#what's that post about how some people only see ideologies and concepts and not human beings

[lazylittledragon]

Not trying to be rude or anything but you shouldn't use the word 'manic' or 'manic period' etc. unless you actually have manic/depressive episodes because it downplays how severe those disorders can actually be. They're just words but unlearning harmful terminology like that can help destigmatise mental illness and I would hope youi would want to do that.

yeah it's almost like i used those words specifically because i DO understand how severe they are

#ramble #what's that post about how some people only see ideologies and concepts and not human beings #yes we should stop throwing terminology around like nothing but also #that is not the biggest problem neurodivergent people have right now #and also you're asking me to disclose my conditions to strangers so you can decide how i'm allowed to speak #also this isn't the point but i don't know anybody who uses the word 'manic' to describe their symptoms unless they have FELT IT #because it's. so specific and you do not use it unless you know what it means #for me a manic phase doesn't mean just a little energy buzz it feels like i'm on fire #anyway please don't waste your time sending me things like this because i don't like it #go after etsy shops who sell ocd merchandise not people talking about their own struggles

[mdhwrites]

I can’t shake the dissatisfaction I feel about the way Luz’s experience in the boiling isles was handled. I know it’s mostly because it was shameless escapism and her running away from her life in the human realm, but like I found it hard to actually buy that she was completely miserable there.

Like I left the show feeling like she really didn’t have a terrible life and was just living in a fantasy. And that’s…not fun to me. Also, is it just me or does it feel like Camila got the short end of the stick? Either they left out some details about their relationship (which would shine light on Luz’s unhappiness) or she was a great mom and luz was ungrateful and wrong for lying.

Either way, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth about Luz as a main character, and I guess I just really really wanted more out of her character as a woc who’s also neurodivergent. :/ does this make any sense? Or is it just that she wasn’t the character for me?

So I could do multiple posts about this, ranging from how she represents nuerodivergents, her relationship with her mom, how she's represented as someone who doesn't fit in, etc. like that so please feel free to ask those things. However, for this I want to go in hard on the fact that I've been lukewarm to Luz in the past on her archtype as a main character but your last part makes me really want to talk about the role of a main character and how Luz... Fails. Entirely. Like I've said Luz is a fine protagonist but that's only on paper. In execution, for the narrative role of a protagonist... Well, a main character can be divided into having three main roles. Depending on the style of story, the type of protagonist they are, etc. like that there will be different levels of each of these three pillars. They are, in my eyes: Catalyst: How good is the character at making a story happen? A main character after all is going to be around for most of the story so they need to be capable of facilitating the amount of stories that happen with them. A shounen protagonist needs to be both strong enough to go on a grand adventure after all but not so strong as to not be able to have arcs and what not of him gaining new powers.

Guide: This is the main character's ability to show us the world and the stories within it. If the catalyst is the amount they could tell stories by themselves, this is how good they are at being a part of stories around them. This is actually why harem protagonists are such wet rags usually so they're willing to go to the beach, gym, graveyard, sci-fi workshop and class all in the same day so long as a girl is telling them to because they have so little character as to be able to do ANYTHING.

Core: How well do they represent and embody the themes of a piece? How much can people reflect off of them in order to show different facets of the main concept? This one is a lot trickier to pin down because what works for a specific theme is going to shift depending on a writer's goals but for some one you have how Light from Death Note has a god complex because that story theoretically deals with abuse of power and what one would do for it, what they would do once they had it and the lengths they would go to to keep it. Light being willing to go so far and be so entirely obsessed with power and what he sees as 'right' allows others to show their own ideologies of right and wrong use of power simply by challenging or supporting him.

And mind you that the quality of the writer does matter with these three pillars. A character can be incredibly strong in one of these by their concept but if the execution is flawed, how strong the base was doesn't matter. I bring this up because Luz... Is theoretically pretty good for these but in execution is awful in all three pillars.

The first one is the most tragic. She is a nuerodivergent, WoC who is even a part of the LGBTQIA+. Just by those three alone, she has a lot of stories that are only now starting to be told properly in media, such as Molly McGee tackling a basic woman's story of periods. There's a reason why a lot of people stand by Luz just for what she is.

Unfortunately, the writers did not. Frankly, swap her for a nerdy, white dude and I don't think much changes. Her heritage has nothing to do with the story, her being female only affects the representation in that it's two girls getting together in a romance that is frankly very normal for 'energetic boy and serious girl' and her nuerodivergence is officially non-canon now. It was only confirmed in interviews after all and Dana has said that anything outside of the show is just her own headcanons and are as valid as anyone else's. Even then, much of what makes her theoretically ADHD is also just pretty normal for main characters, let alone her archtype and never shows any of the non narratively useful elements of it.

This is all without getting into how her excitement for fantasy, magic and community should have made her both a great catalyst and guide. However, her journey with magic has no bearing on her, it's barely explored and... So is the Isles. Admittedly, the Isles has very little to show. It's a world where most of the stories are pretty rote and played out because it's just not a creative setting so even if Luz is eager, there's nothing to show.

Worse yet, the supporting cast of the show doesn't give her a lot to work with either. A lot of their stories are either abandoned or put on hold for so long that there's no longer interest in them. Worse yet, Luz has no interest in those stories, making it so that for a lot of characters, including Eda actually because the two spend a SHOCKINGLY low amount of time together, she just isn't around. She literally only ever seeks out Gus for a library card and NEVER seeks out Willow of her own volition. That's pretty shitty to put it mildly.

How about her being the core of the story? She's in plenty of it... But the show has little to no core. If it's fantasy versus reality, Luz is the one that pushes the hardest to play into tropes and to over exaggerate everything because she sees herself as the hero of the story and it isn't long until everyone just agrees with this fact. Worse yet, there's little exploration of it and the ending leans entirely on fantasy being the correct choice. Period.

If it's about finding a place and community where you belong, Luz doesn't show enough care about her community and EVERYTHING we're shown about her history doesn't make her appear like she didn't belong but that she was a genuine menace who honestly was pretty callous about other people. You have to be a special sort of messed up to get a classroom cleared by releasing spiders and then turn around and go "You know, I bet they'll love snakes." If Luz is not accepted, it is because Luz does not try and we have proof of that in the show because Vee exists and that's the whole point of Yesterday's Lie.

This all makes for a main character who on paper is great and who's only real flaw as a main character is that nerdy, teenage idiot has been done before but never as a bisexual, afro-latino girl. For a lot of people, that's not a problem but a feature because the archtype is so ubiquitous for a reason. Amphibia used it to GREAT effect and it is a solid base for a coming of age story.

In execution, the show is never willing to let Luz be... anything. She vaguely gestures at a lot of things but never commits enough to feel like any of them are her cores. She's too selfish and too self isolating to be a normal good girl. Her interests come up too sporadically and inform her actions, especially positively, too rarely for her being a nerd to feel like anything but fanservice. She's not allowed to make major mistakes, not in the writer's eyes as many of her mistakes and fuck ups are not supposed to be seen that way or excused *gestures at Reaching Out* so she can't be an idiot who needs to grow. And as I said before, her being an afro-latino, bisexual girl with ADHD never comes up beyond getting with a girl and they don't really do much with that because TOH isn't a romance story.

It makes Luz in general feel like a complete waste of a character which is fitting. She's the main character to a complete waste of a show that never managed to choose a firm identity for itself and so never gained one. And something lacking that much personality simply isn't going to be interesting.

=======

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead, If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

And finally a Twitter you can follow too!

#the owl house criticism #toh critical #luz noceda

[liskantope]

For the most part I've felt nothing but complete horror at the prospect of deepfake-type technology (where videos could be doctored to show someone who wasn't there, an action that wasn't happening, or speech that didn't occur) arriving at our doorsteps in the not-at-all-distant future. This is for the obvious reason that the last thing we need in the age of everyone being able to choose their own ideological corner's interpretations of every empirically observable thing is to add a brand new layer of uncertainty about every instance of video documentation we see.

But today I was just thinking that such a development might instead provide us with the kick in the pants that we need as a society: while a lot of people right now seem to lack the imagination (at least in their moment when they see something before they go on with their day) to consider how a video clip (or a photo, or a quote) might have judiciously been taken out of context. But in a world where videos showing completely fake events are commonplace, everyone will at least understand the concept and, rather than choosing to believe whichever video satisfies their favorite political narrative, will probably stop believing anything they see in videos altogether.

Now maybe that just seems like one problem being replaced with another: namely, videos could no longer be used at all as a form of evidence for anything. I like to imagine, though, that there will be some way of verifying videos that is put in place as the deepfake-type technology is established, so that universal default skepticism of what is shown in videos will incentivize some kind of non-replicable Stamp of Verification to be manufactured and used to create a class of documents that can be taken at face value.

...Which just sets us back to our initial problem that we have today (as I'm somehow only just realizing as I'm writing this post. But anyway.)

Also, I can imagine a world where AIs are not only creating fake footage faster than humans can keep up with but manage to hack into our code for embossing things with the Stamp of Verification, in which case we're kind of in trouble, but if AI gets that powerful we might be screwed in a lot more ways than that regardless.

#technology #artificial intelligence #out of my depths here

[cosmicjoke]

I am curious if you would agree with me. I alaways thought that Levi putting the syringe box on his heart wasnt a shipping things but more of him thinking with his heart. Idk if this makes sense.

Hi there,

Yes, I get what you mean, for sure. Levi's entire philosophy of "no regrets" is based on making the choice you know in your heart is right. Making the choice you won't regret, even if it turns out differently than you expected or hoped.

I think, for Levi, that moment was depicted that way because he was faced, suddenly, with an impossible choice. Save the life of a young man, a child, really, in Armin, or save the life of his commanding officer, the man humanity needed.

It's, in a way, a microcosm of the conundrum Levi is faced with every day of his life in the Survey Corps. His instinct is to save lives. All lives. I think it goes against Levi's very nature to let people die. And yet, that's the choice he's forced to make every time he steps outside the walls on an expedition. In order to save more lives, he has to let some people die. He has to be willing to let them go to their deaths, when every fiber of his being is screaming at him to rescue them. I talk about this a lot, about how Levi's sacrifice comes, not in the form of giving up on a personal dream, or even his own life (though obviously he would do so in a heartbeat if that's what was required), but rather, it's him having to sacrifice his own nature for "the greater good". More people will live if he lets a small group die. But I don't think people understand or realize the toll that sacrifice takes on Levi, each time he's faced with it. I think it tears him apart inside. Having to push aside his instincts like that, to push aside the instinct to protect others.

So, when Floch came up onto the roof with Erwin, still alive, Levi was once more faced with the choice of letting someone die in order to serve the greater good. He'd been ready to hand the serum over to Eren. He wanted to save the life of Armin, the same way he always wants to save every life. But when he saw Erwin was alive still, the question came into his mind of what was the right choice.

People want to interpret him pulling the serum to his heart as some sort of expression of his love for Erwin, but as you point out, and as I also think, it's rather an expression of this push and pull Levi experiences between his instinct and the ideology of the Survey Corps. What is the decision he knows in his heart he'll least regret? Letting Armin die, and giving Erwin the serum, or the opposite, letting Erwin die, and giving Armin the serum?

It's the choice of weighing a single life against many, and trying to understand whether a single life has as much value as those lives one might, theoretically, save in the future. And that's also part of the difficulty for Levi, I think. Because the "greater good" is an abstract, intangible concept. The lives you hope to save in the future by sacrificing lives now is just a maybe. The life in front of you, the one you can protect now, is a real and solid thing. Levi's instinct is to save the life in front of him, and he's constantly having to push that instinct aside for a maybe. For what's only the possibility of a better future for humanity.

Levi's initial, knee-jerk reaction when he sees Erwin is to save Erwin, because Erwin is this great commander, who's vision and leadership is what had gotten the Survey Corps as far as it did. Levi's initial reaction is to think that humanity needs Erwin, more than it needs Armin, and so that's his choice, the choice he thinks, in that instant, he'll least regret. To once again let someone die in service to the greater good.

I won't go into the entire thought process that then leads Levi to instead choose Armin, since I've been over it in great detail in numerous other posts. Choosing Armin was also Levi choosing the greater good, because Erwin was corrupted by his dream. He could no longer be the leader he once was. But it was also Levi finally deciding that a single life holds as much worth as any concept of the "greater good". Levi chooses in that moment to listen to his own instinct. To choose the single, tangible life in front of him over ideology. That's what his heart tells him to do, then, and Levi always listens to his heart. That's how he's able to choose with no regrets. Because even if the outcome isn't what he'd hoped for, it was still a decision made by following his heart, and so it's a choice which won't compromise or betray his moral core. A choice that sits well with him. Whether the outcome is good or bad, it's the choice in the moment he knew in his heart was right.

#Levi Ackerman #attack on titan #shingkei no kyojin #armin arlert #erwin smith

[nateriverswife]

Hello there.

I am running on no sleep but my brain is keeping me hostage; so I have to get this out of my system.

The one peculiar (stereotyped) characterisation of Mello that seems to stood out the most amongst the fandom is his tendency to worship the very ground L has walked on. He loves his older brother, very overprotective when it comes to L and is the epitome of a feisty rascal.

Don't get me wrong, while I do love me some plantonic, found family Wammy Boys fic— I simply cannot help but to feel this very character is not remotely close to what canon had to offer.

Mello is shown to be a, sort of, conflicted catholic person in Death Note (ie: wearing a cross) and while it can be headcanon that he simply wears them because of -well- style, I like the idea of him being really religious before swearing that he's fight God in hell.

I feel like Mello sees L as a god, worshipped him and all, but he wanted nothing more than to overthrown him; he is a priest, L is a god and the Wammy's House is the very church that instilled this sort of ideology unto him. L is a legend, an idea, a concept— an abstract philosophy no one could decipher— hence, when L did die, the last evidence of how humane he is, how he could be, Mello is furious.

After all— what god could be defeated by means of mortality?

L is not a human, and the products of the Wammy's House are only that— inhumane. They were taught, nurtured, specifically moulded to become what they could not fanthom. They are doomed children, they are home, they are lost.

So, Mello knew that he was damned the moment he saw L as anything and everything, but nothing at the same time. He, of all people, went through hell and back just to impersonate the one person that made him — that created him, gave him purpose and whatnot — what good does he serve if L were to die before he could attain it? He was cruelly reminded of his own mortality, that he was bound by law and governed with instinct. And oh, how torturous it must've been.

This rant might not make sense, but it's fine. I wanted to talk about how The Wammy's House alone contains so many religious symbolism. I want to talk about the Wammy kids. I want to talk about L. But it's now 2.03 a.m. and I can hear smell.

Hope you don't mind me dropping by.

- E.H.

Hi, E.H.!

Firstly, I want to apologize for the time it took me to reply. Considering that it won’t even be an in-depth response with any manga reference, it really doesn’t explain it, so for that, I am sorry.

The reason why this isn’t going to be as long as e.g. my reply to the “L not using the death note” message is mostly a “problem” on my part, because I actually don’t really interact with that part of the fandom that talks and analyses Mello. I don’t know if it is obvious, but usually my analyses are done in response to claims that I see and don’t agree with (like, you had a post saying that L would actually work with Light, if he caught him, and I first reblogged it, saying that I don’t agree but then made a full-on post about it). Just two times, I wrote something about Mello because I wanted to air my two very personal headcanons (to explain his connection to the mafia & his relation with masculinity) out.

Anyways, that is to say that I don’t go out of my way to read people’s opinions about Mello (and Near, to be honest).

I have my established headcanons or interpretations of his character and it’s enough of a headache to see bad takes about L. I don’t think I have the energy to add Mello to that. Besides, most people that do make analyses about him tend to be those that ship meronia, so their view of the character is through that lens, even when it could be omitted. I don’t see many mellodramattic shippers do the same. They just give headcanons about Mello and Matt’s relationship.

Before I get out my opinion, I must say that your interpretation of Mello here is beautiful – the way you explained it, too. I do agree to some extent: I like the parallelism between Catholicism and the Wammy’s, with L and Watari, because I too think Mello saw it like that.

In my personal hc about his past, his father killed himself when he was really young. He lived with his very ill mother, who was a devoted Christian that passed this belief to him, and he prayed with her, prayed to God that she would get well, prayed for a better life, but then his mother died, leaving him alone, and he blamed God, like “I spent years praying that she’d be healthy, praying to you, and you take her away from me? My mother, the only person I care about. How could you betray me like that? No... How dare. Who do you think you are to do these choices?”. So, he began to resent Him, but still kept the rosary to honour his mother.

Then, when he was taken to Wammy’s and found out about this other “God” that actually saved people and worked for a better future, he idolised him, because he had proof of his existence and his “good” deeds.

Unfortunately, I do not subscribe to the idea that the successors (and anyone at the Wammy’s during their time) and L had a found family type of bond, and this is because, as I said in my Wammy’s House analysis/headcanon post, I don’t think L would make the same mistake twice and single them out. Doing this would only put pressure on them, and he can’t have another A situation. Yes, Near and Mello are the best in the institution, so obviously the chosen ones, but making them meet L carves that into stone, meaning that that would make them feel like they have to be him under any circumstance and make others believe they could never reach that position, and if they see L as the epitome of greatness, that means that they can’t be great no matter how much they try.

Of course, A and B are not really canon, but I still believe that L knew not to get involved with them, for other reasons but still, that is true to me. From any angle, creating a bond between them is a weakness – emotionally, strategically, and so on.

Kinda off topic: I am rewriting an old OC x L fic, in which he actually is involved with Mello and Near, like he met them, visited them multiple times and things happened that got him very close to them, and all that they got from these interactions is a face to hate, a flawed individual to judge and criticized, but especially a person. It’s not longer a role. It entails much more and made taking his place way harder. And this was written by me when I was 13 with the intention of it to be wholesome, “look, they are like a family”, but when I went over it a few weeks ago, I realised that Mello and Near could never functionally and efficiently work as L because they have a bond. Whatever. This was just me giving an example.

Moving on. I don’t even think they actually properly met. They only talked via a screen (in the scene in the one shot, Mello and Near don’t even talk actually), and L never showed himself to them, because it would be the wrong move, regardless of B existing or not. It just exposes his appearance, which he must keep a secret from everyone. I also think L didn’t want to be a person to be adored, but a role to be kept alive. I’ve said in one post, but I don’t remember which, that if we take into consideration the way he talked to the kids, he seemed to be actively working against the idea of him being this kind of God.

So, when God died, Mello’s faith was broken again. For the second time, the one that could save them all died, against a being that seemed actually to be the Lord and was going to take over the world.

First and foremost, he felt anger – towards L for creating this myth around him and then just let himself die (because I do believe Mello first thought that L just gave up, before realising his mortality, that he was just a person) and towards himself, for believing in this God, when the first one abandoned him.

From a priest, he turned into a heretic.

I noticed that both Near and Mello very rarely speak about the first L in a personal way, which is weird, because you would expect someone in their position to hold some type of personal feelings towards him, like a priest does towards God, even though they never met Him and only see His work in the world.

Near is not a heretic like Mello, because he does label L as their idol, but Mello does not. Mello doesn’t want to work with Near (a believer) nor with the second L (the fake God). He became his own god, because no one saw things like him, he wasn't weak, and he needed to prove to the world (and himself) that God is not real and self-redress is the only way.

Mello’s war was also against L, in a way; against the ideal that he created that also revealed his own powerlessness, as you said. But as he got closer to his death and as he witnessed Matt getting killed, knowing that he was next (not because he was going to sacrifice himself for the case, but his words to Lidner seem to imply that he use going to use his death to prove Light is Kira before Near), I like to think that he felt closer to L, to his position, and began to understand why God died (had to cite “a car, a torch, a death” by twenty one pilots, which I used to associate with Light but seems to fit Mello more lmao).

Now, I have to ask if this makes sense to you lol. Of course, this takes inspiration from your own opinion, because I do actually like the way you view his character. I don’t usually explore the religious aspect of Death Note, but maybe I should, you know.

I’ll be waiting for your answer to my ask though, ‘cause I am interested to hear more from you regarding the Wammy’s. And of course, I don't mind you dropping by.

Take care!

#mihael keehl #dn.inbox #death note

[emptyanddark]

personal post. i never wanted to put too much identifying info out there about me (because i am ashamed of this identity) but i really must exorcise some thoughts and feelings

i'm not going to pretend the images and videos are not harrowing. there were true massacres and horrors. i can't bring myself to watch more than what i've seen, and what i have is constantly on my mind and i've never been this disturbed before. i know, yes, that this is the colonist's mindset: as much as i would like to consider myself a humanist, as much as i would like to set myself apart from other colonialists, as if i'm better than them because i do the bare minimum of recognizing other people's humanity - the fact that somewhere deep down these people are more 'my people' as alienated from them i would like myself to believe, if only for sharing the same language and community and culture (whatever that means) and fate -- i must be honest that this means that seeing these images of dead, wounded and terrified israelis hits harder than seeing the same happening to others, palestinans included. that's a brutal truth : that despite what my rational mind, ideas and ideologies - somewhere in my mind there's a scale that says some people worth more. this is disgusting to me and something i must reckon with. i'm the product of a militarized colonial society and the conditioning did and does influence me and i must work to repair that.

the thing is -

israel is a settler society unaware of their own culpability and crimes. all the horrors and torture palestinians have been subjected to for 80 years simply are not perceived as transgressions. it's the settler-colonial mindset combined with the conception that everyone is out to get you, and you can't trust anyone else but another zionist jew, or god. doesn't even cross the mind that subjecting people to what is in fact ethnic cleansing and apartheid in the most brutal ways, would result in blowback. i know it may sound bizarre to people from the outside, but living in israeli society is very much like a cult, in my personal experience. the "left" are the ones maintaining that 'well, we shouldn't oppress them THAT violently' but when met with any resistance, they would quickly join the calls to action to decimate palestinans - and even those "lefties" undergo constant harassment and bullying for being traitors. israel has been committing true atrocities daily, every moment, for the past 70+ years. for expelling people from their homes. for massacring communities and wiping them from the face of the earth. for colonizing a land that was, is , other peoples' home. for raping this land and its peoples. for transforming it. torturing people -- children, adults, elderly, no exemptions -- daily, for about 80 years. there's nothing that could ever surmount israel's atrocities. israel is a trigger-happy, genocidal, jewish-supremacist settler- colonial society failing to actually understand that this is what it is. the colonial conception is too rooted here. i can't see how it could change.

#personal #p/ #israel #palestine

[dextixer]

Atlas is not fascist and the RWBY community should be more aware when discussing politics

Warning - Long Post - Original found on Reddit here

I had an idea for this thread for a long time now, ever since discussions about Ironwood started really. Mainly because of how often Ironwood is constantly mentioned as a "fascist" by the fandom at large. Ironwood is a controversial character to be sure, and has made actions and embodies some traits that can be questionable. But parts of the fandom have been extremelly quick to frame Ironwood as a fascist and Atlas as a fascist state for no reason other than "Atlas/Ironwood bad". The word "fascist" seems to have no meaning to the people who use it, its just "bad". And it has been maddening since even a single google search could quickly refute such opinions.

As such, i would like to cover this topic and how neither Atlas nor Ironwood are fascists, and quite frankly, how the RWBY community and in turn, CRWBY should avoid political topics since so many people are not willing to even think about what they are saying.

What is Fascism?

First of all, since this is not a university work, nor something extremelly "serious" i am not going to cover the deep analysis of the subject of fascism, things covered by philosophers and in theory books. Instead i will simplify the concepts so that it would be eaiser to discuss and understand.

Fascism as a political ideology is characterized by.

Ultranationalism, disregard of basic human rights, clear identification of an "enemy", militarism, sexism, control of media, marriage between religion and government,  protected corporate power, supressed workers, control of the arts/education, overly empowered police, corruption, fraudulent elections.

These are the basic characteristics of fascism. Do be aware that a lot of them can apply to multiple political ideologies or exist in a singular manner, and having only one of a few of these does not make something fascist. Its the combination of MOST of these qualities that results in fascism.

Now that we got this little theory blurb out of the way, its time to get to Atlas itself.

Does Atlas match?

So, does Atlas, and by extension Ironwood fit the definition?

Atlas is indeed quite nationalistic. Even some of the people in Mantle are shown to have a very clear nationalistic bent, characters like Cordovin show the complete extreme of the idea, but cannot be discounted. This goes as far back as Volume 4, during the Schnee ball.

Atlas is also heavily militaristic. In the extra material about Atlas we can see posters that encourage people to enlist in the military. The huntsmen system of Atlas is also combined with the military unlike in any other city-state in Remnant. Its military presence is also often shown, being unique in being the only "real" military to be shown on screen in any way shape or form.

Corruption is also present, though most of us probably ignore it. A good example of this is how easily Ironwood just forgives the protagonists for stealing the airship that they came to Atlas with. Even if this is a positive action, its also very clearly corruption.

And..... Thats it? THAT is it? I have wracked by brain over every single characteristic of Fascism, and none of the others even come close to applying to Atlas unless one takes the least charitable or downright misleading/wrong arguments to come to their conclussions which i have found to be thrown around, even on this very sub.

For example, lets cover the "empowered police" - There have been people who have refered to Atlas as a "police state" or claiming that the police forces of Atlas have oversteped their boundaries. To support such arguments people usually bring up team RWBY being arrested, Forrest being arrested and there being camera bots in Mantle. Which makes little sense because both the protagonists and Forrest commited crimes. And cameras... I have bad news, they exist in many places in the modern world.

One could maybe argue that since SDC is a thing the "corporate power" characteristic fits. But despite the size of SDC it does not seem to be proteced by Atlas in any way, in fact Ironwood even seizes SDC assets in Volume 7 and work against what SDC wants in V4.

Almost nothing matches. And yet some people seem to see that Atlas has a military and is nationalistic and instantly shout "FASCISM" which is just counter-productive and innacurate.

Even in Volume 8, when Atlas becomes a military dictatorship (Accurate description in my opinion), its still not fascist.

Is the Atlas approach wrong?

We also have to cover how both the community and seemingly the show itself is trying to portray militarism as bad. At the end of the day, when one writes a message, this message has to fit the world. For example, if you write a message about how mass surveilance is bad, you should not write the story in a way that shows how mass surveilance saves the day. And if you are writing an anti-militarism message, well, the message definitely loses its power when all action happens on a literal death world with monsters attracted to human emotions.

In my opinion the show does carry anti-military messages (Even when it makes little sense in the world), but thats not too bad. The community however takes it extremelly far. For example, the combination of the huntsmen system with the military is somehow seen as bad. Why? Huntsmen in the lore of the world are basically mercenaries that have absolutely NO reason to be heroes. They can even turn to the life of crime on a dime. That is just a silly system on a death world where humanity is basically cornered in like only 4-5 places of living.

So many people uncritically repeat "There is no victory in strength" point as if it means that having any strength of military is bad or "useless". That entire message is about SALEM, the immortal queen of the Grimm. Regular grimm however seem to be very killable with bullets and explosions. If there is "No victory in strength" why do huntsmen and huntresses exist then? Its just very silly how people hold onto that phrase as some kind of "divine message" or "proof" that Atlas is wrong in its approach.

Even if the final victory is going to be idealistic and come with a message (Lord of the Rings did it), there still has to be some sense in the world, some realism. Lord of the Rings ends in an idealistic way, with 2 (arguably 3) heroic hobbits destroying the evil lord through sheer willpower and being good of heart. And yet we still have at least somewhat sensible military actions.

The communities ignorance about these topics.

What i think is the worst part is that this would not need to be discussed if parts of the RWBY community did not feel the need to demonize their opposition while putting themselves on a pedestal. I can understand if people dont like Ironwood or find his actions bad, i will disagree, but i will understand. But then to call him and Atlas fascist out of ignorance just because "Fascism bad, and Ironwood bad, so Ironwood = fascism" is incredibly bad, especially when this results in parts of the RWBY community outright calling people who dont even "support" Ironwood fascists because they think that he made some level of sense or wasnt writen as well as he could have.

I have seen people say that Ironwood is fascist because he did not want to save everyone, so by prioritizing Atlas to be saved (Because it flies), hes a fascist.

I saw some people say that Fascism is the opposite of Idealism (Which is completely opposite actually, Fascism IS idealistic)

I have seen people say that "Martial law is fascism", funnily enough during C19 lockdowns, which one would imagine give some perspective for people, but didnt.

I have seen people say that "Ironwood having 2 seats on the council is fascism".

And it just becomes so annoying at some point, because it seems that anything and everything is fascism to people who do not even know what that term means. And then THAT is used to turn around and accuse people of supporting fascism, or being "bootlickers".

And its just so needless. What does it gain? The ability of some fans to moralize others without due reason? Is that all?

It stifles discussion, it creates hostility between people. And its just so needless.

The end

Regardless, i said my piece, anyone is welcome to add on to it or disagree if they so wish. I do apologize if people wanted a "deeper" analysis, but im not that kind of guy, i find theory to be very dry for consumption and just not as good for this kind of format, and to fully discuss a topic such as fascism in depth you would need an entire bloody book.

Regardless, any opinions, feedback etc. is welcome.

#rwby #rwde #rwby critics #r/rwby #r/rwbycritics #general ironwood #atlas #rwby discourse #rwby discussion

[zevranunderstander]

this is my incomplete list of stuff bethesda fucking ruined about the fallout series feel free to add

supermutants in the original games are genetically engineered humans who are said to be way smarter than humans are and because of this see themselves as the race that should rule the planet, which was both criticism of white supremacy and just. interesting worldbuilding. it is incredibly clear that bethesda’s fallout games took one look at their design, thought of hulk and made them into agressive, hard-to-kill monsters, who are barely capable of human speech and eat humans for some reason. they bascially reduced them from an interesting faction with characters with diffrent worldviews and creative npcs into a random mob class with no motives or clear intelligence

one of the things you see in the world of fallout is that society COULD move on from the nuclear war, rebuild everything they lost and create a new society, but they are either too busy wanting to profit off the people’s lack of resources or are unable to get out of their mindset of “the world has ended” or are stuck in infighting to move on. like there is a reason to why the people didn't rebuild by now. and yet, people still are trying to rebuild in a sense. the fight for hoover dam for example is all about political ideology and is a fight about how to rebuild society - what laws should be in action, after which old "empire" should the world be remodeled, etc. new fallout games just don’t seem to actually grasp that concept at all, with e.g. a hyper-futuristic organization like the institute randomly appearing out of nowhere, people wallowing in the ruins of old civilizations with no actual interest in rebuilding, but there also isn't anything thats actually stopping them from rebuilding. the post apocalypse is more of a scene dressing than an actual topic, especially in fallout 4. it feels like that theme just completely disappeared from the games and it makes them worse

interplay’s/obsidian’s games often had an ironic wit to pieces of worldbuilding - the vault tec mascot was a joke in the sense of “imagine you flee certain death into a bunker and barely escape with your life and there is a mascot in the bunker”. The idea of society being obsessed with atomic energy and atomic war is supposed to be scary. like it’s supposed to be ridiculous that every song is about atom bombs and radioactivity and nuclear death. it’s suposed to be ridiculous that the company is called nuka-cola. bethesda ignored this at every turn when they put vault tec guy into every piece of marketing they have. And while the newer fallout games seem to like the atomic-themed ads and actually scaled up the whole aesthetic by 1000%, it’s very obvious that it IS just an aesthetic to them. from shooting mini-atom bombs in fallout 4 to shooting off actual atomic missles via launch codes as a fun multiplayer quirk, it’s clear that they don’t seem to actually care much about if their games have to say anything tbh

yes, bottle caps are *one* currency people use a legitimate form of payment. but the system is super unstructured and every faction that wants to rise to power wants to introduce a new currency. in fallout 2 there is NCR money, bottle caps and the town of Redding uses their whole own currency, in fallout new vegas there is NCR money, legion money, and bottle caps. In the newer fallout games there is only one currency and that is bottle caps. Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas all take place in the same general area, so it would make sense that that currency would exit in all of these places but there is NO way people on the east coast use the exact same makeshift currency as the west coast and also it’s very obvious that little thought went into how that currency works, where all those bottle caps come from etc. and that they just liked the quirky worldbuilding idea of trading in bottle caps

the vaults in the interplay fallout games all at least serve some puropose. like. those were the bunkers & humanity’s last hope, right? so the experiments conducted with and in those bunkers MAKE SENSE to the situation that the world is in. like. a bunker that “accidentally” can’t close the door so vault tec can check if the radiation is bad enough to actually kill. like, vault tec is supposed to be evil and uncaring of single human lives, but in general they also want humanity to continue to live on. so killing a whole vault with radiation to see how bad the radiation is is useful information to them and for the other bunkers. like, yeah, the first games (& especially new vegas) also had some *weird* bunkers, but these were either meant as a joke or experiments that oversaw actual human behaviours, to see if a certain ideology/system/form of rulership worked. like yeah, a vault where every conflict is resoved through gambling is a bit more out there, but it still makes sense that the combination of god complex that vault tec had over the survivors, paired with an interest in finding a way for society to progress could create a test like that. In Bethesda’s fallout games the vaults are just evil with no real reason to it or like, they just exist so they can go “wouldn’t that be fucked up”. like, i will not shit on all vaults, from time to time they actually have some good stuff in there, but what is the point of a vault that induces aggression via white noise, what is the point of “an experiment vault to see how rich people deal with their wealth being taken away“ - the rich and successful people were the ONLY ones that could get themselves into vaults in the first place and WHY would vault tec have any actual interest in studying how people reacted when their money was taken away, “an experiment vault to see if chem addicts can successfully recover from addictions” doesn’t help with the situation the bunkers were made in, like. a lot of the vaults are just fucked up for being fucked-up’s sake.

bethesda seems so unable to come up with own, original worldbuilding that it feels pointless that every game takes place in a new us state. like, they added nothing over the years and only removed stuff they didn’t like (like the nightkin, the centaurs etc), but the world - especially the mobs - seem to be exactly the same everywhere which makes no sense - deathclaws always exist as the toughest enemy, the same mutated bugs and animals are everywhere and there’s brahmin every time (it’s actually more wild to me that they are called “brahmin” everywhere. like. all over the us?), the only original thing the games added until now seems to be the synths and that sucks, because the syths are devoid of any interesting discussion that could have been had around them and are just a stand-in for racism

the brotherhood of steel is a facist in-group with an us-vs-everyone mentality that doesn’t let outsiders into their ranks while they hoard technology and stuff that could help people because they don’t trust them while also seeing themselves as the only people who should be trusted with deadly weapons. also they spend tons of time developing new, even deadlier weapons and are generally, if you put 2 seconds of critical thought into playing the game, not good fucking people. the fact that the games aren’t super blunt about how they are on the villain side of the story apparently made bethesda believe that they are the cool, good new us military that wants to bring order into the world. yeah.

#fallout #i feel like theres more but idk maybe later #myposts

[factfemsforcompassion]

how to abolish gender in many difficult steps

hello, trans people. i am a gender abolitionist feminist. i used to be trans myself. i came out and socially transitioned at school age and then started to medically transition once i was older. later, i discovered feminism, which i had always been interested in, but that i really knew nothing about in theory. i started reading the news, and reading about the same story from multiple sources, and noticing patterns. i found out that the tavistock gender clinic for under 18s in england that shut down, shut down because a whistleblower published a report which showed that the tavistock clinic weren't doing the research into trans healthcare for younger people that they said they would. they weren't doing what they said they would so that they could eventually help more people with less risks in the future. as valid a decision to transition medically is if it is informed, informed consent at its core does include being aware of the health risks, of which there are quite a few, and which the NHS was failing to tell children about and do research into. i have compassion for people- the 'patients' and their families- that the NHS lied to, and believe that the fight for the liberation of female people from patriarchy (regardless of how they identify) includes these people. in most cases what can go wrong rarely goes wrong under the care of good doctors, but mistakes can happen, and the medical system is built on capitalism, patriarchy, racism, ableism, all of it. that's because the concept of medical transition was made in the same society that made all of these oppressive systems, and we can't magically escape them unless we all as a society unlearn what drives the want to dehumanise other people in the first place. i think that a system that allows companies to make money off of the suffering of human beings based on the way their bodies are structured, which in human beings is either around being of the sex able to produce large gametes even if she/he/they her[]self cannot for whatever reason or around being of the sex that is able to produce small gametes even if he/she/they him[]self cannot for whatever reason. these categories are called female and male, and are obviously gender neutral. trans people have proven that they exist because they have created a social group with that title, and that title has implications, some good and some bad, in society. the core of trans ideology is that things that seem immutable, destined to fail, or inherently bad can be sources of change, success, and a culture of joy. that is the one thing that all trans people seem to agree on. that ideology is beautiful and necessary in society- i agree with you- but i do not think that can be applied to sex, although it can to gender. the problem is, the concept of gender is a product of the society that created it which right now is increasingly colonial and patriarchal and capitalist, and 'no ethical consumption under capitalism' doesn't only apply to things we personally don't like. feminism and gender abolitionism are ideologies that require a strong sense of self, the ability to think and read critically, a sense of compassion for other people, and the desire to liberate female people from patriarchy. you can swap in the words 'female people' and 'patriarchy' for any oppressed and oppressor group, all it takes is being strong enough to see cruelty within yourself and in front of you that you have some power to change. no true gender abolitionism can happen unless we all do the hard mental work and introspection that needs to be done to let structures like capitalism, patriarchy, racism, and albleism to fall. it's hard work, but i feel fulfilled in my life knowing that i act on the responsibility to be compassionate to my fellow human beings.

i will come back and edit this post to links with multiple sources because i don't have time right at this moment to find them all, and i wanted to put my message out first. maybe, try to find multiple sources yourself, first, so that you don't have to just take my word what what i'm saying. askjeeves is only a web search away. quick hint to start with: i know that andrea dworkin, who was a radical feminist, is against bioessentialism, which is a common thing that trans people generally as a group think that radical feminists generally as a group believe in. could you find out what she could have said that would make me think that? is that consistent with everything else she says? after youve done the reading you have to do to find those things out, what do you think?

signed, a factual gender abolitionist feminist for compassion

#gender abolitionism #feminism #radical feminism #radfemsafe #critical thinking #anticapitalism #antiracism #antipatriarchy #anti ableism #andrea dworkin

[roxannepolice]

I don't understand why communism is the only political ideology with a free pass of "well on the paper it's good", as if not taking into account human nature for your political ideology is a good thing. If every time you apply a political ideology to a country it goes like USSR or CCP, then maybe don't do it at all?? It's so strange to see people who are pro lgbt and all be in such an awe of these countries where they would most likely be dead...

As the great sage Sebastian the crab put it, The seaweed is always greener in somebody else's lake. And it's not like I completely don't get it, I'm not a big fan of the kind of hypercapitalist economy we have, and as I mentioned in the tags under that post about communism, I think one of the worst long term outcomes of 4 decades of socialism in Poland is that we still haven't developed a functional welfare state, instead oscillating between clientelistic state redistribution and what has grown to be called trash contracts. I'm not sure if it was Piketty or someone else who pointed out that one of the very few downsides of the end of cold war is that the West lost the element which makes free market work - competition. So long as there was genuine threat of superpower backed communist revolt in your country you just had to go for the carrot every now and then while dealing with workers.

Another matter is that communist (or rather neo-marxist, it's not like you'll find the impact of alienation of work on construction of gender binary in Marx or Engels) theories have a tautological self-defence mechanism in that you can always blame one false consciousness or another for all of the system's shortcomings. A lot of tumblrinas are willing to admit USSR and CCP weren't/aren't exactly paradises but that's "just because of" some nationalist element. Needless to say, you end up with a lot of social engineering to form a true homo sovieticus, but since all of education is already social engineering, then to protest would be hypocrisy, wouldn't it? And when it comes to people being upset about communist symbols abd personnages being used positively, then you can always clutch your pearls with whataboutism on national flags waving despite historical attricities 🤷

On a less constructivist and more idealistic side, there's something to be said for how flattering the "human nature" is in leftist ideals. Where capitalism shows you competition of everyone with everyone, socialism gives you essentially peaceful human whose aggressive or selfish impulses come from outside. It's the lost paradise myth all over again. The evil serpent comes with desire for more instead of vegetating in your garden which gives you anything you might ever justly want (incidentally, Fromm with his application of psychoanalysis to society compared communism to "archetypal" matriarchy, as opposed to "patriarchal" capitalism; where toxic patriarchy makes you always strive for more than you'd ever consume while cutting you off emotionally, toxic matriarchy will give you everything you'd ever need while making you completely dependent emotionally; he concluded the most functional society as happiest individual will combine the best of both).

I think there's also a more potentially optimistic level to the online image of communism, which lies in the "global village" of network society. The big reason historical communist states' economy was so. bloody. inefficient, and extensive, amd get away from me if you think ecology was on anyone's mind in the east bloc is centralization. Centrally steered economy means someone up top decides that we will produce x cars y shoes z wardrobes relying on imperfect statistics and so you end up with falling apart cars, shoes in unwearable size (not to mention such bourgeois concepts like they're plain not to your taste) and wardrobes that you already have (luckily, someone might be willing to trade your wrong sized ugly shoes in exchange for two packs of cigarettes they don't smoke). And no, you didn't just have to present a talon and get it, you still had to pay for it (I have some relatives living in France since WWII and according to them 60s French rioters believed there was no money in the east bloc 🙃🙃🙃). I think many people hope that the fast flow of global information might alleviate this problem. Theoretically, you can now have a situation where people en masse provide exact information of what they need. This kind of relies on the observation that communism does sometimes work - in really small communities of willing participants. If you see network society as a global village, then perhaps there is some potential for improvement. That's not say "oh but communism could really work now!" But this is a genuine qualitative difference and I wish both private corporations and political parties were making more use of it. On the other hand, providing live information on what people want and need is exactly what free market is supposed to do - the buyer constantly shows what they're willing to get for what price. (And I would LOVE beholding this website of proudly socially inept people haggling shoes for alcohol face to face instead of paying with their non-physical money without the need to make eye contact).

I suppose the problem is always monopolization, which erases all healthy competition (in the sense that you have to either lower your prices or improve quality) and this is definitely more and more visible in the current capitalism. What western tumblrinas don't seem to understand is that state run communism is monopolistic by default - your only provider is the state and any sign of individual entrepreneurship is a proof you want to undermine the state and therefore are against THE (ONLY TRUE) PEOPLE so off with your head for collective benefit.

Oh, and when it comes to LGBTQ+ matters specifically in the east bloc. They were mostly criminalised and considered mental illnesses, although probably the most telling stories come from the brief moments when it was decriminalised. People were still being persecuted in workplaces and their identity or orientation used as a leverage against them by state forces. All of this was just happening not so much legally or illegally but in a secret third way 🙃🙃

#i hope i'm not rambling too much but i sometimes get confronted with people thinking stalin was history's good guy #and end up dissociating via how amazing the plurality of perception can be #also sorry for sociological jargon it's just one of those cases where a word really gets the meaning

[posthuman-female-lifting-club]

This collective is born with the intention of spreading a new stance on the role of women in society and the importance of establishing control over the environment by regulating fertility and minimizing the consumption of animal protein, all while focusing on nutrition and sports.

Antinatalism is not a new position; it is a philosophical, political, and demographic stance against reproduction and the birth of new human beings, as we believe that overpopulation and mismanagement of resources are destroying the planet.

Additionally, we want to assert that as women, we are not obligated to have children and can have many other aspirations in life. We are tired of society viewing us as incubators, so we prefer to do everything possible to reduce our fertility. Humans are a deeply destructive species responsible for the suffering and death of billions of other humans and non-human animals. We are the species that most deserves to disappear from the planet or at least reduce its impact.

Because of all this, and due to sports, we can influence our reproductive capacity. And meanwhile we are training in bodybuilding, we can take responsibility for the consequences we leave as a species. Simultaneously we are fighting against the assumed role we are supposed to fulfill as women, how we should be and how our bodies should be. Society is afraid of us being strong, big, and taking absolute control of our bodies. The world that has been dominated by men for centuries is afraid that we can reach our full potential. That’s why through our posts, we want to spread our ideology and create an international movement.

It’s time to take control and fight for our maximum well-being. Don’t be afraid to see the best version of yourself. We are all united alongside the true good people who want to see strong women. It’s time to shatter the vision of men with our “monstrous muscular bodies”.

In this page, you will find the most basic concepts to immerse yourself in the PFLC lifestyle because it is not just a set of ideas, but a decision we make every day. From training to a nutritional plan and getting familiar with gym accessories, all of it is part of our guidance to help you gradually increase your level.

We want to remind you to set long-term goals and keep them in mind. You may start noticing changes in a few years because we strive to make the process as natural as possible for each person. Also, it’s important to familiarize yourself with new foods that you may not have consumed before, as they can reduce the likelihood of pregnancy by up to 50%. We also offer our supplements created in collaboration with the brand Posthuman Nutrition.

Before you dive into the content, we want to emphasize the importance of taking ownership of your own health. As mentioned before, the world doesn’t necessarily embrace strong women, which means we are socially pressured to conform to a normative body. We want to remind you of the significance of muscle mass, since its absence is one of the main issues related to aging. We are not here to please the male gaze; rather, we are here to be strong and independent throughout our lives.

We have to think about the world we want for tomorrow, whether our decision to bring more children into the world is selfish and what example we want to set for those who will unfortunately still be here. We are heading towards our own destruction, and it is not the best possible scenario for any childhood. Until humanity is able to regulate its greed, we must remain steadfast in this decision. There may be some downsides, but our mission only brings positive consequences to those around us.

#nutrition #workout #gym #bodybuilding #vegan #lifting #sport

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

Define Woman

So this is going to piss some people off, but frankly speaking I don’t give a damn. 

The words woman and man were words used to define the sex of a person. However, we ended up with a situation where gender is no longer a reference to sex, but instead to some strange amorphous concept with no meaning whatsoever. 

Gender in it’s original context was just and only “Man” and “Woman”. In their original meanings. Which was, “Man: Adult Human Male” and “Woman: Adult Human Female”. The reason these distinctions are important, is because gender originally had no difference from biological sex. Somehow however, because of bad actors like John Money (A child abuser, pedophile, and scientific hack) he both was the foundation of and the root cause of the normalization of terms like gender fluid, gender non conforming, and other stuff related to the term gender. 

Basically this monster is the reason the term gender now means nothing at all. What’s worse, there are politicians and parents worried about their kids now, and are asking biologists, doctors, and scientists, to define what a woman is. Asking if only women can get pregnant. If only women can get periods, and resoundingly, a lot of them have bowed down to the new radical norm that is, “Trans women are women”. 

And yes. It is a radical ideology. You might ask why. Simple answer? Because woman is SUPPOSED to mean as stated above, “Adult Human Female”. So by claiming that trans women are women, you are falsely claiming that trans women, who are biological men, are SOMEHOW able to ignore science, and just by the logic of claiming as such, have become biological women. 

The dangers to this are vast but let me explain one of the biggest ones. I recently saw a doctor, though I question her credentials, say that “...trans people should be able to change their sex assigned at birth on their licenses...” First of all.....no one is “Assigned a sex at birth”. If you really believe that you should be stripped of any ability to practice medicine. Sex is observed at birth. Not assigned. 

Secondly, men and women have biological differences. Not just sex organs. The types of medication and the amounts of those medications are VERY different. There’s a reason that drugs need to be tested on both men and women and women that are pregnant and may become pregnant. Because there was a lawsuit in early years that found that drugs were not universal, and affected men and women differently. 

Imagine walking into the doctor, and they see your ID, and it says, “F” on the license. And you tell them, “I’m a woman, give me the drugs you would a woman”. And it injures you permanently or kills you. Congrats. You are a moron with no one to blame but yourself. Because fun fact about medications. They don’t just affect you differently based on your sex, but also your size, and other medications and health complications. 

Though as things would have it, there are trans people that think the most inclusive thing is to NEVER be asked about if they are trans, and always HAVE to be treated like the “gender” they identify as. I’m sorry Susan, who used to be named Steve. Medication isn’t “Bigoted”. Biology isn’t “Bigoted”. Your entire life is based on a fabrication that you can be literally anything you want to be. We don’t live in a fantasy world though. Medications, much like biology is rooted in fact. And it doesn’t discriminate. And no amount of screaming into the wind, will change that. 

And there are people that are going to find this post to be, “Transphobic”. Well sorry you are offended by reality but the ideology you are trying to push is dangerous. Why? Well aside from the medical risks in regards to medications, there are also the complications that come from transition surgery. Which frankly there are a lot of. Contrary to the popular activist pushed idea that surgeries, and hormones will have zero negative effects whatsoever. 

It gets more rough when you realize how many people are not sterilized because rushed transitions. Wonder how many dead bodies will be enough from detransitioners, and people who don’t realize they are not trans, who need mental health help instead, but just get told to medically and chemically castrate themselves. How many have to die? How many lives need to be ruined before it’s too many. 

The answer? For the people I’m directing this at, it will never be enough. Because most of you believe that a 2yo can decide they are trans, and should just get put on hormones immediately, and have their junk cut off. The sooner the better right? God forbit they are too young to know that on their own. God forbid parents are capable of abusing their kids. Like Jazz Jennings. Who’s mother is basically abusing “her” and using “her” for fame. And you might say, “Why are you putting her in quotes?”. Because I don’t think Jazz is a girl. I think that Jazz’s mother wanted a daughter, and decided to take advantage of how easy kids are to impress upon, and created a daughter. Said mother also on the Life of Jazz show mentioned that she has to wake Jazz up in the middle of the night to dilate. And they will personally take the dilator, lube it up, and wake Jazz up to use it. Even when Jazz doesn’t want to. 

And said, “Oh no, when Jazz goes to college, I better not find out that they are not dilating themselves, she’s going to strangle Jazz”. Sure call it humor. I see it as a, Jazz better not take this dream of having a daughter with a fake vagina away from me”. No normal human talks like that. She basically got famous for transitioning her 2 yo and she is loving the attention. 

What kills me the most though is the attempt to change what woman means. So what did they change it to in order to be more “inclusive”? “Woman: An adult human female, or a person who otherwise identifies as a woman”.......Which is a funny as hell definition, because it cites itself in the definition. Meaning you get caught in an endless loop of what the word means, which is nothing since it can’t have a meaning while citing itself. What’s worse though is that the definition also doesn’t renounce it’s association with biological sex. Which is more or less criminal in my opinion. Because if “woman” is only a reference to “gender” then it should remove it’s association with biological sex fully. And I’ll just start calling everyone male or female. 

Right up until they decide that they need to change the definition of Female to something it’s not. Though I will admit, it’s going to be comical watching feminist loose their shit when they start losing rights because when words change definitions, so to do laws. 

So again. Define woman. 

And before someone tries to imagine this whole rant is because, “You clearly hate trans people”, realize what I want is less harm in the world. Less harm means NOT chemically castrating kids. Less harm means not cutting off body parts of kids who are not even old enough to consent to the consequences of sex, much less permanently cutting parts of their bodies, and chemically stunting their growth. 

Pretty sure if most of the suicides of trans people were looked into, it wouldn’t be because of lack of acceptance. It would be lack of proper mental and emotional health. It would be the fact that rather than addressing the mental health of a person we just rush them to transition. 

The last point I will make is this. Once upon a time, you could be a guy or a girl, and rather than being taught from childhood to hate yourself, we just told guys, hey if you want to wear a dress, wear a dress. We might think you are gay, but ya know, maybe you just want to wear dresses. We told girls, hey if you want to wear a suit or jeans, you can do that. We might think you are a lesbian, but maybe you just like looking more masculine. Who knows. It was kind of a given for a number of years that you didn’t have to conform to gendered norms. Hell, in the 90′s girls started wearing baggy clothing in mass. That didn’t make them not women. It just means they wanted to dress comfortable, or act more masculine in general. 

Now a days, if the wrong people, see that, they will go out of their way to convince that girl, that she is NOT in fact a girl but a boy in a girls body. I consider that to be harm. Because what happens when that girl is peer pressured and led into believing she IS a boy. Then as soon as she transitions all of a sudden, her life gets a lot harder. She is stuck on chemicals for years, and might have a number of medical issue crop due to cross sex hormones or the surgeries done to the body not lasting. Her life goes from however hard it might have been, to 100x harder, which she won’t be prepared for, because no one is going to tell her what all is going to happen. And no one except people not following this narrative, are going to tell her the truth about the risks. No one except people that are not following this narrative are going to tell the person to go to a NON affirming therapist before they make any medical choices. 

I can’t count the number of people I’ve seen share stuff like off market CSH’s and blockers to minors. I can’t count the number of people I’ve seen share information on shrinks that will just give you a note so you can start hormones SAME DAY. And that’s scary to me that the people harmed the most by this are kids and those whom are autistic. And when they eventually do off themselves, the people who suggested all of that will go, “IT”S NOT MY FAULT! MAYBE IF SOCIETY WORSHIPED US THIS WOULDN”T HAPPEN!”. It’s sad but this really is a sick form of eugenics. And the people falling for it will end up never able to have kids or in fully developed bodies. And I feel bad for them. *sigh* This is a lot longer than I wanted it to be. Maybe I’ll turn it into a video with just audio and repost later. Just stay safe out there.  

[shooting-stars-only]

So. I do not consider myself a radfem, TERF, or even gender critical. However, I have found myself reading more and more posts from radfem accounts and I'm kinda scared to say that they're starting to make more and more sense. I still support trans people, and most of the ones i've met are genuinely nice people that I wish all the best. However. I just dont buy into everything thats being said about including trans women who have not fully transitioned (aka no top/bottom surgery, hormones, etc) into women's bathrooms. I also feel ( no matter how hard I try to deny it) uncomfortable at the thought of letting trans women into lesbian bars, because its unfair of women to show forced attraction to literally the thing they came out as not being attracted to? Does that even make sense? Im confused, and worried, because most of my friends are very liberal an dsome are even trans/non binary/genderfluid, etc. and as much as I love all of them, Im starting to see things that they say or do that just dint make sense and seem suprisingly like something the media has brainwashed them into believeing and parroting. Idk what Im looking for- clarification? Reassurance? A horrible response so I can go back to hating/being against "TERFS"? Sorry for the long ask.

Hi anon! You totally make sense. I think a lot of us now-radfems had very similar experiences. I know I did. I'm no feminist scholar, but I do like to babble talk, so I'm going to give you my perspective on your points, then some resources that might help you sort things out. Though I am not going to touch on philosophical topics like postmodernism because frankly, I'm still trying to understand the details myself. First off, I know trans people whom I like very much. I used to ID as nonbinary and I still have friends from that time period who are pro-gender ideology. I don't think that individual trans people are evil, want to cause harm, or are intrinsically bad people. Personally, I approach the groups of trans people and Trans Rights Activists differently; the former are regular people who are doing their best to survive, like most of us. The latter are the ones pushing gender ideology into the public view and causing harm. There is considerable overlap, but this Venn diagram is not a perfect circle, so I'm being super-specific for clarity's sake. That said, some radfems genuinely do hate all trans people. I disagree with this, as you can see*. I take what I semi-jokingly call the JKR stance on trans people: many of them are good people. All of them deserve absolutely every human right that anyone else does, including respect, protection from violence, and medical care.

But there's a phrase that goes something like "Your rights end where they encroach on mine." That is my problem with gender ideology and the trans rights movement. Because proponents of gender ideology and trans rights are genuinely encroaching on women's rights. They are passing legislation to change the definitions of gender to be based on feelings and not on any material facts, suppressing not just the needs but the very existence of biological women.

Your mentions of lesbian bars and women's bathrooms are perfect examples—the eradication of female-only spaces in favor of ones inclusive of trans women (males). Women are being de-centered from womanhood—not just in feminism, or even in pop culture, but in the experience of being female and having female-specific needs.

So, why is this problematic? (PS: I don't know how much radical feminist theory you've read, so apologies if you're already familiar with these concepts.)

Female socialization begins at birth (or even before) and consists mainly of the stereotypes of femininity being enforced on us. This socialization is part of what creates the divide between the oppressed and the oppressor. This is true regardless of when a person transitions; they could be ten years old and still will have lived 10 years being treated as their biological sex. This is just true, regardless of what anyone says. There are countless studies on the topic, which I can link you if you want, and of course, our own lived experiences—females are treated differently (worse) than males, and it starts before girls can even consciously realize it.

So, females want our own spaces because we have different needs, for physical and social reasons, and those are being taken away. This isn't ~TERF hysteria~ but objectively true; males want into our space and society is being convinced to let them have it. In fact, I would argue that trans-identified males (trans women) are appropriating oppression for claiming discrimination when females assert boundaries for their female-only spaces. It is fundamentally unfair to expect women to drop their boundaries to be inclusive of males.

(oh god I wrote literal paragraphs on other material consequences of gender ideology...not posting them now but can share if you're interested)

You also mention that you've noticed your friends parroting ideas that don't make sense to you. You aren't imagining that or making things up. The words "groupthink" and "thoughtcrimes" get thrown around a lot, but I really do believe there is a massive suppression of critical thinking or even asking good-faith questions about gender ideology going on—you are socially punished for questioning it, and sometimes legally punished. So, many of your friends may be supporting TRAs out of fear. Some might feel powerful because of it and be happy where they are. Some might buy into gender ideology because it's easier than thinking critically about these concepts—I was like that for a long time. Gender ideology gave me nice, pat rationalizations about my own feelings, cushioned me from acknowledging the reality of misogyny, and provided a friend group based on the queer community. But it is fundamentally not true, and I decided I care more about truth than my own emotional comfort.

(That said, it did take me years to come to this conclusion, so I empathize very much with women who also take time.)

So what I'm trying to say here is that your concerns are valid. I encourage you very much to do your own research and form your own opinions on the topic of gender. Contrary to what some TRAs say, reading or watching radfem content is not going to brainwash you. For all I know, you'll think, "wow, this is bullshit." (I suspect not, but you never know.)

Regardless, learning about radical feminism will inform you, and you can take what you've learned and decide what to do with it. Please remember that you are a smart woman who doesn't need to adhere to the gospel of any community because they say so.

(And for what it's worth, I've found radical feminist communities to be much more open to differing opinions and debate than queer communities ever were.)

Here are some resources:

Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism - Kathleen Stock (I adore this book. She has a very measured take on the topic and concentrates on the impacts of gender ideology as a whole rather than on individual cases.)

JKR's infamous essay, if you haven't read it

Detransition: Beyond Before and After - Max Robinson (A tentative rec because I only just started reading it, but it's an account of a woman who underwent transition due to dysphoria, then detransitioned as she discovered radical feminism. Short summary of a complex book, but it might be worth reading.)

Good luck, anon! Please feel free to DM me or send me another ask if you'd like. I 1000% will never out anyone who contacts me.

NB: Can any of my followers contribue video resources anon might find helpful?

*I want to acknowledge that as a 30-something bi woman in a long-term het relationship who doesn't do much social media (or even interact with many people IRL), I haven't been exposed to the bigotry, hate, and occasional physical violence that, for example, an early-20s lesbian might have. I'm sympathetic to women who've experienced this and understand their anger.

#anon.txt #terfs do touch #terfs do interact #radfems do touch #radfems do interact #gender ideology #gender critical #long post

[loveatfirstwriteblog]

A Complete Analysis of Harry Potter

Like a lot of kids, we probably grew up on Harry potter. We were obsessed and rightly so. The universe created in the world of Harry Potter was, and is, a hugely successful one because of the fact it gave kids a world where magic exists! It seemed to be a great world to live in and it made even better with the fact that it included elements of empowerment, Whether it be showing girls can be just as successful if not more in various pursuits(Hermione), or the fact that even if you have a history of bad events, you can have a good heart(Hagrid), Harry Potter teaches us a lot.

JKR has written a mind-blowing plot in a world of magic, wizards, witches, wands, potions, friendship, love. Our inner-five-year olds--and actually most of our young adult selves too--jumps around excitedly at the beautifully penned words that creates an exit out of this world and into one where magic does exist. 

As you get older, though, you begin to think of Harry Potter in a more critical fashion. The thought of “oh my god, it’s magic” no longer completely overrides my mind, but more of “but what are the laws regarding this? Can people just do this whenever they want? Are there no ethics?” 

No matter how much we’re going to expose the flaws and plot holes in HP now, we’ll always love the books--we grew up on them! But some things just niggle you as you get older, and that’s what we’re going to be focusing on in this post.

Something I adore about the HP books is that everyone, including the “good guys”, has flaws. Harry has a “save the world alone, do first, think later” complex, a driving force that makes him go save Sirius, Ron is very, very insecure to a point where he ditches Harry twice, probably when Harry needed him the most, Hermione is a judgemental, narrow-minded nag (her thoughts on Luna, divination, Trelawney, basically anything that doesn’t fit her black and white world), Molly Weasley is misogynistic and blatantly favourites her children—probably being one of the main factors behind Ron’s insecurities, Arthur is condescending towards Muggles and makes several comments you cringe at while reading the books as a young adult/adult, Sirius, Snape, and Lupin still haven’t let go of their childhood grudges and hatred, etc etc etc. 

These flaws are what make these characters so three-dimensional, so layered, so human. But the problem was, most of these flaws are never intentionally acknowledged. And honestly, that could have been such a good character arc, because the main characters are mostly students. No student is the same through their teenage years—they change, they evolve, they get over their flaws, they try to better themselves. I would have loved to see Ron becoming his own person, Hermione opening her mind up a little, etc. 

Neville is not one of my favourites, but I love his growth and development, from someone who was scared of his potions professor to a man who faced down Lord Voldemort. Ginny Weasley could have had character development, from the trauma she went through in second year, but that was never written in.  She went through this terrifying ordeal when she was only twelve years old, and jump to a year or two later and she’s absolutely fine, with no transition from her trauma whatsoever.

Some of JKR’s characters are brilliantly written and fleshed out, but some of her others lack the structure and complexity that usually comes with being vital to the plot—Ginny Weasley for one. Her internalised misogyny also plays a huge part in the way her female characters are written. We see this again in the case of how she wrote the character of Ginny. 

Ginny Weasley is not a favourite of ours (if you don’t know that by now). She feels a lot like a convenient male daydream—when she waits for Harry to notice her by dating other guys, gets annoyed by Hermione “not knowing quidditch”, etc etc—and fits the “not like other girls” archetype too much, almost like she was made for it (hint hint). She’s portrayed to be strong-willed, spunky, and independent, and I love the idea, but I really don’t see it. To me, she’s a very shallow character, the least fleshed out one. 

Just like James Potter wasn’t necessarily redeemed just because JKR said he was, and Ginny isn’t interesting just because JKR writes that she is. 

Hermione also fits the archetype, but she’s JKR’s self-insert, so we really can’t say much about that. 

To make things worse, Ginny and Hermione are pitted against each other in a very subtle way. Ginny is the sporty, pretty, flirty girl who’s never single from book 4. Hermione is the not-conventionally-attractive, nerdy girl who’s had a few dates here and there but never a relationship. They’re very different characters (the only thing they have in common is the archetype) but they’re against each other in the defence of Harry. 

Another place where JKR’s misogyny shows up is the way other girls are written. Lavender Brown is shown as vapid and immature, just because she likes clothes and boys and didn’t know how to handle her first relationship. Cho Chang is perceived as shallow because she’s emotional. Pansy Parkinson is seen to be throwing herself at Draco Malfoy. The Weasleys hated Fleur because she was beautiful and sexy and French, and that was ever really resolved in the end (Molly accepted her, but we never got Ginny’s and Hermione’s opinions again). You see where we’re getting at? The typical “girly girls” are portrayed as insipid, shallow, emotional, and boring, while girls like Hermione and Ginny are seen to be fun and multilayered. 

The problems with Harry Potter don’t just stop with non-fleshed out characters. There are plot devices that go unacknowledged, issues like blood purity—which is the basis of Voldemort’s tyranny—are never really resolved, huge Chekhov’s guns that aren’t fired. 

A common misconception, which if cleared up could probably expose a load of problems in wizarding society by itself, is that the wizarding world is racist. It’s not racist. Muggles and Muggleborns are not a different race, they’re a different class, at least according to pureblood wizards. Mudblood is a classist insult (a direct reference to nobility blueblood and aristocracy).

Another factor that wasn’t talked about but made the HP world so complex and realistic is the inherent classism in every single pureblooded wizard, including the Weasleys.

 The “Light” wizards all operate on the notion “at least I don’t kill or torture Muggles”. The Weasleys refuse to talk about Molly’s squib cousin who’s an accountant, the Longbottoms were so desperate for Neville to not be a squib they nearly killed him trying to force magic out of him, Ron makes fun of Filch for being a squib, thinks house-elves are beneath him, and confounds his driving instructor in his mid-thirties, the ministry workers kept obliviating that muggle at the quidditch World Cup, etc. 

This could have been a metaphor for how small prejudices and microaggressions (kind of the wizarding equivalent of white privilege) enable discrimination and murder, if JKR had actually acknowledged it. 

The parallel to Nazi Germany is very twisted and definitely shouldn’t be taken too far, but the Nazi ideology grew on the basis of everyday antisemitism, “that’s not that bad” little things. Voldemort’s circle and army grew because the wizard superiority complex festered and blew up in some people, egged on by a deeply classist society. 

Ultimately, Harry Potter has very, very shoddy worldbuilding, the kind of worldbuilding that’s obsessed with answering the “what” of the wizarding world, rather than the “how” or the “why”, which is strange, considering that fantasy or dystopian-era novels’ driving plots and conflicts are usually answering the questions the worldbuilding raises--The Hunger Games and The Shadowhunter Chronicles are two of the best examples of brilliantly written YA fantasy and dystopian novels. 

In HP, however, the main plot just avoids the questions the worldbuilding brings up like the bubonic plague. 

Voldemort’s agenda is built on prejudice towards Muggles and Muggleborns, but the plot just validates the negative perception of them—at the end of the day, being a wizard is what’s special. The Statute of Secrecy is the foundation of the main concept—blood supremacists believe wizards shouldn’t be hidden away—but only vague, barely-there answers are given to why it exists (a Chekhov’s gun that was never fired). 

There are love potions that function like date rape drugs (even Harry was given one by a girl who wanted him to ask her out), potions that force people to tell the truth, potions that literally let you disguise yourself as another person, but the ethics are never talked about, and the laws are so lax that three twelve-year-olds broke them and were never caught. 

But at the same time, the worldbuilding is so authentic, because it transforms the wizarding world into straight-up fridge horror. The everyday horrors are just accepted and rolled with. A corrupt government, constant obliviation of Muggles, slavery that isn’t even talked about. These things aren’t obvious to us as readers, or to the wizards as characters, because they match up to the real world, which is filled with things that are horrifying if you dig deeper. The multiple, normalised forms of abuse, police brutality, the violence in prisons that nothing is done about, the glaringly obvious cultural problems we have with consent, etc. 

The abusive authoritative figures in HP, like Rufus Scrimgeour, Cornelius Fudge, Dumbledore, Umbridge, etc, are so authentic because real-life politicians and people in high places of power behave that way, and their abuse is excused. 

The wizarding world is just like the real world. Corrupt, prejudiced, messed up, but if you’re privileged, or at least have certain privileges, you’re probably not going to notice. The ultimate problem is that the plot doesn’t acknowledge a lot of fridge horror things are messed up either, which is why it miserably fails. 

#harry potter #shoddy worldbuilding #flaws #plotholes #ron weasley #hermione granger #draco malfoy #jk rowling #tom riddle #lord voldemort #dumbledore #rufus scrimgeour #cornelius fudge #dolores umbridge #ginny weasley #molly weasley #arthur weasley #pansy parkinson #fleur delacour #luna lovegood #lavendar brown #cho chang #hagrid #sirius black #severus snape #james potter #remus lupin #amortentia #veritaserum #polyjuice potion

[sistervirtue]

okay so im seeing people get anons about this and its coming up in friend groups so i think now's actually a pretty good time to tackle the idea of religious (specifically cultic) abuse in media and how we as an audience interact with it

TLDR: dehumanization and sexualization of cult victims furthers the misunderstanding that cults "don't exist now", and RA survivors would feel much safer in fandom spaces if people acknowledged and analyzed the harmful portrayals of cults in media.

cw: discussions of cults, abuse, and sexual assault

also, if you have questions, please shoot me an ask or dm (off anon preferably, though)

let me start this with a disclaimer that i dont think every media that features ra is inherently bad. i think thats a bit harsh and as an ra survivor ive come to terms with the fact that there are going to be depictions of it in ways that maybe dont give it the respect it deserves, and trying to "what about [x]" everything will only lead people to talking in circles with themselves. what i want to address here is how you, as a consumer, respond to and parse out what cultic abuse means in any particular portrayal of it.

*also please don't harass people about their RAS status, like, if you see someone enjoying something with a less than stellar portrayal of cults, don't send them asks or dms like "well are YOU a cult survivor?" reducing the consumption of media to a yes or no game based on identity-- especially an identity that comes as the result of explicit pain and spiritual violation is not only derivative but also degrading to survivors and the people you're grilling. all we want is for people to think carefully about what they spread and portray, and how they think about those situations.

so, i think the first thing to tackle is...what is a cult? This is something that's surprisingly hard to define, especially in fictional settings with fictional cults. For example, (and pardon the use of this example, I don't feel like hunting for others), My Hero Academia has an organization in it that I would say fits the criteria for being a cult, but by and large isn't considered one by fans because it's not explicitly called a cult. (Although numerous cult jokes have been made about it). It also has an organization that IS explicitly referred to as a cult.

So, when you're dealing with how to process what is and is not a cult-- and how to make your presence safe for RA survivors, you have to be able to sift through more than just "did the narrative tell me this is a cult?"

There's a few different models people use; one of the most popular being the BITE model-- but I should clarify that the BITE model is really tailored towards religious and strictly hierarchal cults, but can be applied to other kinds of cults.

(and yes, there are cults other than religious/spiritual ones. corporate cults and wellness cults have been on the rise, and it's good to keep that in mind both when engaging with media and also in the real world.)

However, I'm a religious cult survivor, so a lot of my experience is strictly irt this, so please take what I say with a grain of salt, and know that I don't speak for every cult survivor, every religious cult survivor, or every religious abuse survivor. I am One Guy on the internet.

When it comes to media, I have a few questions I run through in order to figure out if something is A Cult.

1) Fringe Ideas. This one is one of those that most people know-- and often incorrectly use to attribute cult status to other things. However, it is worth mentioning, that you don't become a cult by following mainstream ideologies. BUT. BUT. not every group with weird ideas is a cult! Some groups are just weird and are fine being weird. It's a rectangles and squares situation. All cults have fringe ideas and behaviors, not all fringe ideas and behaviors belong to cults.

2) Hierarchies. Cults always have people in power, at least in my experience. There have been ideas thrown around about "completely decentralized cults"-- but to be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about that concept, and I don't know enough about it personally to say whether or not it's legitimate. If you have any sources, hmu.

BUT. Most cults have a power structure. You're going to have leaders, usually with a handful at the verrrrry tippy top, whose word is law. This can be associated with things like religious ideas (channelling god) or being "a genius", like in corporate cults.

3) Control. I cannot stress this enough; cults are all about control. How you think, feel, behave-- they discourage critical thought, encourage snitching on each other, buddy-group behavior; the BITE model explicitly lists these models of control.

4) Us V Them. Cults will give all those that oppose them or simply don't believe them a bad name. They're uneducated, they're evil-- it varies cult to cult, but you'll see them turning the non believers into a homogenous, frightening group. They want to discourage looking outwards, and they want to viciously isolate members.

Other things of note are extremism, talks of enlightenment, harsh punishments, the cult eating large portions of the member's finances, etc.

However, this post is largely to address FICTIONAL cults. and the unfortunate fact of the matter is that fictional cults are rarely fleshed out in a way that can be held one to one to a model, and, more often, don't even afford the victims of a cult humanity.

and this is one of THE biggest issues you find in cult portrayals. the leader is usually a charismatic, or perhaps menacing, figure, one that usually our protagonists-- who are rarely cult victims, they are typically outsiders (not inherently bad, mind you)-- faces personally, with the hoardes of mindless zombies forming one giant hurdle.

Naturally, this can be...hurtful. There's nuance to who is and is not a victim in a cult (although my rule of thumb is to look at what abuses that person specifically exerts over others-- and you can be both a victim and perpetrator of abuse. to treat them exclusively is lacking all nuance), but the people are the bottom, even if they joined willingly, are people who were preyed upon. Not only that, but many media cults forget that people can be born into cults, and never really had a choice to begin with. To treat these people like they are mindless-- or that they deserve the suffering they are in because they are there-- completely erases all nuance, humanity, and understanding to the cult survivior struggle. Not only that, but it continues to sensationalize and deify cult leaders, which is doing their job for them, really.

The second biggest issue is the romanticization and sexualization of cults, religious abuse, and cultic abuse.

(yes...this is a thing.)

The use of cults as a way to make a character edgy or tragic is one thing, but there's something sinister about using it to project a certain sexual behavior onto that character-- whether it be as the subjugator or subjugated. Sexual abuse is rampent in cults, and ritualistic sexual abuse is used to justify it. To sexualize the idea of a cult(ist) raping and abusing someone is...beyond offensive to anyone who has been in a cult where their sexual safety and autonomy has been compromised. Or, in some cases, the cultist is so naive and sheltered they can be easily coerced and taken advantage of due to their brainwashing.

This is...bad? This is bad. To ignore the fact that these depictions are just as harmful as any other romanticization of abuse is to ignore the real suffering of cult victims.

Really, the larger problem is that people don't really think cults exist, not really. They're all things of the past, or things that exist solely in fiction-- when in reality, every day cults form and continue to grow. If you've ever met a mormon, you've met a cultist. The moment you begin to process and parce the fact that this isn't as bizarre and unusual and fictional as it seems, you take the steps to respecting people who have been in that situation and become better at detecting cults, cult recruitment, and are able to more clearly assess what you take in.

Once again, there's so many bad portrayal of cults that it would be...stupid to call for an immediate disowning of anything with it in it. I personally have come to terms with the idea that I will have gripes about these portrayals in most cases, but rarely do I see people other than fellow RA or cult survivors discussing these portrayals. I'm hoping people can become more aware and willing to discuss cults in a serious and analytical context and criticize how they're portrayed in the things they love.

And once again, cult survivors are NOT a monolith. If a cult survivor expresses they are uncomfortable with something I said here that I'm not, or vice versa, listen to the people who actively surround you and whom you care about.

#nyc knacks #cults #ive been sitting on this for a while but it came up on the dash and i took the opportunity to talk abt it #bc i feel very passionately abt it #ok 2 rb