#it's sorta every discourse at this point

[olderthannetfic]

Obvious Disclaimer that this is not about any specific anon in particular, not about OTNF themself, but that my following rant might *slightly* punch down on people who ARE, well, older than net fics are.

But my honest opinion is that I really don’t like it when us old heads tend to sorta…talk down to? “Adultsplain”, if that’s even a thing? To The Gen Zs, by being like “damn kids! back in my day we never used our real name or posted selfies or posted about our personal life at all!” Don’t get me wrong, I’m one of those people who never posted the real me — but not because I was anonymous and cared about online safety, because I was a liar 😂 That being said, there ARE older people who definitely over-shared or “doxxed” themselves and still do, and there’s younger people who don’t!

I also feel like being “ha, these stupid KIDS who post about their FANDOM LIFE on TIK TOCK under their REAL NAME AND FACE where IRLS CAN SEE THEM, how STUPID” is not doing anyone any favors. Is that, technically, a smart thing for kids to do? No. Has it become normalized? Yes. And does that suck for people who might be bullied or outed or whatever cuz they genuinely are dumb and don’t know better and then someone they don’t like sees their stuff? Yes.

We all talk about how there’s no more kids spaces on the internet and how that’s a shame, but then five seconds later we’ll reblog that one “At any time I’m at risk of seeing a 14 year olds opinion and that’s why I hate it here” post. There’s really so few kid spaces on the net now, that’s true. We should extend empathy and let the teens be obnoxious and pretentious in peace, rather than making it a point to “ratio” or “roast them.” Idk personally I’d be completely unbothered if some 14 year old insulted my fic or my ship or whatever. I’d just block and move on, no need to try to argue with them.

And also, not all kids are even pretentious or obnoxious! I’m not saying we all need to take the kids under our wings, but we should be careful about not hating them just for being in their teens years, you know?

Also… telling a teenager to not post PII or not get into discourse or not have social media or whatever will NOT work the way you want it to 😭 kids are by default a little bit oppositionally defiant so telling some rando teen to Get Off Your Lawn (blog) rather than just blocking them, will encourage said teen to Stay On Your Lawn.

I just hate how it’s become normal for adults to talk down to teens online. I was harassed by adults online as a kid, then years and years and years later i went through my own “Older Than You™️”phase where I myself was a shit to teenagers, and I truly regret that so much. To this day I still need to make an effort to be careful. I saw on Twitter where an adult posted a DM from a 13 year old, mocking them. The DM said “I’m 14 next year, can I follow you? Please don’t groom me.” And the adult OP was laughing at how stupid the dm was. A few years ago, I would’ve been one of the people retweeting that and rolling my eyes at the child. Now im disgusted by the people who WERE laughing at them.

And again I’m obviously not saying we should be “nice” to the teenagers who mock us for our ships or who virtue signal too hard. But we also don’t need to make fun of their CARRDS or call them Puri-teens or rag on them just for being 17 or younger, yk?

--

Teens aren't 'puriteens' just for being young, dude. They have to also be puritanical bullies.

I find the stuff about real names hilarious because, actually, if you're really Internet Old™, then you probably did use your real name... it was right there in your university e-mail address! Or your random early ISP address if your stepdad got it for you and thought the university format was the default. Thanks, stepdad.

I've done every single dumb thing from going to meet my internet pen pal at an Alice Cooper concert to flying to Ireland from Japan to stay with a fandom friend I'd never met without telling anyone where I was going and without a credit card or enough cash to flee if I had to. I remember sitting on the plane thinking "Man, this is such a CSI episode topic".

The really funny part was that despite what she'd said before I visited, we ran into each of her parents at different times and ended up going to a play courtesy of her uncle, and all of them were like "So how do you know each other?" and "But you'd met before, right? RIGHT?!"

The level of panopticon is horrifying now. Teens have my sympathy. That part really is worse, and I think it's driving an entire generation nuts and we're going to see even more shit about people wanting to run away and live in a cabin in the woods with no internet. But in general, I don't think we're so different.

[aroaceconfessions]

I don't really get labels discourse, like I just see labels as a way to describe the way I exist using the closest fitting word so I don't have to pull out a whole power point presentation and cite my sources every time. Like they're not that important are they? There will never be a word that describes my experience fully so why dictate how others use those same words to kinda-sorta explain their experience? Seems like a lot of effort arguing over nothing.

Submitted June 14, 2023

[saltynsassy31]

Honestly, despite this post being mainly about dbh, it's sorta of a general thing

But gosh, what's with the ship wars? I mean, every fandom has this problem (sorta, the only fandom I've rarely, if ever, experienced it was the splatoon fandom cuz even the most unfortunate ships are shipped lmao)

I be scrolling, tryna find like, just general content, and someone be fighting over it

And I feel its gotten worse as of late cuz it's gotten involved with familial stuff

I'm a big found family gal

It's why, when I first played Detroit, Kara's story line was my favourite at the time (as of coming back to the game, it's become Hank and Connor, but I blame my Iron dad phase for that lmao)

But I'm not gonna fight people who see it or interpreted their relationship differently. If it wasn't stated in canon, then it leaves the gate way open to any interpretation because that's the fun part of being in a fandom! Different points of view!

And I especially come from the POV of someone who shipped two characters the fandom viewed more as siblings. By the gods, the hate some people had.

I was never at the tail end of that heat, but my mutuals from a server were, and when I jumped in to defend them

Despite coming out victorious (in a sense lol), I wouldn't say it was worth the effort, waisted my breath on petty fighting and I don't wish to again

But on the other hand

I've also been on the other end where I saw two very popular shipped characters as familiar/just friends. It's weird cuz they were/are more popular to the (technically) canon couple and they very rarely, if ever interact (legit got gaslit by the fandom that they did, until I went to look into it and found a desert of canon interactions).

And it's frustrating.

I really wish people wouldn't fight over these petty things. But it's the Internet, what can ya do? I'll just do what I can to avoid this in-fighting, not my monkeys, not my circus ig.

Still though, sometimes it feels like shipping/seeing them as just family really just, leaves out nuance. I like seeing both ends because it's interesting! You don't have to, of course, but discrediting either ends is so boring. Especially in the case of DBH where there are so many endings (total of 85 people!), so many characters, so many possibilities. Being stuck on one interpretation feels redundant to the game.

Now, am I saying to not enjoy your favourite parts of the game? No! I'm not here to judge you! Create that blog about solely the ship or solely familial content! It's your blog! :D

Feel free to block out content you don't like, curate your space.

Just don't....discredit others for their own interpretation. Be kind, or at least tolerable.

Idk where I'm going with this post anymore. I'm Ms. Yapper and this is my yapping page, thats all I do here at this point XD.

Just be kind and enjoy your stuff! Quit fighting! (But don't confuse that with me saying don't have discourse or debates, those are fun too, talking and defending your POV, that's part of fandoms too, just don't attack one another unnecessarily)

[cutekittenlady]

I do wish people would have more fun speculating on how Alucards relationship to the rest of the group will play out in season 2.

Like, yes, Maria and Alucard were a thang in the games, but I'm not sure that's going to necessarily follow into the Netflix adaptation. Not because of the pearl clutchy discourse but more because the creative team behind the first series made it clear they weren't doing a beat for beat adaptation and had every intention of doing their own thing with the characters. Plus, thematically speaking, it wouldn't shock me if Alucard and her wind up developing a father-daughter relationship given how Alucard was left off in the first series.

I mean, it is kind of interesting how Alucard comes swinging into the story immediately after Maria has more or less lost both her parents in ways that are way worse than death. (I mean her mom loses her humanity and her dad flagrantly rejected her offer to become a real family in favor of his cause; which is actually way worse than if they were both just dead) And at the end of the first series, Greta makes a point of saying that many of the villages orphaned children were freely calling Alucard 'father' so he's clearly established as a guy who has filled a father figure role in the past.

Plus, Alucard is kind of a fun contrast to the Abbot. I mean, the Abbot is an extremely religious conservative whose conversations with Maria in regards to their idealogical differences are heavily tinged with moralizing and tend to patronize her as a confused little girl. Meanwhile, assuming we keep certain aspects of his character from the first series, Alucard is a half-vampire who leans pretty heavily into science and may prescribe more to a lot of the ideas of the enlightenment movement that helped inspire the French Revolution in the first place. Thing is, I don't see him really agreeing with Maria either, but unlike the Abbot, he'd likely approach the discussion way differently and treat her conviction as something with a real moral core to it. However, I can see Alucard still challenging Maria to think more deeply about her own ideas and what it is she actually wants to achieve.

Like, imagine Maria challenging Alucard to take a hand in something like the revolution. Maybe even asking in a sorta accusatory way as though his refusal to take part is a mark against his character/trustworthiness. Alucard, in turn, asking her if she really wants yet another vampire screwing around in human affairs and potentially manipulating people to their own ends. She might try to argue its for a more righteous cause, but Alucard would be pretty quick to point out that both her father and the vampire think their cause is righteous too. And so on.

I just think, thematically, there is a lot of potential there for Alucard to act as a more sincere father figure to Maria with the added benefit that the two living together afterwards would still feel organic and natural as a result. Thereby getting the same net benefit of Maria encouraging Alucard to interact more with the world, just through a different relationship.

Of course, I mention the father-daughter aspect just because there's a pretty clear theming running through season 1 in regards to parentage and how that can influence/define ones outlook and ideals. (And also a ton of parent related trauma. LIke tooooons of it). The same themeing could be continued given Alucards history with his own dad even if he doesnt play a paternal or romantic role with maria.

Alucard could just as easily be a kindred spirit that Maria just comes to really be fond of. Her bitchy bisexual bishounen bestie, if you will.

[eroticwound]

Okay so, I’m still getting through the new season but I need to see if I’m the only one who feels the Claire/Carmy scenes this far are kinda a retcon of last season?

Like, putting stupid shipping discourse to the side, one of the main criticisms of that subplot was that there was too much telling and not enough showing of how their relationship progressed as Carmy avoided the renovation. We saw them drop off the liquor license documents, go to the house party, first kiss, Carmy making dinner for her after talking to Fak about whether Claire is actually his girlfriend, and their love scene. Then there is friends and family, where Carmy is freaking out about everything and he inadvertently tells Claire their relationship was a waste of time (meanwhile Claire just said she loved him, which I don’t doubt)

But, according to the new scenes, they spent a lot of time together seemingly as a couple during those few months, as Carmy was clearly infatuated with her in those moments. So I guess my main confusion is — when the hell did all of this happen? Were those scenes before or after Braciole, because at that point Carmy doesn’t actually think of Claire as his *girlfriend* but obviously likes her a lot. Those new scenes scream “they were fully into each other and with mutual affection for each other” and definitely would’ve made me more convinced of their connection — rather than be told by every other character in the Berzatto clan all throughout s2 about how great Claire is for him. Because I never actually *saw* the effect she had on him — we only see it now that Carmy has pushed her away.

So far Claire is haunting the narrative (Carmy), sorta like Mikey in s1. But all of this new info has only made me more confused about the timeline of events and the significance of this romance subplot, rather than provide clarity for why an ongoing conflict is occurring.

i mean, carmy was said to be unfocused and away from the renovation, and that was because he was with claire. everyone says this. syd is especially annoyed by it, because carmy can't spare enough of his attention for the bear, and things are getting dropped. to your point, most of this happens off-camera, but that ep where he fucks off with claire to the post office and the party very much illustrates that.

the thing about the bear is that the first season carmy was solidly our main character, and then second season transitions into more of an ensemble show. there are some incredible pluses because of this, like an entire episode with marcus in copenhagen or richie staging at ever (tho i have issues with forks). however, by dedicating more screen time to fleshing out our ensemble, the show has to dedicate less time to carmy's plots.

and claire as a character and her relationship with carmy are the biggest casualties of this. a really clear example of this is when we follow syd during her food crawl in sundae, instead of sticking with carmy who ditches syd to help claire’s uncle(?) move. i'm sure a scene where we see carmy help claire would have done a lot of work to flesh out her character and their relationship more. but the writers had different priorities, and i am so happy they went with syd on her food crawl instead. that was some great syd character work, and a beautiful ep in general.

claire is not involved with the restaurant, but she's thee focus of carmy's arc second season. there isn't any cause for her to be at the restaurant, and they don't spare any scenes for claire to interact with our ensemble of characters. they only way they can include her in these scenes is to have characters talk about her.

now, how this translates for claire is that she felt very two dimensional, because she only exists in the story in relation to carmy and their (tepid, imo) love story, where they are mostly talking about him or the restaurant. it feels like she spontaneously spawned into the story, and all the characters know of her, but the audience isn't shown how they know her. we have to be told. repeatedly.

as for your timeline question, i think carmy was spending a loooot of time with claire from sundae onward. i think carm was confused about claire being his girlfriend before bolognese (assuming you meant bolognese s2e8, not braciole s1e8) because he's never had a gf before. he’s basically been a food monk most of his adult life (not to say he’s never fucked… tho i am personally in the carm is ace camp). he doesn’t understand the nuance. both the feelings and experience are exciting and bright (and so scary). it’s all new for him!

so the carmy/claire scenes this season did not feel like retconning to me. they really felt like more of the same. which was still bad, imo.

and ugggghhhhhhhh this explicit haunting theme this season felt.. like way too on the nose. like everything with claire, they have to make it obnoxiously explicit because there’s not enough time to flesh it out in a satisfying way. like did they ever have to tell us mikey was haunting everyone in season 1? no! they showed us that. but like their shoehorned love story s2, they have to keep telling the audience directly.

[lover-of-mine]

Usually I don’t engage on discourse on here (the block button and the not interested buttons are my best friends lol) but I saw a post earlier that said Aisha and Kenny doing that con (the infamous one) next year is same thing as the cameos that Lou was doing. And while I understand their point at face value, it’s just not the same. I think I would understand it if it was another main cast member doing cameos similar to how Lou was, but that’s not the case here. Lou was charging almost $200 dollars per cameo when he’s barely had 30 minutes of screen time altogether to spread head canons about his character/the show. Like I get what they’re saying, but I feel like they’re forgetting a key aspect to their point, and that is that who Lou plays, isn’t a main character on the show, hell Tommy hasn’t even had his own scene on the show without another main character being the focus of the scene. Meanwhile Aisha and Kenny play literal main characters on the show, their characters have had both multiple episodes be specifically dedicated to just their characters, if anyone has a right to speak on the show (especially at a fandom based event), it’s them. And that’s ignoring the fact that at a con setting you wouldn’t have to pay someone per question every single time you want an answer for something, because like I already said, they’re two completely different things, so why even try to compare them.

I also saw something being said about how people were paying $5 dollars for that extra part of the Q&A Ryan did on that podcast and how that’s also the same thing as what Lou did with his cameos. Which again, I see where they’re drawing their conclusions, but they’re missing the fact they’re two different things, cause like comparing $5 dollars for someone’s Patreon to get an Q&A segment and early access to a podcast episode to having to pay once again, almost $200 dollars per question is insane. Plus that podcast wasn’t even really about 9-1-1, so again, two different things.

In summary, I understand what they’re saying, I truly do, but at the same time, I think since they’re choosing to ignore the certain thing about the situations, they’re essentially making their point invalid before it even has substantial grounds. I don’t even have an actual opinion in regards to Lou/Tommy because they’re sorta just there, like they hold no weight to the show and I think that’s what brothers a lot of them, to them Tommy/Lou holds a lot more weight because of the cameos he did at the beginning. And that simply is not the case.

Sorry for rambling, usually I don’t let that stuff I see bother me, but those takes I’ve been seeing have kinda annoyed me lol.

-The Yapper

Hi my love 🩷

I did not see them trying to compare a con to the cameos, but a con setting is very different than the cameos, sure they are offering the packages with the personalized videos and stuff, but Aisha and Kenny, as leads from the show have a lot more liberty to discuss their characters in a fandom setting when they've been actively developing these characters for 7 years. I guess, sure, you're paying for access to them but at the same time we are talking about someone who played a main character for over 100 episodes doing a con and engaging with fans within a controlled environment and someone charging 100 something dollars to film a video agreeing with the message you sent them when they never had a scene about themselves. Understand the frustration but at the same time... And the Patreon thing is not comparable AT ALL tho. Simply because Ryan is not the one getting the money. You're paying for extra content from the podcaster, Ryan just happens to be part of the content he's putting out.

I do feel you on the "they just want them to have a bigger impact than they actually do" part, so they are just grabbing onto anything they can.

[cringelordofchaos]

Zoey. What tf is her deal.

idek why I'm making this post. I suppose so I could simply organize my thoughts regarding her as a character?

Btw I might unintentionally exaggerate my words here, I don't think she's a LITERAK DEMON, she's a messed up teenager and I'm just curious Abt her character (as I actually like her)

She very, very clearly cares about status and popularity and appearing completely innocent

She is very adamant about feeling in control or in a higher position, she really cares about power for some reason

She cares a lot about money to the point where she'll get TWO rich boyfriend's for her to gold-dig (one of them being a college student 😨)

She definitely starts a lot of fandom discourse related to that hybrid princess show she likes bc shes too passionate Abt her ships and stuff. (THIS FEELS SO RANDOM TO THROW IN SORRY).

She seems to care a lot about things going her way and others going along w whatever she wants (?)

I feel bad for her why is she dating a college studen ehlp. is she that desperate someone pls save her

She clearly wants to impress lia w her jokes and girlbossing smh she's such a sappho

She probably hates being taken advantage of (as anyone does ofc) such as being blackmailed so she will try and find a way to get revenge

Both maria and lia were shown cringing at her attempts of trying to impress them both so I think she's sorta oblivious

Maybe she's SCARED to lose control? SCARED to be taken advantage of, to be disliked and that's why she's like this? As a form of defense?

She seems to have anger issues (?)

she wants everyone to fear her. she wants to control others ("now he'll have to do my Every bidding! I'm such a girlboss!"(yes))

There's prolly more but on well

pLEASE don't take this as me disliking her

[baglsasha]

I see a lot of the "are there any 3+ hour video essays that actually justify their length" discourse. and like, I agree there's tons of bloated shitty long video essays. But like, there are a good amount that justify their length. Noah Caldwell-Gervais stuff always comes to mind there. The general attitude I see ppl have towards long form stuff like that these days just feels really dismissive of the idea that there are some things that do take that much time to actually convey. Like, Noah Caldwell-Gervais' Lincoln Highway video is a travelogue of a pretty long journey. It's essentially a collection of several connected essays about places, america, the roads, and what that all means. There's nothing you could trim from that video for runtime bc the entirety of the journey is the point of it. And if you took it out of an audio medium and published it as a book it wouldn't be that long of a book! There's also stuff that's basically a series of videos but put together into one long video since youtube's chapter select makes it really easy to navigate long videos like that. AskYourUncle's Metal Gear Solid V video comes to mind for that, since it literally was released as a series but then got compiled into one 6 hour ish video. That one's great, he goes through the game mission by mission, but it's not some tedious recount thing, it lives sorta in the space between retrospective video essay/review and like, very produced/narrative driven lets play and it's an absolute joy. Also going back to Noah, his fallout series retrospective is over 9 hours, and it's not bloated garbage, it's just a very thoughtful and well written review of every fallout game, and when you put those all together into a video that makes a long video. I just don't rly care for ppl outright dismissing very long form stuff as a whole when there are definitely videos out there that deserve their runtime is basically what I'm saying.

[everydaydg]

We need a genuine fucking discussion of how low resolution displays are an incredibly important part of handheld gaming that is not aknowledged as much as it should be.

Yes im going to be pedantic for a second like everyone in a CRT display discourse

With all my time taking a look at games on the PSP, DS, 3DS, GBA, NeoGeo pocket... It sorta sinked in how important the display's resolution is when it comes to 2D assets

I like taking this frame of the twewy opening as a good example of what I mean

The way the low res displays handle kariya is sharp. it takes advantage of every grey pixel to create a sort of gradient which ultimately adds to the picture

you can still see some of the imperfections like that one stray pixel

but it ultimately achieves better results.

Lines are way smoother.

Similar cases can be seen on the PSP, 3DS, GBA, GBC and even the wonderswan (Rhyme Rider Kerorikan comes to mind)

The better image isnt limited to the DS mind you, as long as you can run the game on its original resolution, you can achieve similar, if not better, results on your current monitor

The quality of modern day displays is waaay better than the DSi's too... but

its a bit small. just a bit.

This is the same kariya screencap scaled to the DS's original resolution 256x384 (each screen is 156x192) on a 1920x1080 canvas

Kariya is really sharp! but yknow... what sort of madman is going to even play the game like this.

Most 2D elements in DS and GBA games look great which is a darn shame most people dont get to experience that.

Games like Golden Sun and Yddra Union look fantastic on their respective displays.

Even 3D games can look better in certain instances

Let's use Majora's Mask 3D as an example. Despite running at 240p, it presents a beautiful picture on the 3DS! A bit of anti aliasing was put into that release.

When looking at it at the right resolution, you can trully see how amazing it looks.

but I will admit that most of the time this is the exception to the rule and those pixels can be so fucking sharp you could cut bread with them... Persona Q comes to mind as an example...

I get why people say old handheld games look bad, most people who emulate these games scale them up to their monitor's resolution which leads to every 2D asset appearing incredibly compressed and blown out and the 3D can be overly sharp.

It has caused a similar problem to the CRT TV Pixel discourse where theres a solid chunk of people that never experienced how the games were originally intended to look like and end up criticising the visuals because of a problem thats not even a fault of the game.

I am not mad about scaling pixels mind you. Its normal to do so and im not demonising people who run games like this

Hell, I do it too when running stuff on my PC. Its good and in certain instances it can be quite nice to see low res games so sharply

Heavily stylised games still shine when running them like this! Mario & Luigi is one of my favorite examples of such!

Even when 2D assets are overly blown out and 3D models are too sharp... I quite enjoy how sharp it can look

Im not saying that scaled pixels are bad, that is not the point of this post

This post is about me being mad at people calling DS/3DS games low res and bad looking because they are looking at a 240p image on their 1080p monitor.

You're making a critique of a fucking thing brought by running/viewing the software in a environment it was never meant to be viewed in.

I fucking hate that. get real.

[alistairian]

Just started season 7 of our Doctor Who rewatch (the last season I watched the first time around) I'm remembering again why I sorta fell out with the show at this point. I genuinely like Matt Smith's doctor but oh my god they seriously try to tease The Doctor's death every goddamn episode of season 6, every episode the companions go through some of the most insane horrible shit and by the end of the episode it's all magically undone and forgotten. And it's not like I'm not mad that it's episodic, I'm a star trek fan for christs sakes, there's actually just 0 stakes.

Oh, now Rory's a plastic robotic centurian who was present for 2000 years of history and is older than the doctor and basically immortal? I sure hope they don't completely forget about that 2 episodes later and do nothing with it... Amy has a storyline where she's pregnant? Wait. Not pregnant. Nope, pregnant again. Pregnant, but this time we don't see it at all. Huh, turns out Amy wasn't even there for the past several episodes she was in a pregnancy tube? Are they gonna explain how that works? No? Aw, and now she can't get pregnant and it's the worst thing ever ):

Also the misogyny?? I thought maybe it was exagerated in my memory from internet discourse and being a teenager but no that shit is so blatant. The over-the-top Shock at the suggestion that a completely alien entity might consider a woman to be stronger than a man, and the reason? Women can make babies. Not her spirit, not her love or resilience, no. She has a womb. All of the "I hate my wife" jokes and the "women, amiright?" punchlines. I remember last time around I really wasn't a fan of Amy at all and this time around I wanted to give her a second chance but she just doesn't have a personality, I've got nothing to work with. She had no family or friends, she basically never mentions having a life outside the doctor, her entire schtick is being obsessed with the doctor and making her husband feel like trash over and over again. A lot of the time she just does things for no reason but luckily it always works out plotwise. Oh but she's pretty, when she does have a life on earth she becomes a model so that's something I guess. Also she can't have kids and it's very bad ): like sorry but idk why we got almost 2 and a half seasons with her, cuz it sure didn't feel that long with Rose.

And even though I haven't seen most of Clara's episodes from what I remember I worry it's probably the same with her. Another blank canvas who'll do anything for The Doctor...

Idk man, big rant. My partner's been watching all of this for the first time and has had 0 exposure to fandom and they're seeing all the same things I do so I know I'm not just being an unreasonable fan lol

[aberration13]

As an adult who reads/listens to hundreds of fantasy/sci-fi books a year of a myriad of target demographics, this seems to be a case of they're sorta right but phrasing it poorly, and op is sorta right but strawmanning the general consensus (albeit somewhat exaggeratively with the 4th grade bit and using words like all instead of most. Like you might be able to find people who legitimately believe that every 4th grade reading level book is more yada yada than any adult fantasy book at all. But most people aren't being that absolutist about it. What most people actually are trying to get at is that a lot of adult targeted fantasy has fairly surface level themes in order to have broad appeal at the expense of narrative and moral complexity and that at least a decent portion of youth targeted fantasy has decent depth and that the overlap between these book groupings is rather large meaning you can find a decent number of youth targeted books that are better than a decent number of adult targeted books and they find it annoying when people discount that. Which is fair criticism.

Whereas I think the point op is trying to make is that in general adult targeted books are more complex on average than youth books. Which Is also true, just because you CAN find a decent number of youth books that are better than a decent number of adult books, doesn't mean that that's the average experience and if people are arguing that it is, those people are wrong.

I think we like to put books into much neater categories than actually exist and it results in this sort of reductive discourse.

No babe it’s so cool and hot that you always insist that fantasy books written to meet a 4th graders’ comprehension skills have more complex themes and a greater sense of praxis than anything written for adults

[lunarsilkscreen]

Why does the US have term limits for president and not Congress?

Congress is inherently meant to have high turn-over. The original thinking (maybe) was that communities would be interconnected enough to simply turn over to their political rivals.

Either through public discourse, or simply talking with them.

The President, however, is not a King. And the term-limits have two goals because of this.

First; If the President is incompetent OR [one of the negative aspects of public office], and cannot adequately be proven to the public; then the imposed term-limits help to lessen the damage such an individual can cause. So we don't have to wait out the lifespan of a royalty in order to do a course correction.

Part of it may have been implemented by political rivalry, but it seems like we lucked into a good *something* with the term limits, maybe.

These days, however; it seems that Congress Members are closer to royalty. And while I will confess; I dunno what a Congress member has to juggle in order to stay in office and get reelected; it certainly seems that we end up with Congress ppl with long and storied careers, that start and end in office.

Congress members who don't *seem* to ever change out.

One of the reasons Trump's presidential brand seems so strong. Despite his penchant to whataboutism every other presidential rival.

This leads to a couple of interesting observations;

An appearance of sitting representatives that are seemingly AWOL, or too busy to even grace the half of Congress.

And one in which Congress does seemingly nothing *unless* they can thinktank into an AstroTurfed agenda to push a narrative that isn't always cogent with reality.

Whataboutism becomes strongest here. It doesn't seem to be about "What the results of this legislation or that might affect" it's perceived as Congressional Rivals asking why somebody was allowed to do something illegal while they aren't.

Despite the backlash towards that particularly legality.

It's different from the tech industry [what happens if I push this button] type of troubleshooting and benchmarking. Which Elon Musk seems to have influenced be tested at those top levels...

Because underneath; is a culture of "What is it I can get away with?", "Which *kind* of discrimination will help to balance the budget quicker?", "You know what this country needs more of?; Racial Biases."

There's little bits and pieces that seem to point in the right direction; while, under-the-hood; when you're looking directly at the running engine, you realize... It's misdirection again.

Is this what politics is? Wise Guys hoodwinking Smart Guys?

I mean, anyone world-wide would say "Yes, that's what politics is: nothing but greed and fighting over who needs to be discriminated against"

So I've been thinking; How does our [Checks and Balances] solve for Representatives, the same

An article from somewhere asking questions about why Incumbent representatives are like 97% successful.

You're almost guaranteed to win a seat if you already have that seat; Hmm.

Now I get the reasoning that could come from this "Makes sense, don't want some unprepared and unpredictable rando mucking everything up.

What this kinda-sorta suggests is that Campaign Financiers are over-spending on incumbency victories. Seems like, all the reasoning points to "Voters Dumb. Vote in Guy I know."

And I'm stuck at this impass.

If voters dumb; why have voting in the first place? And if they aren't; why do they seem to act dumb and manipulatable.

When you get in the weeds of it, however; due to massive fear and hysteria around "Illegal Voting" there's a lot of attention on what we can do to stimy this perceived threat to democracy.

One answer to which; is to limit Citizens ability to vote in any given election. Yours, Mine, Whomever... If you slip up and forget to register to vote when you renewed your driver's license this year; you don't vote.

If you can't afford the gas or time or energy to stand in line for 4-8 hours because it's the only day you got off in 6 months; no voting.

If somebody reads your voter registration, ID, AND Voter ID wrong and says "Nah bruh, u ain't voting" that's it, you won't get a vote this year.

There are some pasty wight boys I know that read this as a "Black Volunteer Worker passing on a white peopo for reverse-racism-payback" which... How can they understand it's payback, understand it as deserving, and agree that they'd do it too were the roles in-fact reversed, and then just not get that's how racist thinking works... Over my head.

And not only that; A LOT of voter support has gotten gutted.

They simply reduce the amount of people voting each year by making people too overworked, overwhelmed, or overburdened to vote! Genius!

It's not a racism or a DEI thing; it's systemic. And as you defend voter ID tightening (notice I didn't say support or the opposite; because I'm fine with voter ID, because everybody needs a state ID anyway! Just not two or 3 different voter identification any one of which might disqualify *you* [wight boy] from voting.

This is the slippery slope;

As those restrictions get tightened, then the collected days becomes this:

- people don't care to vote anyway

- when they do, they lazily pick names they recognize and don't care about merit

-why do we need to hold elections anyway;

- why do we need to listen to citizens AT ALL?

We're on that slippery slope already, and many have pushed to gut the government to such a degree that it's currently in the realm of possibility.

We pay Juries to sit on cases for months, even years.

Why not something like that for elections?

I mean, rigging the jury is obviously a possibility that people only care about when it comes to high profile cases. So, maybe they'd care a little bit about this?

Pay voters, different voters, to be selected for Election Duty or something. Have them who research, watch News, *really* get to know their candidates.

And then they can vote based on whom bribed them, or influenced them to vote a certain way due to proximity and grateful attitude!

...I can no longer tell if that idea is an improvement on our current system.

Seems like we need the *mass population* to vote in order to limit the effects of people literally buying their way into office.

And then we get to Voter Districts and Gerry Mandering. Pay of the reason incumbents keep their seats is because *sometimes* not all the time, but *sometimes* Gerry Mandering can limit the votes against an incumbent.

Why? Maybe they did something so reprehensible that certain communities would not vote for them again; and it's easiest to limit the damage by separating the communities by *who knows what went down* and *who didn't*?

Just... Limit the voice of the voters who saw us do the bad things!

Yea, don't ask about the logistics of moving into the gentrified-meandering side of the tracks; and trying to be part of the community of people who do not like you for some reason; ranting from skin tone, to name, to mannerisms, to knowing the skeletons in the closet of a certain incumbent.

The same community that now looks at the ungentrified district as not worthy of representation or "poor troublemakers".

When *we* say "class warfare" this is what *we* mean.

Doesn't have to be distant tax brackets; could just be some idiotic belief that knowing how to fix and tune a $2000 car makes you a "Poor Blue Collar Troublemaker who Hotwires cars because he can't drive a real job."

I've seent the crazy "liberal" wight girls who vote Republican and/or Trump; and I know you have too, especially if you grew up in those poorer areas.

So... Hmmm.

There's a lot of Congressional troublemaking it seems; and not enough Congressional troubleshooting.

What could limit Congress' power to control their power to home onto their seats after having taken office? What could we possibly do! It seems like the only choice we have is just to stop holding elections and let them do whatever because WE'RE JUST TO DUMB TO FIGURE IT OUT.

We look on as Congress members pull fire alarms in order to get 5 more minutes to read a bill, or to distract rivals into overlooking last minute additions they didn't get to read before signing the bill.

Watch as they play literal games with literal lives on the line.

And then just... Not address any issue that seems to be addressable or something they campaigned on. Were they beaten by the system and now they think there's no point? Or did they convince themselves they're more meritous because they won their seat and incumbency and therefore only see public relations as a necessary lie.

Because it's all an act everyone is doing just to get elected, nobody believes campaign promises, they vote for whom they recognize! Obviously!

How do we remove campaigning from taking representative time AND improve it so that people actually have the time, energy, and money to vote. AND the ability and time to research more deeply their candidates for office?

Because if those premises hold true; Less people vote, People don't have time to discuss or research their candidates, much less issues that matter to them, and simply, *making* the citizens appear dumber than they are... Then they won't improve. All the data *y'all* collected points down the slippery slope.

Why is it that incumbents don't lose? And why does it seem that our representatives are not only less informed than the general population, less caring about solving or even addressing the issues people care about... Except in ways that put money in their pockets?

Because it seems to me; That the founding fathers had much more respect for the citizens (Unless you include the slavery parts) than just about anybody holding office today.

Whether or not that's Racism; depends on the individual. Maybe they think that white ppl are generally smarter than non-white people. And that's why DEI is bad; because smart people take all the jobs from [dumb race].

I don't think so. I think they see that they are smarter than quite a few people they see on TV or in Congress. But they're racist, so they don't see *many smart people not getting opportunity* they only see races getting less, which are looked on as handouts to less smarter races.

Which is, definitively, racism.

But it certainly does look like those at the top or with power still see [class] as dumb, moldable, AND, most importantly; Dumb. Which, isn't racism if you treat every one the same (unless the racism systemic) but it is racism if you don't hold yourself to the same standards.

Or, I suppose, Classism. But certain people I've met; look at Class the same way they look at race. Affluenza seems to hit different when you're all the same Clique, or Race, or appearance of race, or whatever.

[fite-club]

I’ll be real, I was being a bit of a dick to you earlier. I genuinely know where you’re coming from because I just saw some rancid anti-feminism stuff today on here that left a bad taste in my mouth. Still, it just sucks when I’m at a point of being terrified of transition for a variety of reasons and also wanting it. I do agree with you that a lot of people have kinda lost the plot on what feminism is lately and it’s a bit maddening. I just wish I was having an easier time with being a trans man right now is all, and I do think I took that out on you a bit. I kinda saw the error of my ways and apologize for it because I did see some ugly stuff today that confirms some of the things you’re saying and it was pretty disheartening to run into honestly… I’m just kinda lost and it sorta feels like the internet is no help lol

take my hand brother…. it’s ok i forgive you and appreciate the apology. the thing about transandrophobia discourse is that it kind of comes from/preys on the insecurities of trans guys. that we’ll never pass and always be seen as women, that we’re “becoming the enemy” and are gender traitors, that we’re ignored and forgotten… it’s validating in a way to rant about those things! the issue is just that being in those circles will only make you more afraid. when there is a focus on the horrible things transphobes and terfs say, every single day, it’s going to start to feel like the entire world thinks that way. but it’s not true! not everyone in the lgbt community is respectful towards trans people but other trans people will never be the ones actually hurting us. the general public is becoming more aware of trans people and it’s not as bleak and dangerous out there as it used to be. it’s still hard, my god, is it hard!! but words truly cannot express how much better you feel when the person you see in the mirror feels like who you actually are.

if you have close friends who are lgbt or who would understand and validate your feelings, you should vent to them instead of making generalized tumblr posts. transandrobros will validate your feelings but with the undertone of “no one takes us seriously and everyone hates us (even other trans people)”. dysphoria is frustrating and it can feel really lonely and isolating as a trans guy sometimes but we are out here, surviving and even thriving

[muggycuphead]

weird flex but ok i guess pt.34

33

War…Hold up, do we really need a warning for this one? Dunno, but however, watch out for slightly disturbing and kinda…disgusting imagery, trypophobic patterns, as well as ‘necrotic’ (and dark themed) designs I made while having funky fever bc o h m y g o d do I get a little crazier every new quarantine day (and at this point it’s coming to be an usual thing for me, big sad). However, most are made no other than for the sole sake of satire, so y’know, no need to get your underwear in a twist

Friday Night Funkin’ BoyFriend’s Hood – AU fanconcept sketches [XXIX]

Ladies and gentlemen, the time we been all waiting for

Pico taking part on the plot wooo

…although again, it’s a rewritten event that separates from both FNF and PS:LCA storylines so prepare for the dumpster fire I’m about to unleash (man am I real insecure when it comes to writing characters I don’t know that deeply, let alone newgrounds characters altogether, vomits)

1. Out to catch the train on my own

Week 3 references? Week 3 references indeed

There isn’t much dialogue here, just BF going to get the metrotro after going out of school (bro came out late bc night turn wowza)

Though the events might be happening a few days after Pico day (can’t specify the year, rip), hence why Pico would be there in the first place

2. Watch for spikes!

(On his way to the train stop, BF notices someone close to his trail) (Startled) “Oh shit!” (BF quickly jumps with his skateboard and leaps above the someone waiting on the stop, landing on the other side, panting a bit)

Can someone please make a joke about skating games I’m out of lines here, help

3. Taking Ls…?

“Boooo… that sucked ass”

(BF looks baffled and annoyed, as he just stands up, holding close his skate with his foot) “I was trying to avoid hitting your ass, bozo”

Jerky Pico for no reason hehehehe…jk

4. Messing around

(The ginger fella walks close to BF, slightly elbowing him as he chuckles) “Ay, I’m just messing with ya, bro! Won’t lie, that was good quick thinking back there. Not that it would have done anything to me, I’ve been gone through worse blows myself, a skateboard hit is of the last things I’d worry about”

(BF smirks) “You’re of the looney ones, aren’tcha?”

(The fella retorts) “More like of the mad ones a bit, but yeah, that could sorta work too” (Looks at him with a raised brow) “Lemme guess, you aren’t from around here, are ya?”

(BF wonders in confusion) “Uh, not really, why’d ya ask?”

(The fella chuckles) “Ah, nothing, just…occasionally people from here that come across my way either go crazy and wow…or simply try to kill me on the spot; last one kinda sucks but -hey!” (Shrugs mid discourse) “It comes with the job after dealing with school shenanigans that go further from mere bullying feuds”

(BF connects the dots with the keywords) “Hold on, wait –No way! You…you’re that Pico guy from the school shooting news from years ago?”

(Pico winks at BF) “Right on the moolah, pal”

(BF is even more baffled) “Nooo, you kidding! You kidding!”

(Pico laughs) “Nah, I’m for real here! Did ya think I was someone else or what?” (Pico makes a gesture with his face) “Don’t worry, this ain’t no Convict behind this body!” (Pico goes for sarcasm) “And even so, it wouldn’t be as good-looking as me, don’tcha think?” (Pico winks again)

(BF laughs at Pico’s mess-a-round, yet is still kind of shocked) “It ain’t that! It’s just…why’d ya come here anyway? Though you’d have your own car and stuff despite…well, y’know”

(Pico shakes his head) “Nah, don’t trust driving at night that much, plus it’s kind of hard to focus on the way cuz, y’know…” (makes a gesture on his head, signing his stature while frowning) “Being this high”

(BF gives him a ‘true bro’ look) “Guess that makes it two of us, eh?”

(Pico offers his fist to BF) “Yep, welcome to the dwarves’ club bro”

(BF brofists Pico) “I was already a member myself, nice to meet another one of the crew”

(Pico chuckles to BF’s response) “Heh, I like your vibe, dude! Say, wanna chat a bit while we wait for the train here?”

(BF nods) “Sure, why not? It ain’t like we’re gonna get startled by any weird clones from outta nowhere, hehe…” (Nervous) “…hopefully”

(Pico pffts) “Even if they do, I’ll just hand them their asses back to where they came from”

Big bruh moment, send help I feel like I don’t understand pico writing and I hate miself fo it, I apologize to the fellow pico fans lord help me-

5. Meeting Newground’s star gunman

“So, what’s your name, bro?”

(BF makes a ‘tip’ with his hat) “BoyFriend, BF or B for shortie, pleasure to meet’cha”

(Pico chuckles) “Boyfriend, huh? Now that’s a peculiar name to give to someone”

“Yeah, although it was more of a ‘funny accident’ when it comes to know why”

“An accident? So you weren’t meant to be named BoyFriend in the first place?”

“Nope. Long story short, the people in charge of my birth certificate or whatever had the name comprehension of a Starbucks employee with a really bad hearing skill, and they ‘telephone-game’-ed the name my parents wanted to give me into well, BoyFriend... And well, here we are!”

“And you don’t have anything against that? Since, well…y’know”

“Nah, honestly it’s not a big deal to me at this point. Heck, even my parents thought it’d be awkward for me back when I was a wee boy, and I didn’t really care that much about it even when I knew what it actually meant. If I did, I’d have changed it a long time ago.” (BF gets smug) “Besides, it’s quite a nice ‘icebreaker’ when you hang out with the ladies” (BF winks at Pico)

(Pico laughs) “Hah, I bet it is!” (Pico gently punches BF on the arm) “Still, gotta admire your resilience on that! Wouldn’t wanna know how it was back at your street when you were around the others, little fellas can be nasty for sure, I’d know”

“Eh, it didn’t really come to it that often, and even if it did, I got my own guns to deal with it” (BF vacillates) “…Figuratively speaking of course, unlike ya, hehe”

(Pico smirks) “Hey, don’t sweat it; guns might do most of the job when stuff takes a turn for the worst, but diplomacy’s way of a better option honestly in more than one sense…unless you go to Nevada. That’s a whole different story”

(BF nods in understanding) “Yeah, can guess why considering the stuff I’ve heard from there”

Bangitty

[vixianna]

So I Just Figured Out Something Weird About Exclusionists...

So, I was looking through a few exclusionists blogs. Normally, I’d say that was purely a #mistake, but this time it was enlightening, especially about specific claims exclusionists make about asexuality.

So, a good number of the posts I looked at were aimed at lesbian and gay people, which is like normal and nbd. They were about helping questioning people who thought they might be lesbian or gay and describing their experiences as lesbian or gay people. A large number of responses to asks were like “well if you feel lesbian/gay, then you probably are.” which super valid, that’s how it works for LGBT+ people. Except, a lot of the people I saw sending in questions, especially to like bottomsona’s blog, specifically expressed experiencing attraction to multiple genders, but were not at the moment interested in pursuing relationships with men. Most of the responses were tailored around "well, if you're not going to date men, you can just call yourself a lesbian if you are only gonna date women/women-aligned people", which is fine on its own, I’m not the label police.

However, this response was informed by the stance that that lesbian(or gay, or bi, ect) existed as a label to communicate who you intended to date not who you are attracted to. I bring this up because a really common and previously to me super goddamn weird obsession of exclusionists was focused on how "asexual doesn't communicate anything". “How can you be asexual and still date/have sex?” And it occurred to me after reading this that if exclusionists were using sexuality labels as a shorthand for “who I am sexually/romantically available to” and not “who I feel attraction to” without any implication of dating/sex/relationships/ect then all of their “asexuality is a modifier and also doesn’t mean anything and the definition keeps changing!” starts to make sense.

Instead of:

-Lesbian = woman who is solely attracted to women

-Lesbian = woman/woman-aligned person who is solely attracted to other women/woman-aligned people(this definition still has a lot of problems but it's the one that is closest to how they use it)

It's:

-Lesbian = woman/woman-aligned person who is solely interested in forming relationships with women/woman-aligned people

They mean it to communicate like availability, openness, to others about who they are going to form intimate relationships with. This connects with several inclusionists observations that exclusionists seem really fucking pissed about things that don’t immediately signal whether you are available to them or not. Or more accurately, whether you are available to what they understand to be “gay relationships” or not.

For example, this is why they feel asexuality is a “modifier” because in this case it would have to be a combination of “doesn’t desire sexual relationships” and “desires relationships with these genders”, and it’s why they are so obsessed with whether or not asexuals have sex, and with whom, and under what circumstances. Because obviously the only way asexuality means anything if it is communicating that you do not desire a sexual relationship with others.

This also explains why they are so freaked the hell out about anyone saying they are asexual, especially kids, because it would be announcing a specific aspect of your sex life (and why some of them keep comparing it to kinks?? For reasons that used to confuse me.) To them it is only communicating your desire to have sex or not(which is why they find ace spectrum sexuality especially confusing or “not real” or describe it as “just people being normal”.)

This means one of the bigger problems is them operating from the idea that sexuality labels are meant to communicate to others who you'd be open to fucking/being in a relationship with, and not a representation of like your internal experiences of attraction.

This is also one of the reasons why they are so hostile to the idea of “examining your attractions closely/at all” because it ultimately “doesn’t matter”, not if what really matters is who you’d be willing to be in a relationship with and everything else is “incoherent” and “not important”, because your label is supposed to communicate who you’d fuck/date. It is essentially why they are so hostile to a-spec identities, but it also spills over onto other groups.

Attraction, dating, ect are not so clear cut or easily defined for many members of the community, especially Nonbinary people. So a lot of our sexuality labels require more introspection as do our genders. Further, that’s one of the reasons behind the push for NBs to use alignment language(or even have it prescriptively assigned). If you don’t tell others if you are man/woman aligned(and often you have to pick either one or the other!) then they don’t know whether you are someone they could be attracted to/should be attracted to/are included in their attraction label. Or more exactly, they don’t know if you are someone who they would form a relationship with, whether or not they are personally attracted to you.

It is also ultimately, why they are so hostile to queer as a single label. Because while it, as an orientation label, definitely tells you this person is likely “sga” by their standards(which are highly flawed and cissexist lmao), it doesn’t inform you “who”/“which genders”/“how many of them” you are available to form intimate relationships with and so “is useless” and virulently attacked because of it. Never mind that it is often used by people for whom gender is a complicated subject, or picking out which genders they are attracted to is difficult or impossible(m-specs, Nbs, ect), it doesn’t communicate what they feel labels are meant to:

Who are you sexually/romantically available to?

Mind you, the claim that people are ID’in as queer in order to infiltrate the community is even more ridiculous than the one against ace/aro people.

Why?

By their own admittance, and concurrent campaign, queer is seen as a slur by straight people. The chances of some “cishet woman calling herself queer because she pegs her boyfriend.” as so eloquently described by hatetobreakittoyou, existing is literally nil. Like, in what universe are Real CisHets™ going to think "this person is really straight and one of us" about someone who describes themself as "queer"?

This means a person would be literally putting a target on their back...for what? Being an open member of a violently targeted minority group does you no favors. There is nothing for this mythical woman to gain by putting herself through the ringer pretending to be LGBT+!

It’s a coherent, if wrongheaded, expansion of their idea that identity labels need to be completely immediately clear and only exist to tell others if you’d fuck/date them, but it’s an ultimately destructive stance and ideology to have. It’s m-spec antagonistic, requiring that m-specs be both in “sga” relationships and have to be “sga” in order to be m-spec(which is you know also exorsexist). It’s hostile to ace/aro people. It’s hostile to queer people and others whose identity is far more complicated. It prioritizes lesbian and gay people(especially binary ones, and especially cis binary ones). It fractures the community, and it’s one of the main toxic tenants behind a lot of their garbage ass rhetoric.

You don’t have to be open to dating/fucking at every particular moment every gender you are attracted to to be m-spec. Your label says nothing about whether you are interested in dating or sex if you are a-spec. That’s not what these labels have historically or even currently mean in general usage, which is why there is so much cross talk when trying to come to an accord with exclusionists. They are working for radically different definitions of even typically understood sexuality labels.(bi to them means “same and others” and not “two+”, ace means “doesn’t want to fuck” and not “doesn’t experience sexual attraction/attracted to no one”, ect)

Has anyone else encountered these underlying beliefs and would be willing to talk about it? Because I’d like to get some dialogue going so that we can maybe more easily actually understand some of the underlying tenants of Exclusionism.

[ponett]

I really hope it's alright to ask, but do you support aspec people and the SAM? Most posts of yours that mention anything ace related are like 10-7 years old and sorta discoursey, so I just want to ask for my own comfort

i support ace people. my opinion on the split attraction model seems kind of pointless. it exists. people either use it to describe themselves or they don't

believe me when i say that this is with the utmost sincerity and not as a jab, but i think for your own good you should probably learn not to term search on strangers' accounts and look through decade-old posts to try and find their opinions on intracommunity discourse. for one thing, while it's understandable to some extent (we've all had people we were following turn out to be bigots at some point or another), being overly concerned with what the people you follow were saying or doing in the past or outside of your view can develop into a very real form of hypervigilance. i've been there, trust me. it's absolutely miserable. the constant paranoia that you have to check everyone's archives or their likes or their following lists or whatever to make sure they aren't secret creeps or bigots. this did nothing but make me feel even more depressed, anxious, and alienated during one of the most depressed periods of my life.

beyond that, though, people change, and people also don't necessarily post every single thing they personally believe in online. from like age 18-22 i had just come out as bi and was coming to terms with the fact that i was trans, and i was very much going through my "zeal of the convert" phase. i felt the need to display how "right" i was about queer issues online, how i knew all the "right" language, and got into a lot of pointless fights with other queer people about it because i felt like that was a valuable use of my time and energy. i bought into a lot of stupid shit back then. for example, i was briefly the type to believe that there was such a thing as "monosexual privilege" just because biphobia exists. but just because that belief might be present in a post somewhere deep in my archive, it doesn't mean i also made a later post correcting myself when i realized it was actually stupid and wrong. instead i got older and learned to shut the fuck up about pointless infighting, particularly things that are none of my business