#much less feels a need to virtue signal about it

[werewolves-are-real]

Go fuck yourself anon

This morning I received an extremely condescending ask, where an anonymous person said they were heartbroken by my recent 'pro-Israel' posts and could not in good conscience engage with my works until I learned to have 'empathy.'

I immediately deleted it, because it was idiotic. But here's the thing: I don't usually post about the war. So then I started thinking about what I posted recently that might be viewed as pro-Israel. And now I'm mad.

Here is a list of posts that might be CONSTRUED as pro-Israel (by this person) starting from most recent back to Oct. 7th:

-A post joking about a misspelled 'happy Hanukkah' greeting

-A post about different types of menorahs

-A post talking about a Philedelphia-based Jewish man who was targeted by violent rioters for the crime of.... donating to a civilian-led non-profit that provides free medical services to Israel.

-A post about misconceptions over the names of places in Israel, and how the Hebrew words are fucking old and basically have nothing to do with colonialism regardless of what you think about the war.

-A post condemning the denial of Hamas rape victims, because Hamas are terrorists, regardless of anything else you might believe about the war,

-A post talking about what zionism actually means, historically, since it's kinda a relevant issue and some people use it improperly.

-A post also talking about the definition of genocide.

-A silly posts about Jewish prayer emojis

-A post which I will quote here, actually:

-A post about biased media coverage.

-A post about a Jewish journalist who feels unsafe.

-A post calling out people for only caring NOW, and only getting angry at Israel, rather than – for example – neighboring Egypt refusing to open the border. Because people love hating Israel without figuring out why.

-Another post by Jewish people alarmed by how VIOLENT people are getting toward them.

-A post again pointing out that you can think both Israel and Hamas are doing bad things, actually.

-A post where I lament that I can't post the next chapter of Without Reason because it included a scene with a synagogue and there's no way I can post it without people assuming it's some sort of commentary on the war.

-A post I can't rapidly summarize but that basically criticizes people being callous and, again, anti-semitic while pretending anti-semitism doesn't exist.

That's it, that's all I can find in a quick search since Oct. 7th. You might notice that none of these are really explicitly pro-Israel. In fact, most of them aren't about Israel at all, and they certainly don't demonize Palestine. So what I'm gathering is that this anon is deeply hurt by my posts about *checks notes* – Jewish holidays, Jewish terminology, and rising anti-semitism.

And a desire for people to calm down and use nuance in their discussions, which I guess is scary to some folks.

My most recent posts are about the holidays. If you cannot read a 'happy hanukkah' message without conflating your political anger – about a war on the other side of the world - with anger toward all Jewish people, I am asking you to examine YOUR lack of empathy, and particularly why it does not extend toward Jews.

And if you don't want to 'engage with my work,' great! I don't write to entertain anti-semites :) So get the fuck away from me.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

What a February

Well...what a great couple of days to be stuck in the office, amiright? (I work mostly from home but on occasion I have to go into the office and of course some nice little royal bombs get dropped when I can't be here.)

I've gotten some anons about what's happened but I won't be posting them (sorry, everyone!). Because so much has happened, I think it would just be confusing to rehash some of it, and other asks were also sent to Empress and Sassy (nothing wrong with that! They were doing answers in real-time and they've said pretty much the same things I'd have said).

So to recap recent events:

2/5/24: Buckingham Palace announced King Charles has cancer. Fortuntely it was caught early, Charles is doing/feeling well, he's beginning treatment immediately.

2/6/24: Harry catches a last-minute flight to London. Clarence House puts out a story "business as usual, nothing to worry about, King can still work and he is still working" (i.e., Harry go home).

2/7/24: Harry arrives in London. He goes directly to Charles, who is delaying travel to Sandringham to see him. Harry's PR says they met for an hour, Meghan wanted to say hello/wish him well via Facetime but Charles declined, and Harry went to BP for the evening. The Daily Mail tracked the comings and goings from Clarence House and realized the meeting lasted less than 15 minutes, from the time of Harry's convoy entering the grounds to Charles's helicopter leaving. It is further revealed that Harry spent the night in a hotel, William didn't return Harry's calls, Harry didn't want Camilla involved in the meeting, and none of Harry's "friends" offered to host him for the night. Also, William makes his first public engagements since mid-January when Kate's treatment began; Tom Cruise is there.

2/8/24: Harry flies home. He's papped at Heathrow entering the VVIP suite (as one does). Wait, Harry's not at home! He's in Las Vegas for the Super Bowl (or the Superb Owl) and makes a surprise appearance to present the Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year award. Sussex PR immediately begins telling everyone that Harry and Meghan will be attending the Super Bowl.

2/9/24: Lambrook School begins half-term break and the Wales family travels to Anmer Hall/Sandringham estate. Harry's appearance in Vegas gets picked up by the media.

2/10/24: Meghan's PR starts walking back their own rumors that they'll be in Vegas for the Super Bowl, citing the need to prepare for their Canada IG trip.

2/11/24: Super Bowl Sunday. No Harry and Meghan to be seen.

2/12/24: Meghan's PR reveals she spent the weekend cooking with Afghan immigrants in an Archewell initiative.

2/13/24: Harry and Meghan launch their newest rebranding effort with their new Sussex website with Meghan's coat of arms (rather than their joint coat of arms). Meghan announces a new podcast deal with someone no one has really heard of.

2/14/24: Harry and Meghan arrive in Vancouver for the "one year to 2025 Invictus Games." Meghan coordinates a photoshoot with outdoor activities; merches two outfits; and virtue-signals their "we're still royal" demands with Kate cosplay, a coat called Kensington, and a 'you can call us Sir/Ma'am' exchange caught on camera. In the evening they're papped going to a super-romantic Valentine's Day dinner date.

2/15/24: Day 2 of the Vancouver IG kickoff visit. They visit wheelchair basketball. Meghan gives her signature full-body contact-hugs. Sussex PR announce that the family has changed their surname to Sussex (from Mountbatten-Windsor) and this is the first time all family members have the same surname. Meghan also claps back at mounting criticism by saying "We will not be broken."

2/16/24: Day 3 of the Vancouver IG kickoff visit. Harry gives an interview to GMA's Will Reeve (son of the late Superman actor Christopher Reeve and his wife, Dana) in which he blabs about Charles's cancer and reiterates how much he loves his family, hinting that he's available to come back. Sussex PR also drops an article in the afternoon (with BP collaboration) announcing Harry and Meghan's plan to return with half in/half out; this is very clearly one of Charles's trial balloons from Clarence House.

(Today) 2/17/24: Backlash to the trial balloon is swift, so Clarence House backtracks immediately and does damage control. Kensington Palace announces that William will attend the 2024 BAFTAs tomorrow. Half-term break for Lambrook School ends on February 19th so the Waleses are traveling back to London/Windsor this weekend. And Hollywood has fought back by leaking about their Netflix deal, which contradicts a ton of Meghan's PR from 2020/2021.

Since some of you have asked for my thoughts, here you go. I am warning you now it's probably going to be my usual essay.

On the new website:

The new Sussex website is a problem. It conveys a legitimacy to the public that Harry and Meghan do not have, which The Queen and Edward Young made very sure was publicly known back in 2020. In particular, it's the use of Meghan's coat of arms, which signals palace support or endorsement. IMO, Buckingham needs to force them to take the coat of arms down.

I suspect they are using Meghan's coat of arms because a) Meghan believes it was personally awarded to her and is hers to use as she wants, whereas Harry's coat of arms probably comes with strings from the BRF and b) it's CYA if ever there's a divorce - if you look at it from a business standpoint, this is nothing more than Meghan branding the company with her name so she can prove ownership when they're splitting assets in a divorce, increasing her chances of getting the "company."

What about Archewell?

They're probably phasing out Archewell. It doesn't have the same visual connection to Harry and Meghan that Sussex does. I think they struggled so much with Archewell and were never able to get it off the ground in terms of a brand or an identity, in part due to the COVID-era launch. Sussex is a much stronger association for them and connects them more tightly to the royal identity. Archewell will probably be either their nonprofit arm or their content creator arm but it won't be as important going forward as it's been in the past.

Frankly, I would be surprised if Archewell v Sussex branding didn't come up in the brand analysis that WME did when Meghan first signed with them. We know they did a brand analysis because there was a ton of PR in August 2023 about Harry and Meghan becoming separate brands, which didn't work at all and they were back together as a "Sussex" brand in September 2023 with Dusseldorf Invictus Games. Seeing the success of "Team Sussex" in Dusseldorf definitely informed the website and the rebranding attempt.

What about the timing of all this?

They're taking advantage of the quietness from the royal family. They do this every year like clockwork when 1) the BRF is on summer holidays (July through early September) and 2) the BRF is on winter holidays (late December through early February). What is unusual about this timing is that it's taking place in mid-February and possibly well into March, which is a clear signal that it's the Sussexes taking advantage of Kate's absence to draw attention to themselves because Kate isn't there to steal their headlines.

And that it was a whole week of Sussex PR is not unusual either. It's their usual pattern when they have something big they want to promote and dominate the news with. It's cyclical at this point: first is a reminder of their royal status (Harry flying to Charles's bedside), then it's a reminder of their celebrity status (the Super Bowl appearance), then it's a big announcement (Sussex website), culminating in a set of public engagements/appearances (Invictus Games) with media attention. And to keep the attention coming, they drop breadcrumbs about the royal family to look like they're still "in," which buys them a few extra days of coverage because Charles falls for the bait every time.

The more interesting bit of timing in all of this is the Netflix article. Netflix wouldn't randomly give comments like this, so something must have happened behind the scenes for them to be pushed to this particular breaking point. I feel like perhaps the Sussexes may be trying to renegotiate their deals - maybe they asked for more money or maybe Meghan is trying to get more out of this 'Meet Me at the Lake' production than was agreed - and this is Netflix making it clear that it's over and done. I also have a niggling feeling that it might be connected to the upcoming film awards (BAFTA Film Awards tomorrow, Oscars on March 10th) - maybe they're trying to score tickets to parties using Netflix's name?

Are they really going to come back? Will Charles let them work again?

Analytically, the evidence points to 'no.' The trial balloon failed quickly faster than any other I've seen recently, which is and isn't surprising. It's surprising how quickly Charles backtracked since it had his implicit endorsement. It's not surprising that Charles pulled it down - he's as thin-skinned as Harry and Meghan both are when it comes to criticism.

But it's also more than just the trial balloon. It's everything else.

Charles wants them back on the family side. That's always been pretty clear. I think he waffles on having them back on the "work" side: on the one hand, the BRF needs the help since 10 of The Queen's 14 working royals are elderly (all 5 Kents, the 2 Gloucesters, Charles and Camilla, and Anne) and 2 of the remaining 4 are dealing with a signficant health issue and are temporarily out of commission - in the business sense, this is unsustainable and untenable succession planning. But on the other hand, no one wants Harry and Meghan back, for a litany of reasons including how much shit they've talked about the family (collectively and individually), the petty PR games they play for attention, and the Sussexes' general toxicity. And by 'no one,' I mean family members, courtiers/staff, others in the aristocracy (not getting invites to the Grosvenor wedding is a huge reflection of what "their kind" thinks of teh Sussexes), and the at-large general public.

Charles probably has entertained the idea of half in/half out now that he's in charge and the Sussexes are now lovebombing him (vs in 2020 when they were lovebombing The Queen) but his biggest opposition is public support - it took Charles 30 years and 4 significant deaths (Diana, Queen Mother, Philip, and her own forthcoming death) to get The Queen's support for Camilla to become 'Queen Camilla and, in turn, the public's support or the public's indifference.

Charles doesn't have that kind of time to get the institutional and public support to bring Harry back. He's got 10 years at best, which is now handicapped by a cancer diagnosis.

Beyond that, he doesn't even have Harry and Meghan's cooperation the same way he had Camilla's cooperation. Camilla cooperated with a 10-year wait to be liked well enough that no one would object to her marrying Charles. Camilla then cooperated with a further 17-year wait to be liked well enough that the institution would support her becoming Queen.

Can Harry and Meghan wait that long? No. They can't. They couldn't wait an extra year to get engaged. They couldn't wait to have their first child. They couldn't wait out the criticism from Fall 2018. They couldn't wait out the criticism from Summer 2019. Harry couldn't wait for the phone-hacking settlement. When they want something, they want it now. They buy completed projects and slap their branding on it vs. developing their own programs.

Can Harry and Meghan cooperate with anyone? No. They can't. They couldn't cooperate with William and Kate on the Royal Foundation. They couldn't cooperate with the courtiers for Archie's birth. They couldn't cooperate with the family on Megxit. They couldn't cooperate with the rota for tour coverage. They need to be totally and fully in control of absolutely everything. Their idea of cooperation is 'I tell you what to do, you do it.'

And because they're too impatient and because they refuse to cooperate, there's no way they'll support a 10-years long PR drive for Charles to rehabilitate their public image and get William's support. Heck, they can't even last a 3-month media rebrand. Charles knows that, which I suspect is why he may be trying to fast-track it but 1) when has fast-tracking something ever gone well for the BRF and 2) William is the linchpin holding it all together. Charles can't do anything without William's support. Yes, William is that powerful now - the public does pay attention to what he and Kate signal and the public would support them more than they would support Charles. Charles can't risk losing William's favor any more than he already has.

The third reason stopping Charles from taking Harry and Meghan back as working royals is Camilla and that Harry doesn't want her involved. He admitted it last week when he didn't contradict her leak about it. IMO, this reveals Harry's hand: he wants to position himself (or Meghan and himself) as Camilla's alternate, the way Charles often stood in as Philip's alternate. They want Camilla to retire so they can take her place in prestige, wealth, and attention. It's the only way they can "be better" than William and Kate, and they probably think it's how they can get "more" in the inheritance than William. Unfortunately for them, Camilla is Charles's line in the sand so no way will Charles let that happen after he spent 30 years getting Camilla to be able to sit next to him, and on top of all that, Camilla herself didn't wait 30 years to be Queen just for a pair of narcisstic glassbowl shitheads to usurp her at the last second.

That's the "working royal" side of it.

When you look at the "family" side of it, we know that Charles is more accepting of allowing the Sussexes back as family members, albeit with two strict rules:

No Meghan

No royal work

We know these are Charles's rules because it's already been communicated to us, most especially in the events around the Queen's funeral and his own coronation.

We also know these are Charles's' terms because Harry is publicly fighting against them this week, which suggests that these may have been reiterated (or relitgated, perhaps) during the <15-minute visit on February 7th.

"We all finally have the same surname for the first time as a family" and "maybe I'll become an American' is Harry's way of telling Charles and the courtiers that all four of them are a package deal and they all move together (like Archie's salt and pepper shakers). Meaning that if Charles wants Harry back, Charles must also take Meghan, Archie, and Lili too.

The Vancouver trip being such a royal rip-off is Harry's way of demanding royal work. His position is that he and Meghan must have the exact same lifestyle now that they had back in 2018: a palace residence, glamorous patronages, military honors, gushy praising media coverage, carriage processions, and equal precedence to the entire Wales family.

All this to illustrate that the dividing line is over the work aspect.

On one side is everyone saying "no, they can't work, they're just family." On the other side is Harry and Meghan saying "we're not just family, we're also working royals." And Charles is there smack in the middle saying "don't make my last years miserable" begging someone to give in. It's clear that Charles hopes it will be the institution (i.e. William) that gives in so he can fast-track the rehabilitation.

So no, I don't think Charles and the Sussexes will succeed in being part-time working royals. I think we'll see a lot of negotiating in the coming weeks and months (like Sussex demands for Trooping) and it may get loud and it may look frighteningly real, but that's only because William and Kate are on leave from work and their absence lets Harry and Meghan play offense. Once the Waleses are working again, or a new picture of Kate is released (I'm still hedging my bets for something celebrating Mother's Day next month), the Sussexes go back to playing on defense, and playing poorly.

We only need to worry if William, Kate, and Camilla appear to be changing their minds. They represent "the institution" to Charles, as well as public support (William) and establishment media (Camilla). William continues to tell everyone he isn't speaking to Harry. Kate's body language at the Windsor Walkabout keeps resurfacing. Camilla has leaked that Harry doesn't want to see her when he visits Charles and that she doesn't support the Sussexes coming back. There's nothing to worry about for now.

[statementlou]

i feel like i can talk to you about this because you have rational opinions. so louis bought a starbucks coffee at the airport and the fandom on twitter are eating him alive, calling him evil and wishing he goes to hell. i’m disappointed since starbucks is on the list of brands to boycott but i feel like this reaction is too much? someone even said jay would be disappointed in him, but people said that was taking it too far. i don’t know, i love louis and i’ll keep supporting him and his music but the fact he can be a careless millionaire is disappointing

1. thank you sweetie I would boop if I could 2. oh my god it's a fucking cup of coffee and if people think that's the worst thing Louis, a multi millionaire, has ever done financially they need a reality check! His money will be handled by bankers who are putting it into all kinds of evil fucking shit that he won't even know about, it's actually very hard to know or control that and there is no way trying is even on his radar. That's a passive thing and not on purpose; but the fact that people don't bother to know about that or care really speaks to how performative this kind of online approach to activism is, that they only care about image rather than effect (the effect of his investments would be easily thousands of times more than any number of coffees or even of the promotion Starbucks might get from him holding it.) But furthermore buckle in cause you hit a nerve: Starbucks isn't even an actual organized boycott target as concerns Palestine because THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT financially! The official BDS movement calls for boycott of very specific and pointed targets of which Starbucks IS NOT ONE it's literally just an online trend which is not the same as an actual boycott to materially impact a target! Losing them money is always great, they are a crappy union busting small business killing corporation, but it has zero direct effect to help Palestinians unlike supporting the meaningful boycotts called for by BDS. I don't think Louis has decided to buy starbucks because he has this analysis, but to me it's a pretty important point. Him crossing an actual picket line (playing Israel, playing Eurovision [lmaoooo that thought tho], waving an Israeli flag god forbid) would be a very different situation and something that would trouble me so the distinction matters to me. But I get that to people on twitter, that's what they feel like he has done. To which I would say...

There are so many fewer ways to help Palestine than we would wish, and it's SO hard to deal with feeling so powerless right now in the face of such horror, so I love that people feel so strongly about doing whatever they possibly can. But worrying about consumer spending, even on BDS targets, is perhaps the least effective of the things a person can do. Note that BDS boycotts do not mostly focus on asking people not to buy things; they list the products that are especially complicit, but the main work of the movement is to get large investors (corporations, public institutions, whole governments) to divest from the companies targeted because that actually hurts them enough that it becomes less profitable to continue to collude with Israel than to drop them as clients. Consumer spending is not enough to do this. It's easy and doesn't require doing actual work but it's basically virtue signaling, not organizing. Just NOT doing something (yes including voting) is not enough! I personally choose not to give my money to certain corporations because it feels bad to me and I can't stomach doing it, even if they never notice me doing it. But if I was running out of fuel and the only nearby station was a Chevron, I would spend a few bucks there and not beat myself up about it because it will have zero impact on their overall profit reports but a LOT of impact on my life. And if I was in the airport for the second time in mere days after circumnavigating the globe and playing a massive show and doing press and fan service before even having time to adjust time zones and about to get on another flight to another country I might buy a fucking coffee from whatever coffee shop was in there too! But Louis isn't me and I'm gonna be real honest I would be real surprised if he KNEW there was a boycott or gave a shit- he is not a political activist! It's reasonable to be disappointed if someone behaves not how you want them to, but just in general responding to being disappointed in people by lashing out at them is... not it. Not useful, not rational, and not actually an okay way to act to other people. Louis is an awesome sweet caring person who I believe tries hard not to have a negative impact on anyone directly and who cares very much about others; if that's not enough for someone to be a fan of him, okay then they should not be a fan of him! But warning: they're not going to be able to be a fan of anyone else either. No one is pure and perfect... maybe that energy would be better spent trying to make a meaningful difference in the world, and a great first step in that IMO is to recognize and challenge your inner cop. The better world I want to live in doesn't include policing other people, not on twitter and not anywhere.

[hsvh-hp]

You know I agree with you that fanon paints Lucius as a much worse father than he was and I don't like that either, but do you not think indoctrinating your child into a genocidal cult + coldly demanding that he be the best in class and publicly humiliating him about that ("if [my son's] grades don't pick up, a thief or a plunderer] may indeed be all he is fit for") is bad parenting?

Like I'm not saying "he is a bad parent" or "he is a good parent", I'm very hesitant to label parents (real or fictional) in such a one-dimensional way because parent-child relationships are so incredibly complicated. But at the same time it is very important to me to acknowledge even little things parents can do that can really have a negative impact on children. And indeed in Draco's case they do, leading him to want to be a Death Eater, to seek validation from Voldemort (when he disarms Dumbledore he talks about wanting to be the Dark Lord's favourite, he doesn't want help from Snape because he has a need to prove himself etc) and contributing to his general insecurity and need to be better than everyone & getting upset when he's not, because if he's not the best all the time then he feels really bad.

One big reason I dislike the fanon tendency to make every morally questionable parent an extremely physically abusive monster is precisely because that erases the representation of how the smaller, psychologically/emotionally damaging things they do can still be traumatising.

It goes without saying that there’s nuance. I would never say nor claim that Lucius did nothing wrong or didn’t make mistakes. By mere virtue of holding bigoted beliefs, he signaled to Draco that there were things he could do or be that might undermine his father’s love. To me, it doesn’t even matter if Lucius is otherwise perfect as a father. That small thing, in a kid as needy for love and validation as Draco is, would be enough to have him always on edge and anxiously performing his role as the perfect son to the best of his ability.

My earlier frustration was a pushback against the need to inflate Lucius’ less-great moments into overtly obvious abuse (we are very much in agreement there), as fanon seems to love to do without a hint of introspection or greater analysis. I’m so bored of complicated behaviour being filed away into a thought-terminating box called ‘abuse’, where a sole instance of someone being a grumpy, imperfect dad (the Borgin & Burke’s scene) is all that’s required to put a character on the same level as men who actually do beat their sons. It’s not given a greater thought.

For instance, you bring up Draco’s indoctrination into the Death Eaters, and his eagerness to join. This is a very interesting conundrum for Lucius to me because Voldemort is back for an entire year before Draco signs up. Lucius is in Azkaban at the time, unable to exert any influence over Draco’s decision, and Voldemort explicitly brings Draco into the fold as a form of punishment for Lucius. We have no access to Lucius’ head as readers, but he had an entire year afterward to sit and think about how he failed Draco. He’s a smart guy. I’m sure he could put it together that his bigotry came very close to costing his son his life. Considering the Malfoys sit alongside the winners of the war in the Great Hall, it speaks to me of some greater narrative reflection on Lucius’ part to have earned himself a place there.

The point is, I’ve never seen that Lucius in fic before. I crave that Lucius, who can realize his mistakes and grow or change as a result (and is brave enough not to let the lateness of its arrival dictate the terms). It’s very important to me that growth not be something exclusive to a certain age (16 and under? 18? I’ve seen people argue that Draco was no longer redeemable at 12 LMAO). So yeah, feeling alone in this sentiment occasionally bubbles up and I forget to articulate all the nuance of the subject when engaging with it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[myfandomrealitea]

I always want to wholeheartedly agree with the "create what you want, just label it" argument. I really want to. Right up until people defend unexamined bigotry. For example, I once ran into a story where Martha Jones was actually about to fail out of medical school when she met The Doctor, because she was "incapable" of learning human anatomy and medicine, and despite "bribing her teachers". I wrote in my journal that I thought the story was racist, in a public post, and people scolded me for being censorious and not letting people "have fun". (This was back when LJ was viable.) I have a pile of other experiences like that. I would never agree with the antis that Someone (aka them) should prevent people from writing whatever, but I feel like to completely agree with "create what you want, no limits, nothing matters but creating," I have to agree that a fan of color has no right to be hurt by a story that turns an intelligent Black woman into a cheat and an idiot, even in that fan's own space. What do you think?

You have every right to feel offended or hurt by a story. But your hurt and offense does not negate someone else's ability to create. Nor does it dictate that you can tell them what they can and cannot create.

How do you know the author wasn't a person of color themselves? How do you know they weren't writing the story based on their own emotions, difficulties or experiences? Is painting a person of color as 'unintelligent' a common theme in their works or was it just the plot device of this specific story? If Martha Jones was Asian or Indian or Caucasian, would you have still been offended on her behalf that an intelligent woman/intelligent woman of color was being turned into 'an idiot'?

These are questions we have to ask ourselves when trying to determine if a work was genuinely created with the intent of being harmful. Because individually not liking or being hurt by the content's of a story is not a good enough reason to advocate against it.

The 911 fandom, for example, saw a lot of it with Eddie Diaz. People were so entrenched in fandom virtue signalling that pretty much any depiction of Eddie Diaz in fanfiction was getting bitched about as 'out of character' or 'racist' including works written by actual people of color. It got to the point where for quite a while fanfiction production within the 911 fandom dropped way down because people were too annoyed with or upset by the constant accusations no matter what was being written.

And I know it probably sounds like I'm just smokescreening for racism or excusing it. but I can promise you, I've blocked and reported authors and fandom creators before for being blatantly racist in their content. But fanfiction and literature become trickier because the purpose of stories is not to be palatable or feel-good. Stories do not have to be pleasant. Fanfiction does not have to conform to the source material.

Describing someone as "incapable" is typically a turn of phrase and has nothing to do with trying to allocate unintelligence to a specific type of person. Plenty of people would be classed as "incapable" of learning medicine because its a hard fucking thing to learn. You need to dedicate more or less five-ten years of your life to studying it before you even really get anywhere with actually practising it.

If you're someone who's easily distracted or has trouble remembering things and vice versa, you're unlikely to go into a career field that especially demands these things of you.

I imagine in any case her failing out of medical school was likely the plot point that leads her to going off with The Doctor. Which is a simple narrative and not a case of "unexamined bigotry." Its just as likely that if the author had had Martha Jones simply give up her aspirations and career to follow The Doctor, someone else would've been offended by the trope of a (black) woman giving up everything for a (white) man and deemed the story sexist or racist. Possibly both.

When analysing literature you have to be critical of if something is offending you personally or if it was intended to offend people of color as a whole. If the answer is only the former, then its a situation where you just have to recognise the work is not for you and move along.

[azrielgreen]

Do you ever worry that writing dead dove fic could negatively impact your writing career in the future? I'm kind of struggling with this, I've seen so many authors careers ruined by doing much less "problematic" things than writing non-con in a fic. I'd be devastated if by some miracle I managed to write a book that actually got popular just to be canceled by someone digging up my fanfic. From what I've seen the book community is even more harsh than fandom, there's no nuance or room for discussion whatsoever, when the hammer falls that's it and no one wants to be seen as being on the wrong side so they won't read your book. I don't want to limit myself creatively or have to be secretive and paranoid, I'm here to make friends, but I also don't want to shoot myself in the foot. I'm just curious if you've thought about how you'd handle a situation like that.

This is a really sad way of looking at things and I'm really sorry that the absolute state of fandom has people feeling so down and so heavily policed.

I don't ever worry about this.

One of the first messages I ever got about 'You're Divine' was someone telling me that it meant so much to them that I was open about who I am and upfront about writing fic because it made them believe one day a fanfic writer might break into the publishing industry.

There are THOUSANDS of professional writers who also write fanfic, many who are very open about it. I will be one of them.

This Dead Dove "Panic" isn't new, it comes and goes. This discourse is old as shit and just about as interesting to anyone except the people who are eagerly learning puritanical ways to bully and harass.

I always write for myself. I write what I want, how i want and I will share that with the people who want to read for it for as long as I can. I will content warn and create as many safe barriers for readers as I can. I will always write with empathy and nuance and authentic curiosity and i will always stay open to the changes i can make to be more open minded, more inclusive, to broaden my horizons and explore with an open heart.

I will not censor myself.

I will not stand on a pedestal and loudly decry others to detract attention from myself and my own works.

I will not stand for bullying and I will NOT quieten my literary voice because there are those who think that depicting rape is endorsing rape. I won't bow to those who seek to remove the context every single time and I will never bow to purity culture.

If I sell 10 books in my life, I'll know that's 10 people who really wanted to read my work and they did. That's amazing to me.

I have nothing but respect for those who choose to shield their identity, who write with pseuds, who protect themselves.

But if I can make one fucking person feel better about themselves and their interests, about writing darker material... if i can make ONE person feel unashamed and confident enough to write what they want to, then that'll be worth everything.

I'm always going to write what I want and publishing will be the same. I have no intention of watering myself down for mainstream approval.

The literary world cannot be made up of only ONE type of story. It cannot be censored. It must not be purified and sanctified. Some stories are ugly. Shocking. Horrifying. Brutal. Provocative. The expanse of human emotion of vast and complex. As humans, we sometimes have a need to experience complex, ugly emotions within a framed narrative of safety. We read and we write for so much MORE than moral virtue signalling. It's tiring to see some of the most important stories being blanket labelled as "problematic" just for existing. To see people ignore warnings and context and thoughtlessly embodying the modern puritan.

I'll never stop being who I am and writing for myself. Everything else is secondary. Once you start writing for other people, bowing to purity culture, diluting yourself... it's already over.

Fuck that.

Love, Az.

💜💜💜

[skaruresonic]

I was going to make a broader overarching point about how IDW's version of the characters seem more interested in virtue-signalling than in proving their goodness through their deeds, but I got a bit tuckered out. Anyway. Tl;dr for the wall of text ahead: the games still win in this regard. By a landslide.

In Unleashed, Sonic can accept a sidequest from a little Mazuri girl named Yaya. Normally, Yaya is shy, perhaps even nonverbal, and will flee if you attempt to talk to her. It's rare to see her during the day, so when you spot her out in the open, cowering but attempting to communicate to the best of her ability, it's a clue that she wants something badly enough to risk her fears. After several false starts, Yaya manages to ask Sonic to get her a chocolate sundae. She doesn't explain why, nor do you immediately receive a reward when you give it to her. It's only later, after Yaya's mother recovers, that you learn the reason for her odd request. Mom was sick, and Yaya wanted to give her a sundae to help make her feel better. Despite avoiding you until now, she managed to swallow her fears for the sake of her mother.

It's sweet, as well as a humanizing moment for Yaya, her mother, and Sonic. As a good deed, it's nothing grand. Giving someone food when they're sick isn't nearly as lofty as air-dropping food to a nation in need, certainly, but in Unleashed, you at least see the tangible effect you've had on the people you helped. You just brightened the day of a mother and her daughter.

Through sidequests like these, Unleashed shows us that no act of kindness, however small or inconsequential seeming, is wasted.

Conversely, one of the... myriad reasons this panel rubs me the wrong way is that it achieves almost the opposite effect. The people of Mazuri are instead objectified. They're a monolith, a statistic, to help polish the Restoration's reputation to a sterling sheen. In this regard, they might as well be props.

We hear about this aid nearly secondhand, as it's something Silver, Blaze, and Jewel intend to do but haven't yet. All the scene is intended to do is make the Restoration look good, as though by mere dint of being called the Restoration, we couldn't put 2 and 2 together and figure it out.

The one time we're informed of their humanitarian aid, we're not shown it. So really, what was the point of bringing it up, if not to stroke the heroes' self-righteous boner?

Inaccuracies to the games aside (which is par for the course for the book), there's all sorts of... unsavory implications at play here. Blaze "was touring" Sonic's world when she happened upon Mazuri's plight. Because we're not given much detail other than "poor crops this season," we have to assume Blaze took some initiative to ease the situation.

Take a moment to think about this. Blaze hails from a water world. How would she know what constitutes sufficient crop failure to warrant shipping aid to a completely different clime than the one she's most familiar with? How does she know what "poor crop season" looks like in Mazuri? How does she know she doesn't have any biases about the way people in Mazuri should approach their agriculture? Does she understand they eat more than just crops, and sell fruit and broiled ibanga as well as confections? If this is her first time touring Sonic's world, how does she approach the government of its denizens? Did she do this respectfully? Did she confer with Mazuri's Elders? Did the people seek her help? Did they say Out Loud With Their Mouths that they'd accept her help, or did she presume their needs? We don't receive answers to any of those questions. She "was touring" the area when she saw a problem worth correcting. The thought starts and ends there. The people of Mazuri do not merit a voice or agency in the matter, because all that really matters here is that you know how virtuous Blaze, Jewel, and Silver are for helping the less fortunate in their time of need. (Which is really ironic, considering Surge calls Sonic out for speaking over her and Kit when they're standing right in front of him in the exact same issue.)

Add the connotations that Flynn frequently describes Blaze as "the imperial princess of the Sol Empire" instead of "duchess" or "guardian of the Sol Emeralds"... Marry them with the implication that she's butting into the business of a foreign nation when we don't know the specifics of their plight, they're just Objects to show us how virtuous our heroes are, and this whole onion of suckage starts to reek.

[olderthannetfic]

The only real issue I got with microlabels or new-labels is when they're literally defined in a way to shit on labels who's sexuality the new label is based on. I think 10 years ago bi and pan is the best example, though I still see people using the biphobic and transphobic definition of "Would date trans people, because we don't just care about what's inside someone's pants." or whatever the different variations sounded like, and how people would call bisexuals bigots. Which never made sense when using the "is attracted to trans people." Because... if you not only need a specific label to ALSO be attracted to trans MEN and WOMEN you are kinda saying that trans is a "secret third". But also always made me wonder where's the lesbian, het and gay version of that? The more common and neutral version of Pan that more people seem to use is much less passive aggressive-openly aggressive: Pan don't have a gender preference. Since ya know, bisexuality is considered to be a spectrum where attraction levels can vary.

If a label seems to be built on shitting on another label, or be condescending I feel like those labels ain't shit because being an asshole about how special you are and how shitty you think someone else's label is, is just really childish. If your entire shtick is that you're so much better than everyone else, and that your label specifically is so much more superior then you're just a virtue signalling asshole.

--

[lemonhemlock]

Yeah the absolute inability for a lot of the people in this fandom to not do an insane amount of projecting is crazy and makes discussions borderline impossible. There are a lot of people whose only analysis of ASOIAF is Westeros is a Patriarchal Shithole therefore any action by any female character, no matter how evil/deranged/sociopathic, is fair and cannot be criticized because Patriarchy! Patriarchy Bad! No other analysis needed! The amount of times someone will try to critique Rhaenyra for her adultery or pushing out multiple bastards she intends to put on the iron throne it's always met with 'Okayy but Westeros is a Patriarchal Hellscape so who cares! Rhaenyra is Bad Ass for taking Back her SeXuAl AgEnCy.' Once again, these people have a great disdain for the world GRRM has built, and I don't blame them at all, but I just don't get the need to be hyper fixated on a series where you fundamentally hate the setting. Makes no damn sense to me.

I also think a significant portion of this fandom doesn't want to make a good faith attempt to engage with GRRM's work because a lot of it is considered deeply problematic in 2023, but was shit he could get away with writing in 1996. Basically, I don't think he's necessarily doing a lot of 'critique' so much as being transgressive and using the medieval fantasy setting as parameters for his edgelordiness lol. I mean, in western first world countries, it's not as if Feudal Monarchies that are Highly Oppressive to Women, are....a pressing issue? Even in 1996 lol. What exactly is he critiquing? lol. Like, some of it is the basic 'critique' sure, but a lot of it is him being a edgy nerd that likes to write about nipples and nubile teens, but the fandom isn't ready for that conversation lol.

Hi there, you raise some interesting points, so thanks for stopping by. I agree with the first part of this post and less so with the second part. Under the cut for ease of scrolling.

I think there is definitely a part of GRRM that is a boomer edgelord just writing for shits and giggles and anyone who has read any sex scene written by him can certainly attest to that. But as to the lack of good faith engagement with his work by many of his own fans, I'm not really certain they demonstrate enough interest in researching the topics to even try? A lot of the times I feel like I'm talking to brick walls, like there is a definite lack of intellectual curiosity and a dogmatic obstinacy in promoting their conceptualization of social justice as universal in any time frame, but more in the sense of positioning themselves as thought leaders and Havers of Right Opinions.™ IMO it's more a preoccupation with virtue-signaling than it is a tacit apprehension of the problematic quality of the work.

To return to the bastard conundrum, a lot of them can't seem to understand that "just pass a law lol" isn't a magical solution and that it would actually require the overhaul of the entire political system, including economic and cultural advancements that are simply absent. How are people supposed to earn a comfortable living if agriculture is the main occupation? Of course that landowners are not going to give that up, they can't simply just "get a job at the business factory" to support themselves and make up for what they might lose. In this context, the acquisition of more land becomes vital or, at the very least, avoiding its fragmentation. That's why the first born gets everything. Yes, it's also patriarchal because it's the first born son, but it's also dishonest to not admit that it's just easier this way. It's less of a headache if the gaggle of relatives are left as hangers-on dependent on the good will of the head of their family. It's less of a headache because people will go to war less often if there are clear rules for inheritance in place.

In no way is this a perfect system or a fair one, but how are you even supposed to spread more democratic ideas if the population is illiterate? If books have to be copied by hand? How are you supposed to learn a trade to earn a living if you can't access information? Then you are dependent on guilds, but the level of urbanization in Westeros is very low. Guilds also gatekeep membership and information and I'm no medieval historian but I imagine that you can get into trouble for practicing the trade of a guild without authorisation etc like these are simply not topics on their mind when they think that Viserys can just change inheritance laws for everyone within a blink of an eye. Just it is not, but it's a logical explanation as to why people might act in a certain way or be less receptive to certain ideas.

Moving on to the topic of GRRM's actual critique and contribution to the disk horse. In previous posts I expressed being perplexed by some fans' conceptualization of this setting. Of course that it's difficult to issue 100% factual assessments when the series is lacking two whole books. However, there have been many essays written already on the topic of his deconstruction of tropes only to reconstruct them later on and how the series is not supposed to read in this dudebro, grimdark, cynical key where the evil and powerful always triumph over the true and good, so I'm not going to get into that. But I think that applies to the political setting as well. I'm pretty certain he is not planing to dismantle the concept of feudal monarchy at the end of ADOS, like, we're still getting a ruler, but it's going to be a Good One, as opposed to all of the other unworthy ones that came before. We're not time-skipping 1000 years of human development to bring Westeros into the enlightened era of late stage capitalism where you can be a CEO girlboss, nor is there going to be a socialist revolution. If anything, he's being pretty apprehensive regarding the last one by giving Dany a violent revolution plotline that doesn't work out pretty optimistically.

So, yeah, in that regard, I feel like applying a lot of modern left-wing doctrine on this series might lead some to believe certain aspects are hidden criticisms when they absolutely are not and start demonising stuff that was never intended to be "bad" in the first place. I already mentioned death of the author in my previous post and, certainly, you can analyse any work of fiction through any methodology you want, but, at the same time, I feel like there are certain elements old man GRRM included in his story that are just typical of medieval fantasies and are just accouterments expected in this setting that people are taking way too seriously. Like the Iron Throne being the source of all evil and trouble in Westeros. No, it's just a mighty, imposing throne, because that's a leitmotif in medieval fantasy. Or the Conquest being a Bad Thing,™ because they view it through the lens of American colonialism. Certainly, he presents the Targaryens as problematic as a whole and the Conquest being a bloody endeavour, but I'm not convinced that Aegon I's idea of uniting the realms will end up being critiqued in and of itself.

Similarly, GRRM as an author falls into the trap of a lot of cliches about the medieval period - the prevalence of child brides in his work being such an egregious stereotype. This is indeed unfortunate, but he's also 75 and probably did his history reading a couple of decades ago; meanwhile, the field has thankfully progressed since then, as has the quality of the research. But I seriously doubt the man scours Google Scholar to stay up to date with the historiography of the period.

As to what he actually DOES critique. I think that there are two kinds of avenues for discussion here, the first being how ASOIAF is in direct conversation with the high fantasy genre - so it's actually attempting to criticize other books - which is where the trope deconstruction and the complex characterisation play in, as opposed to reliance on formulaic plots. Here I will leave it to people who are more versed in this genre than I am in order to draw the proper comparisons.

The second represents the in-world critiques the story engages in. The nature of kinghood is one of them, the age-old question of what does it mean to be a "good ruler", the nature of power and how to wield it are the central themes of the series. We have a varied cast of nominees for the role of monarch; each style and cause is weighed against each other and, as they become inoperable or obsolete, will be disregarded and eliminated.

Here I think there is a very interesting conversation to be had about Robb Stark and his role in the story, because IMO it brings together a lot of GRRM's actual criticisms (both in-world and genre-adjacent) and it's a deeply misunderstood plotline. In most other fantasy stories, characters like Ned and Robb are the ones who prevail in the end; or, if the noble father figure is unjustly slain on the battlefield or cowardly killed in some way, then certainly the valiant son will succeed in avenging him and achieving justice. I personally think it's fascinating why GRRM chose to sacrifice both of these characters specifically. You can say Ned would be a more natural choice, as it is also in line with the fictional trope of mentors dying, but why, in his plot construction, did he decide against making Robb the hero? Why did he focus on Jon instead? OFC, the secret R/L plotline, whatever, but then why did he specifically create Robb only to kill him later on?*

Anyway, the point of this digression is that I think the actual criticisms of these characters' ruling styles fly over the head of the audience. Which is why you end up with dudebros convinced that Stannis was going to prevail or people who don't understand what's wrong with Renly. If they're a player of the game, rarely is a character killed off randomly or fridged; their demise can be traced back to their own decisions & actions.**

Additionally, there are some obvious critiques on the topic of war and how the relentless ambition of nobles to acquire even more power only ends up hurting the lower classes, but that ties in very closely with the central theme anyway, in that, at some point, the candidates have to ponder the question of whether to pursue their political advancement or yield for the greater good. There is also critique of the patriarchy that's not perfect, sure, but there are a wide variety of female characters given actual personalities and depicted in their attempts to navigate societal restrictions. I think there is also critique on the rapid, overnight overhaul of socio-political systems without a plan in place, reuniting and confronting many thorny topics of human rights vs political advancement towards democracy in a way that's actually achievable and long-lasting via Dany's Essos storyline. And, of course, who can forget of the critiques of knighthood and how he specifically took the character of Jaime Lannister, changed his original moustache-twirling villain arc and decided it was better to have an actual debate on how honour and identity intertwine.

To conclude, I would also say that he probably never intended for this series to become his magnum opus and the work for which he became world-wide famous; otherwise, he maybe would have done some things very differently. So it's very possible that he never intended to write this great critique of medieval-inspired fantasy in the first place; he probably just thought it would be cool to write something in this setting a la Tolkien. Not everything an author writes has to be this huge social commentary relevant to the pressing problems of today, but I think there are enough elements in ASOIAF that are unique enough and offer enough of a different perspective to at least pose some questions or start a conversation.

*that's a post for another day because this already got too long

**ofc this doesn't apply to the commonfolk or children or other innocents

[spoczkotszcz]

If you ever find yourself in a situation where someone is trying to use a checklist to impact your life and freedom, the below might be useful.

PCL-R is widely used to assess individuals in high-security psychiatric units, prisons and psychological screenings. This decides who should be detained and what sort of treatment you'd receive.

The checklist is a constellation of traits which you need to be aware of so as to not score them. Simply. This impacts your life. This is important. Do not allow people to box you in. You may be branded with a label that has a very real very tangible impact on your ability to access resources if you are not careful. It can have financial and social repercussions which will affect the quality of your life. In extremis you may lose your liberty. Avoid at all cost being labelled ASPD NPD or anything of the like.

Narcissism - this one is easy to avoid. Pretend you are shy talking about yourself. Pick a trait, such as having difficulty making eye contact that is easy to fake and easy to spin into a narrative wherein you are so concerned about what others think, but not in a positive or self obsessed manner.

Superficial charm - this one is also easy. Ties into the counter-narcissism narrative quite neatly. Make it so your fictitious trait is prominent (don't overdo it!) In your conversation. This can be shaking hands, unsure eye contact, a nervous twitch. Whatever.

Charisma / outward attractiveness -do not bother with this one. The innate human desire to trust and believe those they perceive as clean/attractive/healthy etc will only help you

Seductiveness -don't try to fuck the psychiatrist

Promiscuity -see above

Lack of empathy - ironically the easiest tell on this one is over exaggerated reactions. Do not grin broadly. Mute yourself. Go for a natural look. Do not overdo the shy/nervous/etc gestures

Feeling of emptiness -do not discuss the void. The void stays in the void.

Sadism- do not discuss. Bonus points if you organically introduce a narrative wherein you express that you feel horror at another's pain with very subtle body language and facial expressions to match.

Paranoia- if it weren't for your paranoia you wouldn't be reading this, and I wouldn't be writing this. By virtue of it being paranoia you won't talk about it with a head snooping doctor anyway.

Suicidal

Self harm

The suicidal x self harm traits are the ones you need to focus on and outwardly display so you may be diagnosed with a depressive disorder, if you are in a situation where they need to diagnose you with something. A depressive disorder will be much less impactful on your life. Of note is that the way you experience self harm and suicidal ideation is different than that of a depressive person. You need to be keenly aware of this. A depressed person does not get sexually excited by the prospect as an example. You will need to do research.

Female presenting people will also have an easier time with this and can afford to get a lot more lax and creative as femininity inherently signals emotional caring etc. in many cultural contexts. Obviously play it by ear, but do consider how you present outwardly. This includes other physical characteristics such as height and build. Try to be an inoffensive stereotype they can easily box in and feel smug that they've identified your "issue".

All other traits must be masked. Do not avoid discussing your past, but do lie about it.

[butmakeitgayblog]

Why does E give you the creeps? I feel like at the time, she was more openly supportive and enthusiastic around Clexa and ADC was the one who was more cagey and was obviously a straight girl who just didn’t really know what to say/didn’t want to say the wrong thing. I have always loved Alycia, but that’s how it came across to me. I’ve been out of the fandom for awhile and am getting back into it so I’m out of the loop. Is it because she married Bob Morley?

Oh no, I couldn't care less that she married Bob. My issue with Eliza (which I've gone into deeper detail about before so I'm just gonna be more brief here) is because of BM's ex's allegations involving cheating, gaslighting, and manipulation that E was party to, and then how E has since treated Clexa and Clexa fans. She went from championing Clexa to claiming she can't really remember scenes very well? Ok. She went from calling it "bell*rke shit" that will probably never happen because that's just not Clarke and his relationship is, to telling his paying Cameo stans that oh no, no reeeeally there were these secret few times that blork almost did happened and it was in the script and they actually built whole sets for it!!! But gee golly gosh it just got cut for some reason and we super don't know how that happened! But it totally was going to happen! Blork was real!! Source: Trust Me Bro.

There's a lot more to it involving her charities and the fact that she milks hers and his stans for all the cash they can get, but in simplest terms, the writing is on the wall about who she is and how she conducts herself as a person, and I'm not a fan.

As for Alycia, if in the future she does something to piss me off I'll drop her too. Celebs get held on a pedestal way too often and forgiven for being objectively bad people just because fans like their artform. I don't care to be that way. That being said, I never held it against Alycia for not being outspoken about Clexa, that's just not who she is. She's never effusive or public on her opinions on much of anything aside from like... what flowers she likes. To her, it's a job with a clock in and clock out time, and I can respect that. I appreciate it, actually. She's always been kind and gracious with fans who have met her, or so I've heard, and that's all I think a celeb really needs to be.

Personally I never found her to be cagey per se, just quiet and kept to her own lane. She said herself that because she isn't a part of the queer community, she never felt comfortable speaking out on it because it felt like she'd be speaking over the voices of the fans and queer people who were using that time for speaking their truth and pain. While some held that against her or felt let down, I didn't because in more ways than not, she was right. There wasn't much she could've added to the conversation that wasn't already being said by people who were actually the ones hurt by what happened with Lexa and the bury your gays trope proliferation of 2016. And since then, she's shown her support. She came back to a show that she had left behind for years just to give fans closure, and she did it in a way that didn't suck money from fans by bleeding their wallets dry through endless conventions.

It's because of those very same feelings in conjunction with seeing how E has handled the whole blork/Clexa situation in recent years that has let me know all that "support" E was throwing our way was disingenuous anyway. She doesn't get to keep those points from me. Honestly I'd prefer celebs to just stay tf quiet on issues rather than virtue signal and fake support for their own interests, only to eventually show their true colors and act mystified and victimized when people feel fooled and pissed off 🤷‍♀️

[morlock-holmes]

What exactly are we trying to solve?

The incuriosity and fuzziness with which people look at the west coast homelessness crisis drives me fucking batty.

Now look, I admit up front that I am also both incurious and wool-headed about this issue, but I work in a fucking restaurant for minimum wage. If you write a book about the fucking homeless crisis or run the city government I expect you to think a little bit harder than the average schmoe on the street, and I think that's reasonable.

One thing that pisses me off about the way people talk about homelessness is that they don't seem to know why it's bad, or what it would look like to solve it. Which I know sounds crazy but hear me out.

Scott Alexander helpfully reviews San Fransicko for me so I don't have to punch any holes in my drywall, but I want... Well, actually I was composing this as I finish Alexander's review, and I got to his utilitarian discussion at the end that cuts to the heart of the matter:

Along with all the problems and preaching, San Fransicko offers solutions. These won’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s read this far: they’re basically the Amsterdam plan presented earlier. Break up open-air drug markets. Force addicts into rehab by threatening prison sentences for noncompliance. Ban camping on streets and force the homeless into shelters. Offer permanent housing when appropriate, but make it contingent on good behavior. Have a strong psychiatric system with ability to commit people who need it, and enforced outpatient treatment when appropriate.

Would these work?

I’m pretty sure they would work well for housed people and the city as a whole. Homeless people would no longer block the streets and assault passers-by; they would be safely out of sight in shelters or in mental institutions. A new generation of tough DAs would crack down on crime. Stores could reopen, and citizens could walk the streets without fear. It’s hard for me to imagine this not working.

...

I have to admit - I talk a good utilitarian talk on this, but I don’t know if I live up to my ideals. An addictionologist interviewed in San Fransicko heaps contempt on well-off liberals who get the benefits of virtue-signaling while externalizing the costs onto poor people in bad areas:

[You] sit in the suburbs and feel smug about the fact that you oppose the war on drugs and have a Black Lives Matter sign in your yard. But you don’t have homeless people taking a crap on your front stoop every day or [have] all your packages stolen every single day

So I imagine - what if I lived in the worst parts of SF, had people crap on my front steps every day, had all my packages stolen, and (by the bounds of this hypothetical) wasn’t allowed to move to the suburbs, ever? I think I would last two weeks before I sacrificed all of my principles on the altar of “less human feces, please”.

Maybe, as a lefty, I'm supposed to read that and gasp and say, "How can you be so heartless?" or maybe I'm supposed to say, "Gosh, when you get right down to it, doesn't the poor guy have a point?"

But instead I'm going to ask:

Do you have any studies showing how effective those policies are at getting rid of human feces?

I'm not being a smart-ass, I'm genuinely wondering how Alexander didn't notice that so much of the criticism he himself quotes in Shellenberger's book has nothing to do with any of that stuff.

This is the particular quote from Shellenberger that caught me up short:

"An experiment with 249 homeless people in San Francisco between 1999 and 2002 found those enrolled in the city’s Housing First program, Direct Access to Housing, used medical services at the same rate as those who were not given housing through the program, suggesting that the Housing First program likely had minimal impact on the participants’ health."

Did it have an impact on how often they took a shit on a public sidewalk? Did it have an impact on the amount of litter they dumped on streets? Did it have an impact on time spent chasing people around and screaming obscenities? Did it have an impact on how often they injected heroine in the subway? Did it have an impact on how many sidewalks they blocked with tents?

All that fucking soul-searching, all that "Gosh, perhaps to solve the problem we simply must be cruel" and this reluctant commitment to reducing the effect of homelessness on tourists and housed locals, and realizing that, gosh, we might have to sacrifice the well-being of homeless people if that's what it takes, an utter commitment to ignoring anything but the reduction of social harm from mass camping...

And the criticism of DAH is that it doesn't improve the health outcomes of the people enrolled in it?!

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

This kind of goalpost shifting is RIFE within the discussion of west coast homelessness, where opponents of current policies or even speculative ones waffle back and forth about whether or not they give a shit about the health of the homeless or not.

Before all that soul-searching I quoted this is Scott's assessment of Housing First policy:

Conclusion: Housing First seems to work in getting people housing. It probably also helps people use fewer medical services, and it might or might not save money compared to not doing it (probably more likely when treating very severe cases, less likely in areas with high housing costs). It probably doesn’t affect people’s overall health or drug use status very much.

So... Housing first policies probably actually do a pretty damn good job at making the Homeless less obnoxious to tourists and housed people in a number of concrete ways related to litter, camping, public defecation, etc.?

There's good reason to think, pending further research, that they might actually do a pretty good job at reducing some of the problems that, after all that soul-searching, we decided were the only priorities we have?

I'm furious and unhappy at the way Portland is being covered by tent cities, mounds of trash, and grafitti. But I have this utterly baffling conversation with people where they go,

"This camping is shameful, the city should crack down on it!"

"So, get people into stable housing"

"Well, if you get people into stable housing it only puts a band-aid on the problem, they still can have health and behavioral problems that are really important."

And I always go, "Right, but I thought we were trying to reduce camping."

There's this kind of baffling goal-post moving. Alexander has a lot of paragraphs of hand-wringing over whether or not we should accept that sometimes we have to be TOUGH and HARD to really solve these problems, and accept that we may just have to care less about what Homeless people do or want, but he somehow hasn't noticed that he actually has very little data on whether or not Shellenberger's preferred policies work better than what he calls "Housing First" in terms of these metrics.

This is a wild guess and armchair psychologizing, but what seems to be happening is that in cities like San Francisco or Portland, as the problem gets worse, you, as a relatively better-off housed person, start thinking of Homelessness less and less in purely charitable terms with worries about how it effects the homeless, and more and more things like, "I don't like crossing the street because the sidewalk I was going to use is blocked by tents and piles of garbage" and "I don't like how often people chase after me screaming obscenities" and that feels somehow hard and uncompassionate, so you sort of start to assume that the only way to solve these problems is through policies that also feel hard and uncompassionate.

But I'm going to be honest, the case for that strikes me as extremely flimsy and I don't think I've ever seen anybody make it in a very convincing way.

[kamenstrikerace]

Time To Tackle Some Of This Yu-Gi-Oh Fandom Drama ONCE AGAIN

I just saw that Go Rush is coming to America, and it's been confirmed that it will have 151 episodes. What really pissed me off were the comments about it. I have to get this off my chest.You know, I was going to remain calm, but some of these comments are beyond words. The mental gymnastics and double standards are sheer animosity.

The first comment exhibits double standards and mental gymnastics. It starts by claiming that all Yu-Gi-Oh! shows are flops in Japan, which isn't true since Japan has never confirmed whether Yu-Gi-Oh! shows are flops or beloved. What I can't stand is how this comment calls the shows edgy but then defends the Rush era of Yu-Gi-Oh! while blatantly stereotyping. I couldn't care less about what you have to say, buddy. I think you're in the wrong era. I can't agree with someone whose brain cells are melted into mush or consumed by degeneracy.

Like, I stopped supporting Go Rush because it sucked so much from day one. It sucked so much that it FUCKING SUCKS! You wanna know why it sucks? Because it's the same trash writing as Sevens. It made me feel so attacked that only those Twitter cunts would enjoy it. I do not support this type of degeneracy or try to stay optimistic. In fact, these last two years have been hard on me, trying to accept the series from scratch. It failed so much that you people try to sugarcoat the blame on the Gallop era while saying the show is bad.

DO YOU THINK I GIVE A FUCK ABOUT A CARTOON? DO YOU THINK IT MAKES ME CARE ABOUT IT? I CAN'T STAND THIS DISASTER OF AN ANIME. WHY DO YOU THINK I CAN'T STAND THE COMMUNITY IN THE FIRST PLACE? It's because of people like you who ruined it. You ruined the community and then tell me that's just what you think? I THINK YOU ARE PATHETIC IN EVERY NOOK AND CRANNY.

WHY DO YOU THINK Yu-Gi-Oh! fans hated Zexal, Arc-V, and VRAINS so much? It was because no one liked them. They're like the Star Wars prequels: divisive and terrible. I don't care if people in this fandom overthink it. They need to let go of their overthinking bullshit and learn to discipline themselves.

Let me quote what you just said: "Go Rush and Sevens are the most optimal balance between seriousness and silliness." That is just you being a modern degenerative moron. YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS? YOU MADE ME LOSE BRAIN CELLS SO MUCH THAT I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DIGEST THIS CONTEXT. This is why literacy and media are dying. Modern media is trash. Retro always wins. You have to be a fool to say stuff like that. Like, I hate Zexal and VRAINS, but I admit they both suck so much. They were never mainstream, just badly written shows.And you can't even say that? Because you're afraid of getting canceled by those Twitter mobs who virtue signal everything they see as "problematic." It's like society can't get any more ridiculous.

[thewritingcoroner]

Nothing frustrates me more than US election season "leftist v liberal" arguments. Congrats you have missed the point so entirely just to make yourself feel good! I'm just gonna put this under a read more because I don't want to clog my followers dash with my rant

Literally liberals will be like "vote blue no matter who!" And ignore all the opportunities they had to improve the Democratic party and create a party they can stand behind

And leftists will spend more time shitting on liberals and talking about the "real good" They're doing at any chance they get even when faced with genuinely tough theoretical questions than they will actually doing all the things they say they do.

Saw someone wax poetic about all the local work they're doing as like a counter to the argument "what alternative to voting blue do we have" as if that actually answers the question???

Like admit all the reading up on history and theory you're doing is literally useless without telling me you're lying out of your ass about reading theory.

And the using of the Palestinian genocide to make your argument makes me sick, like any modern US election can EVER be a single issue. I saw someone say it genuinely doesn't matter who is in the White House for Palestinians and 1. That's not true at all, and 2. Voting is not a virtue signal, it's a chess move.

Like say it was true that it doesn't matter who the president is (it's not) but let's say it it is. Then you are casting your vote (or not) over ONE issue. I care about Palestinians, absolutely, and I'm obviously not happy with Bidens handling of the genocide, nor do I really want him reelected. But realistically, the alternative choice is the GOP nominee, who is TRUMP.

So if I vote for Trump, or vote green and the green party is not (nor will it ever be) elected, then I am also voting for a guy who fully intends to implement policies designed to kill palestinians. And my brother, for example. Or kill me, for that matter. That vote will go to Trump, who has stated in no uncertain terms that he admires and agrees with Putin and actively supports and wants to strengthen Netanyahu.

So in this thought exercise, assuming that the president doesn't matter to the genocide in Palestine, which I can't even agree to, then voting along the "moral" (read "holy") choice would actively harm other marginalized people. How is that moral again???

Because if you care about Trans kids in Texas, the president matters. if you care about health coverage by your employer for certain life threatening health emergencies, the president matters. if you care about poor kids in city districts getting at least one meal a day at school, the president matters.

Voting is not a moral choice, it is a strategic one. And single issue voting is not a system we can survive on. If we want real radical change, we know we can't rely on voting anymore (could we ever?) But the alternative to voting blue people are asking for DOES NOT EXIST.

If you don't like the democratic nominee, you can't do much about that UNLESS you vote. You don't like who's running? Then YOU run. Believe it or not, you can! You SHOULD actually! We need more common people running for small offices and judgeships.

You don't want to vote for the republican? Well you have two voting options, the third party (which, to my leftists claiming to read history and political theory, you KNOW it's not a viable option for change, we have ample studies and analysis of previous elections to look at) and the the democratic party. And the third option is to abstain from voting.

If you don't vote, pat yourself on the back! You have remained ideologically pure, and should be canonized for your hard, holy work. After all, it takes a lot to do less than the bare minimum, and it's especially hard to be able to say that you lack the skills and adult understanding of the world to make hard decisions between two bad options. You have found the secret answer to choosing between the love for your own kids and the love for your neighbors, something no one has ever had to choose between except for you. But it's a good thing this tough choice fell on your shoulders because, like the Saint you are, you managed to make the only correct (holy) decision. By staying silent you have made it clear that you will never stand aside in the face of adversity. There is no issue in this world that can stop you from doing what is Right (holy) and simply not do the most basic easy thing to push the world towards positive change.

Kiss my ass

[solitariusdeluna]

it’s 2023 dear rpc

and accordingly, on this very first day of the new year. been here rping for a little over a decade now on tumblr and thought to share what i hope to see more of in the role-playing community. 

more interactions with your mutuals. and less cliquey-ness. i mean it’s only natural and human nature to like certain people more than others. but that’s not what i’m talking about here. what i mean is actually trying to reach out and interact with the mutuals you followed and share a dash with. be it ooc or ic. you did follow them for a reason. and trust me they would love to hear your thoughts and views on their creations or even how you could write together. be that kind soul that showers others with good words. but also rping is a two-way street and you shouldn’t expect people to come to you if you can’t or don’t want to do the same. kick shyness to the curb and reach out to your mutuals more. 

it’s okay to soft block/hard block others, it’s not personal. alternatively, sometimes you will have fallouts with people for whatever reason. do what is best for you and learn to set your own boundaries for your own comfort. if that means soft-blocking or even hard blocking. so be it. at the end of the day, you have to look out for numero uno and that is you. maybe, somewhere down the line when the fates allow it things will change and you can talk again to those you can’t at the moment. but even if that never happens, that’s okay too. not everyone is meant to get along at the end of the day. 

sending random praise or feedback. when you like someone’s portrayal of a certain character you adore. or if they make you see some character in a manner you never thought was possible and you ended up liking them. then let that person know! chances are you will end up making their day and isn’t that the best feeling ever? a little kindness goes a long way. paying it forward will make it come back to you eventually too. 

could we stop with the vague blogging. seriously many of us have been here for ages and are now adults. there is no excuse for it. you’re no longer an ignorant child to do it. it’s just not cool. don’t vague people. if something upsets you, step away from the pc and go get some fresh air. you probably need it more than staring at the puter anyway. just don’t vague someone to make yourself feel better or gain pity points. if the thing still bugs you go be brave and talk to the person directly. keep it off the dash because honestly, vague blogging is small-minded and weak. it’s also indirect bullying since the people agreeing with you because they like you, are dissing on someone they know nothing about.

drama is best for ic threads not ooc. this also carries on from the previous point. call-out culture, vague blogging, creating ooc drama, virtue signalling, policing others all that needs to just be forgotten and left behind with the years that have passed as by. again, we are adults here. no excuses for acting like children and treating others like shit just so you can feel better. that goes for anon hate too. it’s cowardly. it’s sad. it sucks. and you can do so much better than that. 

curb your rp partner expectations pls. rping might not be for you if you find it difficult to accept the fact that your rping partner writes and ships with someone other than you. unless you both agree to be in a single-ship situation which is different and not the current topic. rp partners will write with others and if that is not okay with you then maybe it’s time to go move on. it's just healthy for folks to have several rping partners since it’s more fun that way and that’s how your own character develops. but other times maybe you and them just don’t gel and that is no fault of anyone. just happens. and if it does also time to move on. 

you are allowed to turn down rp requests. you are allowed to say no without explaining yourself. you are allowed to not get along with people. you are allowed to not write anything if you’re not feeling it. you are allowed not to feel guilty. you are allowed to delete asks or drafts if they make you feel guilty since you tried but just couldn’t get to them. you are allowed to just have fun. rping is a hobby. it’s fun. it’s not a job. do what makes you feel good and that is all. 

stop comparing yourself to duplicates. everyone is good in their own way. and that is the beauty of different interpretations. just because someone you follow writes more with a version of your muse doesn’t make yours any less valid. your muse is just as valid as anyone else’s. comparing yourself with others only makes you miserable and is bad headspace you don’t want to get yourself into. try and avoid that and just have fun writing the character you chose because you love them!

make it a habit to praise others. writing it again because yes pls. here is a reminder to appreciate your fellow mutuals and other role players on things other than how well-liked they are. commend them on their writing. praise their artwork. appreciate their presence on your dash or anything else that highlights their talent rather than how "famous" they are. people love it when they are recognised and appreciated. they like it when their abilities are adored. not just that consideration of how many people adore them.

and lastly, can we just have fun. rping at the end of the day is about writing not just by yourself, that’s fanfiction. but it’s writing and weaving a story with another person. and making characters come alive and just shine in their own right. and that is the beauty of rping and why I’ve personally stuck to it for a good decade. it’s never boring. there’s always something new to learn or enjoy. and there are lots of friendships to be made during that process too. enjoy it and don’t stress it. 

[idololivine]

why the fuck did this fic perform the way it did? and other questions I ask myself when I'm bored

Or: I probably pay too much attention to ao3 stats. Not much of import in this post, just me musing about all my fics, their reception, and what I think of them now.

Product Testing

The beginning of an era...! My first ever fic for NuCa, after two or so years of not writing at all. Somehow the one with the third highest hit count and a respectable kudos to hits ratio, even though it's a whopping 335 words and not explicitly pornographic. I'm absolutely certain it's because it's the one of the few times I feature the heavy hitters of Quincy/Kuya/Edmond, and the only time I've ever written EiEd. Popular characters and ships are like a fucking magic trick to making a fic get good stats.

Iterative Design

Here the Olivine obsession begins. Fourth highest in hit count and I truly don't know why. Is it just because it's older and has had more time to rack up hits? The kudos to hits ratio is still respectable though. And it has 8 comments, which is the highest number of comments I ever get on any oneshot. My opinion of this one is tainted because within a week of posting it, a NuCa BNF complained that any writer who uses safewords in fic is just virtue signalling. It's probably better than I remember it being. I really like this vignette style of writing and I'm really good at short, snappy scenes, but most ideas don't fit that style.

if I could begin to be (half of what you think of me)

I briefly thought that maybe I would write a fair bit of non-porn for this fandom. Hahaha, no. I'm still surprised that fusion AU isn't more of a thing for Adult Steven Universe: the Gacha. I don't like this one much; every time I try to write even vaguely angsty things it ends up feeling really cringe and overwrought.

Hands-On Learning

The omegaverse era is here! This one has my second highest hit count, by a huge margin - about 800 more hits than third place, Product Testing. In hindsight I think it's slightly mediocre and I'm not sure why it performed so much better than fics that I think are better written. It might be spillover from my most popular fic. Despite the high hit count and good kudos/hits ratio, it only has 3 comments.

Tying the Knot

The QuinEiOli fic, and the undisputed king of my hit count rankings. I don't know why it's so popular! I really think the writing is kind of mediocre. Is it just because Quincy plays a central role in the porn? It's kind of sad to think of just how much ao3 stats are a pure popularity contest. Still only 8 comments on this one. Maybe 8 is my lucky number.

epsilon

I consider this a flagship fic of sorts - I don't often write in this style, but it's a strong and quick showcase of how I approach omegaverse, and a fun AU-based character study. I've learned more about the characters' backstories since writing it and it's added to my interpretations of them in omegaverse, but nothing in epsilon is outright contradicted. For a no-relationships T-rated fic, it's got really good stats. Another example of how much I enjoy and am good at vignette style fic.

oh, the weather outside is frightful

This one's just fun lol. I like heckling Dante. Very solid, respectable stats.

In Love and War

I honestly forget this one exists most of the time. Of my smutfics, it has the lowest number of bookmarks, which I think says everything you need to know about how "just okay" it is.

A Boner to Pick

I expected this one to get very little traction because trans people aren't allowed to exist in fic unless they have a very specific configuration of body parts and take very specific positions in sex, but... Oof. This one has my worst kudos/hits ratio by miles. I wonder how many of those kudos-less hits are from people not reading the tags, how many are from people who read the tags but either skipped over or didn't understand the "Phalloplasty" tag, and how many are a protest from me passive-aggressively telling people to not be weird about phalloplasty in the comments. I honestly thought this would be a fic that would have low numbers but decent ratio because the only people who would click on it are people who read the tags and know what they're about, but I guess not.

Learning by Doing

Bloli...! Number 5 on the hit counts rankings. It had a really good kudos/hits ratio early on, though it's fallen down a bit, presumably due to re-readers. This was the point where I decided to start making an effort to Describe Things In More Words and I think it paid off. In the kudos there's one from a BNF who loves Blade but has omegaverse as a hard no, so I personally consider the fact that they enjoyed this one enough to leave a kudos to be a huge W.

Office Hours

I really liked this one, but the reception was mediocre! Its hit count hasn't even broken 1k four months after posting. Maybe people aren't much for impact play when it involves top Eiden. Or maybe the description is just bad?

if i've been enveloped in tenderness

LOVE THIS ONE. hough it's so sweet. Hurt/comfort porn with feelings... This is the level of angst that I feel I have a great handle on - it's sad but not overdramatic. A commenter called it short and sweet and I just thought. Yeah, everything I write is short... Also a less-than-1k hit count on this one, but I always figured that hurt/comfort EiOli has less mass appeal than kinky smutfic.

Alphabet Soup

This is where I put the omegaverse snippets that are too short for me to want to bother titling and tagging as individual fics. The Yakumo chapter really fought me but I'm proud of how it turned out.

courtship token

My first NuFlashFic entry! It sits in this place where I don't think it's amazing but it's self-indulgent in a way where quality was never the point. I still think about this AU from time to time; I have recurring plans to write another fic along these lines but it simply never happens.

Much Ado About Knotting

Also love this one! I was worried about whether I should include the more serious elements like Eiden's self-consciousness, especially since most of the fic is silly goofy and the serious elements get moved on from very quickly. Those elements seem like they were well-received, though. The very quick turnaround between me finding out KIMN existed and trying to get something in before it ended meant I couldn't overthink and trim out a bunch of stuff from this fic, which I think was for the best.

green carnations

Ahh, I think this is SO overdramatic. Pre-canon Olivine with hanahaki is such a good concept and I don't think I did it justice. I'm a little bitter because my original 5-minute post about Olivine with hanahaki was reblogged by a bigger blog and tagged #fanfic, but my actual link to the actual fic I spent more time on was ignored. Very low hit count, but I expected that from a no-relationships T-rated fic.

Studies in Demonology

Chapter 2 felt SO bad to write. I can't reread this one because of that, just the thought makes me want to die inside. I also can't have objective thoughts about it.

caretaker

King of the kudos/hits ratio! GaruKaru fans are dedicated. I really like this one, though it's perhaps a bit too narrative heavy and could have used more character dialogue and interaction.

summa cum laude

The collab fic...! Ahh, I was so worried that my writing would look terribly amateurish next to two people who are SUCH good writers. I think it all turned out fine in the end. I feel bad that my chapter had much more focus on Olivine than Dante, but I think I just have to accept that my heart belongs to blorbo. I don't think anything I ever write from now on will ever top the number of comments this got.

weathering the storm

A close second on the kudos/hits ratio! GaruKaru fans strike again. I wish I had featured more Garu in this one; he kind of Just Exists. I don't think this one is especially bad, but I don't think it's especially good either. For once, this is a fic that I think could actually have spent more time in the oven.