#how does that make sense. you are helping the people you hate target those communities. so sick in the head

[skullrock]

i absolutely cannot believe the amount of people (majority white liberals) thinking they are any better than bigots (and fascists) by harassing and targeting their neighbors of color who did not vote for harris. how the fuck does that make you any better than the people you oppose. it makes my stomach actually hurt that people are so stupid and so cruel. fuck you, and i mean that loudly, louder than i’ve ever said it in my life!!!!!

[nekropsii]

Nekro, I'm very glad to have your blog exist. You are a shining beacon of hope. I need your input on somebody's opinion, somebody's very bad no good opinion. Somebody told me that Cronus and Mituna was just "blackrom flirting", which is supposedly "no different than normal trolls playfighting". They also told me that Cronus is a GENUINE HERO because of Dualscar! I need your input on this. I want you to tell me everything wrong with this. You don't have to, but I just love seeing you analyze stuff and this particular person's statements made me genuinely angry

Hey, thanks! That means a lot, really! <3

This one's easy. I fear I have to put this under the cut, however, due to... Cronus... Cronusing.

Content Warning: Detailed Discussions and Depictions of Abuse and Sexual Assault. Cronus is there.

Absolutely zero indication is given that it is BlackRom Flirting, or even "Flirting" at all. Just because someone is interacting with someone sexually does not mean it is flirting, or even that they're attracted to them. In this case, it is at the barest minimum Sexual Harassment, but if we are being completely honest about the events that are happening on screen, this is Sexual Assault.

Cronus is not attracted to Mituna. This is not BlackRom. This is just abject hatred from someone who is deeply entitled and wishes to control the bodies of his peers, but especially the bodies of those he deems most vulnerable. Some people counter that idea with the fact that he is literally Sexually Assaulting him here, but that requires a major misunderstanding of why people commit Sexual Assault. It is not about Love, or Lust. Oftentimes, rapists are not attracted to their victims at all. Sexual Violence is an act of Violence, not an act of Attraction. Sexual Abuse is, like all other modes of Abuse, about Control, not about Love. Abusers isolate you from your loved ones and limit your access to your money/car/phone to increase their control over you and your ability to flee or get help. They demean you, lovebomb you, and gaslight you to control your sense of self worth and your sanity. They beat you to control your behavior. They sexually assault you to control your entire sense of bodily autonomy. This is how you get Heterosexual Men sexually assaulting other Men or Boys, or Heterosexual Women sexually assaulting other Women or Girls. It is not about attraction, it is about control, and it is about violence. If I may be candid - I've been assaulted more times than I can count in my life. I can safely say that almost every single person who laid their hands on me in that way was in no way attracted to me, they just thought I was an easy target, and wanted to control me because I was an "Other" at the nigh bottom of the social hierarchy. Violence and Control. Not Attraction. Not Love. Not Lust. Pure Violence.

It does not take much thought to realize that Cronus is completely and utterly disgusted by Mituna and everything he represents - it's just that Mituna is also an extremely vulnerable person with extensive issues with communicating due to his speech impediments and his TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury), and a storied history of not being believed by his peers. He is, in essence, a Perfect Victim.

You do not need to look further for proof on Cronus literally just hating and being disgusted by Mituna than his comment about how he wishes he could kill him for being disabled, and the only reason he didn't was because it would have negative social consequences. Killing Mituna would make him lose control over his own social life. So he doesn't, and he resents Beforus for not being the right kind of Eugenicist to enable that murder. I don't think I need to tell you that this would be a Hate Crime.

I also do not think I need to state that Mituna is not attracted to Cronus, considering the first set of screenshots show nothing but a visceral rejection of all advancements being made towards him. Over and over again, he reiterates his lack of consent, and Cronus just keeps on touching him while constantly Verbally Abusing him for being disabled. At most, one could say Mituna experiences an odd kind of "Fawn Response" to his abuse, possibly hoping that playing the role of a friend will make things not as bad, when really all it does is just open up more opportunities for abuse.

I think it's noteworthy that Mituna has a few speech impediments that effect most of his speech, except for key phrases that he says a lot, and/or is making active effort to say clearly. The implication behind how clearly Mituna is speaking while constantly repeating his lack of consent is positively dismal, especially in conjunction with the fact that Cronus is doing this outside, in a public area, seemingly implying that this is so routine that he isn't even being careful about it anymore... But what's even more depressing is that this clarity continues into Mituna's near constant apologies - many of which are prompted by Cronus, as a reflexive response to abuse.

Also, there's my favorite piece of evidence that this is abuse... The fact that Cronus calls it that, point blank. He just admits to it.

He calls his own actions abuse. Yes, it's sandwiched in... Hmm. Manipulating Meenah to get her off of his case for being abusive towards Mituna by redirecting the guilt onto her for actions that she didn't even do herself...

... But that was still a tacit admission of guilt, was it not? He calls his actions abuse.

Everyone go home. Discourse over. He admits to it. We can all throw bricks at anyone denying it now.

Also, Dualscar was not a hero, and neither is Cronus. Dualscar? Hero? Fucking Dualscar? Orphaner Dualscar was a slave owner who was having a real good time in a BlackRom with a straight up rapist, only to die because he literally couldn't tell a good joke to save his life when he went to tell on her.

The closest Cronus gets to "heroism" is the fact that a prophecy was told to him once, which he assumed to be about him, and then got really upset when it was not about him. It was literally just a Harry Potter joke, though, and also - again - did not happen.

He isn't a hero, he doesn't fill the archetype of a hero, nothing. He's also just pathetic, and now he's the one who's the sexual abuser, rather than Aranea taking that role herself.

Everyone go home. Get outta here. Shoo. SHOO!!!!

Discourse Over!!!!!! I've solved all of it. Thank you for reading.

[canmom]

a big mercy in the world is that it's actually much harder to hijack someone's behaviour with some kinda visual stimulus than capital would like.

so despite the constant semiotic fusillades of advertisers trying to 'shit in your brain' as the ad hacking slogan goes, you still get better at shutting it out. the advertisers have to resort to more and more desperate means to try to get you to buy product. of course they sell this to their clients as subtle behavioral modifications that manifest without the target even realising. but despite the occasional breakout viral success, it's mostly just a zero sum desperate battle to remind you that they exist at all. most ad exposures are wasted on people who either were never going to buy the thing or were already going to buy the thing. advertisers mostly just copy other advertisers and follow fads but present themselves as the key to success like a court alchemist to a king. overall it's a cancer swallowing up more and more of its host.

this does not make it any less annoying.

anyway, ads are only one part of marketing, and since they kind of suck, the modern method to promote your shit is to try to get 'organic' promotion through word of mouth, positive user reviews on a storefront, etc. so of course many companies cultivate 'influencers', post shill reviews, buy fake metrics, and all that. since all these mechanisms then become immediately less trustworthy, an arms race develops of trying to camouflage the fake marketing speech as 'genuine', 'honest', 'unbiased' etc. the result of this on communication is bad, there's chaff everywhere, but once again the effort of the marketer trying to control you bounces off the wall that people hate it and will not go along with it if they can help it.

a more subtle approach is to just try and cultivate people assigning themselves the role of reviewer. this can create something a bit more symbiotic. the reviewer gets to build an identity out of consuming product and being a discerning connoisseur, and the stuff they like gets free marketing written about it. hence sites like goodreads and letterboxd. not only that but when the thing they like does well, the reviewer gets to feel proud that they acted as a kingmaker.

one weird upshot of all this is that a small company will get really worked up about a negative review on a platform from some rando and go out of their way to placate them. i feel like we're going to see more people exploiting this - ig the gacha mra shit in korea is in part a ripple of that, though those cunts went a lot further than just review bombing.

anyway I've participated in this machine. arguably all the writing about fiction i do on this blog is feeding into it. when i think about it, i think it stinks, but I'm not sure what else to do. there are authors i admire, and who are my friends, i want them to be read by people and have bread on the table.

obviously just because there are powerful actors whose primary concern is moving product doesn't reduce all the discussion of art to elaborate games around moving product. in some sense the 'product review' form is an invading force, best disregarded. but i feel like it would be unwise to ignore the ecological mechanisms underlying what gets made and how and what makes its way to my eyeballs... and how my own behaviours belong to that ecosystem. even if it's depressing to think in those terms.

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/730572795212398592/what-is-up-with-all-the-trans-men-on-this-hellsite?source=share

As a trans man, I might have some insight into this one. I'm a lot older than the standard uwu sparkle anti, but I was in my mid twenties for the first wave of weirdness about trans boys on Tumblr about a decade ago, so I was just too old for it then, and I saw a lot of guys my age and a little younger get swept up in it.

OTNF rightly points out that young trans men are a particularily vulnerable demographic. This is part of it, but we're also a demographic that doesn't sit comfortably with our identites (gender identities or otherwise) and are told by everyone (on every side) that we are Doing It Wrong, that our existence harms others, and that we must be this specific way to be good people.

I'm sure you've seen the "trans men are better than real cis men" rhetoric. It's meant to be inclusive and to reassure us that we're not bad people just because of our gender, but it also denies us our entire gender identity.

So basically, you've got a bunch of young guys, most of whom were socialised like girls and learned to never be too assertive, many of whom are straight up suffering from dysphoria and stress, being told by people both within and outside of their communities that the are Wrong and Bad and Harmful just for existing. It makes sense that a lot of them would would find a movement based on moral posturing that will accept them if they perform correctly and will use their real name and pronouns. That's what Antis are; they say "use this vocabulary, send hate mail to that person, put these terms in your DNI, don't be caught reading that story", and, unlike other groups that police people's tastes and performance that hard, they're not overtly hostile to trans identities. So you can spout the right rhetoric, use the right tumblr icon, and they will actually accept you (on the surface, for a time, but we're talking about young and desperate people who aren't looking at the long game).

Helping them harass those badwrong horrible NOTP shippers or aces or middle aged women or some random artist who got caught drawing the wrong age gap or whoever is the fashionable target will prove that you aren't a horrible monster for being a man, you're moral and upright and correct.

And yes a lot of it is internalised misandry (that word has a lot of dumb baggage, but how else can I describe a boy who hates himself for being a boy?), or self-loathing born of dysphoria and just plain having to live in a world that's hostile to trans people.

Being an anti is a way out. It's a way to manufacture acceptence. And they're too young and too hurt to realise that that acceptance is as temporary and hostile as the people who accept them only if they pretend to be girls; the antis will turn on them the moment they start acting a little too manly or if they're caught liking the wrong ship.

(I've seen something similar happen to young cis queer guys and trans girls, too, but it isn't as pronounced since being raised as a boy means you probably already learned that standing up for yourself is ok sometimes)

--

I'm sure it also doesn't help that tumblr is absolutely full of BL/slash fandom. There's certainly plenty of gender diversity in these spaces, but it's inescapable that the majority of participants are women. So for a young, insecure guy trying to assert that he is a guy, it's easy to fall prey to "Waaaah, I need to reclaim my hobby for me!" gatekeepy nonsense.

Sure, it's going to be turned on nbs even harder than on cis women and will be used to misgender other trans men in the end and misogyny isn't cool anyway, but that's not what your average traumatized young fool is thinking when they first join up. They're thinking "I hurt."

TBH, though, probably the largest component is that all of us—all of us—have a mental image of a default human for a given context. It's rarely a trans man. And so anything a trans man does stands out and is A Thing Trans Men Do.

This is true even if you are trans. It is true even if you are not a transphobic dickhead. Unlearning the 'why girls are bad at math' xkcd strip is extraordinarily hard because recognizing patterns and having mental defaults is just how human brains work.

There are shittons of cis women who become antis, but they're just not notable in the same way.

Are trans men more vulnerable to becoming antis? It's possible, and the reasons you outlined above are likely why. I think it's an interesting question to discuss if we are specifically discussing why the trans men who do become antis do so.

But we don't actually have any hard facts to support that they are more prone to it than anybody else. My guess would be that vulnerable people are more likely to become antis, so any cis woman with a strong source of vulnerability like a shittastic home life is similarly vulnerable to a young trans man with no support network, but who knows.

Maybe only 5% of trans men on tumblr are antis and 50% of cis women. Maybe it's 90% of trans men and 20% of cis women. Maybe it's 1% and 1% and they're just all very loud.

We have no data. We just don't know.

And we will never be able to trust our own brains on this until trans vs. cis is such a nonissue that we don't even notice it.

[littlefankingdom]

Bruce throwing a batarang at his son's throat makes no sense

When you read a comics, you have to ask yourself "is this in character or does it only serve the plot?", because comics LOVE to disregard a character's personality or morals to make their plot work. If it's the second one, I like to throw it in the trash that isn't canon.

Well, the batarang accident in Under The Red Hood is one of them. Let me explain:

The front of a human throat is a very delicate area of our body. On the back, we have our bones to protect the shit in there (and it is still a fragile area. One hit well placed, and you're dead), but the front is full access to so much stuff. When killing someone in a single strike, one could choose to slice their throat. There's only 2cm between the skin's surface and the principal arteries, a small blade is enough. At least, you can hurt their vocal cords. At worse, you cut the link between the heart, the lungs and the brain (aka, they're dead).

Bruce does not kill, so him targetting the throat with a sharp object is already out of character. It's too risky, he could easily kill them. But to his own son??? That he grieved and who is back from the dead??? Completely crazy.

So why? Why writing Batman throwing a batarang at his son's throat? Here is my theory:

I am 99% sure that you are not supposed to pick a side in Under The Red Hood, that it was intended to be a story where there was no clear solution, neither Jason or Bruce are totally right and both have their own good reasons for their actions and decisions. It's another nail in the coffin to demonstrate that the Joker won that day he killed Jason. Whatever happens, he wins, because the Joker only wants one thing: to mentally break Batman. It's difficult to write a story with such a goal, to be able to make your readers side with both at the same time. You need to balance everyone's actions so noone is too much of a "bad" guy.

However, at this point, Jason has already attacked Tim 2 TIMES. And even if Jason has his reasons to do so, Tim is completely innocent and does not deserve it. He's just a teenager doing his best to help others. Jason has hurt Tim badly, a good guy, and they need to balance this out. And so, they decide to make Bruce throws a batarang at Jason's throat.

It didn't work as intended AT ALL, because a lot of y'all totally forgive Jason's brutal attacks on an innocent teenager, but will not forgive Bruce throwing a batarang to the throat of his son, even if he is a mass murderer and attempted to kill another of his protegees at this point (I'm just pointing out why it wasn't a predictable outcome for the writing team. This is literally a post about how I hate that they made Bruce threw a batarang at Jason's throat, don't come at me)

And in the animated movie adaptation, done years later, Bruce doesn't throw a batarang at Jason's throat, but at his hand holding the gun (this confrontation is so better in the movie. With Jason pointing his gun at the Joker, than at himself, showing that, inside, he doesn't want the Joker dead, he wants his father's attention, he wants him to show that he cares, because Bruce sucks at showing emotions and communation. And, when the building exploses, Bruce throws himself over Jason to protect him, probably the same way he wished he could have all those years ago. Good shit right there) Why make this change? Is it because a batarang to the throat that too gruesome for the format? Or is it because the Titans' Tower didn't happen in the animated universe (RIP Tim, forever in Queer Jail)? Or is it because they have seen how people reacted to the comics and didn't like it?

It's just a theory, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.

Shout out to the fanfic writers who say the batarang hit Jason's hand and ricocheted into his neck, making it an accident. That's possible, Bruce can fuck up a bit with the emotions and everything going on.

[friendofthew0rld]

Blog post #7 - due (3/20)

How does the anonymity of interactions in cyberspaces contribute to the prevalence of hate crimes online?

“Anonymity allows trolls to engage in behaviors they would never replicate in professional or otherwise public settings,” because such behaviors are deemed “socially unacceptable, or because the trolls’ online persona would clash with their offline circumstances” (Phillips, p. 84). Phillips also makes a great point, that “successful trolling depends on the target’s lack of anonymity” (p. 85). Anonymity of interactions among users in cyberspaces allows users to act without consequences, or fear of consequences. It results in a sense of detachment from the real world and allows people to feel emboldened to express negative or hateful feelings, thoughts, or phrases that they may not otherwise express in person. 

2. What are some psychological effects of online trolling and how do they cause real-world implications?

Trolling may result in anxiety, depression, lowered self-esteem, or isolation. Those who experience hate crimes, hate speech, or trolling online may experience emotional distress. This type of online bullying may cause younger, naive individuals to inflict harm onto themselves or other people in their lives. Aside from psychological effects, trolling and bullying online have real-world implications on future professions, as D.K. Citron details a woman who was cyberbullied and doxxed online and falsely “exposed” as someone who spread hate-speech and encouraged unsafe sex, she feared this “false” digital footprint would later catch up to her, and “she worried that future employers might not be as understanding” (Citron, 2014, p. 2). It is very easy for people to make misleading stories about you, and even easier for others to believe them. Such instances can cost a person their livelihoods, or even their lives. 

3. What is the importance of digital literacy and how can it prevent the spread of hate crimes?

It is very important to practice digital literacy, as it can help vulnerable individuals navigate the digital sphere safely and responsibly. Digital literacy may also help us avoid scams, hackers, or the doxxing of our personal information. By practicing digital literacy, users may also be able to utilize these online platforms in positive ways, such as community building, engaging in critical and thought-provoking conversations, and educating themselves on current events. 

4. How can we differentiate between satire, hate speech, and trolling?

Satire is a form of humor, often used to “rage-bait,” garner followers, or even get a conversation started to address satirical absurdities. Hate speech usually involves the inciting of violence, discrimination, or hate towards certain groups of people. It is important to acknowledge that while satire is often comical, its main intention is provoking conversations or critiques, whilst hate speech is used to directly harm another person or group.  As stated in my previous prompt, practicing safe online habits and taking steps to become digitally literate can help mitigate the confusion between satire and hate speech/trolling.  

References 

Citron, D.K. (2014). Hate crimes in cyberspace. Harvard University Press.

Phillips, W. (2016). This is why we can’t have nice things: mapping the relationship between online trolling and mainstream culture. The MIT Press.

[pseudonymousposting]

I've been poking around in some liberal-leaning spaces online, and I'm seeing a number of people responding to marginalized groups who voted for Donald Trump or simply did not vote Democrat who are facing the reality of him doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

I'm seeing a lot of sentiment that worries and disturbs me. It's one thing to meme about leopards and faces, but it's entirely another to say, "Well, we just aren't gonna help them because they voted for this."

I am seeing this in response, especially toward Latino people expressing a sense of betrayal from Trump's ICE raids. Nah. We should be helping marginalized people facing oppression, actually. We need to do so while maintaining some humility and compassion.

Turning our nose up at a marginalized group for not voting the way you want is, frankly, exactly the kind of thing the right SAYS the left does. Don't prove them right, or be a reason they can say they're right. Don't be a reactionary. This behavior is contemptible.

What makes the difference between the left and the right is compassion and love for working people. What meets this moment is fighting fascism, not letting people become victims of it out of spite.

As has been said better than the following attempt to paraphrase, you must love the worker more than you hate the Bourgeoisie. You must love the marginalized more than you hate the oppressor.

It borderlines on collaboration. Especially when you're speaking of an ethnic group group facing mass deportation as a "they," and saying with a strong sense of liberal arrogance that you will allow it. Do not do this. It turns people who want to stop fascism away.

I'm not interested in team sports. I'll point out that there's a leopard and faces situation. Hell, I am willing to even meme about it with some limits. We still must acknowledge that this is a dark and terrifying time to be alive. There's a different way to approach that conversation.

"It sucks that this is happening. We didn't want it to happen, and we shall keep fighting it. Join us, and let's fight this together. "This will work a lot better than pointing and laughing at what looks like an active attempt to start an ethnic cleansing program.

Don't care if you're liberal or left. Bit late to be picky right now. Either way, what matters to me is what works, and "I did not speak out because they voted a certain way" is still not speaking out, and still leads to nobody being left to speak for me when they come for me.

Unfortunately, I see this attitude a lot among liberals right now, and it doesn't bode well. Historically speaking, that is how we absolutely do not survive this. That's kind of the point of the poem.

We must be vigilant and fight to stop fascists from getting away with their vile goals every step of the way we can, and we have to stand together against them. Failing to form a strong coalition is certain death.

We should be showing solidarity with those who are mistreated by our society, not malice and contempt. We only have the numbers if those numbers are working in concert, not shoving each other off a cliff. No bucket crabs.

If someone is against fascism, is fighting fascism, or is a target of fascists, they may be my ally. For that to happen, I need to keep them safe, and they need to keep strong and ready. They need to keep me safe, and I need to keep strong and ready in turn.

That won't happen if people are going around saying things like, "Well, I just won't help you when your turn comes, then." Who is flocking to fight alongside THAT person?

We need to a strong, welcoming and loving community. Not a haven of backstabbers who consider groups of people worth sacrificing as a 'lesson' nor considers a willingness to act with compassion against an ethnic group to be conditional on obedience. We need a united front to stand and tell the powerful that they will not be allowed to act upon their horrifying will without someone stopping them.

Allowing an atrocity to go on unchallenged is encouraging it, and it encourages the next one by telling them they can get away with it. It allows it to be normal. Business as usual. It is the greatest weapon you can give a fascist: permission. We can not give them permission. Not once.

If liberals are wondering why marginalized groups have not beem flocking to the polls as reliably in recent years to vote for them, maybe consider what people are thinking when they see politicians offering little to nothing term after term, and then responding with callous disregard for their lives out of spite for not automatically voting for them.

Stop taking popular support for granted and actually try to WIN people. This is something at which Democrats have consistently failed for at least a decade. Do better. Lives depend upon it.

[welcome-to-fernweh]

Siblings of Life and Death Preview/WIP

Goddess of Life Preview/WIP

One characteristic I want to do is the Life Goddess to be a bit of an asshole and the Death God to be more practical/understanding. Don't get me wrong, neither of them are good nor bad, but I want Life to be like how life is around us: Beautiful and abundant, but uncaring to those who fail to survive and thrive. The phrases, "Survival of the fittest" and "Mother Nature is a cruel mistress" would definitely describe Her, as well as this badass quote that described the honey badger's attitude, "There is no church in the wild and Hell is not a consequence."

She wants Her domain to continue forever, so if one part of it fails (ex: niche species goes extinct), she will make something to replace it (ex: new species arises to fill that open niche). She balances plants and animals alike so they live in harmony, but absolutely despises outside influence towards them not from Her, which is why She doesn't like hetrans and their agricultural ways. Yes, She can be reasoned and convinced to help you and your people, but you have to make sure it doesn't negatively affect Her domain.

God of Death Preview/WIP

Now, with Death, I want Him to be based on comfort and sympathy for the lives that once have lived, yet judicious and uncaring to those who have squandered their lives. Yes, his domain is all about judging the dead, torturing those who have done wicked acts, but also reward those who have done good. Unlike His Sister, the Goddess of Life, who hates hetrans, Death loves them and wants them to be the best they can be. So, what is it He judges people on? Well, it's complicated yet simple; It's along the lines of who they were, how they lived, and what they did in their community (any group of people they felt to belong in). His "guidelines" of judgment are more of that, just guidelines, which a lot of His underling Judges (lesser Judges of Hell) are not happy with. The Death God just wants people to be kind when they can, live the life they want to live, and be a part of their environment.

I really want Him to be like Death the Wolf from Puss in Boots, the greatest supporter of life by hating and targeting those that squander it XD

Technically He is the, like, "Grand Judge of Spirits" or something because His main job is to pass the final judgement of spirits and send them on their way to be reincarnated, which He does so by slapping certain "stamps" on them, make them lose their memories, and send them down this underworld river like one of those luggage transporter things at airports. I want Him to be a Silly Guy that likes to tell jokes and says things like "Welcome back!" when a favorite spirit of His comes back, and yet He revels in the horrific torture that wicked spirits go through and laughs at them. The Life Goddess does not share His sense of humor even though She doesn't like people overall. Torture just doesn't tickle Her Funny Bone.

I also really really really want to make a Judgement Boy (Gregory Horror Show) reference somewhere in His domain because I really think He'd like that silly, judgmental lawyer dude.

He will tell a joke when a meeting is going on and a bunch of the other Judges would just groan or keep a straight face. When you live for as long as He has, you'll try to make the horrible working life something to be entertaining even if you force it. Hell in this world is very dark and gloomy, so the Death God tries to "liven" it up a bit with comedy, little joke parties, and enjoying little out-of-the-ordinary things that may come into His domain. Like, technically He doesn't like the living to enter Hell (mostly because you have to go through a special process that does not involve dying to do so because literally nothing alive can actually get there), but would like to ask questions and is generally curious as to why the individual wanted to get here so badly. The "sin" isn't from entering Hell while being alive, but as to why you did it. Your memory of the underworld would be erased, but whatever you came down there for, if it was with good reason, would stay, but that "memory loss" thing is someone else's job, not His.

Also, yeah, Hell in this world is heavily based on the Chinese one, so the "desk job" would be the obvious similarity.

[nochd]

I haven't said anything about the Gaza situation mainly because you should be listening to people who know more about it than I do. But it's becoming apparent that this is one of those issues where people who do have personal stakes in the matter are finding it difficult to know who they can trust.

So here's what I do know about Gaza, Israel, and Palestine. I'm not going to talk any more than I can help about what I don't know. And -- let me make this super clear -- people commenting on social media, including here, to make factual claims intended to draw me to their side and treat some other category of people as my enemies, does not count as a change in my state of knowledge.

The Israeli state right now is attempting to wipe the Palestinian population of Gaza off the map. This is called genocide.

On 7 October, Hamas publicly attacked civilian targets in a manner calculated to cause widespread fear and panic. This is called terrorism.

Nothing justifies either of these actions, not even each other. The killing of innocent people is never justified by their being of the same ethnicity or nationality as some other person who is guilty of an atrocity.

Even if an innocent person benefits in some fashion from atrocities committed by another person -- as one could argue that the citizenry of a colonizer state do -- that doesn't justify violence against them. At most they might reasonably be asked to contribute to some kind of reparations.

Jews and Palestinians can both reasonably be described as indigenous to the land.

In terms of the Israeli state's actions towards the Palestinian people, and the benefits it thereby accrues, it is to all practical intents and purposes a colonizer state.

If you think the previous point justifies terror attacks on Israeli civilians, and you're a white person living in the US or Australia or Canada or South Africa or Aotearoa... then boy oh boy do I have news for you.

Most Israelis have nowhere else to go. Israel might accept Jewish immigrants without requiring them to renounce their previous citizenship, but that's because so often that previous citizenship is revoked or cancelled or at least made non-viable by their former country.

Fascist groups in the West hate both Jews and Muslims and are happy to spread hateful misinformation about either under the guise of standing up against atrocities. They are smart enough, much as we might wish otherwise, to infiltrate leftist communities if we are not vigilant.

Violent attacks on Jewish communities around the world have gone up by over an order of magnitude since October.

Most Jews, including Israeli Jews, oppose what Israel is doing in Gaza right now.

I'm not comfortable with framing the issue in terms of whether the state of Israel "has the right to exist". Israeli people, like all people, have the right to exist and live in peace. States are artificial entities, not conscious beings with the capacity to flourish or suffer, and it makes little sense to regard them as having "rights".

States do, however, have duties and responsibilities. The primary responsibility of any state, the reason why we have such things as states at all, is to defend its people's right to live in peace.

For people to live in peace, their country has to be at peace, which means that the state's duty to defend its people includes the duty to make peace when possible. The state of Israel is grossly, chronically derelict in this side of its duty.

On 7 October Israel was about to sign a peace treaty with Saudi Arabia. Hamas's attack was timed to disrupt that treaty.

Hamas of all people knows how Israel habitually responds to terror attacks. They cannot have been expecting any response much different from the one they got. From this I am forced to conclude that Hamas prefers a genocidal war against their own people to a peace in which Israel is still there.

Hamas denies the Holocaust and promotes the fraudulent "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". A Western group who did that would be uncontroversially described as neo-Nazis.

The Houthis in Yemen, who are opposing shipments of aid to Israel, have slogans including "death to Israel, a curse upon the Jews". Again, any Western group who did that would be considered neo-Nazis.

Of the people who use the slogan "from the river to the sea", the percentage who use it to invoke a call for genocide against Israelis is neither 100% nor 0%.

There is a certain word beginning with Z which you'll notice I haven't used in this post. This is because it is a dangerously ambiguous word. Some people use it in the legitimate, specific political sense of "Israeli nationalism". Others use it to mean "any restraint or moderation in considering how to respond to Israel's actions". Still others use it to mean "an absence of antisemitism".

The US is an ally and supporter of Israel. I do not know the political reasons why. Wrapping those unknown reasons up in a bundle and labelling it with the aforementioned Z-word adds nothing to my understanding.

Some component of the US's support for Israel comes not from Jewish people or their allies but from Evangelical Christians concerned with Israel chiefly as a site of apocalyptic prophecy. I do not know what weighting this component has in the total mix of the US's politics.

Some people argue for a one-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians as equal citizens. Some people argue for a two-state solution where each group has its own government and laws. For each, I have seen the claim that it is the only possible solution made with great confidence by people who know more about the situation than I do. I do not know which side is correct.

I do know that any proposal where one group just isn't there any more is a non-solution.

[michaelbranch]

A Brief Summary of Ideas: Beyond Order

*These summaries are kept intentionally very brief, just hitting what I consider some of the important/interesting takeaways, most word-for-word or paraphrased. My goal is also to stick to ideas/principals that might guide others (or my future self) in deciding the value of a read (or re-reading). T = takeaway, Q = Question

Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life

Author(s): Jordan B. Peterson

Neither the state of order no chaos is preferable, intrinsically, to the other.

A life without curiosity, that instinct pushing us into the unknown, would be a much diminished form of existence.

Rule 1: Do not carelessly denigrate social institutions or creative achievement

People depend on constant communication with others to keep their minds organized. We all need to think to keep things organized, but we mostly think by talking. We must submit the strategies and tactics we formulate to the judgement of others.

People are social beings, and there is no shortage of wisdom outside of us, embedded in the social world.

Necessity limits the universe of viable solutions. Plan must solve some real problem, must appeal to others, and it needs to work today in a way that doesn’t make tomorrow worse.

“How should you act?” is just the short term version of “how should you survive?”.

It is useful to take your place at the bottom of a hierarchy. It can aid in the development of gratitude and humility.

If there is a problem to be solved, and many people involve themselves in the solution, a hierarchy can and will arise. It is not power; it is the authority that properly accompanies ability.

A responsible person decides to make a problem his or her problem.

Must strike a balance between reasonable conservatism and revitalizing creativity.

Rule 2: Imagine who you could be, and them aim single-mindedly at that

Everyone has a sense that there is more to them than they have yet allowed to be realized.

We can code and represent that in the stories we tell about those we admire (and hate). And that is how we determine who we are and who we could become.

The hero is the embodied principle of action and perception that must rule over all the primordial psychological elements of lust, rage, hunger, thirst, terror and joy.

Who dares win—if he does not perish.

There is a development of character that adventure inevitably produces.

The change necessary to adapt when terrible things emerge is therefore a solution to the potentially fatal rigidity of erroneous certainty, excessive order, and stultification.

As time changes all things, every specific, value-predicated story may fail, in its particular incarnation and locale, and need replacement by something newer, more complete, but different.

Aim at something. Pick the best target your can currently conceptualize.

You need to map your path. You need to know where you were (so you don’t repeat the mistakes of the past), where you are (or you will not be able to draw a line from your starting point to your destination), and where you are going (or you will drown in uncertainty). 

If you can find a better path along the way, switch course. Be careful, it isn’t easy to discriminate between changing paths and simply giving up.

Discipline and transformation will lead you forward.

Rule 3: Do not hide unwanted things in the fog

T = Always communicate. Even if its uncomfortable.

The fog that hides is the refusal to notice - to attend to - emotions and motivational states as they arise, and the refusal to communicate them both to yourself and to the people who are close to you.

Every ideal is a judge. No ideals, no judge. But the price paid for that is purposelessness. This is a high price. 

We use our past effectively when it helps us repeat desirable – and avoid repeating undesirable – experiences. We want to know what happened but, more importantly, we want to know why. 

If you pile up enough junk in your closet, one day, when you are least prepared, the door will spring open and bury you. 

Rule 4: Notice that opportunity lurks where responsibility has been abdicated

What is left undone is often risky, difficult, and necessary. 

It appears that the meaning that most effectively sustains life is to be found in the adoption of responsibility. 

Paradoxical fact that there is a reciprocal relationship between the worth of something and the difficulty of accomplishing it. 

It is impossible to hit a target unless you aim at it. 

There is a potential within you that will emerge when circumstances demand and transform you into someone who can prevail. 

We become stronger by voluntarily facing what impedes our necessary progress. 

When you face a challenge, this makes you more than you are and increasingly into who you could be. 

There is little difference between how you should treat yourself and how you should treat others. 

If the cost of betraying yourself is guilt and shame, the benefit of not betraying yourself is meaning. 

What is the antidote to the suffering of life? The highest possible goal. What is the prerequisite to that pursuit? Willingness to adopt the maximum degree of responsibility. 

Your life becomes meaningful in precise proportion to the depths of the responsibility you are willing to shoulder. 

Rule 5: Do not do what you hate

If you are called upon to do what makes you contemptuous of yourself, work towards placing yourself in the position where you are capable of saying no.

Rule 6: Abandon ideology

It might be that the true meaning of life is available for discovery, by each individual alone—though in communication with others, past and present.

Idealogues are the intellectual equivalent of fundamentalists, unyielding and rigid.

A world where only you and people who think like you are good is also a world where you are surrounded by enemies bent on your destruction, who must be fought.

Rule 7: Work as hard as you possibly can on at least one thing and see what happens

Without clear, well-defined, and non contradictory goals, the sense of positive engagement that makes life worthwhile is very difficult to obtain.

Very often failure is a consequence of insufficient single-mindedness, elaborate but pointless rationalization, and rejection of responsibility.

Those who do not choose a direction are lost. The worst decision of all is none.

Proper discipline organizes rather than destroys.

The master, who is the rightful product of apprenticeship, is no longer the servant of dogma. He is now served by dogma, which he has the responsibility to maintain as well as the right to change, when necessary.

Rule 8: Try to make one room in your home as beautiful as possible

Beauty can help us appreciate the wonder of Being.

Rule 9: If old memories still upset you, write them down carefully and completely

When we decide, we actively confront the future.

An unsolved problem seldom sits there. It grows new heads.

Rule 10: Plan and work diligently to maintain the romance in your relationship

Why would you possibly assume that something as complex as maintaining a marriage could be managed without commitment, practice, and effort.

There must be a broader, relationship-wide strategy in place to maintain romance with your partner across time. Regardless of what the strategy might be, its success is going to depend on your ability to negotiate.

The chance that you will get what you want if you fail to aim for it is vanishingly small.

The vow that makes marriage capable of preserving its romantic component is first and foremost the decision to not lie to your partner.

Couple can decide that each and both are subordinate to a principle: the ideal union of what is best in both personalities should be constantly regarded as the ruler of the marriage.

Both should be oriented toward the most positive future possible, and agree that speaking the truth is the best path forward.

You do not find so much as “make” the optimal person (for you).

The part of you that claims you desire “freedom” really just wants to avoid any permanent responsibility.

There are tricks that people use to avoid negotiation: “I don’t know” is not an acceptable  answer in a discussion that cannot in good faith be avoided.

Do not foolishly confuse “nice” with “good”.

Your life is mostly composed of what is repeated routinely.

Romance is play, and play does not take place easily when problems of any sort arise.

Rule 11: Do not allow yourself to become resentful, deceitful, or arrogant

We naturally think of our lives as stories, and communicate about our experience in that same manner.

Chaos is not of less value than order. There is nothing but sterility without unpredictability, even though a bit less unpredictability often seems eminently desirable.

Invite the evil queen to your childs life. If you fail to do so, your children will grow up weak and in need of protection.

If you shelter young people, you destroy them.

It is no easy task to determine when something needs to be preserved or when it needs to be transformed.

It is often the people who have had too easy a time who adopt the role of victim and the hold resentment.

The fact that unfortunate things are happening or are going to happen to you is built into the structure of reality itself.

The more voluntary confrontation is practiced, the more can be borne.

The right attitude to the horror of existence is the assumption that there is enough of you, society, and the world to justify existence.

Rule 12: Be grateful in spite of your suffering

Human beings have the capacity to courageously confront their suffering – to transcend it psychologically, as well as to ameliorate it practically.

Suffering can be of sufficient gravity to make bitterness an option. BUT, there is no good in that option, and plenty of harm.

The giving of thanks is an alternative to bitterness.

To manifest the two virtues of love and courage simultaneously, you decide that you are going to work to make things better and not worse.

Grief is an uncontrollable manifestation of your belief that the lost person’s existence, limited or flawed as it may have been, was worthwhile, despite the limitations and flaws of life itself.

Gratitude is the process of consciously and courageously attempting thankfulness in the face of the catastrophe of life.

[grey-sorcery]

Content warning:

This article contains information that some within the community will feel targeted by. This article will also contain subjects such as: suicide, cults, gaslighting, godphoning, sexual grooming & abuse, and trauma bonding.

What is a personal narrative?

A personal narrative is a story that someone tells themselves in order to make themselves feel happy, important, powerful, hated, or even loved. These narratives are occasionally linked to psychosis and mental illnesses. Personal narratives often exist to help a person feel like the “main character” in their own lives and gives them a sense of purpose and an escape from their realities. 

How can personal narratives affect witchcraft?

Personal narratives and UPG can form a venn diagram, in the center of which lies some of the most toxic of our community. Personal narratives can become an individual’s excuse for appropriating from closed cultures, or for starting a cult. I, personally, have met several individuals who thought they were practicing magic, when in fact they were roleplaying within their own personal narratives and trying to pull other practitioners into it. This can happen through a variety of ways but most often through trauma bonding or shared "past lives".

Personal narratives surrounding the astral plane

After much discussion with other practitioners, I have come to the conclusion that there are a lot of practitioners whose experiences in the astral plane are pure personal narrative. In my experience, as well as several other practitioners whose perspectives I’ve come to trust, the astral plane does not contain much form and is not inhabited by many spirits. It is more of a transitional space. It is similar to the dreamplane, however all constructs must be formed consciously. Any spirits you may come across are likely there as they migrate from one location or spatial dimension to another. I’ve met several people who’ve claimed to be advanced in astral projection, only for them to spin their personal narratives around others in order to have another person to interact with in their astral narrative. There are words to describe this process: cognitive and confirmation bias.

Personal narratives surrounding Otherkin

Most otherkin are well within their spiritual practices and do not necessarily spin or reside within a personal narrative. However, the otherkin community is a hotbed of manipulative and cult-like phenomena that centers around some personal narratives. Specifically those who claim to be incarnations of spirits or deities. These individuals tend to try to pull others into their narratives in order to have a sense of power over others, and if threatened will build their sense of power by trying to threaten or scare those they are trying to manipulate. 

Personal narratives surrounding endogenic systems

Endogenic systems are fictional systems in which an individual consciously decides or pretends to have the symptoms of DID, a very serious mental illness that should not ever be glorified or commodified. ALL endogenic systems exist within personal narratives. If an actual spiritual entity exists within a living person, that is not a system- that is possession, which isn't to be glorified at all unless you practice certain closed traditions that rely on such practices. Endogens are notorious for using their personal narratives to exploit others and use it as an excuse to appropriate from closed cultures. (See Tulpa*mancy & biracial systems). Worse, there are many adults that use the personal narratives in order manipulate and groom young people into performing sexual acts with them. While traumagenic systems often contain younger alters due to the nature of the illness. But it isn’t ever used to prey on others.

Many endogens believe or project that they are incarnations of deities. The people who do this only do so to manipulate others into giving up their freedom of thought and choice. Myself and several practitioners I know have been in a few discord servers where a self-proclaimed god-system was an admin or all of the admins were god-systems. They either used this narrative in order to control how practitioners attempted their magic, thought about ethics, and/or interacted with the server in general. *Tulpa systems are worse, as these people actually consciously decide to try to create thoughtforms often called “headmates” to occupy their minds alongside them. The term is not only appropriated from Taoism and sects of Buddhism, but the act itself is very harmful to those who actually suffer from DID. 

Godphoning 

Godphoning is very common within the endogenic system community and the otherkin community. It is the act of “Channeling the will of a god”. It is amazing if you can have auditory conversations with your deities, but it is another altogether to try and do so for a third party. This act exists entirely as an act of manipulation within the online witchcraft community. There exist several closed cultures that work with godphoning, however the way in which it is approached is very different from those of most online practitioners.  There is a level of respect and reverence that is used in those cultures, not to mention rigorous training. If anyone online ever tries to act as an intermediary for a deity for you, STOP. Nothing good ever comes of it. 

Dangers of fantasy in the witchcraft community

Many of the narratives that are spun in the witchcraft community tend to form around cult-like mentalities. These go well beyond UPG and directly into dangerous narratives used to manipulate others. It is too common for someone to try to pull someone into their narrative. The leading issue with this that trickles out to the rest of the community is misinformation. While UPG has its validity, once it becomes a cult phenomena it tends to seep out into the larger communities. It is so important for each practitioner to be aware of cognitive and confirmation bias when dealing with the mystical and occult.

What to watch out for on witchcraft social media like Discord

All of the dangerous and disrespectful behavior discussed above is most prevalent on Discord. On discord it is easy to isolate a target and “initiate” them. If the cult/cult-like community is already established then there's no need to isolate. The things to watch out for include, but may not be limited to:

An individual or group who claim to be able to communicate with gods.

DM’s from individuals who claim to have met you in a dream or in the astral.

Servers that try to limit your interactions in other servers. 

Individuals who try to obtain your personal information, typically done through the guise of godphoning or divination.

A central leader that everyone obeys/listens to without question.

A server mentality that limits free-thinking.

A server that is built around a central deity or religion.

Individuals who weave you into their stories without your input or consent.

Threats of magic or curses from an individual or group.

A system that contains children in an adult body.

A system that contains multiple racial caricatures. 

A system that is not trauma based.

I have seen members of our community take their own lives as a result of these personal narratives and the aim of this post is to try to prevent that from happening to anyone else.

Some content creators & discord servers that are heavily based in personal narratives:

@malachitelibrary (Astral)

@chicagognosis (A lot)

@astralrealmer (Astral)

@sophieinwonderland (Endo)

@endoaffirmations (Endo)

@dramaticclown (*Tulpas)

@cottagebabie (Godphoning)

DKMU (A lot)

Astral Society (Astral)

Witches Cottage (A lot)

Andromeda Coven (A lot)

If you have any questions, content suggestions, or just want to check out my blog: click here.

[manonamora-if]

I love that the itch.io IF game community has grown immensely and has created mobile templates to make development easier. HOWEVER, as a mobile UX designer, I hate the mobile design of almost every single game I've played because the user experience is terrible. Interactive elements are generally too small and difficult to target with a touch screen, features are arranged non-intuitively, icons are not explained in a user friendly way, font sizes are too small, etc etc. So many of the choices I see are artistic ones and have been made for aesthetic purposes. I hate to be the one to rain on a parade, especially because I love the games I've played, but sometimes the experience makes it so difficult to enjoy the story being told. Since I'm not a beta tester, it feels like it's not my place to bring this up to devs since I feel that it is unsolicited criticism. Tl;Dr: IF games are amazing. Please find someone who designs UX for mobile apps/games to make the experience even better. Thanks for letting me confess in your ask box, gl with your writing!

Thank you for confessing Anon,

Since you are someone who designs mobile UX, it's def normal to be more sensitive when it comes to play mobile version of IF. I am sure editors who read IF must cringe a lot reading our unedited stuff, or UI designers for desktop must cry about how our page looks.

Accessibility is tricky. It requires knowledge about what could need accessibility (colours, font, placement of things, etc...) and about how to implement it (code). Having the knowledge of one still need the knowledge of the second for it to work. I think the strive for more accessibility is quite recent in the IF (Tumblr) space, especially with Twine games. With more code/information being shared, though templates and tutorials, it's been a bit easier to think of this and have more people implement it. Still, it involves a lot of learning (on top of learning the IF program), which for a lot of hobbyist creators is not always available, or funds if you want to go the hire a designer route, which same. I think believe, while it could be better, we are slowly getting there.

I guess there is still a collaboration route, but that requires time/communication/willingness to share projects...

And honestly, there isn't as much useful information out there to create good UI, especially mobile version, that would work with IF programs. And, as much as I like to splash around in the puddle (it makes sense in French), I really wish there were more tutorials for mobile creation. Every system/format has their own tweaks, which makes some things incompatible or needing more specific knowledge.

For example: Twine/SugarCube has a built-in UI, which includes a decent-ish mobile UX, but if you want to change things, you need to learn to work around the built-in CSS; a lot of which is not compatible with Twine/Harlowe. So if you find code for Harlowe, it probably won't work for SugarCube.

Even with the templates, you need to know how it works to be able to edit it.

Though... It does seem you would be open to help us creators get better and help readers have nicer experience overall. I guess here are some ways you could do that to avoid ruffling feathers (or rain on the parade) :P

Participating in beta

Reaching out to creators and see if they want pointers (i.e. not just a list of what is wrong, but maybe solutions?)

Creating UX templates that is mobile compatible*

Creating tutorials focusing on UX and what to keep in mind for mobile viewing (like a do/don't do)*

*would probably need to make sure those are compatible with IF programs. but damn those would so useful

Also not every IF have to be mobile compatible. TTTT def can't.

~~~~~~~~

SEND ME YOUR CONFESSIONS ! RELIEVE YOUR SOUL!

Thank you for the luck :)

[caustic-light]

This is not a hate ask in any sense, but what do you mean by, pedophilia isn't a genuine threat? There are adults who sexually abuse kids. I'm honestly not trying to be confrontational, I'm just genuinely confused.

It's about how abuse works and what abuse is.

The socially prevailing idea is that child absue is something that is being caused by some kind of personal moral and sexual corruption and deviance. That used to be attributed to gay ppl and other marginalized identities and as gay people gained more and more acceptance towards the 90s it was gradually overtaken by being attributed to pedophilia. The 90s and early 2000s had huge movements about being aware of pedophiles, very similar to the satanic panic of the 80s. Then with the emergin internet, the target largely shifted onto nebulous predators using the internet to abuse children.

"The danger of pedophiles is an evil force trying to take your children away, ruin them and destroy your families." And throughout all of it those attitudes never really changed. Ask ppl if they believe in childhood innocense for example, which is a concept that only exists to describe some nebulous sexual impurity that children can be struck by and ruined. The threat used to be being turned gay by the way and a lot of people still see sexual perversion as one of the outcomes to be prevented. (See also "abused children become pedophiles" and other offshoots of "gay men rape your boys and turn them gay.")

Now, the way child abuse actually works is that it's about power and social hierarchy. Adults abusing children do so from the position of parents, teachers, priests, family friends, ect. All positions of power. They're either trusted by the people whom near absolute power over the child is granted by the state (the parents) or those people themselves.

No form of sexuality plays a significant role here, not any more than male on male prison rape is being influenced by homosexuality, because the reason children are targeted with sexual abuse is not sexual desire, it's availability and inability to fight back.

Abuse is not a sexual act. It's an act of violence. Even sexual abuse. And the perpetrators aren't the societal boogeyman of a shadowy pedophile preying on your child, it's the people society trusts to prevent that abuse by holding unreasonable amounts of power.

But society holds on to the idea that child abuse happens because of some strange, shady creeps preying on the children of good, pure (christian) families. Society holds on to that image because then ppl don't have to examine their own compliance in the abuse of children. Their own silence when childrens basic rights are violated every day. When the way society treats children is at it's core a form of abuse, too.

The family must be good, power must be good, if the family doesn't have absolute power, who's going to protect these children from all those dangerous creeps who prey on them?

And right there pedophilia is created. (Mind you I know that pedophilia, as in the attraction to kids does exist, but that's not the one we are talking about here, these are two different words and concepts with the same name pretty much.) This is the point where suddenly it's really helpful for peoole in power to say "My power is unquestionable because I am not a sexual deviant."

And it's very handy for homophobes that they can keep scrutinizing queer people and suddenly liberals and lefists will not hesitate to believe them when they talk about the sexual threat to our society and suddenly we have kink at pride discourse because somehow queer people are suddenly very desperate to prove that they're not sexually defunct. We keep saying that we have proven that queer people aren't pedophiles but somehow we just keep getting more desperate to not be called into question on that, almost like making the threat ambiguous allows anyone to see pedophilia wherever they want and now we are just making the queer community anti sexual and conservative to escape from that.

But if we wanna actually address child abuse we have to completely get rid off the idea that it's caused because of some sexual perversion and impurity and examine the power structures that actually enable and enforce it. As long as we validate the idea of pedophiles abusing children, we will always hide the abuse that happens around us behind closed doors and in the power of the good, upstanding parents who's power we justify bc they're straightnot pedophiles.

[veronicathegoddess]

bro u try so hard to be woke on ur dni list when u can’t admit that ur still feeding into rape culture so it does have harm to innocent ppl go read a artical ffs☠️ certified therapists will tell u that cnc isn’t healthy its natural to develop the kink after being SA’d but it ain’t gonna help u in the long term i’ve got hella friends who r SA victims too and they agree that ur whole blog is messed up keep giving predators what they want tho you’ll get karma eventually🥱

well since you told me to go read an article, how about you do so as well and unlike your bullshit which is you putting your trauma on to everyone else and basically traumatizing them all over again, these were written by actual psychologists and therapists which you are not:

This article from Psychology Today by Dr. David J. Ley, a clinical psychologist is a very fascinating read and he an actual psychologist states: "Done with consent, self-awareness, negotiation, and communication, it appears that integrating consensual non-consent practices into sexual behaviors can be a healthy and fulfilling aspect of sexuality for some people, allowing them to expand their sexual boundaries."

what were you saying now about certified therapists thinking its unhealthy?

This article from Modern Intimacy is by Dr. Kate Balestrieri who is a liscensed psychologist and sex therapist who states:

"Some survivors enjoy CNC kink, because the consensual piece of it gives them a sense of control that they did not have during a previous assault. Others do not wish to engage in this form of sex. There is no right or wrong, and both can be healthy approaches to sex after sexual assault."

"There’s nothing wrong with you if you enjoy CNC kink in your intimate life. Transparency, boundaries, communication and after care (with debriefing) help to ensure a safe and erotic scene. "

so basically you've gone out of your way to bully and shame me for something that actual psychologists think is healthy because you don't. because you think it's going to give predators what they want? predators have existed long before i was SA'd, they exist right now and they will most likely continue to exist for an unnecessarily long period of time and i can assure you, most of those predators were not influenced by any sort of cnc kink but instead by misogyny, violence and a sick sense of entitlement to the bodies of women and girls.

by saying that i'm encouraging predators, you are blaming me, a victim of SA, for coping in the way that i think is best for me to deal with what was done to me. would you rather me be like you? a hateful bully who goes around wishing people get doxxed and wishing that they kill themselves? i'm not doing anyone anything by having a cnc kink but you and your approach is incredibly harmful especially if you don't know what the people you're targeting are going through.

in fact what i have done is tried my very best to make here a safe space for all surviovors to healthily engage if they so desire in a kink that will help them cope with their trauma and you are violating that safe space because you don't agree with it. you are incredibly entitled because you have not only invalidated my trauma and my coping but also centered yourself and your experience in it.

the reality is as women we all know SA victims, most of us have been SA victims, as much as i hate to say it, most of us will experience it at some point within our lifetime. we are all coping in different ways with the trauma we have. some of us are hypersexual, some of us are sex averse, some use cnc and other kinks, others choose not to. none of us are better victims or surviors. none of us have superior methods of coping. none of us have healed better than the others. we are all just trying to do the best we can and you should respect that.

also i'm blocking you now. i'm not gonna continue to let you mess with my mental health. i really do hope you heal though and that you can learn to respect other people and their personal decisions.

[cadyrocks]

I keep seeing the sentiment that trans people should arm themselves, and... Ugh.

I am not in the US. I am not the target of these monstrous laws, I am not having my rights stripped or my healthcare made illegal, so maybe it isn't my place to speak up. But I don't for the life of me understand what the purpose of this advice is.

Guns are phenomenally blunt instruments. They are good for one main thing: killing. How does that help you? Who or what can you shoot to make these problems less horrible?

No amount of being armed and dangerous will convince doctors to break the law to help you. No number of guns will help ferry hormones across state lines. You owning a gun will not help your school district push back against legally mandated bigotry in school.

Is it for the point when the government comes to kill you, or stick you in camps, or steal your children from you? I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if we get there, your small arms cache is not going to protect you. You're not going to be able to fight off a SWAT Team. If you decide to shoot back, all that will happen is that they'll make an example out of you. This is not a problem that a vulnerable minority can solve by beefing up their armories. You will never be able to outgun the government.

Are you trying to protect yourself from insane far-right vigilantes? Maybe that makes sense. I can see why it'd be nice to have a few guns around to scare those folks off. But most of what I'm seeing is in response to broad government action, urging average queer citizens to pack heat. And I just don't get it. What is the point? What does being able to murder someone at a reasonable distance at a moment's notice actually achieve? Who can you shoot to make these problems less awful?

It might be a good time to point out that gun ownership makes it more likely that you will attempt suicide and significantly more likely that you will succeed. So there's one answer.

I just don't get it. It seems like a really bad idea. Guns aren't going to solve your problems. They aren't going to make you safer.

What might?

Building community. Knowing who you can trust. Finding out who will help protect or hide you if worst comes to worst. Creating local power. Maybe even a militia group, which is probably a better idea than individual gun ownership. I'm no expert on any of these things. It just feels like a terrible idea.

[itsclydebitches]

I keep seeing people calling Good Omens queer bating and a I can't help but ask why? I read the Aziraphale/Crowley relationship threw an Ace lens and they are clearly as close to married as they are probably going to get without stepping on holy ground.... and they love each other... why is it considered queer bating?

Personally, I think it's mostly young queer fans turning legitimate grievances on the wrong target. A case of getting so fed up with queerbaiting in media as a whole that they're instinctually lashing out at anything that seems to resembles it on the surface, without taking the time to consider whether this is, in fact, the thing they're mad at. Good Omens is a scapegoat, if you will. The equivalent of snapping at your partner after a long day. Your friend was an asshole, your boss was an asshole, the guy in traffic was an asshole, and then you come home to your partner who says something teasing and you take it as another asshole comment because you've just been surrounded by assholeness all day, to the point where your brain is primed to see an attack. Your partner wasn't actually an asshole, but by this point you're (understandably) too on guard to realize that. Unless someone sits you down and kindly reminds you of the difference between playful teasing and a legitimate insult - the nuance, if you will - your hackles are just gonna stay up and you'll leave the room, off to phone a different friend to tell them all about how your partner was definitely an asshole to you.

Only in this case, that "friend" is a fan on social media doing think pieces on the supposed queerbaiting of Good Omens, spreading that idea to a) people who aren't familiar with the show themselves and b) those who, like that original fan, have come to expect queerbaiting and thus aren't inclined to question the latest story with that mark leveled against it. Because on the surface Good Omens can look a lot like queerbaiting. Here are two queer coded characters who clearly love each other, but don't say "I love you," don't kiss, don't "prove" that love in a particular way. So Gaiman is just leading everyone on, right?

Well... no. This is where the nuance comes in, the thing that many fans aren't interested in grappling with (because, like it or not, media is not made up of black and white categories; queerbaited and not-queerbaited. Supernatural's finale is proof enough of that...) I won't delve into the most detailed explanation here, but suffice to say:

Gaiman has straight up said it's a love story. He's just not giving them concrete labels like "gay" or "bi" or "asexual," etc. because they are literally not human. Gaiman has subscribed to an inclusive viewpoint in an era where fans are desperate for unambiguous rep that homophobes cannot possibly deny. The freedom to prioritize any interpretation - yes, including a "just friends" interpretation - now, in 2021, feels like a cop-out. However, in this case it's an act of world building (they are an angel and a demon, not bound by human understanding of identity) meeting a genuine desire to make these characters relatable to the entire queer community, not just particular subsets. Gaiman has said they can be whatever we want because the gender, sexuality, and romantic attraction of an angel and a demon is totally up for debate! However, some fans have interpreted that as a dismissal of canonical queerness; the idea that fans can pretend they're whatever they want... but it's definitely not canon. It is though. Them being queer is 100% canon, it's just up to us to decide what kind of queer they are. This isn't Gaiman stringing audiences along, it's him opening the relationship up to all queer possibilities.

We know he's not stringing us along (queerbaiting) because up until just a few days ago season two didn't exist. Queerbaiting is a deliberate strategy to maintain an audience. A miniseries does not need to maintain its audience. You binge it in one go and you're done, no coming back next year required. The announcement for season two doesn't erase that context for season one. No one knew there would be more content and thus the idea that they would implement a strategy designed to keep viewers hooked due to the hope for a queer relationship (with no intent to follow through) is... silly.

In addition, this interpretive, queer relationship between Crowley and Aziraphale existed in the book thirty years ago. Many fans are not considering the difference between creating a totally new story in 2019 and faithfully adapting a story from 1990 in 2019. Good Omens as representation meant something very different back then and that absolutely impacts how we see its adaptation onto the small screen. To put this into perspective, Rowling made HUGE waves when she revealed that she "thought of" Dumbledore as gay in an interview... in 2007. Compare that to the intense coding 17 years before. Gaiman was - and still is - pushing boundaries.

Which includes being an established ally, particularly in his comics. Queerbaiting isn't just the act of a single work, but the way an author approaches their work. Gaiman does not (to my knowledge) have that mark against him and even if he did, he's done enough other work to offset that.

Finally, we've got other, practical issues like: how do you represent asexuality on the screen? How do you show an absence of something? Yeah, one or both of them could claim that label in the show, outright saying, "I'm asexual," but again, Gaimain isn't looking to box his mythological figures into a single identity. So if we want that rep... we have to grapple with the fact that this is one option for what it looks like.

Even if he did want to narrow the representation down to just a few identities for the show, should Gaiman really be making those major changes when he's only one half of the author team? Pratchett has, sadly, passed on and thus obviously has no say in whether his characters undergo such revisions. Even if fans hate every other argument, they should understand that, out of respect, Good Omens is going to largely remain the same story it was 30 years ago.

And those 6,000 years are just the beginning! Again, this was meant to be a miniseries of a single novel, a novel that, crucially, covered only Crowley and Aziraphale's triumph in being able to love one another freely. That's a part of their personal journey. Yeah, they've been together in one sense for 6,000 years, but that was always with hell and heaven on their backs, to say nothing of the slow-burn approach towards acknowledging that love, for Aziraphale in particular. We end the story at the start of their new relationship, one that is more free and open than it ever was before. They can be anything to one another now! The fact that we don't see that isn't a deliberate attempt on the author's part to deny us that representation, but only a result of the story ending.

So yeah, there's a lot to consider and, frankly, I don't think those fans are considering it. Which on a purely emotional level I can understand. I'm pissed about queerbaiting too and the knee-jerk desire to reject anything that doesn't meet a specific standard is understandable. But understandable doesn't mean we don't have to work against that instinct because doing otherwise is harmful in the long run. We need to consider when stories were published and what representation meant back then. We need to consider how we adapt those stories for a modern audience. We need to acknowledge that if we want the inclusivity that "queer" provides us, that includes getting characters whose identity is not strictly defined by the author as well as characters with overtly canonical labels. We need both. We likewise need to be careful about when having higher standards ends up hurting the wrong authors - who are our imperfect allies vs. those straight up unwilling to embrace our community at all? And most importantly, we have to think about how we're using the terms we've developed to discuss these issues. Queerbaiting means something specific and applying it to Good Omens not only does Good Omens a disservice, but it undermines the intended meaning of "queerbaiting," making it harder to use correctly in the future. Good Omens is not queerbaiting and trying to claim it is only hurts the community those fans are speaking up for.