#i would like to encourage healthy discourse

[jahiera]

I think there’s a definite problem though with the amount of art and fics being HEAVILY Astarion with cis women. That reeks of his queerness being erased. There should be a healthy balance of Astarion with different partners, but the “default” in the fandom is always him with a woman. As a gay man it’s very frustrating.

Okay so. in however much any of this matters. 1. Shoving this under a cut for people who are tired of seeing the discourse (I am too, I tend to scroll really really fast past it.) 2. I know the fandom discourse machine looooves super firm and snarky opinion jabs summed up in 169 words or less but I am literally incapable of not elaborating so. sorry YOU asked. since it’s also probably relevant, Im coming at this with the Mega Dyke with the fuck around and find out perspective irt my life experiences and queerness. I don’t generally care about niche queer internet discourse and I don’t generally care about fandom discourse, so you can tell how bored I am at work rn that I’m deep diving into this. tldr yeah you’re not wrong I agree that astarion’s queerness is erased in certain spaces but that has nothing to do with being attracted to women. my funny hot take is once again that astarion is a he/him evil femme to me so. let’s MOVE.

I received the second one within the first few minutes of the first, and I’m goingggg to proceed on good faith and with the idea that I think we’re all in agreement for the most part, because I think we are. But I’m going to address the most obvious thing that. I don’t really…. think is necessarily the point in this. first of all, I empathize that it suuuucks to not see as many works made for your main pairing of choice (there’s generally a deficit for literally everyone BUT astarion to boot too.) however ultimately fanworks are exactly that: fanworks, and they’re made For Free and posted by a Fan Author who has done this As A Hobby, “a problem nobody is addressing” in this context is……. you are one google doc and keyboard away from writing what you want to see in the world. or, I don’t know. encourage + comment + follow up on fic authors that write what you enjoy. fic is not paid content and the fic authors in bg3 are writing for themselves and what they put out, that they wrote for FREE, is up to them. I once again empathize with not seeing as much of a specific thing as you would like, and I definitely empathize with seeing a popularization of specific characterization that makes you want to scream, cry, throw up, etc. which brings me to what I can actually comment on and critique here. (general note: if you proceed to misread me on the basis of “people can do what they want!!” I assure you. you can do whatever you want forever. I do not care. I am not mad. I am minding my business 90% of the time. do I like domstarion? no. but it is NOT my concern nor my judgement.)

“That reeks of his queerness being erased. There should be a healthy balance of Astarion with different partners, but the “default” in the fandom is always him with a woman.” <- so! now that we have “it’s all for free man idk what you want me to say here” out of the way. we CAN critique something real in this that I do agree with. the sort of…. honestly kind of fascinating (derogatory) trends of what I’ll call Straightifying astarion for lack of a better word.

this brings me to the point I kind of offhandedly made in the previous post, about how there IS nuance to be said on astarion’s queerness getting erased. I do actually agree with you that in some spheres of the bg3 fandom, his queerness has been heavily sanitized and he’s become something of a placeholder for Sexy Vampire Boyfriend romance tropes. he’s mostly there to be a stand-in for a sexy dom vampire man; MANY of his complex character traits that have literally Nothing to do with romance have been basically entirely removed to serve a specific idealized idea of him that suit the scene. it’s frustrating! I find it frustrating. I also agree that within this specific Brand of Mischaracterized Astarion, he’s been so……….. reduced down to this that his more overt queerness is basically entirely removed. however, the issue is not that he’s with a woman in this? the issue is that the writer is not incorporating a sort of.. overarching queer lens, for lack of a better term, to the characterization they’ve got going on. you can write whatever you want forever, but it’s not written in a vacuum, I agree.

Since these are all popular straight romance tropes, he falls directly into the pit of Sexy Man (straight) very quickly, and his attraction toward others (let alone, good god, his complex relationship to sex, sexuality, desire? good fucking luck finding something thoughtful in there about that) tends to fall by the wayside as a result. It is what you would expect but it’s not without room for critique in what I think we’re aligned on; which is seeing astarion’s queerness erased is maddeninggg. And it is EXTREMELY frustrating to see if you’re someone like me, or possibly yourself, who’s into 1. really analyzing characterization and 2. really into exploring queer dynamics in writing + lit + media many different formats. THIS—the sanitization, the removal of astarion’s queerness—this is what is irksome as a queer reader.

however. the issue I’m seeing is that ^^^^^ this brand of mischaracterization is 1. being conflated with simply that he’s with women, and 2. the frustration of having less content (understandable) is turning into a very WEIRD dialogue in which the extreme of “well actually he wouldn’t even want to fuck women!!” is the stance to take (very weird) (kind of misogynistic) (kind of also reeks of continuing to talk about women as sex objects that astarion would not or would want to fuck) (astarion himself doesn’t even want to fuck for about 90% of his romance so maybe we should talk about that too) — rather than that it would be nice if his queerness would be addressed more openly and with more nuance and clarity than it currently is in That Particular Sphere Of Astarion Characterization. and, of course, the idea that it would be nice if he was portrayed with other kinds of partners! which I agree with and equally appreciate.

but there is no default. literally, there’s no default. what you’re seeing is what people are making of their own tavs, and maybe you would like to see more of another kind, but it doesn’t hold up as an actual fandom critique. what holds up is when we dive into how people write him; how do they write his personality, what traits are being exaggerated and what traits are being ignored; IS his queerness remembered within the text at all? and beyond that, how is that queerness treated when it is written? because I’ve seen the other extreme in which it’s The Homophobic Gay Stereotypes That Maybe We All Agreed At One Point Were Equally Offensive To Exaggerate To The Point Of Horror. half the discussion I see AROUND his queerness amounts to “omg he’s such a slutty flamboyant little fag” but in a quirky haha internet way. very “fruity is a nice alternative to saying queer!” “calling a gay guy fruity in the real world will get you punched out.” vibes in here sometimes and it is EQUALLY weird.

anyways. Astarion’s a multifaceted character which means the first thing everyone did was pick one or two traits to exaggerate and cling to and these color the entire reading of his character rather than taking in the whole. i agree that means his queerness got put to the wayside in some formats of him, and that’s deeply unfortunate + very frustrating. but fanfic is free, so I’m not with you that there’s a Problem That Needs Addressing so much as that’s what people are creating, and you should add to what you want to see in the world.

I’m not going to go on a tangent about how “oh let m/f be a thing!!” because I ALSO agree literally no one needs to be told “m/f is okay to do ❤️” we live in the real world here. and it’s really mindboggling how in some iterations he’s been turned into Straightstarion rather than his CANON QUEERNESS being applicable in every format of every relationship dynamic he could ever possibly be in. However. However. the answer to that is not? acting like the baseline attraction to women is the problem. if the way you’re talking about attraction to women feels rooted in upset about not relating to it and feeling like you’re forced to either relate to it or simply not engage, I do Get It, but at the risk of opening up an entirely different can of worms that needs an entirely different essay to address, gay men are not immune to misogyny and if the language used while talking about women is also objectifying or belittling women to some extent or acting as though attraction to women makes his queerness lesser. newsflash. that is still misogyny (and biphobia). it is not about defending straightness here, it’s entirely that reducing women down to sex objects even in the conversations about not seeing women sexually is alive and well (and repulsive), and that’s what I mean when I say I can hear the “lol I don’t fuck WOMEN that’s DISGUSTING” behind some of the other side of the conversation here. also this is an entirely separate essay but queerness will almost never exist in an easily consumable binary and trying to type him by his character traits is also. kind of weird. just as a thing.

#critical / #this feels like such a I will die on any hill. I am going to forget about this now #like again I’m not even disagreeing with some of you but other things in here. it’s a little bit deeper than that #or as deep as fandom discourse is anyways. #now that the high of soap boxing has worn off as I write these tags I’m like good lord. #I will NOT let inanities ruin this game for me. #sorry that’s once again not really directed at you anon but in general #good faith! we keep good faith!

[midgardianqueenreturns]

Pretty sad how it took All For One literally possessing Tomura’s body for most of the fandom to realize he is an abusive parental figure.

And even then I see a lot of fans say he was “retconned” into being abusive. I’m not talking about the “Was AFO planning to take over Tomura’s body the whole time a retcon?” discourse (I don’t want to get into that) but those who say “AFO was supposed to be a good father figure to Tomura despite being evil but it got retconned”. Even if the possession plotline is indeed proven to be a retcon, AFO being abusive towards Tomura is most certainly not. Even if it never happened AFO would still be an abusive parent to Tomura. Just because he nicely encouraged him after his failure in Kamino and didn’t directly physically hurt him like Kotaro did doesn’t mean he was supposed to be a good dad whose only real parenting flaw was that he taught his adopted son to be evil. I know we all love the trope of the villain being a good parent (I do too!), but AFO was never meant to be that. How do you look at the malnourished state Shigaraki was in at the start of the story and think AFO was originally intended to be a good, healthy foster father?

#Please don’t discourse about whether the body snatching plot was a retcon in the notes that’s not what this post is about #I understand believing it’s a retcon or hating it but I don’t understand thinking AFO was retconned into being abusive #he always was #All For One #AFO #Tomura Shigaraki #Shigaraki Tomura #afo mha #shigaraki mha #mha tomura #Tenko Shimura #Shimura Tenko #cw abuse

[laf-outloud]

https://www.tumblr.com/nolovenobreaks/729763952800776192/this-is-something-that-ive-rarely-seen-discussed?source=share. Oh please!! Is this person serious? For someone who's stepped away from the fandom they sure seem all too keen to have their little pseudo intellectual masturbation session criticising gen. Interestingly after a week where she got a lot of (deserved) attention. I get what Gen is doing, everyone gets it. And you know what I have no problem with it. As a hands on mother of three kids (yes they might have a nanny, that doesn't mean she's a substandard mom) and having given the limelight to her husband for the last decade, I APPLAUD her for carving out a presence and brand for herself. And what the OP doesn't seem to realise, is that whatever benefits Gen will benefit her kids. Furthermore in no way does she post inappropriate content about the kids. A private upbringing doesn't necessarily bring a better upbringing. The fact that the kids get therapy (my god if i could afford it, I'd be doing the same with mine) just shows how switched on they are. Just, any excuse to lay into Gen will do. If she's not doing anything, she's a gold digger. If she's somewhat successful, she's abusing her kids. What a load of nonsense.

This person created a whole blog to make this post. And yet, this is in their header:

Um... that is neither cool, nor normal.

"No qualms..." Proceeds to write an entire essay about their qualms.

Also, OP could only be so lucky to have a husband that worships the ground they walk on. It's normal for sensitive guys who love their wives and it's the opposite of annoying. (My brothers and dad are just like that.)

I'm not going to share the rest (it's way too long) and self-righteous, but it basically boils down to this person outlining exactly how Gen and Jared's kids should be raised and how sharing miniscule moments of their lives is apparently unethical. All brought about because one influencer (8 Passengers) who had over a million more followers than Gen, was physically and mentally abusing her kids. Of course, that's not okay, but there is absolutely no comparison between them and the Padaleckis.

You know what I see when I see Gen and Jared's kids? Happy, healthy individuals who are encouraged to be whoever they want to be, and whose parents respect their wishes when it comes to what's posted online.

The best thing to do is to block and ignore this blog completely. As we've seen, the more people give attention to idiots, the more they'll continue being idiots.

Now, if they want to write a discourse on the actual blogger who was found abusing her kids, that would be more appropriate when addressing their concerns about mommy-blogging, but bringing Gen into it is just a cry for attention.

#ask box #anti gen hate #anti self-righteous bloggers #idiot trying to correlate an abusive mom to the Gen #there's no comparison

[sophieinwonderland]

As a psychotic person with (harmful) delusions and hallucinations, I'd like to chip in and say the way people are responding to your switching + imposition guides with "but they're delusions and hallucinations, obviously these are bad" really rubs me the wrong way. Because it feels like they're trying to support people like me, but they speak about delusions/hallucinations in a way that doesn't really make me feel safe around them. Like, they feel like the kind of people to try and reality check me or tell me to "get help" instead of just letting me exist as a psychotic person, y'know? Shuffle me off to the side because anything related to what I experience (including I, myself) must be hidden away until it doesn't exist "like that" anymore. They're making such a huge deal out of this that it makes me wonder how they'd react if a psychotic person like I confessed to them about having delusions/hallucinations. Would they freak out? The way they talk about these things makes me feel like they'd freak out. And then try to tell me they "know what's best" for me and force onto me their own ideas about how I should manage my psychosis. It's something in how they talk about delusions without actually talking about or with delusional people. Arguing over what we experience without listening to the people experiencing it. Inadvertently promoting the idea that delusions and hallucinations can't be managed and gotten to a healthy level that sometimes people just live with, no need to panic about it. Idk, it's hard to put into words

I very much agree.

These posts often come off as very dismissive and othering.

They cast certain conditions and experiences as these just... objectively terrible things all the time... and then dive straight into trying to police how people are allowed to relate to them.

And while the bulk of this latest discourse has been focused on the dissociation aspect, it's not been exclusively that, as the hallucination subject has been brought up too.

See this post for example:

(Fact check: I have no idea what they mean about me "encouraging dissociation" outside of the switching guide, and I've never said schizophrenia is healthy nor do I believe every person with Schizophrenia to be a system though I do think there is overlap and this is one way systems can form. There's a ton of nuance being intentionally and maliciously cut out but that I don't have the time to bother with.)

This feels a lot more like what you're talking about.

The quoted line about treatment for hallucinations being akin to conversion therapy is something attributed to Dr. Romme of the Hearing Voices Network.

The Hearing Voices Movement started in the 1980s in Europe when a patient confronted Romme about the limitations of the psychiatric care being provided. Why, the patient asked, was it OK for Romme to believe in a God whom he could not see or hear but not OK for her, the patient, to believe in voices that she really did hear? To learn more about the voice-hearing experience and to try to help his patient, Romme had the woman’s story told on TV and asked for other voice hearers to contact him. Approximately 550 reached out. Remarkably, many of the people who heard voices did not need clinical help. Writing in the Journal of Mental Health in 2011 after conducting a literature review, Vanessa Beavan, John Read and Claire Cartwright asserted that it was safe to say that 1 in 10 people in the general population will hear voices. Romme eventually compared psychiatric treatment to eliminate voice hearing to conversion therapy for sexual orientation.

What I love about this story is how it shows a psychiatrist who was actually willing to listen to and learn from their patients instead of simply assuming they know what's best.

Psychiatry has a long history of starting with assuming something is just inherently bad and needs to be gotten rid of from the start and building treatment models around that. In this case, Romme was willing to re-evaluate generations of tradition and develop new treatment methods for the needs of the actual patients instead of trying to force people to fit into society's idea of normalcy.

And I think that's what we need more of in the world. To focus on people's own needs and their health first instead of trying to "fix" undesirable traits.

#syscourse #pro endo #pro endogenic #hallucinations #psychiatry #voice hearing #hearing voices #hallucination #multiplicity #sysblr

[fictionkinfessions]

Not to be rude, but I really don't understand double discourse, like at all. The way I see it, there's infinite universes with infinite possibilities out there, which means there's infinite versions of literally everyone. Thinking that somehow doesn't include your kintypes seems... I wish I had a softer word than "selfish" to describe it, since I really don't want to be rude, but it's the only word I can come up with.

I've seen people literally sling death threats to their close friends over doubles, like holy shit!!! Y'all really think that's acceptable just because someone's a different version of you??? Are people not allowed to have things in common anymore??? Have these people considered, I don't know, leaving the kin community if seeing someone like them causes them so much distress that it leads them to threaten murder? Or maybe, perhaps, going outside? Touching grass? Finding a way to cope with your homocidal urges??? HELLO?????

Anyways, not to sound all holier-than-thou, but I for one actually really like doubles. Like, ah yes, another member of my army. Join us in our conquest of the world. Kin together strong.

Even if you're not comfortable with them, at the very least be normal about it, holy shit. I can't believe that parts of the fictionkin community are literally encouraging violence against doubles. Yep, those all sound like things a normal, healthy, well-adjusted person would say! Why not say it out loud on the phone to your friends, parents, employers, or the police? I'm sure they'd love that! /s

-I would sign this, but I know I'm probably gonna get eaten alive by the type of people I'm calling out in this ask, so maybe I shouldn't? Like, for my safety?

#fictionkinfessions #fictionkin #multikin issue #community issue #death threats cw #bullying cw #mod party cat

[neu-apostolisch]

i feel like the conversation gets derailed when people hyperfocus on "but it's an interesting plot!” and bg3 the game, when the point—at least the one that was originally made in the complaints on here—was that it was odd that they agreed that him ending it all in Act 3 was The Right Ending, and the implications that has when you consider how they treat gale versus all the other characters, as well as how they use their treatment of their characters to make comments about those social issues in real life. people weren't upset that they were presented with that rp choice or that such an ending even exists for him; they were upset by the comments of the creators and how they would never say such a thing for gale's mirror, aka a certain vampire. you brought up good arguments to that anon and i don't mean to discount either of your statements i really don't, but people were upset by what the creators specifically said which was yeah in many ways that is the right ending. sorry for continuing to discourse and vent in your inbox lol this isn't directed at you i just liked reading your thoughts so far because you said it better than i could have. i just really don't like how "but it's interesting and not every story has to be happy" and "you're just too attached to gale" get thrown out as rebuttals when that's really neither here nor there and doesn't address the actual issue being raised.

hello! thanks for your thoughts. and yeah, the discourse on this topic has gotten pretty…difficult to engage with, in a sense. that’s what prompted my first post on the topic actually—eagle eyed readers of my posts might find another one where i complained about the discourse only to follow up with a long winded treatise lolol. but i did it because i felt the conversation was lacking a specific viewpoint, so be the change you want to see in the world and all that. i’ve actually really appreciated the responses from everyone on the post/follow up! :)

as a proud galemancer i deeply feel the frustration of all of us. on a personal level, this sucks. i love our wizard boy and he deserves better! the complaints and anger make sense to me. the writers treating him so glibly is rough, but before i talk about it i always try to remind myself of what IS there—which is a really interesting story about a gentleman with some complex flaws, motives, and goals. the writers talking about which ending is “right” cannot take that away, and you should feel comfortable disagreeing with the writers!

to my fellow gale enjoyers and galemancers—i would encourage you to maintain a critical lens but also to continue to enjoy and mine out the richness that is there. sure, that’s a rosy and maybe naive view, but don’t allow the frustration to infect your enjoyment of an amazing character. i am not saying to settle for less, but if you can’t think of gale without despairing at his treatment, you should step away from the conversation for a moment to refresh yourself before you get too stuck in the bog. it’s healthy to remind yourself why you’re here—because you think a wizard is really really cool. he’s got one of the most fulfilling and interesting romances in the game, the unique scenes with him are gorgeous, and he’s an incredible character.

i actually have additional criticisms about how they handled other characters in this game. it’s funny, but a common knee-jerk reaction people have when they read criticism of something is that the critic must not like the writing or the game, so they automatically jump in to argue on that point. on the contrary, a lot of criticism comes from a place of genuine support and appreciation for writing, game design, and narrative structure. but you’ll see a lot of backlash from people misinterpreting that idea or taking criticism personally, so that’s why i’m always careful to state my positives and that i truly love this game. it’s as much a reminder to me as it is a declaration to others. i’m not here because i want to hate on larian. i’m here because i want to chat about stuff to the internet machine and maybe people like you and the other anon(s) will say some interesting stuff back to me.

the right kind of discourse is actually healthy for a fandom because it keeps ideas flowing and circulating, and lets us commiserate together. however, i might just be relaxed because people have been really civil to me so far hahaha.

anyway, thanks again for your ask! hope you have a good one.

#bg3 #baldur's gate 3 #bg3 gale #gale dekarios #asks #larian critical #bg3 critical

[thewitchqueenofharrenhal]

This probably isn't the space to do this but as someone who likes your blog and is choosing to part ways with hotd fandom, and you do discuss the "team discourse' and thought I'd leave this here. I'm done with this show and fandom.

The amount of if you like team (insert) here you are morally bankrupt is so...frustrating on its own. But the fact that the entire fandom cannot seem to not compare fiction to real life tragedies and horrors on this level, the bullying, the callout posts, Valaryian being used a sneaky way to be racists towards nettles, laena and laenor, white feminism being promoted and normalized so aggressively, the homophobia laenor faces from both teams, how you cannot claim both teams are bad without being accused of deflecting or preached to about one team not being as bad as the other, you cannot critique any Targaryen's unless come out lyanna or alicent's impure bloodline.

Not to mention how stans come for you throat if you mention daemyra isn't healthy or Daemyra/daemon make you uncomfortable.

This adaptation is too season 7 of GoT to be worth this much trouble. But tbh, as I announce my exit like a cringy karen, I just hope Ewan, Tom and Phia's media hate doesn't effect their careers because they are some of the best talent in the show to do what they did with so little given to them to work with; And to any blacks wanting to come into the notes proud there bullied a green out the fandom. I can't wait for Jon Snow to choose his sisters and end the targ line in the unreleased books spoilers that will leak after grrm dies. And i hope the f&b 2 draft is on the same shelf as the WoW.

Nooooooo, this made me really sad :(

I had two lines of thought reading this. First I'm really bummed out you feel that way, it's always a shame when we lose normal, (normal isn't an insult in this fandom lol), interesting, great people in the fandom. It seems like people who just want to interact with media and enjoy something that's suppose to be fun (fandom) always end up leaving and the worst people always tend to stay and get venerated in this fandom for just being awful. I'm really sorry to see you go!.

At the same time, I completely understand your frustration and feelings. I don't know why but the ASOIAF/GOT/HOTD fandom has a real problem with attracting honestly just really vile individuals. I want to blame it on this being a fandom that has been waiting for over a decade but I even at times feel embarrassed that my favorite book series is one *those* people claim to *love* as well. (By those people I mean what you reference - individuals who use this fandom to spout to the most vile racist, sexist, homophobic, overall weird ass takes).

It can become too much. Especially when fandom is supposed to be fun, hell even GRRM himself subtly pointed out how fandom seems to be ran by anti fans now who make fandom just not a fun place to be in. Ultimately the issues in the fandom you mentioned are very real and nothing minor. I would encourage you to put your health, safety, and happiness first. I recently took a small break, and if you ever want to come back I promise there are corners of the fandom that are for lack of a better word normal.

I don't think you're being a Karen, lol. It's fair to be frustrated with everything you mentioned. I don't think you have to worry on that end, the cast of HOTD live extremely fantastic lives compared to those who sit around hating on them lol. They will be just fine and they're talented individuals. I deeply encourage you to step back from this fandom, let go of that team idea, I know it's very pervasive in the HOTD fandom, but really it's not real, lol. People just really like tribalism on both ends and want to feel important in one way or another.

IJBOL, not gonna lie the little digs thrown in at the end before you head out made me laugh!. Unfortunately I disagree with you on that end I really like Daenerys and I hope she lives a long life. LMAO and I hope I get to see more books from GRRM but I understand you might not be feeling the nicest right now LOL. Stay strong friend. I know this fandom sucks, but don't let it discourage you from enjoying what you like.

#anon #hotd

[buckttommy]

A few things:

Season 6 isn't bad. You just miss Buddie.

9-1-1 isn't homophobic. You just miss Buddie.

The likelihood of there being some grand conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes meant to drive away Buddie shippers is absurd. Buddie will either go canon or it won't; no one at FOX/9-1-1 cares enough to construct an entire campaign that would alienate a couple hundred thousand viewers, at most. Your impact as a fan is not as significant as you think it is. Be realistic.

Season 6 isn't as strong as some of the other seasons. That is okay.

5A started out confusing and/or disappointing for some people and ended up being one of 9-1-1's best seasons (personal opinion). Judgements made during the season without viewing it in its entirety usually lead to unnecessary discourse and strain *gestures wildly at fandom* so in all your critical assessments, make sure you are accounting for the fact that 9-1-1 is known for changing/reshaping entire arcs/narratives within a matter of 3 episodes.

9-1-1 is, and has been, in a period of transition since Season 5. While many people in this fandom acknowledge the shift from Tim to Kristen's leadership, not enough (read: any of you) acknowledge that transitional periods always come with bumps, hiccups, and failures. Please acknowledge this and proceed accordingly, whether that looks like discontinuing watching the show or offering the show a little more mercy in the interim.

If you're watching for one character, you're going to be disappointed. No getting around that.

If you're watching for a single ship, you're going to be disappointed. No getting around that either.

You don't have to like this season just because you like aspects of it. Balance exists.

You don't have to hate this season just because you hate aspects of it. Balance exists.

If this is your first/second season hate watching, I encourage you to develop a healthy hobby that does not include inflicting your discontent on others.

Some of you ruin the viewing experience for yourselves. Stop doing that.

Some of you create negativity in positive spaces. Some of you force positivity in negative spaces. Leave each other alone.

Thank you.

#Taking a step back from this fandom for a few days or possibly forever. We'll see how I feel come 6.09 #Let me be clear: I love 9-1-1. I don't love the way you all talk about this show and talk to each other. It makes me upset #and if I have to choose between having 9-1-1 as my comfort show or interacting with a bunch of content that make me upset #I'm going to choose my show !! I'm not breaking mutuals; I'm not even leaving the fandom (yet) #But as of right now #all my 9-1-1 tags are blocked and filtered #Anyways. Happy Tuesday mwah mwah #jack.txt

[strawbearyhoney]

Just say you hate ppl with eating disorders and go

if someone were to promote depression ( literally using a pro-depression tag and telling other people how to get more depressed and encouraging others to self harm and be miserable ) and i said ' tumblr should block that tag ' would you say i hated ppl who suffer froam depression . lol

i have ppl close to me who have suffered from eating disorders and i have a complicated relationship with food myself . its one thing for ppl struggling with an ed to have a space to talk about it , to connect with other people going through the same thing , even to vent about it / their challenging thoughts and talk about when they relapse . its another thing entirely to make posts like " fat ppl are ugly disgusting monsters you have to be skinny pale and frail to be worth anything or beautiful " and then plop urself right into an echo chamber of people obessing and nodding along liek yes yes i must be thin i must be thin all i want is to be thin im disgusting

you are going to die . full stop . you are going to die . your organs will fail and your hair will fall out and your teeth will wear down from the acid of you throwing up so often . you are going to die and it wont be pretty . you are going to die if you do not get out . eating disorders kill people , full stop . liek i need you to understand how serious this is . you either recover or youre dead . this isnt me saying " i dont liek that these people are talking about something thats bad " or " ppl struggling with this should have no spaces to talk about what theyre going through " , this is me saying " the pro ana tag is so incredibly dangerous and tumblr should block it liek theyve blocked countless of other way less harmful tags " . this is me saying im begging you to do some reserach to get out of the echo chamber and i know its not that easy and you cant just say ' wow ur right im healed now thanks ' , but you have to want to get better and that starts with cutting out " thinspo " and to stop encouraging eachother to slowly kill yourselves

liek there are a host of other problems too . the fatphobia is an obvious one , but also the colourism , racism , etc . the pro ana / thinspo communities are obsessed with reaching this ideal of a skinny pale waif , so many blog titles and urls are centered around being ~ fragile ~ and ~ pure ~ and they only ever focus on white girls ( or apparently kpop stars now ) . its an incredibly toxic place . " meanspo " is a thing now ?? i couldnt stomach too much of it

but without getting into the ~ discourse ~ or how ~ problematic ~ those communities are . putting that aside . youre going to die . full stop you either recover from an ed or it kills you . and some people with eds are suicidal and that wont deterr them , for some their goal is to wither away into nothingness . ppl with eds are not healthy , mentally or physically , and that is not a moral judgment , it is a fact . people get eds for all sorts of reasons , from trauma ( abuse , bullying , sa , etc ) , from being fat in a fatphobic world , because they latch onto food as something they feel liek they can control-- there's so many reasons , an endless amount of reasons . i am not here to shame anyone for having an eating disorder

that does not change my stance on the fact that the " pro ana / thinspo " tags ( and their copycats . #proana #proed #thinspi #thinspii #thinspø #thinsp0 #ed not sheeran #ed not sherran #ana miaa etc etc ) are dangerous and should be removed . similar to how someone going into tha #depression tag and promoting and encouraging others to kill themselves should be banned

srsly if someone went into tha #depression tag and started posting and commenting on others posts liek " kill yourself , its never going to get better , heres some accessible ways to die , heres some suicide inspo , heres cute suicide note ideas , kill urself just die prove everyone wrong , everyone will be so sorry and regret the way they treated you , just die " , people would mass report them and dogpile them and be angry at them and get them banned . but when pro ana ppl do it suddenly its " let us cope " lol ????? not all coping methods are good or healthy or should be encouraged / promoted . and self mutilation is one thing , but when you are actively harming others it cant be left alone

to quote Blythe Baird from her spoken word When The Fat Girl Gets Skinny : if you are not recovering , you are dying

#anorexia #bulimia #eating disorders #suicide #suicidal idealation #fatphobia #<- for blacklist

[juni-ravenhall]

i rly think that ppl who feel a strong need to go "us versus them" in the sso criticism discourse need to just, take a deep breath and look within. there is so much black and white mindset always going on here, and so much bad ppl vs good ppl. its always been lacking in nuance and individuality and its frustrating.

there *are* ppl in the fandom who say really dumb shit, like fatphobic shit, sexist or racist shit, ableist shit.... but not everyone who criticises sso fairly and positively does any of that. not everyone who criticises sso annoyedly does any of that. not everyone who absolutely fucking hates sso does any of that.

there are equally ppl who genuinely are defending the most dumb shit from sse/sso just to be a defender and supporter without reason..... but not everyone who says something positive about the game does that. not everyone who loves the game does that. etc.

its not good and not okay to take out frustrations on people who dont actually do anything wrong or harmful (giving regular criticism, expressing personal opinions, giving fair praise - vs attacking staff, attacking other users for their opinion, posting harmful things, etc).

when you do that, you're blaming an innocent person for a perceived wrong from a "group" (like "haters" or "whiners" or "ppl who ruin my fun") that you have defined, that you associate "anyone who criticises things i disagree with" or whatever instead of "ppl who genuinely and provenly did something harmful". anyone who *seems* like they might be in that group annoys you, even if they arent.

consider why you think its okay to label people as invalid or unfair or unreasonable in their opinions if they have a different opinion than you but arent hurting anyone. (if you feel hurt by commercial media criticism, especially when its not even *your* product/work, there is a problem on your end that you should address.)

consider why you think its okay to say words like "ungrateful" about people who are simply voicing fair criticism or fair opinions about a videogame. i could call ppl ungrateful for not liking all my posts that i put so much work into making, but that would be really rude and ridiculous. its not kind and not nice to say things like that about ppl when they havent actually done anything wrong (criticising a videogame doesnt make someone "ungrateful", and posting harmless opinions on your own blog is not a problem).

the "us vs them" group system in sso fandom is usually along these lines: haters vs non-haters, haters vs defenders/whiteknights, or "any other critics" vs "those who see themselves as the only Good and Fair and Nice critics"... all of these are more or less the same groups just slight variation in the person's point of view. and all of them are bad, because these groups are not actually rigid and applicable in reality. people are individual and people are nuanced.

some of you guys post what i consider kinda unfair comments on sso sometimes. it could be good or bad comments, that i personally consider a bit too subjective or unfair or unrealistic or whatever. but i dont post rude, disrespectful or mean things about that on my blog, and i try to not act as if you belong to some group that youve never claimed to belong to (encouraging the "us vs them" mentality in the community).

if i *am* going to say "sso defenders" or "sso haters", i would be making sure to actually be talking to/about ppl who evidently belong to that label. ppl who defend sse even when it makes no sense, not just ppl who praise good things about the game. ppl who actually *hate* on the game, not just ppl who say something critical about it.

and you end up in those boring repetitive healthy-community-ruining social patterns when you give in to "us vs them" and to black-and-white, polarised, mindsets, when you dont actively see things as nuanced and varied and individual.

i really wish that ppl would step back and think, "this opinion / this criticism about sso made me feel annoyed/upset. why is that? what about it made me feel bad? am i taking something personally that isnt? did this person actually say anything harmful or wrong, or is it fair personal opinion? did they *actually* shove it in my face, or am i visiting a public space that is not curated only for me? am i painting this person as something they might not be in my mind? am i trying to sort them into a group, and if so, why?"

someone from the bullies will have a field day with this post and be like "omg juni is saying that ppl who disagree with him are mentally ill again!" (twisting words is helpful when you really want to make things black-and-white and "us vs them") but i do genuinely want to say that if you feel really hurt and upset by ppl having harmless disagreements or harmless criticisms about a videogame, there is a problem. it might have to do with your emotional boundaries ("criticism feels bad even when its not about me"), it might have to do with your self-worth ("you say sso is bad so you think im bad for liking it"), or various other things, and its not healthy. however, its also okay to feel unfair emotional reactions if you cant help them, but the problem is, you CAN help how you act, how you judge, and how you treat other people.

[nikethestatue]

Anon, who said they couldn't handle this fandom anymore because of the horrible behavior and absolutely crazy and even harmful takes, is so true. Like Elain being hated for "not doing anything" when she is the one who killed the main enemy saving everyone? Feyre being shamed and hated for pretty much everything she does especially for not being nice and understanding to Tamlin as if she didn't spend a good part of MAF making excuses for him being physically aggressive? I understand that SF wasn't great but it wasn't that bad either. The core message of the book is very obvious yet I sleep completely misinterpreting the book saying Nesta is "oppressed" and "shamed" by Feyre, Elain and the IC until she changes herself as if she was doing amazing before their interference. Do these people think Nesta's coping mechanism was healthy? That she didn't deserve to be helped by people around her? How did stans make Nesta growing to be a healthier version of herself a bad thing? People bringing up Geneva convention to hate om the mcs like...??? what is even going on anymore. I'm just so tired it's not even a fun kind of discourse it's just biased af takes coming from people who hate everything and everyone in the series except three characters. Some of it I think is SJM's fault. Do you think if she hadn't dragged this series on for so long this would be happening? I feel the fandom has now just grown to hate everything about acotar. I see people who are either critical of the work or straight up haters I don't see fans anymore. It's exhausting was the fandom always so bitter towards these books or is it just the curse of acosf?

I absolutely, 98% blame SJM and BB for all of this.

All of this nonsense could've been nipped in the bud YEARS ago.

She could've posted a message on her Insta saying that the discourse around some topics and characters is not what she intended it to be and not appropriate. She could've given an encouraging message along the lines of 'let's celebrate women, of all shapes, sizes, abilities and backgrounds. Let's celebrate choices. Let's celebrate accomplishments. Their journeys."

There is literally NOTHING secret about her telling everyone 'there will be a book devoted to EACH Archeron sister'. That's it. That's already 90% of BS that we are experiencing. This is not a shocking revelation. And it's BS that BB won't allow her to say that. She's been yakking it up about Nesta for a year before the book was published.

They are enjoying the craziness, the attention and all of it is on them.

Also, you don't change the direction of a series mid-series. If you are trying to target a completely different audience, then you need to make sure that you write accordingly and make it clear that this is an adult book. Put some trigger warnings or something. Make it actually ADULT. There is great inequity in how these books are perceived by someone who is 13 (who shouldn't be reading ACOSF) and someone who is 35.

[destinyc1020]

Confession: I think this might be last post ever on tumblr, I think I might leave tumblr and social media in general. I feel like its become way too toxic and just not worth the effort nor do I feel happy using it, its just so menatally draining. In addition Im getting a little fed up of fandoms and stan culture, it used to be fairly a fun space but now it feels like a space where hatred, racism, toxicity have kinda infiltrated. Things like movies or just enjoying actors or whatever have become less and less interesting it no longer feels like celebrating but like we are in competition, like the discourse has become lets compare and be hurtful to others and their opinions and I just think fandoms have just been too invasive, too parasocial and I dont want to be in that space anymore.

I do want to say I enjoyed your blog and love how you try to bring as much joy and positivity to this space. You are one of few bright spots and keep doing what you do and thank you for cheering me up at the times I felt a little down . Its been fun but I think its time for me to bid a permanent farewell. All the best ❤️❤️❤️❤️

Awww..... I'm so sorry Anon. 😞

I hope you haven't left Tumblr already and are going to miss my response back to you. 🥺

Oh well.... I'll respond back anyway, no matter if you ever see this post or not. 🙃

First of all, thank you so much for your confession. I really appreciate your honesty on this topic, because I really do feel like fandom/stan culture has really gotten to a point that it's become exhausting in many fandoms... even when the celebrities themselves aren't even problematic! 🤷🏾‍♀️

It's become toxic for sure. 😞 And I, too, don't really appreciate the constant comparisons, the putting down of other actors just to raise up your faves, the spreading of lies and falsehoods in order to make other celebrities look bad, the recurring nonstop complaints about an actor's film career even though their career is going just fine, the immediate "cancel" culture just because someone isn't perfect 100% of the time, the jealousy and downplaying of another actor's talents just because it's not your fave in the role, the annoying film twitter debates, the use of RT as the almighty "gold standard" in a filming project's validity, the over-FOCUS of film critics and their reviews of certain films instead of just watching the film yourself and forming your OWN opinions, the constant bickering among various fandoms and stan wars, the overly-anxious fans who get nervous if their fave isn't in a new casting announcement every 2 months, etc.... The list goes on and on and on....

It's just exhausting.... 😫 And I feel like I see a lot of these comments bts because ppl can literally hide behind Anon on my blog and say whatever they want. 😩

So yea girl...I totally feel you. ❤️

I'm hoping you won't stay away forever, but I totally encourage and support you in taking a break away from here (or social media in general) if that's what you need to stay healthy and emotionally and mentally upbuilt. 🥰

If you ever feel comfortable and would like to come off of Anon and chat with me privately on here, or discuss this in greater detail, feel free to reach out and DM me! You'll always have a safe space. ❤️🥰

Wishing you all the best 🙏🏾🤗

#confession corner Sunday #👏🏾 #sorry for the dissertation

[onecornerface]

Should we avoid talking about race? Some ideas

I recently saw a comment which basically said drug reformists shouldn’t talk about race and racism too much, since this topic is so divisive. I’ve long had mixed feelings toward this sort of view. There is a real problem in a lot of race discourse. However, I think the solution is to develop knowledge and skills of why and when to talk about race (and why and when not to), and to become good at how we talk about race.

(I’ll be using “race” and “racism” roughly interchangeably in this post. I assume race will typically be significant (when it is) because racism is significant. And I assume that racism is, in some important sense, conceptually prior to race.)

(My concern here is mainly the idea of avoiding race in drug policy discourse. However, some aspects of my post will apply more generally as well. Also, by "taboo" I mean basically avoiding a topic, and encouraging other people to avoid a topic. This can come in different kinds and degrees, which I haven't much delved into here.)

There are a few ways to interpret the “race is divisive” claim. On one construal, the problem is that there are a lot of racists who will be alienated by any talk of race (for racist reasons), and that we should try not to alienate them. I actually think effective coalitions do need some degree of tolerance toward some amount of bad ideas or prejudice among its members, or prospective members—but there is the question of how much is too much. How much tolerance should we express toward bad ideas and attitudes, and how bad do they need to be? If we’re supposed to simply maximize recruitment of explicit racists into the drug reform movement, and never challenge their racism, then that’s a recipe for a serious rise in racism within the movement—a disaster that would probably sabotage the movement, as well as render it unworthy of victory.

A healthy movement needs to appeal to and recruit people who are imperfect—but also aim to make them better. If we’re being divisive by excluding unrepentant white supremacists from the movement, then that’s a point in favor of being divisive.

Some responses to the “race discourse is too divisive” line seem to stop there. However, I think there are more reasonable and nuanced versions of the “race discourse is too divisive” position which need more careful attention.

I think race is a topic that often is divisive in bad ways, and it is often discussed poorly—even when all participants are more-or-less progressive and opposed to anything they’d recognize as white supremacism. When race is brought up, many people are quick to weigh in on it—often with views and arguments that are poorly thought out, and even more poorly expressed. Race is a magnet for poor-quality discourse. This is likely especially the case for white people, but is also often the case for people of all races. (For analysis of some of the poor ways white people often talk about race, see Liam Bright’s “White Psychodrama.”) People can easily misunderstand one another, get angry at one another, and weaken coalitions which can’t survive the ensuing disagreements. One way to avert this problem may be to avoid talking much about race.

Sometimes this avoidance may not be very costly, compared to the poor-quality race-discourse that would otherwise happen. Race-discourse can be poor-quality in many ways. For one, race-discourse is often hostage to empirically questionable theories, such as popular oversimplistic interpretations of implicit bias. Sometimes high-quality race-discourse may require sophisticated theories and frameworks and arguments, which very few people have access to.

Applying the concern to drug policy, another problem is when people are oversimplistic in their normative analysis of what’s wrong with the drug war. Some progressives appear to talk as if racism is the only or main problem with drug prohibition. For instance, some arguments for decriminalization emphasize the racial disparities in arrest above all else. But this can’t be correct. Drug prohibition would still be terrible even if it were able to target drug users of all races equally. If the police drastically escalated how many white people they arrested for drug crimes, then some of the popular concerns about the drug war’s racial disparities would go out the window—but this would be worse, not better.

Progressives also sometimes criticize the history of the drug war in oversimplistic ways—such as by mistakenly believing the 1980s anti-crack laws were only motivated by racist white politicians, and failing to recognize the complex role of black anti-drug advocates among political leaders and the black general public.

If we talk about race in drug policy discourse, it needs to be done in a better way, and in light of more normatively and empirically adequate analysis. But this can only be done by talking about race—not by avoiding talk of race.

I’m also not necessarily averse to the idea that there are some topics which we should avoid talking about much in some political advocacy contexts, in order to maintain coalitions and good discursive environments and efficient activism, even when these topics are somewhat important in themselves. Not every topic, and not even every important topic, can be discussed at all times. There is reason to self-consciously maintain and promote some priorities of topics, and sometimes the “divisiveness” of a given topic can be a legitimate reason to discourage bringing it up or emphasizing it.

However, any such principle needs to be calibrated to the importance of the topic, and the costs of tabooing the topic. Race is objectively very important, including to drug policy analysis and reform, and there needs to be high-quality integration of race-discourse and drug policy discourse to recognize this importance. Racism is a major component of drug prohibition, in at least three ways—its causes (e.g. why drugs were criminalized), its structure (e.g. which drugs are illegal and in what ways), and its outcomes (e.g. how people of color are far more criminalized than white people, even for the same actions). If we taboo talking about race, we put many aspects of drug policy off-limits to discussion. This is very costly to the quality of the resulting analysis.

There are other costs as well. A taboo on race-discourse, in effect, creates racial discrimination within the movement—concerning whose testimony and experience will be considered legitimate to discuss, respect, support, and learn from. Many nonwhite drug users have long been targeted by the drug war in overtly or subtly racist ways, and have a lot to say about what they’ve been through. Surely they should be permitted to discuss their experiences every bit as much as a white drug user. Making race off-limits would prohibit many nonwhite testimonies while allowing white testimonies—thus making nonwhite drug users a second-class group, even in what is supposed to be a movement of liberation for them. This is perverse and unjust.

The notion that “We shouldn’t talk about race, because it’s too divisive” also seems self-defeating. Yes, talking about race is often divisive. But then, the view that we shouldn’t talk about race is also divisive! Many people, rightly or wrongly, think we should talk about race. Why should the people who will be alienated by race-discourse get a veto over the interests of people who will be alienated by tabooing race-discourse?

Relatedly, once people have started talking about race (for better or for worse), then you can no longer get people to stop talking about race by saying “Talking about race is too divisive.” Such a statement, if you make one, will then just be one more divisive statement about race. And it will likely incite people to start a hostile debate—the very thing which the race-discourse taboo was supposed to prevent. A taboo on race-discourse may only be effective in conditions where not much race-discourse has started already.

Also, there may be some antiracism advocates who want to taboo talking about drugs, on the grounds that drugs-discourse is too divisive. I haven’t seen this, but it seems plausible that there are some people who hold this view. (I speculate, even if this used to be common, it may be rare today. Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow” and a few other popular antiracism-oriented critiques of the drug war probably helped normalize drugs-discourse among antiracism advocates.) Yet surely, at least by the lights of drug reformists, such a view should be rejected.

There may also be a collective action problem of discourse ethics and strategy, in this vicinity. Liam Bright argues that there are problems with trying to enforce “message discipline.” See his post “There Will Be No Message Discipline.” A taboo on race discourse may be a problematic form of message discipline, and thus suffer from the problems Bright raises.

There is another weird irony in the notion that we shouldn’t talk about race because it’s too “divisive.” This seems quite close to the stereotypical woke leftwinger who insists we shouldn’t talk about XYZ (even though XYZ is important) on the grounds that XYZ is too “offensive.”

I thought left-wing political correctness was bad, on the grounds that it bars people from making true and epistemically-justified assertions about important topics, for the sake of merely not-offending some potential audience of oversensitive people? I actually agree that some left-wing political correctness is bad in this way. But then, this also means that tabooing an important topic such as race, in order to avoid offending oversensitive people, may be bad for similar reasons.

I note that there are at least two possible views which can lead someone to oppose talking about race. One view is the notion that race/racism is objectively not very important. The other view is the notion that race/racism IS objectively very important, but that we shouldn’t discuss it anyway, since discussing it is too divisive.

In addition to the anti-nonwhite discriminatory element I noted earlier, the race-discourse taboo has another potentially pernicious element. It can easily be used by someone who really holds the “racism is not important” view, so as to pretend to hold the “racism is important but too divisive” view. This seems costly as well.

So, what should we do? Maybe we should be cautious not to talk about race unless we have good reasons to talk about it, and have something worthwhile to say about it. This seems a reasonable presumption. However, this presumption would also apply to many sensitive topics, not only race. Moreover, it is defeasible, when someone has valuable things to say on the topic, or has a good enough chance of saying something valuable. Placing too much weight on a presumption against race-discourse may also prevent many important contributions from making their way into the conversation—which in turn will impoverish our common knowledge about race, at potentially severe cost. On the epistemic benefits of norms favoring speech on potentially upsetting topics, see Hrishikesh Joshi’s book Why It’s OK to Speak Your Mind.

There may be room for good-faith disagreements on the role of racism in drug policy injustice. Some libertarians think government overreach and authoritarianism are more the core problems of drug prohibition, and that the racism element is more secondary. Some leftists may make reasonable “class-first” arguments that a lot of what we construe as racism, or even a lot of the badness of drug prohibition more broadly, is more an aspect of class oppression. Arguably, we should discuss class more and discuss racism less (or even drug policy less), simply because class has more explanatory value and/or class-based interventions may have more promise in activism. I’m not convinced this is true, but it is at least a more defensible notion than saying either that racism isn't important, or that racism is important but that we shouldn’t talk about it.

[asexual-means-no-attraction]

hi, i was just wondering your thoughts on queer platonic relationships, cus i know theres a lot of discourse about that, its just not one of the ones i see very often

I answered an ask a few years ago on this and I can't find it. But I'll give as brief of rundown a run down as I can (knowing me it won't be brief).

-there is a real problem-- I can only speak for the USA here-- of treating someone you've just met as a friend. There's nothing really wrong with this but it can often lead to the idea that someone you've just met is one the same level as a friend you've had for years. Ie. Treating an acquaintance the same as a long term friend. Which leads into the next point--

-not all friends are treated equally and that's ok. You have small friends, long term friends, friends you've lost, friends you're desperate to keep. Friends who've been around for years and you rarely talk to but the feelings towards them never waiver. Friends whom you are excited to see and friends who you can only handle in small sessions. There are friends who you've made easily and friends who you had to work to make. Sometimes you have friend whom you never would of liked years ago when you met them, but life just worked out and now you like them. There are friends who you start to dislike because people grow in different ways as time goes on. There are friends you would die for and friends who you'd never even lend $1 to. Not all friends are created equally. And many QPR people I've seen act like they are.

-a friend I not someone you "don't hate." <- I've had someone tell me that QPR are more than friendship because friends are simply someone you don't hate. Which is not true and frankly offensive. I wouldn't want to be friends with someone who doesn't hate me. You're allowed to hate your friends sometimes. I want someone who actively enjoy my presence even if it's not all the time.

-I don't blame those in QPR for this one, though they definitely don't help the situation. But there's a major issue with people treating friendship as less than a romantic relationship. The two are very much equal. Sometimes your partner will be more important than friends, and sometimes friends are more important than partners. Your partner doesn't have to be the most important person to you, just someone you want to be in that type of relationship with. And if you want a really healthy romantic relationship, your partner should have some degree of friendship with you. It's not some "next level" or more important type of relationship. You put the value in you relationships not society. QPR claim their something more than friendship but not romantic. Which treats friendship as less than a romantic relationship. Having a strong intense friendship just means it's an important friendship.

-I think it'd be way more effective, progressive, and all around beneficial to tell people it's ok to have intense friendships. You can totally just live with your best friend and not be romantic. There's a million and one ways to live your life, romance doesn't have to be the top of the list. You can have friendships be more important to you. It's normal. It's ok. And I think lots of people would actually go for it but we keep pushing the idea of wanting to live with your best friend as somehow strange and not normal. That idea is encouraged when people make up a whole new term for a close best friend such as QPR.

-like I get the idea. You want a way to describe how much you care for your best friend. How you'd do anything for them. How much you desperately love them. Without people thinking there is romance involved. That's a legitimate problem we have too. People assume that level of affection must be romantic. But the answer isn't making whole new terms and calling yourself LGBT for having friends. It's to show and encourage people that you can just love your bff without the romance. The more you show it the more other people will be willing to show their own bff's the same affection that they've been keeping locked away.

#answered #ask #not proof reading sorry not sorry

[gascon-en-exil]

Would you agree that "Death of the Author" is ruining fandom discourse/discussions?

On the contrary, death of the author is the very foundation of transformative fandom. It's the principle that encourages people to explore elements of fiction that the author(s) may not have prioritized or even considered, and to create fanwork based off those explorations. Transformative fandom is essentially poststructuralist art criticism - from which death of the author derives - removed from an academic context and employed primarily for entertainment.

That said however, the misapplication of the concept of death of the author has indeed led to a lot of hostile discourse in fandom, especially when it collides with curatorial fandom and its impulse to catalogue and, well, curate the ways in which fans engage with media. If the author is dead, then there cannot be any single objective interpretation of a piece of media - but this is hard to reconcile with sites like fan wikis and TVTropes dedicated to cataloguing information about fiction and the fandoms surrounding them, and it also undermines the idea that fan meta writers can "solve" the media they're writing about in a way that everyone will agree on. Claiming death of the author when dismissing elements of a piece of media you don't personally like for the purposes of fanwork or headcanon is fine, but you then can't go and say that your interpretation of that media is any more objectively correct than anyone else's, including the author(s). This is why, for example, that a certain notorious troll gloating about "correcting misconceptions" (i.e. getting into edit wars) on TVTropes, or a certain author claiming that their fanfiction is essential reading for understanding canon, come off as silly as they do, because they're working off the framework of death of the author - even if unknowingly - but then attempting to situate themselves as objective authorities instead.

Slavish devotion to authorial intent, either as stated or as something to be objectively determined via analysis, is incompatible with transformative fandom, but allowing the loudest and most aggressive voices in these spaces to assert themselves as authorities isn't healthy either. I think that's a major reason that Tumblr was identified as a sort of home base for modern transformative fandom back when the contrasting term curatorial fandom was coined: Tumblr is much more decentralized compared to Reddit, there's no algorithm to ensure that you only see the most popular content like on many social media sites, and it's nearly impossible to control what anyone else says on their own blog. At least in terms of these nerdy fan conversations, it feels like a place where the author is truly dead - and no one has the means to replace him.

#Fandom discourse #Pointless rambling

[mitigatedchaos]

Biomechanoid Discourse Anon Round-Up

(~1,500 words)

I received 54 anons in response to my short post about biomechanoids that went viral last week, so I've decided to gather some of the ones I actually intend to answer here, in this round-up post.

[ Anon#1 ]

wait are you against fat-body cyborgs?

You may have encountered "fungrams" vs "thetagrams" as synthoid enthusiast slang. This stands for "functional grams" (weight that contributes to the functionality of a body), and "aesthetic grams" (weight that's mostly just aesthetics), respectively. (Just like with a natural human body, there's a bit of a blur between the two.)

Fat Cyborg Activists may, for example, carry an extra 200 kg of glorified silicone padding, causing them to get bumped up a bracket in the combined-force-and-mass classification used in most jurisdictions, since being dive-tackled by a 300 kg Yokozuna-style body even with just a natural human level of strength can be enough to cause serious injury. They then complain about the brackets.

I don't think it should be illegal to carry 200 kthetagrams of articial fat. Fat Cyborg Activists are just deliberately misinterpreting the League of States Charter when they claim that the bracket system should be abolished because it's "a fundamental human right" to weigh up to 500 kg.

Obviously, as I've written before, these rights are an abstraction based on a human range of behavior and capabilities. This is how the courts have always interpreted it in the League, and if a baseliner hit 500 kg the weight would crush his organs to death.

We also need to talk about Neo-Penitents.

A lot of baseliners are Neo-Penitents and refuse tissue engineering. We as cyborgs should not be encouraging them to get that fat. Yes, they will die earlier than they otherwise would die due to refusing treatment. No, we should not be encouraging that to happen more quickly. I don't use tobacco cigarettes, either.

Most children are born to religious natals (including Neo-Penitents). We should mediate the environment so that they don't experience cyborgs as something to fear. (If you're feeling hostile to them and want a cynical reasoning - we depend on recruitment and they outnumber us.)

[ Anon#2 ]

Why are you against age liberation?

Rejeuvenation therapies, biomechanoidization, and kaitosomes prolong personal lifespan, but personal development still happens at different rates for different people.

I disagree with the contemporary reactionary view that life extension techs fundamentally stall out or delay self-discovery and consideration, though I think it can have that effect on some people who forget that they will die. It's a matter of a certain kind of emotional and intellectual sophistication that allows people to learn from observing their own lives (and the lives of others). If you read through early-21st century archives (Twitter is a good example, here), there are a lot of people that made it to their 40s, 50s, and 60s that became older without really advancing all that much intellectually.

So for this reason, a lot of people would really like to reset the clock when they start getting serious (often around 50). (Our society still treats young people as having more potential than old people, among other reasons.)

I sympathize, but there are three problems. First, someone who has been clubbing without much consideration for 30 years has still has a power advantage over someone who is 17 (much less 12, which is favored by more extreme activists). Second, as part of healthy cultural development, each generation should be able to have some of their own culture to help form a stable self-image. Third, the brain is still aging even with rejeuventation therapy, and at increased risk of costly age-related disease and degeneration. That usually isn't covered by state insurance, except for Class IV rejeuvenation, which inherently causes some level of permanent memory loss.

We already had the battle for "age liberation." The compromise was laws that prohibit new bodies from looking under 18 (unless intended for, and used by, literal children), and cryptographically-signed augmented reality chronological age display. (Only a few carveouts have been made, such as the Shanghai Ethnopolity's "R+[years since rejeuvenation]" for Class-IV rejeuvenation.)

What activists are demanding is age unlocking.

They want to be able to claim they are 104. They want to be able to claim they are 14. Because these have certain cultural associations, and they want those cultural associations. You can already refuse to provide a number (which is a trend these days). The whole thing is self-negating.

[ Anon#3 ]

die fascist scum

I get these all the time. Just noting for the record that I delete pretty much all of them. Either make a real argument or move to the World Union.

[ Anon#4 ]

In your post you said you're against allowing biomechanoidization before age 21. Weren't you raised biomech?

It's possible, if expensive, to hold a natal body for an adult. It's even more difficult to do for children, since you have to match growth for growth. (Even if you do a return procedure, you still pretty much have to fit the body for a cyberharness anyway, so it will never be quite the same.)

The current push to "allow children and teens" to "explore their options" through biomechanoidization is because biomech bodies have gotten "too good," and we're in a downturn so people are holding out longer rather than switching or upgrading (or simply refreshing).

For a child's growth trajectory, a company can sell 5-6 bodies, or 3 if they start during the teen years. Biomech bodies don't grow (skeletally, not in terms of muscle/fat). If for any reason manufacturing gets disrupted for a few years, the child could have a really serious problem.

I'm worried it could also disrupt the formation of the child's self-identity, but as you know that's much more politically disputed.

I was raised as an officer for the military of a country that no longer exists. It's not really the same.

[ Anon#5 ]

We read your blog out here printed on paper in Outer Mongolia due to attention regulation laws in our ethnopolity (actually it's just our way of life), where it's distributed as part of a newsletter. I had my friend Dave send this. [Hi! -Dave] What is the difference between "biomechanoids" and "synthoids"?

It's really more of a gradient than a binary.

We can basically divide things into whole-grown bodies (natal bodies, cloned replacement bodies), constructed bodies (biomechanoids, synthoids), dolls (bodies without onboard life support), and static life support systems.

For constructed bodies, every body except for a few high-end specialized bodies uses at least some engineered biological tissue for long-term life support, because it's cheaper, usually more resilient (against some classes of problems), and easier to use to balance the biochemistry of the brain. But the human brain only uses about a fifth to half of the body's resources, so for the rest of the body, the designer has the option to use either synthetic systems or cultured biological tissue.

In general, the more organic tissue is used, the more "biomechanoid" a body is, and the more synthetic systems are used, the more "synthoid." (There's a practical limit to how much of a constructed body can be biological. Constructed body designers have to use a synthetic framework that allows the parts to be grown, printed, or assembled individually, then integrated.)

Biomechanoids usually have lower maintenance costs during the rated lifetime of the body, since biological tissue is self-repairing against minor stress. Synthoids can be more robust against certain kinds of problems, and there's more freedom in the overall design, but their systems have a limited number of uses at time of manufacture because they're generally not self-repairing.

[ Anon#6 ]

what are your thoughts on the new sex variants

They turned out to be a lot easier to create than anyone in the year 2010 would have thought. Those genotypes are out in the wild now, social conservatives are just going to have to learn to deal with it.

As for myself, World Union regulations classify all paramilitary cyborgs as "male," regardless of appearance, and thus subject to "anti-oppression rules." After San Diego changed hands and became part of the League of States, I just never updated my registration.

[ Anon#7 ]

You work for the caveman ethnopolities? The fuck do they pay you with, rice?

Cosmopolitans pay handsomely for artisanal foods, especially animal products. League citizens from higher-tech polities will purchase vacation packages ranging from a few days to spending six months milking cows and working a farm by hand. Low-tech ethnopolity governments also lease out about 10-20% of the land. Cosmopolity governments tend to pay for things that might spill beyond the borders, like environmental remediation.

They can be surprisingly tolerant (as long as they view you as 'just visiting'), but they can be slow to trust, and tend to pull from a small pool of contractors.

Technically there's only one neolithic ethnopolity (though that's really more of a park) and most low-tech ethnopolities are early modern (think 1700s).

But yes, sometimes they do pay in rice.

#augmented reality break