#yes we have major issues and there are bigoted people here

[thebookworm0001]

Hi hello queer southerner here:

The word y’all is already inclusive. if I see one of y’all using “y’xll” because you don’t want to associate with the south, I’m smacking you with my cast iron skillet.

You’re not better than us because you’re from a northern/blue state.

[etz-ashashiyot]

I'm sorry, but actually I'm not over that comment whining about how several of the JVP ritual, uh, practices and bastardization of Judaism are being excluded and how we can't police people's identities.

Actually yes we absolutely can.

[Rant incoming]

Listen, I hate exclusion, alright? Inclusion is always the answer when it comes to people knowing who they are. Every obnoxious identity policing thing in the queer community that has divided us and ripped apart communities has been cruel, counterproductive, given platform to bigots, a distraction from the real issues bearing down on us, and honestly just dumb as a box of rocks. Okay? Okay.

But Jewish identity works differently, because it isn't about YOU. Becoming Jewish is about taking on Jewish culture and religion, a closed ethnoreligious culture, through the narrow path consented to by the collective Jewish people. There IS a path, but it is a highly supervised one. Otherwise it's just appropriation and cultural theft; something Jews have been subjected to for millennia. And if you do legitimately convert you do so because you love the Jewish people - the whole Jewish people - and want passionately to be a Jew for its own sake. You want to join our nation-tribe. You want to join our family.

And the crazy thing to me, the thing that still blows my mind, is that this is allowed! Even after millennia of appropriation, oppression, violence, expulsions, and genocides, Am Yisrael still accepts genuine gerim. It would be so understandable if they had closed the path entirely and tried to shut out outsiders who might bring in danger on their heels even if they themselves were not dangerous.

But they didn't. We didn't. To me this is a miracle, a blessing, and sign of true faith and hope. It is a privilege to be here.

Yet in the same turn, you gotta respect the process! You can't just declare yourself a Jew simply because you feel like it — it doesn't work like that. You can't just declare yourself an Argentinian one morning either without becoming a citizen first, even if you have Argentinian ancestry. And sure, if you do have some of that ancestry, you are connected to the nation, but that's different from being given a vote y'know?

Using a totally unsupervised, totally unsanctioned, brand-new neo-pagan ritual to unilaterally declare your membership in a tribe does not make you one of us. If anything, it proves why you never will be.

Now! Let's assume for a moment that we are referring only to the provably halachic Jews whose connection and backgrounds are beyond reasonable questioning.

You can never really leave the tribe, but you absolutely can apostasize. Plenty of Jews do it. There are plenty of Jews who find that Judaism is not spiritually fulfilling for them but something else is, and they convert out. There are halachic Jews who have walked away from Judaism in order to practice any other number of religions: Christianity, Islam, Neo-paganism, Hinduism, etc.

That is their prerogative, but by doing so they turn away from their people in a serious way and cannot be said to be practicing Judaism. There is of course room for many different types of Jewish practice, but conversely, there are practices that are too far removed from Judaism to meaningfully be considered as such. Otherwise, it's no longer a coherent group identity. And because Judaism is a collective identity, that actually matters.

The Jews as a people have decided that worshipping gods that are not Hashem is not within the realm of Judaism, which is why messianic "Jews" are not practicing a valid form of Judaism even if they are halachicly Jewish and/or have Jewish ancestry. Worshipping Jesus makes you a Christian or at least adjacent. That is a hard boundary.

And yeah — if you change the basic meaning of holidays, if you bring in lots of practices that are brand new and have no halachic or even historical basis, are often highly individualistic, and would not be accepted as Judaism by the vast majority of Jews, then it absolutely falls outside it. If I started practicing a religion that made little icons of Muhammad to pray to once a day and celebrated my ingenuity with pork roast and a nice glass of wine, I don't get to say that I'm practicing Islam.

These people are doing the Jewish equivalent. It is something else entirely. Especially because so many of these practices spit in the face of major tenets of Judaism and go against Jewish values.

To treat it otherwise is to treat it as an absolutely meaningless aesthetic rather than a living breathing ethnoreligious tribe of people who get to decide our own community's boundaries and practices collectively.

And for the naysayers who still disrespect Judaism and Jewish identity and peoplehood so much that they think that they get to define Judaism more than actual rabbis? Look, we can't physically stop you from calling yourself Jewish, but by the same turn, YOU can't force US to recognize you as one of us. You can be mad, but that's the thing about group cultural identities — that cultural group gets to decide whether they claim you or not.

[To be clear: this is not about politics — there are plenty of Jewish non-Zionists and anti-Zionists who are 100% Jewish. This is about this one specific shitty organization and this particular type of behavior.]

[funnier-as-a-system]

I think with this recent discourse on our blog, we need a quick refresher on certain small details here. Don't worry, this isn't some major discourse post, just some corrections to common misconceptions that we've seen.

For one, no, DID, OSDD-1, and the like are not trauma disorders. They are dissociative disorders that often come from trauma. The primary issue in these disorders is the dissociation (and the problems that causes), not the trauma that may have caused that dissociation, as it would be with a trauma disorder. Tackling trauma is often a step in tackling the dissociation, but that's not the main focus of treatment.

For another, yes, anti-endos count as bigots. They are intolerant and prejudiced against another group for their beliefs, mere existence, and, to quote one definition, "membership of a particular status". The severity of their actions compared to other forms of bigotry does not play a part in whether or not anti-endos are bigots, especially since systems are too unknown to be able to accurately gather data on the exact severity of their actions and effects.

For a third, no, you don't need to have a dissociative disorder to be plural, or a system. Plural is an umbrella term that includes a number of dissociative disorders, but there are people with those dissociative disorders who don't identify as plural, and plurals who don't have a dissociative disorder. "System" is a very general term that has a long history of being used by anyone who considers themselves more-than-one, and thus, also isn't restricted by disorder or origin.

For a fourth, no, I won't read or respond to your hate anons. You just get blocked as soon as I realize you're spouting shit, and then I go and make a positivity post on my other blog about the minority you were bashing. This is a very simple process.

For a fifth, this is a general thing, but I'm going to be giving all these asks (and this post) a specific tag so people can avoid them. The tag will be: why did the inbox explode again I wasn't looking

As a final note, in case anyone's curious, a collection of system resources and links was recently put together on all sorts of systems and *gestures at blog* this sort of "discussion", which may be of interest to anyone who's followed along with all this. Here is a link.

Please keep yourselves safe, everyone. We will be answering some more asks we received when we can.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Tom Slater

Published: May 1, 2024

The Columbia cranks rant about killing Zionists one minute and demand hot meals the next.

If you want to know what’s driving the Israelophobic protests and occupations at New York’s Columbia University – and many more elite campuses across America – get a load of this clip that has been doing the rounds on social media over the past 24 hours.

In it, one Johannah King-Slutzky – spokesperson for the occupation of Columbia’s Hamilton Hall, which was forcibly ended by the New York City Police Department last night, with around 100 arrests – issues her and her comrades’ demands. On top of Columbia ‘divesting’ from Israel and such, King-Slutzky also demanded meals and water.

Apparently, Columbia was refusing to allow the students who were then breaking windows and barricading themselves inside Hamilton Hall to access their usual canteen grub. ‘We’re saying that [Columbia is] obligated to provide food to students who have paid for a meal plan here’, King-Slutzky told a sceptical press conference.

When pushed, she said they were only asking that supplies be allowed to be brought in:

‘Do you want students to die of dehydration and starvation or get severely ill, even if they disagree with you?… I mean, it’s crazy to say because we are on an Ivy League campus, but this is like basic humanitarian aid we’re asking for. Like, could people please have a glass of water?’

It’s all there. The whinging cadence, the ‘like’-strewn patter, the obligatory keffiyeh, the industrial-strength victimhood, the bloke in a crop top stood behind her… King-Slutzky and Co are the picture of trustafarians in revolt. Their anti-Israel bigotry is matched only by their profound sense of entitlement. How dare the university not provide adequate refreshments while we are smashing shit up?

There are plenty of people today likening the Columbia meal-planners to their Sixties forebears – in particular, to the Columbia radicals who mounted their own disruptive demos in 1968. Sadly, even some veterans of Sixties activism are flattering today’s privileged brats with the comparison.

But it’s bollocks. When Columbia students occupied Hamilton Hall and other buildings in April 1968, they did so to oppose the Vietnam War and university plans to build a gymnasium in nearby Harlem, which students argued would effectively be segregated. After a week, police moved in and arrested 700 students.

Today, Columbia students and their off-campus heavies aren’t opposing war exactly. Yes, they oppose Israel’s assault on the genocidal lunatics of Hamas, following the Islamist terrorists’ vicious pogrom on 7 October. But they seem pretty relaxed about warfare against the state of Israel. ‘We don’t want no two states / We want all of it!’, they chant. ‘Never forget 7 October… 7 October is about to be every fucking day for you. You ready?’, screeched one racist cunt outside the gates.

Therein lies another crucial difference between ’68 and today. Today’s students aren’t fighting racism, they are luxuriating in it. Khymani James, a leader of the Columbia protests, posted a video to social media the other week saying ‘Zionists don’t deserve to live’. ‘I don’t fight to injure or for there to be a winner or a loser, I fight to kill’, he said, fantasising about having a scrap with one of those awful Jews. (Given the vast, vast majority of Jews are Zionists, that’s really not overegging it.)

Elsewhere, we’ve seen protesters chant ‘Go back to Poland’ at Jewish Columbians and hold up homemade signs, stating ‘Al-Qasam’s [sic] next targets’, pointing to a group of Israeli-flag-waving students. The Al-Qassam Brigades being Hamas’s military wing. An Arab Israeli was also punched outside Columbia recently, by activists brandishing the pro-Hamas triangle symbol.

I’m willing to concede that some of this unvarnished, violent hatred is being carried out by off-campus antifa types, as is routinely alleged by the protesters’ apologists. Not least because King-Slutzky and yer man in his crop top look like they couldn’t fight their way out of a ball pit. But activists’ alarmingly high tolerance for virulent anti-Semitism, their total lack of condemnation of Hamas or its many campus fanboys, speaks volumes.

As does their expectation of water and spag bol and their apparent shock and horror when the police were called in. The Columbia protesters and their supporters are now trying to portray the clearance of Hamilton Hall as an affront to freedom of speech. Free speech is ‘supposed to be prized’ on campus, one student told Al Jazeera last night.

Being concerned about a heavy-handed response to these demos is one thing. The governor-ordered crackdown on protests at University of Texas at Austin, for example, has been nakedly authoritarian and censorious. But there is no inalienable right to break into and occupy university buildings. (Nor is there an inalienable right to constantly harass Jewish students as they try to move around campus.)

As the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) points out, civil disobedience is not the same as expressing an opinion or engaging in peaceful protest. The whole point of it is to break the rules. Indeed, it ‘derives expressive power from the willingness of participants to accept the consequences of breaking the rules’. That these students and junior academics are shocked to be handcuffed for breaking the law reveals a profound sense of entitlement among young ‘radicals’.

We shouldn’t be surprised. FIRE president Greg Lukianoff has pointed to two dispiriting, parallel trends in American universities: a willingness to curtail free speech, all while giving a green light to violent, intolerant protests. At the University of California, Berkeley, where students rioted in 2017 because that tiresome weirdo Milo Yiannopoulous was speaking, the university ‘showed cowardice in its unwillingness to punish the rioters’, writes Lukianoff and Angel Eduardo in a recent op-ed. We saw a similarly rank capitulation at Evergreen State that same year, where marauding students were effectively allowed to chase professors Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying off of campus. Since then, ‘shutdowns and shout-downs have become commonplace’, they write.

Some critics of campus cancel culture have been caught off guard by the pro-Hamas protests. Almost a decade ago, they observe, we were all gawping at the ‘Yale Snowflakes’, those absurd Ivy Leaguers who went into open, teary-eyed revolt because academic Erika Christakis sent them an email saying they should chill out about offensive Halloween costumes. How did babyish offence-taking give way to open support for anti-Semitic terrorists?

But it all makes a perverse kind of sense. Students taught that freedom of speech is a form of violence have begun to see violence as a form of free speech. Young radicals reared on a crude, conspiratorial racial identity politics have begun to apply it to geopolitics, with predictably anti-Semitic results. A new generation of elite youth, overprotected and indulged in equal measure, have come to think they can do no wrong.

So let’s retire the Sixties comparisons. In 1964, when Mario Savio – civil-rights activist and student leader of the Free Speech Movement – was leading a campaign of civil disobedience, aimed at liberating Berkeley students from censorship, his cause was just and he was happy to suffer the consequences of his methods. ‘There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious’, he famously said, ‘you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels… you’ve got to make it stop!’. Meal plans did not get a mention.

At the same time, let’s not pretend that today’s revolting students just appeared, fully formed, from the womb. They are the products of an academic and upper-class culture that has kindled their prejudices and inflamed their intolerance. They aren’t revolutionaries. They’re bigoted brats. And they’ve been pandered to for far too long.

==

Students taught that freedom of speech is a form of violence have begun to see violence as a form of free speech.

This is an important point. The people who insisted that "words are violence" and that "misgendering" someone is as good as murdering them, are busy trying to pretend that their violence and destruction is merely a form of protected free speech and opinion expression.

It's not. They're trying to gaslight society.

If you're too stupid or too ideologically compromised to stand up and go get a glass of water, you probably should remove yourself from the gene pool.

[smallestdogswilldie]

ok you know what makes me sad. as like a former self proclaimed misandrist man hater that would cry and scream about how much it sucks to live in a mans world etc etc etc put estrogen in the water fountains (was never a terf. yall can still die)

for anyone who is still… like that… how can you live in that hatred and misery every day. are women paid less yes are we denied reporductive care by old fart men who are going senile and some by some middle aged women yes. are men statistically like responsible for almost all violent crime and child crimes yes. the more you focus on this shit JUST TO GET MAD ? No ACTION? your fucking soul will get torn apart. genuienly whats the fucking point of just sitting in a circle and hating men. its such a stupid fucking “personality trait” to GENUINELY hate all men sorry babe but you are self harming your soul is shriveling. im sorry please cope. i dated a “””bi””” man because i “hated straight men” for 2 1/2 years…

tldr i hated “masculine” men so much i ended up in a loveless touch deprived relationship with a man who wouldnt touch me because he was actually gay (didnt feel the need to tell me this for 2 1/2 years..) nothing wrong with that but you see where my hatred of MASCULINITY landed me. in a relationship that was about to kill me from stress trying to figure out why i was untouchable because i chose the most feminine man in the midwest to date. hitting myself with sticks in the forest hoping someone would come kill me all because i refused to date a straight man. SWORE never to date a straight man. then i fucking did and hes normal. are they all? not at all. maybe i got lucky but im sorry. girls who are attracted to men but hate them genuinely just are in a cycle of not knowing how to pick them or of unresolved trauma. its on you to fix that. are they going to say sorry? no 😂 so YOU fix it because we all have to.

are the majority of straight cis men uneducated, rude, bigoted and kind of stupid? yes! literally yes. if you feel some type of way or anger towards men because of trauma i ABSOLUTELY understand. but we still gonna need a therapist tho girl. i cant even feel bad if you don’t address your issues and spew hatred at half the population for no other reason than to hear your own voice, and making no effort to heal yourself.

i like to believe, ground breaking statement here, that some straight men are actually great fucking people with manners and decorum and emotional intelligence. do you have to risk it to find them? yes. is it worth it? yeah. 1000000x over. there is beauty in TRUSTING SOMEONE. if they hurt you? ok ouch! do whatever has to be done to keep loving. you cannot shut yourself behind reinforced fucking bars because 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 men hurt you. easier said than done yes esp if you have trauma. do you have no desire to HEAL????? and become full of love again???? stop w the bullshit. like actually its tired childish and im going to say it its pessimistic, annoying and posionous. keep that shit to yourself until you resolve that shit. or dont and shut the fuck up!!!

some of us are trying to keep faith which you clearly have lost. and its a sick, stinky attitude to have. keep it to yourself because it makes anyone with a healthy relationship and attraction to men feel like a wet blanket. like sorry that happened to you and you havnt put any effort into healing and that you are seething with hate. its not my problem. survive like the rest of us and for your heart health, literally get help before you have a heart attack or get ulcers.

[nsfwitchy2]

Your point about a lot of people being terminated for being bullies is so legit though. I see so many posta about people being "wrongfully" terminated and I immediately recognize them as users who launch harassment campaigns, make callout posts, and constantly suicide bait people. A lot of them explicitly say that people should be sexually assaulted, bombed, murdered, etc.

And I'm sure a lot of them were terminated for other reasons, because harassment goes pretty unchecked on this site, but there's also a good number who were probably terminated for their genuinely terrible behavior. Then I see their followers losing their minds over staff's supposedly being biased and I just don't get why their fave Big Name Blogger™ is the exception to tumblr's behavior policies.

I….. am gonna be super careful about how I word this tbh because I don’t disagree but I don’t wanna fully agree either, since I’m sort of caught between a rock and a hard place here with this comment.

Like…. Ok. I tend to stick to my own little corner here, and I curate my corner VERY heavily. So I don’t see a lot of that, and therefore I cannot comment on if the majority of the people who have been terminated deserved it or not.

I CAN say, that there are at least 2-3 users I know of who have been terminated repeatedly who frame/have had their terminations framed as being transphobic - when I have personally seen them bullying other users, inciting harassment, picking fights, etc. In which case, yeah, I think maybe your termination was justified.

But I also know that…. I do not know most of the people who have been terminated. So if other people are saying “this person was terminated for no reason” - I don’t have evidence to the contrary, and I will believe that that person probably did not break TOS and was most likely a victim of a mass reporting campaign.

I WILL say though, and I think this is the most glaring issue personally, that there are still a lot of like. Open bigots and bullies on tumblr who still incite harassment and violence and spread misinformation - who still have their blogs. Yes if you’re using your blog to be a bully and incite harassment and violence, your blog should be taken away, regardless of gender. If you can’t play nicely with your toys, don’t be surprised when you can’t play with them at all anymore. HOWEVER, it is NOT a good fucking look that it’s still predominately transfems being terminated.

Which is why, like I said, I think a lot of these bigots have just found like. The easiest to exploit loophole ever to get what they want. That’s why their blogs are still up. Because they’re better at organizing than we are, hate is a uniter after all, so they can make mass report attacks way easier. Whereas most of their blogs probably get like… one, two reports probably. Not nearly as many as the ones they’re submitting. So staff has to, essentially, choose between - what to them looks like a small kitchen fire vs a burning forest.

[sophieinwonderland]

Oh, hey! It's been a while since I've dealt with anti-endos invading the endogenic tags!

Guess it's time to deal with this.

Off to a bad start right away.

I almost always only see "endos" as a pejorative used by anti-endos. It's rare that endogenic system refer to themselves as "endos." While I wouldn't say it's quite a slur, it's not

Okay, so right from the start, the sources they cite for the claim that endogenic systems are impossible under the Theory of Structural Dissociation are from DID-research... a blog by a doctoral student.

And these pages don't even say anywhere what @jananpa claims it does. Let's actually hear what the authors of the Theory of Structural Dissociation have said about the existence of other forms of plurality.

There you have it from two of the authors of The Haunted Self, the book that started the Theory of Structural Dissociation, that it's possible for other "self-conscious dissociative parts" to exist outside of trauma and dissociative disorders. (This is also consistent with how the ICD-11 states that you can have multiple "distinct personality states" without DID.)

At no point has the Theory of Structural Dissociation ever claimed that endogenic systems are impossible.

Stop lying.

Stop misrepresenting the theory of Structural Dissociation when even the authors don't support you.

Just noting that the source here is a Carrd which in turn doesn't provide sources for any of its claims.

This is probably where @jananpa got most of their misinformation since everything they say is taken straight from its talking points.

On this note, Jananpa mentioned wanting to major in psychology. If they go down this route, I sincerely hope that they learn how to tell if a source is trustworthy or not on their chosen career path, and to not just blindly believe every bigoted Carrd they come across.

This isn't actually an unfair assessment.

Well, aside from the repeated claim that endogenic plurality violates the Theory of Structural Dissociation, which we literally just proved was a lie. It is true that there isn't a "study" in the chapter.

All that this really shows is the opinions of Eric Yarbrough, who is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, in a book that was peer reviewed and published by the APA's publishing arm.

It's not a study. But it DOES show recognition and support in the psychiatric field by notable professionals.

Which is more than you can say of the anti-endo opinion that endogenic plurality isn't possible, because absolutely no psychiatrists will ever back you up on that claim, and it's disputed by both the creators of the Theory of Structural Dissociation and the World Health Organization.

Oh no! The sample size is six less than the rule of thumb for a minimum! The horror! 😲

But wait... did they... actually look at that source of theirs???

While the minimums have the largest margin of error, a 10% margin of error isn't really an issue in surveys that are just gathering general opinions like this. And this shows the 10% at 96 for population of larger than 5000. Basically only two off of what's listed here.

It's utterly ridiculous to say a sample size of almost 100 is even close to the equivalent of a sample size of 11.

I'm not going to comment on the Jung article itself since I haven't looked into this much. If anyone wants to add anything, they're welcome to. But obviously older works about plurality aren't using the word plural because the term itself is recent. They just describe instance of people experiencing multiple self-conscious agents sharing a body. Acting like someone not using the word plural is this great "gotcha" is silly.

What I will say on this is that yes, inner worlds can be consciously created in DID. There are guides out there on how to do it.

Actually, I don't think the leading theory is even that trauma causes you to "gain" an inner world (at least not directly), so much as retreating into fantasy worlds is a common trauma response and that action causes inner worlds to develop. Outside forces (trauma) result in an action (escapism) which leads to inner world development.

But the action does not require trauma.

Not everyone exposed to trauma develops complex inner worlds because not everyone responds to trauma with the same coping mechanisms.

You should also pick an armchair diagnosis and stick with it. Is his inner world SZPD or MADD? These are very different disorders.

Or better yet, don't do either. Not all daydreaming is maladaptive, and you shouldn't assume somebody has a disorder just because they have complex inner worlds. Immersive daydreaming is a common practice, and it's not maladaptive unless it interferes with daily life.

No.

Stop.

Literally all of this is wrong!

For starters, there's no evidence anywhere of the Tibetan Buddhist practice being closed, and the Dalai Lama has said that people of other religions can use Tibetan Buddhist meditations.

“Many Christians tell me they believe in Buddhist meditation, which can be learned by Christians. We teach right attitude. We teach meditation, which can be quite deep. These would be things that the West can take, and I think it is clear that Buddhists should practice certain Western methods, too.”

Moreover, the Tibetan Buddhist practice is not called Tulpamancy. "Tulpamancy" is a term associated solely with the Western practice.

And Tulpamancy is largely NOT a religious or spiritual practice. From Varieties of Tulpa Experiences:

76.5% of tulpamancers view their practice as psychological.

Both the above study and the one referenced in Jan Anpa's post are about the primarily psychological Western practice. As will be ALL research into tulpamancy. The Buddhist religious practices it shares an etymology with is completely irrelevant to this topic of studies into the disorder.

Tulpamancy is primarily seen as psychological plurality by most tulpamancers, and that's what these studies are about.

You're welcome to look into the above study further as it has a lot more information on tulpamancy. It's was written by Samuel Veissière, a psychiatry professor at McGill University in a book reviewed and published by the Oxford University Press.

Jananapa, if there's one thing that's clear from all of this, it's that despite being confident in your ignorance, you know absolutely nothing about systems, structural dissociation, plurality, tulpamancy or literally anything else discussed in your post.

Given your self-assured ignorance of systems, I wouldn't recommend people put any trust in your understanding of Autism or any of the other conditions you discuss on your blog.

If anyone wants to further educate themselves on endogenic systems, please see my Endogenic Syscourse Primer.

As always with these hate posts that end up being posted in pro-endo tags, it's only fair that I share my responses in anti-endo tags along with many other tags the initial post was made in.

If any anti-endos are bothered by this, please ask @jananpa to not post in our tags anymore. As long as anti-endos stay in their lane, I'll stay in mine. When anti-endos invade our spaces, my responses to those posts will continue to go straight to theirs. If we can't have safe spaces to exist, then you aren't allowed safe spaces to spread hate against us. (I will avoid DID/OSDD/traumagenic tags out of respect for non-anti-endos in those spaces. But you might want to ask that Jananpa stay out of those tags as well since I know you guys also tend to not care for singlets posting in those tags.)

[carnivore-voyeur]

We aren't trying to "cancel" Per because he's awkward or because we don't approve of his girlfriend.

We don't like him because a fan asked him an inappropriate question and instead of being normal about it, he came up with "i have a Jewish/black friends" card.

Friends are not diversity cards. Using your ethnic friend's identity *is* in the best case ignorant, and in the worst case racist.

Having two proud zionists in his recent dating history (yes, ash), isn't helping his reputation either. But he said it himself, he doesn't care about politics, which is a privilege only people like him can benefit from, so of course he's ignorant and insensitive.

Per dates whoever he wants and says whatever he wants, but if the consequence of that is non-white fans not wanting to hear about him anymore, then that's only fair. This fanbase has an insane racist problem and we're tired of it.

You have no right to tell others what is offensive to them. If non-white fans see an issue with what he said, you have no right to tell them they're making a big deal out of nothing.

For the tweets about Chris, just know we're most likely joking. I'm sure people how a business works. Maybe work on your reading comprehension instead of criticizing ours next time?

I don't care about "canceling" as a concept one way or another. I believe everyone is allowed to like or dislike someone for whatever reason, and support or withhold support for whatever reason. I just don't think the majority of Ghost Twitter is acting in good faith based on multiple incidents where things Per has said were taken out of context or manipulated to say something else.

Per clarified that he doesn't support anything horrible in the world. Within the past month, people have accused Per of being a Nazi. They've accused him of not caring about genocide. All based on misinformation and manipulated clips.

Re: Per's comments in a recent live - Per was referring to the fact that people were calling him a NAZI specifically, which is something Ghost Twitter fans accused him of last month. They did this based on an old photo that they misinterpreted, which I've already discussed.

You're allowed to criticize him. You're allowed to be upset by things he's said or done, just as you would any person. However, this should be based in fact and not misquotes, misinterpretations, rumors, or straight up lies. Furthermore, it shouldn't involve saying horrible things about him.

He never said that he can't be racist because he has jewish and black friends which is what people are accusing him of saying. Do I think it's clumsy to bring up your friends to disprove that you're a bigot? Yes, but he was talking about being accused of being a NAZI. That's not something he should've had to defend himself against.

Even if he did say "I can't be racist because of x, y, and z", that's something we could have had an open conversation about. You could try to educate him on it, but that's not what you all do.

No.

(I'm going to use "You" here to refer to Ghost Twitter and anyone associating themselves with them.)

You constantly accuse him of things he didn't say nor do. You constantly misquote him. You constantly harass him. You constantly mock him - appearance, mannerisms, etc. He doesn't respond to any of you because no dialogue can be had with any of you.

That is not fair criticism. It is wrong.

You're also just repeating each other's talking points without doing any research and it shows.

Saying Per has dated "two proud Zionists" serves no other rhetorical purpose than to make people think Per purposely dates Zionists and empathizes with their views. This is absurd.

He "dated" Paris Dylan briefly and that was well over a year ago. Her political views don't represent him, and even so I haven't personally seen her proudly support Israel, though I don't follow her career. I haven't seen Ash do so either.

Ash performed a song with the singer of Disturbed who is a Zionist, which I've already discussed. I take issue with that as well, and we can discuss why that's an issue but that requires you all to confront the fact that a lot of your favorite artists in the industry still associate with Zionists - not just Ash. Disturbed is still ridiculously popular, and no one questions David Draiman's involvement in the scene.

I'm not telling you what is or isn't offensive. I'm telling you that a lot of the things Ghost Twitter has been posting about him are wrong and/or taken out of context. If you're upset because of something you misinterpreted or misunderstood, then it's not the fault of the accused. That's your own fault.

"Per dates whoever he wants and says whatever he wants" - correct, because he's an adult with free will. You don't get to decide who he dates. You don't have to like who he dates. You don't have to like what he says, but criticizing him for either should be based on facts and not assumptions.

Being "apolotical" is a privilege, I agree, but you can't force someone to adopt your political ideology through shame and guilt and insults. Criticism of someone doesn't necessitate mocking their appearance and mannerisms, but a multitude of fans on Twitter have done just that.

[olderthannetfic]

This might be controversial but...I have this nagging thought...

There are always people here talking how lgbtq representation in fanfiction or fandon is often derided or unwelcome. I think that's pretty sad tbh and there are definitely a lot of trolls, bigots and all sorts of phobes out there.

But tbh, I think most average people are just tired of a particular type of lgbtq representative, and they seem to be everywhere, who forcefully insists that anyone not shipping m/m, anyone not going along with their trans headcanons, anyone who disagrees basically is a homophobe, bigot, terf etc. These people make preferences into a morality issue and I think other people are just tired of it and quietly leaving, not openly and enthusiastically cheering it on and sometimes just getting frustrated.

I was having a discussion on reddit the other day about something related to this and they said well, straight cis representation is like 99.9% of media so we (lgbtq) can have this one thing, and I said of course you can. You can have as much of it as you want in fandom but I don't like how cis/straight shipping gets shit on by these people. You don't have to tear something else down just to build yourself up. The vast majority of het shippers are just normal, nice people, just like the majority of lgbtq shippers but there are all these 'enlightened types' pushing their ships and headcanons and making it out like you're an enemy if you don't support them which is ridiculous.

I was lurking on a pretty big fanfiction forum a year or so ago and fanfiction hot takes came up and several people nervously put up their hand and said they wished there was more love for het shipping in fandom and fanfiction specifically, while doing huge long disclaimers that of course they love nd support the lgbtq community and are happy that all sorts of representation exists in fandom etc. And I think it's kinda sad that people feel they have to write this long disclaimer and pre-apologise for an opinion that's perfectly valid and innocuous because they're afraid of being vilified. If someone is cis/het it's not a crime for them to want cis/het content in their fandom, or for it to be viewed positively. Do you know what I mean? I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself well -.-'

I feel like people are going to respond and say that cis/het stuff is already the majority but in fanfiction and shipping it's really not. And that's also not the point I'm trying to make. I'm trying to express frustration with people who think lgbtq orientated fan content is morally or in other ways superior to cis/het.

It even happens here. I remember when I first found your blog one of the very first asks I read was from someone acting quite smug and literally saying that het shippers are just superficial, horny self-inserters that want to seduce and bang the MC while they, a m/m shipper, were actually invested in plot and nuance and all those intelligent things that het shippers apparently don't get and that ask left a really bad taste in my mouth.

It's disheartening to see this kind of thing. Sorry again if I didn't express myself well. I'm just trying to say that if lgbtq representation in fandom space isn't getting recognition or people are avoiding it, an important reason might that people don't like feeling like they HAVE to support it or else...

--

It's ironic that you're sending this ask to me when one of the things I'm known for is compiling shipping statistics on FFN and Wattpad to prove that m/m is not the majority in fanfic fandom. This is one of my specific hobbyhorses. I find the constant spreading of this misinformation EXTREMELY ANNOYING.

Yes, there are lots of assholes going "ship my ship or you're not progressive", and they all suck, including the large number of them who yell at m/m shippers that we should ship het.

"I wish het ships got more love" is a fucking stupid opinion.

"I wish Wattpad had a functional search" or "I wish FFN weren't going down the drain" or "I wish the big het fandoms were less femsub" would all be perfectly reasonable takes that are based on actually seeking out het fandoms and hanging out with het fans. So would "I want more fellow hetshippers who have a queer sensibility but f/m ships". But for someone to act like there aren't massive het camps tells me they never bother to venture outside of their tiny bubble.

I have zero patience for fans who whine that their popular thing is unpopular because they're too lazy or clueless to go find all the zillions of other people who like it.

[okurrroye]

*This was sitting in my drafts for awhiiile so I ended up forgetting about it, and because high key I just hate typing long ass posts but *sigh* people are still whining so alas I must persist*

First and foremost I ask everyone to find some maturity to please read this to the end before you try to bring out your torches and pitch forks thank you.

I am sick and tired, sick and tired of all this racist bullshit when it comes to filmmaking. This is probably going to be a long post but since majority of people have zero brain cells, or just flat out racist, or are just dumb hypocrites needs to be addressed because the shit I’m seeing is absurd and no one is listening to anyone or seeing the real picture(s).

Now I’m going to try to point out as many examples of these great debated characters as possible and their situations but I might slip and miss a few details because this entire situation is just infuriating which just makes me forget what I want to say but anyways here we go…

The biggest blow up I’ve seen is the issue of course black washing. You all know who I’m talking about- Ariel, MJ, Charlotte, Tinkerbell, and Annabeth. Now guess what black people, black washing is a thing, because it’s literally the opposite of white washing and yes go ahead counteract but let me finish first it’s the truth and yes non black people all have a right to have an issue (respectfully) with that.

But guess what white people and anyone else that has a problem with it that’s not racist, and you want to know why it’s not racist? Because even though you fail to comprehend the obvious none of these actresses or actors was hired by a black person nor the instances was an act of trying to erase the truth which the same can not be said about of white washing in history which is indeed an act of racism (ie white people doing black and brown face). So to those of you that are upset by this statement let me break it down for you to better understand or those who want to fake ignorance of what I mean, these reimagined works of storytelling does nothing to change history, we can all either read or listen and know the actual truth of what these characters or historical figures looked like so don’t use your undercover racism as an excuse to not wanting to see black faces on your screens because you can stop the capping and just say you don’t like black people and leave because it’s obvious you all aren’t fooling anyone. Now you’re either lying and say that’s not it, or you’re not racist, or the famous excuse you should make new/ your own show/movie for black characters and uh huh uh huh I absolutely agree make new material for black characters instead of recycling but you know what I also see? A very poor excuse of hiding your segregationist and colorist mindset regardless if you consider your actions a from of racism or not it still has racist undertones. So I repeat to those who want to feel better about themselves by wanting to fight the racist allegations of their protest against these actresses getting those roles you may not think you as one, but you’re ideology is supports segregation and colorism thus making you a bigot at the very least which is still extremely wrong.

Not only is it wrong but it’s also dumb, and invalid because your only defense is about source material thus your arguments don’t hold as much weight as you think, and just shows the hypocrisy. Prime example is the casting of Nani-and I know what you’re all thinking what does that have to do with any of this? From what I’ve seen most people are in favor of the casting and the majority of the ones that are not are black and physically brown women (I say physically because not all brown women of color are actually brown, or even tanned skinned) and every person that was against Halle are the same ones going to bat to defend Sydney which are in either genuine nature, or simply out of spite which is also racially motivated-and stop before you begin about how it’s not because these situations are exactly the same but treated completely differently only because Halle is black, and Sydney isn’t. To further prove my point those who are against Sydney are upset is because they think she’s white right? Or am I right? But what many of them fail compute is to not jump to conclusions and learn that her father is in fact indigenous Hawaii (I too was suspicious because of the rumor so I simply checked out her insta which so many failed to do) and thus has only half white and not just a ‘WhItE gIrL bOrN iN hAwAiI’ which they keep falsely saying, but as soon as those who did oppose her changed their minds after learning that truth too and those who still refuse is simply because she’s not dark enough. And just like those defending Sydney out of sincerity (and not retaliation) are quick to point out that it is unfair and colorist because she is Hawaiian and that’s all that matters not the color of her skin, that they need to stop judging her as less than just because she’s more white passing.

Now to go back a bit in how this correlates to the Halle situation is that the main protest is that Ariel is originally white and a redhead right? Matter of fact let’s rap this up faster and kill two birds with one stone shall we being this also the same issue with MJ which is a white girl with red hair right? Now three things all red headed girl have or had to deal with is discrimination, sexualization, (more so than other white girls) and the stereotyping of having anger issues. You know who also has had that problem the most out of biwoc? Black woman (and I know many will disagree and you’re entitled to your opinions, but those two out of all white people and biwoc have been disliked the most respectively). Yes I hear all the- well that doesn’t matter and that doesn’t justify blah blah blah but hold those thoughts because one Halle did dye her hair red (and yes it is possible for black people to have naturally red hair so miss me with that excuse), two current MJ is a different character-and yeah you all still going to try to fight me on that but I’m not finished yet because new flash- BOTH Halle and Zendaya are HALF WHITE therefore has every right to audition or accept those role if they want to and you all need to stop calling them black when they’re biracial unless you now want to back pedal because they’re not white passing enough for your liking? Or in other words it’s ok for Sydney, but not Halle or Zendaya? Or even not to mention why than was no one besides black people protesting Alexandra who is also biracial as Storm if everyone is so upset about correct representation? Oh wait that’s right it only matters if the character is white apparently.

“YoU cAn’T uSe tHe BiRaCiAl eXcUsE fOr ChaAloTte”-well you thought wrong because there is historical evidence whether you want to believe it or not that Queen Charlotte is a descendant of the de Sousa family a black branch of the Portuguese royal house and further evidence is pertaining to painters trying to hide her African features-“bUt ThAt’s AlL a MyTh”, says all the racists/bigots-and so are Ariel, Tinkerbell, and demigods but here you all are flapping your jaws and wasting your breath because now you’re contradicting yourselves because remember how you have to stick to the source regardless of it being mythology right? or is it no now? Yeah that’s what I thought. Whether you believe it or not the fact that the theory even exists at all is proof in its self and now you’ll say so what if she had a black ancestor it was generations ago but you’re also wrong because she could still have looked black and yes that doesn’t sound like it makes sense but here’s why it does. Sandra Laing is a black woman that was born to white parents that was also unaware of a black ancestor and thus is further proof that although rare but not an impossible occurrence which could very much happen with Queen Charlotte of which is why once again a biracial half black white actress was casted to play her. Now all three of these instances is the start of 99 other problems but those actresses being half black is not one of them.

Which is the larger issue being the fact that you’re saying biracial people aren’t allowed to play who they are or rather really is being said is that it’s only ok if they only get roles based on their poc color side and not their white ones only. So if that’s the case alright then than they shouldn’t be allowed to play poc characters either because they’re still half white. Or is it the fact they don’t just suit your passing qualifications? Ok easy solution then let’s all go with backwards thinking and bring back the brown paper bag test then. And hey let’s take it a step further since everyone is so technical these days the same thing should apply to straight character being turned to LGBTQ+ one’s and furtherly no queer actors should be playing straight or cis characters, and no cis straights should be playing the opposite either (so no non binary people can’t play trans peoples and trans people people can’t act as cis characters either so non binary will have worst luck of us all since the majority still thinks the concept is ridiculous as it is, and my poor pans where does that leave you?). Also no more actors dying their hair or wearing wigs either since it’s not authentic right? But it’s not over yet because that also means no more Jewish actors playing non Jews, no more non person of that nationality either playing a different one, no neurotypicals playing neurodivergent ones, no able bodied person playing a disabled one, nor wearing fats suits or vice versa. But once again no was complaining when the opposite was happening-I’m looking at you Amy Adams, Adam Driver, Kirsten Dunst, Jennifer Lawerance, Brendon Fraser, Eddie Redmayne, Keir Gilchrist, and so on, literally every European born actor playing Americans in media or Americans playing non American which is I can think of tons of instances of the latter (specifically a bad habit with British and Canadian actors) but not the former, and white actors playing roles that’s not part of their heritage (for example an Irish person playing an Italian character and etc). Oh and let’s finally acknowledge our voice actors because you’re not safe either and how their ethnicities never match their characters with the biggest example being the entire world Avatar The Last Air bender is made of Asian characters and yet almost the whole voicing cast is made of white people instead so we shall have no more instances like that because society demands honest representation *cough* all of a sudden *cough*.

But anyways back to the original topic at hand, Tinkerbell. Yara is also biracial but this one is more complicated because there’s different opinions about Iranian ethnicity but you know who opinion does matter the US’s because that where the movie was made so according to the US census she is also considered half white so case closed. But alas a new case is opened because everyone persisted on wHy Is TiNkErBeLl bLaCk? Why is no one complaining about the fact Peter isn’t a red head? I guess I’m the only one upset about that because you was all complaining about losing red headed female representation which by the way you haven’t at all because there is red headed women in media now more than ever but I can’t say the same about red headed guys though but still silence. It’s obvious sexism when it comes to red headed men and women in society and the men have always gotten the shorter end of the stick (their female counterparts are showed favoritism because they’re viewed as desirable while the males are not) Red headed boys deserve more love and representation and I will die on this hill.

And finally Annabeth which is well you’re all absolutely right to disagree about her and the only one of the previously mentioned actresses that is an example of black washing-but funny how I still don’t see the same fuss about the Percy casting though (who is supposed be tanned skinned with black hair) because she’s not white but she does look it and producers probably thought so as well which why I had previously thought it was ok to cast her but at the end of the day there should be no reason to send hate to her (or any of them) just because she isn’t either, she’s a child for crying aloud and you should all be ashamed and embarrassed of yourselves. Because not a single person thought or thinks maybe that all of them got the role simply because they had the talent and deserved it but according to the world it’s apparently impossible, unfathomable, unspeakable to ever consider that yes a black person could be favored over a non one because in your own words whether you admitted it or not you think white people are better and the only way black people can land a role is if they’re only competing against their own kind which is furthest from the truth. Everything isn’t about seeming woke/ representation or a cash grab but perhaps and this might sound crazy but hear me out maybe it’s the fact they realized more than just white people exist in the world or maybe some people just aren’t racist/bigoted like you and wants someone that’s not lighter than a paper bag because bipoc of all shades deserve to and can be the main character, the love interest, the best friend, and whatever the fuck else they want to be because bipoc exist and anyone that has a problem with it can suck it the fuck up and get over yourselves.

You all want to talk about how racism doesn’t exist anymore but this is just one example of the ideology society continues to hold. I see the hateful comments and the pointing fingers and the complaining but no one wants admit they’re part of the problem or there is a problem at all but want to get angry when it’s pointed out that your racism or bigotry is showing and then refuse to listen instead of trying to understand and learn from one another. It’s not always about you, consider your fellow human regardless of race, religion, sexuality, gender, age, class, culture, or nationality. Because all of this nitpicking is just dividing people even more and the taking away the very essence of art and acting is supposed to be which is creativity and always has room for improvement or different interpretations in anyway the the creator sees fit like that’s literally what Disney does, they take an original story and change them, nor are they accurate either but you don’t see the issue in that (no correct accents/period clothing, and etc). Because at the end of the day everyone is wasting their time no matter your stances because it’s all null and void since it’s up to the producers to make the decisions and what creators allow them to do with their work. So instead of blaming and sending hate to the artists and bipoc in general how about you direct all that energy to who’s actually at fault instead thus stirring the pot resulting in race baiting.

[northwest-cryptid]

I genuinely think people forget that true freedom on the internet is going to involve bad people doing bad things just as much as it will allow good people to do cool good things.

What I mean is that yes, I stand with the majority of people who say they want to decentralize the internet again. Granted I don't think it will ever happen, but it would be cool to see.

The internet being centralized is essentially just exactly what corporations want; because it makes you way easier to track and advertise to; it also makes you easier to monitor and censor.

The problem I find with the majority of people who wish to decentralize the internet, it's not their true argument. They say they want to decentralize the internet, but that's only because they dislike being censored; and while normally I'd argue that's entirely fair. The problem I find with it is that all of these people are the sort to unironically say "I'm being censored by the woke" they're bigots, they're racists, they're homophobes.

I travel from website to website, talking in various forums and seeing the sights of the sites. More often than not you'll have a vast majority of users on a forum who believe in the idea that decentralizing the internet, allowing people to have their own websites as a norm; teaching people to fend for themselves on the internet and allowing us to return to the wild west... is generally good.

They make solid arguments for their claim, including an aversion to censorship. However as soon as that argument gets brought up, the rather outspoken minority of users who seek only to spread their hate get all rallied up to come speak out about how bad the censorship is. Even though the reality is that it's kind of one of the things lower on the list, sure it's bad to see a site owner have control over what you can and cannot say; but honestly for the majority of people I've spoke to the bigger issues are things like trackers, ads, the constant monitoring.

I don't mean to come out here and say "kids these days!" But I feel like the greater sum of people I speak to who are under 25, and use social media or the internet regularly; don't know how to even make a website of their own. They don't know about the sites that host that sort of thing, they don't know where to look for this sort of thing; and worse of all they don't have a fundamental understanding of the basics of the internet.

This leads us to sort of be at conflict with each other, why? Because more often than not, and I'm not trying to sound arrogant; I have a deeper understanding of how this system works than they do.

People I've spoken to between the age of 14 - 20 don't have a true understanding of the internet, what it was; or what it can be. They know about the bad of corporate ads and email trackers and such, and they might or might not know how to protect themselves against them. They know incognito mode does nothing, but believe a VPN is the perfect solution. They can't grasp the understanding that for us to be free to do what WE want, for the internet to truly return to the wild west where there are NO rules; then it means the bad people, be it corporation or random guy on the internet, are capable/allowed to do their bad shit.

What and we should just let them? Well no but kinda? Like okay listen, it's not your job to go hunt them down and do something about it. I mean hell what exactly do you plan to really do about it? Just because the internet might be some wild west again (in this figurative scenario) doesn't mean there's no laws or anything in the physical meat space where these digital actions are made.

It's your job to stop them from hurting you though, you need to know how to properly protect yourself. You need to know how to navigate the internet if you're going to try to use it in such a decentralized manner.

I still remember a friend of mine trying to get into piracy, that's cool; but he had no idea what he was doing. He had no way to mask his IP, he just sort of took everything at face value saying "fellow pirates wouldn't intentionally try to cause harm!" Which, like... literally what do you mean dude? One of the first rules of piracy is that nothing is promised and nothing is guaranteed. It's also a bell curve, if something is really REALLY niche it's not likely but should always be checked; it's far more likely that's just a fan of the thing trying to share the thing. If it's fairly popular or not exactly super niche but still kind of niche; there's a fairly decent chance it's got SOMETHING wrong with it and you absolutely SHOULD check it. If it's extremely popular then yea you're right back to "it's probably fine."

But you are never owed anything, so check everything; be safe about it, mask your IP; remember that what you're doing is technically illegal and you could face very real repercussions ranging from a potential small computer virus your malware checker has to catch before it bricks your PC, to like; you know, facing a felony charge depending on what the fuck you're dealing with.

That last part is pretty important, because it emphasizes to me that for some people piracy is a right of an internet user; and for others it's the "bad thing that bad people on the internet shouldn't be allowed to do" and when the internet is truly a wild west where anything is allowed, they're just as allowed to get mad and try to stop you as you are allowed to pirate that new anime that's been coming out.

Because no, freedom for "the right people, as dictated by the right people" is not true equal freedom. That's a matter of perspective.

[lisanees]

I'm really going to need people to stop trying to hide behind the fact they're part of a marginalized group any time they're held accountable for harmful behavior. This applies across the board, but I'm talking about a specific circle of people (catgirlforeskin, molsno, and the rest of them) here, so let me specify.

No, you're not being targeted because you're a white trans women. You, specifically, are being targeted for supporting rape, incest, pedophilia, etc., under the guise of it being a "kink". You, specifically, are being targeted for bigotry, including racism and lesbophobia. You, specifically, are being held accountable not by "evil TME people who want to persecute trans women", but by fellow trans women and TMA people who do not condone your actions, and those with the common sense to see that your behavior is not representative of trans women as a whole. A TME person condemning you, specifically, for that behavior, does not make them a transmisogynist.

You, specifically, are in the minority of trans women. Trans women, as a group, are no more harmful than any other demographic of people. There exists a minority of harmful individuals in every group of people, this shouldn't need to be said. You, specifically, are the one causing harm by framing any criticisms of your actions as criticisms of trans women as a whole.

Transmisogynists trying to push the idea that trans women are some kind of "sex pests" is a very real issue, one that every TME person should be working against. You, specifically, are using the existence of that harmful stereotype as a shield against very real criticisms of your behavior.

I've seen the response you give to trans women and other TMA people who call out your behavior; you're just as hostile and dismissive of them. It has nothing to do with whether the people holding you accountable for your behavior are TME or TMA. If you honestly think it does, I need you to take a look at how the people holding you accountable treat trans women outside of your circle. You will very quickly see it's not remotely similar to how they're treating you. But you don't actually care about that, do you?

No, majority of trans women do not support that kind of behavior. Yes, we can hold individuals who do accountable without engaging in transmisogyny while doing so. No, it is not transmisogyny to merely acknowledge, with proof, that you, specifically, have done the things you're being accused of. If somebody engages in transmisogyny as a result of this, or attempts to pass off all trans women as harmful, they should be shut down just as any bigot should. But you cannot use that to dodge any responsibility for your actions.

[snowdeong]

My opinion on what just happened (because I'm black and African and while antisemitism and anti-blackness aren't the same, they way that these issues show up in kpop are similar and I've wanted to rant about them for a while)

Also this is so messy but I'm one of those people that needs to write out my thoughts in longform to understand how I feel about something so if anyone actually reads this hwghwg sorry.

First things first, at the end of the day Chae's probs not an anti-semite. Ofc that's not for me to say like I said I'm black and ugandan, not Jewish, but simplifying the whole thing to just Chae as an individual won't solve the real problem at hand here. THAT BEING SAID wearing that shirt and posting a pic on her ig with a fuck tonne of followers from different places in the world is insensitive and anti-semetic plain and simple whether she's aware of that or not. She's not just posting this to certain fans who'd know all the context lmao. And again context or not, that symbol is harmful all the context in the world won't erase that. We as fans should be educating her not trying to hide that it happened wtf? The problem is bigger than just chae or the group or even the kpop industry yes but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't raise awareness about wtf happened and talk about it.

Idk why kpop stans boil serious issues down to "protecting their faves" or attacking an idol they dislike. This is serious and fucking hurtful in a real way wtf??? I really think our concern should be for all the Jewish folk and other affected groups randomly seeing someone they might stan wearing such a hateful symbol casually and then also having to see people defend her like??? Liking someone or something should also mean having the capability to criticise that person or thing. You can stan someone and call them out on bullshit.

Also something I think a lot of koop stans don't seem to understand is that all these companies don't actually give af about us beyond our money. So being a global group doesn't actually mean the company will do the work to teach their idols that being a global group means that there's some shit you should be aware of. And I say teach the idols not because I don't expect them to do individual work, but because we've seen how this cycle goes lmao. An idol says or wears something offensive, the fandom gets mad, they rush an apology and the loop continues. Companies that actually gave af about us would see this shit happening to other companies and go "okay here's shit you should and should not know" to their idols. But they don't and they won't ever probably and the sooner we learn that the sooner we'll stop being so "surprised" when this shit happens.

Now about Chae as an individual. I'm def dissapointed but again I'm also not surprised. And I don't mean that in a "oh obvs she's bigoted" way like Chae is such a loving person and I really admire and love her I wouldn't stan the group if I thought they were shitty people. If she said she said that she didn't know what that meant I'd really believe her because I know that if she did she's not the sort that'd be out here flaunting hate on her instagram of all things. I might be deluded from stanning and all but I genuinely believe that.

Pop culture is racist, pop culture is anti-semetic, pop culture is queerphobic, pop culture is bigoted. The way that a Ugandan would probably be confised if you asked them what that symbol is, I'm sure is the same way it is in SK because the western content that's transferred over is extremely whitewashed shit (that's the context I mentioned earlier). When I say whitewashed I don't mean just white people I mean that the majority of it is white approved tm, it fits within the white patriarchal cishetnormative framework that's been established and pepetuated for years and years and years. That's not to say we shouldn't do our individual research ofc like especially if you're going to be an idol ffs, we should always be mindful. But again, if all the stuff readily available to you is bigoted then you're not going to look at a shirt with a certain symbol on it and immediately get that wearing that is fucked up.

(We also need to take into account the fact that that symbol means something totally different within different Asian religions. Not an excuse for her, just a fact that a lot of people unfortunately don't know cause they don't know anything about Buddhism and the like. I personally only learnt this last year while reading Bleach)

I don't say any of this as a defense I just think that we as minorities need to understand that the world is designed in a way where our trauma is constantly downplayed and erased. And that fucking sucks but that's how oppression keeps perpetuating itself. As a black kpop stan I've had to see so much bullshit lmao so I know it's hard to accept that there's a possibility that none of this will change. I'm all for assuming the best of people but it's also important to keep this in mind about everyone.

I really hope Jewish and other affected folks heal from this and recieve a genuine apology for the love of fuck. I do believe that Chae's not a hateful person truly but I hope that this teaches her, the girls and all other artists that it doesn't stop at just not being hateful. We have to put in work to be mindful, that's the best way to be loving to the people around you. I also hope jyp as a company takes this as an initiative to actually teach their idols shit about world issues if they're gonna be promoted globaly (but tbh I'm not holding my breath on this lmao like companies ain't shit)

[kryptoniteheadcanons]

Thoughts on Black Christmas (2019)

Uhh....brief mentions of sexual assault. Spoilers I guess ...it’s Black Christmas 2019 I don’t think anyone cares.

- I don’t know if I'm going to make a separate post comparing the three of the movies, I might end up saying everything I need to say  in this review. 

- Once again, stop making remakes and sequels that have nothing to do with the original. 

- That snow angle shot was actually pretty cool, I like it. 

- This movie being set at christmas is just as arbitrary as the first one. 

- Yeah, that diva cup thing was pretty awkward. Why did there have to be complete silence while she was putting it in? You couldn’t have used that time for dialogue?

- Oh hi Cary Elwes ….didn’t expect to see you here. 

- God I fucking hate it when professors call on you even though you didn’t raise your hand.

- Also they make Cary’s character so fucking creepy that the first time I saw this I he  assaulted Riley.

- “He totally went off on me because I asked why there were no women, or people of color, or queer people on the syllabus.” Yeah that is weird, most classics lists i’ve seen for colleges, even in 2019, at least have like Frankenstein or a book by one of the Bronte sisters. You have to be trying to not have a woman on the list. (Also: I don’t think they ever mentioned any of their majors? I feel like that would have been a good thing for character building, at least for Riley) 

- Yes, Riley does need to take back her agency and learn how to live her life again, but I don’t think getting up on stage to sing and dance about what is probably one of the most traumatic experiences her life, in front of the person who assualted her, is really the healthiest or safest way to do that. 

- Also, am I the only one that thinks Kris petitioning to get the bust removed from the main hall and that actually happening sounds weird? Maybe it’s just because I went to community college so I don’t know how larger, more established colleges work but that sounds like she was probably petitioning to get the name of the school changed and they just did the bust thing as a ‘compromise’. 

- What did they steal for Kris for the pledges to know that she had to be killed too? 

- Nate, dude, I know you have a migraine or whatever but just leave the room or something. 

- I feel like a lot of real world discussions about feminism and equal rights end up like the one that happened in the kitchen so I think maybe this needs to be said: We do need men in the world, however what we don’t need is bigots and abusers. Misogyny negatively effects all of us, you can talk about the issues men face without having to put down women. 

- I find it really odd that this movie claims to be a more ‘feminist’ version of Black Christmas (I have no idea if the director or writer intended that, maybe it was just a studio or marketing team thing) but they cut out the women’s reproductive rights subplot? How do you even do that? 

- I kind of wish this movie was a full on psychological thriller of Riley having to actually process her trauma instead of being a qausi-slasher movie. 

- Referencing the point above, I feel like the ending is in this weird limbo where it’s not weird enough to clearly be an allegory but it’s also not normal enough to be like, believable. 

- Was Riley’s smile fading at the end because one (or some of them) got out alive or because she realizes that she just destroyed half of the evidence that proves she and Kris didn’t kill all those people?

- Do I think this movie is misandrist propaganda? No. Do I think this movie is great and everyone should see  it? also No. I think its a movie that tried to do something good but fumbled and wound up in a no woman’s land of cringe dialogue and ham fisted morals. 

- also in case anyone was wondering, my favourite character was Jessie, she reminds me of one of my cousins. 

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Andrew Doyle

Published: Jun 4, 2024

Here we go again. The culture war is apparently nothing more than a myth, a fabrication intended to distract the lower orders. It’s like the “bread and circuses” of Ancient Rome, or the Easter Bunny, or Milli Vanilli.

On this week’s episode of Newsnight, the former Tory MP Dehenna Davison was asked whether she welcomed Kemi Badenoch’s recent attempts to clarify the Equality Act in order to ensure that women’s rights to single-sex spaces are protected. “I don’t at all,” she said. “I think regrettably the debate around trans issues right now seems to be used as some kind of political football for this mythical culture war that the Conservative party seems to be fighting.”

That’s a relief. So the disabled women who are smeared as bigots for requesting female carers are simply fantasists? And the female prisoners who are terrified of being accommodated with convicted rapists are just worrying over nothing? And victims of sexual assault being turned away from rape crisis centres because they don’t want to speak to a male counsellor have just imagined the whole thing?

Apparently, yes. Here’s what the Tory Reform Group had to say in a post on X:

“The Conservative Party has to think very carefully about the type of campaign it wants to run, and the longer term impact of stoking culture wars. It is clear that voters are rejecting the politics of division. We must not run on ‘wedge issues’ for a narrow core voter base alone.”

I remain unconvinced that the rights of 51% of the population qualifies as a “wedge issue”.

Of course the culture war doesn’t end with the ongoing erosion of women’s rights. Gay people are being shamed for being attracted to their own sex by the very organisations who were set up to protect their interests. We have men demanding access to lesbian dating apps and speed-dating events. We’ve had gay youth medicalised on the NHS for being same-sex attracted. We have the bullying and harassment of gay men and lesbians in the name of “progress”. And yet in her Newsnight interview, Davison claims that same-sex marriage is one of the Conservative government’s “proudest achievements” while in the same breath dismissing these attacks on gay rights as trivial.  

And what about the ongoing assault on free speech? What of those activists who demand that we should be prosecuted if we do not adopt their language (something that is actually happening in Canada and is likely to come to Ireland with the proposed new “hate speech” laws)? And what about campaigners who now leverage huge influence in all our major institutions attempting to rewrite our history, remove statues and monuments that they find “problematic”, censor books, and criminalise dissent? What about the ideologues in schools who are teaching highly contested theories as fact, from Critical Race Theory via Brighton School Council’s “anti-racist schools strategy” to this week’s revelation that 95% of Scottish schools are allowing pupils to self-identify their gender?

At this point, it’s difficult to believe that anyone genuinely believes that the culture war is “mythical”. There is an abundance of evidence of the antics of culture warriors who seek to reconstruct all the fundamental aspects of our society in order to better align with their ideology. I do make a point of assuming that people are telling the truth, and so the charitable explanation is that Davison and her ilk are simply ignorant of some of the most significant cultural developments over the past decade, from the fallout of the Black Lives Matter protests to the Scottish hate crime bill to the campaigns of harassment against gender-critical feminists. Perhaps she doesn’t read the newspapers. If only someone had written a book that provides a wide-ranging overview of the countless examples of how culture warriors have sought to reshape the world. Oh well…

Of course Davison is not the only political commentator to imply that the rights of women and gay people simply don’t matter. Former Labour strategist Alastair Campbell was quick to jump on to X to offer his contribution:

“I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think Kemi Badenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow.”

As J. K. Rowling pointed out, Campbell seems to be unaware that Badenoch is also the minister for women and equalities, and so it’s hardly a stretch to suppose that women’s rights and the Equality Act fall within her remit. As Rowling put it: “Thanks once again for highlighting Labour’s complacency and indifference towards the rights of half the electorate.”

The culture war is often misunderstood as a matter of Right vs Left, but the ill-informed comments of Davison and Campbell show that it’s nothing of the kind. As I have pointed out many times, the Conservatives have presided over the worst excesses of the culture war during their time in office. We shouldn’t give them a free pass simply because matters are likely to get a whole lot worse under Labour.

Far from being trivial, these issues could not be more important. If we can’t preserve the rights of women and gay people, how can we claim to be living in a civilised society? And when activists are successfully pressurising governments to force citizens to declare falsehoods, how can we in good conscience remain silent?

The claim that the culture was is a “distraction” is, in itself, a distraction. Yes, other issues are crucial and require our attention. But resisting the creeping authoritarianism of our times should also be a priority. When those in power are not only insisting that 2+2=5, but demanding that we all repeat the lie, we cannot afford to be complacent.

[utilitycaster]

From what I understand, the major concerns about the new OGL are these three things - making the previous version unauthorized, royalties on revenue and “nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use the creator's content for any purpose.”

There's obviously some bad faith groups stirring things up on Twitter but you have to admit, this is pretty bad for the growth of the hobby right?

No? Like again, not a lawyer nor personally a creative but from my talks with people who have worked with copyright law that is straight up boilerplate for open licenses: if you use our stuff for free to create your stuff and then make money off it, we get to use your stuff for free. (Critical Role had something similar in their updated license, because, again, standard-issue legal shit, and everyone freaked out then too about how it would kill the fandom, like, I'm not a lawyer but I do pay attention to patterns.)

Royalties on revenue, similar. Like. I do not understand how this is an issue. Would I love a world in which there is a such thing as a free lunch? Of course! Do I acknowledge that is rarely the case and particularly not expect that from major corporations? Yes. And the royalties start for companies making over $750,000, so I would think it's actually great for the growth of smaller niche upstarts in the space, and has no effect on free fan content.

The one thing I do have an eye on is making prior versions unauthorized; but I suspect that is to permit them to focus on material that would violate 1.1 in terms of such things as well, NFTs or that is “blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory.” (incidentally, someone replied on an earlier post of mine saying the anti-bigotry could be twisted...this is the text, per the io9 article here, so hopefully that helps clarify.)

I have to get to some other things today so I think I'm done on this topic but like...it is not perfect, and like all copyright law it's part of a vast capitalistic system that sucks, but within a system that we all know sucks, it seems like extremely standard, normal shit, and everyone is running around like a chicken with their head cut off over something that isn't even finalized.