#i'm not saying the problems aren't there but i see outright lies said about the story

[dottyistired]

i don't think you can criticize aa6's colonialism in good faith if you haven't. played or watched the game yourself

[prove-it-or-lose-it]

I want to thank @for-the-writing-artist for being willing to have the discussion we did, but I think they're right that we've pretty much reached a point where we've covered all we'll be able to. In their last post on the matter, they indicated that they're not particularly interested in providing reasons to believe what they believe and I'm unable to adopt any belief without sufficient reason.

I still don't have any good reason to believe that lying is necessarily wrong, or that what the Bible says about god or Jesus is true, or that the Bible ever makes an outright statement that slavery is immoral, or that any interpretation of what the Bible says about anything else is more convincing than any other conflicting interpretation, or that any ancient understanding of morality should be preferred over our modern understanding, and it all boils down to evidence.

We're too far apart on these points and a few others to really continue without retreading the same topics over and over, but it seemed like they wanted some response to their last few points (forgive me if I'm wrong, it's not my intention to push on a topic you're finished discussing), so I'll give some brief notes. (Looking over the post before publishing, I should reconsider my use of the word "brief" lol)

> I get that the burden of proof lies on me, and I would be genuinely interested in your reasons for why God isn't real. But a discussion can only go so far in unequal footing.

It's absolutely correct that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, and that's why I avoid claiming that gods aren't real. My position is that I'm unconvinced by any claim I've ever heard that a god or some gods exist, so I really don't need any other reason to reject them. There may be a god or some gods but I lack any good evidence to support the idea that they exist. I will admit that I have a strong bias against these claims - along with claims about angels, demons, ghosts, goblins, spirits, souls, cryptids, alien abductions, a flat earth, etc. - but that's because the reality itself is biased against these claims, yielding no definitive evidence that any of these things are possible or extant. But I still have these conversations because I want to believe true things, and if someone knows some demonstrable truth that I'm not aware of, I'd like to know about it in order to form a more accurate view of reality.

> And, if by some miracle, it is proven without a shadow of doubt that God is real, and all your answers and reasons for disbelief disproved ─ would you acquiesce? Would you believe then?

I've touched on this recently, but maybe it was with one of the other folks who joined this conversation. Briefly, my skepticism requires that I adapt my worldview to new information when it comes to my awareness. So if a god is demonstrated to exist, then I've no reason to still be atheist, but whether I actually worship or respect that deity depends entirely on whether certain claims about its past actions and moral standards are true as well. In the case of Yahweh, I'd need to know for certain that a lot of things in the Bible are complete lies conceived by ancient manipulative leaders before I ever said "god is good."

> Something is. Something exists that is higher than me, or you. It could be this Krishna, it could be God. But I cannot argue in favor of this, if you believe that Nothing exists (really weird, as nothing is the absence of something). I would need to disprove this Nothing to then argue in favor of Something.

Assuming we're not brains in jars dreaming up all of reality, lots of things exist. We presuppose reality, but can't demonstrate our existence and that's an ancient and ongoing problem, so in order to function we have to take this axiom or be paralyzed by doubt. Depending on what you mean by "something higher" I might agree or disagree, but if you mean that it's necessarily something like a god I certainly don't think so. I can almost see what you're saying regarding something/nothing, but I'm not aware of any possibility that "nothing" has ever or could ever exist. Nothing, by existing, would necessarily become something. I only make this note because you began that point by saying "if you believe..." and I just want to make it clear that I don't believe in "nothing," but I reject claims of undetectable "somethings" where we lack any good indication that they should be there.

All in all, it was a good conversation and I appreciate the time and energy it took to give thoughtful responses to what I was saying. And I hope it goes without saying that although I think you're convinced of some bad ideas, I don't have any such evaluation of your character as a human. I hope you keep asking questions and being open to ideas you might disagree with.

[intersectionalpraxis]

Hello! I would just like to ask you what you mean by the '#all men are trash' tag? I don't mean this out of an anti-feminist standpoint or whatever, in fact, I myself am a Progressive, I am simply curious.

I presume that you use it to mean that, while not literally all men are trash, because of the patriarchal society we live in, Feminist ideals and concepts are shunned if not outright ignored by many, even those who claim to support Feminism but never try to help with the activism and/or furthering the normalization of said concepts.

The only people that have a problem with the 'men are trash,' slogan/sentiment, whether the people saying it are being facetious or serious -is that it is typically misogynists who have the deepest issue with it, or the one's who say 'but I'm a good guy,' rather than seeing that at the heart of it lies systemic issues -and that is that the patriarchy, like many institutions, is harmful to us all.

I have seen MANY men comfortably saying 'it's all men until it's no men,' and 'yes, men are trash,' because a lot of them are still problematic, and by saying such things it's also an acknowledgement, in my opinion, that you aren't taking it personally. And that's the key distinction for me.

I also watched a great video where a woman on a podcast (I can't quite recall the name) talked about how women not liking or fearing men shouldn't be stigmatized because misogyny kills -misandry irritates, and that men are "women's number one predator" -her words, and I wish I could quote her. I'll try to find the tiktok video, but it's deep in my folders.

If you don't like using it, then by all means don't. I usually use the 'it's all men until it's no men' more because we all don't know what men can be like -and women are often disproportionately impacted by DV/and get blamed for being with an abusive partner if they stay or if they 'take too long to leave.' It's similar to how rape culture is reinforced cross-culturally; we see it in 'locker rooms,' on manosphere content, the 'boys will be boys' in our schooling years, in the criminal 'justice' system, in our daily lives, and so on and so forth.

But it speaks volumes to me when someone says they think feminism is 'toxic,' because feminists use this statement or who are 'man hating,' when SO much of the critical feminist theories and studies out there, speak on exactly this -that a lot of cishet men, in particular, don't see feminist issues as real issues or something that concerns them, aka they believe women should deal with them because they're 'women's issues.' And will use this to weaponize their claims that this is why it needs to be questioned or denounced -which is ridiculous.

Also, for context, the hashtag started so women could share their stories about their relationships with awful men. I have also seen incels/'alpha male dating coaches' -all the misogynists create dehumanizing slogans online in podcasts, and have code words on their reddit threads that are literal DANGERS to women... so saying 'men are trash,' is beyond harmless, in my opinion. You can also search on my page, I have maybe used it once or twice (including now)? When it was content specific.

[tea-with-evan-and-me]

“if you could see my ask box right now lmao... good lord, why the negativity? based off what?”

Coming up with theories about something bad Evan could have done in this relationship is so strange because the only “inside” info we heard about them was that they were making each other really happy and were very affectionate. And that was just before they allegedly stopped seeing each other. I think if something bad happened that upset Haley it would have slipped out. Has anyone stopped to think that rather than Evan being the one with problems maybe Haley herself has problems she has to deal with. Especially considering that she just made a whole post about struggling with her mental health for months. I’m not saying Evan is a perfect person, of course he has his own issues, but I think it’s weird that lately when his relationships end people jump to the conclusion that it’s somehow his fault and that he’s unable to have a healthy relationship. People can break up very amicably for a range of unserious reasons. Haley and Evan were never a super serious thing to begin with.

i agree, i don't know where it's really coming from - assuming something nasty went down which is why they aren't seeing each other. hell, even if the podcast said as much.. why would or should anyone suddenly treat a deuxmoi blind item as gospel? only haley and evan know. and even at that, sometimes people get hurt and angry over things that do not make the other person a monster.

i really think sometimes we need to step back and put ourselves in the shoes of someone who is a public figure and having their relationship disseminated by strangers. i'm sure there are plenty of people reading this blog who, in the same situation, would be able to be characterized as the "bad" guy.. and would argue against that, because they've been misunderstood, mischaracterized or outright lied on by someone who was simply hurt. i only say this because when we speak person to person, with friends, family, etc.. we can all rationally understand this, and not necessarily assume the worst when a break-up happens between two people who we otherwise have no reason to think badly of. celebrities are not any different, we just draw conclusions based on gossip and tidbits of information we use to flesh out an idea of who a person we see on screen is. relationships are complicated, emotions can run high, sometimes shit just doesn't work out. without idealizing them, both evan and haley seem like decent people to me.

[volperion-moved]

Sometimes it feels more like we inherently don't want to say that the characters we like are flawed because liking the character makes us feel good and that feeling makes it a matter of personal pride. However it's just not healthy or really all that enjoyable to associate what you like with who you are. Once you stop defending characters as some weird projection of your own morality, and see yourself as simply a human person with human emotions, and a character themselves as something that NOT, you tend to enjoy the fandom in a healthier way. When we criticise characters, we're criticising the message that character is representing to the demographic. It's not just a question of if that the character is 'evil', it's 'is this character being evil in a way that's being normalised'. It's the fact that the character's narrative is a building block in a toxic narrative. This show (and yes, Astruc has said this) LITERALLY USES the characters to represent/show a lesson to an audience that can then use that to navigate the real world. So when your character is doing covert & problematic shit with NO indication that it is BAD, it's normalising that behaviour TO that audience. Blinding them to what it really is.

Yeah IDK what to really add at this point. I'm sick of talking about characters like Alya did this Marinette did that. Even Adrien I feel like I can't talk about properly because everyone looks at criticisms through this stan or hater mindset. People like characters for lots of different reasons I'm not trying to make fans of characters feel bad or stupid.

"Marinette is a well rounded character, it's great that a superhero show has this female lead who uses her brain to solve problems every episode" and "The formula of the show being that Marinette makes a mistake and has to learn a lesson each episode means the narrative is unfairly harsher on her than other characters at times" and "The way Marinette behaves toward her crush Adrien is outright creepy at times, even if it's a joke or in service of having her learn a lesson it sends a bad message about what love is/should make you act, giving her trauma over dating as an excuse does not help in the slightest" and "Marinette has very little connection to the main villain of the show" are all statements that can coexist.

Lila is/was my favourite character but a big issue with her is that she's poorly utilised, she exists in an episode to push the plot forward and then does nothing for a season. Does that make her a good or bad character? Is she a bad character I just like the wasted potential of? imho it's the wrong question. This show has issues with having too many characters and not focusing on any of them beyond Marinette and Gabriel. It can't figure out how to raise the stakes and create drama without using characters like Lila and Felix but also can't figure out what to do with those characters afterward. Lila's lies aren't built to last yet the show avoids having resolution to her storyline so they can use her for cheap drama when they want. These are problems with the show as a whole but they affect Lila so fair enough if they make you dislike her idc. Whether she's an enjoyable character and should be your fave or not is irrelevant to the points I'm making. If you're mad I like Lila more than your fave or think me saying anything bad about your fave means I'm saying you're stupid for liking them get a grip.

[multiplecomplexes]

(@mashbrainrot since you wanted to know)

Okay, so I guess I should start off with this - I do not see Trapper and Hawkeye's relationship as being romantic, or even physical.

I think they love each other, deeply. I think they were both very important to each other's stability and mental health. But I just do not see their relationship extending beyond the platonic, or even the familial. Which, I would like add, does not dilute, diminish, or detract from the Love shared between them.

However.

I do also see them both as being closeted queer men, perhaps even partially closeted to one another. They both know, but neither has actually said anything outright, so they can dance around it, and joke about it, and try to find a comfortable place to be in it, while still holding on to that plausible deniability lifeline.

But the thing is, because they are platonic queer friends, they can play.

They can just say shit. And because there's no real stakes, there's no problem, it's all a good time and they can just screw around and play with this new (queer) way of being. The 4077, for all its horrors, has created, ironically, a safe space bubble. Klinger can crossdress and explore a new way of expressing his masculinity/femininity/gender, Margaret has a freedom of expression and responsibility that she probably just would not get in any other setting as a 1950s woman, Hawkeye is...the way he is, you see where I'm going with this?

The 4077, in its weird way isn't "real", this isn't the World. This is currently their reality but its not...Reality.

So they can be. They can try stuff, do stuff, explore themselves in ways that may or may not have been open to them in a different setting.

And then, Reality hits.

Henry dies, Trapper leaves, and thus - enter BJ, stage right.

(Further under the cut cause I start to go on)

And BJ....just messes everything up.

Because its real.

Joking and being open about his queerness isn't quite so comfortable for Hawkeye anymore when the guy he's bouncing off of is...earnest.

There is real emotion here, there are stakes, there are consequences. BJ has a family. And if something happens between he and Hawkeye...what then? We know how Hawkeye is about families, about children, the guilt that he would feel would destroy him.

These aren't just playful jokes that mean nothing, aren't serious, and are just meant to tease, the man is actually very much in love with Hawkeye. Its not

So it's not safe, anymore. We're striking too close to home, now.

Calling yourself a guy's missus just doesn't slide off as easily as it does when you know the guy in question wants that to be your reality, even if only for awhile.

Making sex jokes isn't as easy when that is something that could happen, compared to making those same jokes with someone who is like "yeah sure of course, I'd fuck you dude, totally" and then can't even keep a straight (haha) face while saying it because it's just so ridiculous and the both of you know it and are fine with it.

BJ's emotions, and the romantic love and physical attraction he feels toward Hawkeye is real. It's too real, in fact. Add a joke and there's very little space to breathe.

So, Hawkeye pulls back. He's still flamboyant, he still flagrant and out there, but in the face of BJ's reality, his diminishes.

Also something that needs to be taken into account is that, once season four rolled around, the show had gained popularity, recognition was growing. And the tone changed.

In the first three seasons they had several POC in either recurring roles, or singular roles with importance. They talked about racism, war, gay men in the army, civilians being stolen for soldiers, children being drafted, the way foreign soliders (and particularly American soldiers) came in and completely fucked over and subjugated the Korean people, the blatant LIES the army told to cover its ass when they made a mistake, propaganda, ect. it was a gigantic Fuck You to the army, "Regular Army" was the enemy, sometimes even more than opposing forces were.

Seasons 1-3, for all its faults (and it had them) was belligerent.

But season four and onwards was when the money and the attention came in. And that's not to say that they didn't still have a message, or anything like that, no no, not at all. But the studio was paying more attention now and they had to mind their step a bit better if they want to strike deep where it counts, because they have to measure their blows now.

So, by a kind of necessity, their teeth were dulled.

Klinger was in uniform more often, "Regular Army" actually had some good guys in it, and Hawkeye's queerness did not progress much farther from the point it had already reached (not to say that is actually would have before, we don't know, probably not, but you get my gist).

So that's my longwinided point, Hawkeye might have gotten queerer if Trapper had stayed around, I think it's probable even, given that his character is always pushing the envelope of behavior, but with the arrival of BJ and the truth of his emotions and desires toward Hawkeye, coupled with the advent of extra hands on the pen and eyes in the writer's room, effectively set the limit.

[seblaine-rph]

I wanted to say that any apologizing would go to the person, or peoplewe talked too, who felt we offended them. I don't want to do some fake mass apology for sympathy cause that feels fake to me. I'm not gonna sit back and say I fully understand why we can talk to our players about other triggers but doing so for this trigger is frowned upon. As Admins we have to be aware of everything and we are allowed to take time to see if a character is a fit, we have players who are Trans in our group who feel a certain way and we owed it to them to let people voice their opinions. What I'm upset about is how we were accused of wrong doing right off the back with no conversation. This situation is a chance to learn and grow and as someone who has been gas-lit for about 10 years I am offended and kinda triggered you even stated that. But you are allowed your opinions and feelings and I respect that, as I am allowed mine. I would never yell at you for being true to yourself. Hopefully one day people will allow admins the chance to defend their actions before going for the jugular. Unfortunately that is not the case here. I'm not sure what will happen with the group, as I'm not home I can not fully address this. And frankly the stress is not worth it. For those who know me they know what I'm about. And I take that with me. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns they aren't ignored and are being taken to heart and all I wanted was to be able to share mines. Again I apologize for any misspelled words.

Sunshine

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Did you just say that a character being trans is a trigger that you have to talk over? Did you just admit that you excluded a character and had to “see if he would be a fit for your rp” based solely on him being transgender? Of all the things you’ve tried to use to excuse your actions, you’ve said that the app being for a trans character “took you by surprise” and you “had to wrap your head around him being trans.” But you’re not transphobic.

1.) What you did was wrong. There is no "being accused of." What you did was wrong. Stop trying to minimalize your own blame here. That's part of the problem. This was your mistake. Transgender people exist and transgender characters should be as easy and normal to apply for as cis character. You made trans people into a sideshow.

2.) WHAT DO YOU MEAN TALKING ABOUT YOUR TRIGGERS? WOW YOU REALLY ARE TRYING TO DEFLECT? YOU ARE THE TRIGGER, TIGER. YOU. This was never a case of talking about triggers and the fact that you’d even try to say that it was is proof of your gaslighting. This was you denying a character based SOLELY AND ONLY on the fact that he is transgender. YOU ARE THE TRIGGER.

3.) You didn’t ask questions to see if the character would be a good fit, what you did was flat out say WE WON’T ACCEPT YOUR CHARACTER AS A TRANS MAN, HE HAS TO BE CIS BECAUSE THAT IS HOW WE CIS PEOPLE SEE HIM and then get mad for being exposed for it, so you flat out lied about it. The player even tried to explain himself, though he shouldn’t have had to, and you kept telling him that his view as a trans man wasn’t valid because your view as a cis woman said so. People are rightfully upset. Not ONE TIME did you ask anything productive about this trans muse, what you did was outright say no in a million different ways for a million different “reasons.” Stop gaslighting. It won’t work on me.

4.) You’re right about one thing, this is a chance to learn and grow but that chance is for YOU, not the people you hurt. So quit trying to make it out like this is a lesson for anyone but YOU. The one who is refusing to learn any lessons.

Here's the thing though, and I went over this in my blacklist, you absolutely did try to gaslight this player. I know there's an admin TEAM so you might not have sent every DM, but it is excplicitely stated in those DMs that Kurt cannot be played trans because the admin team doesn't see him as transgender. I've seen the player's app, they explained it all quite nicely. It makes perfect sense, I've played Kurt as transgender before too. He is the most popular trans muse on the show, actually, because a lot of trans men identify with him and he does specifically say things canonically on the show that point towards the thought that he might be transgender. He even outright says that he has a period which is a thing that cis men don’t have but trans men do. It means a lot to a lot of people that they got to see that and that they get to headcanon their comfort character as transgender. Canon on the show or au in an rp. 

What you did was automatically stomp on that as a cis person. You didn't do any of what you said you did. You didn't open a dialogue up with the player to ask what they thought and to explain themselves, which they should have never had to do in the first place. What happened was, the admin team DMed this player to tell him that they didn't see the character as trans so he couldn't be trans. What was said was that "he isn't canonically trans so he can't be trans." What was said was, we two cis women, have decided what can and can't be trans. You never asked anyone to explain, you rejected outright immediately. And the player still tried to explain themselves and explain why you had hurt them and what you did instead of taking his words to heart was to tell him he's wrong and once again... you weren't accepting his character as a transgender character. He had to play him as cis if he wanted to play him and that is transphobic.

I would like to know... what was the point in denying a character for being trans? What did you gain out of telling someone they can’t apply as a character if they want to apply trans? What besides transphobia would make you say you don’t want to accept a trans character? You can’t even hide behind the “canon” lie because your rp is 100% au! But someone being transgender is “too au????” And you’re not transphobic? HA! Even what you said in your responses to this is transphobic, you do not need to “wrap your head around” someone being trans! That’s an easy lesson to learn, just oh shit wow I didn’t realize, sorry about that now I know better. Anyone can be trans, cool, education.

This situation could have been as easy as you just accepting the application, because as you stated yourself here you have trans people in your rp so you should want to bring a trans character to the dash to give them representation even more. But instead, you said no outright. What could have happened when the player explained himself was, you could have said oh my gosh my bad... I'm not trans and I didn't realize that you are trans and I don't want to speak over you so because I love trans rights and stan the trans players in my game right now... I'd love to accept your trans muse and please, tell me more about why this is acceptable because I don't get it as cis woman. Instead, he was continuously told no in offensive ways and then you guys attacked him for being upset, accused him of sending anons even though he clearly said all he had to say right to your face, and then gaslit him and the entire community with your post denying everything you did and saying everyone should give it up because it's stupid and you're in a pitiable situation. That's not how this works. Accountability is step one. This should have never happened, that is the end of the story. It should never be harder for a trans character to be accepted than a cis one.

Let me put it this way: You get an app for a black character. Whether he's canonically black or not isn't the point. Your first response is !!!! omg is this realistic for him to be black??? Should I let him in if he's black?????? Should I tell the player to make him white if they want to be let in??????????? I don't think this character FITS THE BLACK PEOPLE VIBE?????? He can't be black because I just don't see it, he doesn't look black to me and he doesn't act black and honestly it's important to get that white representation out there anyway so just re-apply with him as a white person and you can get in. Otherwise, you'll have to play an OC if you want to play a black person. Because we just don't see anyone else fitting the black look. That's what you did, just replace it with transgender. You’re saying someone doesn’t look LGBT to you so they can’t be played as LGBT in your rp. There is no "black look" or fitting the black look just as there is no "looking trans" or fitting the trans look, just like there is no “looking gay or bi” or fitting the gay look. And if there was, it wouldn’t be defined by you, a cis woman. Anyone can be trans at any time. Period, end, point blank. And you were told that, but instead of taking it to heart or asking someone else about it... you offended someone and you can't just wah wah it away because you're in a bad place or because you think it's stupid. I know you've been hurt by admins in rps before, I know that meant something to you. So this should mean something to you too, and not for YOUR perspective. You should feel sorry as an admin that your admin team and your rp hurt the trans community in the glee rpc. Instead of pity partying and telling people it's stupid to be upset, you should be trying to learn better. And I've provided plenty of info for that, so did the player you denied for being trans.

There is a difference between being an admin that makes a mistake and genuinely moves towards improvement and this. Even now, all you have to do to make this right is to move towards trying to learn that lesson you’re so adamant that someone, somewhere needs to learn. Even if you don’t learn the lesson, showing that you’re trying to understand instead of proving that you’re trying to minimalize is everything. I expected better from you because I’ve helped you before and you were fine to go off to me about your experiences and how you felt excluded and how you felt like the admins needed to be exposed so other people felt safe in the glee rpc but now that the shoe is on the other foot...

[sopranokirstin]

i know this is real old news by now lol, but i was going thru your drama tag cuz i'm behind the times on the todrick drama... anyway i think it's so dumb that people are like todrick said they aren't exes so they aren't. like they literally said it was a secret so like how would he know. and it's also dumb when i see some fans saying they aren't exes cuz whatever other reason. they literally have called it that in the book, in an interview, in superfruit eps. ur great btw, i'm just venting lol

i think the problem lies in like, todrick was v close to scott and mitch. so how is it that he never knew that they were together at some point? not even as, scott and mitch sitting down and telling him the whole story, that's bullshit, but like making a few jokes about it or casually mentioning it. cause when you think about it, when you date someone for two weeks and hook up w them a couple times more and then you proceed to build a very strong friendship for the next six years with them, that period of your life in which you dated them kinda doesn't mean anything at all, right? it's no biggie. and both scott and mitch talk about how high school relationships don't really matter. so i can kind of see how todrick might have missed the point, but again really? even when the sf book had been out for a while and they had talked about that numerous times in sf?

at the time i was okay w people theorizing that they could've lied to us (because i was dumber than i am now) but in a book that's supposed to be autobiographical, i don't see why they would outright lie about it, just to give todrick a pass. i can't really think about why todrick would've thought they weren't exes. like, he either didn't know anything (which i highly doubt), thought that what they had wasn't that serious, or did think somehow that scott and mitch were together. i mean, they were both single during the first half of 2017 and everyone had a feeling that they could get together (feeling that was mercifully killed by the sf book), but again. those are your friends. can you fucking ask them or something? lol

after last year's todrick/scott drama, maybe it could've been that scott directly lied to todrick about it back in the day, but it doesn't make any sense. if they told everyone the truth then why would they lie to todrick only? like he doesn't have access to social media to see what actually happened? it's just... nonsensical. and we're back to where we started.

i kinda assumed that we'd never know the truth and i think it's better this way. todrick also became really unpalatable to me for his personality and other things he did all by himself, so i don't really care about their friendship in the long run.