I have a special kind of contempt for the kinds of scammers who not only use the Palestinean genocide in order to con others out of their money, but don't bother to match the name of anyone in their story, much less themselves, to the one they have on their paypal, which is a service that isn't even available in Palestine btw

Just saw a TikTok where someone called the movies a better adaptation (because the show missed a few scenes) and I saw red.

People are trying way too hard to hate on the show.

I am once again thinking about the reluctant ruler whose arc justly and correctly includes assuming the throne and taking responsibility for the people set before them

Apollo has seizures every time a prophecy is spoken so it is painful

and when the Oracles are established, they do not go away, just become less painful

i try not to block people here without very good reason bc it’s a small enough fandom as is i feel like but i’ve had it up to HERE with people spreading erik’s fucking age-restricted audios. especially if you’re a minor participating in this shit because you shouldn’t even fucking be here

Them : “There’s no platonic explanation for Tim blowing up the moon when Bertie died.”

Me, a borderline aroace thinking about QPRs and FPs and idolization and the white hot rage felt when someone hurts my closest friend : “Y’all are cowards.”

So I’m doing a bunch of little things I’m calling After Dinner Mints for post final fight Dungeon Meshi (cuz the goal is they’ll be short and sweet) but

It just hit me

Kabru went and kicked Mithrun’s ass into gear after having his last desire removed and not thinking there was anything else to do with his life now

Kabru

Kabru whose whole teen and adult life was about finding a way to get rid of all of the dungeons forever so Utaya couldn’t happen again

Which

Y’know

They just did that

And if Kabru even thinks “well shit what do I do with my life now” Mithrun’s gonna hone in on him like a shark and beat his ass like he did after the “the world is ending and it’s all my fault” soliloquy

Sooooo that might be a slightly longer thing

once again, begging, BEGGING everyone in the cr fandom to stop making posts critiquing how the fandom is being weird about one cast member by saying "if it was x, the fandom would love this/hate this even more." it turns out the cr fandom contains Multitudes of weird ass people and just because you haven't seen those reactions (or, even funnier if you are making claims about what the fandom does/does not do to other cast members, were not in the fandom during c1/c2) does not mean they do not exist. like there are certainly different social dynamics and injustices at play in some of the reactions the audience has to cast members, but almost always it is less a case of misogyny/queerphobia and more a case of people forgetting that storytelling is about understanding choices you would not yourself make and watching characters develop through conflict/struggle.

like, you can have the most salient point to make in the world about how shitty the reaction of the fandom to a certain cast member's (not their character, but the cast member as a person) choices but you immediately undo that if you make a claim like "if liam did this, the fandom would love it." perhaps the part of the fandom you are in, but certainly not the fandom that wanted to persecute him for having vax choose keyelth over gilmore, certainly not the fandom that consistently manufactured actual dislike between him and marisha throughout campaign 2 because of character choices.

likewise you might be absolutely right in criticizing the choices of the character that one of the cast members is playing, but if then in turn you say, "if this was a female cast member, everyone would hate it." my brother in christ, You are already the person who hates that character choice and it Wasn't a female cast member, so what is the truth? unless you have the statistics on the opinions every person who engages with the cr fandom has, truly just. you can make your point without appealing to a sense of misogyny/queerphobia/favouritism or whatever that you have no actual grounds for believing exists except for the fact that misogyny in general exists.

this isn't to say that things like misogyny don't influence how people react to things, all of our opinions are mediated through the social and material conditions in which we live. obviously, misogyny exists. however, truly, truly, the bigger problem in the cr fandom (at least on twitter/tumblr, idk about reddit and that is a choice I've intentionally made) is the consistent expectation that the cast adheres to what so many fans call 'comfort media' and a requirement that one's own opinions be validated by what the majority of the fandom believes (which aside from the obvious, is also an absurd expectation because trying to gauge the 'majority' of the cr fandom would be truly so much data). the cast have made it explicit many times that they value things like high stakes and big risks in their storytelling, and sometimes that means stupid character choices, character deaths, or interparty conflict. so much of the fandom has decided to engage with cr regardless of this and then gets upset when the liveplay of a ttrpg built around conflict contains conflict. similarly, people who claim to enjoy this conflict then get pissed off when other people in the fandom disagree with them and give away the ghost that what they want is validation by arguing that it is somehow problematic for the other side to have their opinions. it is much easier to blame any lack of satisfaction on how, actually, your section of the fandom has the right opinion and, actually, if everyone else wasn't queerphobic/misogynistic then they would see the proverbial light.

anyway, this is just me ranting out of both literal and metaphorical exhaustion with the "persuasive" (heavy quotes) tactics that some people in this fandom use. please look up some tips on like, how to avoid logical fallacies or formal critical thinking or just like. state your opinions and say you dislike the other options without thinking you need to provide some (often blatantly and horribly incorrect) rationale for how you're right. accept the pretentious bastard within yourself and stop seeking validation for your opinions in the fandom around you, your opinions are already correct if you assume them to be.

Hey, Jews, go block this son of a bitch.

She has openly admitted to not caring about Israeli Jews, said that October 7th was fucked but protection, said that it wasn’t the Jews land but prayed at the temple, she’s a borderline Hamas praiser, and is a massive fucking hypocrite, it’s honestly irritating.

there is a difference between being born to a throne, maliciously vying for a throne, stealing a throne, and having a throne thrust upon you when you are already in the midst of an identity crisis. And I fear Loki's place in the line of succession has people unable to differentiate between any of these

How exactly can Aegon the Usurper justify his claim to the throne when he allows a woman such as Lady Jeyne Arryn act as Warden of a Kingdom during his so-called “rule”?

++(adding on the last ask, sorry i just forgot to put this there) it's also the very very VERY weird way they keep talking like the jewish culture was completely erased from the rest of the Europe and the german speaking countries, like we didn't know how there were people fighting and resisting and trying to create communities before and after holocaust. this does NO erase holocaust, and that's one of the most enraging parts for me too: talking like the resistance of jewish people outside israel would somehow negate holocaust and antisemitism. this is fucking bonkers?

during the whole article i was thinking "why would the Germans have ownership of the works of an writer who is from PRAGUE? writing in german does not immediately imply this, and the fact that he was born in Prague does not negate the antisemitism he faced"

Kafka writing about his experience with oppression inside a country where antisemitism was so recurrent does not make him an symbol of the israeli state, and that's mainly what they're trying to affirm. by doing this they're trying to erase the way his works relate so much with the oppression other groups suffer inside other places, including the ones being attacked by the israeli state.

Yes, Israel's whole rhetoric is very deliberately constructed narrative which often raises uncomfortable questions.

And I also agree I think it's weird how there's complete exclusion of the country that Kafka was from (but then again, was he from Czech Republic (because that didn't exist back then) or was he from Austria? That existed in some sort). In any case, Kafka identified with the minority in the Austro-Hungarian empire (Hermann also), that is with Czechs.

What Kafka's nationality was is a tricky subject overall but the reality is that Prague is in Czech Republic so it is Czechs' "responsibility" to preserve Kafka in that city. Israel and Germany are just both weird about Franz Kafka and are trying to have hegemony over his legacy when none of them actually have tangible credibility.

I think fans want Jason to be a good person or be becoming one. To have a character that is well meaning and compassionate but decided murder is ok and to stand against main heroes who’s beliefs and actions go against the people he cares about and wants in his life. It’s confusing for people. People want their fav characters to be happy. But Jason can’t have his family’s support and follow his moral code. He’s cares about people and Gotham, and he’s an asshole who kills. It’s messy. It’s not black and white. I don’t even think Jason cares about being a good person or in the right anymore. I think he cares about what will save the most people instead.

Oh my goodness gracious I’ve been bamboozled

Batman’s definition of Good is not synonymous with absolute good/right no matter how much dc insists it is. Torture, battery/assault, surveillance, those are all condemnable actions too. I won’t get into the exhausting and frankly dumb debate of comic book morality wrt killing because I’ve already reblogged plenty of posts from other people who explained my thoughts on the matter far better than I ever have the patience to sit down and articulate. I also just think the notion that there’s something to be done about fictional characters who kill nazis and senseless murderers is stupid. Jason’s point is that the “main” heroes’ sanitized definition of right has its unaddressed holes and flaws which ultimately result in more preventable fatalities, and that he’ll work to correct those missing spots.

He doesn’t not care about doing what’s right. What he doesn’t care about (at least during his Winick characterization) is whether Batman thinks he’s right or wrong, because he sees the flaws in Batman’s methodology (and since he has a mind of his own). Batman’s methods alone cannot address Arkham’s revolving door and the rogues that come and go through those doors who have no intention (or capability from the doylist pov) of ever changing or undergoing redemption. Jason knows that he’s minimizing the number of preventable deaths by killing his targets, typically Characters Who Simply Do Fucked Up Shit Just Because, Why The Fuck Not?

Secondly, Jason is compassionate … to a fault. That was his fatal flaw. If he wasn’t so hell-bent on saving his potential birth mother he just met from that bomb despite everything she did to him prior, he could have protected himself instead, however slim his odds of survival were. What about his relationship with his other parents? He was a caregiver during his early childhood years for Catherine, until her death. Even mature adults who are financially stable find being a caregiver to a dying parent to be extremely burdensome on their bodies and minds, but he never complained about it or resented Catherine for being unable to care for him. Despite how none of his parents have really been what he needed them to be, he doesn’t blame them for their failings, and even continues to think highly of them (Bruce included).

And post-death? Enter Lost Days. Despite being dead set on plotting his revenge on Bruce, he constantly sidelines this in order to save other victims who are helpless like he once was. His own anger, trauma, and mission don’t remain his priority. (Sound familiar? Something something my own trauma above my son’s, mission above all else, etc.). Why would he waste precious time and risk his own life to do this if he wasn’t empathetic towards these victims or didn’t care about doing the right thing. He is simultaneously horribly traumatized and full of rage, and also incapable of ignoring what’s happening to victims around him (even as he claims that it’s indeed not his priority). And in that same vein, the entire premise of his rebirth outlaws run was that he doesn’t care if the public views him as a villain, an outlaw, so long as he can protect Gotham. And anyway where is this portrayal of him not caring about being in the right anymore. Almost every modern Jason story is about him grappling with where he stands with Bruce/Batman. During the early 2000s was probably the last time he did not care (hello, tentatodd??).

Jason has very evidently been portrayed as a kind and compassionate character. He is also simultaneously a calculated killer who doesn’t hesitate to kill when he deems necessary, and does so without remorse. It’s called being a Complex Character With An Edge™ that as you said, people so often claim to love. However when he fulfills that latter part, that seems to upset people because “killing bad”, and they then try to shave off and round out all his edges and claim he shouldn’t be that angry. In that case I guess you should just stick to liking traditional one-dimensional characters instead of claiming to like Jason but then encouraging his character assassination attempt by dc. Lol.

Lastly, who said anything about the batfam making Jason happy? Just because he’s written nowadays to want acceptance from Bruce (a shoddy attempt at forcing a non-existent nuclear batfamily), doesn’t mean that it’s a sound decision or that it does his character justice. I certainly don’t empathize with the idea that Jason needs the family’s approval or acceptance to be happy. (And anyway he has enough outlets for angst and pain aside from the batfam hello explore his other sources of trauma and do more deep dives into how he thinks when he’s alone). I don’t want them to magically make up and become one big happy family. This is not disney Lol. Besides, there are plenty of stories from dc that have that type of “wholesome” (hate that word utilization) characterization for Jason (Li’l Gotham, Tiny Titans, wfa, and even new stuff like the brave and the bold mini) and that is sufficient imo. Jason fans who are invested in the character deserve accurate, nuanced characterization and well-written stories, whether they be from his robin days (e.g., Batman: The Cult) or as red hood.

I like how people on tumblr post the most bullshit misinformation or unsourced claims and then write "you literally can't make this shit up" when it's literally made up

Something that has been helpful for me when having conversations about what counts as intersex is to really engage in enquiry about what the label means and how we're using it. To me, it's been more helpful to think through questions like:

What purpose does labeling a variation as intersex serve?

In what ways is societal understandings of "typical" changing?

Why was the label of intersex created and has our use of the label shifted?

What ways are we building intersex community? What do we want intersex community to look like?

How do our experiences of oppression impact our understanding of intersex as a term?

What sources are we drawing from when we develop definitions of intersex?

What is the history of the way intersex has been used?

What ways has intersex community been exclusionary in the past, and is that in line with our current values?

Definitions of intersex have always been tied up with what the medical world decides to classify as differences of sex development, but especially in the past twenty years as intersex community has grown more connected, we've started to have a lot more self-determination in our communities. But I think a lot of people still really have a misconception that intersex is a biological "third sex" that is strictly medically defined, and that there are clear cutoffs between intersex and endosex.

Instead, I'd like to bring in the concept of compulsory dyadism to introduce a framework where intersex is an intentional political label used as a way to build community for the people whose variation of sex characteristics are most impacted by the stigma and violence associated with compulsory dyadism.

Sex diversity is not just limited to intersex people. Even within the boundaries of dyadic/endosex bodies, people have variations like different amounts of body hair, penis size, hormone levels, breast size, as well as things like disabilities affecting any of those traits. For example, very few people actually have all the "ideal" traits that line up with this constructed idea of an endosex body that has the exact "correct" amount of estrogen, the right size chest, the ability to bear children, "normal" periods. Many endosex people might have a variation in one of those aspects at differing times during their life, such as during menopause, for example. And this framework can help us understand how diagnoses such as endometriosis are not intersex, but people might still notice overlaps in certain experiences.

But the reason that not everyone is considered intersex and the reason that having a separation between endosex and intersex is important is because of the stigma and violence associated with straying further and further from that dyadic norm, and intersex is a label used to describe people who are the most impacted by that stigma and violence. We have been socially labeled as "deviating" the most from the "normal" sex binary, and consequentially face intersexism both on a systematic and personal level. Our collection of sex variations becomes located entirely outside of the sex binary, and as a result, we often face curative violence, social stigma, and systematic exclusion from many parts of society.

This definition isn't a perfect definition. I think we need to have room to develop more nuance around the fact that many intersex people might not feel like their experience of being intersex has brought them any personal stigma or violence, as well as understanding that there isn't going to be a universal intersex experience. Even when discussing how intersex people are the most impacted by compulsory dyadism compared to endosex people, I think it's important to recognize that within the intersex community, our additional intersecting identities are absolutely going to influence our experiences with oppression and that it's vital to intentionally uplift the members of our intersex community who are most impacted by oppression. In the United States, the creation of the sex binary was an explicitly racist process, and racialized intersex people are subject to additional layers of stigma, violence and scrutiny. (Check out chapters 4-6 in the book Cripping Intersex by Dr. Celeste Orr for a really in depth discussion of how antiblackness and compulsory dyadism are forces behind why the Olympic sports sex testing has pretty much exclusively targeted Black women from the Global South, regardless of whether or not they are actually intersex. Also recommend reading The Biopolitics of Feeling: Race, Sex, and Science in the Nineteenth Century by Dr Kyla Schuller.) I also have talked with many intersex people who are tired of us always being represented through trauma narratives in the media, and who want us to be able to build a definition of intersex that isn't based around violence or tragedy. And I think that's really important that we also share our stories of intersex joy, and pride, and healing. I think that claiming intersex can be something really radical, and that's super valuable to me.

Overall I think that if we build our discussions around who is intersex on concepts to do with our social and political location, and take into consideration concepts like compulsory dyadism, sex diversity, and disability, we are going to be able to understand why any of it matters better than if our determinations of intersex identity are based solely in medicalized concepts of a third sex.

TL;DR: Although endosex people also have diversity when it comes to sex traits, intersex is still an important label that not everyone can claim. Compulsory dyadism is a force that affects all of us, but intersex people are the most impacted by compulsory dyadism and face intersexist stigma and violence for our intersex variations. As a result, intersex is an important label for us to claim so that we can build community and solidarity around our experiences. I think it is better understood as a sociopolitical label that describes the relationship between our biological bodies and the cultures we live in, rather than as a medicalized term that described a coherent "third sex."

other intersex people feel free to add on to this post-I'm only one person without all the answers, and would love to hear other perspectives!