#I don't really care if it is offline or online

[deramin2]

Essek constantly gushing about his partner but pointedly not giving his name hits me so hard in the feels.

Two formative childhood experiences for me:

ONE

I was severely, mercilessly bullied as a child at every school I went to even if they're was no overlap of kids, and authority figures either ignored me or directly told me it was my fault. I was socially toxic. Any other kid who publicly associated with me was also targeted for harassment. I was best friends with a girl around the corner but because I was a couple years younger (in itself an invitation for bullying) and a parish, we could never let anyone know we were friends.

I've been told I should be upset at her for this, but it wasn't her fault. It was the other children who made it a fact that she would be harmed by publicly being my friend. She didn't make those rules, we were both just honest that it existed and there was nothing we could do to change that. The best we could do to survive was at least protect her. And that benefited me by actually having a friend.

So if we talked about each other it was"my friend." No names. No acknowledging we knew each other in public. No introductions to other friends. Keeping that divide up was necessary to survival. I had a couple friends on the same freak level as we and we were in fact targeted with additional harassment to get to the other person. It was a legitimate threat to live with. At some point I just stopped thinking it was ever necessary to reveal who my friends or family are unless it's both explicitly relevant and necessary.

TWO

I learned to use the internet in the late 1990s when anonymity was considered a best practice. Don't give out your age, sex, location, or other identifying information. You don't know who is on the other side of that screen or what they will do to you if they know. Sperate your online and offline worlds to protect yourself.

This helped reinforce experience one because clearly adults also acted like those kids and this just normal human behavior no one will ever put a stop to that you need to be on guard for at all times. Build in air gaps so if one of you is compromised it's harder for the perpetrator to get to other people you care about. Defending them through anonymity is a way of showing you love them.

Also since some family are searchable through have state government jobs that right-wing nut jobs chips target them for, I wanted to make sure they couldn't be connected to me as a queer trans disabled person active online. In case something I said led to them being targeted.

(This is correct advice, even though it flies in the face of modern online conventions. There are tons of malicious people on three internet who will target you and anyone you love if they decide to hurt you.)

RESULT

By default, I refer to people by their relationship to me, not their name. My friend, my partner, my parent, my family, someone I know, etc. Often I avoid gendering them to make it even harder to identify them. I have to consciously consider if the person I'm talking to has any reason to know my associate's name. Blacklist everyone, then whitelist exceptions.

I do this even if both people know each other because the specific association feels dangerous. Better to be viewed as acquaintances than a meaningful relationship that changes how either of us could be viewed. It's not even really a judgement on thinking the person is untrustworthy, I just don't want to spend any extra energy thinking about it. It doesn't even feel relevant because my relationship to this person fellas like it conveys more information that actually matters.

ESSEK

Essek knows both he and Caleb are being targeted by powerful people who have shown they will target loved ones to get to them. Additionally, tensions between the Empire and Dynasty are still high and it could very easily compromise how their own sides view them if it's known that they're romantically entangled with someone from the other side. It could also blow each other's cover and make their meeting places more vulnerable to attack. Especially if their enemies know they could hit both of them at once.

It's genuinely dangerous for their connection to be known, so they don't name names. It's not even a matter of whether Bell's Hells would intentionally misuse that information, but what they also could just let slip to the wrong person. It's not really worth the risk when "my partner" is all the information they actually need to understand him.

My guess is that Essek said "Bren" is hiss partner because they already know a Bren sent them to Astrid. And since Caleb no longer uses the name Bren it would be much harder to connect them. It would have caused more questions, more prying, and more risk to give no name for his partner when directly pressed. So he gives a truthful but less dangerous answer. The anonymity is an act of love.

[picnokinesis]

if you would be interested in sharing your thoughts about the star beast, i would love to hear them!!

Ooh okay, so - well, first, just to start off: I think The Star Beast is a really important episode, and was very much a needed episode. The current climate in the UK regarding the trans community and their rights is getting extremely rancid, to put it lightly. Having an episode of Doctor Who with an explicitly trans character, having the other characters around her be affirming and supportive - that was awesome. Extremely awesome. And I'm really glad that RTD is loudly putting himself on this side of the whole 'debate' (which isn't really a debate, because it's just straight up bigotry from the anti-trans side, and we need people like RTD outwardly speaking out against that bigotry).

When I talk to cis people offline about this episode, that is pretty much what I say and also where I stop.

I'll put the rest under the cut hahah - there's a bit of negativity here, just as a warning for all the hardcore RTD stans, but I think it's well-founded and not vitriolic at all, just like, miffed hahaha. Also, I know there were a few trans folks who found this episode really affirming, so just to be clear: this is just my opinion, personal thoughts, and also influenced by the conversations I had with other trans people that I know and care about about the episode.

When I talk to trans people - offline or online - about this episode, I go in a lot deeper, because whilst it was a very important episode, it was somewhat flawed. It also came off the back of several things RTD had said and done that really ticked me off, and so I wasn't really in the interest of being entirely uncritical about what, to me and a lot of trans dw fans that I spoke to, thought was a very "cis" trans story. And when I watched it, I thought 'oh geez, is this how poc feel when white people try and write poc stories with good intentions but don't really get it right??" because like. Ho boy.

The thing about this episode was that RTD wanted to write an affirming trans story, and mostly did that, but also, imo...doesn't actually understand what gender and transness actually is. I think my main gripes were definitely with the climax scene - the whole 'we can let go bc we're women' thing literally made me go 'what' out loud at the screen because...well, it's just gender essentialism. Trans inclusive, sure! But trans inclusive gender essentialism is still gender essentialism. Women aren't better than men. There's actually an exceptionally good essay written by a trans woman who was still in the closet about her experiences in queer spaces that had a very prevalent anti-men attitude, and I've seen it myself irl too. It's not helpful - it's harmful, in fact - and it leans on this strange mysticism about women that is fundamentally anti-feminist, in my opinion. Women aren't "innately better at emotional and intangible, instinctive things" (and it's unspoken counterpart - "thus men are better at logical, rational things" - is also untrue). Women aren't magically better at 'letting things go' than men are - I reckon you could make an argument about men being socialised to not be emotional, and that would be an interesting conversation to have, but that was not what was being said - especially with the Doctor being raised in a society that didn't even perceive gender in the same was as humanity.

Also, the thing that REALLY got me was 'if you were a woman, you'd get it' - first of all, no. Thirteen never let anything go in her life and repressed to the max, if anything she was WORSE than tenteen at that lmao. Second - and this is the more salient point - I think it's a strange thing to suggest that tenteen is fully a man, at this point? Like, regardless of what he looks like, regardless of how he identifies or how thirteen identified, he just lived a lifetime in a body that looked like a woman, and thus was treated as such by the rest of the universe. He wasn't going to forget all of that. I actually really liked how the Chibnall era approached thirteen's gender - or, rather, her complete ambivalence to it, where it seemed like gender was more of an annoying thing that kept happening to the doctor that she kept having to remember, rather than something she felt - however I really REALLY wish they'd actually dug explicitly into the transness of it all, and so when they didn't, I'd hoped that RTD would do that instead. Especially since we KNEW Yasmin Finney was in it and we knew we were going to get a trans character!! I was like, this is the PERFECT opportunity to get the Doctor to actually talk about their gender and how it, fundamentally, doesn't really change between bodies, just how people REACT to it changes. But instead, the episode seems to present the doctor as having flicked a binary switch - once woman, now man - and thus made sure to remind us that every time thirteen was mentioned, it was framed around the fact that she was The Woman Regeneration, but also that tenteen was Now a Man Again. And even if that WAS THE CASE, it still wouldn't mean that tenteen came out of that experience completely mindwiped of everything about 'womanhood', right?? Like he lived as a woman! He was a woman 45 minutes ago, but now you're telling him that he couldn't possibly understand anything about this because he's a man now? Like first of all, his physical body's characteristics have nowt to do with his ability to let things go, second, it's just....okay, it reminds me of the dichotomy between all these detransition horror stories the anti-trans folks like to spew out, versus when you talk to actual detransitioners, who are quite often gnc and extremely positive about the trans community, and whose experience within that community and transitioning impacted how they view the world.

And I think it fundamentally comes down to RTD not really understanding either womanhood or transness. He actively speaks out on both of these things, which is great, but I don't think he understands them fully. I think the fact that he didn't think that David Tennant could wear a t-shirt, braces, trousers and coat because they were "women's clothes", and that when he cast David Tennant that was one of the first things he immediately decided is kind of telling.

There's also the whole 'male-presenting timelord' thing, which, again, I just don't think RTD really understood what that meant, like I'm not sure what his point was there, genuinely. Like, on a technical level it's acknowledging that the Doctor isn't necessarily male, just looks like a man (correct) buuuuuuuuuut the full line was saying 'you'd never understand this because you're a man' SO LIKE...okay? So he's not actually a man, but actually because of his male-adjacency, he's incapable of coming to the same conclusion that a woman did? So he's still...defined by his maleness? Hm. Strange sentence to write coming out of a trans woman's mouth.

What would have been better? I wish they'd just had Donna and Rose say 'because we're human', or maybe 'because we're the Nobles'. I also know a lot of people really didn't like the misgendering scene with the kids on the bikes - I think my personal feelings on that are a little more complicated, as a trans person who is not out irl and functionally uses my birthname almost everywhere, but also isn't triggered by it. It's not a deadname, more like a paperwork name rather than my preferred name, right? But I know for a lot of trans people, deadnaming is like psychological warfare and it's really awful, especially when done with malicious intent (like shown in the scene with the boys on the bikes). However...I do understand why RTD included this scene, and actually kind of agree with him. Because the boys on the bikes are the sort of people who are also watching the show. And so then seeing that kind of thing being condemned by the narrative by a key, beloved character, is probably something that's actually helpful. On the other hand though...in the Doctor Who Unleashed (or whatever the behind the scenes thing is called now), you've got this interview with Yasmin Finney saying that it was actually a pretty triggering scene to film for her and genuinely affected her, and I'm like....okaaaaaay then I REALLY hope they had someone she could talk to on set. Like, fundamentally, I think telling these stories are important, but, yknow, not at the expense of the actual actress' mental wellbeing, right? So that concerned me a bit.

I also think that the scene between Sylvia and Donna in the kitchen talking about Rose was brilliant. And this is because it was about cis people trying to understand and support trans people whilst not completely getting it and making mistakes, but also trying their best!! Which RTD does understand, very well!! And it felt so real. It was fantastic. There's also the part with the whole 'did you assume the meep's pronouns' whiiiiiiiich I have mixed feelings about? I think here, RTD was trying to poke fun at the people who do say that sort of thing to make fun of trans people, and having the Doctor be like 'actually this is a good point we should be checking this sort of thing'......however. I don't think I've ever heard 'did you assume my pronouns' come out of a trans person's mouth. It's always been a cis person mocking our community. So it felt a bit...incongruent. And all that needed to be changed was having Rose say 'how do you know the meep is a he?' - like that was all it needed!!! Also, it was a shame that after the delightful moment of the doctor being like 'SAME HAT' regarding the meep's pronouns, that.....we then had NO OTHER DISCUSSION about the doctor's gender!! Like, Russel, dude, you're really gonna have Rose hear the 'male-presenting' guy say 'oh yeah I do that with pronouns too!! :D' - have her NOT REACT TO THAT AT ALL - and then you're gonna have her say by the end 'oh you don't understand bc you're a man :)' after her non-binary power move moment? Sighs. Yeah.

I think another important thing to remember here is that there were no trans folks in the writer's room on this. Now, this is a tricky one because I think people who aren't part of a certain community should be writing stories outside their own knowledge and experience, and should be encouraged to do so!! I don't think that you need to have everything rubberstamped, and even something written by someone in a certain community isn't going to resonate with everyone in that community. Actually, I think it's unhelpful to start getting into the politics of 'who is allowed to write what' - I think anything written with care and good intention is valuable, especially if the writer is willing to listen to constructive criticism and learn from any mistakes that are made. But I think, as a writer myself, if you are going to write a story about that community, it might be worth 1) talking to them a bit more than I think RTD did - but, to be fair, I don't actually know how much research he did, but, well, see above on the fact I don't think he really got what he was writing about - but also 2) not dismissing writers from that community (and others!), which RTD did in an interview not thaaaaaaat long before the episode aired. Again, to be fair to him, he has since then been like 'oh, we need to mentor and encourage the new generation of trans writers and writers of colour', which, great! But also, sir, then why were you saying that all the scripts you got from minority writers were all awful, angry, and lacked any love for tv like skksks SIR. SIR. The thing that gets me about that comment in particular is that, as someone currently starting out in script writing, I know exactly how hard it is to get at all noticed. It takes a lot of effort, a lot of passion, a lot of hard work and a lot of skill - and a lot of luck too, granted, but not luck along. So, RTD, if these writers got their scripts to your literal desk, as showrunner of Doctor Who...I think they have some love and passion. They HAVE to, to get to the point where he is reading those scripts. Also maybe RTD should unpack the fact that he thought the scripts were bad because they were too angry - I mean, I haven't read them, so I don't know, but maybe, sir, feeling uncomfortable about the anger in a script isn't a bad thing. Not every story is meant to be an easy pill to swallow. There are aromantic stories I want to write about romance as horror, romance as a virus, romance as a destructive force, that I think a lot of alloromantic people will find uncomfortable. Does that mean they're bad? Maybe, lol. Mostly they're bad because they're not written yet lmao, but I don't think the anger and discomfort in them makes them inherently weak. In fact, I think often anger can make a story stronger.

So then, I think The Star Beast left a sour taste in the back of my mouth, despite all the positive aspects of it, because of that. I think that comment also kinda left me frustrated about Dot and Bubble, even though I think that was a fantastic episode and genuinely really well done, and very effective - and I'm genuinely loathe to criticise it at all because I think it was so important - but. Having RTD talking in an interview about wondering how long the audience will take to notice that the cast is all white (and, thus, the depicted society is racist) whilst sitting in a writers room that's all white iiiiiiiiiiis uh. I don't think he thought about that SKKS. I think a lot about Sacha Dhawan talking about how you can be as inclusive on screen as you like, but if it's all 'white behind the lights' then how much does that inclusivity actually mean?

RTD definitely had good intentions and wrote a mostly good story. But he definitely fell down in some regards, aaaaaand well. I don't know. My personal opinion is that he's kind of arrogant and thinks he's infallible as a writer (and I may feel this way bc of the way parts of the fandom seem to put him on a pedestal, if I'm honest) - but I think that he's just human. He doesn't get things perfectly right all the time, and that's absolutely fine, but I think it's interesting and important to discuss those pitfalls, and I just wish he'd stop making it feel like he thinks he can write trans stories better than, yknow, actual trans people, and then write the most cis trans story I've ever seen SKSKSKSK

(AND ACTUALLY - sorry, this is getting long, but it's kind of indicative of the whole industry at the moment? The industry is calling for more diverse voices, more diverse stories - but they also want stories that can appeal to the widest possible audience, the common denominator, and thus "trans stories by trans people for trans people" doesn't actually tick that box. This didn't hit me until I wrote a trans horror script that got shortlisted for a script call, but when I spoke to the (cis) producer and director (who were LOVELY, the producer had a gorgeous dog called Biscuit HAHA) I very quickly realised that they did not get it. They didn't understand. "Why do we have to kill the mirror demon that's the girl part of this trans man?" they asked. "She should get to live too!" But: "She was never a part of him," I had to say. "She was the idea of him that everyone around him thought he was, and thought it so strongly that she became real. It was her or him." They didn't really understand, but on the plus side it did highlight to me what was unclear in my script that none of my (trans) proof readers had picked up on (although my transfemme friend made the HILARIOUS comment that maybe the mirror demon could go and find a nice trans girl to possess? WHICH SKSKSKSKKSKSK I MEAN -))

Anyway. -gestures nebulously- I feel like my thoughts were a lot more concise and well constructed in the week after this episode actually aired hahaha, but I didn't want to throw my hat into the ring back then. I did find it amused how the majority of my cis trans-affirming friends were like 'GREAT EPISODE, RIGHT?!!' and the majority of my trans friends were sending me the grimace emoji in the week after the episode aired LMAO

[monty-glasses-roxy]

Oh wait I have shit to do on the 25th oh no

[chocolate-cream-soldier]

:/

[heartshattering]

maybe i need to go away again

[mistabonbon]

[punkitt-is-here]

Hey everyone! As MANY of you know following last night...

I am a transgender woman!

Big moment for me! I have been for many years actually, I've been out in my public life offline for quite a while now! But I was always nervous about coming out online, for a myriad of reasons I don't really think I need to get into. But! I'm so glad I could come out in the silliest way possible. I'm super honored by all the sweet messages I've been getting, and it has me incredibly overjoyed that everyone has been so supportive of me. Thank you to everyone who supported me on this silly saga, and I hope it's been worth the wait! It feels REALLY nice to finally be out online, as this was really the last space I wasn't "upfront" about it. As much fun as being a mystery was, I much prefer being explicitly a girl online much like I am in real life.

A couple things!!! I don't want this to be everything about me; it's partially why I didn't come out earlier! I've seen how some audiences make the transness of creators their WHOLE thing, and I'd prefer it not be the thing that defines me. I LOVE being trans, and it's a big part of me, but I'd rather be known as someone who makes really cool art and not "that funny trans woman" (even though I am, hehe). I'm super cool with people talking about my transness, just don't make it the only thing about me!

Two, as fun as the pronoun mystery was, it's officially over! Sorry to the any/all-he/him-they/them punkitt truthers out there, btw. (Excited that my energy really isn't genderable at all, though!) So, even if it was fun that I was a gender mystery, I'd prefer everyone refer to me as she/her exclusively! No he/him, and I'd prefer not to be they/them'd consistently (although I know for some people it's the default and it's fine if it slips, and if someone just doesn't know that's not an issue in the slightest). Even if me being a funny gender wizard is entertaining (and it WAS, lemme tell ya) I want to have my identity respected!

ANYWAY that's all that LAME STUFF out of the way; I want to say thank you to everyone who's helped me along the way and the overwhelming support I've had in the time of me coming out to now. I'm incredibly happy I have an audience of such sweet, caring folks, and I can't wait to make more silly, fun stuff for everyone now that I'm truly allowed to be my silly, fun self online. Have a great one, folks! ❤️

[qqueenofhades]

Hi! This question has been noodling in my head for a few weeks, and I’ve been really curious to hear your opinion. I’ve appreciated your very thoughtful commentary on the ways the online left in particular have hurt the real and concerted efforts that have been made to navigate through the Gaza war in support of Palestine. I’ve seen a lot of outrage online about Biden bypassing congress in order to make another emergency weapons sale to Israel, which does indeed read as counter to helping to the Palestinians facing endless and indiscriminate violence. I understand that you might not want to answer this ask, because the work that you already do in your life offline and the work that you do here on tumblr to respond to and explain these issues is exhausting enough. Thanks so much for your time and your thoughtful contributions! It’s always really helped me remember to slow down and think critically about the media I consume.

Because you have asked this thoughtfully and in good faith, I will return the favor and give you a careful and extensive answer to the best of my ability. However, obligatory top-of-post disclaimer that I will disable reblogs at the first hint of any wankery in the notes and I will not answer any follow-ups or secondary asks at this time (unless I decide to do so, but I engage with this topic sparingly, judiciously, and only in small doses, so don't count on it).

First, let me say that the moment, I disagree with substantial portions of how Biden is handling the two main foreign-policy crises (Ukraine and Gaza). In regard to Ukraine, I think he's backed off, taken his foot off the gas, and otherwise given Republicans ammunition to keep delaying or watering down a new aid bill, is refusing to disburse military aid packages from the $4 billion of funding remaining that was previously approved by Congress, hasn't sent long-range ATACMS and other critical military hardware that might bring the war to an end sooner, and is not (as of the moment, though recent reporting suggests this might change) pushing hard enough for frozen Russian assets to be transferred to Ukraine for military and/or humanitarian financial assistance. However, I am also aware (unlike, it seems, much of the left-leaning internet) that I am basing these judgments only on my personal impressions, on what is reported (or not reported) in the media (which has plenty of its own problems) and otherwise what is formed in my role as an ordinary American citizen without any kind of special, classified, high-level, or government access. I know nothing more than any of you, and I also know that a lot of what goes on behind closed doors does not appear on Political Twitter and/or the Washington Post or the Guardian or Daily Kos or whatever other aggregate sources of information I or any left-leaning person typically consumes. So it's highly possible (and this is my cautious academic instinct speaking) that I do not, in fact, have a full picture of events. There are also contributing factors that Biden cannot simply handwave aside, even if he did, say, dip back into the $4 billion pot in the meantime. Congress will need to pass a new funding bill for Ukraine aid and the MAGA Republicans have been enthusiastically blocking it to the point where Putin's cronies on Russian state TV praise them effusively for it. We all know about the Republicans and Russia's mutual love affair. So.

The same goes for Gaza, and even more because we have already had reporting about how the Biden administration is walking a behind-the-scenes tightrope in a number of seemingly impossible tasks: keeping the war from spreading to a larger theater, pressuring Netanyahu to dial down, y'know, the rampant genocide (when Netanyahu notoriously doesn't like Biden, was very close with Trump, and would be happy to keep the war going in order to boost Trump's chances of being re-elected and save Netanyahu himself from his own criminal prosecutions), and pursuing a complex policy toward the state of Israel that does not follow the antisemitic Western Online Left's fever dream of "Israel suddenly disappears overnight and falls into the ocean and all Jews die or disappear." We have had multiple credibly sourced reports about this. Blinken is back in the Middle East right now trying to keep the war from spreading. The US under Biden has criticized Israel's essentially empty policy document for post-war Gaza as not being remotely feasible (because it's so vague) and gone so far as to voice support for a two-state solution with Palestinian self-determination (which is itself quite radically different from previous administrations). However, they have also vetoed UN ceasefire resolutions and other essentially meaningless political theater (the UN as a whole has been ruthlessly exposed in the last few years for being completely useless) that are easy to gin up outrage about, and that's what the internet focuses on, rather than any of the other complicated actions taking place.

All of this is to say that no, in fact, I don't blindly support everything the Biden administration is doing in regard to either Ukraine or Israel right now, but I actually have a sense of real-world perspective about it and understand that there are certain immutable realities that we are working with and which will not be erased by some absolute jackasses yelling at Biden in a historically black church at the commemoration of an anti-black terrorist attack. Likewise, as I've said it before and I'll say it again, and as plenty of other people have noticed and pointed out, the Western left is using this as an orgy of pseudo-revolutionary fervor that focuses on using Hamas as a proxy for their own fantasies of violent uprising against their own governments. Because while yes, anti-zionism and antisemitism are two distinct things and represent different aims and goals, it's become more or less irrelevant in allegedly pro-Palestine Western leftist spaces. It's just increasingly rabid, accelerationist, and nihilistic antisemitism all the time, or the obvious usage of "Zionist" to mean "Jew." It's not good. There is no concept of actual restorative justice for Palestinians or other people, such as Ukrainians, Syrians, Uyghurs, Taiwanese, etc, either undergoing genocide or facing the threat of it, because Western leftists have latched onto this cause solely as a stick to beat the Democratic Party with and have no actual moral interest or concern in stopping genocide elsewhere in the world or repudiating it as a method overall. They just want the state of Israel (which they characterize as a "proxy state for white western colonialism" despite the many, many things historically, religiously, and politically wrong with that statement, because it means it now Contains the Right Buzzwords to Oppose It) to be destroyed altogether in the name of "opposing colonialism," but it really seems to be all about opposing Jews. Hmm.

Simply put, Biden is not ever going to pursue a policy of "let's totally abandon Israel tomorrow, never sell it any weapons or allow it to defend its own civilians, and agree that Hamas is actually a good representation or advocate for the Palestinian people" in the way a number of Western Online Leftists seem to think he should do. There is still the fact that Israeli civilians do exist and that Hamas has continued to launch missiles at them daily, inconvenient as that fact might be for the Hamas fanboys (and fangirls) who now populate much of what passes for Western leftist discourse spaces. (Either that or they don't care, because in their view, Israeli civilians are fully acceptable collateral damage by virtue of simply living in Israel in the first place, which -- yikes. Fucking yikes. That is all.) The number of people professing to be lifelong leftists who are Just Shocked at all the antisemitism, or thinking that any and all antisemitism is just artificially introduced into leftist spaces by bad-faith right-wing/Nazi psyops either has not spent any actual time around leftists, or (more likely) simply does not listen to what they openly say. The antisemitism is virulent, constant, and only getting worse. On the most basic level, regardless of the other difficulties around the founding of Israel as a state in 1948 and the fact that doing so on some of the most bitterly religiously, politically, ethnically, and culturally contested territory in the world for over two thousand years was always going to be a massive clusterfuck, the fact of its immediate post-Holocaust creation simply cannot be ignored the way many Online Leftists do. Israel exists because of the worst antisemitic mass murder in recorded history (and that's a high bar). That fact must be incorporated into any actual discussions about its right either to exist or to protect its own civilians. But this gets turned into "Israel exists only as a puppet state of white western colonialists" which is just bad on so, so many levels.

The collective Western Online Leftist feeling seems to be that Hamas are innocent and wronged freedom fighters who are begging for a ceasefire and the cruel Israelis aren't granting them one. This is not true. Hamas has rejected multiple ceasefire opportunities, and continued to launch missiles and retaliatory attacks, because they are terrorists and they do not want or represent any serious opportunity to negotiate in the framework of western liberal democracy. They are treated as helpless woobified blorbos by much of the Western leftist-leaning internet. They are not. In that case, Biden bypassing Congress to sell Israel weapons (which was just something like 100 million of artillery shells, which is not nothing but still not a huge systematic thing like, say, Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal) is not great. I do not support anything Israel is doing to Gaza. It is abhorrent. However, there are reasons for Biden to provide some limited amount of weapons to Israel without congressional approval that do not automatically and mindlessly equate to BIDEN SUPPORTS TOTAL GENOCIDE IN GAZA!!!!!!1 Especially when as I've said, the Online Leftists only care about stopping genocide when it fits their political self-righteousness, and absolutely not at all the rest of the time.

This is representative of the fact that Western Online Leftism has now completed its all-out descent into blind Noam Chomskyism. Chomsky has never met a "leftist" or "anti-Western" genocide he couldn't deny, excuse, or openly cheerlead (going all the way back to the 1970s and Pol Pot/the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and going up to the minute with Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Palestine). Noam Chomsky is the leftist Henry Kissinger. His ethics and morals are equally abhorrent, he's just as willing to justify total genocide in the name of advancing his preferred political ideology, and while there were (justifiably) celebrations and gloating memes across Tumblr when Kissinger finally bit the dust, Chomsky's beliefs are replicated with slavish adoration in many other Tumblr spaces and spread in some form or another to the rest of the website, which now takes them as leftist gospel (and let's not even talk about Twitter). This represents my absolute frustration with the fact that Western Online Leftism has devolved to such a degraded, mindless, useless, and malevolent level that "cheerlead for any anti-western/Leftist TM terrorist group or state" is taken to be the be-all and end-all of their moral philosophy. Someone remarked that ISIS peaked too early; if they were still at the height of their powers today, they would have a legion of devoted white so-called progressive Twitter users shilling earnestly and angrily for them, and Christ, isn't that the fucking truth.

I know we live in a hard, frightening, complex, and difficult world, and it's hard to sort out what our moral responsibility and action should be at any given time, especially since the answer is always so frustratingly partial and incomplete. Nobody of basic good sense and decency wants to see Gaza leveled while the Israeli state continues to apply a number of violently cruel collective punishments even outside the actual daily bombing of civilians. But for the love of god, let's get rid of the idea that the continued mindless violence doesn't benefit Hamas (because it does; unsurprisingly, sympathy for their cause has soared in Gaza) as much as it does Israel, or that Hamas is some kind of benevolent peacemaker that is being thwarted by the cruel imperialist US/West. And going back to the incident that prompted you to send me this ask: white leftists have often and repeatedly demonstrated their withering disdain for black people, Democratic voters, "mainstream" Americans, and anyone else doesn't buy into the twisted tankie fantasy land where getting rid of Biden would somehow be a massive coup for social justice (by getting Trump, now openly announcing at every turn that he will be a dictator, back into office! Very praxis, much justice. Wow.)

In short: if you, a white person, stand up in Mother Emanuel AME -- one of the most sacred sites for Black churchgoers, who are indeed often heavily Democratic voters -- in the middle of a remembrance service for victims of white supremacist terrorism, after the Black pastor has asked you not to protest inside the church out of respect for the Black community coming together to relive its trauma -- just so you can heckle Biden and feel good about yourself, then Jesus Christ. You don't care about restorative justice for people of color, or literally any justice at all, much less "stopping genocide." You just want to use them as props for your Chomsky cosplay revolutionary fantasies and your sense of self-righteous superiority over literally everyone else, regardless of the real-world consequences. So I have no hesitation whatsoever in telling those people to get fucked. Often and repeatedly.

[lefluoritesys]

A breakdown of apps you can use to communicate with your alters as separate people and write down information about them online and offline with their pros, cons, and a personal rating because I really needed it when I was new to being a system:

Note: by "PC" I mean any computer/macbook/etc. By "all devices" I mean PC, mobile, tablet, iPad, etc.

I apologize for mistakes in advance.

1. Antar: An app created to chat with your "inner self," found in both Play Store and AppStore. One of the more popular ones among systems. It is an app where you get to create personas that would be chatting with each other in chats called "sessions." Those sessions can either be given a name or just left named after the date they were created on. Each persona is given a color that would become the color of their messages in sessions. Offline app.

Pros: Fiarly easy to use, no in-depth information needed to access it fully. Biometric lock; 4 languages (English, Chinese, Hindi, Spanish) for the system, however any language can be used via text; no limit to the amount of personas added (as far as I'm aware). Messages sent by the wrong persona can be changed; the "quote" feature allows you to start a thread under a message; provides descriptions of each persona. You can also give your personas an avatar rather than just a color. Has a "replay" and "visualization" feature, though I'd say it's strictly just for funzies.

Cons: Not available on PC; has no backup, phone-related resets or deletion of the app results in all information lost. Session order constantly changes depending on which senssion you entered, which in my opinion (+OCD) is a nuisance; you can't delete the "me" character which I've been wanting to do for a while. Can't add hexcodes.

Personal rating: 6/10. If you need an app that you can lock from unwanted visitors, if you don't mind and even prefer something simple, and if you don't care that the conversations might disappear, this app is a good choice.

2. Discord's PluralKit: A more avdanced discord bot with tons of settings and commands that was created specifically for systems. Allows you to add almost any information about your system memebers, even such things as birthdays. The way it works is, it "proxies" your messages with a certain command somewhere in the "normal" message, sends a message identical to yours from a bot created with the name you chose, and deletes your original message. Basically replaces a message from your account with a message from a bot you created earlier. Proxies are small commands that give the both a green light to do that, and they can be whatever you want them to be. Online bot.

Pros: Feels like different people are talking; allows you to track your switches; available on all devices; one system can be linked to multiple accounts, although you can't create multiple systems under one account; allows you to group alters together; allows you to restrict access to certain information from all users; allows you to add as many alters as you want; has a number of ways you can access the information you put in which would all be sorted and organized for you; autoproxy allows you to not proxy every message you sent; since you can't delete messages of other people on servers that are not yours, and the bot messages are not, in fact, yours, PluralKit allows you to react to the message with an emoji that deletes the proxied message; while you can't use it in DMs, you can set up commands in DMs with the bot; every memeber has a unique code, and so does the system itself, and it records when the member was created; can be exported to SimplyPlural.

Cons: Commands are difficult and complex, and so is the dashboard; can only be used on servers; sometimes offline as all bots are, though rarely; you can't use it anywhere outside discord (a con for those who don't use discord); I had instances where I saw people use it for roleplay which is also allowed; proxies are a pain; you'd need a guide to tell you why certain things are needed in it; you cannot reply to messages with gifs when using a proxy; when being exported to SimplyPlural it exports everything, so if you had 10 members on SimplyPlural and 15 on PluralKit, it's best to add those 5 manually than delete 10 new exported alters (I did it with 100+ alters by accident and it was a pain).

Personal rating: 9/10. Complex, difficult to figure out, but once you get ahold of it and how it works, you'd be amazed. Also a pain that you can't use it in DMs, but it's to be expected from a bot. And you can always create a server with just you.

3. Discord's Tupperbox: A discord bot created mainly for roleplay, but actively used by systems who cannot get along with PluralKit. A simpler bot, easy to use and figure out, most things can be done via dashboard, doesn't have the opportunity to add a lot of inofrmation. Online bot.

Pros: Simple; allows grouping alters; allows different tags for different members and groups, sometimes individually; way simpler commands, and most things can be added via dashboard; looks and works almost the same as PluralKit when in a conversation; available on all devices.

Cons: Can't add avatars via dashboard, only using the commands; can't add two alters with the same name (which you can do with PluralKit); people reported it glitching out and deleting members; mainly used for roleplay; gives a weird list of members via commands that is unusable in my experience; doesn't work out of discord.

Personal rating: 7/10. Perfect for people who just want to talk and not write down information about them with the bot, but the threat of members being deleted, especially as a larger system, is concerning. We mainly use it for OSDD-1a subsystems. It was also not created for systems, as far as I'm aware. I see more cons than pros.

4. Simply Plural: Another more well-known tool used and created for systems. Simply Plural is an app that allows you to create profiles of your members and add any information you'd like about them via custom fields. It has a chat feature, allows you to track your front and switch history, add friends, and many more. Supports endogenic systems (which is being mentioned not for discorse purposes but as a fact. Whether you find it good or not is up to you) and allows singlets to create profiles as well, although I don't know a lot about that part. Both offline and online app.

Pros (and a bit about the app): Backup included; tracks your switches and front, allows you to change exact time for them, too (24-hour clock down to minutes included); the polls feature works like polls on same Tumblr and everywhere else but specifically for your system memebrs; analytics provide information about who fronts the most, during what time of day they usually front; you and your friends can see each other's profiles, which is why singlets can also create profiles, which allows you to acces info about each other's systems; "trusted people" feature allows you to pick whether you want everybody to see your alters or not, or if you want outsiders to see your profile at all; provides resources and guides to plurality (which I personally haven't checked, but still putting it in the pros, if somebody thinks I shouldn't, let me know); has an app reminders feature; you can add as much information as you want; front history shows up in a person's profile; alters can add notes; alter groups are available; available on all devices, however, only as a website on PC; colors of your alters can be used in the chat to highlight names; hexcodes are available; "custom front" is a status you set with fronting which can be hilarious sometimes; connects to PluralKit in a number of ways.

Cons: The chat feature is a bit difficult to use, and first time I did, I freaked out because I couldn't get out of it (the trick is to go to "channels" and press "navigation", there you'll see the dashboard); friends can't communicate with each other; copy-pasting is hard on both mobile and PC; something about the interface and navigation irks me and our visually impaired self; notes have same visibility as the profile itself, which is inconvenient if you want your profile to be seen but not your notes; avatars can't be added via website.

Personal rating: 6/10. I don't like how it looks and works (probably due to being visually impaired and other issues), but if you manage to get the information in it, it's pretty accessible and thoughtful of what systems might need. Could be used as a tool to start working with your system rather than do it long-term.

5. Twinote: An app that is your "personal Twitter." Pretty sure it was created for the purpose of having fun rather communicating with alters. Offline app.

Pros: Backup provided; allows "private accounts" that other "users" can't see; can create as many users as you want, as many posts as you want; can upload up to 4 images; works almost like Twitter; has a chat feature; comments, retweets, likes are present; "lists" feature allows you to group users and see only their messages which could be used for "things only protectors sent" and such; storage shows all pictures used in the app, so you won't lose anything; tagging and following people is still an option, and following private accounts give that user an opportunity to be the only one seeing their tweets.

Cons: Can't upload videos; can't do much with anything other than posts and profiles, so trends and other stuff there is off-limits (as far as I know); you have to constantly switch between profiles for the chat feature; share button only shares the contents of the message; very easy to accidentally press the wrong button and delete a tweet by dragging it left (which I almost did a few times).

Personal rating: 7,5/10. I know it's probably annoying that I didn't just type either 7 or 8, but the reaosn why is cause I have mixed feelings about it from a practical point of view. We use it strictly to communicate what we did during the day as a small journal and just joke with each other, and it's incredibly funny in itself, but it doesn't allow you to write down a lot of information about your alters and has a character limit in profiles. So it's strictly for communication.

6. Notion: An app created as a dashboard for literally everything you could ever dream of. You can personalize it however you want and use it for whatever you want. Those who saw the post we made a while ago probably know the reason I'm mentioning it is due to a template that I linked here. Online app.

Pros: Can be used for literally everything without limits; available on all devices; big and has enough storage for a lot of information, text, projects, etc; can be designed however you want; a lot of useful templates for all life instances (even taxes); can be shared with people who also use Notion in a variety of ways (either only comment, only see, etc); can add your own custom covers and icons via both gallery and links; looks neat and doesn't mess with visual impairment for us; can add a page in a page in a page which can be used for diaries; links to different pages on other pages are also available; endless possibilities, I could rant all day.

Cons: Glitches on the phone a lot; certain things are allowed on computer and not on mobile and vice versa; all templates available only on PC; you need to have an account in order to use it; glitches if it's offline; sometimes deletes a bunch of text because of glitches, usually the triggers for it are writing a lot in it directly or erasing previous text a bunch of times; can't invite someone in your space, it would take too much storage; some storage needs to be bought, although, I don't know the limit (but there's a lot. Like, a lot)

Personal rating: 9/10. With all its antics, I love this app dearly, it's incredibly useful, and you learn to deal with the cons. It's the best one I've used for communication and information storage so far.

7. Texting Stories app: As ridiculous as it sounds, it could be used as a tool to communicate with your alters, especially in secret. We are fighting for our safety here, so I ask you to take this suggestion seriously. Could be used when you don't want to let anyone know you're a system and have noisy family members/relatives/etc who like to snoop through you personal devices, by using it, you can say you've just been doing a story. Offline app.

Pros: I believe you can add as many people as you want; can add avatars; different stories can be different days of the week; easy to use; easy to brush off as "just making stories."

Cons: Can't change colors, you need to pay for most things.

Personal rating: 5/10. Can be used for emergencies and communication only, although we haven't used it much.

8. Notes: Just the same plain old notes app on your phone that everybody has installed as default. Offline app.

Pros: Easy to use; can be easily lost within your other notes for privacy; used for literally everything you desire, even drawing; automatic backup.

Cons: Doesn't give you the ability to really present as separate people; doesn't have as many options as Notion.

Personal rating: 5/10. used it at some point just for communication, was cool, somple, easy, but nothing too big.

I hope this helped to put these apps in perspective. I do apologize for it being a bit all over the place, but I did attempt to make it coherent enough (I am currently in a psychotic state, it's difficult for me to communicate). And remember, there are always options to use a written journal rather than a digital one. If anything, it's better to keep both in case one gets lost. Who knows, maybe our parents asking us what we would do if the internet disappeared is actually a warning. /j /nm

-host

[rthko]

I'm getting dogpiled on for this post and called a porn addict and getting tags like the one shown, and it tells me how little you know about me or my life. I really don't care if you do kink or not but if you take everything literally I think you're unimaginative, and if you go around accusing people of being sex criminals for acts you find icky I will say you're a useful idiot for homophobes.

I do talk about kink offline among friends I have a rapport with or in specifically kink friendly spaces or events. If I'm at a leather night I might chat about it with other people in gear who are specifically trying to start these conversations through their self presentation. I'm not, like, telling the cashier at Wendy's unprovoked that I like to suck toes, and it's ridiculous to concoct these scenarios in your head. The "porn addiction" accusation is projection. I became interested in kink by reading queer literature and bonding with real life friends over it. Maybe your whole personality was shaped by your online presence but mine wasn't.

Anyway, kinky people developed protocols and a culture of consent precisely because they were open about it. Seeing a post you don't like isn't violating your eyes, and if you feel that strongly about it block me. Someone else in the tags said: "keep it in the bedroom." I find that virulently anti-kink people feign concern over the ethics of kink but make it taboo to even talk about. Abuse thrives in secrecy. Better to lick literal boots than metaphorical ones, I say.

[eriexplosion]

Okay so. I cannot take it seriously when people say that we weren't led to think CX-2 was Tech. Because no we were not just having foreshadowing of the creation of an Evil Bad Batch. The clues led directly to Tech.

We have to start with the fact that they didn't kill him off definitively. Start with his survival being debated (and there's no way they didn't know it would be debated because I choose to believe they are not stupid) then introduce a character that lasts suspiciously long and has weirdly intense beef with Crosshair and you already are inclining people towards believing this is Tech.

CX-2 goes through a speedrun of Tech scenarios with 1. the leg crushed by a heavy falling object, similar to Ruins of War 2. knocked over by an explosion leaving him dangling above the abyss from a line like Plan 99 3. going over a waterfall and crawling out in a shot that completely matches the scene from The Crossing.

One or two of these is a coincidence, all three together less so.

Plan 99 notes mixed into The Battle of the Snipers. Which the Kiners only explained as the notes 'sounding good in brass' and nothing else.

He gets distinctly Tech like dialogue and no I don't just mean 'domicile' though we do have to acknowledge that no one else in Star Wars uses this word on the regular. We also have the exact match of 'Who are you' to Decomissioned, and the matching of 'I have simply cut off her means of escape' to Tech regularly saying 'I am simply-' when explaining himself, which again is something no one else in the show shares. Tech has a distinct way of speaking that matches CX-2, especially as of Point of No Return. (And CX-2 doesn't really sound like Crosshair, because Crosshair is just straight up not as chatty as CX-2 and never has been.)

He gets a long, unnecessary scene with Phee where he suddenly forgets how to be a murder assassin and starts playing soft.

He doesn't shoot Hunter when he has a chance and chooses to instead shoot his own man, he doesn't blow up the Marauder while Wrecker is inside, and when Omega surrenders he opts to just wait for her to hand him her communicator. He doesn't even shoot Shep when Shep starts talking back to him, all of which indicated that maybe for whatever reason he didn't want to, bolstering the Tech theories.

Getting into an opinion rather than analysis here but: Evil Bad Batch is a stupid fucking idea, it serves no purpose whatsoever other than a cool boss fight that adds nothing to the story. Having a CX be someone, anyone they actually cared about would have been interesting and actually played into the themes of family and forgiveness that were set up earlier in the season. Instead it's just more people to kill off to zero interesting payoff. It's stupid.

Every person I spoke to offline thought that this was Tech. All of them. People that have never looked on social media, watched a theory video, anything. All thought CX-2 was Tech and were confused when he was speared. This was not terminally online theorizing gone wild, this was a very widespread thought and assumption.

So, if they didn't mean to do any of that and at no point intended to imply this was Tech and were solely trying to foreshadow their 5 minutes of Evil Batch fight? They did it poorly. When the majority of your audience actively believes you are leading to one direction only for it to be some other direction that you meant to lead them to, the problem is not The Audience Didn't Read It Right, the problem is you wrote it badly.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for asking my mother not to do certain things?

Let me start off by saying i'm homeschooled. I've been homeschooled my entire life. I don't have any friends offline, so I've pretty much come here to ask for outside opinions from my friend groups (online).

Prefer not to state ages, if that's okay. It makes me uncomfortable.

I have ocd, suspected autism, and either auditory processing disorder or misophonia (we're not sure which.) as well as a plethora of other issues. my mother is very aware that i have ocd (she has it herself) and i've mentioned misophonia to her several times. she doesn't know about my other mental issues, as for reasons you're probably going to see here, as i don't feel comfortable or safe telling her. (or, i've tried, and she doesn't listen, or tells me i'm "being dramatic.")

my ocd is quite crippling, to the point i've tried medication, herbal tea (chamomile seems to work a bit!), asking friends for advice, and even asking her for advice. as of the last year, it's had a grip on my life and has been quite a problem for me. i'm unable to do things i want or need to a lot, and especially struggle doing most things, even basic tasks. i'm unable to see a therapist/counsellor or psychologist/psychiatrist for personal/financial reasons.

a lot of my triggers (well, not exactly triggers for the ocd, but they stop me from doing things.) revolve around sound, especially people talking. whistling is a major trigger for my misophonia/apd, as are other high pitched noises.

my mother has a tendency to watch tv a lot, and i often ask her to not do this when i'm trying to do certain things, as it makes my ocd a bit worse, and it's often rather loud. (please note i wear headphones a lot of the time for sensory issues.)

however, when i ask her either to turn it down, pause it temporarily, or ask her to turn it off for a bit, she has a tendency to get mad/upset. to the point of throwing a bit of a fit over it, in a way that to me seems a bit attention seeking (in the bad way). she says things like "fine, whatever." and flaps her arms about dramatically or slaps her legs, or she says "i don't even wanna watch it now, it's ruined."

i'll go ahead and say she's a bit self-centered in a lot of ways. for years she has said i've "targeted" her and "treated her terribly" even though any time i was (to her) doing these things, i was usually defending myself or telling her to do something that she needed to do that had been requested for days/weeks/months/sometimes years. i also have a tendency to ask her what she's doing, either out of genuine curiosity, or because she has done something strange to me that i didn't understand. which she gets mad over.

she also gets mad if i ask if she's coming over here (i have a tendency to walk/pace in certain areas to music, it helps with stress/adhd/also helps me write/act things out. she is very aware of this and this isn't really a problem.) or ask how long she will be over here. she seems to think me asking this is telling her she can't come over, or desperately trying to get her to move. admittedly sometimes i DO want her to move, but 90% of the time i am just asking so i know if i need to move to a different area to walk or just stop temporarily.

sometimes when i am having a particular peak in my ocd/anxiety/whatever else, i ask her not to talk for a moment/few minutes, either so i can do something i need to, or because i'm afraid it will make it worse. she'll either get mad about this, or go on a tangent about "not catering to me" and saying things "the real world doesn't work like this, and nobody cares that you have ocd/issues." she has a tendency to take my issues as a personal attack on her, when in reality i would ask anyone to stop for a moment.

she has a tendency to belittle me in a sense for it. i've tried to explain some of it to her (without revealing details of my trauma she doesn't know about, as most of my ocd is linked to severe ptsd.) and she says it "doesn't make any sense" and i "need to stop" and i "need to just make myself stop." she has ocd, and knows compulsions are not always rational, and yet still says these things.

part of my desire not to go to a therapist is because of her. she claims they will either try to put me away take me to another home/put me in foster care, or drug me up on medication that will make me dull. (the other part is more personal, and unrelated to her, but to my aforementioned trauma.)

one of the things i especially ask her not to do is whistle, or make a few other certain noises (eating loud, using nail files around me, etc) because they are especially triggering to me. she'll either blatantly refuse and say i "don't get to tell her what to do" or i don't "control her" (please note i am just asking, but when i DO specifically tell her to stop, it is because she either already knows this sound is triggering to me, or i've already asked, and i'm losing my patience.) or she'll do it louder/more just to trigger me further (my father also does this. sometimes as a joke which in some ways is worse.) or she'll go on the "not catering + nobody cares" tangent again.

i know my ocd and other issues can be a bit interrupting, but i don't ask huge things of her or anyone else. all i ask is for them to not make certain sounds around me, temporarily ask them to not do something/stop doing something, or ask them to do it a bit quieter for me. please note she has the ability to watch tv/videos on other devices with headphones easily, she just chooses not to. and worse of all, they treat it like it's not interrupting to me, when it affects my everyday life in ways far worse than asking/telling them not to do something.

it makes me feel unwanted and unappreciated, and i'll admit, i've contemplated....not existing, if you will, many times over this issue and others.

i just don't really know if i'm asking too much, or if they're just being shitty. i want outside opinions on this.

so, AITA?

(id put a tl;dr in here, but i don't really know what to put. feel free to do it for me. also, i know this was kinda long, but i needed to put some extra things in, sorry if thats like an inconvenience or anything!)

(adding my sideblog here so i can get notifs, @ocdaitathrowaway)

What are these acronyms?

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

Genuinely trying to understand why a gay person would be supporting the party you do.

Not American myself but from what I understand there’s a lot of homophobia there.

It doesn’t look like Democrats are perfect either but at least less hostile to gays?

I'll dispense with my usual "Shut the fuck up European" image response because you do actually seem genuine, so here's my genuine answer.

Yeah, there's some homophobia on the right. Some. It's nowhere near what the media would have you believe. But there's homophobia on the left, too. The left just has the media and their ability to shape a narrative on their side. The worst thing I've had said to me by someone on the right was that they don't support gay marriage and think its a sin. Or that they think gay sex is disgusting. And that's fine. I don't like hearing about certain sexual acts myself and find them gross and weird. I don't need anyone else to approve or support my sex life.

And as for the part about gay marriage, I understand where most of them are coming from when they say that, too. They truly feel that their religious beliefs are under attack and that religious marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman. But even many of those people will say that they don't really care if gays get legally married as long as there's some differentiation between the religious ceremony of marriage, and the legal institution of marriage, which are two different things. I personally don't need anyone to validate my marriage but me and my husband. I don't care if it's legally recognized. I don't care if it's recognized by any particular church. My marriage and my relationships are my own personal business. And there are a lot of people on the right who feel the exact same way.

So, that's the worst I've gotten from the right. Let's talk about the worst I've gotten from the supposedly gay friendly left. The following is not a complete list, but here's some of the things that I've been told by Democrats and other leftists when they find out I'm a gay right winger, both online and offline:

Kill yourself

Die faggot

You should be gay bashed

I hope you get raped by a closeted Republican politician

I hope your dog dies

Kill yourself

You're a traitor to all gay people

Kill yourself with one of those guns you love

I hope you get cancer and die horribly

I hope your husband dies

You should be sent to a concentration camp

Kill yourself

and basically every anti-gay slur you can possibly think of

That's what I get from the left, from other gay people, when they find out I vote differently then they do. Just based on these anecdotal experiences with the American right and the American left, I think it's pretty clear why I find myself on one side and not the other.

But!

I'm not a one issue voter. Gay issues are mostly meaningless to me. What I care about are personal freedoms, protecting my rights, and the success of my country on the world stage. Currently, the American right aligns with those beliefs way more than the left. That's not to say the Republican Party always aligns perfectly with what I want or believe, but the reality is we live in a two party system. Until enough of us get together and make a nationally viable third party, if the choice in presidential elections is between one party that I almost never agree with and whose stated goals are to violate my rights and destroy everything I love about America, and one party that does what I voted for them to do around half the time, of course I'm voting for the second party nationally.

Locally it can be a bit different. It's easier to effect local elections and policies just by being active, and in geographically close areas the differences between the people running for town council might not be as wide as two people running for president nationally, so I won't just vote the R party line by default. I've voted libertarian locally before. Hell, I even voted Democrat once. But, for the most part, it's the Republicans who I feel will do what I think should be done more than the other parties. And that's why I vote for them, and why I'm a registered Republican. Well, that and I want to be able to vote in the Republican primaries.

[itsoka-y]

Alright chat is time to ask the real questions here and by real questions I mean who of these kids is chronically online and what flavor of chronically online are they. I bring forth some of my choices (plus a few headcanons)

I just know she ran a Tumblr account like the navy during the golden years where Superwholock reigned supreme I just can feel it in my bones. She also strikes me as someone who enjoys a bit of a conspiracy but she'll have an alternate account for that (and also I think this was a phase for her to develope her writing and journalism skills through her posts even though she was kinda pulling some things out of her ass sometimes but then again she was 13)

Kinda self-explanatory if not even canon. He'd be one of those annoying ass otakus who try to gatekeep fucking naruto of all things because if you cannot name the sharingan Sasuke used in episode 234 then you're not a real fan.

(i have not watched a single episode of Naruto and it shows i'm sorry)

He's also a misogynist and would engage in discourse with any fujoshi that crosses his timeline because why you forcing Naruto and Sasuke to be gay?

Unrelated but this is like my favorite picture of him of all time i'm afraid he's the only man i'll choose over a bear

My favorite headcanon is that he's the wildest card you'll ever cross paths with in your life. Like you see him from afar and you kinda get a feel for what he's going to be like (shy, polite bordering on coy, reserved etc. etc.) but then you get to meet and sure it's not like he's outregous or anything but him cracking a galvinazed steel and eco-friendly wood venneer joke or him sending one of those alpha images of an anthropomorphic wolf ripping its shirt would have never crossed your mind. And he has such a wide range as well; one day he's referencing world is mine by hatsune miku the next day you hear him quote breaking bad (someone cooked here) after someone scores a goal with a new hissatsu technique. He definitely knows what the omegaverse is

He really is oomf

Queen of tiktok. She'd be one of those younger gen z kids/older gen alpha that kinda romanticizes being a fangirl during the 2010s and feels nostalgia for it even if she never lived through those years. She also dabbles into some of the booktok territory, but I don't see her as those who only care for books based on "spicyness" but one of them "you like enemies to lovers because you want to believe that someone will fall in love with you even after seeing the ugliest parts first" kinda gals

When he's not training or working to support his little siblings, you bet your ass he's on facebook. He shows you memes that were relevant like two or three whole years ago but you don't have the heart to tell him so you just awkwardly laugh, reinforcing the cycle (the only ones who'd genuinely find them funny would be Tsunami but that's only because he's chronically offline)

He's so out of the loop and let's pray to god It stays that way. Bless his little soul

Hear me out. Terrible case of ipad kid even if he got out of it. I mean, he was playing to recreate the fire tornado when he was five years old and I like to imagine him as that one scene of little deku asking his mom to play on the computer the video of all might saving people but it's him pestering yuuichi to play him a compilation of all of Gouenji's hissatsu techniques. I find it adorable thank you very much. He's still lurking somewhere on twitter with his private account (he has 0 followers and he'd like for it to keep being that way) where he just vents about his life and feelings (look he's gone through so much and he needs a place to let it all out ok?) and retweets stuff from other emo kids online. I also know his spotify playlists are curated to perfection

As any child with a troubled home life, he copes by being an absolute MENACE online. He for sure has told people to off themselves at some point. Has sided with Drake during this years beef with Kendrick Lamar for the hell of it (doesn't even listen to the guy's music). Thank god the FFI wasn't running digital footprints' checks way back when because his ass would not have made the call into the team because of it. Got tamer as an adult and realized how fucked up some of the shit he was doing and saying was but has still gotten into trouble for some of his old tweets (he's definitely ruffled some feathers for quite a few football fans online and is quite the controversial character, you either love him or hate him i fear)

Same as Fudou but whereas Fudou was trolling through the league of Legends chat and on call of duty lobbies this one was trolling on fortnite. Maybe even roblox

And that would be it. Feel free to add as many other characters as you feel like because this is so fun to do and I want to see someone else's takes to this kinda thing 🫣

[pretty-unglad-you-were-born]

The way that person spoke was strange, but anon is not 100% wrong. If he really made sure that the cast was more diverse to give opportunity to lesser-known artists and in the end be called racist, induced by the fans themselves on twitter, then it really sucks. Now the play is paying attention, but for the wrong reason.

using your fame to bring opportunities to others is nice but it doesn't stop at just casting them, this is their first introduction to a big audience and it's important to make sure they're taken care of like they should and it includes protecting them from any form of abuse online and offline. no one has the solution to stop the hate especially if most of the people behind the nasty racist tweets are gaining money and viral posts from this but there's also a lot of people (including celebrities) who are standing up for her and it's important for them to see that she's supported by her co-star and the most influential person from the crew. he's with her every day and his real life support is what matters the most and a comment or a reaction or anything from him won't end racism but unless he was specifically asked by francesca to not speak up, people who don't know what's going on are worried and want to know and see that they have her back and i don't doubt that it's the case because i've seen the support online from the other cast members and the company but again it's not performative, with all the horrible stuff that happens in the industry people just need reassurance that these young black artists and soon to be future stars have all the support they need and a huge celebrity like tom not only vouching for a diverse cast but also standing up for them when people try to work against it will hopefully encourage others to do so in the future

[qqueenofhades]

Once you get offline, Biden’s doing ok with everyone but Republicans and racists. Unfortunately, that’s a pretty big voting bloc, but it should be manageable. More unfortunately, Harris is. Not popular. With anyone. Like, we’re talking Dan “To not have a mind is being very wasteful” Quayle levels of dissing. You can blame some of it on sexism and racism, but enough women and people of color have jumped on the “Kamala’s letting The Team down” bandwagon that there’s got to be more to it than this. Any thoughts?

Yeah, uh, I don't think that's fair OR accurate, and deserves quite a bit more reflection and pushback than is implied here (since your question frames it as thinking there MUST be something wrong with her and invites me to expand on it). First off, I am not comfortable comparing the first female vice president (AND female VP of color) to empty suit Dan Quayle, and especially when there's such a disparity in their background, social perception, and accomplishments, not to mention their role in the administration. So:

"You can blame some of it on sexism and racism, but -- " Okay, but how much? Are we actually assigning a weight to that and taking it into consideration, or hand-waving it aside in search of the "real" cause? Online Leftists are already disposed to irrationally dislike Kamala because of the "she's a cop!!!" business that went around during the primaries, which was likewise inaccurate and misleading, but showed how women, especially women of color, are often treated in white leftist spaces (including by leftist-identifying women). That very much WAS down to sexism, racism, and perceiving her as "shrill" or "there's just something I don't like about her." Okay, what is that? WHAT is the thing you don't like about her? Would you notice it in a male politician? Would you critique it in a male politician? If the answer is any part unclear, this needs more work and is in fact reflective of that dynamic, whether or not anyone is aware of it or thinks that's the reason why.

No, seriously. If someone professes that they "just don't like" Kamala or "there's something about her that rubs me the wrong way" or whatever else, my immediate next question would be "Why? What don't you like about her?" And keep drilling down through whatever excuses about "unlikeability" or "personality" or whatever else is offered. If this can be persuasively articulated in a way that a) exposes a substantive policy reason, b) can be differentiated from what any male vice president or other person in her position would do or what should be expected of them, and c) isn't just about "offputting vibes," then sure, we can have a discussion about that. Otherwise, yeah. That's not convincing me that it's anything other than the constant, long-running, ever-present discomfort with seeing a powerful and accomplished woman of color, who started her career prosecuting sex criminals, was the first Black woman in the Senate, and is now the first female vice president, actually state her issues and own her role.

"Enough women and people of color have jumped on the 'Kamala Is Letting the Team Down' bandwagon that there must be -- " Really? Must there? First of all, it's damn near impossible to find any Online Leftist who's willing to give Biden accurate credit for his accomplishments -- see the "Biden is bad and uninspiring and anti-trans but we should I guess vote for him anyway" rhetoric which is the closest they can possibly get to acknowledging it. (None of which is actually true!) When that's the case with the top of the ticket, it's orders of magnitude easier to project that irrational dislike and distortion onto "shrill" or "dislikable" Kamala. So who are these "women and people of color" who don't like Kamala? Are they in the room with us right now? Do they actually care about/vote for the Democrats, support their policy accomplishments, and realistically understand the progress that's been made and what remains to be done, or do they want to use Kamala as yet another convenient stick to beat the Democrats (since they won't give them accurate credit to start with?)

Even if this was true, sexism and racism somehow magically wasn't a factor (which uh, it is not) and Kamala had some terrible personality defect that was unique to her and her alone and not any of the far worse vice presidents there have been in the last 20 years alone: what is this kind of question intended to accomplish? Are we supposed to fear that by voting for Biden, we might vote for Kamala as well? Well, she was on the ticket last time too, and they won the election. Don't know what else to tell you.