#started understanding why we are in the state of discourse we are in tbh

[dani-the-toad]

i think we need to be nicer to people who either dont want to or cant medically transition

[crazy-ache]

tbh i’m 70% an elriel, 30% an elucien. i enjoy lucien a lot more as a character than i do azriel, but im an elain girl above anything and i typically stay in the elriel tags bc the elucien ones are often filled with gwynriels being pretty anti-elain (which is why im in an elriel mindset).

all im trying to say is that it feels like such a breath of fresh air to see accounts like yours that show that they too are here for elain and it’s been such a shame that this ship war has clouded this so much, where people feel that they have to be an elriel to go against elucien and vice versa. and just spit balling of this, but it’s bonkers that there is an expectation that eluciens would root for a gwynriel book and that gwynriels are getting mad that eluciens are stating this. literally why?? shipping elain and lucien doesn’t mean you ship (or care) about gwynriel

anyways, i just want to say thank you for trying to knock some sense into this fandom

Is there anything I can do to influence your ratios??? 😂💛 Maybe bring the Elucien ratio up?

We (Eluciens) are most definitely here also loving, defending, and pumped for Elain! I can guarantee you that. We may not always be as loud as some other voices in the fandom, but we are here. I completely understand your frustration with the elucien tag, because at times I have also run into those same frustrations and wish people would be more considerate of others when selecting their tags. I’ve posted my feelings on tag etiquette before. But I have made a lot of Elucien friends who are big Elain fans as well so you can know you are not alone. I wouldn’t be posting content, metas, and writing 360k words of fanfiction that all revolve around Elain if it weren’t for that community.

I appreciate you coming into my inbox in a nice way. Shipping is an inherently passionate affair we have all stumbled upon. It comes from a place of well…obsession. So expecting others to fall into line and be forcibly happy for not getting their hopeful outcome is borderline ridiculous but also really callous. The number of times I have seen folks declare Azriel’s book is “definitely happening” next since HOFAS came out while diminishing Eluciens who believe Elain is next (straight up have called us delusional)…nobody ever called them out for creating discord and nobody certainly asked them to settle down and be happy whoever is next. So it’s VERY telling that sentiment is happening now when more and more pro Elain opinions are circulating.

I hope we can all learn that fandom IS big enough for all of us to exist with our differing ideas/opinions/likes/dislikes - and if you see a take you don’t like, nobody is attacking you. You can simply scroll on and let them live. Or you can engage in civil discourse without blaming the other side for starting a rift. That is perfectly normal fandom behavior. We all deserve that kind of freedom. If we have to start monitoring/censoring our passionate obsessions in order to please or appease others for the sake of a “ship war”…it completely defeats the purpose of fandom which is community.

I’m so thankful for all of the wonderful friends I have made. If you ever want to chat anon, please feel free to hit me up (and maybe I can persuade you on those ratios hehe).

[transsexualgriffith]

3 about berk and also if youve seen any bad Dostoevsky takes, 7 +17 for bsd, 22 berk ❤️

lord I forgot to do this. luckily you haven't answered the ask I sent you either, so I think we're even.

3. screenshot or description of the worst take you've seen on tumblr

oh god on tumblr?? it's not that tumblr isn't still brimming with bad berserk takes, but I am fairly good at evading those, and besides if I wanted some truly terrible berserk analysis, I could simply go on reddit. I think "the ideal culmination of their arcs would be for guts and casca to become king and queen of midland" is, well, I've certainly never heard that one before, but I find it more funny than offensive, and truly bad takes are the ones that feel like the story is purposely being misread to fuel downright dehumanising ways of thinking; so you know what I'm giving this to the racist fyodor x reader blog that talked abt how fyodor would never lower himself to selling his body and then basically went "(like that whore griffith from berserk)" which I still think is one of the most maddening things I've witnessed. perhaps not a berserk specific take, but a tumblr moment if I've ever seen one. ofc if we were talking outside of tumblr I'd have much worse things to show for. you truly got anything from misogyny posting to to blaming people for their csa out there (its a beautiful world), but tbh one of my favourites is the "guts left bcs he was trying to escape griffiths clutches". dostoevsky I'm not sure I can think of anything particularly outrageous, you must understand the true opponent of dostoevskyblr isn't the bad takes its the people trying to disguise tiktok poetry as quotes

7. what character did you begin to hate not because of canon but because of how the fandom acts about them?

okay to start off with I don't think there's a single character in bsd that I truly hate: asagiri is too good of a character writer for this and I think the few that I do feel some disdain towards or find myself unintrested in could still be brought closer to me if asagiri could please get back to writing shoujo-esque character driven party conflicts and novels, instead of playing powerscaling with the 5th dimension. unfortunately i think the worst fanon treatment is that of my favourite characters. would be alot easier if I hated them.

i guess chuuya could almost be counted here, because although I very much like chuuya, he used to. basically be my favourite character (??) which honestly baffles me and I cannot quite understand why, but then again, that was many years ago when bsd was in a very different state, both story and fandom wise. I really don't want to look at much of fanon chuuya content and don't find him outstandingly interesting, but I will acknowledge that it is quite fruitless to complain chuuya should get so much attention even though he's "a side character" when we have asagiri to thank for two chuuya centric light novels with the approximate page count of les miserables.

i also do not really like kōyō and find the girlboss mafioso thing very weird and off putting, but it sucks to say this because there are also alot of people who clearly judge her through the misogynistic lense.

and I think everyone should shut the fuck up about mori and talk about something else. I like mori, but I actually find it quite exhausting how even when you're amongst mori likers they can never ever turn down the morality discourse, enough! I don't care what he is he's not real can we like actually talk abt his role in the story in a meaningful way. please.

this question should've been abt ships tbh fanon sskk is going to make me blast myself into the sun.

17. there should be more of this type of fic/art

shibusawa content..............my woman!? I swear to god the bsd fandom is four times the size of what it was when I got here (and mind you bsd was never that underground) and yet the fic count has gone up by like ten. and I have likely seen dead apple more than any other living person so I know how bad of a movie it is (though i think you are truly missing out on the sheer amount of homoeroticism if you do not invest in it even a little bit) but no one can deny how visually appealing shibusawa's character design is, so it is crazy to me that people aren't more eager to draw her. I've also never forgiven tiktok for what they did to dazatsu. we used to have it all in like 2017. we were pioneers. but overall I don't feel unsatisfied with fan content for bsd, it's always been expansive.

22. your favorite part of canon that everyone else ignores

i don't know if I have a good answer for this, just because berserk is so extremely appraised that it never feels like there’s a part of canon left untalked about, but I do know that my love for the black swordsman arc far surpasses that of the average berserk fan, and though I see it discussed often enough there really isn't any fanfic or something of the sort focusing on that period in time, which is rather sad for me bcs I think guts cringfail pursuit of femto is very funny. I also just have always liked millennium falcon, and don't feel like others particularly care for the inner workings of the kushan regime, or mule, or the ganishka conflict as a whole which I think is pretty lit. the cosmology lore in those chapters is much more compelling than whatever guts has going on in mage world.

[puc-puggy]

this is good and lovely and honest and I appreciate the effort and the vulnerability and what you've added to the discussion. thank you for bringing our interaction back around. it takes a lot of courage, and i respect it. my petty midwestern ass didn't wish you a good day back yesterday and I regret that, so I hope you have a lovely week and you barely feel kicking the nic.

i think that what you've brought up are good points and valuable to the discussion. i think it's useful and kind to keep in mind that I may be getting the gamut as a sort of.. trust building obstacle course. it's an understandable reaction to a constant state of stress and vigilance and the reality that others do not always have kindness in their heart for you.

i also think that something else you said is really pertinent and useful; once your transmisogyny bell gets rung, you are investigating others from within your context of understanding of transmisogyny for bigotry that may harm you. this is also normal and understandable.

something that may be helpful for you regarding the feeling of neglecting your interiority is the concept of discursive context. a discursive space is basically the environment that constructs a discourse. could be a classroom, could be a community, could be a website. as you move through spaces, the context and connotations of terminology changes, interpretations of concepts and past events, etc etc. we are all interpreting each other through our own discursive spaces every day, and a part of fruitful communication is recognizing when you're in a different discursive space. I was not trying to avoid discussions of trans feminist theory because it's not valuable, but because it's impossible for good faith discussion of trans feminist theory in the context of transandrophobia on tumblr right now. i was protecting the elements of my discursive space that felt necessary to maintain the possibility of good faith discussion. like, to make my point, the term transandrophobia is itself a trans feminist theory. the feminists are trans and they are theorizing. they're just not girls. the idea that trans feminist theory is necessarily limited to the perspective of trans women is separatism, treating men as the enemy and part of why the term transandrophobia itself rang your transmisogyny bell enough to start prodding at me.

a good example of discursive context is "male socialization." there is no point where I won't put it in quotes because even if there's valuable discussion to be had about the harms of being raised a boy and the insight of trans women into it, it's just not safe for trans women to discuss or acknowledge it in the current landscape. an example I'm thinking of is one of my dearest friends, whose "male socialization" primarily taught her that she was probably the issue in every interaction and didn't have a right to boundaries. she believed this because she was told her entire life that she was predatory and dangerous, and she's a profoundly gentle soul who believed them because she did not want to hurt anyone. the "male socialization" that she got was "accept every ounce of shit anyone throws at you forever and pretend you're fine with it or you're the problem." years of abuse at the hands of those she trusted because she wasn't allowed to have real emotional interiority. I think about her, I think about why she was treated like that, and tbh it makes me pretty testy. I want to talk about the impact of lifelong emotional abuse on anyone called a boy, but I cannot because the term makes trans women feel like I'm investigating them for any % completion score on predator training, not that I believe down to the roots of my soul that they were emotionally abused their entire lives for the crime of having a fucking penis and we should be talking about how deeply wrong and cruel it is to treat a child like that.

trans women are frequently forced to make arguments that "male socialization" didn't work or hurt them because they were really a girl, not because it's a disgusting way to treat a human child on top of being a dick about her gender. it hurts the little boys, too. trans women know this and cannot say it because they will be attacked for it in ways that cis women won't. in safe spaces where their womanhood will not be revoked, trans women have provided the most incredible and insightful analyses of men and manhood I've ever seen in my life specifically because they have transgressed that boundary. a trans woman taught me that sensitive, gentle men retreat into stoicism rather than inhabiting masculinity. she became a woman, her dad was a stoic. both deeply gentle. the impact of this environment on solidarity between trans men and women real: the discussion of men's issues becomes a threat to trans women in and of itself because it decays their safety zone.

if men are the enemy and enemies must be labeled, the boundaries of the safe zone must be policed, and trans people are the first to face the violence of that policing. trans people must always stay on the right side of the line or face disproportionate risk. trans women are at high risk of being labeled the enemy and cannot provide any ammunition. if trans women have already made the argument that some experience was cruel to them while they were interpreted as a man because they were really a girl the whole time, trans men discussing the same thing as a men's issue is a direct threat to trans women's safety. it associates trans women with men & men's experiences. not because the experience is truly a man's or woman's experience or but because if a trans woman is associated with men or masculinity at all in this highly separatist environment, she is in fucking danger. it was a lot more common 5 or so years ago to see trans women calling out other feminists for separatist bullshit, but the environment got way too hostile to continue risking it.

the problem isn't that transadrophobia can't exist as a term or that it actually undermines feminism or trans women's rights or the semantics of the term are icky or that trans men are misogynistic. the conversations consolidating under transandrophobia are extremely valuable and necessary feminist conversations. the problem is that trans women are not safe acknowledging or discussing any connections between themselves and men/masculinity because separatist rhetoric makes it unsafe. your transmisogyny bell isn't being rung because the conversations about transandrophobia itself are transmisogynistic, but because of the risk of external transmisogynistic interpretation. the risk that your current womanhood will be revoked-- "if this is an experience that men have too, how am I supposed to believe you're a woman?"

it isn't fair that the term transandrophobia rings your transmisogyny bell, but it isn't surprising either

the transandrophobia discourse is poisoned by separatist feminist theory that terfs and radfems have been maliciously injecting into feminist conversations, so here's The Will To Change excerpts by bell hooks again.

libratory feminism sees no difference between men and women except those manufactured by patriarchy. misogyny is a symptom of patriarchy the system, not a structure by which to interpret patriarchy the system. replacing "sexism" with "misogyny" does not change the nature of the analysis, which is a weak one. patriarchy the system can induce the symptom of misogyny in any person subjected to that system. using sexism/misogyny/male chauvinism is not a useful lens of analysis when looking at patriarchy because women are misogynists too. let's not move backward on that. women are misogynists too and men are allies.

the recent "trans men are misogynists" allegations I've seen lodged against trans men are:

unprepared to be treated like a predator, may cry about it

asked that only trans men attend a trans mens' support group

discussed male loneliness instead of talking about violence against women

all of these are actually feminist discussions. so the backlash seems like angry feminist reactions to Men Having Feelings, which is not a new thing. in fact, hooks addresses it directly.

i see men being mocked for having their feelings hurt, men being mocked for wanting to discuss their feelings, and men being mocked because they're thinking about men and manhood in new and complex ways. exactly what the doctor ordered.

i am not seeing challenges to patriarchy here. I am seeing reinforcement of patriarchal expectations of masculinity on trans men who do not want to perform those expectations. i am seeing separatist radfem bullshit in the assumption that trans men have lost or never had a valuable perspective on misogyny or gender or sexism and cannot tell when the shape of discrimination they're facing has changed. i am seeing toxic separatist radfem bullshit shut down liberatory feminist discussion because one of the speakers is trans in the wrong direction.

[randomnameless]

"even if IS just said she was the villain and needed to be stopped, clear as day, people would reject it." Let's be real: the moment people started using "death of the author" to reject the Nintendo dream interview where IS confirms Supreme Leader is the villain, that's when we should've realized that people have already made up their minds and don't care anymore. It's like telling a flat-earther that the earth is not flat or trying to debunk a conspiracy theory to believers of that theory.

Tbh, I agree sometimes with disregarding the author's intent, especially in some games where the "author" wants to push "feels" and tells the olayer how they should react.

Take Berkut for instance, for a reason I still don't understand, SoV wants to paint him as a tragic figure, who ultimately redeems himself dying. You're supposed to feel bad for Berkut and sad for what happened, to the point where Alm, the Hero - who was challenged on earlier opinions - plainly states Duma is the reason why Berkut turned sour, and no one is here to tell him "uh no sorry to tell you but your cousin was a bona fide asshole".

Ditto for the devs's lunar interview about Clout's story being a "heart-warming story", like no, sorry, no matter how much you push for it, I personally don't think his story is heart warming, rather it's blood boiling.

Does it mean I use the "death of the author" like the people we're talking about?

Yeah, maybe!

But what is more gratting about those people isn't how they use DoA to make up their own canon and story (everyone can make headcanons!), but how they push their headcanon on everyone's lawns and asking for everyone else to treat it as the truth - the Aeneid is the perfect example, people really rec this fanfiction to have a "better understanding" of canon characters, or some people said it understands the characters better than the canon does. For a fanfic, sure, it's cool and all*, but to treat this as canon?

Like, there is no discussion possible between people who argue canon and others who argue using headcanons and imo that's the crux of the discourse bcs FE Fodlan is vague about 70% of its worldbuilding.

I don't like Berkut and believe he toasted Rinea because he loved being Rudolf's heir more than he loved her, but FE15 makes it uwu clear that Berkut apparently loved Rinea a lot and apparently torched her just because Duma promised him power, which makes somehow Duma the reason why Rinea was Bernie'd.

But you won't see me pop up in a discussion about FE15 or people talking about their favourite ships in that game to point out how Berkut burnt his fiancée at stake for "power" on his own volition - canon is canon - even when it blows - I'd rather rant about it and have my own HC in this space rather than piss canon-lovers/users with it.

Saying in your hcs Supreme Leader isn't the villain of the game?

Sure, do whatever you want, have a nice day, eat a sandwich, whatever. Maybe some people will join you, share your sandwich and you'll have fun developping hcs!

Saying in canon Supreme Leader isn't the villain and disregarding the dev's interviews?

That's going to be more problematic, in a way that this specific interview isn't subjective or open to interpretation (thus hcs, like Sylvia being FE4!Claude's relative or not), so people are going to disagree and be more vocal about it.

Some other blogs already explained it, but it seems like FE Fodlan attracted a lot of persons who aren't used to fandom, as in a place with transformative works and where making OCs and fics and having headcanons isn't "BaD" - so they try to retrofit canon in their headcanons because "fanfics" and transformative works are BaD etc etc (insert the general dislike for fanfictions from the early 2000s (?) and the regular/usual insults towards people who write fanfiction from the same era (them being fujos, etc etc)) so they're not writing fanfictions or arguing headcanons, no, they're just writing "totally meta pieces that are better than the canon".

Imo, the second you're disregarding canon to write something about a work, you're writing a fanfic (let it be a "real fic", random hcs, etc etc etc) and that's totally fine! You're not a "fujo degenerate" for not liking the canon and "rewritting" scenes, or building more stories about a character your like!

What's not "fine" is forcing everyone to adopt your headcanons and fanfictions - if the flower is red, you cannot force people to admit the flower is blue, otoh, if you write a story where the flower isn't red but blue, it's your story and you can whatever you want with it! Ditto with fanfic writers when someone argues canon against them, dude, you're reading a story where the author wrote the flower to be blue, like they gaf about the flower's canonical colour to be red - it's a fanfic!

Don't like, Don't read!

*not withstanding with the actual quality and body of the Aeneid, which isn't something I'd personally call cool or "alright", but that's another debate.

[djmarinizelablog]

A Conversation with the Author of City Comma State, kippielovesyou/ForcedSimile

Had a short interview with the author of City Comma State, @kippielovesyou/ForcedSimile and asked her if I could share our conversation online---she said yes!

Did you know that Hange and Levi in her work was based on Spongebob and Squidward's interactions?

Read the entire transcript below:

-------------------------------------

djmarinizela (D): if i may ask, where and how did you learn to write so good? what inspired you to write city comma state?

kippielovesyou (K): i don't mind at all! it's genuinely just years of practice. i've been scribbling stories since kindergarten (i had a long standing multi part series in first grade about all my classmates). i think one thing is certain: having a strong understanding of characters whether you borrow them or they are your own is pretty key.

a lot of points [in Isayama's story] could have been better thought out or tighter. however, we all love his characters. a weak plot (or in the case of city comma state: no plot) can be ignored or forgiven if everyone loves the characters

i'll be honest, i spend a lot of time trying to understand why a character does things or reacts a certain way. and yes, sometimes, that means i act out scenes in my car while driving. it's embarrassing...

there's a lot more to it, but to me that's the most important thing

as far as how city comma state came about: i wanted to do a slow burn romance centered around levihan, but I also wanted to show how all these characters care about and support each other. i knew in the confines of the AoT world, anyone could die at any moment and that didn't work with the softer feelings i wanted people to enjoy. how can you enjoy the friendship between mike and hange if he dies? it's possible, but it upends all the warmth we were enjoying. so i wrote an AU. i wanted to keep levi with a rough background with many walls, and i wanted hange to have her own issues that they can work through together. and i love the idea of them adopting/supporting the 104th kids without the fear of sending them out to war

D: your answer is so profound and helpful, thank you so much! I can honestly say you pretty nailed it when it comes to character development---everyone has a character arc in your fic! [my next question] is about the gender discourse in your story. I know you started City Comma State pretty early in 2014, but even back then, the nonbinary identity wasn't widely known before. How were you able to flesh out the discourse on the LGBTQIA+ spectrum and play it out on the dialogues and backstories?

K: it's pretty funny, a lot of the LGBTQIA+ has always been discussed i my family. we've had gay, lesbian, trans, gnc, bi and asexual people in my family for generations, as far back as the 20s (that we're aware of). hange's gender being debated made it a prime opportunity to write such an experience, some of which is borrowed from my own life. when i read older chapters i see certain slips in dialogue where i could have made an effort to be more neutral. we're in such a binary society that sometimes even if you feel in between, it slips in. in fact, i'm sure some people might take issue with the fact that i stuck with she/her for hange. i'm not sure i'd make a different decision today. i like this version of hange the way she is, and i hope hange's nb/gnc status comes across in more than just pronouns. hange's full identity is so much more than that and that is what i wanted to explore. and i think no matter where you fall on the whole LGBTQIA+ spectrum, you are more than just the label you've chosen. yes, in this story levi is bi/pan. but i don't think he ever says that explicitly, and he avoids labels. it seems fussy to him, which feels levi. discourse would not be his thing. i think even having a debate about whether or not he was bi or pan wouldn't be something he would want to engage in, he just wants to do what he wants. instead it's heavily implied. i think we forget since so many of us experience this discourse online and want to label things that there are people who don't want to involve themselves in it. it goes back to how would this character act. for instance, based on how levi is in canon, i can see many ways to interpret his sexuality. there's cues for a lot of different takes. but levi doesn't seem like the type that would need a definitive label in order to be happy. there's many ways to interpret hange's gender (and i've written several takes, some where they're more insistent on their pronouns), but i think hange's more excited to explore life than worry too much about much about how they're addressed or how someone talks about them. maybe another character might be more caught up in labels but hange and levi not so much

D: No, don't be sorry, I am more than thankful for your answer. I really appreciate it! I don't get to have these kinds of conversations with other writers, so I am grateful for your insights.

K: a really funny anecdote for you: i loosely based the idea of my levihan off of spongebob and squidward. you know, since they start out as neighbors and hange is more invasive than levi is used to

D: that's.... a stretch. but thanks for the tidbit! was the annual star wars contest also something that you do in your family? that part as well as all the geeky references won me over tbh!

K: it was an extremely loose inspiration! but hange mowing her lawn in the middle of the night so levi wouldn't be mad at her is on par with a spongebob move. and um...my family, while they can be a little nerdy, is not nerdy enough to do the star wars tournament! i made that up entirely

i just imagined hange having eccentric family, so they have very unusual traditions that none of the children question

i'll be the first to say a lot of city comma state is unrealistic and a little bit of a domestic fantasy. there's a lot of problems with money, employment and such that hange and levi SHOULD have but that's a little too real and not what i want to be the focus of this story. like hange landing a job that gives her a day off and she doesn't suffer a severe pay cut as a result? unrealistic. but i have other things i want to tackle. plus, in canon we have humans that turn into giants and 3D maneuver gear which would probably kill its user in real life. i think making certain parts of this fanfic a little idealistic is okay

D: are there other works that influence your writing? or authors that inspire you to write?

K: There's too many influences to count. reading is so important and even things that are bad are helpful. i actually was trying to read a YA series that seemed really cool and i had to stop reading because so many things were so annoying (I won't reveal which, since i think it has a small but dedicated fandom and i don't want to rain on their parade, it is purely a taste thing to some degree). instead of being upset and thinking that I wasted my time, i took note of what made me stop reading (that is a long list of things i didn't like so i won't bother to outline each one). even if it's something as small as a fanfiction that you had to click out of, ask yourself why you stopped. Especially with fanfiction: you already like these characters, what you're looking for is usually pretty specific (a pairing, an au, a specific scenario, etc). why, when this author has ticked all your superficial boxes, did you stop reading? and when you love something as yourself why. Ask yourself why you love the source material even! do you really love the plotlines and the world or do you love the characters? Is the dialogue strong? something to also pay attention to: people in general. how do they speak, gestures, facial expressions. really listen to how people talk (Youtube podcasts are really good for this!).

i think people would be surprised, a lot of what i really like to read is very all over. from surrealist novels, to classic literature, to science fiction aimed at children (i'm finally reading animorphs after almost 20 years!). and what i write for original fiction doesn't reflect what i'm probably best known for.

D: thanks for this, Kippie! looking forward to reading more of your works!

K: i'm still amazed at the response! writing is so solitary to me and i don't really look at my numbers. it never occurred to me that people would be discussing my fic!

-------------------------------------

If you haven't read Kippie's Levihan fic yet, here's the link to get started: City Comma State

[uncle-fruity]

Actually, yes, I want to reblog this version too, because the tags are so correct, and speak to intersectionality. We learn more about each other and how to stand up for each other and you know what??? If you're paying attention, you'll see that all forms of oppression rely heavily on the same tactics, just packaged up differently depending on who is being targeted. In reading about anti-racism, I was able to better understand dehumanization (a big problem for POC). In understanding dehumanization, I can see how it also affects all corners of the queer community. Or, to flip it around, learning about how queer folks are accused of hypersexuality as a means to discredit them helped me see those patterns when racism is afoot!

Caring about the bodily autonomy of queer folks led me to learning about bodily autonomy in general, and how it isn't just trans folks who are gatekept from decisions about their own bodies -- intersex folks, disabled folks, folks who need high levels of support, children, and tbh plenty more groups than that also have to deal with not having a say in what happens to their bodies. If we are standing up for our own bodily autonomy, we have to care about everyone else impacted by the problem. There is no problem with seeing our struggles as inherently linked, even when those struggles are vastly different based on our individual situations. If anything, the more folks we have with skin in the game, the more likely we are to succeed in our goals to change things -- IF we work together.

And this is why, when it comes to infighting, I will not entertain it. If you think one oppressed group is less deserving of rights, less deserving of being heard out, less deserving of community support, then I'm sorry but you can take your separatist attitude and separate yourself from all the folks trying to make real change. It's cop behavior, and whether or not infighters and discoursers are literally feds or not makes no difference. Anyone who functions to divide us and make us nitpick over pointless shit like who suffers the most and which people are most deserving of being listened to -- those folks are doing the work of the people who most want to keep us separated, powerless, and oppressed.

The Civil Rights movement in the United States was literally undercut by feds who infiltrated the activist groups and caused internal conflict between members. Fred Hampton was murdered in part because his work in bringing the queer community and the black community together under one cause was so alarming to the people in power. Call me paranoid, but I'm not gonna take the chance that the anonymous user calling me a transmisogynist over tumblr dot com with nothing to back it up aside from imagined vibes is doing so in good faith. As if my understanding of history and oppression and the levels my own government will go to to stop a movement is going to illicit any reaction aside from assuming that person is a cop, just in case they are.

My assumption when queer folks start enforcing queer gender roles and hierarchies is that they have not done any of the work necessary to fixing the real problems we face as a community. My best faith assumption is that they're kids, that they're new, and/or that they've rarely met people outside of their own little cultural bubbles. My worst faith assumption is that they're cops trying to undermine our movement, because that is what their words and behaviors serve to do, whether they intend to or not. When you use the tools of the oppressor, you become a tool of oppression yourself. You can't unlearn that shit if you don't learn from and listen to people who aren't like you. And you can't learn from and listen to people who aren't like you if you never learn to shut the fuck up and actually listen. Even when it's something you don't fully understand or even fully recognize as a problem. You'll never understand someone else's point of view if you never hear them out to begin with, or if you get angry at someone when their experiences don't line up with your expectations of them.

Anyway, all that to say... we're all in this together. Learn some stuff about decolonization. Read Ibram X. Kendi. Type "COINTELPRO" into a search engine. Get a book from the library about a minority group you don't belong to. Either show up or shut up. We cannot afford to hate each other.

idk chat i just dont see how hard it is to admit that trans women, trans men, and non binary people all face their own forms of specific oppression and also transphobia as a whole. why do we act like we can only believe in one or the other

[enderspawn]

It's alright if u don't wanna answer this cuz this argument gets people really riled up but do you think c!Techno is a tyrant or nah?

Cuz many c!techno apologists argue that he isn't just cuz he's an anarchist but I've also read a lot of essays that go against it and it'd be really interesting to see ur opinion on this

i think he, in some contexts, can most definitely be called tyrannical, yes. a tyrant? no.

to avoid spamming ppl w discourse we've all def heard before (and bc this ended up MASSIVE (like 2.3k ish), but fairly in depth bc i didnt wanna speak out of bad faith and wanted to be EXPLICTLY clear-- oops), the rest will be under readmore

so heres the thing i want to preface: i used to really LOVE c!techno. i joined beginning of s2, right when exile started, and he was arguably my favorite character. since then though i've fallen out with him a LOT, to the point i almost... actively despite him at times (though mainly in a toxic kind of way which i can acknowledge is flawed).

in short, his actions started to speak louder than his words and i lost investment in his personal character struggles because of the actions he took (doomsday was my breaking point. i get feeling angry and betrayed, as well as seeking revenge against lmanberg, but his actions went too far for me to CARE and it hurt so many more characters as well.)

so when i speak, i come from a place of disliking him but also somewhat understanding the position c!techno apologists come from: i used to be one of them myself.

NOW, do i think he's a tyrant? no. for reference in my analysis, i try to look up the definition of terms to make sure they are utilized properly. while "tyranny" and "tyrannical" can have multiple uses, tyrant itself is a more specific term. to combine the top two definitions, a tyrant is referring to "an extremely oppressive, unjust, or cruel absolute ruler (who governs without restrictions, especially one who seized power illegally.)"

techno's position as an anarchist, imo, DOES indeed make him unable to be a tyrant. tyrants are rulers with very clear power over others from a structural way. anarchists are about the lack of structure or power over others and instead viewing the people around you as equals in power.

in forming the syndicate, they very explicitly worked to not designate a leader and instead make it so that no one would have any power over the others systemically. techno may have taken a integral role, yes, but it doesn't make him suddenly "the leader", its a role that wouldve had to be filled by someone (even if it was democratic to decide who to invite, they'd need someone to hand over the invite itself yknow? like no matter WHAT there needed to be A ROLE)

one could argue that he IS a leader in the shadow hierarchy of the syndicate (which, yes, is a real and professional term used in management courses despite sounding like it comes from a 4kids yugioh dub) in that everyone CONSIDERS and looks to him a leader without him having any actual structural basis behind it, but to argue that allows him to be a tyrant is in bad faith i believe. especially because to the people he would be "ruling", he ISNT oppressive, unjust, or cruel. they are his friends and support network and critical for a lot of his personal development (since feelings of betrayal and trust issues are critical to his character and why he acts the way he does). I wish we were able to SEE this develop more, but oh well.

but like i said: tyrant is fairly specific in definition. TYRANNY, and thus TYRANNICAL are not as limited. I've discussed their definitions here. originally, i made that post because i was angry at a take i had seen that claimed that, like you said, because techno was an anarchist and not part of any government or leadership position, he couldn't be tyrannical. to which i heartily disagree.

for something to be tyrannical, they simply must have an overarching/oppressive power over someone or something. it would not be inaccurate if i were to say that something is "under the tyranny" of a concept, because what it means is that something is under the power of another thing/concept. you can frankly call anything tyranny if it is widespread/overarching and you don't like it. mask mandates? tyranny, its forcing me to act in "rigorous condition". hell, theres even such things as tyranny of the majority in which people agree too much on one thing and it gives them unfair power or tyranny of the minority where people with minority opinions have too much power (thats a very grossly oversimplified definition of both, but it covers the base idea well enough for my point)

the point im making above isnt meant to be taken as "anything can be worked to be defined as tyranny thus it is a meaningless claim", it is that tyranny (and again, thus tyrannical) are very open and nonrestrictive terms.

to make it easier to define, alongside the definitions provided i want to add an explicit clause that is (imo) implied in the original definition: tyranny is... well, bad. that is to say if someone has power over a group but literally everyone is fine with it and agrees to it, its not tyranny. thats just a group of people getting along and one happens to have power over another. a leader does NOT equal a tyrant (as discussed above), so leadership should not be equated with tyranny.

thus as an example: wilbur acting as president (before the election) may have been "unelected" with power over his citizens, but no one was upset with that power. thus, he is not a tyrant and not acting tyrannically (as well as the fact his power was, arguably, NOT rigourous or absolute but thats another topic for another time). SCHLATT however IS a tyrant, as his power was absolute (he did not consult his cabinet) and forced people to comply instead of them complying willingly, thus he was acting tyrannically.

now to finally get to the damn point of this essay: where does c!techno lie? honest answer? it depends slightly on your perspective, but it depends a LOT on the future of the syndicate.

techno is incredibly clear in his goals: no governments, no corruption. in fighting with pogtopia, he is actively working to topple a tyranny-- he isn't tyrannical for doing that.

when he strikes out on nov 16th, it is because he opposes them forming a new government. when they oppose him and disagree, he launches an attack against them. is this tyranny? maybe, but probably not. he IS trying to impose his own physical strength and power (as well as his resources) over the others to stop them from doing what HE doesn't want them to do.

however its more nuanced than that:

1. hes lashing out emotionally as well as politically. he feels betrayed by those he trusted and he believed that they would destroy the government then go (i'm ignoring any debates on if he did or did not know that they planned another government, though it is a source of debate). but typically idk about you but i dont call tyranny for someone fighting with another person.

2. he also may be acting with good intent again, in HIS EYES. if tubbo was part of manburg, whos to say he wont be just as bad? he, in his pov, is likely trying to stop another tyrant before they rise.

3. and finally, and tbh the most damning from any perspective: he gives up. he quickly leaves then RETIRES without intent to try and attack again until he is later provoked. tyranny is defined by it not just being power, but power being USED. if he doesn't use his power to try and impose any will, then he's not tyrannical.

Doomsday I am also not going to touch very in depth on for much of the same reasons. My answer is again a "maybe", depending on the weight you personally place on each issue:

1. he's lashing out as revenge for the butcher army and as revenge against tommy for "betraying" him (though this one we explicitly know he was ignoring the fact tommy did not want to go through with it, however he still did trust and respect tommy regardless so his feelings are understandable anyway)

2. he sees new lmanberg as corrupt and tyrannical (which is undeniable: house arrest for noncompliance, exile without counsel, execution without trial, etc), and thus obligated to destroy it

but also, theres the implicit understanding he's doing this to send a message: do not form a government, or else. its a display of force that also works to warn others unless they want a similar fate. phil even explicitly states that he is doing so to send that message, so one could assume techno is doing the same alongside his personal reasoning listed above.

what i just described is the use of a oppressive and harsh (physical) power in order to gain compliance from people (that compliance being 'not making a government'). does that sound familiar? exactly. it follows the definition(s) of tyranny given previously. technoblade is acting in a way that is, by very definition, tyrannical.

so the debate shifts: is he valid in doing so because he is trying to PREVENT corruption and tyranny. like i said, new lmanberg was undeniably corrupt at points. i held nothing against techno for trying to topple manburg, so does that apply to new lmanberg as well? short answer: i dont know. it depends on your specific opinion of what is acceptable. its like the paradox of tolerance: to have a truly tolerant society, you have to be intolerant of intolerance. to have a truly non-tyrannical society, do you need to have a tyranny enforcing it?

personally (and bc im a lmanberg loyalist /hj) i say it is. regardless of the corruption of new lmanberg, they are also giving a threat to EVERYONE. even those who are innocent, they are presented with the exact same threat and rule set: if you make a government, you will be destroyed.

(which, small divergence here, is part of why debating c!techno is so frustrating. so many times you end up hitting a "well it depends on your political views" situation and there ISNT a correct answer there. im here to analyze characters for fun, not debate political theory)

so: the syndicate then. this is where this debate really "took off" and i think its due to one very specific miscommunication about its goals and plans. the syndicate, upon formation, declares itself to stand against corruption and tyranny. when they are found, the syndicate would work to destroy it. so heres the golden question: what do THEY define as corruption and tyranny? if you were to go off c!techno's previous statements, seemingly "any government" is a valid answer. however, he also states he's fine with people just being in groups together hanging together.

what then DEFINES A GOVERNMENT for them? what lines do they have to sort out what does "deserve to be destroyed" and what does "deserve to exist freely"

this is a hypothetical i like to post when it comes to syndicate discourse:

i have a group of people. lets say 5 or so for example. they all live together and build together. any decisions made that would impact the entire group they make together and they must have a unanimous agreement in order to proceed, but otherwise they are free to be their own people and do their own thing. when you ask them, they tell you they are their own nation and they have a very clearly defined government: they are a direct democracy. does the syndicate have an obligation to attack?

there is absolutely no hierarchy present. there is no corruption present. but, they ARE indeed a government. is that then inherently negative? my answer is fuck no (see the whole "difference between a tyrant and a leader" thing above).

but THATS where the issue of this discourse LIES. in some people's eyes, the answer to that is YES. techno's made it clear "no government" is his personal view, but does that spread to the syndicate as a whole? do they act preemptively in case it DOES become corrupt? is it inherently corrupt because its a government, regardless of how it is ruled? the fact of the matter is because of how little we've seen the syndicate work as a SYNDICATE, we don't know that answer. so we're left to debate and speculate HOW they would act.

if the syndicate were to let that government exist, then they are not tyrannical. they are showing that they are working to stop tyranny and corruption, just like in pogtopia again.

if the syndicate were to destroy/attack that government, then they are tyrannical. simple as that. they are enforcing a rule of their own creation without any nuance or flexibility under the threat of absolute destruction.

miscommunication in debates comes, in my opinion, in the above. of course theres more points of nuance. for example:

would the syndicate allow a government like i had described with early lmanberg, where there is an established hierarchy but everyone in the country consents to said leadership? on one hand, there is no tyranny or corruption present which is what they are trying to work against. on the other hand, theres more a possibility of it occuring. perhaps they'd find a middle road between the two binary options of "leave or destroy" i am presenting, such as checking in occasionally to ensure no corruption occurs.

but if they were to destroy it without, for lack of a better word, "giving it a chance" they would be, in my opinion, tyrannical. they would be going aginst their words of opposing corruption and instead abusing their power to gain compliance.

your/others opinions may differ, again it depends on if you see it as worth it to possibly stop future tyranny or if a hierarchy is INHERENTLY a negative thing.

part of the reason so many blog gave up this debate, beyond not getting very clear answers for the syndicate, is because of the nuance present. there. is. no. right. answer. every single person will view it differently, because there is no universally agreed upon truth of right or wrong here. BUT, i hope this helps shed some light on the discussion and my thoughts on it

[yukisohmasmokesweed]

on: rin/haru and what “grooming” actually means

apparently there is some, hm, discourse going around at the moment claiming that rin groomed haru, crediting this to their 2 year age gap. there seems to be a pretty huge fandom-wide misunderstanding of what “grooming” actually means, so i wanted to talk about rin and haru and compare it to an actual instance of grooming in fruits basket: kyoko/katsuya

tw for discussions of pedophilia, grooming, abuse and references to csa

let’s put legality aside for a moment, and here’s why: legality =/= morality. the federal age of consent in japan is 13. it doesnt take a genius to come to the conclusion that that’s a seriously wack law, a 13 year old cannot consent to sex. however, just like in the united states, each prefecture sets their own local age of consent. fruits basket is set in tokyo, and in tokyo prefecture the age of consent is 18. japan does not have romeo and juliet laws like the US, so in tokyo prefecture neither rin nor haru would legally be able to consent to one another. so let’s set those laws aside because they are irrelevant to this particular conversation. when it comes to kyoko/katsuya, that relationship is illegal both in japan as well as the united states. in fact, katsuya would at the very least lose his job if this happened in america. however age gap relationships are unfortunately still a cultural norm in many places in the world, japan included. as an american i find this pretty shocking, but it is the reality of it

for clarity: haru is a high school sophomore (15 or 16) and rin is a high school senior (17 or 18) during the events of ep 18. kyoko is an eighth grader (13 or 14) and katsuya is 22 when they initially meet.

(source for all following images) (additional source)

so lets talk about the stages of grooming.

-rin did not target haru. yes, they both suffer (different degrees) of isolation, neglect, and abuse, but arguably rin is the more vulnerable one in this relationship. rin and haru are childhood friends as well as social peers, and their relationship grew from a place of mutual like and spending age-appropriate time together throughout their lives. haru offers rin support when she is in a bad place throughout their friendship, and presumably rin offers some sort of emotional support to haru in the same way, though we dont see this onscreen. so we’ve already failed step one

-kyoko is a victim of abuse. she is isolated and neglected by her parents. she has a chaotic home life and a lack of parental oversight, driving her to seek out bonds in an unhealthy environment (the gang). katsuya sees that she is a vulnerable, struggling child and targets her specifically after meeting her.

-does not apply. the only time rin or haru interact with the other’s parents onscreen is when haru is yelling at rin’s parents. we don’t know how haru’s parents feel about rin, but based on the way the sohma adults around rin talk about her and the other zodiacs, i think it’s safe to assume its mild disinterest to an actual dislike. we simply do not know

-doesn’t really apply to kyoko/katsuya either since kyoko’s parents are so absent

-this does not happen at all during rin and haru’s relationship. they are affectionate towards each other, but consensually and in an age-appropriate way

-katsuya doesn’t gift-give, but he does use flattery. he makes comments about kyoko’s physical appearance and her intelligence and gets her alone both in and outside of school to talk in multiple instances. he is purposefully fulfilling kyoko’s need for a positive adult influence in her life, seeing as she has none, and she starts to rely on that because she’s a child and he is being kind to her (from her perspective)

-i’m running out of things to say about haru/rin because this doesnt happen! yes they hang out alone together but again they are social peers. their age gap is simply not significant enough for this to be inappropriate.

-katsuya waits until kyoko is completely isolated from her family and her peers, having left the gang and immediately disowned by her parents, to do this. he shows up AT HER HOUSE at her absolute most vulnerable moment, getting kicked out her home at 14, and informs her that they are getting married. so now she is cut off from her immediate family, cut off from her only friends, and to a child it’s understandable why the only way out of this situation would be through katsuya. not only does she trust him after months of grooming, she basically has no choice but to trust the one and only adult in her life. she’s not even old enough to get a job (japanese labor laws prohibit anyone under the age of 15 from having a job)

-yes, rin and haru do have sex. they are both teenagers. it is not something where rin is exploiting haru’s curiosity about sex or vice versa, it’s two people in the same peer group consensually exploring it together. they are both on the young side for sure, but there is canonically consent (haru asking permission to kiss her). teenagers having consensual sex with other teenagers is not abusive in any way

-we don’t know when kyoko and katsuya’s relationship gets sexual, but kyoko was underage for sure. she’s 18/19 when katsuya dies and tohru was 3 or 4, which means when kyoko got pregnant she was 16 at the absolute oldest, and i’m sure they had a sexual relationship prior to the pregnancy. katsuya would’ve been around 24 when kyoko got pregnant

-this simply does not happen between rin and haru. they keep it a secret for a while, but not because rin is trying to control haru. once they’re found out haru talks openly to yuki about his sexual relationship with rin. the secrecy wasn’t a control tactic, they were trying to protect themselves from outside forces

-obviously there is no secrecy here either, but after katsuya dies it’s apparent that kyoko did feel that katsuya was the only person who could meet her needs. the way katsuya took advantage of kyoko’s social isolation and became the only person in her life as well as the person who supported her financially clearly took its toll on kyoko, who is despondent and floundering after his death. she falls into a deep depression and neglects her own health as well as the health of her child. she has no idea how to function without katsuya, as is the design of someone who grooms a child in the way he did.

tl;dr rin and haru dont even come close to meeting the definition of grooming. yes, they are both young, but they are also both in the same peer group as well as both being in bad home situations. their relationship is grown out of a well-established friendship and they mutually support each other. when their relationship turns sexual, they do so from a place of love and verbally consent to one another

kyoko/katsuya is an example of actual child grooming, so much so that it meets nearly every stage to a T. it is disrespectful to peg rin of all people as a groomer when there is such a glaringly obvious example of how a groomer actually acts within fruits basket.

i don’t know how people came to the conclusion that rin is grooming haru, but its an incorrect take and tbh reeks of misogyny! hope this was helpful to people who are confused.

[genderfluidlucifer]

Response to being asked to give  an opinion on Connie’s calout by residentevil-4

(Tw: CSAM, rape fic, incest fic, predatory behavior, racism, ableism, kink mention, nsfw mentions. Minors should probably dni.)

“Connie and I know each other irl and went to school together for 3 years, although they now live in a different state and have cut contact with me. We went to a private therapy school in Manhattan as we're both disabled and were deemed unable to attend public school. Even though we were pretty close, Connie didn't like having photos taken of them, so I don't have any selfies of the two of us; however, these are from our sophomore and senior yearbooks which at least confirms that we were in the same year at school. People who have seen Connie's selfies should be able to confirm that that is what they look like. First and foremost, Connie is not TMA. They are intersex and the two of us have discussed intersex issues both in person and online, but they are still decidedly CAFAB.” Ok so first off, I want to address this part of the callout. To be honest...was it really necessary to literally doxx Connie ehre? Because this textbook definition of doxxing. Yes Connie’s done some shitty things but I freally don’t think that what they’ve done warrants this level of doxxing. Or...even better, any doxxing. This feels like a really unnecessary breach of privacy, revealing sensitive information on Connie’s childhood that they choose to confide in you with. I really don’t agree with this aspect of the callout as it feels very invasive and bordering on stalkerish.  Btw when I say bordering on stalkerish I’m not directly calling you a stalker Bonnie. Just so we’re clear. I am not defending Connie supposedly faking being TMA. Because faking being TMA is a very serious issue. HOWEVER since I don’t know Connie irl and to be quite frank it’s none of my business what the nature of their agab is. Were not close and I’m certainly not going to like lead Connie onto thinking we’re friends just to confirm this with them because that would be creepy. So to be honest I’m going to take this part of the callout with again of salt for now.

[ID: A cropped screenshot of a numbered list Connie posted to their blog hadrosaurs in response to an ask. 

“3. I’m TMA And that’s completely irrelevant. I’m not accusing them because of their gender I didn’t even know their gender when they said that to me saying that they said that because they fucking said that and the reaction to it was incredibly alarming. Don’t fucking say that stuff to people.]

I mean I”m not a trans woman so take this with a grain of salt if you want but...I don’t see how this is really proof of Connie being deliberately transmisogynistic? Yes Connie gives iffy retellings of mistakes they’ve made in the past. I’ve seen that on their blog before and I won’t pretend it doesn’t happen. BUT here they sound genuine enough and to be honest a growing issue I’ve seen with callouts as of late is. A person confirms they in fact did not do the thing they were called out for. And then the people who make the callout choose to see it as proof of incriminating behavior anyways. To be honest it’s a big problem and it’s also incredibly unfair to the person being called out. If you’re so determined at that point to see the person as bigoted no matter what they say then of course anything they say can be seen as proof. So I’m going to have to pass on this bit of evidence. “Connie responded: “Final note: I have spoken extensively with several trans women about using TMA to describe myself. I will not be getting into discourse about that on this blog again. All that leads to is people demanding my medical records and calling me slurs. If you wanna have a thoughtful conversation about it direct message me cause it’s not happening again here.” Again this really doesn’t seem all that self incriminating. Connie mentions here that they’ve talked to rl trans woman about whether or not they can be considered TMA. Connie really doesn’t have to disclose that personal information to people for any reason. Yes even when people are e including this ask response in a callout. And considering lots of people DO get invasive about Connie’s medical history ans general personal life over matters like this? I feel their reaction is pretty understandable here. “Connie has constantly compared “exclusionists” (or anyone, really) to TERFs, even when the people in question are not transmisogynistic, trans exclusionary radfems, or are even transmisogyny affected themselves.

“ Gonna have to disagree with this part of the callout too. Lots of ace inclus blogs, even some run by trans women , have proven that the ace exclus movement was started by swerfs/terfs. But the blog that has the most evidence for this is courteousmingler on tumblr. I suggest you check out that blog’s archiving of the history of ace exclus rhetoric before rushing to call me a transmisogynist for disagreeing with this part of the callout. I looked through all of the evidence for Connie being racist and tbh as a black ndn it all feels incredibly flimsy. It’d be one thing if Connie was using their experiences to derail and invalidate the discussions about how black people are oppressed But they weren’t doing that there at all. This part of the post feels incredibly biased. And like OP is looking for things to be mad about. Going to have to pass on this list of evidence. Also uh I seem to recall that residentevil04 got called out for some questionable behavior as well. “Both me (insepsy, hi) and ezrat have had really weird spikes in activity on our Statcounters, both on the same day. (Saturday, 4/17/21) For both of us, majority of the pages looked at by these visitors have been related to or about Connie, or have been posts that Connie would find "problematic" such as the f slur untagged or something related to "panphobia"/aphobia. I’m sorry but...none of the proof of cyberstalking holds any water. Visiting someone’s blogs and rbing posts to disagree with them is not cyberstalking. Keeping tabs on urls that an abusive person who has harassed are using so you can block them (in this case with kyoshi) and warn your mutuals is not stalking. As a victim of rl stalking it’s...really weird to call this legit stalking at all. Much less claim that you have damning proof of it being stalking when no such evidence exists in the callout. Besides after Connie and nonbinarydave called out one of kyoshi’s buddies for sending a death threat hate anon to nonbinarydave’s toddler st4lker partly admitted to doing it a few times. Then other mutuals in kyoshi’s toxic social circle clearly began joining in. Making side accounts where they tried to spin a false narrative of nonbinarydave’s daughter being one of their alters (ableist as hell.) And also trying to do it in such a way that they thought would trigger nonibnarydave’s psychosis (also ableist as hell.) If you’re going to drag Connie for their mistakes and never let them move on from those mistakes then it’s only fair to do that to people you agree with who also do toxic/bigoted things. ALso the fact that your wording here suggests that you think panphobia and aphobia aren’t real makes me doubt this claim even more. Exclus and their allies are notorious for mislabeling inclus disagreeing with them as stalking. “connie said that they would release that info at a later time and the minor began to argue with them that they had a responsibility regardless of their complicated relationship with age. in this argument connie for a time kept their age ambiguous and at one point told the minor (who confirmed in a later ask that they were severely traumatized by adults) that they obviously weren’t traumatized. connie quickly deleted this ask and any mentions of it and the next post they reblogged was about how wrong it was to try and quantify or discount others’ trauma. on my old blog i @ed them in the replies and asked if they had just done that. connie admitted to it and said it was fucked up but quickly blocked + deleted my comment. i can’t remember whether or not connie apologized to the minor, they may have? but yeah. i thought that was pretty weird.”] I do agree with some of the concern here that adults shouldn’t over expose minors in discourse. I’ve been contemplating this for awhile myself. And trying to figure out how to take better steps to avoid including minors who are triggered by discourse in discourse, especially. HOWEVER I have one little issue with this addition to the callout. If that is the case then exclus and their allies need to practice this as well. You cannot ignore the fact that the reason a lot of minors are getting involved in exclus discourse is due to adult exclus and their allies forcing minors to pick a side in the discourse. Y’all are not at all exempt from this problem. I still remember an ex mutual of mine trying to convince a minor to agree that aces can’t face corrective rape. And based on how aggressive it got with me when I tried to avoid giving an opinion on the matter, I can’t imagine that it would’ve reacted better to the minor refusing to give an opinion or to the minor outright disagreed. Refusing to put these standards on exclus and their allies is both hypocritical and quite frankly very transparent. The claims about them glorifying dark topics on AO3 through their fics also seems unfortunately legit. I mean those asks of shaming people who ask their viewers to not romanticize or glorify abusive relationships in their works is very damning. I’m very disappointed to see that Connie has taken being an inclus to the point of validating antis anti culture wholeheartedly. I can’t think of much more to add to my opinion on that part of the callout. As for the issue of Connie interacting with pro shippers in the past, I do know that this claim is legit. I’ve seen it before and so has Breeze. This was why for a brief time we decided to stop following their blogs. Because it was triggering to have pro shippers put on our dash. And sometimes we just don’t feel it’s worth it to always let people we’re platforming know they’re rbing triggering stuff. So sometimes we just quietly unfollow and choose to not interact until we’re sure they’re filtering what they do and don’t rb in some way. I definitely don’t agree with that behavior. And if they’re still doing that I”ll deplatform again. “The anon asks: “A weird question but do you know any other stimboard blogs with your follow criteria? (No radfems, racists, fandom antis, etc.) I was hoping to find more through your “similar blogs” but a lot have no anti-antis for their DNI or allow truscum/transmeds and exclus. :(“

The user responds: “I know of @turtle-pond-stims, @outofangband, and @kinaesthetics! 🍂🍄" “[ID: A cropped screenshot of an ask sent by Connie from their now-deactivated blog, butch-with-a-tortoise.

Connie says: “hey anon I have safe stim blogs. dm me if you want them. And radfems/bigots aren’t allowed to interact. For my own safety (because the community is honestly terrifying) I can’t publicly say on my blogs that I’m safe for proshippers/kinky people but I try to spread word how I can.”] [ID: Screenshot of a post by evilwriter37, which reads, “I’ve been seeing posts about fandom police leaving ao3, and it’s like: Good. We don’t want you here anyway. Go find your own fanfiction site.”

The post is tagged “#Fandom #AO3 #Antis #Purity Culture” and has 87 notes. It was posted on December 21st, 2020.

There is a reply from main-to-outofangband-andothers saying: “there are Silm antis on that site who are against Russigon (Maedhros and Fingon) not because they’re cousins but because they’re both male (coded)”] [ID: A screenshot of an anonymous (though signed off as being from outofangband) ask sent to evilwriter37, which says, “Melkor and Viggo solidarity is ‘Look there’s nothing wrong with keeping my enemy chained up in my personal chambers at all times so please just focus on the war efforts and I’ll focus on the boy* in my chambers’ -@outofbangand.

*boy used figuratively @ antis”

The user responds: “Pfft!!! Hahaha! You’re absolutely right! (And Viggo does refer to Hiccup in canon as ‘my boy’).”] I can’t really say anything to refute this. Because these are all posts of Connie outright stating that they disagree with antis. And not only sympathize with anti antis but are fully against antis. Looks like very damning evidence. Although ngl I’m not entirely against kinky blogs as a whole? Just so long as they truly stay in their lane with their kink content. And don’t force it on others in any way. Or shame people who are triggered by their kinks. It is true that being entirely against kinky blogs no matter what is dipping your toes into swerf rhetoric. Tbh I’m not going to look at the rest. This is pretty much all I need to make a decision on whether or not I”ll continue platforming Connie. Though I will try to get some more  perspective from people who I interact with as well. Because I feel better about making a more definitive decision after doing that. Also in general please don’t not try to get an opinion from me on how I feel about syscourse. A lot of the claims about Connie’s age weirdness and them using their alters as a shield feel like syscourse to me. Especially if this callout was written by one or several singlets. Singlets should never be trying to judge how legit someone’s system is ever. Even if their system friends encourage them to. You can call out a horrible person with a system without trying to insinuate that they’re lying about their alters in some way. Doing otherwise is ableist ESPECIALLY if you’re a singlet. Also in general the reason I stay out of discussions of judging how someone is handling their systems is because it’s syscourse and syscourse is triggering for my system and I. If this post was an attempt to get me to give an opinion  on the validity of Connie’s system I don’t appreciate it. And I would appreciate not being dragged into such matters again, thank you.

In general there’s like a few parts of this callout that feel legit. Which is unfortunately cluttered with obvious bias and obsessive hatred of Connie. I’m not here to stan or coddle Connie. I know they are not a perfect person. Especially since no human being in the world is perfect. But I feel the way this callout was created was very sloppy since a lot of the evidence was messy at best. And some points were very hypocritical as well as there being some no true scotsman moments from OP. In acting like exclus never do any of the thing that they tried to call out Connie for. Which is behavior that I am not a fan of. This is why people need to be more careful about callouts and like make roughdrafts and have a more unbiased person helping them if they don’t feel they can do it on their own. I’m even trying to make a resolve to do better at that myself. So it’s not like I’m unwilling to put my money where my mouth is. Anyways those are all my thoughts on this messy callout. And tbh I’m not going to get too much more heavily involved in this. Because I need to focus on more immediately serious rl stuff more often, like doing what I can to get out of the hellish landscape of a house I currently am stuck in.

[rochey1010]

Hi guys 👋

Just wanted to make a post to add to the discourse in the tag. 😄 it's about Maya and her decisions/behaviour.

I also wanted to draw attention to the intentional Elu/Mayla parallels that are all over this season and...actually i might do a post on that and how Eliott more than most is essentially a prism for this season and his story, actions, emotions, passions are reflective in 3 key areas (Lola -female Eliott, Maya, Lamifex) and he is being used to set up and hand off to this new generation e.g. Elu (21:21) and mayla (22:22) aka old gen- new gen.

Anyway the parallel here is S3 E5. So Maya is now getting attacked by fans just like Eliott did when he made his decision to do what he did in that episode.

Eliott's conundrum was bipolar. His great SKAM being his mental illness. His fear is huge and rooted in it.

Maya's is Alcoholism and her father driving drunk and killing himself and the mother, leaving young Maya as the only survivor with the dandelion scar as rememberance.

Both have been confronted with the pain from the one they want most, and how involved they are in their SKAMS. Lola directly involved with abusing the vices that traumatised Maya. And Lucas indirectly involved with mental illness, being on the periphery of it with his mum being mentally ill. Both have trauma because of it with Lola an addict and Lucas scared of it because he was raised in it.

There is a moment that again parallels S3 E5 but this time another scene. That scene is the reveal of the SKAM to the one you love. This time at the school Lucas reveals Eliott's SKAM to him and breaks his heart as well as scares him away with his feelings about mental illness "because i don't need crazy people in my life" Eliott can't hide his pain and bleeds out for us to see. He makes his decision to do what he does next.

With Maya it's when Lola reveals her SKAM to her in her home "i'm an addict" and Maya comforts her but is already emotionally distancing herself from her based on this information. Maya then has another scene to help her when she sees bitter Lola drinking and then gets hurt by her words in the restaurant. Maya leaves seeing essentially her alcoholic father all over again.

Max/Char in this case is basically Lucille. Eliott's talk was off screen and he alluded to Lucas in the kitchen scene the morning after their reunion that Lucille made him think it was better if they stayed together. Max her emotional Lucille in this scenario tells Lola himself what he has said to Maya. "I told her she was falling in love with you, and that you're toxic for her"

Now Maya is scared and reliving trauma just like Eliott. Eliott's being he's not worth loving, and can never have what he wants most (Lucas) that he will always have to settle, and it was wrong to leave his dark world. Maya's being her seeing this happen before and the chaos and destruction that is left behind (2 dead parents and one orphan) in the pursuit to love and help a self destructive person.

So Maya turns to Char. Her physical Lucille, as she isn't in love with Max. So this is the scene where Lola/Lucas are confronted with Maya/Eliott leaving them. With Lucas it was immediate self destruction and a hurricane of pain. With Lola who likes to twist the knife slower into herself. It will be a slow build up to her eventually going back to her vice of choice. Alcohol i suspect as of right now (Eliott and the movie being the buffer and positive influence she can focus on) but eventually and sadly, drugs and a final bender.

But as Mayla and Elu are paralleling each other. What eventually happens is that like S3 Eliott ends it and thinks he can let Lucas go and settle for what he always has done. He realises he's in too deep and can't stop loving him. This time Maya hasn't started it but will realise that she is indeed in love with Lola and can't let her go. Char like Lucille will be gone very soon.

Just remember how much you love Eliott and how he suffered from what Lucas said to him, how he hurt (raccoon drawing behind the wall) how he was misunderstood (raccoon trying to write a letter but binning it) and how he pined (sculpture hug pygmalion reference and Woolf quote) on his insta (his narrative) and now think of Maya and the horrible pain of losing 2 parents to the self destruction Lola is regulary engaging in right now. To being an orphan and having to relive an alcoholic father again through loving Lola.

With Lola she hasn't taken responsibility. She goes on benders based on how she feels. She is not reliable and just a week ago was bitter and drunk spitting insults at Maya. She told Eliott she doesn't even know if she wants to change. And was high as f last week and had to be helped by Eliott. She told Daphne that even after everything she still has the urge to go back to the dangerous predator Aymeric for a fix. And now understand why Maya has distanced herself. So far Lola has pulled in people she cares about into dangerous and uncomfortable situations. Eliott with violence, Maya with alcohol and being drunk, Daphne with the cutting predicament. Now Lola is getting a taste of what's it's like being on the other side of her self destruction. And this is good, because it means the addict behaviour of blaming the world for your bad choices is beginning to change. As she is building a support network around her she is developing empathy for others suffering and pain, as for a long time her anger and learned helplessness in being a depressive has blighted her.

Just to clarify i'm not attacking Lola. This is an objective view. She is an addict and she is choosing to make bad choices based on how she feels. She is constantly 1 step forward and 2 steps back. And one week she could be sober and the next high. Change is consistent, and maya sees that Lola isn't. Maya is doing what is right for her well being and Lola must do what is right for hers.

Lola just isn't in a place to be in a relationship right now and this is why her and Maya are a slowburn situation. This is first and foremost about an addict developing the right tools for healing and building a wide support network. With themes of addiction, self destruction and mental illness. Romantic love is just one part of that puzzle this season, so i do suspect it will be a Sofimane situation and Lola and Maya will become official towards the end.

Just, guys, compassion for Maya too. This time we are seeing the Even side of the equation as Lola is female Eliott and Eliott and Daphne are blocked so Lola was created as the link to explore these blocked characters. For Eliott especially, Lola has a very Eliott type of narrative. Meaning if Eliott had his season we would be seeing very similar issues and tone.

So remember compassion for Maya too. We may see her pining on her insta. The only disappointment though is the mental/emotional state on both instas aren't being utilised in the great way they were in S3. Eliott's was so well developed that we got an Eliott narrative through his private insta journal. Sadly we really aren't getting that with Maya and even Lola. It's more a general theme of breakage/destruction for Lola's and environment/feminist Maya. The depth is lacking there i must say. Like Eliott's would link up to the clips and his emotions, and we'd see Lucas on screen but through Eliott's insta feel Eliott. I'm hoping they show Maya's confusion and pining through her insta just like we saw Eliott's. But i'm not counting on that or Lola's TBH.

Right so as i said i'm planning on doing a post on Eliott and Lola's friendship and how well it's been developed. So see ya soon. 😚

[domreaderrecs]

Oh boy do I have some kink discourse for you. Here’s a wholeass list:

1. A female dominant does not need to be a sadist who is always torturing and abusing their sub. They can be soft and kind and caring.

2. Findom is a valid form of domination and is really a kink, it is not just women faking it to get money.

3. Online domination is possible, although there are more risks involved, it is still a valid form of domination.

4. Submissive black men are allowed to refuse to be called slave and their dom shouldnt be annoyed they can’t used their preferred honorific.

5. Kink and fetishes can be incorporated without the use of the power dynamic found in BDSM.

6. BDSM is still BDSM if the rope is pink and the outfit is white lace instead of red and leather.

7. It should be standard practice for there to be a safe word that means everything is fine so that the Dom can check in on the sub easily without breaking the scene.

8. It is only BDSM when both parties have discussed before hand, otherwise it’s sexual assault (yes that includes Chad who brought out the rope without warning and now Bethany is just going along because she likes him)

9. BDSM has always and will always be driven by the LGBT community.

10. Under 18 year olds do not have a place in the BDSM community. If they wish to learn, then they should do so by finding articles and books, not by asking people involved in the scene.

Yeah that’s about it for now. I’m realizing you probably didn’t want this much but oh well. We’re here now. Let me know what you think!

whewww so much to unpack here lets go its essay time

1. !!!! this is probably one of the most fundamentally misunderstood parts of femdom. it don’t gotta be ball crushing and whipping and calling him a worm all the time, or even at all. this is probably what turns so many women off from trying it or thinking they might be into a more dominant role. gentle femdom is way more palatable for beginners and for me personally, just way more enjoyable (even tho i definitely would wanna make a boy cry from time to time)

2. I used to be one of those people who looked down on findom. I still don’t understand why anyone would be into it tbh but findoms get a lot of shit for no reason... being a sugar baby is so glamorized but if you’re a findom you’re cold, or a bitch, or taking advantage. even though they’re both just people who get money from men who have money to throw at them for sexual favors... but one’s demonized and one’s all the rage... hm i wonder why

3. I have no real/successful experience with this... more on that in number 10

4. 100000%!! the stories i’ve seen from black subs in kink (mostly black women but still) are horrendous. a lot of doms will try to enforce a master/slave relationship, and try to exercise their authority to make subs agree to it. i know it’s a common dynamic, but that shit is wayyyy different to black people... any dom should know that. forcing your sub to do anything is wrong, but especially something so racially, historically, and culturally insensitive. and don’t get me started on the surprise “race play” stories i’ve heard... like i said doing anything without your sub’s consent is wrong but THAT kind of thing requires double consent with a cherry on top. this is part of the reason I’m so scared to enter the kink scene... this shit scares me. thats why the title mistress and master/slave dynamics in general just isn’t for me. it makes me think of my ancestors :/

5. again, 1000% agree. i’ve said this on my blog before, but i’ll say it again. not everything has to be dom/sub stuff. if you wanna peg your bf you don’t have to tie him up and call him names or boss him around, you can just peg him. i feel like ever since FSOG this whole dom/sub thing has grown way out of proportion, but that’s a whole other essay for another day

6. yessss I hate the stereotype of dom outfits as black, latex, leather, way too high to walk in boots... like does it look fire?? yes of course but pink and lace and knee high socks would make a fit that’s just as fire. 

7. this is non-negotiable to me. whenever I hear someone say “I don’t like safe words” or “I/We don’t need a safe word” it’s just a red flag to me. idc what anyone says safe words are mandatory.

8. Yes. I feel like I shouldn’t have to say this but with the rise of the popularity of “rough sex” (again, thanks FSOG) there’s seems to be a rise in people who just assume their partner may be into something, or who just try to experiment on their partner without asking them first. I’ve heard a lot of friends and other girls talk about guys just going straight into choking them, spanking them, and pulling their hair without even asking if they like it (another reason I’m scared to get out there and do stuff, as a person who is very much not a sub or into being treated roughly or tossed around, it’s a big fear of mine). I’ve also seen a lot about girls just randomly trying to finger their boyfriends. If it’s not vanilla, and y’all haven’t discussed it, do not assume it’s on the table. We’ve gotten to a point that kinky stuff is so talked about and normalized (especially with young adults) that people forget it’s actually kinky. 

9. period.

10. okay so story time, around the age of 15/16 is when I started to realize I was into kinky stuff. The preference had kinda always been there, but I couldn’t really place a name to it. I had always felt like an outcast among my peers when it came to the way they would talk about romantic and sexual relationships (I was a year ahead, so all my friends were 1-2 years older than me, so they started to do that stuff earlier than I did) because the things they talked about and liked were way different from the stuff I would think/fantasize about, so I always stayed quiet (teenage girls are very vocal about having choking/daddy kinks but that’s definitely indicative of a much larger problem that i will not get into bc that’s a whole other very very long essay that I will definitely write on here one day but not now). So when I found out what gentle femdom was I felt like I had a community that understood me, and everything just clicked. I would lurk on online communities and I lived for the discourse on there but I could never actively participate because every community had a strict “no minors” policy. They would say exactly what you said, “If minors wish to learn, then they should do so by finding articles and books, not by asking people involved in the scene.” I didn’t want to make anyone catch a case and I didn’t want to get targeted by predators so I tried to follow their advice. i found nothing. There honestly just isn’t that much educational stuff for “kinky teenagers”, or at least none that fit me. There was no femdom oriented stuff. I mean sure there was the standard “consent is important especially in bdsm relationships” but like that didn’t really help me. I had so many questions, that I could never feel comfortable asking my mom or a therapist, and especially not my friends. I didn’t know how to express this part of myself. I couldn’t talk to anyone about it and I couldn’t even watch porn like a normal teenager (we all know the state of femdom porn. its bad) so I was this ball incredible frustration and confusion and i didn’t know what to do with it. So I unfortunately turned to twitter. There I made a little like minded friend. he was also 16 so i thought “this is good, a non adult also kinky teenager who I can relate too. what could go wrong :)”(I’m sure you see where this is going) I was so excited to have a new friend, but ofc, our convos soon took a turn. However, since he was the first person to ever show interest in me, and the only person my age who i could talk to who understood me, i started to catch feelings. But he was a teen just like me, just as horny and confused and sooo immature. He started to pressure me into domming him/becoming his domme, but I refused because I wasn’t ready (i saw on one of those online communities I used to lurk in that its not healthy for your first sexual experience to be bdsm and I took that to heart). he ghosted me. needless to say that “friendship” was toxic. i realized too late that he only saw me as a kink dispenser, and didn’t care about me on a personal level. it also made me realize how not “mature for my age” I was. i say all this to say, NO, teenagers should not be participating in kink. they are not mature enough. however education and resources for them are not where they should be. if we want to discourage them from putting themselves in these situations, we need to better provide them with education and healthy ways to relieve these urges/feelings (i eventually took up writing, it helped me a lot). i feel like had i found a healthier and safer way to express/explore that side of myself, I would’ve never gotten in that situation to begin with. That experience has kinda put me off from dipping my toe into the actual community (well that and the lack of diversity but we’ve already talked about that)

ALSO the amount of very young children i’ve seen in the kink “community” on twitter is alarming... you’re not a little you’re 12

anyways, thanks so much for this essay of an ask and sorry i wrote an essay in response to each one lol but like I said I could discuss kink all day

[gayregis]

I've listened to the part where Geralt talks with a very ill Cahir about Ciri and vengeance... it was one of the most emotional parts of the book by itself but also thanks to your take about the lost innocence of Ciri ! I felt it thrice hard in the feelings! Also, do you have thoughts on the declared love of Cahir for Ciri? Personally I see it as disturbingly romantic, let's say. Thank you for your commitment to the books and sorry to bother you

omg thank you for the ask. first of all i have to say you’re not bothering me!! tbh i have been loving getting asks because it gives me an opportunity to like bring more discussion to the witcher community... 

i feel like although reblogging pretty gifs of characters/landscapes from tw3 and any good fanart i can find is nice, my FAVORITE thing to do is write or read a really long textpost about the witcher books, i really like the discussion aspect of fandoms where people post their reactions and opinions to the content they like, because you get a bunch of shared reactions and differing opinions.

so no this is NOT a bother at all, and its nice especially to get asks about topics that i have strong feelings about but have not made posts about yet, like this one

ok, as for the actual topic: i hate forced heterosexuality, so you KNOW i hate that canon cahiri! it was out of line from sapkowski and imo, it came out of absolutely nowhere in tower of the swallow, it wasn’t something built up to or foreshadowed at all, so it felt not only weird in context but weird for sapkowski as an author.

my main problem with canon cahiri: i think it’s super creepy!

first of all, let’s discuss the age difference. cahir in baptism of fire is estimated to be “not over 25,” which i see as putting him around 20 to 25 years old, and i usually take the median of this which is around 23. while this “not over 25″ comment is said in the context of the hansa to remark upon how young cahir is (i believe it’s thought of by either geralt or dandelion, and geralt is around 60 years old and as a witcher he looks 45, and dandelion is 38 in tower of the swallow), and how cahir is described as a young man in time of contempt to illustrate that he has a sense of innocence to him as ciri cuts him down, his age gap with ciri is super innappropriate for anything to occur between them, since she is 10 or 11 during the massacre of cintra (as stated by geralt in something more), so she would be around 14 at thanedd, and 15-16 during baptism of fire to lady of the lake. so sapkowski deemed it fit to pair a 23 year old man with a 16 year old girl. this isn’t the first time he’s done something like this, what with essi being “not over 18″ and shani also bein around 18 / college age, and yennefer canonically looking around 20. listen, the man has some messed up values when it comes to women’s ages. we have to take it upon ourselves as people who like the not-weird parts of canon to understand how worldviews and personal biases affect one’s writing, and change it for ourselves to make it right so we can continue interacting with it, if we so choose (tldr: retcon some shit when it’s fucked up in canon).

now, before someone argues that “it’s fantasy medieval world, medieval relationships between men and women were just like that,” believe me, i am aware. i study ancient greece/rome and men who were in their 30s were most often paired with women in their teens as part of their arranged marriages. that is how their ancient societies functioned more than 2000 years ago. the issue is that this is a fantasy world, in which societal norms and laws do not have to conform to real-life earth history, and this is the work of a modern writer writing in the 1990s. it’s not “just how the times were,” it’s deliberately choosing to include an age gap like that to be something canonically acceptable by their society/ies.

also, one could argue that the age gap would be fine once they are older, like, when ciri becomes an adult she is already medievally-style betrothed to cahir so they start dating when she’s like 20 and he’s like 27. eh... that’s still an uncomfortable age gap, at least for when they’re in their 20s. people in their older 20s have more life experience than people in their younger 20s. but at least it wouldn’t land cahir in modern-day jail.

it’s still just an uncomfortably large age gap, and if you think about it, it’s even creepier considering that cahir met ciri when she was a helpless child around 10 - 11 and it just makes the bathing scene excruciatingly creepy too if you put it in the context that he eventually would fall in love with her. it even begins to not be about strictly age, but about life experience, development, and power imbalance within the relationship. i mean, he did literally kidnap her.

cahir in tos calls ciri a “woman” when she is like, 15 or 16 (with the rose tattoo) (to anyone reading, please don’t come at me with that “the age of consent is 15 in poland, just because it’s 18 in the US doesn’t mean your laws and culture apply to everyone” ... please do not try and justify this with laws, legality is not morality. only saying this because i’ve seen it in other posts). like.... hm! don’t like that! she is a teenager... he is in his 20s... this should not be occuring.

sorry for the loooong explanation, but every time someone brings up the subject of age gaps on tumblr it turns into crazy discourse with everyone trying to justify it.

but yeah, CANONICALLY cahir would have been 16-21 (median 18) when he met ciri at 10-11, and 20-25 (median 23) when he declares his love for her at 15-16. that’s ... not good ... to put it more into perspective, these are their ages on a traditional school system path: a 18 year old is a high school senior, an 11 year old is a 6th grader. a 23 year old has been out of college for 2 years, a 16 year old is a high school sophomore. ITS NOT GOOD

my other problem with canon cahiri: it’s boring and contradicts sapkowski at his own game.

all of the witcher is about taking fantasy tropes and inverting them, like you can’t have some random peasant kill a dragon, you’d need a professional, and also guess what, the dragon isn’t evil but a dad trying to protect his wife and child.

all of the characters in the hansa (as well as the four main characters of geralt, yennefer, ciri, and dandelion) are inversions of the tropes they represent. for some examples, milva’s trope is something like the hot action girl who only exists to be the only girl in the company and to be sexy eye candy. instead of falling into this, she is actually an action girl, not bothering with sexiness and appeal to the gaze of a male audience but a “get shit done” type, who also dresses and acts “like a man.” regis’ trope is all vampire tropes ever. he/vampires in the witcher doesn’t/don’t fall into any of the traditional european vampire myths like burning in sunlight, needing to drink blood to stay alive, being disdainful of humanity, having aversions to garlic, belonging to a super-secret orderful society that lurks in the shadows and controls everything like puppetmasters, etc... instead, he is the epitome of redemption arcs and overall “goody-goodiness,” understands humanity perfectly and does things out of his good nature. i already talk about regis too much, so i’ll quit it. 

cahir is an inversion of every knight trope ever, particularly the evil knight. he scars ciri’s memory as a night terror, but actually is not ... a bad person. he’s just some guy, pressured by his family and his society to do what he saw as an assignment like a college kid might see their final essay assignment posted on canvas. except you know. the final exam was to kidnap a girl. and he got an F on that and failed the course (ie got thrown in prison). ANYWAYS, cahir is meant to be this inversion of the knight tropes, so WHY, WHY, WHY make him become the knight trope of being the one to romance and to save a hapless princess? if we’ve learned anything about ciri, it’s that she’s the inversion of the princess trope! she KILLS PEOPLE. she ALMOST KILLED CAHIR. she can defend herself and kill for herself, she doesn’t need the knight trope going to protect her! 

heterosexual romance as the Big Reason and Motivation behind all of a character’s actions is tiring, annoying, boring, and not well-thought out. it’s so base and not unique, it doesn’t fit in with everything else about the witcher.

how i would fix it: not make them fall in love.

cahir already HAS a motivation to find ciri and to help her. he needs to APOLOGIZE. he needs to say, hey, i’m sorry i kidnapped you and ruined your life, i made peace with your dad, he doesn’t wanna kill me anymore, i can only hope that you can forgive me too after i SET THINGS RIGHT. 

as opposed to regis’s arc (i swear i am not playing favorites with regis, i just tend to compare and contrast regis and cahir’s redemptions because they are quite different yet they join the hansa side by side so they’re bound to be compared), cahir actually can find the one (not many) people he wronged, and set things right on his own accord, not go forth with a larger mission to assist all humanity, or whatever.

i think cahir also had this WONDERFULLY UNDERUTILIZED anti-imperialist message as part of his character that pains me to see being swept under the rug for some cheap lame romance story. sapkowski already created some anti-war sentiments with the battle of the bridge in baptism of fire, and he tried to create anti-racism sentiments throughout the book/at the end of lady of the lake. anti-imperialism fits with the rest of the saga as a message.

the fact that cahir was instructed by his family to hate the northern kingdoms, despite the fact that they were related to northerners, is really profound as something to happen to a character, and holds a lot of meaning in today’s society. the fact that he broke, finally, after he lost ciri, just completely lost his mind and had to be restrained because he was wailing so hard, because of the pressure that this society put him under to succeed and achieve pride for his family, is such a great example of the tragedies of society. then he speaks out against his leader and is jailed... and yet, after this, he gets to learn from his mistakes and redeem himself as a good person, and his character has developed SO much. he is not doing what his country wants him to do, he is not doing what his family wants him to do. he is doing what he wants to do because it is the RIGHT thing to do. that already is such a powerful message, he doesn’t need anymore character motivation!

so yep that’s my thoughts on why cahir is a good character asides from all that forced romance biz

[lucidpantone]

I really like what you said in your answer " they helped wtfock create hype without really knowing what s4 was about and they were equally blindsided by the narratives" so I don't know exactly if you meant what I think you did and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I do feel bad for the blogs that tried to stay on wtfock's side in the beginning, I speak for myself when I say no one was expecting Kato to end up being racist, I didn't expect at least. And I think it's valid to hold people accountable for defending it, but all I see was blogs that love wtfock waiting to see what the season was about and as soon as the clip with Kato saying "this people" aired, that's when I felt this "fan love" started to fade. But it is still unfair to blame people for engaging with the show until that certain point and I hate to see it, because tbh I feel like it wasn't just the show "fading away" but also the fandom with attacks coming from both sides: the fans that never liked the season since the revelation of Kato and the fans that blindly listened to wtfock and waited. It's kinda sad what this fandom has become and it sucks that it was right before Yasmina's season, if only her season came before this one, I wouldn't mind them doing whatever they wanted with the show, as long as Nora and Yasmina would get the right support, I do understand why fans are gonna feel bad for consuming s5, afraid of being called out for still engaging with a show that promoted racism. It's a very delicate topic, I hope the best for Nora but the producers really messed this up for her.

This anon speaks so many truths that are hard to swallow down but I think as a fandom specifically focusing on wtfock its incredibly sad the position big players in the fandom were put in. I don’t think its a secret amongst larger blogs that wtfock has ways of influencing or reaching out for support via differing networks and I couldn’t imagine how hard it would be to quell loyalty if you have meet or have any bonds with the interns, show runners, producers and or actors. Its only natural to want to believe in these loose connections and when they ask for more time and guaranteeing it to them. However I feel that the creation of Kato sorta of created a crisis of fandom faith because this wasn’t about some silly issue like a break up, or who cheated on who? or why is this boy mean to this girl? or why is this boy mean to this boy? Racism is an incredibly delicate topic plaguing society and societal racism is even more delicate because even the most “woke” member of a society will engage in societal racism as it is truly systemic. wtFOCK takes places in a predominately white country that is currently ongoing some serious issues concerning political ideology, hate crimes and hijab bans. I understand in wtFOCK’s mind why they wanted to depict a character that had all these predisposed notions on race and religion but they did not take into consideration that a lot of their fans are white young females and that in away creating Kato they in-turn did two things. They created a character that embodies some of the worse character traits in white society(that they are trying to correct) and gave that character a platform and even worse of all they didn’t even depict the characters struggles well. No one thinks racism isn’t alive and that young adults dont embody aspects of it but wtfock chose to represent it in the laziest way possible they made a white female reductive in every way possible. 

Kato could have had texture I always said I would have love to see your typical hippie loving hyper woke progressive white instagramer who also happens to have micro racist tendencies that she wasnt even aware of but wtFOCK reduced kato to this insanely offensive portrayal in which this white protagonist gets off on purposefully hurting/profiling her black boyfriend and worse of all they tried to make their fans try justify it and change the tide and in-turn challenge their morality. That’s when they crossed the line and I think thats when a lot of fandom influencers stop supporting the show in any monetary way. So what I mean by that is larger blogs publicly denouncing the show stating they should avoid watching the show on their website to plummet the views, engaging in their instagram, or clips that were blatant sponsored content. Basically the notion of your gonna try to use us then we will use you because remember we knew early on that s5 is 100% promised because Nora like that tweet about her season being pushed back. I do wonder what wtFOCK will do for s5. Are they going to reach back out to these fandom movers and shakers to try to create hype? Or is wtFOCK themselves stepping back from being so entrenched with the fandom? I sorta of know the answer to this. I think wtFOCK recognizes the strain they put on fandom influencers(and the fandom because this season caused so much turmoil) and I think they are going to put a new face forward to mitigate fandom/production discourse particularly around how wtFOCK should listen and leverage the fandom social media request but I will say this I know for a fact that after s4 wtFOCK lost some big hitters in the fandom space and I don’t think those relationships can be mended anymore. I think those people washed their hands of their production associations and are merely just here to support the actors from afar now.

[zankivich]

A few honest questions: if you believe that Shawn is racist and is willfully surrounding himself with other racists, why not leave this fandom? Why reblog photos of him praising his appearance? Why use him as a face claim in your fanfiction? Why not devote your time and energy to someone else?

ayo these are wonderful and absolutely fair questions to ask. I wasn’t in a mental space to answer them when I initially asked this, and I’m still really not doing well but I guess I’ll give it a go anyway. I can understand how on the basis of a lot of my posts it may appear that I hate Shawn, or that I have some deep ill will for him. I think what’s important to recognize from my posts and my debates that I end up having with people is that I am usually stepping in to defend and rationalize hurt. Like all day on my dash I see white Stans attacking my black counterparts for genuine and deep hurt. The shit with Camilla, the shit with the tweets and the sweeping it under the rug, these are incidents of vulnerability for people. And the vast majority of you do not have the tact or the heart or the ability--I genuinely do not know which it is--to empathize with us, to sympathize with the pain of an artist that has brought you joy and pleasure situating themselves in anti-black rhetoric. And I know that I’m very privileged to be able to voice my opinion in a way that comes across articulate, in a way that many can understand, and that is not a privilege that I take likely. So, I do speak out. I speak out loudly and proudly and I fight for the ability for black people to feel emotions, because at the end of the day some of y’all really need to hear shit like that. And there are times that are absolutely random where I get PISSED. Where I get SAD. Where I get LIVID. And that is valid. There is no script for me that states that I have to hold onto those emotions 24/7 though. I am allowed to be absolutely pissed at Shawn for the shit he’s done, AND I am allowed to continue to support him. These two things aren’t mutually exclusive. And while I can understand why it might be a difficult concept to understand how those two things can exist right next to each other, I truly do find myself in that head space. Please let me try and explain why. 

My studies in university and my life experience and my understanding of the creation of whiteness and thus the creation of a hierarchy of race in which white supremacy becomes the dominant ideology for essentially all of culture (and please really think about this and revel in this because it is not a matter of opinion here. This one is just simply a fact) tells me that all white people are born into white supremacy. This is not something that can be helped. This is not something that they ask for. But our world and our societal discourse has historically, and continues to as well, perpetuated the understanding that white people are superior, are God-lier, are smarter, are more moral, are more intelligent, etc. etc. And I don’t mean to give you a critical race theory lesson, but I ask that you understand what this looks like in practice. It means that all white people are racist because they are born into a society that creates them to be. (and this is a startling concept and it’s not necessarily popular in the larger discourse) And so I actually believe that to use the word racism anymore to describe what are actually perpetuations of the white supremacist agenda that is again engraved into the very fabric of our nation and our world, isn’t actually a meaningful use of the word anymore. It means nothing for me to say you’re being racist, because lowkey you are probably being racist on a daily basis just from the culture alone. What is actually probably more useful, at least in my opinion is to determine what are acts of terror or violence, and then what are the more minute day-to-day acts of aggression that perhaps can be moments of opportunity for growth and education. It is a lot more complicated than this, and there is so much grey area but this is the way in which I kind of situate it in my mind. 

Essentially what I think is that Shawn is racist. Shawn is racist in the way that Justin Bieber was racist when I stanned for him, in the way that Jesse McCartney was before that, in the way that Ariana is, or Harry Styles, or Taylor Swift, or literally any white fave that one might have. What I as a black person have to decide, and have to wrestle with on a daily basis, is the distinction between the assimilation into a racist society that prioritizes whiteness above all else, and a deeper more vile attack against my humanity. So Shawn said the n-word years back and gave a really shitty apology for it. But, does he support policy that goes against my ability to live. (This is where for me there’s a difference between someone like Shawn and someone like Stirling for example). Does he actively participate in discourse that negatively impacts my livelihood or other black people’s livelihoods? So, yes he’s racist but did he in a sense create a culture within his own fandom to viciously attack and dehumanize a black woman every second of every day continuously (and yes this is a direct comment towards Camilla, bite me) These aren’t easy decisions to make, and my decision is gonna be different from one person’s decision to the next and so on and so forth. 

Ultimately for me there is still a really deep connection to Shawn on the basis of music. His music and his energy around music make me feel a way that is comforting, that is uplifting, that makes me happy. And that is worth it to me in this particular moment, which is not to say that it might not change one day. But it is also worth it to call him out on his behavior, to push him a direction of social justice and equity. I LOVE writing for Shawn because I get asks on a daily basis saying that people had literally never thought they would read a story where someone like him could love a fat woman. A black woman. Can you imagine that? That before I started writing there were people who thought these stories would never exist? I believe deeply in the humanity of people and I care so deeply about those around me that it is engraved into every fiber of my being. I want to educate. I want to destroy the status quo. I want to elevate us to a better place, because I think we deserve it. I think Shawn deserves it. I think Black women deserve it. I think we all deserve that shit. And honestly stepping into white dominate spaces is the exact place where the discourse has to change, and the conversations have to be had. So, I’m here. For now. And I really enjoy the content that I create and the people I create that content for. And I genuinely do really still enjoy Shawn. But please don’t ever ask me to separate my experience as a human being from being a fan of blind negligence and unwavering support. I can’t do that. I won’t. And I don’t think Shawn, or anyone else deserves that tbh. 

This feels like an inadequate attempt to answer your questions and maybe you got bored and left already. But I hope It makes a little more sense. I really did try. Thank you for your honesty. I hope you can accept mine as well. Have a lovely day. 

[charismastaticarchive]

edelgard discourse under the cut...

i know this is a controversial take, but i think edelgard’s story would’ve been better recieved if she didn’t start out as the crown princess. the truth is, at her core---edelgard’s country has an imperialist past, but edelgard herself wants to give rights back to the vassal states (thats what her whole support with petra is about, and tbh, i would be surprised if edelgard did not one day give them back their freedom and indepedence entirely). but edelgard’s country is not the only one with an imperialist past. dimitri’s country committed a fuckin genocide? the leicester alliance’s whole arc with claude is about how they’re racist and horrible against the almyrans. and no matter what side you choose---all of fodlan is unified by that one at the very least previously imperialist and racist country.

what makes real life imperialism evil isn’t like. one medieval kingdom taking over another medieval kingdom. it’s the subjugation and oppression of whole groups of people. while dimitri, edelgard, and claude all go to war (though dimitri and claude may not start it) and then end up taking over an entire continent, none of them can really be compared to real life imperialists because the territories they’re taking over all started out as one country to begin with, they’re not taking away land, property, or liberty from peasants or people of color, and, in fact, edelgard’s war is honestly at least partially against her very own country and their outdated ideas and beliefs of racism, classism, sexism, ableism, etc. she’s enacting a revolution for a new government system for everyone including her own people---not just the leicester alliance and faerghus, and one she claims will give power to the peasants, free public education, a meritocracy where EVERYONE can govern regardless of religion, crest status, or country where u were born, AND if her supports with petra are to be believed, she wants to give brigid at the very least back their rights.

so like. in a way she’s kind of toppling the ACTUAL terrible parts of andrestia’s ACTUAL imperialism and tbh whats she’s doing is more in line with a peasant rebellion, and this would be a lot better recieved (and probably more clearly and concisely written) if she was like. an actual peasant tbh. of course this goes so much deeper because she’s really just a pawn in a larger game those who slither are playing, but she’s using them as much as they’re using her. she’s in a very precarious position, but she’s really trying to do as much good as she can within the very few years she has left on this earth.

OF COURSE. because this is a japanese game, we can criticize the fact that this marrative exists at all, that edelgard appears to be a ‘good imperialist’ that is just and righteous by every account of the crimson flower narrative (as is dimitri in his narrative which could be considered even more damning because dimitri has a lot less revolutionary politics) given japanese history, that a character that takes over other countries is actually right to do so. the writing kiiiinda is more imperialist and dangerous than the actual character, and that, genuinely, is more important than a fictional character’s politics. 

but i still think its dangerous to blindly call characters imperialists when these terms have real life meanings, real life impacts that affect real life people every single day. and imperialism isn’t so cut and dry as ‘medieval kingdom invades another medieval kingdom but the medieval ruler is a really nice and sweet anime character!’ it’s basically every terrible and evil act in human history on a global scale? it feels like an insult to everyone whose been affected by any kind of imperialism to be like ‘this anime character who squeals at mice and makes a portrait of ur character and won’t let them see it is an imperalist’ when we should be saying ‘maybe the game is the problem, maybe there are underlying issues in some sects of japanese modern day sentiments (that can be proven by the overall rise of japanese nationalism) that have bled into the game and the perspective of the writers.’ and maybe, just maybe, that’s a more important conversation to have than ‘is this anime character BAD or GOOD’

full disclosure tho: i am white+chinese, my great-uncle was a mechanic for the flying tigers during ww2, i am MORE than aware why edelgard as a character makes people uncomfortable. i understand. and i sympathize with u. i just don’t understand why JUST edelgard makes people uncomfortable and not the game itself as well when it shows through its writing in every single route uncomfortable and often prejudiced writing. shouldn’t u be uncomfortable with the whole game or at the very least the writers and the writers’ prejudices and beliefs and not just a character? it feels like a logical fallacy here of displacing emotions on a single symbol instead of the actual source of ur distress.

especially when roleplay is often about rewriting canon, making it better. ‘transformative works.’

i’m not going to tell u u should like or not like edelgard. i can definitely recognize why she makes people uncomfy, and why other people love her. i’m just saying. u should dislike the writers most of all bc the writers are real people with real harmful ideas. edelgard is just a bunch of pixels, who has some pretty good ideas at the end of the day as a revolutionary as opposed to a direct analogue to a real life imperialist.

this has turned into a whole ass essay lmao.