#but i also think the fact that there are racists is not a reason to NOT make poc characters who are complex

[tofixtheshadows]

You guys really need to stop and consider the ways you're talking about Kabru I am dead fucking serious. Like I know that flattening characters is just what fandom does to a certain extent, but Kabru's actual personality is getting lost to the fandom hivemind insisting that he's aggressive/cruel/sociopathic/hateful, and these are particularly concerning takes to see leveled at the only brown character in the main cast day after day. "My poor sweet golden child Laios needs to be protected from this scary brown man" is not a good look! Like, it's very telling that the bulk of the hate and bad faith readings are reserved for Toshiro and Kabru. Everyone else's flaws get to be discussed and validated and forgiven (or erased), meanwhile people are straight making up things to be mad about with Toshiro and Kabru but patting themselves on the back for being smart.

The worst part is how undeserved it all is. I'm trying to lay off anime-onlys because we're still kind of in the red herring stage of getting to know Kabru, but I would still like to gently suggest that even if you think Kabru is up to something, you don't gave to get in the tags of every fan creator's post and bring up how you hate him or You Can Tell he's totally evil. Sometimes I think Kabru's blue eyes give people license to say things about his appearance that they know would sound completely racist otherwise, but referring to his blue eyes acts as a get-out-of-racism free card. The jokes about the dog with brown contacts are getting old, by the way.

For people who have read the manga, it's disappointing. Kabru is one of the most complex and important characters in the story, and if you base your interpretation of him and all your fandom interactions on shallow first impressions you are completely missing out.

I know part of this is because Dungeon Meshi is a comedy, but the story also wants to be taken seriously. For example, it's admittedly really funny when Chilchuck calls Laios "sick in the head", but that doesn't change the fact that the way Chilchuck casually belittles Laios caused him to hide the fact that he was "hallucinating" from his friends for weeks. Those feelings matter.

Like, this

is funny.

But this?

Is not. This is just a very clear example of a brown boy with PTSD. As someone else with PTSD, just looking at this fucking sucks, man.

The only reason why Kabru thinks about killing Laios is because he is in the middle of a flashback. He's struggling through a panic attack. If he truly wanted to kill Laios because he's violent or because he finds Laios inherently annoying, he wouldn't otherwise talk with Laios normally. Notice how he doesn't act this way at any other point in the story- it's just because he's triggered by monsters. Even when he's thinking about his plans to "deal with" Laios later, he's reluctant to actually kill him and only considers it to prevent another tragedy. Despite his deadly skills, Kabru relies far more on "soft" power- insight, persuasion, diplomacy. He's a rare example of a character who absolutely is, or at least can be, manipulative, but seems to use his abilities for good. He's not a pathological liar, he isn't looking down on everyone behind a smile. He's someone who is extremely emotionally intelligent, and he's willing to put aside all his own basic wants and needs to stop the cycle of dungeons devouring humans.

I'm going to cut a potential thesis on his character short and just give some examples of things that fandom should consider about his personality more:

Racism in fandom isn't just about whitewashing in fan art, or using racial slurs. The insidiousness of bad faith readings, reductions to racist tropes, lack of fan content for characters of color, and dismissal of a character's complexity are far more common. You can believe yourself to be completely neutral or even positive about a character and still churn out low-grade bile about them into fandom's collective unconscious. Fandom reflects real life.

And I have been around fandom long enough to see how these behaviors (mostly from my fellow white fans) affect fans of color, how it makes a fandom feel hostile and unwelcome to them. It's fun to make jokes and memes, I'm absolutely not saying that everything needs to be a deeply nuanced take, but we need to be careful that it doesn't veer into toxicity. Please think about how our contributions to fandom come across, and what sort of vibes they cultivate in this communal space.

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/748370073567313920/i-think-for-me-one-of-the-big-stumbling-blocks-i

People in the replies are jumping to a lot of really obnoxious conclusions about anon that really just ultimately illustrate anon’s point.

There’s all this stuff that is *assuming* anon is pro censorship when they never say anything like that (and in fact, i thought they suggested the opposite). They’re talking about how sex positivity and anti-anti attitudes get weaponized or misused in some fandom spaces to make people feel like it’s wrong for them to be squeamish and want to *personally* avoid men who are really vocal about their love of lolicon and slavery isekai, because guys who are that vocal about it have in their experience, tended to have that reflect real world attitudes.

I think it’s good to point out that plenty of people like these things privately and you’ll never know, and it’s the being super vocal about it around uninterested people that’s the red flag here. But people just assuming that anon holds every attitude they associate with some stereotypical anti, and that their message indicates some thinking to BE CAREFUL! about… really just proves their point that a lot of people have a bad tendency to only see this in terms of how things work in their particular corner of fandom, and don’t recognize how what can mean one thing in one, primarily female and queer space, doesn’t necessarily translate well to a space with a lot of entitled cis dudes. Assuming that personal discomfort with certain kinds of fiction automatically translates into being pro censorship (what) when that person said nothing else to indicate that, is one such assumption.

(Also one person was trying to suggest it was racist of anon to “single out hentai”… maybe the reason they mentioned hentai is because they’re *specifically* talking about anime fandom?!?)

Idk, it doesn’t help proshippers if we can’t see anything except via the narrow lens of pro vs anti fights on Tumblr and AO3, be able to advocate our positions. We are aware of how fandom blinders can blinker people in the opposite direction—antis who don’t recognize that rhetoric that they think is just all about shipping is also used by right wing activists to advocate banning books and drag shows—but it’s true in both directions.

Being uncomfortable with a lot of “sex positivity” rhetoric because you’ve mostly seen it used to tell you you’re wrong to be uncomfortable with dudes who are super outspoken and pushy about their porn habits is a really common experience for lefty women IME, both outside of fandom and in fandom spaces with more cis dudes. Most women I’ve met like that are vocally anti censorship, it’s about being able to take charge of their personal boundaries and not have them shamed. Proshippers pushing them away by loading more unhelpful and inaccurate judgments on them aren’t helping them and are just shrinking their movement, making it more likely it’ll be dismissed as just “very online fandom drama” (and if you’re that clueless, are they wrong, really?)

Also it’s just helpful to better understand why some people might find your enemies’ arguments more initially compelling than they should be.

--

"Sexual liberation means sex with me specifically" was a plague in the 70s from what I hear, and I'm sure it has been a thing forever.

[nandorsrelentless]

there seems to be far too many fans who can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that no relationship in the Vampire Chronicles is healthy. every relationship includes an element of abuse/power imbalance by normal standards. literally every single one.

they are all monsters who are no longer constrained by societal rules. so I don't think it's too crazy to expect them to do mosntorus things. the genre is Gothic HORROR. the show really prioritizes the HORROR element more so than other adaptaions, which i love.

i don't need louis to be a liar to enjoy lestat. if louis lied or misremebered things about the fight in episode 5, i literally do not care because it's never gonna make me hate louis. the baseline of what constitutes "evil" or "bad" is so different in iwtv because of the fact that they are NOT HUMAN. Claudia is literally a serial killer and she's still mother to me. ykwim?

the nature of vampirism is they have to kill to survive. so it would be really cool if people could accept louis, armand, and claudia as complex characters who are fundamentally not good people (because they aren't people!) without being racist about it. THEY ARE ALL KILLERS

im more interested in this exploration of the complexities of memory and seeing how the show integrates the other books into this story in a way that hasn't been done before than I am in discoursing about whether louis is a liar or not. who gives a shit???? grow up and realize that there are no good guys here and that's OKAY

[shevr]

hey yesterday i got distracted until 5am into browsing lists of old animated movies on wikipedia and there's a bunch of stuff that i wanna get around to dig up & watch but i crave even more older, more obscure, more forgotten stuff

plz feel free to drop any obscure animated flick you know of so i can go check it ( extra bonus points if you're not american and it's a movie from your country )

[arolesbianism]

So. Sit with me everyone. We agree that we need to stop worshipping a person or media on the sole grounds of being gay right. Can we finally agree that it's not homophobic to criticize gay ppl with large platforms. Can we finally actually learn to think critically abt how these ppl talk abt ppl outside of their immediate identities and to recognize that just because they say they aren't bigoted doesn't mean they aren't. Please.

[floralovebot]

Hi, I want to ask your opinion on something. You made a post that said changing the Winx's races is bad. I agree that it's not okay but I have a question about Helia. I thought he was Native American when I was a child but you've said he's Asian. Is it wrong to think he's Native American?

I had to think about how to answer this for a while tbh! Sorry for the late reply

Anyway, I probably could answer this with a simple yes or no but I really feel like I should explain my answer.

I'm pretty sure you're referencing this post! Anyway, the biggest issue with race changing the canon characters of color is that when you do it, you're participating in erasure. Again, it's not more representation to, for example, make Flora asian - it's erasure because you're intentionally erasing her being latina. Now like I said, I don't have an issue with like,, children not noticing their canon races or ethnicities. It's perfectly fine if a little kid sees characters as something else! The problem is grown adults ignoring and erasing their canon races.

When it comes to Helia specifically, he is very much coded as asian, specifically east asian. I want to clarify that it's not explicitly canon. Rainbow has never stated what race he's supposed to represent and they've never said if he was based on a real person. We don't even know what planet he's actually from! So his race is all coding. However, that coding is still,,, fairly obvious. And I specifically want to touch on how Rainbow depicts their east asian characters versus their indigenous characters.

Most of their east asian characters have either dark blue, black, or brown hair and more narrow eyes. Like,, that's their go-to when trying to make a character Noticeably asian. They're also fond of putting their asian characters in traditional clothing (like qi pao or hanfu) rather than casual clothing. I added Helia at the very bottom so you can see how he compares to other, canonically asian characters.

While Rainbow has absolutely depicted asian characters in offensive ways (espero...), it's usually pretty respectful. Meanwhile,,, their depiction of indigenous characters is... anything but.

Like before, I put a picture of Helia so you can compare him to the canonically indigenous characters. As you can see here, their depiction of indigenous characters is,, extremely racist! It follows a lot of racist stereotypes like red skin, face paint, headdress, feathers, etc. Just,,, all around Not Good. And you'll notice that Helia doesn't really "fit in" visually. That's not to say that he has to look like that to be indigenous but remember that this is an animated show with intentional designs made by white people. If he was meant to be seen as indigenous, he would likely share more characteristics with these characters (like having darker, red-toned skin). Again, their depiction of indigenous characters is extremely racist. I don't think there's a single indigenous character in winx that doesn't look like a walking stereotype out of an old cowboy film. Unfortunately, Helia would absolutely look different and more like those racist designs if he was meant to be indigenous.

Now, to actually answer your question. Is it okay to see Helia as indigenous, and specifically indigenous to the americas? Well... as Helia's racial coding is still just coding and not explicit, it's not a crime if you don't see him as asian. Like,, while I do absolutely think he was meant to be seen as asian, it's still technically ambiguous enough that it's not a Bad thing if you don't see him as such.

That said, you need to be extremely careful with how you think of and portray Helia as indigenous. I've talked before about Rainbow including quite a few stereotypes about east asian men with Helia, and unfortunately, most if not all of them, can also apply to indigenous men. For example, Helia is calmer and wise (often shown to give advice in poetic ways), connected to nature (ie, birds, plants, Flora), frequently meditates, etc. These are all common stereotypes for indigenous men. I'd actually recommend reading this wikipedia article!

Anyway, seeing him as indigenous isn't inherently wrong, but there's absolutely a chance that you're picking up on indigenous stereotyping rather than coding or a headcanon. Like the long hair, connection to nature, the pacifist comment, the weird and kind of cryptic one-liners he occasionally has... Unfortunately, a lot of the indigenous!Helia headcanons/redesigns I've seen have been really racist. And the common reasoning for why they think he's indigenous often comes down to these common stereotypes.

So like,,, god I know this is long but honestly the answer is complicated. It's not a simple yes or no. It really, really depends on why you think he's indigenous. Like. Just ask yourself yknow? Why do you think this? Think of an actual reason that isn't just "vibes". And if you're creating any kind of content, even if it's just daydreaming tbh, how are you depicting him? Is there even the slightest hint of a stereotypical depiction? (And again, please research stereotypical depictions because there are a lot and quite a few contradict each other)

If you're confident that you're not stereotyping him, then honestly, it's not that bad to see him as indigenous. I do ask that you try to see and understand him being asian coded, as I do think that's important, regardless of whether or not it's in your face explicit. However, it's not like. a crime if you don't see him as asian. Just be very, very, Very careful with how you think of and portray indigenous!Helia.

Also,,, I didn't know quite how to fit this into the rest of the post but,, while it's not Bad for you to not see Helia as asian, you should think about why that is. For example, there are still a lot of people in the fandom who don't see Nabu as asian, despite his coding being extremely in your face and honestly canon at this point. But because he has darker skin, he's from Andros, and he was with Aisha, a lot of people assumed he was black. That's not inherently a bad thing, but some of those people get really mad when others point out that he's very much south asian which,,, is a bad thing. I understand the feeling of losing rep and wanting to protect that, but you shouldn't bulldoze other groups to do it.

I'm not sure what your opinion of asian Helia is, but if you're like,, against him being asian or refuse to see that very intentional coding just because you really like the idea of him being indigenous,, you should think about that and reassess things.

[the-lord-of-the-things]

I love how, at least according to his hair chart, Micky never did Honest Hearts. Dude really just inhaled poisoned gas while bomb collared, got his brain, heart, and spine took out of his body by robots, and rediscovered his tragic past of accidentally getting his hometown nuked, but noped tf out of that weird racist Mormon shitshow. Good for him

I actually have where if he does do honest hearts, its likely in a lull during the main game, cause it just doesn't really fit with the overarching plot of sorts he has goin post game with following Ulysses' trail and his own past through dead money -> old world blues -> lonesome road I also just do not want to acknowledge the racist shitshow we got in the actual game. Ages ago I saw an excellent post by an indigenous creator on here about how they would adjust honest hearts to be, well, not a racist shitshow, that I unfortunately have not been able to find again or I’d link it here (the jist was make the white legs and sorrows be just post apocalyptic communities and not 'tribes' because they don't have native american origins, and have the dead horses just be Diné (Navajo), as well as give pretty much all the groups more agency away from joshua graham and daniel. As well as just reworking pretty much everything to do with joshua's story because that is just a mess) If Micky ever participated in the story of Honest Hearts, I'd want it to be something along the lines of what was laid out in that post, because the version we got in the game is just so frankly reprehensible wrt to its racism against indigenous people in general and native americans in specific I refuse to engage with it again

[vhaerath]

“ublublublu you can’t like ulfric stormcloak he’s RACIST” as if your favourite dunmer characters did not own slaves and placate molag bal so he wouldn’t “pollute their bloodlines”

[elodieunderglass]

Hi! I was wondering if you could help me out with a word I've forgotten? I'm trying to remember the name for a concept that (I think) talks about how people better understand or process Things once they have vocabulary to describe it - I've heard it talked about in regards to the colour orange, or coercive control, etc.

long story short i've just read a paper saying ancient Greeks and Romans weren't racist bc they had no word for racism and am trying to form an argument against!

(no worries if this is unanswerable, i'm aware its a bit of a long shot but you struck me as a person who Knows Things)

That’s extremely kind and funny of you. i don’t know much but i am ok at synthesis.

I think you might be thinking of the concepts loosely called the “Sapir-Whorf hypothesis”, which describes something called “linguistic determinism.” This idea has been “disproven”, as it is just too reductionist as a concept - people are clearly perfectly capable of having experiences that are tough to describe with words. There will be plenty of papers showing how this reasoning is applied.

but it is still commonly thrown around and still considered a useful teaching framework. That’s why you’ll see it referenced online as if it is fresh, new, and applicable - people learn about it every year in college. Also, elements of the framework are probably perfectly sound. It definitely seems to be the case that language shapes brains; it just doesn’t seem to be the case that humans who don’t have specific words for them can’t experience orange, or the future.

(Many things in college are taught using teaching frameworks that may not be, technically, true; the framework is intended to give a critical structure for interpreting information. Then, when we later find evidence that disproves the hypothesis, that single piece of information doesn’t destroy our expensive college education; what we paid for is the framework. This is mostly frustrating in the sciences, when fresh crops of undergraduate students crash around on social media, grappling with their first exposure to (complex concept) and how it’s DIFFERENT to what they learned BEFORE and their teachers LIED TO EVERYBODY and they’re going to save the world from POP SCIENCE by telling the TRUTH. You’ll notice that these TOTALLY NEW INFORMATION reveals map along the semester schedule. The thing here is that getting new information, or information being different from what you were previously told, does not cancel out the fact that you are getting what you pay for - an education. Learning new facts that change our relationships to hypotheses isn’t a ✨huge betrayal ✨ , but the expected process of academia. Anyway.)

You have an interesting response here, and can start by looking at the ways that Sapir-Whorf has been disproved. There will be loads of literature on that.

However, it would be interesting to look at the argument as an unpicking of the other side’s rather weird, ritualistic superstitious belief that a behavior doesn’t exist if the creatures doing it can’t describe it. It is not on the ancient Greeks and Romans to categorise and interpret their behavior for a modern educated audience. They do not have the wherewithal to do so. They are also fucking dead. We can name the behaviors we see, and describe their impacts, however the hell we like.

Sure, the ancient Greeks used “cancer” to refer to lumpy veiny tumors. We can infer that they still had blood cancer, because their medical texts describe leukaemia and their corpses have evidence of it - they just didn’t know it was cancer. But we do, so we can call it cancer. Just because Homer said “the wine-dark sea” in a flight of girlish whimsy doesn’t mean he was unable to distinguish grape juice from saltwater, which we know, because we can observe that he was an intelligent wordsmith perfectly capable of talking about wine and oceans in other contexts. We are the people who get to stand at our point of history with our words, and name things like “this person probably died of leukaemia” and “poets say things that aren’t necessarily literal” and “this behaviour was racist” and “that’s gay” and “togas kinda slay tho” despite Ancient Greeks having different concepts of cancer, wittiness, prejudice, homosexuality, and slaying than we do today.

Now just to caveat that people do get muddled about the concept of racism. Our understanding of racism from here - this point of history, with these words, probably from the West - is heavily influenced by how we see racism around us today: white supremacy and the construct of “whiteness,” European colonial expansion, transatlantic chattel slavery, orientalism, evangelism, 20th century racial science, and so on. This is the picture of racism that really dominates our current discourse, so people often mistake it for the definition of racism. (Perhaps in a linguistic-deterministic sort of way after all.) As a result, muddled-up people often say things like “I can’t be racist because I’m not a white American who throws slurs at black American people,” while being an Indian person in the UK who votes for vile anti-immigration practices, or a Polish person with a horrible attitude about the Roma. Many people genuinely hold this very kindergarten idea of racism; if your opponent does as well, they’re probably thinking something like “Ancient Greek and Roman people didn’t have a concept of white supremacy, because whiteness hadn’t been invented yet, so how could they be racist?” And that’s unsound reasoning in a separate sense.

Racism as the practice of prejudice against an ethnicity, particularly one that is a minority, is a power differential that is perfectly observable in ancient cultures. The beliefs and behaviors will be preserved in written plays, recorded slurs, beauty standards, reactions to foreign marriages, and travel writing. The impacts will be documented in political records, trade agreements, the layouts of historical districts of ancient towns.

You don’t need permission to point out behaviours and impacts. You can point them out in any words you like. You can make up entirely new words to bully the ancient romans with. You are the one at this point of history and your words are the ones that get used.

Pretending that “words” are some kind of an intellect-obscuring magical cloud in the face of actual evidence is just a piece of sophistry (derogatory) on the part of your opponent here. It’s meant to be a distraction. You can dismiss this very flimsy shield pretty quickly and get them in the soft meat of them never reading anything about the actual material topic, while they’re still looking up dictionary definitions or whatever.

[txttletale]

as someone seeing all this from the outside, whats trnasphobic about people hating homestuck? I've never seen it associated with trans people and I cant see anything about this hussie guy who made it being trans

hussie is in fact trans (nonbinary, any pronouns, apparently psycholonials goes into more detail about how they feel re: gender but i haven't played it) and if you've never seen it 'associated with trans people' idk skill issue there is a very large and vocal trans fanbase for it and historically has been to the point that it's a meme that a bunch of transmascs who transitioned circa 2015 are called dave and are embarassed if you ask why. that said i don't think there's anything transphobic about hating homestuck, there's lots of perfectly good reasons to hate homestuck or hussie. parts of homestuck are horrifically racist. some of hussie's older work is even worse. the ending sucks. the epilogues suck and also waste much more of your time. huge chunks of the comic itself are just not very good even aside from the racism. you can feel however you want about homestuck idc

where transmisogyny comes into it is 1. poeple have been harassing and ridiculing a bunch of trans women on here for having a book club wher ethey read it and 2. moreover and what i have mainly been posting abt this in relation to is that there are many people whose reaction to dtwof losing in a meme poll is to go on various different varietals of 'the degenerate ingrates are not appreciative of the True Real Queer Culture, how far we have fallen' rants, which is indicative of a kind of cisbian homonationalist reactionary attitude that elevates the 80s/90s usamerican cis gay scenes to the status of an unattainable mythic past. & this is an attitude that basically goes hand in hand with transmisogyny because they treat any of the many, many warranted criticisms about how transmisogynistic the culture and scenes they idolize were with extreme condescencion and hostility.

[secretmellowblog]

The thing is, Jean Valjean’s “nineteen year prison sentence for stealing a loaf of bread” from Les Mis isn’t actually unusual….not even today! I see people talking about it as if it’s strange or unimaginable when it happens every day.

In modern America — often as a result of pointlessly cruel (and racist) habitual offender and mandatory minimum laws— people are routinely sentenced to life in prison for minor crimes like shoplifting or possession of drugs.

The ACLU did a report in 2013 detailing the lives of various people who were sentenced to life in prison without parole for nonviolent property crimes like:

•attempting to cash a stolen check

•a junk-dealer’s possession of stolen junk

metal (10 valves and one elbow pipe)

•possession of stolen wrenches

•siphoning gasoline from a truck

•stealing tools from a tool shed and a welding machine from a yard

•shoplifting three belts from a department store

•shoplifting several digital cameras

•shoplifting two jerseys from an athletic store

• taking a television, circular saw, and a power converter from a vacant house

• breaking into a closed liquor store in the middle of the night

And of course, so so so many people sentenced to life without parole for the possession of a few grams of drugs.

And we could go on and on!

Gregory Taylor was a homeless man in Los Angeles who, in 1997, was sentenced to “25 years to life” for attempting to steal food from a food kitchen. He was released after 13 years. The lawyers helping to release him even cited Les Miserables in their appeal, comparing Taylor’s sentence to Jean Valjean’s.

And there’s another specific bit of social commentary Hugo was making about Valjean’s trial that’s still depressingly relevant. He writes that Valjean was sentenced for the theft of loaf of bread, but also that the court managed to make that sentence stick by bringing up some of his past misdemeanors. For example, Valjean owned a gun and was known to occasionally poach wildlife (presumably for his starving family to eat.) . So the court exaggerates how harmful the bread theft was—he had to smash a windowpane to get the bread, which is basically Violence— then insist the fact that he owns a gun and occasionally poaches is proof that he is habitually and innately violent. Then when Valjean obviously becomes distressed traumatized and furious as a result of his nakedly unjust sentence and begins making desperate (and very unsuccessful/impulsive/ poorly thought through) attempts to escape…. the government indifferently tacks more years onto his sentence, labels him a “dangerous” felon, and insists that its initial read of him as an innately violent person was correct.

And it’s sad how a lot of the real life stories linked earlier are similar to the commentary Hugo wrote in 1863? Someone will commit a nonviolent property crime, and then the court insists that a bunch of other miscellaneous things they’ve done in the past (whether it’s other minor thefts or being addicted to drugs or w/e) are Proof they’re inherently violent and incapable of being around other people.

A small very petty fandom side note: This is also why I dislike all those common jokes you see everywhere along the lines of “lol it’s so unrealistic for the police to want to arrest Valjean over a loaf of bread, there must have been some other reason the police were pursuing him. Because the state would never punish someone that harshly and irrationally for no reason. so maybe javert was just gay haha”. (Ex: this tiktok— please don’t harass the creator or poster though, I don’t think they were intending to mean anything like that and its just a silly common type of joke you see made about Les mis all the time so it’s not unique in any way.) because like.

As much as I don’t think Les Mis is a flawless book or that its political messaging is perfect….the only way that insanely long unjust sentences for minor crimes is “unrealistic” is if you’re operating on the assumption that prisons are here to Keep You Safe by always only punishing bad criminals who do serious crimes. And that’s just, not true at all. Like I get that these are just goofy silly shallow jokes, and I’m not angry or going to harass anyone who makes them. but it feels like there’s an assumption underlying all those goofy jokes that “this is just not how prison works!” “Prisons don’t routinely sentence people to absurd laughably unjust pointless sentences!” “Prisons give people fair sentences for logical reasons!” When like…no

Valjean being relentlessly hounded and tortured for a minor crime in a way that is utterly ridiculous and arbitrary in its cruelty is not actually a plot hole in Les mis. It’s a plot hole in …..society ajsjkdkdkf. And the only way to fix that is to fight for prison abolition or at least reform, and (in America) stand up against the vicious naked cruelty of habitual offender and mandatory minimum laws.

But yeah :(. I hate how Les Mis opens with a prologue saying the novel will be obsolete the moment the social issues it describes have been resolved— but two hundred years later, the book is still more relevant than ever because we’re dealing with so many of the exact same injustices.

[cauliplea]

it baffles me how many people twist the whole "Ratio hates idiots" thing even though it's literally anything but that.

did people not even read the character details? he doesn't hate idiots necessarily, it goes deeper than that. but for some reason people immediately think that Ratio would hate someone because they are less smarter that him.

No, he does not hate people with less knowledge, he hates people that doesn't try to gain more knowledge and better themselves, he hates people that think they are better than others simply because they are smarter, he only hates people that choose to stay ignorant.

the amount of ableism he recieves when it comes to his entire character makes me want to rip my hair out, no he would not hate you because you're bad at math, he'd recognize if you had any other talents other than math and praise you for it and try to help, no he wouldn't hate aventurine because you people think Aventurine is an idiot in his standarts (I'll get to this later)

he is a big softie yet it is always ignored just because he was rude to most of the characters we have seen which if you took two seconds to think about it's justified.

Herta, Screwllum and Ruan Mei are all part of genius society and they all share one personality trait which is being self-centered and that's what ratio hates the MOST. he doesn't like people that only care about themselves, so how could anyone think that someone that hates selfishness be selfish?

I do love herta, Screwllum and Ruan Mei but you have to agree they are selfish when it comes to their goal, all of genius society is, they all do things for themselves and not others unlike Ratio, which is a common theme since you can notice Nous only recognizing people that seek knowledge for themselves and not others like Ratio.

When it comes to his relationship with Aventurine I'm glad people can recognize that he cares enough but there are still times where he's seen as cold hearted which is not true at all, this man is direct with what he feels whether it's care or hate, he didn't hesitate to call Sunday crazy and he wouldn't hesitate to show aventurine that he cares which he already does, just in his own confusing way.

I've also seen people call aventurine an idiot which I can't stand, how could you even muster up that idea? he is intelligent, Ratio literally sees him as an equal which could be another hard evidence on how he doesn't hate "Idiots" (since people think Aventurine qualifies as one because he couldn't go to school or learn academically. :|) he recognizes Aventurines talent and intelligence, the times he calls aventurine a fool or anything else is obviously affectionate and lighthearted.

the first scene they were on screen together the reason he insulted Aventurines knowledge he apologized afterwards when he realized that it wasn't Aventurines fault. (deleting the racism part because I've had MULTIPLE people bring up the fact that it was an act and I get it but I still dont think it was necessary since you don't have to be racist to make someone think you hate someone else.)

so no, Ratio isn't a cold hearted, mean asshole, he's lovely so please write him as lovely. it breaks my heart and hurts my autism when people mischaracterize him.

[fairuzfan]

academia is often used as the forefront of much of the violence inflicted on palestinians — for example in the library of congress, there is a collection called "the american colony of jerusalem" with racist photography and items that help visually perpetuate the "people without a land, land without a people" part of herzel's ideology, which itself is the forefront of much of zionist ideology. pointing out the systematic harm in academia is often considered "irrelevant" by zionists.... denies the origins of zionism as a political and academic ideology with physical consequences.

much of palestinian history throughout the last century has to do with erasure and silencing — that is how we got to this point. when i say no one listened to palestinians i mean NO ONE listened. they were ignored. all their demands were unreasonable. instead they get blamed for much of the world's unwillingness to listen. even my family members — i have stories of their work in academic resistance since '48. and some of them are well known contributions throughout euro-american and swana society. yet they're still ignored because of their palestinian origin.

"if you were just more reasonable" or "if you took the time to listen with compassion" or "you have to appeal to people's sense of reason" ignores the fact of the matter — this ideology's founding principals were built on "a people without a land for a land without a people." you cannot and should not ignore that. in order to complete the zionist ideology, you must remove the native population. therefore any subscribers to the idea of zionism are violent, whether they intend it or not.

and if it were true, that academia were irrelevant.... then that doesn't explain the systematic torture and imprisonment of writers and scholars, the exile of my family members who were journalists and activists, the captivity of friends for no other reason than they were deemed a threat by some list or the other.

oftentimes zionists, or zionist sympathizers, ignore our (diaspora's) material ties to the occupation and dismiss us as being "disconnected" from the "situation" in Palestine and "misunderstanding" or "misconstruing" israeli society. what am i misunderstanding exactly? that the origins of this "country" relies on violent displacement and exile? that for the past 75 years, that violence has not stopped once? that no matter what we say about the violence of zionism as an intrinsic aspect, it takes a secondary seat to the imagined realities of zionism?

therefore, anti-zionism is the logical conclusion for valuing palestinian lives. but what are the arguments against anti-zionism? that arab governments expelled jews from SWANA? do you think that's a result of anti-zionism? then you must not understand that palestinians are often treated poorly by the same governments that claim to have done this in the name of "anti-zionism," living in poverty in refugee camps, tortured and arrested, even in some cases exiled by governments. this also neglects to mention zionist collaboration with said governments to exile the jews of their lands.

so then, what?

if anti-zionism is the rejection of the settler colonial state of israel, which you must admit to be truly anti-zionist, then it is an exclamation of palestinian sovereignty and identity. so when you say anti-zionism and antisemitism are linked.... do you realize what you are implying? do you realize that zionism, the root cause of palestinian suffering, is the reason for our expulsion and displacement? so then when you write academic thinkpieces about the "complexity" of zionism, do you realize the harm you're doing? do you realize that this, in fact, is not a new or useful argument? that i've seen iterations of it for years and years? that at the core, the zionist ideology relies on this muddying of the waters for you to not do anything?

to be frank, your constant reminding of the complexity of zionism when people in palestine are suffering from the material effects of it only scream, to me, utter contempt and selfishness. zionism is violence, to me and my family. it is violence for every palestinian in this world. you must admit that to be a sincere advocate for palestinians, otherwise your words ring hollow. the present reality outweighs any possibilities.

[molsno]

I don't think there's enough discussion of the transmisogynistic voyeurism that's extremely widespread in online spaces. it's definitely a problem offline too but it's become significantly more pervasive and inescapable online.

transmisogynistic voyeurism is an obsession with trans women's internal lives. while traditionally it's usually been focused on our bodies, hormones, sexualities, transitions, and other such aspects that portray us as exotic, artificial, hypersexual mimics of "real" women (this is still largely the case among conservatives), it's taken on a new form in the past several years as society's understanding of transness has slowly improved.

in more recent years, the fascination with trans women and transfemininity, particularly in purportedly progressive spaces, has shifted to focus on the "artificiality" of our womanhood from a sociocultural perspective, rather than from a biological and sexual perspective.

it's become common to see screenshots from 4chan and other similar communities of trans women or transfem eggs posting about their unusual kinks, often with racist or antisemitic undertones. screenshots of ostensibly closeted trans women being transphobic to openly trans people have become commonplace. whenever a trans woman is revealed to be racist or a sexual predator, she becomes the new topic du jour, where everyone has to weigh in and publicly disavow her actions.

you might be thinking, what's the problem with this? after all, shouldn't we be holding racists, antisemites, transphobes, and sexual predators accountable? and while the answer to that question is an unambiguous, resounding "yes!", the problem here is the unusual focus on trans women in particular, and the fact that what's happening doesn't even remotely resemble accountability.

bigotry is not a uniquely transfeminine trait. anyone can be a bigot. however, by and large, even supposed trans allies, people who put "trans women are women" and "terfs dni" in their bio, still secretly see trans women as fundamentally male, due to having been "male socialized" (a notion which very strongly contradicts our own lived experiences). thus, when they see post after post after post of trans women being bigoted, it reifies tme people's beliefs that we are all holders of male privilege who have never had to face oppression before coming out as trans.

this idea is problematic for a number of reasons. first, it denies the experiences of trans women who have been oppressed by other systems before coming out as trans. for example, multiple times in just the past few weeks, I've seen trans women of color accused of being racist, even against people of their own race; as if having to face racism all their lives wasn't bad enough, now they're assumed to be perpetrators of it. however, this idea also ignores the very real effect that transmisogyny has had in shaping our lives, even when we didn't know we were trans ourselves.

when we attempt to talk about this topic - the perception that tme people have of trans women being uniquely bigoted, we are by and large brushed off as seeking to "excuse the actions" of bigoted trans women so that we can be bigoted ourselves. this abject refusal to actually engage with what we are saying to instead paint us as the very people we're constantly made to publicly disavow lest we face social ostracization (even if we have no idea who said people even are) further reifies the stereotype of us as privileged men.

I want you to imagine for a moment if trans men were subjected to this kind of voyeurism instead. on an average day scrolling through tumblr, you'd see a post of a trans man's nsfw blog where he shares posts about how rape should be legal, right alongside his bloodplay and cannibalism kink posts, accusing trans men of normalizing rape and murder. another post would show a screenshot of the trans guy who proclaimed to have been hitler in a past life, accompanied by comments demanding trans men take responsibility by purging their community of people like him. you'd scroll down a little further and see a screenshot of a terf blog with "dysphoric female" in bio where they complain about how a trans man they know has been brainwashed by "gender ideology" with all of the comments hoping they figure out their gender identity but still vehemently disavowing them and asserting they would feel unsafe around such a person even after coming out.

the reason that doesn't happen is because biological essentialism runs rampant even in queer spaces. trans men, who were afab, are often presumed to be incapable of harm due to having been "female socialized". trans men don't have their kinks publicly shared to paint them as dangerous because they're generally assumed to be victims of sexual violence, not perpetrators. trans men aren't collectively held accountable for the actions of one trans man they don't even know because a trans man doing harm is believed to be an anomaly, and thus can be dealt with on an individual basis. that last example is especially laughable, because trans men who were formerly terfs are often lauded as heroes for sharing their stories and offered condolences for having been victims of "cult brainwashing".

the fact that this kind of voyeurism does happen to trans women is because, having been amab, we are presumed to be the perpetrators of harm rather than victims. that's not to say that trans women can't be bigoted or dangerous; clearly they can, or else this kind of voyeurism couldn't exist in the first place.

trans women can be racist, trans women can be antisemitic, trans women can be transphobic, trans women can be sexual predators, and so on. these things are all true. however, they are not more likely to be true of trans women than of other demographics. that's the point I'm trying to make here.

stop and consider for a moment, what accountability actually means. are racist, antisemitic trans women being held accountable when you share screenshots of the bigotry they post anonymously on 4chan? does that screenshot you reblogged of an assumed transfem egg being transphobic to an out trans person hold them responsible for their transphobia? is that racist trans woman who's a convicted sexual predator sentenced to prison being held accountable when you share detailed documentaries about her crimes? are they facing consequences for their actions because of you raising awareness about them?

in the vast majority of cases, the answer is no. what's really happening is that you're raising outrage about trans women, and demanding that all of us publicly disavow and distance ourselves from them, even when we have no idea who they are, so that you won't come after us next. you're upholding the idea that trans women hold a "male privilege debt" that we can never fully repay but must endlessly strive to repay regardless. this obsession with our perceived socially male traits has got to stop.

[fllnordr]

So… I have a lot to say about this post I saw on my feed today. I took screenshots and blocked out the username for the sake of the OP. I didn’t want this to be a callout post for one specific user, and do not wish them any hate or harm. I DO have a whole heap to say about this and the treatment Charles gets from the rdr fandom as a whole, not only the OP in the screenshot.

I have a lot of problems with this post, and I have been wanting to talk about this issue and pattern I’ve noticed in the rdr community. Again, I do not mean to send any hate in OP’s direction or suggest that OP is racist in any sense. With that being said…

It’s an inherently racial stereotype to assume that Charles, a black and native man, is illiterate with such a lack of evidence or real reasoning behind it. He was isolated for most of his life after the age of thirteen, and he’s been with a gang for only six months. He is very private, and he is shy. He doesn’t talk much at all, much less about reading. I have never seen this sort of assumption made about any other character, claiming they’re illiterate, because they’re never seen reading at camp.

This is the most ridiculous take I have ever seen. Charles is the one who buried Arthur with his own two hands and created his gravestone. He was the only person who knew where Arthur was buried, hence being the sole creator of Arthur’s final resting place. Charles’ handwriting is the one we see on the gravestone. Charles is the one who wrote the inscription on the cross. He is not illiterate.

I think a problem I have with a lot of Charles fans is that they see him as a blank slate. They see Charles, a physically attractive man, who is quiet and take him for that alone. He is often seen as a blank canvas to project their own ideas onto and sort of mold to their own use and convince. And often times, whether knowingly or not, Charles is consistently watered down to racial stereotypes. Race is obviously a part of who he is, and it affects a lot of his actions, as it does with everyone, but that is not all who he is.

Charles is clinging to the fringes of what little of his culture that he does have. His mother was taken from him as a boy, and he holds onto what little he does have and that absence of his mother, and both of his cultures (because people also tend to ignore the fact that he is also black) is a huge part of who he is. But a lot of folks would rather see his shyness as blankness. He is not levelheaded, but he is moral. He is not always morally correct though. It’s frustrating to constantly see who he is being ignored for the sake of the false persona that’s been created for him.

I think a lot of folks need to listen to the one dialogue of Charles opening up at the campfire. Yes it is a relatable speech for a lot of reasons, but it is also about his race, how he experiences the world, and how he feels as though he has no place because of the loss of his mother, the lack of knowing who he is, his culture, and a whole host of other things. He is one of the best written characters in the game, and to brush that aside to make him into this ‘softhearted super caring ideal s/o’ is so frustrating. This is the same man who was ready to kill Uncle if the need arose. He is moral, but they are morals of his own, and he is not always correct. He is also flawed, just like everyone else. He is not a saint. He is a flawed and conflicted man.

To disregard Charles for who he is, is such a great disservice to the character and to all the work put into him, his story, and other people who have and continue to share the same experiences as he does.

[mimymomo]

In ‘Lucas on the Line,’ Lucas Sinclair experienced countless bouts of racism and micro aggressions including but not limited to:

Had children run away from him and refuse to touch him because they thought his Black skin color would rub off on them. This happened IN THE THIRD GRADE! And he never told his parents about it!

Calmed his anxiety about being the only Black kid in his homeroom class by coming to the realization that since there was no other Black kids that meant he most likely wouldn’t be bombed

Had to install a camera in his locker because his property got defaced by a glitter bomb

Lost his first and only black friend/mentor who supported him thanks to an ACTUAL MAKESHIFT BOMB being installed in his locker that caused a janitor to go to the hospital for 1st/2nd degree burns (and the white boy who did it barely got punished)

Got teased that the only reason he got on the basketball team was because he was Black

Comes to the realization that he might’ve actually only gotten in the team because the coach has a history of recruiting Black boys for the team regardless of their skill level

Gets called an Oreo (for uneducated: white on the inside, black on the outside) by racist bullies. Erica (who apparently has also been called this) sticks up for him and is the only one who understands what the insult means which means Mike and Dustin don’t know/understand the lengths of how deep the racism Lucas experiences in Hawkins on a daily bases

And these aren’t even all of them! These are just examples I had from the top of my head!

And despite all this happening in the book, “fans” have STILL FOUND A WAY to turn this book about Lucas and his struggles as a Black boy in a mostly white suburban town and his deteriorating relationship with Max and make it about Byler!

The fact that Lucas, one of the only characters of color on this show, can’t have ANYTHING to himself without people using him to push their ships is so aggravating!

He and Erica constantly get shit talked and miss characterized by fans, get excluded/cut out of group shots, and barely get any fanart/fics about them and their struggles compared to the white characters (I could make a whole new post about the terrible way this fandom treats Erica but I won’t do that here). Hell don’t forget that the fandom constantly tries to dispute the racism Lucas received in S2 from Billy was either not really racism, just a moment that Duffer Bros. put in to “ruin” Billy’s character and ultimately can be tossed out and ignored.

The only time I ever see Lucas get any large amount of attention is either due to 1) Lumax (but let’s be honest: 90% of the lumax tag on here isn’t even about them and has now become Elumax 2.0 and most post are people praising ElMax and then being like “oh Lucas/lumax is cute too” in the tags and that’s it). 2) people creating “parallels” of Lumax to their ship of choice (mostly Byler and Mileven) as a way to say that their ship is gonna be canon or 3) to say that he’s bisexual.

And all that is fine and whatever, ship and headcanon things to your hearts content, but if you only care about Lucas if he’s helping push you ship narrative or because you think he’s gay (to the point where some people actually read snippets of the book that talked about Lucas coming to the realization that Black boys like him can be considered attractive and only acknowledge the “queer” reading of the text and completely ignored the big race element that was the main focus), I’m sorry but, that’s not cool. The fact that 95% of the Lucas Sinclair tag isn’t about Lucas himself but white characters like Steve, Eddie, Byler says everything about how the fandom treats him.

I’m just so tired.

Lucas Sinclair deserves the same respect that the white characters get!

I leave you one of my favorite sections of the entire book: Lucas learning to become unabashedly himself:

Rant over.

Edit: in my blind rage I realized I forgot to edit out the Twitter handle. That’s completely my fault. Please don’t hate that Twitter user. I’m just coming back to fix that.