#discourse norms

[sandybrett]

You've heard, "I didn't say it was good, I said I like it," now get ready for "I didn't say it was bad, I said I don't like it."

I don’t know how to say this in a way that doesn’t sound like I’m advocating for casual cruelty or whatever but something that grates so much about this current social moment is how many people are incapable of saying they dislike something or someone without cooking up some higher morally correct reason for their dislike. Sometimes you just disliked a book. Sometimes you don’t “get” an actor or a musician. There’s nothing morally wrong with your girl’s fuckass boyfriend he’s literally just annoying and you’re annoyed that you have to pretend you like him when you know he’ll be history in six months. It’s fine. You don’t need to justify your dislike.

[knifearo]

"asexual discourse" is so funny cause dude that's not discourse and it's never been discourse. it's not an argument and it's not a conversation bitches are just yelling at us unprompted and then making up people to get mad at 😭

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

tfw people dismiss steven universe's queer representation because "they're just sentient rocks" or "they're genderless so it doesn't count as queer romance" but they're completely okay with shipping a girl and her abusive cat sister.

[thirdity]

What it is necessary to remember, in order to make discourse a strong concept, is that it is the materialist side of reason and ratiocination, of understanding and history. It is all very well to explain that electric lights were simply not very common seventy or eighty years ago. [...] It is another thing, however, to explain to people today, whether they remember kerosene lamps or not, that, in a pre-electric light era, the creation of illumination always meant an expenditure of time and physical energy at least as great as that of lighting a match (which is already several times more than turning on a light switch) — and the vast majority of times meant an expenditure of physical energy far greater than that, an expenditure, which, to be efficient, was embedded in a social schema that involved getting candles, fuels, regularly trimming wicks and cleaning the glass chimneys, chopping wood and stoking fires, so that even the casual creation of light in such an age was an entirely different social operation from what it is today. [...] Thus, because of our vastly different relation to it, light itself was a different social object from what it is today. And thus, every mention of light, in any text from that period, whether it be in the deadest of hackneyed metaphors or in the most vibrant and vivid poetry, is referring to a different order of object. What we have begun to explore here, of course, is the discourse of light. It is the discourse that, explored in enough detail, can revivify the evil, distant, flickering lights that haunt American writers from Nathaniel Hawthorne to Ambrose Bierce, even as they turn into clichés in the later writings of Lovecraft; we must remember that initially such lights usually meant fires in the distance — forest fires or homes caught from some light source (got out of control), which, at the time, was always a flame source too.

Samuel R. Delany, "The Rhetoric of Sex/The Discourse of Desire"

[chipjrwibignaturals]

stupid ass discourse on the dash sorry

[bookhobbit]

I have no idea if this is just like an artifact of What I'm Seeing Lately. So it could be purely bias in what's crossing my view not a real thing. But I've seen such a sharp rise in the last like 2ish years of Girl Power popular media being like "only losers ask you to split the bill! Yuck!" I feel like when I was growing up it was pretty common for Girl Power popular media to be totally okay with splitting the bill as a sign of, like, Equality In Relationships. Is this...an actual change? Is it just a change in what I'm seeing rather than what's out there? Idk. Weirds me out though.

[sam-keeper]

at this point I'm just unfollowing anyone who engages in left-punching nonsense. zero patience for the liberal refusal to self-critique or hold their leadership accountable.

[depreciated-dragon]

[Image description: You are not immune to "I am feel uncomfortable when we are not about me?" End I.D.]

A friendly reminder that

[like-tears-in-rain-storms]

Look guys, I'm trying to have a good time here. I got into Warhammer 40k to cope with how shit goes in real life, the last thing I need is to have to suffer in silence the pathological stupidity of whatever loon decided to use the tag. Fandom is large, I read almost everything, adore the art, like how flexible and how imaginative it is, even if some of my own interests are underrepresented, I don't begrudge people their interpretations or their tastes, the universe is huge enough for all of us. BUT, while I stay silent and keep swimming at every 9 out of 10 offensively stupid takes I see because I value my sanity, doesn't mean my patience won't run out and I won't call out the 10th for the sheer reason that I've run out of fucks to give. I'm saying it just so we're clear, if you like starting shit or belittling parts of the fandom with stupid arguments, or any such idiocy, don't be surprised if I call you out for it. My comfort in not getting my blood pressure sky high is just as valid as yours in treating your tumblr like your personal diary/therapist.

Please let the only crippling issues in the fandom be the canonical daddy issues.

These people know who they are. To all the rest, to end on a pleasant note, keep rocking and thanks for the support these last days, and as always Ave Dominus Nox.

[specialagentartemis]

"Odysseus never once cheated on his wife!" wrong "Odysseus spent 10 years slutting it up around the Mediterranean sleeping around with every women he met" also wrong. can we move on now

[sandybrett]

"At the center of Shenker-Osorio’s work is the notion of “persuadability.” For Shenker-Osorio, a “centrist” isn’t someone who wants a little bit of both; they’re someone who hasn’t made up their mind about which option they prefer. To illustrate this point, Shenker-Osorio asks us to imagine a family trying to decide what to order for dinner. Some members of the family want pizza, others want burgers. Could that family be satisfied with a pizzaburger? The point is, the family is undecided . It’s not that they want to converge on a compromise solution that mixes the two options. That won’t please everyone — it pleases no one."

Shenker-Osorio says the left’s enemy isn’t the right, it’s cynicism. The problem isn’t that authoritarians want to erase the division between church and state, or take away our right to control our bodies. The problem is that this minority can get away with these unpopular proposals because the people who disagree with them think nothing can be done to stop them. For Shenker-Osorio, the tonic for this is to switch from the negative framing (“abolish ICE”) to positive ones: “respect all families.” Rather than saying “end the climate emergency,” she wants us to call for “ensuring clean, safe air to breathe and water to drink.” When the right says they want to cut taxes to improve the economy, we counter with, “we’ll raise wages and increase consumption, which is better for the economy.” Shenker-Osorio proposes a three-step method for changing minds. First, identify a shared value (“people who work for living ought to earn a living”). Move on to a problem (“our divisions distract us while rich people pick our pockets and hand the spoils to their corporate cronies”). And then, the solution: “rewrite the rules so that the wealthiest few pay what they owe and all of us have what we need for generations to come.”

-Pizzaburgers: “Everybody hates this idea, so it must be great”

[epiphainie]

i'll try to say this in the kindest way possible but what if we don't post bucktommy critical or bucktommy negative posts that people originally censored/kept out of the bucktommy tag by screenshotting them and putting them in the tag? people are allowed to hate a ship. idk what to tell you but they're allowed to have their opinions even if their reasoning seems stupid to you or it very obviously comes with bad faith arguments. as long as they're being decent enough to not cross the line and do keep it in their own tags/blogs, you don't have to be fighting them in our tags. if you so want to, sure do it on your blog, in your dms, in your discord servers. but i'm tired of seeing the blogs i know i have blocked for their silly takes because we keep circulating what they're posting in our own tags. seeing a collage of the stupid, negative, downright homophobic comments curated from all sorts platforms in the bucktommy tag, in fact, feels no different in practice than seeing the antis post in the bucktommy tag, especially when you don't add the useful tags like "discourse" or "fandom criticism" to your posts.

just my own two cents, hell maybe it just bothers me idk, then keep doing it i guess.

[tboyquackity]

tbh i do think the way you interact w fanbase can be and often is political. i do think you should unpack why you think certain things. i do think you should confront why you either ignore or objectify or treat poc like abusers. i do think you should look into why you can't bother to care about women characters. like i do think that matters lmao lol lmao. it's not raining on anyone's parade to rightfully point that out.

[proserpine-in-phases]

This post bugs the shit out of me because it completely divorces the author from the culture of the time she was writing in and ignores the fact that having nonvillainous gay characters in her work at all was actually insanely progressive, and not allowing fanfic or art was just. How it was. She was no where near anne rice levels of protective, and in fact her fan forums in the early 2000s did allow fanfic to be posted as long as the characters were all ocs.

Like, circling back to the gay and trans rep, she was writing in the 60s-90s, when being openly gay got you openly beaten to death in most parts of the us, reagan let the aids crisis go unchecked because of the perception it was only affecting gay people, being gay got you dishonorable discharge from the military, queer people had no civil protections from retaliation if their orientation was discovered, and anne McCaffrey was making gay dragon riders be the protectors of her fictional planet. Like. That's not homophobic especially for the times. She wouldnt be considered progressive by TODAYS standards, sure, but most of the pern books came out 40 years ago when dont ask dont tell was progressive policy.

And for a straight woman in her 50s writing background gay characters she was being pretty damn progressive for her time

PLUS op doesnt even bring up the most truly homophobic this she ever said which was her tent peg theory of homosexuality. Like do a little research before popping off

[depreciated-dragon]

#not 100% endorsed but I'm more to this end of things than the other#I get that a lot of things were never really meant to take off the way they do for one thing

yall gotta start qualifying your thoughts with some sort of admission of subjectivity, i feel like every post i see is some declaration of subjective opinion stated like its a fact and its making me deranged

[nanamis-bigtie]

not to be a bitch on main again but. i really don't like how the topic of realistic sex mechanisms is often reduced to mocking people who have a different experience than average one or don't have experience at all