#i have no issue with anti arguments when they're actually. you know. good

[greensaplinggrace]

the king of scars duology was leigh bardugo’s answer to every darklina shipper/darkling fan justifying the darkling’s crimes, and honestly that's why it's so hilarious. like imagine fumbling your supposed "clapback" that bad. you couldn't parse a real argument out of that shitshow if you tried.

[eowyntheavenger]

Hi! I saw your post on telling Americans to vote, and I was wondering what you think of posts from people from other parts of the world who are calling Americans evil for voting for Biden because of his support for Israel. I've seen a few already. They seem to be completely convinced that Americans deliberately voted for Biden specifically to side against Palestine and no other reason, and spread the general (pretty ignorant and hateful) message of "Americans are evil because of the actions of their government and because they collectively refuse to vote for a president who is good and not simply 'the lesser of two evils'". It frustrates me because they seem to think they're experts on US politics, culture, and society and have all the answers, but it also makes me concerned because it reminds me of the whole Russian bot thing from last time. Like, I'm 99% sure the people reblogging these posts aren't Russian bots (don't know about the OPs though), and they unquestioningly believe this. What do you think of this and how would you go about addressing this issue? Do you think it's possible to get them to understand how little they actually know about the US and how they're actually promoting a message that makes things worse for everyone? I've also seen less scathing posts that are just disheartened and don't seem to believe the democrats are truly better to vote for than the republicans and so it's just two sides of the same coin. To be fair, I think that sort of feeling is only further encouraged because there didn't really seem to be much if any progress made with Biden, not even back to square one after Trump moved the country so far backwards. I think most Americans really wish the elections actually had good candidates and they could pick the best of two goods, but are frustrated and stuck with the current system and don't know how to actually get to the point where there are good candidates. (Though personally I think voting for the one who isn't actively trying to make themselves a king with unlimited terms is a decent start. I can understand the frustration though.)

Hi! Thanks for the ask. This stuff worries me too. I've gotten comments on my posts like that too, telling me/other Americans that we're evil for voting for Biden.

But I've seen a much larger number of comments and posts from people outside the United States BEGGING us to vote for Biden. I literally get tags like that on my posts EVERY DAY urging Americans to vote blue. So I think that's valuable context, even if it doesn't solve the problem of the "I hate everybody who votes for Biden" crowd.

And yes, it's definitely a shitty argument on their part to claim that people voting for Biden are specifically siding against Palestine. Literally every single person I know in real life and online who plans to vote for Biden has been criticizing and protesting his policies on Palestine.

In terms of convincing the anti-voters that they're wrong, honestly, I don't know. They don't listen to reason and they seem intent on spreading despair. Some of Biden's policies have been terrible (Willow oil-drilling project), some of them have been downright evil (military aid to Israel), but I'm a rational person and I know that Trump is worse in every respect.

I've tried debating them. It's been pointless every time. They genuinely don't know how the government works, which scares me. Common takes include: 1) a genuine lack of awareness of how pro-Israel Trump and the right wing are, combined with magical thinking that a virtually unknown third party candidate can win the presidential election, 2) truly impressive mental gymnastics blaming Biden for the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and 3) continuing the mental gymnastics to blame Biden and the Democrats for anti-trans policies...

I guess my advice is to either ignore them and move on, or debunk things when you have time/energy? It's easier said than done, I know. There's nothing more annoying than someone being stupid on the internet, especially when they accuse you of stuff that just isn't true, and especially when they're spreading dangerous misinformation or voter-suppression rhetoric.

Like you, I'm highly suspicious of anyone who advocates AGAINST voting, or against voting blue. And I agree, many of these people are not bots, like you said, but I call them useful idiots, because they're doing the bots' work for them.

The one thing you said that I'm going to push back on is "there didn't really seem to be much if any progress made with Biden." Biden's actually made lots of progress on a variety of issues, and reversed some of Trump’s damage, it just doesn't get a lot of fanfare and it’s unfortunately happening at the same time as Republican gains in state legislatures and while they control the Supreme Court. But Biden and his administration have:

• invested billions in green architecture and clean energy, including making sure federal investments benefit low-income communities

• introduced new fines for companies' methane emissions

• introduced a plan to cut the federal government's greenhouse gas emissions by 65% by 2030 (that includes the military, which is a huge emitter)

• passed a huge bill for improving the country's infrastructure, including bridges, roads, broadband and more

• introduced first-ever national strategy on gender equality and equity and pushed Congress to pass the Equal Rights Amendment

• fought for women's reproductive rights after the overturn of Roe v. Wade

• put more women, people of color, and women of color on the federal bench than any of his predecessors combined

• nominated Kentaji Brown Jackson as the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court

• boosted funding to historically Black colleges

• ordered the DOJ to end the use of private prisons by the federal government

• pardoned thousands of people convicted on federal marijuana charges

• created a White House office of gun violence prevention

• passed the Respect for Marriage Act, guaranteeing federal rights and benefits for same-sex couples

• rolled out a series of actions to protect the rights and safety of the LGBTQ+ community, including protecting queer and trans foster youth, improving access to mental health services, and addressing the rise in hate crimes

• challenged discriminatory state bans against gender-affirming care and trans athletes

• called to support trans youth in State of the Union address and restored the White House tradition of recognizing Pride Month

• changed passport rules so that people can obtain a passport with no gender marker

• examined efforts by each federal agency to advance LGBTQ+ rights around the world

• reversed Trump's transgender military ban

• protected the rights of incarcerated trans people

• forgave billions in student debt, repeatedly, and introduced penalties for college programs that trap students in debt

• slashed bank overdraft fees

• expanded guaranteed overtime pay for millions of people

• made union-busting harder

• prevented discriminatory mortgage lending

• made efforts to expand the child tax credit, which could lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty

• cracked down on agriculture monopolies to support farmers and small businesses

• made it so the government is going to start taking drug companies' patents away if they don't make affordable drugs

• made over-the-counter birth control pills available for the first time

• lowered the cost of hearing aids and expanded access to them

• spent millions of dollars on students' mental health

• reversed discriminatory healthcare rules

• reinvigorated cancer research

• announced plans to replace all leaded pipes in the next ten years as well as combatting lead exposure abroad

• changed rules for how people can get aid after disasters so they can get more protection and immediate payments more easily

• introduced new data privacy rules protecting people from tech companies

• pushed the federal government to monitor AI risks

• maintained steadfast support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression

• maintained steadfast support for Taiwan in the face of Chinese intimidation

• strengthened ties with allies in Asia and the Pacific Islands

• pledged climate change assistance to low-lying Pacific Island countries

• literally IMMEDIATELY after being elected, Biden fortified DACA, rejoined the Paris Agreement, and ended Trump's discriminatory "Muslim ban", ended the Keystone XL Pipeline and fossil duel development in wildlife monuments, (same as last link) rejoined the WHO, strengthened COVID-19 response measures on a variety of fronts, re-included non-citizens in the U.S. census, and passed executives orders on racial equity in the federal government

And I'm sure there's more I left out.

There are also things Biden does that literally don’t make the news, but matter a lot, like funding the Postal Service, and continuing to have a State Department so we can conduct overseas diplomacy (Trump tried to defund the USPS and wants to purge the State Department and fill it with loyalists).

[gacha-incels]

Been boycotting limbus but it's a bit disheartening seeing everyone continue around me with this passing intl women's day. I don't know how to convince my friends to stop without getting into an argument because they're all knee deep into these games. But my real question was.. why? These people are boycotting other products for other things, why are they so adamant with sticking on this when it's proven to have harmed so many people in the small team that made it?

Had a discussion with one who is boycotting and I feel like that "political correctness" seeps into the themes of the game, actually, despite how people tout it as the ultimate anti capitalist game; The City is suffering, workers gruel and die at the whims of corporate overlords, people struggle to find housing, and whatever the fuck Carmen's doing in the light, while it could help people survive longer, is just giving everyone guns ignoring the power structures underneath. It's very strange to me now there's.. no suggestion of uprooting the system at all in the games. No true strikes or protests or even any mentions of unions as far as I know. There's no effort to change what is given

[outside of the seed of light project, which 1. famously Didn't Work and 2. having everyone manifest ego is still just giving everyone guns and going "now don't shoot each other!"],

which is very strange and kind of sad? Like sure maybe an arbiter or something would come and tear it down but surely people would come up with countermeasures? People are really good at adapting around things out of desperation, and surely at least an effort would be mentioned

And then my friend, she suggested something; without project moon's suffering, there would be no project moon. Without the city, project moon can't make games. To end the hell that the characters are in and truly resolve the city's hypercapitalist dystopia, they must stop making money off of them. But they don't want to. They definitely DO want to make more games, noted by the interviews which mention future game concepts such as the distortion detective visual novel. But in order to do so, they must keep the current games "clean" and consistent in their suffering to perpetuate conflict. There is some commentary about capitalism to be had; but it feels more like a "oh, look, people are dying, this is so sad" layer of paint on it at this point rather than something more in depth and meaningful. And I think in enforcing this sort of "we can't fix the system in any meaningful way, let's just live our lives instead and hope something better happens" mindset, it reflects into the players. Kind of ironic how the anti capitalism game must sustain its own horrible systems internally so the owners of the series can: make more money through a very predatory money making system, no less!

Limbus fans don't give a fuck about feminism in kr, they think its a system they cant help fixing so they just play the game as they please and any attempt to disuade them is met with a "stop ruining my fun!!" And "who cares?" The worst ones are the ones who KNOW their money is being funneled into stupid misogynistic shit but don't care! It's insane! I've never seen this level of apathy towards a serious issue before!

Sigh. I hope this ramble is coherent. If I missed talking about something or if you want me to talk more I'm game. Project moon's characters are some of my favorites but you have to admit the themes are surface level shit at some point, especially in later installments of their games. So tired but I'd figure I'd share my thoughts somehow. Take care account admin, youre doing gods work

yeah regarding your first point about fans that keep playing, back in August there was a discussion on this blog here regarding contemporary fandom “culture”- how it makes dropping a piece of media hard for some people and why they feel so quick to defend it. the nature of gacha is also that it gets you into the habit of doing “dailies” which makes them harder to drop, this is not even mentioning sunk cost fallacy. I’ve seen a recent post on the FGO subreddit asking why people still play the game and the top posts by a longshot were ones saying only because they spent so much time and money on it. For a lot of people (even people who think themselves progressives) misogyny is a non-issue as well so they will not take the situation in South Korea that seriously to begin with. This is in addition to it happening to “other” or “foreign” women in the eyes of the western fan. There is also an aggressive “fuck you, I’ve got mine” attitude some of the fans who want to keep playing have in regards to these women. It’s disturbing to watch happen but unfortunately not uncommon. I find some of the worst of it, in this situation specifically, is when westerners try to tell Korean women (who are boycotting and spreading information) that they are the ones spreading misinfo, or there’s no reason for them to boycott, how it’s not that bad for them, how PM actually didn’t do anything wrong, “both sides” are crazy and wrong, “let people enjoy things”, shit like that. like doesn’t it raise any flags for you that the people most affected by PM’s actions, Korean women, deleted entire accounts of fanart, took back fanmade items from PM’s cafe, started a boycott of LC and made posts in english to try and get the word out to international fans? you must think they’re idiots if you believe this is all some misunderstanding and vellmori quit of her own free will. Come on. imo it’s impossible to make any meaningful statement critiquing capitalism when you’re writing it in a game that uses one of the most exploitive types of gambling mechanics. I hope I don’t have to explain to anyone why this is absurd. You don’t need to expose young people to gambling addictions in order to fund new games. At the same time, things an author writes (or things that the reader infers from the writing) do not always reflect their ideologies or actions in real life and they can sometimes seemingly be at odds with one another. This is something fans have to reckon with, and not just by saying “actually hatsune miku made limbus company” or whatever. Personally, I can’t take PM’s “anti capitalist” or “feminist” or “revolutionary” work seriously when in reality they have mistreated employees, sued labor unions, acquiesced to incel demands and then later added a meme into the game from that incel community. On the other hand people struggle to believe Project Moon could do anything wrong like this because of the stories in their games so they vehemently defend PM, which at some point just feels naïve. well hopefully this is the type of answer/discussion you were looking for lol thanks for writing 👍

[acti-veg]

You know. I often here about how "Indigenous people honor animals even when they kill them" and that... That doesn't really seem to be the experience I get when I join my community. Sure people do "care" for the animals that their survival depends but ultimately I feel like to take the life of a living being requires a level of objectification and detachment otherwise how can you do it without going literally crazy and tormented by guilt? While I don't like to judge my people whose sustenance comes from animal products I don't think I'd be able to raise an animal and then kill it. I have a cat pet and I can't imagine the though of any harm coming to them let alone to cause them harm. I keep thinking about how my grandma when she was little refused to eat the meat of a lamb she played with and got very attached to.

This is something that I've always found incredibly frustrating about online discourse on this topic. The idea that 'indigenous people' all think, or feel or behave a certain way as if they are some sort of homogenous group is absurd. Indigenous populations are as diverse a literally any other culture, two indigenous groups in two seperate continents may share very little, and two indigenous individuals even less.

Of course there is some level of shared identity between and within indigenous cultures and lots of common themes, animism and shamanism, a reverance for nature and a duty of care for it are common threads. But excluding animism, those are also common threads for all major world religions, perhaps not to the same extent, but that doesn't exactly guarantee good treatment for animals, and certainly not protection from exploitation or abuse.

This noble savage stereotype, while leftists may view it as a positive, is completely unhelpful and means we don't engage with the actual issues facing indigenous communities. Positive stereotypes obscure what the priorities and challenges of communities actually are, and just allows us to view people in overly simplistic terms for us in our media and our arguments.

Indigenous advocacy groups have been telling us about ranchers stealing their land, extorting, bullying and killing them for decades, much of which is to feed western demand, which is routinely ignored in discourse of this kind. Instead all they do is use indigenous people as pawns in their shitty anti-vegan arguments while not bothering to even learn anything about the cultures they're bringing up. Most of them got their ideas of what indigenous people are or aren't from clumsy stereotypes in film.

As with all groups they want to use in their arguments, they're not interesting in hearing about complex, multi-faceted stories or competing ideologies held within those groups. They just want a simple 'indigenous hunters honour the animal and use every part' so they can throw it at vegans while pretending we think that subsistence hunting communities are terrible people for killing animals. Unfortunately this isn't new, I've seen anti-vegans trot this one out with zero analysis or nuance for at least a decade.

[saccharinemeat]

hi! VERY strong anti here. trying to be civil. just genuinely asking, why do you like proships. genuinely. why. what makes them so good to you? to me, they, well, make me feel nauseous and gross. sometimes even violated depending on what it is. what about these, honestly, gross ships is so good to you? what makes you think they're good? i'm not looking for an argument. just,, answers.

Alright, I'll answer in good faith here, because i really appreciate not picking a fight or an argument

First off, please, don't say , "you like proships" proship doesn't mean "problematic ships", it means "pro" (as in favor of) shipping, that is to say, it's an anti harassment stance on letting people do whatever they want, based off the old fandom saying "ship and let ship"

you dont need to like problematic ships to be proship, you just need to be against harassment of people who enjoy darker or more 'edgy' media, and that's it

As for you question in itself, it's complicated, some problematic ships i enjoy stem from my own trauma and family issues, particularly my abusive mother. Reading and making content with parental incest gives me comfort through the fact that its an inconditional , codependent love. In fiction it feels comforting, but i know reality is way different first hand.

For age gap ships, theres a whole aspect about having someone take care of you, and also again, love regardless of situation, plus there is self insertion as it makes me think of back when i was a teen and had crushes on older people. I couldn't act on them, and I knew that any adult willing to date a child is no good. But within fiction,you can write about it and it would be harmless, generally speaking

For dead dove or more problematic stuff,such as abusive relationships, theres again the desire for love no matter what, and the situations those develop in, are usually trauma bonding for the involved characters

Now, these are not the ONLY reasons i enjoy such ships. There's also the aspect that i just like some of them aesthetically, or i see their chemistry in a romantic light, Or i have a streak of sadism towards a certain character.

Another reason is the potential for interesting fan content, particularly fanfiction, wholesome ships are sweet and cute and can be hot even, but it's all very by the book. The exploration of their emotions, thoughts and actions in messed up situations is more interesting to me

For sibling incest particularly, i just feel that they're usually developed in such a way that it can easily be seen as romantic, since we spend so much time with them, and seeing them fight and bond and laugh and promise to be together, that it just clicks different

and, It's understandable that you feel nauseated and grossed out by a lot of these, in fact, there are problematic ships and tropes i hate and despise, despite the fact that i love other messed up content for example

- I hate bully/victim ships

- I hate uncle/niece ships

- I hate cheating stories

- I hate forced feminization

- I dislike enemies to lovers

- I dislike anything involving characters I consider too young

- I dislike vomit and sick fic

a lot of people love these! but i dont! some of them make my skin crawl! but i dont go and yell at them, i dont comment on their things, I just block them and move on, and focus on the stuff i DO like ,which is what i generally suggest

Fictional exploration of darker stories is okay, and generally harmless. I know the argument that it can be used to groom people, but truly, that's not the fault of the content or its creator, the blame is fully on the groomer.

Also, if we started banning or bashing things that can be used to groom others, we'd have to ban stuff like plushies, candy, adult collectionists of cartoon merch, comics, books,etc etc

ANYTHING can be used to groom a person, if there's a groomer targeting them. nothing is safe if there's an actual pro contact pedophile with the intention to groom a child. The only way to prevent these things is to be taught about them, and to learn to not take life advice from fanfiction, which should be a given.

Like seriously, think about it. let's see, a safe hobby, non fandom related....

okay, imagine theres a minor who's very interested in learning about history and historical maps of the world.

This kid joins an unsupervised group online, and talks about wanting to make friends, and does make some nice, age appropriate friends

They feel generally safe online

Then,a groomer targets them, befriends them and brings up the fact that they collect maps, and they love history just like the kid.

then moves into talking about 'old customs' and starts planting the idea that old societies were in the right about child marriage and so on, until they actually gets what they want, and commits a crime.

The groomer didn't need a fanfic to convince the kid

they just needed to manipulate the child into trusting them, using whatever the kid liked.

who do you think it's at fault here?

the kid? the history book? the group? the internet? Nope.

It's the groomer's fault for targeting the child

and it's the parent's fault for not teaching online safety to their kid.

[rowanwithaz]

"Can't People (of the same gender) Just Be Friends Anymore? "

This is gonna be a fun one.

I kinda never went over this in my, "Deku Is Straight" post,and I guess it is a little different; but it's still a very popular argument against just queer ships in general. So,I will bring up how queer shippers get treated in most fandoms and just some problems in the media when it comes to representation; but it will mostly be about GreeNade and BNHA.

(⚠This post is not supposed to be hating on any one! It's absolutely fine if people view certain relationships as platonic,but what's not okay is having double standards and being a godamned hypocrite about it. This is just addressing issues that seem to pop up mainly against the queer shipping communities; not some kind of hate post. I encourage everyone to try and have an open mind and to try and be respectful of everyone's opinions.And as usual: as long as something is legal,ship away!⚠)

Broship

If you could not tell the ones on the top are taking about this scene:

And,from what I'm reading,they didn't get it. Bakugo didn't do it for "humanity" he didn't do it because Izuku is just a good friend of his. His.Body.Moved.On.Its.Own. He wanted to protect Izuku so badly that his body made him do it. He also copied Izuku,like when Izuku's body moved in its own...? Y'know,like,the scientifically proven thing you do when you love someone in a romantic way?

(*Also,when Izuku does this for Ochaco he second guesses himself and forces himself to do it unlike with Kacchan. Just found that interesting; and Izuku even says "it wasn't like last time" because he had to force himself to move. His thoughts also get cut off before he can come to a conclusion...hmmm,interesting.*)

Which Izuku has done this about a million times and even admits to it,

but chapter 285 is where Bakugo mirrors Izuku(he has,I believe in some other moments in the manga,I can't remember for sure; but this is the chapter it's most apparent in.) ,he also does the analyzing thing Izuku does.

Okay,now that is the significance (there is so much more that makes it so beautiful but that was just some of the quick stuff) So,can we really call this "friendship" ? Honestly,I guess,if you don't know anything about the relationship prior to this scene...actually no that's wrong. My Aunt saw this scene and asked if they were canon,she had not known anything about bnha/mha at the time. And when I gave context she was like, "so they're gay,?"

So, yeah. That scene even with no context; looks like someone dying for the person they love. But,perspective.

Here's the thing I'm addressing in this post. It isn't, "Guys,they don't do this for their other friends and they mirror each other on accident and the author himself doesn't refer to them as friends,ect,ect." There is too much that supports them being romantically interested in each other,but that's not the point. The whole "Friendship is dead,isn't it?" because people can see two dudes/girls liking each other romantically is.

And that moves us to the next section of this post.

Double Standards

The only time when someone says something like this Is when it's between people of the same gender. They aren't mad at people for shipping Momo with Izuku because they're just friends,that's okay because...don't tell anyone this is a secret antis have...they don't care as long as it's straight.

If it's queer it's "Friendship dead :(" but if it's someone like Melissa it's okay. It's honestly so...pathetic.

"Boy and boy have to be friend or my life is over 😠" or "Gal Pals or my life is RUINED 😨" Like, I have never seen someone get mad about straight ships like this. Honey,if someone said, "WHY can't a guy and girl just be friends for once?" Everyone would laugh in their face. Which is actually something I wish was normalized more. Once I had a dude friend and my whole family made fun of us and I literally cried because I had just figured out I liked girls a lot more than boys and I was having this thing pushed on me. That does not happen with gay people,actually get this,being called gay is still used as an insult.

(*That first one though...Like do they not know there are several canon trans characters and bisexual characters in bnha? And the Izuchako drawing 💀 I cried I was laughing so hard the first time I saw it.*)

If you know about the sonic idw comics,there are these two characters Whisper and Tangle. People instantly started shipping them because they were so cute with each other,but other people were mad because "two girls just can't be friends anymore" and it pretty much happens in every show that isn't LGBTQ+ centric.

Because people aren't going to read/watch Heartstopper and go, "Uh,these guys are straight why do you keep shipping them?" And as much as I love that we are getting stories and shows all about the queer experience, it does still piss me off that if it isn't something like a queer romance drama and or comedy people get mad at queer people for being in other things. People will be like, "You have shows that are centered around being queer,stop bringing it into our stuff," and it's exhausting. Like,there are billions of T.V shows,moves,books,comics,ect,that have nothing to do with a romance centered plot but they throw in this random hetro relationship that doesn't add to the characters or plot.

And that's one of the reasons I love BloodBubbles and GreNade,they add to the characters and parallel the story into their dynamics. I think all romance in stories should be like that. If a romantic relationship doesn't add anything but a little *smooch* *smooch* then it is ultimately useless. I understand if people like the *smooch* *smooches* but don't act like the relationship is well developed and needed. With a romance centered plot the romance is obviously needed. But does it mean it's good? Hell no. Most romantic movies have the characters fall in love in a week. That's just my opinion though.

Conclusion:

Stop using the "can't two people of the same sex/gender be friends anymore" argument,it just shows how much you do not know about queer people/relationships or just relationships in general. Queer people should be able to be represented in (God forbid) a Shonen and just media in general that isn't just a romance show. Everyone has different thoughts,opinions,and experiences,that shapes them into having a different perspective on things; but just because they have a different perspective doesn't mean it can disprove a plantain fact: Straight people have representation. Straight people do not need to fight for it either. So,stop fighting to be oppressed so badly.

Sorry to get so serious in the end...here this might lighten the mood!

This is the angle number for 285! The chapter Bakugo's body moved on its own. I find the angle number being about kindness very interesting. :)

That worked right? Also,I like doing the conclusion in a bigger font,so I'll probably be doing that from now on when I'm wrapping my posts up.

[olderthannetfic]

EOTWR is at heart asking for common decency and trying to appeal to the fandom community's sense of common good. Racism is an issue in fandom, let's be the good people we proclaim to be and rally behind a righteous cause. Yay!

Amazing how call out culture can turn a good thing into a shitshow.

We just went through a global pandemic that pretty much proved that common good stops being a priority when people feel inconvenienced or think their freedom is curtailed. I certainly fantasized about screaming out all my rage at any anti-masker I encountered. Would have felt amazing. Not gonna change minds that way though.

I don't understand what results they were expecting when taking this exact approach with their campaign. It's all call out culture language! The very thing that is making fandom a general nightmare for everyone right now! The very thing that watered social justice language down until you genuinely can't tell good actors from bad actors anymore.

How were people supposed to know different when their language, the language of the supporters and the language of their most infamous member are basically indistinguishable from the language of the bad actors.

They're tired, they're angry, they're just trying to enjoy fandom in peace. It's not their job to educate us, answer any questions or perform the emotional labour to handhold white fragile hands through confronting their internal biases.

Ok, then don't be an activist because that's kind of the job description.

The people EOTWR failed to connect with are just as tired, just as angry and have also never known peace in fandom.

They're not going to perform the emotional labour to check if this callout is genuine when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

And they can just not reblog, simply not engage, just not react AT ALL because we're on the internet and block functions exist. And from what I have seen everyone who DID engage but had questions and concern was immediately suspect.

Perform more rage at them while not gaining enough support to make a blip on OTW's radar. Keep wondering why they feel in no hurry to even REPLY. They probably took one look at the Campaign and breathed a sigh of relief because THEY know their audience well enought to know exactly how this would go.

I don't get the circular logic here. They approached the community call out first, got the entirely expected backlash, doubled down on calling everybody out and then performed more outrage because the response proved what they were saying all along!!

So they KNEW they were asking a bunch of awful racists to implement anti-racist policies in an awful, racist organization and decided the best approach was... *gestures*

The counterarguments will be all about tone policing, respectability politics, etc.

But that's just a lot of noise from people who are embarassed that they fell flat on their faces with this. I'm sure it's also a lot of genuine disappointment that fellow fans seem to care about other fans welfare so little. I get that.

So I'll be on the lookout for another campaign that is willing to meet people where they're at and for arguments that actually speak to the target audience. I'll reblog that one.

--

I'm sure some people did feel that way...

But this kind of "failed" campaign also operates how sending your cult members door-to-door does: it reaffirms that Outsiders are all Bad People who are against them and sucks them in tighter to the group. If someone's looking to recruit loyal followers, this is exactly how to do it.

[pluralcultureis]

Im sorry if this isnt appropriate to ask, you dont have to answer considering you lean more anti-endo, but I dont understand what arguments are there for pro or even neutral endo? Ive honestly really tired to understand because ive seen quite a few systems now say things like "I use to be anti-endo but now ive been informed" or "I use to be anti-endo but ive been educated" and im just not getting? Whats compelling these people to start beliving in the existence of non trauma based DID? Have I just not been informed enough? I tired doing research about it but all I could really fine were people saying "Well we dont know everything about the human mind so you dont know whats posible, you cant tell people what their experiencing is wrong" (I just dont really agree with this point) or if someone just believes spiritually they have like ghosts in the brain??? (As an ashiest I just cant get behind that one) Or they seem to have a bunch of links to studies that supposably prove that scientists also believe in endos but ive yet to read all of them threw but from briefly glancing at a few of these links most of them dont even link to studies having anything to do with them. Its all just very confusing to be honest and I wanted to get someone else perspective on it.

I think most of it is people either A) being tired of getting hate and giving in and just saying they're pro-endo

B) They read the articles endos link, not realizing a majority of them are not made by unbiased people who have actually done proper study. Most of the articles I've seen endos and pro-endos link are not actually done by people who have the correct resources, or they go into a study already biased and instead of doing a double blind or keeping their biases out of their studies, they do the full study themselves and let their biases effect the results. But if you haven't taken actual psychology classes you likely don't know to watch out for these things, and it's easy to look at them and think "oh yeh, these are professional and real so they're right" even tho they're not

Or C) They doom scrolled through pro-endo shit so much that their brain started to agree with it because they were submerging themselves in the community, and when you do that with anything enough your brain will start to justify it, especially if it's causing you stress because the brain wants to solve the stress issue so it just starts to make you think you agree with what's being said

We've actually had C almost happen to us with a few things because some of us have issues with doom scrolling, but were lucky enough to be able to realize when it starts ro happen and take a step back from it

I really don't fault people for being tricked by the misinformation, or just giving up on getting hate for no reason

It's just frustrating to see people act as if because they used to be anti-endo and now they're not they're suddenly enlightened and must be right

We used to be pro-endo, and now we're not and we don't use that as a way to show our view point as the right one.

We will always encourage people to do their own research, and whether they end up pro/neu/anti endo we don't care after that as long as they've researched with actual good sources

If we could find good sources on non-traumagenic systems being possible we would absolutely change our views again, but we've looked. When we were pro-endo we were desperate to justify things, and we just could not find an actual reliable source

So yeh, always do your own research, form your own opinions, just always also make sure the research you're looking at is reliable

[melyzard]

I was wondering if you have resources on how to explain (in good faith) to someone why AI created images are bad. I'm struggling how to explain to someone who uses AI to create fandom images, b/c I feel I can't justify my own use of photoshop to create manips also for fandom purposes, & they've implied to me they're hoping to use AI to take a photoshopped manip I made to create their own "version". I know one of the issues is stealing original artwork to make imitations fast and easy.

Hey anon. There are a lot of reasons that AI as it is used right now can be a huge problem - but the easiest ones to lean on are:

1) that it finds, reinforces, and in some cases even enforces biases and stereotypes that can cause actual harm to real people. (For example: a black character in fandom will consistently be depicted by AI as lighter and lighter skinned until they become white, or a character described as Jewish will...well, in most generators, gain some 'villain' characteristics, and so on. Consider someone putting a canonically transgender character through an AI bias, or a woman who is not perhaps well loved by fandom....)

2) it creates misinformation and passes it off as real (it can make blatant lies seem credible, because people believe what they see, and in fandom terms, this can mean people trying to 'prove' that the creator stole their content from elsewhere, or allow someone to create and sell their own 'version' of content that is functionally unidentifiable from canon

3) it's theft. The algorithm didn't come up with anything that it "makes," it just steals some real person's work and then mangles is a bit before regurgitating it with usually no credit to the original, actual creator. (In fandom terms: you have just done the equivalent of cropping out someone else's watermark and calling yourself the original artist. After all, the AI tool you used got that content from somewhere; it did not draw you a picture, it copy pasted a picture)

4) In some places, selling or distributing AI art is or may soon be illegal - and if it's not illegal, there are plenty of artists launching class action lawsuits against those who write the algorithm, and those who use it. Turns out artists don't like having their art stolen, mangled, and passed off as someone else's. Go figure.

Here are some articles that might help lay out more clear examples and arguments, from people more knowledgeable than me (I tried to imbed the links with anti-paywall and anti-tracker add ons, but if tumblr ate my formatting, just type "12ft.io/" in front of the url, or type the article name into your search engine and run it through your own ad-blocking, anti tracking set up):

These fake images reveal how AI amplifies our worst stereotypes [Source: Washington Post, Nov 2023]

Humans Are Biased; AI is even worse (Here's Why That Matters) [Source: Bloomburg, Dec 2023]

Why Artists Hate AI Art [Source: Tech Republic, Nov 2023]

Why Illustrators Are Furious About AI 'Art' [Source: The Guardian, Jan 2023]

Artists Are Losing The War Against AI [Source: The Atlantic, Oct 2023]

This tool lets you see for yourself how biased an AI can be [Source: MIT Technology Review, March 2023]

Midjourney's Class-Action lawsuit and what it could mean for future AI Image Generators [Source: Fortune Magazine, Jan 2024]

What the latest US Court rulings mean for AI Generated Copyright Status [Source: The Art Newspaper, Sep 2023]

AI-Generated Content and Copyright Law [Source: Built-in Magazine, Aug 2023 - take note that this is already outdated, it was just the most comprehensive recent article I could find quickly]

AI is making mincemeat out of art (not to mention intellectual property) [Source: The LA Times, Jan 2024]

Midjourney Allegedly Scraped Magic: The Gathering art for algorithm [Source: Kotaku, Jan 2024]

Leaked: the names of more than 16,000 non-consenting artists allegedly used to train Midjourney’s AI [Source: The Art Newpaper, Jan 2024]

[angelsdean]

john was absolutely vaccinating those kids, hashtag sorry. 1.) back then the anti-vaxx movement was not popular or accepted. it was mostly very extremist groups that were anti-vaxxers. and most of them homeschooled their children because 2.) vaccinations were mandatory (pretty sure they still are in most places) to attend school.

additionally i recently learned about the Vaccine for Children Program (developed in 1994), which is "a federally funded program that provides vaccines at no cost to children who might not otherwise be vaccinated because of inability to pay."

so they would've been able to get vaccinated at their school for free.

then there's the arguments that john would've just forged papers saying they got vaccinated. why?? if john is so neglectful / lazy / uncaring why would he do something that would require significantly more effort than just, letting them get vaccinated?

a common response might be: he's a paranoid conspiracy theorist / distrustful of doctors. but even in these scenarios, john's characterization of fear, paranoia, and distrust is for completely different reasons. john is paranoid and fearful of the world around him, because of the supernatural. one could draw a parallel between john and his isolationism mentality to other extremist groups, but in the parallel, the thing john is fearful of is not big pharma / modern medicine and other issues real world groups are concerned with. he's afraid of literal monsters and demons.

then there's: john distrusts doctors. you often see john have a "no hospitals" rule in fanworks. but this isn't rooted in a fear of medicine. his no hospitals stance is usually in reference to injuries. to avoid suspicion over supernatural or abuse related injuries. if anything, not getting your kids vaccinated would arise suspicion. he'd be safer playing things by the book and doing as much as he can to look "good" so no one starts poking around and looking too closely at their family.

at MOST i can see john being a bit delayed on their vaccine schedule. i feel like he'd be completely clueless about when they need their vaccines and which ones they need. i know far too many fathers who have never taken their children to a pediatrician appointment or know anything abt their child's health history because that's always been the mom's responsibility. so i can see him being utterly lost about all that after mary dies. he doesn't know which vaccines they've already had. he's busy being consumed by grief and his desire for revenge to really think about things like vaccines. eventually tho, once they're school aged, he'd have to figure it out.

anyways, yes this isn't that deep but, there are so many things to actually criticize john about. but not getting them vaccinated just doesn't make sense to me, and none of the arguments for john not vaccinating them hold much weight for me. john can still totally suck and they can still be vaccinated lol

[thisgardenofromance]

Why I Absolutely Cannot Stand TamaHaru as an Ouran Manga Reader

Shoutout to this post I made a while back, we're finally delving into the second half of my argument lol

I feel like I'm gonna get some heat for this but I mean this completely in good faith to the shippers, because y'all are people. And honestly? Since there are so many of you, I would genuinely appreciate hearing your (polite) responses because I really don't understand. Here's my (anti-TamaHaru) perspective:

Ok, so TamaHaru always seemed a bit bland to me in the anime. It was fine if it had to happen, I guess, but it always seemed like the other characters were a lot more excited about it than the actual couple, and it just kind of seemed like their energies and life plans didn't align? They don't even end up kissing by the end of the anime, and they were the main ship and a straight couple. If they wanted to kiss, wouldn't they have kissed? And I mean, yeah, there was that whole bit where everyone was like "wow, Haruhi's dad is just like Tamaki" (which seems like some sort of weird relationship complex in and of itself), but Tamaki had a tendency to get excited about shit Haruhi just complained about, and I... is it really worth it at that point?

(Especially when Kyoya and Mori are right there. Come on dude, Kyoya is absolutely willing to have Tamaki's back every step of the way for whatever interests he wants to pursue and Tamaki designates him as the teammate in the family, and don't even get me started on whatever was going on between Haruhi and Mori in the waterpark episode. I want more of that shit. But that's a topic for another time.)

Feel free to give me your arguments on this too (kindly, please), but I feel like most of it that I've seen is "they'll grow together"/"they're equally stupid and that's cute"/"he just loves her so much"/"they're so aesthetic" and none of these have ever really held water for me because it doesn't really seem to negate the lack of chemistry I've observed...

Oof that was a long ass backstory but onto the actual point

So in the manga, my experience was basically all my fears were confirmed and then some, and we quickly spiraled into downright emotional abuse and partner-to-partner hatred????

Ah god it was so bad

Here are some examples

Haruhi's reaction to the realization that she loves Tamaki (Volume 13)

Literally the first example of body dysmorphia we've ever gotten from Haruhi (directly contradicting her body-positive/neutral quotes from volume 3), along with a very convenient example of Tamaki's (NOW CONFIRMED ROMANTIC) infantilization of Haruhi that y'all already know because it is present since the start of the series (the thing is this wouldn't even be an issue if it was directed at a friend as a "we have a family bond and I want to feel like I'm taking care of you" as he does with the twins and not to someone who he wants to be his life partner....) (Volume 13)

Haruhi's thoughts on the possibility of dating Tamaki (Volume 13)

The fact that the Dream Haruhi plotline has ground to stand on?????? Since when has it been okay to fantasize that your supposed other half is a completely different person when it comes to an actual romantic relationship? Shit like this is okay until it starts affecting other people, and the fact Haruhi has already shown dysmorphia because she cares about whether or not Tamaki wants to date her and then this shit happens makes me very uncomfy down to my bones. (Volume 14)

This isn't something particularly heinous between these two, but it is yet another egregious example of how they always just completely miss each other's vibes, which I personally don't really like in my power couples (Volume 15)

I'm just saying, if I realized my girlfriend thought these things about me I would be justifiably upset (Volume 15)

Ok I understand the tendency of the host club to jokingly threaten violence (read: Kyoya when he wakes up and both of the twins) but this is both completely unwarranted and oddly genuine what the fuck :D (Volume 15)

What the fuck <3 (Volume 15)

It's ok guys she's rethinking it because he fell asleep in the club room :D (she never apologizes to him by the way)

And then they spend the rest of the series overcoming external obstacles and living happily ever after

Just kidding this is how they get together (Volume 18)

And this is their first date. I don't feel like depicting it in its entirety because my back hurts now but rest assured Tamaki acting like Tamaki pisses Haruhi off more than once <3 (Volume 18)

In summary I've only ever seen them act like this with each other I like both of their characters but these chapters genuinely almost convinced me to hate them they are so bad for each other just date someone else just date someone else p l e a s e

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

I hate that so many things in Zutara fighting club reasoning…

1) they butcher the characters they supposedly love.

2) they totally misunderstand what redemption is, as they praise Zuko’s redemption.

Despite show making point about how difficult and non-linear true change is, in all their arguments “Zuko went through redemption, he is good now and will never ever do anything bad” Sure. A seventeen years old boy. A sole ruler of a troubled nation. A traumatized person with many issues who hasn’t even know how healthy relationship look like. He will never ever do anything wrong, because he is redeemed now. Sure.

3) they turn the story into a romance and then complain it is written wrong. Of course, because it is not a romance!

4) it seems they misunderstand every single thing about AtLA, and I keep asking myself, why are they even in the fandom?

5) red and blue. Why must a romance include red and blue? Is it a law of physics?

6) you can’t even say in their presence that Zuko and Katara have great platonic relationship. It is all “being a toxic anti” to them.

I think the Red and Blue thing is because Avatar does use that a lot (see Zuko's fever dream of Iroh as the good, red dragon, while Azula is the evil, blue one) - the problem that is that zutara fans try to apply it to EVERYTHING and make it always be about romance.

The whole "You rise with the moon, I rise with the sun" thing or fire and water being each other's opposite element, like Earth was to Air? It's a very explicit parallel - between Katara and Zuko's NATIONS and peculiarities about their bending. Not between them as characters, and surely not in a romantic way.

They also try to latch onto stuff like "Oh, Zuko was the BLUE spirit! And Katara was wearing red for a good chunk of season three! They're wearing each other's signature color! This totally means something!' like the whole point of that alter ego wasn't so Zuko could get away with doing things he considered bad - like stealing from people - or the reason for Katara wearing Fire Nation clothes wasn't "The Gaang has to infiltrate in enemy territory to survive, and they all go back to their actual signature colors when that is over because THAT is where their hearts are at."

And, yet, they do use "Blue and Red", by itself, as a hint of romantic potential - even though the show never went there. It's like I said in an old post: "Symbolism" that doesn't actually represent anything is not symbolism at all.

[gayleviticus]

in intra-christian arguments about LGBTQ+ issues i think there's always two main levels: 'what does the Bible say?' and 'what is our overarching narrative about queerness?', and i think a lot of resources that promote an affirming stance don't always take this into account.

by this distinction i mean that there's a difference between arguments like 'Leviticus 22.18 is about incest' and 'Know them by their fruits and the fruits of being non-affirming stink' - they're both biblically based, but one is defensively batting away clobber verses used as weapons, and the other is casting a broader narrative that gives queer affirmation some kind of weight.

conversely, for traditionalists, the difference is between something like 'Romans 1 says homosexuality is unnatural' and 'we all need to carry our crosses so suffering with suppressing your sexuality is noble and Christlike'. Again, both biblically based, but one serves to tell you what to do, and the other is the underpinning ideological justification.

(incidentally, i think it's quite frustrating that the anti-trans position in Christianity essentially relies on maybe one Bible verse we all ignore anyway by letting women wear pants, and is otherwise entirely dependent on having constructed an anti-trans narrative that is hardly the only or even obvious option for Christians)

so i think there are four quadrants to arguing for LGBTQ+ affirmation: 1) dismissing traditionalist readings of Scripture (e.g. 'Paul was only familiar with pederasty not committed adult homosexuality') 2) offering queer-affirming readings of Scripture (e.g. 'David and Jonathan were gay' or the Ethiopian eunuch) 3) Dismissing traditionalist narratives about why suppressing queerness is justifiable and good (e.g. 'carry your cross', 'gender complementarity', 'your identity is in Christ alone) 4) Constructing narratives about why queer affirmation is good (e.g. 'Know them by their fruits', 'Love is love', 'God created transsexuals the same reason he created wheat but not bread')

Now, I think a lot of arguments you see tend to focus on 1, 2, or 4.

Arguments for 1 I think often lack a lot of nuance and can honestly be quite bad, at least the passing ones you see online ("'homosexuality' as a term was added to the bible in the 1940s" is a huge oversimplification for starters, and i think the idea Leviticus is talking about pedophilia is confusing it with Paul's Epistles). But I think there are definitely good arguments out there, especially in books like Brownson's Bible Gender and Sexuality.

Arguments for 2 I think, to be honest, are often far too speculative and anachronistic to be helpful - we can certainly read David and Jonathan or the centurion and his slave etc queerly, but I think it goes too far to definitively project it back onto them for the sake of arguments. I think there's fruitful potential in reading things like Gentile inclusion in Acts queerly, or perhaps even, idk, the Book of Job. But these are easily the most spurious and least helpful arguments (which is not to say the Bible can't be interpreted pro-queerly; just that that comes out more in #4 in constructing pro-queer narratives).

Arguments for 4, I think, are actually quite powerful because they provide the underlying engine of actually wanting to be affirming. It's all well and good to argue dry technical points of ancient Hebrew or Greek exegesis, but if there's otherwise no compelling moral issue at stake - oppression of LGBTQ people, rejection of love, the risk of being locked into legalistic thinking, even just alienation from your LGBTQ+ loved ones - why would anyone care?

BUT on the other hand, they can also lapse into cliche and feel like arguments from emotion when they get prioritised over arguments about the actual text/theology. Which is frustrating, because in a sense these arguments are 'more important' - what's going to keep you committed to an affirming position long term, a realisation that the meaning of 'arsenokoites' in 1 Corinthians is ambiguous, or wholeheartedly believing non-affirming theology is ripe with bad and harmful fruits?

Finally, arguments for 3, I think, are relatively lacking. Arguments constructing pro-queer narratives implicitly counter anti-queer ones, obviously, and I think a bit of work has been done around dismantling gender complementarity (albeit not always in the context of LGBTQ+ issues) and the whole 'my identity is in Christ' (probably thanks to the Side B community tbh).

But I feel like there are other narratives that have gone not really explicitly addressed, like 'we all carry our crosses', 'Christians are called to be in the world and not of it; LGBTQ+ inclusion is a secular whim'. And I think these especially are narratives that we progressives are inclined to just dismiss out of hand, because they just feel inherently culty and authoritarian; they don't start from a place of good faith, the assumptions are faulty, let's not bother.

But I think it would be worth picking these apart further for the sake of people stuck in homophobic churches - fruitfully deconstructing what 'carrying your cross' means and the role of suffering in the Christian life, or clearly identifying where LGBTQ+ affirmation comes from within Christian theology, or working out why it's not a problem the secular world took the lead on this (because the Holy Spirit is working throughout history and is not so weak as to be limited to the church, because the church's role isn't necessarily been to be the only arbiters of moral progress, because religious institutions becoming corrupt and losing sight of justice is not a new concept to Christians etc)

[sophieinwonderland]

hi o/ jus wana start by saying dis is jus semi incoherent rambling of a sleeby oupy who didnt get to eat 5 borgars for dinner.

i find the anti endo point of “just doing it for attention” so weird

for one its really disconected from real life, like, attention is a basic need fir our body, its why solutary confinment is such good tourture. its like saying “theyre just doing it to get food” :l dumb argument, evyone needs and withholding food because someones starving is an evil thing to do, an so is ignoring someone who’s in need of social interaction.

and two, its blatantly wrong. like, we’ve told 0 people irl about being a system, we’ve only told like, 3 online friends, and we never talk about system stuff with them still cuz we’re scared of loosing those friends for being too weird. we pretty much never post about it on our blog an besides the blog description no one wud probably ever know. the one time someone guessed we’re a system in a discord servr i had a full anxiety attack an avoided any interaction for 2 weeks even tho they were accepting, an then when we finaly went back to talking there i made sure we had any trace of system stuff wiped from the servr profile an deleted the messages that made them ask and only just showed that all again after 2 months of keeping everything hidden. we’re terrified of people we know knowing we’re a system or getting attention cuz of tgat.

tho we’re definitly on the extreme end for that (mostly me tbh… the social isolation and abandonment issues exo-memories and the body’s trauma from similar irl stuff deff made me super scared about this) but its a pretty similar experience for a lot of systems from wut ive seen where telling ppl is pretty much an act of compleat trust an usualy very anxiety inducing.

besides, if someone really wus just after attention, they could just post a incorrect fact online or a really dumb take. thats much easier an will get a lot more attention than faking being a system ever could. like, saying something like “reading is bourgeoisie” on a semi popular post will be a thousand times better at getting u attention than being a system ever could.

theres so much more i wana say about this, like the ableism inherent to that argument point, or the way its linked to child abuse, but phone keyboard is stupid and terrible and im too hungy to think well enough to write out those points properly an do them justice.

anyways, i hope u have a great day/night depending on when u read this.

Right! And if they're claiming people are wanting positive attention, I don't see that as being that hard either.

Like, if someone wants to talk to people on the internet about stuff, there are spaces out there for literally anything and anyone. You're not going to get more attention for being a system than you would for being outspoken in a fandom or a religion or any other social group you're a part of.

People who want attention... don't need to pretend to have people in their head to get it. And the attention you would get for that is often going to be negative because a lot of people are sanist and pluralphobic. But as you mention, it's not even the best way to get negative attention when there are so many actual troll-y things you can do.

You can find hundreds of communities online with people who will support you and give you attention for your takes on various topics! Or you can find hundreds more who will hate you if you push the right buttons!

There's just... no logical reason to fake being plural for attention.

And isn't this, again, the very same claims that have always been made against the LGBTQ community?

It's actually kind of funny how that happens, isn't it?

The people who are getting attention are generally the ones who most conform to society. It's not plural or trans people. It's the ones who do their best to fit in and be like everyone else in their group. Meanwhile, people who have identities that diverge from the norm are often left outcasts and shunned by peers.

And yet it's the latter group that's accused of attention seeking?

It makes no sense. 🤷‍♀️

[stackslip]

Do you have any book recs on mormons and cults? I wanna know more about them for a school presention and I think you mentioned that they're your special interest a while ago, but I'm not sure. If you have any other media recs on them, that would be helpful too. Sorry in advance if I got you mixed up with another user, just ignore this if I did

yeah you got me there i am indeed the person who has a special interest in mormons for some fucking reason. anyhow.

my entry point to learning about them was actually the podcast mormon stories, who mostly do interviews with ex members or people who are a lot more nuanced today and went through a faith crisis. it's accessible to nevermos (aka people who were never mormon) and while it has its issues (the hosts being insufferably liberal for one) there are some genuinely great in-depth interviews from people from all walks of life who talk about being raised in the faith or converting, missions, gender roles and the construction of the mormon family, practices and other issues. many of them express that they believe mormonism to be a cult, some are more hesitant to do so--but they make compelling arguments that it's at least a high control group that has a high exit cost--in terms of family and friends cutting or icing you out, in terms of general support, in terms of how much it shapes your worldview and how difficult it is to even consider leaving, even when staying is actively harmful.

the podcast also hosts a series called LDS discussions which focuses on mormon truth claims--about the veracity of the book of mormon, historical developments in the mormon church (including polygamy and joseph smith), racism in the church, and more. however they're long and also i think you need a certain amount of familiarity with the subject--the goal of the series is mainly to reach out to members of the LDS church and try to give them information they might have been deprived from, since the church actively hides or partially obscures information about things such as polygamy or the construction of the book of mormon. this would be a bit too long to look into for a class tbh, so instead i'm gonna give you other resources and this is just if you ever wanna dig more into the subject.

the podcast unfinished: short creek is specifically about the flds cult--fundamentalist polygamists who are known bc their prophet warren jeffs was arrested for child sexual abuse. the podcast focuses on the history of the cult, including its origins in mainstream mormonism and how it's at odds with the lds church today, as well as how current members try to continue living their faith in increasingly restrictive conditions and while having to live in the same town as "apostates", ex members who either left voluntarily or were forced out of the flds but decided to stay in the city. it's a genuinely fantastic and compassionate podcast series which tbh is a good way to segway into the history of the modern LDS church and if you're interested in cults, compare and contrast this to the church.

in terms of books, here are a few that are definitely more accessible and digestable than these long podcasts. keep in mind in terms of sources you might be looking for that mormons have a long tradition of publishing their own histories on the subject (and sometimes doing semi decent to pretty good academic work, although the latter tends to be reprimanded by the church if it strays too far out of bounds) and that there's also a huge anti-mormon evangelical movement who will post a lot of true shit mixed with bullshit about the lds church not bc they're worried about its actual issues, but because they believe mormons are fake christians they need to save.

a bit of a pop book, but really fascinating entry into the subject of the mormon church and its culture past and present is the book under the banner of heaven by jon krakauer. it's a comparison to the origins of the LDS church in the 19th century and a murder that took place in the 80s by a splinter group of mormons who claimed to have rediscovered the true church. please do not watch the tv series.

if you want more "academic" stuff, the book mormon america by joan and richard ostling is a general decent overview of the history of the church, its theology and its practices by the early 21st century (keep in mind its practices are evolving and some aspects are outdated) and some of its main issues and demography. i think it tries a bit too hard to be "neutral" at times and it's written by christians who are sympathetic to (white, middle class) mormons and try to portray them to their fellow (white, middle class) christians in a more sympathetic light, but it's good in terms of giving some basic facts to non-mormons who might be confused about the basic theology and what makes mormons so different from Regular Christians

if you want more on the early history of the church, the book no man knows my history by fawn brodie, if you can get your hands on it, is one of the first real and non LDS church approved biographies of joseph smith, founder and key figure of the church.

unfortunately i haven't found any decent biography of brigham young yet--which is a shame because the dude is a way more fascinating figure than joseph imo, and *more* responsible for the continuation and establishment of the church than joseph is. blood of the prophets: brigham young and the mountain meadows massacre by will bagley is a good if dry account of one of the worst acts that was at least condoned by him, and it gives context for ealry mormon settlement in utah, but unfortunately not much more.

mormon polygamy: a history by richard van wagoner is a very good account of the practice of polygamy and it gives by proxy a lot of context of the early mormon church post-joseph, as well as the establishment of utah and conflicts between mormons and the federal government.

a book i haven't read yet but gotten extracts from and heard good stuff about it is watchman on the tower: ezra taft benson and the making of the mormon religious right by matthew l harris. it explains how a more recent mormon prophet's anti communist and anti civil right views and activism (and his involvement in the john birch society) have radicalized mormons to this day, leading to the vast majority of them being deeply conservative and voting republican en masse, despite being despised by other white christians. it also talks a lot about the role of race in the church. if you're interested specifically about modern mormons and their political uniformity, this is a good one to read into.

if you want to read more on the church's control on its members finances, i'd suggest to begin with the recent ensign peak scandal. mormon stories has a few eps covering the subject that explains to non members why so many people have been upset by it--including the fact that members have been threatened with excommunication and denied access to mormonism's highest sacriments because they weren't considered to pay enough tithing.

in general on the cult/high demand front, i'd suggest you also check out the subreddit r/exmormon, where a lot of members who are leaving the church discuss these issues and have a number of resources on the subject, including for people just leaving or doubting.

i have other sources but...... it is 3:24am lol. if you have questions on a particular subject please don't hesitate to ask

edit: i forgot to talk about missionaries FUCK. easily the most cultish aspect of mormonism. uhhhh STRONGLY recommend checking mormon stories and looking for stories about missions in particular, many of them talk about how high demand missions are and how their role is less to convert souls and more to radicalize and fully indoctrinate young mormons. they're incredibly unsafe and fucked up and mandate mutual surveillance and constant violations of privacy and tend to work young missionaries to the bone and grind them until they can do nothing but comply

[mdhwrites]

I've seen a few argue that Amphibia has an 'unintentionally authoritarian' undertone when it comes to the moral of accepting change, and while I don't really agree with the argument, I have pondered over it.

The 'evidence' they bring up are as follows: According to Matt Braly, the motivation Marcy's dad had for taking a new job was that it was a big 'opportunity' for him. Going off Braly's words, it seems it was done not out of financial necessity, but simply because Mr. Wu wanted to. As a result, some call Mr. Wu selfish and uncaring, ungrateful for the lofty life he already had. They argue he should have learned a lesson at the end, not just his daughter.

Further 'evidence' is the way Andrias is portrayed in an anti-authoritarian light, but the show 'has an expectation of deference to parents and authority' when it comes to any other parental figure than Andrias or his father. The argument goes that it is 'inconsistent' for the show to never question the Wu parents for their actions, while negatively portraying Andrias'.

Again, I really don't agree, partly because the show doesn't consistently portray parents as 'beyond reproach.' I mean, Hop-Pop often mishandles or mistreats his family, even if he means well, and he's portrayed as...well, wrong for it.

But the main reason I don't agree is because the story is one that wants to end with Marcy accepting the move. Having her dad be 'in the wrong because he took a job he didn't need' would result in an ending where Marcy doesn't move due to her dad learning to appreciate what he already has, thereby...nullifying the ending's message that being distant from her friends won't mean Marcy loses their friendship.

That being said, I think a fair point was made regarding the motivation for the move - if that really was Mr. Wu's reasoning, then I can see why some would interpret the story's resolution as 'your parents can't be challenged, even if they're taking you from an environment that gives you joy without any necessity.' Which is why it stays on my mind even if I don't agree - which brings me to my question: is this argument making a decent point by using evidence from the show creator, or is it another one of those takes that people use to justify their feelings rather than make an argument in any good faith?

This argument is so stupid that I hard stopped and my first instinct was to delete it.

That's not a joke. I needed a sanity check so bad that what I was reading was genuinely just insane that instead of waiting until after I'd written this to discuss it with my Discord, I immediately sent them the ask. Like... What? What show did you watch to make this? What is your definition of authoritarianism to think Andrias, Aldritch and THE FUCKING CORE are not people who force their will, loss of self, etc. upon others for the sake of the state and themselves which is at least a pretty decent component of authoritarianism. It's closer to say their argument is pro-authority but... We'll get to it.

So before I actually get into their bad evidence or how much of the show they're ignoring, let's just talk about lack of evidence. My blogs tend to be so long because rather than go "If you don't see this, you need to rewatch the show", I will actually try to be thorough in my examination and even bring up counter examples against my arguments. Most of my negative blogs on Lumity or Amity still admit that Eclipse Lake is a highlight for them. A sign of what could have been that is then drowned out by what actually happened. I am thorough though in part to make sure my argument is sound. I've literally had moments in blogs where looking at the evidence made me hard stop, like when I realized the first time that after Adventure in the Elements, Eda and Luz do NOTHING together for the rest of the season which I didn't know when I started my first blog on the issues with TOH's found family.

Their evidence, their ONLY evidence, is a very specific interpretation of something a creator said about a character who is vocal in one scene, not even on screen, and Andrias/Aldritch supposedly being anti-authoritarian. That's it. They bring up literally ZERO other power structures, authority figures, parents, etc... Because they'd be fucked if they did. They only focus on this very small group because they can spin it in a way that makes their argument sound reasonable. Not including 90% of the rest of the show though means their argument is inherently unsound.

So... What does the other 90% of the show say?

Well first: THE CORE IS AUTHORITARIAN. ANDRIAS IS AUTHORITARIAN. Aldritch... More up and down but that's kind of because he had such a prosperous state as to not need to quell rebellions but even he saw even one concerned cry of dissent as treason. Andrias is a good leader... Because he needs to be. He bides his time but the minute he has absolute power, he rules absolutely. Those who do not obey are literally mind controlled into serving him. Their personhood lost for the state. Hell, Andrias prefers DRONES over people to do his bidding and literally outfitted a robot with a BOMB as a punishment for if it didn't get its job done. The Core literally has a fuck everything but me button with the moon for if people don't listen to it and gives it what it wants and its whole gimmick is literal assimilation and then being crushed under the actual personality and desires of The Core. So yeah, the more substantial part of their evidence is just FLATLY WRONG.

But what about pro-authority? I said that was probably what they were going for more after all, especially since calling Mr. Wu authoritarian... *gestures at how fandoms moralize again because sweet fucking christ* So how does the show treat authority figures and especially blind trust in authority figures? With giving them absolute power and seeing that as a good thing?

You all remember how S1 ended with an upheaval of the status quote of the world because what the toads was doing was being evil and Sasha's want for Anne to listen to her, no questions asked, was unhealthy, right? Or how about how the one time Hop Pop gets full power over everyone instead of having to commonly explain himself or give concessions was the mind control episode where he was blatantly in the wrong? Toadstool... Exists. He actually only is a good guy once he stops only focusing on himself and wanting absolute power and greed and starts thinking about others and being willing to sacrifice for them. Wally's father wants the repression of his son's identity and desires before being proven wrong and a hypocrite.

One of the show's big themes is community and the positive effects of community and you literally CAN'T be pro-authoritarian, or arguably even pro-authority, with that as a core theme. You cannot say supporting and listening to only one person is correct if your main argument is that people are stronger and better working together and supporting each other. Hell, Hop Pop has an episode where he abuses the blind trust of his customers and it only ends badly for everyone. That is literally not something you can include if your main message is pro-authoritarian.

And finally... I could literally just say "Your anger about not seeing Sasha and Marcy's parents will never be justified" again about Mr. Wu. It's just another way to try to call him abusive. To say Marcy was in the right and the trio should have stuck together. Life changes like this do sometimes just happen. My last major move that wasn't just shifting places in the same small town, happened because a sudden decline in someone in the household's health made it less tenable for me to be there. The emotional strain was getting too great for me to handle. I was gone within a month or two.

Mr. Wu wanting a promotion because he cares about his job is not wrong of him. If the guy the position was supposed to go to fell through, he might have only been given weeks to make the choice and move which means pretty much no time to include his daughter. But also... Parents exist for more than their children. He is still caring about Marcy, he isn't literally abandoning her or kidnapping her, so it's okay if he wants to pursue what he cares about too. And that's pretty much the most cynical I can get about it because this isn't getting into him potentially wanting a better job to set aside more money for Marcy's college fund, or how the job they had might have been strained financially and this move could mean going somewhere MUCH cheaper to live as well. Or like... A hundred other reasons Mr. Wu might have seen this as a great opportunity in general.

And here at the end, I stand amongst an eviscerated argument and am tempted to just go "Stop." At least when others bring me arguments, they actually believe in those arguments. They actually think there might be credit to them. It's a very different feeling to have someone actively admitting they think a take is bullshit when it's brought to you, which is part of why I chose to talk about arguments in general with this like I did with your last ask too.

But... I also do get it. I literally needed a sanity check because of how insane this argument was to me. Not everyone has a Discord like mine though where they feel comfortable sharing posts like this and asking for thoughts, let alone have anyone in the Discord who can properly formulate an argument with evidence for why a take is insane. I might be your only option for a sanity check.

So if you want to keep bringing these, feel free to but also, I do have a dedicated Amphibia discussion channel in my Discord. I have one for TOH too. That way if you want to join but don't want to hear about a show, you at least mostly don't if you just mute the channel (they still both come up from time to time while discussing other cartoons but the bulk of the discussion happens in those channels.)

But BOY these Amphibia arguments are fucking wild to me. It honestly probably is a testament for how good the show is at its themes and messaging that people have to stretch THIS HARD to have anything where as when TOH fans go "It's anti-colonial" I at least understand why they have the base premise they do.

======+++++======

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.