#but just because you disagree doesn't make what I said racist

[unpopularly-opinionated]

Ideally people would learn that racism doesn’t just mean “omg they mentioned a race while stating an opinion I disagree with” but at the same time every time I get called a racist for that post it makes me laugh, so I guess it’s alright. Stay dumb, I guess.

[qqueenofhades]

what's been particularly vile to me is this group of white online leftists who insist that anyone who cares about more than this one issue for the election is a bad person, like, as if us black and brown people are making up reasons to be afraid and not.....believing the gop when they say they are coming for us. believing trump who has said previously that he does not bluff, that he will do the things he's said he will do (i hate what social media has gone to the word gaslighting but it feels like gaslighting. we lived through four years of trump. we saw the damage. stop treating us like we're being dramatic). it must be great to not have to worry about that i guess? "life won't change under trump" is such a telling admission because maybe theirs won't but mine will. and so many others' will.

and it is often again these (white) online leftists that love to call anyone who disagrees with them a white liberal (derogatory) because they know it would be racist (bad) to be this shitty and condescending to poc but they don't want to actually listen to anything black and brown voters are saying. it's easier to just call us white liberals and throw our opinions out, to ignore the work of black people for decades to gain the right to vote, to disregard the weight of telling them to not do that. it's genuinely appalling. they care so much about racism until it's time to engage with poc who have different opinions than their online echo chambers, then we're just stupid liberals with terrible opinions like..... wanting to live. not wanting four more years of trump. so sorry for that.

sorry for this vent in your inbox, i'm just so fucking tired of white people trying to rewrite history as if trump wasn't that bad. he was for my family and countless others and i am terrified for what's to come if he wins.

The thing about (the often-white) Online Leftists is that they have become just as much as a radicalized death cult as the diehard Trumpists. If you don't want to die for The Revolution and/or sacrifice your life, friends, family, the rest of the country, etc., then you're Insufficiently Pure and must be Purged. (Which I think is just complete BS, as none of them could actually handle sacrificing anything, but it's increasingly the only kind of performative rhetoric that is acceptable in leftist-identified discourse spaces.) This is functionally identical to "if you aren't willing to lay down your life for our Lord and Savior Donald Trump and the Great White Christian Nationalist Dictatorship, you're a liberal cuck," but with the names and justification changed. It doesn't change the underlying radicalization, nihilism, and insanity of the premise.

Another thing the Trumpists and the Online Leftists have in common is that they are busily rewriting just how bad Trump was in order to serve their Ideology. Ever since January 6, 2021, the Republicans have thrown everything they have at revising and whitewashing any suggestion that it was an "insurrection," and the Online Leftists have done the same, in an attempt to "prove" their insane point that Trump "would be better" than Biden. This is embodied in the recent ultimate-brainworm-nonsense maximalist-online take that "Biden has to lose so the rest of the world will see that the US rejects genocide!!!" That's right, the message that the rest of the world would take from Biden losing to Trump is that the US rejects genocide. Never mind if Trump literally wants to commit all the genocide possible and to install himself as a fascist theocratic dictator. In the deeply twisted minds of the Online Leftists, this is the only possible interpretation of Biden's loss, so they'll push for it as hard as they can! The Trumpists and the Online Leftists, at this point, are working pretty much in concert to damage Biden for similar insane reasons and get Trump elected. Etc etc., one Nazi and ten people at the same table is eleven Nazis.

Like. Sure. Four years ago, when Trump was president and people were dying by the thousands because he didn't want to wear a mask because it smeared his bronzer, just to name literally one of the terrible things he did every single day (and not even mentioning how much worse a second term would be) we were absolutely better off. Super-duper great. (Sarcasm.) Either that or "there is suffering and evil in the world and the only solution is to drastically increase the suffering and evil for everyone and to destroy what progress we have managed to make because It Does Not Fix Everything Now" is an absolute moral imperative, and either way, yeah. I'm calling bullshit.

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

I believe Aang was right to end the war by sparing Ozai. But the only (imho) valid reason some people say he should have done it is because they wanted Aang to realize that pacifism is flawed.

I'm gonna disagree with you here, because a lot of the flaws fans talk about pacism and how ATLA in particular handles it as a concept are 99%:

1 - People being ignorant/racist and not knowing the difference between pacifist monks and "make love, not war" hippies.

2 - People being ignorant/racist and refusing to understand that there are different kinds of pacifism, even within the same cultures/people groups.

Aang is very clearly not the type of pacifist to go "You can NEVER react with ANY kind of violence towards someone else, even if it's to defend yourself/someone else" (which does exist, both IRL and in the show, just look at the owl spirit in "The Library").

We see him fight, and even be quite aggressive in said fights, in a lot of episodes. We also see he has no issues with invading the Fire Nation. More importantly, for the longest time the Avatar State was a result of him being pissed off enough at some kind of injustice that it makes him lose control, meaning he is very clearly affected by the horrors of war to the point of RAGE.

What makes him a pacifist is the way in which he doesn't WANT to lose control, doens't WANT go from aggressive to full on cruel, and, yes, wants to defeat his enemies, but not kill them.

And as I keep repeating, the show DOES make him question that last boundary he set for himself. He gets told by a past Avatar, who was also an air-nomad before anything, that, when there is such a large threat to everyone's life, including his own, he has to put aside his own spiritual needs and take a life - provided there isn't another option. But there was, so Aang took that, even after he decided that, yes, if there was no other way, he WOULD kill Ozai.

What people don't like is that Avatar, although questioning some types of pacifism, is far more interested in questioning the way people are WAY too eager to use violence to solve their issues, and, more importantly, expect someone else to get their hands bloody.

Fire Lord Sozin starts the war because he, according to himself at least, wants what's best for everyone and would like to share the Fire Nation's glory and great life with the other nations. He tries to do by invading foreign territories, killing his best friend, and commiting genocide. The fucker even has the dragons, an obvious Fire Nation symbol, to be hunted to extintion.

When Jet is angry at the Gaang for ruining his plan to free a village from the Fire Nation's control by blowing up a dam, Sokka asks "Who would be free? Everyone would be dead."

Zuko is banished because he spoke out against a Fire Nation higher-up's plan to use soldiers as fresh meat to bait the enemy into a more vulnerable position, thus assuring the nation's victory in that battle. He openly says "These men love and defend our nation, how can you betray them?"

When Zhao wants to kill the moon spirit, Iroh tries to stop him by pointing out that the Fire Nation needs the moon too (seriously, if it wasn't for Yue's sacrifice and Zhao's death, the Fire Nation would have had to create a word for "Big-ass wave that wrecks everything and kills people" like Japan did).

When Aang is deliberately trying to trigger the Avatar State because he doesn't want anyone else to die in the war, Katara, who had her life ruined by said war, is against it because while she opposes the Fire Nation, she cares about Aang and, in her own words, seeing him in so much pain and rage hurts her too. When Aang can't force himself to go nuclear, an Earth Kingdom ruler attacks Katara and makes both her and Aang, two very traumatized child soldiers, think he is going to kill her.

More importantly, when Ozai wants to burn down Earth Kingdom cities, he says "A new world will rise from the ashes, and I'll be supreme ruler of everything", to which Zuko concludes that, if they don't save the world before his dad takes over, there won't be a world to save.

And what does he say to Aang when he is about to kill him? "You're weak, just like your people. They didn't deserve to live in world, in my world."

Avatar does questions pacifism, and is critical of it on ocasion (again, watch "The Library"). But it's biggest theme is being critical of VIOLENCE, of resorting to it immediately without considering any other option and acting like it doesn't have long-lasting negative consequences, both to the person suffering it to the person inflicting it (see Azula's breakdown, Zuko's angry outburts only making him more miserable, Jeong Jeong growing to resent being a firebender, Zhao accidentally burning his own ships, etc)

The show is constantly highlighting that, yes, sacrifices need to be made for the greater good - but that CAN'T be normalized because it inevitably leads to a never-ending cicle of cruelty, as well as suffering to the one who has to do the dirty job (because lets not forget there's a big difference in how a soldier that is constantly in battle sees the war and how a king that just gives the orders but never goes into the actual combat sees the war).

The show embraces pacifism, despite knowing some versions of it are flawed, because the narratives themes are:

1 - EVERYONE is capable of great good and great evil

2 - No group has the right to impose it's own lifestyle onto others

3 - If everyone is either dead, mentally (and physically) scarred for life, or preparing to kill someone as revenge, then being killed by someone who wants to avenge that person, who will themselves be killed for revenge later, then the "greater good" you're sacrificing everything for doesn't actually exist because NO ONE will have a good life in a world that is stuck in the cicle of violence.

[jewish-sideblog]

"Both indigenous and colonizers" CAN PEOPLE STOP TALKING ABOUT SHIT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND PLEASE

This wave of antisemitism and bullshit about "indigenous vs colonizer" makes me so scared as an indigenous person in the US of what will happen when Land Back movements do result in actual sovereignty restoration and then tribes do what people do and disagree over land and resources, like we were doing for thousands of years before Europeans arrived. Will we be reduced down to colonizers too??

It feels like Westerners, especially USAmericans, have such a black and white idea of what it means to be indigenous and what it means to be a colonizer/settler (because those terms are always conflated) and it makes me so angry and frustrated to see people apply those standards and lines thinking not just to complex sovereignty movements in their own countries but also to incredibly complex conflicts and wars happening on the other side of the world.

The damage I've seen done to sovereignty movements here in the US alone, people going around claiming that we want all "settlers" to go back to Europe or that we're going to start massacring people, has been horrible and the fact that it's all just to justify antisemitism makes me sick.

Genuinely. They're blocked now, but that same person said something to the effect of "Would an Iranian praying in a Mosque built on the ashes of a former synagogue be decolonization?"

And that was the point at which I was like. Ok. It seems like most people genuinely don't actually know what the terms "colonization", "colonizer" and "coloniality" mean. Obviously, that wouldn't be decolonization, because the Jews never colonized Iran. Emigration and colonization aren't the same fucking thing!

I used to have so much faith in my generation. I thought we were critical thinkers, capable of flexibility and engagement with new ideas. But I'm realizing now that we're basically just rebranded boomers. Back in the day, anybody you disagreed with was labelled as a "Communist". It didn't actually fucking matter if they were communist sympathizers, Soviet sympathizers, or even if they were remotely allied with socialist ideals. You could just call them a "Communist" and be done with it, without even understanding what that term means.

It's the same shit today. Instead of a HUAC witch hunt targeting communists, it's a social witch hunt targeting "colonizers" and "Zionists". I am terrified that the moment indigenous rights movements in the Americas and Oceania start making practical strides in Land Back, regaining rightful control over the ways your own land is used, you'll all be labelled as "colonizers" or "imperialists" or whatever the bad buzz word of the month turns out to be.

People simply can't wrap their heads around the idea that indigenous decolonization doesn't have the end goal of ethnically cleansing non-native people from the Americas. And it's because they're so absorbed in colonial thinking. They can't even fucking imagine what sovereignty could look like beyond an authoritarian structure based on control and violence. It's the same with Israel and Palestine-- they think that Jewish sovereignty must look like complete Jewish control to the detriment of Arabs, and they think Palestinian sovereignty must look like total Arab control to the detriment of Jews. The idea that a shared state or a two-state solution is "racist" stems from that false dichotomy.

Establishing an ideological binary of violence that pits "indigenous" against "colonizer", "native" against "settler", and "us" against "them" with no room for cooperation or collaboration is the core of colonialism. Because the core of colonialism is the idea that only one group can have true power at a time. And that's just not the way the world has to work.

[strrwbrrryjam]

the lengths people in the rdr2 fandom will go to to justify someone else being the rat or that "micah didn't work alone" is astonishing

most of it really boils down to misogyny and racism which is sadly so common in the fandom but, god its still so dumbfounding

from the moment we meet micah, you can tell he isn't a good guy, he's antagonistic, he's racist, he's sexist, he's basically an awful fucking person, an obvious bad guy with little to no redeeming qualities about him

no one (except dutch) in the gang likes him, and for good reason, he's gross to the woman, he kills cain, he makes fun of jack and uses slurs against charles and lenny and javier, and the little good moments there are of him with other camp members he ruins pretty soon after because he is not a man that can hide his bigotry for even a minute

he's an awful fucking guy, and he's extremely greedy! he goes on and on and on about the blackwater money, to the point that arthur has an antagonistic line about him that "he (Micah) hasn't mentioned the blackwater money for a minute," (or at least something like that)

its obvious that he doesn't care about anyone in the gang except dutch, he sees all of them as a means to an end, and the same goes for dutch- dutch isn't nothing but a pawn to him, but he's only kind to dutch and on his goodside because if you suck up to the leader, it doesn't matter if the rest of the gang members don't like him, because they can't do nothing if dutch likes him

while i despise him, i will say that he is a very interesting character to talk about, as he is a man who will do anything and everything to benefit him, it doesn't matter who he hurts or kills along the way, he's only in it for himelf

so of course, if something better comes his way, say for instance... a huge pay out for bringing down one of americas most notorious gang, he will bring them down from the inside out.

i mean jesus fucking christ, if you go to his camp from the mission where you steal a carriage from the o'driscolls, you can find dutch van der linde's wanted poster at his camp! while it may not have been his plan at the start, there is evidence that he was at least thinking about turning in the van der linde gang, the pinkertons just dropped the opportunity into his lap

and really, people thinking that molly and abigail are the rat? do you people not think? do you have a brain in your head? I've even seen people think poor lenny was the rat, jesus christ

molly o'shea was not the rat, milton literally told arthur that they "shook her down a few times but never said a peep" and why in the world would he lie about that? if it was to protect molly, that would be stupid, because arthur asks him to clarify that it was "micah? not molly?" and milton literally rats micah out, gloating to him that micah was the real rat

yes molly confessed, but it wasnt an actual confession, it was the words of a desperate, heartbroken woman, who was so heartbroken that she wanted to die. people need to think for a second, and realise that molly o'shea is not fucking stupid. she knows that telling the gang that she runs with that telling them she ratted them out would be suicide.

"oh but what did she want to say to arthur those times, hm??? what do you have to say about that???" shut up shut up shut up, maybe what she wanted to tell him that the pinkertons were capturing and interrogating gang members individually because that's what they did to her!!! again, confessing to arthur would be straight-up suicide. he's the most loyal man in the gang, the third member of the gang, the old guard, he's one of the worst people in the gang to confess to being the rat too, and I don't care if people disagree with me, molly o'shea is a smart woman, it doesn't make sense for her to tell him that she was the rat, but it makes sense to tell him about what the pinkertons are doing!!

(she could have also been wanting to tell him that dutch has changed, or something like that as we don't truly know, given that she was interrupted, but again telling him that she was the rat doesn't make sense.)

and the people who think abigail is the rat are just, downright stupid.

people like to accuse abigail of being the rat for a lot of reasons, like, for instance, "abigail got away but hosea didn't." and man I laugh at these people.

hosea is an incredibly important member of the gang, he's the second in command, it may be called "van der linde gang" but it began when dutch and hosea joined. he, dutch and arthur are what makes up the old guard, so of course the pinkertons would be going for him and not the young woman who hasn't been in the gang long enough to truly make a name for herself, like dutch van der linde, hosea matthews and arthur morgan have.

its also the fact that because she hasn't made a name for herself, it could be the fact that the pinkertons dont even know who she is! sure, she may have been seen on jobs, but do you really think abigail would been seen on a lot of jobs when she has a kid she cares about with the gang? do you really think she would risk jack being an orphan, since his daddy dont want anything to do with him? do you really think shes that stupid???

shes also dressed in a way to disguise herself with the rest of the civilians in the saint denis!!! so even if she was at some point seen by the pinkertons, shes now wearing something that disguises who she is.

"oh but how did they capture hosea?" hosea is an old man with a chronic health condition, throughout the chapters of the game he goes on about how these are his last days, and he probably wont even survive the year, while abigail is a young, healthy woman who is reasonably fit, she could easily out run hosea and the pinkertons and easily disguise herself

and more importantly, do you really think hosea matthews wouldn't sacrifice himself for abigail? throughout the story, he speaks to john and abigail about leaving the gang, about taking jack and going to a safe space, and live their life without the threat of being downed by a gunshot wound? or having to move everytime they are discovered? its no place to raise a child, and hosea knows that

hosea is also right in saying that this gang is damned. that they cannot survive the year, and he's right, they don't. so why wouldn't hosea sacrifice himself for her? why wouldn't that make sense to you?

(i mean, i think i know why, because it is such a tragic thought to have, but the story of rdr2 is a tragedy.)

and to the people who think that lenny is the rat, but don't give any evidence or thought to it? think logically, man.

do you honestly think a black man in the 19th century would willingly talk to lawman? do you really think that?

all of this to say, its just so stupid the lengths people go to to try to make micah not the rat, or not the only rat, its just abysmal really

[genderflu1dwh0r]

Are you stupid?

You can be racist and have POC friends, Jason is way worse than Billy any day. Jason isn't the one being abused by his father everyday, he isn't poor, he didn't get taken from his home and live with a step sibling that he didn't know that well.

Jason is a horrible person and got his friend to tackle Erica, then he held a gun at Lucas. You can't tell me that that isn't racist, you can't tell me that's worse than what Billy ever did. Jason said "I thought you were one of the good ones". That. Is. Racist.

Billy got his bad traits from his father. Billy got beat by his father. Billy was crying into the phone for his mom to come home. Billy had no support system. Steve was the only person that Billy bullied and tormented, and in my opinion, Steve is a worse character than Billy.

Steve threw slurs, while Billy got slurs thrown at him by his own father. Just because you don't care about abuse victims, doesn't mean you have to spread your hate.

I think that Billy just wanted Lucas to stop hanging around because if Neil found out, Billy would be the one getting beat. Neil would probably hurt Lucas way more than Billy could have ever done. Billy was protecting Max and himself, he was scared that Neil would find out. He did care and love Max, he just showed it in some confusing ways.

Also, the Duffer brothers are racist, they wanted Dacre to say the N word. Dacre protested and it ended up not happening. Billy saying the N word isn't canon, cause it didn't happen in the show. Stop always going to that excuse for him being a bad person. He never said any slur.

People say "if the actor wasn't hot, then people wouldn't have liked him" and I disagree. His character is very interesting. He has a backstory, he has trauma, he has an actual interesting plot unlike any other character. Dacre is also a very amazing actor, he was able to make Billy even more interesting.

Dacre has said that his art imitates his life. He put his own life into the character, he didn't have a great relationship with his dad, he has said this.

Max is a horrible person too, she drugged Billy with something that she didn't know was in, almost hit him with Steve's bat, screamed at him before leaving and stealing his car. Billy could have died on the floor, he was drugged and had no car. Tell me that that isn't abuse. Just because Billy grabbed her wrist ONE time, doesn't mean it's abuse.

Siblings fight all the time, it's just what happens. Especially how their family dynamics was. I and many others have fights with our siblings. You get over it in like a day. That doesn't make Billy a bad person. He did some really shitty things, yes. But that doesn't excuse all the hate he gets. He's a complex character, no other character is like him.

That's why he's my baby boy. I relate to him, I'm an abuse victim, I love knowing that I have a character to relate to. Stop blaming abuse victims on how they grew up, they can change. He could have changed if he didn't die. He could have, but nobody let him.

Nobody tried to help him. He didn't have a support system. The people who compare Jonathan to Billy are wild, cause Jonathan did have a support system, his mother did so much. Billy had nobody. His father beat him, hi stepmother did NOTHING to stop Neil, she just watched. She was clearly abused too, but she's the adult, she has to be there for Billy. She has to get Max away from all of this, which in season 4, she did. But she turned into an even worse mom.

Right here. He was trying to get help, he was trying to get the MF to get out. He wanted someone to help him. He kept fighting, and that's how he saved everyone on the day he died. He knew he was going to die, he was sobbing.

Try to think before talking bad against Billy.

Why do people say Vecna/Henry/Jason/Troy/James/Angela are better than Billy?

Vecna/Henry literally tried to kill children and the whole world. Billy wanted to have some fun and games, he would never go to prison for killing a child. He was never going to hit Mike, Lucas, Dustin, or Will.

Troy/James made Mike jump off of a fucking cliff while wanting to take Dustins teeth out. Tell me that isn't fucked. MIKE WOULD HAVE DIED IF EL WASN'T THERE!!

Jason held a fucking gun to Lucas's head and got Erica hurt. He sent a witch-hunt over Eddie and that ended up killing that poor boy. Literally, he was poor and Jason is a rich christian white boy. Tell me that isn't classist. Jason also did this to get information out of a kid.

Angela deserved the roller skate to the face for what she did to El. I would have done the same thing, El never deserved any of what she went through there.

Anyone going to object? Cause you can't, my points are spot on. Why aren't we gonna get mad at Jamie Campbell Bower over saying he relates to Vecna/Henry? If Dacre is bad for doing so, why can't we shame Jamie for the same thing?

I would count the MF taking over Billy like that as a reference of sexual assault. His body gets taken away from him, he is crying for help, he is scared and tried to tell someone. I've talked to SA survivors and they agree.

Anyway, I am pissed at Billy antis and I am just so done with them.

[shiplessoceans]

I absolute love episode 5 "The best revenge is dressing well" because it could literally have been named "The unwitting seduction of Edward Teach by Stede Bonnet".

At the beginning of the episode, Blackbeard intends to kill this fancy man, disfigure him, take his ship and assume his identity. He sees Stede as a means to an end at that point, and he's desperate to stop living the life he is.

And then over the course of the episode, Stede does the following:

Pays attention to and shows an interest in Blackbeard's life and skills

Takes time to teach him etiquette while never being judgemental

Encourages him not to let himself be angered by a racist bully and mocks said bully in a language he understands (not a single tureen, honestly).

Makes an effort to check in with Ed to gently inquire about how he's feeling because he paid attention and noticed that Ed was hurt.

Explained the type of bullying and empathized with Ed that it IS diabolical and he is justified in feeling upset.

Agrees to go to a fancy party he's not interested in simply because Ed wants to.

Lends Ed clothes and finery so that he may blend in.

Escorts Ed into the party, making sure to check in with him and that he's comfortable and doesn't want to leave or isn't too overwhelmed. Warns Ed not to put too much stock in this crowds opinion of him.

Excuses himself as he is just not comfortable in the party situation, especially after being laughed at, but stays close by so that Ed doesn't have to leave and has backup if he needs it.

Is outraged on Ed's behalf when the rich people hurt his feelings, never once saying 'I told you so.'

Though we have never seen Stede stand up to or defend himself against the upper crust society types, he tells Ed to stand down (probably to prevent further humiliation) and instead gets intel on and destroys the lives and reputations of the people who hurt Ed by exposing how unworthy of admiration they are. They could have just left the ship. But no. They hurt his friend and Stede's not gonna stand for that.

Approaches Ed again to check in on how he's feeling and APOLOGISES TO HIM for the way the evening turned out. This gets glossed over but keep in mind Stede didn't even want to go to this. And yet he's apologising for those awful people's behaviour. Because he wants to make it clear that it's NOT ED'S FAULT.

Makes sure to tell Ed that he's very sophisticated. Coming from Stede that means a lot.

At this point Ed is handling his red silk and earlier in the episode we saw him quickly hide it away when he heard Stede approaching. But not now. Stede has been nothing if not kind, considerate, caring and accommodating all episode and he defended Ed's honour. Subconsciously Ed doesn't feel the need to hide this secret thing from Stede anymore, the metaphor for his heart/hopes/weaknesses.

Then Stede compliments the silk.

Ed, defensively mocks it, saying that it's old and tatty. Unworthy of admiration.

Stede disagrees and asks respectfully to handle it, fashioning it into something Ed can be proud of and wear.

"You wear fine things well" is brilliant because it's a double compliment.

Stede is telling Ed: "Your heart, who you are, what you secretly want and hope to be is a fine thing. And I think it looks good on you."

No-one in all of Ed's life has ever told him that. Not even his own mother. For someone to accept Ed, not only as Blackbeard, but the quiet, private part of his heart that longs for softer, gentler things and yearns for connection and a life without violence.

It's the quickest and most thorough seduction and Ed is head over boot heels from that moment forward, so much so that he goes for the kiss.

And the best part is that Stede did this completely by accident and has absolutely no idea.

Poetic cinema. Chef's kiss.

[cosmics-beings]

I wanted to make a post like this for a while, but since i was asked the question i can make it here!

i'm also speaking as an actual black person....so if you don't like these conversations where black people speak on black issues and how we feel, then just ignore this.

So in the past, yeah I agreed with this but my opinion has kinda changed with TF One.

However, I am still extremely uncomfortable seeing depictions of Black human formers Megatron because most of it, especially in ship art is extremely racist and relies on racist stereotypes of black men being abusive, violent, and problematic when his partners are drawn white or lightskinned (i see this all the time in megastar and megaop art. megatron is portrayed as the huge brutal black man and starscream/optimus are the small white twinks who are being beaten by him - it's gross and racist but for some reason it's common).

In general, I think it can be harmful to make a slave character, who inevtibly turns into a genocidal war lord and a generally awful person, a black person (even with his redemption arcs). it also racializes slavery, when we know that slavery doesn't have a race, and Megatron himself is a gladiator. Gladiators are slaves, and one of the most famous gladiators was from Thracia. This again is mostly a fan issue, because I at least have always seen Megatron coded as white in the comics and in the shows. In many depictions, he has a European accent, voiced by white European people (posh english lmao, or in ES Scottish).

That said, in TF One, I'm willing to let it slide. That's because Megatron isn't the only slave. Optimus, who is voiced by a white man, is also a slave, as is Elita, and Bumblebee. I think you know, not racializing slavery and having this notion that slave = black by default, is what makes it okay.

I still wouldn't feel super comfortable seeing Black megatron fanart because again, none of the depictions have been good in my opinion, as a Black person. And i mean none of them, and I do wonder where the thought in this fandom came from that making a person who canonically is violent and aggressive, was okay, just because he happened to be a slave. It is a far too common trope that I see in fanfic and fanfart, especially again...in a shipping sphere.

But I think TF One is able to balance it out, and since this is D-16, he is. a lot calmer, kinder, etc. I think things can get in muddy area when he eventually does turn into Megatron and he becomes the genocidal tyrant we all know and love....especially when you make the black one of the group the one who chooses violence whereas the white voices ones don't.

but who knows? My opinions are ever changing depending on how things are handled.

if you disagree with this, that's fine just do so respectfully and i mean at least be black

[andreal831]

the subtle racism portrayed by Julie Plec and TVDU (especially Klaroline fans) fans as well towards Michael Trevino (Tyler Lockwood) is something that will always irk my soul. Both the actor and the character were done SO BADLYYYYYY. I know that since Tyler is written as a white character, technically his writing wasn’t “racist”, but I have reason to believe that Julie may have written him the way she did due to her issues with Michael Trevino.

What do you think about Tyler Lockwood? I think he definitely is one of the characters with the most potential besides Bonnie, etc. Most of the POC in the show (actors/characters) had the most potential and were sidelined.

IN FACT, I can say the same about Enzo! Yeah, Enzo St John is a canonically white character, but Michael Malarkey is a mixed race man (Italian/Palestinian-Lebanese), and we know how Julie is towards POC.

Like I’m not trying to blame all the bad writing on racism and discrimination, but all the POC actors/characters have shitty storylines and a lot of them are racist.

Lucy, Sarah Salvatore (the black Salvatore), Enzo, Tyler, Marcel, Vincent, Bonnie, Qetsiyah, etc.

Coincidence?

Whenever I discuss race, I do want to preface it by saying, I am white so I am speaking from that point of view. If you disagree or have another perspective, I would love to hear it.

That being said, I don't even think we can call what happened on the set and in the show "subtle" racism. There was such overt racism throughout the show that it is hard to discuss the show in any way without discussing racism. Just because Julie Plec doesn't view her actions as blatantly racist, it doesn't mean they are not.

Just the fact that they had two actors who are ethically not white but were portrayed as white is telling. Both Michael Trevino and Michael Malarkey were made to appear white in the show when there really wasn't a necessity for it. Tyler being Mexican could have added to the history of the wolves or it could have even come from his mom's side, allowing them to cast a Latina woman. For Malarkey, his race isn't really discussed but it would have been so easy to show him making Bonnie a nice Lebanese meal when they were staying at the cabin (cause lord knows the zionists running the show wouldn't allow him to be Palestinian). I also personally just like Tyler and Enzo more than Damon. I would have been fine with killing Damon off earlier to allow more screen time for them.

A year or so ago, my friend began watching the show for the first time and by the time we got to The Originals, as soon as Sabine walked on screen, she said "Does she get killed this episode?" People of color, especially women of color, were treated as disposable by the network. To the point that Tyler and Enzo likely only survived as long as they did because they were "white" characters. But it is also still obvious how much worse they were treated than any other side characters. Tyler and Enzo are both killed in such nonsensical ways and then they have no justice or even mourning. Tyler was a lifelong friend of the Mystic Falls gang and yet Damon isn't even sternly lectured for killing him for zero reason. Tyler had escaped the supernatural world. What was the point of dragging him back on the show just to kill him and have Damon suffer no consequences. He was Caroline's first epic love and she just forgives Damon for it? And what was the point of Enzo's death? Just to make Bonnie suffer more? Just to make her attend the wedding of his murderer? I know Stefan had his humanity off, but that doesn't change the fact that Enzo was dead and Bonnie was still grieving.

Moving on to how the fandom treats them. There is honestly so much hate in this fandom sometimes, and you're right, there is definitely a racial element to it. The way Tyler is treated by the fandom is so telling. I don't know if a lot of the fandom even knows Michael Trevino's ethnicity, but he is clearly seen as "other" or "less than" by the fandom. We also have to acknowledge how his "angry outbursts" are seen as unacceptable but when Klaus does it, it is because he is just so "passionate." The scene where Caroline keeps pushing Tyler to forgive her for sleeping with his mother's killer comes to mind. He snaps but he makes no move to touch her, and this is after repeatedly telling her to leave and her pushing his boundaries. I have seen the fandom call him "disgusting" and an "abuser" because of this, celebrating the fact that Stefan punches him. Stefan uses physical violence against Tyler's words, yet Tyler is the abuser? Then we have, Klaus, who runs her through with a coat hanger and bites her because she said something slightly rude to him and he is praised for "saving her life." It's hard to believe there isn't a racial element here. I often say Klaus gets pretty privilege, but why isn't that awarded to Tyler? Because we can't deny that Michael Trevino is attractive (I'd say more attractive than Joseph Morgan but y'all will come for me).

There was so much left of Tyler's story. The fact that they even had the Lockwoods as the protectors of Inadu's bones in TO would have been a perfect way to bring him back. Can you imagine Hayley or Klaus having to go beg him for help? It would have been such an amazing moment. But no, instead they bring Matt Davis onto the show to make sure he could infect every single spinoff.

You mention all of these characters and that's just in TVD. TO was no better. One of my mutuals recently got into a Twitter 'discussion' with one of the writers and the writer attempted to claim that the Mikaelsons were white supremacists and that was the point of TO, to show it was bad. Yet, when did they do that? How did they show being a white supremacist is bad? The Mikaelsons were at the top of the food chain the entire time. Yes, they constantly had people coming for them, yet they always won and the writing was always done in a way to make the audience root for them to win. How many POC characters were sacrificed in order to prop up the main characters throughout the shows?

Whenever we talk about racism in the show, we have to talk about Bonnie. Bonnie was constantly having to sacrifice her own wants and happiness in order for her white friends, and even enemies, to get what they want. Often when she set a boundary, the fandom villainized her. According to the writing and the fandom, her entire purpose was to serve the white characters. That is blatant racism.

But it's not just Bonnie. It's her entire ancestry. The fandom seems to believe Emily is Katherine's friend in the flashbacks, but she is clearly either being enslaved or at least some type of servant to Katherine. We can go all the way back to Ayana who Esther stole her spell to create the vampires. Or to Qetsiyah who was cheated on and used in order to aid the white doppelgangers. These things separately may not raise any flags, but the fact that we see it happen repeatedly throughout the show tells us it's more than just a coincidence.

Let's not forget Damon was not a confederate solider in the books. Julie added that. And yes I know he deserted but he says it is basically because he was missing Katherine, not because he morally opposed what he was fighting for. They added the founding families and yet didn't make the Bennetts apart of it even though they had been there longer than anyone. They were actively celebrating slave owners. Tyler's mom makes a passing comment of why they have the chains in the cellars and everyone just moves on. They chose to have the Mikaelsons live on a plantation in New Orleans. They chose to hire a very white cast and make it even whiter by white washing and killing off POCs.

Sure TVD is set in Virginia, but Virginia is only 65% white. So why was the cast 99% white? Then they create a whole show in New Orleans where 59% of the population is black, yet we still have a majority white cast? And when they introduce POCs it is usually to serve the white cast. Both Vincent and Eva were brought on so there bodies could literally be used by the white characters. Eva and Vincent's trauma were completely neglected and Eva was even killed off to allow Rebekah to use her body as she pleased whenever Claire Holt wasn't available to be on set. I've already discussed the difference in how Aurora is treated versus Celeste by the show and the fandom. You can read that here. Marcel is constantly belittled and sidelined, even after he is upgraded. There are so many witches of color in New Orleans, yet Davina is the most powerful? Why couldn't she have been played by a POC?

The show repeatedly dehumanizes people of color, especially the women. It's not a coincidence. It is pure racism. And because the show does it, the fandom does it. I am not taking responsibility away from the fandom. Each individual person should know better. But media is supposed to influence society. If we grow up with media that glorifies and celebrates different races, cultures, ethnicities, the fandom will begin to as well. Julie had no desire to do that. All she cared about was ratings and her own racist viewpoint of the world. She could have done more research, or hell, even just listened to her cast, but she chose not to. The writing of the show suffered because of it, but even worse the actors and even fans suffer because of it.

There are so many great creators in this fandom who are POCs and I highly suggest following them. They are able to give better insight in the discussion of racism in the show. But please keep in mind, they do not owe you their time or energy. It is up to each of us to do our own research and learn.

Thank you for the ask! I hope I answered it. Sorry it was so long.

[moistvonlipwig]

so how many of these little hearts am i allowed to send you :D (maybe we can start with 💖)

💖: What is your biggest unpopular opinion about the series?

I'll assume you are asking about Supergirl. ;) I kind of have 3 that I couldn't pick between and I have a Lot to say about all 3, so this is going under a cut for anyone who doesn't want to see me kvetching about one of the worst-written CW superhero shows for *checks word count* 3681 words.

Opinion number one is that I like Lena/James as a ship. I think they had good chemistry and the thorny history between them makes for an interesting launching point for a relationship. I prefer them as a ship to Kara/James (which is fine and cute, but it doesn't compel me -- plus it's much more in the vein of modern rom-com romances vs. Lena/James which is written more like a screwball comedy romance which I infinitely prefer) and to any non-Supercorp Lena ships. While I admit the build-up in 3A isn't particularly well-done and the implosion of the relationship in S4 didn't do it any favors, I think they're really good in 3B and there's a lot of potential there for a super interesting relationship. (And, I mean, when it comes to Supergirl, which is Very Bad at romance and honestly not even particularly good at friendship, I think 'they have good chemistry, some great scenes, and there is solid potential for them to have an interesting relationship' is kind of the best you're gonna get. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)

And to turn this into more of a kvetching session: I truly don't begrudge people for not liking them as a ship -- as I said, there are some serious writing problems afflicting their relationship. But I will say that, even putting aside the more egregiously and blatantly racist strains of the fandom and how they talk about the ship, I get frustrated with the way a lot of fans (even nominally pro-James ones) tend to dismiss the relationship (and Lena's feelings for James in particular) out of hand.

A lot of fans love to talk about Lena "not caring" that James was Guardian, but, like, she did care? She didn't get mad at him because she had no actual reason to. She and Guardian had no beef! He did not maintain two separate relationships with her as both himself and his alter ego Countess Boochie Flagrante! Wild how NOT doing that can greatly improve an alter ego reveal, lol. And the scene with James telling Lena he's Guardian ends with Lena opening up to him in turn about the fact that she herself manufactured the kryptonite. And then they kiss about it and they have sex. That, uh. That is not the reaction of a woman who does not care what her boyfriend just told her, that is the reaction of a woman who is deeply touched that he trusts her (which, it's both sad and telling that that kind of trust is not something she just Expects from a significant other) and who wants to share part of herself with him in return.

And a lot of fans also love to talk about Lena breaking up with James as if it were something she did on a whim because he ethically disagreed with one of her projects. But, um. She explicitly did not break up with him because of that. She told him that was why they were breaking up, but several episodes later she explicitly tells Lex (and thus the audience) that she actually broke up with him because she was scared of him breaking up with her once he found out she was helping cure Lex. Again, this is both a sad and telling moment about her character, that she would rather not give someone the chance to respond to her with grace because she so greatly fears that they will fail to do so, to the point that she would rather sabotage a relationship she treasures with her own hands, so that at least she will be in control of the loss she suffers. And it's a character beat that you miss entirely if you are dead-set on pretending that Lena didn't really care about James.

What's, shall we say, interesting is I don't really see this kind of casual, pervasive dismissal of Kara's relationship with Mon-El, which was much more of a trainwreck on all fronts. Even people who hate that relationship generally take Kara's feelings about it seriously. They don't deny that Kara felt strongly about Mon-El (whether they take the position that she was actually in love with him or that she just convinced herself she was). Why the difference in approach, when if anything, Lena's feelings about James are made more blatantly clear by the text than Kara's often extremely contradictory feelings about Mon-El are? ...Well. I can certainly think of one reason.

Opinion number two is that I don't care about the Danvers sisters relationship. I think there is a potentially interesting set-up to their relationship, where Alex was essentially parentified as a teenager and forced to rearrange her whole life around keeping Kara safe. The inevitable consequences of this -- that Alex has neglected her own happiness and devoted her life unhealthily to protecting her sister, and harbors some unspoken resentment over this fact, and similarly that Kara has had to contend with her older sister trying to manage her life and control her choices well into adulthood, and harbors some unspoken resentment of her own over that fact -- are touched on somewhat in S1 and S2 and then summarily dropped by the show. As the show went on it became clear that the Danvers sisters relationship was one in which no consequences existed: they could do anything and say anything to each other and by the end of the episode they would have a feel-good Danvers Sisters Couch Scene.

There are flaws in how the Kara & Lena friendship was written but one thing I will praise about it is that every interaction they had mattered and had tangible consequences to their relationship. Kara's massive fuckup re: the kryptonite debacle mattered two seasons later in a show that sometimes struggled to remember what happened in the previous episode. I might object -- strenuously, in fact -- to how their conflict was resolved and framed in S5 but at the very least they didn't outright ignore the things that happened between them. When one of them did something that hurt the other, that impacted the relationship. This is in sharp contrast to how the Danvers sisters relationship is written from around S3 onwards.

Two story beats in particular really stand out to me here. Firstly, there's the S4 plotline in which Alex forgets that Kara is Supergirl -- which is an actually rather clever storyline with some great emotional beats...while it lasts. Then Alex gets her memories back and it's like nothing ever happened. People complain a lot about the writing of Once Upon a Time, and rightly so, but at least on that show, when characters had their core memories magically erased/replaced with other memories, and then had their original memories returned to them a season or half a season later, it actually affected their characters. They had to grapple with who they were with their fake memories, and who they were with their real ones, and which self they liked better, and which aspects of their selves they wanted to embody going forward. Not so with Alex Danvers. If you watched S5 without having seen S4 you would not know she spent the last half season not knowing that Kara was Supergirl.

Secondly, and even more egregiously to me, is the events of 5.08 "The Wrath of Rama Khan" and the emotional aftermath, which is to say, the complete lack of an emotional aftermath. Not only does Alex spend a good chunk of 5.08 wanting/trying to nuke Kara's best friend -- which is significantly worse than anything Lena does to any of Kara's friends, and you can imagine that if Lena had indeed done anything on that level then the show never would've had Kara let it pass without comment -- but she manipulates Kara in the process, and specifically in a way that echoes one of Kara's fundamental traumas from her backstory. By using Kara's genuine attempt to reach out to Lena as a Trojan horse to lower Lena's shields (so, again, she can point a nuke at her), she not only thoroughly sabotages any possibility of trust and reconciliation between Kara and Lena for the foreseeable future, she also uses Kara in the same way that Alura used Kara to capture Astra, which Kara was rightfully furious and heartbroken about when she found out about it.

In the hands of better writers, this could've been a stroke of storytelling genius, the catalyst for the long-awaited collapse of the Danvers sisters relationship that was so desperately needed so that they could build it back up again from a better foundation. But you've seen the show, you know what happened: Kara barely blinked. Alex might as well have just eaten the last hot pocket instead of, you know, betrayed Kara like her mother did in order to nuke her best friend, for all that Kara reacted to it. To me, that was the ultimate death knell for the Danvers sisters relationship, the moment that cemented once and for all that this was not a relationship in which actions had consequences or in which anything the characters said or did to each other mattered in any way. So...why should I care?

And thirdly and finally, my hydrogen bomb of an unpopular opinion: I don't like Cat Grant. Which is nuts, because I SHOULD like her on paper. Her character archetype is usually my FAVORITE character in a line-up. Cordelia Chase, the self-proclaimed "nastiest girl in Sunnydale history," is and has always been, from Episode 1 of Buffy, my favorite Buffyverse character. (And my second favorite female Buffyverse character is Lilah Morgan, who is basically just "Cordelia but an evil lawyer".) Regina George is an indisputable legend no matter what bizarre format they turn Mean Girls into next, and I always root for her and am kinda sad when Cady successfully sabotages her. Regina Mills of Once Upon a Time fame is even more of an indisputable legend, a badass mass-murdering HBIC who took no bullshit and coddled no bitches. Miranda Priestly, on whom Cat Grant is clearly based, is an amazing, iconic film character -- and despite what Supergirl 5.01 "Event Horizon" would have you believe, she was not the '''villain''' of The Devil Wears Prada. Discworld's Granny Weatherwax is one of the greatest characters ever written and is also, like, my idol. I love me a good bad bitch. So...why don't I like Cat Grant?

Part of it is that I don't find her as purely entertaining as a lot of the other characters on this list -- I just don't think the Supergirl writers were skilled enough to craft a character who is mean in a way that delights and amuses me as opposed to rubbing me the wrong way. I think she is frequently cruel in a way that I just personally struggle to find humorous or iconic, particularly given her status as Kara's boss, and it doesn't help that Kara often seems so affected by Cat and invested in what she thinks of her. I think if Kara were written in a way that gave her more power in their interactions, where she didn't truly need or care about her job at CatCo and thus, while she might not snark back at Cat in the workplace, she was also unaffected by Cat's barbs, I wouldn't mind their interactions so much. (This is why I enjoy Andrea and Kara's back-and-forth much more -- they seem to genuinely be on equal footing.) But the way Kara and Cat's dynamic is written, Cat really does have all the power, and the fact that she often uses it to emotionally terrorize Kara grates on me.

One of my biggest gripes with Cat is how so much of the '''humor''' around her character is her deliberately mispronouncing people's names. And, uh, as someone with a non-Anglo name, I don't think that's fucking funny! (And once Cat realizes Kara is Supergirl, I actually think it becomes extra ghoulish to do this, since she must then surely also realize that "Kara" is a name given to her by her dead family from her near-extinct culture. Like I know this is just a case of the writers not thinking the implications through, we're not meant to look so deeply into it, but the implications are really bad.)

Consequently, I don't think it's '''sweet''' when Cat finally deigns to call Kara by her actual fucking name at the end of S1. That moment honestly reminds me so much of that time in S1 of "The Good Place" (aka back when I liked "The Good Place" lol) when Eleanor repeatedly mispronounces "Senegal"/can't bother to remember that's where Chidi grew up, and then at the end of the episode she's like, "I have a present for you: Senegal." And Chidi is like, "Um, that's not a present, that's basic human decency." Like...exactly!!! Cat pronouncing Kara's name correctly is the bare minimum, it is not something that Kara should have had to earn, and it is extremely grating to me that the show itself seems to think otherwise.

Which ties back to one of my fundamental problems with Cat Grant, which is the framing of her character. All the other characters I listed above are framed as very complicated characters (Granny Weatherwax, Regina Mills, Miranda Priestly, Cordelia Chase eventually) or as outright antagonists (Regina George, Cordelia Chase in S1 of Buffy, Lilah Morgan, Regina Mills as well because she contains multitudes). Their status as difficult, proud, not-very-nice women is part of their complexity and/or antagonism, and as a defender of women who are not very nice, I gravitate to them in all their messiness. To quote phoukanamedpookie, one of my favorite meta writers, in this excellent post: "I genuinely find ['difficult' female characters] likable, often specifically because the narrative doesn’t tell me that I’m supposed to like them." (Emphasis mine.)

But you ARE supposed to like Cat Grant. And Cat Grant is not actually portrayed as particularly complex -- she is instead framed as an aspirational feminist role model for Kara. I wouldn't go so far as to say that her meanness is not portrayed as a flaw at all, but I think it's telling that every time the show allows Kara to actually get mad at her for her cruelty, the episode ends with Cat giving some speech about how women have it harder than men and Kara realizes that actually Cat, by being mean to her, was being a great feminist girlboss mentor the whole time. Which, like. What. And there's a scene where Cat talks about the double standards between men and women and she complains that Perry White can get away with throwing chairs at his employees but people call her a bitch or whatever. And, like, double standards are real, I'm with you there girlie, but, you verbally abuse and disrespect your employees on the daily, often to the point of tears, and you still have your high-powered influential well-paying job -- what more do you want?

There's a great line in the Mean Girls musical -- which is weird to type out, because it is not on the whole a very well-written musical -- where at the end, Regina tells Cady, "I know I was harsh. And people say I’m a bitch. But you know what they would call me if I was a boy?” And Cady enthusiastically chimes in with, "Strong." And Regina says, "Reginald." That line is so stellar precisely because it acknowledges the double standards while also poking fun at the obviously false idea that Regina was actually some kind of amazing feminist this whole time. That sense of humor about her status as a 'mean girl' is what I think was missing from the framing of Cat Grant -- we're meant to really take her seriously as a character who is legitimately a good mentor and feminist, whose critics truly are just sexist.

Which leads me to another major issue I have with Cat's character. Supergirl as a whole is very much in line with, like, 2012-era pop White Feminism™. It never really stops being like this; even when it tries to pivot to discussing other issues, it never goes beyond mainstream understandings of those issues to make any serious structural critiques, even when it doesn't get mired down in allegories that don't quite work and trip over its own feet in the process -- presumably because said structural critiques would call into question the fundamental assumptions upon which the show is built. (Much love to Azie and the effort she and J. Holtham put into 6.12 "Blind Spots", which was easily the show's best attempt at tackling any social issue, but by nature of only being one episode, it could not result in meaningful structural changes to how the Superfriends operate beyond "thinking about racism more", and the episode ends with a promotion of Robin DiAngelo's insufferable pop anti-racism self-help book White Fragility aka my villain origin story.)

That being said -- I think S1 and S2 are kind of the worst offenders when it comes to Supergirl's pop white feminism, not necessarily because the show gets any better about it later (although it was surely an improvement when they actually started incorporating women of color into the main cast starting with Sam Arias in S3), but because S1 and S2 are really fucking obnoxious about it, especially S1. And Cat Grant is THE mouthpiece for Supergirl's shallow, grating, capitalistic, overwhelmingly white understanding of feminism. While the single most cringey pseudo-feminist one-liner in the show is probably Alex's "No touching without consent!" from the series finale, most of the others come from Cat.

Just as an example, there's the bizarre monologue about how Kara is wrong to be offended by the obviously infantilizing name "Supergirl" (in contrast to "Superman"), because Cat is a girl, and girls are cool, and are you saying you don't think girls are cool? If you think it's wrong to call women "girls," you're the real sexist! Or, again, all her speeches about the double standards she's faced in her career -- and yet no interrogation of how Cat herself makes things so much harder for the women working for her (and, largely due to Supergirl's cast line-up at the time, absolutely no lip service given to the fact that women of color have it even harder). Or the egregious line about how Barry, Kara, Winn, and James look like the "attractive but nonthreatening cast of a racially diverse CW show" -- which isn't about feminism but does speak to the show's total lack of self-awareness about its racial makeup. And you could say these are structural problems with the show, not just with Cat, and you'd be right -- but given that Cat is so often situated as the mouthpiece for what the show thinks feminism is, and that we are meant to see her as a wise, progressive mentor, it becomes very difficult to separate her character from those structural problems.

And speaking of having trouble separating my feelings about her character from the structural problems with how the show uses her character...let's talk about Andrea Rojas, and how S6 thoroughly demonizes her with the end-goal of propping Cat Grant up. Andrea Rojas/Acrata is a Mexican hero in the comics; in Supergirl, they randomly make her Argentinian and they introduce her in S5 as more of a grey hat. Then in S6, the demonization begins.

The show (even in S5) emphasizes over and over how obsessed Andrea is with "clicks" and yellow journalism, which the show (and fandom) insists isn't what CatCo Should be about. Except...that was also Cat Grant's vision for CatCo! She also ran the magazine based on celebrity gossip and sensationalized reporting! It was James and Lena who took the magazine in a more serious direction. Andrea is shown to engage in increasingly unethical business practices throughout S6, culminating of course in William's narratively pointless death due in part to her actions, and Cat taking over CatCo again in the last episode is seen as a righting of this wrong (because, you see, Cat cares about turtles now, for some reason). This is despite the fact that Andrea is consistently shown to be a better and kinder boss than Cat was; not only does she actually call people by their real names, but when Nia falls asleep in front of her, Andrea very nicely tells her to take a mental health day. Cat would not have done that! So we have this bizarre storyline where we are meant to see Andrea as essentially this unethical interloper into Cat's rightful position -- even as they have literally the same goals, and even as Andrea is objectively a much better person to work for.

And look, I don't know how Julie Gonzalo identifies racially -- I know enough Argentinians to know that many of them who look like Julie do actually ID as white -- but even if she doesn't identify as a woman of color, the Latina identity is still a deeply racialized one in the United States. And it just does not sit right with me that one of Supergirl's only Latina characters -- and the one who is most consistently and strongly identified with her Latina heritage, and is based on one of DC's few Latina heroes -- gets demonized and 'put in her place' to prop up a blonde white Anglo woman as the one who should 'actually' be in power, even with her history of abusing that power at every turn.

Fandom doesn't help in this regard -- many (NOT all, fandoms are not monoliths) Cat and Supercat fans, and even a significant chunk of Supercorp fans, do NOT like Andrea and consider her much like the show does, as a usurper of the rightful throne of CatCo. I try not to let fandom affect how I view characters if I can help it, but when it's a narrative the show itself falls into, it gets a bit harder. Again, this isn't Cat's fault in-universe, but it is very difficult for me to extricate my feelings about how the storyline played out with my feelings about Cat -- especially since I'm already disinclined to be favorable towards her character. If I already liked her, I'm sure I'd be more forgiving, but, well, I've never claimed to not be a filthy hypocrite.

So yeah. I don't like Cat. Whoops. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[mrsbsmooth]

I don't know if this is a safe space for me to share my opinion on S8 but I disagree with your take on WLW relationships in S8. As someone who is exclusively WLW, I've got to say that Season 8 is the worst season that I have ever played. It's not worth it. I regret every second that I have spent on it. I wish I never played it. I feel like I have wasted my time. Watching Claudia grind on Theo made me feel physically sick. If you're bi, you're automatically locked out of the WLW route and Bea dances for Claudia instead. If you're doing a WLW route, the two female LIs are merged together. There are only two female LIs and they're hidden behind a gem wall. You can't couple up with them until the final week. The male characters are forced on MC no matter how many times you reject them. Being LGBT is treated like a fun side mission. It's something you're only allowed to do behind closed doors. You can pay to make out with a girl in every episode and the other characters will keep pushing the OG guy and CA guy on you either way. If you're romancing a girl, you're made to feel like a cheater. The WLW routes in S8 are written to be a bonus thing for bi women to do once they finish the good routes. They are not written to be the main course. The S8 WLW routes  are something to play around with but not something to commit to. S5 was no fun but at least we could be in an unofficial relationship with Dana and we could choose to befriend Alfie. We could couple up with Vicky in S7. S8 is like S6 but somehow even worse. The openly homophobic and racist comments that I have seen some straight players make about Bea and Hari are only making it harder to feel accepted. What hurts the most is that MC was a bombshell and she was not coupled up with her OG LI before the Casa. They could have let us pick a female LI the moment MC walked into the Villa. There was no better way to justify a WLW main route. The way they waste Luna and Felicity is unbelievable. I wouldn't recommend S8 to anyone who isn't super into the male LIs

Hi lovely, of course!! Always happy to hear a different opinion as long as they're respectfully put, which yours absolutely is, and as long as you don't mind me disagreeing back!

[Note: Sarah's just pointed out to me that you asked for a safe space and my response doesn't really do that and just disagrees with you. She's right, and I apologise for not being clearer about the fact I was planning to do so when I hit post. But you are always welcome to share your opinion here. I can't guarantee a safe space, but I can guarantee an open mind.] Because I do genuinely believe that the WLW routes in S8 are better than they have been previously.

I'm not going to be addressing homophobic and racist comments about Bea and Hari. My advice for those? Stay the hell off Reddit. I'm not getting into the way this fandom talks about race, especially for Asian islanders. I just want to talk about the WLW routes as that was the main point of your ask.

I want to make sure I've acknowledged and responded to everything you said, so please see below.

[This got long AF. TL;DR at the end.]

Locked out of routes, and Male LIs being forced on you

This isn't new to this season, and in my opinion it's been done dramatically better than previous seasons. I've played all of them, and almost every single season holds the female LI back until the end. Marisol, Elisa, Najuma, Angie, Dana, Lulu, Bella, Chloe, Flo, Bonnie, I don't think you could couple up with a single one of them until the final recoupling. The only exceptions were S1 and S3, I think? I believe you could get with Talia slightly earlier (and have Sammi come in later as a LI for the guy who otherwise would be dumped), and AJ/Yasmin you could couple up with and make Tai and Ciaran get together. But that's only 2 seasons from 8.

(Note: I see you said you could couple up with Vicky in S7, and I'll be honest, I barely played S7 as I found the writing itself extremely lacklustre. So I'll have to take your word for it that they somehow made that work.)

I get that it's frustrating to be separated from a female LI until late game. It's a sentiment I've heard every single season since I started playing alongside the releases. But realistically, this is how the game is structured. Love Island, as a premise, is based on heterosexual relationships. Pairing off and being in heterosexual couples, etc. Same as something like 'the Bachelor'. Two female contestants could be together, sure. But that's not how the show is structured. The only real solutions have been in S1 and S3, both of which I've already mentioned. I'd love to see more MLM couples made canon, or creative ways of letting us couple with women earlier, but I don't think there's one simple solution. This particular show is aimed at het couples. As unfair as it may seem, that's how the game is structured. (Crossing my fingers for canon MLM couples. PLEASE!)

I also disagree that WLW routes are written to be a bonus thing for bi women to do once they finish the good routes. Claudia's route has been a main route since day one in the villa. The fact that you can only have a relationship with either Theo OR Claudia means they intended from the very beginning to have whichever one of that couple you choose be the slow burn route- the route that you can't get on until the very end.

To say that 'Watching Claudia grind on Theo made me physically sick'-- Congratulations and welcome to the slowburn route 😂 I feel exactly the same way when Theo REJECTS ME OUTRIGHT and says he's only interested in Claudia, or when Suresh's heartrate gets raised the most by Lulu, or when I finally couple with Jake and he tells me I should pursue Levi. Don't you think the fact that it's had such an impact on you shows how well-written she is as a female LI? Claudia is AMAZING. But she's also bisexual. She's allowed to be torn between a male and a female LI and want to explore relationships with both, and I don't think it's fair to be angry that she's playing out all her options. That just means she's a well-written bisexual character. (Side note may I remind you that you've been able to take Claudia to the hideaway, and sleep in a bed with her, whereas Theo girls were only able to KISS the dude for the first time within the last week!!!! 😭) I think the only canonical lesbian routes are Angie from S4 and A.J. from S3. But even so, they're both questioning while in-villa and only come out either towards the end or in the post-season. You can watch AJ's route on Youtube if you didn't get a chance to play. Also, you're not locked out of the WLW route if you're bi/into men. Only if you're interested in Theo specifically. This is definitely somewhere they could improve-- I wanted Theo and Claudia, but eventually went back to play a straight route for Theo. However, I DESPERATELY wanted to flirt with Bea. It would've been wonderful if we'd been able to flirt with her separately. (I think I did get this option, but I believe it may have been a glitch). An option early in the game when the female LI asks you could be:

Yes, I'm into you!

No, I'm not into you, but I might be into other women

No, I'm not into women.

The Female LIs are merging together

Welcome to Love Island the Game by Fusebox games, where all the love interests merge and the personalities don't matter. You're not alone here, and it's not NEARLY as bad as previous seasons. Watch Najuma, Bruno, and JAMES have exactly the same dialogue in S4 despite being wildly different personalities. Watch Lewie, Jamal and Ryan be completely interchangeable. This isn't exclusive to WLW routes.

The female LIs are hidden behind a gem wall.

Again, this is the same for everyone, even players on a straight route. FB are greedy.

Being LGBT is treated like a side mission

It's something you're only allowed to do behind closed doors. You can pay to make out with a girl in every episode

This is hard. I get why you feel like this, anon, I really do. But I genuinely do think that this is the devs trying to give you something. They know it's frustrating to have to wait so long to couple with a female LI, so they try and give you bonus opportunities along the way to connect with your love interest. Almost every single smut scene written in the scripts has a female alternative. Again, I'm not saying that it's perfect, but having looked at and manipulated the scripts for four seasons now, I can absolutely assure you that this has not always been the case. They ARE improving and giving you more opportunities to spend time with your female LI than you had in previous seasons.

TL;DR

I'm not saying S8 is a perfect season for WLW routes.

The part I'm disagreeing with is where you said it's the worst season.

I absolutely disagree with that. There are far worse seasons. Even the golden child Season 2 didn't let you couple up with a woman until right at the end, watching her graft and grind on everyone BUT you. We also don't even know for sure that we can't couple up with a girl until the last week. The game's still being released. (I won't be surprised if that's the case though.)

I think Claudia and Bea are EXCELLENT female love interests in comparison with what we've had previously. They're both beautiful, they have unique personalities, they have very different routes (Claudia's confused between you and Theo, Bea's your bestie to lover and she's got terrible taste in men, dear god please save her).

I understand WANTING more WLW routes, but from a development point of view, there are simply not enough opportunities in the real-life structure of LITG to have fully blown out WLW routes. And even if they were, FB Games are not going to be financially motivated to do so. Their main customer base ($$$) is pursing a het route, so that’s who they’re creating for. They can't even get through the hetero routes without the characters merging personalities. There are other games doing this well, including fan-made games, which I'd recommend checking out. I don't have the link handy to the game pages, but check out @thatwheelchairchick, I believe she's working on an alternative game?

Anyway, I hope that clarifies my position on why I think they're worth playing. Sorry that it turned into an essay.

[theerurishipper]

I think anon was referring to what zuko said in response to aang telling katara to forgive yon rha. While aang came across as a bit patronizing even if he meant well and that was obviously unhelpful, I can honestly see why that would count as zuko mocking him. that being said, I agree with everyone else you said and anon shot themselves in the foot when they mocked Zuko;s scar and they engaged in azula apologismwhile using the fact that she's mentally unstable as a shield.

I mostly interpreted that as Zuko saying Aang is being naive rather than his disagreeing with the actual teachings themselves. Zuko isn't one for revenge either, or else he would have killed Ozai, or let Zhao die. And he's never been shown to disrespect the Airbender's teachings in this way before. He's listened when Aang has talked about the monks before. But he understands Katara's feelings in a way that Aang doesn't seem to (which is not to say that Aang hasn't suffered through tragedy or that Aang doesn't understand loss, but Zuko and Katara are specifically paralleled through the fact that they lost their mothers, and it's something they connect over because they feel similarly about it), and it's also a little personal for him in that way. I'm not going to justify what he said, it was a shitty thing to say regardless, but he wasn't being racist. Even Aang doesn't take offence to it because he knows that, and they're on good terms at the end.

I think decrying it as a racist comment simplifies the issue and shifts the conversation. Zuko had a point, but he said it in the worst way. But calling it a racist comment because Zuko think Airbender philosophies are inferior is the wrong interpretation, and it sort of changes the way you view the scene and removes any fault from Aang in the situation. Aang was telling Katara to forgive the man who murdered her mother. That's not really a small thing. And he was quoting the monks verbatim without trying to understand Katara herself and without trying to take into account the real situation they are in, which can't be fixed with a quote that Aang hasn't learnt to put into practice when something comes into conflict with it, as happens in the real world. This is not anti-Aang or anything, this is literally the conflict he deals with at the end of the episode and in the finale, of how to reconcile the monks' teachings with the reality of his situation.

Zuko didn't say Aang was naive because he wanted Katara to get revenge, he did it because he understands her pain, he knows how facing his father gave him closure, and he's angry that Aang is trying to tell Katara to not have the same chance. So when Aang uses "revenge is a two headed rat-viper" line, it makes him angry because Aang clearly doesn't understand. Zuko is saying Aang doesn't understand the reality and is resorting to quotes from the monks, simplifying a complex issue, which is... not wrong. Zuko himself never once pushes Katara towards violence or revenge in this episode. He himself is not that kind of person. If he had been completely wrong or if he had been a bad influence on Katara, pushing her towards a destructive path, the episode shouldn't have ended with her forgiving him, not just by words but with a loving hug. And it also ends with Katara saying she didn't take Aang's advice and ends with Aang being torn between the reality of his situation and his commitment to upholding the beliefs of his people. Simplifying it to "Zuko is racist" just because some people think Aang can never be wrong is reductive and misses the whole point. You're free to disagree, that's just how I see it.

Thank you for your ask!

[thespineoftherighteous]

to address the Thea stuff. the reasons ppl don't like her kinda matched to what I said at the end about ppl being more willing to forgive the white characters for things:

1. the age gap. it's only 4 years, and any relationship only begins after kevin is 18. and he was the one who had a crush on her when he was younger, not the other way around. People tend to spread lies about this, things that weren't said in the ec such as saying they're relationship started when he was 14 and she was 18, which I mentioned in my original anon.

2. the 'agression'. I don't think she's aggressive. she was angry yeah, which she had every right to be after kevin ghosted her. he was obviously going through a lot, but of course given he didn't communicate this, she didn't know. she can only work off what she knows. again I just see this as the fandom being very uncharitable to her. kevin chokes neil when he's angry so I really don't think she's the aggressive one in this relationship. and if she is, she's not alone.

3. devotion to the ravens. again, so is kevin. People forgive him for this because he's obviously been brainwashed by them. but so has she. again, just seems like people forgiving other characters for things they wouldn't forgive her for.

4. randomness of relationship with kevin. I don't think it's random? I'm not a fan of their relationship, but people love to ship kevin/Jean primarily cause they were ravens together. kevin and Thea were ravens together, it makes sense they'd grow close. they're both also very dedicated to exy, a common reason people ship neil/kevin. so idk? to everyone's taste ofc, but it still isn't a valid reason for her to get the hate she gets.

idk necessarily about people liking her more if she was a fox. probably? she's very similar to kevin, and people like him. and I can imagine people not liking him if he stayed a Raven and we saw him through a fox perspective. so you're probably right.

on her only having a scene or two and not being very likeable in them. I guess again, it asks the question of why she's not likeable in these scenes? I think people don't want to view things from her perspective, and there can be a lot of reasons for that ofc.

Jean has more scenes than her, but he's not 'likeable' in many of them. He's rude, just like Thea was. He holds Neil down when he's getting tortured. He arguably should be more disliked, but he's not. I think people are more willing to offer him understanding because they're more willing to see things from his perspective. He acts this way because he's a traumatised cult member, and that's exactly why Thea acts the way she does.

It's hard to describe the hate people have for her if you haven't seen it much, but more often than not it goes far beyond 'this character just doesn't show up much so idrc'. People tend to hate her with a passion similar to the hate they view Riko with. Again, people call her abusive and a pedophile semi-reguarly. It goes beyond her just being a little unlikeable.

There was a motivation for a decent number of fans to spread these lies about her character, and I'm curious what that motivation was I suppose? cause I certainly don't do that for characters I just find unlikeable. Or characters that didn't have many scenes. Even if most fans aren't actively racist, they've bought into and fueled lies that were likely spread with racist motivation.

i honestly don't really disagree with you on anything (like the age gap wasn't something I personally ever paid attention to, I was saying that's what other people have a problem with. and honestly I do think that's fair for them, it just never stuck out to me) except for the fourth point bc I will maintain that their relationship is random. not random in a 'these two people are incompatible' way but in a 'the first time we hear Kevin even has a girlfriend is like 2/3 into the last book of the series and the chemistry (to me at least) seemed incredibly lacking but we're supposed to assume they're in love'

but I think you just might be overestimating how much people think about her. again: she's a very very minor character and I don't think people will necessarily go out of their way to see things through her perspective because of that. honestly I feel like what you said about Jean explains it p well: he does worse things than Thea but, even though he's also minor, we see way more of him than Thea we see him vulnerable and at his worst and there's more there that shapes him as a complex person. I genuinely think that if she had even as much screen time as Jean it'd be a different conversation.

but however, out of all the minor characters in the series she is one of the ones that gets the least mercy from the fans and that definitely feels racist to me. i don't think people need to explain and dissect why they dislike a character (especially characters as complicated as Nora's) but the fact that it's so easy for fans to just jump on a hate train for the only canon WOC is deeply unsettling.

I think the complexity of Nora's characters actually make aftg fans really weird and intense when it comes to defending/attacking characters. I remembered being rlly taken aback by the Aaron and Nicky and like Allison hate that I saw when I first started engaging with other fans because so much of it just seemed not true and wayyyy overexaggerated??? idk if it's the fans themselves or the content that makes them so intense but.

[thestrangestthing89]

This situation with Noah isn't a new problem in the fandom. These fans have been harassing everyone for months in them name of progressive causes they aren't well-informed about. This is obviously not specific to the Stranger Things fandom. Go anywhere online and you will likely see a bunch of teens screaming about something even though they clearly skipped the step of educating themselves. Not only have I been the target of the dumbest shit, but so many other people have too. No one can post here without someone getting self-righteous and yelling about it. I have been accused of the following simply for posting something to my own blog: - I've been called misogynistic because I said El wasn't the main character. A thing the writers have said several times now (it's Will). The writers aren't misogynistic either. - I've been called misogynistic because I said El has character flaws like everyone else. - I've been called a condescending bitch when I politely tried to explain what misogyny actually is. A thing you'd think they'd be interested in learning if they actually cared about that cause (clearly they don't or I wouldn't have been called a bitch so much). - Been called racist because I said Hopper wasn't copaganda, even though I explained clearly why I thought this was. - Got called racist because I pointed out that Lucas was often filling his Ranger role and that's why he is helping Mike in S3 (the boys all play their D&D characters). But the trendy thing to say at the time was that he was being written in racist way so obviously this means I'm racist too. - Had multiple people say I was silencing them when I wrote my own damn post (not a response to theirs) about many of the above topics. I just simply disagreed with their points and that isn't allowed here. - Had someone I never interacted with spread a rumor that I sent them anonymous hate filled asks even though I had no fucking clue who they were. And those posts were anonymous so they have no idea who actually sent them. They just wanted my attention. But I never sent anyone an anon ask before anyway so this was just bizarre. But a several people believed it. - Pretty much every adult on here has been accused of pedophilia for watching a show with kids on it. This gets pretty relentless sometimes. I'm sure I could think of several others and other people have had a lot as well. The thing about this as someone who has actually experienced things like misogyny first hand is that being called this is incredibly upsetting, especially when you are being called this by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about and doesn't care about the impact of these words. They just want you to shut up and stop telling them they did something wrong.

This is all happening because they are watching a show that is overwhelming them and they can't deal with people discussing it in a more nuanced way than they are. This wouldn't be happening if there were more adults here to drown it out. But as it is, no one can actually discuss this show and it has nothing to do with Noah. It's because kids are watching when they shouldn't. And they have weird, boundaries with the fandom and the cast that are constantly causing problems. This didn't happen back in the first 2 seasons because it was only adults watching. I'm not saying adults can't be problematic too, but most of this shit is from people who are way too young to handle this. And now we are all getting lectured by 14 year old foreign policy experts. It's not ok and they need to spend a lot of time learning about how to interact with people online better. This isn't the shows fault. But they can make it clear who this is actually for. Because these kids are going to throw a fit over everything. They always do. They aren't going to like S5 either. They are only watching because it's cool and they have FOMO. They can't understand it and are constantly insulting it and everyone associated with it and the fandom. Seriously, amp up the horror. Make it rated R. A lot of us would really love to be able to discuss this show and can't because of how awful it is here.

[princeescaluswords]

What are your personal thoughts on Jackson still having kanima traits, Prince? I've seen a few people remark that it "doesn't make sense" but I personally disagree

I think it is good storytelling on the part of Teen Wolf and an excellent statement on the nature of psychological trauma.

You have to remember that Jackson didn't become the kanima because he chose to become it. He didn't become the kanima because Derek wanted him to become it. Derek didn't Bite him in the wrong spot or on the wrong night. Jackson became the kanima because of the sum of his experiences: the shape you take reflects the person that you are.

Yes, Lydia's declaration of her love helped Jackson recover his identity before it had been completely subsumed by the kanima transformation (most likely coupled with the power of her voice). Yet, Lydia didn't erase the first 17 years of Jackson's life. She didn't undo the death of his biological parents, his reaction to learning he was adopted, and the intervening six years between discovering that secret and taking the Bite. Every event which caused Jackson to have a psychological mindset which led to the kanima transformation still happened.

Of course, his shape would still reflect the person that he was, even 15 years later.

While there were many times when the production veered away from strict realism -- and that's not a bad thing -- I truly appreciate that they didn't try to avoid the consequences of emotional damage. Derek may have gotten better at learning when to trust other people, and Peter may have made an effort to care for others as much as he cared for himself, but the Hale fire still marked them. Stiles may have confronted his own negative self-image, imposed upon him by his mother's dementia and the nogitsune, but he's always going to have certain reactions due to those things happening. And so on.

Though that is why I was outraged and disappointed when the production decided that Mason wouldn't have any "after effects" of being the host for the Beast, because he was too black, I mean, too good. It was just lazy and racist, and the production knew better. I still wish they hadn't abandoned their convention that an individual who has undergone something terrible and traumatic -- which included most of the cast -- wasn't ever going to be able to remove those things completely from their psyche. No one can.

But, here is where the excellent statement comes in: Teen Wolf's position was that no amount of emotional damage indelibly defines the character of a human being. As Allison said in Motel California: there's always hope. Embodied in the show's lead protagonist, Scott McCall, who endured disappointment, assault, betrayal, and death yet still managed to become someone who helped others and cared enough to help others. And as befits his leadership, this was recreated in the other characters. Derek, Peter, Liam, Stiles, Lydia, Allison, Malia, Hayden, Corey, Theo and yes, even Jackson became better people, stronger people, and they did it without the miracle of banishing what they had endured in the past.

Jackson, as a character, is probably always going to be a little self-centered, fiercely competitive, and insecure about his identity, which means he's probably always going to have paralytic venom and a tail, but it's also clear that he is no longer seeking a master in order to become someone's scaled murder machine. He didn't have to become flawless in order to become better.

And that, I feel, is a very positive message to send.

[butmakeitgayblog]

Just to throw in a couple points real quick (because I can never keep an opinion to myself 😔 sorry), I personally kind of dislike the idea of a male and female gaze — not because I disagree with the concept of fetishism and objectification existing, they ABSOLUTELY do, but because of what people, particularly online, have come to accept they mean.

There has recently been discourse surrounding Love Lies Bleeding, a film created almost solely by queer women, “catering to the male gaze” which… I’m sure I don’t need to explain how silly that is lmao. I think this new wave of leftists clutching their pearls over literally any sign of sexual attraction and considering it to be synonymous with objectification has distorted people’s views of what these terms actually mean and have resulted in their gross misuse. Not to make this about me 💅🏻 but I see a lot of this similar discourse about trans people BY CIS PEOPLE whom are trying to be good allies by basically claiming that any sign of sexual attraction towards a trans person’s body is inherently fetishistic which I can’t lie… I kind of consider to be transphobic itself lol? You’re allowed to be sexually attracted to trans people and express that, no matter how their bodies look! The point at which it becomes fetishistic relies primarily on the WAY you express that and the language used — and I think that can apply to queer people in general too. I personally (and others may feel differently!) have zero issue with cis people enjoying trans NSFW content, and I also have no problem with straight women enjoying MLM content; because most of the time, I can tell from the LANGUAGE they use whether or not they are fetishising.

Point being, fetishism and objectification can go ALL ways and I don’t think people need to give excuses as to why they enjoy a certain type of content as long as it isn’t actively harming anyone. But I obviously can’t speak for everyone (especially queer women, I only identified as one for a year or two when I was a preteen lol) and people’s experiences tend to shape their opinions on these things 😅

Right and that's why I firmly stand behind my initial post about how it's no one's job to police people for what kind of content they consume! Because we don't know their motivations for how ot why they personally are interacting/consuming the work. It's incredibly easy to write off all enjoyment of a specific brand of content as fetishizing or sexualization when in reality, for the consumer it isn't that at all. My only point on the last ask was that sometimes, sometimes, it's easy to actually be doing exactly that (fetishizing etc) and not realizing it.

Intentions matter absolutely, but they're not the be-all-end-all of reality. It's like if I as a white person were to say something racist without realizing it was racist. That doesn't negate the racism, and it doesn't absolve me of my culpability, because my ignorance to my actions doesn't supercede my impact. You can be guilty of something without knowing that you are, and that's something you as person have to evaluate and confront on a personal basis. That was my only point in relation to what that anon said.

Again to reiterate, that is NOT saying that everyone who prefers queer work to straight work is guilty of that, because they're not. Full stop. And that alone is why I don't think anyone has or should have the authority to pass judgment on who can and can't consume certain kinds of media. Because, like you said, then you start wading into the murky waters of painting everyone with a broad brush, throwing accusations around that are universally damning despite not actually being universally true. And considering we're living in a period where puritan anti-sex brainrot is on the rise (alongside a deeply unsettling culture of condemnation over every little thing), opening that door can become very dangerous very fast. We're seeing it already.

I will tack on just as a thought regarding the trans character issue, I think that's kind of a perfect example of all these ideas aligning. Just in the most bare bones way of putting it: there is nothing inherently fetishizing about a cis person enjoying work including trans characters. There's nothing inherently fetishizing about a cis person enjoying, specifically, smut involving trans characters. There is nothing inherently fetishizing about a cis person preferring trans character stories over other kinds of media. However, if all they as a cis person consume is extremely sexualized renditions of trans characters, if their only interest in trans characters is porn - generally mostly devoid of complex storylines that create a fully rounded character -, then yeah I do think that's something they on an individual basis need to evaluate about themselves, because it's the difference between having a sexual attraction to a subsection of people versus seeing those same people as purely sexual objects. Does that make sense?

Same can be true for any other queer content being consumed by people that aren't historically the target audience.

But again, it's not really anyone else's place to make that call for anyone else.