#a completely worthless discourse that ends up hurting people

[selamat-linting]

dear lord help, the anti ai art people are starting to target people who made realistic reference painting

[seacoloredeyes]

oh hell im watching 3x18 and during his fight with buck, bobby actually tells him :

« you can’t just rush into any dangerous situation assuming it’s going to be okay, because sometimes it’s not and i’m tired of being on the wrong side of those hospital doors »

and i remembered the hospital doors line but for some reason i didn’t remember the first part, which is very relevant to our current « you think you’re invincible » vs « you act like you’re expandable » discourse

and i didn’t realise it was such a theme for bobby and buck, but really it’s the whole crux of their scenes together in season 3 even way back during the lawsuit arc

because bobby saw buck pushing himself while not completely healthy and was terrified thinking buck would be careless and assume he’d be okay no matter what and thus might end up hurt again

meanwhile buck just felt that no matter what happened to him it didn’t matter because his life is worth nothing if he’s not out there helping people, and if he dies saving someone then at least he would have been useful, if not loved

and i just

fuck but this misunderstanding between them colours so much of their relationship???

i was actually ranting at @buckactuallys the other day after watching 3x06 and the resolution to the lawsuit arc that i was so frustrated that they never talked about why bobby made the decision to bench buck. we understand from bobby’s discussions with athena and hen that he’s being overprotective because he loves buck so much and is scared of losing him (funny how both times hen and athena make parallels to the feelings a parent has for their child, at this point it’s not even subtext anymore) but he never actually tells buck that. and in fact i just rewatched the scene and we’ve got another instance of bobby telling buck he doesn’t worry about himself!!

bobby: [he’s got a fair chance] because you jumped in there and saved him. probably didn’t even occur to you to worry about yourself.

buck: yeah i know, i didn’t think, just rushed in like i always do. i guess it’s like the uniform is my costume. you know i put it on and suddenly i’m brave, i’m strong, i make a difference. feels like without it i’m not much of anything.

bobby: buck, you saved two lives without the uniform. it’s not a costume, it’s who you are.

buck: does... does this mean that you’re ready to let me back for real?

bobby: it doesn’t matter if i’m ready, you are. it’s time for me to get out of your way.

(side note: i find it interesting that buck puts on a tone when he’s saying « yeah i know: i didn’t think, just rushed in like i always do » like he’s paraphrasing bobby. it’s like he’s internalised it but he’s not actually being honest about his thought process until he’s talking about putting the uniform on.)

so we have buck still unsure and telling bobby in no uncertain terms that he feels worthless if he’s not helping people and bobby trying to reassure him without understanding what buck is actually telling him. because if he had understood then explaining to buck that he’s just scared of losing him would have seemed like the right choice to really reassure him.

but no instead we’ve got buck who goes on thinking that bobby believes him to be reckless and a pain in his ass sometimes, and bobby who goes on thinking that buck doesn’t realise he might get seriously hurt and die from that one day

buck who doesn’t know how much bobby loves him and keeps on thinking his life is not worth much, and bobby who refuses to acknowledge to himself that he loves buck like a son (again, callback to his discussions with athena and hen) because he’s terrified he might lose him to the job

if they just talked to each other openly and honestly they would lay each other’s fears and insecurities to rest and fuck, but now i feel like this is where their relationship is going maybe? because they won’t let up narratively. it comes up again in 3x18, and in some way in 4x05, and then again in 4x14. but now we’ve got on screen evidence that bobby doesn’t understand buck’s thought processes and the true extent of his low self esteem (thank you eddie my darling) and i feel like at some point something has got to give.

anyway i’ve written way too much and none of it is particularly coherent but the gist of it is: boys use your words and hug it out i am BEGGING

i’m not okay goodbye

[eevee-miscellaneous]

Homura and her Demons

CW: Strong Language and Swearing

I tend to find myself a difference of opinion when it comes to this topic in the Madoka Magica. The most popular pairing (Be it platonic or often romantic), Madoka and Homura, is the best thing that came from the original series and that the third movie effectively demonizes the love between them. However that’s not a good or accurate outlook on these two. It’s time to take a step back and look at the whole picture without the shipping goggles.

So let’s start off with the obvious jumping off point that everybody’s mad about, the twist of REBELLION. Homura removing Madoka from the system that she made to save everyone and basically rewrote the entire universe. Everyone hated this twist when it first came. No shortage of outrage and criticism on this plot point. I should know. I used to be one of the people. But after years of thinking, looking at other works in the franchise, and growing, my outlook has shifted. If anything, I prefer the twist and mad that they didn’t do much with it afterwards. 

The most common criticism I’ve heard is that it’s either out of character or worse it demonizes Lesbian love by turning Homura is basically the Devil. Now I find this interesting because both aren’t true when you look at the series as a whole. Let’s tackle the first one, and put a pin in the other. Homura is sadly one of those characters. Where they have the larger fan base but those fans make more misinterpretations then the most of the fandom as a whole.

Homura is often portrayed as a savior trying to save Madoka, that’s misunderstood by everyone, who just wants what’s best for Madoka, is a good person against the world, and the true protagonist. If you actually read or watch most of the works in the series (and actually pay attention), you’d know that none of the above actually applies to her. Yes she does become a Protagonist in both Wraith Arc and Rebellion, she’s not the protagonist in the Original series. 

Remember the whole conflict about the Witch/Magical System was solved by Madoka, not Homura. Homura didn’t care for the system, and only tried to stop it ‘for Madoka’. And even then she didn’t want to fight the system, she just wanted Madoka to not become a magical girl. 

The whole “misunderstood and against the world” angel is also faulty. A lot of people that say this refer to when Homura tries to tell the other about how the magic system they’re in actually works, and they don’t believe her. Pushing her to work alone because no one will accept the truth. This one hits a few snags. 

Firstly, she couldn’t explain how or why when they pushed further than that. She didn’t learn more and there’s no evidence that she bothered to learn more about the why. So it clearly looked like she was lying and was trying to fuck with them. Secondly, did everyone simultaneously forget how Homura was acting both before the twist and what kind of world we were dealing with? It was safe to assume before Magia Record even came out that yes, backstabbing and betrayal is more common than we think. Homura was not making it easier for people to trust and work with her because of her demeanor and seclusion. If anything it alienated her even more. That wouldn’t have been an issue but her entire goal would have benefited from being able to work with at least Mami and Kyoko. Not to mention her entire belief of “no one will accept the truth” is an assumption from limited data. She has been shown only tried it once in the entire franchise as a whole. We can assume or imply all we like, but the fact that she goes cute and well-intentioned to what we see in the present; and we don’t see anything close to an in-between of the events. She never shown us her approaching the problem from a different angle or direction. If anything the only one to make absolutely sure that she never finds out about the truth is Mami. Sayaka and Kyouko tend to handle it better by sheer circumstance. 

The last one is the utmost important to clear up and is by far the most inaccurate. A savior trying to save Madoka, who just wants what’s best for Madoka. Almost everything that the series has produced has contradicted this sentiment, from spinoffs games and comics, to the original show, to the notorious REBELLION film. Homura is not a good person and isn’t doing what’s best for Madoka. She’s doing what she thinks is best for Madoka. That may seem like a small difference, but it makes a huge change.

In Episode 8 of the original series when Madoka is worried sick about Sayaka, Homura attempts to genuinely help (only once passive aggressively in the whole series I made add), she attempted to kill Sayaka when Sayaka saw through her. Because “She didn’t want Madoka to see her like this”. Sayaka is a childhood friend to Madoka and losing her best friend would effectively be worse for her than losing Mami. In ORIKO MAGICA, when the whole school was trapped in a labyrinth, Homura takes only Madoka to save her. When Madoka confronts her for not saving the others when she had the chance and power, Homura is actually surprised that the friend who she herself regarded as incredibly selfless, was mad that she abandoned their friends for her own selfishness. This is the timeline after she saw Madoka break down when Sayaka turned into a witch. She didn’t think that Madoka was at all upset that she just lost her friend. 

In Magia Record, when Kei confronts her about not knowing someone other than herself, all the things she says in response just prove their point. All the things she thinks Madoka wants, are more aligned with what she wants. For someone who is said both by fans and some of the writers to be Madoka’s best friend, Homura really doesn’t know her friend. 

And again a lot of Homura’s treatment towards Madoka and her friends isn’t healthy. A lot of fans hate Madoka for not doing anything, but praise Homura. But that’s strange because whenever Madoka does try to help, Homura comes in at the last minute just to stop her. It’s hating a character for something that the other character is causing. Homura is constantly making Madoka feel worthless by pushing her away from everything. 

Madoka goes from a strong capable magical girl to someone more timid and weak over the time Homura tries to protect her. And when someone other than her takes Madoka’s attention, she acts antagonistic towards them. When Madoka doesn’t do what Homura wants her to do, she guilt trips and gets mad at her. And one question I must ask, and this one is important. If Mami, Sayaka, and Kyouko all died, but Homura succeeded with saving Madoka, would she have gone back to save them? Even if not doing so would cost Madoka’s mental and emotional health. Cause with everything I’ve listed, the answer is no. 

Now I can’t blame the fans entirely on this misinterpretation. Since if you look at only the original series, it’s a little muddled with how they treat her actions. On the one hand, they’re not afraid to show her as a bad person, but on the other they don't fully acknowledge this. The final scene the two have together is what everyone remembers but many forget the attempt to murder Sayaka. 

That’s why I’ve softened to the Rebellion twist but it’s unapologetically showing this front and center. A lot of the things that happen aren’t just Kyubey’s fault. The infamous fight between her and Mami is literally because Homura had an idea on what was going on but didn’t think fully through. And not along after is called out by the one that she tried to hurt more times in the course of the series. From what seen in Wraith arc and the end credit scene of the series, it’s safe to assume that she was able to be caught by the incubators cause she was alone and not keeping herself sane. The entire climatic witch fight is not from Kyubey’s plan to catch Madoka, but Homura trying to self destruct to save Madoka. Even though we all know it would cause more harm than good. 

Watch the tearing in half scene again and pay attention to how Madoka is reacting to the act. That’s the brazen display of what kind of person Homura is. The only place you could find that is spin off mangas, and not many fans bother with them. If I were to hazard a guess on why the two endings are vastly different, I’d say that Gen Urobuchi likely didn’t notice the abusive element between the two until the higher ups wanted to make a franchise. I’d say that point since the original ending idea for Rebellion seems closer to what happened in the Original series, and Urobuchi has admitted to liking the ending they did go with. 

It might sound like I hate these but seeing how it’s framed as a bad thing and there’s actually consequences in-universe, I love it. I love selfish characters that aren’t always good. I love it when they do bad things and those things actually have some form of consequence. A lot of things that are staple Homura behavior are compelling and have potential for interesting character work. It’s just on who’s writing and how they frame her that becomes an issue. She’s like a lot of characters that have this kind of discourse. Interesting design but it relies a lot more on framing and writing than some other characters. 

Remember the second point I made about the criticisms? The thing the ending is demonizing is not lesbianism like many claim, it’s demonizing Homura’s creepy abuse. If they had gone with the original ending, they’d effectively be making the same mistake they made with the Original. All the things I listed for what they did in Rebellion would’ve been framed completely differently. 

I would love to see Homura’s Rebellion direction go to cool interesting routes. Seeing how we have a majority of human antagonists that aren’t….the best design, I’d like to see what kind of villain she’d become. We don’t need a morally complex antagonist like Oriko, just a well written one that does her role well. If they do go the route of redemption, all I’d ask for is not to repeat the mistakes of the worst antagonists we’ve had (y’all Magia Record fans know who). I do have faith in Gen Urobuchi on making a compelling and interesting story, but he’s human and so it’s a toss up. 

I know I’ve been really harsh on the fans of Homura and her, and I wanna make something clear. I don’t hate you for liking a character. I’m not saying you can’t enjoy Homura as a character, but I am saying that if you do you have to understand that she is a bad person. And that’s ok. You can understand why and how she is the way she is, and that’s great, but you can’t act like Homura is a good person cause that’s just a disrespect to the story and the character. Characters that are bad or just not good aren’t inherently badly written. It’s perfectly allowed to like a character like that. If that wasn’t true, villains and antagonists wouldn’t be as popular as they are. 

[olympus-summit]

rosabelle believe || Adelina (ft Evren) || RE: Mina, Leland ATTN: Leland

As Mina offers both her hand and her advice, Adelina scoffs inbetween her sobs. 

“Okay, centrist.”

She snorts - one part due to congestion all this crying has given her, one part a bitter sort of amusement.

“I - I refuse to grant your premise that it’s not your place to ask him to apologize for, you know, everything, but - whatever. I believe you are trying to help me. I do. Although you should not take that statement as credible whatsoever - after all, I believed in a man who told me he trusted me and I believed in a murderer who was just toying with me for his own amusement. So I do not have a history of accurately assessing motivations. But - I do believe you are trying to help me. I just think you’re doing a terrible job of it.”

Adelina had been harsh to Leland. She would not deny that - she is truthful in all regards. But jesus fuck, how was that relevant? How was this a both sides issue? He mocks her and goes along with this plan and treats her like garbage, but she pointed out that he is a capitalistic man who works exclusively for the rich, and suddenly it’s all a gray area.  

Gratefully, Evren comes along soon, and takes her away from the fire - burning like her heart. She sees how he is being destroyed by this awful man, and it makes the fire roar. Not only because she sees herself mirrored in him - ha, what irony! - but because that’s her fucking best friend. And he’s being hurt. She whispers something to him - too low to be heard - with a caring look, fighting through her own tears.

The discourse continues onward, but there’s one thing Leland says that makes her perk up…

“I - please forgive me for overlooking such an obvious detail. I was too busy having my entire trust and faith in a person completely and utterly destroyed that I - I forgot to truly process that  the entire point of this endeavor was to make it to some afterlife.”

“Well, I cannot truly grant such a premise. I’m a - a firm atheist, I better fucking be - no God I could worship would do this to me, but - ah, I digress. I still think - even if I don’t believe it would happen or work, I ought to take this time for some final words to Izar, just - just in case. I know you despise me oh-so-much, but please consider that you claim to care deeply for Evren. Now, Evren, may I ask for confirmation: you’d be fucking pissed if he denied to pass on my message due to his personal disdain for me, correct? It would actively cause you pain and suffering if he were to do such a thing?”

Evren just... nods. He'd do pretty much anything for Adelina at this point.

(It’s a mutual feeling.)

With that out of the way, Adelina returns her gaze to Leland. 

“Very well then. So you must pass on this message, you see, or - or else you’ll be hurting Evren. Your feelings on me are ire- they don’t matter, because of this. This is the message I would like for you to pass on:”

She takes a deep breath. And she begins.

[TW: Adelina uses some victim-blaming rhetoric on herself, at points implying it was her own fault for not noticing that Sol was a manipulative partner and that she was in an unhealthy relationship. Discussions of suicide (as it relates to doing so to end a motive, not Adelina wishing to commit it due to these revelations) are also present.]

“Your apology is not fucking accepted. Let us begin with that, Izar. At least you were able to say one correct thing in that pathetic mess of a postscript - you have not earned my forgiveness. You are correct.”

“Fucking - YOU PROMISED ME! YOU LOOKED ME IN THE EYES, YOU - YOU TOLD ME YOU’D TELL ME! Oh, I really am a complete idiot - I was so fucking easy to fool! Evren told me so, Antonio told me so - everybody told me that you were a charlatan, and yet I was a complete dunce. No wonder you chose me over Ms. Han. She’d never fall for any of this, she’d never play into your hand so easily. You promised me that if - if you were going to kill yourself - and ONLY if the motive was worth it - that - you’d tell me! We’d do it together, Izar! I was going to give you a wonderful last day, we - we were going to work together! You knew how much I hated being betrayed, lied to. You - you knew how deeply that hurt me. You fucking saw how I reacted to Elliott! How I was so completely torn apart from his deceit, from how personal it felt. And you saw all that, and-”

“I really can’t believe how - it always lies with you. And yet I believed them. Smart enough to graduate summa cum laude, dumb enough not to realize how pathetic her boyfriend thought she was. You seem oh-so-confident on this little plan of yours. I presume you have evidence, then? A reason to believe this gamble was worth it? Well, it would have been awfully helpful if you had some sort of loyal partner, who would do anything for you if presented with evidence that it was for the greater good. Such as bringing back deceased, almost! Almost as if she would have been a great pick!”

“But no, let me choose the man who hates our guts. You really do think so little of me, huh. Perhaps you were right. I’ve come all this way, and yet I keep failing and failing - if I wasn’t smart enough to see how you manipulated me so, maybe I’m just not smart enough to - to get your big plan of justice.”

“And then - oh, the cherry on top. We must go our separate ways? Why - you’re one cliche away from ‘it’s not you, it’s me’, you fucker! You were the one! You were the one who told me it was worth the risk. I would - I would have been happy to stay platonic. I could have accepted that. But you were the one who chose me, you were the one who convinced me to take the chance - take a chance on a man you claim is worthless, ha! And so what does it say of me, that - that you thought, even for a moment, that I was worth pursuing? That we’d make a good match?”

“Self-deprecation is a common tactic among people like - no, I can’t -”

And then she wails. She frantically pulls herself together.

“I just want somebody to tell me I’m stupid. That I’m putting all the pieces together wrong. That I didn’t just have my heart broken and that - that I wasn’t just - used and flung aside. That I didn’t just ignore all the telltale signs of emotional manipulation. That I didn’t just get out of an unhealthy relationship. That I didn’t just get out of it because the guy would rather cooperate with his enemy then with me. Please - am I making any errors? Is my rhetoric flawed? Do I employ any fallacies? I want somebody to tell me I am. Not you, of course, Izar - I would not fucking trust a single word that came from that deceitful mouth of yours. I want an unbiased source to tell me this. One that doesn't benefit from continuing to play with me.”

“Really, though it is - your apologies suck. They’re fucking awful. Zero credit. You talk the big talk - as you always do, your words were what got me, it was that fucking silver tongue of yours that made me such a fool - but you fail on any credibility. Your words ring hollow. You make yourself into a beautiful little martyr to excuse all of the harm you did.”

“When? When did you decide? I - oh god, of course I know. It was when you texted me to tell me that you had chosen me over Ms. Han. That was when you realized that I’d be easier. Ms. Han had a whole life - she had friends and family and the secrets event even showed that she had played tricks like yours before. Of course - of course, oh my god, this was right after that, wasn’t it? Of course! I’m such a goddamn oblivious failure! Of course that was when you realized it had to be me - Ms. Han would have caught on.”

“How much of it was ever real to begin with? Does it even matter? You - you could have fucking broken up with me. Like, in person, not like a coward. Instead of drawing this out so painfully. I would have still mourned for you, but - god. Sad? You can tell that I’m feeling sad? We’ve spent all this time together and the best descriptor you can come up with is sad?”

“Ah, but perhaps I am too harsh. After all, your previous data - which was quite numerous - did show that I would be swayed by such empty words in the past. I suppose it was your presence, truly, that was the key. It - it’s so fucking easy to be angry at you. It is! I am doing it very easily right now. I am exerting very little effort in channeling my rage. But I’m angry at the theoretical you, the - the one I’m communicating to that I don’t even think exists. But when you were there, and you looked at me like that, and you spoke to me, and…”

She sobs, because as she recounts, a twinge of warmth bursts within her, and she hates it.

“Well, you cannot seduce me over a postscript, I can tell you that much. Your luck is not needed - I will escape here all on my own. And I’ll tell the world. Do you think I won’t? Oh, I’ll be a laughingstock too - the entire world will point and laugh at the pathetic dumbass prick who fell for such an obvious ploy. I will continue to feel embarrassed - did you know this is one of the first times in over a decade that I’ve felt embarrassed, Izar? Embarrassed that I fell for such tactics? Congratulations, in that regard. Ah, but - it will all be worth it, because the truth will be out. And while they laugh at me, they’ll be scowling at you. They’ll despise you for this. Good.”

“And if this does all really work? If you manage to succeed? I don’t want to see your face ever again. You’ve lost your right to be in my presence.”

She pants, a little out of breath from all the talking, and then… she sighs.

“I think that shall be sufficient, as a message to pass on. Please remain as verbatim as possible.”

[wetwareproblem]

In which I ramble a lot but I think it's worth it

TW: Psychological trauma, self-harm, Deep Uncomfortable Feelings, Me being less than perfectly poised and completely awesome, stream-of-consciousness babbling because this is way too much Feels to properly compose

When we were a deeply-troubled abused teenager, we came across a YA book that very literally saved our life.

At first it presents like a Horse Girl Story For Boys: Problem Kid and his little brother are forcibly relocated to a ranch, working with the animals and in particular His Horse teaches him to reconnect with his emotions, which lets him get through the climax.

But... It was real in a way we never expected. We didn't understand this then, but we were seeing the very first evidence that anyone else had ever felt some of the ways we did, that anyone else could understand.

It was the first time we'd ever seen anything say "yes you can be a dumb stupid fucked-up mess and still find happiness. Still deserve happiness. You can be all right again."

We read that book so many times. We were never without it, in the worst times. We read it long past the point where it was falling apart - I literally can't picture it without its cover delaminating and the corners rolled back half an inch.

(Fuck, I'm crying just thinking about it. Wish we still had it for Parker and Zukka, but if it still exists it's on my mother's bookshelf.)

Anyway.

There's one scene that sticks out in my head, all these years later. They had to do some fence repairs, and he - already pissed off, unruly, and not paying attention - forgot his gloves. The parental figure gave him shit for it, because now he'd have to waste half the day walking to the house and back, rendering him relatively useless.

In retrospect, I can see the trigger going off in his head. He throws on a cocky swagger, and assures her he'll get his portion done, and she moves on with the rest of the crew.

His first problem: There's no way he can back that up and get his gloves.

His second: He missed the bit on how to safely coil and weave a mass of barbed wire.

He goes "fuck it, can't stop me" and gets to work.

He pushes himself all day - burnt out from shoving around giant pointy springs, covered in assorted cuts, bruises, and scratches from when an incorrect weave exploded under tension, his clothes half-shredded, his hands basically giant balls of blood and dirt.

At one point, he talks about how he's managing this, what's keeping him on his feet and Doing The Thing: "Physical pain is the easy kind."

(Please note: This is not meant as a statement of fact, or an attempt to compare mental and physical health issues. Both are serious and deserve attention, and I'm not here to rank suffering I don't experience. This is about the mindset of a damaged self-destructive kid.)

Let me tell you, that line hit me so hard I'm still reeling twenty fucking years later.

(Crying again. It's That Line. It still hits that hard.)

See, here's the thing: I didn't have the tools then, but now? I see our own worst self-destruction in those scenes. Those moments when something makes us feel worthless and insignificant and we just have to scream "Well fucking watch me" and try to do the impossible.

And if it hurts, fine. It can't hurt more than that feeling of worthlessness. In that moment, we've pinned our entire self-worth to the completion of the challenge.

(Have we mentioned the time we got hospitalized for severe dehydration because Fuck You Mom, Watch Me?)

(Or the time Mom told us we were behind on Life Skills and we literally took off halfway across the country with plans to try and find a job?)

And in that moment, we're setting ourselves up to Suffer. We're trying to prove our worth in the most fundamental way we know how - by showing you how much we can Endure. It's the one bedrock value to others that we know we have. And it's the one arena where we know, on a bone-deep instinctual level, that we are among The Best. If torture endurance were an Olympic sport, we could suffer for our country.

Even I, who literally capitalize My pronouns and expect worship, fall back on this when I feel like my ability is in question.

(Fuck, this is why sacrifice is the highest expression of love to me, no time to unpack all that, moving on...)

(If this weren't already long and winding enough, I'd touch on That Scene from Gattaca here, feel free to ask me to expand if that doesn't explain enough but not this second)

We push ourselves, deliberately, into situations where we will need to torture ourself in order to uphold the claims we've made or prove ourself to others. And it's a functional coping mechanism when you haven't got anything better, precisely because hurting physically can make the psychological pain go away for a bit.

This is... A form of self-harm that's particularly difficult to address, because in the moment it feels like defending yourself from an attack on your self-worth. It feels good, gives you that same righteous adrenaline kick we've written about re: antis, other reactionaries, and fortress mentality.

And once you've nailed your self-worth to the task, especially if you've done so in front of other people, it is the hardest fucking thing in the world to take a step back, go "no, this isn't healthy or constructive, and leave the task incomplete. Even when you know it is absolutely, 100% the right thing to do. Because now you have that little asshole voice I the back of your head saying they were right, you buckled, you're worthless.

(Fuck, this post didn't even start out about this pattern, but now I'm seeing it everywhere. This is how discourse becomes self-harm, too - add that to the list of things to unpack if people want)

But here's the thing: You gotta. It's the only way out. If it helps, look at that as the ultimate challenge, the ultimate thing to prove: No matter how hard that little asshole voice tries, you won't buckle to it. You'll step back and actually take care of yourself. Because in the end, that's how you beat them. That's the ultimate defiance, the ultimate triumph over a world that wants to break you into compliance.

Let's show them how bright we can shine anyway.

(Last thing for the stack: The post about the "but they didn't hit me" phenomenon that this was supposed to be.)

(Okay, and a polished version of this when I have the emotional distance.)

(Yes, this is okay to reblog. I hope it conveys what I want to say to some of you, at least, à d would like to start a discussion.)

[deciduess]

I think this is called a Peak Trans™ moment?

❌ LeSbOpHoBeS dO nOT iNtErAcT ❌

If you have a problem with this post, please see my bio before privately messaging me or reblogging. Thanks.

🌸

🌸

🌸

I need to vent about something.

A couple of weeks ago, a leftist Instagram account I followed posted these photos:

As a lesbian, I disagree with this post. The account in question encourages discourse, so I decided to comment on it. I’ll be referring to the account as “OP”.

I typed my original comment into my Notes app before sending it, which is the only reason I can share it with you (OP blocked me). It read as follows:

As a lesbian, I don’t think I’d date a trans person because I want a woman who can understand the experience of being socialized as female. I have a lot of trauma with regards to how I was born and socialized. Only other AFAB women will be able to relate to that— even if they haven’t been assaulted (or otherwise experienced what I have). Plus, as a cis person, there’s no way for me to understand the trans experience, so I think there’d be a huge rift between a trans girlfriend and I. I don’t think I’d be able to soothe her or relate to her deeply if she told me about trauma she has as a result of being trans in this society. Of course, trans people don’t usually say that they’ll ONLY date other trans people, but I think they have every right to have that preference.

Unfortunately, I cannot screenshot the rest of the thread, as I’m blocked. The thread isn’t visible to unblocked accounts either.

I will do my best to summarize the rest of the conversation.

Now, both of the people who responded to me were incredibly rude. They insulted me quite a few times, but I can’t remember exactly how they phrased everything, so I’ll just be summarizing their arguments-- minus the attitude. It’s important to note their abusive language, however, because it’s part of the reason this conversation affected me so negatively.

OP: You sound like a TERF. Also, I’ve never heard of a trans person who will only date other trans people. Sounds like a straw man just to excuse your transphobia. And how can you say that trans women aren’t socialized as women?

Me: No, trans women aren’t socialized as female. That’s what makes them trans as opposed to cis, right? They were assigned and socialized as male.

People with vaginas have to deal with much higher rates of sexual harassment and assault even in childhood. And we have to see ourselves assaulted again and again and again when we read the news, watch TV, or read books/comics. I’ve been called weak, unintelligent, and overall inferior all my life due to how I was born. Trans men can relate to this, but trans women cannot. All of this starts early— even before we’re born (I mean, look at gender reveal parties: “guns or glitter”).

OP: So what you’re saying is: trans women are men. Trans people are assaulted too. You’re making a blanket statement about all trans women [when you say they can’t understand female oppression/socialization]. What if a trans woman transitioned at a very young age?

*I decided to ignore OP’s question because... it’s fucking stupid lmfao. You can’t transition in the womb, and you certainly couldn’t consent to that as a baby.

Me: What?? I didn’t say that. You’re putting words into my mouth. Trans women are women, but they have different experiences than cis women.

I know that trans people are assaulted at higher rates than cis people, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that people with vaginas make up the vast majority of victims.

OP: That’s exactly what you’re saying. So, trans women have male privilege, huh? Just admit you’re transphobic and go. Now, answer the FUCKING question.

*I know I said I wasn’t going to convey the tone of these messages, but… wow. Males have told me to “answer the FUCKING question” several times in my life, so that got to me. Males literally can’t act like human beings. The fact that OP is just like any other male no matter how “they” identify is so evident here.

**Now, a trans “woman” starts attacking me. “She” replied to me three times, I think. But I don’t remember how the replies fit into the conversation, and “she” kept repeating “herself”. So, I’m just going to summarize all of that in this one comment.

Trans “Woman”: I’ve been female-socialized and harassed ever since I transitioned at age 16. Also, I’ve been called weak and unintelligent all my life, but thanks for assuming otherwise.

*At this point, I’m getting irritated by these two constantly misconstruing what I’m saying and denying my experiences. So, unfortunately, I use a passive-aggressive emoji. I also use two question marks instead of one. I’m not proud of that, but keep in mind, these two had been complete asshats to me this entire time.

I was so tired at this point. I was sharing my trauma (which isn’t easy for me to talk about,,,,), and I was being so nice. I was trying so hard to center them even though I was talking about my trauma. I didn’t understand why they weren’t reciprocating my energy.

Me: @trans”woman” I’ve been called ‘weak’ and ‘unintelligent’ because I have a vagina. It’s a little different. 🙃

@OP Wait, do you guys think that sex-based oppression doesn’t exist? Like, do you think trans men have the same privilege as cis men??

*OP doesn’t respond for a while. The trans “woman” never responds, either. Finally, OP replies…

OP: You know what? I think I’m just going to block you.

Anddd, that’s why I can’t include screenshots of the interaction on this post. I was kind of relieved that I didn’t have to deal with two MALES shitting on me anymore, though. 🙃🙃🙃

🌸

🌸

🌸

I grew up in a conservative household, but I’ve been a leftist ever since I was a late-teen. Since getting closer to adulthood, I’ve leaned far left on most issues before even reading other leftists’ opinions on the matters. Over the years, though, I’ve been a cetrist on a few topics.

Usually, this is because I don’t have all the information I need. So, when I notice that I disagree with the majority of leftists on something, I read more about it, and I read their opinions. I almost always end up agreeing with the leftist majority opinion on any given topic.

There are only two major issues I haven’t agreed with most leftists on yet: gun rights and trans rights. Leftists support the Second Amendment... I see both sides. I’m beginning to lean pro-Second Amendment, but that has happened before, so it could happen again. I’m not going to elaborate on this because this post isn’t about that.

When it comes to trans rights, I have NEVER understood the popular leftist opinion. I have been trying for years to understand trans people better. But in the end, my opinion has just been, “Well, I don’t have to understand your identity in order to support it and use your pronouns. Your identity isn’t hurting anybody, and no one should hurt you over your identity.” I still agree with that sentiment. I will still use trans people’s pronouns. I still want them to be safe.

But I’m done accommodating them at my expense. And if you’re a shithead to me, I don’t see a problem with putting your pronouns in quotes and referring to you as “males” instead of “AMABs” in a tumblr post that you’ll never see lmfao. It’s been so liberating to disrespect you (on a post you’ll never see) half as much as you disrespected me (to my face).

TRA’s have excluded AFAB women and trivialized their problems so much. Every single post about AFAB women is derailed (”whuttabout trans women???” “don’t you mean people with vaginas?????”). TRA’s suggest that there are no female-only experiences and sex-based oppression does not exist.

I’ve had many concerns with the Trans Rights Movement for years. But I’ve tried to understand. I wanted to actively support trans people. I didn’t want to merely use their preferred pronouns and tolerate them. I’ve followed TRA’s and read what they have to say...

But the Trans Rights Movement just,,, doesn’t,,,, make,,,,,, sense. This conversation sent me over the edge. I don’t care about understanding trans people anymore. If I can’t understand them in half a decade, I don’t think I ever will. Clearly, to these people, including trans “women” means excluding cis women. You’re trans-exclusionary if you talk about cis women’s experiences or issues. You’re trans-exclusionary if you say that trans “women” and cis women are different (unless it’s to say that trans “women” are superior/prettier or more oppressed).

🌸

Now that I don’t care about trans feelings anymore, I’m going to address the conversation from two weeks ago without sugar-coating anything.

Trans “women” will never have the same experiences as cis women.

I will not date a trans “woman” because I NEED someone who can understand the very specific trauma and physical pain of a female assault victim. I NEED my partner to be able to relate to being constantly berated and belittled in all forms of media— even when I try to relax or distract myself, I am constantly reminded that males hate me and think I’m a worthless incubator/dishwasher.

Two weeks ago, I was not concerned enough about the physical differences between trans “women” and cis women. But now, I think it’s a good time to discuss that, too.

It’s perfectly okay to not want to date a trans person because of their genitals.

Even after a trans “woman” has SRS, “her vagina” is NOT a female vagina. It is not self-cleaning. It has no muscles. It smells PUTRID. Neovaginas are repulsive, and they do NOT look like actual vaginas. A neovagina is the physical manifestation of a male’s soul: it’s a disgusting, smelly, functionless hole that is trying to emulate the natural divinity of a woman.

🌸

Now, I’d like to specifically address those two males:

Thank you guys for demonstrating my point that males can NEVER understand the female experience. :)

Thanks for proving that I’ll never be able to open up to males about my SA trauma. Males will always say that they have it worse and/or pretend that what happened to you has NOTHING to do with the fact that you have a vagina. If you’re vulnerable with them, they will stomp all over you. Males only care about themselves, even if they “identify” as women. :)

I would never be able to be in a relationship with someone that constantly belittles my feelings like this.

Also, to the trans “woman” who alleges “she’s” been ~“socialized as a woman”~ since the age of sixteen: no the fuck you haven’t. If you’d been socialized as female, you would be exceedingly nice to me, even if I spoke to YOU in the same way YOU spoke to ME. You would be super apologetic for stating your feelings and standing up for yourself. No matter how illogical you found my arguments, you’d still TRY to understand me because that’s the compassionate thing to do. If you were socialized as female, you’d put OTHERS’ feelings above your own.

But you haven’t been socialized as female. You’re just like every other MALE. You SPEAK OVER a female victim of sexual assault and pretend that YOU’RE more of an expert on HER OWN experiences than SHE is.

You tell women they’re not allowed to have boundaries or preferences. You have absolutely no compassion or humanity. You’re a MALE, AND you’re MALE-SOCIALIZED, and it fucking shows. You’re a disgusting, ignorant, unsympathetic brat that always needs to be coddled— just like every other male.

Also, yes, OP, all males have male privilege. Including trans “women.”

🌸

Two weeks ago, I had deluded myself into saying, “trans women are women.”

But the truth is, trans “women” are not women.

I’m attracted to women. I will never be attracted to a trans “woman.” I’m not sorry. It’s okay if other lesbians are attracted to trans “women,” but my lesbian identity does not include trans “women”. I don’t care if that’s politically incorrect. That’s MY sexuality.

I cannot change my sexuality, and I don’t want to. I love cis women. No male will ever be as strong, intelligent, poignant, or divine as a cis woman. A woman is born with all of these traits.

🌸

I’m certainly transphobic now-- that is quite evident. And I was also transphobic two weeks ago, even though I was trying to unlearn my transphobia. But nothing that I said to this person was transphobic. It’s literally fine to not want to date a trans person. A lesbian is not oppressing you by not wanting to date you lmfao. I openly admit that I am transphobic, but this is not the reason. I will not try to understand why my sexuality is “wrong.”

I’ve stayed out of TERF circles for years, even though TERF posts can be so informative, relatable, and comforting. Thanks to this experience, I’m gonna go ahead and follow whoever tf I want. I'm grateful that this interaction has caused me to start prioritizing my feelings and my rights.

Honestly, trans “women” deserve to be excluded. Males deserve to be excluded. Idgaf about how that makes you feel anymore. You don’t give a shit about how I feel. And you don’t feel guilty when you exclude real women.

[betadereader]

It’s “just” fiction.

How many of us have come across the typical phrase "it's just fiction"? Starting from a personal basis, I have always found it as a justifying sentence of an author with its content. And if the author has to get away with this defense, it is because someone has previously questioned said content. 

To begin with, I will clarify a point. Writing about a murder does not make you a murderer, just as writing a rape does not make you a rapist; role-playing a sadistic and abusive character does not make you that character, acting in your real environment just like them. 

In the world there are people who know how to separate the line of fiction and reality very well, while others do not. However, this is not the focus of this essay. I wanted to focus on the undervaluation of fiction in that very phrase "it's just fiction." I am going to articulate it with several examples that have occurred or continue to occur in reality, in addition to raising a series of questions. 

For better or for worse, the news media have configured a heritage of History. We are aware of History because there is written and / or audiovisual material, but the story offered by the media may not represent History itself. We know the version of history that they tell us. 

If I have gone to a very current example, the simple fact of creating a story in the format of an informative speech does not always reflect 100% of the object that occurred. 

With information abuse (the saturation of information) and so-called fake news, they also have the possibility of affecting the user's conscience, despite being a totally invented, fictitious story. 

Again, for better or for worse, and putting history and the media together, people tend to learn history more easily with fiction series. The fictional discourse can be educational and, at the same time, not represent History as such, trivializing some political aspects or creating a polarized world of black and white; good vs. bad. 

I also wanted to highlight a sociological experiment that was carried out on television, replicating Milgram's experiment. 

Milgram's original experiment, now cataloged by several experts as immoral, reflected very favorable results for the scientific community in its day. His main objective was to study the forms of obedience and whether they could find connection with those condemned during the Nazi era. Translated to the television world, in the documentary The Game of Death, they wanted to see to what extent a game show could become an authority, in addition to coming up with several theories. 

Like the original experiment, an agentic state (sometimes conformism too) was found in the contestant, relegating all authority to the guidelines of the program. There is an additional theory that mentions “belief perseverance”. In the contest, electric shocks are given to a subject who cannot be seen but can be heard. As the program progresses, the greater the intensity of the shock. Obviously it is an experiment and the pain is acted out, but in the participant —who did not know that they were part of the experiment— the following belief came up: "I can't really be hurting him because this is television."

“This is television” as a synonym for prior planning and pure spectacle; as a synonym for falsehood; just fiction.

I mentioned this example because, especially at the beginning of the documentary, it denounces a normalization of violence and physical and emotional torture on television. It denounces, also at the end, that commercial televisions, in their desire for money, "teach us that it is normal to humiliate, eliminate and be sadistic." (It’s an old documentary but if you want to see it, click here. It’s in French, I’m sorry).

Continuing with sociological experiments, how many experiments have tried to study the link between violence and video games? Or sexism and video games? Or xenophobia and video games? Or nationalism and video games? 

It should be said that the last mentioned are more common in the attitude of the player, using the video game as an expressive way to say whatever they want. However, we cannot ignore that, like historical television series, video games can also serve for nationalist discourses by demonizing the enemy and sanctifying themselves (especially when talking about video games which main topic is war).

I do not wish to dwell too much on each of the questions raised, since the emphasis is not the result of these experiments, but the undeniable interest and concern on the community of experts, as well as more and more students who are interested in these problems in order to analyze and debate them.

We are not indifferent to the images or books we consume. No matter how invented a story is, it stirs up real emotions. We grow with the media (traditional or digital media) and the content they have to offer us. There is socialization with the media at a very early age, and when we grow up we continue to learn from them.

Media acts on our emotions. And the stories that are told to us through media help to frame a collective imagination that even affects the vision of reality itself. Reality can also help build fictional worlds. And so the cycle would begin, since new ideals in fiction can act as a mirror for a future society and/or perpetuate harmful values (especially when under romantic treatments). They are two worlds that feed into each other.

For this reason the famous so-called "romantic love" has been so analyzed and criticized for promoting toxic ideas such as 1) love is the final happiness of every person and we are not complete otherwise, 2) we must to depend on someone else consider ourselves a "whole", 3) "for love everything is forgiven", "true love is eternal" and more idealizations that impacts on society and its perspective of love.

(Closely linked to romantic love, monogamy has been accused of being toxic and I wanted to make a small point that the decision of a closed relationship is as valid as an open relationship, and that an open relationship can be as toxic as a closed one. Here everything is said).

If fiction lacked that power, censorship would never have existed. The witch hunt in Hollywood or censorship that existed in the USSR for the control of the media and its content should not have happened. And many more historical contexts that I am ignoring. Governments were afraid of a content contrary to the predominant ideology, because it could break and violate their established values.

If fiction lacked power, propaganda would also lack power. Propaganda, especially in the context of dictatorships, offers a cult of personality; they idolize, endow dictators with divine values.

We just have to see the television advertising: it is all an idealized, invented version of the product. Don't give me that you've never been disappointed in buying the real product because "it wasn't like it was on TV."

We just have to see how certain groups in society (racial groups, different sexual orientation and gender identity groups, cultural ...) demand to be participants in fictional stories because fiction configures a mirror of the real world, where they are already participants.

Okay, taking a step closer to the "it's just fiction" statement ... so why do film academies exist? Depending on the film, they work with fiction to a greater or lesser degree, but it is still fiction. Why would there be jobs that are dedicated to worlds which work with fiction, if that is worthless? If "it was only fiction" nobody would pay for a movie or a book. And the same happens with television and animation series; no one would consume them. Any story that contains fiction, that is, any made-up story (depending on the needs of the script and the historical context), has no value.

By the same logic, any literary work would not have survived in memory and the writers we know as the "classics" would no longer be. By the same logic, any artistic movement (theater arts, literature, audiovisual and more), would have fallen into oblivion and its formal codes by which they acquire identity, would not be worthy of analyzing and studying. 

Because what difference does it make. It is just fiction. Nothing happens for the massive creation of very questionable content (the topics of which this blog will address later). 

Continuing with this essay, does anyone remember 50 Shades of Grey trilogy? Yes, that mess that originated (if I remember correctly) as a Twilight bad fic. How much movement was there on social networks denouncing an abusive and toxic relationship? Apart from BDSM and the criticism that it was painfully written (I started reading it by laughing and ended up wanting to tear my eyes out), there were countless posts in which the relationship of the characters was analyzed. Many voiced their complaint and amazement at how a book that focuses on and romanticizes a toxic relationship could hit the market.

I suppose that something problematic is even more when it becomes popular and it is about making money with it. And probably publishers don’t give a damn because they're going to make money anyway. Although the world of FanFiction is not destined —in principle— for commercialization, the fic that romanticizes problematic subjects is not "less important" for this reason, because it can do the same damage. There is a vast "FanFiction culture", and more than one fic has made the jump to the market. We have all seen a book with its brilliant promotion of "phenomenon on Wattpad".

Fickers —writers of FanFiction— are not film or television producers. It is good that FanFiction (and like FF we have Wattpad and AO3) is not a strictly professional universe. A fic, like a movie or a television series or a video game, can narrate very murky and dark things from life. A story can talk about drugs (or other types of addictions), the inhumanity of war, torture, sexism, rape, pedophilia and more that I’m ignoring. You can do it from the critical perspective of the characters and their actions, or from the point of view of the addict, inhuman, sadistic, sexist, rapist or pedophile respectively with the aforementioned.

Why if the producer/writer who whitewashes the image of pedophilia or terrorism (for example) or romanticizes them is considerated as a pedophile or as a terrorist but nothing is said against romanticization and the subsequent normalization of rape in the FanFiction world?

That question is one of many examples of harmful behavior by content creators, which toxicity can be seen thorugh fiction. That question is one from many others that this Tumblr account wants to develop as essays.

Because fiction is not “just” fiction. Whoever wants to rely on this phrase, is the equivalent of being a shameless person... as something to begin with.

[silver-and-ivory]

Fair enough. It is a difference in discourse norms, but I tend to think putting a very detailed description and justification of your racism online, to a community that by and large completely agrees with said racism (by this I mean rationalists) is functionally a kind of endorsement. And no, I would not give anyone abused by anyone slack on hating the entire group from which their abuser came. I realize that this is a minority position among SJ-ish circles.

Hello again, anon!

I disagree with much of what you’ve said here, but appreciate that you were willing to explain.

For one, endorsement isn’t based on circumstance- it’s an internal determination of intent. I think this is just a difference of definitions, though.

What I *think* you’re trying to get at here is that giving a detailed description and justification of my racist feelings to a community that largely endorses racism causes more people to be racist. It gives them more reasons for hating blacks. Therefore, I should stop doing things like this.

I disagree with this in several ways.

Firstly, I disagree that rationalists as a whole are endorsedly racist. I don’t doubt that /some/ rationalists - particularly neoreactionaries and the Dark Enlightenment in general - are racists. But I generally don’t associate with nrx or the Dark Enlightenment, and in general they don’t read my blog.

(I’ve had a few interactions with nydwracu/wesley/etc., but he is the only nrx I’ve interacted with as far as I know, and I don’t know about his views on race.)

Like with almost all communities, there are different groups within the rationalist community. I generally associate with ozymandias271, unknought, sinesalvatorem, anaisnein, injygo, and a few other people who generally endorse racial equality and justice. There is a substantial group of rationalists who are pro-feminist and pro-sj, and, as far as I can tell from the notes and followers, these are the people who generally read and interact with my blog.

The endorsedly racist rationalists who might read my blog who you’re concerned with, are mostly hypothetical at this point. (This is a lot like the fandom discourse around shipping- I’m not sure what your position is on that?)

Secondly, I don’t think my emotional reasons for racism are particularly convincing to /anyone/, including myself. Looking back at my post explaining why I feel a visceral fear of blacks, all of these reasons are mostly only applicable to people who were very far into sj. Few endorsed racists would ever have felt immense pressure to sacrifice themselves for the sake of helping blacks; I would wager that almost none were scared that they would hurt black people.

I guess that you could say that endorsed racists might use my feelings as a weapon - (cw lynching allusion) “Protect the future of white children by murdering blacks because this one blogger really cared about protecting blacks and was abused by a black woman!” - but that is a separate argument.

Moreover, the possibility of white supremacists using my lived experiences to support their narratives do not mean I shouldn’t talk about my feelings.

Like, sometimes a small minority of black people actually do abuse others, and sometimes some aspects of sj ideology leads to people being abused. White supremacists will inevitably fall upon this to use for racist purposes. This doesn’t mean no one should talk about it. In fact, we need to make sure that abuse victims/survivors who were hurt by antiracist ideology or (small minorities of) black people are heard and accepted by groups that aren’t white supremacists. This is because otherwise vulnerable people would probably end up reaching out to white supremacists for support, even when they wouldn’t have wanted to.

Thirdly, you could argue that my blog pulls non-racist people towards racism. I don’t think so. For one, none of my justifications have been based on anything other than “this is my very distorted thought pattern, caused by the way my abuser treated me as well as some ideas absorbed from sections of sj, and here is how it makes me feel”. I’m in effect blogging about my mental illness.

This is a very common thing to do on rationalist tumblr- for example, you might post an explanation of your unendorsed feelings about everyone hating you and the world feeling pointless and worthless, or your unendorsed feelings about food related to an ED, typically marked with a readmore, appropriate content warnings, and explicitly stated as unendorsed. A rationalist reading my blog would have a common cultural context to compare my writing to- that of people processing, recognizing, and documenting cognitive distortions, so as to possibly help and be helped by other people suffering from similar issues.

Despite what you may have experienced with rationalists - and I don’t doubt that there are rationalists as you describe - the portion of the community I’ve been part of generally recognizes that we are vulnerable to cognitive distortions, and generally accepts and encourages working through them. Placing my writing in appropriate social context actually makes it better, not worse.

For another, I think that my blog might help people become less racist/*ist- that is, racism/*ism of the kind that Ozy was talking about yesterday, where they feel obligated to pedestalize some kind of marginalized group. Unlike your hypothetical endorsed racists who read my blog, there does actually exist someone who seems to have related to my problems and felt a connection to them- e.g. that anon who was afraid of being misogynist.

On to your next statement.

It is admirable that you adhere to the principle that it is preferable for people not to, even unendorsedly, hate large groups of people. On reflection, I think that I agree.

However, it is also very important to recognize your feelings, even hatred, without condemnation. They exist and that’s not necessarily anyone’s fault. If you chastise yourself for feeling feelings, then you’ll become worse at feeling feelings. You’ll also miss important reasons behind them if you dismiss them right away.

It is important to investigate the roots of your feelings to figure out if there’s something in your life that you need to fix, or if there’s some systemic mistake - bias - that you’re making. Often wrt race, this is based in societal ideals of racism; investigating this racism without judging yourself allows you to address it and deal with it more effectively.

The disability framework for internalized racism and emotions in general works /really well/ for me. Racist emotions are not anyone’s fault and should be dealt with without condemning anyone. If you want me to stop unendorsedly hating blacks, then it is /absolutely necessary/ that I be able to recognize it, discuss it, and eventually create cognitive structures against it.

The benefits of writing what I do far outweigh the potential harms, especially within the context of the rationalist community. I understand why writing this would be inappropriate in another community; and I am happy that rationalists have created a space where our discourse norms encourage nonjudgementally discussing cognitive distortions.

Peace to you, and thank you again for your thoughtful arguments. :)