#because people dont know the meaning of nuance

[eldritchmochi]

i keep seeing posts about how the term "boundaries" is constantly misused to inflict rules on other people when boundaries "only relate to rules for yourself" which..... isnt true according to things ive discussed with my therapist? like yeah the overuse of medical terms as get out of jail free buzzwords is bad but also strict black or white rulings of a concept in a tweet or two is also bad, especially since i have not seen a damn one of these come from a credible source, either a mental health professional or like, clinical terminology sources

CONCRETE EXAMPLE where i set a boundary with roommates that required behavior changes on their part that my therapist named specifically as a boundary when i described it:

dishes are the biggest point of contention in basically any living situation with multiple people. my previous roommates were really bad at doing them, in a way that resulted the kitchen being really gross if i hadnt just cleaned it. even after many requests to do basic things of "empty the sink trap of soggy food so it doesn't rot" and "dont hoard dishes long enough to grow an ecosystem" over m o n t h s, i got nowhere with dishes being done regularly in a way that didnt bother me

in the end it was so continuously upsetting that i told them to not do the dishes at all ever whatsoever, i would take care it. mind, i was the only one who worked out of the house while commuting via bus as a chronically ill person with severe fatigue and i was putting in an average of 50 hrs a week every week for werks on end at the time. me deciding to take this on was not done lightly, this was me recognizing that it was better and healthier for all of us for me to take on this one task. it would result in me being much happier in that living situation at no real cost to the other party other than maybe the dishes would stack up a bit if i was particularly exhausted one day, but things would get caught up within the week

this did not go down well despite my best efforts, and i would not be surprised if this black and white portrayal of what boundaries are influenced that. this nonsense went down over like six solid months and every single session i had with my therapist had him absolutely baffled because he couldn't think of a single thing i could have done better

i am not a mh professional i do not know the specific difference between "dont do this thing it upsets me" and "dont do this thing that 'upsets' me because i am controlling you", but the blanket statement of calling something like this a boundary is misusing the term is black and white thinking. i have bpd, ive done some dbt about it and the first thing they teach you is how to spot black and white thinking because it us incredibly mal adaptive and *really fucking dangerous* and this specific trend is going to be taken advantage of by abusers just as much as coopting the use of "boundaries" to justify their behavior

tldr "boundaries are never about other people's behavior" and "you can't do xyz thing because it violates my boundaries" are two sides of the same abusive coin. people who have put in the work in a tangible and meaningful way, who are able to examine their motives and give grace to other people within their boundaries, can recognize that boundaries are a spectrum, like everything with social relationships and mental health in general

[jewreallythinkthat]

The most moderate, nuanced and productive people I have discussed the Israel-Hamas war with have been Jews, Israelis, and people with Palestinian family. Everyone directly affected by this just wants it to stop and to have peace and safety in the region in a way that minimises the casualty count.

The most extreme and performative and vile things I've been told are by people who have no connection to this and like to think they are experts because they have covered adjacent topics during learning, or read stuff online.

If all the randos in the west would just shut up for ten minutes and let those of us actually affected, with an understanding of the history of the land and the culture and the generational trauma experienced by Jews and Palestinians alike talk, we might actually have a chance to salvage this and stop it spiraling

[ourhouseishaunted]

people acting as if laios can Do No Wrong and infantilizing him because he is autistic are annoying as hell. especially because laios belongs to my favorite genre of character: "person who desperately wants friends and deep relationships because they're lonely, and while part of their problems stem from people not wanting to understand them and refusing to meet them where they are, they also genuinely come across in a way where you Completely Understand why others can get turned off from them"

[quesadillayuri]

anons crazy 4 this one im not sorry. like truly calling it a ZERO out of TEN arc. u must be crazy im not sorry

[inf1nyxw0rlds]

i love complexity. except of course if it's about me . hope that helps

[maddy-ferguson]

before i watched barbie i saw people say stuff like if i was someone who didn't know anything about feminism gloria's monologue would've been great but alas i do know things about feminism so i was unimpressed and i thought the same thing because. i do know about feminism but seeing gifs of it recently because a good quality file has hit the internet and gifmakers reminded me of america ferrera saying that meryl streep had said she would've loved to deliver that monologue and i'm like. i hope one of you is lying. you can't be serious.

[dankovskaya]

Seriously every re4make review I've seen so far has been like it's AMAZING they improved on ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING except for Ada who they essentially dunked in a trash can and set on fire BUT EVERYTHINF ELSE IS GREAT

[anxietycheesecake]

Gay sex jokes can be funny, tasteful and valid rep. But when it's all a show really delivers, there's definitely teasing of the only potential mlm couple (that nobody forced them to put in there; people shipping something they know is just a fun dynamic that won't go anywhere isn't that) and then going all "oh, but it's deeper than sexual™" and "I don't know if we're teasing it" is definitely... queerbait adjacent.

There are homophobes who are super comfortable watching this show to this day. They have an homophobic explanation for every single joke or hint we've enjoyed. It doesn't make it an homophobic show, of fucking course not, but it hasn't alienated the homophobic audience as much as you think. It probably will happen in season 4, but not yet.

Baiting the only mlm relationship when the only rep as for today are casual jokes is queerbait-adjacent. Going on unrelated weirdly sexual tangents when asked genuine questions about something even the press has read as text should leave a taste in your mouth, especially when compared to stuff that's been said before season 3 was a thing (and I'm willing to bet they're barely aware asexuality/demisexuality is a thing, if they've heard of it at all, so don't come for me). This doesn't feel like a "wait and see" type of answer, but ok, let's wait and see.

And if by the end of the show nandermo goes fully unaddressed (NOT CANON; the bar is as low as ADDRESSING it, I'll be ok with however it goes from there), I'm sorry, but I won't be as uwu about it as you are being.

I'm glad you feel seen and validated and like you're getting the rep you want, but when you consider how little risks the network is truly taking by doing stuff this way and how they'll definitely keep doing it in the future if they can get away with it... I mean, it's kind of insulting? I wouldn't give it a pass. I think it 100% would set a very unfortunate precedent.

(I know people are going to say "oh, but there's a lesbian couple in this other show, they're super ok with that". Cool. I promise you a board of guys with ties sat around a table to study every possible ramification of putting those lesbians in that drama or whatever. But you know what I want? More sitcoms with wild concepts and queer relationships. More sitcoms with queer relationships in general. If they can get away with baiting the only gay ship and still get praised for queer rep for jokes about how horny everybody is, expect most shows to handle it exactly like that. One is ok, sure, but there will be more and it'll get boring very quickly.)

I can't believe I have to say this, but don't fucking harrass the creators. Express your negativity about a product you consumed in general terms like a normal person and act in consequence.

Anyway, I love this show and where it's heading, not so much how it's being handled in the month and year of our lord June, 2022. Hope to come back and cringe at this someday lmao

[phlyaros]

im gonna be real anon I don't care about label shit ship discourse I care about if real people are getting hurt and ONE reblog from someone being jokingly aggressive on the subject isn't enough to convince me that people are getting hurt when there's more evidence to the contrary. you've put me in a shitty situation here and I don't want to engage with it. please just ask people what they actually think next time before you go throwing your assumptions at other people.

[trans-leek-cookie]

Hm I'm not putting this in yhe main tags bc. Yeah but I'm blocking ppl who call the step mother hot

[lakesbian]

i have had like 10 friends rec worm to me but nobody’s given me a good like, gist of its vibe and what its abt because ‘its best blind’, could u please give a like brief summary and vibe check of it 😭 it’s so long i dont wanna try and invest that much time without knowing much abt it

so, worm is a 1.7 million word long webserial written in 2010. 1.7 million words seems like a lot, but it was also written over a relatively short period of time, which means the writing style is very easy to parse--the ideas aren't without complexity, but the language itself isn't intimidatingly dense. you can get through it at a very decent pace. i agree with your friends that there are vast portions of worm that hit best when you're unspoiled, but the thing is that worm is long enough that giving you the basic plot pitch is in no way spoilers for any of the things that i wouldn't want to see spoiled for someone. i'm actually kind of baffled they're not telling you Any Thing, because it is in my estimation one of the best books i've ever read, but it also Needs a briefing before you get into it for like five different reasons. which i will now provide. i swear to god this is brief by my standards it's just that i am very thorough

worm is a story about superheroes and supervillains, set in a world where superpowers are traumagenic--rather than appearing randomly or innately, some people gain powers after a traumatizing event happens to them. the protagonist is taylor hebert, a 15yo girl who has the power to control insects and desperately wants to be a superhero. and then accidentally finds herself scouted by a team of teenage villains instead. who's to say how she's going to react to all that!

one of the most compelling things about worm is that the superpowers in it serve as visceral, hyper-literal metaphors for the trauma and traumatized coping mechanisms of the characters with those powers. each power is incredibly specific and thematically relevant to the person who has it, and it's incredibly interesting and evocative. it feels so natural and well-done that it comes off like how superpowers are just meant to be written.

the fact that superpowers stem from trauma also means that worm is fundamentally a narrative about trauma. specifically, about traumatized teenagers and the relationships they form as they cling together while struggling through growing up traumatized & mutually coping with an increasingly intriguing, intense, and far-reaching escalating plot. worm's depictions of trauma + mental illness--including unpalatable trauma responses, including traumatized characters who are allowed to be complicated and nuanced and messy while still receiving narrative respect--are deeply real-feeling and impactful, and they're placed in the context of a well-spun + engaging story.

i really do have to stress how excellent the character writing is. worm is fully deserving of being as long as it is. over the course of 1.7 million words of character development, the average reader's reaction to the main characters goes from "sorta interesting" to "okay, i want to see where this goes" to "augh...really likable" to "i am now on hands and knees crying and these characters are going to stick around in my brain forever." wildbow has incredible talent for efficiently conveying complicated, real-feeling, and viscerally evocative characterization. many of the interlude chapters (chapters written from the perspective of different characters other than taylor) are so interesting, fleshed-out, and emotionally affecting that they make you wish you could read an entire novel about just the side character being featured. with that level of characterization for just the side cast, it's not surprising that taylor (& co) are genuinely just downright iconic. and i do not say that lightly--taylor is truly one of the best-written protagonists i've seen in anything. ever.

the other main pitch-point for worm is that it's a fascinating deconstruction/reconstruction/examination of the conceits of the superhero genre. it answers the question of--what would the world have to be like, for people with superpowers to act the way they do in classic cape media? and it does this well enough that it's interesting even if you have only a passing familiarity with cape media. i am not a big superhero media fan, but worm addresses virtually every aspect of cape media that was under the sun around 2010 in a way that's so interesting i still find it incredibly engaging. the approach it takes makes the narrative very accessible even to people who aren't usually cape media fans.

and speaking of the narrative: the end of the story is coherent and satisfying and deeply thematically resonant*. the way worm follows through on all of its main mysteries & plot threads is excellent. you don't have to worry about getting thru 1.7 million words and being dissatisfied by the author shitting the bed at the end, or anything like that. he does an amazing job of weaving together plot events in a way that makes each successive one feel rationally, thematically, and emotionally connected to what came before. there's really only one part where i feel the story stumbles a bit, but i think it was the best option he had for the narrative, and it's by no means a dealbreaker. it's in fact really impressive how cohesive and satisfying worm is for such a long webserial released over such a brief period of time.

*this is subjective ive seen some people who didnt love it but ive never seen anyone who downright Hated it who didnt also demonstrate egregious misunderstanding of literally everything worm is about. so thats a good sign

as for the downsides of worm/things that might put you off:

there is a very long list of trigger warnings for it. if you have any trigger warnings you want you should ask your friends to let you know about the relevant parts, because the fact that it's About Trauma (& about typical cape media circumstances presented very seriously) means that traumatic and violent things & their realistic aftermath are constantly happening and/or being discussed. i would not classify worm as needlessly dark or spiteful to the audience by any means, but it is intense and covers a lot of heavy topics. i do assume if your friends are all recommending it to you, they think none of the material would be too much for you, though!

worm was written in 2010 by a white cishet guy from canada. it's typical levels of 2010-era bigoted, it has a deeply lesbophobic stereotype character, it has some atrociously racist stereotype characters, the author really hates addicts, It's Got Blind Spots. i think worm is generally fully worth reading despite these, but very fair warning that it can get bad. i think what exacerbates this is that worm is generally extremely nuanced & sympathetic regarding ideas such as "crime is a result of systematic circumstance vs people just being inherently evil" and "mentally ill people who are traumatized in unpalatable ways are still deserving of fundamental respect as human beings" and so on and so forth, so it's extra noticeable and insufferable when you get to a topic the author has unexamined biases on and all that nuance drops out. the worst part is that a lot of this is most concentrated in the early arcs, so you have to get through them without being super attached to any of the characters yet. it is worth it though.

worm like. Does have a central straight relationship in it. and it's a very well written straight relationship for the most part and i like it quite a lot. but worm also passes the bechdel test with such flying colors that it enters 'unintentionally homoerotic' territory. which means a lot of people were shipping the main character ms taylor hebert with her female friends while the story was being released. which caused the author to get so mad he 1. posted a word of god to a forum loudly insisting that all of the girls are straight and 2. inserted a few deeply awkward and obvious and out of character scenes where he finds an excuse for the girls to more or less turn to the camera and go "i'm not gay, btw. this is platonic." This is fucking insufferable, and will piss you off immensely, but then you will get to any of the number of deeply emotionally affecting scenes between them, and at that point you will be too busy sniffling piteously and perhaps crytyping an analysis post on tumblr to be mad about all that other shit. also they're only a couple tiny portions out of an entire overall fantastic novel

overall: if those points don't sound like dealbreakers (i hope they aren't they're really massively outstripped by the amount of devastatingly good moments in worm, worm still has a thriving fandom over a decade later for a reason), you should absolutely give it a shot and see what you think. my final note is that you have to read up until the end of arc 8 to really see where what makes worm Worm kicks in, so aim for at least there to see how you feel about it if you're just thinking about dipping your toes in vs fully committing. i hope that was helpful and not too long :)

oh and don't go in the comments section on wordpress if you don't want spoilers. or anywhere else in the fandom at all. you will be spoiled. quite possibly for things you could not even have imagined were topics to be spoiled on.

[genderkoolaid]

i am genuinely confused by something you said in your joan of arc post & i would love if you could clarify. you said "women afab can be trans. men amab can be trans." i understand how that applies to intersex people, who may be assigned a sex they identify with but have other sex characteristics that they get dysphoria from. or theyre assigned as one sex but once puberty hit they developed far more traits of the other sex, so they had to transition back to what they used to be. i understand those scenarios. but as far as we know, joan of arc wasnt intersex & you dont bring up intersex in your post. how can a non-intersex person transition to something they already are & have been for their entire life? changing how one presents, like changing their style of clothes to better suit their gender & personality, doesnt count as "transitioning" imo, cis people do that aaall the time, multiple times throughout their lives. so what do you actually mean by this??

So my definition of trans is very much inspired by Leslie Feinberg's definition of trans(gender): An umbrella term for "everyone who challenges the boundaries of sex and gender," in which ze specifically includes cross-dressing and GNC people who are men AMAB and women AFAB. I would define trans as being inclusive of anyone who queers sex and/or gender.

In my humble nonbinary opinion, we way over-rely on the idea of trans as being about identifying as a gender that isn't your assigned sex. I, for example, was assigned female and identify as (amongst other genders) a woman, but my womanhood is very much trans. For one, I was on T for two years and intend to get bottom surgery, but I was also alienated from typical cis girlhood for my entire life and my womanhood is inherently tied to me also being a man and abinary. My womanhood is not cisnormative at all.

"Woman" and "man" (and male and female) are all constructs. Just because someone may call themself a woman, and have been assigned female at birth, does not mean they identify as the same kind of woman that society expects and demands them to. There are different ways of constructing womanhood. The "gender identity that isn't AGAB" definition was built on the idea of trans people as going from one binary point to the other, with the assumption that "woman" and "man" are still Real Things with one natural meaning. Attempts at being nb-inclusive have basically just said "well nonbinary isn't a gender assigned at birth, so its trans!" which is completely true, but it also ignores all the nonbinary and genderqueer people whose genders are more nuanced than that.

On Jeanne d'Arc specifically, I actually have some relevant quotes on this:

(from Vested Interests: Crossdressing and Cultural Anxiety and Clothing and Gender Definition: Joan of Arc respectively)

This is why I included that line: because we often assume, in our exorsexism, that a historical figure must identify as a man/woman (cis), as the opposite (trans), or maybe as neither, but those are the only options. We are still limiting ourselves and these historical figures' by limiting how we understand gender and genderqueerness. To Jeanne, being a cross-dressing female virgin soldier could be its own gender, something different than the genders of cisnormative mothers and nuns.

& as a note: I feel like, a lot of the time, non-intersex people in the community will make exceptions for intersex people (like "well, intersex people can be transfemmascs/male lesbians/etc" but no one else!!!") which. doesn't actually seem that great for intersex people? Like aside from assuming that these genderqueer experiences can only be had by intersex people, it also means that if you identify that way, you must Prove that you are Allowed to be doing that, by both outing yourself as intersex and arguing that you are intersex Enough.

[weebsinstash]

Do you ever wonder how complicated or nuanced it might be setting personal boundaries with a poly yandere Asmodeus and Fizz. Like do you ever workshop Lust Ring worldbuilding culture and realize "oh wait shit wouldn't it paradoxically be really easy AND ALSO borderline impossible to be open with and enforce your personal boundaries in a place perpetually encouraging the most openly brazen of carnal displays"?

Like. Obviously I like one of them more than the other but silly little guys are growing on me and, just. Imagine being a Sinner and being down in the Lust Ring and realizing they have a completely different culture around just, showing your body and being open with yourself and your desires and, you're suddenly not sure what things are sexual harassment or considered their normal culture and you're not sure what you're even allowed to verbally express discomfort against because. Is it actually something normal and YOU'RE being weird and mean to THEM? Or, are you unintentionally letting people do REALLY creepy things to you?

You move out of Pride and your new coworkers in Ozzie's building are constantly eating dick and pussy shaped foods? Your coworker is throating a dick shaped ice pop at their desk? Your coworkers are varying levels of half naked? That's not perverted, it's normal and healthy and they're confident in their healthy sexuality :) oh, but you think that's weird? You don't want to look directly at someone's tits when they ask your opinion on their new nipple piercings? Aw, aren't you cute, being too shy to be open with yourself! maybe we all need to show you a few things to welcome you to Lust--

Like, I know Ozzie is dead set on consent but I often brainstorm different variations of those opinions or otherwise in a yandere setting. Ozzie is accepting and open and body positive! Therefore he might be completely in the nude while he sits in a recliner and you're asked to bring him something and he ISN'T EMBARRASSED AT ALL. Aw, he doesn't care if you see his dick, he's not ashamed of his body :) and you don't want to tell him to cover up because he's so nice to you, right? Like..... the perfect fucking gentleman BESIDES these um. Conflicting opinions on modesty and boundaries. Like genuinely he is such a good man fr i want him biblicly 😩❤️

These two out here with their fucking "what are you talking about, this blatantly sexual thing we're doing isn't sexual at all, you're being weird and seeing things thst aren't there and also dont kinkshame us wow thats rude?" bullshit. Oh so you got too drunk at an office party so they made sure you got home safely so no one took advantage of you? Yeah that's cool! Or it would be if they didn't take you to THEIR home though! Oh, it was weird for you to wake up literally sandwiched between them in a pair of pajamas meaning they undressed you? Yeah? Well you had to get your sleep and there's only one bed and they wont make you sleep on the couch and Ozzie's chest is nice and broad and warm and Fizz can rest his face on your tummy and-- why are you scowling and looking grossed out, they were just making sure you were warm and cozy, but if that made you uncomfortable, they're sorry you felt that way from them just trying to so something nice for you--

I recognize it's canonically antithetical to his actual beliefs but yandere Ozzie who is like "oh you're not comfortable sharing details about your sexuality or your body or your sex life with me? I mean. Oh gee it would be like so awkward if we were having drinks as friends and I charismatically loosened your lips over time by repeatedly pressing the issues until you give in! It's not a real 'no' if it eventually becomes a 'yes' right?"

Fizz is like. A fucking jester. He's a clown. He's THE silly little guy. So you almost regard him as this nonsexual cartoonish entity until he occasionally has shit slip out of his mouth that reminds you No Honey That's A Grown Ass Man, he's saying shit like "oh wow seeing that crop over there reminded me of the other week where Ozzie and I were doing horseplay and you should've SEEN when I took one to that huge butt of his, he was SCREAMING into the bridle gag and-"

I FEEL LIKE YOU'D CATCH THEM LIKE, ULTRA WEAPONIZING T H E I R RULES. Yeah, consent is important! That's why you're not allowed to flirt with that dilfy incubus, because, what is that in your hand? Gasp, is that a single shot? You've been drinking therefore you can't consent and you're being CARRIED away if that gets you to stop talking to this guy

Like imagine you're this shy bullied little thing and Admodeus is treating you like this precious egg that he can't wait to hatch and then it's like, you're dressing up sexy and coming on to someone ELSE talking about how you wanna suck THEIR dick and suddenly he's all "uh um uh hm you know what?you're moving too fast, people are gonna take advantage of you, you're not ready, let me take you home--"

"BLOWJ0BS FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE" for reeeeeeeal!!!!! You're sitting in like, the living room, basically forced to be celibate (unless ya bone them) and in the next room over IN THE ONLY BEDROOM you're hearing like *spanking* *bicycle horn* *that one oh yeah sound effect* *shaking tin sfx* *water splashing* *rubber ducky squeaky noise* *slide whistle* *whoopie cushion* and then the both of them limp out of there visibly disheveled and asking if you want to order a pizza because WOW THEY'RE JUST WAY TOO HUNGRY TO COOK DINNER TONIGHT FOR SOME REASON--

[olderthannetfic]

I always see people who have never been antis, talking about/questioning how some antis even ARE antis when you look at their taste in media - ie the ever famous joke of "Hannigram is #problematique" "but it's a show where he eats people" or whatever.

I thought I'd weigh in as someone who could, hypothetically, be called an ex-anti (which, thankfully, nothing ever really came out of it - it was just very 2014 keyboardwarrior-esque behavior of me being a chronically online young adult who would share posts in a group chat making fun of certain shippers, or reblog posts about how 50shades is The Most Problematic Media Ever to exist -- basically I was an anti with anti-lines of thoughts, but i never, like, a ran a Shipping Discourse Blog or whatever)

For me, personally, it was a few different things. I can now see how it's incredibly hypocritical that teenaged me shipped Light/L, while still thinking that Dramione was Bad And Abusive. It ultimately boiled down to a) being pretentious, and b) just not understanding media or what proshippers REALLY believed, with a side of c) not realizing that nuance exists. like i was pretty late to join tumblr, I think I immigrated here during PEAK "yourfaveisproblematic" era which definitely did have an impact on my opinions and my tastes.

to elaborate, a.) being pretentious. i mean this one just kinda goes without saying. "I engage in media in a way more intellectual way than you do, don't you know that? You're a filthy and disgusting person who writes Snape/Hermione because you're an actually disgusting pedophile IRL who would probably date your own student that you're abusing if you could. Meanwhile, I'm a very smart, good, and pure person. When I read Uncle Vernon/Harry, I'm doing it in a G-d honoring whump way that clearly condemns abuse, incest, and rape. Unlike YOU who only writes harmful stuff as a way to get people off :/"

(as an aside, i think this line of thinking will ALWAYS be present in fandom and popculture in some way, sadly. ie the recent trend of people hating on booktok bc the books are 'trashy' and how these porn addicts should read real classic literature instead.)

as for b.), not understanding media - i cannot emphasize enough that i was GENUINELY stupid and disconnected enough to think that proshippers REALLY WERE pro-All Of The Degenerate Dead Doves That They Wrote.

why did i feel this way? why did i understand that Lolita clearly isnt pro-pedophilia, but for some reason i thought that someone shipping weecest was? well, first of all, i think that fanfiction is (generally) seen as Less Serious than classic literature, and fandom is a fun place, so i guess i somehow thought that every fanfic/fanartist who wrote Problematic Things, especially Problematic Things that they portrayed as Sexy, really DID enjoy the thought of that Actually Happening To Real People.

and i think THIS is the bulk of why antis ARE antis. i'm not calling them all stupid - i do think BEING an anti is stupid, but at the same time, there are people who are truly smart and good-intended people who just have some really off color opinions about, like, homestuck ships or whatever. Lawlight is okay because notebooks that kill people don't exist so it's IMPOSSIBLE for the Harmful Aspects of Light/L to be romanticized! but schoolyard prejudiced bullies DO exist and are a REAL problem so Drarry is BAD (*truly completely unaware of the fact that there's 'realistic' aspects of the Light/L dynamic and 'unrealistic' aspects of Drarry - such as, for example, Hogwarts arguably being even MORE of a fantasy setting than DN is.*) I know that media literacy is the hot buzzword of the year to throw around in 2024, but, like, i really did not have media literacy.

as for c.), not realizing nuance exists - ok "nuance" might not be the best word here, but i dont know how else to describe it. like, each time ive typed the word "problematic" out in this ask, i've done so in a very tongue in cheek/ironic/retroactive way, but, like, those posts about how Everything Is Problematic, Including Your Fave ARE true. and i didn't like the fact that my favorite media or favorite person might've Made A Mistake! i need to Talk About Its Issues Because I'm So Betrayed That My Dear Sweet Comfort Media Would Do This To Me. I Need To Prove I Clearly Condemn It.

like, i legit morally could not justify reblogging a twilight post without adding in the tags '#this is my guilty pleasure it sucks that the books were so racist though' or whatever. Most people were lucky enough to avoid that line of thinking, but there was an actual group of people who felt a genuine need to virtue signal all the time, partly bc, hey, they WERE passionate about talking abt #issues in media, but also bc of a subconscious fear of If You Reblog A Singular Piece Of Hetalia Fanart, You're Literally A Nazi And Will Get A Callout Post Written About You.

and during all of this i was at the tail end of my high school experience (yes i know im younger than most of your audience, ha). i was going through A Lot emotionally, going through a lot of life changes, and lived in a very . . . interesting household/place where i couldn't do ACTUAL good in the world that i was passionate about. so to make up for the fact that i was genuinely in no place to do legit activism, clearly i had to save the gay community by arguing about johnlock queerbaiting or whatever.

^ and honestly i do think that is the position of most antis. theyre isolated and cant seem to do Enough in the Real Scary World so they have to resort to talking about how bad of a person someone is for "shipping abuse", bc theyre not in a situation where they could, for example, ACTUALLY fight the good fight to end abuse or raise awareness for it.

There was way more to it and way more that I could say, if I wanted to, but this post is long enough as it is and probably doesn't make much sense.

I feel bad for antis, honestly, or at least the ones who are antis in the way I used to be.

--

Oh yes, passionate young fools who think they can at least fix the internet if not their lives make up most of the cannon fodder. Some of the ringleaders are just mini dictators and wannabe cult leaders, but most anti-leaning types are just traumatized or clueless, even a lot of the ones who do serious damage and don't just mock shit in private with their friends.

[pastadoughie]

u r 16 , i hope u come to a more nuanced and intelligent pov when you grow up

did you know : the way that ppl get more nuanced opinions is by having respectful arguements with people and hearing other perspectives, sending an ask saying "ur opinion is bad" with zero elaboration is not helpful or constructive, as i have said previously im open to people talking to me about things, its just that you are not open to having a conversation because you think that my critique is somehow less valid because of my age

ive gotten multiple asks like this and i genuinely dont understand what the goal is besides uh, being mean to people so you can feel better about yourself on the internet and because youre too much of a coward to actually talk to people off of anon or explain any of your opinions

again, this isnt constructive or helpful or productive, its trying to look like it is without any of the actual legwork that goes into that, please learn how to interpret text before you speak to people on the internet :3 and, when youre losing in an arguement maybe bringing up things people have zero control over and cant change isnt a good look, there is no prerequisite age for having an opinion

[txttletale]

Hi, i dont quite understand the earlier points about the allosexual term!

The way i always understood it all, straight to gay is a spectrum, so would cis and being NB or trans or genderfuild be, and same for ace to allo. As in, demisexuality would be on the gradient between asexual and allosexual. And therefor the term allosexual would hold meaning by sheer ability to talk about the concept of asexuality with more nuance?

I also saw someone in the replies of that post posit that the 'other side' of asexuality would be 'straight, bi, pan, gay, etc' instead of using allosexual as a descriptive term. Whats your take on that? Im asking because, a lot of ace (im using this to include any experience of attraction deviating from the socially expected, so also demi) ppl i know identify as hetero, gay, bi etc as well. As in, an ace person who may lack the ability to feel sexual atttaction to others on sight alone, may still prefer one gender over another if they're still inclined to romantic bonds.

Plus, a lot of asexuals arent sex repulsed either, and the term is purely used to describe an 'aberration' in how ace ppl experience attraction? Therefore, wouldn't allosexual be a helpful destinction?

(Sorry for the long ask, im just curious and like how much thought is usually apparent in your answers here)

essentially, i think where you're wrong is the idea that cis-trans or straight-gay are spectrums. i obviously believe that sexuality and gender, the phenomenons, the actual matters of people kissing and fucking and self defining and being -- those are all mutable and contextual and often defy clear legibility, permeable and impossible to strictly taxonomise. however 'straight' and 'cis' are not just neutral descriptors of another point on a spectrum, but strictly delineated boxes from which any deviation is punished. someone who's gender fluid or gender questioning isn't 'part cis' or 'midway between cis and trans' -- they have deviated outside the acceptable bounds of cishet social performance. & the reason these categories are so cleanly delineated is that unlike other categories they have entire hegemonic social apparatuses -- chiefly homophobia & transphobia -- dedicated to patrolling those descriptive borders of cisness and heterosexuality and brutally punishing anyone crossing them. & the same is simply not true of 'allosexuality' -- there is no such socially enforced category. when ace people face aphobia they are being punished for failing to perform heterosexuality, not just sexuality in general.