#or argue your own viewpoints with respect and openness

[anniebanannie0]

.

[sphacelating]

bro you have NO IDEA how many lines in my latest essay that I edited out because I wanted to try to reach people and not put them on the defensive.

It's really, REALLY hard to not be a catty, vindictive bitch when I'm so incensed over how people interpret these characters!!!

believe me, this is a struggle i know all too well. a huge chunk of my degree was focused on communication. giving criticism that’s actually constructive is a delicate art and learned skill, the message you want to convey will be lost if it isn’t digestible, and if you don’t take care to make the audience you want to reach receptive to it. without the right approach, it doesn’t matter how much time you put into writing careful explanations and breaking something down into clear talking points. you’re miles ahead if you have good people skills and understand the potential obstacles in communication and writing and how to avoid them, but i am always trying to improve where i’m lacking.

and i do often shoot myself in the foot because my anger and frustration when people are so fucking offensively wrong gets the better of me. i used to have a far worse hairpin trigger temper, i’ve learned to regulate it, but i wouldn’t waste my time writing these long ass posts about something i wasn’t extremely passionate about, and there’s no passion without emotional investment. i’m gritting my teeth through it so that i can stay civil. i have a tendency to be an asshole, especially so when i get annoyed, sure, though i wouldn’t necessarily consider that a bad thing— some topics should not be sugarcoated, sometimes you need to be harsh and blunt to get a message across. most call for balance, however, and it’s especially important in an analytical thinkpiece. piss people off and they’ll be instantly unreceptive and unapproachable. now you’re trying to make sense to an argumentative defensive brick wall rather than having a mutually respectful conversation.

why the hell are we here writing these long thinkpieces if the goal isn’t change? i know we’re both adamant about this because we want to see change in our chosen fucked up corner of the internet, make it suck less, however slightly. i want to encourage people to explore different perspectives, and the key word is encourage. shoving your opinions down people’s throats is only a tactic that’s well received by someone who already agrees.

i’m often told i have an off-putting superiority complex, but my confidence in my well-formed opinions is always going to be off-putting to some. it isn’t a refusal to change my mind by any means— in fact, i find great enjoyment in exploring alternate points of view that make sense to me. if i’m presented with a different viewpoint that makes logical sense, more so than mine, i have no problem changing my mind once i’ve given it some thought. you’ll never see me argue for long in the face of overwhelming evidence that i was wrong when i can see the flaws in my own reasoning.

this is especially true when analyzing tcoaal.

i pay very close attention and i’m extremely perceptive, but i am well aware of that there are many details i’ve missed, seemingly trivial bits of dialogue that i failed to catch the importance of during my playthrough, a lot of things i didn’t commit to memory or that have slipped my mind over time. hell, there’s even entire scenes i’ve never seen and then discover the existence of later on because i haven’t had the time to play the game to 100% completion. if i rejected new information when it’s brought to my attention because of a refusal to admit i’ve been wrong, that would be fucking embarrassing.

unfortunately, people on here are often that exact kind of embarrassing, and that’s when all i can say is “are you fucking stupid?”, and i do. but in the end, what i really aim to do around here is inspire people to be more open-minded and learn where they lack knowledge and experience.

[capitalism-and-analytics]

I don't believe anyone has the right to discriminate against anyone for reasons of identity. Because if they didn’t do anything objectively then your problem with them is subjective and therefore should only be your problem.

You don’t have to like them or respect them or the way they live. But if you provide goods or service to everyone not only the people you approve of. Because either that's the standard you set for everyone. And not only justifying the emotional weakness of every shop owner (which is something I thought only liberals were supposed to do.) But then that gives people the right to further retreat into their own personal bubbles and to not have their viewpoints challenged by everyday life.

That and when this becomes the standard for everyone 1 day you'll be kicked out of some place for something they don't like about you, and you'll be like "that's not fair I did nothing wrong." Which means that you're telling people to express themselves less and to be less of how they are. Which is the thought process totalitarianism is based on.

And if we don't go through with tlhe implications of this and only do this to gay people then they'll ask "well what did we do wrong? Why are we less legitimate than everyone else?" And we answer with: "well it’s how they feel." "Then all they gotta respond with is "well we don't guard anyone else is feelings that much so seems dumb to me." And there's no logical counter to that.

So at worst it's tyrannical and at best it's hypocrtically. Remember freedom of people always comes before freedom of business because if not than the businesses will oppress us. And oppression of any kind is awful.

Well there's quite a few things to address here and to avoid a terribly long post, I am going to try to keep it focused and on-topic of the original post.

I am assuming this post is in response and in context of the court decision (correct me if I am mistaken), but the decision was limited to expressive services and protecting individuals' rights of expression that in conducting business they have a right to reject providing expressive services that conflict with their own beliefs. This is very different than summarizing it as "only people you approve of" as it should be better described as "only forms of expressions you approve of". I understand the concern that people have that this could be a slippery slope situation that could turn into discrimination of certain groups of people solely based on a protected form of identity, but that is an inherent risk regardless as unfortunately, bigotry cannot be legislated away.

that gives people the right to further retreat into their own personal bubbles and to not have their viewpoints challenged by everyday life

Absolutely not as this "right" has already existed by consumers. The difference is that the right has been extended to businesses too. For example, forcing Muslims to shop at a Christian wedding store will not challenge their viewpoints, it will merely oppress them. Similarly, forcing a Christian wedding store to design services specifically for a Nikah will have the same effect.

In contrast, if you give them both the right to willingly participate, then you will find the Christian wedding store may choose to be more open to other religious practices in order to generate more business or the Muslims may consider purchasing some items/services from the Christian wedding store than to go without.

Remember freedom of people always comes before freedom of business because if not than the businesses will oppress us

I am not sure what you mean here because businesses are people. They are just a legal term to describe the entity providing a good or service. Are you referring to corporations being separate legal entities than their stockholders?

In the context of the court decision, we are referring to a self-employed website designer being protected by the first amendment, i.e. freedom of expression. Are you arguing that the Constitution or more specifically the First Amendment should not cover those involved in a business-related activity? I don't wish to strawman or misrepresent your argument.

[anticedfiaweek]

Continuously posting about cedfia IS escallating things. I dont understand the point of this account. Its not convincing people who would need to be convinced to stop prosipping and all your posts do is remind people who dont like cedfia of cedfia and it also makes the cedfia shippers angry and starts fights. Why cant you just block the proships? I am not saying this becuase I hate you but I just wanted to ask what the point is.

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns. Let me clarify the purpose of my page, Anti Cedfia Week.

First, I genuinely appreciate your polite tone and your willingness to ask questions instead of assuming the worst. It’s refreshing to have a conversation approached with respect, and I want to respond in kind. I also hope you wouldn’t hate someone over their stance on a fandom issue. I’m a real person behind this account, and if you got to know me outside of this topic, I think you’d be pleasantly surprised. I engage with this fandom because I love Sofia the First and believe in creating spaces where people can discuss what matters to them, even if their views differ.

Now, let me explain the intent behind this page.

This account is not about starting fights, provoking anger, or escalating tensions. It’s about creating a space to share facts and perspectives that challenge Cedfia. The pairing raises legitimate concerns for many fans, and this page is designed for those who feel strongly about the issue and want to engage in critical discussions. My goal is not to antagonize anyone but to foster a thoughtful dialogue that addresses why this ship is problematic. The suggestion to “just block the proships” dismisses the importance of addressing why Cedfia raises red flags in the first place. Ignoring a problem doesn’t make it go away—it allows it to persist unchallenged. This account exists to counteract the normalization of Cedfia by shining a light on why it is not acceptable and by sharing viewpoints grounded in canon, fandom ethics, and respectful critique. Silence on this topic would only allow misunderstandings to grow, and this page ensures a voice is given to those who want to oppose the ship. You mentioned that these posts might remind people of Cedfia. However, awareness is a necessary part of addressing any issue. Avoiding or suppressing uncomfortable truths doesn’t lead to progress—it leads to complacency. By confronting Cedfia and discussing its implications, this account validates the concerns of fans who feel uncomfortable with it and empowers them to speak up. Lastly, as for convincing others, this page isn’t about converting everyone. Some people won’t agree no matter what is said, and that’s their choice. However, it *is* about making a stand, supporting those who share these beliefs, and providing a platform for open, thoughtful discussion. The point isn’t to argue endlessly with shippers—it’s to ensure this stance has a visible and credible voice in the fandom. If this account doesn’t align with your personal preferences, that’s okay. Everyone engages with fandom in their own way, and I respect your approach. I hope you can also respect the intent and purpose of Anti Cedfia Week. This page has a clear mission, and it will continue to provide that space for those who care deeply about this issue.

Thank you again for your polite inquiry, and I hope this response has clarified the purpose of this account. Whether we agree or not, I appreciate you taking the time to reach out respectfully.

[thescandalof87]

「 𝗜𝗡𝗧𝗥𝗢𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 」

──────── ❤️•💛•💙 ───────

FIRST ATTEMPT AT AN INTRODUCTION POST LETS GO !!

「 HELLOO! MY NAME IS SCANDAL/DAMIEN, BUT SOME OF MY FRIENDS CALL ME SCAM. I AM A BOY [ HE/HIM ] AND I REALLY LIKE CLOWNS. I ALSO HAVE PRETTY BAD ADHD, BUT IM GETTING MEDICATED FOR IT NOW. MY DMS ARE ALWAYS OPEN! 」

────────────────────

──────── ❤️•💛•💙 ───────

MY INTERESTS INCLUDE (BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO) : ( blue = fav )

「 AACHI & SSIPAK, UNICORN WARS, HAPPY TREE FRIENDS, SIGNALIS, ULTRAKILL, DAN VS, SKULLGIRLS, THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT AMY, BRIDGE KIDS, DANDY'S WORLD, CUPHEAD, CAMP CAMP, PENGUINZ0 」

────────────────────

──────── ❤️•💛•💙 ───────

PLEASE DNI IF :

• YOU ARE A PROSHIPPER - THE 2010+ DEFINITION OF ONE

•YOU ARE A LOLICON/SHOTACON/ZOOPHILE

•YOU WILL SEXUALIZE MY CONTENT

「 PLEASE JUST KEEP ALL PEDOPHILIC, INCESTUOUS, SEXUAL, RACIST, MISOGYNISTIC, HOMO/TRANSPHOBIC, POLITICAL, ETC COMMENTS OFF OF MY PROFILE. IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE!

ALTHOUGH IF YOU HAVE ANY OCS OR STORY THEMES WITH THESE THINGS IN MIND, YOU MAY SHARE WITH ME AS LONG AS ITS PORTRAYED IN THE BAD LIGHT THAT THE NATURE OF THESE THINGS ARE. DO AS YOU NEED TO COPE OR VENT, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, LEAVE ME OUT OF IT!

I DO NOT PERSONALLY ALIGN MYSELF WITH EITHER THE “PROSHIP” OR “ANTISHIP” TERM, AS IT SEEMS AS IF THEY ARE BOTH EXTREMES ON 2 DIFFERENT ENDS. I DO NOT SUPPORT CENSORSHIP, BUT I ALSO DO NOT SUPPORT PEOPLE WHO GET OFF TO INCEST SHOTA RAPE AND USE FICTION AS AN EXCUSE TO DO SO.

FOR ELABORATION: PORTRAYING HORRIBLE THINGS SUCH AS RAPE, INCEST, PEDOPHILIA, ETC IN A GLAMORIZED OR FETISHISTIC MANNER INSTEAD OF IN A BAD LIGHT. I UNDERSTAND ITS FICTION, BUT IT JUST SIMPLY MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE TO SEE SUCH HEINOUS THINGS BE PORTRAYED AS FINE OR OKAY. PLEASE RESPECT MY BOUNDARIES AND I WILL DO MY BEST TO RESPECT YOURS!

ASK ME IF ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION IS NEEDED, OR IF YOU WANT TO PITCH WHY YOU MAY THINK THAT MY VIEWPOINT IS SKEWED ( I WILL ALWAYS LISTEN TO WHAT SOMEONE WANTS TO SAY, BUT DO NOT FORCE ME TO ARGUE OR DEBATE WITH YOU. ) 」

────────────────────

──────── ❤️•💛•💙 ───────

SOME MORE THINGS ABOUT ME !!

「 DESIGNING CHARACTERS AND CREATING STORIES IS SOMETHING I REALLY OFTEN LOVE TO DO. ALTHOUGH UNFORTUNTELY, I CATCH MYSELF BEING WAY TOO ANXIOUS WAY TOO OFTEN TO EVER GIVE MYSELF THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVER REALLY LET MYSELF TALK ABOUT MY CREATIONS.

IF YOU ARE AT ALL INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT MY CHARACTERS, CREATING CHARACTERS WITH ME, OR JUST WANTING TO SHARE YOUR OWN CHARACTER DESIGNS/LORE WITH ME, THEN PLEASE SHOOT ME A DM!

NOT ONLY DO I ENJOY SHARING MY OWN CREATIONS, BUT I LOVE HEARING ABOUT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE HIDDEN UP THEIR SLEEVE. 」

────────────────────

[youraveragebtsstan]

My Mini Essay: A Wincester's Take on ✨Destiel✨

Since this is a safe space, I'm just gonna say it:

"No, I don't see Destiel as canon; but that doesn't mean their love for each other isn't real..."

Let Me Explain...

As a former Destiel shipper, when I first started watching the show around 2011/2012, I could see it. Their relationship had/has many aspects of the classic Enemies to Lovers trope we all love so much (the bickering, them both doing what they think is right, the unspoken mutual respect, the two sides of the same coin type of thing), so trust me- I get it. But once going back to rewatch Supernatural as an adult, (I'm on S15 E14 btw), the more I realize this 'relationship' most of us sees unfolding on screen is a relationship between CAS AND HUMANITY more-so than Cas and Dean.

To me, Cas fell in love with humanity a LOOOONG time ago (I'm talking Season 4, when he had to get course corrected for caring too much.) Now, granted some could (and have) argued that Dean is the 'vessel' so to speak for humanity. After all, it's Dean attitude about life, family and love that shaped Cas's stark view on humanity thus helping him eventually form one of his own; a viewpoint that eventually brings hope and sincerity to a later Dean's disparity in Season 15. But in my heart of hearts Dean is simply the conduit for Cas's love, not the object of his effection.

Speaking of Season 15, a lot of people use this as a point of reference to point out how in fact Destiel became canon. (And no I'm not just talking about the 'I love you' scene, but we'll get there.) I noticed in the beginning of Season 15 (mainly because it carried over from season 14), there was a rift forming and swelling between Dean and Cas's relationship. What Cas had come to know as family was disintegrating and slipping through his fingers- almost everything that he had wants to come to know and love and care for, was gone EXCEPT for Dean... Dean was the only thing left; but eventually he too pulled away.

In hindsight, it makes sense that in the end when Cas confesses on his deathbed he tells Dean he loves him- because in all honesty HE DOES. (Yes Destiel shipers, I will AGREE that Cas's love for Dean is REAL.) But I believe its often misinterpreted. To me, Cas loves Dean because Dean was the one who opened his eyes. I, nor any other Wincest shipper can take that away from Cas because that love'll never go away- that fact will never not be true. However, in order for Destiel to be canon, Dean has to reciprocate that love. And sure, Dean loves Cas- but as family. Dean has going to trust, rely, and believe in Cas as a pesron (very early on infact.) But Dean doesn't show those same yearning of affection toward Cas- its different. And I'm sorry but no, having a hunch of 'he was going to say it back' or 'but the writers just didn't fully commit' is not an admission of Dean loving Cas in THAT WAY.

However, we do see a similar yearning and unspoken pull toward two characters from the very beginning of the show in until the end and that's between Dean and Sam. Sure, they're brothers but even the show pokes holes at that every now and then. But with that aside, Dean has made it very clear that he would die for Sam (and has) just a Sam has done the same for Dean. Their twisted codependency is also seen by others around them- it's pointed out, it's made fun of, it's even explained in some of the most profound and beautiful ways. But most importantly, BOTH Sam and Dean have agreed and recognized their love for eachother- that's makes it canon.

Now, I'm not here to debate semantics. I'm well aware that some Destiel shippers can flip this and say 'technically you could say the same about Wincest', and YES, YOU COULD. But that's the beauty of fandom, we all have our own interpretations. I said this to not discount any Destiel Shippers or spit in your faces, but I said this because I felt like I had to unravel my thoughts after rewatching the show and I wanted to share.

All in all, Destiel Shippers, Wincest Shippers: Run on into the night until your heart is content! After all, that's what fandom is all about. 🖤🖤

[keepingsecretstokeepyoutk]

One of the many things I love about creating content and interacting with other content in this online niche (tumblr gaylor/kaylor space specifically) is because we are all openly discussing the many possibilities of how to interpret the details of certain songs and Easter eggs etc. We are all sure or damn near sure Taylor is absolutely sapphic, but on just about every other point we engage in thought experiments, literary exercises, etc, to explore many different theories. Most of us don’t insist that our viewpoint is the correct one, even if we have theories we are convinced of, there is no moral judgement or social waylaying of someone being convinced of a different theory. Because we are all self aware enough to understand that none of us really know. We just know that something gay is going on and that sifting through the primary sources is endlessly fascinating and eye-opening and simply beautiful to witness.

(I get the impression this is not the way it is on other platforms for gaylor content, which is why I don’t even bother with them.)

The fact that anyone would be surprised by a number of individuals holding a couple of ideas or opinions in common, while also tolerating and even relishing in variations in the finer details of those convictions, is such an indictment of modern (mostly online) discourse in general. We are so used to seeing people as belonging to distinct factions that each encourage strict in-group intellectual compliance instead of critical thought and genuine engagement with the set of ideas they espouse.

As a slightly older gaylor/kaylor please let me have an “elder” moment and heed you all to recognize the value in the way this little tiny niche community interacts with each other and take this model of civil and thoughtful engagement into your wider lives wherever possible.

It’s so important and wonderful to have strong values and a strong point of view, but you can only form one by engaging with all kinds of people and perspectives. You can entertain a thought or an idea without believing in it, and in fact doing so will make your own opinion that much more well-informed and strengthen your arguments when the disagreement really does matter.

*steps off my soap box*

I seriously love that I found this little corner of the internet where we can all get excited about discussing something we all find so enthralling 💗

A big part of what makes that engagement fun is hearing what other people think about this or that song or outfit, and reading long essays arguing for one thing, but also seeing that that op likes and reblogs essays arguing something completely different for the same song! Not only does it speak to the layers in Taylor’s writing, but it also makes no damn difference which exact person any one song is about. As long as everyone is respectful and chill, it’s way more fun to know that we don’t know.

[randomness-is-queen]

Ok, so I don’t normally interact with these kind of posts but this one just… hit different. I’m not 100% sure why. Maybe it’s that last line; as though to Stan Lucas we have to hate Billy. Or maybe the one before that. Either way it got to me so buckle up people, it’s time for a rant and possibly some trauma dumping.

Billy is an abuse survivor. That much was made clear, and apparently this person knows that. And yet here they are claiming it to simply be a sad backstory and that that’s the only reason anyone supports him as a character. (I won’t even get into the attractiveness issue because that just opens up a whole other can of worms.) Anyway, back to the abuse thing.

We’ve seen how Neil is with him, and how he acts around other adults. Notice I said adults, because he’s completely different with kids his own age younger. Remember the whole Karen Wheeler situation? And how Susan acts in the background when Neil is ‘disciplining’ Billy? I sincerely doubt that that boy has had a positive adult role model in his life since his mother. He may know it’s wrong but that doesn’t mean that he hasn’t internalised that response. If the adults in his life never showed appropriate emotional maturity, how can he?

You grow up in a household where you get hurt for the slightest thing, your fight/flight/freeze response is on high alert. He’s going to be the bigger threat, make sure nobody can hurt him by hurting them first, or making sure they respect him enough not to even try (remind you of anything Neil might have said there). He may know that the hitting isn’t normal, but he never actually hits Lucas, just threatens him. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that it’s right, it’s not. Just that it’s logical for him not to know appropriate boundaries. I freeze when confronted with my trauma, just completely shut down. We all respond in different ways, and he’s still in the thick of it.

Not only is Billy an abuse survivor, he’s a child. A literal 17 year-old child. Do not try and argue that 17 isn’t still a child, it’s child enough. He’s been living with an abusive father for his whole life, who knows what nonsense Neil spouts on a daily basis. So Billy’s racism towards Lucas? Totally understandable. Again, not saying it’s right, just that Billy , who was raised in a toxic and most likely racist household, would absorb that way of thinking. Have you ever heard someone say that if you ever want to know where parents stand on a matter you should ask the children what they think? I have experience experience with this myself. I grew up in a homophobic household, and it was only stepping outside of that environment that helped me change my viewpoint, and Billy doesn’t have that. I’ll admit that I’ve read a few fics where Billy himself didn’t actually care but knew Neil would so was trying to protect Max by telling her to stay away from Lucas. While I like the concept I don’t think it’s true, he was being racist, it was problematic, and he should face the consequences of that. But not to the point were his character gets killed off.

before stranger things 4 comes out, i just wanna let you all know that i do not give a flying fat fuck about billy and we should just let him stay dead.

nobody cares that the racist/abusive mediocre white boy is attractive to you, we don't have to do the most to defend him.

sad backstory does not equal someone being a good person/worthy of praise.

anyway, stan lucas

[drivelikeaminister]

Humility, Curiosity, Openness

It seems as if our political and cultural landscape is one of division and separation. The election rhetoric, news and social media bolster our own ideas while alienating and distancing those who hold different values. I find this very sad, where coming together across variety is a value of my personal and institutional faith.

I also believe in the humanity and dignity of everyone - here's a challenging past post about that belief. My belief in the value of diversity and the inherent worthiness of everyone leads me to look toward ways to break down walls of division and build bridges across divides. Through my praying, running, study and preaching I came up with a three-point plan for holding love at the center through divisive times. But be warned, although this plan is simple it is not easy. The method is the three words titling this post: humility, curiosity and openness.

Doesn’t sound so hard, does it? Don’t say I didn’t warn you!

Humility is the ability to take our own opinion and recognize that although it is my truth it may not be truth for others. In the United States this can sometimes be easier with respect to theology than with politics. People tend to be tolerant of other's beliefs and religious celebrations. With some exceptions, our country is one where individuals and communities can believe and worship in safety.

That being said, we not as good at humility with respect to other aspects of our values. Here are some values we might not be so humble about: gun rights, abortion access, environmental regulation, military spending... What do you think, can you be humble enough to see - to know - that your belief about military spending, about gun rights, might not be true for someone else? That’s the humility I’m talking about.

These three steps are all related, they build on one another. The second step stems from the first, from a place of humility, a place recognizing that someone may have a different truth than ours. Secondly, we come to curiosity. Curiosity is the ability to approach any idea without judgment, without argument or disagreement. Curiosity is asking questions and listening to the answer, “You voted for this person [without judgment] can you tell me what appeals to you? And why is that stance important to you?” What would it look like to ask those sorts of questions? Scary, for one. Also really, really hard.

Curiosity stems from my foundation of care and dignity, moving on to humility and only then come to curiosity. Contempt and derision can easily undermine curiosity. Picture these same questions, but said in a sarcastic tone of voice: “What appealed to you about that candidate? Why is that important to you? I am really curious about what people like you are thinking.” In a sarcastic vein or with judgement in our hearts, it is not true curiosity.

True curiosity is defined by humility and leads into openness. Openness is being receptive to another viewpoint. Not openness such that we hold no beliefs ourselves, but openness such that we acknowledge there might be value in another’s opinion. Curiosity and openness bounce back and forth: “Tell me more about why the border wall is important to you.” …while listening without judgment or rebuttal. “Can you share with me why reproductive rights are so important to you?” …without trying to persuade or argue. Most people are happy to share their thoughts and I’m betting don’t get a chance to do so outside of with people who already agree with them.

I start with love, from a place of mutual and shared worthiness. I challenge us all to begin centered in shared humanity, then work toward humility, curiosity and openness. This may be a tiring and trying few weeks/months. Take care of yourself, and please take care of others.

When you are brokenhearted and don’t feel at home in this country. When you are overjoyed that your voice has been heard and the future is looking up. Please remember - that whatever you are feeling now after the election is decided, there are others who are feeling the opposite. While you are in pain, others are in celebration. While you are in joy others feel betrayed.

No matter what your pain, what your hope, no matter whom you voted for, you are worthy of love. So is the person who disagrees with you. Try to always approach others with humility, curiosity and openness. If we can do that, we can create a world with less division and more conversation across differences.

[ericosantos]

Title: The Power of Asking "Why" in Every Argument

Introduction:

In our daily lives, we often find ourselves engaged in arguments or debates with others. These disagreements can range from trivial matters to more significant issues. However, have you ever considered the power of asking "why" during these arguments? In this blog post, we will explore how incorporating this simple question can lead to deeper understanding, effective communication, and ultimately, resolution.

1. Understanding the Root Cause:

When we ask "why" during an argument, we are delving into the underlying reasons behind someone's perspective or actions. By seeking to understand the root cause, we can gain valuable insights into their motivations, experiences, and beliefs. This understanding allows us to approach the argument with empathy and compassion, fostering a more constructive dialogue.

2. Challenging Assumptions:

Asking "why" challenges our own assumptions and biases. It encourages us to critically evaluate our own beliefs and consider alternative perspectives. By doing so, we open ourselves up to new ideas and possibilities, expanding our knowledge and promoting personal growth.

3. Promoting Effective Communication:

Asking "why" encourages open and honest communication. It shows that we are genuinely interested in the other person's point of view and are willing to listen. This fosters a sense of trust and respect, creating an environment where both parties feel comfortable expressing their thoughts and feelings.

4. Finding Common Ground:

By asking "why," we can identify common ground between conflicting viewpoints. Understanding the motivations behind someone's argument allows us to find shared values or goals. This common ground becomes a foundation for finding compromise and working towards a mutually beneficial solution.

5. Resolving Conflicts:

The power of asking "why" lies in its ability to de-escalate conflicts. By seeking to understand the underlying reasons behind an argument, we can address the root cause rather than focusing on surface-level disagreements. This approach promotes problem-solving and paves the way for resolution.

Example: A Debate on Climate Change

In a debate about climate change, two individuals hold opposing views. One person argues that climate change is primarily caused by human activities, while the other believes that it is a natural occurrence unrelated to human actions.

Instead of getting caught up in a heated exchange, one person decides to ask "why" to gain a deeper understanding of the other's perspective.

Person A: "Why do you believe that climate change is a natural occurrence?"

Person B: "I believe that climate change has always happened throughout history, and it's just a natural cycle of the Earth's climate patterns."

By asking "why," Person A has opened the door for a more meaningful conversation. They can now explore the underlying reasons behind Person B's belief.

Person A: "Can you explain more about the evidence or research that supports your view?"

Person B: "Well, there have been studies that show fluctuations in the Earth's climate even before human industrialization. These natural variations suggest that climate change is not solely caused by human activities."

Through this exchange, both individuals have gained a better understanding of each other's perspectives. Person A now has insight into the belief that natural climate cycles play a significant role in climate change, while Person B understands the importance of scientific evidence supporting human-induced climate change.

By asking "why," they have moved beyond surface-level arguments and are now engaging in a more constructive dialogue. This approach allows them to find common ground, explore scientific research together, and potentially reach a more informed and nuanced understanding of the complex issue of climate change.

Remember, asking "why" can help us dig deeper, challenge assumptions, and promote effective communication, even in the midst of heated debates.

Conclusion:

Asking "why" in every argument is a powerful tool that can transform the way we communicate and resolve conflicts. By seeking to understand the motivations and beliefs of others, we can foster empathy, challenge our assumptions, and find common ground. So, the next time you find yourself engaged in an argument, remember the power of asking "why" and watch as it leads to deeper understanding and meaningful resolutions.

[burning2know]

I agree wholeheartedly with OP and these tags from prev. prefacing that I will be ignoring the game that shall not be named and probably repeating some points.

There's nothing quite like the interactive medium of a video game that makes you examine your own choices and beliefs. And when it comes to politics, there's often a disconnect between ideology and lived experience. My favorite thing about DA was always the fact the it tried to bridge the two. Whether it's showing that various individuals in similar circumstances can have completely different ideologies, or it can be to explore what happens to individuals and their experiences after reshaping the world according to the player's ideology. That bridge, albeit implicit, has been formative in the way I think about my own world. When it comes to the lore and world building, it demands the player to use critical thinking, much like a historian might, to make sense of it. And I did end up feeling like I needed to make sense of the world to make my choices.

Even though DA has argued both sides, it does it incredibly well. The arguments it presents come from character perspectives that makes sense in the universe, and it makes it all feel real. I think a lot of credit should go to origin's writers for providing those arguments. It feels like the writers talking amongst themselves trying to hash out what each action means for the world and to eachother using the NPCs, and in the spaces of these discussions, I get to reflect on where I agree and disagree and what that means for me as a player. The experience reminds me of me watching Contrapoints videos in which she has a conversation with various parts of her own beliefs about her gender identity, and engaging with her inner-discourse lead me to a deeper understanding of my own identity.

That's the true value of arguing both sides. It lets the audience decide for themselves without being prescriptive. And while it does demand the audience construct their own reasons and values to explain their choices, it also provides a window into possible viewpoints that the audience might or might not agree with. And not in a judgmental way. That process shows how one character may arrive there, not through insanity or stupidity, but through various circumstances and experiences.

DA's goal was always to challenge the player. That isn't to say that there's no bias, or a particular perspective that the writers are coming from. But the point is that it opens a space for exploration. It takes a certain kind of person to be able to do that without falling into the hole of appearing contrarian or troll-ish. And to some extent the writers themselves had to treat each argument with equal respect and legitimacy to display its outcomes in the game according to the rules of the world rather than their own ideals. And that itself is not easy. It doesn't surprise me that that world view and capacity disappears when the series changed hands.

And underlying all of that is a philosophy about how individuals operate, and how they operate when they come together into groups of individuals (many different words to say power and hierarchy). And that underlying philosophy is what resonated with me so much with over time. It's very compassionate to be able to hold space for these other perspectives. Not only rare to see due to the complexity required to show it, but easy to lose and difficult to gain back once you've lost it. And at this moment in the history of DA, we have lost it.

In some ways, I think the timing of this happening Makes Sense. We live in a tumultuous time where reality is uncertain and volatile due to the nature of new modes of information exchange. We see all kinds of people sharing things on social media that could easily be interpreted as lived experience or disinformation. And more than ever, our shared reality is being shattered into a million pieces by personalized content. (I too have felt the "we live in parallel universes" thought creeping up on me). In this chaotic environment, we Need the psychological comfort of certainty, of knowing what the world is like. The easiest and most familiar way is to find an authoritative voice and trust that single voice as the guiding star. That voice is only strengthened by others' agreement, and we contribute to this strengthening with our own psychological needs for certainty and stability. And we become resistant to dissent and critical analysis, because the amount of information to sort through gets very overwhelming very quickly.

What DA does has always been the opposite of that, it demands the player to confront multiple perspectives (albeit in a much more curated and coherent way). And it is logical to me that the game goes against such a primary psychological need in these trying times, perhaps now more than ever. But this theme has always gone against the grain, and media that goes against the grain in this way is so rare and So Badly Needed. We Need people to be able to think through and cobsider multiple perspectives, because there are so many perspectives accessible to us. At the same time I understand the draw of never ever having to do that. And I also understand that a lot of people just don't think that deeply ever. And that's why losing DA hits extra hard for me. Because it is another piece of resistance swept away with the torrent of greater trends that push us away from shared understanding with the people around us.

i feel like all of my pondering and analyzing and criticizing veilguard over the past few months has actually truly given me a better understanding of what dragon age meant to me, what about it specifically was so meaningful, and why, as a result, veilguard felt so wrong. it took a while for me to figure it out. about three full months of relentless essay writing, actually. but i think if you had asked me a few years ago what the core of my love for dragon age was, whatever answer i gave would not have truly gotten to the root of it, because i think i had to experience the disappointment of veilguard to fully understand why i love dragon age. and ive realized that core is that i loved how the previous dragon age entries demand so much of the player, and deliberately prompt introspection and critical, often political, thought.

dragon age games have historically forced the player to be self-reflective and introspective about their worldview and beliefs. solas is obviously a fantastic example, as he was deliberately written to be a reflection of the player in order to prompt them to reflect on how they treat people, how our expectations of people influence their behavior, and how people are pushed to extremes and turned into monsters or saved by love and kindness. how do people become monsters? what drives them to blow up buildings or start rebellions or destroy the world as you know it? are they right or wrong? does it even matter? how did you contribute to this? are you innocent? it puts these insane, politically and morally charged situations in your face and forces you to confront them. slavery, a refugee crisis, poverty, class disparities, racism, foreign occupation, the list goes on, and you are not given the option to look away or be a bystander. you have to ACT. you have to choose, you have to make judgements, you have to take responsibility and explore your role in this world as someone with the capacity to act upon it, to make your will a reality, to fail, to make mistakes. i honestly can't think of any other video game that does this to the same extent? nor any media at all because the act of being IN the world as one of it's people through the act of role-playing is essential to how it provokes this experience in the player. its ballsy. they deliberately try to make you uncomfortable. these games are full of liars, deceivers, betrayers. the games themselves lie to you. its character try to deceive you. did you catch it? or were you fooled? what else might you be fooled by? who else might be lying to you? in the game? in real life? and then you get to play it again knowing the end, and what the game prompts changes with your new knowledge. now it asks, do you forgive them? what makes someone worthy of forgiveness? where do you draw the line? what do you think?

i dont think i realized until recently how impactful this was for me considering how i first got into dragon age at 16 years old. i dont think i had experienced anything up to that point that would put a situation like judging a war criminal who ordered the deaths of children or another war criminal who just left me to die and orchestrated a near-coup or a traumatized terrorist who just blew up a church right in my face, and said MAKE A DECISION. and i didnt know it at the time, but looking back i can see how valuable it was for me at that age to have what was effectively an avenue of exploration and self-expression of all of these moral and political issues that i was grappling with as a young adult. i played inquisition for the first time just months before i voted in my first presidential primary. i already had a political consciousness at this point, but it was nonetheless new and vulnerable and still blossoming into something more concrete. inquisition, then, almost provided a sort of political, moral and personal sandbox for me from ages 16-20 to better help me understand myself in relation to the world. the RPG-ness allowed me to put myself into these situations - like the mage-templar war and its metaphor for mass incarceration and police brutality - while i was also simultaneously grappling with and trying to understand these issues in real life. having dragon age to help me further unpack my own beliefs and conception of these issues was undeniably impactful. it provided a space, through a narrative i enjoyed and cared about, to make choices and judgement calls and better understand who i was, and what felt right to me. it asked, "what do you think?"

veilguard lacks this. completely. and lets be clear that the previous games did not always do a perfect job. many of these depictions are messy and harmful and problematic, but they at least, by extension of their own existence in a narrative that forces you to THINK and JUDGE and DECIDE, give me the space and opportunity to judge them as messy, as problematic, as harmful. i can confidently say that i think da2 is too sympathetic to the templars as an organization because the fact that da2 presents me with so many narrative conflicts regarding the templar organization allows me to not just make in-game decisions and play as a staunch advocate for mage freedom and circle abolition, but to form opinions on the game itself by extension. i can confidently say that i believe the qunari's portrayal is islamophobic because the game has prompted me so many times; what do i think about the qunari? what do i think about the oppression of the elves? what do i think about dorian being a seemingly good person but defending the practice of slavery? who should rule orzammar; the progressive asshole or the conservative traditionalist? do i forgive loghain? do i forgive anders? do i forgive solas? this in-world critical thinking about issues in thedas leads to meta critical thinking. further questions naturally follow -> what message did the writers intend to send through anders? how can i notice the echoes of how this story came into fruition in the shadow of 9/11? what do solas's endings tell me about the writers view of retributive punishment? how is bioware's portrayal of the dalish, as inspired by indigenous north americans, reflective of deep-seated anti-indigenous canadian sentiment? why did the writers stop prompting these hard questions at all in veilguard? did they only like it when it was about characters, not when it led to critical thinking about them and the company as a whole? through these processes of in-world interrogation, i am inevitably invited to analyze the effectiveness of their narrative portrayals and the writing itself. perhaps this is why dragon age is so famous for its discourse lol.

ive said before that im not sure that veilguard could ever have been as impactful for me as the previous games, partly because when you are 16 everything is more impactful because your brain is an eager sponge, unless it did something that really resonated with me as an adult. but what it should have been, at the very least, is something that could have been as impactful and formative on a current 16 year old that sees a gif on tumblr and decides to check out the game, as inquisition was to me 10 years ago. and im sure there are teenagers and younger adults out there playing this game and loving it and loving the characters and the world and thinking its great, good fun. thats great. however it fundamentally cannot have the same profound, developmentally catalytic experience it had on me because it simply does not challenge the player. it does not prompt them to question their own beliefs and the power structures within their lives. it does not prompt them to reflect on the political narratives they may have been fed all their lives. it does not confront them with the sorts of topics that get books on banned lists in florida and force them to bear witness, to think deeper, to feel guilt or horror at the outcome of your own poorly-made decision, to make moral judgements, to make mistakes, and to live with the consequences.

i think i now understand why veilguard was so disappointing to me and ultimately would be a failure in my eyes no matter if i enjoyed the combat or the exploration or whatever other shiny coat of paint sits atop it. veilguard does not ask much of you. it does not prompt any sort of introspection or interrogation of your presently held beliefs. it does not demand anything from the player except to dodge at the right moment. this is a fundamental, core departure from what made me fall in love with dragon age in the first place. if you love dragon age because you want "fantasy escapism" and fun characters to smooch, then i am happy for you. but i would remind you that can find fantasy escapism all over the steam library - farming sims, cozy games, a witch looking for her cat in the alps, etc. what you cannot find are games that are willing and brave enough to challenge and provoke the player into a better, more thorough understanding of themselves in relation to our world and it's many, complex and daunting political and moral issues. to have lost such a thing, when media like this has become so few and far between, and during a time when we need it more than ever, is a devastating loss.

[teaspoon-of-salt]

imo part of contemporary racist attitudes (from any side of the political spectrum tbh) towards east asia are a lineage from older orientalist beliefs that easia (particularly china and japan) is ancient and unchanging. orientalists of the 19th century saw our countries as places that were stuck in time, decaying through inertia and opposition to "progress" (which, of course, would be brought to them by opening themselves to the west).

modern-day east asia... enthusiasts [polite smile] i'd argue cultivate a descendent of that thought. those who don't assume easia is just like their home country instead treat easia like it's insular from history and the rest of the world, as though our countries have not been historically imperialised and are not bombarded (like the rest of the world) with western viewpoints and american mass media. as though we don't go through societal change through our own efforts and of our own accord.

but no - east asia is a holdout against the tide of modernity. culture is not the background and context against which we move, but traits of each individual's character. an unruly child isn't just upset because his parents aren't buying him candy, he is rebelling against confucianism, and his parents disciplining him is bringing him back in line with confucian teachings. we are defined by rules, philosophy, and tradition—the more ancient these things are, the more intriguing for our onlookers.

better yet, to be untouched by modernity is to be untouched by its discourses. you know, "japanese people don't care about political correctness, they just write what they want" and "actual japanese women don't mind being sexually harassed" and "japan is homogenous so you can't possibly expect them to be sensitive towards other races." japan is presented as static and unchanging—people don't care because this is how things always were, and this is how things will be forever. it's their tradition. it's their culture.

meanwhile china's rapid societal modernization post wwii is largely regarded in every aspect to have been brutal and barbaric. whether change yields positive or negative results it's viewed negatively, as though it doesn't matter how many years pass or how many steps are taken, chinese people are still backwards and regressive, always socially lagging behind the west. because that is apparently our culture.

and yes this comes from all sides of the political spectrum. the right-wing fanbase which idealizes the unchanging nature of japan, a "progressive" fanbase that assumes japanese people are so tied to tradition and an imagined culture that everything goes back to rigidity and long-established practices, often justifying harmful things in the name of respecting japanese culture. nothing and no one in china can't be explained by saving face and confucianism, which is at all times oppressive, evil, and a source of mystical guidance for chinese people.

being considerate and acknowledging that you might not immediately understand every cultural nuance is good, acknowledging that not every story needs to be personally relatable is good, acknowledging that people are influenced by cultures different from your own is good. but at some point it becomes ignoring the fact that asians are humans who are influenced by our culture in addition to personal experiences, feelings, traumas, ambitions, politics. like just think about how everyone around you interacts with culture and to what degree that informs their actual personality and deepest desires and assume that asians are the same as you in that respect please.

being an asian among easia "enthusiasts" is like there's always this interminable search for authenticity, for what is "traditional," for the "real" japan untarnished by these modern western ideas of feminism, and meanwhile many societal advancements for china are just... ignored (don't you know regressive china is so homophobic that disney can't even portray gay affection?). everyone wants to pull us back through time and explain us through adherence to culture and tradition, as though the modern day and just... simple human experiences don't matter or contribute to our lives. we just gotta be explained by something else, something that makes us other from the west.

[mordigen]

Unpopular opinion: Christians are not witches

I said it. Fight me.

There has been a trend that has been growing ever more problematic recently: overbearing, hyper-zealous, hyper-vigilant "acceptance" This means the pagan community is an absolute free-for all, and you are not allowed to so much as even feign the possibility that you do not agree with absolutely 100% of everything, lest you be named a gatekeeping, ignorant bigot.

Whether you like it or not - there ARE paths out there that have specific rules...regulations...stipulations...tenets - whatever the hell you want to call or classify them. End. Period. There's no other colour that comes in - that's it. Sorry for you, but they DO exist. In fact, there are many of them.

If you do not follow those rules, tenets, etc..., then you are not of that path. Point. Blank. And there is nothing wrong with that - it simply means that you are of some other path. That's it! That's all that means! It may be *nearly* identical to the path in question - but it is not, hence the 'nearly'.

If you happen to be a part of one of these paths, there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying so. If someone claims to be a part of one of these paths, but are absolutely, blatantly not - there is nothing wrong with saying that, and explaining why that is. Some people just honestly don't know there is a difference, or that these certain prerequisites are indeed a definitive factor - so they learn something, they broaden their horizons. Everyone seems to be all about educating themselves about being sensitive to other cultures and customs - except the pagan community, apparently, because this mentality does not translate across that pagan/witch line. Instead of taking it as a learning experience, you are immediately pounced on with notions of 'there are no rules!' 'you can't tell someone what to do on their own path!' Or, simply, the name calling. Well yes, while all of that is true - it still remains that how ever you want to practice or whatever you personally decide to do, may just simply not be what you are claiming, or calling it. It may just be semantics - but semantics matter when dealing with nuance. And paganism is extremely nuanced.

You can call a tomato an orange all you want to - but that thing will never be an orange, no matter how much you believe in it. And people are not wrong for informing you that you may have the wrong name, that is in fact, a tomato. If you go on deciding to call it an orange, you can do that - but that is willful ignorance. So, in your fight to be unapologetically accepting of every ridiculous notion, you are perpetuating willful ignorance - whilst being directly in opposition of your goal and being, *GASP*, unaccepting to those who follow a path where distinction and definition matters. You are completely invalidating those people's paths and beliefs while trying to defend another's (another who may, in fact, actually be wrong) and actively using their path & beliefs as the very reason to berate and ostracize them. Pretty fantastically hypocritical of you. Now...on to the second problem. I do not, at all, in any form, believe in "ritual magick" - as perpetuated by Aleister Crowley hardons. And no, that is not a knock on Crowley, just the idiot followers that don't understand half of what he taught and latch onto the superficial.

When you look at the origins and make up of magical beliefs, and magic itself as a separate entity - no matter which particular branch - they were all created by religion. They all have roots in highly spiritual cultures and customs. So, I absolutely do not believe for one second that you can believe in magic without SOME form of religion - whatever one you adhere to is your choice, but you cannot have the first without the latter. You cannot. Even if you claim that you have no religion, or spiritual faith, your practices absolutely do. You are calling on elements and agencies that absolutely have divine ties and connections one way or another. Oh, how many atheists I see calling on the seals of Arch Angels.... are you fucking shittin me? Really?? So let's bring it all together now - with the fact that many faiths DO have prerequisites, AND the fact that magic is religious/spiritual -- Christians are not, and cannot be witches or pagans. They are mutually exclusive. Not only because so many various paths have such prerequisites, and very define religious/spiritual beliefs that are contradictory to others - but simply because Christianity DOES, very much, have very clear and stringently defined Do's & Don'ts, and obviously the religious aspect itself clashes with the religious beliefs of others. Their religious beliefs clash with people who believe in their same god - so how could they not with those who believe in other gods?? Considering this, no other path would even need such stipulations themselves for them to be mutually exclusive, as Christianity already covers that issue so completely, but the fact that so many pagan paths do only exacerbates an already existing problem. That being said - that does not mean you cannot believe in the Christian 'god', by whatever name you know him by - or that you cannot believe in Jesus, and also be a witch or pagan. In fact the latter has an even bigger argument for believing in both, as paganism, generically, in itself is polytheistic, so it is very fitting to simply have the Christian god and Jesus amongst the many deities being worshipped. But those two things alone is not what makes Christianity. A good start, yes, but that is not all it takes - in fact, there are many that are shunned, excommunicated, banned, condemned and moreso whilst having those very two qualifying factors. You can find this in *every single* sect of Christianity, so...the proof is in the pudding, as they say, that it is much more than simply believing in 'God' and Jesus that makes a 'Christian'. And if you take that to heart and follow all those rules - you cannot be a witch or pagan, many times over, as you would be in direct opposition, or violation, of a number of their teachings - both on the aspect of simple 'rules', but also on a much deeper spiritual level of the entire foundation of their faith. Cannot serve two masters, and all that... If you do not follow those rules, then sure, you could be a witch or a pagan - but then you cannot be a Christian. That is just the facts.

Many people like to argue the use of magic and mysticism in the bible - but the issue is what parts of the bible they are found, and all the amendments of the further books. Again, what really carves out being a Christian vs. any of the other sects of Abrahamic beliefs. As, news flash - there is far more than just Christianity. And some of them, do, in fact, do hand in hand with magic. The Kabbalah is an astounding example of that - and, in fact, where a lot of the so called *ahem* 'non'-religious 'ritual magick' comes from. In this same vein, I would like to note that I have never had any issue or seen conflict with the Hebrew or Jewish take on shamans, mystics and witches, as they really do go hand in hand - They have their own very in depth, detailed, spiritual and sentimental form of mysticism that was a natural progression from pre-Abrahamic religions and culture, and grew into their teachings and belief system, so it does not go against their core beliefs the same way it very stringently does in Christian theology. Considering their ethnical histories and cultural heritage - this is a brilliant example of the natural evolution and progression of faiths - not simply ripped from the hands of the brutally oppressed and rewritten as a mockery to wipe out the preexisting notion of faiths -- as the Church has a history of doing. The Book of Enoch is another shining example of Biblical magic, or Angelic magic. But, this also also turns my point into a self fulfilling prophecy, as in the fact that it is accepted amongst all denominations as heresy, and it is taught that these magics - though they do, in fact, exist, were for the angels and completely forbidden from mankind. So, thusly, if you are a follower of Enoch, you are not a 'Christian', by name and membership, as you are outright going against it's teachings. You are a heretic, a blasphemer. Perhaps you may be one of the many other forms of the Christian god's followers - but not a Christian, as being Christian denotes a very specific set of beliefs and tenets - end of story. Magic, and paganism, is in direct conflict with those teachings, and therefore, cannot coexist.

On top of the logic - there is also the emotional issue. Christianity has a long history of abuse towards various pagan, tribal and indigenous faiths, while stealing our beliefs as their own, and demonizing those they couldn't successfully acclimate into theirs. To now be expected to be OK with this faith, yet again, latching on to *our* sacred rites and practices as being a part of their own is a hard pill to swallow at best, a slap in the face to most, and flat out perpetuating trauma at worst. Once upon a time, people sought out these very same communities and groups within their pagan circles as an escape, a safe space, and a shield and guardian against the Christian onslaught, torment, oppression, or just exhaustion - and now, we must not only tolerate them invading our private spaces, but must now welcome them with open arms and expected to be happy about it? Forgive me if I don't sympathize....

If we are going to now be forced into being shoulder to shoulder with them, the very least you can offer us is neutrality. You can be accepting of all and still be neutral grounds - not taking any one side anywhere, all you have to do is be respectful to each other. Disagreement is not disrespectful. Could someone who disagrees with a certain viewpoint *become* disrespectful? Sure, of course they could. But simply the act of disagreement is nothing hateful or hurtful in any way shape or form - in fact, good discourse is how progress is made. So we need to remain neutral grounds and normalize the acceptance of different viewpoints - we need to recognize and accept that, yes, there are paths out there that do have specific requirements, expectations and limits - there are paths that are going to disagree, or just flat out not believe in something. Instead of name calling, when someone of those paths decides to speak up and enlighten and elaborate on information that may be inaccurately described or depicted, you need to LISTEN and learn, and not just bludgeon them with presumptive judgement. You also need to accept that there are many, various different closed practices out there - beyond Native American & Voodoo practices (as those seem to be the only ones the pagan community recognizes) and if someone of those closed faiths tell you - no, you are not xy or z, that is also not being judgmental or hateful or hurtful - that simply is. ....a very important side note here is that acknowledging closed practices is also not a carte blanche for screaming about cultural appropriation. Please shut the fuck up about cultural appropriation. Not being of a specific faith is not equivalent to cultural appropriation - Telling someone "no, you're not xyz" is very different from telling someone "no, you can't practice xyz" (looking at you smudge-Nazis) You can enjoy, practice, learn or celebrate anything you want of any faith you want while not actually being apart of it - that's the beauty of sharing and learning. And I think that is where all the trouble boils down from:

Yes, you can do whatever you want and can create whatever path you want for yourself...just don't misrepresent it, don't call it something it is not, and don't deny those who are more educated & experienced in that particular department. We get enough of that from outsiders to start doing it to each other.

[confuzzledment]

I think this situation is insane. You are an adult, knowingly harassing minors for their own beliefs. So what if someone disagrees with a ship in a fandom? You are no better than her for harassing her for her beliefs, at least according to you. 

People disagree with LGBTQIA+ and that is okay. If someone disagrees with a ship, that is okay. You openly say you have ships which you disagree with, what does that make you? As a fandom, and community as a WHOLE people are entitled to their own beliefs and opinions. 

A minor saying they don’t wish to be flirted with SHOULD be respected, regardless of the dynamic. If you were a MINOR, surely you would feel uncomfortable regardless of age. 

No person should be made to feel uncomfortable either. There is no purpose or benefit for you harassing minors over their thoughts. People can say things, and grow as well. Greennoobartist was and is, entitled to her thoughts. As an adult, you should be aware of how to ignore things you disagree with. 

To go out of your way, over a series of hours, to harass children is in no way shape or form respectable. You yourself mentioned as a minor you held the viewpoint of, and I quote “I used to be uncomfortable with drawings of men in dresses bc it " wasn't normal " and it frankly made me upset to see,” Now as an adult you go out of your way to attack the CHILDREN who share the same idea. 

To call BlupeeBlep immature for defending their sibling, you seem needlessly immature. At 24, you have no right to go out of your way to tell someone, they are in the wrong for defending someone. 

To compare a member of the LGBTQIA+ spectrum vetting someone as non homophobic, to a person of color vetting the KKK is a great example of the false equivalence fallacy. 

To say a person sees a relationship as more platonic than romantic, and act as if it is repulsive, you are no better than someone openly against LGBTQ; Which Greenoobartist is not. She is a lovely person, and you harassing them over a simple belief is NOT okay. 

I feel as if arguing with you will bear no fruits unless you are also open to accepting your own errors.  You're an adult, act like it.

Here's what i'm ranting and raving about, for the viewers at home

i'll add my previous comments

telling lesbians not to flirt with you? PEAK cishet behavior, just main character syndrome all the way through like what makes you think they'd want to? feeds into the predator stereotype they have, of just being weirdos who bother straight girls, NOT A GOOD LOOK.

and what's with the aggressive defense of " they're JUST FRIENDS guys haha " on vio/shadow? that's not a good look either??? it's LITERALLY the biggest ship in the damn fandom, not a good look.

and i hope that anon doesn't show their face either, agreeing and feeding into someone's homophobia is definitely not the best.

and ohh yea, i bet that anon was real and sent by someone else, sure kid.

oh and before i forget, " disturbing " " disgusting ".

Say less. I know what you are and you should NOT be taking pride in it.

and with that other blogger's question though??? oh i'm SURE lgbt people are pushing you guys around forcing you to accept them, newsflash assholes, YOU'RE BAD PEOPLE IF YOU DON'T, get the FUCK over yourselves, f/m IS THE NORM, it's the " blue print ", honestly??? it sounds like you're just in a sphere that accepts lgbt and since you two are homophobic, you don't like it.

the world as a whole pushes f/m to be the blue print, the ONLY form of relationship/attraction, they want people to think lgbt DOESN'T EXIST, honestly get your huge heads out of your asses and stop being so god damn DENSE.

just disrepsectful, god damn. like ohh i'm sooo sorry lgbt ships are so annoying for you, it's almost like, wait hold up... LGBT EXISTS, AND WILL EXIST EVEN AFTER YOU KICK THE BUCKET!

like are you even looking at the words you type. you're homophobic, no amount of " oh but love and kindness love and kindess even though your existence grosses me out and annoys me heehee! <3 " will cover it up.

shape up. or you honestly don't belong in fandom.

[robhorninginternalexile]

Theses on Seinfeld

Over the past six months or so I watched the entire run of the show Seinfeld. In an attempt to redeem some of that time, I'm listing some of the ideas that occurred to me as I watched, with no claim to their being original or all that important.

1. Seinfeld ended the laugh track. Though the show uses the dubbed-in laughter from nowhere for its entire run, the next generation of "prestige" sitcoms largely eschew it. By the end of the show's run, the insertion of laughter — the type, the duration — feels more and more arbitrary as the show's premise of inane, jokey banter becomes more and more explicitly an object of critique. The laugh track begins to feel like an indictment, a passing of judgment, as though it is no longer clear who or what the "big Other" who is doing the laughing for us (as Žižek argues) is laughing at. Sometimes the laughter is a response to the jokes, other times it seems as though it is just laughing at the characters for being the sort of people they are, sometimes it is like the show is laughing at you for watching.

In its early seasons, the show adhered to the Happy Days "filmed in front of a live studio audience" convention that the set was also a stage. For instance, Kramer would walk on and receive a round of applause, priming viewers to get ready to guffaw at his indefatigable antics. But this falls by the wayside as the show began to assume a quasi-documentary flavor (anticipating the style of later sitcoms like the The Office). It was supposed to be about a specific place — New York City's Upper West Side — and its mores and idiosyncrasies. Plots revolved around particular city locations, and scenes were no longer as confined to a few sets. The characters were no longer supposed to be relatable in the sense that they were general types that you might know from your own life; instead they were increasingly bound by the limits of their observations, the narrowness of their viewpoint, which in some respects was turned against the likes of the "studio audience," who conceptually couldn't be in on the jokes the characters were preoccupied with, which were "jokes" to the degree they were insular and exclusive. By the end, the show has turned against the audience altogether. A character will be talking and another character will literally just shrug and say, "Who cares?"

The show's incidental music already was pointing toward alternative means for indicating how audiences should react. Later sitcoms will use reaction-shot edits and music cues in lieu of actual dubbed-in laughter. Often I tried to imagine a re-edited version of Seinfeld with the laugh track removed. Someone had done this to episodes of Friends, which made it much funnier to me, because it made the characters seem unlikeable. But Seinfeld's characters are never especially likable in the first place; its laugh track is not reconciling you to them; it is instead warping laughter into an antisocial response.

2. Jerry is not a good comedian. It seems intrinsic to the setup of the show that Jerry is a bit of a hack; in the later seasons, the number of jokes made at his expense ramps up. He is no better at his work than his friends are good at their jobs, and may not even be very successful financially. Pushing that further, one could construct a Fight Club sort of reading and argue that Kramer and Seinfeld are two sides of the same idle person, or the same person viewed from different points of view, with more or less sympathy.

But even if you don't take things that far, it seems central that everyone on the show is delusional about a lot of what is going on within it, and this principle can be extended in every direction. Nothing we see can be taken as base reality; all of it can be seen as someone's fantasy or as a distortion of "what is really going on," as in Mulholland Drive.

So for instance, the opening scenes of Jerry performing standup (which are unceremoniously dropped midway through the run) can be seen as Jerry's wishful thinking, or the way his brain translates his dumb thoughts into imagined winsome performances that readily secure him applause and approval without fail. His numerous girlfriends are more like fantasies of people he has incidentally seen and "fallen for" based on their surface appearance, and they are always reduced to (that is, developed from) some one-dimensional conception of their potential psychology. The show within the show is perhaps the most obvious thematization of this: In the show's reality, we are watching the unmade episodes of a canceled show.

Every implausibility — and there is no end to the implausibilities on this show — marks a drift into a dream, inviting viewers to translate these symptoms into their latent content. The underlying hostility of the jokes begins to seem irrepressible. If Jerry were a good comedian, this would be worked out as a successful act, but instead it is being worked out as the show itself.

3. Newman is the hero. Or Putty. Or Susan. Or Peterman. Basically any repeat performer who is not one of the four delusional main characters. These characters, again, appear in a distorted delusional form and may be understood as no more than diseased projections or fantasies, but the degree to which they become characters in their own right shows the degree to which one's own delusions must be reined in. Their autonomous reality begins to show through, which in the context of the show is like rays of sunlight piercing the insular darkness. It gives a sense of hope that the characters are coming to terms to some degree with an outside reality.

Another way of putting this is to see the four main characters as we see them as being nothing more than Newman's imagination of what their lives should or could be like. Our view is structurally aligned with his view, an outsider exposed to their routines but not allowed to become one of the core group. Also, Jerry's largely unmotivated and unexplained contempt for Newman is paralleled by the show's implicit contempt for its audience.

Typically Newman appears when a plot requires that Kramer have an accomplice, or as a deus ex machina to resolve some situation the characters can't otherwise terminate. At the same time, Newman usually is shown as the winner of whatever petty struggle they are engaged in, he usually transcends or exceeds the norms that the other characters have accepted. He gets what they can't have; he knows what they can't know. He is never negated by his own fulfillment. He is the outside that defines their inside and thus their entrapment. He has always already escaped, whereas the main characters are of course in an existential prison.

4. There are way too many episodes. This can be attributed to the nature of network TV in the 1990s and the economics of syndication. You would expect this to stand in stark contrast to 10-episode seasons of shows made for streaming services, though those are actually thin in similar ways: they just start with fewer ideas.

Seinfeld starts out by being proudly about nothing, which seems like it is possibly going to defy or reject all established formulas, but in practice it means that it is entirely dependent on the structure dictated by the material conditions of its distribution. It makes the 20 minutes of material for 22 episodes a season seem especially arbitrary; they are dispensable conventions, even if the show never really pushes back against them. Instead its nonformulaic-ness becomes a formula eventually, one anchored in ridiculous coincidences that highlight that arbitrariness that governs the whole project.

5. It's weird that Jerry has a computer. As far as I can remember, he is shown using it maybe once or twice, but it is always there, like his board games and his VHS tapes and his boxes of cereal. (Seinfeld, incidentally, is rife with product placements, and entire episodes amount to advertisements for specific products — Twix bars, Junior Mints, Saabs, The English Patient, etc. The characters' personalities and interests are occasionally downstream from these promotional requirements, which in turn solidifies the overall picture of their superficiality as human beings.) Many Seinfeld episodes pivot on fixed-location phones and answering machines, on characters being able to become unreachable, on delays between a message sent and received. The computer sits as a bystander to all that drama, not yet conceived as a part of communication. It never even becomes part of a merchandising push.

Since Seinfeld sits at the end of the pre-internet era, it lends itself to a reading that makes of it a commentary on that whole lost world. One can go overboard and argue that the series is mainly about different forms of media technology, and the effects of the migration from being live on stage (a standup comedian) to being recorded on videotape (an actor playing a failed standup comedian). They go to the movies basically all the time; it often seems like its their only activity outside of working, eating and having "dates."

A few seasons in, the show's writers discover how to build the episodes around memes, and the impact of that plays out in how people are reduced to catchy concepts (the "close talker", the "soup nazi" etc.). From time to time it assimilates other events that have been absorbed by television (e.g. the O.J. Simpson trial) and it often includes apparent jabs at or concessions to the show's critics. In that sense it reflects a proto-interactivity and intertextuality.

Seinfeld is occasionally driven by episode-spanning story arcs, but more often its continuity is gestured toward with callback jokes and palimpsest references to previous jokes and memes developed in earlier shows. This gives the impression not of reality but of a database of materials that the show's producers must periodically refer to. (Arrested Development would extend this self-referential aspect, writing for an audience expected to rewatch episodes sequentially on DVD sets.) This contributes to the sense that Seinfeld is readily decomposed into gifs and image macro memes and other forms of detritus from social media culture.

But more than anything, the computer seems to sit there as an avenue not taken. The show oozes complacency, whether it's the characters' defiantly stagnant if not regressive personalities, the absurd triviality of its subject matter, or its unrelenting whiteness overwriting New York City's actual diversity, there is a studied myopia at work, a refusal to imagine the world becoming any different from how it was (at least in terms of how media worked), whose stories were centered, who the presumed audience is, and where power would continue to reside. In the years after the show ended, it would be impossible to use a computer without troubling some of that stasis, for better or worse. Eventually it would become implausible that it (or the internet, for which the computer would become the synecdoche) wasn't always the center of attention.

Even though it never refers to the internet, the sour mundanity dramatized ad nauseum on Seinfeld feels like an early prototype for how life lived with the internet would apparently come to be experienced, at least as expressed by the wannabe Jerrys and Georges who score points by continually complaining about the "hell sites": a relentless litany of petty grievances, a crushing sense of inescapability, each week another spin of the a revolving wheel of "main characters" who are no more than memes, a sense that one is irreversibly devolving into a caricature of oneself that will forever be in syndication.

[electricea-archive]

TEN Q’S:

1. When are you usually online?: I try to be on around 5:30pm EST but that isn’t always possible due to just having a really busy day or there are just some days where I don’t get home from work until 8pm or even just after midnight in some instances.  While I can’t say that my track record is amazing, 5:30pm is generally what I aim for.

2. What verses are you involved in outside of this page?: I came up with a few on Discord with a friend - a Final Fantasy Tactics AU and our own sort of high school verse thing.  With another person on Discord, there’s a Band AU.

3. What is your biggest RP pet peeve?: People who will badger me about asks and about replies - there was one person quite recently who would send me asks and then they would send me follow up asks like ‘did you get my other ask that i sent you?’ and mind you, this was over a short span of time - I’ve made it entirely clear that I use a queue and that things get really busy for me so it does really bother me when someone is persistently asking me where their reply is - my answer is always the same - it’s been queued like the rest of the replies.  I also really don’t like when there’s a response and a lot of it is either just a muse’s internal thoughts or info dumping, like about their backstory - there’s only so much that I can have Ryuji react to someone essentially telling their life story and if the bulk of your reply is just your muse’s internal dialogue and thoughts and little else then you’re really not giving me much to work with.

4. Are you drawn to specific types of muses?: I don’t really feel like I am - I generally just get drawn into a muse, it’s not because they fit a particular archetype or theme - other people might notice overlapping similarities but it’s not like I’m doing it on purpose.  I’m just drawn to who I’m drawn to.  I can’t really explain it.

5. Are there recurring themes in your writing that people might not notice?: Not really in my opinion - I mean OOC, I will try to defend and argue for Ryuji and offer a more sympathetic and nuanced viewpoint to him but that’s not really a theme across my writing.  I think it’s hard for an RP blog to have a recurring ‘theme’ to be honest.

6. What are your favorite RP trends?: I enjoy dash games like this, I find it so much easier when all of a mun’s information is available on a pinned post or easily accessible on their blog, I enjoy just the whole plotting process, especially those emoji and symbol memes, they’re good ice breakers.

7. What is your process for starting a new story with someone?: I’m generally pretty open if I want to do a particular verse or try something and I essentially leave it up for anyone to take me up on it - likewise, if someone approaches me with an idea, I’ll hear them out and mull over if I want to do it or not - sometimes I just mutually come up with verses with people.  I’d say that just trying to be open about what I want and what I’m going for really really helps.  Also I try to help them out and answer any questions if they want to make a Persona verse - likewise, I have to mull over if I want to make a verse for Ryuji for the other person’s fandom, something which can get tricky if I simply don’t know the fandom all that well.  Likewise, if people are unfamiliar with Persona or don’t wish to do a Persona verse, my go-to is a non-specific modern verse.

8. How do you feel about duplicates?: I love Ryuji so it makes me happy if other people love him too.  I don’t go out of my way to seek out duplicates but I respect them and I enjoy seeing other muns who also adore this character and want to write him - too much of Ryuji can never be a bad thing.

9. How long have you been involved in roleplaying?: On Tumblr, since 2012.  I did dabble a bit in forums and chatrooms but  I would consider that more me dipping my toe into things.

10. Is there a muse or verse you wish you could write in, but haven’t?: To be honest, I have so many ideas and verses that I want to try out that I couldn’t even begin to list them.  I’ve thought of making like a definitive wishlist post and from there, people could look it over and if they see one that they’d like to do, they could let me know or vice versa.  I’m always thinking of potential new verses and stories for him.  Always.

TAGGED BY: @more-than-a-princess​ (Thanks!)

TAGGING: Whoever would like to try this out!