#the only reason that tag is there isn't because the post is anti. it's very much canon. it's for fans of the character

[annabrainchase]

a very stupid thing show fans believe is that all is well and good at the end of the show because the "good guys" aka the starks are in power (read=absolute power; they rule two kingdoms and one of them is all-knowing and can control human beings) while having done some of the most underhanded and/or politically unwise things throughout the time we see them have power. this is much less about show!bran in that i think the characterisation of the three eyed raven doesn't say/do much about what the overall role of such a power and title is, so i really couldn't say what time might do to bran. we didn't touch much on who bloodraven was, and how he is now changed because of so much time passing and the world changing around him as he stagnated in a cave while seeing things around the world as well as seeing into the literal past. i would rather speak about show!sansa and this pervasive notion that her fans and the larger fandom has that she will be a good and peaceful ruler (a democratic one, even, according to the actress!) because of the things she has seen and the people she has learned from and supposedly turned away from and because her father was a good man, if not a very sound leader. since said fans love to contrast this with daenerys and speculate about what type of leader she would have been (if not for the events of the last few episodes) and already has been, i will just say that much of the things she has also gone through (some that are superficious comparisons with sansa's experiences), as well as the people she has turned to for advice (because i don't see her holding onto any moralistic teachings from any of them except from mirri maaz duur re slavery in that she takes it upon herself to just abolish slavery continent-wide) and the actual things she has learned about being a ruler, being a politician, juggling court politics while being involved with the military side of things, the intricacies of feeding her subjects, about illness and siege and the much more personal, and deeper struggle of being an exile and homeless and alone in the world in every way that matters except maybe for the family legacy in the form of her dragons-- these things already far surpass what limited experience sansa has had while being a high born political captive with no knowledge of the people and what inroads you have to take as a ruler to keep them happy and fed and safe. this is as much true for the show as it is for the books, even with the mangled meereen plot which is when daenerys truly shines even while making mistakes (which is expected and normal and not a sign of future madness like be serious for one second). she at least has some knowledge of servitude and slavery, and as a future ruler of westeros, i do believe she would have learned the differences in the systems of rulership and people under a feudal monarchy as compared to one based on slave economy. she has the foundation for this undertaking more than any of the other young characters, save jon snow and, and it is really a sort of i believe what i want even if it's untrue, like open denial, that's been going on in this fandom. it's just weird at this point. the way the show ended, who isn't to say that sansa stark wouldn't become dictatorial and cruel when she finds out that she is unequipped for the actual work that goes into ruling? or just a lackadaisical head-in-the-clouds ruler who doesn't even know what is happening in her kingdom?

#daenerys targaryen #got #anti sansa stark #the only reason that tag is there isn't because the post is anti. it's very much canon. it's for fans of the character #and i don't want the headache that comes with them throwing around words with zero sensitivity #*v

[frostbitedoesart]

Just making a general post real quick in response to an ask.

When I say I'm anti-ai I mean I'm against any sort of AI that steals from others or would otherwise be used to put people out of a job. I don't feel like having an elaborate conversation about the positives and negatives of AI and all that, so I'll state this as plainly as possible.

I don't like AI art. I don't like AI voice impersonations. I don't like any sort of AI that has to steal stuff from people without their consent in order to function. That is literally it.

I'm not against ALL AI. I don't think people that are okay with AI in general should be burned at the stake or something. I'm just an artist and writer that doesn't like AI being used in CREATIVE SPACES. That's it.

I didn't think I would have to clarify this but, here you go, for anyone that was bothered.

#to the person who sent the ask #hopefully this clears things up #I answered you in this general post #because I didn't want to risk people getting upset at you #if they didn't like what you said. Think of this as me keeping you anonymous #I'm sorry if you see me as a “guilt-tripper” but you made that assumption based on minimal knowledge of my character #like. VERY minimal knowledge #you know nothing about who I am as a person or what the depth of my opinion was #you just saw me putting “fuck ai” in my tags and assumed that I meant ALL AI #which isn't an unreasonable assumption. it's a vague statement. But the ONLY reason I use vague tags is because it reaches more people #plus if you ACTUALLY look in the fuck ai tag it's mainly about AI art and such #so to just automatically label me as a guilt-tripper instead of trying to express that you respectfully disagree with my opinion #or what you THOUGHT was my opinion anyway #was something I really didn't appreciate #that being said #I'm not interested in turning this into some sort of conversation. #please don't respond to this directly #I've voiced my opinion on the matter. That's where this ends. #anyway extra tags that you can ignore// #artists on tumblr #small artist #oc artist #anti ai art #anti ai writing #anti ai voices #support human artists #human artist #fuck ai art #fuck ai writing #anti ai

[rosey-tta]

is it a controversial topic to say that making the reader's appearance overly detailed, giving them a title and a overly detailed backstory (mary sue backstory often), focusing more on their pov which reveals their personality heavily that some readers would NOT relate too, not making it poc friendly, saying it's gn but using personal pronouns and characters calling them gender specific nicknames (princess/ baby girl...etc), is it controversial to say you didn't write an x reader fanfic but an x OC and you're tricking us to read it?? lmfao i think people have the right to be mad ESPECIALLY if it's not gn or poc friendly when you claimed it was... like i love writers and i appreciate the works ALL of you are putting yall are awesome for giving us this fanfics but PLEASE BFR

if your (y/n) is someone the reader can't relate to it's not x reader. simple as that. idk why ppl are scared of saying this.

PS; i deleted a stupid reply that got mad at x black!reader for being exclusively for black people when black/poc friendly fanfics are already a minority when the harmful majority is very european centered (white people specifically) and even very anti black in some cases. don't twist my post to be fucking racist/sexist/homophobic/fatphobic or ableist because that's not what i'm talking about at all ffs. to the poc and other minority creators who are writing for their people and for unconventional, non-white beauty standards i love you, you're amazing and a straight up war veteran in some of these fandom, geez. (this is for context if anyone looks at the replies. and to tell yall to be decent human being cuz some of you are bold ASF.)

PS 2; i didn't want to address this but, some people pointed out that writing ambiguos x reader is impossible and hard. that's not the case at all, look at the most popular fanfics in a fandom x reader. they ARE ambiguous and general stuff! such as jealousy headcanons, general dating headcanons, prompts, general kinks or the like.... why? because you didn't give the reader too many details or made them mfing black widow or madoka kaname, who'll be relating to that???? you might say "oh i'm writing for myself" or "this is my self-insert don't like it don't read" cool, we all have self-inserts. stop tagging it as x reader however. that's it. tags exist for a reason, and you not using it properly is your problem not the readers who have been misled.

Ps 3 PLEASE READ: ❗❗❗

I read what other people opposing this post said and I absolutely get how difficult it is to write for ambiguous readers. I'm deeply sorry for making it seem as though I'm berating writers when I don't share my work here on tumblr. My post was NOT meant to insult creative writing OR to say that putting the slightest bit of detail on your headcanons, fanfics, scenarios etc is a terrible thing because I assure you it's NOT. But please for the love of god tag your work correctly. THAT'S IT. And give warnings and heads ups about what your writing contains. If it has fem!reader only tag it as fem!reader, if there's mention of physical characteristics specific to one race others or group may not relate to PLEASE give a warning. I know the content here on tumblr is free and I like many here are SUPER grateful for it.

I don't appreciate entitled readers and ik how frustrating it is to get backlash from something that you do for free and it brings you immense joy, but please remember your work is also public and by that it WILL be subjected to criticism and feedback however it may be. And of course I'd never support harrassment or rudeness on any party giving or receiving feedbacks.

Remember that tags and warnings exist for a reason and you're free to write WHATEVER as long as you publicize it keeping in mind the target audience you're reaching. Of course people will not be happy if you state your work is something that ultimately isn't. But imo if you give a prior information then no one should harrass or demand of you anything. This post was made to address the lack of honestly with certain content, the non-poc friendly fanfics and MY PERSONAL OPINIONS. You're free to agree and you're free to disagree.

I read the replies and tags and I understand both sides of the argument, but I also needed to clarify what this post is NOT about. Of course any harrassment or rude comments will be ignored. You're free to have your opinions and preferences and free to say them as long as it isn't problematic.

I also removed the x reader because I understand how it would be hypocritical of me but I truly needed to get people's opinions on a wider scale. Again I apologize if I offended everyone and if I came off as rude or entitled i promise you that's not the case, And you can't even say I think the fanfics should be centered around me since most with the unconventional beauty standards and personality within them do not match me in any way and that's okay 💁‍♀️

#genshin impact #honkai star rail #csm #jjk #fandoms #fandom: discourse #fandom discourse #(y/n) #hopefully i covered everything regarding my take and the feedback i received. #also sorry but i won't allow anon messages since i already got soms nasty ones and I'm not bothering to argue with someone- #that either was crude or gave threats #if you misinterpret my post as something as me restricting writers or being entitled it's on you and your reading comprehension

[rainbowsky]

Hey, I'm new here and i love your blog! I was wondering if the boys see couple\sexual edits of them together and if it makes them nervous but then it hit me that they probably aren't seeing what i see on western social media. Do you have any idea if those types of homosexual posts get censored in China?

Hi Yingyangorly! Thanks, I'm glad you're enjoying my blog!☺️

I have a huge long, like, ridiculously long post in my drafts related to this topic, hopefully coming soon.

But to answer your question, I think it's impossible that GG and DD would fail to see at least some of what's posted about them as a couple, whether sent to them by friends, family or staff, or whether stumbled upon or intentionally sought out/browsed by them. It's inevitable they'll see some of it, particularly things that get a lot of attention.

I talked about this a bit a while back. GG and DD have said in interviews that they have fake social media accounts (and of course they would - how could you go anywhere or do anything on social media without one if you were famous?), and this kind of discussion has happened somewhat in relation to fan comments, etc.

You can check out my previous post for more on that stuff.

As for sexual edits, etc., like any other content I've no doubt they've seen some of it - it's inevitable they would - but I doubt it worries them all that much. It's highly unlikely to ever impact them directly, because ultimately it's not really about them, is it? It's about the creators who make it. Any backlash is more likely to fall upon creators, not GG and DD.

And just as a reminder - it's not illegal to be gay in China, it's not illegal to post homosexual content, etc. Such content is censored on TV and other broadcast media, but not online.

Porn is very illegal in China, but that's mostly only selectively enforced. In fact, China produces a lot of porn and a lot of smutty fiction and all of it is illegal, but it still manages to thrive fairly well.

Explicit content of any kind is technically not allowed on Weibo but it's still out there - although most of it is pretty toned down and tame. Actual porn of sexual activity isn't ubiquitous there, but lewd fan art, fan fic, edits and memes can often be found.

All platforms globally have rules against explicit content, and they're just as poorly enforced everywhere. I suspect a lot of that is because social media engagement makes money, and sex sells. It's not really in the interest of platforms to completely shut down all such content - even if it was possible to do so.

The supertopic rules likely have more impact on fan behavior in this regard than the Weibo TOS does. Those rules forbid mentioning GG and DD by name or tagging their accounts, and forbid sexualization, pornography, feminization and fixating on body parts. However, that's only within the supertopics. Ultimately people are free to post whatever they want on their own accounts, and they do.

Given how many antis and solos are out there trying to take down the turtle fandom, the fact that these things manage to stay up for as long as they do speaks to how weak the enforcement is. There are definitely people out there who will report things that offend them.

This is, in fact, how the whole 227 thing got started. A bunch of solos decided to report an explicit fanfic to the government, and things spiralled out of control from there.

Could lightning strike a second time and another 227 be sparked from some of this explicit content? For a lot of complicated reasons I'm not going to get into here (it would be a very long post), I don't think that's likely.

227 was a special, very complicated situation that I don't think is likely to happen the same way again. Timing and a lot of the other factors that played into its blowing up the way it did - all of that is unlikely to align in such a way. Especially since everyone in C-ent is a lot more cautious and vigilant after 227.

GG and DD are both in good standing with the government (as is evidenced by their inclusion in government and nationalistic projects), and that's a factor that will have some influence. And no doubt they and their teams have learned a lot from past experience, and have already planned for how to protect them in various scenarios that could arise.

They also have the power to have content relating to them removed, to sue content creators, to shut down the supertopics if they want to, etc.. If they feel at risk, they have a lot of recourse. The fact that we aren't seeing this happening should reassure us that it's probably fine.

We have to realize that GG and DD are surrounded by highly skilled, highly paid professionals whose entire job is to protect them and their interests. They're both in a much safer place than they were 4 years ago.

I trust them to know what's best for them and handle their affairs accordingly. We as fans shouldn't waste time hand-wringing over things that are completely outside our control.

As for what's within our control - it's up to every individual to make our own choices about how we'll represent GG and DD online.

More on that angle if/when I ever finish that other post.

#bjyx #yizhan #ggdd in the public eye #fandom reflections #thanks so much #bxg ggdd #ask

[citizensun]

Queerness and the House of Usher (spoilers!)

See I just added these Thoughts to the tags in @quecksilvereyes 's post but now I have Feelings too

TFotHoU (or HoU, as I will refer to it here), as expected from a Mike Flannagan show, has a bunch of Queer Rep™ to talk about. HoU is, also, about remarkably evil people - amoral capitalists who'll step over anyone if it means they'll get something from it. And look! Some of them are queer! Kinky too!

That's bad queer representation... right?

The show isn't that clear when stablishing sexualities, but we see that at least three of the Usher kids - Napoleon, Camille and Victorine - have same sex SOs/assistants with curious job descriptions. Prospero's taste for orgies probably implies queerness too, but honestly I don't remember if he gets it going with any guys in the story. I honestly have no idea about Tamerlane's voyerism thingie and Frederick is the only one with a "traditional family" going on.

Unrelated, but: Leo is definitely cheating on his bf Julius. Completely dismissing about his worries for him too. And for his cat. That's objectively evil, clearly. Vic literally killed her fiancée Alessandra, though she didn't stuff her under the floorboard, which is an L when compared to Poe's original. Cam doesn't believe in true love. Perry blackmailed his sister in law. Mean. He's also got a surprisingly high kill count for the family's disappointment, but since unlike Roderick he only killed rich people, we stan. I don't belong in Kinky spaces so I haven't got a big take on Tammie, only that - well, she's completely dismissing of her husband and sees him as a prop, just like the sex worker she hires.

Huh.

See, the nature of a story called "the fall of X family" is that X family is going to be the main character. The title kinda implies that they're falling for a reason, ergo, they're despicable fucking people. And they're queer! They're very queer. Many flavors of gay. They're the main characters, and they're monsters, and they're gay.

No, that's not bad rep.

Queerness as a movement, a community and a theory is very focused on scaping a cisheteronormative society's binaries (ie man/woman, husband/wife, public/private) and creating living conditions to those who fall outside of these categories - mlms and wlws, the trans, the nbs, the aros and aces... we are all queer, strange and estranged from this weird and limited worldview. And so we create a community for ourselves. It's very focused on care and anti-stablishment. Since a cisheteronormative society tends to be very white, rich and western, it's also focuses on anti-racism, anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism. Y'all know that, this is Tumblr and we love leftist Discourse.

I also know many, many gay people irl who are not like that at all. Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, terfs, completely apolitical people and the like. Sexuality at it's core is personal, not political, so there are gay people out there who are perfectly comfortable with their sexuality on an individual level but do not see the point of getting involved in the broader context. They're queer, but are they...?

Well—

Not to mention there's lots of asshole gays out there! Don't you have a shitty ex? Have you never been almost run over by a drunken butch who blew cigar smoke into your face? I have! Life experiences are just like that. Maybe you should touch more grass. You'll probably find a lucky gift from your neighbour's dog, who is an astrology-obsessed bisexual and also really hot but stopped making out with you at a party once she found out you're a pisces (the neighbour, not the dog).

(Granted, none of this is as bad as implanting an experimental heart contraption into the fiancée you just killed because she dared to have ethical principles and then being so consumed with grief you stab yourself in front you'd your dad but you know how it goes. We're not the 1%.)

My point is, queer people are people. We are complex. We fuck up, and sometimes there's still times to fix things and sometimes... there isn't. We're consumed by jealousy and regret and sometimes we're so locked into our own head we stop believing the rest of the world is real too. Just like any other people, because unfortunately, queerness isn't a sign of morality.

And even if queerness does mean community, kindness and acceptance, tell me... Where the hell would the Usher kids get those from? The people around them are not really peers – they're ass-istants, blowjob-giving apartments, orgy mates, heart surgery providers, hired fitness moneybags, perfect housewives. Even if the partners are all shown to care for the Ushers, there's still a distance, a power gap, that makes the relationships fundamentally wrong.

And the partners? Arguably they're the good queer rep in the show, but look – even when Julius and Alessandra are shown to be good people (or at least people with an ethical boundary), they're not the good gays, they're simply the good SO's to a family of psychos. Exactly like Bill and Morrie, who afawk are straight people.

Which leads us to HoU's parameter of morality - Auguste Dupin. He refuses to drink the Amontillado, symbol of all the Usher opulence over the years. He got screwed over by the Usher twins and by the Raven herself, but he refused to cave in (except for the informant part, admittedly). He's not a good gay guy; he is gay and he is a good man.

The fundamental difference between our show's main tragic yaoi couple isn't that Auggie is a happily out gay man (and therefore is good) while Roderick is a sad divorced hetero (and therefore is bad). Auggie is the richer man because he is a good man; he has a spouse and children and grandchildren he loves with all his heart. He has a family and a community and he has found a sort of happiness no money can buy. Roderick owns the world – but what does he really have? What do his children even have? How could they ever build communities for themselves if they were never in one? Their father made them compete for his love. He never nurtured their bonds, he just showered them with money and excess until it was too much for them to handle. Juno herself pointed out - they were never a family. The House of Usher was only that. A house. It is empty and soulless.

What is queerness without a community? How could the people who represent the relentless corporate normativity and cutthroat capitalism ever be good queer rep? How can they even be queer?

Hear me out: on the most individual, simple level, being queer is still about not fitting in. These kids are bastards. They are are PoC and women in a predominantly male and white dominated space. They're on top of the world, but they're still outsiders to their own House. How could they not be queer?

And yes, I know this discussion takes a different turn when it comes to representation in media, but it's not like Flannagan fell into a Hays Code-era flamboyant villain trope. Queerness is just there. Just like Victorine and August are both black people in (arguably) the opposite ends of the morality spectrum, there are queer characters of many kinds here. The story just happens to be about the fucked up ones.

HoU is a poignant critique of capitalism and a surprisingly funny adaptation of Poe. We'll judge it by that. It happens to be queer – more things should be.

#the fall of the house of usher #TFotHoU #victorine lafoucarde #camille l'espanaye #napoleon usher #prospero usher #tamerlane usher #roderick usher #queer theory #queerness #lgbtqia #edgar allan poe #mike Flannagan #sun o' mine

[aroaceleovaldez]

hey! hope this isn't weird but i wanted to know why you think artemis wasn't up to standards even in the original pjo series. you reblogged from me and so i had front row to your tags on the post about zeus jaja i've not seen people talk a lot about her and it got me interested as i'm a classics student!

- @zoebelladona 🌙

HELLO OH BOY okay so I have half a rant already about Artemis in terms of Rick and general aphobic tropes in the series. see: that open letter on twitter. i still need to transfer that to tumblr. fun fact: Rick replied to that post but deleted his reply at some point. probably because two replies after he replied to my post and word-of-god confirmed Reyna to be ace-coded he left social media for a bit.

Fun times! Anyways.

The thing I dislike about Artemis as she's depicted in the series, besides her constantly appearing as a teenager and the aphobic tropes with that [see: open letter linked above] - which on some level is slightly more excusable than other examples given she's a goddess of young women, but given how he writes Athena, Hestia, and the Hunt instead leaves a bad taste in my mouth - and other similar aphobic tropes with her, is her whole weird anti-men thing (which is also, in itself, also an aphobic trope in this particular circumstance). I understand TTC was written in 2007 so that flavor of radical feminism that Artemis and the Hunt is clearly supposed to be was only just coming into major public awareness and the flaws in the ideology (and the inherent bigotry, particularly transphobia and racism that often comes with it) weren't as well recognized at the time. But in hindsight it leaves a really bad taste in my mouth for obvious reasons and is one of the things from the first series that severely aged poorly in my opinion, and I greatly dislike that in every subsequent retcon of the Hunt for other reasons Rick more or less retains that aspect.

Secondly... it doesn't make sense from a mythological standpoint? Because there are multiple examples of men being Hunters in Artemis' retinue. Even ignoring Orion, no matter how you go about shaking that stick (which for the record I really dislike how Rick retconned him in the series/wrote him in HoO), Hippolytus is a very notable example. Literally his big whole original shtick was he joined the Hunt because he didn't like romance and Aphrodite got so pissed about him not needing her (romance) that she killed him. And even when Aphrodite was trying to ruin his life he held on to his virtues and vow to Artemis (refusing advances even when his life was on the line). He is otherwise totally chill and devoted to Artemis. Some versions of his myth has Artemis have him resurrected after he dies (by Asclepius, which is why Asclepius is punished for reviving the dead). This also obviously doesn't address the major glaring logical flaw in Artemis hating all men which is... Apollo. Especially within the series he seems to be an exception for no reason, despite Artemis also very overtly having a "brothers are not an exception to the no-men rule." And from a modern queer standpoint, it obviously begs the question of stuff like gender identity within the Hunt and if you bring back the radfem stuff it gets real bad vibes real fast. Which also sucks when you particularly look at historical/mythological descriptions of Apollo and Artemis and how they very poignantly encompass defying gender roles and expectations particularly within their cultural contexts.

And every time Rick tries to retcon the Hunt, he somehow manages to make it kind of worse, particularly with the oath. I have a whole personal thing for how I think to best rectify all that nonsense in a way that isn't horrible and is related to some of Artemis' aspects in a more sensible way (buried somewhere in this monster of a post. Honestly i'd just recommend ctrl + f search "Hunters" on that post and it should be somewhere near the first ping there). In there I also go into some of my other thoughts for the general meh way the Hunt is written in the series, mostly being aphobic tropes and random death fodder.

So yeah. Basically, tl;dr: I am personally not a huge fan of how Artemis in the series is halfway to being a terf and chock-full of aphobic tropes. And I need Rick to stop retconning things into the ground.

#pjo #riordanverse #hunters of artemis #artemis pjo #analysis #< yeah sure it warrants that tag #ask to tag #zoebelladona #ask #i really need to transfer that open letter rant to tumblr #still amused that rick replied to it within like an hour of me posting it but clearly didnt read it #long post // #also heads up this is only like half-proofread cause i'm ill right now #so i apologize if it's nonsensical at all

[autistichalsin]

Okay, I’ve been a bit scared because I’ve been observing from the sidelines, but I do want you to know this isn’t a hateful or troll ask, I’m genuinely asking for clarification.

In my experience, “pro-shipping” has always meant ‘problematic shipping’, and all of the people I’ve talked to about this have said the same thing.

Am I the one who’s misconstrued? I really don’t get it.

Being called “pro-harassment” or “pro-censorship” is hurtful and confusing as all hell.

I don’t harass people for what they create. I don’t care to do that. I block and move on, and warn people if I know they could be upset by the content.

But I also don’t understand how certain things are justified.

I am personally not bothered by much, but I have watched friends and acquaintances go through visceral traumatic reactions because people have decided to air out their coping by sharing it with the public. (I.E, people who write romantic incestual fics, etc)

I don’t give a shit what people write. I really don’t. But it feels harmful to use the excuse of coping when you, in turn, could be hurting dozens of others.

Like I said, I genuinely am not trying to be hateful here. I’m confused, and still distraught that all of this is happening. I don’t think anyone deserves to be harassed. I just also don’t get the logic here.

Pro-shipping never once meant problematic shipping. It meant opposite of "anti" because antis would come and invade the tags and asks, calling them all kinds of names if they found their ships distasteful.

Sorry that being indirectly accused of supporting harassment hurt your feelings. Imagine how I felt, being DIRECTLY accused of supporting rape in real life because of my taste in fiction. You are throwing in your lot with people who can't distinguish fantasy and reality.

I don't like incest fics either, anon. They are triggering for me. So you know what I do? I don't read fics tagged as incest. For that reason, I have never been triggered by an incest fic. I suppose I would be if I read an incest fic that wasn't tagged as much, but you will never find a single pro-shipper who defends posting such content without a tag. You are responsible for your own experience online; it is your job to curate the content.

If it was just seeing that the fic exists that triggered the response, then I'm sorry to say they're still in the wrong. As a survivor, learning that triggers exist and how to navigate those triggers is on you. We are responsible for how we deal with our trauma. Your friends didn't deserve their traumas, and they deserve kindness and support, but requesting that people never be allowed to write distasteful fiction so that they don't have to be upset by the idea that someone somewhere shipped incest is not reasonable. Their feelings are valid; it's totally reasonable to be triggered, to strictly curate your online experience. It's reasonable to block everyone who ships the upsetting incest ships, to put an "incest shippers DNI" on your page, all of it. It's not reasonable to call them supporters of IRL incest or to accuse them of causing your trauma. It isn't hard at all on AO3 or Tumblr; they even give you the option to blacklist/filter out certain tags so you can avoid it without blocking users. There's easily half a dozen safeguards that already exist that are a lot less radical, a lot less likely to be weaponized against queer users, and a lot easier to enforce than trying to remove them.

Me writing fics, such as a character using kink to cope, can only harm a user who doesn't curate their feed (and who reads fics they know will trigger them, which I can only assume would then be a purposeful form of self-harm). Denying other survivors their coping mechanism, though, IS a direct form of harm. Stigmatizing recovery by saying that survivors are in any way akin to abusers for creating fiction is a direct form of harm.

It sounds to me like you've absorbed some very harmful and very narrow ideas of what recovery should and should not look like, and what is and isn't a good/valid survivor. You might want to reflect on why you're turning your attention to policing what survivors do to cope so much.

#proship #proshipper #discourse

[rainybraindays]

I don't like making posts like this, I don't like opening my blog up for people to come and harrass me but oh my god, why does the fandom allow posts like this to get away unscathed?

You don’t have to like Marina. I'll never claim that. You can like or dislike whoever you want.

But I do wonder, if Marina was played by a white woman would we get nearly as many posts like this? Would everyone be as okay with it? Would we have been so quiet about the fact that Ruby Barker was harrassed for this role? Or would there be way more people defending her? Would she suddenly be sympathetic when now shes not?

Why are we all so okay with taking this character with a nuanced story, put in a horrible situation with almost no options and turning her into a villian?

Like did we watch the same show? Did you miss the bit where she doesn't want to find a husband at all and only starts when she thinks shes been abandoned, which she only believes because she gets a forged letter saying she was? Did you not see Portia slap her? Did you not also watch a man old enough to be her grandfather being forced on her?

Lying to Colin wasn't okay, I'm not defending that, but literally tell me what her options were?

The man she loves is dead, but she doesn't even know that she thinks he abandoned her, so she can't reasonably assume Phillip will take responsibility when his brother won't. The only people Portias interested in introducing to her are those she wouldn't introduce to her own daughters. She can't reasonably think Colin will be open to her as a wife since shes pregnant becausethats not the norm. But Colin is, he says he would have married her even knowing. And Colin also doesn't view Marina as a villian, in season two hes sad yeah, but he’s also guilty because he doesn't think she deserved what happened.

This is a nuanced messy situation but no one wants to look at that.

Like you all make it very clear you view her as a whore, because she did a very normal thing and had sex. You all view her as a manipulative snake of a person, when if she was even the Whistledown article wouldn't have been a stop for her because she would have tried to get out of it. You conveniently forget that she almost killed herself in an attempt to abort her children because of her mistreatment post Whistledown article because that takes away from the idea you've concocted that shes some villainous bitch.

But then you turn around and want Penelope to have sexual knowledge that she realistically wouldn't and canonically doesn’t. You praise her for her Whistledown work even though it keeps hurting people she loves and shes lying about doing it.

This is weird, posting about how you can't wait for a character to die, and how you hope the death is - lets be honest here- humiliating, is a bizarre thing to do.

Its even more bizarre to do that, tag the character, and then also tag two ships that really the post really isn't about.

Like why is Polin tagged? Because they're both mentioned? This isn't a polin moment. You don’t talk about them at all in the meat of the post. Why is Philoise tagged? Because she's an 'obstacle' for them? They haven't even met, they aren't mentioned at all, they have nothing to do with this.

And on top of tagging these things you say "don't try and defend her to me" which why would we you clearly wouldn't listen. You follow that with saying "If you like her you probably suck" and claim to have tagged this as anti marina when you didn't. You put this in her main tag and then added "death to marina".

Theres no respect to your peers in the fandom, and clear disrespect to people who do like this character and are actually willing to engage with the character beyond fanon portrayal. Because thats what this is its not even taking her at face value anymore.

You wonder why people dislike this fandom, specifically the polin side of it, and do things like this. We as a community need to improve because stuff like this isn't uncommon, this is just one of the most blatant I've seen.

I'm going to be entirely honest if you follow quotegirl19, or don't see the issues with Marinas portrayal and treatment by the fandom this is not the blog for you.

#rainy talks #yeah I bit the bullet but i feel abit better #bridgerton #marina thompson #colin bridgerton #Penelope Featherington #I'm only tagging them because they're metioned rather prominently (which is how you actually use tags) #polin #for the same reason as stated above #I'm not tagging philoise though I don't think its important enough #marinas treatment in this fandom reeks of racism and misogyny

[aleksanderscult]

so. First of all I love your blog. Seriously I think you are one of the person who have comman sense in this fandom. I like everything you post. While scrolling through Tumblr I came across the usual anti darkling post ( he is groomer , murderer etc etc ) i did the thing I usually do when I came across such thing : I skip. A tag caught my eye. I don't remember but it's say something like : the only reason you like him is that he is Ben Barnes if darkling is a girl you couldn't like him. Which made me think what if darkling was a girl and alina as a boy. I just image a sexy hot black hair women with pale skin and grey eyes and morozova genes. Which..........is enough to made me think if I am a Bi 🤔. That image has not left me for a week and my dreams. So my question is

What do you think might happen if darkling is a girl and alina is a boy. How might the events of SaB and SaS will be affected. And m*lina too,of mal is a girl too. You thoughts 🤔

Thank you so much, anon! It makes me happy to know that others enjoy my blog and content. 😍

First of all about what that anti said: I personally didn't like Ben Barnes as the Darkling so it obviously doesn't apply. And even if the Darkling was a girl I would still root for her. I root for any character that fights for something better, for a positive change to happen among such oppression. And I think that's one of the major reasons his fans love him as well.

Now about your question: Boy, I would love to see that. I was always attracted to dangerous women, especially the ones that combine beauty and slyness (like Milady in "The Musketeers" or Morgana from "Merlin" post season 2).

But I don't think the story would be affected that much with the only exception that Alina in a male form would probably not be slut shamed for his attraction to the Darkling (in this version she would be called Aleksandra which is a fact that I love!)

The Darkling would remain an interesting character but, God, does that mean that Alina as a man would still avoid his duties?? 😭

And Mal as a girl. She would obviously be popular and well-liked by everyone but imagine that: she would sleep around with many guys and then attack her best friend for falling in love with a girl that isn't her. Well, for one thing it doesn't stick. You see if Mal as a girl fucked around then she would be called a whore (just like Alina was indirectly called one by Mal for wanting Aleksander) while in the original story when Mal did that no one raised a single eyebrow. So we live in a fictional world where if you do that as a guy then you're okay but if you're a girl then you should be called a prostitute. And Leigh had Mal get away with his behavior so she was more willing to let Mal pass with his sexist behavior than the Darkling who had enough and tried to put end to his people slaughter for good.

Anyway, I believe Mal's character would change a lot if he was a girl (primarily his fuckboy nature because the author doesn't allow a girl to have sexual liberation in her books) and I have a feeling she would be boring (again). And I don't think she would be a tracker?

Alina as a man wouldn't be slut shamed (because he's a man 🤷) but he would still avoid the Darkling. Nevertheless the chemistry would be off the charts. And the Darkling would slay like always. She would be the personification of femme fatale but her goal would be selfless and true like always. For some reason, I imagine her as a very seductive figure (although my wishful thinking might be speaking here).

The real question here is how the relationship between the Darkling as a girl and her mother, Baghra would be. Would Baghra want a daughter in the first place but she got stuck with Aleksandra because it was her only child that shared her powers? Or if Baghra had no problem with her child's sex, would she still be that possessive and controlling over her?

My own answer is yes and Baghra would most definitely leave a trauma to the Darkling even if she was a girl. That woman has no parenting skills in any universe. Just like I can't see the Darkling be anything else other than a fighter and a survivor in any other scenario.

#you see TGT contains some very specific sexist views #if the roles were reversed (the Darkling was a woman. Alina a man and Mal a woman) then things would be complicated #People wouldn't even accuse Alina that she had a thing for the Darkling. They would just call the latter “a manipulative selfish bitch” #anon asks #lovely asks #grishaverse #AU #shadow and bone #the darkling #alina starkov #anti mal oretsev #pro darkling #aleksander morozova #pro aleksander morozova #grishaverse trilogy #pro darklina

[sempercredens]

Post about fannicalcascade part 2 because sigh.

Here's a link to my first post from the middle of December about them where I go over their takes on the s3 finale and their take that the love between Hannigram is unrequited from Will's side. At this point I also immediately want to say that I don't necessarily disagree with that they have a different opinion on the season finale, I just found it very poorly argued and gave counterarguments.

Not a lot of new talking points came up but that isn't the point of this post now. In the first one, I already broached the topic of their behaviour in the ending paragraphs because I found some of it very odd. For example, that they were sending anons to bigger Hannibal/Hannigram blogs in a clear attempt to bait them into discourse, how they claim not to be anti-Hannigram but tag their posts as such, and how I personally perceive the undertone of their posts as very condescending towards shippers.

This post here is basically just about expanding on that.

Disclaimer though: this is a silly internet ship war on a large irrelevant website, with no real world implications about anyone's morals. While I'm gonna say straight out that I find them annoying (and I will get into the reasons in the following), they have done no actual moral wrongs. Don't go insult or harass them (or the other two people running the blog. If you absolutely must seek them out, stay polite or get eaten. That includes refraining from using ableist language (e.g. calling them "delusional" or something). Thanks!

List of contents:

1. Shipping goggles 2. Cherrypicking 3. How they talk about Hannigram shippers and handle criticism 3.5. Middle school-isms 4. Arguments (or lack thereof) 5. General conclusion 6. "Fandom critique"

Let's get into it:

1. Shipping goggles

The fannibalcascade blog has stated in their introductory post already that they want to view the s3 finale without shipper goggles. So far, so good. However in this post they reveal the existence of a sideblog they have. It's been edited out by now and I'm unlucky not to be able to provide that evidence but said sideblog was revealed to be @/lecterlure. lecterlure has also been participating in replying to other blogger's responses to baiting anons, basically giving the typical fannibalcascade takes. As a benefit of the doubt I will also say however that according to themself the fannibalcascade blog is run by three people and lecterlure could be either of them. It adds up timewise for me since the first content on the lecterlure blog is from the beginning of January.

I'm bringing up lecterlure in the context of shipping goggles because as of me writing this there are just over 60 posts on the lecterlure blog which focuses on the book and Hopkins film version of the Hannibal canon. Half of the posts on that blog are unambiguously about Clannibal. (Yes, I counted.)

Nothing wrong with Clannibal, of course! You do you. The reason I'm pointing it out is just because it seems that the Hannigram faction is not the only one with shipping goggles. Considering they claim that they ship "neither", I just find that very untransparent.

EDIT: in the notes of this post lecterlure said that she is one of the three but NOT the one mainly running the fannibalcascade blog. My assumption that the two are the same people is therefore null and they are to be regarded as two people! She is only little involved in the blog's postings, merely sharing theories with thel and reading over the posts. Nevertheless, I'll bring her up again in some points since she is associated with the fc blog and whether that is her intention or not her interactions do reflect back on the fannibalcascade blog.

2. Cherrypicking

When they were called out for cherrypicking metas, they replied they didn't. The metas they've reblogged are from bonearenaofmyskull and mendelsohnben respectively. Said metas had been posted in the years 2015 and 2016. You'd have to do some digging to find them to reblog them straight from the ops.

Not to mention that there is a huge amount of Hannibal meta posts around when you search the tag for it. So to claim that out of those many, many meta posts, you organically found metas from over 8 years ago that apparently agree with your viewpoint - the view point of a minority in the fandom - does not come across to me as very believable. You've got to have searched for those.

3. How they talk about Hannigram shippers and handle criticism

Most of the criticism they received for their bahaviour around sending anons, cherrypicking, and reblogging ship posts to exercise "fandom critique" was, admittedly worded quite harshly and I don't endorse that. That said, it's not entirely unfounded.

There is two posts I'd like to highlight for this point. In this one they refer to the people who criticise them on anon as "pathetic teenagers" or "teenage conspirators" with "delusional takes". The "delusional" take being that fannibalcascade is behind the anons that people have received. While I can't 100% make the claim that fannibalcascade is in fact behind those anons - and I don't actually think they are behind all of them - I find it suspicious how the anon activity coincides with the activity of the fannibalcascade blog and how you can find the lecterlure account participating in the notes. The only other clue I can offer is how this anon highlighted the blog name in red, which is a very fannibalcascade thing to do since they like to highlight things in red in their posts.

The other post I want to highlight in this regard is this one where they mock shippers for thinking that getting validation from a bigger blog means they're right, and "How naive does one have to be to rely on someone else to stand for their points?" Which is rich coming from someone who reblogs the (old) metas of other bigger blogs to validate their own point, and are incapable of forming their own meta since their original meta posts are basically just repetitions of those they've reblogged. This is, for example, is just repeating this one by bonearenaofmyskull, but cherrypicked, reblogged only hours earlier.

In this same second post, they also point out how contradictory the statements of Hannigram shippers are, as if that was some big "gotcha". It's very likely that the people they mean here are, well, different people with different view points about the same thing. This is only a "gotcha" if it was the same person.

So my point here is: I find their handling of criticism and stance on shippers condescending, devaluing and not indicative of someone who's interested in a discussion on equal footing.

3.5. Middle school-isms

This is only a minor point but I wanted to point out how very middle schoolish their "arguments" sometimes are. They act all innocent when called out about adding their "shippers are delusional" takes to joke posts, the anon thing, and their down-talking tone. Examples: [x] [x]. Especially the whole thing about "my blog, my opinion" and "So I can't share my opinions now?" are such lackluster takes at this point. You're talking like a boomer who gets called out for a misogynistic take on Cpt. Marvel, like come on now, do better.

Also since I'm assuming they're the person behind this ask (linked above already)

I'm perplexed at this appeal to authority. "I'm older than you, therefore I'm right". Again: come on now, is that really the take here? This is some kindergarten level of arguing. By that logic every Hannigram shipper older than them would actually be right. As crimsondinnerparty correctly says: that's not how it works.

That's the post I saw that made me "wow, that's cringe, I'm gonna write this big ass post".

4. Arguments (or lack thereof)

As alluded to above, they barely make points of their own that aren't noticeable inspired by the metas they've reblogged from other people before. Nothing wrong with reblogging posts you agree with, per sé, but that is very much not the same thing as leading a discussion with someone. On this post they proudly announce "Here I debunked another theory" when they've had no input on the post that was originally made by youweresoafraid with an actual worthwhile addition from bonearena. You didn't debunk anything. You just reblogged a post.

I find that case worth mentioning because some anon went to crimsondinnerparty's inbox to say that "Fannibalcascade also debunked the sailing thing" when evidently, fannibalcascade didn't add anything to it.

Another post that stuck out to me in terms of leading an argument was this one about whether or not Will is a murderer.

The answer:

For a blog that promises deep metas and values the nuance of the show, I personally find this a very shallow take. If this is the promised deep meta and nuance, then I'm sorry but good night.

Not to constantly bring her up but bonearena also expressed frustration with how fannibalcascade is only capable of circular arguing [x] and their lack of evidence to support their claims. Despite fannibalcascade (or rather lecterlure in the notes) constantly crying for proof themself.

Taken from this post's notes.

Edit again: While, as noted, lecterlure is not the same person as fannibalcascade, my argument remains that the members of the blog don't actually provide evidence of their own but constantly demand it from others.

So general conclusion to this point:

I personally think that fannibalcascade is just pretty annoying. Really, what else is new here on the interwebs? There's annoying people, wow, big revelation. They're not capable of properly debating and I don't think that they even want a proper debate. I find their approach to opening a debate insufferable, especially when they go "oh, I'm just asking questions? What's wrong with asking questions? Can't I have an opinion anymore? If you've got proof, why don't you bring it up? Oh, that means, you don't have any after all. Checkmate." entirely childish. People don't wanna talk to you because nothing you've said or done indicates a genuine openness for a debate on eye-level. The sheer audacity of calling themself "the only logical person available in the fandom now" - assuming that anon is them, even if not my point is still supported by their other posts - absolutely flabbergasts me. It's this condescending tone, the implied sneering of "you're all illiterate but I've eaten wisdom with spoons and I'm your logical saviour" that absolutely rubs me the wrong way.

That their blog also focuses entirely on the s3 finale is another thing I find very counterproductive to any genuine debate because the s3 finale is their only reference for anything. The majority of their meta posts (reblogged and original) focus only on Will pushing Hannibal and himself off the cliff. That is the only thing that is ever "debated" on the blog, and especially in regards to the whole "does Will love Hannibal back?" question is an extremely narrow frame of reference.

The entire "debate" they want to introduce is also entirely pointless as, as I said, focuses on the s3 finale and whatever could possibly happen in s4. The reason I find this a pointless debate is because s4 doesn't exist and every meta or theory or what have you is only fanfiction. We're all getting upset here over each other's fanfiction, like jfc. For all we know the fall transported them into some anime Isekai world.

"Fandom critique"

According to their tagging system, fannibalcascade is also motivated by offering critique to the fandom. Which I'm not against in the slightest conceptually. Personally, I think there are many things that can be criticised about fandom, any fandom. Just to give examples, two problems I see within fandoms is 1) the lowkey misogyny is fandoms dominated by m/m pairings or 2) the everpresent problem of people reposting other people's fanworks without permission. I think tackling such issues could actually improve a fandom.

What doesn't improve a fandom is telling shippers that they're delusional teenagers for shipping the main characters of a show that is explicitly centered around their relationship. Even while making their silly little posts, Hannigram shippers are entirely aware that in a real life context that relationship would of course be toxic and terrible. The reason it's such a big ship stems largely from an actual acknowledgement of the show's nuances. It's precisely those nuances and their engaging character dynamics that make them such a compelling ship.

Here's the point where I want to acknowledge all the beautiful metas people (who ship Hannigram) have actually written. You can find something about everything in the show. You can find meta about the religious symbolisms. Meta about the character's clothing styles and what they represent in which scenes. Meta about the most inconspicuous things in the background. Meta about shot compositions. It's there.

So why limit yourself to the last three minutes of 39 episodes worth of television? Like c'mon, step up your meta game.

Coming back to the point of fandom critique, both sides are just fighting windmills. We're already biased in our approachs, we're not going to change each other's minds like this. So why not employ some standard internet/tumblr etiquette and leave people be? What people ship is not a value judgment of their irl morals.

So again, I want to clarify:

I don't think fannibalcascade is a bad, immoral person. Despite all the things I've listed in this post, I don't hate them. I don't want to encourage any harassment against them. I don't mind at all that they're presumably partial towards Clannibal. Couldn't care less, really. They're allowed to dislike Hannigram. Couldn't care less. I'd even say it's a valid take, just badly argued.

Genuinely, this is very much just about how I find it annoying to see their takes (or their takes being repeated by people who agree with them) interrupt my peaceful scrolling through Hannigram posts. And I hereby challenge them to write posts about the things they like (about the show, about the books or the Hopkins films, doesn't matter to me).

#fannibalcascade #hannibal nbc #hannibal meta #hannigram #hannibal lecter #will graham #this took longer than expected because i spent a lot of time counting things and doing maths #*sigh* the beauty of meta #i'm love media analysis and I can be trusted with images of this show #genuinely “it's a valid take just badly argued” is the thesis statement I have about them #so let that be your tl:dr ig

[olderthannetfic]

Re, this anon: https://olderthannetfic.tumblr.com/post/719669829313953792

Yeah, well... that's the point of a bunch of internet activists: they throw the stone and hide the hand, screeching that, if you're doubting their innocence, you're an imperialist racist who should never be allowed on the internet.

Stitch, the person they're picking up a lot of their schlock from, is a master in this: they attack people, and the moment those who got attacked ask what they've done that's wrong or ask to have a one-on-one conversation with them, they shut everything down, screenshot whatever they received, block the person, and then go on Twitter whining about being a victim of racism because their words weren't listened to like the Gospel. Over and over again.

After the TOG racefaker scandal broke, I went through her blog and, just as I had expected, she too followed the same modus operandi: attack, screenshot, block, cry about being a victim of racism because people didn't let her insult them and demanded explanations about her ranting, wannabe-academic, posts.

They're not the only ones who do/did this, but these are the two examples of constant "harassment is good if I do it, but I'm the only victim and the others deserved it" cycle that come to my mind as of now.

When you're looking at End OTW Racism, you have to expect the same thing. They don't have answers, they don't want to have answers. This whole movement (horribly organized, horribly promoted, horribly everything) is nothing but a huge stroke of ego for its organizers.

You know how antis accuse others of being racist or pedophiles or whatever else because, that way, the accused cannot defend themselves? This is the same thing: if the OTW doesn't address their manifesto, then they're racist because they refuse to acknowledge it; if the OTW does address their manifesto, then they're admitting that they didn't care about racism until the moment they were called out on it and their concern regarding racism within the OTW is manufactured.

It's a win-win situation for them because, no matter how much you try, if you don't fully and absolutely agree with them, you can be branded as racist.

If you scroll through the End OTW Racism tag on Twitter, you'll see plenty of people (and especially the organizers), tweet stuff in the same vein as "I went to olderthannet's Tumblr and oof," not so subtly accusing all the people who raised valid concerns and asked valid questions of being racist.

I'm also not the first person who mentions this, but Stitch does seem to be heavily involved with the project, and even if they weren't, their words have been used to build the manifesto, and they amplified this crap through one of their Teen Vogue articles.

Now... not only Stitch is known for acting in bad faith, attacking creators of colors, branding them as Uncle Toms, purposefully making fun of them if they don't agree with them and sending their followers to attack and harass, but, just in April, they were being dragged because of another article they wrote, in which they compared writing fics about bad fictional characters to worshiping serial killers. Weeks before that, they were being dragged because their fanbase of antis discovered that their fics included incest, something that goes greatly against their preachings.

How big of a coincidence is it, that Stitch needed to have their image cleaned of all sins and suddenly a group of people drops a manifesto and hashtag about racism in fandom, founding a movement Stitch fully and absolutely agrees with and can rave about for days on end? A movement that offers very vague answers and plans, and those creators attack anyone who doesn't immediately agree with them, to the point that no questions can be ever asked about it?

Unless I'm shown actual evidence that Stitch isn't involved with this, nothing will convince me that End OTW Racism was launched for any reason that isn't to rehabilitate Stitch in the eyes of their chronically online audience.

--

[aterimber]

Hi!

I saw your posts in the tags about deleting all reblogs! I went thru your blog to see what was wrong and it looks like Zionists have been harassing you about antisemitism until you stop talking about Palestine.

In so sorry about that and don't fall for it!!

To clear down things up: nativenews isn't antisemitic. They're pro-Palestine and support a decolonized solution which Zionists HATE and that's why they're saying nativenews in antisemitic. Zionists are calling ANYONE who doesn't support Israel or a 2state solution an "unsafe" person for Jews which doesn't even make sense.

That'd be like if Americans said "you're anti-american and unsafe to my well being because you think native Americans deserve equal rights. Natives obviously just want rights to get revenge on us, how could you possibly suggest supporting them."

That doesn't even make sense and it's obviously just a racist excuse for Americans to keep their privileges over natives right?

Same exact situation is happening.

Jewish Zionists like to pretend Israel is a Jewish state but it isn't. There are Christians and Palestinians and Muslims who live in Israel too. It isn't specifically anti-Semitic to criticize a government, regardless of it's population.

People criticize the USA all the time and who are the only people that get mad about it? Patriots and racists who want to ignore their problems, right? And should we stop talking about those things cuz they're uncomfortable? Course not. They are the Reason we talk about it, right?

Zionists are the same. And the doubt they are planting in you about your voice is their goal. One less voice speaking up for Palestine helps theirs get louder.

Please don't delete your reblogs.

Nothing you've done has helped out Jewish lives in danger JUST because they are Jewish. And that's what antisemitism is.

Antisemitism is not when you have opinions Jewish zionists don't like or reblog from people that Jewish zionists don't like, I promise.

Hi Anon!

Thank-you for the message!

Also, thank-you very much for that explaination. What you said definitely makes sense to me. As I've said, I'm not very knowledgable about what has been happening and was only attempting to help, which it had been pointed out to me that was not what happened.

I'm attempting to learn so I can make informed decisions going forward and listen to the people who I was attempting to help.

To clear things up: I am against murder. Period. (Yes this includes animals, but that's not the point of this post)

If you are pro-murder, I do NOT agree with you. Unfollow me, block me, whatever.

This is why I felt sick when I was told the post I reblogged from NativeNews could possibly get people killed. That is why I went to the extreme lengths of taking down every other post I had reblogged mentioning Israel and Palenstine and wrote the apology post.

I was trying to spread information to stop people from dying, not contribute to it.

#q and a #questions #israel #palenstine #jews #jewish #antisemitism #anti murder #personal #anon ask

[feluka]

I remember thinking this earlier and then forgetting but the recent asks reminded me:

In that post where you briefly mentioned not correcting people when they tag stuff as Islamophobia with regards to you (bc you’re actually Coptic), I get the point your making and yeah they’re wrong in just assuming that as an Arab you’re automatically Muslim but it’s still Islamophobia, no? Like you don’t have to be Muslim to be the victim of Islamophobia, because Islam is viewed, at least in the west, as intrinsically linked to Arab identity. If you’re Arab/middle-eastern, people automatically assume you’re also Muslim because that’s the archetype most people have in their minds. Like I doubt most Americans have any idea that ~10% of Egypt is christian because that doesn’t fit into their (racist) worldview. Muslims are Bad because Islam is practiced by those Evil Backwards Arabs in their war-torn desert wastelands, and Arabs are Bad because they’re Fanatical Muslim Terrorists. The people who say hateful things to you on the internet do so because you are Arab, and because you are Arab they perceive you as Muslim which is a Bad thing to be (in their eyes). So it’s still Islamophobia, they bring are Islamophobic even though you are not personally Muslim

Ik this is kind of nitpicky and you probably didn’t mean much by that saying that, but it stuck with me (and this isn’t like a callout or anything, ily Mina and I’m sorry for going on this long tangent)

No worries! I've had this discussion before and part of the reason I don't correct others when they call it islamophobia is because they're not incorrect either. The Arab identity and Muslim identity are very deeply intertwined partially because it's the predominant religion of our region and partially because the Western lens views the region as Brown People Cultural Soup with no intent to further learn of its intricacies.

To answer your question: if someone has a violent/hateful reaction to hearing the Arabic language, they are anti Arab. This person may *think* due to their ignorance that this hatred entails Muslim people exclusively but in reality every Arab suffers from this hatred.

The thing is that racist person *doesn't care* if you define their hatred as anti Arab racism or as Islamophobia. These are *our* words. These terms exist for the sake of *us* to help us define, discuss, and explain the prejudice we face - and I would much rather we establish these definitions on *our* terms (us, who know the difference) rather than relenting to the racist's terms (they, who don't know the difference), because if we don't put in an active effort to acknowledge and include religious minorities then we are complicit in their erasure. If we don't contend the notion that Arab = Muslim then it will never be deconstructed.

You're right in saying that almost every instance of anti Arabic racism entails Islamophobia, and this is why I don't correct people when they describe the racism I face as Islamophobic. The description isn't incorrect at all - but it is incomplete. It is *part* of a broader image, because non Muslim Arabs aren't only discriminated against for their proximity to Islam. Even outside of this conflation, and even with full knowledge that we aren't Muslim, we still face racism (a clear example of this is Biblical Orientalism, whose very basis is the fact that we are Arabs who aren't muslim), so it's not quite accurate to attribute all our struggles as tangential to Islamophobia, and in the end we can still acknowledge our shared struggles and the way they intersect without contributing to the erasure.

#asks #racism

[transmascpetewentz]

Was talking abt this with my family and decided this needed to be a post on the webbed site:

A fundamental way that antisemitism operates that makes it so difficult to remove from leftist spaces is by taking the broad scope of problems in the world and finding a couple that can be vaguely tied or related to Judaism in some way, then taking "this is tangentially related to Jews" to mean "Jews are 100% responsible for this." It's particularly this sentiment that I see echoed in most of the antisemitic posts that I see on the dash.

It's one of the reasons, imo, why the west is so focused on Israel as opposed to the situation in the Congo, Sudan, or Ukraine. All four of these situations suck and are very clearly, to any person observing, bad. However, only one of these awful situations where war crimes are being committed is one that I hear about every day, that I am told if I so much as block some tags relating to it that I am a bad person. And that's the one where people can blame The Jews for it.

Despite Russia currently committing what I would call a genocide against Ukrainians, many westerners who preach anti-colonialism are completely silent or worse. I thought that silence meant you are directly complicit? Odd, huh? Does this principle of being against historical imperial powers committing genocide against colonized people not apply when the colonized nation has more than three times the relative Jewish population compared to the colonizer?

Yep. And many of the most prominent antisemitic antizionists are completely pro-Russia because Russia claims to be against quote-unquote "western degeneracy," which is literal Nazi shit. As a Russian who regularly speaks out against slavophobia/russophobia/anti-Russian people sentiment on the left and the right, I am horrified by westerners' complete disregard for human life and basic moral principles to defend my country's genocide.

And this idea of blaming all tangentially-related problems on Jews isn't just showcased in how much people focus on Israel, but also in who gentiles tend to call "zionists" and the attributes that they prescribe onto anyone who is labeled a zionist. Zionism is a political movement with historical basis in Judaism, but the actual definition of zionism is irrelevant to the critique I am about to make. My issue is with how some gentiles define, or don't define, zionism.

I have said this before, but when some leftist gentiles are asked to name a few qualities that all zionists share, they might give a list that's something like this: they are pro-Israel, they support Israel's genocide of Palestinians, they are completely anti-Palestine, and they do not have nuanced takes on I/P. Of course, this is a batshit insane and very ahistorical take on zionism, but I would have less of an issue if these gentiles would stick to that definition and only call people zionists if they shared all of those qualities.

Instead, these same gentiles who claim that all zionists share these opinions will claim that any Jew, convert-in-progress, or ally that doesn't hate Jews is a zionist. This circles back to my first point about how antisemitism takes anything where Jews are involved and turns it into "Jews are The masterminds behind this." And that's exactly what this is. The label of zionist being applied to a non-zionist turns their views from nuanced and neutral to racist and genocidal in the eyes of antisemites.

The idea that all Jews one doesn't like must be behind some child-murdering conspiracy is an antisemitic one, no matter how real the child murder happening in Palestine is. Random Jews, even Israeli Jews, are not responsible for the actions of their government (which is being backed mostly by gentiles overseas, btw). Stop fucking taking any instance of a bad thing being tied to Jews or Judaism and blowing it up into calling Jews the masterminds behind it. There is no global conspiracy, no matter how much you wish there was for your daily dose of emotional support antisemitism.

Reading Comprehension Questions:

What do you think that OP means when they say "The Jews" with both the "t" and "j" capitalized? Is he using that language seriously, or is he trying to get another message across?

Is this a post about Israel and Palestine, or is this a post specifically addressing antisemitism within the pro-Palestine movement on the left? Additionally, does OP give any meaningful indication of his views on I/P within the post?

Why does OP talk for two paragraphs about the situation in Russia and Ukraine? How is OP more qualified than the average Tumblr user to have an opinion on Russia?

Why is OP, despite not being Jewish, making a post about this subject? How might OP be more qualified than the average gentile to make a post about antisemitism?

Does OP blame Palestinians for antisemitism on the left in this post? Does OP single out any specific ethnic or racial group as opposed to just gentiles?

Have I sat with and mentally answered to myself the above questions before I clicked on OP's page to send him an anon telling him to kill himself?

#wentz.txt #antisemitism #israel and palestine #obligatory disclaimer: i'm still converting to judaism so please listen to actual jews instead of just taking my word for this #fascism cw #long post

[lacedteatime]

"Lazy" is your first and only thought, really?

I've had an issue with this for a while. In the first few days of UA, Aizawa assumed that Izuku was lazy in not training his quirk, and Bakugou assumed that Izuku had been hiding his quirk.

These conclusions are lackluster.

Late bloomers are a fanon thing, so I'll leave that out, but there are multiple other explanations that the other characters could have come to if they were as smart as Horikoshi tried to write them as.

OFA was shown to break Izuku horribly. What parent would let their child use their quirk if it had that effect? Medical costs are low in Japan, but it would build up, and it would leave Izuku with permanent damage (and has, so it is a valid concern). It would have been better writing for Aizawa to have "realized" this. Bakugou canonically wouldn't due to his belief that everything and everyone revolves around him, but... Actually, Aizawa wasn't narratively written as introspective in that arc, just as someone who says a lot of things learned from experience. That isn't a true indicator of forward thinking. So perhaps this whole post is pointless.

Who cares, I'm petty.

Another reason could have been that he saw Ochako about to be crushed by the 0-pointer and had a quirk awakening, causing a minor strength quirk to evolve into a major strength quirk without the protections the body of someone who originally had such a quirk would have. This would be a less likely conclusion to come to, but it would be something a teacher might consider while wondering why a kid with no control of his quirk due to "laziness" would go to such extremes to save someone in a test for no points after not getting any points with that power. This is probably the weakest explanation because of how quirk awakenings seemed to have been thought up by the author well past these arcs, and theytherefore might not have existed in canon before their introduction.

A third reason could just be that the Midoriyas are a law-abiding family. Quirks cannot be used publicly without a license, and using OFA (Superpower to those not in the know) in private would likely destroy their apartment and the ones around it. There isn't really a way around this. The first reason combined with this one would be a very reasonable and responsible explanation for why Izuku might have not touched it outside of its activation.

This becomes a little more complicated when you factor in Bakugou and try to question his reaction, as I am doing. What comes next will likely be pointless due to how Bakugou reacted without thinking in the scenes during Aizawa's and All Night's classes (I use Eraserhead's real name because he teaches as himself instead of his hero persona while All Might teaches as his hero persona).

Once Bakugou calmed down, he could have come to the same conclusions, though he would still think Izuku had been hiding a quirk. However. Inko would know that Izuku could have been pressured into demonstrating his quirk by his peers, thus breaking him and his surroundings. She might have decided to tell Izuku to pretend he was quirkless at school. This information wouldn't be shared with Bakugou.

It would likely not be shared with Bakugou's parents either, as we have no evidence that the two moms were actually friends. That's another bit of fanon. Sure, Mitsuki was protective of Inko the one time they interacted, but who's to say that she wouldn't have been like that with any other person she just met? If they were friends, I feel like that would have been shown to push the "rivalry" message from Horikoshi. Bakugou and Izuku weren't even shown to be that close of friends either -- Bakugou was arguably closer with mini Tsubasa and finger boy.

Anyway! I'm done, I think, but feel free to come up with your own explanations characters could have considered if you want to talk about it!

My next post will be more anti-Bakugou (I know this one doesn't fit the tag too much, but if I don't include it, I might have to interact with stans), whenever that may be, but I've had this stewing for years

#anti bakugou #anti bakugo katsuki #anti bakudeku #bakugou stans dni #aizawa critical #ua critical #The reason I put Aizawa critical while I have anti Bakugou is because at least Aizawa is written as a complex character #Outside of plot convenience and being Horikoshi's mouthpiece for stanning Bakugou #But you get the point

[gutsfics]

can you give specific examples of what happened to help people understand what happened

this is non-extensive, just the ones i think are the most egregious of what shes done and said

i'm not sure how much of this is stuff she's deleted, as these are all from screenshots i already had on hand, but i would like to say that deleting a post doesn't necessarily mean you no longer agree with what was said in it, especially if you double down on what was said when you're called out for it. which she has done Plenty of times

and for the record, this is not something i enjoy doing. part of the reason this took me a few days to post is because this is stressing me the fuck out and ive been trying to spend as little brainpower on this as possible

First point: queerphobia in the form of homophobic jokes, sharing panphobic rhetoric, and talking for transgender people on a topic she (as far as i am aware) has no

the pelicansexual "joke" was told at the expense of Ethan and Tobias during the "Ethan Bisexuality Canonity" argument she & i got into in June (which btw i would like to apologize for starting that up, i was frustrated w pb's coddling of the cishet part of the fandom & i was having difficulty phrasing it bc of how upset i was w it. i did not mean to attack the fandom specifically but intent doesn't cover for outcome)

the pelicansexual joke was a since-deleted tag on one of her posts which went something along the lines of "my Ethan and Tobias are now pelicansexuals, which means they have to break up with [her characters] as they are not pelicans". i dont have a screenshot of this unfortunately, but i do have a screenshot of her response to an anon calling her out on it.

in case you don't understand why her "joke" was homophobic, before gay marriage was legalized in the US in 2015, a common anti-homosexuality talking point was "homosexuality being legalized is a slippery slope to bestiality being legalized". while it is good she deleted her "joke", its frankly worrying to me that when called out on it she doubled down on how she was joking when she said it, instead of listening and learning. her bisexuality and queer activism do not mean that she is incapable of saying and doing homophobic things.

the panphobic rhetoric & her talking for transgender people are, if i remember correctly, both part of the same incident wherein she reblogged something panphobic and then, when called out for it, said something that something that most trans people consider transphobic isn't actually transphobic at all

screenshot 1: bisexuality and pansexuality are two very similar sexualities, with the main difference between the two coming down to personal preference for what term you feel like best. while bisexuality does mean "sexual attraction to two or more genders", some people prefer a term that focuses on the "or more" part. neither sexuality excludes transgender people. pitting queer people against each other because theyre not the "right" kind of queer does nothing but damage the queer community as a whole

screenshot 2: agreeing to delete the post, but doubling down on what she said and refusing to listen to anon simply because they're anonymous

screenshot 3: the highlighted part is what we're focusing on here. "We don't consider cis gay men who only date the same to be anti-trans". hi, I'm a trans gay man. Yes We Fucking Do. i don't understand why she thinks she has the authority to speak on this. what "we" is she referring to here?

Second point: lack of respect or understanding of boundaries in fandom spaces, including both blocks and simply not wanting to interact with someone

i'll be honest, i'm a bit unsure if the above paragraph is the right way of describing what i mean, but she has a bit of a history of being.... openly weird about people who have blocked her for "no reason", and not only that has stated she thinks that not wanting to take place in an event run by someone you are uncomfortable with is childish

i believe the first one is about my friend Jay, who has her blocked for similar reasons that i do. while it is perfectly fine for her to assume whatever she wants about the reasoning for a block, her phrasing of "all i ever did was be supportive" in a public post about it allows her to victimize herself over a boundary being placed. speaking of Jay, Elsa has, knowing full well that she's been blocked by xim on the "peonyblossom" blog- which, again, is a boundary that has been placed- decided to message xim on the choicespride blog xe runs

the second one is specifically about a tumblr user who i do not know personally and do not wish to drag them into this as they have left the open heart fandom. she was sent an anon about this user blocking her which, yeah, is really weird and suspicious. but this isn't about that, this is about her response to learning she's been blocked. she refers to herself as this users "biggest fan" and says that it "isn't normal" to block your biggest fan. once again she is victimizing herself over a boundary someone else has placed, only this time she has done it in a post talking about a person with their username in it. when you have a blog as big as hers, people are bound to go after someone in the name of defending the person they feel was slighted

& here's her essentially calling people childish bc they might not want to interact with someone who causes them harm. iirc this was either about certain event blogs in the fandom not disclosing who's running them bc they know full well that some people might not be comfortable interacting with them (hiding ur identity will not help with that) or about people choosing not to participate because they know that the person running the event is someone they don't want to interact with. this ones just bizarre to me. no one has to interact with anyone ever, and calling them childish for it is, frankly, childish

Third point: her callout post for Jeremy and her non-apology

to get it out of the way: i'm friends with Jeremy. i'll try to keep this as unbiased as possible, but i am deeply deeply upset and frustrated with everything thats happened to rain. also, just so yall know, Jeremy gave me permission to talk about this. i'm not just dredging up old drama for drama's sake here.

first- the callout post

the thing that started this was a post to the playchoicesconfessions blog where an anonymous user said- and i'm copy/pasting it here- "Ethan said he and Tobias were like brothers. Weird how many people in the fandom want to get with their brothers.’" essentially, this anonymous user accused people who ship Ethias as being into irl incest which..... we will not be getting into all the ways thats problematic here.

(as an aside, Elsa did at some point reblog and then delete this post, but her commentary was focused squarely on "ship and let ship" which is a sentiment i agree with but she completely ignored the blatant homophobia in this post. here's a version someone reblogged from her in case you're curious as to what she said)

Jeremy reblogged this confession post and added "i genuinely hope this person and others who think like this eat a fucking bullet holy shit" specifically in reference to the anon insinuating incest. in turn, anons on rain's blog assumed rai was referring to people who don't ship Ethais and sent rain nasty messages, which rai would respond to and get more anons who saw the latest response and again assume rai was talking about not shipping a ship they ship and not the actual genuine fucking homophobia from the original confession post.

one of these anons sent screenshots of rain's posts to Elsa, without the context, and told her rai was talking about her. rai was not. not until the post where rai (rightfully, ihmo) called both Elsa and another blogger (this one who also got a similar ask about being blocked by the user i mentioned earlier but who decided to put it in the open heart tags instead of keep it on their blog the way Elsa did. that's the only props i'll give to her in regards of that- yes it was shitty she posted it in the first place but at least she didn't tag it) for complaining about and villainizing someone who blocked them.

tldr version is- Jeremy was venting about anons that were being homophobic to rain, another anon sent screenshots of those posts to Elsa without the context who who rai was talking about and said they were about her, and Elsa, without bothering to verify in any way, decided the best course of action would be to publicly call rai out, painting rain as a bully who has been targeting her specifically and once again victimizing herself. on her blog with a bunch of followers. many of whom also chose not to verify, and instead just heaped more hatred onto Jeremy's blog.

this went on until September, when they talked to each other at first with a third party go-between, and eventually person-to-person. Jeremy explained the context of the vent posts, Elsa explained that she was getting the screenshots with no context from an anon and admitted she should have verified them herself instead of going full nuclear, and they both agreed to apologize publicly

all good, end of story, right?

no.

while in Jeremy's post, rai took accountability for their side of what happened in this awful game of telephone and apologized for rains part in the whole thing. if you want to read it, here is a version of it.

Elsa, on the other hand.... well she apologized, but to be honest I'm not quite sure what for.

she says there's been misunderstandings on both parts led on by one or more anonymous sources (no arguments here), says she understands that the posts that were sent to her were not actually about her (okay good) and says that its a tough world and that she's deleted her posts.

okay.... but that doesn't specify what she did at all to need the apology. which was publicly call out Jeremy on her blog with.... well, i'm not sure how many followers she has, but i do know that she's got the most well known blog in the choices fandom. by publicly calling out Jeremy in the way that she did, she (whether intentional or not) set her followers out to attack rains blog. she did not apologize for this. asking people to stop sending hate to rains blog is not the same as taking accountability for sending those people to rains blog in the first place

so. yeah.

again, non-extensive list, but i dont wanna mention things she's done without having screenshots or links to show proof that she did it, and i dont feel like finding more of her bullshit bc this just. really fucking stressed me out.

also this isn't me saying "shes a terrible person forever and i hate her and nobody should like her ever" this is me saying "hey, shes done/said some hurtful things in the past and it sure would be cool if she acknowledged any of it" but i think coolsville sucks or whatever.

also also most importantly: its possible for queer people to say and do things that are queerphobic. being queer yourself does not give you a shield from people calling you out for that. neither does real life activism. its great that she's done real life activism! but pointing back to things you've done in the past, or for a different group of people than the one youre in does not exempt you from the harm youre causing today, to the people you're interacting with.

i dont have a proper ending to this

thanks for reading i guess

#once again i am apologizing to my mutuals from my main blog who are following me here & not apart of this fandom #sorry yall have to witness me slowly tearing off my own face and eating it every few months