#do people even care if someone is anti them

[thebestcrew]

Guys. I don't think anyone is debating on what anti-endo means. Just to clarify that point. The term itself is well understood. Just to make that clear for anyone who's getting confused.

What is being discussed is about nuances and not jumping to conclusions. You don't have to like them, you don't have to agree with them, and you are welcome to keep your boundaries and keep anyone who uses the label at a distance.

I think what everyone is trying to push for is that there are nuances and other reasons someone may use the label. Should a label be used when it doesn't fit 100%? Probably not, but if it does what the person needs it to do, then I'm not going to say they shouldn't use it. Doesn't matter if it is seen as a positive or negative label.

Use anti endo and I'll block you. But I'm not blocking because I think every single person who uses the label or tag is the very same as Astro or other harassers. I'm doing it to lessen my odds of seeing hate AND giving space to people who may not want to interact with me. Which is fine and dandy. I'm not assuming every anti to be the devil who deserves harassment for choosing said label or being blamed for things they haven't done or even agree with.

I know more things have been discussed the past couple days, but this is simple and easy for me to engage with. If you don't like my stance or the people I've been agreeing with on these matters you are welcome to block us, and to make life simple please remember to block @ash-n-dynamite because thats our main account. If you don't want to see us I don't want to see you.

Anyways, to anyone who's been triggered by this syscourse, please PLEASE take a moment to filter tags, step away, get something tasty, hug a pet. People have been hurt by antis and syscourse, there is obvious trauma and trauma responses going around. I don't care why its a trigger, and I dont even care what your stance is, but I do care that you take care of yourself. Please do something healthy and kind for yourself.

[rayssyscourse]

syscourse hot take (more like syscourse tired take honestly) "pro/neutral/anti-endo": for anyone who's endogenic in any way, or even just previously thought they were endogenic, it's really tiring (and not conducive to constructive conversation) to have so many syscourse labels revolve around...an innate aspect of someone's lived experience. Like. We are fully aware that plenty of people who label themselves "anti-endo" don't necessarily think that endogenic systems are fake and/or evil etc, that's just purely a demonstrably true statement. We don't even think that the people using "anti-endo" that way are necessarily Terrible People for doing so. Simultaneously, though, speaking as a system who spent years thinking we were 100%-basic-vanilla-endogenic but still wanted to take part in nuanced discussions around system experiences and offer our perspectives on discourse--seeing 'anti-endo' or even 'endo-neutral' always still...stung a little? Even when someone was conversing in good faith. Like, the idea that it was acceptable for our personhood (which really is what it felt like the arguments were about! whether one of us was 'just a made-up daydream' and not a person) to be up for debate, that it was an acceptable "political football" or thing to be "neutral" about...wasn't a good feeling. And honestly, even though we technically have a DID dx on paper these days, we still get that little flicker of distrust whenever we see 'anti-endo' in someone's bio--because we're still exactly the same system that we were before, and if they wouldn't have believed us about our experiences then...why do they think so much depends on some rubber-stamp diagnosis? what do they think changed? We don't have a good answer to this problem, though. Telling people that they're automatically terrible bigots for not labeling themselves pro-endo doesn't feel like it'll actually solve anything, because crucially I don't think that most of the "doesn't actually believe endos are fake or bad"-anti-endos are calling themselves that for a reason that simply shaming them sufficiently will change. Also, the internet is a big place, and expecting everyone to be up-to-date on every possible niche discourse stance is absurd--and if someone really just wants to stay the heck away from system discourse entirely, they should be able to. But also...yeah, we wish they'd use different words. Don't use "anti-[unchangeable aspect of someone's identity]" and not expect it to feel hurtful to see. "Well, I just don't want people Like That interacting with me..." what if they just thought your art was cool? What if they agreed with your hot take about [insert fandom here]? Who else are you 'anti', not because you disagree with some opinion they hold, but purely because you're 'nothing like them'? Idk. It's frustrating, and I wish we had some kind of easy, magic solution.

thank you!! this is a really well written thought, and i fully agree.

to be honest, this is one of (admittedly many) reasons i dropped pro/anti-endo labels altogether. not only can they come across as denying somebody's existence, but i feel like we just don't fit in simple boxes like that. i mean, "pro-endo" can mean any plethora of things: it could mean the person is endogenic, they support endos, they don't engage in syscourse/just don't care, they just disagree with anti-endo points, etc etc. in the same way, "anti-endo" can also mean a million things. some anti-endos think endos are all faking, some think they're misinformed, some believe they exist but think they're spreading too much misinfo, some think they're doing harm to traumagenic communities, etc. i also just don't like the black-and-white way those labels portray us. somebody being pro-endo doesn't mean they support every single endo, it doesn't mean they necessarily support radqueers (weird misconception i see a lot), and it doesn't mean they have no criticisms of the endogenic community. i know a lot of anti-endos who fully believe and don't hate endos but just have criticisms of the label and/or community, who are often assumed to hate all endos or think all endos are faking because the label is just too broad and comes across completely wrong.

sorry to ramble on for so long in one giant paragraph lol. tl;dr, you're so right, say it louder for the people in the back!!

[persistentplums]

More Venture bro future thoughts p2:

With the timeline as a factor in Venture bros I think Hank would ride the wave of 2000s reality tv and still be an adventurer. After somehow falling into trainings and becoming certified he would probably get the attention of someone who likes his moxy (how can you not) and get him a show.

He runs around the world with a camera guy, and it’s another person pulled into the whirlwind of Hank/ventures. I would like to think bc Dermont is OSI he shows up sometimes. In classic adventure movie fashion there’s always a woman who’s antagonistic (Hank has a type what can we say).

I believe Hank would have an impact culturally like his dad and Jonas but a larger scale. He would be closer to a wrestler/Gordon Ramsey Hell’s Kitchen etc (2000s tv I can’t remember reality tv), dabble in acting, movies, tv, music. Rise of the internet means Hank Nation is a real thing, kids would imitate his stunts, Halloween costumes would be made of him, etc.

Hank would be a bachelor for his life, Hank is great! It’s just he doesn’t slow down, always “on” and all the women he likes kinda want to kill him or he’s into women who aren’t compatible. I would like to think, in a sweet Disney tv show way, Dean kids are trying to set Hank up with someone. Kids can be sweet, and they would love Hank. Even when the kids get older, but whether or not Hank settles down I don’t know. Hank feels like he would grow old and be weird worldly old man in the neighbourhood who has stories upon stories that has loved every inch of the world.

Hank is suited to the quick entertainment output internet put a pedal on so I genuinely think Hank is set for a while. He would make enough to retire still doing everything he does but with the less flashy lifestyle of his career gave him.

Dean definitely hates the idea of being on reality tv so no go for him. Dean helps at Bobbi ranch also with Hank, I’m sure they visit her never officially calling her grandma but it’s the same in energy. Dean gets motivated to help the animals on the ranch, leaning harder into science+biology. Funny enough he ends up in school longer than any Venture but still graduates.

He has bureaucratic messes happening to him, again following timeline of the show we are leaving the classic ages of heroes and villains. 2000s comics were edge on edge, we have anti heroes, villains who do psychological damage (even more) and don’t draw the line. I would like to think Dean who’s already over it, is SUPER over it. A heckler of a “hero”, who weirdly in a Brock sense is a critic of what’s “classy” villainy and gets under a lot of people skin that way. If his Monday night is ruined then EVERYONE Monday night is ruined too.

I think the boys “team up” a lot Hank is never in the same place but his adventures end up crossing Dean’s a lot. If Dean is sent to the moon to examine the water, Hank is there because he heard there might be massive worms only for both to find a villain who is trying to destroy the moon by digging into parts of it with robot worms. Stuff like that!

Dean is the type of person who has a child with a woman who is his arch. Did he know? Nope. Does she love him? Hm. But I think it would be funny that’s how Dean has kids and how a real villain would ensure their spot as Dean Arch. Visitation and “going to moms” is the most elaborate and dramatic part of each week. The kids probably don’t care, mom has a flying lair they get snatched up by.

It’s a little funny to ME, the whole set up that Dean in an effort to ignore this life he’s in has kids with a person he saw the most of and still didn’t put two and two together. Mr and Ms smith esq except we never really know if Ms.Arch loves Dean or not.

They both love their kids deeply and in a weird way Dean is glad the arch who keeps taking his kids isn’t scary to them she’s incredibly harmless to the kids just dramatic. Unlike Myra or any arch/person that has kidnapped Dean, Hank, or even Doc as kids she makes sure the kids are taken very safely and in fun ways. Then cranks up the heat for Dean for seemingly no reason.

(It’s also against my personal belief that Dean is just straight but I want to believe Jared and Dean get together but I like to think Jared and Dean still have a thing going on even when they get older.)

Dean Arch having his kids was a move nobody would do but she committed to the whole thing with glee idk what he did to her but I think it’s a move Monarch would like so that’s my reasoning. Monarch was trying to fuck RobotDoc I think he would respect the underhanded approach of marrying your nemesis and having his kids but would 100% be so aghast.

Monarch obviously believes in love, the show is all about love so I think it would be a good problem of “modern villainy” mindset. How the game is changing and things don’t stay the same. (She isn’t devoid of love, but with every joke you gotta have a consequence ykwim) with that in mind OSI also has the problem with modernization.

Nobody respects the classics anymore but we can’t keep recycling them, things need to keep moving on and I would think this is a fun problem for all characters to deal with in some aspect. Hank leaning into reality tv, Dean technically married and divorced to his arch, the new wave of villains, what heroes exist organically anymore etc

That’s it! For now!

[bookofmirth]

I still don't get why people think Azriel and Bryce would make sense cuz they don't. How would that work?

One of them would have to leave everything behind and I don't think Bryce nor Azriel would leave their homes just to be together. Neither of them would like to change and lern everything about the new world just to be with one person. Honestly, we'd need more books for that storyline.

I don't know Sjm, but this is something Sjm would most likely not do. It would be so weird to imagine Azriel doing tik tok dances and Bryce not being able to use toilet paper 😂😂😂😂

I was talking with the group chat about this the other day, and I am meh on Az and really dislike Bryce, so take this with a grain of salt, but they would be the WORST couple lmao

It's not even the logistics stuff you mentioned, but their personalities would clash so badly?? Bryce is a fun-loving, brash party girl and Az is intense, standoffish and serious. Bryce wouldn't have the patience for him and vice versa. I could see them hooking up and then being annoyed with one another the next morning and never calling each other. I just don't think they'd have the patience or fucks enough to even get to know each other. I just don't get it 💀

[watcherintheweyr]

desperately need people to understand that alicent is a victim but she’s also an abuser and a perpetrator

that she actively makes choices to harm other women because of jealousy and envy and the greed deep in her bones because submitting to suffering didn’t get her what those women fight to grasp for themselves.

she is absolutely a victim, in show.

that doesn’t change that she abused rhaenyra and her children, her own son, most likely helaena given how she flinches every time her mother touches her, and is actively weaponizing the patriarchy of westeros against other women- rhaenyra primarily, but also mysaria and dyana.

she isn’t the moral, righteous force of good that even she thinks she is, she’s a wounded woman directing all of the rot, pain, and fury inside her at the wrong people and forces.

[coockie8]

i once had an anti tell me to stop sexualizing their trauma on a story i wrote that was a word for word retelling of my own actual trauma but with names changed and its been 2 years and i still cant stop thinking about that

Ah, yeah... Unfortunately a non-insignificant number of antishippers seem to genuinely believe they own the concept of trauma, so any story they read that they believe to be portrayed in a romanticized or sexualized light therefore must be romanticizing/sexualizing their trauma specifically.

I couldn't tell you the amount of times I've gotten the "stop sexualizing my trauma!!!!!!" or adjacent comments from antishippers that universally garner a response that basically boils down to

Like, bitch! I'm talking about my trauma! I literally did not even know you existed until you fucking commented!

[skitskatdacat63]

.

[antianakin]

So in the Caretaker Luke AU, I think someone in the New Republic is probably connected to Cal or Cal's refuge on Tanalorr and is able to get a message to the Jedi to call them in for Anakin's trial because if anyone deserves to speak or have final say on what happens to him, it's the Jedi. Especially the ones left who survived Order 66. They also need help with guards for Anakin because there's a worry that someone might try to kill him while they're holding him during the trial.

So Cal shows up with Kata and Reva, who Cal found a few years after she left the Inquisitorius.

Leia of course is fairly skeptical of Reva's sudden appearance. Last she'd seen Reva, Reva had been a seemingly loyal Inquisitor for Darth Vader. Reva doesn't mind telling Leia her true story, though, and Leia chooses to bury that particular hatchet.

Cal is the one chosen to speak for the Jedi at the trial, while Reva and Kata guard Anakin. Anakin recognizes Reva, of course, and asks her why she's here, why she's bothering to protect him when he knows she'd rather see him dead. Reva tells him that she had wanted to look him in the eyes one last time and see if she can see a person looking back, instead of a monster. The Jedi are supposed to care about everyone, and she's been trying to get back to that, trying to be the kind of person who would make a good Jedi, but caring about everyone is exhausting. She keeps looking for a way to care about him, tried to tell herself he had a hard childhood but then so did a lot of people, tried to tell herself that he was clearly damaged but then so is everyone in some way. And she knows, better than most, that he's not possessed or controlled by Palpatine in any way. So protecting him now, it's not mercy. She wanted to let the New Republic kill him, and Anakin says she should just let them do it or kill him herself, but Reva tells him that he doesn't get the easy way out. If she has to live with what he's done for the rest of her life, he does, too.

At the trial, when they ask what the Jedi would ask to be done with Anakin, Cal argues for no execution. He tells them that while he was young when the Republic fell and was replaced with the Empire, he knew that the Republic was supposed to stand for justice for all. The Republic wasn't what it was meant to be by the end and it allowed itself to become something that stood only for selfishness and greed because it was run by people who were controlled by fear. He says that this New Republic should not fall to the same mistakes, that if it wants any chance to succeed where the Republic and the Empire failed, it needs to start on a new path, one of compassion and mercy. Executing Anakin, while deserved, only means more bloodshed. This New Republic needs to be better than that. If there are alternate solutions, they should find them rather than taking the easier solution simply because it's there.

Luke offers to be Anakin's guardian, to watch over him until Anakin's death, promises he will keep Anakin from continuing to rain down vengeance and violence upon the galaxy. The New Republic agrees to this solution.

Luke goes to thank Cal for his support after the trial, for speaking up for Anakin. Cal tells him that he didn't do it for Anakin, he did it for the New Republic, to try to ensure that the galaxy they all have to live in for the rest of their lives becomes a kinder place than it has been for a long time. Luke understands and accepts this.

Luke tells Cal how excited he was to hear that there were more Jedi, that there might be a whole planet of surviving Jedi he could meet and if it would be possible for him to go there. Cal tells him that while the Jedi survivors would be happy to meet him, they're also still refugees of the Empire, in hiding as they recover. It was Anakin who destroyed them last time and then hunted them down for 20 years and they've been lucky enough to keep this particular location a secret from him and the Empire for as long as they have; Cal refuses to put what remains of his people at risk (he hadn't been particularly happy about Reva and Kata insisting on accompanying him to this trial, but they'd both insisted and he respected that it was their choice to make). There's also just plenty of people on that planet who never want to see Anakin again and he won't force that trauma onto them if he doesn't have to. And Luke can no longer go anywhere without Anakin. Cal tells Luke that they can't even give him the name and location of the planet in case Anakin plucks it out of Luke's mind. They've only survived this long by being VERY careful about keeping it as secret as possible.

Cal is obviously very sympathetic and apologetic throughout the entire explanation, but it doesn't remove the sting of the rejection and they both know it. Luke just agreed to reap the consequences of Anakin's actions, and this was the first time he truly understood what that sacrifice was going to mean for him.

[maddy-ferguson]

using intersectionality to discredit feminism and downplay its reach and essentially weaponizing it when it was coined to describe black women's experience of racism and sexism is nasty work...

[fiapple]

society if dc hired a writing team of colour who could acknowledge the racial coding of starfire & raven, explore vic's status as a Black man in modern america who's specific disability further means his body is going to be read a certain way by certain people no matter what he does, along with potentially finding a way to sort through the racisim + fetishization that went into prior depictions of dick's heritage:

[rewritingcanon]

back when i had 60 followers and a snape/snarry stan misinterpreted a post i made about snape as slander, scrolled thru my account to bitch about something, decided a post i made about DORLENE was the best option for a rebuke (😭), reblogged my post to bitch about me and dorlene (???) and then told me to stay off atyd. i think about this moment a lot now that i have peace on this account….

[tariah23]

It’s always crazy to see black celebs spew this same rhetoric because it’s such a privileged take… like, they’ve been famous for so long and have gotten their money up, moved out of the projects or whatever tf, that they’ve forgotten what it’s like to be genuinely feel. It’s impossible for them to connect anymore. As far as the qrt, oh wow ☠️.

[elftwink]

just saw a mildly irritating post that talked about seeing takes about how sdv is actually bourgeoisie or whatever (am not reblogging because the rest of the post was honestly kind of unrelated and i want to talk about this sdv claim w/o derailing the rest of it) as if that take popped out of the void when i know for a fact that that take specifically is a response to the much more common "stardew valley is actually a leftist anti-capitalist utopia" type takes, a thing that is even less true about stardew valley than claiming it's bourgeoisie

like. the double standard of making completely detached from reality statements about how left-wing the ideals of stardew are, and then claiming people making the opposite take are armchair activists like... you don't think claiming that you play sdv because it fits totally with your leftist values (rather than that you play it because it's cute and fun or any other thing you are probably actually choosing to play it based on) is a form of armchair activism? isnt it more weird to need everything in your life to perfectly align to your politics, not in the sense that you select your pastimes based on those politics, but that you select them based on non-political criteria & then insist to everyone that Actually This Is Based On My Politics even when we can all plainly see that it's not???

stardew valley is a little farming sim. whether you like to play it or not says nothing about your irl politics. but literally just by looking at what you do in the game, which is produce things so you can sell them to make more things, you guys cannot seriously be claiming THIS is your anti-capitalist utopia and get weirdly mad and project this sense of armchair activism onto people who point out that it just literally isn't. sdv is a lot of things, but anti-capitalist is so totally not one. and i have no interest in explaining the intricacies of how the sdv farmer could be capitalist when they throw joja out of town, because frankly i have seen other posts about that and i have yet to see anyone involved in arguing for #sdvleftistutopia demonstrate any understanding of like. well like even the most basic understanding of class dynamics or that the word bourgeoisie has a specific meaning that is distinct from 'rich person' or 'ceo of corporation'.

also everyone takes it wayyyy personal like saying that sdv isn't anti-capitalist somehow translates to saying anyone who plays sdv and is anti-capitalist is actually a FAKE LEFTIST BETRAYING THEIR VALUES which is just not what anyone is saying ever and acting like they are kills the conversation dead. the conversation that YOU STARTED by claiming sdv was leftist or whatever

inb4 anyone gets on my ass about letting people do what they want, i LOVE stardew valley. i have played more than 1000 hours of stardew valley. if pointing out that sdv is capitalist makes you shit your pants then actually i kind of think you are a fake fan. what was all this about the spreadsheets to maximize efficiency. just like think for even 20 seconds about what you do in the game and how it may actually clash with your irl politics and hope for the world and ultimately imo that will make you a much better leftist than insisting that everything you do is actually already leftist simply because it makes you feel nice and cozy. niceness and coziness are not correlated in any way with 'correct' politics and the sooner you internalize that without viewing it as an attack on the things in your life that are nice and cozy the less we will have to have stupid conversations like this

also last thought it's totally your prerogative to turn off your brain and not think about politics while gaming but if that's your position then don't get on tumblr dot com to claim these things are leftist (how would you know, your brain was off) and also when people kept their brains on (regardless of what their conclusion was about the internal politics of sdv, or for that matter any media) and are trying to talk about it to each other, don't annoyedly get on your high horse about how actually you shouldn't have to turn your brain on. you don't have to. stop talking to me about it if you won't though.

[the-far-bright-center]

Even after all this time, it still baffles me that there are people who can treat Disney's additions to Star Wars as some kind of inevitable continuation of the original saga (which has been officially completed since Revenge of the Sith). I'll never understand how anyone can watch the six-film Lucas saga and then watch the Disney material (particularly the fake Sequels) and not notice or care about the glaring thematic and characterisation differences between the two. Or how anyone could just passively accept Disney streamlining everything into one single 'canon'—aka glorified fanfiction which has only been marketed as canon in order to encourage its mass consumption—despite the fact that it disrespects and even outright destroys the meaning of the story it claims to be continuing.

The fact that so many seem to have forgotten or perhaps never truly understood what the saga was originally intended to be—aka, two trilogies telling a single mythic story that perfectly mirror one another visually and thematically—and now only see 'Star Wars' as an eternally open-ended franchise, will never cease to break my heart.

[1mnobodywhoareyou]

I've had this rant locked and loaded for YEARS but have never figured out how to quite make it right for Instagram and this post has brought it back up for me, so here goes:

Solidarity needs to flow DOWNWARDS. Stop expecting people who are poorer than you to stand with you for YOUR causes. This is true of literally every marginalization.

If you make 65k (or jesus, 100k) and are frustrated at the people making 30k, 10k, 5k for not standing alongside you in your fight for higher wages, turn back and see what *they* need. Listen to *their* perspective.

I can almost guarantee (with few exceptions where the privilege DEPENDS on their oppression) that in uplifting the MOST MARGINALIZED, you will better your OWN experience.

We've *seen* what happens when we only focus on our own struggle and getting *our* next step up. Nothing changes and there are just new steps to climb (hello, white feminism etc).

If you want less "infighting" and more "solidarity," look back.

Listen.

We are not your enemy.

We are not the ones making us enemies.

If you want "class consciousness" and "workers solidarity," start with yourself.

[andthespidersfrommars]

I truly can’t believe I have to say this but I am so so sick of some people my age (namely those who are tiktok users, and therefore are deeply influenced by “woke” stereotypes about queer people and queer identities that are often perpetrated on that site) telling me that it’s weird to talk about growing up as a female or about experiencing sexism because I’m not a girl? and that it either “makes it seem like I’m not really queer” when I talk about my connection to girlhood or that these things “shouldn’t concern me.” because they very much do and that’s such an ridiculous and inconsiderate thing to say.

I was afab and whether I wanted it or not I was treated like a girl and experienced childhood as a girl. I am not out to many people in my life and in their eyes I am a girl.

as a genderqueer person I still experience and feel very connected to my girlhood and the solidarity that I have among girls and women because of shared experiences despite not often identifying as a girl myself. this is because of many factors including socialization, oppression and personal identity. truly can’t believe most people I know (and quite a lot of people online as well) still don’t understand that the oppression I have experienced as a queer person who was afab and the oppression I have experienced being seen as a girl are interconnected and that we have to address multiple layers of discrimination simultaneously if we want anything to change. this is. not new information. I can’t believe people don’t get this.