#there is a nuance that no one wants to discuss because some of it doesn't fall directly favorably on them

[jiangwanyinscatmom]

It will constantly remain surreal how people can say "talk about this character with more nuance" and you do that with what is provided by text. But what they really mean is "I want to force another to see this character as I do despite what is contrarian to the narrative ".

And this is only an issue that arises despite being able to curate what you don't want to see if that offends whatever sensibility you have parasocially developed regarding an antagonistic character. Who on page is not spoken of well, is not shown themselves as to be of better intention or exhibit kindness. While the text continues to provide negative and violent scenes for a general audience to understand you are not supposed to sympathize much with this character any longer. And this makes YOU need to come up with completely supplementary reasons outside of the author and text, as to why an antagonistic character is sympathetic, likable, misunderstood.

When ironically the main character of the plot was faced with this slandering instead, including slandered by the one you are trying to call nuance for. You not liking how that nuance comes in the form of negativity produced intentionally by the plot for him, doesn't mean others are somehow being maliciously obtuse for not wanting to engage or accept a completely fabricated excuse you made up, not the work.

I do not give a shit what sad backstory you yourself try to add to the table, because I am not talking about you. I am talking about words on a page. As soon as you even try to use whatever apparent worldly knowledge you have that I don't, that has nothing to do with the discussion of text and story plot, I have no reason to engage patiently. Especially when said personal knowledge is being used to try to downplay the active criticism of abuse the novel thematically uses in portraying its inner character relationships. Not you, so any time you try to say you have some deep cultural insight or personal insight as to why I am wrong with how I choose to analyze said work, I do not care when it is to the opposite effect the work has built up for.

And the moment you downplay how that abuse is portrayed as, by making fun of it or making excuses as to that's just how xyz culture familial units are, why should I have respect for you, if this is how you speak of it when it is in the context of fictional characters? This is not a failing upon the author when they were very upfront with this theme and it's criticism, but a failing on you to disengage and further derailing for your own validations and attention between a group you have bubbled yourself in with no actual nuance.

[rayssyscourse]

syscourse hot take (more like syscourse tired take honestly) "pro/neutral/anti-endo": for anyone who's endogenic in any way, or even just previously thought they were endogenic, it's really tiring (and not conducive to constructive conversation) to have so many syscourse labels revolve around...an innate aspect of someone's lived experience. Like. We are fully aware that plenty of people who label themselves "anti-endo" don't necessarily think that endogenic systems are fake and/or evil etc, that's just purely a demonstrably true statement. We don't even think that the people using "anti-endo" that way are necessarily Terrible People for doing so. Simultaneously, though, speaking as a system who spent years thinking we were 100%-basic-vanilla-endogenic but still wanted to take part in nuanced discussions around system experiences and offer our perspectives on discourse--seeing 'anti-endo' or even 'endo-neutral' always still...stung a little? Even when someone was conversing in good faith. Like, the idea that it was acceptable for our personhood (which really is what it felt like the arguments were about! whether one of us was 'just a made-up daydream' and not a person) to be up for debate, that it was an acceptable "political football" or thing to be "neutral" about...wasn't a good feeling. And honestly, even though we technically have a DID dx on paper these days, we still get that little flicker of distrust whenever we see 'anti-endo' in someone's bio--because we're still exactly the same system that we were before, and if they wouldn't have believed us about our experiences then...why do they think so much depends on some rubber-stamp diagnosis? what do they think changed? We don't have a good answer to this problem, though. Telling people that they're automatically terrible bigots for not labeling themselves pro-endo doesn't feel like it'll actually solve anything, because crucially I don't think that most of the "doesn't actually believe endos are fake or bad"-anti-endos are calling themselves that for a reason that simply shaming them sufficiently will change. Also, the internet is a big place, and expecting everyone to be up-to-date on every possible niche discourse stance is absurd--and if someone really just wants to stay the heck away from system discourse entirely, they should be able to. But also...yeah, we wish they'd use different words. Don't use "anti-[unchangeable aspect of someone's identity]" and not expect it to feel hurtful to see. "Well, I just don't want people Like That interacting with me..." what if they just thought your art was cool? What if they agreed with your hot take about [insert fandom here]? Who else are you 'anti', not because you disagree with some opinion they hold, but purely because you're 'nothing like them'? Idk. It's frustrating, and I wish we had some kind of easy, magic solution.

thank you!! this is a really well written thought, and i fully agree.

to be honest, this is one of (admittedly many) reasons i dropped pro/anti-endo labels altogether. not only can they come across as denying somebody's existence, but i feel like we just don't fit in simple boxes like that. i mean, "pro-endo" can mean any plethora of things: it could mean the person is endogenic, they support endos, they don't engage in syscourse/just don't care, they just disagree with anti-endo points, etc etc. in the same way, "anti-endo" can also mean a million things. some anti-endos think endos are all faking, some think they're misinformed, some believe they exist but think they're spreading too much misinfo, some think they're doing harm to traumagenic communities, etc. i also just don't like the black-and-white way those labels portray us. somebody being pro-endo doesn't mean they support every single endo, it doesn't mean they necessarily support radqueers (weird misconception i see a lot), and it doesn't mean they have no criticisms of the endogenic community. i know a lot of anti-endos who fully believe and don't hate endos but just have criticisms of the label and/or community, who are often assumed to hate all endos or think all endos are faking because the label is just too broad and comes across completely wrong.

sorry to ramble on for so long in one giant paragraph lol. tl;dr, you're so right, say it louder for the people in the back!!

[murky-tannin]

“cringe but we’re all in on it” Scar it’s called role-play comedy please 

[thydungeongal]

There's this idea floating around the general TTRPG space that's kind of hard to put one's finger on which I think is best articulated as "the purpose of an RPG is to produce a conventionally shaped satisfying narrative," and in this context I mean RPG as not just the game as it exists in the book but the act of play itself.

And this isn't exactly a new thing: since time immemorial people have tried to force TTRPGs to produce traditional narratives for them, often to be disappointed. I also feel this was behind a lot of the discussion that emerged from the Forge and that informed the first "narrativist" RPGs (I'm only using the word here as a shorthand: I don't think the GNS taxonomy is very useful as more than a shibboleth): that at least for some TTRPGs the creation of a story was the primary goal (heck, some of them even called themselves Storytelling games), but since those games when played as written actually ended up resisting narrative convention they were on some level dysfunctional for that purpose.

There's some truth to this but also a lot of nuance: when you get down to the roots of the hobby, the purpose of a game of D&D wasn't the production of a narrative. It was to imagine a guy and put that guy in situations, as primarily a game that challenged the player. The production of a narrative was secondary and entirely emergent.

But in the eighties you basically get the first generation of players without the background from wargames, whose impressions of RPGs aren't colored by the assumption that "it's kind of like a wargame but you only control one guy." And you start getting lots of RPGs, some of which specifically try to model specific types of stories. But because the medium is still new the tools used to achieve those stories are sometimes inelegant (even though people see the potential for telling lots of stories using the medium, they are still largely letting their designs be informed by the "wargame where you only control one guy" types of game) and players and designers alike start to realize that these systems need a bit of help to nudge the games in the direction of a satisfying narrative. Games start having lots of advice not only from the point of view of the administrative point of view of refereeing a game, but also from the point of view of treating the GM as a storyteller whose purpose is to sometimes give the rules a bit of a nudge to make the story go a certain way. What you ultimately get is Vampire: the Masquerade, which while a paradigm shift for its time is still ultimately a D&D ass game that wants to be used for the sake of telling a conventional narrative, so you get a lot of explicit advice to ignore the systems when they don't produce a satisfying story.

Anyway, the point is that in some games the production of a satisfying narrative isn't a primary design goal even when the game itself tries to portray itself as such.

But what you also get is this idea that since the production of a satisfying narrative is seen as the goal of these games (even though it isn't necessarily so), if a game (as in the act of play) doesn't produce a satisfying narrative, then the game itself must be somehow dysfunctional.

A lot of people are willing to blame this on players: the GM isn't doing enough work, a good GM can tell a good story with any system, your players aren't engaging with the game properly, your players are bad if they don't see the point in telling a greater story. When the real culprit might actually be the game system itself, or rather a misalignment between the group's desired fiction and the type of fiction that the game produces. And when players end up misidentifying what is actually an issue their group has with the system as a player issue, you end up with unhappy players fighting against the type of narrative the game itself wants to tell.

I don't think an RPG is dysfunctional even if it doesn't produce a conventionally shaped, satisfying narrative, because while I do think the act of play inevitably ends up creating an emergent narrative, that emergent narrative conforming to conventions of storytelling isn't always the primary goal of play. Conversely, a game whose systems have been built to facilitate the production of a narrative that conforms to conventions of storytelling or emulates some genre well is also hella good. But regardless, there's a lot to be said for playing games the way the games themselves present themselves as.

Your traditional challenge-based dungeon game might not produce a conventionally satisfying narrative and that's okay and it's not your or any of your players' fault. The production of a conventionally satisfying narrative as an emergent function of play was never a design goal when that challenge-based dungeon game was being made.

[lizardkingeliot]

So it's already been discussed to death by myself and many others that the whole rockstar persona Lestat is going to adopt in season 3 will mostly be to take the heat off Louis. I mean... there are other reasons too. Lestat loves attention and playing music. But as with everything else Lestat in this show, Louis will be his number one motivation.

Anyway. I've been thinking a lot about that and how it has the potential to mirror some of Lestat's past behavior on the show. Namely what he does in 1x03 when he calls out Jelly Roll Morton's playing. On the surface, it looks like he's doing it just to be a brat because he's angry with Louis. But as Louis' narration continues he reveals Lestat actually did it to save Louis the embarrassment of Jelly Roll leaving him high and dry.

What's really interesting about that moment is that Lestat does this in the immediate aftermath of being rejected by Louis. Louis says he doesn't want to kill anymore which means he doesn't want to hunt with Lestat anymore which means he's rejecting his vampirism which means he's rejecting Lestat and the life they promised to build together in the church, on the altar...

And Lestat's immediate reaction is to do something that not only gets him attention and allows him to act out a bit but also allows him to Do Something For Louis. Even though he's just been rejected. Even though he's hurt. Probably even because he's so hurt and because he's been rejected. Louis hurting Lestat, in so many ways, only seems to amplify Lestat's feelings for him?? Makes him love Louis even more? Makes him want to do things for Louis even more than he already did???

This quote from 1x03 is his thesis statement tbh:

Which leads me back to Rockstar Lestat. Sponging up the adoration and getting to be Lelio again but really doing it all for Louis. Even though he's not with Louis and they're Totally Just Friends Right Now Guys. Even though Louis has maybe rejected him??? Or at least he perceives it that way? We'll have to wait and see how they play their dynamic when the season starts to be sure. But even if an outright rejection isn't the case...

The book is going to be a factor. Not just what Louis said about Lestat that's on those pages, but what the Talamasca made Daniel edit out. I think it's a definite possibility Lestat is going to come off much less nuanced than he appeared even in season one tbh. And even if he knows about the edits (or if the edits end up not mattering at all) the very idea of Louis sitting down to do an interview that led to their story being exploited in such a way is going to hurt.

And then for his reaction to be putting on this dramatic rock star spectacle that on the surface looks like a shallow bid for attention when in reality it's going to be... Lestat protecting Louis from the vampires who want to skin him alive. Doing everything for Louis. Even when he's hurt. And maybe even because of that...

[staenless]

Milsiril being postboxed into Kabrus adopted mom whos dehumanising shortlived races by adopting them and infantalising them makes me fucking miserable.

Here is a woman who was bullied her whole life, born in a long line of military hero's who after seeing the oppression of shortlived races by elves as well as the dismissal of their deaths withdraws from her military role, withdraws from her family and dedicates her life to creating a safe and comfortable environment for the shortlived race children who's parents are lost due to the elves inaction and oppression of said shortlived races.

Sure she's not the best at it, yeah she kinda bulldozed whatever the kids probably wanted in favour of putting them in bubble wrap and keeping them safe. But she's clearly trying to give them better lives than the ones they had, which she clearly feels responsible for ruining because of her races actions. When Kabru tells her his honest dream of destroying a dungeon she challenges him, she makes him work to prove himself and then she let's him pursue that dream. She, like every other character in the manga, is flawed in her views and her expression of said views to others, but that doesn't maker her a bad person. It just means she still has some learning and growing to do, and considering how much she still loves Kabru and feels responsible for his safety and happiness I have no doubt post manga she probably will learn to help shortlived races in a more constructive way through her involvement with Kabru in the Golden kingdom.

I think she's a genuinly interesting character and I wish people would take the time to consider her story and it's parallels to the real world (first worlders adopting third world children in hopes of giving them a better life but often inadvertently alienating them from their own culture through their own lack of understanding of those children's pasts and lives. As someone who lives in a third world country talking to people from first world countries is like talking to aliens sometimes and I think the discussion that could be had around Kabru and Milsiril could be genuinly interesting but everyone just wants to hate on her without genuinly considering her character and the impacts she's had on the story and opportunities for further character growth.... Milsiril save me.... Save me nuanced discussion....)

[gibbearish]

so this post has been made unrebloggable now (shocker) but ive been feeling the need to address it since i saw it on my dash multiple times, so let's explore how lying on the internet works. more specifically, how blending truth, lies, and omissions to whip uninvolved people into anger works, because i think this is an excellent example and that pointing out the misinformation and the tactics used to spread it here is important, both in correcting the specific falsities but also in helping recognize similar tactics in the future.

so here we have several things that are technically true: staff has been very openly shitty to trans women for a long time and them banning predstrogen is clearly part of that, there is currently a movement regarding discussing transmisandry/transandrophobia, transmisogyny and transphobes sending transphobic asks is by far nothing new, and baeddel is/was a slur. however, among all of this are half-truths, unprovable speculation, or outright lies made to make you believe these events are originating specifically from transmascs.

firstly, the transandrophobia movement has been drastically misrepresented here in the same way it has been for the whole argument, "they're just trans MRAs" has been repeated so many times now that i'm gonna be hearing it in my dreams when i'm 80. i can understand not being willing to address the nuance of that whole discourse in one post that isn't directly focused on that, i'm certainly not, but in this example it's not unwillingness to address a complicated topic, it's a deliberate misrepresentation to frame one side of the discussion as The Evil Bad Ones That Can't Be Trusted. additionally, this post IS about that discourse and is just pretending it isn't to mislead a wider audience, so refusing to address it at all beyond this brief mention is deliberately misleading people about the goals of the group because They're The Other Side Of The Discourse. "transmisogynists" is used as a buzzword here, it doesn't actually refer to Anyone Who Hates Transfemmes, it refers to Transmascs Who Discuss Transmasc-Specific Oppression Using A Word They Coined To Point Out That Queer Spaces Have A Big Problem With Masculinity and just. doesn't tell you that's what it means, relying on the structure and framing of the post to create the Transmisogynist = Transmasc association in the audience's head so op doesn't have to say it outright (and of course the implied Transmasc = Transmisogynist association that follows because creating THAT association is the Actual Point of this post). the mentions of transmascs in this post are designed to look like afterthoughts, op says "typically those who espouse transandrophobia" to make it look like they're saying there's other people they're referring to here too, but almost everything in this post draws from the transandrophobia discourse. some random cis transphobe in texas has never heard the term baeddel in their entire life much less used it in a debate about transphobia, this is an intercommunity argument through and through, but op is trying to mask the fact that they're just referring to "transmascs who disagree with me specifically" and make it look like it's part of a wider trend. and again, i'm not going to go into the nuances of transandrophobia here, but i highly recommend reading some of the theory on it by @nothorses (x) and @genderkoolaid (x) because the "theyre just trans MRAs" argument kinda just collapses under its own weight as soon as you look into it even a smidgen. i've linked a couple broad overviews there but they both discuss it frequently and in-depth, specifically nothorses has a pinned post linking to many different discussion threads that i would recommend checking out if you do want to learn more about what the actual conversation surrounding these words is.

so, after framing the movement this way, they go on to say that the reason predstrogen was banned wasn't /just/ because staff has a long and established hate boner for trans women, but because the transandrophobia movement was teaming up with TERFs to mass-report her and other transfemmes, and implies that this is part of a deliberate conspiracy between Transandrophobia Truthers™, TERFs, and staff. you'll notice that there are no, say, screenshots of transmascs saying theyre deliberately reporting her or of that they're working with TERFs, behind-the-scenes lists of people who reported a certain account, or any evidence for this beyond "she was a trans woman, they're trans men who hate trans women, she got banned, so these must be related". which i find especially funny now given that photomatt has continued melting down about this since it happened and made it pretty clear it yknow. was just part of staffs ongoing hate campaign against trans women that has been going on much longer than the transandrophobia debate? and that maybe the fact that The Literal CEO is having a personal meltdown about this might explain where that could be coming from or at least why it's been allowed to continue for so long, moreso than any individual users reporting someone could? but i digress.

who reported what account is completely unprovable as a casual user unless people directly admit they did it, so to bring it up like this begs the question of what actual reasoning they have for saying it beyond trying to tie a current display of bigotry into an unrelated discourse. that's not to say it's impossible people who discuss transandrophobia were wrongfully reporting her, because again, thats something we have no way of knowing, and the internet is a shit place so i wouldn't be surprised. but given the circumstances and the rest of the lies here, i have my doubts about this being an actual yknow. Thing That Happened rather than just another lie to make people mad at transmascs. now one could make the argument that op wasn't saying transmascs are /deliberately/ teaming up with TERFs/staff, that "teaming up" was just a poor choice of words to refer to multiple groups who happen to have the same goals in mind at the same time but aren't actually coordinating with one another, but given the deliberate misinformative slant of the rest of the post and the overall phrasing in this section, i have trouble extending that grace. regardless, however, that doesn't change that who is reporting who isn't something verifiable, so stating it here as a confirmed fact is disingenuous at the absolute best, and a lie chosen specifically because it's unprovable at worst. if op /does/ have proof that transmascs have been teaming up with TERFs to get trans women banned, not including that with this post is just uhhhhh dumb, and if op /doesn't/ have proof then Why Would You Go Around Telling People That's What Happened Unless You Were Lying To Them On Purpose With Ulterior Motives.

next, op goes on to discuss the rise of the term baeddel. now as i said before, the truth here is that it certainly was a slur and certainly can still be used as one, again the internet is a shit place so i would be a fool if i tried to say "no one is using this as a slur". however, this is once again a drastic misrepresentation of the situation. baeddel's rising use is due to certain trans women reclaiming it and aligning themselves with the original group's politics, namely that femininity is good and masculinity is bad (aka terfism 101), with the added caveat that by abandoning femininity for masculinity, transmascs are evil and betraying devine womanhood and their community by putting more Evil Manhood into the world. of course that in turn is a drastic oversimplification of their politics and i highly recommend checking out this post with an actual in-depth exploration of the history (and without my added flavor), but the important part to note here is that this is not a term transmascs just Started Using one day because they hate transfems so very much as is implied here, its use is directly tied to a group of people saying "hello, here is what i am, and here is what this word means about what i believe," so others went "ok, these specific beliefs are called this." bringing up the fact that it historically was a slur is misdirection here, when you look closer this is almost a 1 to 1 translation of TERFs crying that TERF and radfem are slurs because People Don't Like Their Politics And Therefore Them, so the name for their politics is used negatively, so therefore it's a slur. that argument just has a little more oomph behind it this time because It Was A Slur Originally. and again, that isnt to say no one is now using it as a slur, the rate of decay for online discourse is ridiculous so it being boiled down to and used as "evil transfemme" has certainly already happened, but to act like /every/ use of it is a slur is literally just a lie, when you self-identify with a term based on your shared politics with the original group then you do not get to claim everyone using that term to describe those politics is doing so exclusively to attack you. also this part is entirely speculation but given that op's url is basically just. baeddel switched around to dae bel, i would hazard a guess that they perhaps are indeed aware of the origins of its re-use? but again, that's entirely unprovable and based just on wordplay, but like. given the Everything here i wouldn't be surprised. now, there's definitely an argument to be made about calling users baeddels based just off of their politics when they don't personally self-identify with it, if that constitutes calling someone a slur and if TIRF should be used instead, but crucially, that is not the argument being made here. the argument being made is "ANY AND ALL use of this term is calling someone a slur," and that literally just Isn't The Case.

finally, to tie the whole post off, op reminds us 1) if you hear anything bad about any trans woman ever, it's probably a lie to make her look bad, and 2) if you hear anyone say anything about transandrophobia, disregard everything else they have to say because they hate trans women. not "be critical of the things you see or get sent" or "be on the lookout for things following a certain pattern," a unilateral "anything bad is probably fake and anyone who uses the bad words is probably evil." that is not something someone does if they are genuinely trying to raise awareness of an ongoing trend, that is what someone does when they want you to turn your brain off and be mad at a group no matter what they say.

so yeah, in summary, do be critical of the things you see and be on the lookout for certain patterns, because sometimes people will just Lie to you. or, sometimes people will tell you portions of the truth while leaving out crucial bits so that you'll come to the conclusion they want without anyone being able to say they lied to you without typing up a thirty paragraph long hell post. transmisogyny is absolutely a problem on this site and there are 100% valuable conversations to be had about it and its presence within the trans community, but this post is not that. this post uses real transmisogyny and the wrongful termination of a trans woman's account as set dressing to say that it was all because of evil transmascs who run the trans community behind the scenes conspiring to take out transfemmes, so you should ignore anything they have to say because All of it is secretly motivated by transmisogyny. they're never discussing transandrophobia because it's something that actually effects them, they're doing it to hurt trans women by saying they have it worse. they're never telling you about shitty things a trans woman did to spread awareness, they're lying to make her look bad, or even if it's true they're only talking about it as part of a hate campaign because she's trans, they wouldn't care otherwise. they're never using a specific term because People Use That Term For Themselves, they're calling someone a slur because they hate trans women. there's always an explanation you can think up that ties it back to transmisogyny, and op says that instead of assessing all of what someone says and the context behind it to determine if that's what's happening, you should assume transmisogyny is the answer and refuse to engage any further as soon as you see a word you've been told is bad.

this post is discourse recruitment masquerading as a public service announcement that doesn't offer you any routes to actually learn more about what's going on, it just tells you Here's What's Happening, Here's Who's Evil And Should Be Ignored, And If You Disagree You're Also Evil And Should Be Ignored. content of the actual post aside, i think anything framed that way should be taken with a MASSIVE grain of salt and this would have raised my alarm bells even if i wasn't already pretty familiar with the arguments, people who genuinely want you to know something just because it's good to know will give you options to learn more or encourage you to actually use your critical thinking to assess things, not tell you to sit down and shut up and ignore anyone who disagrees with them.

anyways i guess tldr

[piratecaptainscaptainpirates]

Alright, so there's been a lot of chatter about some of the most common racist takes in the fandom lately, and I know most people aren't engaging in good faith but I'm gonna spell some things out anyway. Here's a handy-dandy White Fan's Intro to Racist Fanon 101

Why is it racist to depict Ed as uncontrollably violent?

Because he's not actually depicted that way in the show. OFMD goes out of its way to depict Ed's relationship with violence as complex and intensely traumatic for him. Because he has so many hangups around violence, Ed is one of the least violent characters in a show full of violent characters. He is always shown giving people many chances before they're able to push him into reacting with violence.

Even if you think you're just doing a character study on a guy who is really very complex and nuanced, please take the time to consider if you're assigning more weight to Ed's violent actions than those of other characters or assuming he's worse than he actually is (for example, Ed never physically hurt the crew during his kraken spiral, just Izzy. His crime was being a shitty boss, not going on mindlessly violent rampages).

What do other common fanon depictions of Ed that are racist look like?

The biggest ones are depicting Ed as untidy/messy, as illiterate, and as needing a white man (most often Izzy) to clean up after him. I hope I shouldn't have to spell out why these are racist, but please keep an eye out for them in the fanon you consume so you can be critical of how you respond when they pop up.

Are you saying that all Izzy fans are racist?

Liking a character is morally neutral. Insisting that the viewpoint of an antagonistic character is the lens through which the show should be understood, though, especially when that antagonistic character's whole deal in the first season of the show was trying to control the behavior of the brown lead so he could gain power for himself, however...

Just please consider - why do you find Izzy's tears more deserving of sympathy and compassion than Ed's?

But my hot take/fic/meta doesn't say anything about Ed's skin color!

It doesn't have to. Most of the racist takes/fic/meta out there don't mention Ed's skin color explicitly. Racism doesn't just look like saying "this character is a brown man so he's bad." Everyone who grows up in a racist society (that's everyone on the planet, btw, you included) has biases to unlearn, and those biases impact how you interact with the world around you, including with the media you consume.

The thing is, OFMD isn't a subtle show. It's very consistent with telling us who Ed is, how he responds to situations, and why he behaves the way he does. If you find it easier to throw all that aside in favor of believing what a white antagonistic character tells you about him, then you should really take a bit to examine that.

And here's the most important thing to keep in mind:

This is not about you.

Trust me, it has to be pretty damn bad for fans of color to call out racism in fandom. Every time we do, we know we're gonna harrassment and just some truly awful shit in our inboxes. But you, random white fan who Did A Racism? No one is out to get you. No one thinks you're an awful person for including a racist trope in your stuff, we just wish you'd examine it so we can make this fandom a better place for everyone.

I have had amazing discussions with white fans who saw my posts on fandom racism and wanted a sensitivity read or a check so they could fix an instance where they uncritically included a racist trope. But most people who make similar mistakes will just double down and insist they didn't do anything wrong, and that makes fandom a worse place for all of us.

Fans of color deserve to feel safe and included in this fandom, and we're just tired of feeling like we have to beg to get some circles to see poc as people. You can do your part by being critical of these tropes and your reactions to them when they pop up.

[hazel2468]

"UWU op defends Israel UWU"-

Have I not made it clear enough what I think of the Israeli government? Have I not made it clear enough that what infuriates me the MOST about all of this shit going on is that neither government gives a damn and civilians will CONTINUE to die because Hamas and Netanyahu are cranking that war machine for their own benefit? Have I not made it clear that I think what the Israeli government is doing is fucking horrific, a war crime, murder, a violation of human rights?

Why do I even need to MAKE that clear? Why is it that you can talk about LITERALLY anything else, any other country, and people don't rush to fucking accuse you of personally supporting the government when you discuss the wrongs committed against a people, but the SECOND you're a Jew you have to justify your stance about Israel?

Why is it that I cannot even be angry about the slaughter of MY FUCKING PEOPLE. Innocents. Civilians. Fucking CHILDREN. The slaughter of the Palestinian people. Innocents. Civilians. FUCKING CHILDREN.

Without one of you absolute fucking monsters deciding to slap some shit on an unrelated post about how "uwu op defends an apartheid state just ignore that"? Do you have to make it part of EVERYTHING I do? Do you consider everything I put out there tainted somehow because I don't support your joy, your cheering, your unrestrained GLEE at the murder of Jews? Do I need to publish a fucking thesis on my stance on Israel, Palestine, and their respective governments like a fucking disclaimer any time I want to talk about myself, my oppression, my experience as a Jew, or a disabled person, or a queer person, because you fuckers cannot for five seconds be NORMAL about Jews?

To decide to slap something about Israel and Palestine on a post I made about MY oppression, about how people will oppress you no matter who you actually are- it all depends who they think you are. It's a bit ironic, isn't it? Doesn't QUITE fit, but it's funny that someone would read that post, agree with it, and then think "Ah yes, THIS is the place to put some tags about how OP, a Jew who has been reeling for the last couple of weeks about the violence, who has been checking on their Israeli friends every day to make sure they aren't fucking dead, who is dealing with vicious antisemitism from people who they thought were friends, who watched as the people claiming to be progressive supporters of human rights on this hellsite and others OVERWHELMINGLY reply to the murder of their people with good they deserved it fuck you, is CLEARLY a defender of an apartheid state and that makes them a bad person because something something I don't know what nuance tastes like and I am a bigoted ass."

I am TIRED.

[blindbeta]

I've noticed that you are interested in stories with multiple blind characters and often propose adding more blind characters to a story as a solution. I really struggle with this because it's not as simple as that -- stories don't have infinite narrative space. The idea that every story has a large cast is influenced by the prevalence of long serialized media in fandom: webcomics, TV shows, etc. But many writers (myself included) write a lot of novellas and short stories which often only have a few characters -- maybe even only 1 or 2! Even novels don't usually have huge expansive casts -- maybe 5 main characters with some additional side characters.

Considering this, I don't understand how it's realistic for every story (or even, say, 50% of stories) to have multiple blind characters (without it feeling forced). This is compounded by the fact that most blogs that talk about other forms of representation say the same! So if I write a 2-character short story and the protagonist is a blind Latino man, does the second character also have to be a blind Latino man? It just doesn't make sense! This is just a general problem I've noticed in discussions around representation -- there's an assumption that every cast will have 10+ characters and narrative space to develop those characters, even though that's not realistic for most narrative forms.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

Writing Multiple Blind Characters in Short Stories

Hi Anon! Surprise. I write short stories as well. I have experience with this. I have never felt like my blind characters were forced or unrealistic, even with having several of them in the same story. I’ll try to explain what might help you.

First, the idea that multiple blind characters is forced or unrealistic comes from ableism. Think about why you feel there is a limit on disabled characters. If you can create stories, I would hope you are creative enough to consider the possibility that multiple blind characters could exist in the same place and time. Challenging this barrier opens up more possibilities, allowing you to explore different types of blindness, different reactions to it, different upbringings, and multiple ways of living, adapting, and navigating being blind.

Second, blind characters need access to their own community. This is where they learn how to be blind. This where they get support. This is where they might find understanding and belonging. You can find more information about community here in an excellent reblog. Also, here.

As you mentioned, I often suggest adding more blind characters when writers insist upon using stereotyped portrayals. Having multiple characters with different experiences helps to make your story more realistic and nuanced, contrary to what people might implicitly believe. Having more than one blind character is something I highly recommend because it helps with not having all your representation rest on the shoulders of one character.

For example, if you are worried a main character who has cloudy eyes might reinforce the idea that all blind people have cloudy eyes, having another blind character with a different experience may help. If one of your blind characters is naive and innocent, you might have another blind character who is brash, displays a lack of trust in others, and has a lot of shocking stories. Maybe they’re in a rock band together. They met while playing blind football (aka soccer) on a middle school team. They bonded over their pet cats and sour patch kids.

Or something.

Another important thing to remember when writing is that you have control over the story. Too many writers come to me feeling stuck because they feel they cannot change their story while also wanting to incorporate my suggestions. This makes it challenging to address implicit bias or stereotypes, much less guide writers in going in different directions.

Additionally, I feel uncomfortable with the complaints about other blogs in this ask. I feel like this isn’t really about me, nor is it something I can comment on. I will say that it sounds as if a bunch of blogs dedicated to helping people write marginalized characters are mentioning some of the same things. They are probably doing so for a reason.

However, while it helps, writing multiple blind characters won’t improve every story, which I explained in my review of the book Blind. I was not impressed with this book. I did not feel that the four blind characters were very good, nor did having them help with offsetting the portrayal of blindness as a miserable experience.

Conversely, one of my favorite blind characters is Toph Beifong from Avatar: The Last Airbender. Despite being the only blind character in the show, the writers did a good job with her. Would I have liked her to meet more of her community as she travels with the Gang? Absolutely. Even though I like her, she still never had access to her community after being isolated by her parents for so long.

So, no, you don’t need to have multiple blind characters if the suggestion bothers you this much. I even provided good examples of what to do, what not to do, and times where my typical advice was not as helpful for the resulting story.

However, please consider where these feelings stem from. Consider the origins of the idea that having multiple blind characters is unrealistic. Using the example you provided in your question, I wonder, would you say the same if both your characters were white and abled? Is there any way you can challenge the fear of seeming unrealistic? What about being considered unrealistic bothers you so much?

You don’t necessarily need to have characters in the story for them to exist. Even background characters can help. I will try to give some ideas for this:

Does your blind character have family they can talk about or remember? Are any of their family members blind?

Do they have any friends? Just because the friends aren’t in the story doesn’t mean they don’t exist at all.

Does the blind character have any formative memories or flashbacks?

Does the character who isn’t blind know any blind folks?

Your characters should have lives outside of the story. They should have memories and experiences that made them who they are. This is where you can have other blind characters. Perhaps this is how your blind character can have a community.

However, I would still like to see more blind characters interacting with each other. This is what I want as a blind person. If you don’t want to go that direction, that’s fine.

I hope this helps.

[mcytblrconfessions]

I thought it was funny and comedic when we all started using the words yaoi and yuri ironically but lately I've seen a couple people talking abt fujoshis/being fujoshis and I am just a bit concerned that we have forgotten a little bit why people stopped using those words.

I think potentially there needs to be some discussion within the fandom about fetishising gay people especially with the amount of woobification and infantilisation that happens, especially with some of the people in the bigger ships (e.g. jimmy, scar, grian, etc.), though I will acknowledge it does sometimes extend beyond just the shipping side of things for some of those people. I think it also shows up a bit in the anti straight ship undertones of the fandom as well, though ship whoever you want.

I know there are a lot of queer people in the fandom but being queer doesn't necessarily make you immune to fetishising other queer identities. In fandom this is most frequently seen in queer women fetishising mlm relationships (though that's not to say no one can ship gay ships and anyone who does is fetishising, it's a complex topic and theres a lot more nuance than fetishising is good vs everyone who ships gay ships is evil).

This is definitely a discussion that has been hashed out many many times within fandom as a whole but mcyt fandoms do tend to skew younger so there will likely be a decent portion of people who haven't been through it before, especially because I can't recall the conversation ever happening for dsmp or the mcyt fandoms I've been in since and I know that dsmp was a lot of young people's first intro to fandom.

I do still think saying yaoi and yuri is funny and a fun reclaiming thing but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can we keep it ironic and just in general check in on how you're portraying and engaging with gay relationships to make sure you're only being a freak about them in a good way. <3

[thegirlwhorideslikeasamurai]

On Yuuri's "top-secret" love life

I took the time to look deeper into the information YOI gives us about Yuuri's history with love and what it means for the story of YOI.

Let's start from the scene in which Viktor introduces the two Yuris to their new short programmes:

It struck me as curious that a 23-year-old has never thought about love. The average person has their first crushes in puberty, enforcing a first examination of the subject of love to some extent.

YOI portrays Yuuri as being evasive when feeling pushed or embarrassed, but when Viktor asks him whether he ever thought about love, all we get from him is this utterly clueless expression. In this context, his interpretation of Agape is very interesting:

Yuuri is projecting his own experiences with love into his interpretation of On Love: Agape and Eros. This becomes even clearer when he comments Eros with nothing but "It's a totally different song". I've discussed this in more detail here, for this discussion let it be suffice it to say that his answers reflect where he is currently at in his journey of exploring love.

Japanese language uses different words for different kinds of love. The general all-encompassing concept of love is 愛 ("ai"), the romantic/passionate love is 恋 ("koi"). These terms very roughly approximate the Greek concepts of agape and eros as they are utilised in YOI. However, YOI doesn't draw the distinction between 愛 and 恋 , but discusses love as 愛 ("ai") that entails other forms of love, including even eros せいてきな愛 ("sexual love").

Until the moment Viktor introduces both Yuris to their new short programmes, Yuuri has never wasted a thought on love. Which means:

Until the end of episode 2, Yuuri has never had romantic feelings for another person.

Why can we be so sure of that?

Even a first crush enforces an examination of love; the result of that is often very naive and immature but becomes more complex and nuanced with experience. The romantic feelings that come with a romantic crush are impossible to miss since they take over one's heart and soul like wildfire. Even if one's feelings aren't reciprocated or one decides to not act upon them, an examination of the subject "love" inevitably happens driven by heartbreak or the sentiment that it's better not to pursue this person and wanting them to be happy.

Therefore, if Yuuri had experienced such feelings before episode 2/3, he would know. And we would know, too, because it would impact his views on love, how he tackles his season's theme, and how he goes about his relationship with Viktor. Since love is a central theme in YOI, a past love, whether it had been happy, tragic, or unreciprocated, must be addressed in a way that does it justice because it would affect the entire course of Yuuri's character journey. It would require an exploration of past Yuuri either being happy with a past lover, or heartbroken because the relationship ended or because the feelings were one-sided. And this would alter his approach to his season's theme and help him figure out his feelings for Viktor because he would already be familiar with it. However, YOI does nothing like that. Instead, it introduces us to the extent of Yuuri's obsession with Viktor in a lengthy flashback, which is the start of a long-term parasocial relationship that is very gay-coded but too abstract to qualify as a romantic crush (see also here). The only flashback into one's love life in the entire anime is, of all things, about Georgi as a contrasting juxtaposition to viktuuri.

For the story of YOI to work in the way it does, Yuuri never having had romantic feelings is crucial.

Yuuri shows all the sings of a monotropic mind. Since he discovered Viktor at the onset of puberty, his entire existence revolved around Viktor as the anime shows us in abundance. For his endeavour to meet Viktor as an equal on the ice with the GPF being the disastrous culmination of his efforts, he even went to a training facility abroad. Such a strong focus doesn't particularlry motivate people to forming deeper connections and let's not forget that Yuuri is an introvert. He is more interested in skating (to pursue Viktor) than spending time with his friends, not that he's great at forming relationships in the first place because Yuuri is also super awkward.

Sometimes, friendship, admiration and aesthetic attraction (aka finding someone pretty, cute etc.) are being misconstrued as romantic feelings due to allonormative/amatonormative paradigms. While it's true that starting from a young age, Yuuri idolises people who inspire him (憧れの人 = "someone to look up to/admire", in the subs translated as "idol"), Yuuri's in both cases very gay-coded admiration holds no romantic or sexual connotation, except for the parasocial romanticism in his lifelong quest to emulate Viktor and become his equal (not that the parasocial is the aspect here).

The press conference at the end of episode 5 comprises Yuuri's journey of exploring love and provides a deeper insight in his views on love.

Since the subs are low-key confusing, I'm not quoting them, but you can check this translation done by a Japanese fan that explains all the nuances the official translation misses. The part I want to point out in particular is this one:

My love. It’s not [general] love or romantic love that is easy to understand, but my bond with Victor, and the lukewarm way I feel about my family and my local community.

Note that this is the only time the anime uses 恋 ("koi"), probably because he's speaking to a Japanese audience.

This is the part where his friends feel offended. It showcases how Yuuri feels about the other people in his life, confirming what we could already guess: that none of these people ever reached a level at which he would develop intimate feelings for them and let them into his heart in one or the other way. All the people who supported him, first in Hasetsu and later in Detroit. Let that sink in. That's why before Vikor became he coach, he always felt that he was always fighting alone. (I don't blame Yuuri for his poor wording because it would only downplay his mental struggles and their ramifications.)

Yuuri talks about the concept of love as a whole, showcasing that he has come a long way from episode 2 and now has reached a stage where he has a mature and nuanced idea of it. He reveals that he grasps romantic love (恋) and general love (愛) easily, which is another huge progress compared to his absolute cluelessness in episode 2 and another hint that he hasn't yet experienced a situation that prompted an examination of the subject prior to it.

At the same time, Yuuri draws a clear distinction between his feelings for his family and friends and his feelings for Viktor, which aren't lukewarm at all.

A more accurate translation of this line is: "The first person I want to tie myself to and never let go is Viktor". Here, the fan translation explicitly points out that the phrasing is a reference to the scene in episode 2 when Viktor learns from the Nishigoris about Yuuri's struggles to form friendships and to be more interested in skating than in spending time with his friends. (Having written all this, I wonder how much he considered his friends as friends in the first place because philia is also a form of love that is implicitly included in "ai".)

After months of getting to know Viktor intimately, Yuuri has fallen in love with Viktor at last. This feeling is bigger than any emotion he has experienced before because it's greater than 恋 and 愛 and because of that:

This feeling doesn't have a name, but I decided to dare to call it "love".

Although Yuuri is awkward and anxious, there is one quality that stands out above all: his ambition to pursue a goal he is committed to. For half his life this has been Viktor, first as an abstract concept and as an ideal to strive for, later as a romantic interest. If he wants something, he makes sure to get it and he's unstoppable in his pursuit even when he hits rock bottom his desire to skate on the same ice as Viktor again right before Viktor showed up proves. If Yuuri had had romantic feelings for someone else, he would have pursued this person or ruled out the idea because Viktor was more important, which would have impacted his views on love either way.

Or in other words:

Viktor is Yuuri's first love.

Yuuri's love life is not as secret as YOI claims it is. His refusal to discuss it when Viktor pried for information, suggests embarrassment about the fact that at the age of 23, he is totally inexperienced in this regard while other people already have children or had a couple of partners. He's definitely not embarrassed to show the world how much he loves Viktor.

I will discuss the gay-coding of how Yuuri idolises people that inspire him in another post because this seems to be one of the lesser known facts.

Disclaimer: This analysis is based on what is supported by canon. Of course you are free to headcanon Yuuri as having had crushes before Viktor, but keep in mind that this would alter the plot of YOI to some extent.

[doberbutts]

I know you've said writing is a pretty fraught thing for you so I hope I'm not prodding against something tender without realizing, but I wanted to say that I think you have an absolutely lovely authorial voice, and I find your writing an absolute joy to read. I only discovered your blog a couple of days ago, but I've been reading through some of your post backlog and I've found myself consistently impressed by how you're able to make nuanced, complex ideas understandable for lay-readers while still maintaining a very fluid and compelling style.

Speaking as someone coming from academia, that blend of clarity, readability and depth of thought is both rare and takes a lot of work to develop, and I really admire it.

Oh, I appreciate the kind words actually!

It's not that my relationship with writing is fraught, it's that black people being called eloquent is a, umm, well often it is a microaggression when being said by a nonblack person.

Let me put it this way. Black people have our own dialect- AAVE- which is constantly both appropriated and also derided as unintelligent. This is despite the fact that most people who use AAVE also can speak and understand standard american english- proficiency in two (tbh even more than two bc AAVE is largely regional as well but w/e I guess) dialects is somehow unintelligent if you choose to use the one most common to your demographic for whatever reason. (I know the reason the reason is racism actually).

Black people learned a long time ago that in order to be taken seriously by nonblack and white supremist society, we needed to not only not use AAVE, but also be the most eloquent and well-spoken person in the room at all times or else some white asshole would find a reason to discredit us by saying we were too unintelligent to have a place at the table.

We aren't allowed to not be eloquent. And eloquent is only allowed to mean "speaks in purely academic words and phrases with no slang, using only standard american with no strong accent besides the news broadcaster 'no accent' accent" with absolutely no wiggle room.

Racist white society does not consider it possible to be well-spoken while using AAVE. It doesn't matter how educated or articulate the speaker is if they're using AAVE. They're just not considered intelligent enough to have a firm grasp on the subject. Even if they're the most experienced person there.

So when I say that black people and eloquence is a fraught discussion, I don't mean that I don't like speaking or writing. What I mean is, black people being told we are well spoken when we choose to remove our own dialect from our mouths because that's the only way we can get people to listen to us, often times with people saying this in surprise as though they did not expect us to be well spoken...

That entire mess is a whole tangled web of racism. It's a microaggression.

And it's also actually one of the major reasons why I talk the way I do. I find it to be a nice blend between pure academic lingo and casual street talk- understandable for the layperson but with an obvious enough grasp of the concept that I don't drown when discussing with people more used to using the more theoretical terms. It is intentional, and it's nice to see someone notice that.

[queen-rhaenyras]

If you don't like the idea of Gale being a father in YOUR game with your Tav or just with any character in general, then, girly by all means don't headcanon it. But actively trying to gatekeep the character, by shaming those who do, well....why be an asshole?

So listen, Gale girlies who want Gale to be a dad, (if this doesn't apply to you then scroll). Gale absolutely has dad energy. I've seen a lot discussion about the "I'm not exactly father material" line he says during act 3 and I'm not the first to say this, but I'm here to remind you that you can't take everything the companions say at face value, because these are complex characters and it's not always black and white. As others have said before, Gale not only has the orb in his chest at the time, but the tadpole, and your situation with him is uncertain and unstable. Of course he's not going to think of himself as father material in that moment. Why? Because it's something so far out of his reach. Gale has a lot of self-esteem issues, and I can definitely see him wanting to be a dad in the future, but unsure if he would even be a good one, but once he is a father, being the absolute dad of dads. Also saying you're not "parent" material, does not automatically equate to "not wanting to be a parent." These feelings can exist separately.

If I do recall, I did see a scene where Tara mentions something about Gale starting a family? Gale finding normalcy and having the things he could never have with Mystra makes perfect sense for his character, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Gale can definitely be seen as a father and would make a great dad. The people who claim so boldly that he wouldn't want children with Tav, are just projecting and they don't see these characters with nuance, they just hear the character say something in the game, and just decide with a gold medal in mental gymnastics that (you're mistaking his "dad energy" for "mother energy" which is actually just "malewife" energy) and spew their own biases out in "hot take" posts with every intention of ruining things for others. It's mean spirited, and should be ignored.

I see you all with your cute little headcanons, naming your Tav and Gale's children, and some of you with amazing fan art. I've seen you draw your little Tav/Gale families. It's precious and it's sweet. Keeping doing what you're doing, and don't let the gatekeepers bring you down. Seeing Gale as a father is perfectly valid.

K. Bye.

[dr-spectre]

Guys, i wanna preach something to y'all.

If you really love a character and if they are really important to you, but you feel like a large majority of fans treat them poorly and they mischaracterise them. Don't be scared to talk about it.

PLEASE!

This is not even focused on Splatoon, no, this is just in general. If you genuinely love a character so much and they are treated in a way where you feel like it doesn't represent the character's true personality, events, arcs, etc, then speak up about it. Make a post on any social media platform or forum. Speak your peace, share your evidence, do what you can to say "hey guys. I think you should all take a second look at this character i really like! They have some cool stuff about them that not a lot of people talk about!"

I think a really great example of a character who's been really mischaracterised is Deadpool. In the comics he's a sad clown sort of guy where he hides his pain, suicidality and depression behind jokes and 4th wall breaks. He's a bad dude who tries his hardest to be a good person, but he fails over and over again and he doesn't believe he can ever be loved or respected. He's funny but he also has depth and layers which is so important to create an everlasting character. Or at least that's what I've heard he's like from comic fans. I haven't read the comics but i plan on to some day because I'm fascinated by his depth and i wanna experience that.

However in his first major solo appearance, which was the game, he was treated as only a loud mouth jokester who sees every woman he comes across as "awooga! boobies and ass!!!!" and all the depth and nuance is gone. Even though they had a comic writer who worked on Deadpool comics for years, he didn't fucking ATTEMPT to give the character any form of intrigue. Just... nothing. Only memes and pop culture references that'll become dated in 5 years.

And a lot of people think that's just who Deadpool is... That's how so many people got introduced to this character which caused misinformation to spread about him for so long... And that fucking sucks dude.

Thankfully the movies have some form of an emotional center with Wade and Vanessa's relationship and they give the character... SOMETHING!!!!! At least the comic fans seem to be pretty okay with movie Deadpool from my knowledge, which is good.

ANYWAYS! BACK TO SPLATOON!

Do you guys remember when Pearl and Marina used to be treated like this? Pearl as some big forehead joke of a character, while Marina was some bimbo with huge honkers and a giant waist.

Oh yeah, this was how they were treated for years. I remember it man, i fucking remember it all. I was there. Sorry to tell the new fans who joined from Splatoon 3. Even after Octo Expansion gave them detailed backstories and further explored their personalities, they were still mischaracterised as flanderised jokes and nothing more in the community.

But after people took the time to get to know these two, after people spent 7 years with them and discussed the interesting things about them online, they are now portrayed significantly better than how they used to be treated in the community and are celebrated as some of the best characters in the franchise. As they fucking deserve to be treated. Fans don't treat them as jokes anymore, casuals don't make tired old jokes anymore. Everyone loves these two now and for the right reasons.

And all it took was a small section of people to praise their best attributes and eventually overshadow the misinformation about them. Pearl is celebrated because she is genuinely a great character with a heart of gold and a want to care for the people around her. To make every day chaotic and to have fun with her CANONICAL GIRLFRIEND!

Marina is celebrated as a character who autistic people can look up to and find comfort in. AND THAT IS FUCKING AWESOME!!! AND IT ALMOST NEVER HAPPENED! If no one bothered to look deeper at her character then maybe many peoples lives could have never been changed for the better... Isn't that crazy to think about?

If you can change one person's perspective on a character you love, and they feel that energy and they wanna help you share that energy with more people, then i think you've done something truly amazing. Eventually that shit is gonna spread further and further AND FURTHER!!!!!!

Remember when Shiver and Frye were treated as jokes similar to Pearl and Marina at the start of Splatoon 3? Frye with her big forehead jokes and people calling her ugly due to... well... i'm gonna make some wild accusations here but... there might be an undertone of racism when people call Frye ugly... like... i'm just saying... I'm scared of what these people think about Indian women in the real world... What views they share about them... Frye is inspired by Indian culture and by proxy, Indian women. I'm just saying...

And, of course, fans gooning over Shiver because god forbid a woman exposes her midriff and has curvy hips... ugh...

BUT THANKFULLY IT'S CHANGED NOW! Lots of people see Shiver as a silly yet fun character who has the potential for depth down the line, which people are excited to see. People adore Frye and love her personality and her family.

There are people out there who say that Frye is actually cute and beautiful, AND YOU KNOW WHAT!?? I FUCKING AGREE! If people didn't share their love and takes on Frye then maybe she wouldn't become my favourite Deep Cut member.

Now... To tie it all back to me, I'm seeing this change in perspective for a character.... with Callie Cuttlefish.

During the years 2017 to 2022, Callie was always mischaracterised as some airheaded idiot who ended up getting herself "kidnapped" and "brainwashed" and had to be saved as she was some stupid helpless victim. This was seen in official material and fan comics too. I remember it man, i really do. Hell it STILL happens till this day. That fucking summer 2024 Nintendo magazine? Jesus christ dude...

But now? That perspective is changing... Sure not everyone is gonna fully agree and there probably isn't gonna be massive change in official media, social media such as YouTube and twitter, and of course wikis. Not everyone is gonna know about what Callie is truly like and what she has truly gone through. But....

That's okay.

I really don't wanna come across as some sort of gatekeeping fan, i really hate those kinds of """fans""" so much. I just wanna educate and share my love for a comfort character of mine. Eventually the perspective shared by me and others will be spread to other social media platforms and many more people. Because that's how the internet works baby!!!!

The perspective that Callie was just a girl suffering from fame and loneliness, a girl who wanted an escape from it all, a girl who went under hypnosis to numb her pain and stay in the corruptive darkness she built up for so long, a girl who wanted to help her enemies rather than stay in her current life with a cousin who isn't there for her anymore... A girl who didn't need to be saved, but a girl who needed to be reminded of the good memories she had with her cousin, to remember what she truly stood for and the love she wants to share with everyone via music... A girl who just needed... a fresh start....

She was never kidnapped despite what official sources say... She was never brainwashed despite what they tell you... Callie had agency... Callie was suffering... Just in a more nuanced and fascinating way.

that perspective... is spreading and... I'm so happy about it...

Anyways, that's all i have for you guys. Please share your love for a character with others, share your unique perspectives to the world, you have a voice, USE IT! I DON'T CARE IF IT'LL REACH TEN THOUSAND PEOPLE! ONE THOUSAND! A HUNDRED! ONE PERSON! DON'T FUCKING MATTER!

USE YOUR VOICE! PLEASEEEE!!!!!!!!

[dve]

going off of this post and its incredible insights about gideon and the fandom filtration and shitty treatment she gets as a butch woman of color i think there's also major critiques to be made re: the way people talk about pyrrha, especially pyrrha dve as a trans woman living in the body of g1deon who can be textually read as Black and is at the very least (because i know some of you will go tamsyn doesn't specify him as being Black the way you always do when non-white characters are not explicitly pointed out to be Black, despite fandom-wide portrayals of gideon and pyrrha both as Black!) a dark-skinned man of color.

some people in fandom are really happy to buy into the descriptions that augustine and mercymorn attribute to him when they're upset with him, animal-like, no better than a guard dog, and too incompetent to handle anything more than "simple soups and stews" without giving him the proper nuance and depth that they afford more or less every other character in the series — it really doesn't sit right with me that they will give every other character generous, layered interpretations and analysis but stop at gideon the first.

but as soon as it's pyrrha in gideon's body, she becomes someone who can be fetishized, desired, and used — features that are ostensibly exactly the same as gideon's become desirable and sexy, especially in fic, often with a focus on pyrrha's sexuality and her body rather than any attention to who she is as a person. it's especially noticeable in the way that people struggle to discuss pyrrha without reducing her to a sexy domme mommy / milf / great with the strap etc. etc. — and i'm not saying that pyrrha can't be hot or sexy or whatever, because that's not the point i'm trying to make, but you'll be racist about gideon the first and unable to think critically about him and how he's portrayed in htn in one breath and in the next talking about how bad you want pyrrha to dick you down.

it's the frequent issue we see on tumblr and in other spaces where trans women are thirsted after openly, their bodies sexualized and fetishized, and this is somehow considered to be a form of acceptance because if you say you want to have sex with trans women then that's good enough, and you shouldn't have to examine the way you treat trans women any more than that, especially trans women of color.