#just because you don't agree with my opinion doesn't make me a racist

[anonymouscapybara]

people say the worst SI unit is the mole. "ohhh but it's just a number it doesn't even have anything attached it doesn't deserve to be an official unit" BZZZ WRONG

the worst unit is the candela. the candela is stupid.

what's the candela, you ask? well, it measures the brightness of light

"oh that sounds reasonable" you say, "just measure the energy or power emitted!" nope. they would not do anything nearly so simple. a lightbulb emitting a watt of yellow light is more candelas than a lightbulb emitting a watt of red light.

"ok that's weird" you say, "but maybe they're adjusting for that somehow? maybe it measures number of photons?" again, that would be far too reasonable. a lightbulb emitting a fixed rate of yellow-light photons is more candelas than the same rate of purple-light photons.

but what are they even measuring then? what else is there to measure? clearly they ran out of ideas while making up units, because what they're actually measuring is the SUBJECTIVE BRIGHTNESS OF LIGHT TO THE HUMAN EYE. the candela is STUPID

a reasonable question to ask is: how would you even measure the brightness of light to the human eye? aren't a lot of human eyes different? don't different things look bright in different circumstances? aren't there colorblind people in the world?

surely the General Conference on Weights and Measures, which spent millions precisely calibrating magnetic quantum flux to avoid basing the kilogram on a random block in France, has a clever solution!

no. no they don't. the candela is stupid.

as far as I can tell, what you do is you first measure how much light of each wavelength comes in. Then you multiply each measurement by a "luminosity function", which measures brightness to the human eye:

you will notice that there are multiple functions shown in this diagram. the SI system has five of these, for different lighting conditions. do your lighting conditions not exactly follow one of the Five Official Standardized Lighting Conditions? guess you're out of luck then.

and whose eye are we using? why, the Official Standardized CIE Photometric Observer, of course: the "ideal observer having a relative spectral responsivity that conforms to a CIE-defined spectral luminous efficiency function for human vision"

(and no I can't show you this function because the fine people of the ISO put it BEHIND A PAYWALL. who puts measurements determining a fundamental SI unit BEHIND A PAYWALL. the candela is stupid)

all right, so we're measuring a fundamental unit using a (nonexistent) idealized observer in one of five random lighting conditions. how did they find the values for this? i'm...not entirely sure. but here's a glimpse, based on a few of the most recent studies I found used for this:

"...heterochromatic (minimum) flicker photometric data obtained from 40 observers (35 males, 5 females) of known genotype..."

"To obtain an estimate of the mean L-cone fundamental, we weighted [weird variables] according to the ratio of 0.56 L(S180) to 0.44 L(A180) found in the normal, male Caucasian population...and averaged them together"

that's right, our Official Objective Brightness Unit is probably sexist and racist. none of the other SI units have a chance to be sexist and racist. a meter is a meter in every country on Earth. 6.022*10^23 For Women is still 6.022*10^23. but the candela is-- probably-- the white man's candela, because you can absolutely bet that genetic drift around the world gives different values for this stuff.

in summary: my opinion, as you might have guessed, is that the candela is stupid. hopefully you agree with me after reading this that we need to completely eradicate it from the planet. failing that could we at not give it the same level of officialness as the meter or the kilogram?

[utilitycaster]

Hi there, I saw in one of your tags recently that "if you think the raven queen was being unfair, I'm not really interested in your opinions." I was wondering if you could talk a little more about that because I'll be honest, Vax isn't my favorite character but I've seen all of C1 and I really don't get why some people HATE the RQ, call her unfair, manipulative and pretty plainly say this moon conflict is mostly her fault because she took Vax and through a Domino effect Ludinus is releasing Predathos. Also, I enjoy your theories and analysis for CR so much you got me listening to Midst, so thank you.

Hi anon,

Great question! This is going to be a very long post, with a relatively short initial answer, because there is both the literal misinterpretation that indicates this is not someone with strong analytical skills nor knowledge of canon, and a number of potential mindsets that lead to this manner of thinking in the first place, none of which I respect. You happen to have sort of hit upon the foundational elements of my whole deal re: CR meta, so, buckle in.

The first part is simple: Vex died because Percy triggered a trap before she'd been healed up. We've seen this sort of trap elsewhere in non-divine contexts (Folding Halls of Halas); it's just a form of trap. A particularly nasty one, but this is for a very powerful relic she doesn't want falling into the wrong hands, and, moreover, the party could have likely disabled it either through rogue skills or magic had Percy waited. Vax, then, as the third part of the resurrection ritual, told the Raven Queen to take him instead of Vex. The Raven Queen did precisely as he asked. He did not need to offer this (Scanlan was going to make an offering, the other parts of the ritual had gone well, it was Vex's first death so the DC was low, and Vax could have made any number of other, less dramatic offers), and he did so with the understanding that he would die in lieu of Vex, right then and there. He did not. I think that's the only case, actually, where the Raven Queen was not 100% upfront with her intentions before Vax accepted something; but he offered it voluntarily. Vax was a person who formed extremely intense connections, to the point where it was perhaps unhealthy, and did not believe life without his sister was worth living, and was willing to sacrifice himself to a god.

Everything after that was extremely straightforward. Vax communed with the Raven Queen, who spoke very directly with him in his vision in the Raven's Crest. She was extremely clear when she met with him following his disintegration: he was given the option to refuse her offer, and he took it instead. It is not manipulative to give someone a difficult decision, and if a character you like makes a choice you don't like, it is not automatically the result of manipulation.

As for the moon conflict being her fault…that is, to put it bluntly, unhinged, and what's more, ironic given that that's the manipulative argument. Ludinus tried to commune with Ruidus using a random crystalline artifact beneath Molaesmyr, centuries before Vax was born. He was going to do this regardless. If he couldn't get Vax, he'd get some other sliver of divinity, and what's more, it's been all but stated that Vax is not actually supposed to be leaving the Shadowfell to protect Keyleth, and is disobeying the Raven Queen directly (and it's been stated that this isn't necessarily helpful for Keyleth, who is trying to grieve and move on). So: Vax made his choices with the knowledge of what they entailed, is trying to bend if not break the conditions to which he agreed with full knowledge in a way that probably isn't healthy for him or Keyleth, and it's bananas to be like "wow look at how the Raven Queen made Ludinus try to free Predathos." Like. Even if she had tricked Vax, which she didn't, Ludinus literally could have just kept on his racist imperialistic longevitymaxxing beat indefinitely and left the moon well enough alone. The domino meme is a meme. I mean, while we're at it, couldn't we trace it back to Vecna instead, for killing Vax with Disintegrate in the first place, since had he not done so, Vax would have either survived that fight or would have been resurrected normally? Or perhaps it's Percy for triggering that trap. Or the Chroma Conclave for being the reason why Vox Machina was seeking the Deathwalker's Ward in the first place…but that only happened because Allura and Kima didn't kill Thordak but rather sealed him, and because a priestess of Melora cursed Raishan so that she had reason to ally with Thordak. We can go on indefinitely; the point is, to assign blame specifically to the Raven Queen when Ludinus literally did not have to do a goddamn thing with the moon is a fucking stupid take.

Below the cut, I talk root causes behind why people might decide the Raven Queen was unfair and come up with the above nonsensical argument to support that, since I don't think people say stupid things just to be stupid.

I think one root cause for this mentality of this is that the person in question wishes Vax hadn't died and is looking for someone to blame because they don't want to blame Matt Mercer and Liam O'Brien, even though yeah, that's who to blame. The thing is, as we learned in Campaign 2, character death is quite literally on the table. Had Vax not made his bargain, either in episode 1x103 or his original one during Vex's resurrection? He might have simply remained dead. Had he not given his life for Vex's, he was pursuing paladin anyway with the Everlight, and we don't know what she'd have required of him. But more importantly, for all people like to bring up a PC-centric perspective (which, in Actual Play, is inevitable) Vox Machina's frequent use of resurrection spells was in fact a massive privilege most people in Exandria do not have. And, unsurprisingly for a table whose DM made up rules specifically to make resurrection more difficult, the Critical Role cast is open to a story where death exists. I do not think it's an accident that resurrection has been made even harder in the subsequent campaigns. I also happen to think that Campaign 1 is a far richer and better story with Vax's death, given the other events that occurred. Had Vax not been the sort of person who would offer his life for a god to take in exchange for his sister? Sure, he'd possibly have lived to the end. But he was, and that's the character those people who wish he were still alive loved. If he wasn't that person, they wouldn't have liked him in the same way.

D&D is fundamentally about exceptional characters becoming more powerful, and will be focused on those characters. I do not think D&D supports a story about characters who reject all power. They can give up political power (the Mighty Nein, for the most part, do this - certainly more so than Vox Machina, and Bells Hells is yet to be seen) but they will progress in levels, which is power. Even if unwanted, it is power, because most people in the world are commoners with 5 HP and 10 in all their stats. With that said, a lot of people desperately want a subversion of this power narrative. Vax is, I think, the closest we get. In D&D you are not going to get a player character who finishes a campaign and remains Just Some Guy. But you can have someone like Vax, who doesn't have any interest in power (compare to Vex, who very much is about power and who gets a much happier ending) who nonetheless ends up on the Tal'Dorei Council and the favored of a god…and yet, in the end, his equally powerful friends still can do nothing to save him. I think a Power Bad story is overly simplistic, but "there are limits to power, and ultimately none of us have complete control" is not. I think Vax's death gives the story of Vox Machina a finality and heft that it would lack otherwise.

A second possible cause is the "What if the gods are BAD" argument. I'm going to be totally honest: I did not see this in the fandom until Campaign 3, and honestly, not until EXU Calamity in any widespread sense, which does lead me to believe that most people did not come up with it as a reasonable idea on their own until characters started saying it, because it is so plainly in conflict with the themes of Campaigns 1 and 2 that to make this argument would be obvious projection. Do I think a nuanced view of the gods as flawed beings, rather than perfection, is warranted? Absolutely. Mortals, too, are flawed, and we don't kill them all for it. I think Vax's story makes them uncomfortable because it makes it clear divine favor is not, as Ludinus Da'leth tries to argue, the gods just bestowing and withholding their gifts arbitrarily, but rather that divine favor comes with a divine responsibility as well. Clerics and paladins do not study the way wizards do; but they must live lives in service, whereas a wizard can shut the book at the end of the day and do whatever. Clerics and paladins have powers that can be taken away; a wizard does not. That's the fundamental concept behind the Age of Arcanum - wizards trying to get around the fundamental rules of this world! Vax's paladin powers came at a price. His options are guided, but also limited, by the oath he took. He is far more fettered than a wizard, in the end, and I think that fucks with the narrative of the gods cruelly withholding their gifts from all but a select few, so they instead make their gifts into manipulative punishments…while still, contradictorily, arguing that characters such as Laudna or Ashton or Imogen were denied the mercy of the gods. Now, setting aside the obvious, that these characters have their backstories because Marisha and Taliesin and Laura decided they would because this is a story, and one in which someone had a perfect life would be boring and so the gods didn't intervene with Laudna because Marisha Ray wanted to play a Sun Tree corpse (see next section), it really is fascinating to see how people who hate the Raven Queen so neatly align with Ludinus. It's fine for sorcerers to have inborn powers, apparently, and Ludinus actually has himself tried to ape druidic magic; it's not about power, it's just about that power source. Honestly, they're not even above the gods as a power source - Ludinus used the crystal beneath Molaesmyr seemingly unaware if it were of the Archheart, and he's demonstrably using Vax, and everyone loves a resurrection from the gods, but heaven forbid you pay someone for the work you feel yourself entitled to. (Entitlement: this will also be a theme throughout the rant portion of this post.)

As a brief subsection to this: the idea that bad things happen to good people because the other side of that coin is free will is an ancient theological and philosophical discussion, and one we are obviously not going to solve here, though it is a little depressing I have had multiple rewarding conversations on this topic, thanks to an academically rigorous religious education, starting from the tender age of 9, and a lot of adults on Tumblr seemingly can't engage on the level of my third-grade classmates. I think, however, it tells a truth that fits in well with the wizard (and entitled fan) desire to control everything. People are terrified of random forces. Cancer, for example, is a matter of probability. There are things that can increase your chances of developing cancer, to be sure, but the simile I used when I was taught about radiation-induced cancers was that of lottery tickets: if you buy more, you have a better chance; but sometimes someone who bought a single ticket "wins" and someone who bought a ticket weekly never does. By believing the gods of Exandria are on trial for not intervening with every little hardship or for not taking Vax precisely as he intended, they reveal a profound terror of random chance and of the free will of people who are not them. Which is very funny when you consider we're watching Actual Play, where random chance is a deliberately induced element. I think the takeaway of all of this is "I think some of you guys are really mad this is a D&D game." But let's continue.

The third, and honestly most likely cause, is honestly sort of a continuation of the first but not centered around Vax so much as just a general, in my opinion deeply childish discomfort of any sort of tragedy or unhappiness in fiction. I've noticed this a lot lately, and I am not a cultural critic and don't have a high enough level view to pretend to be one, but as others have noted a lot of people seem affronted when whatever show they are currently watching does not meet their specific standards of "comfort media" or "hopepunk." It's a self-infantilization I don't care for, and it's certainly not limited to the CR fandom (see: any grown-ass adult passionately defending a choice to only watch children's cartoons and only read YA) or even fandom at all (see: the baffling popularity of the Mr. Rogers "look for the helpers" line which was intended for anxious young children, not for adults who can and should be the helpers). It really came into focus for me with CR when people referred to both EXU Calamity and to Candela Obscura's Circle of Needle and Thread as specifically "hopeless." They are, to me, deeply hopeful series. They are sad, and tragic, and many characters do not get a happy ending, but they are ultimately about how some people will endure, and will live on and find meaning after great loss. Calamity explicitly states that because of the actions of the heroes, while devastation will occur, total annihilation is mitigated. It's like the adage of how courage only means something in the face of fear; hope only means something in the face of darkness. Happy and fluffy tales are not hopeful; they are merely not things that require you to have hope. The root word of catharsis is that of cleansing and purgation and it originally related to physical excretion - cathartic stories are about getting those complicated and ugly emotions and fears out and feeling better for it by briefly feeling, perhaps, worse! Now, again, this has worsened with Vax's story with time. Shortly after Campaign 1, it was very common to see stories where Vex or Keyleth were utterly distraught, indefinitely, but those at least were engaging with grief, even if in a very shallow and unproductive way. But this has morphed into this idea that the fact that a work of fiction might make you even feel sadness makes it bad, and wrong, and hopeless, and the machinations of a cruel and heartless god. Which brings me back to the entitlement narrative: it's really as simple as "the story didn't give me what I wanted (whether that was a happy ending for Vax, or for Keyleth, or just a lack of sadness generally, or a narrative about the gods that validates my personal beliefs, or a way to justify Ludinus's actions), so it is bad." Which again is about being in control of the narrative, which again, in D&D, is simply not something anyone can claim. Why are these people here watching a D&D game? I don't know.

So that's really it: on a basic level, if you think the Raven Queen is unfair, you are profoundly ignorant of canon, so I'm already going to have to fact check anything you cite (if you cite at all), but there's a much deeper refusal to meet stories where they are and expand one's own comfort zone at play, and that means any analysis will never consider the possibility that your pre-existing beliefs were wrong (absolutely crucial in meta). You will always play it too safe and be uninspired and reactionary because the alternative is uncertainty and fear. I think a refusal to embrace tragedy in fiction is itself a profound tragedy; that is someone who is terrified to believe that life goes on.

[kitkatopinions]

When people talk about how "rwde is mad that RWBY subverts expectations" I wonder how much of what's considered subverting expectations is actually ignoring set up, doing things out of nowhere, and actually doing a popular and very much so expected thing.

Like don't get me wrong, I do think sometimes people have ideas for what RWBY should've been and then think that it was more set up then it actually was. Like, people who took Blake saying she grew up outside the kingdoms and had to learn to fight to mean "I am an orphan and spent my whole life on the streets" that then got mad when Blake had pretty big house and parents. I might agree that RWBY perhaps shouldn't have given Blake the privileges they gave her specifically because of how they decided to use her to tell the other Faunus to stop being mean to their oppressors (though I'd sooner throw that part out than get rid of Blake being the daughter of a leader with a big house,) but I don't think it was pulling the rug out from under people the way some people do.

However, then you have things like Adam, where some people in RWDE are saying "he was set up as this interesting character who would be an ideological foil for Blake that cared about the cause and his people, and it felt like he'd be used as a way to talk about the injustice in the world of Remnant and then was reduced to nothing but a girl-obsessed hate sink two dimensional incel" and some anti-rwde people are hitting back with "you're just upset that the edgy bad-boy isn't getting redeemed, you just wanted Adam to be Zuko, but RWBY subverted your expectations by not redeeming him and instead giving Ilia the redemption arc, and giving Blake and Yang the sympathy."

And there's a lot to unpack, there. Including the fact that redemption arcs and sympathy aren't a zero-sum game in fiction and as someone who loves both redemption arcs and when characters get justified sympathy, it's frustrating when people act like there isn't enough redemption to go around as if it's a pie and Adam getting a piece of it means Ilia doesn't get any.

But more to the point, A. I at least have zero interest in Adam being a Zuko, because so much of Zuko's redemption arc hinged on Zuko confronting his and his people's role in oppression. Adam is oppressed. Zuko was scarred by an abusive father and banished from home, Adam was branded like cattle by a supremacist who he was working for as a child laborer. Although both are incredibly sympathetic, they're incredibly different. Whether or not the writers were trying to harken back to Zuko (which I believe they were,) they seemed to completely miss the differences between the two characters, and also deciding to 'subvert expectations' when the circumstances they themselves wrote were so different is a bad look at best. As if they couldn't have 'subverted expectations' with a different character like Cardin or Jacques or even Roman Torchwick, that wasn't a member of their in-universe oppressed minority group.

B. A member of an oppressed people group that's been hurt by the oppressors of the world and yet spends their time committing horrible cruel acts that force the heroes to stand against them is not some never before heard of thing. In fact, it's very common. A revolutionary supposedly fighting for equality that's actually hurting the people he's supposedly fighting for is a pretty regular every day thing. People have literally been criticizing how it's misused and usually racist propaganda (usually written by white people) since long before RWBY was even concepted. Adam isn't a proper subversion of anything, in my opinion, because you can't do the common thing and then say you subverted expectations by not doing the less common thing. Which in this case, the less common thing would actually be to make the oppressed person who had been branded and was shown fighting for the rights of his people to actually be a nuanced and complicated character who does deserve sympathy and could be redeemed.

C. It might just be me, but if you're going to 'subvert expectations' then the thing you write instead of the expectation had better be pretty freaking good. Because sometimes the expectation is there because it just works well. Like in a group of heroes, you expect them to develop a friendship. If people want to subvert expectations by instead having them hate each other, the story better be golden because the reason people tend to expect friendship is that it's usually much easier to connect to character dynamics when they actually like each other. If you're going to write a story where hope is a central theme, but you want to subvert expectations by making a sympathetic and cool character with a personal connection to the mains look like they're gonna get redeemed but then instead make them just the worst person imaginable, then you better do it super well and make him instead a great well-rounded nuanced and fun to hate villain. So not only do we have to pay attention to why the writers shouldn't have gone that route for Adam, we gotta look at the quality of what they did with it, and... Nope. It sucked. Adam was paper thin and horribly voice acted and honestly if he'd never attacked in V6 nothing would've really changed because it had no real consequences that couldn't have been better achieved in a different way, and introducing his branding scar in the same scene he got stabbed was purely for shock value, and nothing came of his character, and idk if Ruby ever even learned his name on screen or Weiss knew anything about him, and it was so badly done. If you're going to 'subvert expectations,' you gotta do it well, or people are always going to want the thing they expected in the beginning instead. Unfortunately, the RWBY writers didn't write Adam well at all. So I for one can't blame anyone for saying 'honestly, I wish they'd gone with the other thing.'

D. Back to 'sometimes when people say subverting expectations, they really mean ignored set up.' With Adam in particular, I do believe that he was always meant to be a bad guy who did bad cruel things from the very first trailer he appeared in, but that doesn't at all mean that set up wasn't ignored. From Blake talking about him as a mentor, to her crediting him with the Grimm masks, to the ideological differences, to Cinder literally having to threaten and coerce him into working with her on screen, the set up indicated that at the very least, this would be a complicated and nuanced 'villain with a point' and that point was going to matter and be addressed. The set up was that Cinder's coercion was going to be addressed and would matter. The set up was that Blake's complicated feelings about Adam and her desire to help her people and her later established care and compassion for Ilia (who may I remind people is at least just as bad as seasons 1-3 Adam in at least attempt if not execution,) would lead somewhere when it came to Adam. The set up was that seeing a child laborer literally branded on the face with the logo of WEISS'S COMPANY would lead to big discussions and some sort of recognition of just how bad the current system is and how bad the SDC itself as always been. And instead Weiss as far as we know never even heard about it and continued on being angry that she wasn't set to be CEO and calling her grandfather a hero and Blake was completely disinterested in attending a rally against Jacques Schnee and teased Weiss about her family owning half of Atlas. Like ???

E. Doing things out of nowhere is also not subverting expectations. In regards to Adam, this looks like randomly making him totally obsessed with Blake enough that he stalks her for weeks when he literally let her go repeatedly before that. Doing things out of nowhere is making Adam not care an ounce about his people in order to do whatever Salem says when we saw him reject Cinder outright and need to be coerced with threats to his people. Those aren't subverting expectations, that's just doing one thing and then retconning the character to do something out of character.

This post turned out to be mostly about Adam, but there's tons of examples of this, like people saying RWDE are mad that the writers 'subverted expectations' by making Ironwood turn evil when we were sitting there like 'the fact that he wasn't evil was subverting expectations in the first place! And they had to throw V3 out the window to get where they were in V8! And it was super badly done!' People just throw around 'subverting expectations' when it comes to RWBY because it sounds a lot better than 'flying by the seats of their pants doing whatever pops into their heads with no care or consideration towards set-up or emotional pay off' but that's it, that's what the RWBY writers seem to do. When I expect something to happen in RWBY, it's because it's the natural thing that makes sense to happen, and in their supposed effort to 'subvert expectations,' the writers instead made a show with no consequences where you can't expect the writers to make anything that happens matter and you can't trust what's in the show because the writers might say sike and retcon it. It's endlessly frustrating to be like 'hey was any of what was in the show going to matter' and then have people say 'you're just mad because RWBY subverted your expectations.' RWBY subverted my expectation that the show would be good, how about that?

You know, if the show actually was interested in subverting expectations, Jaune wouldn't be in the show nearly as much and he'd be more gender-non-conforming and be a support healer role instead of the man now with like twenty years of experience on the mains who always has his trauma get plenty of focus and gets away with screaming in Ruby's face that she's responsible for all bad things while he mourns the three different women that were shoved in the fridge for the sake of his character development. They could've started with making the white straight cis able-bodied not-faunus man actually not be a basic underdog-protagonist turned Michael-Scarn-esque tragic hero that Weiss lusts after, but whoops. Like what am I supposed to think, that they're super interested in subverting expectations for the sake of women when Jaune is right there guzzling up screen time? Nah babes.

(Before someone comes in here talking about Adam-obsessed fan boys, I do not even like Adam, canon Adam is not only gross but far too two-dimensional for me to even enjoy, and my own ideas for rewrites involve me boiling Adam down to a concept and building him up again as if he was a different character as much 'Adam' as Ruby is Red Riding Hood. Nobody accuse me of being an Adam-obsessed dudebro or I will lose it. Because that's another thing that a lot of anti-RWDE people seem to do, is decide that the only reason anyone would ever talk about problems with Adam is because they're an obsessed incel man. And meanwhile I'm over here as a bi-women who dislikes Adam partially because he reminds me of my controlling 'my happiness is your responsibility' ex-boyfriend who we - long story - thought might've stabbed someone with a sword once. So yeah, not an Adam fanboy lol.)

[bioethicists]

responding to this with my shitty redaction because i'm not comfortable posting obvious bait with people's names in them (particularly dead names) but i just wanted to point out the ways in which this ask is prototypical bait written to purposefully generate drama or controversy (idk if this is in a kiwifarms trolling with right wing motives sense or an 'i love drama' person) by trying to appeal to online leftist culture/the fear of being 'problematic'. i see ppl fall for this constantly + i need people to start learning to recognize the signs instead of either engaging or using this as evidence that leftists are stupid/petty/hypocritical (which many of us are, but in much less amusing ways, unfortunately)

the implication that there is a single founder of the "neurodiversity movement" + that evoking this movement at all (which i don't do + i think it's actually pretty evident that my politics are distinct from the much more bioessentialist politics of those who prefer that term, which is part of what led me to conclude that this is a copypasta) is supporting the founder. tracing a broad social concept to a single individual, then disparaging that individual as morally unsound (by evoking other explosive, petty pieces of discourse, like baeddalism + transandrophobia) in order to provoke doubt, fear or anger. demonstrates a hope that leftists will flinch away from anything associated with anyone 'problematic' without applying any critical thinking.

misrepresenting complex events (or fabricating them entirely- idk if these things happened + i simply couldn't care enough to find out) in a way that hits the pressure points of performative activism (she's being mean to an autistic person! other people of color agree with me! this other person is anti physically disabled people!) while also betraying reactionary opinions through language use/implications (claiming to care about 'transandrophobia' yet deadnaming someone? claiming to care about specific events at specific autism conferences but using terms like "severely autistic"? saying you have spoken to "Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, American Indians" lmao did you type this out based on census checkboxes from the 70s?). the author of this ask is clearly not a member of the activist communities they claim to be from because they accidentally slip into the speech conventions + opinions of a kiwifarms/4chan loser who does a lot of hatereading. this one did a good job of hitting the bingo card of divisive intracommunity issues rn- great research skills, bud! put them to better use <3

reframing reactionary beliefs using leftist concepts. this works because many of us do not have a foundational politic outside of "well, i want to be good, so I'm going to support the things that other people i trust say are good". which doesn't make you bad (there is no good or bad! learn this now + quick, if you really want to play a part in building a better world) but it makes you easy to manipulate + unlikely to be capable of meaningful change. notice that the claims this ask is asserting are, at their core, "people make up microaggressions to cause problems when really they could easily suck it up" + "people fake disabilities and being trans for attention". these are reactionary concerns, no matter how artfully they are dressed in social justice language. kiwifarms in particular was very, very good at this- they loved finding the people they stalked to be racist, homophobic, ableist, etc, not because they thought those things were wrong (it was their hobby to be these things!) but because they delighted in identifying hypocrisy, stirring up drama, + destroying people's reputations.

this is hard to explain bcuz i blacked out the names, but if you have a passing familiarity with fascist/reactionary online spaces, particularly the history of kiwifarms, you will know that reactionaries have their own 'pet leftists', just like we have our 'pet fascists' (shapiro, alex jones, tucker carlson, etc). that is, ppl they obsessively follow, harass, + scrutinize + come to believe are representative of everything that we believe. these ppl are rarely ppl who are actually prominent in our online spaces but online reactionaries often believe we are just as obsessed with these people as they are, but as unquestioned paragons of virtue + brilliance. namedropping these ppl is often an accidental tip of the hat, particularly when the ppl aren't on tumblr, haven't been a topic of community discussion for quite some time, or run in a different circle than us (reactionaries don't understand that there are actually thousands of leftist social groups which have very little overlap with some others- pronouns in bio does not mean someone knows or cares about contrapoints, for instance)

tl;dr this ask is a fantastic example of the rhetorical features bait that someone might actually take seriously.

[hecateslore]

housekeeping and things!

Sooo you can't send in anonymous asks anymore,

So say thank you to that dumbass bitch who keeps coming into my inbox and harassing me about my posts from months ago. I still stand on what I said, I don't agree with dub-con, if that's your shit; cool. Don't do it around me though. Yes some people in this fandom are racist asf (if you take this as a pesonal hit, oooooohhh I got something to tell youuuuuuu!) and are still mad about the whole bimbo situation. I gave a guide-line on how to make your X Reader fic's more inclusive, some people got heated and sent think-pieces defending on why we should write our own fic's but it's supposed to be X reader but whatever.

To sum it all up: You can't have an opinion in this fandom or if you do, you have to be extremely sweet about it. If this fandom makes you feel uncomfortable about anything, just be quiet cause you're in the wrong. (Sarcasm)

Supervisor!Simon: I'm gonna try to have an upload schedule. I have way more free time these days lmfao. I also have other WIP's that I'm trying to get to, so, most of the time my uploads for OfficeRomance are probably gonna be a couple of days apart.

Papa!Simon: I'm still taking asks! so go ahead and ask whatever you want. Same thing with Olderboyfriend!Simon

If I don't answer your ask right away, it's probably because I genuinely can't put what you're asking into a story. Sometimes my brain doesn't work the way I wish it would lol.

Also if you just want to get in the tag-list for OfficeRomance, let me know in my inbox! just be like ' Yourusername, for office romance.'

Some people's tags aren't working and they haven't been working for sometime, and I genuinely don't know how to fix it or what to do, so if anyone knows how to deal with that, can you let me know lmfao!

Alright that's all I got for now. 💋

[thatdebaterguy]

Forcing Beliefs

I saw this post here, and clearly they think what they're doing is spreading a good cause, but god they've done it so wrongly. The entire reason of wars stems from different opinions. Hamas believes Israel is some hellish creation that should be wiped off the face of the Earth, Israel thinks it has a right to exist. Saying that's a debate that actually exists genuinely blows my mind, that a country's right to be sovereign and exist peacefully is debated, because barely any Israel supporters say Palestine should be wiped out, but a scary amount of Palestine supporters call for the death of the state of Israel.

It's a debate. I believe strongly that my stance is correct based on morals, facts and evidence, but I don't deny people their right to oppose me or believe Hamas is in the right. Even if Hamas are literally terrorists, I'll let anyone debate that. Also using the 'silence is complicit' argument has never worked in history, when German's just wanting to get through their lives under the Nazi regime weren't out protesting, it doesn't mean they wanted the death of all Jews, they just didn't want to die a horrible death for voicing it. In fact, the way people push supporting Palestine is very similar to the way the nazis were, since many people who speak up and say Israel is in the right, could lose their jobs, their social status, friends, family, get told to kill themselves, just for a difference in opinion. If I was part of a certain fanbase, or even better, if I was queer, and started voicing my opinions for Israel, I'd be called a fake member of the community, a traitor, an oppressor, told to kill myself, and be isolated from that community entirely.

I can't speak for all Israel supporters, many of whom think differently to me, but if you support Palestine, I'll watch movies with you, joke with you, play games with you, go on walks with you, go to restaurants, as long as you aren't some brainwashed incredibly headstrong supporter who refuses to acknowledge any difference in opinion. If you can even just tolerate that one difference, I'll happily get along with you.

One thing they're doing though, they're linking things like supporting Palestine with supporting human rights. I had a teacher who ran the debating club I was part of who taught us the basis of logical argument. An argument can be logical without being true, and the structure went like this; IF you support human rights, AND supporting human rights makes you Pro-Palestine, therefore you MUST support Palestine. I'm a literal example of why that framework is logical, but untrue. I support human rights, innocent victims of war, victims of genocide, but not Palestine. It's a way to rope in more people to their cause, by trying to play on peoples emotions rather than logic, to make the idea of refusing to support Palestine, an alienating, racist, bigoted thing to do, which just isn't true. Don't let people bully you into having certain beliefs. Form your own logical argument that IS true and contains evidence, to base your opinions on. For example, IF genocide is defined by the purposeful extermination of people based on race, ethnicity or other categorical factors, AND you accept that definition of genocide, as it is in the dictionary, therefore you MUST accept that Israel is not committing genocide, because based on the very definition you said you believe, it simply isn't happening, and if you agreed with that definition, then still believe that Israel is committing genocide, then your opinion is illogical and factually wrong, so either you believe they aren't committing genocide or you change the definition of the word, OR try debate that Israel is attempting to wipe out all Palestinians, to which all I have to say is, IF Israel has a weapons arsenal that could wipe out Gaza in minutes, AND Israel is attempting the extermination of all Palestinians, therefore Gaza MUST currently be flattened to the ground. Which it isn't. It really isn't that hard to debunk. Don't get brainwashed.

[withacapitalp]

How come "books are books, shows are shows, do whatever you want w characters" doesn't apply to B*lly? Not trying to start drama, just genuinely want to understand. Is it because he's a bad guy I can't reshape him into something I'd like and ignore what's "canon?"

Oh boy Nonnie okay I'll try to be really clear but it probably won't come out super legible. I'm putting it under a read more because I don't wanna clog up my dash w a long explanation (which knowing me it's going to end up being) I also want to say that all of this is MY opinion. I'm no one's ultimate judge, I'm just a guy on the internet who writes stories.

All that to say, this is why I think that fundamentally the idea that Eddie's sexuality and Billy's racism can be manipulated in fandom on the same level is really flawed.

Overall I think that the point of fan fiction is personal enjoyment. Ultimately you're creating something with yourself as the audience in mind. If not, then I don't really get it. So, for you, maybe it can mean that. Do I personally agree? No, but I can't stop anyone from creating something and putting it online. That's the whole point of ao3, no bars, no barriers. When you start putting that kind of wall in place, a slippery slope starts to form, so even if I would never personally partake in some forms of fanfic, I get why it's important to have a place where any kind of fic can exist. Back button exists for a reason, block button exists for a reason, curate your own online experience.

I'm not gonna be the person who says like if you like Billy you're a garbage person, because like that just isn't true? The two aren't automatically associated. Do I think that people who want to erase that part of Billy should maybe examine that urge? Yeah, but I think we all need to look inside and see where systematic racism might make us think things are more acceptable than they should be. I also can't understand people who want to give Vecna a redemption arc, or the people who think Sn*pe was just misunderstood. Regardless, we're all works in progress, and 90% of people to me are capable of learning more and growing and seeing where they might be working with a bias. I know I definitely have my own too.

I personally just will not give him redemption of any form or reshape him, because to do so seems to be disrespectful from my point of view to real life people. I'm not a person of color, Billy's racism is at the forefront of his character, so for me to reshape that and erase it in a fanfic feels like I would be ignoring a serious thing and pretending like that never happened, when it exists in our society in a major way. There isn't a point where Billy's racism ever gets resolved. In fact, the whole thing gets dropped completely in s3 which seems like a really terrible oversight by the Duffers. It's used as a plot point when it was convenient, which is messy and wrong.

But All of that is just background to your real question here which I believe is this-

Why is it okay to change a character's sexuality, but not their bigotry?

For me, I don't really like to equate the two? I think that the idea that someone's sexuality is a 'flaw' that needs to be reshaped is kinda problematic, and we also don't actually know Eddie's sexuality. Everyone can say what they think till the cows come home, but at no point did we get 'Eddie is confirmed gay, straight, bi, etc. etc.' EVERY single interpretation of Eddie's sexuality is someone shaping canon as they see fit right now.

With Billy he is confirmed racist. He is 100% undoubtedly a racist. Not even someone who used to be racist who learned and repented. He was always racist and tried to commit a hate crime against Lucas (I would argue that he did, because holding a twelve year old up against a wall and threatening to kill them because they're black and they dared to want to get to know your sister feels like a hate crime to me) The only reason he didn't seriously hurt Lucas was the fact that Steve stepped in. That's it. He was going to assault a child for his race.

To compare ignoring that to playing with a character's sexuality feels....mm I just strongly don't agree. I don't exactly have words to explain, but I really don't.

I think there are things you can change about characters easily. You can change their sexualities, their ages, their genders, their backstories, but to fundamentally erase something like that just doesn't line up for me.

No call out here Nonnie, I appreciate that you wanted to ask and be open, but this is my question for people who want to change Billy that way- What is it about Billy that is so compelling that it feels necessary to change that part of him? Why is Billy the character you *need* to write for?

Jonathan is a fantastic big brother who has a ton of issues and was abused by his father. If you're having the hankering to try and examine a flawed big brother, he's right there.

Eddie is an outcast (and strongly implied that he comes from an abusive home) and if you're looking to try and write about that, he's right there.

Steve is the character that has actually GONE through the redemption people always try to give Billy. He said slurs and did bad things, and almost immediately went to make amends for them when he was able to acknowledge he did the wrong thing.

Billy never even apologized. He hadn't changed by the time he died, and no I don't think sacrificing himself was some major change. I think that a villain can be tragic without needing to retroactively make them a better person. Billy is a flawed and broken person. Yes that probably relates mostly to the way he was raised and the fact that his family was violent, but that doesn't excuse it. The Byers have an abusive home, and at no point does Jonathan act the way Billy does. I think they're really good foils to each other on what can happen with a big brother.

Anyways this was a really really long answer nonnie, but I hope I got it across why I really disagree with that stance. If anyone was offended or upset, know that wasn't my intenion, and feel free to let me know.

[radqueer-takes]

just saw someone say they saw a cisnazi flag and i was so excited until i looked it up and realized they were misinterpreting a cis-t.nazi flag

why are there flags for things like cisharmful and cisabuser but not for cishateful?

I don't want to say that my intrusive thoughts aren't actually racist because it doesn't feel true, my thoughts feel very racist. its similar to paraphilias, if you have P-OCD people say "dont worry, you aren't actually a pedophile!" and it doesn't help because you still feel like one.

my thoughts that i can't control make me feel cis.hateful rather than trans.hateful and i wish there was more willingness to make flags about that.

prejudice exists within the realm of thoughts making it very similar to paraphilias, and so many of the people saying "thought crimes aren't real" tend to not realize that offensive thoughts are also thoughts. and i don't want to be like this, i don't want to have these thoughts, I'm just trying to find some comfort here by saying that there's nothing wrong with the way my brain works.

!

Disclaimer. The owners of this blog may not agree with the opinions submitted. Remain civil in the notes, please & thank you.

[aterimber]

Hi!

I saw your posts in the tags about deleting all reblogs! I went thru your blog to see what was wrong and it looks like Zionists have been harassing you about antisemitism until you stop talking about Palestine.

In so sorry about that and don't fall for it!!

To clear down things up: nativenews isn't antisemitic. They're pro-Palestine and support a decolonized solution which Zionists HATE and that's why they're saying nativenews in antisemitic. Zionists are calling ANYONE who doesn't support Israel or a 2state solution an "unsafe" person for Jews which doesn't even make sense.

That'd be like if Americans said "you're anti-american and unsafe to my well being because you think native Americans deserve equal rights. Natives obviously just want rights to get revenge on us, how could you possibly suggest supporting them."

That doesn't even make sense and it's obviously just a racist excuse for Americans to keep their privileges over natives right?

Same exact situation is happening.

Jewish Zionists like to pretend Israel is a Jewish state but it isn't. There are Christians and Palestinians and Muslims who live in Israel too. It isn't specifically anti-Semitic to criticize a government, regardless of it's population.

People criticize the USA all the time and who are the only people that get mad about it? Patriots and racists who want to ignore their problems, right? And should we stop talking about those things cuz they're uncomfortable? Course not. They are the Reason we talk about it, right?

Zionists are the same. And the doubt they are planting in you about your voice is their goal. One less voice speaking up for Palestine helps theirs get louder.

Please don't delete your reblogs.

Nothing you've done has helped out Jewish lives in danger JUST because they are Jewish. And that's what antisemitism is.

Antisemitism is not when you have opinions Jewish zionists don't like or reblog from people that Jewish zionists don't like, I promise.

Hi Anon!

Thank-you for the message!

Also, thank-you very much for that explaination. What you said definitely makes sense to me. As I've said, I'm not very knowledgable about what has been happening and was only attempting to help, which it had been pointed out to me that was not what happened.

I'm attempting to learn so I can make informed decisions going forward and listen to the people who I was attempting to help.

To clear things up: I am against murder. Period. (Yes this includes animals, but that's not the point of this post)

If you are pro-murder, I do NOT agree with you. Unfollow me, block me, whatever.

This is why I felt sick when I was told the post I reblogged from NativeNews could possibly get people killed. That is why I went to the extreme lengths of taking down every other post I had reblogged mentioning Israel and Palenstine and wrote the apology post.

I was trying to spread information to stop people from dying, not contribute to it.

[ec2003]

The Reason Why Vivziepop Should Owe Up To Her Mistakes And Reasons Why I'm Defending Her

Viv' makes characters have ongoing insecurities and Blitz (one of the few) has been trying to connect to those he hurt, so why can't Viv do the same if she doesn't want anybody attacking her? I believe she's the same as Blitz. NO matter how much she tried to make herself feel better she still makes things worse by coping and, to me, is afraid of being alone and wrong. She was bullied when she was 17. I do feel sad for her, but still doesn't excuse her from being an asshole at times and I believe she was being taken advantage of. You don't have to agree with me, and it's understandable since everyone has different opinions, but despite her own flaws as a human being, I support her projects and yes, I'm a Vivziepop fan, but doesn't mean I can't criticize her. I don't think she came from a "rich white Latina girl" background either since she's known to criticize rich folks in Helluva Boss (despite having celebs), I believe she doesn't know how to socialize with people and change because she's too caught up in her own problems. Now, I respect people for their own shapes and sizes 100%, but I believe the reason why Viv's a bit fat in recent years is because she puts so much stress over herself. She should just have someone take over Twitter for her. As much as she frustrates me, I can't help it but feel sad for her. I've been in the same situation where I pushed people away with my own problems. As for being racist, I don't think that Viv was racist with the voodoo thing and was just being arrogant just because it seemed "edgy" and "cooler". As for being transphobic, I'm not gonna defend her on that one, yeah, she was being an asshole. I'm straight and have friends that are LGBTQ. Another thing I wanna point out is that she also has ADHD and before everyone argues, it's not an excuse for her actions, but I believe it's also part of the reason why she can't write at times and she has a hard time listening. As for CP on Zoophobia when it came to Addison and the teacher (since Addison is 17 and Gustav is 19), I'm gonna defend Viv on this one. Viv was born in Maryland and the age of consent in Maryland is 16 if you did your research. So, Viv was obeying the law, even if it doesn't feel right. As for ep 4, I at first thought they weren't gonna treat SA as a serious subject because at times, it's used for comedy and Viv does have this problem where it's only serious because she likes to pick favorites. Despite her hiring a fetish artist to be a storyboard artist in which I don't see a problem with that but she should still fire Raph for harassing a 15 year old, it was actually good. Here is the reason why I'm defending it. It's not perfect, but when watching this episode, I don't see it as Husk trying to tell Angel that his abuse doesn't matter and that he should suck it up. He called him a loser because Angel is coping with his feelings and made up a persona to hide from the fact that he is being abused in order to save himself considering that Valentino took advantage of him. Now, yeah, that did sounded fucked up for calling him a loser, but I believe that Husk wasn't comparing his situation to Angel which is way worse than Husk's, he doesn't want Angel to end up in a situation Husk was in because they both have been taking advantage of. The rape scenes are meant to be graphic and as for Viv adding a warning screen, in Amazon Prime, it will say Rated 18+ for drug use, sexual abuse, and so on. Only one episode was for 18 and up. You guys don't have to like Viv and I'm very sorry for those that were hurt, and obviously she deserves some of it, but I still don't want her to go down this path because I still see her as a human being. If I did encounter her in real life, I would really want to help her when the cameras are not rolling in hopes that she'll become a better person. It worked well with my friends, so maybe I can do the same with her. She inspired me to be an independent animator so in return, I make her feel better.

[bookshelfdreams]

No, I do not see Ed that way at all. In fact I believe so hard in an uneducated Ed to subvert that very thought. My believing he's illiterate is based entirely on what is shown in canon (including his mother's thoughts on their lot in life) and my own knowledge of that period in history and how common illiteracy was. I also just love the idea of this poor, uneducated, abused brown boy growing up to become the most feared pirate in the world without any help. He doesn't need Izzy. He doesn't need Stede (as much as he wants him). He don't need no education, to quote Pink Floyd. He's still Blackbeard and he made himself what he is, ability to read or not.

I get the issue and I hate the way the person brought it up in that comment with a burning passion. But in my opinion canon does not disprove the possibility of him being uneducated. We can happily disagree on that point though.

anon, can I ask you a question? Why is it so important to you to defend that headcanon to me?

I never addressed you personally - that is, we don't have this conversation because I criticized anything you wrote or made. I have no way of knowing if you explored this in any kind of fanwork, and if so, to what aim. If you feel like you're not part of the pattern I criticized, then I wasn't talking to you. Why is your attachment to that headcanon so strong that someone criticizing a general tendency in fandom makes you feel personally attacked?

You can argue until the cows come home that actually, thinking Ed lacks basic life-skills* just proves his strength and resilience (which, yk. Is not as good an argument as you may think it is). Or that it's a disability headcanon and that makes it fine. Or it's all in the name of historical accuracy. Or whatever. Like, I agree with your basic interpretation of him, and idk how often you want to hear that I believe you when you say you're not ill-intentioned.

That still doesn't erase the fact that it's part of a larger pattern of racist interpretations of ofmd, and that there is no real proof in canon either way**.

idk what to tell you. If it's fundamental to your worldview that Ed is illiterate, go on believing that, I won't stop you. But I also won't stop thinking that it's telling so many people accept this without question, because it is.

*before you take offense: literacy definitely is a basic life skill to us, the audience. And it would be a major handicap for a captain to be completely illiterate, too. I get your arguments about historical context and illiterate historical figures; but Ed isn't an actor, and his story is told in a modern context, to a modern audience. Things like historical accuracy or realism are pretty low on ofmd's list of priorities, anyway.

**Actually, scratch that, on his wanted poster, listed among his crimes, are improper citation, plagiarism, and tax evasion. All of which require literacy. There's your proof #confirmed

[hyperactivewhore]

there's something very juvenile and shallow about klaroline, in my opinion. part of it is because the narrative has never really focused on them unless its for fanservice. klayley, for example, have had ups and downs. they have worked together and worked against each other. they have made concessions for each other, they have killed for each other, and they have made choices for each other. their dynamic feels a bit more adult despite their immaturity at times, and of course part of that comes from their shared responsibility and their shared desire to put hope above themselves. it is through their circumstances that they regard each other differently and begin to treat each other like equals, which i find interesting. personally, klaroline just feels a bit stuck in the teen drama pit, which is why i do not find it nearly as compelling.

I also think it's because Caroline herself is a teenager. Yes, a vampire, but also a girl who's frozen at seventeen and will never grow up out of it, similar to Rebekah.

I'm not sure if it's been said in canon, but in tvd it's pretty clear that vampires are more or less mentally frozen with their physical age when they die. I don't know if that made sense, so: you die being twenty-two = you'll always be twenty-two mentally and emotionally, no matter how much you live as a vampire.

A clear example of that is Klaus, who died when he was twenty-one/twenty-two and despite having a thousand years, he clearly doesn't act like it. Or Rebekah, who in canon died being seventeen: she was clearly an insecure and neurotic teenager in tvd, until they made her act mature and feminist in The Originals (don't come at me for the last part, trying to steal a girl's boyfriend wasn't very feminist of her).

But back to the point, definitely. There was a lack of power between their relationship which Klaus always took advantage of, and Caroline did act like she couldn't stand his sight yet she didn't hesitate before accepting his attention or his gifts imo. I believe is because they weren't supposed to be romantically interwined at first, so the writers clearly didn't know how to handle them and they tried to make look romantic every time Klaus threatened her and snapped whenever she said something he didn't like.

Which failed, and yet fans bought it with their whole "Klaus is the only one who always put Caroline first." He didn't imo and that's final.

And Joseph and Kat, the actress of Bonnie, wanted their characters to have a romantic relationship yet Pl*c said a big no because she's a racist piece of shit. So with the way the writers jumped at the opportunity to not give us the romance between the black witch and the hybrid and instead had him "fall" for the baby vampire is disgusting. Klaus x Bonnie would have been a thousand of times better than any of his other relationships.

And now, going to klayley, I personally don't ship them anymore even though I did once. I agree about how they were more mature than klaroline, but the whole point of their dynamic is that they wouldn't have spared the other a glance if not for Hope. Hayley hated sleeping with him, as pointed out for their daughter in s5, but didn't regret it considering it brought her her hope (no pun intended lmao, or perhaps yes). Still, seeing the development in their relationship was quite beautiful despite everything: they loved each other as family, and one of the few things they agreed on was that Hope was their number one priority.

The whole conception about how Hope was made is strange though, hybrid and female werewolf = magic and most powerful baby as cliché as Renaissance from Twilight, that is three species without any logical explanation other than "we don't want any black witch (especially Bonnie Bennett) to be the most powerful" and "Klaus is a hybrid so he can procreate, despite the fact that he had been killed before having his werewolf side locked, therefore he couldn't get any woman pregnant".

I honestly love Hope, but her whole character revolves around being the most powerful and being the daughter of Klaus Mikaelson who is traumatized after her daddy and mommy died.

But going back to the point, definitely. Personally, I don't ship anyone with Klaus because I believe that to be seriously in a relationship with him, you must be as screwed up as him. It's the reason I don't believe Camille or Caroline could have been with him for a long time, and honestly he doesn't deserve either of those girls (I do though, give him to me.)

Either way, klamille and klaroline have problems of their own, but the fact that they resemble so much the sister he's always been obssesed with??? And the way Rebekah went for Marcel, the person that the show always said was the most like Klaus???

[valacirya]

Other people still speaking Quenya doesn't mean that the banning of a language is not a form of cultural genocide (you can't recognize the term when applied in the clearest sense in fiction but accuse ofc it's “everybody else” that doesnt know what it means and minimizing it). If you wanna invoke “real life” shit, languages that have been banned are still public knowledge, doesn't mean barring them wasn't an act in the name of eliminating that culture. The lang. survived *despite* his actions, not bc he was so accepting of them. And attempting to monopolize the common tongue or make your own tongue the lingua Franca of a place is still... xenophobic? It's xenophobia.

He wasn't "making" his language the lingua franca of Beleriand. It already was. Thingol was protecting his culture and people from being assimilated into the Noldor, who came with the express intent of establishing their own kingdoms and showed disdain towards the Sindar ("dark elf in his dark caves"). And like I said in the post, the ban was a way to enact some sort of consequence for the Noldor who murdered his brother's people, stole and burned their ships, lied to him about it and also disrespected him and his people. I really don't think he was trying to "eliminate" Noldorin culture. He told Finrod where to build Nargothrond because Finrod valued his input and showed respect and admiration for the Sindar. He honored Hurin and Morwen even though they were vassals of Fingolfin/Fingon. He doesn't prevent Cirdan or the Laiquendi from establishing positive relations with the Noldor, and he takes in Noldorin refugees after Nargothrond's fall, as well as Sindar who worked for the Noldor after Bragollach. The ban was his way of protecting Beleriandic/Sindarin culture, showing his authority, and yes, as a consequence for the Kinslaying.

I expressly did not "invoke real life shit" in my post because I don't feel comfortable using terms like racism to describe fantasy events (unless we're talking about authorial intent like how Tolkien wrote the Haradrim and Easterlings, which was undoubtedly racist). But if you want to go down that path, don't forget that Thingol and the Sindar were native to Beleriand, and the Noldor came to take and rule territory (among other reasons). Again, do not like applying this here and it's not an exact comparison but if we go with a simplified idea of colonizer/colonized, then the Sindar are in the position of the colonized. In a (limited) comparative hypothetical scenario, the ban is like if Mughal emperor Jahangir banned English in the subcontinent and told his subjects to speak only Persian/Hindi-Urdu with the East India Company. I see nothing wrong with that.

Also, not only did Quenya survive and remain accessible, in LotR it was still considered the "High Elven" tongue compared to Sindarin, so the ban didn't even make it taboo or associated with kinslaying.

To each their own though. I'm just defending my opinion, I don't expect you to agree with me.

[vicsy]

are u okay vic? sending love xx

(hateful ppl only have hate in their sad lives and try to bring everyone else down to their depressing level, don’t listen them!!)

frankly, anon? no, i am not.

and if you think about it, it's incredibly stupid to be all torn up because of a fucking sport I watch for general enjoyment but what else is new? i got into f1 when life hit the absolute possible low for me and it helped me immensely through it all, still does, and i found so many friends and wonderful people and i started writing again. it's pure fucking escapism coming back to bite me in the ass.

it hasn't been great to be an f1 fan lately because of events I don't need to be recapping - it's all out there in its disgusting glory, all over social media every single day. we're just being reminded of how rotten the core of this sport is and how high of a role money and power play. it's not new but disappointing nevertheless, considering there isn't much we can do to try and fix that.

but the hate among us, the fans? it's getting out of hand.

i will never go out on my way to police anyone's behaviour (it is never justified) but clearly there is a line between haha jokes and pure fucking malice. there is having genuine, critical conversations you can have (recently had one with my close friend and it was so refreshing to talk instead of secretly talk shit) and using this sport as a yardstick to measure someone's morals. it's been happening more and more, considering recent comments made by drivers in regards to the ongoing case that deals with harassment. that opened a can of worms that made ALL of us unhappy and even more disappointed, in one way of another. there is expressing genuine opinion and then there is being a hater because it's a trend.

are all Charles fans insane? are all Daniel fans delusional misogynists? are all Lando fans insufferable pricks? are all Max fans outright racists? are all Lewis fans stuck up? I could go on and same sentiment goes for each team on the grid. can we rightfully define someone by who they are a fan of? are we all required to make a statement each time a driver says/does something mindnumbingly stupid in order to, god forbid, not get cancelled along with that driver? can we genuinely bring a driver up without shitting on the other or is it not mutually exclusive?

there has been a barrage of hate towards several drivers and i get it, i do, it's sports, we're always gonna get like this. it's the whole spirit of it. i am not saying we can't root for someone and talk shit about the other. but again, i am seeing the waves of hate getting bigger and bolder, assumptions being made on the spot. people openly calling each other stupid over being fans or having a different opinion. in some ways any sense of compassion and critical thinking is dead in a ditch.

it wasn't like this before, if i am honest, but i am also a rather new fan. i am seeing all sorts of stuff on my dash both from people i don't know and from people i do know. it's a knee jerk reaction, to go and judge someone by posts and stuff, i know it but i made myself not do that. but i am just afraid of this ongoing trend of hate. i really am.

it just seems like there is no margin for error. your fave can either be squeaky clean, completely unproblematic, or they should be shot on sight. it doesn't matter if any of us acknowledge it or not. for some reason, it's a "you are what you eat" situation. and i find it rather unfair. you can separate person and a driver. two things can be true at once etc etc. none of it warrants wishing actual harm on other people.

so yeah, sorry for a rant. i'll stop now and, for what it's worth, i have been trying to unlearn the ways of "people pleasing", so here are just my thoughts that i don't think many will agree with but i don't want to bend under whatever popular opinions circulate here (especially by "big blogs"). i'd rather have people talk to me personally and i am always open to having a conversation, making friends and discussing opinions. those at the head of f1 management don't seem to do better but us tearing each other apart can also mean that we aren't doing any better, too. at least i personally think so. don't take my word as a generalized opinion.

thank you for the message, anon, i appreciate it. sorry again to be Like That. big hug!

[chouthechaoticraccoon]

About Me

My name is Morgan Alexander but I also go by Chou and Cedar

My pronouns are he/they, but neos are fine too :)

I am 15 and going on 16 though I’m somewhere above 60 in my heart

I am a… hoo boy, this is complicated. Um, I'm transnasculine and nonbinary as well as an oriented aroace (bi/omni cupio/quoiromantic graysexual, to be specific), so… gay af but also no, thank you. I’m also romance-positive and sex-neutral

I have a spicy brain (also known as Asperger's, ADHD, depression, anxiety, and MaDD with some gender dysphoria and unlabeled weirdness sprinkled in for good measure)

I also have a weird body (Type 1 diabetes, Celiac disease, Hashimoto’s, and chronic pain from joints and headaches and shit as well as some other symptoms)

My ethnicity is confusing because my family didn't keep good records, but I'm mixed (about ⅓-½ Blackfoot, ⅔-½ European) and white-passing

Very introverted, I like my alone time more than being around another person no matter who they are. Honestly, I might be a little socially anxious…

A dual high school and college student set to graduate in 2026

INTx-T (can be either INTJ or INTP)

Leo, I guess? Born August 16, so yeah. Not really into that astrology stuff, though

Converting to Reform Judaism as soon as I’m able to

Everybody deserves equal rights no matter skin color, religion, gender, orientation, physical appearance, or class. I'll respect your opinion as long as it doesn't disrespect anybody's existence. Don't agree with this, don't interact with me and get off my page

AKA transphobes, homophobes, ableists, racists, MAPs, zoophiles, etc aren’t welcome

Inbox and DMs are open, happy to make friends or mutuals (and might be open to a QPR or romantic relationship after I get to know you :) )

Asks are fine, and I love talking to people (online, that is) so just reach out if you want to know more about me

Don’t send me NSFW content. Like, ever. I may dabble in writing it (I write SA sometimes, varying from not-at-all to moderately graphic, but to be honest I only really write it so that there can be major hurt/comfort and I always depict it as a horrific act of violence and in some cases torture), but that doesn’t mean that I am interested in sexual content or comfortable with it. I am also a minor and asexual so it’s a big no-no

Artist (drawing, painting, and photography), comedian (stand-up), musician (piano, violin, vocals, and guitar), poet, and writer (original novels, short stories, and fanfics). Happy to do commissions on any of my chosen art forms, just DM me :)

I speak and am learning to speak ASL, English, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Latin, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, and Yiddish (I alphabetized lol)

I like pretty much all music except country (Jolene is an exception)

I have precisely 69 Spotify playlists and am very proud of it

I’m actually starting an alternative rock band called Blue Humor. I’ll let you know when our first album drops

I like a lot of music, with over 32 pages on my list of bands I like (actual thing, might post the link later but it’s a list of over 1200 bands that I enjoy and am constantly expanding)

My fandoms include Abbott Elementary, Adventure Time, A Series of Unfortunate Events, Aurora Cycle, Big Hero 6, Bo Burnham, Brooklyn 99, Cavetown, Coraline, Creepypasta, Danny Phantom, the DCU, Deadpool, Derry Girls, Disenchantment, Disney, Doctor Who, Downton Abbey, Good Omens, Game of Thrones, Gravity Falls, Gregor the Overlander, Heartstopper/Osemanverse, Hunger Games, I Am Not Okay With This, In a Heartbeat, Into/Across the Spider-Verse, IT (2017/19), Jamie Dodger, John Mulaney, Jurassic Park/World, Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous, Les Miserables, Lord of the Rings, Manifest, Marvel, Merlin, Monk, Monty Python, Mythic Quest, Narnia, Night at the Museum, NOAHFINNCE, Our Flag Means Death, Over the Garden Wall, Once Upon a Time, ParaNorman, Parks & Recreation, Red, White, and Royal Blue, Riordanverse (Percy Jackson, Heroes of Olympus, Kane Chronicles, Magnus Chase, etc), Shaaba, Sherlock (BBC), Star Trek, Star Wars, Steven Universe, Stranger Things, Supernatural, Ted Lasso, The Adam Project, The Afterparty, The Good Place, The Goldfinch, The Hollow, The Office, The Simpsons, The Sims, The X-Files, Tim Burton, The Owl House, The Umbrella Academy, TwoSet Violin, Wednesday, Wings of Fire, and Young Royals.

[old-school-butch]

hey im really glad you're speaking out on this israel/palestine issue. the public opinion is way, way too skewed in gazas favor.

ive been trying to talk to people irl about it, and my circle at least is mostly pro israel, and we all agree that what's going on on social media is insane.

absolutely no one is saying that all the information from gaza is coming from hamas, not to mention the defense of them. and i've never seen so much antisemitism just out in the open. the literal left is out here like "maybe hitler was right" and then call you "pro-genocide" when you call them out.

also, people are falling for propaganda and manipulation at degrees that, honestly, concern me.

Al Jazeera is the propaganda arm of the Qatari regime which, of course, is where the Hamas leadership lives. It's spent years developing a good reputation among lefties because it does - in truth - contain some analysis and information the Western media doesn't focus on. But it's part of a much larger information campaign that's happening that includes Russia and Iran and their social media outfits that aim to destabilize 'the West'. I've read AJ, just like I've read RT news - the Russian counterpart. They are designed to take a leftist argument and then put a spin on it - test the waters for more radical interpretations, push the limits and subtly distort perception. They have different outlets to massage the opinions on the right wing too. The goal is to make a middle ground impossible, and they are succeeding beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

Odds are good that we all follow at least one state actor - there was one here on tumblr that I had followed called, I believe, 'votingwhileblack' - which posted interesting critiques of the U.S. elections. But it was unmasked as a Russian agent, and I looked at the account contents more objectively. Much of it was very worthwhile analysis of U.S. attempts to disenfranchise people from their elections, but it was interspersed with subtle and not-so-subtle nudges - lots of 'don't bother voting, it's all rigged' material, Dems are just as bad as GOP, you can't trust the government at all, unless we do 'something radical' then nothing will ever change, all white people are racist and hatred is a natural response and so on. There are enough people who agree with these sentiments to spread that view, but by leading the conversation, it changes the tone. It makes anyone who disagrees with you the enemy, who is beyond negotiation, and so moderate solutions are discarded. The same is happening on the right and is why online discussion can be especially toxic and uninformative.

These campaigns have been running for years and these state agents have collected a huge amount of data points, floated a lot of arguments and learning which ones will stick. I can see this being applied to the current conflict.

The most striking to me is the word 'genocide' is used in a conflict with - even by Hamas' own claims - has 10,000 casualties. No one seems to question how many of those casualties are civilian and what portion are Hamas soldiers. Hamas claims to have 40,000 Hamas fighters in their 3-500km of tunnels. Hamas has fired thousands of rockets into Israel (and more of them land in Gaza than Israel to be honest, they're not good rockets) and Israel has dropped about 10,000 tonnes of bombs, including bunker busters that penetrate deep into the ground to destroy the tunnels. These are powerful explosions, so just compare that activity with the self-reported casualty count. It's actually quite low. Civilian deaths are always horrible to see, but there's absolutely no evidence that Israel is targeting civilians, much less killing them in large numbers.

But that's no problem if you follow the script - the genocide argument seamlessly shifts to the future, like Israel wants to occupy Gaza and/or expel all Gazans and that's really the genocide in play. I think the most likely long-term outcome is that Israel will occupy Gaza while they try to find a government that is willing to keep working to a 2 state solution, and they will stop employing Gazans - just as Egypt and Lebanon currently does - because it's quite likely that the setup for this operation was done by Gazan workers employed in Israel (the intelligence gathering on security weaknesses, the stolen IDF uniforms etc).

None of these outcomes are good for Palestinians, but they're also not genocide. Or all they all genocide? It's an easy pivot set up to be applied no matter what Israel does, the blame is always placed on Israel. And so by taking a real word with specific meaning, it's now going to be used as a vague accusation that can mean anything to advance whatever argument you want to make against whatever reality is taking place.

Honestly, even the word 'Palestinian' is somewhat complicated. Part of the difficulty of this conflict is this identity that refers to a nation without a state. The Arab desire for statehood in the region grew in the 20s and 30s but they didn't accept the UN proposal in 1948 and instead started (and lost) a war to control the entire territory. But they didn't also accept that loss, or claim Gaza and the West Bank as their own state. Instead, this idea is now the abstract 'Palestinian cause' that exists in almost a parallel world where Israel isn't real, the 1948 war is still happening and justice won't be done until Israel is gone and Palestine is created in its place.

Even 75 years later, there are millions of 'Palestinian refugees' who are the descendants of this movement living in Gaza and the West Bank. Yes, they are 'refugees' even while living in the land allocated for their self-governed state. They live in 'refugee camps' even though they are towns like anything else you'd build after living there for 75 years. But they don't want that land, they want Israel. Half of Jordanians are Palestinian but they don't want that, they want Israel. Southern Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah but they don't want that, they want Israel. Nowhere else in the world are the grandchildren of refugees still legally considered refugees except here, where they officially ask for the 'right of return' which is to 'return' to the land of Israel (and put an end to the Israeli state) and regain the property or land their ancestors held in 1948. Which should make it really clear why they will always be refugees until they take over the land of Israel - there's always the threat that they will give up on Israel and find some land elsewhere to set up a state. Having sustained this movement for so long, the surrounding Arab states now realize its a potential threat to their own stability, so it's important that threat needs to keep focused on Israel.

If I were Palestinian I would be so angry at the world, because while everyone wants to use you and says they support 'the cause', Palestinian nationalists don't have any real friends. Hamas is an Islamist group that wants to start a global jihad to establish an Islamic caliphate, ideally on a global basis. They started in Egypt as the Muslim Brotherhood and got kicked out to try again in Palestine. The blockades on Gaza make them rich, because they run smuggling operations through their tunnels and extort money from the Gazan population, and the poverty that creates also gives them footsoldiers for their war, because desperate people in a broken country will sign up for their militia just to get a paycheque. It's in their interests to keep Gazans impoverished and at war.

The Western leftists are drawn out to support 'the cause' to atone for the sins of Western colonialism, but that's really just to avoid addressing issues in their own countries. You can chant 'from the river to the sea' all you want, but you'd have to overthrow and occupy Israel to do that, which means killing or expelling every Jew living there and that's not going to happen without an army of about 10 million soldiers and/or a nuke. No one in the West is really signing up for that. they're just following the urge to feel morally superior without actually doing anything and that's just fine for Al Jazeera and all the social media bots working the information campaign of this war.

The liberals of the West are being rallied for 2 goals - to continue the goal of splintering the political climate in the U.S. and affecting U.S. elections. (I don't think young people are even aware of how often the Palestinian cause has been used to influence U.S. elections, going back to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in the 60s.)

The other goal is to pressure Israel to stop their campaign before Hamas is fully destroyed and return to the status quo - another ceasefire in a war that began in 1948 and still continues, punctuated by one failed ceasefire after another. It's simplified and autotuned so it sounds like a call for peace, but it's actually a call for the horrible state of limbo to continue, where the cycle can be endlessly repeated and 'the cause' is kept alive to be mobilized again when it's needed.

Palestinian radicals have acted as a state-within-a-state in Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt attempting numerous coups, civil war and assassinations, this is why they no longer accept any refugees from the area. But in the end, where do Palestinian people go? The world eggs them on, but isn't actually going to help resolve 'the cause'. After Israel was created, about 700,000 Jews were expelled from most Arab countries and Israel took them in, ergo they are no longer refugees. Why are Palestinians still stateless after 75 years? The fact that Palestinians don't have a homeland or statehood says a lot about how committed its neighbors are to actually helping them achieve that goal.

In order to resolve 'the cause', you either need to have a 2 state solution so Palestinians can stop being other people's pawns and just get on with their lives, or Hamas achieves its goals and run the world under Sharia law. Both Israel and Palestinian nationalists need to come to terms with the shitty hands they've been given and accept a solution that might not be their ideals, but is better than war that continues for another 3 generations and it's better than living in a global caliphate

Anyway, I've now made 3-4 posts about this conflict and received an insane number of messages about this, ranging from death threats and hostile responses to overly earnest counter-arguments to things I've never said, mostly from people I've never heard from before and aren't in my orbit. And I'm a middle-aged gender critical woman on backwater tumblr getting this level of interference - can you imagine what popular social media accounts are getting? 'All those' people you hear aren't people, they are state interests working in a coordinated campaign to influence the West. And this is how a pro-Palestinian march keeps getting steered to the occasional 'gas the Jews' chant, how Taliban and Al-Quaeda flags keep showing up at the marches, or calls for Biden to be removed from office for his support for Israel (bc Trump is the most useful idiot ever and these accounts want him for president). Hamas et. al. are my enemy, not Palestinians and not Israel. Focus on their actions and you can really cut through the deception to see the strategy. They have really clear goals about what they want, they're making excellent gains by confusing everyone else about what's in our best interests.