#like not all of it's bigotry but it sure is racist

[official-lucifers-child]

i am 100% being too serious about this, but there is something hilariously tragic in star wars fans perpetuating the same racist bigotry that the fascist imperialistic government in star wars enforced. like yeah sure it’s all completely made up alien species that don’t exist but like. do you not see the irony when you call them “aliens” and refer to the non-humanoid species with derogatory, belittling language? yeah it’s funny sometimes but it’s also like a blaring neon sign saying “i missed a lot of the significant messages of star wars despite the villain being a comically literal embodiment of a government based in dictatorship and murdering people who disagree with you” i’m not even that invested in this fandom, it’s just kind of sad really.

[scoobydoodean]

what is your opinion on people calling dean a heavy misogynist? i don’t agree personally but i feel like you could put my thoughts into better words

First, I have to chuckle a little at "heavy misogynist". Apparently, some people have begun to realize their fave is also guilty of misogyny crimes therefore they focus on making sure all of us know Sam is a light misogynist and Dean is a heavy misogynist. I just find that amusing.

This is a broad topic in a long show, so I won't endeavor to address every conceivable incidence of misogyny in the show I can think of. Instead, I'm going to create a few headings, at least one of which I think most criticism falls under.

Misogyny through the writing team

How Sam's misogyny gets a pass

Purity culture wank and Dean performing for Sam

How Dean actually treats women

Misogyny Through The Writing Team

First, Supernatural in of itself has issues with misogyny—as in, the writers of the show (including female writers) have issues with misogyny which they are happy to put on display semi-frequently. The show started in 2005, during a period of time where casual sexism was absolutely rampant on TV and no one thought anything about it. Female celebrities were regularly mocked and dragged on cable television in a way men simply weren't. They were called bitches and skanks and whores, and even "progressive" voices were inundated with casual misogyny and a fixation on purity culture (that largely applied to women only). Quite simply, I think fandom tends to be far too generous toward the writers, assuming certain things were "flaws" the writers intentionally wrote for the characters.

Put another way, there are some criticisms I prefer to level at the writing team rather than the characters, because what is written plainly reflects their ignorance in the real world rather than any intent to give Sam or Dean or any other character meaningful flaws—much less outright terrible ones that greatly harm their image. I'll give a few examples:

2.17 "Heart" makes me very uncomfortable as I sit here in 2024 and observe how Sam and Madison's romance develops. Me feeling that way does not mean the authorial intent of 2007 Sera Gamble was that I think to myself, "Man Sam comes off as uncomfortably rapey here." Hopelessly bad with women, perhaps—but not creepy.

In season 2, the writers begin to develop a running “joke” that Sam is afraid of not just clowns but also little people. The latter “joke” is (wisely) dropped fairly quickly. I have never criticized Sam for being afraid of little people, and I never will. It is readily apparent to me that this running "joke" reflects the ignorance of the writing team rather than an intent to give Sam meaningful or interesting flaws. Their intent was to use little people as the butt of a joke. I personally find this "joke" distasteful, and the idea of trying to take that and somehow "dunk" on Sam for the bigotry of the writers is more distasteful to me.

This is also how I feel about the running "joke" of a porn magazine and website (BAB) that solely features Asian women, that is put on display on multiple occasions during the show—first in 2.15 "Tall Tales", where the context is Gabriel infecting Sam's laptop with a virus from the website and making him believe Dean is responsible. BAB continues to make "Easter Egg" appearances in the show afterward. While often associated with Dean by fandom, the writers clearly think of BAB as a general, "funny" (it isn't), running gag with no more depth than "haha men like porn funny". An issue is stolen by a sentient teddy bear in 4.08 "Wishful Thinking". An issue is owned by the teenager who swapped bodies with Sam in 5.12 "Swap Meat". The Men of Letters also collected a considerable number of issues (8.17). I simply do not believe the writers thought for a single moment about BAB being a grossly racist gag. They most certainly did not write it as an intentional criticism of Dean from that perspective. It reflects nothing but their ignorance and racism here in the real world, and absolutely SHOULD be criticized from that REAL WORLD impact.

How Sam's misogyny largely gets a pass

One of the things I have not been able to stop noticing on this rewatch is Sam's issues with misogyny, and how often Sam's misogyny comes out in conflicts with Dean... starting from the very first episode of the show. Pretty much any time you get anything that feels like it might be a misogynist Dean or horn dog Dean moment... Sam either just has or is about to follow that up with some misogyny of his own.

In 1.01, right after entering Sam's apartment and meeting Jess, Dean mentions the Smurfs on Jess's shirt. We think to ourselves "Okay. A little misogynist... a little horn-dog Dean." Sam is happy to 1-Up that in two ways. First, Jess voices her intentions to go get dressed. Dean dismisses this, but while doing so, makes it clear he intends to leave the room with Sam, as he'd like to have a private conversation with Sam anyway. Sam objects, walking over to Jess and putting an arm around her, demanding Dean say whatever he needs to say right then and there. Maybe this would feel supportive if Jess wasn't in her underwear and hadn't just made it clear that now that the panic over a possible break-in is over, she'd really like to not be in her underwear in front of a stranger. But nope. By god she needs to stand there so Sam can prove a point about misogynist Dean! Second, Sam immediately (and I think quite erroneously) jumps to imply Dean is trying to cut Jess out of the conversation because she's... a woman? Or... something? He makes a big show of moving over Jess and standing beside her, saying anything Dean has to say, he can say in front of Jess. However, the moment Sam actually understands that Dean is here because John is missing on a hunting trip, he dismisses Jess to speak to Dean alone... because he's lying to her. By painting Dean erroneously with this "The men are talking" bullshit that had nothing to do with anything, Sam sets himself up to be viewed as a misogynist by his own framing of the situation and what it means to leave Jess out of a discussion. He also reveals his own alleged principles as a performative illusion. Despite being his intended life partner, Sam never intends to tell the woman he loves about his past as a hunter (he makes this clear later on the bridge). However, I think because Sam's actions usually co-occur with what gets called out more directly or more immediately recognized as misogyny from Dean (should have gotten him for the Smurf's comment, Sam!) Sam's misogyny often flies under the radar... and he's really... pretty bad.

I spoke here at length about how Sam tends to look down on women who interact with Dean (often before meeting them). There is absolutely an intersection with purity culture here and there's discussion in that thread about that as well, and whether this is a "2000s writers" issue or intentionally written flaws.

In 1.06, Sam cuts Dean off before Dean can accept an offered beer from Rebecca, but then as soon as Sam needs Rebecca out of the room, Sam asks her to not just bring them those beers... but also fix them sandwiches. Rebecca says, "What do you think this is, Hooters?" and Dean mumbles, "I wish" and we somehow lose sight of the fact that Sam literally just asked a woman to make him sandwiches which is possibly the number one misogynist man trope. Sam vaguely suggests Dean is a misogynist in 1.19 for nudging Sam to go on a date with Sarah Blake and possibly get information on the case, because that would be "using" her, but Sam wants to "use" Meg Masters in 1.22 and he wants to "use" Ruby to get what he wants, and when he said getting information from women was "Dean's job", he was also showing he was perfectly willing to use Dean and Sarah—he just doesn't want to get his hands dirty. It also comes to light in 1.19 that this is more about Sam's belief that he has to protect women from him, and Sarah herself ends up calling Sam antiquated for it.

I mentioned before that Sam doesn't plan to ever tell Jess who he is, and he makes the same plans with Amelia. Dean, meanwhile, confides in Cassie (it's what leads to their breakup) as well as Lisa.

I also have to mention... one of the funniest things I see deancrit samgirls in particular dig at time after time after time is Dean calling women "bitches". Never mind that Sam also calls women like Ruby and Bela bitches and calls a woman a bitch in front of Madison. Apparently none of these occurrences count because... *looks at notes* reasons. "Bitch" only counts as misogyny when it's Dean saying it. Also, let's not mention that Sam exclusively uses the word "bitch" to refer to women, while Dean also calls men and creatures bitches at different points so it isn't a gender specific insult for him.

Dean is definitely the "heavy" misogynist here... right? (I guess Sam is a "tall" misogynist instead).

Purity culture wank and Dean performing for Sam

Dean is commonly treated in fandom as if he's some kind of sex pest, and quite blatantly... he isn't one. Women almost always proposition Dean first (thejabberwock has sets on this here and here), but him asking people out also isn't inherently creepy in any way? Co-occurring with Sam's purity culture inundated judgements, we often see fandom's own as well, where Dean is some kind of sex pest because he... likes women? Or... because he has sex with consenting women who also want to have sex with him? Sometimes it's giving purity culture wank, sometimes it's given big radfem energy... but regardless, I sometimes see people talk about Dean like him so much as making eye contact with a woman is a violent sexual threat, and that's just laughable—as is denying the agency and autonomy of consenting women in general.

Even though it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, I'll also add that Dean... doesn't even actually have sex with the frequency that people talk about it? Dean has sex with Cassie—who was a long term partner of his in 1.13. He has sex with an actress in 2.18, and with Doublemint twins in 3.01. He has sex with a waitress 4.05. He plans to have sex with someone in 3.04, but turns her down when he realizes she's a prostitute who's working. This happens again in 10.07. I'm on season 4 of my rewatch and haven't been formally keeping up... but Dean is not actually having a lot of sex? We get implications he's been out partying a few times, and can maybe infer he scored, but we don't actually know.

I'm not a huge fan of performing Dean, in the sense that I think over the years I have seen it wildly overstated far too many times. But I do think Dean sometimes plays a character for Sam especially. Dean tells us this himself in 2.03 "Bloodlust" when confiding in Gordon. He never says so directly when it comes to the sexy sex guy doing sex persona, but his actions reveal him. One can think of plenty of examples of Dean saying horny stuff about women to Sam... but what about his actions?

How Dean actually treats women

Finally, there's how Dean actually treats women... and one would be very hard pressed to prove to me that Dean is sexist toward the women in his life. He's been close friends with multiple women and worked with women on hunts on multiple occasions and never once batted an eye. Jo in 2.06 is sometimes floated as an example, but it's actually discussed within the episode. Dean makes it very clear that he thinks women can do the job just fine. What he has a problem with is Jo's lack of experience and her romanticization of the job (especially during a period where Dean has fallen deeply out of love with the job himself). Everything we see as the series progresses supports Dean's assertion as truth. He's very good friends with Charlie, Jody, and Donna and doesn't go around excluding them on hunts while favoring men. That is not a thing that happens. While he initially tries to talk Claire out of the life (as he does everybody—this is not unique to women—see Adam for example) when she decides to hunt, he supports her regardless. There is nothing uniquely overprotective about how Dean treats women who hunt. End of. Dean has no illusions about traditional gender roles or any of that nonsense, jumping to clean dishes after dinner at Jody's and cooking breakfast for Lisa and Ben. (Our knowledge of Dean and the chores he does for his family already tell us this—but regardless). Even Demon Dean, an entity with no love for anyone and close to zero principles, targeted men who abuse and threaten women, and when Crowley ordered him to kill Lester's wife to fulfill the terms of Lester's demon deal, Demon Dean instead became so deeply annoyed with Lester's hypocrisy (he cheated on his wife first) and his assertion that it's different when men cheat, that he killed him and smiled while doing it.

So anyway, nope—I don't think Dean is a "heavy" misogynist.

[rjalker]

apparently a bunch more people are coming to the Flatland fandom / tags because of gravity falls so PSA:

Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, is public domain. It belongs to everyone. You do not need to buy a physical copy to read it. It has no copyright. It belongs to everyone.

It is free to read online. There are free audiobooks.

Here's another masterpost

Here's a link to it on Project Gutenberg where you can read and download it in many formats:

Here's an amazing free audiobook on the internet archive:

Here's where you can read the 2024 translation into modern English on the internet archive:

there are some typos that I need to fix but. I have covid I'm not doing that right now.

You can also read this translation here on tumblr at @flatland-a-2024-translation

There's an audiobook version on youtube as well now.

___

Here’s an animation from 1965

Here’s a stop motion film from 1982 in Italian with English subtitles

Here’s an animation from 2006

___

I do not recommend watching the free 2007 Flatland film which you can find on youtube until you've read or listened to the book unless you want to be really confused. The movie is an absurdist comedy. The book is a political satire. The movie is better appreciated after you've already read/listened to the book.

It also has a lot of flashing lights and motion-sickness inducing spinning. The timestamps for those can be found here. Please be careful if you have photosensitivity.

do not spend money on Flatland until you already know you like it. you do not need to spend money at all. It's public domain. it belongs to all of us.

Very important edit: The creator of the 2007 film that's free on youtube, Ladd Ehlinger is an extremely racist and misogynistic conservative. He made a political ad so blatantly racist and sexist that youtube has literally resstricted it, so that you can't share the link outside the site. Simply google his name and you will see dozens upon dozens of articles about how bigoted he is.,

Please be aware of what kind of person made that movie when you watch it. His bigotry is baked into the movie, and is why he refused to actually do anything with the original political commentary from the book.

You are not a bad person if you already watched the movie and enjoyed it, but you do need to be aware of what kind of person made it and how that affected the movie, and make sure others are warned.

[genderkoolaid]

Hi. You always post a lot of info so I'm wondering if you might be able to help me. Is there a difference between radfems and TERFs? Are they both bad? If so, why are they bad? Are there any dog whistles to look out for when it comes to these groups? Please ignore this if it makes you uncomfortable. I've seen a lot of people pointing out that they're bad, but never really saying why. I want to make sure I follow intersectional feminism and not those groups.

Radical feminism is the name of a branch of feminism. It originally got its name because it advocated for extreme changes to society to address female oppression, but developed into a specific worldview which I (off the top of my head) would define by certain traits:

Oppositional sexism. Men and women (or "males" and "females") are fundamentally opposed. Oftentimes this is bioessentialist, arguing that this opposite comes from biology, but it may also be framed as a political necessity; a radfem might argue that gender and sex are fake BUT we need male vs female as political identities in order to identify our "allies" and "enemies". Regardless, males and females are physically distinct and political enemies. You can tell a man from a woman, either from their body or their behavior, the two categories cannot overlap, and no other gender/sex-labels are relevant.

Fatalistic perspectives on patriarchy. Not only are males and females opposed, but this cannot be changed. This may be bioessentialist (the opposition comes from something in our nature, which cannot change) or gender-essentialist (the opposition comes from socialization which occurs as a child due to outside pressure and/or internal gender identity, and cannot change.) Focus is not placed on an ideal future where men and women are equals and social partners. Instead, there is a sense that there is no way to truly have a society with men and women where males do not oppress females, or try to. Sometimes this is more implicit and other times you have people who explicitly believe in creating & enforcing female-only societies.

Misogyny as the source of all oppression, or at least the most important & the one people should identity themselves as before anything else. Those who call themselves intersectional generally only really care about other issues to the extent that they affect women in some way. Part of the downfall of the original radical feminists was the fact that the dominant groups were upper-class white women, who ignored racism and classism and silenced poor women & women of color, insisting that anti-racist and anti-classist action distracted from The Movement & that calling out other women's bigotry was anti-feminist.

A general suspicion of sexual desire and sex, often expressing itself as whorephobia (anti-sex work) and anti-kink attitudes, specifically under the argument that they are inherently misogynistic and abusive. Sex is associated with men and maleness, which again, are inherently the enemy. Sex WITH men, or with a person or object that could be construed as male, is especially bad.

The impetus to make your personal life As Feminist As Possible– "The personal is political." That isn't a bad slogan on its own (it's true), but with radical feminists it expresses itself as a high standard of Radfemmaxing. You should be celibate if you are attracted to men, or become a political lesbian, you shouldn't be masculine OR feminine (anti-butch & femme sentiment), you should reject makeup and shaving, you should cut off male relatives and even abort male fetuses– and you must identify with womanhood and femaleness, while rejecting any identity related to manhood and maleness. It's not just that you should examine your desires and choices and question why you feel the way you feel (again, this is a good thing). Radfems have the belief that they already know the correct answer to that Introspection, and if you come to any other conclusion than theirs (I like wearing makeup because it's fun, I want to be a man because it fits me), then it's taken as proof you are still brainwashed.

TERFS are trans-exclusive radfems. They believe that being trans is not real, or at least not healthy or an acceptable feminist stance. TERFs tend to use the language of "sex" and "males vs females." Many use the term "gender critical," meaning they see gender as fake and damaging, while sex is real and the proper platform for feminist analysis. I once saw a TERF define her stance as "it's not degrading because its feminine, its feminine because its degrading." They believe in things like autogynophilia and rapid onset gender dysphoria, and attribute transgender identity with sexual trauma, internalized homophobia and internalized misogyny.

TIRFs are trans inclusive. They believe that transgender feelings are natural and should be listened to and followed, and that feminism should take gender identity into account. However, they still have a "male vs female" worldview. They may argue that transgender men's internal gender feelings led them to internalize male socialization, while trans women internalized female socialization, meaning that all trans people's experiences with gender and misogyny align most with cis people who share their gender identity.

In both cases, anti-nonbinary exorsexism and intersexism are unavoidable. TERFs will label intersex people as "males/females with a disorder" and attribute nonbinary identity either to internalized misogyny (FTX) or to avoid being held accountable for male privilege (MTX). TIRFs similarly fail to acknowledge how someone's socialization can be affected by intersexism. MTX people are either trans women in denial or flamboyant cis men; FTX people are either trans men avoiding their privilege, or cis women avoiding their privilege*.

Not everyone who uses radical feminist arguments or shares the general perspective openly identified as radfem. There are many "cryptos" who purposefully obscure their political identity to spread radfem ideas in queer & feminist spaces. Other people adopt the general ideas of radical feminism without consciously identifying as one, because of cryptos and how pop feminism often adopts their flashier ideas. So it's important to understand these qualities as on a scale, with some versions being more subtle while others are explicit.

Radical feminism always reduces trans experiences (& experiences in general) to a simple, uncrossable binary, based either in gender or sex. Nuance and cros- or non-binary gender experiences are seen as anti-feminist and aligned with the patriarchy, if not part of a targeted plan to hurt feminist movements.

*the idea of "AFAB privilege" is. a thing in some people's analysis of transmisogyny.

[the-library-alcove]

Ironic Parallels

For all that the political Left likes to claim that they're without bias or bigotry, just existing as a Jew in Leftist spaces will quickly demonstrate otherwise. And for maximum irony, the patterns of systemic antisemitism on the Left don't mirror right-wing antisemitism. Instead, they mirror right-wing racism. Imperfectly, for sure, but the parallels between how the Right treats Black people and how the Left treats Jews are striking.

Discussions of systemic bigotry are deflected with Whataboutisms so that the instigating issue isn't addressed. For African-Americans, it's often "What about Black-on-Black crime?" and similar by the Right-Wing, and for Jews, it's "What about Israel?"

Alternatively, a prominent political advocacy organization is attacked and defamed in order to again deflect and dismiss. "BLM is violent and engages in riots!" or the usual libels against ACORN, and "Israel is fascist!" or the usual libels against AIPAC and the ADL.

At the same time, prominent dead members have their words cherrypicked to make people feel good about themselves and their treatment of that group. Contrast how MLK's "I had a dream!" speech is used by the Right-Wing with how Anne Frank's "I believe that people are fundamentally good at heart" is used by the Left.

On that same theme, token members are held up to deflect accusations of systemic bias. African-American right-wingers prove that the Right Isn't Racist, and Jewish Antizionists prove that the Left isn't antisemitic--or, conversely, the extremist members of the individual group are cherrypicked to "prove" that the whole group is like them.

Furthermore, laws are proposed or passed to disrupt cultural practices; people of African descent face bias for having natural hair, while Jews routinely face people proposing banning circumcision, kosher slaughter, or the keeping of an eruv. But, you see, they can't be biased, because they know all about that group... based on what they saw on TV/Movies/Wikipedia, so they know that the group can handle these laws and rules just "fine".

The targeted group are treated as having an unfair advantage in the racial hierarchy. Consider the parallels between a right-winger complaining about Affirmative Action, and a Left-Winger saying that, since "Jews are White and therefore privileged, antisemitism isn't real discrimination."

But as soon as one shows up in a space outside of where they "belong", they're treated with suspicion until proven that they're acceptable... if ever. A POC in a store is treated as a potential thief, and a Jew in public is automatically acceptable to interrogate if they're a "Zionist".

Consider also how historical revisionism is rife as well. For POC, slavery and imperialism are erased from textbooks, as well as the backlash against Critical Race Theory, the 1619 Project and more. Meanwhile for Jews, pretty much nothing exists in educational curriculums between the start of the Diaspora (assuming it's even mentioned) and the Holocaust, which is treated as an aberration of bigotry instead of the culmination of centuries of hate. Even the admission of the real history is treated as an unforgiveable sin. Black people were never mistreated or enslaved, but were Guest Workers. Jews never came from the Levant and are Just White People From Europe.

And that's before we even get into systemic disenfranchisement. The original "ghetto" was the Jewish ghetto of Venice, and Jews are still routinely discriminated against for hiring, just as POC are.

But at the same time, everyone knows that "Blacks always play the race card" and that "Jews always accuse people of antisemitism."

And so on and so forth.

They're not perfect parallels--and I'm not saying that they are--but they are striking parallels in behavior.

__

I drafted this in April 2023, and it's been sitting in my drafts ever since, as I didn't have the courage to post it.

But given the current SURGE in Leftist Antisemitism, I somehow don't care anymore.

[sage-nebula]

I know I already made one post about people being racist toward Ryan and especially Steven in the wake of the streamer announcement, but I thought I'd go ahead and make a little collection of commentary that shows exactly what I was talking about re: vilifying Ryan and Steven (men of color) while acting like Shane (white man) is an innocent victim.

So, on a post with screencaps showing the team talking about how they'll allow password sharing on the streamer, we have:

Reminder that this is what they actually looked like:

All smiles, including from Steven, who btw has talked on Pod Watcher about how he's had difficulty emoting his whole life and used to practice smiling growing up. So yes, his smile is small, but that doesn't make it less genuine, you assholes.

Another funny one considering Shane lives the exact same lifestyle that Ryan and Steven do. He blows money at a grocery store he doesn't like for weeks on end because he's not sure if he really likes it or not. He buys a ton of different fancy pencils to test them out because he had a whim about it. He upgrades his flights when he wants (such as for his and Sarah's wedding), he buys expensive pajamas from Ireland, he takes piano lessons. He has and uses the exact same amount of disposable cash as Ryan and Steven do, and has several podcast episodes in a row dedicated to his purchases, and yet you only focus on bashing Ryan and Steven for it because . . . ? Don't bother answering. We know the answer.

This is just a small sample of the comments that have been out there today. It's truly ugly. Even setting aside what Steven has done for Watcher (Ryan AND SHANE have made it clear Watcher would not exist without him managing the financials because they can't do it), he's a human being and he doesn't deserve the racist vitriol this fandom has spewed at him. He's already made it clear this is not his dream; if he walked after today's show of bigotry it wouldn't surprise me. I'd say the same for Ryan, but it IS his dream, so.

Regardless. Shane is a grown man and one of the founders of the company. You know damn well he agreed to this. Stop acting as if evil men of color forced your poor white fave into something he didn't want to do. It's fucking racist whether you're intending to be or not, and regardless of how stupid this decision was, Steven and Ryan are still real human beings who don't deserve racist backlash.

Be. Fucking. Better.

[slightlyobsessedwitheverything]

a breakdown of tommy kinard’s past appearances

so. like many of you, i’ve been getting a little bit tired of seeing the same “wait wasn’t tommy a racist/homophobe? why do we like him now?” posts for the last few weeks. so i wanted to do a small breakdown of every time he has previously appeared on screen, along with his action and inaction regarding the casual bigotry of the 118 under captain gerrard.

this is gunna be a long one boys so, strap in lol

season 3 episode 12: chim begins

i’m going to go in chronological order here rather than episodic order just for character development’s sake

tommy’s first appearance in this episode is about 11 minutes in, after the first commercial break. the current 118 are sitting down to dinner when chim arrives. tommy spots him and asks, “hey eli, you forget to tip the delivery guy?” i would say this could be a genuine question based on the fact that chim’s in his civvies, but he’s got his go bag that says “FIREFIGHTER” on his shoulder so. seems like he’s just being a smartass.

(*edit: it’s been pointed out to me that considering they had ordered chinese food, this could have been an instance of casual racism, and i am inclined to agree)

he’s not seen much during chim’s montage of just doin’ shit around the firehouse, until the point where the 118 come back covered in mud. tommy spots chim and asks him, “you still here?” again, just kind of general dickishness. not really anything to write home about.

a small kind of background tommy moment we get after chim’s montage is right as the team is returning from a call, and chim tries to tell them about the older couple who he helped earlier in the day.

tommy: what about that burger place?

gerrard: tommy, you know i hate that place

chim: hey guys, weirdest thing happened today… *he is ignored*

gerrard: hey, wasn’t your girlfriend supposed to come and cook us dinner?

tommy: uh, next tuesday.

gerrard: promise?

tommy: uh— uh, yes. yeah, i will promise…

now. i’m going to leave that up to interpretation, however i have opinions regarding that bit going forward. but! that’s ultimately not what this post is about, so perhaps another time.

the next scene is a pretty major one. chim is getting ready in the locker room, and tries to strike up a conversation with tommy when he walks in to gather some things (deodorant, toothbrush, soap it seems like, none of these details matter i just think they’re fun).

chim repeatedly tried to get tommy to open up to him about the things he likes, saying “tell me what your thing is and i’ll make it mine.” though, tommy just ignores him. we see a close up of him closing his eyes and sighing in exasperation.

chim asks, “…you just really don’t like me much, do you?” and tommy, for the first time, responds to chim’s questions with, “if i thought about you at all, honestly, i probably wouldn’t.” and he leaves.

later, after eli recruits chim to be a paramedic, they have a conversation regarding what he witnessed in the locker room between chim and tommy. eli tells him that it’s not personal, and that “in this job, friends die. funerals are held. they’re not going to just give you their friendship until you earn their respect. they’re not just protecting you, they’re protecting themselves.” and this ultimately makes sense with what we saw in tommy in that earlier scene. he didn’t really seem annoyed or upset at chim’s insistence to get to know him, just apprehensive mostly. he wasn’t cruel to him, and he hasn’t been. just… kind of a dick.

in the fire truck, on the way to the barn burner, tommy is sitting next to him and looks over at chim, as chim seems to be exhibiting signs of nervousness (this is his first real call as a firefighter after all)

(however, this is a moment where chim’s reality and his past start to bleed into each other so i am not sure how accurate this is to the moment.)

we don’t get much in the next scene aside from tommy’s presence at kevin’s funeral. when chim is ringing the bell, tommy is behind him and briefly looks toward chim, likely noticing how chim is attempting to hold himself together.

the next major scene is the call at the shopping mall, where there was some sort of structural collapse. based on the symptoms of the people that were in the mall, chim assumes there is a gas leak, which gerrard waves off. he calls for tommy over the radio, and receives no response.

chim has a realization that they’re dealing with a methane leak, and runs inside the mall to retrieve tommy.

just as the building explodes, chim runs out with tommy over his shoulder. though in this scene “tommy” is clearly a dummy prop and it is so fucking funny once you notice how floppy it is.

then we get probably the greatest scene in all of 911 where chim is in the waiting room waiting for news on tommy and reality starts to bleed into the flashback while “exit music (for a film)” by radiohead plays . it has pretty much nothing to do with this post i just wanted to say how much i LOVE this scene. anyway.

the penultimate scene of the episode starts off with chim in the locker room tucking in his shirt. tommy walks in and, with no preamble, says, “love actually, monster trucks, craft beer.”

chim realizes that this is a response to their last locker room interaction. he asks tommy how his head is feeling, tommy replies, “still fat, but clearer. you saved my life. thank you.” and shakes chimney’s hand, before pulling him into a hug. this is where their friendship begins.

in this episode, i didn’t notice anything that could really be construed as bigotry (see edit*), he was just kind of a dick at first and most of that can boil down to him being closed off and not wanting to open up before there’s a level of respect there.

(though, keep in mind i am white so there is a definite possibility that i could have missed something more racially motivated, however i didn't see anything glaring)

season 3 episode 9: hen begins

tommy’s first appearance (ever) is about 13 and a half minutes into the episode when captain gerrard introduces the team to their new “diversity hire” (after greeting her himself with a few blatantly misogynistic comments)

when tommy first sees hen, he smiles and asks “who’s this?”

when gerrard calls her a “diversity hire,” the smile leaves tommy’s face and he looks back at gerrard with somewhat of a blank expression, contrasted with sal deluca’s disbelieving smirk and comment of “for real?”

chimney then defends hen, gerrard walks away after saying they’re screwed. tommy once again looks between hen and gerrard before ultimately following him away from the railing.

it is not clear what exactly his reaction to hen joining the team actually is at that moment, whether he wanted to speak up like chim or express disdain like sal, as he remained silent.

at dinner, tommy asks sal what he and his girlfriend did the night previous, where the movie “twilight” comes up. sal makes a comment about kristen stewart being hot, and hen joins in thinking she found something in common with these guys to talk about, but sal ignores her and she walks away. (i think the writers may have genuinely forgotten kstew was only 17 in that movie but that’s neither here nor there)

tommy chimes in saying he “doesn’t get that” and that she’s “too brooding” for him, to which sal responds, “maybe you’re more of a team jacob kind of guy.”

tommy says he has no idea what that means, and chim clarifies that sal is insinuating that he’s gay.

sal laughs at this and at tommy’s reaction, and tommy jokingly blows him a kiss, smiles, and goes back to his food.

(here is a gifset of the scene)

chim then invites hen into the conversation by asking where she’s from. when he tells her he assumed she was an east coaster and that it was a compliment, tommy replies with “new york bitchiness is a compliment?” (score 1 for the misogyny bucket)

chim calls him out, and he just kind of huffs and looks at gerrard, but ultimately moves on.

tommy doesn’t really say or do much else in this scene besides sit silently while gerrard is sexist towards hen and hen stands her ground. in the end, sal looks toward tommy and nods his head in the direction of the kitchen. they both get up and leave the table.

nothing of note happens in the mudslide scene with tommy, most of the conflict is between hen and gerrard. the scene where gerrard makes her man behind as well. tommy is in the background and sees this happen, but says nothing. though, i also need to add that in these moments, chim does not say anything either.

the next scene tommy is in is when hen makes her announcement to the team about how she is not going anywhere.

i once again want to point out the difference in tommy vs sal in this scene. sal has his hands on his hips and his lips tight in a somewhat annoyed looking fashion, and he looks to the side where tommy is to gauge his reaction.

whereas tommy, has his arms folded and is looking down at the floor at first, before looking up towards hen. and while gerrard and chim have their arms crossed as well, i want to point out that tommy is holding one arm while the other sits around his waist. he looks a bit sheepish if i’m being honest, like he knows they’re about to be scolded.

when hen says for them to “see me as i see you, as a proud member of this department,” tommy turns to look behind him and makes eye contact with chim.

now, there’s not a whole lot i can glean from this interaction as is, but as we know from “chim begins,” tommy trusts chim so it’s possible he wants to get chim’s opinion. he seems to do this a lot i’ve noticed, looking between the people around him to gauge their reactions to what is going on.

nothing much of note for the car accident scene, HOWEVER. in the scene immediately after, sal and tommy address hen directly for the first time to give her some praise for her call on that scene. sal tells her “nice work yesterday,” and tommy tells her that they would have found the other car eventually, but eventually would have been too late.

hen states she “just got lucky,” to which sal responds, “screw that. you’re good,” and both he and tommy shake hen’s hand. tommy even gives her a light smack on the shoulder as he walks away and hen absolutely BEAMS.

then of course, hen is told that gerrard was removed from his position because his conduct was reported and “more than a few of your fellow firefighters have your back.” we know chim is absolutely one of them, and i can infer that based on tommy and sal’s reactions to hen’s speech and their interaction with her just before this scene, it is very likely they are as well.

in this episode, there were definitely some more moments of blatant bigotry in this episode, but other than the “new york bitchiness” line, tommy doesn’t really directly contribute to any of it. he seems to be more of a follower, constantly gauging how others feel and just playing along. complicity is still an issue of it’s own, do not get me wrong, but considering i keep seeing people say he made racist/homophobic comments, i feel like its a reasonable thing to point out.

season 3 episode 16: bobby begins again

tommy’s final on screen appearance begins with hen taking bets on how long the new captain will last. tommy asks hen to put him down for 4 weeks on credit, and they (hen, tommy, sal, and chim) banter a little. they all seem to have a pretty good relationship with each other at this point.

bobby pops out of the firetruck and places his own bet on himself, and tommy just kind of looks sheepish since they got called out.

to be real, tommy doesn’t do a whole lot in this episode either. most of the conflict is between bobby and sal. most of what we see is him in the background silently judging bobby’s lack of LA knowledge along with hen and chim. he does have some silly little moments during the chicken chase though.

(here's a great gifset of that scene)

bobby calls out to sal to talk to him after the restaurant fire, and sal keeps walking but tommy stops and waits, looking between bobby and sal.

sal says, “you’re a piece of work. you come in here with your nose in the air and your eyes looking down–” tommy interrupts sal and tells him to stop.

sal keeps digging into bobby, and tommy in the background, looks to chim and hen and shakes his head, seemingly telling them not to get in the middle of it.

sal says he has the skill to lead the 118, bobby retorts with, “but not the temperament.” sal then drops his bag and stomps toward bobby so he can get in his face. tommy moves to go after him, but chim gets between sal and bobby before anything can happen.

bobby fires sal, and tommy is just standing there with the rest of his team wondering what the hell happened.

we then have the bar scene! chim, hen, and tommy hanging out at the bar before bobby ends up joining them.

they have a good time and show off their scars to each other. tommy quotes fight club, chim laughs, bobby leaves to solve the arson.

(again, here's another gifset)

at the end we see a bit more of the team together, bobby starting to cook for them, and finally the scene of chim and hen popping out of the ambulance with balloons and a cake for tommy as he transfers to the 217. they all seem to be fairly close at this point.

(another gifset for good measure)

and other than chim calling on him for a water drop in 2x14, that’s about it until he returns in season 7.

in conclusion

to me, it seems like tommy is a bit of a follower and tends to just go along with what the people around him are doing, ESPECIALLY under gerrard. captain gerrard fostered a really toxic work environment and its no wonder others like sal were never really called out on their shit. and tommy mostly seemed to follow sal’s lead or stay quiet.

“chimney begins” takes place around 2006-ish, “hen begins” around 2008, and “bobby begins again” takes place around 2017 i believe. and between 2006 and 2024, based on what we see, its easy to see that tommy has indeed grown and changed many of his attitudes, especially when in a healthier work environment. now can we please stop acting like he’s this irredeemable piece of shit and see him for what he really is: a flawed person who grows and learns from others, like every other character on this show.

[lilbeanz]

hello beanz, hope you're doing well! do you have any useless worldbuilding headcanons or jodt facts which are utterly useless or very mildly useful to the plot?

Hello lovely💗 I'm doing well, and I hope the same for you!

And gah! This is such a good ask! Definitely a thinker, too 🤭

The Useful Headcanons:

• The Wizarding World is called the Wixen World because fuck the patriarchy. (And yes, I realise both "wizard" and "witch" can be perceived as gender neutral, but typically, wizards are male, and witches are female (ugh👎))

• There are more magical schools than just eLEvEn, because as a wise man once said:

Take it from Hermione and Draco in GS,ch4:

“There’s around fifty in all of Europe,” Hermione began.

“Another fifty in Asia,” Draco carried on.

“Several in the Americas.”

“A handful of smaller schools scattered across the Pacific Islands.”

“And near a hundred in Africa.”

• Generally, wix are not homophobic, transphobic, or racist. Their prejudice problems revolve around blood and magical creatures.

Historically speaking, the Victorian era really fucked up Muggle society. And, yes, there was homophobic/racist ideology pre-Victorian era (1600s - 1700s), but by then, the magic and muggle world was already at odds with each other (Statute of Secrecy was eatablished in 1692) -- why would purebloods concern themselves with such trivial Muggle bigotry?

• Which leads me to my next worldbuilding point; Paganism. Traditional witchcraft and its influences on both the Wixen and Muggle worlds. Pureblood families are known to celebrate the Wheel of the Year -- equinoxes and solstices etc... Paganism existed before the statute and still exists into the Muggle world of course, which is how Muggles have wicca and the craft. Why Wiccan Muggles gather at Stone Henge for the summer solstice and all sorts. It just makes sense 🤌✨️

• Wolfstar. That's it. That's the whole bullet point. Just. Wolfstar.

• In Pureblood society, there is an unspoken hierarchy. The Malfoys' circle consisted of the Goyles, the Crabbes, and the Notts (and other notable Death Eater names), as well as the Parkinsons, the Greengrasses, and many other blood purist sympathisers.

Draco grew up with Greg, Vince, Pansy, Daphne, and Theo. The coming war will surely test the strength of childhood bonds...

• The divide between Draco and his father means Draco is becoming his own person as opposed to following in his father's footsteps. Draco finds himself striving to be a little more like his mother, and a lot more like himself.

The fire of rebellion flourishes inside him, but how far can he go before the flames grow out of his control?

The Not So Useful & Sort of Silly Headcanons:

• Crabbe and Goyle are not as thick as some people (*cough* Harry *cough*) perceive. Vince is a Transfiguration whizz-kid & Greg enjoys art.

• Pansy Parkinson falls in love very easily, but also very quickly moves onto her next meal -- ah, her next fixation.

• Mad-Eye Moody enjoyed a very relaxed year of his retirement from 1994 to 1995, with absolutely no home intrusions or attacks from dark wix.

• Lucius Malfoy has an unhealthy obsession with white peacocks. Especially his prized darling, Bartholomew Armand Malfoy the Third.

• Dobby has a cupboard specifically for storing all of his socks at Hogwarts.

• Professor Burbage had a groovy flower-power phase in the 70s.

• Harry sometimes finds himself talking to Draco's embroidered portrait on the Black family tapestry at Grimmauld Place.

• Erik, Nikolaj, and Katrina embark on a journey across America after graduating from Durmstrang. In their travels, they may discover many things...

I'm sure there's more! But here's what I can think of off the top of my head! 🥰💕

[beta-therapy]

Female Political Views

A typical woman today identifies herself as liberal/feminist/progressive or some label along those lines. Try to remember the last time we had an election, and you didn’t see every female you follow on Instagram post about it the next day, where she would denounce hate, bigotry, etc. and praise the virtues of inclusivity, tolerance, love, and acceptance. What can we learn about female nature from these posts?

The common thread to these primarily female-led political movements is the placement of tolerance and inclusivity as the highest virtue. This makes sense at first glance because women are such gentle, loving creatures so of course they embrace tolerance and inclusivity as the most important values! It’s in their biology to be more people-oriented and agreeable than men. That’s why you always see a woman making sure not to offend anyone. She wants to be on everyone’s good side. She rejects a man as gently as possible. She says sorry and doesn’t want anyone to be mad at her. She gossips, but only to make sure she has the approval of the group and has the fewest enemies possible.

But what happens when her male friend, who she likes to rant to, but is beta, less sexually-experienced than her, and not attractive to her, wants to be more than friends? After all, he doesn’t get as much sex as the alpha males who she hooks up with, so it would be nice of her to make him feel included and allow him to be intimate with her.

But that is a hard boundary. The boundary of her country should be open to immigration, as she passionately articulates, because every human is equal, and borders are racist, so we should be tolerant and accept everybody. But the boundary of touching her body? Or flirting? No, not all humans are equal anymore. That boundary is only accessible to certain men. What is she supposed to do instead? Allow everyone to fuck her?

She will tell you the truth as gently as possible. She won’t tell you sex is only for alphas. She will say “I just really enjoy being your friend!” “I hope there’s no hard feelings,” or better yet she will just avoid the question coming up at all.

Don’t forget that women are hardwired to understand emotions and assess social situations far more sharply than men. She already knows you like her; she already knows you’re a lower status male; she already knows you struggle getting women to be intimate with you; and she’s making sure to avoid a situation where you think it’s okay to profess your love to her.

She really doesn’t want to hurt your feelings or make you mad at her. But at some point, you will have to understand the truth: that being nice and preaching inclusivity are good rules for how to act in general, but when it comes to the question of which men should a woman allow into her body, a harsh selection has to take place, and if you don’t get selected, it’s better to take the news with some dignity instead of being bitter about it.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

Aita for cooking Indian food?

(roommate and I are both white btw)

I, (21x), have been trying to expand the number of recipes I can cook. Recently, I got a recipe book of Indian recipes and I've been working my way through it trying and learn how to cook it properly. I batch cook once a week and freeze my meals so I have stuff made during the week, because I work nights and don't have time otherwise.

The thing is, my roommate (22x) who I'll call Leaf here, has been complaining every time I've cooked Indian food. Leaf is currently between jobs and is at home all the time, and they have been complaining that they can't go in the kitchen for ages after I cook because it's a "sensory overload". Now, normally I would be sensitive to this, but they've only complained when I've made Indian food, and it's been a wide range of stuff. It's not like I'm making the same thing over and over again that they can't stand. I've been making stuff with completely different ingredients. Vindaloo does not smell the same as tandoori chicken, but Leaf keeps being like "oooh the scent is too strong please make something else."

I confronted them about this, being like "hey, none of this stuff smells the same, they're all just Indian in origin, why are you making such a big deal out of this?" Leaf started shouting being like "how dare you call me a racist" which I never said, and calling me ableist for insinuating that their sensory issues were bigotry. We have not spoken since.

I am already planning to move out because of several unconnected issues, but I'm not sure who is in the wrong between me and Leaf here, so aita?

What are these acronyms?

[boreal-sea]

Firstly: get dunk'd, transphobe.

Secondly, nice source, dipshit:

I have to do everything, don't I?

Let's talk about this source before we even read this article, because it shows how poor your rhetorical analysis skills are - or how unwilling you are to practice those skills, or perhaps just how willing you are to ally yourself with racist, nationalist, far-right reactionaries if they also happen to be transphobic.

Wings Over Scotland is a far-right, nationalist, reactionary blog run by Scottish "video game journalist" Stuart Campbell. It is not an unbiased news website - it's some dude's personal blog, and he created it because he hated that mainstream news in Scotland wasn't spreading the far-right rhetoric he wished it would.

And this is what you used as a "source". Fucking laughable.

Now let's get into the actual blog post. I refuse to call it a "news article", because it's not. This one was written by a nobody named "Mar Vickers". At the bottom of the article, Stuart claims Mar has "extensive experience in equality law". I can't seem to find any indication Mar is some sort of lawyer or scholar; all I can find is a link to his twitter - sorry, I mean his "X":

https://twitter.com/mar2vickers

You can tell this is the same Mar based on the content of his tweets. He's also transphobic garbage, surprise surprise. He has a backup account on "gettr", because it seems like his twitter gets suspended frequently - which says a lot. Gettr is a clone of twitter that caters to right wingers who get suspended and banned on Twitter for constantly violating its hate speech policies. So. You know. Though these days, X is the safe-haven for far-right reactionaries, so honestly that's a red flag period.

As a summary: Mar doesn't understand surveys or their limits, he doesn't define what a "sex crime" is, he doesn't know what the Rorschach test is, and he's bad at math. He plays with numbers like he's some sort of population statistician, which he's not. He draws conclusions that are completely nonsense, because he's not asking the relevant questions.

Basically, he states that over the past few years, the ratio of trans women in jail for sex crimes to compared to the general population of trans woman is now higher than the ratio of cis men in jail for sex crimes compared to the general population of cis men. Ok, but why did these numbers change? He doesn't ask why. He just assumes these trends are natural and reflect the behavior of cis men and trans women, rather than the increased transphobia in England and Wales that he and his buddy Stuart have been fueling.

I absolutely don't doubt that trans women are incarcerated for "sex crimes" (which he never defines of course) at a higher rate per population than cis men. It's the same reason people of color are incarcerated more per population: bigotry. "Wow, this population of people who society hates sure gets sent to jail a lot. That's probably a reflection of their true nature, and not a reflection on society at large!"

[woman-respecter]

On the topic of tankies,

THEY HATE AO3 SO MUCH THAT THEY TREAT IT LIKE THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL AND IT NEVER FAILS TO MAKE ME LAUGH 😭

Pre October 7th, most of the blogs I followed had always been very political but seemed normal for the most part.

Now, they're all constantly rage posting about AO3 like it's the most of everyone's problems 😭 it's giving 4chan talking about Jews every second and bringing us into everything not gonna lie.

"You evil queers support Ao3 but question Palestinians on Tumblr, racist genocidal zionazis 🤬" these people are sooo insane. People donating to Ao3 bothers them so much that whenever anything happens now it goes back to Ao3..it's giving Trump blaming everything on the libs

Whenever any sort of injustice trends on here the response from tankies is automatically "you use/donate to ao3 you guys are evil monsters" ???? 😭🤨

Oh and don't forget the constant "this is tumblr staff's fault". They're sooo extremist that suddenly whenever anyone gets banned it's prejudice from the staff. Like girl! You posted blatant antisemitic shit straight from mein kampf but you being banned is somehow *checks notes* a result of the staff silencing Palestinians? 🤨 if you cannot criticise tumblr without immediately diving into batshit crazy conspiracies where every move the tumblr staff makes is bigotry and an attack on minorities idk what to tell you.

Idgaf about anyone hating ao3 but it's very strange to watch how they decide to hate it in the most extremist way possible lmao.

Also obsessed with how they go so left they end up right. Popular responses from leftists about the fake Palestinian scammers was "you people are always poor and ebegging but you draw the line at giving Palestinians money" 😐

Wow being classist towards the people you don't like will surely show them! Also obsessed with how only Palestinians matter in this case. They are allowed to say these things and then get cheered on by many (these posts get thousands of reblogs and likes lmaoo) because Palestinians are experiencing the Worst Thing in The World which means only they matter and anyone who supports them are allowed to say whatever they want in support. Therefore making fun of poor people who ask for money on Tumblr is progressive actually because it's in support of Palestinians.

Funny enough tankies are also homophobic when it comes to hating ao3 and everyone who dares to use that evil website but they're #gay so it's okay 😭😭😭 they'll say shit like "you queers have money for ao3 and never Palestine" first of all targetting gay people when I know many straight people who use ao3 is insanee. 2) where do they get this info from because they are always saying this but i only ever see queers donating to palestinians 😭 are they seriously making shit up to be angry about ? they talk about it like every gay person in the world is donating to the evil ao3 instead of palestine when it's a much smaller number than they exaggerate it to be.

i made a post in like 2021 (which got like 30k notws but i can’t find it bc tumblr search function sux) about how tumblr users would act like its evil to donate to ao3 instead of people’s (like fl****s******e) personal gofundmes but once again you can just replace personal gfms with palestine scam asks this time. really nowadays donating to anything that doesn’t have to do with The Omnicause is seen as EVIL. like chill, people can care about multiple things. plus i bet most of these people raging against ao3 still spend many hours on the site and get free entertainment from it so its like. do u want this site to exist or not because servers cost money and it can’t exist without donations.

[rubberduckyrye]

I'd like to point to interpretation that Angie isn't portrayal of a native Polynesian islander because almost all the evidence around her character and what she says suggests she's not living in a village that has cult-like practices, but that she is in a straight up cult and is unaware of it. It explains a lot of stuff from the odd monotheism, why her "village" seems to only employ seemingly dark web shipping company, the police apparently bothering her "village" or her having an English name.

Referencing this Ask

I mean. That is one interpretation, sure, but to deny the fact that Angie is heavily coded to be Polynesian/Native Hawaiian is unfortunately ignoring the problem. Which is the problem I am trying to address itself.

Right in her promotional art, you can see that Angie is carving a statue--and it heavily resembles a tiki statue. Specifically this kind of Tiki Statue. Though since it is unfinished, it could be a full body version, but I digress.

She also mentions living on an island.

And the "natural disaster" that made the island smaller--that is probably heavily inspired by how Hawaii was used by US military and bombed frequently--which, naturally, made the islands smaller.

She also greets people in Salmon mode with "Alola," which is a reference to Pokemon Sun and Moon, which has it's main location heavily based off of Hawaii. Alola is a butchered way of saying "Aloha", which is a Hawaiian greeting.

Also, Angie having an English name matches with historical oppression in Hawaii. Where Hawaiians were forced to name their children with Christian White names and their Hawaiian names be their middle names. It was literally a law, at least, according to Wikipedia, for quite some time. (The fact that this is not easily verifiable is the very reason why having this discussion is so important--and why people need to stop trying to avoid the conversation.)

I understand the desire to want to dismiss the fact that she is a racist caricature because it sucks to enjoy a character who is one. I get it. However--trying to deny the fact that she is heavily coded to be Native Hawaiian/Polynesian is just sweeping the racism under the rug, and is a major problem when you have people like me who want to discuss the topic and how one should handle rectifying the canon narrative's bigotry.

The mere fact that she is so heavily coded to be Native Hawaiian/Polynesian makes the whole cult thing part of the racist caricature. Indigenous people (especially Indigenous Polynesian cultures) are subject to extreme racist stereotypes that include human sacrifices and savagery--and while Angie's culture isn't developed in canon enough to know for sure if it was truly as savage as, say, the King Kong Indigenous folk, the cult behaviors are a sort of "cousin" to that savagery. We as a society see human sacrifices as barbaric, as savage, and even when in a cult setting, we still present these topics in that fashion.

I'm sorry, anon--but I'm going to ask you only this one time to not derail the conversation I'm trying to start. I understand that there are interpretations that help explain away the bigotry--and this is one legitimate way to deal with bigotry in canon media, or so I've been told--but what I want is a full blown discussion on the subject. I don't want people trying to tell me "Oh b-b-but she can't be a racist Caricature, because (X)!" Because that is dismissing the problem to begin with.

This is a problem. This is a discussion about racism in V3's narrative. There is no getting around it--no matter how much you explain away the writing with headcanons and theories, these problems are still here.

So please stop trying to sabotage my desire for a discussion.

I'm going to note that I LOVE Angie as a character. I think that, when you remove the racism in her character stories, you have a very interesting and compelling female character of color who's intelligence rivals that of the smartest V3 characters. These aspects of her character I adore--but to ignore the racism, for me, is to just turn away from the problem and, in turn, contribute to the racist way fandom treats these kinds of characters.

So let me speak. Let me find people who will talk to me about it. Let me grow and learn. Please, for the love of god, let me learn.

[txttletale]

You sure pretend like you care about tribal societies a lot for someone whose philosophy depends on the idea that history is a process that starts with Hunter gatherers and then “progresses” into slave society, then feudalism, then capitalism, then socialism, then communism. Do you not understand the inherent racism in this? You seem pretty clever, idk how you believe this shit

marxism doesn't in any way "depend on" marx & engels' 19th-century view of 'civilization' nor upon their drawing upon the (obviously racist and imperialist) anthropological tradition of the time, because marxism is a living theoretical tradition capable of self-critique and evolution. yes, there are aspects of marx & engels that are flawed, particularly their understandings of indigenous society. to be clear--the extreme, deterministic teleology of progress that many modern marxists hold to is a grotesque exaggeration and vulgarization of what marx & engels actually said and the genuine theories of historical materialism.

but that's a little besides the point, because more importantly marxism (especially in latin america!) has in fact reckoned with exactly the sort of bias and bigotry you're talking about here! writers like linera and estes and coulthard have put in lots of theoretical work bridging the gaps between marxism failings and modern movements for indigenous liberation. marxists do not consider marx & engels free from 'ruthless criticism of all that exists'!

[decolonize-the-everything]

Hey this might be a weird question but you seem to know a lot about the strategies TERFs use and what they're hiding, so I just wanted to ask and you don't have to answer.

Why do so many TERFs have this weird hostility towards bi and ace people? I don't think either of those identities have anything to do with being trans but I've seen so many TERFs who are also biphobic and/or aphobic. My gut instinct was that there was some large overlap between bi/ace people and trans people, but then I've found TERFs give shit to cis bis and aces so I'm not sure if it's that or some other reason. I'm not trans myself but I want to be able to recognize TERF rhetoric to be a better ally to trans people.

A couple reasons.

First one is that hating bis/aces is at the entrance of the TERF pipeline; they utilize this 'soft bigotry' to radicalize LGBTs and it usually looks like this:

To recruit queer ppl first they try to get us to stop considering aces as Oppressed. That's how it starts. They're aren't Doing anything so how can they be oppressed? They don't know what it's like to marginalized....how could they? They're just stealing the spotlight of Actually oppressed ppl

And once you accept that they turn to bisexuals. Who are only half gay, you know? And most of them date men anyway or end up marrying men so like? How the hell would they know what it's like to literally Live oppression 24/7? Do we we really want them to have a voice and speak for those of us that don't have an escape from our oppression?

This works because on the surface TERFS/Radfems appear to care about women and gender equality, which a lot of queer people obviously support. But they exploit those of us that don't know enough about feminism's intersectional (and very gay) history to identify them as bad actors.

From here the person they've targeted will either a- accept this and likewise will eventually also accept that trans oppression isnt real either (fulfilling the TERF's actual goal of recruitment) OR b- they'll realize they've been manipulated and try to deconstruct.

Secondly:

TERFs are white supremacist and their beliefs are founded white supremacist ideology and outdated scientific theories that Support white supremacist rhetoric.

It's called gender-essentialism which is a branch of bio-essentialism which is the belief that the biological body you have has inherent skills and abilities. Racists have used this to deny Black humanity just as TERFs use it to deny the existence of gender diversity.

But nobody is inherently weaker because of a uterus, nor are they bad drivers just because they have a uterus. All women are not good mothers just because they are women. Men are not all abusers just because they are men.

TERFs would have you swallow these beliefs; they're vital to maintaining the Core TERF Value that that trans people aren't Real and people with uteri are always helpless victims to be defended against evil men.

And as white supremacists their goal is to disrupt and destroy minority communities so that we are too divided to unify against legal attacks. TERFs do this from the inside out by putting bis/aces in a different category from the other queers while disguising their bigotry as feminist. They get us to voluntarily undermine and destroy our own movement this way by causing intercommunity "bi/ace discourse" that makes bis/aces out to be an enemy of "real" oppressed people (like transphobic lesbians for example)

Thirdly:

Lots of queer people are feminists which makes us easy targets and that's why they focus on the queer community. Additionally, the queer community has a history of being a threat to the white supremacist establishment so dividing us is vital to their goal of eventually wiping out anyone who isnt cis, straight, white, neurotypical, and able bodied

[battybiologist]

Despite being my favorite prosecutor of the series in my favorite games of the series, I do have a huge problem with Barok van Zieks' writing, and it's his racism. Not that I mind that character flaw, but rather how it's handled.

In the game, Barok is racist towards Japanese people. Mind you, most of the English characters are too, but Barok is not only openly hostile and contemptuous of Japanese culture, but he's also the only character for whom this is a focus point. Later in the game, he overcomes that racism through his legal battles and budding friendship with Ryunosuke, our Japanese protagonist.

That's not what I have a problem with. That would lie in the origin of this racist behavior.

See, unlike the rest of the racist characters in Great Ace Attorney, Barok is prejudiced against Japanese people because of his tragic backstory (big red flag).

When he was younger, Barok actually liked Japanese people, and was even good friends with one, Genshin Asogi, until Genshin was revealed to be the Professor, a serial killer who murdered several members of the judiciary, including Klint van Zieks, Barok's older brother who he idolized. From that point on, Barok had a deep mistrust and hatred of all Japanese people.

That part sucks ass, because the key to Barok stopping being racist is proving that while Genshin did kill Klint, he did so in an honorable duel which Klint accepted, because he was the real Professor and Genshin knew it was the only way to bring him to justice.

This implies at best that Barok would have never been able to overcome his bigotry without the proof of Genshin's innocence, and at worst that his bigotry would've been justified if Genshin really was the Professor.

But the worst (or best, depending on your relationship with headcanons/mods) is that this is so easily fixed, and in fact, the game almost gives us the answer wholesale:

The reason the Professor's true identity was not found is partly due to the efforts of the villains of the game, but also because the rest of the characters involved in his case, including Barok, put Klint on such a pedestal that they unconsciously rejected any evidence of his guilt.

If we want to highlight that moral (?) by contrasting it with our fix to Barok's racism problem, we can simply answer a question that naturally comes to mind with this set up: Why was the British judiciary, including Barok, so quick to write off Genshin as the Professor? Sure, he killed Klint, but he killed him with a katana, while the rest of the Professor's victims died of bite wounds. The game answers with the same Klint pedestal logic as before, but I think it should be because Barok and the judiciary are racist.

It's such a simple change, and yet it makes Barok's story so much better from a narrative and sociopolitical standpoint. Barok prides himself on seeking the truth, a deeply heroic quality in Ace Attorney. So the fact that his own prejudice, something he didn't even care to question for his great friend Genshin Asogi ("one of the good ones" in this scenario), caused the obfuscation of the truth would be devastating, and that devastation being the end of his bigotry would stay in line with the heavily character-focused writing of Ace Attorney and yield a much better message in addition of "racism is bad": societal biases left unexamined can blind us to reality, leading us to make awful mistakes that go against our core principles.

It also has a bunch of additional perks: Seishiro's anger would become additionally relatable for many POC, it would be a great and honestly ballsy commentary on law enforcement to make for the most popular VN series, it would create a nice parallel with Soseki Natsume's arrest, and it would add an interesting touch to Stronghart's characterization, what with him being racist (and a well-written racist at that) in the games already, but also becoming aware of said racism in others and using that to his benefit in our version.

Anyway, don't let the multiple paragraphs of criticism fool you, I'm making this post because I love these games to death