#discourse is... odd.

[faragonreblogs]

Sitting in my lil corner giddy about Dawntrail~

[tevanbuckley]

'you're the one spending your days watching a show you don't even seem to like' lmao no? i care about all the (main) characters and all the other relationships i just don't like being mistreated by the writers lmao

i mean here's your problem, you aren't being mistreated by the writers. i promise you, none of the creative decisions on this show are being driven by a desire to slight you personally and deprive you of what you want, or think you deserve.

[fourspiceblend]

Man I love Dimitri to death but it will always piss me off how he's allowed to heal during the actual story and become sympathetic to the audience once again while Rhea doesn't get the same privilege even though their stories are basically the same, everyone loves it when the young troubled man gets a redemption arc and gains back everything they lost but when it's an old hag whose trauma isn't easily digestible and who doesn't cry pathetically over being rejected by the player she doesn't get the same privilege and she either unceremoniously dies offscreen or her healing is relegated to an ending story blurb. I love how intsys treats women!!!

[cowboys-tshot]

do you see the vision

[wain-wright]

Pleased to inform tumblr i searched up transandrophobia (anti-transmasc) because I saw a screenshot of a post on another post and I thought it’s reasonable to say trans men will have experiences that are different from problems specific to trans women, and found more discourse than expected.

I genuinely don’t know what started the beef so lmk if I missed something huge, but here’s what I got.

TME (trans misogyny exempt) avowed word definer says that there is a kind of transphobia specific to trans women that isn’t universal to trans men. To which I say, yeah, in various ways. And then explicitly sets this against (as a part of defining this word, for some reason) to say there is no transphobia specific to trans men that isn’t universal to trans women. Which I think is wrong.

(there’s also this assertion that people bring up a word like anti-transmasculine to try to silence trans women, but nno.) it could happen but I doubt that is the actual drive for someone trying to talk about their own experiences.

An example provided in this weirdly thorough disavowal: a complaint of “not being respected by cis men” is just a general transphobia thing, not especial to trans men. Er, true, but you know this trans man meant “respected as men by cis men.”

It also implies that being gendered as "other" (as opposed to being simply misgendered) is specific to trans women, which is just incorrect. This is really bizarre. It happens in different ways to different people, but to say it doesn't happen at all is... internet discourser...

Oh, I see. This is based off of an analysis of the intersectionality argument. Really odd, though. TME definer says there’s no real point to saying anti-transmasc problems are real/worth "having a word?", while describing what can only be transphobia, specific to trans men. They’re kind of wandering around this but I think meant to engage in this seriously so I’m also writing seriously. Oho, but it's not merely a dismissal in day to day experience, but also severity.

The next objection is: Transmisogyny (anti-transfem attitude) is especially systemic (being transphobia (systemic) multiplied by misogyny (historically systemic)), unlike general transphobia (systemic) which just describes any problems a trans man AND trans woman may face. Alright, this seems … again like it’s going too far. Intersectionality as a term, which I see is referenced in structure here, was made to address a specific issue of legal analysis. It is not a law of language, experience, or definition. It was half procedural. The idea of intersectionality in practice, of course, is a little different. It’s frankly disingenuous to say only trans women can experience unique systemic issues more specific to being perceived as transfem, but trans men do not experience systemic issues that aren't unique to being trans men. This is mixing up the reality of the experience with a word definition by pretending there's a mathematical formula that applies only to trans women (because misogyny is real.) By definition of transmisogyny (issues specific to trans women) existing, this already implies by the style of definition there are different issues (specific to trans men) that are still systemic, it's fine if it has a word and is discussed, even and because it's specifically not transmisogyny. (which is getting confusing if being this specific with the definition of misogyny, even this specific "type" of misogyny as applied to any interaction at all, could apply to many transmasc experiences too, what's the issue.) Even if the sentiment you were trying to communicate is “trans women have worse problems for various structural reasons,” quibbling about trans men having trans man specific problems at all is a pointless way to try to demonstrate that.

You could say any regularly targeted and enforced by law disrespect or discrimination that leads to systemic issues like lower income, increasingly bad relationships, targeted worsening of quality of life, or less opportunities or general bad treatment growing up is “just transphobia” in this case, what’s the use of claiming only trans women suffer from it enough to speak about it with a word? This doesn’t work like that. You can’t separate it like “only transwomen” as suffering systemic discrimination. There is a difference in details, yes, but not separable by a word multiplier. Also, transmisogyny is also transphobia, yet there are clearly issues specific to being perceived as transfem.

The third objection is to say (not sure why this definition seems to be mostly arguing against the existence of trans men specific interpersonal or systemic issues, whats with this set up, some kind of discourse plant? like the claim that anything to do with pregnancy is actually purely misogyny or some random thing and not mostly specific to do with being a trans man. Sounds like an odd word game.) The argument goes (extremely strangely) on to claim anti-transmasc/transandrophobia as a word and consequently in entire concept is fishy because it implies misandry is equal to misogyny, because transmisogyny says its an intersection of transphobia and misogyny, and misandry isn’t systemic but misogyny is- so logically… to complain about trans men specific problems is about as valid as complaining men are systemically oppressed (nb person, no)

That’s genuinely not how that intersectionality paper is meant to read. It’s not a rulebook to making definitions people are allowed to talk about or acknowledge as existing. It is true anti-transmasc problems will not be specifically defined as an intersection between misandry and transphobia, but is instead, a kind of experience specific to being perceived as transmasc. However, it's still clearly distinct and a real cultural experience different from being perceived as transfem.

[nqueso-emergency]

Um.. why is the 911 instagram sharing Trenton’s posts to their stories??

When you're told to reel it in on the type of content you can share before network approved promos can be released (aiming for sometime this week, they hope), then why not share something that has no spoilers??

Not to mention, he tagged both the 911 on ABC Instagram and Aisha lol 😆 it's a story, it'll be gone in 24 hrs. Come back to me when they actually post it with credit.

I think the real question we should be asking is with 48k followers on his Instagram why does he feel the need to like his own posts?

[saturnssz]

Just a little observation!! Being a fan of this ship for 3 years is draining and you learn things and change your viewpoint. I enjoy them in a bubble now

[dullahandyke]

Very courteous of ppl to have DNIs bcos I get to find out if they have shit opinions before I have to follow them. Like if u wanna flaunt the fact that u dont think for yrself by saying 'dni bi lesbians' then I'm not gonna say no to that warning sign

[megabuild]

im gonna be 100% honest with you man i'm not gonna post this in full because you are just going to open yourself up to getting clowned on again but i do need you to know this is my absolute favourite opening to any ask i've gotten ever.

[professorbussywinkle]

People who pride themselves on their normalcy paradoxically also want to stand out and be viewed as unique individuals at the same time, while they dress, talk, act, and behave like everyone else, they want their normalcy to be revolutionary in part because they make a frequent habit of constantly contrasting themselves against everyone that doesn't fit into conventional boxes so often, that they really come to believe that degeneracy and freakishness is rampant and taking over when it's just not, and that they're the ones who are in the margins by being normal, which causes them to feel persecuted for their normalcy, even while remaining in the majority and meticulously adhering to mainstream social, gender, and behavioral conventions

Also, they view adhering to normalcy as a type of obedience to society's values and they view obedience itself as a direct measurement of how much moral worth they have as a person, and come to feel like they should get rewards or special privileges for behaving, acting, and presenting in the ways society tells them to, and are thus more likely to view themselves as better and more moral than people who defy these norms

Which, when this reward cycle is reinforced, makes them start to see anyone who acts outside these conventions as being disobedient, and therefore deserving of punishment and discipline...

....so now you can kind of see how people get to a point where they perceive queerness and oddness and strangeness in people and interpret it as unruly, disobedient, defiant behavior that must be "corrected" in some way, and how this view on discipline, obedience, and punishment has been twisted into fucked up apologia for horrible oppressive behavior

[redautism]

theres a really easy way to annoy me and thats to come into my house and say “x is proship” when at worst its like toxic. have we watered down the meaning of proship so much that it just means anything toxic? you’re comparing two dudes that can fight and kiss about it to people committing actual crimes? hello? who are you?

[batsplat]

On the one hand I definitely agree that Marc’s absence doesn’t take anything away from titles won but on the other I would absolutely understand if Joan and Fabio especially (Pecco less, I think… the bike… they all know about Honda beginning to fail, right? At some point ig you could say even a pre-Jerez Marc Marquez wouldn’t have ridden that to a championship and it is in Pecco’s best interest to put that point into 2022) would forever consider their titles borrowed off “luck” because I also think everyone ASSUMING if Jerez didn’t happen, Marc would have won 2020 and likely also 2021 isn’t exactly wrong. He won 3 whole races in 2021 (however he did that), that’s more than anyone else but Pecco and Fabio who finished second and first… as Max said, if is a stupid concept in sport, but the if in question is not a regular “if”, and the whole grid knows it. Hell, we are all aware that had Jerez been simply milder instead of the horror it became, Marc’s achievements would look different at this time… So that’s definitely very interesting to me, that any winning done in Marc’s continued absence from the top seems asterisked by the riders’ own attitudes. That him being on that Ducati this year helps, even a little, to alleviate a bitterness that seemed settled whenever he missed a race. It’s a true win only if you beat Marquez, because Marquez is the one to beat. I wonder if that’s what 2010 felt like to the then-grid, when Vale broke his leg… that winning didn’t even count properly, bc Valentino was not there to make it real.

yeah, listen, if marc had been uninjured in 2020, he would have won the title. I'm not arguing that bit, I'm saying it doesn't matter. marc's injury wasn't some kind of freak accident... it was unfortunate, but it was also unsurprising, and his comeback going wrong even more so. this is what you have to remember about sports but especially motorcycle racing: you are placing heavy demands on your body, and sometimes the excess demands are directly correlated to your success. in this post, there's some quotes from 2019 about how 'lucky' marc is... because he was crashing so so much outside of races to find the limit of the bike - and yet it didn't hurt his results (obviously he was still injured a lot, yearly off-season surgeries and all that). this was part of his approach and it was obviously a very successful one. and in some ways it is also one that was necessitated by the characteristics of that honda, which at this stage only he could tame... but it is true that if a lot of other riders crashed at that rate, they would've been considerably worse off, and it was a part of the process that allowed him to be so successful. and it did already make a lot of people very uneasy at the time, because it felt like eventually it just... had to go wrong. it's also worth noting that... yes, marc's achievements would look different if the injury hadn't been that bad. but the initial injury wasn't 'that bad' relatively speaking - it was his decision to come back that really fucked him over. I strongly believe he shouldn't have been allowed to race, but it was still his decision, and it was part of a tradition of ridiculously fast injury comebacks that had also helped make him so successful in past years (though fwiw this one immediately felt like a bad idea, zero hindsight needed I promise you). so let's put it like this: if you keep putting your body under incredible strain even by motogp standards to reach the level of success you do, and eventually your luck runs out, eventually you land badly on the wrong side of the risk/reward calculation... then how is it fair to say your competitors should be handed asterisks in your absence?

in 2018-19 everybody (including valentino) expected that marc would surpass valentino's titles. few expected him to last at the top of the sport for as long as valentino did. valentino during his prime crashed far far more rarely than marc did and was battering his body considerably less... for marc, there was always the question of how long this could last. he was punishing his body for his particular brand of brilliance, but this always had to be a trade-off. it wouldn't have been surprising if his career had ended through injury, though of course how 2020 played out still ended up being a shock. but!! at the end of the day, even without marc's particularly risky style of racing, you wouldn't need an asterisk. the comparison to 2010 is an interesting one, because you can tell that jorge was at times extremely eager and determined to stress that he wasn't just benefiting from valentino's absence. in the dorna-produced docu for his title, he emphasises that he was already leading the points when valentino broke his leg at the fourth race of the season... which is true, but a) valentino also wasn't leading the championship in the early stages of the two previous years either, and b) valentino was already managing injury. the eruption of that icelandic volcano meant motegi had to be rescheduled, which gave valentino the opportunity to go and get his shoulder injured in a motocross accident (again, for the question of training risk/reward see the post I linked to above). it was this injury that quite probably caused the next one... and troubled him more in late 2010 and early 2011 than the leg did. it also set off the chain of events that allowed jorge to gain ascendancy internally in yamaha, which is part of the reason why valentino decided to go to ducati and essentially took himself out of title contention for... well, two ducati years, and another year where he still wasn't quite up to speed on the yamaha. stop the volcano from erupting and motogp quite plausibly looks very different for the next few years

the question of whether valentino wins the 2010 title without injury is far more open than whether marc would've won 2020, but at worst you have to call it about 50/50 - and even with the troublesome shoulder valentino was getting the better of their actual wheel-to-wheel fights in late 2010. so that title fight too was severely influenced by one rider's bad luck, one that you can't even trace back to a particularly risky riding style... but on the other hand, eventually everyone's luck runs out, and valentino had been relatively lucky for a long time. he was also getting older, which in itself will affect recovery time. this is how athletes' competitive life cycles go, right - yes, you might lose your physical edge, yes, you might struggle to find the same fire, but you have also demanded a lot from your body for a very long time and eventually you pay the price. eventually, every athlete's era has to end... and unfortunately in grand prix motorcycle racing, a lot of the time that era ends with injury. schwantz and rainey were long-time rivals, with rainey winning three consecutive titles at the start of the nineties. in 1993, they were again locked in a title fight - until rainey crashed and was left in a wheelchair, his career ended and the title handed to schwantz. that was schwantz's only title, but he's still considered one of the greats of the sport. doohan and criville were teammates when doohan was dominant, and it took doohan's career-ending injury during the third race of the 1999 season for crivi to finally win the title. kenny roberts jr won the title in the following season in what was a chaotic year not dissimilar to 2020... from the young star who wasn't quite ready to put together a title charge to the underdogs at suzuki eventually claiming the big prize. this is how it goes... what a champion needs on their side as much as anything else is luck. jorge wasn't crashing as much as marc was in 2013, and yet somehow he ended up with the broken collarbone at assen that severely damaged his title chances - because sometimes, it only takes one crash for it all to go wrong. does that mean marc is an undeserving title winner in 2013? of course it doesn't!

in the case of 2020, when it became increasingly clear marc would not be winning this title, it's not like everyone's minds immediately went to mir. the favourites were dovi, fabio, vinales... the thing is, right, it was an absolute mess of a season (that was also of course seriously impacted by the pandemic), but someone had to be the one to take advantage. the suzuki was a well-settled package and mir after a strong rookie season was the one to put in the consistent results to claim the title. he was already highly rated going into motogp, and he was absolutely seen as a potential star of the future. for his sake and his reputation within the sport, of course it would've been preferable to win a more emphatic title... and in some ways, his 2021 on a lagging suzuki is more impressive than the 2020 title. it's an incredible shame how his career has gone since then, mostly not through his own fault, and you still want to hope he'll have the opportunity to dispel a few more doubts - both from the fans and quite possibly himself. then again, hayden won two races in 2006, kenny roberts jr three in 2000... at the end of the day, the main thing new fans know now is that they were champions, and so it will one day be for mir too. moving on to 2021, it's worth remembering that by then the honda was already a bad bike. yes, marc would undoubtedly have been the title favourite - but two of his three wins that year were at his specialist circuits that also still suited the honda, basically the places where he could win with his eyes closed. at the very least, you have to believe 2021 would have had a proper title fight and wouldn't just have been a stroll in the park for marc - yes, quite probably he would have prevailed anyway, but it's really not so cut and dry

THAT BEING SAID. I do agree with much of this ask! it is interesting that it's asterisked in the riders' minds! but it shouldn't be - that's the devil talking, you need to stand up for yourself and ignore all the doubters and get on with it. jorge had enough self confidence and stubborn belief in his own ability that this discourse in 2010 did nothing but piss him off. in 2007, casey was incredibly sick of people talking down his title because of how good the ducati was that year and the tyre difference between him and valentino. yes, casey was on the better package that year, and valentino did clearly benefit from switching tyres in 2008. does that in any way detract from casey's title? no! it doesn't!! he was right to be annoyed - imbalances are part of the game, and casey was very good that year. he deserved that title! valentino also faced the bike merchant allegations in spades of course, but young champions are particularly vulnerable to this kind of discourse. they're less established in the sport, more likely to attract detractors who are determined to prove they can't live up to the legends of the past... after 2006, everybody more or less agreed that it was a bit of a lucky title, but hayden was so popular and people were so pleased for him that it was just treated as a feel-good story - which it wasn't in the same way with surly young casey. no matter! who cares what people think! if your opponent has a bad day, you need to take the opportunity presented to you and press home the advantage. if your opponent has a bad year, even better. no sitting around worrying whether history is going to take your accomplishments seriously... it's like hayden said at assen 2006 when valentino broke his right hand and left ankle. from the oxley reference book: '[valentino] finished the race in eighth, which put him 46 points behind hayden. "when that rossi guy is down, you gotta jump on him!" he grinned'. brutal, but that's the game

also, I'll say it: I reckon both joan and fabio have probably had their fair share of bad luck to compensate by now. enough

[menlove]

it's also like. a lot of these people have made being The Most Progressive Moral Leftist a goal and marker of true social clout. and they have thus made leftism a personality trait rather than a political stance. so you see takes on here (usually from teenagers lmfao) equating leftism with having sex, having friends, going to clubs, not liking "cringey" things, dressing cool, etc while conservatives/liberals are everything But that (i.e liberals are all asexual steven universe fandom moms and conservatives are all straight white men who go to church on sunday)

when the reality is like..... literally anyone can be anything. there are people who you would think are cool and awesome (i.e they're queer, they go to clubs, they have sex, they dress in modern fashion, they have an alternative appearance) and then they open their mouths and it turns out they voted for trump or think the holocaust was fake. there's tay//lor swift fans who went to jail for dodging the draft in israel. and people with fandom blogs who spend every weekend volunteering at their local homeless shelter and rioted during the george floyd protests/riots. or any combination of literally any trait w any political ideology

like you genuinely cannot tell someone's morals or political stances based on their appearance or social activities and it's really weird to conflate the two. it's not a popularity contest ykwim?

[rottenresponse]

Felt like drawing some silly guys so I can get back into doing things digitally :3

Axell owned by @littlegeecko

Chris owned by @luminoghost

Enjoy! <3

[out-of-heaven-and-hell]

90% of tumblr drama

"This person was mean to meeeee" :(((

[dwtdog]

https://www.tumblr.com/dwtdog/747418114345631744/httpswwwtumblrcomdwtdog747417582393507840im?source=share

it was such a weird switch up too. like he went from literally singing dreams praises and talking about being so excited to continue working with dream and talking about how much he helped him to making fun of him for being upset about his family getting threats(including his sister, who was also seemingly good friends with Tommy, getting rape threats)??? like literally within a month??? it's weird 😭

IT'S SO WEIRD. dropping that stupid fucking video months after the dust had mostly settled?? not even getting on the smp (lol)??? that clip where he and tub/bo r talking about regretting things ? like what in the world goes on in his mind