Shit posting, but I swear y’all are worst then Reddit and Twitter. Y’all just really are making random crap up.
Y’all use anti-fem and anti-queer talking points to back up random crap, and then claim y’all are inclusive feminist and pro-queer. Please stop. The oppressor cannot be the oppressed.
People can’t be oppressed for these reasons alone:
White people can’t be oppressed. Billionaires can’t be oppressed. Men cannot be oppressed. Cis people cannot be oppressed. Heterosexual people cannot be oppressed. Able-bodied people cannot be oppressed. Neurotypical people can’t be oppressed.
They can be oppressed for other reasons if they fall into another category, but are not oppressed by any of the categories above. I’m so tired of this.
REMINDER THAT FELLOW GROUPS DONT HAVE POWER OVER THEIR EXACT COUNTERPARTS: non-men, poor/middle class, people of color, transgender people, queer people, disabled, or neurodivergent people
I might as well go into one of those subreddits that think every minority is at fault at this point.
4 notes
·
View notes
I just want to say, that I agree with almost all of your Critical Role takes and you have 1000% better and more nuanced takes than all of Twitter and I greatly appreciate it! The takes over there regarding Liliana and the gods are just wild and you bring some much needed sanity to the content I see
Thanks! I hope you don't mind because I've been thinking about this re: the Twitter takes but the thing about Twitter and Liliana specifically that I've seen is that there's this really bizarre fetishization of like, the fact that she is a (white) southerner (this also weirdly happened for Birdie though to a much lesser extent, and the person who spearheaded that wasn't even American so I have to assume this is a specific corner of Twitter Culture At Large). And like, here's the thing. It's true that fantasy tends to be very British in its accents, and it's also true that accents in a fantasy world are used to convey the same things we'd assume in our world - RP British for educated, southern American for rural, Cockney for rougher types, etc.
It's also true that laying the exact socioeconomic parallels from our world onto, say, Liliana and Orym (who reads to me as non-regional but I, like Liam, am from the Northeast originally) is a recipe for disaster. Or rather, it's not, but it is going to reaffirm your own biases, some of which are dangerous to reaffirm.
There was a popular post on Tumblr a while back, probably not long after Trump was elected, of someone talking about how they were convincing a relative with the confederate flag towards socialism by appealing to the idea of "isn't in unfair how uneven wealth distribution is and how a small group has so much control" and a number of people were rightfully like "uh, maybe you should focus on the racism" or "hey OP ask your relative who they think that small group in control is because I'm getting a really bad feeling they're going to say it's The Jews." And I feel that a lot of the empathy for Liliana from those spaces feels like that OP. Or in other words: I get that you see your relatives in Liliana. Unfortunately, I cannot help but see me and mine in Orym.
You see someone trapped by circumstance and desperation in a dangerous ideology. I see the fact that I haven't gone to a synagogue in easily 6-7 years without there being a security guard present and usually, the doors locked with someone looking through the window to let you in, and then in the sanctuary there's been an installation so that you can quickly bar all the doors in case an alarm goes off or you hear shots in the lobby.
I think there's a great case for seeing yourself in Imogen, who is in a painful struggle with the fact that her mother does love her very much but is in dangerously deep and has done a number of incredibly terrible and harmful things. That latter point is important, incidentally; I get that cult members sometimes rise through the ranks but all but the leader are being manipulated. But the fact remains that a brainwashed person can still commit atrocities, and in this story, they have, many times over. It's especially true because like...sure, plenty of people are like "I lost my relative to a cult and I just want them back and I couldn't harm them," but also, as we've seen, this cult can and will harm Imogen! Plenty of people are also like "yeah I gotta cut them off, it hurts but unfortunately my horribly bigoted and violent relative, while a victim of brainwashing, is a threat to me too." It's not even the full picture of the Temult side of things, let alone the picture that includes the Vanguard's victims.
I also think the Southern gatekeeping is unhinged because it's like. guys there's QAnon members and other cults across the country; the Confederate flag example above was actually notable in that OP wasn't even Southern so you couldn't even write the flag off as deeply misguided heritage but rather was explicitly being used as a hate symbol. It's awfully presumptive to assume all southerners have the same experience (especially since the Temults are portrayed, physically and in accents, as white southerners, not that the experiences of white southerners aren't also incredibly varied). It's awfully presumptive to assume that people find Liliana threatening because they have no personal experience with people like her; often, it's because they have all too real experience with people like her, and it says something even worse about you if you can say "but you guys, I see me and my family in Liliana" when people are telling you that they see them and their families in Orym. I would not, personally, publicly admit that one's empathy extends to the people who remind you of your family but runs out before it reaches their victims. Nor would I publicly admit that I assume everyone who disagrees with me clearly has never had personal experience with this topic.
I should also note that, as I've noted a number of times before, that these are fictional characters and not real people. Twitter seems to be really fucking bad at grasping that. Like, yes, this is the other thing; I do not think that OP should kill their Confederate flag-toting relative, whereas if Imogen did so to Liliana I'd be like "hell yeah." The former is a real person who I do hope gets deprogrammed, just, you know, maybe adjust those priorities; the latter is a fictional character in a story.
40 notes
·
View notes
something ig is a bit of a hot take (maybe not on twt tho) is the whole people speculating about dan’s gender. it all just feels a bit off because i sort of think of it as his whole sexuality journey and how people were so onto him. he has said that he is comfortable as a man but obviously if that were to change it would be fine and we would be accepting.
as well as saying phil is autistic or neurodivergent based on some behaviours and videos. he has not stated it so we don’t know but if he came out and said he was it would all be fine. i just feel weird about the whole speculating aspect of it.
It's fine to not want to engage with particular kinds of fandom activities, you can always curate your experience so that you don't see people posting that
It's odd that you throw this at me though, who has a whole autism tag for keeping track of these instances where Phil does things that make autistic me feel represented
No one is pressuring them, no one is tagging them, this is just what marginalised people are Like when we see kindred spirits and go all Leonardo DiCaprio pointing meme at them. We aren't trying to get personal info from them, nor are we trying to spread misinformation about them. It is something of interest to me though that when people try to shut down speculation because 'we shouldn't assume', they don't realise that you are taking being cis and being allistic and otherwise neurotypical as the 'normal' there. "They haven't said they are trans so you should assume they are cis" "They haven't said they're gay so we shouldn't assume they are" what should we assume in these scenarios? That they are the 'normal thing to be'? Because people are hardly ever uncomfortable about speculation when it's shit like 'maybe they like cats more than dogs' 'do you think this celebrity is gonna marry his girlfriend this year? I think he is' etc etc it's somehow always only when marginalised people are like 'ooh I really relate to those experiences and went through that phase of discovery, wonder if they are also a part of this group' that people start being uncomfortable. Which is like. Honestly, genuinely, betraying some internalised queerphobia and ableism.
If you have your reasons for it good for you, yk, you can learn to make it so you don't see shit that makes you uncomfortable. It's just v weird to go to marginalised people of that group to say 'hey it made me uncomfortable that you even suggested that someone might be like you'. Yeah we know, we hear that like. All the time. Lol.
This askbwasn't worded very hostile so I'm taking in good faith and assuming you just didn't think about it this way before, so like. Anon if you see this please do a bit of introspection about this. We are tired of having our identities treated like they're radioactive
26 notes
·
View notes
I'm not entirely sure why people will treat a statement I make as an opportunity to give me suggestions on how to alter things that I do.
It is the most aggravating thing I've encountered on social media.
I can witness an interesting discussion, and then I share my thoughts that relate to the discussion, but rather than engage my words and argument -- it becomes an opportunity for them to suggest things I can do better or offer solutions that they didn't do for the other people in the conversation.
I'm not sharing a thought or insight in order to get advice. I'm sharing a thought or insight because it was pertinent to the conversation, and I thought it added value.
It's even worse if it happens in person, where the person treats me like my thought or insight is utterly useless and thus I need to be "schooled." Except they often end up repeating what I just said.
I understand as a disabled person it is perhaps shocking to abled-bodied people that I am capable of intelligent thought. It would behoove folks to remember this, and perhaps consider points made by myself and those like me with the same respect and thoughtfulness they afforded others in the conversation.
If I want advice, I will directly state that.
If I am sharing thoughts and insight that seem pertinent to the conversation at hand? Then that is what I am doing. It is not an opportunity to talk down to me or offer advice on how to handle something.
I also know it's not just me either as this is a common discussion within the disability community of how we are treated when we speak up about, well, anything.
For example, I discuss cultural changes and societal systems a lot. I find it frustrating that people will jump to: "I have solutions that will solve your issue so you can better assimilate" or something akin to that, instead of engaging my original point about x or y topic. (For example, a change in culture and how people act in that society may result from people adapting or altering their behaviors based on: peer pressure, external factors within the society at large, capitalist exploitation, oppressive factors within society, unconscious biases, impact of media, etc...)
And just as culture and societal systems can change over time, we can change it ourselves in how we interact with one another and in what we create. None of these are a set, permanent thing. It is possible to push back against harmful changes in culture and various societal systems.
Sharing insights like that shouldn't be radical, but I guess it is.
Plus sharing such insights should not result in strange and unasked for advice giving or solution-oriented mentality (unless the solutions are related to the topic and are not just for me or other disabled or marginalized people to do x or y to "solve" what we shared in our insight).
It makes me wonder if when I discuss societal systems and/or other complex topics -- are people overwhelmed? Have I failed a neurotypical hidden-rule-check and thus get treated differently based on that? Do people not understand the points? Are they falling back on biases in order to cease a topic that makes them uncomfortable? Is there some sort of cognitive dissonance happening? What is the disconnect happening and where? Should I ask or point out the disconnect? These questions often run through my head when I encounter this.
It's why I so rarely join conversations, because my insights are rarely treated with the same respect as others who have already spoken. Sometimes it feels like I get a pat on the head (there has been in-person discussions where someone literally did this to me) for daring to speak up rather than treating my point as adding value to the discussion.
Often I notice the conversation ceases after I or another marginalized person speaks up. As if we killed the discussion by daring to share insights at all. It's happened so often that I am skittish about sharing anything.
It's also why I often revert to writing out essays and sharing that, but it's rare for people to engage the essays though.
Yes, sometimes I struggle with conversation that happens in real-time due to my disabilities, but that doesn't mean my contributions are useless or require the other listeners to revert to advice-giving rather than engagement.
I also struggle to contribute due to that fear I won't be treated with same respect afforded others in the conversation or that I'll fail to articulate a point well and accidentally cause a misunderstanding or I'll misremember a detail and get blasted alive based on that technicality.
It's why I like Internet conversations that don't happen in real time, but are posts and comments that take place over hours or days. It gives me time to consider my reply and how to word it, and if I need to pull out a link for the research bit.
But even if I approach conversations in that manner, it doesn't seem to matter. The advice giving or need to find "solutions" for insights that aren't asking for that will often happen regardless.
I wonder how aware people are of whether they do this or not.
P.S. if a person reading this feels the need to revert to advice-giving and solutions in response to this, I would like to kindly inform you that this is exactly the bias I discussed. Nothing in this post is about me asking for advice about this topic. I am simply relaying my insights of an phenomenon I have noticed over the course of my and my disabled friends' lives. The questions asked in this piece are only to invoke thought and are rhetorical.
P.P.S. Feel free to share your experiences with this phenomenon however! Sharing your experiences is always worthwhile and will add value to the discussion. (As long as sharing does not explicitly target someone to invoke harm.)
P.P.P.S. I probably overexplained as I tend to do.
P.P.P.P.S. Using post scripts on a blog post amuses me, okay?
8 notes
·
View notes