#and anti-theory. and I want to be able to better know the context of their arguments

[communistkenobi]

a prof in the department retired last year and was like just raid my office for whatever you want idc im not cleaning it out so it was like book whalefall. and because nobody in my department cares about theory i got to take all of his books on states and revolutions. I’m finally getting around to looking through them and he had some gooooood fucking books dude, I got Lineages of the Absolutist State by Perry Anderson, States and Social Revolutions by Theda Skocpol, Social Origins of Dictatorships and Democracies by Barrington Moore Jr, an edited collection on apartheid, and a book about settler colonial policy in Canada

[dr-lizortecho]

I'm a delena lover too and wanted to know any delena UOs you have? A few of mine if you promise not to make fun of me - 1. I honestly don't think delena is nearly as "toxic" as it's made out to be? I mean, context matters, and this is a show about screwed up monstrous vampires, so no ship is going to be the epitome of 'healthy' lol. But I actually find delena a lot more honest and real than stelena was and a lot less toxic than klaroline. They communicate and adapt much more than antis give them credit for and are genuinely loving and supportive. I'm dying on that unpopular hill :) 2. I actually think s5 is my favorite delena season? It leaned in to the "but they're not healthy!" stuff too much, but it also showed them at their best, most loyal and passionate and adoring, without the icky shadow of the 'sire bond' crap that ruined s4 for me. And Elena is so...free that season? I don't know, I just love it. S6 has great domestic moments but yet another unpopular opinion is that something about the 'falling in love all over again with no memories' storyline felt really inauthentic and rushed to me. I like it in theory, just not the execution. 3. Delena is NOT just about physical attraction. At all. Like I truly believe that even if they could never have sex again they'd be very happy together. They connect on a much deeper level imo, seeing each other for who they truly are. 4. I do not in any way buy Elena as a doctor or even a science person---in my mind she became a teacher or a counselor :) 5. Elena is thought to be similar to Stefan but imo in actuality she's more like Damon imo---super passionate, follows her heart and instincts to a degree that some see as selfish, reacts in the moment rather than focusing on the past or future etc. 6. I actually think Damon has a better, softer heart than Stefan. He's crazy and impulsive and self-destructive and a whole bunch of other things, but he's also a lot softer and more willing to acknowledge his flaws and try to change than Stefan is. Again, these are all just my very UOs! Can't wait to read yours too!!

Hi anon! I adore them- like there’s three ships that I really feel encapsulate romantic love for me, that taught me what it is and how it works, and Delena was the second of those ships so it means a lot to me personally

So I am so far removed from fandom I barely know what counts as popular opinions and unpopular opinions, but feel free to ask me specific questions at any time! Though my two fav characters are Tyler and Bonnie if that counts <3 I’ll start by kinda saying my thoughts on the things you mentioned as your unpopular opinions- which I fully understand even when we slightly disagree! Below the cut so it’s easier for my non-tvd followers

On Delena being called toxic- I talked about it in part before (but alas I can’t find the post) and contrary to popular belief I think they’re not toxic (granted after they get together) outside of the regular amount you should expect in all teen dramas regardless of supernatural elements or not. Unlike a lot of the other relationships they have a lot of communication and consent involved from the start, because they have to with the precarious Stefan ties and the sire bond. On top of that they both acknowledge the parts of their relationship that aren’t the best and actively work towards making them better, however, with the flaws and missteps afforded for drama ✨

I can’t be impartial about s5- definitely not enough to be able to decide about Delena in it. I wasn’t a fan of that brand of angst tbh (sorry anon I do get the appeal) and the racism throughout just hurt my heart too much- but they definitely had some top tier sexy moments. Personally, I loved season six because of the approach of them sharing a best friend and all the little moments and musical beats. Like- watching Damon want to live became something so important to me and really felt like the conclusion for his character arc.

As for the sexual aspect- I do think it plays a part (as with every relationship that involves sex) but it definitely isn’t the peak of it or the draw, it’s a perk. Because if it was the sex they’d have been done with each other after that long hot summer. But there is a tendency in fandom to try and remove all romance and depth to relationships they don’t like- because if it’s shallow they can be rude and dismissive to shippers.

In regards to Elena- I don’t think she’s too similar to either Salvatore, I think she shares common traits with both. But at the end of the day it wa she’d similarities to Stefan that drew them together and her differences to Damon that drew them together. Which is why Stefan was a relationship that let her heal and come back to herself and Damon was the relationship that pushed her out of her comfort zone and helped her grow.

As for Stefan and Damon I don’t think there’s anything to be gained from claiming any one character is “softer” or more “moral” than another. It’s all about action and reaction and growth. However, I think you might be catching onto the sensitivity of their triggers, which Damon’s trauma responses are way more easily triggered throughout the series because unlike Stefan he hasn’t sat with them and worked through near as much of his traumatic experiences. Which is why his healing process through Elena learning of and reminding him to be kind to himself you watch him heal and grow. Which isn’t to be confused with him being “defanged” for a romance- because it was happening regardless of if he and Elena stayed friends or not.

[sophieinwonderland]

i think you're losing some scope here. i know the tumblr tags represent more to you, but you clearly have drastically shifted your aims

you don't uplift endogenic systems anymore, not really. you seem more anti-anti-endo than pro-endo these days, and as someone who followed you early on, i have to say i understand but it makes me sad and uncomfortable enough to finally have to say i don't really fully support what's going on here

i know you have been relentlessly abused and slandered for 3 years by a community of people that shifts and grows and changes endlessly, like a ship of theseus of mean teenagers. i know you can and have changed minds. but you no longer seem to care about even that; you really genuinely seem to be lashing out, saying things that are deeply unnerving to endos and anti-endos alike, those with religious trauma AND many with the common sense to know that yes, proselytizing IS often harmful. There is a reason missionaries are tools of colonialism. im almost certain you know this and are just being inflammatory, but the friendly fire is IMMENSE. You look foolish and dangerous to many of us, and again that makes me sad and honestly a little worried for you

i think maybe finding another plural community to post activism in is a good idea, or at the very least a tumblr hiatus. it's ultimately up to you, and you are the arbiter of your own mental health, but please at least consider the things I've said here. i know im on anon but again i have had a lot of respect for you for a long time, especially for staying compassionate and composed given the context, but i couldn't fault you for any of this. i just hope you find something both more productive and more rewarding.

i could totally be misreading this and you are making these decisions for some solely rational reasons and you ARE more active elsewhere, but. i dont know. you dont seem to post positivity like headcanons anymore, just neverending anon hate and intentionally inflammatory (often triggering) pseudo-religious doctrine. that doesn't seem healthy for anyone, including your endogenic follower base

proselytizing IS often harmful. There is a reason missionaries are tools of colonialism. ... you dont seem to post positivity like headcanons anymore

I really do want to get back to the headcanon posts.

At least the big ones seem to take a lot of effort and I haven't really been feeling it for a while.

But I do find it ironic that you would say this when those very posts ARE my proselytism. To the extent that I proselytize my ideology to other communities, these are the posts that I consider most valuable to those aims of gaining outside support.

I don't openly proselytize in the way of "you should become plural and make a tulpa because plurality is cool and will help you feel better" the way Christians might because that feels scummy. Even if early studies are showing mental health gains from tulpamancy and I might be justified in doing so.

But I will make a huge post about how the Avatar is actually plural, trying to tone down my plural language and explain the terms I use in ways that non-plurals will be able to understand, with the intent of introducing them to plurality and get them on board with pro-endo ideology.

And if after learning about plurality, they decide on their own to make a tulpa due to resources I provide, or realize they were already plural because of similar experiences to myself or other systems I interact with then that's a huge win.

Those posts are the gateway, the same way missionaries might provide food or medicine or other types of support to local communities as a gateway, I provide detailed fan theories with lots of pictures to keep them entertained, and make sure to post them all over the tags of that fandom. Any fandom tags that are relevant, and then with plural tags to fill the rest out. In fact, I think of it a two-pronged approach, where plural tags help me get more notes from plurals and cause the post to appear higher up in the fandom tags to reach non-plurals.

You may think my focus has changed... and you'd be right about that. Lately, I've put a lot more focus on arguing. Maybe more than I should.

But as far as "proselytizing" is concerned, those posts you want me to to do more of have been my vehicle for it. Just less overtly.

And I don't think I've been particularly subtle about stating the intent behind them.

I'm stopping just short of some of the most manipulative tactics religions employ, but I'm self-aware enough to realize that I've always only been a few steps from them.

Frankly, if you want to spread an ideology, it would be silly to not look at the most successful ideologies, whether political, religious or even moral philosophies, and figure out why they were able to achieve the dominance they did.

[vigxyz]

Some learnings at 29

My main commentary on this year's edition is that I did not use ChatGPT in writing this. As always, let me know if you want to discuss more!

Motion: I’ve never looked back at a time when I was stagnant and found it was particularly worth it compared to making progress. Something about my brain chemistry means thinking about problems feels even better than actually solving problems. Now, whenever I catch myself doing this I force myself to either ignore the problem (it doesn’t matter enough) or find some small thing I can do about it immediately. Now I’m not stuck nearly as often.

Discussion: I grew up during an era where certain questions shouldn’t be asked. Essentially, some views are harmful enough that they shouldn’t be held (let alone shared). A few things happened that made me question this. Often times I changed my mind with enough investigation about a specific view. And I noticed it’s useful to hear why people held those views in the first place. Silencing them mainly prevented getting to a shared understanding, and didn’t protect anyone. I believe in unifying people and communities. If we hope to shift anyone’s views, that can only happen with open, respectful discussion—not punishment and silencing.

Family: I have friends that are extremely important to me. But no matter how much I care for and respect my friends, it’s a relationship built around convenience. There’s a threshold of how difficult a friendship is to keep up (shared interests, distance, values, age, etc) before people grow apart. With family, you’re somewhat forced to make it work because you can’t get new family members (unless you get married). When I do grow apart from my family, it takes serious effort to get back to feeling close again. It’s always been worth it to me to put in that effort, and there’s nothing I prioritize more.

Therapy: I’ve had a therapist for about 2 years now. I was honestly extremely skeptical about it for years. I found someone who’s not white (so they can relate to immigrant issues) but not Indian (so they don’t by default understand Indian cultural dynamics). I also got a guy because I felt I’d be more open about… being a guy. My main worry was that I figured I should be able to own my problems. The reality is I still own all my problems, but now have someone who has an insane amount of context about me to help me consider what to do. It works because he pushes back on my assumptions, and I push back on his. He’s also well-read enough to suggest relevant stuff to read (a surprising benefit). It’s been great for me, but I remain cynical about the average therapist-client relationship.

Progress: I used to believe that any form of technological advancement was progress. To be clear: I’m not an anti-capitalist, but hear me out on this. The theory is that in a free market, the stuff that gets adopted must be “progress” because people choose to use it. The problem is that consumers’ lives aren’t necessarily improved with those choices, and often they don’t even have a choice. I think technology has been net-positive to humanity, but more than I expected specific technologies have been basically negative. It at least seems like GDP growth alone isn’t enough to indicate that things are getting better.

Rationality: I’m starting to realize that it’s unrealistic to expect people to explain why they make specific decisions. Really, most decision-making is emotional—this is the case when people argue with friends, decide if they’re attracted to someone, vote for someone, etc. I was spending so much time trying to understand why people did what they did until I realized I ultimately had no idea what was going on in their heads. It's not possible to really reason through emotional decisions.

[fieldsofview]

3. 10. 17.

3. What is that one scene that you’ve always wanted to write but can’t be arsed to write all of the set-up and context it would need? (consider this permission to write it and/or share it anyway)

I've got this idea for a total AU - something post-apocalyptic with the planet irradiated and barely livable, along with a military-elite who are controlling all the resources. Ya know, you're typical anti-capitalist stuff narrative lol. (very Fallout meets The 100 meets The Last Of Us).

It has a Gwen Stacy who's been accidentally exposed to radiation in a way that's given her spidery powers and makes her able to fight against the nuclear weapons being used by the elite. Her father works for the upper class and she's always known they're not great, but not to the true extent. She slowly finds out that the ruling class aren't just kind of shitty but there's actually a whole conspiracy theory thing going on. MJ is a freedom fighter for the resistance group fighting against the elite and the two end up sort of working together. Queue falling in love but also MJ ends up kind of using Gwen as a tool and hiding things from her 'for the greater good'.

I can picture the scene where they fall out. The fight. The emotions. The sides taken. The hurtful words thrown about because they both care too damn much. But it would require SO MUCH to get there and idk if I'll ever write that fic. Maybe someday.

10. How would you describe your writing process?

At least with SMH it's been pretty methodical, which I think is making all the difference compared to previous WIPs. I made the outline in a haze of hyperfixation over like 3 days. Then I tweaked the outline a bit over the next week or so.

But since then, I just sit down for whatever length of time and just put one sentence in front of the other, following my outline. I've very rarely deviated from the OG outline, more adding things than making changes. As I've gotten closer to the end, I've been making more minor changes, but even still I'm following it pretty closely.

The outline was over 10k words though, so it was pretty darn detailed. Idk if that will work for future projects, but I'm going to aim for it again.

17. Do you think readers perceive your work - or you - differently to you? What do you think would surprise your readers about your writing or your motivations?

Gosh I have no idea how people perceive my stuff tbh! I hope they like it and notice all the details I put in. I've been trying especially hard to focus on not holding the reader's hand as much and trusting them to see things without it all being spelled out.

I also think, especially with SMH, that people are expecting a happier, cookie-cutter kind of ending because so much of us want that catharsis after what NWH put us through. I'm not saying SMH won't have a happy ending. It will, to an extent. Peter will end up in a better place than he was at the start. But it's not going to be all sunshine and rainbows, and not everything will be all tied up with a bow.

Especially with my writing from more recent years, I have focused less on tropes and pairings that I want to read, and more on telling a story that hasn't been told yet. That's what Under The Moonlight was, that's what SMH is, and my side WIP (temporarily titled Hopeless Devotion) is also like that. I've realized that, at my core, I'm lazy. If I can read a story already, I don't have a desire to write it myself. But if I can *feel* a story in my soul and can't find anyone else who's already written it, then I end up dragging my ass out of bed to put it on paper. Because I want to read it. You know?

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ASKING SEEK!! <3

[yakichoufd]

Sleep deprived mind communicating with sleep deprived mind!!! Hi howdy I'm the Jhin anon again here to scream about the sketches. I got Covid for the first time yesterday and I've been miserable but oh my god the sketches are like buckets of seretonin! Your wonderful responses have given me enough confidence to come off of anon lol.

Again I agree with all of what you've said. I'm so very torn because I was a League player back in 2014 and then Arcane reawoke the love I had for the game. I thought Viktor was really cool in League, badass scientist dude! And then Arcane Viktor? I just wanna give him a hug and tell him he's gonna be okay. So I'm torn. I wanna see the Herald in all his power, but I also want Viktor to remain the absolute gem that he is.

I'm a Jhin main though, I love that angsty man. He's a fascinating character, a meticulous criminal psychopath who believes his victims are works of art. There's something about the dynamic of Jhin seeing Viktor as a work of art so priceless that he couldn't stand to kill him. And Viktor, recently struggling with the Hexcore and how he perceived Jayce's lack of understanding (refer to me crying at "Jayce will understand" followed by "I'm from the Undercity" scenes). Having Jhin by his side, admiring his work and seeing the shades of purple in Viktor's skin as splashes of watercolour rather then corruption by the Hexcore??? They could be good for each other, in their own anti-hero way.

I had to chuckle at the throuple idea with Jayce. I love Jayce, I think he's a bit of a dork (affectionately). It's likely that he'd be quite intimidated by Jhin.

Aaaaaaand again I'm just Unwell Essay Writing in your asks I'm so sorry 😂 if you do get the time, Jhin is a very complex character to look into. I hope you get some good sleep 🥰

I'm sorry you are sick and I hope you'll feel better soon! <3 I'm glad my doodles cheered you up and I really enjoy our conversation! I'm now very intrigued by Jhin and him thinking Viktor is a piece of art is very sweet! I'm looking forward to discover this character if he 'd show up in arcane!! :)

And I agree with you, Viktor must have lost so much trust in Jayce with this "they're dangerous" sentence. He thought their dream and goals were the same until this scene. I think Jayce managed to regain some trust at the end of the season (with his speech to the councilors) but I don't think Viktor would ever see Jayce as he used to (in the context that their divorce goes super slowly). Even if our dear Jayce gave independence to Zaun. i-i It took me some time to appreciate this character, he is a little bit more complex to understand than the other ones. Most of the others champions have a clear motivation and path to follow while Jayce is a little bit different imo. In act 1 he is this clever young scientist who is risking everything to prove his theory and in the other acts he just say "yes" to everyone haha! Sorry I'm talking a lot about Jayce (or Viktor) cause they're the only character that I know haha! I'm going to read Jhin lol's lore thanks to you! I hope you'll be able to sleep and feel better soon! take care <3

[hpcritical]

maybe it was just the people i was following on twitter but i've noticed this kind of poisoned outlook when it comes to the definition of transmisogyny as it stands today. the exclusion of trans men and transmasculine people was never the intention of the author but some people are using it to sort of punch sideways at these groups. as it stands, i'm a strong believer in transunity ( i'm black, non-binary and transandrogynous / an androgyne for context ) and i think time would be better spent organizing in person and online as equals under our struggles instead of taking up an online presence of constantly shitting on transmasc and non-binary people who are not transfemme. i am not a trans woman or transfemme so i can only speak from the perspective of race and use myself as an example. there was a time when i was learning about anti-racism and white supremacy and was very much ‘ online ‘ and one of the ways i would vent to feel better was making fun of white people to the point where it seemed like despite their privilege, i wasn’t seeing them as human beings. sure, shitty white people exist, i know first hand as someone who experiences anti-black racism but online, it seemed like the only way you would be credible is if you spent your time dog-piling white people and using anything about them: music, clothes, ‘ culture ‘, and just shitting on them endlessly. it was cathartic for awhile but i got sick of it. i have white friends ( lol i know how this sounds ) but after awhile i realized that white people were not allowed to speak about their experiences in any way without getting called names or dogpiled and realized that the way forward was to do something different. i feel like it’s the same for trans women and allies who do this on twitter, in their safe spaces, and other places online. my argument here isn’t that trans women and transfemme people should never be allowed to vent their frustrations in this way. it can be cathartic and you feel like you have some control in this terribly harsh world that is harshest to this group esp. what i’m saying is that just because it feels good to do, doesn’t mean that you should continue. it’s something that i outgrew and i’d like to think that the dunking on afab people is something that transfemme people will also outgrow as time goes on. i'm not trying to tone police or invalidate the trans women and the allies that do this dunking. but to me, it creates this needless separation and divisiveness when what we need is cohesion as well as allyship with transfemme amab people esp. i've also been browsing some interesting tags on here with people talking about ' transandrophobia '. this is a new term for me and i'm still researching it but, i can't help but wonder if there's actually some merit to what people may be saying under this tag, esp @/transmascissues. i think it's important to realize that just because you may not agree with a trans woman for what they're saying about transmisogyny ( or anything else for that matter ) does NOT automatically make you a transmisogynist or TERF and that there really needs to be something done about the toxic dynamics i've experienced first hand in woman first spaces. things like ' testosterone is poison ', making fun of transmac people for their looks or presentation, grouping all afab people under the umbrella of transmac if they're non-binary, and also the weaponization of tma / tme discourse really makes me feel like we need better language to talk about trans people and our lived experiences in general. online, i feel like what happens is that certain terms and theories that make sense to us are used in discourse and then are treated as if they can never be questioned. discourse should be fluid and people should be able to edit terms as they want, HOWEVER if that editing leads to the actual erasure of oppression from certain groups ( i'll just use transmac people as an example here ) then maybe it's time to reassess and self reflect about why you think punching sideways is something you need to do in order to cope. the way i've seen people talk about afab and transmasc people online over the years has been very jarring. i feel like these groups are NOT afforded the same kind of love and respect as transfemme people in some circles. if you have the belief that just because someone is severely marginalized that they can't cause harm to others, then you have some serious unpacking to do no matter HOW you identify. i also want to note, for clarity that after i was accused of being a ' transmisogynist ' i did my own research into the issue and found a lot of helpful resources both on tumblr and elsewhere. i have a better understanding of what it is, who it affects, and what i can do as an ally to help combat it. the point of this post is not to downplay violence that transfeminine people face ( esp trans people of color ; see - transmisogynoir ) but to say that no one has to right to claim that the abuse and transphobia, AS WELL AS TRANSMISOGYNY is less important or less impactful just because it's happening to an afab or transmasc person.

[sunfoxfic]

i feel like my main problem with ml salt is that its (for lack of a better word)...sort of a weird, malicious reading of characters?

like marinette being a little unhinged or not being able to tell whats going on with adrien´s personal life means shes a shallow stalker whos an abuse apologist rather than just a gag or a simple conflict for story purpouses.

or adrien being oblivious or goofing off during battles means that hes simply pretending not to notice or being a careless fool who doesn��t care about the well being of others.

and alya´s enthusiasm for marinette means shes peer-pressuring her and not being able to write perfect journalism at 14 makes her deceitful or a misinformist.

i could go on and on. (the amount of heat for luka in wishmaker/ephemeral while it was just conflict to get the narrative moving along baffles me.)

(sorry if this is poorly phrased).

No you're absolutely right. Salt to me has become synonymous with this stubbornness to let characters grow. There's differing definitions of salt — "over critical character bashing" seems to be the main one, but the issue with that definition is that it's kinda predicated on the idea that salters know what they're doing. And a lot of them do! That's why tags like "Marinette salt" are maintained, because salters use that as a way to label their own content. But a lot of salt is just straight-up unaware, and that's where the definition gets dicey. (I also see people tagging, like, "Gabriel salt" for criticism against his character, which also deteriorates the definition. Is it overly critical to criticize a terrorist and child abuser?)

I'm not gonna go on too much about Luka salt because that's the one salt that really gets me riled, which is because it's just so fucking pervasive. There's no solid "community" that I know of, aside from moderated salt-free fandom zones (so mostly Discord servers) that's free of Luka salt and Adrien salt. I know I made a couple posts today about not assuming the worst of Lukanette stans, but there is a pretty sizeable community of Lukanette stans who are Adrien salters. And then more and more the mainstream ML analysis community on Tumblr is anti-Luka, which is ridiculous to me. (I should make a more proper post deconstructing Luka salt, but jsdfa. This is not the space.)

But you're right. Salt fics generally take caricatures of characters at their worst moments and blow those way out of proportion, and then salters straight-out reject canon when it gives them evidence of the opposite. Alya is a pushy friend in the NY Special and Mr. Pigeon 72, so everything she does in Hack-San trying to convince Marinette not to give her the Ladybug, and everything she did in Optigami trying to clean up the mess, and everything she did in Sapotis where she kept Marinette out of it — that doesn't mean anything. At best, it's out of sight and out of mind of these salters; at worst it's out of character. Same for Marinette and Adrien and Luka; same for all of the characters who get heat.

Then there's the issue of Felix and, in particular, Lila, where they're actually presented as villainous, but many people either take that villainy to an extreme (in Lila's case, often falling back on sexist stereotypes) and refuse interpretations of her where they have more depth. I think in some ways that has to do with people's resistance to the sentiFelix theory after Gabriel Agreste aired: they didn't want a version of him where he had depth. They wanted the flat caricature of a villain we were presented in Felix, and anything more than that was bullshit.

(We now have more information available about Felix, obviously, and I'd currently classify him as a sympathetic villain more than anything. Very much villainous after everything he's done, but for reasons that make sense, with logic you can track. Removing the apparent context of why he does what he does, to me, is salt; it's a refusal to engage with what is presented in good faith.)

So yeah. If I had to define salt as anything, it would be exactly what you describe: A bad faith reading of the characters. If they do something bad, they are bad, and there is no way they can get better. Often this comes hand in hand with a bad faith interpretation of the writers, which means that salters refuse to acknowledge that the writers could write the characters to be better. This is why so many salty fics are built on the premise of "here's what Miraculous Ladybug would be if it were actually a good TV show."

(Spoiler alert: I doubt that the best, most-non-salty fanwriter in the world could write a decent rewrite of ML into a fic. This has nothing to do with the fact that the show doesn't need to be rewritten — there are absolutely parts that could be rewritten, or more specifically expanded. I would love to see a rewrite of specific episodes — Chat Blanc and Ephemeral come to mind, Mega Leech, Rocketear. But the format of ML does not lend itself to fiction — if you want to write ML in prose, you need to completely change the way it's told.)

[antiloreolympus]

12 Anti LO Asks

1. its victim blaming of hades to tell minthe its HER fault she "couldnt get over him". like? you lied to her! youre the one who blurred the lines to date her! you were just as toxic to her if not more so by controlling where she lives and her job, all while never defending her to your cruel family! you had all the power over her while she had nothing! you dumped her for a 19 year old and dont care she crippled minthe! i wont excuse minthe's actions, but hades is ultimately the worse of the two IMO

2. you know why fans claimed "Minthe should've reacted better"? since the first episode Rachel has been drilling into their heads Minthe is an irredeemable monster, and her not bending over backwards to H/P means she deserves the absolute worst. Minthe reacting how anyone logically would doesn't matter when LO is designed to coddle H/P, and anyone against them must suffer for it, even if the victim to H/P's actions. they never wanted her to be "redeemed", they want her head on a silver platter.

3. i know this is not what she intended bc the only characterization rachel has of hxp is "the best over everything" but uh, does she know having hades control all the petroleum and gasses and whatever else is actively destroying the planet, right? like hes helping the very thing persephone draws her power from and what she's connected to be destroyed to appease hes need for wealth and power. its kinda gross hes being romanticized while he commits horrible acts like this for his bank account.

4. its not impossible to go opposite in their original myth personalities and still have it work. like in hades game, sisyphus is one of the most likable characters, achilles is gentle and kind, ares is calm and rational, etc, but it makes sense within the context of the story. LO in comparison goes "all these loving mothers are evil because i said so! this beloved god is now evil because i said so! minthe is evil because i said so!" and that's about it in terms of logic to these wild changes.

5. I can kinda get behind anon's theory about the flower nymphs looking like P to help her be undetected, the problem is there are also unrelated women in comic who are bright pink and look just like her, with hades even confusing them for her! if i had to bet the only reason they look like that is because rachel just wanted daphne to look like her to hammer home apollo is "obsessed" with P and to fake them as her "real family" over demeter. also just laziness in designing characters in general.

6. its weird hades and persephone are well aware what they're doing is bad even openly admitting it and yet the narrative is so hellbent on excusing their bad actions?? like hades being the major toxic factor in his relationship to minthe, persephone killing people, or hades wanting to bone an eternal 19 year old? like rachel you know thats not how character growth works, right? you cant show they have horrible flaws and leave them to never grow and learn from it, that's not good writing at all.

7. what i also dont get is the hierarchy makes no sense? like zeus is framed as the top god, but that would mean hades cant be the most important man ever so rachel also made him equal rank with zeus (and i guess poseidon too) so?? how does zeus have all that power over them then if theyre all equal? is it because zeus swallowed metis?  also how are the fertility goddess so powerful and rare yet so easily taken down? how are they overpowered and super weak at the same time? i just dont get it.

8. Re reading chapter 144 and other anon is right we do see the pomegranate pin on Hades outfit (so Hades gifts it to her)

But also some things to note

During the makeout session persy begins to disappear in butterfly form and hades is like "no don't leave!" And he grabs her, preventing her from leaving. Which is..kinda Ick considering they were on their way to having (public) sex and he doesn't want her to leave which seems like he's not really respecting her boundaries? (because if she does he'll "be lonely")

The pomegranate pin is Hades' to begin with so technically one of Persephones symbols is not hers (yes I know in the original myth she ate it in the underworld / was forced to eat it but still its supposed to be her symbol)

Hades notes that he "doesn't want to overstep his boundaries as host" because Persephone is a guest (too late for that)

Persephones main concern (after what a week or 2?) after being raped is when Hades wants to stop her reaction is "dont you want me anymore?"

Girl you aren't even dating ...??

Persy's literal one and only concern is that she thinks if she doesnt sleep with Hades right then or when/if he wants to that "she wont be able to give him what hes used to" ... Which is reinforcing that she went to therapy to get "over being blocked" in regards to having sex

Although Hades does mention that she shouldn't feel like she needs to please him and that a kiss can just be a kiss which would be nice

(And yet his thinking of marrying her amd he's known her for 2, 3 weeks? ... And he says "the beginning of a new relationship is exciting and scary" so hes basically indicating thay their dating at this point, I think?)

And later the nymphs in the store are like "do you wanna be the dominatrix of the bedroom?? Buy this lingerie!" And persy does. So??

Meanwhile Demeter is very worried for her daughter who is busy sitting in Hades lap in a pool. 

9. Can we talk about how anons are making fucking flow charts for the LO Timeline cause it's so ridiculously jumbled?

10. im not even against rushed relationships, ive known actual couples who met and were married all within the same year and it worked out great, the difference though is these were people who had their own lives and previous relationships. the issue with LO is RS designed it so Persephone can NEVER have relationships or a life outside of Hades, and if they did get married offscreen, it's framing their marriage in a toxic and unbalanced light. That's not a romance, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

11. i feel like there's a difference between drawing an interesting hooked/aquiline nose versus whatever the hell RS puts on Hades' face. It honestly looks like he's in between morphing into a bird half the time since it just looks like a beak over an actual facial feature.

12. are there shareholders or a board of advisors or something at underworld corp? because if there is id say they have more than enough reason to kick hades out and strip him of his titles/shares because of all the shit he's caused by being guided by his broken pp over thinking with his head. liking dating TWO employees? and getting one of them phsyically crippled by the other bc he can't be honest with either of them and she's a walking time bomb? he's a walking HR nightmare.

[dappersheep]

Food Fantasy: An Analysis on what killed a Golden Goose (3/3)

Ladies and gentlemen, we've arrived at our final destination.

Again before we start, we have our obligatory disclaimers. I do not own the game or its characters, nor do I claim to know the true history and likely fate of this game. I am entitled to the thoughts and opinions written within this post. Feel free to agree or disagree with the points being made.

This post also remains untagged from the main foofan tag. Only my followers will see this.

We are in the third and final stretch, and the checkpoint is past the cut.

Community

So... here we are, fellow Master Attendants.

As consumers of this piece of entertainment media, we are free to enjoy it however we wish. Appreciating what is there, creating something new from what exists, playing the game by the meta or however you want to play it (within your means and at your own risk of course). There's no one true and absolute way to experience the game.

However, just as you can enjoy something, doesn't mean you can't also point out flaws or shortcomings of the media in question. As an active veteran player, I've already pointed out the many gameplay design flaws  already. And I'd be pretty dumb to say that Food Fantasy's writing is perfect. Hell, it has a lot of holes from a worldbuilding consistency standpoint. 

And what of things from the community side? Yes, there will be times you'd see content you consider cringe, or something in fanon you don't agree with. Or there happens to be fan theories and fangirling posts you don't like the take of because of X or Y.

And that's fine. If we all happen to play the same way, like the same thing, agree on the same thing and produce the same thing, well, this would be one helluva boring community, wouldn't it?

But what if someone decides the way you're playing the game is wrong and harasses you over it? What happens if someone decides that their interpretation of the game's flavor text and lore is more important than what anyone else thought about it? What happens if someone decides that they're absolutely right, and you and everyone else who disagrees deserves to be bullied out of the fandom?

As much as I want to say we aren't part of the problem why the game is deteriorating, we are unfortunately, part of the reason why the game is as such even if most of the blame is directed towards Funtoy and Elex themselves.

⦁ Whale Authority. Whales will always be part of a gacha game's ecosystem. Without them, the game won't be able to maintain its upkeep costs, moreso  for one that services global regions instead of just one. But when a game decides to cater its decisions of what features should be prioritized and when it should be launched around only its most elite paying players' voices  -even if that influence has since tapered off-, you know there is something wrong with the publisher's management team and priorities.

⦁ Interguild drama. While I did not personally follow any of this, this has certainly been the peak of in-game tension back in the day. Poaching good players from both competitive and smaller guilds, guild mergers that often ended up making the annexed guild/s the equivalent of UK colonized India or Australia, suck-ups chummying up to guild leaders to keep a spot in an active, high ranking guild (for bragging rights!) despite never contributing much to overall damage, and just general dislike of certain players' attitudes. Actions like this have disillusioned many players about their playing experience and the reason why many eventually just lost the motivation to log into FooFan.

⦁ Cheaters. You know very well about the Hacker-teme I've mentioned before, but that was in context of Elex being incompetent with dealing with them. Here, I would like  to point out the players who are desperate to dominate  the playing field for whatever reason to the point that they would resort to cheating the ranks with forceful modifications of the APK. Whether it is to rank high in catacombs weekly, get a top spot in daily disaster damage, or weasel their way into the competitive whale ranks of a major ranking event, these are the people who have no qualms messing with the code to give themselves an easier time with the game. And if they're caught? Some pretend that they've made a mistake, some quickly sell the account to escape the blame, some others just scamper away into the dark and hide in the lower ranks where they can't be found. Others simply don't care and keep cheating until Elex decides to finally ban them... if Elex ever decides their rebates score isn't worth saving the account.

⦁ Ship wars. Ah yes, a staple of drama in any fandom. There doesn't need much explanation to this as we've all had our fair share of running into a battleground in whatever fandom we visit. Someone ships BB52 wholeheartedly? Nope, problematic 'age gaps'. Someone likes Napoleon with Pastel? Someone's bound to misinterpret their bios in order to justify that Napoleon was being abusive. Spaghetti and Borscht? Borscht is minor coded, ship her with Vodka instead. Whiskey and Pizza or Cassata? Cancelled! And I've never heard of the Foe Yay trope or pretend I don't know about it! Rarepairs? Disgusting! No fanon in my canon playground! Turkey and Eggnog? Gasp! How dare you, you pedo-shipper-even-though-you-never-said-you-shipped-them-romantically-but-that-isn't-my-point!

⦁ Character Obsession: Bias. On one hand, you love a character so much. Relate to a character so much. You have thus pulled this character into the folds of your bosom and coo at them like a mother dove and get so minutely triggered if someone so much as makes one disagreeable or joking comment about the character that you fly into an overreactive ballistic rage that would make a Canadian goose honk in fear. You don't care what they are in canon. You don't care about the possibility of mistranslation. What matters is the fanon space you carved out for them to exist in and that's all that matters. The problem with this is when this obsession takes over common sense and social etiquette and it steps into harassment territory. You begin to think: I'm the only one who 'understands' the character. I'm the only one who wishes better for the character, everyone else is out to defame them! Oh wait, you like them too? Do you like them the way *I* like them? No? Maybe if you're my 'friend', I'd let it slide. But to everyone else? No one else has the right to like them as much as I do. No one! Never mind that they're completely fictional- No one hurts my bias because in turn, they're hurting *me*!

⦁ Character Obsession: Anti. On the other hand, you hate a character so much. This character just makes you see so much red. Their smug little smirk just makes your blood boil. Their fictional backstory makes you recoil in disgust. You hate that someone else loves a character you hate so much.  You cannot *believe* that someone could be so daringly stupid to like a problematic character. They must be problematic too then. They must be hiding real life secrets that are problematic! Yes, yes. That's right. That person's a supporter of abuse. That person's into pedophilia. That person is into military lolita fashion that Japan started the trend of but clearly Japan was part of the Axis Powers! And that... that person... that person... is a roleplayer and a yaoi fangirl properly interacting with minors and adults. How dare they...!

⦁ Fan Translations.  Normally it wouldn't be a problem that a group or two or several are translating pieces of the game's lore ahead of the official. But with Elex's very delayed translations and extreme allergic reactions to translating Food Soul bios, people have become dependent on fan-translation groups to get their fix. The problem herein lies... is when the translators get drunk off the power that they are one of a handful in a small community who can magically transcribe the oriental moonrunes into English. The problem starts when the translator starts to have an inclination. The problem starts when the translator loses their professional detachment and start adding in details here and there into the fan translated product that ultimately changes the meaning and direction of the entire story. The problem is also escalated when that translator's embellished product is touted as the truth by their followers. If there was an upcoming character whose backstory is connected to a character they hated (either because of someone or they just don't like the character) and you were hoping to read the fan translation? How would you know that what you get isn't something doctored to the point it's basically fanfiction?

⦁ Social Justice Vigilantism. Sometimes someone does not have a character obsession or need it to be annoying. Sometimes, someone just wants to ring the alarm over something they find 'problematic' in order to police and sanitize the enjoyment of the media for 'everyone'. They no longer really take enjoyment out of a new Food Soul design being leaked, they no longer read the lore just to enjoy what it has to offer. Instead, they nitpick bits and pieces of the design and point it out repeatedly as a reason why the whole thing is bad. They point out bits of the story and inject their interpretations of it without really comprehending what they've read in full and react badly to it. What's worse is that they have no qualms publicly posting their reactions and eagerly and hungrily await those likes and echoes of agreement that they were right.

⦁ Circles of Influence. Everyone has a group they eventually gravitate to in a fandom. It comes with its own pros and cons. Sometimes you join a group because someone you admire is in there, sometimes you join a group because you just want to mingle and see more content. All valid reasons. Arguments can't be avoided in a group, it has to happen... But you have to take care. You have to take care to feel the change in the air of the group. When someone starts pushing people to agree with them. When your most admired people start to feel overly sensitive about certain characters or issues. When you start to feel obligated to spy on other groups outside of this one for 'nonbelievers', 'traitors' and 'heretics' who do not think the way this group does, and that bringing back bits and pieces of gossip as offerings would somehow make you more favored in the eyes of the inner clique or remain inside it. There is a gripping sense of annoyance when that person comes in to complain but you can't do anything about it but nod and agree. There is a pervading sense of fear and apprehension of overstepping an invisible boundary. There is fear that you might be next on the chopping block, after witnessing one of the others being ganged up on and thrown out without a second thought, their name spat upon like they're worth less than dirt. And so reluctant you are to give up what you have with them that when they push you to do something you are reluctant to do, all in the name of 'harmony and justice'... You do it. Even though it would mean offering yourself up to the mob with no salvation, and the stark realization that... [they] never cared about you as a friend.

And we've come to the end of this analysis trilogy. The writing got a little bit strange in this post, but honestly this is the best way I could put it. I'm aware things can and will be more complicated than the bullet points I've written but I'm just one person and I tried very hard to keep details of all the drama that happened in this fandom as vague as possible. Of course, that wouldn't work if you know what I am talking about.

The community is quiet now for the most part, the game is somewhere between limbo and the living plane. Things could be better for us, but I don't really count on it.

I wish I could leave a bit of a moral warning or something. But rather than do that, I just hope this was an entertaining read into one individual's eyes into Food Fantasy and everything that makes it up.

[nothorses]

So I have a question/something I'd like your input on, since I feel like you'd have something interesting to say about this.

Anyways, some background: i'm in a child and youth care program in a rather left leaning, relatively progressive college, in a rather left leaning/progressive city.

It's actually been a very validating experience so far--I feel so much more accepted here then at my last school, which, while it was located relatively close to the city, had a rather more conservative student body and faculty. I had to fight for accomodation and acceptance, and I didn't end up going to my convocation since, when I had asked, they said they wouldn't call my prefered name when I'd get the certificate at the ceremony, or use the right name on it (they made it seem that their hands were completely tied, even though I know of other schools who've done this exact thing, incl the school I'm at now, without needing proof of a legal name change).

Anyways, at this school, i'm even having instructors I don't even know well going to bat for me and using their connections to get the help I needed when I was having trouble with my name being displayed wrong in the online classroom. Like, thank god for having CYC's as profs, right?

So, to my point: one of our classes is all about inclusion and anti oppressive practices. It's literally the name of the class. I actually enjoy the class a fair bit--despite classes being virtual, my class is sharing a lot and there's a lot of bonding and openness going on in the virtual lecture space. It's encouraged me to be open about my own troubles as a trans person, and people have been v supportive.

In a recent lecture, we start talking about the different terms of discrimination against various groups that face oppression (like, racism, albleism, etc). So she asks us: what is the term for discrimination against trans people? And I say Transphobia. Because that's the term I see most often, and the one I say myself. Apparently the Proper term now is cissexism (or cisgenderism?), and I got chided for saying transphobia.

I went and turned my mic on and basically said that I feel like transphobia is the term the general population is only Just started to take seriously, and the instructor argued that as we're in an academic circle, and as CYCs, it's our job to use the most progressive terms to move things forward, and that we shouldn't be conflating the discrimination trans people face with a phobia. Since, not only does it validate the fear of trans people, but it's not fair to those that have legitimate phobias.

I dropped it there, but I was brave and I asked to speak with the instructor after class.

During that talk, I pretty much said that it's hard being probably the only trans person in at least first year, and being visible and open as one, and having to be told the "right" term to use for my own experiences. She could relate, she said, as she's a black woman, and have faced probably similar experiences from white people correcting her on terms she uses for her own experiences. She did say though, as she's in the role of an instructor, it is her job to educate herself, think on what they're saying, and potentially make changes to her language.

But, she also said she can't speak for my experiences, and she won't make me change my language.

I was appreciative, and I talked about things I've personally faced, and how, even just 10 years ago, trans people were treated so frequently as a joke. Even on screen deaths were funny in media. I brought up that the trans panic defense was still considered a valid defense to use in court not long ago (and still probably is in some places), and someone won a case recently that way. Even just the term "transphobia" is only just recently been taken seriously, in my eyes, while before it was often brushed off as not a legitimate concern. Even when I was first coming out, I was told I was just confused, or trans people were just doing it for attention. I still face open glares sometimes, purposeful misgendering, fights with my sister about some of her transphobic views she refuses to question... And while it was hard to be that vulnerable, the conversation ended on a very good note.

I personally don't feel ready to change this language. But I don't really know if I was in the right to argue all of this. I'm only one trans person, I don't want to talk over those who've probably fought to switch the language away from "transphobia" as the valid term. But, i'm in an awkward position of being an unofficial spokesperson as the token trans guy in the class, talking to a lot of folks who've admitted I am the first trans person they've met. So, i dunno, i'm weird with conflict and I was wondering what you're thoughts were on all of this.

This is kind of a tricky one for a lot of reasons, tbh? And I have... a few thoughts. This is already super long, so under the cut it goes!

The first thing is that “transphobia” and “cissexism” aren’t actually interchangeable; they’re different concepts. “Transphobia” refers to bigotry against trans people or transness in general, while “cissexism” or “cisgenderism” is appealing to (or is) the wider system of oppression. (x)

That’s not to say those words are actually used that way in practice, because they’re not, and I certainly don’t use them that way every time either. Like you said, “transphobia” is the word people more often understand. When I’m writing for or talking to audiences that don’t already have a strong background in trans theory, I stick to “transphobia” for clarity’s sake.

But if you’re positioning yourself as an educational authority on the subject, and even going so far as to correct trans people on those terms- you should know that. If your question is “which term refers to discrimination against trans people?”, your answer is reliant upon how you choose to define “discrimination” in that context.

It’s also reasonable to assume people would answer with the first term if they don’t know both of them, and what she’s set up sounds like an unfair “gotcha!” meant to cow uninformed cis people.

And tbh, I take issue with that. There’s a great essay on this- The Cycle of Socialization by Bobbie Harro. The core of this cycle, which allows oppression to continue and encourages its perpetuation, includes confusion and insecurity: oppression is complex, and big, and people are afraid of taking a stand and doing it wrong. They are insecure in their knowledge and position, and afraid that if they try, they’ll get it wrong, and they’ll be punished. So they stay silent. What is that “gotcha!” moment doing except enforcing that fear and silence?

The other thing here are her reasons for using “cissexism” instead. She’s absolutely right that there is dialogue about what terms to use, and her listed reasons are informed and well-educated. I don’t know how I feel about the discussion myself, honestly, as I’ve seen it from the start and I’ve watched it play out for multiple years.

I don’t know if I agree that it’s ableist, part of that being that the “-phobic” thing was originally created as a “compassionate justification” for people’s bigotry against gay people (though there is the “-misic/misia” replacement for “-phobia” if you prefer). That’s still problematic for different reasons; like she said, it might validate bigotry as “fear”. “Cissexism” illustrates bigotry as enforcing a system rather than being honestly rooted in feelings, and that’s generally a good thing, imo.

But, y’know, “transphobia” is what people readily understand, and punishing people for using it is counterproductive. Using “transphobia” as a starting point for a discussion and an understanding is helpful, too; it connects these ideas back to what people already know. It meets them where they are. If you want to add “cissexism” to their vocabulary from there, please do! But that shouldn’t be rooted in shame.

I don’t know if any of this is helpful, but I thought I’d throw out what seemed to be the core of the issue to me, in case it resonated with you. If you still feel weird about the interaction, it might be worth it to address that with her again; she seems like she’s genuinely trying, and cares, and like she’s open to making changes. If nothing else, you might be able to sort out what’s still bugging you and address it as a feelings issue, rather than a language one, if that works better for you.

Good luck! And sorry for the super long answer, lol.

[emerald-studies]

Diverse Perspectives | Discussion 1

****Whew, Tumblr deleted this entire post that was in my queue, so if there are mistakes in the transcript, sorry. I still highly, highly, suggest you read as you listen. I’ve added resources so you know what we reference in this discussion.***** 

[ It is required to participate and watch/read these discussions, in order to follow me. Participate or get tf out. We aren’t performative in my lil’ area on Tumblr.

This discussion isn’t representative of an entire population or meant to be super professional. It’s to share different perspectives and also is an opportunity for me to practice what I preach: intersectionality. If you’d like to participate in this series please send me a pm or an ask and I’ll get back to you ASAP. We can do a written, audio, or video interview.]

To open this series, I interviewed Rachel, (AKA @reality-wont-ruin-my-life / @emmettisapowerbottom) for her perspective as a Jewish woman.  

Transcript:

I recommend you read while you listen, I’ve made some clarifications because my ADD brain is shitty when I try to speak words.

(it has also been slightly edited for clarity)

-

Faith: OK, thank you for doing this with me, so I just want your perspective because you are a Jewish woman. 

Rachel: Yes.

F: And I feel ... we don't talk about anti-Semitism enough in the right spaces.

R: Yeah.

F: I think we talk about it ... in history and then, ... it's not even called...I don't even remember it being called anti-Semitism, it was being ... framed as ... with this thing of the past that is around. So, first question for you is, 

Do you believe that by learning about the Holocaust in such an apathetic bland setting, which is a classroom, we are being told anti-Semitism is a thing of the past?

R: Um, I think it has less to do with where we learn, because I do think it's really important to learn about ... the history, but I think the way it's taught is really where the issue comes is that they kind of teach it as this one event that's kind of a standalone thing instead of saying ..., hey, this is a historical pattern. So a lot of people seem to think antisemitism started with the Holocaust when there's thousands of years of history of it before that. And then they think it ended when the US joined the war, which the US didn't even join the war to help the Jews. That's a complete lie. So I think it's important that it's taught. But the way it's taught is, you know, you read The Diary of Anne Frank and you look at a few power points. And everyone stares at the Jewish kid ... us ... to--

F: Omg not to make it about me, but I remember watching ... a Jackie Robinson film and (also) learning about slavery in seventh grade. I was ... the only black person in the room. And they're always ... this *looks behind* it's just ... what? (are you looking at?)

R: I think every kind of minority group has that experience where the class talks about something and just ..., you know, everyone's staring at you.

F: Yeah. So, yeah, I agree with you. ..., context matters and I think ... even the pattern or how even the Holocaust even happened, ... it shouldn’t have happened and we're told we're learning about this, so it doesn't happen again, but what are these teachers telling us? They're not telling us what was the process of basically convincing a whole population that it's OK to kill, mass kill, people? So I feel ... it's not really seen in that context. I mean, at least I went to many different schools and, you know, different history classes. And it never really seemed ... it was deeper, ... it was more of ..., you know, this is your homework is about the Holocaust. It's ... this shouldn't be ... it shouldn't be ... that. I don't know how to explain it ... this is more than just ... a piece of paper that we fill out.

R: Definitely, yeah, I think people kind of get lost in that and think it's just this one unit instead of ..., you know. It decimated ... a third of the world's Jewish population and 90 percent of the Romani population.

F: Yeah, and it, I think that also isn't talked about because I did a whole presentation on, ... the experiments that took place and they took, ...disabled people or differently abled, whatever you prefer...and then I know, ..., multiple minority groups were put in those camps. So I also think it's interesting that I mean, .... I don't know how to explain it, I think by making it just about the Jewish population, it's ... “better” for people. People ... they can put it in a box, right, ... this won't affect me if it happened today. But, you know, if you have a family member that's a part of this group or part of the LGBTQ+ ... they were affected. So it's ... this* isn't just .... A certain people's problem. (*The Holocaust)

R: But at the same time, I feel ... especially when learning about and teachers tend to take her Jewishness out of it so that people can relate to it, ... she was a Jewish woman ......don't.

F: Yeah, it's ... you can humanize someone by just seeing them as human, you don't need to make them ... you don't need to make them fit, you know? Um, do you think the Internet has helped or hurt the Jewish community in terms of information and accessibility to the general public?

R: I say a mix of both because for me personally, ... growing up, I really separated myself from my Judaism at home. I was ..., oh, I don't you know, I think this is something you want to do as kids. It's ... you do your bar mitzvah and then you're just ... gone for awhile and finding ... Jewish people on the Internet really helped me reclaim my connection with my family. And now I study it ... it's my college degree... is Judaic studies and the history. But I've found that it's been really helpful for me finding ... Jewish people on the Internet, but at the same time...... conspiracy theories are a huge thing on the Internet, and so many of them are based on anti Semitism without people even realizing. So I think it's the spread of information and the ability to scapegoat groups from the Internet hurts Jews a lot, but it also really helpful for us in finding community within ... Jewish people.

F: Yeah, ... yeah, I can definitely see that because, I mean, I think that's...I've only ever heard the “pro” of social media is meeting people, like-minded people or different people, which I mean, thank you, Tumblr, because of this... but that's the only pro I've ever heard, is just meeting people. So I just think it's interesting that ..., ... there are all these negative things, you know, ... anti vaxxers..Flat earthers, ... “climate change isn't real”. It's just .... At least we get to meet each other? Look on the bright side, I guess.

R: Oh, yeah. You know, take the good with the bad or whatever. I have, but not to the extent some other people have, because I don't really have ... the stereotypical Jewish, which is ridiculous because you come in every color and everything. And also, I do want to say I don't speak for every Jew, every experience, ... I'm an upper class white woman living in Oregon. So, you know, I have a very different perspective than say and also I'm a certain branch of Judaism citizen. So I have a different perspective from ... a Black Orthodox Jew from New York, it’s going to be a very different lifestyle. So I haven't had death threats anything. I just...a lot of middle school and high school was ... when people would find out I was Jewish. ... Can I say, ... a Holocaust joke.?

F: Ugh 

R: No, know, that's ... everyone when you're a kid, that's their first reaction. When you say things ..., oh, now I can make this joke about ovens and ..., please don't do that.

F: Oh, my God, that's so awful. I don't know why they do that.

R: And then all of a choir director once was ..., Oh ... because I got this solo in this piece that was about Anne Frank. She's ..., Oh, yeah, she even looks ... Anne Frank. I was ..., this was on the radio.

F: That's that's not OK. Oh my gosh. It's .... Look, look, she's not ... this, ... she was gorgeous, obviously, I think everyone's gorgeous, but ... she ... I've seen, ..., her eyes on people (edit: I meant she has common features, like everyone else) ... she's not. Yeah, her features are....Oh, my gosh...., it's just because--

R: the things that are considered stereotypical Jewish features are largely Middle Eastern features, ... it's thick hair, ... kind of bushy eyebrows, the nose with the bump, curly, dark, untamed hair.

F: Yeah, and that's just ... such a large (edit: large population), stereotypes are never really accurate. they're based on something dark, ... really dark. It's ... if you actually look into stereotypes on certain groups, it always has a dark origin. So many people have...ugh I’m not just going to even...

*Rachel’s video cuts out*

F: Ok next question: 

Why do you think people of color are able to be anti-Semitic or kinda just hold anti Semitic beliefs, consciously or subconsciously?

R:  I think a lot of it is the perception that being Jewish is inherently tied to having power, and so a lot of communities look at it as punching up, when that’s not the reality of the situation, so I think when... this goes for every other group I think that because that’s the kinda the stereotypical argument for why people don't like Jews is “Oh, well we control the world so other people were super wealthy we’re super rich so people can say, oh I can hate this group because they’re above me, so I’m punching up.”

F: Mhmmm

R: But you know there are Black Jews, there are disabled Jews, there’s...all these intersections. There’s plenty of poor Jews. So there’s this idea that just because you’re Jewish you’re rich and powerful.

F: Hmm. That’s a really good way to look at that, because you know I kinda do see how that falls into the “Eat the rich” or whatever. Um...and I recently learned, is it true, I probably should’ve researched this before, but is the illuminati Semitic? ... the idea of an illuminati?

R: The concept is, largely because of who they claim are in it. They are largely Jewish people. And also, it’s the same thing with the “lizard conspiracy/the lizard people”, which I was explaining this to my Mom...actually let me find the message...I think his name is David Icke? But he’s the creator of the “lizard conspiracy” and he also is a Holocaust denier who simultaneously believes that Jews funded the Holocaust to get ... attention….

F: *scoffs in disgust and utter confusion*

R: ...and to get people to pity them. And so a lot of people with go after Soros or the Rothschilds and say ... “oh they’re a part of the illuminati, they’re lizard people who are controlling the world.” and so, no, the concept of this elite group that runs the world and many of the people you’re putting in it are Jewish people.

F: Hmmm, oh ok.

R: Also throughout history, this goes way before the Holocaust, this has been going on for 2,000 years but ... Jews have been accused of running the-Jews--with the lizards they’ll say “Oh they’ll eat your kids” or they’ll do this thing. So Jews have been accused of this thing called blood libel, which is ... sacrificing Christian children and drinking their blood. Which never happened, there’s no documented cases of this, but we---there were large mass murders of Jewish people in the middle ages and also for stealing communion wafers. They would say that we would steal them and ...….stab them to ... to try and kill Jesus. Which sounds...... I think when we learned that we all laughed uncomfortably...but no you don’t understand, thousands of Jews were murdered for this….this isn’t a funny thing. And so it's this idea of ... this secret...Jewish society that’s gonna kill your kids, steal all the wealth and even--they’ll try to, David Icke, again, I don’t know if I’m pronouncing his name right, I’m sorry. But--

F: Who cares (if you’re pronouncing his name right) honestly?

R: It’s not anti-Semitic because these Jews who I’m accusing aren’t really human...but yes they are.

F: Yeah

R: These are Jewish people.

F:... any group of people are people...so he’s trying to say Jewish people are alien, so it doesn’t count?

R: Pretty much.

F: *wtf confusion laugh*

R: So I think a lot of times the people who spread the conspiracies don’t know….the prices of it. Once you learn, you dig a little deeper, you can see the issue that comes from it.

F: Do you think um that in that sense that memes can be hurtful--or harmful because of ... you know the illuminati meme. So people don’t know that the concept of the illuminati is essentially anti-Semitic, so do you think ... meme culture is contributing to ignorance?

R: I think yeah to some extent, because when it gets widespread enough you know? It becomes normalized and then when someone tries to speak about it and says, “Hey this thing is problematic” they’ll be ... “Oh no it’s just a joke, you’re taking it too seriously, it has nothing to do with that.” Well, if you look back, ... it does and historically these kinds of “jokes” have led to groups being persecuted. It’s just a matter of if someone tells you something is problematic, don’t brush it off.

F: And I would ... to point out that I made a joke about Mark Zuckerberg being a robot lizard in response to um...him uh trying to buy Native lands and I was like “What?”(when someone said it was Semitic) honestly my brain doesn’t even go to---I don’t research who people are. I don’t know why I didn’t know he was Jewish, I didn’t know. And then I went to I forgot what website I went to, I went through all the stereotypes of Jewish people and I didn’t see anything about “lizard”, but it was ...I was trying to find a way to excuse myself...but if someone tells you its wrong, it’s wrong.

R: And I think it’s about being willing to learn and listen ..., I made those jokes. I didn’t realize until earlier this year what the basis of it all was. So I’ve made plenty of jokes about the illuminati and lizard people….and then started reading things by other Jewish people and I was ... “Oh! I never thought about that.” I didn’t connect the dots and put that all together.

F: Yeah and especially with ... jokes ... they’re so modern, memes are so modern, so when we’re told about anti-semitism being framed as a past thing, we do this. So when we use jokes and stuff--I mean non-Jewish people, I think when we use jokes in general, honestly, about any group, we don’t think “Ok what’s the context of this? What’s the history behind this?” Because---BEYONCE friggin’ singing about the illuminati....

R: *laughs*

F: I mean she was kinda ... dragging it, but the jokes get that big. So I feel ...---I don’t know. I want to publicly apologize for calling Mark Zuckerberg a robot lizard because I thought that was a meme and not based in anti-Semitic language.

R: We’ve all done that so many times.

F: I was talking about how he’s ... a robot and acts weird, so it’s completely on me.

What do you want people to know about your culture?

R: Um, that it’s not a monolith. There’s this ongoing joke in the Jewish community that if you have two Jewish people in a room you’ll have three different opinions.

F: *laughs*

R: So we all practice differently, we all have a different relationship with religion and spirituality and that the big thing is that we’re not this all powerful group. I think it confuses people that Judaism isn’t...first off Judeo-Christian is not real we’re not--Judaism and christianity are very different so I get annoyed when they’re lumped together. “Judeo-Christian values” ... no we have completely different values and beliefs.

F: Yeah

R: I think it really confuses people when I tell them that I don’t believe in God but I still consider myself very Jewish, because it’s so intrinsically tied as this just religious concept but because of the persecution that Jewish communities have faced, it’s taken on this double role as an ethnicity and a religion. So ..., I’m a white person, there’s no way that I’m not white but I’m also a Jewish white person so it's kinda a different path, a different history. And I still have this connection with my Judaism, while at the same time, you know, I haven’t been to synagogue since I was 13, so I don’t believe in higher powers and stuff, at least at this point in my life. That could change, but I think it’s such a part of who we are and there’s that generational trauma that Jews are born with--or at least biological because you’re still just as Jewish if you convert to Judaism, I think there’s also this idea, Oh! My cat just came in...

I think there’s also this idea that when you’re controlling the world you're trying to make everyone like you. But Jews don’t proselytize, Jews aren’t trying to make other people Jewish. Which is very different than the way some other religions operate, where it’s going out and trying to get everyone to agree with you so you can save their soul or whatever...

F: Mhm

R: Also when it comes to--this is less for Judaism, this is for every group, ya know I was talking about um The BLM protests and using dark humor. In my experience at least, I think the groups that are affected can use dark humor about it. So ..., Black people can make jokes about police brutality, I can’t make jokes about police brutality because it’s not affecting me personally, so I feel ... Jewish people, we wanna make Jew jokes between ourselves, that’s fine, but when other people make jokes ... ok now it’s uncomfortable because of that power imbalance, ‘cause you haven’t faced a holocaust or gone through these things I’ve gone through as a Jewish person, and I haven’t gone through these other things. So I think when people make a joke “Oh I have a dark sense of humor, I like to use dark humor to cope” well it’s not ... your trauma to cope with. I think that’s with every group that’s gone through something...there’s certain dark humor that you can’t use.

F: Yeah that’s such a good way to put it because ... you may be coping with other things but it’s not the thing you’re talking about, so why do you need to cope with the jokes about that? I’ve heard, anti-Semitic jokes and I’m ... “What the-” *leans back* from ... non- Jewish people and….who is that for? How is that make you feel better as a human? I was like: “Why are you doing this? Shut up.”

R: Yeah.

F: They know it’s wrong...it’s like the “edgy” 4chan type of thing ... *~I’m so edgy~* No your’e not. Personally, I think you’re weak if you can’t come up with a joke that doesn’t hurt a group of people

R: Oh yeah. Oh and then another thing I’d ... people to realize about Judaism is for one….the issue of Judaism and anti-Semitism is separate from the issue of Israel/Palestine and anti-Zionism and also not every Jew has the same opinion on it and we’re not all experts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so you don’t need to derail every discussion with “Oh what are your thoughts on Palestine? Do you support Palestine? Do you support Israel?” Because it’s so separate, and such a complex issue. You know because I was born Jewish doesn’t mean that I automatically have this innate knowledge of the entire conflict. It can kinda be used as a way to derail people when talking about anti-Semitism we face, ya know you’ll--I’ve seen this a lot on TikTok where people will make videos talking about things they face and a lot of the comments are “Free Palestine”...well they didn’t mention Palestine, we don’t know their views on Palestine. Just ‘cause you’re Jewish that doesn’t make you a Zionist, just---I’m sure people who have Palestinian heritage doesn’t make you anti-Zionist, ya know? They're separate issues and people ... to lump them into one…..and if someone says that anti-Zionism is treading into Semitism, then we should listen to them because they’re two separate things and you can protest in Israel and not be falling into anti-Semitic tropes. 

F: Right, that’s such a complex subject. I would never ask someone straight up: “Who’s side are you on?!”  because it’s so, so complex. I remember I tried to dedicate a whole day to just researching, “Ok what’s going on?” and it’s just ... so much information it’s just hard because I don’t even want to speak on it because it has nothing to do with me, so I was just trying to get--I remember when it was on the news a lot, right? I’m like trying to understand what you guys are saying, so I like to do background researching and oh my gosh, I can’t imagine summing up your opinion in one sentence about that or why you chose this side and not that. It’s so varied.

R: Ya know I’m still learning about it, I don’t know that much about it so ya know when I try to talk about this Jewish thing they’ll be ... “Oh! What are your thoughts on the  Israeli-Palestinian conflict?” I’m just ... *raises hands up* “I don’t know, I need time to learn more”

F: Yeah it’s like *looks at phone* “hold on a sec (while I research more on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and get back to ya)”

How do you see yourself in your country?

R: Um...it’s complicated because I’m from a privileged family in a privileged area so I know I have intrinsic power in this country, Judaism is easier to hide than other things. You can’t look at me and know I’m Jewish whereas you could look at a Black person and know they’re Black, you could look at a Muslim wearing a headscarf and know they’re Muslim. So it’s much easier to get away with things, I’m not going to be profiled until I open my mouth and say something about my Judaism, but at the same time, there is that fear because we’ve seen it before, Jews in Germany weren’t identifiable by looking at them but it’s on their birth certificate and they started rounding up. So I do get that little pang of panic every time I see “Jewish cemetery desecrated” or “Swastikas drawn on synagogue”...last time I went to synagogue was after the Tree of Life shooting, I went in solidarity and there was ... armed guards outside and it was so scary thinking about “Oh my God there could be a bomb threat, there could be a shooter.” and there’s this idea where I know I have privilege and I know I’m in a position of power but at the same time, ... I know that I have to be ready to flee if something happens, because every few generations of Jews have had to do that, for thousands of years now. So it’s all complex intertwined identity, where-so I call myself “Conditionally white”, I benefit so much from white privilege and everything except my Judaism is white, white, white but then there’s at the same time, I wasn’t considered white under the defining whatever, where you write down your race, in the eyes of the US until ... the 50s. They had white and Jewish as two separate ethnicities or races. It’s such a weird place to be.

F: Yeah and of course, I know you say you are/look white so you have all this privilege and stuff but at the same time, being scared of sharing a part of you that’s...an average white person doesn’t have to be scared of ... saying “Oh I believe this” and then if you feel the fear of sharing that, just in general or fear of a hate crime, that is very valid. And I think sometimes we forget that.

R: It’s interesting sometimes hearing people talk about Judaism. They think of it as this “Oh taking over the world, there’s gotta be a lot of them” it’s ... well, there’s 14 million of us in the world right now, about a third are in Israel, the US has 1.5 million. Compared to that, probably half the world's population is Christian. There's 1 or 2 billion Muslims, we’re a very small group comparatively.

F: I do think the illuminati thing perpetuates that so much, subconsciously or unconsciously….although it’s supposed to be a “smaller group” or whatever but still they make it ... this huge thing kinda framed like Scientology. It’s so weird that people don’t--I’ve heard many Christians claim that “I’m scared to say I’m Christian” and it's just ... that’s so valid for you and I’m not disregarding your experience...the historical context behind it, even people who are Muslim and all these hate crimes...I don’t think I’ve ever seen a hate crime against a Catholic church...

R: Not in a very long time and when it has been, it’s usually between Christian sects.

F: Yeah, that too,  infighting. I dunno where I was going with that. *laughs* but I know what you mean by blowing up this population to be a “threat”. I think that happens with any group that someone disagrees with like the “liberals” “antifa” they blow it up to huge populations, ... “Oh my gosh we’re being invaded!” I’m surprised that more people haven’t seen with, you know the steps to genocide, that’s one of the things (steps), it’s making this group of people a “threat” that’s “invading” a space...I’m surprised that people don’t see that about any group but especially about the Jewish community, AGAIN! That’s not the first time! It’s just constant, there’s no breaks!

R: Yeah that’s most of Jewish history since other major religions came in….you know we haven’t been in power since Christianity came in.

What’s the biggest misconception bout your community?

R: Um, I’d say probably getting back to that rich/powerful thing. Just the, ya know that and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict thing. Those are the two things I hear the most and also Holocaust deniers..which I don’t know why there are so many but there are like or the people who say “Oh yeah it happened but it’s not as bad as they make it seem.”. 

F: Sooo stupid. I just can’t imagine denying any sort of crime against humanity, .. I can’t even talk about it, it makes me so pissed. 

Do you feel like there is adequate representation of your community in the media?

R: Um I think we definitely have more representation than other groups...but I find it to be kind of more one track or stereotypical so it doesn’t show ... the breadth of the Jewish community. The only show about Jews is Unorthodox and that kinda portrays Orthodox Judaism in a not great light. But I think there’s a lot more Jewish….you know they used to say “Jews control Hollywood” because a lot of actors and directors were Jewish and it’s ... “Well, maybe we’re just creative?”

F: *laughing*

R: So theres a lot of famous Jews and I guess a lot of Hollywood producers are Jewish but I think when it comes to actual characters, we don’t see practicing Jews that aren’t relying on stereotypes. But I don’t think the media is particularly targeted harmful to Jews the way it’s targeted other communities.

F: What do you think about the movies about the Holocaust that come out every year? And I’m not saying anything against them, I’m just curious what your take on that is because it’s interesting that I see a lot of these movies come out right? But in school it’s a day lesson, but the media keeps on talking about it. Do you appreciate that? Do you wish the content was better? 

*both laugh*

R: I think some are better done than others. I prefer, my area of study is the Holocaust, so I have to submerse myself in all that stuff because that’s what my thesis is going to be on, it’s frustrating sometimes to see the fictionalized stories pushed over the real ones, especially the ones that have Christian charac---Boy in the Striped Pajamas made sob when I first watched it. Then I watched it again and I realized you’re only side because the little Christian kid dies.

F: *gasps in awe/mind blown* Ugh you gotta put that somewhere and share it because that’s such a good point!

R: And then there's, there was drama about some of the Holocaust books and they were ... hey “this  isn’t a real story this didn’t happen but your pushing it as a real story”. So I….there’s so many real life tragedies that sometimes it seems a little weird that  you create your fake characters about it. But at the same time, I do enjoy Holocaust movies ... I do consume content but there does seem ... a weird disproportionate obsession with it. I’ve said this to my family, I don’t really trust non-Jews who are super into WW2. ... there’s something about it, why are you so into it? “... I think it’s cool how that could happen, it’s cool to think about how….” I don’t really trust your motives, there’s something off to me. I think when it’s their personality is ... WW2! Holocaust!...Why are you so invested in this? 

F: Oh my gosh yeah. Do you think there could be more movies about real people in real stories? ... I’ll look at “Is this movie true” (On google) ... The Boy in the Striped Pajamas So (I looked up) “Is this true” and it said, “Ummm no.” and it’s like... OK but wouldn’t it be more impactful to have real stories that are told?

R: I think so to some extent but I also don’t think they should do it without permission and sometimes there isn’t someone’s permission to ask.

F: Right.

R: But you don’t want those stories to die, you know if there’s a family left and this story is important and you don’t want it to get lost in the books but you know, so much has already been taken from the Jewish community...you have to weigh whether or not it’s worth it to contribute to that to get a story out there.

Do you think some directors and writers choose to make a story about the Holocaust as Oscar bait? 

R: Probably. I think tragedies tend to do well in the awards circuit and I think tragedies about white people especially tend to do well. So I think if you...have this event, something that everyone knows about, everyone knows about the Holocaust, and they go “Ok well they’re not going to turn down this story about this kid in the Holocaust”. I don’t know every director's intention, there could be some who want to get the story out there. But I do think it’s easier to get something about a major historical event.

Do you feel that Jewish people are put in a box, only being seen as victims?

R: I’d say it’s usually the opposite. I’d feel ... both sides of the political spectrum put Jewish people in this box of “oppressor”.

F: Mhmmm

R: You see it because it’s one of those groups that gets hit on both sides. Where ... a lot of people say “Oh yeah well in the Holocaust you were all the victims.” which doesn’t annoy me because you’ll see these people say “They just willingly got on the carts to drive to camps and no one fought back.” well, no there were militias there were uprisings. They weren't just happily getting on these buses and not fighting for their lives. So I do think there’s a lot of victimization when it comes to the Holocaust, but a lot of people say “That was in the past, now no one’s attacking the Jews, no one’s doing anything so they’re taking advantage of us”. So I think in a historical context Jews are placed in a box of victimhood but in a modern context, it’s flipped.

F: Hm. How do you see left v. right, can you explain how you’ve seen each group take hits at the Jewish community?

R: Yeah

F: Kinda ... just a few points for people to watch and look out for?

R: The right is pretty much what you’d expect, neo-Nazis, swastikas, SS tattoos which is not fun, I don’t like seeing those. You see these white supremacists and I think on the left, they think all the Jews in that group are included in the white supremacy, when we’re explicitly excluded, we are not considered white by white supremacist standards. But you see the left use Steven Miller and Jared Kushner who, you know, they’re Jewish, they’re also terrible people but they happen to be Jewish...and them being terrible doesn't make them not Jewish but you see people like that...from the left we see a lot more of the anti-semitism coming out kinda disguised by anti-Zionism.

F: Mhmm

R: Again, I think there are perfectly valid reasons to be anti-Zionist. Another issue I have that the left like to do, which sometimes is valid and sometimes isn’t, is comparing things to the Holocaust.

F: Mhmm

R: Sometimes I think that’s…..can compare something, especially if Jewish people are saying that “Hey, these are things that we were seeing happening in Nazi Germany that we’re seeing now.” I remember getting really upset when I was seeing vegans compare animal farming to the Holocaust and ... yeah I have a lot of issues with the meat industry but don’t conflate those two things ‘cause its basically saying Jewish people are cattle. That’s how it comes out to the Jewish people.

F: Yeah I just looked up, I just wanted to make sure, yeah I have definitely heard that in the vegan community and it does bother me, um...I um feel like genocide is a better way to put it because it’s a mass killing of a population, the Holocaust-

R: Yeah the Holocaust is tied to a specific event. 

F: Yeah, so I have also seen a video of a Holocaust survivor who went vegan, who compared it to the Holocaust, but I think that is his right.

R: Yeah when you are affected. If someone is from a group and critiquing a way a group is handling something, ok I’ll listen to your side of this but when it’s an outsider, I’m not sure you have a say in that.

F: No, and even the way the Holocaust happened, the steps to the Holocaust didn’t happen to animals, the animals weren’t stereotyped, they weren’t vilified. I don’t think it’s accurate.

R: At the same time I don’t think it’s just comparing everything to the Holocaust, just listen to Jewish people when we start saying, “Hey, this is looking eerily similar.”. I remember in 2015/16 I remember saying, “Hey when you look at his platform,” I’m sure we all know who he is--

*laughs*

R: “he has pretty much the textbook definition of fascism.” “Oh no, he doesn’t have this one step, it’s fine.” And then he’ll pass that step and it’s like, “Hey guys, I told you we’ve seen this before….these are the 14 steps and we’re at like 12 now.”

F: Yeah and you’ve studied it so you’d think that people would listen to you.

R: Yeah I started learning about the Holocaust, probably ... first grade in Hebrew school. Ya know ... I’ve seen all these pict---also if people could not just share these Holocaust pictures, constantly without any warning, ... those are photos that are traumatic to a lot of us. Now, I’m used to seeing them again because it’s what I study but you see people, they’ll share things, when they’re comparing to the Holocaust, they’ll put like a Holocaust photo...you know those are people ... that I know. Those are my Grandparent’s friends, those are the parents of one of my teachers. I feel like people forget, they lump it into the numbers “Oh yeah 6 million Jews died”, but yeah each of those 6 million was a person. So when you post a photos, piles of dead bodies, those are people. 

F: I don’t agree with that either, even our presentations we would do about the Holocaust, it didn’t feel right seeing these people put behind a title.

R: I feel like people get swept up by the numbers that they forget it’s people. It’s real people who went through this. And it’s sad because we’re getting to that time because the last of the Holocaust survivors are reaching the end of their lifespan, so it’s gonna be harder and harder to have people come in and tell you firsthand, which helps to humanize it. 

F: Yeah and especially the deniers, what going to happen when these people--and thank goodness they survived, hopefully they have a peaceful passing, but once they’re gone they’re going to be like “Oh no one has been there….”

R: So another thing, I went to a racist white high school. We had a lot of issues, we had 3 Black people at my school and we had issues with graffiti slurs against the Black people, so they brought in a Holocaust survivor to talk about tolerance, but it was very propaganda. So this Holocaust survivor came in and talked about how they befriended one of the nazi guards and I was like “This is not the story that we need to be sharing…

F: Wh-what?

R:... this nazi guard and this Jewish person became friend like that’s not how it is for the 99.9% of them. Don’t use it as your propaganda for tolerance saying “Yeah the victims and the ones who are hurting them should just like this person should just forget about what happened to them and just be friends with them.” So I think it’s just used as propaganda a lot instead of letting it stand as the story it is. 

F: Or even “taking the high road”. Just like pretending you love everybody, “I love the people who did this to my family, my community”

R: It makes the people who don’t (take the high road) seem like they’re being irrational...hey I don’t like Nazis, I support punching Nazis then like “Hey you need to preach tolerance.” no they murdered people I know.

F: Yeah I’ve even, I’ve only seen one Nazi-Nazi in Nevada in person, it’s just ......he was wearing a Deutschland shirt, it’s just so crazy how--I made a post about this, and he just looked so weak, that always stuck with me. He looked so weak and insecure, and I’m like you should feel that way because there are so many groups of people who are stronger with their bonds with each other, like the Jewish community or any community, that you should feel weak because you just want to be an angsty little white boy. Side note: he looked me in the eyes and I looked at him back and he left. So….

*laughs*

F: That was only a fraction of what you feel. I feel ... we’re so desensitized to swastikas, I mean I haven’t seen one as graffiti, but the image, I feel we are too desensitized to that.

R: Oh yeah I get frustrated with people who say “We need to reclaim the swastika”.

F: *Laughs* “Noo”

R: I get you wanna reclaim if but it’s too far gone. It’s traumatizing for the Jewish community, I get it used to be the symbol of peace…

F: Right

R: But it’s just not what that is anymore.

F: I mean that’s why it was taken, I’m sure you’ve studied this, but that’s why Hitler got people to jump on board because it’s this pretty picture of this “peaceful future”. So taking it back would almost be like...that’s where it started and look at where we are...

R: I personally haven’t come across Jews who want to reclaim it, it’s non-Jews. And there might be Jews who want to, I don’t know every Jew on Earth but the ones I’ve interacted with are all uncomfortable seeing swastikas. And you know when I see those photos of swastikas on this Jewish cemetery destroying the grave, it’s ... I can’t help picture that with my Grandparent’s graves, ... oh what if this was where my family was buried.

F: Yeah in my hometown there was a lot of that going around, just everywhere, it’s just disgusting. The fact that non-Jewish people suggested reclaiming that? That’s just disgusting and inappropriate. You don’t have a right to-- for anyone watching, you don’t have a right to go up to a Jewish person and say “No but I wanna do this” no, that’s not right, if it doesn’t apply to you, don’t speak on it. Or try to reclaim anything. I’m done with reclaiming things. When you said “non-Jewish people” I thought that you were talking about your Jewish friends who thought “You know maybe we could take it back…” 

R: No.

F: Deadass

R: No all the Jewish people I know don’t like seeing swastikas and have no interest in seeing them in our lives. 

F: Like understandably, it’s not even crazy! I wouldn’t. Ugh. 

What would you like to see more of from allies?

R: Um, I think more listening, I like this kind of stuff, just having a conversation. Just not speaking for us and just amplifying our voices. And again, not conflating Judaism and Christianity. Not being like “Oh our Judeo-Christian values” Jews aren’t good because they’re related to this Christian thing, no it’s our own thing, it’s very different religion. And even if what the Jewish person is saying something you don’t agree with, just listen at least and say your side, you know we’re not a monolith. We aren’t one person with one mind. We aren’t going to agree on everything, and you know if someone said that something you said was anti-Semitic, don’t get defensive, let them explain why and try and be better. Because we’re not going around saying every single thing is anti-Semitic.

F: Of course, you have a reason

R: Call out celebrities when they promote dangerous things.

F: Yeah like dangerous ideas. I would like to personally work on what things are inherently anti-Semitic and have been popularized so I know and can share that info.

R: And also for the stuff I’ve seen recently, when people seem to be calling out anti-Semitism they call it out a lot more strongly with Black people and that’s a problem. Black people can be anti-Semitic, we saw that with Nick Canon, we saw that with Luis Farakesh, (Edit: She meant Louis Farrakhan)

F: Ice cube

R: We’ve seen Black celebrities say anti-Semitic things and also white celebrities so don’t just call it out when it’s just Black people. I’ve been following some Black dudes on twitter who are saying “Hey this makes me really uncomfortable. Why are you going so hard against this person and not against this person?” 

F: Yeah I guess I never thought about that with the Nick Canon thing. That was a mess. 

R: Yeah and what he said was completely wrong. 

F: I heard so many different versions of what he said, ... “Black people are beautiful” but wait no that’s not what he said

*laughs*

F: I do think um my question about POC people being anti-Semitic was based on Ice Cube, honestly. That shocked me, I was shocked, my jaw fell when he posted an anti-semitic image, not a swastika. How can you want support and then do this? So...

R: I think it’s the idea that they’re punching up.

F: Yeah, I’m glad you mentioned looking for how people react to a POC being anti-Semitic V. a white person because I can’t even recall the last time I heard a white person like be called out, or dragged/cancelled as much as Nick Canon. 

R: Yeah you’ll see it with the right-wing politicians, they’ll get called out, but you don’t see it from the moderates or left wing celebrities, even though they’re also out there saying things.

F: Like anyone can be anti-Semitic anyone can be racist and I think that’s why I want to share your perspective to help a little bit, because even your friends and family can be saying stuff like this, it’s important to not let it slip through (and think) “Oh they didn’t mean that”...address it. I hope this helps in some way. Thanks for letting me interview you

R: Thanks for wanting to interview me.

F: No problem. I’m gonna stop this and then we can talk a lil’ privately. Byeeee

R: Bye.

Let’s have a discussion! Did you learn anything new from this conversation?

Let me know here.

-

To close out each post, I’d like to write a lil’ paragraph about the person I talk with:

Rachel is kind and expresses her thoughts skillfully. Her resilience is deeply apparent because she’s able to study the horrific history of her people and still stay sane. That is a feat I could never, ever, live up to. Reliving pain takes such a huge amount of strength and power. Rachel’s kind words (and others’ from in the egg gang ;) ) really helped me when I was in a dark spot. I’m blessed that you took the time to talk with my wacky self. I hope we continue to be friends and I also hope you know that I’m always here for you, Rachel, as you were there for me. 

You are a treasure. 

-Faithxx

[bigskydreaming]

I’m literally in love with the way you write Dick and Jason’s dynamic

Thanks, glad to hear that! Personal preferences aside, I honestly do think it just opens up SO many more potential stories if you go with the idea that they did have a brotherly relationship before Jason died, just they didnt get together around Bruce because Dick was still hoping Bruce would make the first move in reaching out to him. Rather than just stick with the usual assumption that because it wasn’t seen on the page, they had barely any interactions and both resented each other for various reasons.

But those reasons all trace back to Bruce, and if you look at them as two people who are united by the common experience of being fish out of water, adapting to the same environment after coming from DRAMATICALLY different origins, able to connect over that and understand each other in a way nobody else really can because nobody else has ever really had to straddle two worlds as definitively as Dick and Jason had to in their formative years....

Like, the big sticking point for me in the Dick vs Jason: The Grudge theory was just that....at the end of the day, these are two boys who grew up with very few loved ones to start with, or having had to deal with the loss of those loved ones.....

But one way or another......are these two specific characters really ones that make sense as wanting to reject the possibility of more family?

They’re connected through Bruce, like it or not, that was never going to change even from before they ever met......and the idea that Dick Grayson and Jason Todd would each be content to waste literal YEARS never even TRYING to connect with the person who was probably most like him and who by all accounts was already his brother in most ways just by way of Bruce...not even to see if maybe they COULD actually be brothers? To have family beyond just Bruce and Alfred? 

Me @ every fic or headcanon that says Dick had Only Child Syndrome and resented Jason because of that: right because Dick Grayson of all people is anti-family. He’s full up with that one guy whose legal guardianship of him has been expired for a couple years and who he hasn’t spoken to since long before then.....nah, why would he want any more or any other family beyond that?

I mean, I absolutely believe that Dick was upset and hurt that Bruce adopted Jason while he’d never even offered to adopt Dick......but Dick has never been one to pass around blame instead of focusing it on its true point of origin. That’s his and Bruce’s issue. And honestly, there are TONS of reasons for Dick to be upset about that, without making it about Jason at all. 

There’s literally no reason for Dick to take it out on Jason ever, if his biggest issue or grievance is that like....it feels like Bruce was just so done with Dick and considered him so out of his life, something like “just added a new kid to the family” didn’t seem like relevant information he should pass on to Dick despite the tenseness between them. When you have to find out from the NEWS that your old family unit just full on up and adopted this kid you’ve never heard of before now without even so much as a phone call.....there’s plenty of cause to feel like this is a message that you’re not really considered part of that family unit anymore, so why would you need to know?

Or like, the fact that Bruce didn’t consider hey I’m thinking of adding another kid to my family that consists of me and the kid I’m so afraid to tell I think of him as a son in case he doesn’t feel the same way, that I’ve sat back and let things get this bad between us and fester.....hey maybe before I issue adoption papers for a second kid, I should think about putting in an equivalent effort at fixing things with my first kid first?

Or why not write Bruce thinking: “Hey if I can’t even fix things with the kid I raised for almost a decade and think of as my own no matter how long its been since I talked to him.....what on Earth makes me think I’m qualified to take on a SECOND child?”

Like....Bruce was the one who held all the power and all the options, Dick had no other option but to go along with whatever Bruce decided Bruce was going to do, and neither did Jason really.....so there’s no real reason in my head that should be a point of contention between them or a reason to resent each other instead of just stressing to them the importance of having significant family ties beyond just Bruce because history clearly showed even at that point that best intentions aside, the man is fallible.

If anything, that should have been common ground!

I think there was like, an initial negative reaction of maybe one night, the first time they met and Dick even though he was prepared for it still had to adjust to the reality of actually seeing this stranger he was irrevocably connected to now by both his names, even if neither was technically his anymore....like to actually SEE him standing there in his old role....that’s gonna hit anybody hard.

But he also would have clearly been able to see that whatever else he may have been, this twelve year old Robin was still a kid, and one who hadn’t had a lot of time to ever be a kid in the first place.....which again, instant camaraderie, because boy could Dick relate.....remember, Dick may have had a happy childhood with his parents before they were murdered but it was also a childhood where he WORKED. He loves being an acrobat, he loved being in the show, but that didn’t mean that it wasn’t WORK, that his childhood didn’t consist of training as long and as regularly as any adult acrobat while everyone else his age was running around playing outside and making friends. And after Bruce took Dick in, most of Dick’s free time was spent being Robin, training as Robin, etc?

Which IMO would have made him take one look at this kid in his old costume, literally standing where he had once stood, stepping into his old shoes.....and I think Dick’s real honest reaction once he brushed aside any kneejerk feeling of pain or bitterness the way he brushes aside all the physical pain he feels when out as Nightwing but refuses to let get in the way of him doing what he has to, doing what’s right....

Nah, Dick would have taken one look at this tiny kid full of fire and bravado but also so clearly eager to please, to be praised, to be told he was doing a good job and even without that he was worth something, his life had value, the world was better just because he existed......

And I think Dick’s bitterness about the situation would have crystallized into him resentfully thinking well B’s not exactly the best about dishing out affection or praise so I’m gonna make sure this little Mini-Me standing there in my old colors looking just as young and small as I must have looked then even if I didn’t realize it at the time....I’m gonna make sure I keep him supplied with a steady diet of “Nice Words and Gestures That Kids Should Grow Up Receiving Regularly.”

Dick has always been a firm believer that the best way to make sure something gets done is to do it yourself.

So yeah, I honestly do think that back during those days, Dick and Jason were thick as thieves when their schedules allowed for it, with it being simultaneously painful and unspoken that they had to like....work around Bruce’s presence so Dick could avoid him, but somewhat softened by the challenge and thrill of two brothers scheming to pull one over on the Big Bad Batdad every time the older brother wanted to take the little brother to go somewhere or do something, like, even just to spoil him rotten.

Cuz really....isn’t that a lot more interesting than ‘oh they barely ever even met back then and it wasn’t great, that’s it, the end’? There’s so much you could do with even just that, from them sneaking Jason out for a fun adventure that’s layered with just a hint of poignant angst because of the unspoken why of him needing to sneak out instead of them just saying hey Bruce, we need some bro time, Jason’s hanging with me this weekend? Or you dial up the angst and layer it with lightness or literally anything between those two points on a spectrum.

There’s so much Secret History potential buried back in those years....adventures they had together and never told anyone about, secrets shared between brothers they never shared elsewhere.....maybe Dick opening up to Jason more than he usually likes to, but here felt it might be the only way to get Jason to do the same, with Dick thus offering up some painful tidbit from his past that he never told even Bruce or Alfred for some reason, if he thinks Jason’s upset about something and needs to vent but will just keep insisting he’s fine unless Dick leads by example and goes first.

There’s so much potential for in-jokes that only the two of them know and everyone else is ENDLESSLY curious about, because everyone always forgets that those two have so much history because it was literally kept out of sight, out of mind, so they could keep it free of the friction that was bound to come of adding Bruce to the mix before their father cleared the air with his eldest first.

So its an easy thing to forget about or overlook, especially since it rarely comes up....but everytime it does rear its head via some private joke only they know or a reference to some event back then that everyone else is kept boxed out of having any context for....that’s the kind of stuff that would drive a family of detectives craszy, because they want to know! What’s the joke??

And yet its likely they’d never ask, because as curious as they are to hear about the mysterious missing years of the first two Wayne children, back when there was literally nobody else present to ask for details.....they never can figure out HOW to ask those questions, not when they’re equally aware of the swiftly hidden expressions of pain or bitterness that flash across the two eldests’ faces after each unearthing of some long-buried treasure they shared between them. Unable to ever escape the fact that each of those treasured moments would forever be followed with an inevitable reminder of why there were so few of those moments, in the end. 

Why those years ended far earlier than they should have, and why their reunion upon Jason’s return was hindered and complicated by Dick’s obligation to other siblings Jason hurt while dealing with Pit after-effects and the lack of a strong support system while swayed to League sympathies...

And of course, ultimately there’s the reality that after the Adventures of Young Dick and Tiny Jason were cancelled far ahead of schedule, and that several year long intermission....by the time everything else was gotten out of the way, the stars of those earlier adventures were as long gone as the adventures themselves. Dick and Jason were both entirely different people by now.....still containing within each of them enough of who they were back then that those memories are kept carefully protected and hidden away, all the more valuable for how few and sparse they are, and how rarely they’re brought out to look at and enjoy.....

But with those vaults buried deeply enough within who Dick and Jason both are these days, that there’s a lot of blood and loss and pain you have to cut through just to reach that vault. There’s no retrieving anything from it without a cost. A cost worth paying, given that they can’t help themselves from calling back to it every now and then, even though they know the inevitable result is going to be end negative and not end positive. But still high enough to give them pause before actually doing so....holding back sometimes so the toll is doled out sparingly and over time. Getting greedy and trying to bring out/back/up too much too fast is far more daunting than either can afford to pay at the moment.

So that’s how I like to view the two of them and their dynamic back during and because of those early years before Jason’s death. Bittersweet and shaded by nostalgia.....temptation and warning both, in how much they want to revisit it but how much they fear ruining what they’ve managed to cobble together now by bringing the past too much into the light, comparing past and present too clearly and risking that being reminded too strongly of the brothers they were back then, will just make it impossible to ever be content with anything but that bond replicated in full and they’re not sure it can be, are both too afraid too much has happened since then and trying too hard, putting too much pressure on the dynamic they’ve built now could risk shattering the relative fragile bond completely.

Pretty much everything I write with the two of them, unless I specifically state otherwise via context, is generally written through that lens, with me viewing that as the backstory for their dynamic that I’m running with.

[thisiskatsblog]

By Larrie I meant do you still believe Harry and Louis are together?

See, for me “identifying as a Larrie” and “believing Louis and Harry are together” are two very different things. The curiosity about whether Louis and Harry were together are what brought me here all these years ago, and even if, back then, I drew the conclusion from what I could see that something must be going on behind closed doors, I didn’t identify as a Larry (which is what it was called then) and I’m rather having more than less trouble with that so many years later. 

“Believing Louis and Harry are together” is, to me, is on the level of epistemology: what we think we can know, what we believe to be true and how we justify that. And on that level, I have often said that, all things considered, I was convinced that Louis and Harry were a couple. I haven’t followed anything closely for quite some time, so I don’t know if I’d still say that, but I haven’t heard or seen anything to the contrary - and there was the giant H on Louis’ t shirt at his livestream which is the only thing I’ve seen recently, so I might lean towards yes, they could very well still be together. 

“Being a Larrie”, in my view, is on the level of identity politics, and I have a problem with that, in general, but particularly in the context of this fandom.

 There’s this great book by the French-Lebanese writer Amin Maalouf, about “circles of identity”, where he describes that we all have multiple identities,  and it depends on the context which “circle of identity” is activated - and these circles can be concentric or intersect, and when they do, it can be very confronting when others deny that those circles could intersect and say it’s either/or.

For example - while living in the US, I really felt my “European” identity being activated, I looked and behaved so differently from Americans, I felt I stood out, and I would have introduced myself as from Europe, before I’d explain I’m from Belgium. Meeting other Europeans there, however, it’d be the first thing I said that I was Belgian. Also, religion was so important in the US, that I’d suddenly have to think about whether to explain that I was raised catholic, but Europe is pretty secular, and in fact I was more of an agnostic and/or atheist - things that in secular Europe really didn’t matter one bit, so the US really activated the religious identity circle and I suddenly had to decide in which circle I stood.  

But then back home, when Brexit happened a few years ago, I felt strongly confronted with my 1/8 British roots and really felt “cut off”, and unwelcome - I think that was the first time I felt how painful it can be to have roots in “different cultures” - until then I had felt pretty “whole” and all of the sudden there was this internal conflict between allegiances. 

Anyway, you get the picture. And applying this to the fandom, I do not want to identify as “a Larrie” in most contexts, because it cuts me off from so many people in this fandom that are important to me. I have a friend who means a lot to me who only still follows Harry, and one of my favourite people in this fandom  - I wouldn’t call her a Louie, I don’t know if she calls herself that, but she’s close  with some Louies, and she’ll explain me “Louie” theories, I see some of her points, others not, and we discuss this rationally, sometimes agreeing to disagree - and she is very important to me. We go way back, we are both LGBTQ+, we have both defended Rainbow Direction with our lives. I do not want to activate a circle that cuts her off from me. So I wouldn’t spontaneously call myself “a Larrie” I don’t think - not even after all these years.

Except in a context, for example - and this has unfortunately happened too often before - where people are under attack from the press for example, for expressing their belief that Louis and Harry are LGBTQ+ and are/were a couple - particularly when such an attack is mainly founded on the easy “Larries are conspiracy theory believers” type arguments, and the person attacking them is (as usual) completely tone deaf to the fact that many people who identify as Larries are in fact LGBTQ+ and probably better able than they are to pick up on the LGBTQ+ subtext of what Louis and Harry do and say. 

I am an LGBTQ+ fan of Louis and Harry and I think they may still be together - though I’m framing this with disclaimers cause haven’t followed very closely lately, and I’ll defend LGBTQ+ people in this fandom who stand up for their beliefs against heteronormative blindness

But I think the Larries/antis and Larries/Louis/Harries debates in this fandom define circles that are considered as not intersecting, where it’s either/or, you are one or the other, and that cuts me off from people who are important to me 

So I say no, because  I won’t be cut off from LGBTQ+ friends in this fandom simply because they have come to a different conclusion or have different tastes in music or have a different favourite. In this fandom, I prefer to activate the “OT5″ and “LGBTQ+” circles of identity.

[angels-heap]

Okay hello I feel like you are Wise and Know things... it’s kind of hard to explain but is it wrong to just... Enjoy Things? With all the HL pisscourse going around it’s making me nervous about liking things like TF2 and missing something critical and huge in the media I consume and being labelled as a bad person for doing that. ESPECIALLY for liking characters like GLaDOS or Wheatley from Portal. I want to just Enjoy Things but there’s guilt tied to not being critical about every single detail

Thanks for reaching out, friend, and I’m so sorry to hear the current nonsense has you feeling this way. I have a hunch you’re not alone, and although I don’t claim to have all the answers here, I hope hearing my thoughts on this helps alleviate some of that guilt. This got long and I’m not putting it under a cut because it’s important. 

The short answer to your question is no; it is not wrong to just enjoy things. You don’t have to constantly examine all your favorite media under a microscope and incessantly highlight or dwell on its faults to be a good person or a good consumer of media, and here are a few reasons why:

(CW for brief mentions of all the squicky/potentially triggering things that tend to come up in ship discourse conversations.)

1. It is virtually impossible to find a truly unproblematic piece of media.

And that’s okay! Media is both created and consumed by people, and people are notoriously imperfect and complex. Sometimes creators choose to explore dark or taboo themes that are always going to squick some people out, no matter how well (or poorly) they’re handled. Sometimes content creators are actually terrible people who deliberately try to perpetuate their messed-up ideas through media. Sometimes creators’ deeply internalized prejudices seep into a work in a way they may not even consciously realize. Sometimes consumers’ experiences or prejudices color the way they perceive a piece of media and may lead them to a very different interpretation than what the creators intended.

Point is, there are a lot of shades of gray here. We should always strive to do better as creators and consumers, but the goalposts for “perfection” are always moving.

There’s almost always going to be something about your favorite media—no matter how benign it is—that rubs some people the wrong way, or (perhaps unintentionally) perpetuates harmful stereotypes, or starts out okay but doesn’t age well down the line. Period. That’s an uncomfortable truth that we all have to sit with. But don’t despair, because…

2. It is still okay to engage with and enjoy media that you know is problematic. Even if it’s really problematic. For real. I promise. The media you consume does not determine your worth as a person. 

Since you specifically mentioned Valve games, I’ll start out by clarifying that (as of July 2020), Valve games and their fandoms are pretty benign overall. Perhaps in the future, more of the humor will start to age poorly, or Valve will make some extremely questionable design choices with their next game, or Gabe Newell will be outed as a prolific serial killer, or whatever, but for now, there’s really nothing about Valve games that should make the average person go, “holy shit, you’re into that?!” when you bring them up in polite company. (And anyone who insinuates otherwise re: Half Life shipping discourse is either very confused about the definition of certain words or is maliciously trying to stir up controversy.)

That said, everyone has a different threshold for what they do and don’t want to see in media, and those boundaries are totally valid! But it is absolutely possible to enjoy even notably problematic media (e.g., Game of Thrones, the new Star Wars sequels, old movies where the directors were huge assholes to the female cast members, etc.) without being a bad person or a bad social justice activist. Instead of rambling about that at length, I’m going to link you to this excellent blog post on the subject.

The big takeaway here is that you can love a piece of media while also acknowledging its faults. In fact, I’d argue that a key part of loving something is being able to think critically about it and trying to hold its creators to a higher standard whenever possible. However, that doesn’t mean you have to be constantly analyzing it or prefacing every single public acknowledgment of your love for it with an “I know this is problematic and I swear, I just like it for XYZ” disclaimer, because…

3. Tumblr’s black-and-white thinking about media consumption is not healthy, “normal,” or (usually) present to the same degree in other virtual or real-world spaces.

I think most of the people on Tumblr who seem to be on a constant (and ultimately futile; see point 1) quest to find the One True Unproblematic Media have good intentions. I really do. And I applaud them for actively trying to understand and un-learn their own biases while becoming critical consumers of media.

Unfortunately, for a bunch of complicated reasons I still don’t totally understand and won’t get into here, some online communities tend to take these things to such an extreme that, in their quest to create a safe and/or inclusive environment, they actually end up creating an even more hostile one. To reference the recent drama again, nowhere is that more apparent than with “pro-ship” vs. “anti-ship” discourse.

Basically, “pro-shippers” believe that fiction is entirely separate from reality and therefore, “problematic” content (up to and including p*dophilia, inc*st, noncon, etc.) has just as much of a right to exist as any other content; this makes some sense on a purely intellectual level, but in the real world, obviously things are much more complicated than that. “Anti-shippers,” on the other hand, claim to be specifically against the aforementioned Big Three Bad Things in theory, but in practice, they’re basically the fandom purity police; they strive to criticize and shut down any media or fandom activity that could be even remotely construed as problematic, because they seem to have a (perhaps well-intentioned but ultimately misguided) perception that discussing anything “bad” in fiction will glorify/condone/promote it in real life and that all creators of “bad” fiction are inherently malicious. Often, they’re willing to twist definitions and jump through some very strange hoops to justify why something is “bad.”

The truth lies somewhere between those two extremes; fiction absolutely can (and does) impact reality, but not in such a clear-cut cause-and-effect way. People can see or read about dark/complicated/problematic things without condoning or enjoying them in real life, and conversely, people can dislike even relatively benign things without having to have an extreme, profound reason for feeling that way. People can also enjoy “bad” media while being fully conscious of what’s wrong with it and taking steps to ensure that it doesn’t negatively influence them, or they may lack the knowledge/context to understand why something is “bad” at first and change how they engage (or don’t engage) as they learn. There’s a lot more nuance to this issue than Tumblr is willing to acknowledge, and as a result, a lot of innocent people who just want to enjoy things in peace get sucked into some truly absurd drama that can be really hard to deal with. And that sucks. A lot.

So, TL;DR: Almost all media is at least a little problematic, but that’s okay, because the media you like does not determine whether or not you’re a good person. (And especially if your primary interests are Valve games... you’re good, mate. Seriously.)

The fact that you’re even asking me this question shows me that you’re being a thoughtful, responsible consumer of media, and that’s all anyone can reasonably ask of you without being a gigantic hypocrite—because whether they’ll admit it or not, everybody who’s perpetuating this discourse both on and offline likes something “problematic.” It’s impossible not to, unless you live under a rock and consume exactly zero media. Take care, and try not to let the discourse get to you! Go forth and enjoy things! (As always, my inbox is open for follow-up questions.)

ETA: Here’s another excellent tumblr post on this topic! And another one! 

[wreckedhoney]

June 2019 – Highlights of Tristan Harris (Computer Scientist, Design Ethicist, ft. on documentary The Social Dilemma) and others before Senate Commerce Committee regarding large tech companies using algorithms and machine learning to influence the public in the context of radicalization from false information and accountability.

The video is sixteen minutes and transcribed, and I’ll paste the dialogue under a cut for this post with some highlights in bold, but I want to share first just one of the many important insights of this meeting:

“…the business model is to keep people engaged…There's a tendency to think here that this is just human nature – that people are polarized and this is just playing out; it's a mirror it's holding up, a mirror to society. But what it's really doing is it's an amplifier for the worst parts of us.…It's calculating what is the thing that I can show you that will get the most engagement, and it turns out that outrage, moral outrage, gets the most engagement.…the polarization of our society is actually part of the business model.”

“…shorter, briefer things work better in Attention Economy than long, complex, nuanced ideas that take a long time to talk about…But reality and the most important topics to us are increasingly complex, while we can say increasingly simple things about them that automatically creates polarization – because you can't say something simple about something complicated and have everybody agree with you; people will, by definition, misinterpret and hate you for it, and then it's never been easier to retweet that and generate a mob that will come after you… subsequent effects in polarization are amplified by the fact that these platforms are rewarded to give you the most sensational stuff.”

Harris: Everything you said –  it's sad to me because it's happening not by accident but by design, because the business model is to keep people engaged – which, in other words, this hearing is about persuasive technology, and persuasion is about an invisible asymmetry of power. 

When I was a kid, I was a magician, and magic teaches you that you can have asymmetric power without the other person realizing it. You can masquerade to have asymmetric power while looking like you have an equal relationship. You say pick a card, any card, while meanwhile, you know exactly how to get that person to pick the card that you want – and essentially, what we're experiencing with technology is an increasing asymmetry of power that's been masquerading itself as an equal or contractual relationship where the responsibility is on us. 

So, let's walk through why that's happening in the race for attention, because there's only so much attention companies have. They get more of it by being more and more aggressive. I call it “the race to the bottom of the brainstem.” 

So, it starts with techniques like pull-to-refresh; so, you pull to refresh your newsfeed that operates like a slot machine. It has the same kind of addictive qualities that keep people in Las Vegas hooked to the slot machine. Other examples are: removing stopping cues. So, if I take the bottom out of this glass and I keep refilling the water or the wine, you won't know when to stop drinking. So, that's what happens with infinitely scrolling feeds; we naturally remove the stopping cues, and this is what keeps people scrolling. But the race for attention has to get more and more aggressive, and so it's not enough just to get your behavior and predict what will take your behavior; we have to predict how to keep you hooked in a different way. 

It crawled deeper down the brainstem into our social validation – so, that was the introduction of likes and followers and how many followers do I have. It was much cheaper to – instead of getting your attention – to get you addicted to getting attention from other people, and this has created the kind of mass narcissism and mass cultural thing that's happening with young people, especially today. After two decades in decline of the mental health of ten-to-fourteen year old girls, it has actually shot up in the last eight years, and this has been very characteristically the cause of social media and the race for attention. 

It's not enough just to get people addicted to attention, and the race has to migrate to AI, who can build a better predictive model of your behavior. And so, if you give an example of YouTube: You're about to hit play in a YouTube video, and you hit play, and then you think you're gonna watch this one video, and then you wake up two hours later and say, “What just happened?” The answer is, because you had a supercomputer pointed at your brain, the moment you hit play, it wakes up an avatar voodoo doll like version of you inside of a Google server, and that avatar based on all the clicks and likes and everything you've ever made – those are like your hair clippings and toenail clippings and nail filings that make the avatar look and act more and more like you. 

So, that inside of a Google server – they can simulate more and more possibilities. If I pick you for this video, if I pick you for this video, how long would you stay? The business model is simply, “what maximizes watch time?” This leads to the kind of algorithmic extremism that you've pointed out, and this is what's caused 70% of YouTube's traffic down be driven by recommendations; not by human choice, but by the machines. And it's a race between Facebook's voodoo doll, where you flick your finger – can they predict what to show you next? – and Google's voodoo doll. And these are abstract metaphors that apply to the whole tech industry, where it's a race between who can better predict your behavior. 

Facebook has something called loyalty prediction, where they can actually predict to an advertiser when you're about to become disloyal to a brand. So, if you're a mother, and you take Pampers diapers, they can tell Pampers, “Hey, this user is about to become disloyal to this brand.” So, in other words, they can predict things about us that we don't know about our own selves, and that's a new level of asymmetric power. 

And we have a name for this asymmetric relationship, which is a fiduciary relationship, or a duty of care – relationships the same standard we apply to doctors, to priests, to lawyers. Imagine a world in which priests only make their money by selling access to the confession booth to someone else. Except, in this case, Facebook listens to two billion people's confessions, has a supercomputer next to them, and is calculating and predicting confessions you're gonna make before you know you're gonna make them – and that's what's causing all this havoc. 

So, I'd love to talk about more of these things later. I just want to finish up by saying this affects everyone even if you don't use these products. You still send your kids to school where other people believing the anti-vaccine conspiracy theories impact your life, or other people voting in your elections. And when Marc Andreessen said into 2011, that the quote was, “Software is going to eat the world,” and what he meant by that – Marc Andreessen was the founder of Netscape – what he meant by that was that software can do every part of society more efficiently, because it's just adding efficiencies. And so, we're going to allow software to eat up our elections, we're gonna allow it to eat up our media, our taxi, our transportation – and the problem was that software was eating the world without taking responsibility for it. 

We used to have rules and standards around Saturday morning cartoons, and when YouTube gobbles up that part of society, it just takes away all of those protections. And I just want to finish up by saying that I know Mister Rogers, Fred Rogers, testified before this committee fifty years ago, concerned about the animated bombardment that we were showing children. I think he would be horrified today about what we're doing now, and at that same time, he was able to talk to the committee. And that committee made a choice differently, so I'm hoping we can talk more about that today. Thank you. 

Senator Thune (R-South Dakota): We know that internet platforms like Google and Facebook have vast quantities of data about each user. What can these companies predict about users based on that data? 

Harris: Thank you for the question. So, I think there's an important connection to make between privacy and persuasion that I think often isn't linked, so maybe it's helpful to link that. 

With Cambridge analytic – that was an event in which, based on your Facebook Likes, based on a hundred and fifty of your Facebook Likes, I could predict your political personality, and then I could do things with that. The reason I described in my opening statement that this is about an increasing asymmetry of power is that without any of your data, I can predict increasing features about you using AI. 

There's a paper recently that, with 80% accuracy, I can predict your same Big Five personality traits that Cambridge analytic got from you without any of your data. All I have to do is look at your mouse movements and click patterns. So, in other words, it's the end of the poker face. Your behavior is your signature – and we can know your political personality based on tweet text alone. We can actually know your political affiliation with about 80% accuracy. Computers can calculate probably that you're homosexual before you might know that you're homosexual. They can predict with 95% accuracy that you're gonna quit your job according to an IBM study. They can predict that you're pregnant. They can predict your micro expressions on your face better than a human being can. Micro expressions are your soft reactions to things that are not very visible, but are invisibly visible. Computers can predict that. As you keep going and you realize that you can start to deep fake things. You can actually generate a new synthetic piece of media, a new synthetic face, or synthetic message that is perfectly tuned to these characteristics. 

The reason why I open the statement by saying we have to recognize: That what this is all about is a growing asymmetry of power between technology and the limits of the human mind. My favorite socio-biologist, E.O. Wilson, said, “The fundamental problem of humanity is that we have Paleolithic ancient emotions, we have medieval institutions, and we have godlike technology.” So, we're chimpanzees with nukes, and our Paleolithic brains are limited. Again, the increasing exponential power of technology at predicting things about us, the reason why it's so important to migrate this relationship from being extractive to get things out of you, to being a fiduciary, is you can't have asymmetric power that is specifically designed to extract things from you – just like you can't have, again, lawyers or doctors whose entire business model is to take everything they learn and sell it to someone else. 

Except, in this case, the level of things that we can predict about you is far greater than actually each of those fields combined when you actually add up all the data that assembles a more and more accurate voodoo doll of each of us. And there's two billion voodoo dolls by the way; there's one for one out of every four people on Earth with YouTube and Facebook are more than two billion people. 

Senator Peters (D-Michigan): Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses. This is a fascinating discussion. I like to address an issue I think is of profound importance to our democratic republic – and that's the fact that, in order to have a vibrant democracy, you need to have an exchange of ideas and an open platform. And certainly, part of the promise of the Internet, as it was first conceived, is we'd have this incredible Universal Commons, where a variety of ideas would be discussed and debated, and it would be robust. And yet, it seems as if we're not getting that. We're actually getting more and more siloed. Doctor Wolfram, you mentioned how people could make choices, and they could live in a bubble, but at least it would be their bubble that they get to live in. But that's what we're seeing throughout our society as polarization increases, more and more folks are reverting to tribal type behavior. Mister Harris, you talked about our medieval institutions and Stone Age Minds. Tribalism was alive and well and in the past, and we're seeing advances in technology, in a lot of ways, bring us back into that kind of tribal behavior. So, my question is to what extent is this technology actually accelerating that, and is there a way out? 

Harris: Thank you. I love this question. There's a tendency to think here that this is just human nature – that people are polarized and this is just playing out; it's a mirror it's holding up, a mirror to society. But what it's really doing is it's an amplifier for the worst parts of us. 

So, in the race to the bottom of the brainstem to get attention, let's take an example like Twitter. It's calculating what is the thing that I can show you that will get the most engagement, and it turns out that outrage, moral outrage, gets the most engagement. So, it was found in a study that for every world word of moral outrage that you add to a tweet, it increases your retweet rate by 17%. So, in other words, you know the polarization of our society is actually part of the business model. 

Another example of this is that shorter, briefer things work better in Attention Economy than long, complex, nuanced ideas that take a long time to talk about, and so that's why you get a hundred and forty characters dominating our social discourse. But reality and the most important topics to us are increasingly complex, while we can say increasingly simple things about them that automatically creates polarization – because you can't say something simple about something complicated and have everybody agree with you; people will, by definition, misinterpret and hate you for it, and then it's never been easier to retweet that and generate a mob that will come after you. And this has created a callout culture and chilling effects, and a whole bunch of other subsequent effects in polarization that are amplified by the fact that these platforms are rewarded to give you the most sensational stuff. 

One last example of this is on YouTube. Let's say we actually equalize; I know there's people here concerned about equal representation on the Left and the Right in media. Let's say we get that perfectly right. As recently as just a month ago on YouTube, if you did a map of the top 15  most frequently mentioned verbs or keywords in the recommended videos, they were: “hates,” “debunks,” “obliterates,” “destroys” – in other words, you know, “Jordan Peterson destroys social justice warrior in video.” So, that kind of thing is the background radiation that we're dosing two billion people with, and you can hire content moderators in English and start to handle the problem, but the problem is that two billion people in hundreds of languages are using these products. How many engineers at YouTube speak the twenty-two languages of India where there's an election coming up? So, that's some context on that. 

Sen. Peters: Well, there's a lot of context. Fascinating. I'm running out of time, but I took particular note in your testimony when you talked about how technology will eat up elections, and you were referencing, I think, another writer on that issue. In the remaining brief time I have, what's your biggest concern about the 2020 elections and how technology may eat up this election coming up? 

Harris: Another example of how we used to have protections that technology took away – we used to have equal price campaign ads, so that it cost the same amount on Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. for any candidate to run an election. When Facebook gobbles up that part of media, it just takes away those protections – so, there's now no equal pricing. What I'm mostly worried about is the fact that none of these problems have been solved. The business model hasn't changed. And the reason why you see a Christchurch event happen in the video just show up everywhere, or, you know, any of these examples – fundamentally, there's no easy way for these platforms to address this problem, because the problem is their business model. 

Harris: This is one of the issues that most concerns me. As I think Senator Schatz (D-Hawaii) mentioned at the beginning, there's evidence that in the last month – even as recently as that, keeping in mind that these issues have been reported on for years now – there was a pattern identified by YouTube that young girls who had taken videos of themselves dancing in front of cameras were linked in usage patterns to other videos like that, which went further and further into that realm, and that was just identified by YouTube, as a supercomputer, as a pattern. It's a pattern of “this is a kind of pathway that tends to be highly engaging.” 

The way that we tend to describe this is: If you imagine a spectrum on YouTube on my left side, there's the calm Walter Cronkite section of YouTube. On the right hand side, there's crazytown, UFOs, conspiracy theories, Bigfoot – you know, whatever. If you take a human being and you could drop them anywhere, you could drop them in the calm section, or you could drop them in Crazy Town. But If I'm YouTube and I want you to watch more, which direction from there am I going to send you? I'm never gonna send you to the calm section. I'm always gonna send you towards Crazy Town. So, now you imagine two billion people, like an ant colony of humanity, and it's tilting the playing field towards the crazy stuff. 

The specific examples of this: A year ago, a teen girl who looked at a dieting video on YouTube would be recommended anorexia videos, because that was the more extreme thing to show. The voodoo doll that looked like a teen girl – there's all these voodoo girls that look like that – and the next thing to show is anorexia. 

If you looked at a NASA moon landing, it would show Flat Earth conspiracy theories, which were recommended hundreds of millions of times before being taken down recently. I wrote down another example. Fifty percent of white nationalist in a study had said that it was YouTube that had “red pilled” them; “red pilling” is the term for the opening of the mind. The best predictor of whether you'll believe in a conspiracy theory is whether I can get you to believe in one conspiracy theory, because one conspiracy sort of opens up the mind and makes you doubt and question things and, say, get really paranoid. And the problem is that YouTube is doing this en mass, and it's created sort of two billion personalized Truman Shows. Each channel has that radicalizing direction, and if you think about it from an accountability perspective – back when we had Janet Jackson on one side of the TV screen at the Super Bowl, and we had 60 million Americans on the other, we had a five-second TV delay and a bunch of humans in the loop it for a reason. But what happens when you have two billion Truman shows, two billion possible Janet Jackson's and two billion people on the other end? It's a digital Frankenstein that's really hard to control, and so that's the way that we need to see it.

From there, we can talk about how to regulate it. 

Senator Sullivan (R-Alaska): Anyone else have a thought on a pretty important threshold question? 

Harris: Is it okay if I check in? Thank you, Senator. The issue here is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency section – 230 has obviously made it so that the platforms are not responsible for any content that is on them, which freed them up to do what we've created today. The problem is if, you know, is YouTube a publisher? Well, they're not generating the content, they're not paying journalists, they're not doing that, but they are recommending things, and I think that we need a new class between, you know… 

The New York Times is responsible if they say something that defames someone else that reaches a certain hundred million or so people. When YouTube recommends flat earth conspiracy theories hundreds of millions of times, and if you consider that 70% of YouTube's traffic is driven by recommendations, meaning driven by what they are recommending, what algorithm is choosing to put in front of the eyeballs of a person, it's if you were to backwards derive a motto, it would be, “With great power comes no responsibility.”