#just because one person misuses a term does not mean that it is bad or that the way they used it is the only way it is used or the right use

[nope-body]

.

[dragonseeds]

love and light to everyone but if i see one more post that’s like “the point of asoiaf is that feudalism is BAD” i’m going to rip out my hair and start eating dirt and worms. like yes, it is bad. yes, monarchies are bad. yes so true it’s annoying when people ignore all of that and focus on who they think deserves the throne more. but that’s not the point—that is the premise? it’s the beginning of the exploration and deconstruction. functionally this system is rigid (specifically in terms of gender and class) and horrifically violent: so what it’s really like to live in it? to try to be a hero, a knight, to be a lady in a world where your body belongs to your family, your lord, your order? is it possible to be a good person in a hierarchal world like this, with such vast power imbalances woven throughout it and every relationship and interaction that you have informed by that? how do you navigate that imbalance in order to have meaningful relationships—can you every truly do it? and who decides what is good? how do you know if it’s truly right or it just felt right because it’s what you wanted to do? what about the people who have no name, no family, no order: what happens to them? don’t they matter? what if in a lifetime of looking the other way or actively causing others harm, you do a few things—maybe one thing—that’s objectively good: does it mean anything? does it matter, even if no one ever knows? what if the best thing you ever did broke every vow you made, every law that governs your society? how do you live with that dissonance?

what’s it like to be a ruler, to be a king or queen—is it possible to be a good one in such an unequal system? to wield power justly? who decides what is just? who decides who should rule? at which point does the amount of power someone can have cross the line into too much? is it when you stop trying to figure out how to use it correctly and worry only about how to keep it? if holding onto it costs you everything, your family and all your relationships, is it still worth it? what if having that much power available is necessary to the survival of your people, maybe even your world, but when it’s misused the carnage left behind is beyond articulation—is it still worth it? are the lives it saves worth the lives it took? how do you measure that? who carries the weight of that choice and how? how do you live with it? how do you go on living in a world that can be harsh and cruel and unfair, a world where your good intentions and your personhood seem to matter very little in the face of someone else’s greed or when compared to the yoke of your duty? and the questions never stop and the answers when and if they come are rarely easy, but the point is that you keep asking and keep trying because that’s what it means to be alive lol

[wildpeachfarm]

can i just say how deeply i hate *some* stans equating this to domestic violence as a way to take dream out of the equation because, first off, it's not domestic violence. second of all, it reduces him to a victim while discrediting how frequently victims turn into perpetrators even if that's an unpleasant thought and even if it doesn't apply to this situation. third, every person in that room failed caiti including herself. dream, ghostie, george, the girl dream was with all failed to protect the youngest person but that does not mean they are bad people. it doesn't mean they enabled a sexual assault, because she was not sexually assaulted. and somebody else's victimization should not be a pawn in this argument.

agreed, anyone who is trying to use that as a talking point needs to go outside because that is so far off from the actual situation and a gross misuse of serious terms. EVERYONE in that room is at fault in one way or another. Every single person.

and just like people say caiti/shelby/etc. should not be reduced to her victimhood or experiences, DREAM SHOULD NOT BE EITHER

[menalez]

What do you think of this

https://www.tumblr.com/animentality/715171325722984448

i think TRAs need to stop misusing the term genocide and fear-mongering while also criticising this because it is indeed weird as fuck. i looked up missouri laws and it doesn't look good. the laws they're trying to pass in missouri regarding trans people look concerning and honestly a lot seem to be violating bodily autonomy and human rights.

but then when i tried to look deeper into these, they didn't look as bad as initially presented by the media. i could not find evidence that that bill actually calls for genital inspections (which one source claimed that an ammendment allows for genital inspections if the school deems it necessary). i also found that the law actually doesnt let people just report people simply for being trans and nothing else. it's about violating a newly passed law around the surgeries if the person who underwent the surgeries does not fall under a certain criteria, and the person who is held legally accountable is the health provider not trans people. what this would do is discourage health providers from readily providing transition-related surgeries and hormones.

In April 2023, the Attorney General issued an emergency order declaring gender affirming healthcare for adults "experimental", and implementing severe restrictions on adult trans care - banning it entirely unless all of the following conditions are met:

The patient has exhibited medically documented, consistent, and intense gender dysphoria for at least three years prior to the beginning of treatment.

The patient has been through at least 15 psychiatric sessions over an 18 month period, at least 10 of which being with the same therapist, "to explore the developmental influences on the patient's current gender identity" and to screen for any mental health comorbidities.

Any detected comorbidities must be fully "treated and resolved".

The patient has been screened for autism.

The provider must track and document any adverse affects potentially related to the care for a period of 15 years from the beginning of treatment, and prepare it in a form that can be accessed readily for systemic study.

The patient must be assessed at least annually from the beginning of treatment for continuing dysphoria.

The patient must be regularly screened for any signs of "social contagion".

The patient must sign a written consent disclosure every three months for the first three years of treatment, and every six months thereafter.

The provider must maintain in the patient's records detailed documentation of said patient's compliance with the above regulations.

The order is set to expire in February 2024.

(source)

my issues with this criteria are as follows:

what does it mean to "fully treat and resolve" mental illnesses? most mental illnesses cannot be "cured", you can only teach people to cope with it. plus treatment for it could take many, many years. being treated "fully" may not even be possible in many cases. but then i read the actual document and the actual wording is "Fails to ensure that any psychiatric symptoms from existing mental health comorbidities of the patient have been treated and resolved". that's better wording bc that means they'd have to show no symptoms from other mental disorders, but i still think it's too broad and vague. like if someone is schizophrenic and has to take medication to not experience symptoms of schizophrenia, would that be counted as treated and resolved? what about being depressed bc of having dysphoria? what about treatment-resistant comorbidities? idk its just too broad.

being screened for autism-- okay fine, but then what? will them being autistic or not mean they don't qualify? there's no clarification in the actual bill, they just say that they should be screened for autism.

the social contagion one-- how do you screen such a thing to begin with? and why must it be done annually (according to the official document)?

so basically, this tweet is fearmongering and misusing the word genocide. the report function isnt to get trans ppl taken away and put in death camps, it’s to hold medical practitioners accountable and have them do adequate screening and record-keeping of the transition procedures they do. that said, some of the criteria is too vague and broad and that is concerning.

[lover-of-mine]

You know, my whole thing with believing Eddie fell first and Buck will inevitably fall harder comes back a lot to the way I think people misuse the trope. A fell first/B fell harder for me was never about the actual intensity of the feeling but more about how the characters handle it. A has been feeling it for longer so they know how to contain it better than B, because usually B is hit with it in a way they can't hide it, which I personally think is the most fun interpretation of it all. You can play with canon and say Eddie has been aware of something as early as the tsunami, even if I believe he named the feeling during the shooting, so it's really easy to make Eddie look like he's been coming to terms with his feelings for a while. You can very easily put intent behind Eddie's feelings going back as far as stuck. To be the one who fell first you need a level of awareness of your own feelings that Buck just simply does not have. Sure you can play with the idea of Buck feeling some form of attraction for Eddie since they met, but Buck is bad at identifying feelings, so you can't really give him the "I'm at peace with my feelings" thing as easily as you can with Eddie. Because, personally, I think Buck took what was definitely a crush and labeled it as admiration and never looked at it again, because Buck is scared of defining things because he exists in fear of being abandoned. If he doesn't look at it, he can't want it, if he doesn't want it, it can't be taken away. He has a very specific way of looking at love that will make him never look too closely at what he and Eddie have. But that also means that if he ever does catch up, it will be bursting out of him in a way he can't control. Because Buck never dealt with big feelings, so that would hit him hard. And also because Buck feels things in a big way, so it would take over. If Buck knew, it's not the type of thing you can miss. But Eddie is really good at pretending things aren't there which makes it easier for him to act as if the romantic side of his feelings for Buck won't matter in the grand scheme of things. I don't really think Eddie is at peace with his feelings, mostly because I don't think Eddie has ever felt at peace about anything ever, but also because I think the cemetery made him think no amount of waiting is gonna get Buck on the same page as him and he doesn't want to ask for it and risk being wrong, so the easiest route is to pretend it's not there, even more considering he thinks he's watching Buck fall in love with someone else, so he needs to find peace with whatever he can get. So Eddie doesn't think Buck can feel the same, leading him to not ask for what he wants, and Buck just doesn't know how to name it.

Anyway you should read my Eddie fell first essay.

[susandsnell]

🔥 Batman comics in general

Send me a “ 🔥 “ for an unpopular opinion.

Oooh! I do think a lot of my saltier Batman comics opinions aren't exactly unpopular in nature (too much grimdark and never in the right direction, the misogyny, Killing Joke was a mistake, BruceBabs was a mistake, stop misusing Rogues), so I'll try to bring up some less-discussed ones! (Or at least ones I see discussed less, lol.)

Batfam is conceptually good, but nobody is handling it well. As I've previously expressed, Batfam content constantly oscillates between "Bruce is an abusive kidnapper of traumatized children he trains into child soldiers despite having the means to have them live in luxury, does not provide with love or positive reinforcement, and regularly pits against each other" and some of the most facile, cringey, early 2010s Tumblr conception of found-family to be seen, when I think it's more dramatically effective to find a happy medium between the two. A loving superhero found family with its share of dysfunction, hurts, and mistakes and appropriate nuance being brought to these conflicts is apparently too much to ask for (as is writers remembering Robin(s) and Batgirl literally exist as kid appeal characters).

Likewise, canon Harlivy is seldom handled well. As I said on Twitter the other day, "corporate Pride ate Harlivy". Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy's relationship, both back when it was subtextual and later on as it became Harley's main ship in iterations where she's able to get out of her abusive relationship with the Joker was groundbreaking and important. It was absolutely crucial to middle school me. But somewhere along the way, people lost the plot that they are indeed villainesses (whose queerness was meant to make them more endearing/sympathetic/relatable, but not change this status), and it fell prey to the respectability politics traps that plague just too many sapphic ships once they go canon. In order to be 'good representation', their villainy extends to 'haha RANDOM' irreverent chaos, and their personality gets boiled down to the shallow archetypes of 'chaotic and perky' Harley and 'snarky and sexy' Ivy. Their relationship to one another is 100% fluff, because God knows any nuance, tension, flaws, or friction between two master criminal characters with canonically tragic histories can't possibly be allowed. Because of the misogynistic expectations of Women Being Soft And Good coupled with the homophobic respectability politics of being as toothless, soft, and desexualized as possible to appear nonthreatening, sapphic ships are held to such unfair standards wherein the slightest conflict will be termed abusive and bad representation, and as such, they're written cardboard-flat, and unfortunately, this has befallen Harlivy in most canons where they're together. Even if it's realistically exploring things like recovery for either lady, because that's messy, and complicated, and nonlinear, and who wants that when you can have a memeable 'be gay do crimes'? Oh, but don't worry. Sometimes they will be sexually active - for the titillation of straight men. In-universe. (Don't get me started on the Harley Quinn show...) And poor Selina gets roped into third-wheeling/cheerleading the most boring possible version of them too often...

A lot of the most popular/famous titles are not the better ones. (Not you, Long Halloween, you're a delight and everyone loves you.) Everything that's there to say about The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns has been said better by people smarter and better-versed in comics than me, but Batman: Hush is just contrivance upon contrivance, everyone and their mother is tired of the shit-billion stories about Joker fridging yet another person, and perhaps my most unpopular opinion is that Batman: Year One is entirely overrated. I like the noir atmosphere, the truly corrupted Gotham it gives us, and the sweet triumvirate between Gordon, Harvey, and Bruce, but seeing adaptations like The Batman (2022) and even The Dark Knight (yes, I'm saying something nice about Nolanverse for once lolol) take these elements and do so much more with them really highlights the weaknesses in this story. There's some really good origin/character work for Bruce becoming Batman and the psychology behind it, but past that, not a whole lot happens beyond a very thin and confusing police corruption plot, and everyone is just too damn mean for the sake of the grimdark setting. Bruce injures an already exploited child in the red-light district and sexually harasses the Gordons to throw them off his trail for being Batman, and the latter is played for laughs. Jim cheats on his pregnant wife with a coworker half his age and both women are portrayed as stereotypically in these roles as humanly possible. Selina Kyle is...there, to be angry and sexualized and not much else. It just feels like a lot of buildup without much payoff.

Lastly, and jumping off the above, I'm taking away the Gordon family from writers until they've learned to play nicely with them. I don't know what it is about Jim Gordon that makes writers - men in particular - work through justifying their weird issues about women, but my God, the poor man has been character assassinated to hell and back. (Everyone has in comics, but it's always in the same way with Gordon that properly grosses me out.) If he's not cheating on his housewife with a much younger coworker he's presented as oh-so-noble for not outright workplace harassing, he's neglectful, abusive, or otherwise aggressive to his loved ones in ways that are almost always justified or excused narratively because he's 'dealing with a lot' or xyz past trauma. He's frequently made into a mouthpiece for misogyny, calling women "bitches" in the Arkham series and making other such delightful comments, fetishizing Harlivy (in the Harley Quinn show!), or putting down Barbara's capabilities. If he's written to be struggling with addiction, it's always played as a joke. And for Barbara's part, since The Killing Joke, she's always such a favoured writers' punching bag/doll to put in uncomfortable relationships, often having her talents, skills and intelligence undermined in favour of portraying her as a sex-crazed, overemotional disaster who's in it for the thrills until she is narratively punished in some gendered way. I don't get it! I'm all for what makes characters tick or challenging them or giving them flaws or new horrific situations to work through, but why is it always the same tired, offensive hows and wherefores for the Gordon family? Let them rest!

[trickstarbrave]

mary sues are i think a real phenomenon but have been misused to the point the term is basically useless.

sues are like. narrative black holes. they take what could be an otherwise interesting story by warping it around a central point of gravity to the point things start to lose coherent sense as everyone's lives revolve around the central character to the point the narrative is a slog to get through

but over the years ppl who have been eager to yell at teenage girls on the internet have tried to codify various traits as "sue traits" with guides on "how to not write mary sues" or immediately dismiss any and all characters as mary sues. girl main character? mary sue. powerful female character? mary sue. female character starts to have any fucking narrative significance? mary sue. female character is sad and depressed? mary sue! female character has no redeeming qualities it seems and is bland as can be? ALSO A MARY SUE.

being a mary sue isn't a fucking personality type for a character. you can write the perfect character via bullet points but if in the narrative they are a black hole that actively makes the story worse and lose coherence, they are a mary sue. likewise you can have the most specialist character ever who is uber powerful and always saves the day and is super beautiful and popular but so long as the narrative has structure, stakes, and is interesting they are not a mary sue.

i suppose it's not really a surprise as over the years stories esp in fandoms have been less about the narrative and more about cutting the story up into bite size easily consumable pieces. therefore people dont wanna be able to look at a narrative as a whole to explain the mary sue phenomenon as that will be a lot more work, effort, and time to rebuild the story from the ground up because ultimately the problem is not the character, it's the narrative either not serving the character properly, or the character not suiting the narrative.

younger people and beginners tend to make mary sues (including male ones) all the time. because they are still getting the hang of narrative structure and stakes and those take time to learn and develop. having a mary sue problem doesn't make you an eternally bad writer also, nor does it make you garbage, nor is shaming someone for doing so going to make them grow on any level. and also ultimately its been about shaming women and girls in particular. massive online bullying campaigns have been born out of "this girl is popular and i dont like her dumb female oc she has to be a mary sue because the oc is interesting and we need to harass the creator and her fans endlessly!!!!" meanwhile men can write the most boring slogs of mary sue stories that i have never even seen a teenage girl in fandom come even CLOSE to being as bad as, and they get pats on the back because their super original do not steal John Everyman (tm) character is super powerful and gets all the bitches and never struggles at anything ever.

and like. no one sets out to write a mary sue. trying to say "dont write mary sues" is stupid. it doesn't tell you how to actually avoid it. because ultimately how you avoid "writing a mary sue" is just by writing and reading a lot and learning how to write longer and more complex stories and building a narrative that works with the story you want to tell. which means ultimately you cannot just "avoid" writing a mary sue. you have to get comfortable first with writing a mary sue.

[mbti-notes]

1/2 Hello. INFJ in her 20s. My issue is I lack general knowledge. I’m trying to work on closing these gaps of knowledge that I’m supposed to have and which often prevent me from relating to other people + contributing to conversations. They have become a deep source of shame and exacerbate my social anxiety. I’ve always been detached and kept to myself and my own limited interests but have recently realized I desperately need to change.

[con't: However, I know I’ve lost a lot of time and feel restless to catch up. I’m very sensitive to perceived judgement and criticism in relation to the stuff I don’t know, so I have become particularly terrible at navigating social interactions. Can you give me some tips on coping with the fact that I’m behind everyone else? My confidence and motivation constantly waver because I keep getting bogged down by shame.]

Questions for Reflection: On what basis do you believe that people will only like you if you "know things"? Why do you believe that a person who doesn't have general knowledge is a "bad" person and should therefore feel ashamed of themselves? To feel ashamed is to believe that you have committed a moral wrong and deserve punishment, so is punishment what you believe you deserve? Is your idea of a fulfilling relationship one where people always compete to show off their knowledge? Do you realize that staking your self-worth on your intellect is a symptom of Ti loop?

Ignorance is just a simple fact of not knowing, and it is remedied through the simple act of learning. For example: read more, watch news and documentaries, take some classes, listen to lectures, speak to experts, etc. At no point is shame relevant to learning if you're learning purely for the sake of personal growth and edification.

Shame only enters the picture when you start comparing yourself to others and fear being judged as inferior (misuse of Fe). You say your issue is lack of general knowledge, but that is incorrect just based on your own words: "I keep getting bogged down by shame". When you misidentify the problem or don't prioritize problems in the correct order, you choose the wrong solutions, and you aren't likely to get the results you hoped for.

Whatever it is you want to improve about yourself, it should come from a place of love and wanting to live your life well, i.e., it should be something YOU genuinely need or want for yourself. But if the main/only reason you want to improve something is because you think it makes you more "worthy" in the eyes of OTHERS, then the real motivation is self-loathing. Trying to cover up self-loathing eventually backfires. This is why I often warn people about checking their intentions before they attempt function development.

It seems your ego development isn't far along enough to support function development. You haven't yet learned that "approval" does not equal "love". There are mean and judgmental people out there and you can't always avoid them. The strategy you've (unconsciously) adopted for dealing with them is "if you can't beat them, join them", i.e., to believe their judgments about you and change yourself into what they want, in hopes that they'll stop being mean and judgmental toward you.

Unfortunately, the price you pay for seeking approval is to always be vulnerable to disapproval. When you're a child, it is indeed a problem to constantly encounter mean and judgmental people because you aren't equipped to understand their behavior, so you take it too much to heart. However, when you reach adulthood, you have the capacity to reflect and make better sense of things. In terms of personal growth, it is counterproductive to keep making yourself into a victim of other people's judgments over and over again.

As an adult, the problem lies in your choices. You are the one continuing the old strategy of seeking approval. Thus, you have now become the one who is the most mean and judgmental of yourself. People's judgments will always trigger you as long as they amplify all the negative judgments you already have about yourself. You perceive feedback/criticism as a form of punishment because you believe you deserve punishment. You believe there is something "wrong" with you that needs to "change", "improve", or be "eliminated" in order for people to like you, so you punish yourself accordingly.

When you are primarily motivated by shame, your perception and judgment is heavily compromised by projection. Shame primes you to detect threats even when none exist, so you don't possess an accurate picture of others and how they see you. Shame is really a reflection of your own inner struggle to accept, like, and love yourself. It is this inner struggle that stops you from being fully present in social interactions and a full contributor in relationships. Your attention and focus is always too busy with fear of shame or thoughts about how to mitigate shame.

You always have a choice about how to respond to your emotions. Do you take responsibility for generating your emotions or blame others for causing them? Do you view emotions as your friend or as the enemy? When the emotion of shame gets triggered, your habit is to take it as objective confirmation of your subjective negative self-appraisals, and then replay the vicious cycle of trying to eliminate the shame via eliminating what you hate about yourself, only to fail and then hate yourself even more.

But you could, instead, listen to the shame compassionately, be curious about what it really means, and take it as a golden opportunity to deeply examine why you have such trouble accepting, liking, and loving yourself. After all, how would you show others what is likable/lovable about you when even you aren't able to see it, let alone express it? Healthy Fe should encourage emotional intelligence and empathy, not judgmentalness.

Shame is good and necessary for helping you be a moral person, to know when you've done something wrong and need to change or atone. But toxic shame means that your moral beliefs about right/wrong are heavily distorted, usually due to having internalized the faulty beliefs of people that used shame against you in the past, particularly during childhood. Toxic shame leads people to be excessively negative and harsh when appraising themselves, which produces problems with low self-esteem and low self-worth. Toxic shame is a major contributing factor to social anxiety.

Perhaps you should work with a therapist to discover and resolve the root of the shame (from your past). Learning to shame yourself during childhood might've served a useful purpose of obtaining approval and avoiding disapproval from authority figures who wielded control over your well-being. But now you're discovering that it doesn't really work because it keeps you in child mentality and even destroys your self-esteem, so is it still necessary to keep doing it as an adult? Are there better ways to establish good self-esteem? Adults have the power to ensure their own well-being.

In a normal and healthy relationship, what most people want is for someone to take an interest and share experiences with them. Whatever you don't know about their interests you could easily learn from them or from sources they provide. Therefore, all that is required of you is to express curiosity and empathy, two things you were born knowing how to do. Unfortunately, that knowledge has since been buried under the shame, so it's up to you to dig it back out.

[septembersghost]

As a WOC I get some of the critiques for Taylor but based on the timing of all this, it does feel sometimes like I’m being used as an excuse to say every filthy thing possible about Taylor. It’s okay to give her a little grace. And the other thing I’ve noticed is even pre that guy people were already being terrible about Taylor the minute Joe was gone. So it kind of makes me feel terrible for her that she really needs a relationship for people to treat her a bit better.

i hear you, you do not deserve to be used as a shield or a prop for people whose central intent is to bash her just because they hate her in general. that's not uplifting or amplifying you, nor anyone.

it's related to why i've been so upset that people are calling m*tty a n*zi - criticize him, criticize his gross and bigoted actions, but the moment they start to misuse very heavy terms like that, terms that have significant meaning, then any rational argument and criticism loses all its weight, and they're making the situation worse. (i wrote a long post about this a couple of weeks ago and then made it private because i was afraid of being attacked on here, which in and of itself speaks to how toxic the conversation had gotten, where we couldn't even speak up and explain why certain parts of it had become harmful).

anyway, the people doing this, talking over woc or other marginalized fans, using inflammatory rhetoric, they don't actually care that any of us were hurt or concerned, they only want the excuse to hate her. it's not fair that anybody should be used to further that toxicity rather than being centered as a person, and it's wrong to see our identities fractured and wielded to tear her apart when that's so far away from what we were trying to talk about when this started. it's very clear to me now how much of this was driven by people who were anxiously awaiting the day they could attack again, to swarm at blood in the water. the vile things being brought back up and said with no hesitation about her, the people openly hoping for her to come to harm, i wouldn't trust a single one of them to truly care if we needed them, you know? because they have done nothing but exhibit a complete dearth of empathy, and vicious enjoyment at ripping a woman to shreds. the impact that all the old accusations have had, all the cruel and sexist press we thought we'd moved past, was just lingering beneath the surface waiting to be pulled up again. i find it very disturbing and unpleasant.

it also makes legitimate criticism difficult because everything always reaches this tipping point, where it goes from rational and thoughtful discussion to unfiltered vitriol. how do we find a balance where we can fairly say, this is why this is upsetting and needs to be taken into account, when everyone ends up turning it into hyperbolic rage like, this person is a disgusting evil narcissist untalented slut and i hope she dies. those are nowhere near the same universe of a conversation!

"it kind of makes me feel terrible for her that she really needs a relationship for people to treat her a bit better." and have you noticed how people define her completely by the man she's with? i said this to a friend, but anyone who believes that sleeping with a dirtbag has ruined her forever is outright perpetuating the most old-fashioned kind of puritanical shaming, where women are judged and seen as tainted because of men. it's awful, it's a really awful mentality to see still happening!

and yeah, it started brewing the moment she and joe broke up. that is not to say she has handled all of this well, there have been a lot of missteps, bad choices, and bad optics, and some of that is probably directly because of the fact that she's struggling with a destabilizing change in her life. we can understand that while not excusing all of it. people are rarely black and white, and this situation has been complicated. disappointment doesn't mean not showing someone any compassion at all. "It’s okay to give her a little grace." i completely agree, and thank you for saying that, you are obviously a kind and thoughtful person. <3 i hope you've been doing okay.

[ablednt]

I am about to start gatekeeping who can call things purity culture for fucking real y’all this is just embarrassing.

The notion that one is responsible for their actions INCLUDING if they are being complicit to someone or something that is causing harm, that no one’s choices exist in a vacuum, and similar criticisms of potentially toxic behaviors done even in good faith are NOT purity culture. I’m not even saying all of those arguments are correct but that’s explicitly not what purity culture is or why it’s harmful.

I know a lot of y’all never had first hand experience one way or another with puritanical christianity so you’ve been led to believe that puritans simply hate fun and enjoyment and thus anyone who makes you feel guilty for something you enjoy (which, again, I’m not here to tell you that’s right or wrong) is being like a puritan but that’s not at all the issue and representing it as such is dangerous.

Puritanical christianity very specifically says, that people and things are fundamentally wrong. The idea is that human nature is immorality, that no matter what you do you are a Bad Person if you don’t fit into a very specific standard of what “God wants”

This IS sometimes present in leftist spaces and is a huge issue but not in any of the ways I see y’all talking about.

Puritanical values are utilized in leftist spaces when there is an either directly stated or explicitly implied idea of everything fitting squarely into right and wrong. A lot of the time the way (mainly white, culturally christian) people talk about privilege is very puritanical. The idea that being privileged means there is inherently something wrong with you as a person that you must compensate/repent for and feel ashamed about, rather than just meaning you are incentivized to be complicit in oppression and must be aware of that to make conscious decisions not to be, that is purity culture and very harmful. 

IMO all the focus on what labels people use for their Own Experiences and “that doesn’t make sense to me so it’s wrong and you’re a bad person” has roots in purity culture as well.

But being critical of things based on their actual effects and consequences or any kind of critique that acknowledges someone’s autonomy in relation to their actions rather than assigning people good or bad based on ultimately arbitrary standards is not purity culture.

The reason I said that it’s dangerous to misuse this term so much and to paint puritanical christians as just hating fun is that they are Very Aware that is their public image and often do a lot to combat that. When I was raised mormon everyone made it very clear that they weren’t prudes that they could have just as much fun as anyone else and that they’ll still love you even if you’re a “bad” person but don’t you want to have fun with all of us who are good? They’d bend their doctrine just enough to get people in the door, and you’ll see mormons proudly sporting tattoos and proudly queer and other stuff that puritanical culture actually does oppose because these are cults and they care only about their bottom lines and about furthering colonialism. You need to be aware of these issues as they actually present or it’s entirely possible you will not be able to identify these things when they actually pose any risk to you.

TLDR: purity culture is the idea that people are fundamentally good or bad and that bad people must repress themselves to become worthy, it is not any time someone criticizes you for something that makes you happy or won’t lighten up about something. This is a very important distinction. 

[thiefking]

Re: your post about tone tags - I feel like people who don't have these kinds of communication issues can also get side tracked by them as a be-all end-all solution, even when tone isn't the cause.

One of my problems is not being able to read "courtesy sugarcoating", as an example, when someone says "this is maybe bothering me a tiny bit, but I don't know" when what they think is "this is bothering me a lot, and I would really like you to do something about it, but saying it like that feels too rough". Similarly they treat my words as the product of sugarcoating, and think I'm always angrier or more upset than I am.

A person might see and start to use tone tags to fix that, and think they should have worked, because they don't really understand the nuances of different kinds of missed social cues. I hope I'm making sense, sorry, I'm very tired.

all made sense to me boss! and you're completely right, the advent of /hj (half-joking) is a good example of how— and i do not mean to imply only neurotypicals/people with no issue reading tone use this tag and (i have to keep stressing this because tumblr is tumblr) this is not a moral judgment, but— the system can be used as just, like, a secondary way to not say what you mean while thinking or pretending that you ARE saying what you mean. the term half-joking means a million things depending on who you ask. i classify that very post as being one made in half-jest, but what does that mean to someone else? to me, that means i wrote it in a humorous tone and i was silly on purpose, in particular where i suggest that you tack on a whole bunch of parentheticals at once including (scary), but my thought behind it was genuine. but for someone else, they'd just call that a regular joke, and to them half-joking means something else entirely. even the definition i just gave for my interpretation isn't solid: that's just what it means to Me, in that specific example. but people who use /hj generally seem to assume the other person will know what THEIR version is, intuitively, even if they themselves have issues with reading tone!

speaking in general, people will always be facetious, hyperbolic, and sarcastic, and they will always sugarcoat, and they will always lie on purpose sometimes, and they will always lie accidentally, whether by omission or by misusing a word they didn't know the real definition of or any other number of ways. tone indicators, whether they be tone tags or parentheses, will not fix this, i'm definitely not gonna claim that either of them would, and i don't think doing any of that is inherently a bad thing. humans are just gonna do that kinda thing, even autistic people. however, i do wholeheartedly believe typing out entire words, rather than truncating them to 3 or less letters when there are only 26 letters and nearly 200k words in active use in the english language, is a better idea to get things across and have people actually understand each other, you know? and with any luck, typing it out entirely might encourage someone to be a little more forthcoming with what they mean because they can explain the reasons they're bothered by something. even if they're still sugarcoating, if you have a reason for it, that's something you can address and ask about, and with any luck resolve before it gets out of hand

[chappybird]

So I read all of @mgame1988 's posts about this whole debacle, and the people they were conversing with on their blog, and here's the conclusion I've come to.

This person is, politely as possible, very socially clumsy. (The biggest sin you can be guilty of in the parp/cherp community. 🙄)

They were in a voice chat where the following opinions were misconstrued:

Even if Blaire White is a horrible person, it doesn't excuse transphobia towards her. (Correct!)

Calling a trans person a "Good Trans" is the same as calling a black person "Uncle Tom." (I don't personally agree with this but I understand the sentiment)

Gatekeeping can be used for good or bad. (True.)

Ped0s try to take advantage of the openness of the LGBTQ+ community. (True)

Ped0s have had some success in infiltrating the LGBTQ+ community. (Ehh, not true. Ped0s exist in the general population, so while you can find them in LGBTQ+ populations, it's not to any greater amount than in the general cishet population.

Gatekeeping Ped0s from the LGBTQ+ community is a good thing and good use of gatekeeping. (True)

Kink doesn't belong at pride parades because parades are public. (This is a very subjective opinion, one I very much do not agree with. It doesn't deserve this level of vitriol, however, and it's not that uncommon of an opinion.)

TERF is misused/the word TERF has problems. (It's complicated. It's definitely overused and has become a buzzword that isn't always appropriate to use.)

Using the term TERF to refer to a trans person is like calling a black person Uncle Tom (again, I don't really agree, perhaps even moreso than with Good Trans.)

Blaire White isn't a TERF. (She's not! Blaire White isn't a TERF because she's a conservative, not a radfem.)

Using the N word is bad (true)

...even if you're black. (another really subjective opinion that has a lot of baggage and is constantly debates on within the black community, but not one I have any right to weigh in on. MGame1988 claims they are mixed race, and I just so happened to notice a lot of people weighing in on this particular point are white. Moreover, one of them even used the "I have black friends" defense.)

These things seemed to be generally agreed upon or fairly irrefutable. In subsequent reblogs:

MGame1988 was extremely upset at first and may have potentially misspoke, or at the very least wanted a public apology. (An emotional response.)

This was later walked back to asking for the accusations to be retracted. (Reasonable.)

MGame1988 sent Steve 2 asks, and had an ongoing Tumblr message conversation. (Not thirty messages as Steve claims.)

MGame1988 threatened to go public with how racist/transphobic the MXRP community is. (I mean it does have a problem with both racism and transphobia. This was clearly an emotional response, moreover one made in desperation because they were being ignored. Socially Clumsy imo but it's not like they'd be lying.)

It's not Blackmail. MGame1988 isn't asking to be compensated. Simply acknowledged and for false allegations to be removed from the server. (Not appropriate, to be honest. But as established this person has honestly dogshit social skills.) Actually saying he was going to go public with the information should have been understood as a courtesy. He's well within his right. Blackmail implies he was sharing private information he was not party to. Furthermore, retracting the inflammatory stayements is a really ordinary thing to ask a mod to do. They should be removing inflammatory language when it exists in the server, because it is their job, because they are mods, and they have certainly blocked messages for people saying much less worse things.

I think that about covers everything relevant. That is all the things that we have concrete evidence for. And no I don't believe parp users on what happened in a VC, even if the have people to "corroborate" their story because as a community, y'all have proven time and again that not only do you misconstrue, take things in wildly bad faith and out of context, and just straight up lie, you are also the most perceptible group of people to mob mentality that I have ever met in my damn life. If one parp user jumped off a bridge I would be seriously concerned that dozens more would follow.

As one last addition: y'all need to come to terms with the fact not everyone is a radical leftists or educated on leftism. Most people are left of center, liberals, centrists, or not politically affiliated. That doesn't make them a conservative/republican/right-winger.

TLDR some random socially inept person stumbled onto the MXRP discord and aired some of their opinions, several of which were at worst guilty of centerism, was booted from the server and had an understandable reaction. Ultimately they were mocked and vilified by several users and even the owner put them on blast.

Edit: I realize I didn't break up what happened in the VC and what happened after, I've gone back and done that now. Also, I've realized that calling what he was saying he would do blackmail is bullshit. Edited the post to reflect these things.

[ao3-ghost]

Oneshot collection works on AO3 clutter the tags. They're not reader friendly. People only post like this for exposure. It's using AO3 badly.

Sometimes I see this kind of sentiment circling AO3 spaces. While I understand what people are waving at, I think people are misunderstanding why creators make this kind of work.

Before I start, I want to point out that AO3 doesn't have any requirements for what makes up a work as long as it's fic, meta, art, or the like. Posting a work that is a collection of oneshots from different fandoms and tagging with the fandoms that appear in the work is in a literal sense not misusing the site.

I don't think people complaining really mean that creators are actually breaking the TOS; however, I just thought it was important to say using the site like this is part of its intended use.

Now whether oneshot collections like this are using the site badly depends on what you consider the function of a work.

If you think the goal of posting is to reach an audience and gain more readers, this is not the best way to go about it since some people intentionally avoid oneshot collections. Still, I see lots of oneshot collection works with lots of kudos and hits so there are definitely readers who are not off-put by these types of collections. It's clearly not one-side fits all.

The thing is not creators aim for their work to reach more people. Some people post merely to back up their work. Sometimes they just want to share their work with 1 person and don't care if someone else reads it. Creating a oneshot collection lets some creators do this in the way in is minimal effort. It gets them to post at all. In that case it can make sense for them to organize their works by upload date.

I'm not pulling this reason from the void. A friend of mine often does oneshot collections. I asked him why. His answer was that he uploads to AO3 once every few months. He's backing up his works from Tumblr or Twitter. If he had to post and title these individually, he would not post.

Before I volunteered for AO3, I used to be a little annoyed by these kinds of works. Now though, I think anything that gets people to archive their works or gets them to post is a good thing.

There's half a dozen different and sometimes conflicting goals people can have for posting. How you approach what are works for, what are tags for, what is the AO3 meant to do shapes whether or not an action is "bad". These approaches are often also shaped by whether you're primarily a creator, reader or use AO3 mainly for some other reason.

(After becoming a volunteer, I also now dislike the term cluttering the tags because to me it implies a sort of ownership for what kind of work is "correct" for a tag. Since none of these tags are personalized, the tags are for everyone aka no one owns any tag. Tags cannot be cluttered if whatever is being posted is a real work. )

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Let’s finish off the dorm leader character opinion bingo with malleus!

***Standard disclaimer: These are just my personal opinions of the character(s); regardless of what I may think of them, sharing my thoughts is NOT meant to offend or to shame anyone that thinks differently.***

Yes, this is the only TWST character that I actively dislike 🤡 Let’s get something straight though: that DOESN’T mean I think that Malleus has zero redeeming qualities, it’s just that I don’t find him appealing even when I take into account his positives; the negatives and how he is presented in the story far outweigh that.

I think Malleus has to be one of my least favorite character designs in the entire game. The hairstyle is super ugly to me, and the colors that were chosen for him blend in with the colors of his school and dorm uniforms to the point where nothing ends up standing out. I get that eye bleeding neon green was likely deliberately chosen to reference Maleficent’s fire, but still hurts my eyes to look at. ANOTHER THING THAT BOTHERS ME IS THE WEIRD FUCKBOI-ESQUE POSES HE MAKES IN HIS BIRTHDAY CARDS 🤣 LIKE I WISH I WAS JOKING ABOUT THAT BUT I’M BEING DEAD SERIOUS. WHY DOES HE LOOK LIKE THAT, WHY DOES HE LOOK LIKE HE’D UNIRONICALLY SAY “are u lost bby gurl” IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT I’M LAUGHING SO HARD AT HIM RIGHT NOW I CAN’T (derogatory)

In terms of his actual character, I actually have several personal gripes with it. First of all, I don’t like how his loneliness and isolation is constantly being played off as like... something pitiable, something almost perfectly designed to purposefully garner sympathy, almost like it’s meant to be seen as “cute”. I don’t think loneliness is cute, and I don’t like how it is presented to try and endear Malleus to me, the player, in the marketing and in the game itself. It feels like they’re trying really hard to push him to me, and it’s honestly having the reverse effect 😅 (This also plays into why I don’t like a majority of the dorm leaders; I feel like TWST is trying “too hard” to get me to like them because I feel bad for them and their sad backstories. It’s just really irritating to see in Malleus in particular because we don’t even KNOW his backstory yet, but a lot of the supplemental material leading up to it is already trying to get me to pity him.)

Secondly, I dislike how overpowered Malleus is compared to everyone else. It can be fun to have an overpowered character, but where he loses me is that he NEVER seems to have to deal with the consequences of his actions when that power gets out of hand or it is misused. The discrepancy between Malleus (one of THE top magicians in the WORLD) and his peers is far too vast. No one can hold him accountable or even challenge him because he will immediately sweep the floor with them or the story will default to the “he’s just misunderstood”/“he didn’t know any better” explanation (like in Endless Halloween Night >_>). Even if a character “didn’t know any better” or if they have a sad backstory, they are still responsible for themselves and what they do and say, and they need to own up to it. The fact that there are no apparent setbacks or checks and balances on his power AND Malleus usually faces no consequences for what he does renders all situations where he could potentially be in peril or potentially get into trouble moot, because Malleus can fix everything or crush his enemy with a meteor in the blink of an eye. I already know what the outcome will be, so what’s the point of watching it play out? What’s the point if he won’t be held accountable for his actions? What’s the point of Sebek shouting about how worried he is over Malleus being missing? What’s the point of any of this?????

Frankly, I find Malleus in general infuriating to read 😔 It’s hard to describe exactly, but he carries himself with this... quiet but arrogant smugness, and he lacks the charm of other characters like L*ona to make me excuse him for doing so. He knows he’s more powerful than everyone else, and he says subtly insensitive things about other people’s abilities, which really rubs me the wrong way. When he lowkey acts petty, I’m offended even more than I would be normally because of how reserved he usually is. Even the minor things he does make me want to fight him even if I know I’d lose😬 Like, I don’t find it cute that he calls me (and other humans) “child of man”, that’s horribly insulting. It’s not a cute nickname to me, he’s insinuating that I’m somehow infantile or not to be taken seriously. At least when Vil calls me a potato I can say I provide nutrients, or when Leona calls me an herbivore I can be like, “yeah, I like vegetables. So what?”

By far the biggest contributor to my dislike of Malleus is how the main story showcases him to us. He’s intentionally given little screen time to give him a mysterious aura and to build up hype for episode 7. That’s fine as a literary device. It’s simple and effective. However, I do NOT feel attached to Malleus in any way because of how little I’ve interacted with him. None of the payoff of Malleus and Yuu’s meetings feels earned because I personally feel nothing for him. It makes me feel completely disconnected from the story, because in-game Yuu is acting like they’re friends with Malleus, whereas me, the player, could not care less. Yuu is meant to be a character I can easily project onto, right? But the thing is, I’m NOT the type of person to trust a horned stranger that shows up on my lawn in the middle of the night. I’m calling the cops on them. The fact that the main story railroads me into being friends with an obviously suspicious stranger is endlessly annoying and shatters my immersion. I would never call someone I’ve spent so little time with my friend; at least with Ace and Deuce I can say I’ve actually been hanging out with them for longer than some paltry exchanges.

The one thing I can find myself enjoying about Malleus is when he actually has to be princely and responsible instead of presenting him as naive or not understanding much about the world (these are also true of him, but I don’t like seeing naive Malleus). He demonstrates an incredible amount of maturity and puts his country first and foremost over his own feelings, and I think that’s something that should be applauded. Malleus is extremely aware of the position he is in and what he can and cannot do as a result of it--because he has a crown and a country to protect. On that note, I’m much more interested in the lore of the Briar Valley and the importance of the Draconia lineage to its history than I am in Malleus himself. His execution hasn’t done much to reinvent the tropes he already represents (not that it has to, but that’s what I personally look for in characters; they need to do something to make them stand out against all the other characters with similar traits from other franchises).

Though I don’t like canon Malleus, I have to say that I prefer him to most fanon takes. The fandom is very divided as to what his “true” nature is; some see Malleus as one extreme (merciless, cold, cruel, etc.), and others see him as the other extreme (soft, sad, shy, etc.). Both of these takes are true and false, because they are all facets to his character. To focus on one half and not the other makes him very two-dimensional (and that’s really saying a lot coming from me, who already views canon Malleus as generic). 

One thing that I see time and time again is this... very strange interpretation where Malleus is completely codependent on Yuu???? Like, sometimes to the point where he is emotionally unstable without them and will throw a literal tantrum that destroys the entirety of NRC campus if Yuu returns to their own world. I’ve also seen takes where Malleus gets unnecessarily angry or defensive over Yuu and is even cruel to his retainers (particularly Sebek) in an effort to “protect” Yuu :/ Okay, 1) that’s extremely underplaying Malleus’s maturity and ability to control himself, and 2) codependency is unhealthy, so seeing people glorify this take on Malleus and Yuu’s relationship (and even view it as romantic, of all things) is really unnerving to me.

Actually, any take which immediately assumes or superimposes romantic intent over a Malleus and Yuu interaction also bothers me. I’m NOT saying that people aren’t allowed to ship them (it’s perfectly fine if you do!), but it honestly feels a little... I don’t know, invalidating???? That whenever a new Malleus and Yuu interaction comes out, people flock to it and quickly deem it as strictly romantic. I feel that it devalues the importance of friendship and platonic relationships to think that every little thing they do and say to each other is “a date” or “proof” that they’re into each other. When this kind of behavior is so prominent, it also unintentionally perpetuates Malleus x Yuu as the most desirable “end game” or as the ONLY “valid” ship in the fandom, thus invalidating everyone else that doesn’t ship it. It’s not as though Malleus is the only character that gets bait-y lines or scenes (like c’mon, Ace joked about sleeping in the same room as MC), so I don’t know why the fandom seems to focus ONLY on the Malleus scenes and no one else’s. It feels really... iffy and non-inclusive of those that don’t see Malleus in a romantic light or may prefer other characters. That’s really the only way I can really describe it 💦

The point is, I don’t like Malleus at all 😬 but I’d like to think that I’m pretty open-minded and willing to change my opinion based on whatever new Malleus content TWST hands us. Maybe episode 7 will somehow improve him? I’ve historically liked OB boys less after their respective chapter, not more 😔 (with no change to Jamil and the only improved opinion being on Idia), but really, anything’s possible. Ehhh, we’ll have to see.

[murdercide626]

Hey, so I'll probably get some hate for this, this will be controversial, but just try to hear me out.

So like, I guess some people hate how Eggman is portrayed in the IDW comic because it makes him look "incompetent?" But I'm just standing here like, ".... Yeah?"

I mean, I love Eggman, he's been my favorite Sonic character for the longest time. I'd even say he's probably my favorite fictional character ever! But, for as long as I've been playing the Sonic games, the Eggman of the games never really came across as the most competent person exactly, if you really stop and think about it.

That's not to say he seemed stupid. Eggman is obviously a genius who can think up fantastical machines and technology far more advanced than thought possible. He is a man of vision and passion. But... that's pretty much where his positive qualities as a person end.

Eggman is also extremely vain, arrogant, egotistical, narcissistic, childish, short tempered and short sighted. Not to mention being, well, INSANE!

He is a man of great intelligence, skill, and vision, but wise and responsible he is not! And that's kind of the whole point of his character, isn't it?

Eggman exists to show how technology can be misused when handled irresponsibly and without forethought or consideration of long term repercussions. Eggman is basically like a child who wants to treat the world like his own plaything. He wants to PLAY the part of a world conqueror, but really he has no actual interest in really ruling or governing the world and all of the responsibility that entails. At least not in any way that would end well for himself or anyone else in the long run.

This can be seen in his complete disregard for the environment with factory cities spewing pollutants into the air and water, and even his own machinations are shown neglected and run down in the bad future shown in Sonic CD.

Of course Eggman has accomplished some amazing (if deranged) scientific accomplishments, such as creating technology that utilizes life energy as a fuel source, or the breathtaking engineering feat that is the Death Egg.

But let's also take a look at some of the, uh, "questionable" design choices Eggman has made for some of his machines.

Such as this conveyor belt boss from Sonic CD.

Or the Aero Egg from Sonic Advance 2, which features a platform with no discernible function other than giving Sonic a means to reach and damage his vehicle.

Or the brilliant Hot Mobile machine:

"Gee, I sure hope I don't put the one thing my mech is vulnerable to in my direct path and then be responsible for pushing it towards me. That'd be silly!"

Then there's, well, THIS:

I mean, does this look like the work of someone who thinks things through?? The man is clearly not well!

And need I mention the time Eggman put on a public event wearing this poor disguise which, surprisingly, fooled nobody?

Seriously, this is the same guy who literally had a REALITY WARPING MCGUFFIN that could supply him with unlimited resources and the means to finally conquer the world, and even then he can't keep it together for more than six months before it all came tumbling down like a house of cards!

But yeah, I know Eggman only acts the way he does in the games because they're video games and there's a formula to follow. It's kinda like how Bowser is constantly kidnapping Peach over and over, and how Bowser's characterization softened over time as a consequence. Though that's part of the problem with enforcing a status quo in that medium for so many years. From a storytelling standpoint it becomes harder to justify repeating the same kind of behavior after so long.

So when they created the comic set within the games continuity, taking off directly from the aftermath of Sonic Forces, that characterization had to be carried over, otherwise it'd seem abruptly out of character for him to act too differently.

Truthfully, it does make me wish that the IDW comic wasn't stuck with adhering to game canon so much. Though I have a feeling that even if it wasn't, Sega would probably still insist on Eggman acting pretty much the same just for brand consistency. But ah well.

Anyway, I think I've rambled for long enough. Point is, I don't think it's much of a stretch for Eggman to do something like unleash a zombie virus on the world without taking proper precautions. Because Eggman basically just gets caught up in the moment and gets so excited about how amazing he is that he doesn't stop to consider the long term repercussions. He just assumes that if there's a problem then his brilliant mind will think up a solution somewhere down the line, because why wouldn't he? He's amazing and everyone knows it!

And before you start accusing me, I don't think the comic is without flaw or anything. I like the comic, but there are some things that I personally think could've been handled better. For example, I think they could have done more with the Mr. Tinker stuff before turning him back into Eggman. And as much as I like the character, Belle's introduction could definitely have been handled better and didn't feel very organic. Also, the Deadly Six stuff wasn't very interesting to me and just felt like padding.

So, yeah, sorry about the rambling. Though I can't help but feel that I might have overlooked something that contradicts my point somehow. I like to think I know a good deal about Sonic lore, having been a fan for so long, but my memory's not the best and there's just so much stuff to keep track of, and I haven't played ALL of the games, as much as I'd like to. So, am I totally off base here? Did I miss the point entirely? Am I just an asshole? ^^;;

[a-dragons-journal]

What's a kff? Why does kinnie have a negative connotation now?

Oh, buckle up, this one's a bit of a doozy!

KFF is short for "kin-for-fun," and either "KFF people" or "KFFers" are thus the people who claim to be "kinning for fun" - in other words, misusing "kin" to mean roleplaying as, projecting onto, strongly relating to, and/or just really really liking their "kins" (as opposed to what 'kin actually means, which is being nonhuman/fictional). In particular, when used more scathingly, it's often used to refer specifically to people who have been approached by 'kin folks trying to explain that that's not what 'kin means and it shouldn't be used that way, and who continue to use it anyway, often while claiming that actual otherkin/fictionkin are "crazy," "delusional," "taking it too seriously," and my personal favorite (/s), "otherkin are ruining kinning."

Kinnie has always had a negative connotation, even though some parts of the community have chosen to use it for themselves. It originated from antikin as an insult - many claim that it came from the t-slur, but neither I nor anyone I know have been able to hunt up any actual evidence of that, so it's equally likely they just happen to sound similar because they're both diminutives used in a derogatory way; either way, many are uncomfortable with "kinnie" because of the similarity.

These days, it's not terribly unusual to see legitimate 'kin calling themselves "kinnies," but it's far more common to see that language used by KFF people - to the point where some people use "kinnies" and "KFF people" as synonymous (I tend to gravitate toward the latter just because it's more accurate and because I know legitimate 'kin folk who use the term "kinnie" for themselves). Usually when you see someone using "kinnie" in a derogatory way who's otherkin themself, that's what they're using it to mean.

(And as a bonus, while I won't say outright that you shouldn't use "kinnie" for yourself if you like it*, I will warn that a large chunk of the otherkin community will side-eye you if you call yourself an "[x] kinnie" instead of "[x]kin" and consider it a red flag for being KFF, though usually not to the point of not being willing to see past it if you show no other red flags for that. It's just something you're going to have to deal with if you want to use that language, because of its history both past and current.)

* I will, however, outright say - please don't use "kin" as a verb (ie "kinning"), even if you're using it to mean identity and not KFF stuff. I care far more about using "kin" as a verb than I do about "kinnie"; "kinnie" is just vaguely insulting and has a bad history, "kin" as a verb actually carries serious potential to perpetuate misunderstanding of what otherkinity is by making it sound like otherkin is something you do, rather than something you are - which sounds like nitpicking, except I've seen that confusion happen because of that language being used firsthand time and time again.