

Where do I begin lksdlgkfds

Okay so

There’s this nasty little gremlin-man in ofmd called Izzy Hands. He’s a sour, mean, skrunkly, disabled little cunt who is a firm believer in Respect and Discipline (in a very queer subby way).

This is to say: he is. Explicitly. Queer. He does drag on the show, and has a whole coming-out scene. He is a kinky masochist. He confesses his love for another man, and basically ruins his own life & everyone else's, because he is sooooo pathetically jealous about this man (his captain!) falling for some milquetoast loser white rich guy, when Izzy, a badass leather-wearing working-class sword-swinging swashbuckler, is right there making puppy-eyes at him.

He's wrong! He's horrid! He's a bastard, pickled in piss and vinegar! He's five-foot-nothing of spite and gay self-loathing! He's very fun to watch, and very, very queer.

People still insist that he’s straight. And racist. Despite there being 0 textural evidence to support this, and the creators of the show repeatedly saying that this is absolutely not what they wrote.

Why do people hate him so much? Simple! Because he ‘got in the way’ of the main ship.

Yup. It’s basically ‘bash the girl who gets in the way of our m/m otp’ only the girl is a grizzled 50-something year old pirate.

The main ship, btw, is between Ed Teach, an awesome complex flawed hopeful beautiful character of colour; and Stede Bonnet, another awesome complex flawed character. Who is a white guy. And who happens to be a rich plantation owner from the 1700s. Based on A LITERAL SLAVE OWNER. Who is explicitly shown to be a Problematic White Guy with fucked-up racist views.

Like. He’s not a perfect guy. The show makes this very, very clear - to the point where Stede pushes Ed into sex super-fast immediately after Ed says he wants to go slow, and this makes Ed run away and freak out.

But somehow, Certain Fans still insist that Izzy is to blame because :checks notes: he makes one cheeky, friendly joke about them finally getting together that is clearly given & received in good spirits.

Yeah.

There's a lot of this cognitive dissonance going on. And it's very, very wilful.

Basically: a certain subset of people who ship Ed and Stede refuse to exercise the slightest bit of critical thought of Stede’s views and actions (which are a representation of the white landed gentry!) but insist on maliciously twisting literally everything Izzy says or does to cast him as The Ultimate Villain. Whereas anyone watching the show can tell that he starts off as an antagonist-with-a-deeply-hidden-heart-of-gold, whose entire arc is about growth and redemption.

I think 99% of this is projection. Stede and Ed are not perfect by any means, but these people are so dead-set on shipping a Cute Fluffy Romance (when that. Really isn’t what the show gave us) that they have to create a villain out of Izzy and blame all of Stede and Ed’s fucked-up choices and actions on him, in the most contrived ways. Which has the added bonus of them deciding that Izzy, a white guy, is somehow responsible for literally ALL of Ed’s genuinely awful, abusive, and interesting choices in S2, where he went on his villain arc. Even though Izzy was the main victim of this villain arc. Rather than, y’know, giving Ed the agency to make his own damn decisions and acknowledging that he is a flawed and fascinating character who Hurts People but still deserves a happy ending, like literally every other main character on ofmd. Nope. Gotta infantalise that man of colour and pretend he has no control over his own life and his morality is goverened by the white men around him!

Then, they get to portray Stede as his white saviourTM who swoops in and saves Ed from ‘his own darkness’ with the power of love. 😊 because that’s not Problematique in the slightest 😊

It’s… fucked up, to put it plainly. But honestly, as much as there is a problem with their dogged insistence that Izzy is the root of all iniquity on the show, and that Ed and Stede are pure perfect angels who never did any wrong... what was worse was the relentless harassment enacted by that side of the fandom against anyone who dared show a liking for Izzy’s character. Like, it’s not the worst fandom out there by any means, but it really did make the fandom feel hostile to anyone who didn’t ship the main ship.

SO - yeah. That's the tea! OFMD was a fun show with lots of cool flawed characters. But the fandom was a cesspit, fuelled mostly by a Certain Group Of Fans' desperation to make their ship Perfect and Morally Pure - which resulted in them throwing an interesting, well-rounded, morally grey queer disabled character under the bus, and harrassing anyone who enjoyed him.

[folk-enjoyer]

Song of The Day/history of cotton eyed joe

do you want the history of a folk song? dm me or submit an ask and I'll do a full rundown

"Cotton Eyed Joe" Terry Callier, 1963

As a disclaimer, "Cotton Eyed Joe" is my least favorite American folk song and I'm going to talk about why, and I'm going to talk about why Terry Callier's version is subversive and good.

The Earliest date we have for the song's origins is from 1882 when it was Published in "Diddie, Dumps, and Tot, or, Plantation child-life" by Louise Clark-Pyrnelle. This book is a nostalgic recollection of her childhood as a plantation owner's daughter. She reminisces fondly about slavery, missing the old plantation days. Honestly, some of the quotes within this book are beyond parody, in one sentence she says "... My little book does not pretend to be any defense of slavery" and in the next sentence when referring to the morality of slavery she writes, "there are many pros and cons to that subject", later at the end of the chapter she laments about the forever lost emotional connection between the Masters children and the enslaved people. hate this woman and her little book.

It is also important to note that this book goes out of its way to caricature black people, throughout the book she exaggerates accents and dialects to dehumanize them. This is a recurring theme in early publications of this song. Another early publication of the song comes from Dorothy Scarborough in "On the Trail of negro folk-songs" 1925 who got it from her sister who also learned it on a plantation, in Texas. She writes "This is an authentic slavery-time song" This book, if you can believe it, is remarkably racist and dismissive of black music, even as a more "progressive" songbook of black folk songs.

In 1922, the song's history was documented a bit more extensively by Thomas W. Talley in his book "Negro folk rhymes". He writes that it has "deep roots in black traditional lore". Thomas W. Talley was also just a cool guy in general, this book is one of the first compilations of African American folk songs, and it has been a pioneering book in its field. Even today, this book is still one of the best sources for the history of African American folk songs.

So, this is a black song. This was a black song whose first wave of popularization was through the caricature of black people to be amusing for white folks. Let's move on to its second wave of popularization.

The song was first recorded in 1927 by "Dykes Magic City Trio" (all white band) then about a week later by Fiddlin' John Carson (white performer) then in 1928 by Pope's Arkansas Mountanaineers (all white band) then in 1929 by Carter Brothers and Son (all white band) and then it wasn't really recorded for a while because of the great depression and the war but the times it was recorded, it was by white people. We know this because it was mostly recorded by John Lomax and despite documenting southern folk songs, he almost went out of his way to avoid recording black people singing them. Then, in 1941, it was recorded by Burl Ives (painfully white).also covered by a few white country singers like Adolph hofner bob willis but I think you get the point. It wasn't until later that year that it would be recorded by a black person, performed by josh white in 1944-45, who covered it as a lullaby.

However, it wouldn't be until the 90s, during its 3rd wave of popularization that it became its most grotesque. "cotton eye joe" was recorded and released by Swedish Eurodance band Rednex in 1995 as a, to paraphrase reviews, 'Way to make fun of backwater southerners'. This song became incredibly popular throughout Europe and in the USA as well, charting as a number-one song in several countries, sometimes for weeks. Not only is this song incredibly classist, it is, whether by omission or deliberately, fundamentally racist, adding to the whitewashing of black folk and minstrelsy of black people. The attitude and humor derived from the Swedish version are the same as the version in 1882 when it was a "classic slave song".

So, why is Terry Callier's version important, why talk about it? Terry Callier's version is the first version of the song that I have heard and it is not a comedy. It isn't meant to be funny. It slows the melody down and draws attention to itself. It's almost a ballad, showcasing Joe as a tragic but mysterious hero, maybe a love song. His voice is angelic as well. Terry Callier once again, subverts expectations and creates something beautiful out of a song that has been so whitewashed and appropriated that no one remembers its tragic origins.

Thomas W. Talley

some other versions by black folks Josh white 1944-46 Nina simone 1959 The Ebony Hillbillies 2004 Leon bibb 1962 Ella Jenkins 1960 Josh White Jr 1964 Queen Ida 1985

[pynkhues]

https://x.com/snow_droplet/status/1836806686041944275

lots of people see this scene (louis reading madame bovary) as a one more confirmation of louis = housewife = mother. just as the yellow painting depicting mother and child. why do you think he relates to these works so much? and what do you think it says about writers' intent wrt his character?

Mm, I can see the thought process, but having read Madame Bovary a number of years ago, I'm a little surprised at the interpretation of Louis as Emma, who cheats because she finds monogomy boring, provincial life even more so, and dislikes motherhood - three things that I'd associate a lot more with Lestat than I would with Louis given a) Antoinette, and the fact that Louis never cheated on Lestat given he only had sex with Jonah when the relationship was opened up, b) Lestat spent most of his mortal life trying to escape the French countryside when Louis has only ever lived in cities, and c) his Whole Deal with Claudia.

I do think that it's worth noting too that the copy of Madame Bovary Louis' reading is actually Lestat's, not Louis':

It also shows I think a real sense of taking Louis' self-assessment when he's at one of his lowest points of depression across the course of the series, as an actual representation of himself? Claudia calling Louis a housewife was pretty specifically about trying to emasculate him into action, and we're sitting with Louis here where he does feel emasculated. Louis does find purpose through work - he's an ambitious man and a capitalist from the moment we meet him - and him being forced out of the upper echelon of earning capacity due to his race is both, of course, racist, but I think also is something he does find emasculating.

Louis always took his role as provider seriously with the du Lac's, I think both as eldest son and patriarch (and I kinda touched on it in my post about Grace, but the show flirts a little with gothic themes of a perverted family structure there in that Louis is both father and brother to Grace and Paul, and son and husband to Florence), and I think even having the illusion that he was providing for at least Claudia, if not Lestat (who of course is cashed-up from Magnus), was still a crucial part of his identity. It's why it's easy for him to fall into a (again, perverted) version of that role with Armand.

That's even without getting into the Capitalism of it all, haha. I actually forgot this and just caught it again on my (very slow) re-watch, but The Azaelia isn't Louis' only business at the time when it starts getting targeted. He's invested in, at the very least, grocery stores and millineries, which Lestat points out to him when Louis' making his No Whites Allowed sign:

This - - again - - is emasculating. Grocery stores and hat makers are very specifically pink-collar industries, and Louis' been making a fortune not off women's quote-unquote 'interests', he's been making it off women's bodies. And again, one day, I'm going to write my Louis-is-a-misogynyst post, but for now, my point is that it's the insult of this that fuels Louis' (rightful!) anger, not his relation to it.

The painting I do think is a bit different, but that's kind of harder to talk about given visual art is so subjective (and honestly I know less about it / can speak to it less). I do think it's significant though that the artist is a Black man, and someone who's still pretty up and coming. The maternal side there I can see, but I don't think it's as absolute as others, just personally.

[thatrandomblogsays]

Funniest thing Rick riordan did was write a book series that that made two of the main character’s physical features such a hallmark of their godly lineage that multiple monsters throw hand on site & created a fandom that collectively lost their minds over character art that wasn’t considered accurate and when the movie didn’t have a blond Annabeth… only to decide to completely disregard it for a new adaptation and not even put the characters in wigs for the new series

[dxxtruction]

"Louis acting like a pimp to Armand" And what is a pimp exactly? Quickly. And, oh so sexual trauma survivors can't engage in kink now without it being all about that? Pet names? They can't be submissive anymore? Consensually? Sexually healthy? Be serious. I'd hardly say there's much power difference between them during all this anyway, except that Louis is freer than Armand and it's been putting a strain on their relationship. Louis wants more from Armand, and less of this 'being his past' for them both, and so helping Armand with this could fix that. It's healthy to want to help your partners get out of a rough patch?

I mean, the whole exchange was very clearly set up as a "I want to help you" after such a great moment of vulnerability Louis feels just how much Armand is desperate for it. Louis called Armand so they could work out a plan together.

And the bit with the umbrella was Louis' way of asking 'are you willing to listen to me?' and Armand said yes by unfolding it. Louis goes on and explains, Armand is allowed to argue against it, but Louis makes his point. And then he gives Armand a way to make his own choice in it too. Armand's already decided 'I want you, more than anything else in the world', but Louis still asks after if he's sure of his choice, and with a name, Arun, that is the one of his fullest agency, running the point home. Honoring the situation Armand calls Louis Maitre - as a way of being like 'I'll do as you've said then'. To make this work he's going to have to give Louis some of the control, yes. But it's the first time such a role is ever established, and it was his choice to do it. So so what if they do it in a very suggestive way? They can't like doing that? I think it's them having fun.

I struggle to find how Louis is being overly domineering here when really he's giving and offering Armand the most agency he's ever had. Same with finding it manipulative. The manipulation was more earlier in the episode I think, when he was stringing him along, giving mixed signals. He's no longer toying with him like that. Louis might be pushing Armand, leading him on to make a decision, but he doesn't mean bad by it.

But back to this pimp thing. I find it frankly offensive that this is where people are going with this. I get it, but to run with it being the case is, on many levels, wrong.

Louis told us episode 1 this was the only sustainable line of work to support his family and keep their standing, at the time. It was never his choice to be doing this either but his blackness allowed no other options. He did what he did so his family could stay in that house and maintain all their same comforts. It gave him privileges most black men didn't have at the time that he wanted to maintain and even have more of. Anyway, it doesn't and had never defined him the way 'being good at running things' had. And in that case he just likes having that kind of control where he can get it, which makes sense.

The world is what placed that kind of role onto him of what he was allowed to be able to run, not himself. And on that he actually treated the sex workers he employed well and respected them enough to give them more opportunity.** He recognizes they don't have much in the way of options either.

Louis employed sex workers, yes, but he didn't subject them to abuse, (like how Armand was)*. He didn't oversee things in a way that would go against their consent (see; episode 1 again)**. Sometimes a job is just a job. And Sex work is work.

Armand's particular past with sexual abuses may strike a particular cord with Louis, given all that, but the very last thing either is thinking is that Louis' pimping Armand out here. This is merely their decision as companions, and had nothing to do with adding another line in a laundry list of selling Armands body out to people at the command of someone else. Armand rescinds some of his control to Louis' wishes, because he wants him, and he trusts him, that's all.

If you aren't allowing Armand that choice, and are doubtful it's fully his, you're putting him right back in the box of being defined by his abuses. Putting him back into that space where he isn't given any agency over what he does. (Which is exactly opposite of what the intent of this scene is for)*.

*: (edit) added for clarity.

**: (strike through) numerous people are saying I'm misremembering these points so disregard it. (Thought he was siding with Bricks, it was the other way around). (Technically one aspect of those opportunities were for getting around the law). I don't have a perfect memory, it happens. Let's not get mad about it. Doesn't change much of the point which is that Louis, now, Louis then, was always considering more about the running things and for stated purposes. So I guess I'd say he may only have respected the SWers enough sometimes for what allowed him to do that, and there are moments he certainly expressed remorse over the fact, but he has a great deal higher respect for Armand that is genuine. It's incomparable. Please read my added notes in the tags, it should address most other concerns.

[thepoisonroom]

'I flirted with the idea that instead of being trans that I was just a cross-dresser (a quirk, I thought, that could be quietly folded into an otherwise average life) and that my dysphoria was sexual in nature, and sexual only. And if my feelings were only sexual, then, I wondered, perhaps I wasn’t actually trans.

I had read about a book called The Man Who Would Be Queen, by a Northwestern University professor who believed that transwomen who were attracted to women were really confused fetishists, they wanted to be women to satisfy an autogynephilia. And though I first read about this book in the context of its debunkment and disparagement, I thought about the electricity of slipping on those tights, zipping up those boots, and a stream of guilt followed. Maybe this professor was right, and maybe I was only a fetishist. Not trans, just a misguided boy.

About a year later, on the Internet, I come across a transwoman who added a unique message to the crowd refuting this professor. Oh, I wish I remember who this woman was, and I wish even more that I could do better than paraphrase her, but I remember her saying something like this: “Well, of course I feel sexy putting on women’s clothing and having a woman’s body. If you feel comfortable in your body for the first time, won’t that probably mean it’ll be the first time you feel comfortable, too, with delighting in your body as a sexual thing?”'

-Casey Plett, Consciousness

[painfullyprickedandticked]

i dont think striker and alastor are characters who are "precious senpais who did nothing wrong" i just don't think they're as reprehensible as valentino or stella. their actions aren't excusable, no, but they aren't near that level of abhorrent.

[butwhatifidothis]

Still baffled that Hopes so blatantly wrote Claude as the typical Evil Vaguely Middle Eastern Man set on destroying the Good White Nation for his Evil Vaguely Middle Eastern Nation that is often seen in fantasy settings - complete with him being seen as worse than a white woman who does many of the same evil deeds he does in-verse, even by his friends (should it be the bad ending route of SB) - and so many in the fandom were so eager to gobble that shit up. INSIST that "Clearly A Racist Stereotype" is LEAGUES better than "Subversion Of A Racist Stereotype" even. Like I don't think I'll ever get over how supremely fucked that is

[i-still-mask-because]

TIL: The person that picks up when you call your representatives isn't always going to simply listen, take notes, and pass it on for you. They may try to argue with you and gaslight you about your concerns! 😃🙃

So this is friendly reminder to take care of yourself if you're marathoning calling representatives! Take breaks if you need to, drink your favorite drink, eat your favorite snack, take deep breaths in between each call! And if you have an audio recorder feel free to keep it close to your phone in case the person you're on call with tries to say some slick shit 🤗

[promiscuousasexual]

oh my fucking god lee are you seeing these rumors about esteban allegedly getting into physical fights and being difficult to work with? why the fuck are people just blindly believing one anon’s claims? like what fucking evidence is there for this shit? why would they renew esteban for 3 years if this shit was true? i’m genuinely getting really pissed off rn with this whole situation

and if people want to call it pulling the race card then fine but it makes me so uncomfortable that people are trying to painting someone with North African heritage as violent and aggressive…

are you fucking serious? i haven’t seen any of that and frankly i don’t believe any of it

although one things clear, the second anything negative is said about esteban whether there’s any evidence for it or not, people will absolutely jump at the chance to attack him. i saw so many people say they started hating esteban after dts and i was just ??? cause i thought we all agreed that we can’t just blindly trust dts?? and that most of it is bs?? but i guess when it’s esteban it’s a different story.

i try not reveal too much about my personal life on here, but as someone who has interned for multiple teams and circuits (and i mean A LOT), none of them have anything bad to say about esteban ever, almost every employee who has ever interacted with him has said how he’s so sweet and grateful and always makes sure to thank everyone around him, and when i interacted with him briefly, still in the context of working at a circuit, he was so welcoming and friendly. (and that’s honestly the reason he’s my fav)

people will always tell poc that we’re pulling the race card so atp speak your truth. f1 is so predominantly white and they will never listen to a single thing we say ever, i’ve seen so many people say we’re over dramatic for bringing up the racism and that there isn’t any but that’s also the same shit my white friends told me when i was the only poc in the friend group and they were excluding me so what does that say about them.

you’re so 100% right about how the portrayal of esteban as aggressive and violent is due to racism because there is quite literally no other reason for it. “oh it’s cause he’s aggressive on track” yeah, so is every other fucking driver cause it’s a fucking race, fuck right off i’ve never seen this shit with other drivers

[oopsallsyscourse]

I swore I was gonna stay out of tulpacourse cause it's not my place but fuck it this is bothering me.

The idea that the "tulpamancy is cultural appropriation" argument is simply an anti endo conspiracy is a fucking racist take. The idea that all the POC who disagree with you have just been tricked by others is racist.

Not only does it imply that POC are somehow not smart enough to avoid being manipulated away from "the right take" it also implies that POC can't decide how their culture and/or religion should be used based on their own research and life experiences.

Stop it. Get less racist arguments.

[maddy-ferguson]

using intersectionality to discredit feminism and downplay its reach and essentially weaponizing it when it was coined to describe black women's experience of racism and sexism is nasty work...

[ickypuppi3]

it’s the way billy’s a scapegoat not only in show but for the duffers too like

people will spend all their time focusing on the actions of a fictional teenager rather than question the fact these two white men were all too eager to have a racial slur used against a literal child and have felt comfortable having racism in lucas’ story without it actually go anywhere all while putting no focus on him as a character

they use it as a thing, as a prop, rather than acknowledging it as the systemic issue it actually is - like they use it, have lucas canonically experience racism and then push his character to the back

it’s so blatant too, there’s nothing subtle about it but because everyone’s so busy focusing on big bad billy hargrove, racism doesn’t get discussed in the stranger things fandom the way it should because everyone’s too busy focusing on the actions of one single fictional character

[aroaessidhe]

2023 reads // twitter thread

The Sun and The Void

Venezuelan inspired high fantasy

follows a young outcast swordswoman taken in by her grandmother, the dark sorceress for a noble family, who relies on the magic to keep her alive after being attacked by monstrous creatures

and a young noblewoman who’s the shame of her family because of her mixed heritage and desire to use magic

both are manipulated by those with more power than them into a plot to free an ancient evil god

mineral based magic, politics, nonhuman MCs

[yuridovewing]

Feel like one of the best ways you can convince someone that no, villains with compelling motives that have sad backstories are not terrible writing compared to straight up born evil villains who just want to kill everyone and be done with it, is to tell them that Warrior Cats writes born evil villains constantly while literally preaching “That’s how evil works, you can’t CHANGE, you’re either touched by demons at birth or you aren’t!” and it blows chunks

[moesartblog]

I hate how tumblr does the EXACT same thing twitter does to discourse that happens on tumblr where a topic gets shaved down to its bare bones and then mocked without understanding what was actually going on