ivfprocess

[lorephobic]

this is the funniest thing that sits and rots in my drafts because its been four months atp and i still have not thought of a single headcanon for these two

[vexingwoman]

What do you think of the argument that gender is a social construct, and materially exists in our society, and that therefore trans people identify with gender not sex? Like the whole contra points argument that abolition is the goal, but in the meantime, transitioning (as long as bio sex is acknowledged) is fine because you're identifying with the gender construct that you feel most comfortable with? The whole idea feels wrong to me, but I can't really articulate why yet. You're always very very good at explaining things so I thought I'd ask.

No radical feminist disagrees with the notion that gender is socially constructed. You couldn’t be a gender abolitionist, which is a core tenant of radical feminism, if you thought otherwise.

However, it is viscerally obvious that most gender ideologues, even those who call themselves gender abolitionists, don't actually seek to eradicate gender in any meaningful way. In fact, instead of dismantling gender, they are actively reinforcing and essentializing it.

As you have likely noticed, gender is extremely precious to gender ideologues. They hardly recognize it as an oppressive system created to enforce female subjugation and male domination. Instead, they view gender in the exact manner everyone else views fashion—that is, as a fun, harmless vector for self-expression and identity.

Therefore, their end-goal isn’t a society where gender is actually eradicated from existence. It’s more accurate to say their end-goal is a society in which an ever-increasing number of gendered categories still exist, and you have unrestrained freedom to hop into whatever category you desire. Here is some commentary from gender ideologues abut gender abolition:

The essence of their view is: keep gender, it’s an important aspect of our identities, but abandon gender norms and gender roles.

Now why does this view feel so wrong, so nonsensical, so contradictory? Because it relies on the notion that there is any distinction between ‘gender’ and ‘gender norms and roles’ at all. The construct of gender is defined as the social norms and roles attributed to women and men. To keep gender, by mere definition, is to keep gender norms and roles:

With this in mind, one can only conclude that the end-goal of gender ideolgues is a society where “woman” is nebulously defined through feminine norms and roles that anyone can embody, and whether you are female is entirely unrelated.

And, inversely, the end-goal of radical feminists is a society where “woman” is strictly defined through the female sex, and whether you embody feminine norms and roles is entirely unrelated.

In other words, where gender ideologues acknowledge the feminine stereotypes attributed to the female sex class, they seek to retain the stereotypes and discard the sex. But where radical feminists acknowledge the feminine stereotypes attributed to the female sex class, they seek to discard the stereotypes and retain the sex. It’s glaringly obvious which of these views is in accordance to gender abolition and which to gender reinforcement.

[weemietime]

1. there's no such thing as a soul and 2. why does israel specifically need to be where it is now? israel has not even existed for a century. many different people have inhabited the land for thousands of years, mostly arab. is the only argument for the current geographic location of israel a religious argument? why can't it be anywhere else? if it's not a religious argument, why is the land so important if the it was jewish land thousands of years ago? is america justified in its existence despite having killed dozens of millions of native americans? WHY CANT ISRAEL ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD? WHY IS ISRAEL EXPANDING INTO LEBANON AND WHY IS IT BUILT UPON THE EXPULSION OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PALESTINIANS? Religious arguments should not be taken seriously in the current day. The only other argument i've heard from zionists is one of racial superiority. Zionism boils down to white supremacy and Judaism/Jewish people are completely separate from that. The original zionists claimed to be secular marxists. How can you reconcile these inconsistencies and expect people to not think you're genocidal???

Good l-rd, the Kremlin-Hamas propaganda pipeline workin overtime. *Pats trunk* I can fit so much Nazi gibberish in this bad boy. 1) I don't give a shit that you don't respect my traditions and my beliefs, we already know you have no respect whatsoever. Cool.

2) Israel is where it is now because it is Israel, you deranged fucking lunatic. No, the people who have lived there over the last centuries have NOT been Arabs. There is ZERO archaeological evidence to back up a claim that Palestinian Arabs have been in Israel from the same time as Jews.

3) Point blank, everything you've built up here is a Nazi lie. this is false. A lie. We Jews dig up thousands years old shit from our culture in Israel. Not Arab/Islamic culture. It isn't there. You know your little al aqsa flood operation as Hamas calls it. Arabs built Al Aqsa over our most precious Beit hamikdash. Just for spite by the way. Muhammed hated Jews, ask the Jews of Medina how he handled them. Oh you can't they all got beheaded and enslaved.

Then turn around and call us colonizers when we return street names to their ORIGINAL Hebrew. You're ignorant as fuck of history, "dismantle colonialism" but simps for Hezbollah, the long arm of the IRGC who colonized Iran from the native Persian population. Do you know how many countries Arabs conquered? You don't know shit about the Middle East, keep us out of your fucking mouth.

This is called DARVO and its a tool of colonizers to suppress indigenous history and tradition and overwrite what really happened. And y'all are mad about it because Jews won't let it happen. We won't let you gas light and manipulate us and say see we're the indigenous ones when Arabs were the ones who rolled in and stole our land in the first place.

Arab migrations happened and the Arabs who lived there knowingly lived in stolen land, that is not our fucking problem. I would be content to live in peace with Arabs. I would respect moderate Islam. I would even say sure you can call Israel your homeland even though it's not, whatever.

By the way when Israel declared independence Israelis didn't force Arabs out of their homes. The Arabs all ganged up on Israel and attacked. The Arab league told those people leave your homes, we will kill all the Jews then you can come back. Welp they lost. Tel Aviv wasn't there before 1920s, dipshit. Most of Israel has been build on ceded, legally purchased land.

The amount of private land that was taken from innocent people occurred as insulation from terrorism from a war six other fucking countries started at once. Israel is genocidal huh, Israel has never once fired the first shot in any war its ever been in. Think on that you limp ugly bitch.

We're a community, a family. That's what Judaism is. By the way, that's what the people in those kibbutzim were doing too. They were peace activists, pro Palestinian peace activists, lol. They tricked them for twenty years, multiple generations, being their friends.

But Hamas doesn't want peace and they openly say it over and over and over again to you dumb fucking imbeciles, over and over and over. No peace, no compromise, no ceasefire. They want total annihilation of Israel and Jews world wide. That's their agenda. Don't even fucking come back if you can't acknowledge that this is what they want to do.

Palestinian Arabs can't even pronounce the word Palestine in Arabic lmao. It's not got any Arabic etymology. It was a slur to mock US, THE JEWS, by the romans. Can you pickup a G-d damn history book and read for once in your piss baby life?

[lemotmo]

Okay I'm going to partially tell on myself. I am new, as in the Buck/T kiss showed up all over my dash, as did all of Oliver's interviews and I just thought he was the yummiest most delightful human being I had ever seen and heard (my god is accent is heaven) new. And I thought that first kiss was really well done. It was a great scene. Now, that being said, I didn'twant to jump into a show that was seven seasons into the story with zero context, except the stuff I had been seeing on my dash for years. So I started from the beginning, with the full intent and excitement of getting to T in season 7. Imagine my surprise when he popped up occasionally in earlier seasons. His only good part was when we were supposed to believe that Chim could lift him over his shoulder like a sack of potatoes, haha. That was great.

Anyway by the time I made it to season 7, it was too late. I had just watched 5 seasons of Buck and Eddie. There was zero room for T to compete on any level. Which is why the behavior of some is so confusing to me. Let me say first that I do not think the show always intended to put Buck and Eddie together, I don't think that's been the intention since the beginning. There is however a very good case to make that Eddie's introduction was Buck's actual Bi bell ringing moment though (*what a man plays in the background*). I do however agree that the writing has trended, increasingly so, in that direction. The writers do not hold all the blame however, Oliver and Ryan have kind of acted them into a corner. There are several scenes, multiple scenes, where the acting choices the two of them made were interesting, to say the least (looking at you 'go for the title' kitchen scene I love. Buck was flirting on every possible level in that scene).

Sorry, I got off track, back to my point. The people like me, who came in after the kiss popped up everywhere, being all in on T is somewhat fine. The problem would be the ones who are deliberately refusing to go back and watch the entire series before pontificating on B/T being destiny and all that other nonsense. There is an argument to be made that they're avoiding it because they know most of the history dismantles their current ship fixation. So as a result those people can be easily dismissed because they have zero context to any of their opinions. The ones who were with you all for 5 seasons though, yes I've seen their posts, who lost their shit over 2 pairs of lips touching, is what I cannot wrap my brain around. I completely understand the excitement behind that first kiss. It was a much anticipated moment for BUCK. He was the important person in that scene.

But confusing, or deliberately misinterpreting, Buck's revelation and sigh of relief at finally figuring out something pretty significant about himself, as being about him finding T is a gymnastics act I did not expect to see from so many long haulers. I mean, it should be obvious but T wasn't important in that scene. His gender was what was important. Which is why they have barely bothered to show him since that episode. And the interactions they have shown, minus the hospital kiss, that they made sure to show Eddie's reaction to btw, have all been red flag scenes. Little things that show this relationship isn't really that different from his previous relationships. Buck may have figured out the gender part but he's still making the same relationship mistakes. It's why the few scenes they've had together, and it's the bare minimum of effort, have been about Buck trying to initiate some level of communication and emotional connection and him being dismissed or having it turned into a daddy kink joke. I also think Oliver's enthusiasm dipped drastically by the end and it showed.

Which brings me to Eddie. The show, and more so, Oliver and Ryan have already done the hard part. The emotional connection, which is way more difficult to pull off than a physical connection, is already there. Their chemistry is already established.They're partners in every way but physically. As a result it is not a huge character leap to eventually bring a physical relationship into it as well. That will not be a shocking character development for either character. It goes back to the way the two have been written and they way Oliver and Ryan have interrupted those scenes. I won't touch their interviews because I think it's pretty clear, at this point, they seem to agree it's the way to go. There's more story to explore with them learning how to navigate an actual relationship than there is in bringing in other, lesser characters, to firstly try to compete with that connection, and then try to establish endgame status. I don't know. It's not about any two pairs of lips touching it's about the right two pairs of lips touching. Because when it's the right couple the characters get that sigh and exhale of finally! But the audience gets their sigh and exhale of finally as well. That is the point.

Sorry this got looooong 🤣

Ooooh Nonny, you speak right to my heart.

First of all, thank you for going back all the way to season 1 to actually sit down and watch the show. We aren't just making up Buddie. It has been there since the beginning. I'm so glad you got to witness their beautiful history together and that you realised just how right they are for each other.

I can't speak for the people who suddenly turned 180° and dropped Buddie for BT. I have been shipping Buddie from season 2, so I don't understand their reasoning or motivation either. It like you said so beautifully:

"It's not about any two pairs of lips touching. It's about the right two pairs of lips touching."

And that is what it comes down to. We can be content with a lackluster, meaningless relationship for queer rep. Or we can be exhilerated with an amazingly complex and years in the making relationship, which will be so much better for queer rep. It will be revolutionary in so many ways to make a slow burn queer ship canon.

(Before anyone comes at me for talking about queer rep. I have slowly been figuring myself out over the last couple of years and, looking back at my life and relationships, I've come to realise that I definitely belong somewhere on the ace spectrum. Not sure where exactly, I'm still searching for the right label, but it feels right to me. This is actually the first time I said this on a public forum for people to read. Kinda scary to be honest.)

I know what I would choose for myself if I was faced with these two options. Why wouldn't we automatically choose this for Buck and Eddie as well? It's mind-boggling really.

So yeah: queer Eddie and Buddie canon in season 8! All the way!

Don't apologise for your great post. I loved reading it. Feel welcome to drop in whenever you want. :)

[genderkoolaid]

How do you respond to people who try to argue against various gender affirming surgeries with anorexic people wanting liposuction? I tried to point out that theres a lot of gender affirming surgeries for cis people who dont feel feminine/masculine enough, but my sister said that those people need therapy too. I feel that there's a difference between trans people and anorexic people but idk how to put it into words, im scared i accidentally made her more transphobic bc i didnt have arguments :(

Good question! It's important to question and critique our ideas of what separates "good, natural desires which should not be changed" from "bad, unnatural desires which should be changed," and I think sometimes trans people are too quick to reaffirm this binary in our attempts to defend transness.

I would say that the difference here is based in anxieties. Anorexia is born out of anxiety- which is to say, a persist concern over something that triggers strong emotional reactions and which you keep returning to over and over and over without resolution. Dysphoria can and does cause anxiety, but you can be dysphoric without having anxiety over it. You can have dysphoria, find relief, and be satisfied with your body, while there is never any satisfaction point with eating disorders. There is always a feeling of "not enough" because the desire to be skinnier is born out of anxiety over what it means to be fat & fatness' place in society (lesser value, moral weakness, medical abuse, etc.).

Like I said, dysphoria can and does cause anxiety. There are trans people who obsess over their bodies being too masculine/feminine because they are concerned with what it means for them to be too masculine/feminine: it means they aren't real, they are ugly, they're failure. And this is why its important for trans people to sit with our dysphoria and analyze it. If you are constantly worrying about your body being "real" enough, no amount of surgery or HRT will fix that (although it may fix many things).

Now, I am generally against any solution thats like "we should stop Those People from doing x because We know whats best for them!" because autonomy is a vital part of my beliefs, and I think that people rarely ever react well to being banned from doing something Because Mother Knows Best. The real goal with, say, EDs, is to get rid of the artificial desire for thinness by combating fatphobia (ah, if only all the anti-ED campaigns out there did this). The same with plastic surgery: I would much rather we focus on dismantling the system that makes people (esp. perceived women) feel they need to make their bodies fulfill the beauty standard, than saying that plastic surgery is Evil and we should stop anyone from ever getting it, because those little people aren't capable of using their basic right to bodily autonomy correctly. When we ban something, what we really want is to change people's desires. But that requires cultural change, and laws don't create cultural change out of thin air. Its like how yelling at your kids doesn't make them more honest or better people, it just makes them better liars.

Given that trans people exist in every society, potentially going back to the Stone Age, even after we unwork systemic misogyny & homophobia, trans people are still gonna want surgeries. So we should just work on combating those things instead of trying to control people's bodies.

[my-pjo-stuff]

At this point everyone and their mother know that I'm a proud German and like to bring in fun stuff or specific things about my country up once in a while. Generally I'm trying to stir away from it, seeing as this is my PJO blog and I don't want to bore you all. But I think it's time to play my "As a German" card and say that the PJO fandom needs to take the words "fascist", "eugenicist" and "nazi" out of their collective vocabulary. Now I don't think I need to explain what those things have to do with my country. I will however explain the fact that German children tend to me made very aware of the meaning of those words. We learn about our history and the crimes committed. We learn about the past ideologies of the Third Reich and how to dismantle them. I especially have grown up being very sensitive to these things, as my parents have placed great importance on me understanding the whole of my country's history. That includes the Third Reich.

And as such to say that I am frankly horrified at the way the PJO fandom treats these very loaded terms is an underestimate. I have seen multiple different people comparing Luke and the TA to Nazis, saying they are eugenicists or even fascists.

Which is just genuinly so harmful because they are not.

I won't go into the specifics of the way they are not because it would go beyond the scope of this post while also being very easily searchable simply by googling the definition of the aforementioned words.

Using labels such as "Nazi", "Eugenicist" and "Fascist" on people and things that are not waters the term down a lot. Which is genuinely harmful because there very much are still IRL people with those beliefs! We cannot allow ourselves to forget the true horror of these words, because that would allow these horrors to return. If every villain starts being a "nazi"- then how can we recognize the actual nazi?

This fandom seems to love the "fiction has an impact on real life" argument. As a German I am genuinely asking you to apply this here. Now don't get me wrong- it's fine to point out these ideologies and practices in fiction aswell as parallels should they be found. I myself pointed out how Camp Jupiter's Wolfhouse is borderline eugenicist- but you NEED to do your proper research first. There are plenty of other valid ways to criticize characters, especially Luke, if you want to do it. But calling him these names is just genuinely harmful.

Please be careful using these words, and remember who and what stands behind them.

[nothorses]

With the whole voting shit going on, I've felt incredibly conflicted about voting. But recently, the opinion I've landed on is similar to Kelly Hayes. I am roughly paraphrasing here, but she said that it's incredibly insensitive to ask Arab Americans and Palestinians, people who have outright LOST their family members due to the US's unrestricted military aid to israel and the genocide, to vote. That makes sense to me. I absolutely agree with that, and I don't think it makes sense to yell at these people to vote. BUT, Kelly then goes on to say that the argument that if you're voting, you're got blood on your hands, is just wrong. Because living in America, benefiting from the imperialistic violence, we always had blood on our hands, and no one's breaking solidarity with marginalized folks simply by voting. You break solidarity when you justify your politicians' horrible actions, such as police brutality, prison industrial complex, etc. But in this case, when someone acknowledges these politicans aren't gonna get the real important shit done, only direct action works, and you're voting to choose your opponent--I don't think that's breaking solidarity. Or throwing people under the bus. The truth is even if every leftist didn't engage with electoral politics at all, and spent it on mutual aid, community defense, these things--there would still be a president until we somehow destroy settler nation America. And that president will destroy public infrastructure and attack marginalized folks a lot quicker if he isn't a democrat, because the Republicans are literally just--fascist party.

I dislike people whose only engagement with politics is to vote shame. But I also think it's just a wrong take to act like people who vote, who aren't vote shaming, who do think it's harm reduction, are all idiotic liberals. As we try to mobilize against imperialism, it's crucial to try to pick our enemies when we can. I understand the fact our wealth, the fact we have these healthcare systems, this public ifnrastructure and government assistance even if it's nowhere near enough--it comes from blood of the Global South. And there is a real problem with liberals who care about these elections only to maintain their quality of life, don't care about imperialism and global oppression at all. These people exist, and if we do start dismantling imperialism ina meaningful fashion, USA quality of life will drop. But people voting Democrat because they don't want the Affordable Care Act dismantled, want to keep their food stamps, their schools funded--they're not inherently selfish and breaking solidarity with third world folks. There's nuance here, a lot of nuance. Which is why I like Kelly saying we can't let electoralism destroy our relationships., because we are going to need to build, build, build if we are going to survive. I'm going to vote because ultimately it won't take me much time, but I also won't judge the people who refuse to, choosing to invest their efforts in direct action.

I also think the people who say voting doesn't do anything...they also ignore the nuance. I get it. I get the frustration. But as I read various perspectives, I'm starting to realize the treachery of black-and-white thing. Before there's a revolution, it's more likely we are going to build new things out of the old system, incrementalism, before we make any foundational leap. Again, this shit has nuance.

Yeah, I think this resonates a lot for me. And I'm not really here to "vote shame" either! I think I do have a similar opinion on it to FD Signifier, though, who says he thinks of voting like washing your hands.

You can choose not to, it's not the end of the world. But like. Why? Who is this helping? I mean maybe it's not my business, maybe you have a good reason, whatever. It's just one of those things that, y'know, especially if it takes you 5 minutes to mail a ballot in... it's just good hygiene.

And I think a lot of people say, "put your energy towards these other things instead!" without any intent to actually do so, and without any follow through themselves. And do you really need to not vote in order to do those things? Like is voting the thing preventing you from Doing The Revolution? For real?

At the end of the day, I'm not going to shame anyone for not voting. I talk about it because I think some people are misguided about how all this works, and I think some of the opinions people put out there just, like, suck. But it's ultimately not up to me. 🤷‍♂️

[knitmeapony]

Hi I just wanted to say thank you for all the work you do to dispel voting misinformation, and that your hard work is genuinely appreciated. I'm not from the US, but as a Canadian, the culture here is very impacted by US politics. Since Trump's win in 2016 there has been a noticeable political shift in our country. In my opinion Trump has directly contributed to things like the trucker rallies here and anti-trans bills in provinces like Alberta. It is genuinely scary to hear about project 2025, not being able to vote against it or prevent it in any way, and then hear Americans moan about how useless voting is. Your vote is vital! There is no doubt in my mind that if Trump gets into power again, it will be politically disastrous for our country, not just yours. Our next federal election is next year, and there is a real possibility the conservatives (~republican equivalent) will get into power this time around. A Trump win would not only boost their party, but may galvanize them to start platforming more extreme right wing goals. This may seem like an extreme conclusion, but we've already had a rise in popularity for the PPC (neo-nazi party) and I know plenty of Trumpers here in Alberta. When I think about it too much it's easy to go down a doomer rabbithole. Watching you dismantle these arguments and provide a level perspective on the importance of voting genuinely makes me feel better, and more hopeful for the future. You guys got this! Get out there and vote! I know I will be next year. Know that your vote matters, and a Democrat win will help more people than you realize. Again, thank you for what you do and keep up the good work!

Also I hope Frank is doing well!

Thank you so much for the ask! Frank is doing well, we have discovered duck is his favorite thing in the entire world so he's now getting it twice a day plus snacks.

Here he is patiently modeling a recent thrift store find

[hiiragi7]

Endogenic Plurality, Disability, & Ableism

Note: For simplicity's sake, this post will be focused on endogenic plurals without a CDD, and uses endogenic interchangeably with "endogenic without a CDD" to be less wordy. Disability and disorder are also used somewhat interchangeably here.

I've been thinking more on the "do endogenic plurals experience ableism for being plural" debate, and something which I really would like to explore more in discussion is how plurality's proximity to disability impacts the ways in which endogenic plurals are treated.

While I see some fair points in each argument, statements such as "if you don't have a disorder, you do not face ableism" and "endogenic plurals only face misdirected ableism" are vastly oversimplifying the actual issues here to the point that they are actually misleading at best and harmfully incorrect at worst.

I have been reading Cripping Intersex lately and it has changed a lot of the ways in which I view disability politics. One thing that this book has made very clear: Saying "I do not have a disorder" does not prevent you from being subjected to discrimination based on an ableist system, and in fact rejecting the disability framework entirely not only does nothing to dismantle that ableism but even reinforces it.

This is not to say that endogenic plurals are "actually disabled/disordered", but rather that plurality as a whole has a proximity to disability in such a way that it is almost inherently subjected to ableism. There is absolutely a socially and medically enforced view of self which excludes any sort of overt plurality, especially in a Western colonialist context. Whether your plurality is actually disordered or not, that does not matter when you are working within a systemic framework which seeks to eliminate anything not defined as normal or acceptable. It doesn't even matter if your plurality is non-pathological; if it is not socially accepted as "normal", it is treated as disordered and to be fixed.

This sort of ableism is not only related to ableism more common to DID, but ableism as a whole. It is related to disability as a socially prescribed status through discrimination rather than black-and-white categories or objective truths regarding disorder and non-disorder. It is related to how saneism defines what is and is not normal and acceptable, rather than what psychology or the medical field defines as "actually" pathological and disordered (though it is important to acknowledge that these two systems heavily interact, as well, and that oppression impacts how the medical system defines pathology).

I reject that ableism towards endogenic plurals is simply "misdirected". To call it "misdirected ableism" is so often used to say that endogenic plurals are not the intended target, but I argue that they absolutely are included as intentional targets because plurality as a whole is a target, explicitly named or not. The determining factor for ableism is not whether someone is "really" disordered or not, but that they are treated as such due to societal standards regarding acceptable and unacceptable ways of being. When "unacceptable" is equated to "disordered" through a saneist lens, you are treated as such - and, you are, therefore, vulnerable to ableism.

I heavily agree with those who have so far spoken about how what people call pluralphobia is so often just ableism (though I also view it as often intersecting with anti-spiritual/religious views and racism), however I feel that we need to take this conversation even further to examine exactly how ableism works and who it affects. This post is also not meant to say "endos are oppressed for being plural", but rather that endos are oppressed through the same ableist systems that affect all plurals/people with CDDs and to expand on that to open conversation about it.

On a final note, I'd like to reflect on how rejection of disability has gone for various movements in the past and how that relates to the modern plural community and its approach to "plural acceptance".

As someone who was diagnosed with autism in the 2000s and saw a lot of push from autistics back then to de-medicalize autism to avoid further forced "normalizing treatment" like ABA, I can say that rejecting the framework of disability and ableism did not help us to dismantle systemic medical violence against autistic people and even isolated many severely disabled autistics who rely on medical interventions and support.

As an intersex person, I can say that the intersex community rejecting the framework of disability and ableism did not help us to end "normalizing treatments" against intersex people and even isolated many intersex people who do identify themselves as being disordered due to their intersex condition.

And as a person with DID, I have learned about how the empowered multiples movement had attempted to reject the framework of disorder and ableism to avoid medicalization and forced fusion, and how that did not help systems who did need medical intervention nor did it do anything to dismantle medical violence or stigma against multiples.

Any sort of wider "Plural Acceptance Movement" that comes into existence will fail if it is not also simultaneously and inherently a disability movement, and this is not just due to the existence of CDD systems. Seperation from disability does not exempt you from ableism or ableist frameworks and systemic oppression. CDD or not, we all as a community are impacted by ableism and cannot find any widespread acceptance while ignoring that. Plural acceptance is disability acceptance.

[spacelazarwolf]

So do you like think there's a line between lgb (cis homos) and "queer" people? Because I hate the term queer (for myself), but I have always and will always be for trans rights. L with the T. The argument you make (aro manifesto) makes it seem like the same idea of "well bi people and pan people are different bc pan people are the real 'queer movement' and trans inclusive"...as if cis lgb people don't consider themselves queer or trans inclusive. Just seems like a separation of us and queers, which only divides us more. Like I get people think we are only ever for marriage equality/rights (due to the aids crisis) and also current organizations highlighting only that need, but like stop separating "us" (cis lgb) from you/queers as if we don't have the same goals in mind. I too think we should focus more on other goals as marriage is not the only important thing. We are of the same community, not different.

i'm gonna break this down/define the way i use things so you can understand what i'm talking about, because you have made a lot of assumptions. these aren't like official definitions, because strict definitions just never really quite work in these kinds of conversations, but this is what i generally mean when i use these terms. any identities listed aren't an exhaustive list, they're just what i thought of in the moment.

lgbt+ community: anyone who is lesbian, gay, bi, trans, ace, aro, pan, nonbinary, etc. this is not an established group with a mission, it's just a category of people who identify as not cishetallo.

queer community: a group united by a mission you can read more about the original queer manifesto from 1990 here. queer people are cis, trans, intersex, genderqueer, nonbinary, gnc, straight, gay, lesbian, bi, pan, ace, aro, etc. but that's not what makes them queer, what makes them queer is the goal of collective queer liberation. (some people use queer as an individual identity and want to separate themselves from queer as a political identity and like, i can't stop them, but the fact of the matter is that since the word queer was reclaimed in the 80's it has been inextricably linked to the queer liberation movement, which is inherently political.)

the difference between these two is that lgbt+ is an individual identity whereas queer is a political identity.

there's a lot of ways lgbt+ people might form community that don't include being part of the queer community, and there are many queer people who take the political stance of not identifying as lgbt+ because they consider their queerness to be more than just an individual identity and feel that being categorized under lgbt+ removes the political aspects of their identity. the venn diagram of these two communities is not a circle, but it's also not two completely disconnected circles either. there is overlap, and that includes cis queer lesbians and gays.

lgbt+ advocacy: this is advocacy that is based within the current system. fighting for marriage equality, right to start a family by adopting within the system or using ivf, fighting discrimination in the workplace, etc. all great things to fight for.

queer liberation movement: this movement seeks to dismantle the cisheteropatriarchy entirely. for example, some folks believe that we should be fighting to dismantle the concept of marriage rather than just fight for lgbt+ people to be able to get married under the current system.

neither of these approaches is Objectively Correct, though everyone is going to have their own opinions on what they think the right course of action is. you can think of these two categories as reform vs. abolition. sometimes they overlap, sometimes their ideologies are incompatible.

so when i say that the aromantic manifesto had a fundamental understanding of what the queer community is and what the queer rights movement is, this is what i mean: the manifesto presented the "queer community" and "queer rights" as what i would define as the lgbt+ community and lgbt+ advocacy. based in identity, and prioritizing reform over abolition. so their critiques that the "queer community" and "queer rights movement" only fights for marriage equality seemed bizarre to me, because queer liberation is more likely to fight for the dissolution of the concept of marriage. it's more likely to tackle the concepts of societal norms and what a "normal" relationship looks like and how it functions.

and the thing is, i get a lot of people who get angry at me for "separating" queer people from the rest of the community, but the fact of the matter is that the rest of the community separated itself from us. when i talk about cis lgb people who prioritize assimilation, i'm not talking about Anyone Who Is Cis And LGB, i'm talking about cis people who are lgb who will throw trans women under the bus to maintain a cisnormative view of what a woman is. i'm talking about cis lgb people who think that kink is disgusting and wrong and blame queer kinksters for "making the lgbt community look bad." i'm not talking about identities, i'm talking about actions.

i'm not saying i think any one identity is "more queer" than others, i'm saying that i do not definitionally consider the lgbt+ community and queer community to be the same thing. and tbh, i do get really tired of people who don't identify with the queer community getting pissed off that i don't set my queerness aside to align myself with them if they wouldn't set aside their discomfort with queerness to align with me. if you don't want to align yourself with the queer community, that is entirely your prerogative. but it seems like you think that queer people are the ones creating the separation simply by identifying as queer while you don't, when the problem is that people who don't want to identify with queerness still want access to the same level of community with queer people as if they were in the community, and i'm very sorry but that's just not feasible. we can still fight side by side for our rights, but no, we are not the same community.

[communistkenobi]

Yeah leftists especially on here have such a huge problem with talking about wanting to, like, "objectively understand" a person's outlook or opinions (especially right wing or fascist ones) ostensibly for the sake of dismantling or critiquing it or whatever else, but then it just reading as apologia or even agreement with a bunch of "but I don't actually think this!! I even think it's bad!!!" thrown in. It's very much the college class "devil's advocate" type of person.

I think there is genuine value in understanding our political enemies, but it must always be done with an eye towards liberation - as in, knowing what fascists actually desire is valuable especially because they often talk in coded rhetoric (“think of the children”) and outright lie about their intentions (“I’m not racist, I’m just concerned about preserving european culture”), and so having a deeper understanding of their actual goals is important to untangling those things, but that knowledge should be sought after in order to destroy or subvert their efforts at gaining political power. I have no desire to figure out what they hold in their heart as individual people because that doesn’t matter, only their political goals do.

and in the case of that post it’s actually an attempt to obfuscate the actual beliefs of settlers by grounding their racial anxieties in the unrelated material oppression of jewish people - in effect, making the argument that there are circumstances where settlers have a good reason to be scared of and view as violent the indigenous people whose lands they occupy, legitimising the need to keep them oppressed in order to safeguard settler society. what this understanding “does” politically is rationalise settler racism and make it impossible to even call it racism because the only reason you would dismiss their “reasonable concerns” is if you were trying to covertly deny antisemitism as an actual oppressive force in the world. It is doing exactly what anti-zionism is meant to oppose; making the settler-colonial interests of Israel equivalent to the interests of jewish people worldwide, which is to say, making the argument that anti-zionism is simply an expression of antisemitism. it is nonsense

[thorraborinn]

I know you have done posts about the etymology of the name Sigyn, but what I was wondering was if you might know where the idea that she's a Valkyrie comes from? I see a lot of posts on here saying that her name means friend of victory and that means she was a badass Valkyrie serving Odin, which doesn't make any sense or seem likely to me. I honestly feel this way because of stanza 22 of Lokasenna, wherein Loki calls out Odin's treatment of humans in battle, which makes me question why he would marry a Valkyrie. I don't know, maybe someone else can answer this, if not. I'm going to write a post about my continued quest to find more fun books about Norse mythology and Loki especially, so I will most likely mention it in that.

I agree with you that the theory that Sigyn is a valkyrie is not correct. I'm not sure where it originated, but there are a few reasons that I am not surprised that people believe it.

Sigyn has been studied and debated for well over a hundred years, but nobody really proposed a good etymology for her name until 2017, and he did it in a very dense linguistics paper that's difficult for most people to understand. Especially in his second, more verbose paper on the subject, he also included a lot of comparative Indo-European mythology that most people rightly regard as speculative and outdated, and while it doesn't ruin his etymological argument, some non-linguists might object to it and find the author less credible because of it.

The element sig- or sigr- means 'victory' and is very common in Old Norse names in general, and occurs twice in Valkyrie names (Sigrdrífa and Sigrún). It's much more common in human names, but Sigrdrífa is an important enough figure to stand out and probably adds to the perception that sig- names are typical of valkyries.

We are now fairly certain that Sigyn's name is actually Sígyn with a long i, so it isn't 'victory' at all, and most likely originally meant something to do with pouring liquid, but again, this was only formally demonstrated in 2017 in a paper that few people have read. So the 'victory' interpretation prevails for now. It had a 100+ year head start, and it will take a long time for Ginevra's new etymology to reach people.

Since deity names usually have some connection to the deity's role, domain, or actions they perform in myth, it seemed for a long time like there was an unanswered question about what exactly Sigyn did that was victorious enough to be named that. Deciding that she must be a valkyrie is a neat solution to that question, because it would mean she doesn't have to acquire victory herself, but because valkyries pertain to granting or withholding victory in general it would make sense for a valkyrie to have that name.

The last thing that I can think of is that it could be an extension to a theory about why Loki is hanging around with the æsir to begin with. It's a common theory that Loki's mother Laufey was an áss and that's why he took her name as a matronymic rather than his jötunn father's. But it also makes some sense to propose that he married into the æsir. It's enough to suggest that Sigyn is an áss, but to say that she is a valkyrie ties up the previous two points and connects it to this one, because valkyries pertain to the æsir through Óðinn, even without really being æsir themselves.

So basically, it's a nice, neat theory that cleanly ties up a lot of loose ends, it's just that whenever you find one of those in the field of Norse mythology it's almost always wrong.

[Edit] I should also add that I understand that for some people this is really more of a gut feeling interpretation and that many people have found meaning in the 'victory-friend(fem.)' interpretation even while understanding that it isn't etymological, I'm really not trying to dismantle any of that, but just to clarify what's represented directly in medieval texts.

[horizonsstandstill]

I'm also against using "rest in power" or other Black terminology for white people.

For several reasons, such as;

- It's easy to provoke disenfranchised Black people into starting divisive arguments because they want their oppression to be heard, and psyops take advantage of that,

- Terms Black people coined are always taken out of context and this harms their ability to fight against oppression when they are using them,

- The use of more revolutionary and provocative terms will give the agents of imperialism a hard time to shame the people into silence or denounce them as racists,

- Our terminology should include horizons, visions and goals that will encourage our people and make the enemies shake.

Therefore I suggest using terms such as;

- May your sacrifice be a milestone in a society we will build on the ashes of imperialism,

- Rest knowing that the empire will crumble with your spark,

- We will remember your heroic act as a catalyst for the destruction of our oppressors,

- You will never be forgotten unlike the colonial order we will dismantle.

See if the psyops could argue with these. And whenever people use divisive arguments, don't argue. Ask them questions on the issues such as what they think of cops, military industrial complex, prison and slavery system, indigenous rights and who are their favourite Black thinkers. If they can't provide satisfactory answers, don't engage them. They deserve cancelling over speaking about things they don't understand.

Black people in the imperial core can be the victims of the imperialism as well as the perpetrators of it. It depends on how disenfranchised they are and how much they are willing to suck up to the white supremacist order in order to be able to oppress other people. Everyone can serve as an agent of imperialism regardless of race, class, gender, disability or any other axis of oppression. That is not even limited to imperial core. That's why it's up to the oppressed to think about who are benefiting their actions.

It's important that the electronics we use to do our "activism" come at the price of the suffering of Congolese people. Possibly Bolivian people too. Also the sufferings of the workers that are exploited in the Far Eastern countries. We all could suffer from imperialism while using the materials extracted through the imperial order of suffering. That doesn't make any of us less oppressed. It gives us a duty to try to end all kinds of oppression and dismantle the imperialist system altogether.

As a side note, discriminating against people while advocating against other types of discrimination makes a person a disgusting hypocrite.

If your communism ends when you think you can't consume products from underdeveloped countries cheaply, you're a scum.

If your anarchism ends when you think it's not okay for people to gather and build structures out of their own volition for only themselves after the revolution, you're a scum.

If your feminism finds it convenient to stereotype men of other races and caricaturise them as monsters, you are the monster.

If your veganism doesn't recognise the situations of indigenous people and disabled people, sufferings of agriculture workers and environmental degradation that vegan products cause, it means you're not against cruelty to all living beings. You're just a self righteous idiot.

If your anti violence is only for those who resist against the legal order that oppresses themselves, you are amongst the perpetrators of said oppression, deserving of violent resistance against yourself.

If your queer rights activism ends at the people who are acceptable queers in your worldview, you're a bootlicker of the patriarchy. Those boots are coming for you next.

If your disability advocacy is not inclusive of recreational use of substances -legal or illegal-, you're just another selfish person being loud.

These are just examples. They can be multiplied into several cases.

Being against one type of bigotry doesn't excuse other types of bigotry. People can make these mistakes for a lot of reasons, but once it's explained to them if they continue their bigotry, they should be cancelled altogether. We should not engage them at all, and a blocklist is in order. No need to waste our time in good faith because of bad faith actors.

Say, "Okay, bigot/bootlicker/racist so on..." to call them out. Then blocked. If they learn, they have to learn it the hard way.

[i-dont-even-care335]

I have to get something off my chest. I really didn't like Secruity Breach Ruin. I felt as though it was incredibly boring and anti climactic. Most of the time, Cassie was just wandering around and doing tasks. The other animatronics weren't ever really a threat and so easy to surpass because they were damaged and slow and easily distracted. Plus, Roxy wasn't even a threat to us as she recognized us . And, the Sun/Moon arc was repetitive as we did that whole jungle gym hide and seek chase in the first SB. The virus never really did that much harm to us and sort of just was an inconvenience.

I do not care for this new character "Cassie" and her relationship with Roxy will never surpass Gregory and Glamrock Freddy's (I mention this because I have seen so many people say something along the lines of that). With Freddy and Gregory, we got to see their relationship build, and it was so much like a found family. Glamrock Freddy saved us multiple times, comforted us, and kept us safe in his stomach hatch. He was just extremely helpful, and an important character is my point. I'm getting tired of people saying Gregory is a heartless brat. He did care for Glamrock Freddy. Why else would he cry when Freddy was dismantled? Why else would it be such a hard choice on whether to leave Glamrock Freddy and never come back to mega pizzaplace or stay with him and explore more? It would make sense for Gregory to be untrustworthy of an animtronic such as Freddy as the rest are trying to kill him. We saw two interactions with Roxy and Cassie, and suddenly, they were the new "Freddy and Gregory." I think not.

The game also left us with so many more questions and a cliffhanger for another game that I honestly couldn't care less for. I mean, how does Cassie know Gregory? Why is the mega pizzaplex in ruins? Who is the mimic? Why does the mimic want Cassie, etc. This is more of a personal one since I hate not knowing what is going on and what this means and just every little bit of a game plot or story. I hate being left confused.

Another complaint I have is, well, it feels nothing like a Fnaf. William isn't even the villain anymore. Is he even going to come back to the franchise at all? We barely got to see Glamrock Freddy in ruin, and I point this out because every single Freddy is the face of the franchise. You can't have a Five Nights At Freddy's game without some sort of Freddy. Michael afton isn't even a playable character anymore since he's dead. Every important character (The puppet, Michael, William, Henry, the ogs really) is dead.

I apologize if some of the arguments are sort of confusing and this is very long. I just needed to get it off my chest.

[darklinaforever]

If yall thinking abuse is love, get therapy cause you're insane. He was about to kill her, she couldn't breathe while he was strungling her and yall still saying he loves her? He never did. He had some kind of pervy thing for her, quickly ended too, but it's far from love. It was never love. The only man who loved Rhaenyra is Harwin.

This scene was literally occ and even the actors didn't understand it ! (in addition to lots of spectators, both female and male... Anyway, HOTD has lots of writing inconsistencies. This series is stupid) Thank you again for proving that you mix the canon of the book and the canon of the series, and repeat over and over again the same arguments that I and others have already dismantled many times. You are literally parrots, no irony. Daemon was never violent towards the women he had relationships with in the book, this is a pure invention of the series. And the series, once again, is not the book, or representative of the hidden truth of Fire and Blood. GRRM said it himself, the series has its own canon, and the book has its own canon. And the series literally has nothing to do with the real events and characters presented by Fire and Blood. In summary, the real Daemon would not have strangled Rhaenyra. If you want to complain about this scene, complain to the writers who saw fit to include a scene of gratuitous domestic violence for sheer shock value. And don't bother telling me that since GRRM would have approved the scene, the Daemon in the book would have done it, because that's bullshit. I remind you that GRRM validated the last season of GOT and we know what a disaster it was and that GRRM will not do any of that in his future final books if he ever writes them. So stop using this stupid scene that doesn't make any sense and doesn't represent the relationship in the book. Because yes, most of us prefer Daemyra in the book as well as many other things massacred by the series. Again, the series is a crap adaptation, which is not representative of the fire and blood canon. Also, most of those who denounce this scene of strangulation to take down Daemon, like you, are also happy that Rhaenyra suffered and hope that she will suffer again. I at least hope you're not one of them. On the other hand, you are still one of those who exaggerate. No. Daemon wouldn't have killed Rhaenyra. He literally freaked out (for stupid reasons, thank you writers) and let off steam (in a completely occ way, thank you writers), but no, it wasn't about killing Rhaenyra. It was about being on the brink of implosion with the usurpation of the Greens, the death of Viserys, the death of baby Visenya, and the war on their doorstep. Also, you literally know nothing about the Harwin from the book about his feelings for Rhaenyra. All we know about him in the book is that he bore Rhaenyra children (but I don't know that in HOTD's canon he clearly loved her). And even if Daemyra is maladjusted and toxic compared to the book version in HOTD, do I even need to explain that in fiction you can combine love and toxicity ? Even in real life actually. (Except that, if there is toxicity in real life, you run very far) Love is not something inherently pure, you have to stop the bullshit. You can cry over these truths all you want.

Also, a small compilation of moments where the writers / the HOTD team talked about love / romantic aspect / or something more powerful than tat, for Dameyra that I found. Hey, it's free :

[Sara Hess] does believe that Daemon and Rhaenyra are meant for each other, although of course, it's complicated. “Saying they 'love’ each other seems almost too simple,” Hess says, “it’s more that they have a profound, primal connection that nobody else understands.”

“Daemon and Rhaenyra — they're together at the beginning of my episode. Part of the thing that we felt was important was to believe that they were in love with each other. And not just believe it, but feel the electricity. I mean, I don't know about you guys, but I am very much in love with my husband, and I still have a crush on him. And when I see him, I still get chills. And I wanted to see that, I wanted to feel that from them. Because this was a delicate fleeting moment, as you know having seen the episode. We needed to feel the realism of that. And so the two of them [Matt and Emma] had a lot of conversations — even without me — where they were building their relationship, and building the chemistry. So I was really pleased when we got to shooting their first scene together, where Rhaenyra says 'I need to go back home’ — just the way he looked at her… I just love that.” - Geeta Patel.

So if you want to complain that I'm saying Daemon loves Rhaenyra in the show universe specifically (although I imagine you don't even know the difference from the book anyway) and I need to therapy, tell Ryan Condal and Greeta Patel themselves about this too...

Also, I literally just made this article :

So no, I don't think abuse is love. It's just you who don't know the definition of the words you used here for Daemyra with grooming (book or show) and I've already said countless times that the show HOTD is not Fire and Blood.

[napstaboo]

so I just saw an ad about how people go into the wrong careers for their talents and the example was superman :/ because superman should be using his powers to diagnose cancer or deliver vaccines at super speed or whatever instead of being a superhero and it annoyed me. So I'm going to overanalyze it cause i'm me.

I kinda hate the arguments that people make about superheros when they clearly don't like the characters or read about them (ex: "batman is an asshole rich guy who beats up the mentally ill" this is a *whole* different argument that many people talk about, but my only addition is watch batman TAS I beg you) and I think this is one of them.

Multiple comics have covered this exact issue before!! Yes superman *could* dismantle entire militaries, diagnose illness for everyone in the population and basically answer humanity's every prayer but he doesn't *want* to be a god. He wants to be a dude from Kansas with human parents. Multiple comics go over the fact that superman's whole philosophy is to be a catalyst to get humans to uplift *themselves* (and this applies to the real world!! Good superman comics should make us--people existing in a world without superman--to want to uplift ourselves as humans, not gods. This would be impossible if superman comics were about him using his magic god powers to end disease everywhere).

In fact, I'd even say this whole argument is adjacent to Lex Luthor's worldview. Lex believes superman's entire existence is an insult to humanity because he sees superman as a god. The reason superman's silly disguise (glasses) works is because Lex (and other people) can't possibly imagine that someone like superman would deliberately choose to live life as an ordinary human. Why would a god ever want to be human? Why would anyone ever reject godhood for humanity? (hey pjo fans) But this is precisely the thesis of superman!! Humans don't have to be gods and in fact, 'gods' are not necessarily greater than humans! Humans are capable of great things and uplifting each other!

This last part is more unrelated but this is also why I think Lex is ableist. He values an "ideal" human body and wants to kill superman because his inherent ableism makes him so spiteful that there is someone stronger than him in the way superman is. Lex believes humans are only as valuable as they are 'strong' failing to realize that 'strong' is something he made up and that everyday humans living ordinary lives are doing great things. He doesn't see the inherent greatness and importance in living, in being a good person.

"the gift of genius" ok loser core^ (great writing/characterization tho)