#does have a massive problem with racism

[lionblaze03-2]

Oh btw I’d you hate pit bulls based on only the fact that they’re ‘pit bulls’ dni and unfollow me. PAINFULLY serious I will not accept dog racism on my blog

[decolonize-the-everything]

(to preface this, i am white. figured i should make that known off the bat) i wanted to come bounce an idea off of you that i've been rolling around in my head for a bit. i have this pet theory that, for the population ill call here "white progressive queers who know very little about poc and racism", a large underpinning of this group's interaction with poc is a Fear of Fucking Up and more generally, moral purity thought. they (maybe even "we"- im still hopefully learning myself) get so paralyzed by this idea and line of thinking that goes something like this: "1) since i know nothing about poc & racism, then 2) clearly in discussions about these topics, i will fuck up and say something wrong or perhaps even Bigoted, which if i did 3) makes me an Irreparable Ontologically Evil Racist, hence 4) i should just be quiet and never ask questions/speak on these topics" which then results in said White Progressive Queer and those around them never learning. i wanted to know what you think abt this and tell me if im on the mark or not

also thank u for the work u do on this blog, ive found so many helpful resources through you

You're right. In my experience that's exactly how it is.

I want to add tho: yes they're uncomfortable that they might fuck up and be considered racists sure, but a huge part of that stems from the massive inability to place the discomfort where it belongs. Which is with their own guilt.

Instead they blame the conversations for making them uncomfortable.

And let's take some worthy notes here: this is not how white people feel all the time. Because white people are not uncomfortable making these fuck ups in front of other white people.

So it's not that the conversation is uncomfortable. They are made uncomfortable. And they are made uncomfortable because even when discussing anti-racism they step into the role of oppressor (the little fuck ups or accidentally bigoted comments) so naturally and God forbid other (not white) people can See how easy it is.

My advice for white people that are like this (that nobody asked for) is

Your fuckups do not define you but how you react to them does

Listen, respect, learn

That's it. That's the whole list. Say something bad? Apologize, but don't over-explain yourself. Ask how to fix it. Google how you fucked up so you understand why it wasn't okay. Google again to get idea of how your fuck up hurts people. Google some more to make sure you don't do it again. Go to some safe space and ask some clarifying questions. Listen, respect, learn.

Maybe the people you fucked up with don't forgive you and that's okay, they don't have to. But YOU won't ever make anyone feel bad or less than in the same way ever again and that's what matters.

Having one less person making racist comments matters even if it's a struggle for that person to get to that point.

I need y'all to understand that none of you are gonna just wake up being suddenly perfect anti-racist allies. And we will literally never ever have allies like that if y'all refuse to even sit with your own discomfort.

•°•°•

This weird morality issue white people have over looking racist is also just such a non-problem. Like if y'all want a PoC perspective: white people are already being racist ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ ....we Already see y'all as racists. And also I'm gonna experience racism anyway so I'd rather it be because someone was just being ignorant on the path to anti-racism.

Y'all are so worried about how shit Looks that you can't be bothered how really things are? Like you're so afraid of looking racist you'd allow yourselves to continue being actually ignorant and casually racist. And to avoid what? Being uncomfortable for a minute? Being called-out? A mean comment?

We are trying to stop hate crimes and genocide. Like that's what we are dealing with okay. Accountability for your actions is an acquired taste but I think y'all can handle some discomfort considering.

[lastoneout]

Making this it's own post bcs I don't want to detract from the racism discussion on the last post I reblogged(and also this is rambly as hell, sorry) but like I always find the critique that "x genre of music is only about drinking, sex, and violence" wild bcs....almost ALL music in every genre is about that?? Like with rap/hip-hop it ofc this argument ties directly back to racism but even with other genres that get shit on like country people are like "they just sing about getting beers with the boys and driving their trucks" like???? Yeah, I could grab 50 songs from other genres that are about that and beloved regardless??? Getting beers with the boys is a fucking cherished meme on this webbed site!! Or that one Ed Sheeran song people roast all the time like "how dare he write a song about finding his girl's body attractive" bro, are you new here. 99.9% of popular music is "my partner is really hot and I want to have sex with them" and that's like the ONE song of his I know of that's just about fucking like he writes about other stuff, people just ignore those bcs it doesn't fit the narrative of him being a shallow misogynist everyone here loves to drag around and beat like a dead horse.

Why is this a bad thing when people you don't like do it, but fine when the people you do like do it, huh? Hozier is one of the most popular artists out there rn, this site worships the ground he walks on, and yeah his music has a lot of layers of poetic meaning but a lot of it is just about sex and falling in love and violence and drinking. The two are not mutually exclusive!!

Which is kinda the root of it, them not being mutually exclusive, bcs imo even if a genre was entirely saturated with songs exclusively about drinking and sex(which no genre is, you just haven't gone looking for the other stuff), I just don't think that's a problem or means the music is bad or less artistically meaningful?? I genuinely don't think there's a damn thing wrong with writing a song or twelve about finding someone attractive or talking about the violence a lot of people live with every day of their lives or even just churning out a fun party anthem for people to play while they get white girl wasted at a tailgate. Who cares if the art is shallow, why does it have to be "deep" to be worthy of respect, and why does deep and worthy of respect mean "no sex, violence, or drinking", three things that have been part of the human experience since we fucking became humans!

Honestly if you really are looking down on rap and country for being about sex and drinking and violence I want you to ask yourself why you think some artists should be denied the right to write about shit everyone else is writing about all the damn time to massive critical acclaim. Why should black people and rural poor people and women(bcs this is also a critique I heard a LOT aimed at female pop stars) be denied the right to explore the full spectrum of human experience and emotion in their art. Why do they HAVE to tell stories about something else to be taken seriously when their fellow artists can churn out entire albums full of songs about sex and violence and partying and not have anyone bat a fucking eye.

And, on top of that, please ask yourself why you think that something can't be deep while being about sex, drugs, partying, and violence. Bcs that is some fucking discount moral panic bullshit that needs to get knocked out of your head before it festers and you start insisting people who like horror are weird because violence can't be art.

[bitterrobin]

I’ve noticed that a problem with the “Batman shouldn’t/should kill” debates around here is that a lot of people tend to self-insert themselves into the equation.

It’s always “if killing a violent guy in self defense is bad then I’m a murderer?” or “well, if it were me, I would’ve killed the guy a long time ago.”

Newsflash, you’re not Batman. You’re a real person where consequences can be applied and you need to live with whatever you’ve done.

Batman isn’t real. He’s a character owned by a massive company. In tense situations, you might often have no choice but to commit violence to save yourself. In a tense situation in DC, Batman has writers that can get him out of anything.

DC writers have the ability to write him out a situation where he could kill, with no violence committed and everyone safe. Now, whether or not they’d actually implement this kind of outcome is another issue entirely but the point stands.

Batman is a character with long-established personality, traits, moral code, history. Because he’s a fictional character, writers can’t change every single aspect of his character, they have to keep something otherwise they’re writing someone different. He’s not a real person whose sense of morality or justice can change as he ages and learns - because he can’t age. Rarely, he learns, but this chalks up to comics evolving over time due to the great conflicts/hot buttons of a specific time period when a story is being written.

“But Wasp! Writers self-insert themselves into Batman all the time!” You say. Yeah, they do. And 9 times out of 10, that piece of media turns out horribly wish-fulfilling and severely out of character continuity. Modern writers lost the plot when it comes to making Batman an undefeated god, but regardless he should be a hero.

Therefore, Batman shouldn’t kill because:

DC can always write him out of the necessity to kill.

He’s already been established for a long time to live and die by his own moral code.

He believes strongly in rehabilitative justice

He’s been established to be a symbol for a better Gotham. He kills, even discriminately, and then he’s no better than the hundreds of cops in his universe. Racism, classism, police brutality exist in Gotham. There’s full storylines and series about the GCPD and the role they fill in Gotham when Batman exists.

Batman does their jobs better than they do (usually). He’s supposed to represent justice in a way the police can never be. In a city like Gotham, fictional it may be, distrust and violence comes easy. Murder and assault runs rampant. A vigilante committing themselves to killing would do nothing to change Gotham, nothing to change the GCPD, nothing to project an image of safety, nothing for anyone.

Batman is Batman because he represents hope and compassion in a city without it.

[llyfrenfys]

Xenophobia in Celtic nations' independence movements: A guide to the red flags

This is something I've wanted to write about for a long time - I want to go over this in more detail when I can. But for now a short guide to the most egregious red flags is warranted imo.

'Celtic nations' refers to the modern regions where Celtic languages are still spoken, namely Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Isle of Man, Cornwall and Brittany. Its important to know that these places are called Celtic not because of who lives there, but because of the languages which have survived there. Its a common error to think 'Celtic nations'= Celtic people. In my field (Celtic Studies) Celtic is generally only applied as a descriptor in the sense of language family.

Because of the popular misinformation 'Celtic nation' = 'Celtic' population, xenophobia rears its ugly head in multiple corners of the various Celtic nations' independence movements. Left unchecked, this xenophobia develops into outright racism. Which is why it's important to recognise these red flags when you see them.

'Acceptable Targets':

The reason why some of the xenophobia goes unchecked (and develops into worse kinds) is because a lot of xenophobia in the Celtic nations is aimed at 'acceptable' targets - which no-one bats an eye about when this rhetoric is deployed. But were it deployed against any other nationalities, it would immediately obvious that it isn't acceptable. Now, I will preface this with that there's nuance with these nationalities and there's something to be said about whether some of it is 'punching up'. However, because of how accepted it is to be casually xenophobic against these privileged groups, it is signalled through that that it's okay to be xenophobic in general to less privileged groups. I feel its important to address the first rung on the ladder before tackling any higher up.

Without beating around the bush, I'm talking about the English (and French. But I know more about the English so that's where my focus will be).

Yes, pro-independence anti-English memes and jokes can be funny. Most of them do stay on the side of punching up and many raise important points on the effects of English imperialism on the Celtic languages. However, there's a fine line between punching up and voluntarily using and wielding xenophobic arguments and rhetoric to get one up on the English. This, in my view, only paves the way for worse kinds of xenophobia and to me is a canary in the coal mine situation. But I also cannot talk about this without also making it clear that it is possible to recognise that sometimes a line is crossed without validating English persecution complexes à la 'you can't even say you're English these days' or similar nonsense. Both things can be true at once: Casual xenophobia against the English does exist, however, its existence should not be used to validate English persecution complexes. On the contrary, we should fight that also.

The reason why this canary in the coal mine has gone unnoticed is because of the reluctance to actually point out xenophobia against the English in pro-independence movements due to fear of accidentally validating the claims Englishness as a concept is under threat or due of fear of ostracism from Celtic nationalist movements. There is little danger of actually validating the former sentiment, however, because of a crucial fact. The people in the Celtic nations being casually xenophobic and the English with persecution complexes have one massive trait in common: they're both xenophobic in incredibly similar ways. If it's hard to tell apart an English nationalist from one in a Celtic nation if you were to swap the target of their ire, congratulations, your movement has a xenophobia problem /s.

English nationalist: We should tighten controls on our borders to keep all those foreigners and immigrants out. Make England English again.

(Xenophobic) Celtic nationalist: We should fight for our independence so we can tighten controls on our borders to keep all those foreigners and immigrants out. Make [insert Celtic nation] [nationish] again.

Many Celtic nationalists will also present ahistorical facts or manipulated versions of history in order to seem more valid or legitimate. It's a massive red flag when someone's grasp of history seems more emotional than grounded in historical fact. Using Welsh history as an example, I've seen this type of Celtic nationalist blatantly lie about historical figures, literally deface ancient castles in Wales based on a poor grasp (and respect for) history and conflate modern English and Welsh identity with ancient entities which do not map neatly 1:1. The ahistory presented by individuals or groups fancying themselves as leaders in their respective movements are unquestioningly accepted by others in the Celtic nationalist movements. This creates a manufactured mythology, belief in which confers in-group status and out-group status. A mythology which reinforces beliefs already present in the movement - such as the right to be casually xenophobic as long as it's against the 'right people' and as long as it is done in the name of protecting or advocating for their nation.

It was never going to stop at English people:

Once casual xenophobia is established as being tolerated, expected or even encouraged in the various independence movements, it enables xenophobes to be bolder in their rhetoric. Because casual xenophobia against 'deserving' nations like England is dismissed as 'just banter' and not taken seriously, it sends a signal to everyone in that movement that xenophobia is okay if its used against the 'right groups. While it may roll like water off a duck's back to the average English person, other, more vulnerable people do not fare so well.

To use an actual example I've seen out in the wild, some people will claim that you can't be considered Welsh unless you were born in Wales. Many people won't question this or interrogate the implications. Firstly, this comes back to how Celtic nationalists can often sound exactly the same as English nationalists (blood and soil nationalism is common to English and Celtic nationalisms). Secondly, this rhetoric also simulataneously invalidates several ostensibly Welsh people, such as Saunders Lewis (born in Liverpool) and Jan Morris (born in Somerset). In most cases, anyone who lives in X country / is a citizen of X country can or should be able to describe themselves as Xish.

The perennial anxiety of Celtic nationalists is that because most of the Celtic nations (excepting the Republic of Ireland) are constituent parts of a state (either the UK or France) and not independent entities in their own right, there is no control over borders and there is no system by which someone can be made a Welsh, or Breton or Cornish etc. citizen - and thus no way to control [nation]ness via those means. When Celtic nationalists agitate for independence, it's important to interrogate their motivations. If they are motivated primarily by a desire to control who is considered Xish and who isn't, that's a red flag.

English nationalists have this citizenship problem too, since England is not an independent nation, but a country within the UK. However, most English nationalists overlap heavily with British nationalists in general, so most agitation for 'sovereignty' gets channelled into British nationalism. This is one of the key differences between English and Celtic nationalists - the former is usually very fond of the United Kingdom, the latter detests it and wants to secede. This leaves Celtic nationalism in a tight spot - there is a desire for self determination which is currently impossible to achieve or enforce. And that makes a lot of Celtic nationalists anxious. And that anxiety leads to feeling like they need to prove their commitment to the cause by performing xenophobia, which validates their in-group status while simultaneously establishes the out-group.

A person born in England but who lives in Wales, perhaps speaks Welsh or considers themself Welsh will, in general, be mostly unharmed by 'you have to be born in Wales to be Welsh' rhetoric. But you know who might be? So many immigrants who consider themselves Welsh who make Wales a great place to be. Immigrants in Wales (especially nonwhite immigrants) may feel excluded by such rhetoric. It's almost on par with "where are you really from" sentiments. And this is an entirely self-defeating kind of rhetoric for Celtic nationalists to take up. Here we have thousands upon thousands of people who willingly want to live and work in Celtic nations - many of whom will also learn the language - undoing centuries of English and French propaganda that diminished the worth of Celtic nations and their languages* - and Celtic nationalists want to exclude these people from claiming the nationality of their adopted nations because... they didn't happen to be born here. Got it.

Xenophobia, once established, cannot be contained:

Xenophobia ripples outwards. Once it is established it is okay to be xenophobic to certain groups, other groups begin to be included in the xenophobia. This then has the potential to expand into outright racism. In Ireland, for example, there's significant amounts of antiblack racism present in the nationalist movement. Very recently, due to the actions of the UK government over the Rwanda Plan, the Republic of Ireland has gotten frustrated at the amount of immigrants attempting to reach their shores after abandoning attempts to claim asylum in the UK (out of fear of being sent to Rwanda). There's a "we don't do that here" attitude in many Celtic nationalist movements with regards to English imperialism, xenophobia, racism and anti-immigration. But not only do we do that here - it's worryingly integral to some people's visions for their nation's independence! You end up with complacency because many will take a literal no true Scotsman approach to Celtic nationalism and pretend that such people aren't really part of the movement. The problem is, is that they are here and regularly hijack otherwise unproblematic movements.

There are many routes through which Celtic nationalists can get radicalised into becoming massively xenophobic in order to fight for their respective nation's independence. All of them stem from real, legitimate problems in each nation whose cause has been misidentified.

One way is through opposition to second homes. On all counts, a noble goal and a very legitimate problem which I myself am invested in fighting. But the ways in which this problem is addressed often veer into questionable territory. If the focus is on "how dare those people from over there come over here" instead of "how dare a very small group of people monopolise housing for holiday lets at the expense of locals" there's a problem. The problem isn't people not from [place] holidaying there, it's the people who monopolise housing for their own profit which reduces housing available for locals and destroys community. In Aberystwyth I've heard some appalling sentiments against people from the Midlands - borderline if not outright classism around their appearances, mannerisms and accents. Sneering at random families visiting the beach isn't going to help anything and only exposes thinly veiled bigotry in whoever is making such remarks.

As already mentioned, another way radicalisation into xenophobic Celtic nationalism can occur is through mythologised 'history' which has been manipulated to suit the needs of the person or people making the claim. Lately, I've been seeing a rise in Welsh 'history' groups rife with disinformation and outright misrepresentation of historical events which are so designed to keep people angry about historical injustices against Wales. There are plenty of real historical injustices which can be talked about - but the 'history' presented in these groups is often fabricated or twisted to make things worse than they were or are stripped of nuance which perhaps paints certain historical figures less favourably than the authors would have liked. Not to mention superimposing modern nationalism onto ancient peoples is also just accepted as fine to do. Here is a screenshot of a Welsh 'history' group shared in a Welsh learning group I'm in. I can and will do a deeper dive into this topic in particular when I can. For now I'll mention the most important things to notice:

As mentioned in one of my other posts on this topic - the term 'native' is frequently misused in a Celtic context. Here, it sets up the basic in-group/out-group dynamic from the start and creates a setting in which members of the group are privy to the 'real' history while others are not. A brief glance at posts in this group makes that quite clear. The flag in the image is a representation of Y Groes Naid - supposedly a piece of the True Cross kept at Aberconwy. Now, there are ways to depict this cross which aren't so dogwhistley - so I'm immediately suspicious this image was chosen on purpose. Right down to the fact there's plausible deniability if anyone tries to point out how much the flag looks like the white supremacist Celtic Cross symbol, since it's Y Groes Naid, right?

I will wrap this up with that as a Celticist, I see far too many people uncritically supporting certain Celtic nationalist movements simply because they are pro-independence. Turning a blind eye to 'acceptable' xenophobia and choosing to believe ahistorical versions of history because it better suits their politics. This must be resisted - we can advocate for the independence of Celtic nations which desire it without relying upon these means. It can be done, I promise. But the path to that means dismantling systems of oppression which exist within Celtic nationalist movements. Awareness of the problem in the first place is a good place to start.

Reblogs and comments are welcome on this post to raise awareness of the issue and actually talk about these things.

Diolch am darllen!

[beatrice-otter]

completely unsurprising to see you out here whipping up a harassment committee to try and force the otw to let you harass people on AO3 into deleting fics for ships you don't like. don't you have anything better to do, you ridiculous anti?

This is the sort of thing you get as a white person when you try and point out racism in fandom. Imagine how much worse it is for people of color, especially Black people.

But also, let's note the irony here.

There is a long and extremely well-documented pattern of racism in fandom, and fans of color being harassed by white fans, that goes back ... pretty much as long as fandom has existed. For a lot of fans of color, they have exactly two choices: they can swallow down all the racism (from microaggressions to major in-your-face aggression) and allow it to continue ... or they can point it out as a problem. In which case white supremacists in fandom will try to destroy their lives for daring to challenge them.

AO3 is not the primary place where such harassment happens (because communication between people is so limited), but it does happen, and AO3 has historically been really really bad about dealing with such harassment when it gets pointed out to them. AO3 was founded by a majority-white group, and they had a massive blind spot about fandom racism. AO3 has historically not made any distinction between "this fic is about a harmless kink that someone got offended by, but this other fic is active and targeted harassment designed to hurt people." These two things are not the same, and shouldn't be treated the same.

In 2020, AO3 admitted that they had a problem, and announced that they were going to change some things to do better. Those things included practical tools like muting and blocking (which they have since rolled out the first stages of). The promised changes also included things like hiring a diversity consultant to help them figure out what of their organizational culture and policies should change, and looking at the Terms of Service and abuse policies to see what could/should be changed.

AO3 put out the practical tools, but has not addressed any of the other things they admitted were wrong.

A bunch of people think that AO3 should keep their word and want to know what they've done in the last three years. Notably, that is the extent of the pressure. @end-otw-racism has explicitly said multiple times that they are not advocating for any specific policy, whether censorship or banning people from AO3 or any other, they just want to know what AO3 has spent the last three years doing, and what conclusions they've drawn, and what their plans might be going forward.

I reblogged their posts a couple of times, and made one (1) post that had a summary of why this is an issue, with links to a couple of other people who had done much deeper dives into the issue of fandom racism and racism on AO3 specifically. In that post, one person was referenced (but not named) with a link to some discussion of things that they had done. This person was referenced solely as an example of why the policies and procedures needed to be looked at, because they were in charge when those policies got written. I included no details about them or what they had done, and certainly nothing saying people should go harass them; I just linked to enough information for people to decide for themselves if that was a person whose judgment they trusted to come up with fair policies. And said, "hey, it's messed up that people get harassed over this, if fandom were less racist and if AO3 had better abuse policies, fewer people would be harassed."

You come into my inbox on anon to harass me with all sorts of blatantly and obviously untrue things (including that I'm trying to stir up a hate mob to harass people), for daring to say "hey, there's a racism problem, we should do something about that."

Thank you for proving my point! My entire point was that there is a racism problem in fandom, and racists harass people who dare to talk about it, and you showed up immediately to harass me!

If anybody is wondering why the lovely folks behind @end-otw-racism haven't linked their fannish pseuds to the blog pushing for accountability, nonny here is why. If one post brings people out of the woodwork like this, imagine what organizing the effort would do.

But also, if you're wondering "well, nonny has a point, why did you link to a place where someone could learn the name of the person you're accusing of racism if you didn't want to harass them?" here's why:

When people in fandom talk about racism and don't specifically name names and link to publicly available facts, there is a wave of people who don't believe, many publicly. "If that were true, I would have seen it!" (you didn't want to see it and/or your whiteness insulated you from it.) "If that were true, they wouldn't have vagueblogged, they'd have named names!" And then people harass you for stirring up trouble when there's no proof of anything wrong. If, on the other hand, you do name names and link to publicly available facts, you get a wave of people like nonny here claiming that pointing out racism is the same as harassing the people who said/did the racist thing. There is nothing you can do (short of being silent) that will prevent people from harassing you. But if you do name names and post links, then at least some of the people who follow those links will go "hey, you're right, that is messed up."

On the subject of censorship, it's important to remember that there's a difference between free speech (which usually doesn't harm actual people or incite harm and should be protected even if you don't like it or find it gross) and hate speech (which is harmful to actual real people and thus should not always automatically be protected). The people most invested in calling it censorship when you reject/limit hate speech, and making hate speech have exactly the same protections as other expressions of free speech which do no harm, are racists and fascists.

But I also want to talk about the irony of you calling me an anti. Because that's the thing that tipped your harassment attempt from annoying to funny (as someone who rarely receives hate).

Antis are "anti-shippers," (aka "feelings yakuzas"). When they see something they don't like in fandom, they want to stop it and drive the people out of fandom who do it. But they know that if they name accurately the thing they don't like, the vast majority of people will not support them. Usually because the thing in question is harmless. So in order to get people on their side, they do two things. First, they find a way to twist the thing they don't like until they can conflate it with something that is harmful (like pedophilia). Second, they take that harmful thing and accuse anybody who disagrees with them of being that thing. So, if you don't agree that shipping a 17 year old and an 18 year old is wrong, you're a pedophile, and they are perfectly justified in harassing you and spreading lies about you because they are saving children from a pedophile.

As for whether I am an anti, a cursory search through my blog will reveal regular and frequent reblogs of stuff about how absurd and harmful anti rhetoric is, and why censorship is bad. And why people can ship whatever they want regardless of whether I personally like it.

You saw something you didn't like (a request for accountability for how AO3 is working towards anti-racist policies). You knew that if you honestly named what I was doing, people would not agree with you that it was bad. So you twisted that into something else that is harmful (a call for harassment and censorship of people who shipped things I don't like and being an anti). Then you used that as an excuse to harass me.

It is exactly the anti playbook. Step By Step.

You, kiddo, are the one using anti tactics.

[tom-hossain-minis]

Holy shit politics tumblr what the fuck. Are there no communists on this site? Or people with memory greater than that of dory from finding nemo ? Does nobody recall every promise Biden not only broke but actively did the opposite of what he said he was gonna do? And I also have to ask, and I’m sorry to do so, but I think it’s important, are you all white? Cause I seen yall saying “your pic friends will suffer” and the way it’s phrased makes me think perhaps yall are not yourselves poc, for the most part. Furthermore, all *my* poc friends are well fucking aware that Joe “I’m against desegregation” Biden is a fucking racist POS, as is his entire administration. Let’s not even get into increased climate destruction, his support for trans people being barred from sports, his general apathy towards lgbt people, his really fucking vile southern border behaviour and policy, his explicit fucking islamaphobia, anti black racism, and anti-Asian racism, his supreme belief in police barbarism, his total economic shitshow these last four years, and finally, something I suspect non Americans literally are unable to fathom, his vitriolic hatred of the rest of the world, and the danger he poses to humanity’s continued survival as a result. It’s true, your political system sucks fucking balls, I pity you for having only one party and not being able to remove your head of state, but don’t you dare tell me that you think Joe Biden is a “good president in most regards except Palestine”. And guess what, “trump is worse” is something I wholeheartedly agree with. But for some reason you Americans have no concept of “saying no”. You don’t have a permanent minimum standard. I can’t understand it, is there some weird part of American culture that says you can’t have a sense of personal dignity, or, dare I say it, a spine? It’s inconciliables to me that every person in the most well off, powerful, heavily defended nation on earth would not only allow themselves to be, in the most shakespearien sense, raped by their political system every four years, but that *some* would revel in it. I genuinely mean it when I say I cannot understand this behaviour. Aren’t you outraged at this treatment? Where is your fury against such degradation? Wouldn’t you fight and work and claw at everything against you until your bones were raw and white and broken rather than settle for this most violating and humiliating of lifestyles, in the hope of something better? Don’t get me wrong, I come from the cesspool that is Britain, and that’s its own thing, but I know why and how the British spirit was so thoroughly crushed so I know why people have given up there, and even then, we not only still have some resemblance of fight, but also a system that at least in theory can allow for some better representation than the American one. Britain has a proud history of rioting when things get too bad, we stole the idea from the French, just like everything in our history and culture, but America never seemed to have the same; is it just too vast a country? I just, really need someone to explain it. When and how were the American people politically lobotomised? And I’m sorry if this is rude or confusing but I really am at a loss. As a scientist I really am dedicated to and obsessed with making the world a better place for everyone, but America, the biggest problem by a landslide so massive it could be its own planet, completely and totally baffles me.

Tl;dr: fuck Joe Biden, I have a sneaking suspicion tumblr is mostly racist white people, America’s very existence can drive a man insane like the visage of Cthulhu

[redlyriumidol]

Sera and character development

So Sera is a character who (imo) gets somewhat the short end of the stick in terms of character development. She's a very polarising character and many people can't stand her- personally I love her now but I wasn't keen on her at all when the game came out. She's brash, rude, has very strong opinions and freely expresses them to the Inquisitor and to others. Sera is also very young, the youngest out of the companions, and I think her immaturity is obvious. She's got internalised racism up to her eyeballs and this makes it particularly unpleasant to romance her as a female elf, which I think was a disappointment to many.

I don't think this initial characterisation is a problem, the problem is that unlike some of the other characters we never really see her tackle her issues over the course of the game. It's easy to blame her for her opinions about elves, but realistically, this hatred includes herself, and therefore it must actually be very painful for her. it's also somewhat antithetical to her goals as a character as someone who stands for the little people- anyone can see that in Thedas, these are disproportionately elves, so caring about elves would actually be logical in her position. Sera's alienation from her identity as an elf is severe, and while I actually do think her feelings are worthy of sympathy (again, this is internalised racism, not a human character who is bigoted towards elves) they're not healthy, they actively obstruct her self-realisation. it's herself that Sera blames for the situation with the baker, it's herself that she hates, her own identity. she's from the alienage but hates people from the alienage. that's really sad, honestly.

In the breakup dialogue with her she says (about herself) "You'd get it if you were smarter. If you understood what it meant to be elven." That's pretty telling of her insecurities and self-hatred, in my opinion.

I think it was a massive wasted opportunity in terms of writing and character development not to give her a questline that interrogates this issue and helps her move past it. The temple of mythal is very personally, viscerally upsetting to her. Despite her repeated denial of it, she does feel connected in some ways to her heritage and I think it's obvious that it's painful for her. So why is it never explored??

In Trespasser, two years on, we do see a Sera who is beginning to grow up. She's very likable in Trespasser imo, her diary gives her a lot of depth. She cares about absolutely everyone. If the Inquisitor is an elf, this is added: "Is s/he all right with the elfy stuff?" and she even shows empathy for the dalish at one point: "Not as bad for dwarves as was for Dalish. Maybe." That's coming from someone who once reacted with disdain towards an elf inquisitor. She's still sceptical, but is slowly becoming less extreme. I'd just have liked for us to see it more explicitly in the actual game.

[atopfourthwall]

I wanna clarify up front that I both understand and agree with the "don't send death threats to creators" and the whole fan entitlement thing... but listening to Zeb Wells gleefully, smugly talk about how funny it is that people care about Ms Marvel and dismissing the criticism of his fridging her is absolutely fucking maddening, and kind of disgusting. Kamala Khan is a character who was massively meaningful to me, and has been massively meaningful to a LOT of brown girls who read comics. The whole treatment of her has been really, really gross - and tinged with more than a little bit of racism, not least of all the whole "Let's bring in the teenage muslim girl for one issue so she can die to save a white lady." Yes, she's going to come back soon, this whole thing is a marketing stunt to make her a mutant and MCU-ify her... which is gross in and of itself, but at least means she's not gone forever... but that's part of the problem. From start to finish the creative choices made for Kamala Khan during this arc feel incredibly exploitative, particularly because she is a woman of color - none of them are ABOUT HER. The creative team have made that abundantly clear, multiple times. Again - I am not gonna send anyone death threats, and no one should do that. But what do you do when creators seem to be actively trying to provoke that response? How are fans who are upset by this supposed to respond to this kind of overtly provocative dismissal of why this is significant to us, particularly those of us who AREN'T really represented particularly heavily in comics to begin with? How are we supposed to get Editorial to understand this is simply not okay when they seem to WANT backlash, and will treat ALL backlash as something positive or otherwise funny? I'm not buying any of the comics about "The Death of Ms Marvel", but I know other people will - and I'm worried that message could easily be interpreted as "People don't care about Kamala Khan anymore", which could lead to MORE mistreatment of her character. As someone who is very familiar with the industry and fan culture surrounding comics - what would your advice be in terms of expressing how shitty this decision was and how specifically terrible Zeb Wells and Nick Lowe's attitude have been to this whole situation?

There really are only two things you can do: -Talk about it - give the reasons why and discourage other people from buying it or anything else related to this debacle. Contact Marvel and say "As a fan and customer, I am upset and you are damaging future sales by doing this." Will people listen? Eh, maybe not, but you can't control what other people do or believe. -Now this is the really hard one, but it's the same one that I've stuck to: actually don't buy it. In fact, don't buy anything with Zeb Wells' name on it. Tell people "Do not buy anything with his name on it and this is why." And you have to stick to your guns on this. "Ms. Marvel is coming back already? No. Fuck you; you have made it clear you do not want me as a customer and my opinion does not matter. So I am washing my hands of this. Unless I can see that you recognize what a mistake this was, I will no longer be a customer. And I will tell others to not be customers." And I know that can be hard because you WANT to support the character, you WANT to read more stories with them, you feel you need to... but you have to let it go. Because otherwise they'll pull this shit again in 5 years because they think they can get away with it. And if they don't hear the message... well, that's their problem. This is their mess - they can revel in it and you're free of it. After all, if they're still producing the bullshit that you hated to begin with, why are you STILL giving them money? And this is why I still haven't bought a Peter Parker Spider-Man comic since One More Day - especially when, like Lucy and Charlie Brown, they keep yanking the football away at the last second for fixing it. They don't want my money? Fine. They won't get it.

[fiercynn]

on otw's $2.5 million budget surplus: for fuck's sake do something with our money

the recent ddos attack on ao3 illustrated that the otw (@transformativeworks) has amazing volunteers who were able to get things up and running again after a cyberattack. and i’ve seen a bunch of different people urging others to donate to otw in light of the attack.

the problem? not only are the volunteers not going to get any of the money, but the otw likely isn’t going to do anything else with it, because they already have more than $2.5 million in budget surplus that they have not been transparent about with their members, and that they have no plans for.

yup. we’ve known for years that otw had at least $1 million in their “reserves”; they’ve said so at their last two public finance meetings in 2021 and 2022. but a few months ago, @manogirl and i went digging a little deeper because we suspected that there was even more. 

and we were right. from the documentation available, our estimate is that at the beginning of 2023, they had $2,585,841 that was not dedicated to any purpose. this does not include money they had budgeted to spend in 2023 on regular expenses. just extra. (keep reading to see how we got that figure.)

equally appalling? they have all this money and are barely earning any interest on it. satsuma on dreamwidth looked at their 2021 tax returns and found that only ~$10k of their money is held in an interest-bearing savings account, which resulted in them earning only $90 in interest income for 2021. the rest of it is not in interest-bearing accounts. it is just sitting there.

looking at all the crises and dysfunction that have been discussed and uncovered over the past few months - racist harassment and the three-year-old promise to hire a diversity consultant; the mistreatment of volunteers by the otw board both related to last year’s CSEM attacks, and, separately, mistreatment and racism towards chinese and chinese diaspora volunteers both in the past and recently with the closure of the otw’s weibo account; and of course, this latest ddos attack - all of this indicates that there is severe dysfunction within the org. and donors throwing more money at the organization clearly isn’t helping.

the otw board needs to get its shit together and hire people to help with these things. this is not a new idea - there’s been talk for years about hiring paid staff, and in fact, at their july 2021 board meeting, otw said they would be appointing a volunteer who would be known as the “paid staff officer”, to come up with a plan for hiring paid staff. (to be clear, the “paid staff officer” would be an unpaid volunteer.) it’s been two years since that commitment. they have not, to my knowledge, appointed that officer yet.

it’s infuriating, because otw’s “scrappiness” as an organization is constantly used to defend their obstruction of action on things like racism, and this ddos attack will be used to further that agenda as well. but otw doesn’t need to be scrappy. they are well-resourced and could be using that money to set up more sustainable systems, instead of burning out and mistreating their volunteers, and reneging on commitments to address racism and harassment.

at the very least, if they’re not going to do anything with their massive budget surplus, they should stop taking more of people’s money. but we’d rather they did something useful with it.

if you want to see this change, the otw finance commitee holds a public meeting where you can ask questions and give them feedback. last year it was in mid-october. you do not have to be an otw member to attend. i'll definitely be making noise about it once the date is announced, but you can also follow otw's socials.

one brief aside: at the time of posting, a lot of these links are not working because the otw's website is still down. i copied these links from a twitter thread i made in the past and they should all be correct, so you just may have to wait until the site is back up to look at them.

now, to debunk some common excuses that people (not otw representatives, mind you, but just people on the internet who have decided to defend the org) give when confronted with how much money otw has:

MYTH: otw needs to keep $2.5 million in cash reserves in case of an emergency or unexpected revenue shortfall. REALITY: it’s true that nonprofits do need SOME cash reserves for those cases. typical practice is to have 3-6 months’ worth of operating expenses. otw’s current operating expenses are ~$520,000/year, so 6 months would be $260,000. (and, in fact, when i was told by an otw finance committee member that they had $1 million, they were intending 25% of that to be for emergencies, around $250,000). if you were being REALLY cautious, you could have reserves up to one to two years. but $2.5 million is enough for almost FIVE YEARS OF OPERATING EXPENSES. that is an absurd amount to be hoarding, especially when otw’s history of fundraising is that they always exceed their goals, and always make more money in donations than they need for their expenses within a given year. MYTH: they need this money for legal costs if they get sued. REALITY: otw gets most of their legal expenses donated, which is also not listed in their budget, but is in their audited financial statements. in 2021, the most recent financial statement we have, you can see on page 10 that they received just over $230k in donated legal expenses. they do budget some minor legal expenses yearly: in 2023 they’ve budgeted a little over $5k for “registration fees for conferences and hearings and funds set aside for legal filings if necessary, as well as an allocated share of newly adopted OTW-wide productivity tools”. however they do not have a history of even spending that much: in 2022, they had budgeted $4k for legal expenses and only spent $244 (see cell C29 of the budget spreadsheet). they have never been sued, and they do not appear to budget for litigation costs. and when, in the past, they’ve been asked about what their reserves are for (back in fall 2022 when the finance committee told me they had $1 million in reserves, even though this was patently false given their tax documents for 2021), litigation costs were not brought up.  MYTH: they just haven’t had enough time to figure out investment options. REALITY: they clearly have at least one savings account set up to generate interest, which only has $10k in it. even if they haven’t figured out a full investment portfolio, why wouldn’t they put more money in that account? in the u.s., the federal deposit insurance corporation (FDIC) insures bank accounts up to $250,000, so they should have at least that much in there. absurd. also, they have had plenty of time even for a larger portfolio. if you search “investment” on their site, you’ll see that they’ve been talking for YEARS about investing their reserves. more specifically, at both their 2021 and 2022 finance meetings, they said that they needed more time to research investment options. as usual, they have had far more time than they need.  MYTH: they need this money for new servers. REALITY: otw does in fact include expenses for new servers and server maintenance in their yearly budget reports. you can see this in their 2023 budget spreadsheet if you go to the sheet “program expenses” - under “archive of our own”, you’ll see server expenses. the $2.5 million is money that is EXTRA to their listed expenses and revenue in that spreadsheet.

finally, see below where we’ve given more context on otw’s budgeting and showed our work in coming up with these numbers.

showing our work

firstly, i should note for the record that i sent a message to the otw finance committee through the contact us form on the otw website on may 11, 2023 to ask them to state the amount in their reserves.

it has been two months and i have still not received a response (which i find funny, because at the last otw board meeting in early july, the board specifically said to use that form to contact the finance commitee if we had questions about the 2023 budget), so @manogirl and i were forced to do our own math. we've had this work checked by a number of people, but of course we were only able to work with the information the otw has made publicly available.

a few things you need to know about the otw’s budgeting:

they release yearly budget reports on their website (here’s their most recent one, which shows what they project for 2023 and their “actuals” for 2022), but they do not include their surplus in this report - they only include the revenue and expenses for each year

they also provide both their yearly audited financial statements and their yearly tax returns (form 990s) on their reports & governing documents page, but currently, the most recent statements we have are from 2021

otw typically raises more money in donations than they need within a year, so their surplus is always growing 

they have used the term “reserves” in the past to talk about money, but we don’t know exactly what they mean by “reserves” - is there a dedicated account that they consider their reserves?

because of these uncertainties, the goal for @manogirl and i was was to figure out how much of a budget surplus OTW had at the beginning of 2023, and because we don’t know how they define “reserves”, we defined it as how much they had in liquid assets that were not being dedicated for a specific purpose in their budget. (liquid assets are anything that can be converted into cash quickly – e.g. not equipment like their servers, nor anything that would be held in a long-term investment account, etc)

the first document we looked at was their 2021 audited financial statement. the key number is on page 11, under the section on liquidity, where it lists their end-of-year liquid assets as $2,315,841.

so at the end of 2021, they had over $2.3 million in liquid assets.

but since their 2022 audited financial statement isn’t up, we had to turn to their 2023 budget, and specifically, to their 2023 budget spreadsheet, where they show the “actuals” (what they actually raised & spent in each line item) for 2022 in column C. as i mentioned, they don’t list their reserves in this spreadsheet - only the revenue generated & expenses paid within that year, not anything carrying over from the previous year unless clearly outlined.

so at the bottom you’ll see that their net income (revenue minus expenses) in 2022 was $493,564.94, and that they then transferred $400,000 of that to the reserves sometime in 2022.

and the remaining $93,564.94, their adjusted net income for 2022, presumably carries over to help pay initial expenses in 2023 before they started earning more revenue. they also transferred $130,000 of their reserves BACK to help with that at the start of 2023.

so now we have the numbers we need to calculate the surplus (including reserves) at the start of 2023:

$2,315,841 (liquid assets at end of 2021) + $400,000 (transferred to reserve in 2022) - $130,000 (transferred from reserve in 2023) = $2,585,841 USD at the start of 2023

so that’s our math. otw had $2.5 million at the beginning of this year in surplus, in addition to around $223k (last year’s $93.5k in income and the $130k they transferred back from the reserves at the beginning 2023) to fund their expenses for the first half of this year. this does not even include the hundreds of thousands they raised in april 2023 during their fundraising drive.

okay the main part of our documentation is done, but if you want to read a little bit more about what @manogirl and i learned from doing this deep dive, here are a few additional thoughts/nuggets:

first of all, OTW is incorporated in the u.s. state of delaware, which is interesting because as @manogirl researched, delaware is a tax haven where 501c3 nonprofits don’t have to pay any business tax. plus, in many u.s. states, nonprofits have a limit on the amount of money they can keep without spending, but this too is not the case in delaware. of course, incorporating in delaware to take advantage of those benefits is not illegal! but it is very savvy, a characteristic that seems to have not continued with their financial management past their original incorporation lol

next, some more detail on their finances from their 2023 budget spreadsheet. let’s start with revenue.

the most interesting thing to me here is that while their spring and fall membership drive donations bring in the most, non-drive donations are also substantial. also their “total unrestricted net revenue received” is $975,638.36 in cell C16. however, for some reason, when they calculate their net income for the year, they use cell 12, “total unrestricted revenue” ($1,012,543.42) instead. the difference between those two cells is that cell 12 is the amount before their transaction fees are subtracted. but i have no idea why the transaction fees would be ignored when calculating their net income. is this an error?

next, their expenses, which came out to $518,978.48. not too much surprised me here except how low their legal advocacy spending still is, plus  the fact that they’d given francesca coppa a grant for her book on the history of fanvidding, lol. (i’ve written more about this; so has wistfuljane on dreamwidth if you scroll down a bit from here).

it’s also interesting to look at what they’ve budgeted (both the revenue & expenses they’ve expected going into the year) for 2022. in every revenue category, they have exceeded their goal, except for $50 in “other income”. and in most of their expenses categories they have overestimated their needs, except for going over about $700 in the transformative works & cultures, & about $500 for development. this just shows how much they are able to meet their yearly expenses (overestimated) with the revenue generated each year (underestimated), & still have substantial amounts left over (almost half of revenue transferred to reserves)

so that’s what we’ve found. if anyone else notices weird things in their budgeting, please let us know!

[pretty-weird-ideas]

Codification of a Living Document as a solution to Harassment on OTW

A solution to the current AO3 Harassment TOS being seen as unfit for certain types of harassment (such as racism) would be to codify the already present TOS.

Harassment systems for AO3 shouldn’t follow the obscenity rules of “I know harassment when I see it”. I still believe that Abuse team should have full discretion and have the ability to overrule these codified TOS, but I feel as if explicit and transparent explanations on what is or isn’t harassment needs to be clearer and treated as a living document. People evolve and change their types of harassment to evade punishment all of the time, and so the document needs to evolve and change with them.

My questions:

What qualifies as doxxing?

What qualifies as sexual harassment?

What qualifies as inciting violence in comments?

What is inciting harassment and what are the following actions that will be made?

And all of these should be INSIDE of the TOS, a document that is much more official and is sure to be followed closely for transparency reasons. These codifications should run on precedent as well. And let me explain why this system would work far better.

1) Equal treatment would be expected out of all actions done by the Abuse team. Everyone is on the same page and the users will be as well. Forcing the abuse team to run on precedent would enhance the freedom of speech on the site by being a massive equalizer. This would hopefully quell accusations of unfair over/underpolicing of certain groups within fandom. 

2) This keeps AO3 readers/writers safe from any flagrant walk-backs of the rights of the reader/writer’s speech within AO3 by shifting what qualifies as harassment under the table. There’s huge examples of a platform’s TOS being vague and allowing for massive corruption on the side of the authorities, especially on the side of bigotry (see Twitter’s sudden downturn into hatespeech after Elon took over). 

AO3 having a short section for harassment is a problem no matter who you are, because what qualifies as harassment for one team may not be the same on another day. We’re all at risk of the rug being pulled from under us on the subject of harassment on AO3. OTW is an organization that has lasted YEARS and there are elections and changing of the guard for the Abuse Team. Without a more explicit TOS that outlines these things the definition of what is an offense can change. 

What is bullying?

What is hazing?

Are slurs or hate speech bullying?

What qualifies as repeated?

Does bullying have to be repeated to qualify?

All of these have common sense answers, but common sense isn’t all that common, and it’s fairly easy to see how a simple change in the TOS to include definitions of these terms would help everyone on the site protect themselves from our rights being stripped.

A sentence after they describe that bullying and hazing qualify as harassment on AO3... they immediately kneecap themselves and walk it back and saying that they technically have no idea what bullying is. 

THIS ^ under section “Harassment” after explaining that bullying isn’t allowed is TERRIFYING. “Not everyone agrees” can also mean that the AO3 Abuse team without proper codification can just flagrantly shift the goal post without need for explanation. With codification on what qualifies as unacceptable bullying on AO3 our rights are PERMANENT until a PUBLIC AND TRANSPARENT CHANGE. 

There needs to be definitions. Even if it takes a while... and an ACTUAL DIVERSITY CONSULTANT would help do so. 

The demands that End OTW Racism are making are universal and help all fans protect their own speech on the site. It explicitly makes sure that all speech is equalized on the site by asking for the above harassment clause to be more descriptive and protective of the subjects of said harassment and explicitly outline what is an offense. If you take issue with the fact that POC are being called out here, the question is, where is your protest? If you want another type of harassment to be qualified explicitly as such under the TOS, join us. If you want stalking to be punished on the site, fight with us and we will fight with you. If you take issue with other forms of harassment on AO3, fight with us and we will fight for you. 

[odinsblog]

TERFs dni

“Mutual abuse” does not exist. Dynamics of abuse are fundamentally about a power imbalance in which the abuser consistently uses harm to gain and maintain power and control over their victim. It does not become “mutual abuse” when the victim responds with violence or harm. 

I’ve seen that many of y’all are capable of understanding that a cop hitting a protestor is different from a protestor hitting a cop because there is a massive power dynamic that makes a cop able to act with impunity and places immense restrictions on the protestor.

I’ve also seen folks recognize that using harm to take maintain that power and reacting to harm inflicted on you with violence have a distinctly different moral weight/impact.

But you see that same shit play out in an abusive relationship and throw your analysis out the window.

The question to ask is not what individual actions everyone involved has done, it’s a question of where the power is. You cannot understand abuse and how it functions unless you start asking where the actual power is and until you learn how to see it.

Since some of y’all are clearly struggling with this I’m gonna help you out: the term “toxic relationship” exists for a reason. There are plenty of relationships in which the people are just shitty to each other. Not all bad relationships are abusive ones. Abuse is about POWER.

^^ that said: don’t assume that from an outsider’s perspective that you have the ability correctly and consistently determine that a relationship is toxic rather than abusive. Because folks defaulting to saying harm in a relationship is “just toxic” similarly silences many survivors. (source)

“Mutual abuse” is the adult version of a principal telling a kid defending themselves from a schoolyard bully, “Well, it’s really the second punch that starts the fight.” Utter bullshit. This false equivalence messaging sides with the oppressor, and tells weaker or oppressed people turn the other cheek and not to defend themselves. Unsurprisingly, this “both sides are equally guilty” narrative is most often trotted out in defense of white men, especially in cases of domestic abuse.

It reminds me of when I used to hear the old phrase, “Well, everyone’s a little bit racist” that was used to equate the justified rage of Black oppression with white supremacy. Again, the problem with this argument was denying the POWER imbalance. Black people absolutely can express prejudice against white people, but because it is white people who control the criminal justice system, Hollywood, social media platforms, banks and lending institutions, the education system, etc., the collective “prejudices” of Black people will never be the equivalent of white racism and anti-Blackness. If every Black person in America got pissed off at white people on next Tuesday, not one damn thing would change for white Americans. You wouldn’t see more white people missing out on job promotions, you wouldn’t see more white people getting stopped and frisked by the police, and you wouldn’t see more whites getting denied home loans or entrance into elite colleges. Nothing would change for them because they control all of those institutions.

It’s not precisely the same thing, but in both cases, dismissing or ignoring the POWER imbalance is exactly the same.

[blubushie]

i have many thoughts about the vegan racism thing, id like to know your opinion if you'd like to talk about it

Yeah extreme vegans always end up being racist and VERY much stuck in their first world problems. They would've seen my kid and his mum die of starvation because the area they live in is is cut off from the rest of the continent for 4-6 months out of the year with little food supply so most of the nutrition they get is from bushmeat during that time. There's no food in the shops and what little there is is junk food and does not have the nutritional value for a pregnant woman to sustain her own life or that of her unborn child.

- "Waaah dietary supplements-" Privilege. Not everyone has access to or can afford them.

- "Waaah vegan food-" Do you know how much organic food costs? You slap a fucking "organic" label on it and it triples in price.

- Free range does not mean what you think it means. You want "grass-fed"

- "Your hunting practices aren't ethical" we've had them for 50,000 years. I think we'd know a little more about sustainability than you do Ms Deforest Old Growth Forest To Grow Your Soy. Fuck off. It also MASSIVELY ignores the intersection between hunting, community, and culture. Telling us to stop hunting or stop hunting via the practices we've used for FIFTY THOUSAND YEARS is just another form of cultural genocide

- Extremist vegans would rather you starve if you have SIBO/autoimmune disorders/etc that make a plant-based diet difficult/can't afford a work-around diet that excludes meat/simply want to enjoy food for once that isn't a powdered mix of a dozen different fucking supplements that make sure you don't die of starvation

[jewishbarbies]

You should watch Israelism. And “Tantura : The Untold story of the 1948 massacre,” its on YouTube. Tantura literally traumatized me. It’s a documentary where journalists interviewed soldiers who “served” in the village of Tantura. They recall the mass rapes, torture and massacres committed against Palestinians there. How they burned them for fun. How they were jealous of them because they lived in beautiful houses. Beautiful clothes. All that with big smiles…

To think human beings, blessed with thought and free will would consciously make the decision to be this evil. How sadistic, How messed up do you have to be to still support those gen0cidal maniacs ? Truly disgusting. The fact that the Brits helped those Europeans Jews do their massacres just proves how much Israel is essentially a colonial project.

Israelism is also a documentary who uniquely explores how Jewish attitudes towards Israel are changing dramatically, with massive consequences for the region and for Judaism itself. It was directed by two first-time Jewish filmmakers who share a similar story to the film’s protagonists, it was produced by Peabody-winner & 6-time Emmy-nominee Daniel J. Chalfen (Loudmouth, Boycott) along with activist and filmmaker Nadia Saah (Mo, Omar, 5 Broken Cameras), executive produced by two-time Emmy-winner Brian A. Kates (Marvelous Ms. Maisel, Succession, The Plot Against America).

Synopsis: “When two young American Jews raised to unconditionally love Israel witness the brutal way Israel treats Palestinians, their lives take sharp left turns.

They join a movement of young American Jews battling the old guard to redefine Judaism’s relationship with Israel, revealing a deepening generational divide over modern Jewish identity.”

I know a Palestinian girl whose grandmother was a Jewish Palestinian killed during the Nakba. Europeans considered her "too Arab," especially since she was married to a Palestinian Muslim. Interfaith marriages were common in Palestine back then and still are among Christian and Muslim Palestinians. It's a tragic reality that the racism against Arab Jews is often overlooked by many Zionist Jews today.

Recently, I read an article by an Iraqi-American Jew about how Palestinian Jews were pressured by Europeans to be "more civilized like them”. That just shows the colonial mindset that they had (and still have).

Finally, I’d like to call your hypocrisy on saying that Palestine never existed. Just because they were colonized doesn’t mean they never existed. It’s like saying “Algeria never existed before the French came and colonized them”, same goes to Morroco, Tunisia, Libya ect.

It’s their land whether y’all like it or not, they welcomed you even though they had nothing to do with the Holocaust. What did they got in return ? Ethnic cleansing, Gen0cide and oppression. Denying their right of return is just the cherry on top of the cake.

Israel is a prime example of why reparations are a terrible idea. All it does is spark new conflicts from old sins. And even then, you can give reparations without creating a colonial apartheid state. Reparations would have been rebuilding Jewish neighborhoods and providing social programs for their residents instead of shipping them off to be someone else's problem.

The fact that Palestinians have to pay for the European crimes is disgusting.

Shame on the US and European countries for denying Palestine right to establish sovereign nation. And shame on you for supporting that colonial and genocidal state.

[duncneydivorce]

What makes Crystal such an interesting character is that she is the physical embodiment of the most insufferable kind of privilege in a viciously misogynistic society.

She’s the princess of a very racist and classist kingdom and benefits from these things, but she has little to no agency among her family and peers with the most extreme example being the moment she’s sold off as a paramour to a dictator (by her own sister!) Her lack of agency and how she finds ways of keeping her privilege in this system directly correlates to her promiscuity.

Crystal eventually earning the title of the ‘people’s princess’ is honestly so fitting. ‘People’s princess’ is in of itself an oxymoron if you think about it for more than two seconds, which is the perfect summation of her character. I do think her desire to help people and her love for her husband came from a genuine place, she’s a rebellious spirit who never looked down on someone for their status, but she does all these things from her position of power. She wants to help the subjects of her kingdom but not enough to rebuke the privilege she gets from their oppression. She wants an exotic husband for whom she rebels against her family’s prejudice and traditions to marry him but won’t ever stand in solidarity with him when he actually needs it.

I’ve said it before but Pietro/crystal are basically the less warped and twisted version of Heathcliff/Catherine from Bronte’s Wuthering Heights. The novel is a gothic dark romance that examines race, gender and class as the foundation to the destructive whirlwind of Heathcliff and Cathy’s romance. The dichotomy of oppression and privilege Cathrine has as a high society white woman and the racism Heathcliff receives as a Romani boy are examined through the abuse they endure. If you’ve read the novel you’ll notice about a million parallels but there’s one moment in particular that always stands out to me.

People often bring up the instance when the two are trying to reconcile after Crystal’s affair and there’s still some tension between them, in this moment Crystal tells Pietro that if he ever tries to retaliate by having an affair of his own she will have her people imprison/ exile him.

Compare that to a moment in Bronte’s novel where a young Heathcliff and Cathy have a childish argument and in a moment of frustration Catherine yells at him, prompting one of the housekeepers to flog him. In their defence I don’t believe Crystal or Cathrine were trying to be malicious, in fact they come off as very childish and bratty. The problem is that when Crystal threatens Pietro like this she actually has the power to do that. This is what defines the relationship between the two. I feel like their relationship problems wouldn’t have been nearly as dramatic and messy if it wasn’t for this enormous power imbalance between them, it’s the direct source of discord in their marriage.

Considering the fact that multiple members of her family have tried to bring back slavery, I don’t think it’s fair to say she’s the worst of them, in fact Crystal has arguably done the most good out of her family. But perhaps what makes her so uniquely frustrating is what a massive hypocrite she is. How well this is handled varies on the writer.

Crystal is a Catherine Earnshaw, a Shiv Roy, a (significantly less evil) Cersei Lannister. Heck she has more in common with Emma Frost than most mutants do! I have love for all of these characters and find them very compelling but to me the moral failings of their hypocrisy, their complicated access to privilege and the lengths they’ll go to keep it is the core to their characters. I genuinely enjoy Crystal and think she is sympathetic and has redeeming qualities but she’ll never be a hero to me, her heroism, activism and ally-ship exists only in the comfort of her own margins. But that’s what makes her an entertaining character.

[script-a-world]

Submitted via Google Form:

I have a pretty weird idea. What if there were two dominate humanoid species co-habiting on a planet instead of one? However, they actually look pretty much the same, except they're not actually sexually compatible. It was only when scientists actually learned how to look at DNA did they realise they were different and the source of incapability. They had no idea what was compatible or not... they just saw a lot of couples simply unable to bear children so there was a lot of sperm donors. Sperm donation was done the old fashioned way by spoon - remember this is in the distant past. I'd say that matchmakers had a massive role in society. Not only do they connect couples but also these sperm donors.

Now, I'm trying to think from the view of the past scientists, doctors, and herbalists of this world. What did they believe created a child? They had to do a lot of studies on which couples actually produced children and which did not. They had herbs, medicines, etc... that boosted fertility and that - but obviously were useless for incompatible species. Also, how did they even understand actual fertility problems? Or is that practically insignificant due to incompatible species completely overshadowing it all?

Anyway, all of that is in the past. The story I'm creating is in the modern day where everyone knows about DNA and the revelation that there are actually two species and they have known for 200 years. How would that change society? What would cause them to continue to marry interspecies and continue utilising sperm donations? What would cause them to create species separation? Remember, they all look exactly the same. Sure, there are racial traits and that... and the usual racism will occur. But there's no way you can look at someone and determine their species... until you take a look at their DNA.

Also, exactly how viable is this idea even? That two species have DNA that is incompatible enough they can't create children but also look indistinguishable until DNA was discovered. What would make sense in discribing their chromosomes and genes? I'm not really doing anything very scientific with this but a basic description like what the chromosomes look like, how many there are etc.

Tex: I’m very fascinated by your concept of assisted reproductive technology, because the technology does require some study into genetics in order to analyze failure points in artificial reproduction.

In this instance, I would look not to science, but to folklore and mythology - history usually preserves itself in some way, and archaeology as a field science is frequently used to verify the substance of historical claims. Something like genetic incompatibility would likely be recorded by someone, somewhere, and preserved in some fashion - be it creation myths, linguistic quirks, dietary patterns, migration patterns, etc.

Would genetic engineering “fix” the incompatibility issues? How much of an impact of sharing the same niche environment would have on genetic drift from their ancestors, in terms of eating the same foods in the same environment, the evolutionary pressures in flora, fauna, bacteria, etc? Would these two species actually care to force reproduction on disparate species - do they have a reason to do so? The definition of a species is very complex, and reproduction does involve a lot of studying of gene pools. Ultimately it’s up to you what you choose to include, and what sort of internal consistency you wish to apply to your worldbuilding.

Blue: I would theorize that it is feasible for two different species to be similar enough phenotypically (in looks) yet distinct enough genetically to make it impossible for them to produce offspring. However, I would argue that there might still be a possibility of hybridization, which on the surface might look like genetic compatibility – except the offspring of such unions is often infertile (at least in animals). This might be an interesting angle to explore.

Societally, I would expect arranged marriages to be a pretty significant part of it. In all likelihood, the society would have spotted certain trends and patterns, and tried to use them to their advantage. What form it would take – a socially approved intermingling or two isolated societies – seems more of a narrative choice and would be rooted in the history/histories of both species.

A list of questions that might be fun to explore:

I wonder how queer relationships would be perceived in such a society. If the society approves of interspecies’ marriages and does not take it as something abhorrent, how would it reflect on other groups that are deemed outside the norm in our society, specifically on the basis of sexuality? It seems there’d be a whole new layer of reproduction politics. Reproduction isn't the only excuse people use to discriminate against queer people and queer unions, but it has been a popular rhetoric to demonstrate how unnatural these unions are, and it is frequently used to this day, even after assisted reproductive technology has become more commonplace.

To add on to this point, history of sexuality, gender, and queerness is actually quite complex; in different places and at different points in time, people had different ways to conceptualize and contextualize them. I would think it would be even more prominent in an interspecies’ society; then again, it might swing in a completely opposite direction.

For family structures, I’d like to float the idea of polygamy/polyamory – if the species are indeed mixed and there is a lot of uncertainty about the possibility of offspring, this could be one of the solutions.

In the same vein – is adoption a thing in this society? How accessible is it? Are there any additional factors that might motivate parents to give up their child?

If we take DNA testing as one and only sure way to determine whether the couple is compatible (which, even if scientifically proven, would likely be just one of the ways people use) – there’s a question of accessibility to such testing. Does it create disparity? Are there people who would like to do it but don’t? Do some people object to these kinds of tests on moral, cultural, or religious grounds?

Ebonwing: By all accounts, these two species lived and built societies together for a very long time. There’s no real life precedence for this so it’s even more up to you which way you want to take this than usual, but in my mind, I would find it very strange if they didn’t continue living together as they’re used to after finding out. People who want biokids (and people who don’t) might take it into account when looking for partners, but this is a society where sperm donations seem very normalised, as opposed to our world where it’s more of a last ditch effort if things don’t work out “naturally”. I wouldn’t find it strange if there’d always be people who just partner up and do the sperm donation/surrogate option. 

Addy: If people from Gene Group A can only have children with other people from Gene Group A, then you’d probably get some kind of fancy record-keeping practice, to see which families can have kids with which other families. They may not get why, but people are pretty good at finding patterns over time. You may even get historical practices where people try conceiving a child before officially tying the knot, to see if they’re compatible or not. Could make for a pretty interesting court drama, now that I think about it. After all, if you’re trying to make a political alliance, then a kid’s gotta come from somewhere.

To keep marrying interspecies in the “modern” day... well, if having children of your specific genetic combination isn't a big deal to you, then you get married for all the normal reasons - alliances, romance, stability, etc. If you specifically want kids with your genetics, then either look for your gene group or look for donors/surrogates. It'd probably be a very common first date discussion - do you want kids? Which species are you? (it'd probably be a field on dating apps tbh) Is it important to you for any theoretical kids to be a genetic combination between us, or are you okay with taking genes from elsewhere? 

Adoption could also be a huge thing, kinda like it was with the Romans (where an adopted child held all the same rights and privileges as a blood child). That could fill some gaps in the societal niche.

Stealing a line from Wootzel: "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune, and from the Smith line, must be in want of a marriage with an Evans wife."