#the ignorance makes me so mad | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

xxlovelynovaxx · 5 months

Text

Uh-huh. You realize, coming from a 26 year old, that this is just ageism, right? "I'll only take you seriously because of your age"... and you think you're in the right?

Yeah, "14 years olds act more 14 about it" because typically a group with absolutely zero societal power that is literally treated as the subhuman property of their parents and irrational mindless inconveniences that are only here to annoy "real people" will get upset when you continue to treat them as such while reminding them of the absolute privilege and societal power you hold over them.

I was 14 too. I remember the frustration at no one taking me seriously. I remember the fury that when I turned 18, 20, 25, suddenly everyone believed me about the things I'd been saying for 4, 6, 10+ years. I remember the disillusionment that happened when I realized the only thing that had changed was not some arbitrary debunked number at which the brain "develops fully", not some threshold of "maturity", but simply that I was no longer the age at which the state had a chokehold around my personhood, or in some cases the age which people think my human rights should have been delayed to.

Because it's not like adults EVER have bad opinions about something you say online, right? It's not like they don't FREQUENTLY respond to you trying to talk to them about it with stubborn and willful ignorance. It's not like the OP of this or a similar post didn't once respond to my detailed and logical essay about ageism with "lol I'm not reading all that". It's not like unreasonableness and angry nastiness at a post is utterly unlinked to the age of the person perpetrating it, and people of all ages do this in equal numbers.

Oh wait, it's exactly like that, it's just that society supports and even rewards the exact same misbehaviors in privileged people that they condemn in marginalized people.

It's just that when an adult does this, it's either that they're arbitrarily right based on their age/other privileged identity and often the marginalized status of the person arguing against them (see: OP, every argument on antisemitism where goyim are seen as the rational and reasonable and therefore right ones), the person arguing is being "immature" and "might be lying about being an adult' or "is acting like a child" (transmascs being silenced about their oppression using infantilization, the concern trolling of people who are happily 'crazy', the infantilization of disabled people and especially those who are intellectually, cognitively, or developmentally disabled), or both.

They're right. Their age has nothing to do with what they're saying. However, it has everything to do with how you're mistreating them. If they had no age in their bio, you might have taken them seriously, at least enough to believe they might listen to your viewpoint and to treat them like an equal human being.

If they had had an age above (usually 20-25), your last grasp at defense would have been to discredit them by comparing them to a 14 year old or accusing them of lying about their age, precisely because even adjacency to that identity allows you to shut down any argument they make.

Unfortunately, when you're in your 20s and 30s, everything is influenced by how fucking 20-40 you are. You forget exactly how cruel and oppressive society is to children. You forget how people magically started treating you like a person instead of a thing that existed only to "irrationally" be angry at the world around you. You forget how you were right to be angry at how they treated you.

You forget that you were legally allowed to have someone else dictate what and when you ate, how you dressed, whether you received necessary medical care, whether unnecessary medical procedures such as intersex "correctional" surgeries and treatment were forced on you at any age, when and for how long you were allowed to leave the house, and if they hit you in a well-known erogenous zone it would have been considered "discipline" as long as they called it "spanking" and not "physical and sexual abuse. You forget this and any number of other things considered abusive if a partner or roommate were to do it to even someone who had just turned 18 two seconds ago.

You forget that while it was technically illegal for your parents to starve you, to beat you, to emotionally abuse you by gaslighting or daily verbal abuse or manipulation, to torture you, to sexually abuse you, to hurt you to the point of you developing PTSD and or dissociative disorders, that there is very little recourse for actually enforcing it. You forget that you just have to hope that a different adult believes you, and in order for them to do that you usually have to fit a stereotype of a good victim and that your parents usually already have to be not in good standing with your community.

You forget how many cases of actual textbook abuse CPS does nothing about for "lack of proof" despite a supposed societal narrative of "believe victims".* You forget that they prioritize reunification even in cases of actual physical abuse, often with the abuser themself. You forget that you were a member of the only class that can have the police called on them like dogcatchers to drag them back kicking and screaming to their abusers, with no recourse or means of escape provided, because the state depends on and serves the institution of the "nuclear family". You forget that historically police served to return escaped property to their owners, and still do so today.

(*Believe victims if they have any measure of societal power that causes consequences for not believing them. Believe victims as long as you will be judged by most people for not believing them. Believe victims only if you can be held accountable for not doing so.)

As a disabled person and therefore a vulnerable adult, I had the unique position of being treated as a child until I escaped at age 23. It was all the same arguments - that it was "for my own good", that I was "incapable of making those decisions for myself" (or apparently, finding someone I did trust to make them for me, because I was "unreliable enough" I couldn't even do that), and so on.

This only made me realize that, despite the fact that none of that was true, it wouldn't be okay even if it was. It's not okay for disabled adults who DO need significantly more help caring for themselves than I do and who are profoundly cognitively or intellectually disabled to have their autonomy infringed on and their consent violated.

So why, then, is it okay to do to a child, regardless of their actual ability to take care of themselves or "make rational decisions"? Why is it okay to treat a child this way? Why is it okay to regard someone as fundamentally subhuman until an arbitrary cutoff?

Why is it okay to assume complete and total irrationality and unreasonableness on the part of an entire class of people just because as a subjugated and oppressed class they are still on rare occasion irrational or unreasonable? Isn't that bog-standard bigotry?

Why is it okay to justify their oppression by them being sometimes unable to fully stand on their own two feet, without help or community, under the weight of the oppressive system itself that serves to reinforce that? Why claim the purposeful elimination of tools and obscuration of helpful skills and knowledge under the guise of "protecting them" shows that they are incapable of surviving without those violences in a system that you claim is not, in fact, openly hostile to them?

And yes, this does all matter in the context of petty online discourse, because it is these systems that serve to reinforce and be reinforced by this casual ageism.

It is reaffirming the ideas which uphold these systems - that children are incapable of being rational people with reasonable emotional responses to mistreatment, who have to be told at every point what is in fact fair and how they must react to not face active bigotry for their immutable identity. It is conditioning children to beg for scraps of respect so that they learn assimilation early and go on to perpetuate childism when they themselves become adults.

It's petty and cruel, and it's destroying my faith in humanity to see marginalized people I otherwise respect sharing this. Y'all of all people should know better. Y'all of all people should be able to see how it maps to multiple of the various types of oppression and even intersectional oppression and then goes further.

Y'all of all people should be able to remember how being a child was your primary identity and primary form of marginalization, because you could legally be allowed to be abused for your other marginalized identities and most people in fact supported your family doing so, or at least felt that even if it was wrong it was still "their right" to do so.

Maybe you were privileged enough to have a supportive family, but I know for a FACT most of you weren't.

Kids are considered uniquely incapable of having any identity that is not immediately apparent - of knowing they are chronically ill or queer or plural or neurodivergent. They are considered incapable of having valuable and complex thoughts about politics or religion. They are not listened to or considered experts on the specific intersectional discrimination they face for immediately apparent identities, such as being children of color or visibly disabled. Adults within those groups are considered the experts on forms of discrimination they'll even admit they no longer experience, but that children continue to.

This is not just queerphobia or ableism or racism or any other number of forms of bigotry. This is specifically childism intersecting those forms of bigotry. It is not just not okay because of their queer or disabled or racial or other identity. It is not okay because children are fucking people, and yeah, deserve to be treated as equals and not be condescended to even in the actual rare cases where their reasoning is not completely rationally sound - just as is the case for disabled people, I might add.

If you can see how one is ableism but not how the other is bigoted childism, if you can't see the parallels between two cases where

-most individuals in a class are fully rational and intellectually capable people purposely being mislabeled as not so in order to justify their subjugation

-which is fundamentally reliant on the societal acceptance of mistreatment of those who may not be fully rational or intellectually capable (which is deeply ableist/childist, oppressive, and wrong),

-and where those who actually aren't fully rational or are intellectually incapable face no reprieve both in being weaponized against members of their own class with relative privilege AND in fighting their own mistreatment, which unlike in the case of those who might be able to convince others of their capability is considered always justified on the basis of their incapability, while not actually being okay on ANY basis,

then I can't help you.

To be clear, the reason it is ableist and/or childist to label someone as intellectually incapable when they are not is not at all because actually being so would be in any way bad. It's because it relies on the deep, insidious ableism/childism against those who are considered intellectually capable to function. It is essentially a separate facet of that same ableism/childism, and one specifically functions because of the other facet of ableism/childism that says that all members of said class are incapable and therefore need to be mistreated in the same way as those who actually are.

"No one deserves to be treated this way," is fundamentally how this oppression should be addressed, period. Understanding how it functions differently for different people, and how easily the most vulnerable members of an oppressed class could have their liberation tossed aside in order to pursue assimilation for the less vulnerable is still important, though. Understanding that your own oppression relies on the total subjugation of part of your community on the basis of an ontological trait that they have and you do not is actually paramount in recognizing both your own relative privilege and how to effectively fight the oppression you all face.

Or to put it simply, it's important to recognize that if you're being oppressed because someone is claiming you're something you're not, that that oppression isn't okay toward the people who are that thing.

Anyway, adults who talk about childism, adultism (I apologize that I struggle to remember the difference between the two, much like I struggle with the difference between ableism and disableism), and youth liberation also hold privilege. As I mentioned above, the most that someone can use to discredit me here is to say that I'm immature or they think I'm secretly a child.

Even the people who really don't want to examine their own privilege and complicity in their hierarchical relationship with children are more likely to listen to me, and if they don't they'll make fools of themselves with such lines as "I refuse to read anything longer than a twitter post to educate myself on complex systems of oppression".

I'll keep trying to stand up for children anyway. Not just because I actually remember what it's like to be 14, but because I have a responsibility to do so as an adult. I'll uplift the voices of the children who quite honestly are way better at explaining this and have a far better understanding of both the direct experience and the sociological theory behind it than I ever will be.

Also note: I didn't anywhere in this post point out how people who are 17 and some months are functionally indistinguishable from those who have just turned 18, or how variations in "development" might cause some who are 15 or 16 to be very similar to others who are 18, or so on.

Quite frankly, I don't think that matters. I do think 14 year olds deserve to be treated with respect just as much as 17.99 year olds, and I also think often 17.99 year olds face much of the exact same mistreatment and oppression (especially systemically) as 14 year olds. The exceptions where legal emancipation can help those over 16 are both rare enough and require trading being controlled for being unsupported. Therefore I think that while a more nuanced conversation about this could take place within the communities actually affected by this, I think it's neither appropriate nor helpful here.

I'd also like to remind people that predators are often successful at grooming children because they pretend to treat them with respect and take them seriously. The answer to this should not be "oh, anyone who respects children is a groomer", but rather, "hey, maybe if everyone treated children with respect and took them seriously, actual predators would have one less avenue through which to target and harm children".

As a CSA victim myself, I will NEVER stop doing anything and everything I can to prevent more children from becoming victims. I only care about what's effective, not what feels good in pseudo-proxy revenge fantasies against imagined perpetrators while very real ones continue to go unnoticed and unchallenged by society.

I take children seriously because it's the right thing to do, but also specifically to fight CSA. I also remind anyone who needs it that they do NOT know they can trust me or anyone else on that sole basis. While I want to be a safe adult, doing so in a society where children have no recourse against mistreatment fundamentally requires them protecting themselves by not trusting me just because I recognize the power I have over them and the ways in which they are abused.

(This is another example of how the fearmongering mindset over generational friendships, particularly between minors and adults, is just as harmful as the pushback against comprehensive sex education and coming from the same puritan and christofascist roots. Knowing that something is sexual abuse just allows victims to voice what they're experiencing. Having safe adults who respect them allows children to recognize the manipulative behaviors and other red flags of unsafe adults.)

Anyway, all the original post is saying is "I don't like when members of an oppressed class stubbornly refuse to compromise on being treated as equal people with valuable thoughts and rational responses to mistreatment, and in fact insist on being listened to when I say things that are cruel, unfair, and untrue."

(When did use of "unfair" become a synonym for "whiny snowflakes children who just can't see that life is inherently unfair" in leftist spaces that purportedly fight against systemic injustice, anyway? When did it become something "immature" in the fight against identity-based violence that is inherently not fair?)

So I guess, act more 14 about it. I'll continue acting more disabled and queer about ableism and queermisia, so I fail to see what's bad about that. But imagine thinking that interacting with someone on the basis of their age is useless and thinking you're in the right for it. Truly showing their entire ass.

#childism #adultism #youth liberation #cw csa mention #csa mention #it's sometimes shocking to me that people are so much more ignorant about child liberation than even like. mad liberation and stuff #but it makes sense bc children are fundamentally THE most oppressed class on the planet #also yes I'm using USamerican ages here bc that is what I have perspective on #I welcome people from countries where personhood is granted at different ages to weigh in #also I use children here but I'm not sure if I should say 'minors' or something else instead esp when primarily discussing teens so like #lmk if I need to change that #undescribed #needs ID

86 notes · View notes

floweryred · 5 months

Text

In Last Life, Joel didn’t have any real allies.

It wasn’t entirely his fault, I suppose, becoming the Boggieman on his second session, losing four lives trying to get a kill, and managing to make an enemy out of everyone in the process. However, Scar was also the Boggieman, and he didn’t die once. Most people didn’t die trying to get a kill. Still, it’s hard not to feel a little bad for him. His start was promising, too. Partnered with Scar on magical mountain with five lives. However, three poor attempts at murder and one risky gamble with Tango put him as a red in his second session, guaranteeing that he was alone.

And then what became of him? When Joel didn’t have any allies, he really tried to keep himself entertained. He’s not very good at setting traps, but with nobody to stop him (or nobody to help him) he runs around for two whole sessions attempting to get a kill. And he sort of loses his mind? Getting more and more desperate to the point to screaming, giggling(?), And even saying at one point “going a bit mad, going a bit mental.” In a high pitched singsong voice.

And when he finally got one, Grian, and took him down to red life, Joel said “…now I have a friend”. And then he got another one, Cleo. The pure joy you can hear in his voice when he gets both of these is honestly adorable. But he is so desperate for blood. (And you could say that it’s because he was red, but I don’t think so. Because he’s been red other times, and he wasn’t this insane.) and he worked tirelessly, failing over and over again, until he found a friend. And then, like I’ve said, they were inseparable, dying screaming each others names.

Because when Joel was alone, without any allies, he immediately lost his mind. And he worked tirelessly to force an alliance through bloodshed.

In Double Life, Pearl didn’t have any real allies.

This sounds almost impossible. She was soul-bound to Scott, but they were not allied. It was simply decided that she was not wanted, and so she was cast away. She wasn’t even allies with Martyn, who was also cast away from his soulmate. Instead, she was forced in to a tower alone.

And then what became of her? Well, Pearl made her own ally, her own soulmate. A wolf, Tilly. And then Tilly dies and she gets another Tilly. She was alone, but she manages to make the best of her situation, finding a way to torture the soulmate who abandoned her with powdered snow. She makes a habit of stealing “as a joke”, which eventually gets her killed. (Side note, Joel actually killed them both times. Good for him ig).

She doesn’t face her soulmate until the fifth session, but it was more out of necessity and “safety in numbers” (Along with Cleo and Martyn). But their alliance is uneasy and very on-and-off. Still, Pearl does very well on her own, managing to keep herself sane with just her dogs. The only time she kills (aside from the end) anyone is when her true soulmate, Tilly, is killed in the final session and she gets revenge. And she takes on Martyn and Cleo with just her wolves as a final battle. And she still wins. And Pearl emerges from Double life victorious.

(I’m ignoring Scott’s self-sacrifice)

Because when Pearl was alone, she was entirely self-reliant and managed to get a victory.

In Secret Life, Scar and Lizzie didn’t have any real allies.

I’ve already posted about this, so I will keep it shorter. But Lizzie and Scar both had no allies.

Lizzie kicked Cleo out of her area at the very start. Cleo built a horrible oak platform over her cherry blossom one and Lizzie “evicted” her. And then she never managed to make another ally. She taunted Grian for not having friends (instead of offering to join him or something) and seemed relatively content alone until her task requires the whole server to cooperate and she couldn’t get anyone to listen to her. Nobody came to her party (which to be fair, was probably because they were already suspicious of her trying to get them to go to The End) and she was killed by Jimmy when trying to cheer herself up. She went around trying desperately to do her red tasks. And then she died first, alone in the void, attempting to kill Scott.

Because when Lizzie was alone, she did so poorly she broke Jimmy’s Canary Curse.

But Scar, well, Scar was evil. He usually is. He didn’t make any allies in Last Life either, and he was fine. But Scar was different because he at some point decided not to be evil. But he had to. The Secret Keeper forced him to. And he would tell himself “I’m going to make friends today” and then would instead need to be ‘disliked by a majority of people on the server’ or ‘do the opposite of whatever anyone tells you’. But he built a reputation as a general nuisance instead of a threat. And so in the finale, he managed to join up with multiple alliances and nobody stopped him, because he was seen as harmless. And he stuck with an alliance he was never a part of until it had fallen to pieces and he and Pearl were the only ones left in it. And he didn’t kill her, instead using her to take out Gem. And then they were the only ones left. And then he did kill her. Finishing his final task.

Because when Scar was alone, he managed to scam and villain his way in to victory.

Well?

Maybe you’ve noticed something. Two people, Lizzie and Joel, did very poorly. And they sort of went crazy. While SL Scar and Pearl both won, despite their lack of friendships and alliances.

And the difference between the two groups, is that the people who did poorly…? Honestly I’m not sure. I think it may just be that the people who went crazy tried to go on a murderous rampage/ just were generally unpleasant and were seen as threats because of it. But then, SL Scar was the same way? Maybe it’s just because he’d built a reputation, but Joel and Lizzie had both only played one season before their nonsense. Or maybe it’s just because some people aren’t meant to be that alone.

Maybe we’ll never know.

*(I specified SL Scar because Last Life Scar also had no allies but I didn’t want to write about him twice. And SL Scar balanced out my 2/2 thing)

#traffic life #joel smallishbeans #lizzie ldshadowlady #ldshadowlady #goodtimeswithscar #pearlescentmoon #smallishbeans #last life #double life #secret life #this is not coherent I’m so sorry #and I overlooked a lot for my narrative #this is not canon compliant this is me telling a story #and I’m ignoring Scott bc I’m mad at him and his dumbass self sacrifice shtick #(but it’s not an attack on the real Scott just the character he plays)#anyway it’s 11pm so this is insane but I always make good on my word (she is not being honest)

51 notes · View notes