I cannot believe we have to have this conversation in the Year Of Our Lord 2023, but here we are. So I’ll say it once, and I’ll say it loud:

READING, WRITING, AND/OR CONSUMING “PROBLEMATIC CONTENT” DOES NOT MEAN YOU CONDONE IT.

Something’s tagged with tags you don’t like? Easy way out of that, and it’s called DON’T LIKE, DON’T READ.

Something isn’t tagged properly? Ask them kindly to tag it, then back out of the fic/ post. Also easy.

Angry that those fics exist? Let me give you one guess as to whom censorship actually ends up hurting - if you guessed queer people, minorities, and women, CONGRATS, YOU’RE CORRECT! Because you might not like that content, you might be triggered by it (which is, again, what tags are for), but OTHERS may not like the content YOU create, and guess who gets to decide which type of content gets censored? News flash, it’s not us. And if you don’t believe me, take some time to search fandom history... or any history, for that matter.

Hope this helps. 

post about how censorship is a dangerous thing, and that throwing out “what if a CHILD saw this?” about things you don’t like is parroting conservative rhetoric (because it’s true, some things are going to be uncomfortable, and will make you uncomfortable, but should not be forbidden on the grounds of that discomfort)

it’s some stupid fuckwit covertly arguing that actually, they shouldn’t have to face any criticism for posting their shitty incest fanfic under the guise of a take that any average person would think is perfectly reasonable (they’re idiots who put that shit out in public and are not immune to people pointing out Hey That’s Weird)

Dear Mark Zuckerberg and Leadership, This letter is a follow-up to the letter that was circulated internally on Dec 19, 2023 and deleted and dismissed due to our Community Engagement Expectations (CEE) on what can be discussed internally. Hence, we are sharing our concerns externally. We, Meta employees, wish to express our disappointment and astonishment at the lack of acknowledgement and care the leaders of this company have shown toward the Palestinian community and its allies. In private conversations, we hear from our Palestinian colleagues about family members they have lost in Gaza and family they are working tirelessly to find safety for. However, any open support for our Palestinian colleagues or the millions facing a humanitarian crisis in Palestine is met with internal censorship of employee concerns, biased leadership statements showing one-sided support, and external censorship that is raising public alarm and distrust of our platforms. Internally, we have called out the months of silencing within our workplace forums. While we loudly display “Your voice is valued”, CEE is used as a guise to delete dissenting opinions and silence employees that may simply be seeking solace from their coworkers or raising awareness about building safer products. While in other companies, employees within Employee Resource Groups (ERG) are allowed to connect and speak freely with each other, ERG’s such as Muslims@ and Palestinians@ have faced so much censorship that an employee proposed just deleting the ERG altogether instead of giving the illusion that we can freely build community at Meta. CEE claims to reduce disruptions in our workplace, yet censorship from CEE has caused many of us at Meta to feel disrupted, unheard, and unsafe to the point that several of our Metamates have decided to resign. In the words of our former colleague, any mention of Palestine is taken down - Even when the post was from a colleague expressing their grief. Even when the post was to celebrate the UN International day of support to the Palestinian people. Even when the post is a link to a fundraiser to help the Gazans. Even when asking questions about product bugs that affect Palestinian voices.

One of the original core values of Facebook was to “Be Open” and our current values claim that “We create a culture where we are straightforward and willing to have hard conversations with each other.” Employees have always been first responders to surface issues raised externally to those internally with the power and knowledge to fix them. However when over 450 colleagues came together to sign a letter similar to this one in December, CEE was used to delete the letter and restrict one of the writers from their work devices for over two months while the workplace, product, and policy concerns brought forth were completely ignored. Employees have attempted to raise product concerns related to the conflict only to have their posts and comments censored or dismissed throughout internal channels. Most recently, questions about investigative reports indicating the possibility of governments, ISPs, and coordinated bad actors using Whatsapp data for military targeting have been met with dismissive and insufficient responses or outright deleted throughout internal forums. Meta leaders have posted numerous strong statements of support for our Israeli colleagues along with condemnation of the attack on Israel on October 7th that took the lives of ~1,200 civilians, both on internal and external platforms. Mark stated on his public Facebook - “The terrorist attacks by Hamas are pure evil. There is never any justification for carrying out acts of terrorism against innocent people. The widespread suffering that has resulted is devastating. My focus remains on the safety of our employees and their families in Israel and the region.”

However, bias and inequity is painfully apparent when those same leaders do not similarly share support for our Palestinian colleagues and allies nor condemnation of the attacks on Palestine, which have now taken ~35,000 civilian lives and created a humanitarian crisis of displacement and starvation for ~2 million Palestinians. This has created a hostile and unsafe work environment for hundreds of our Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, anti-Zionist Jew, and anti-genocide colleagues at the company, who have felt consistently alienated and uncomfortable at work. Many have tried to articulate this through posts on Workplace only to be censored, rebuffed, and/or penalized. Feedback shared directly with leadership on Workplace Chat has been met with dismissiveness. Bias and inequity for the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Gaza is also apparent when compared to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, after which there was an outpouring of leadership support on all fronts, including additional resourcing and investment through various social impact initiatives. The lights in the Dublin office were even painted with the colors of the Ukraine flag. Leadership must do better to achieve true equity and inclusion. Externally, when it comes to Palestine, the dismissive tone and lack of investment by Meta is not new and the company has consistently failed to thoroughly take action on years of evidence of suppression of Palestinian voices on our platforms worldwide. In 2024 the company is still slowly addressing the findings of an independent audit influenced by Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) 2021 letter to Meta on the Palestinian conflict 3 years ago. In the wake of October 7th, Meta has ignored reasonable requests for transparency on our content policies from Senator Elizabeth Warren and other lawmakers around the globe. Numerous civil rights organizations, some of whom are Meta partners, have been met with dismissal on the censorship concerns brought forth - leading to external petitions such as one against Meta’s proposed policy of treating “Zionist” as a proxy for "Jewish”, which collected over 52,000 signatures. While Meta denies any Palestinian censorship or bias to the public, internally groups of employee volunteers have found numerous product and policy issues with disparate impacts to Palestinian, Muslim, and Arab communities since October 7th. The few improvements that have been made were achieved only by appealing to isolated product teams, with minimal senior leadership support or resources. Furthermore, in the wake of global criticism of censorship and moderation, leading into the biggest year for democracy in history, Meta has updated its policy to no longer recommend ‘political content’ by default across Instagram and Threads without clear guidelines of how this would impact content originating from global conflict zones. Meta has continued to fail the Palestinian community through its policies and lack of investment.

“Meta.Metamate.Me.” We believe we are all Meta and are committed to respectfully working together to address the issues internally and externally, while holding firmly to the demands we have been echoing for months: We demand an end to censorship - stop deleting employee’s words internally in order to foster an inclusive environment where all communities feel seen, heard, and safe We demand acknowledgment - share internal acknowledgments of support for Palestinian colleagues and acknowledge the lives lost in the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza to recognize our shared humanity We demand transparency and accountability - allocate dedicated resources to investigate issues of censorship and biases on our platforms and openly disclose findings to build trust among employees and the public We implore you to end the silence - issue a public statement urging for an immediate, permanent ceasefire in Gaza As tech workers, we have a tremendous privilege to work on products that serve the world, and with that comes tremendous responsibility. We have been proud to work at Meta – and want to continue believing in its mission to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.

If you're a current or former Meta worker please sign the letter here

any type of censorship over LGBTQIA+ age appropriate themes / movies / books in schools is outright discrimination and should be called out as such

Because of the whole ~situation~ I've been seeing a large uptick in transfem support/positivity posts and don't get me wrong I appreciate it but I think it needs to be said

If you actually want to support trans women YOU NEED TO COMMIT TO THEM.

The harassment, violence, and censorship we face is constant, it is not relegated to isolated incidents extreme enough to be broadcast to the wider public. Every time something drastic like this happens people will show up, offer their support and condolences, but in the intermediary just go back to perpetuating the very transmisogyny that led to this in the first place. That's why the events of today have been utterly unsurprising for any trans woman who's been even the teensiest bit plugged into the general 'discourse' that just so happens to follow us wherever we go. Again I feel the need to repeat:

THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT

This is the result of a pattern of persecution that is not limited to just outright transphobes and TERFs. It is one that YOU, YES YOU, are capable of perpetuating. In all likelihood, you HAVE spread or contributed to it in some form or another. So LISTEN TO TRANS WOMEN. Vet call-out posts targeting us, be wary of spontaneous hate mobs against us. Acknowledge the reality of transmisogyny and don't be afraid to face your own culpability in it. TME people, stop getting irrationally upset at TMA/TME terminology. It is meant to be used specifically in the context of discussions around transmisogyny. It's not the axis around which all trans-ness rotates, there are grey areas, and it doesn't function well as a general label like trans man/trans woman or AMAB/AFAB because that was never meant to be it's purpose in the first place. It's a tool to assist in the discussion of a prejudice nothing more.

Do not just listen to transfems when our voices are at their loudest. Even when things seem quieter you have to KEEP LISTENING. If you can't do that, all your current words of support and solidarity will mean jack shit in the long run, and that's when it matters most.

Not father & son, not master & disciple, but a secret third thing

First of all, let me preface this by being clear that everyone is free to headcanon anything they want and like/dislike anything they like/dislike! That being said, sometimes I see international fans interpret FDB as LLH's son, or their dynamic as parent-child or otherwise familial, and as a native chinese speaker, I just wanted to share some reasons why I personally did not interpret them as familial.

Granted, at the start of the show, FDB is kept in the dark and also not up to LLH's level of skill in solving cases. However, FDB quickly catches up in crime-solving skills, intellect and maturity by the 2nd half of the show, after a well-written growth arc. I think the beauty of the characters and relationships in this show is that they grow & evolve, and are meant to do so. The dynamic that LLH & FDB had in episode 1 is quite different from their dynamic at the end of the show. By the later episodes, they are 2 adults who are very much equals.

Why I don't read them as father & son:

LLH & FDB act and speak in a manner that is far too informal & familiar with one another, which would be extremely inappropriate for any kind of parent & child, even a surrogate one. Several times, FDB calls LLH by just his first name "Lianhua", and sometimes even calls him "Damn Lianhua" when he is angry/upset at LLH. This would be extremely rude for a disciple to call a master, or a son to call a father. No son talks to his father the way FDB talks to LLH, and no disciple talks to their master like that. Unless the son/disciple hates the father/master, and is outright rejecting his father/master altogether. As we see in the show, not only does FDB not hate LLH at all, he instead cares deeply for LLH and would do anything to save him. Why, then would someone scold/curse someone they care about? Does the trope of the upset spouse/partner sound familiar?

For comparison, see FDB's interactions with He Xiaohui, who he is close to - he is informal & affectionate with her, but never calls her anything other than "娘 niang" ("mother"). I can't emphasize enough how taboo it is in Chinese culture to ever call your parent or parental figure by their name under any circumstance.

2. In ep 31, FDB himself explicitly rejects the idea of LLH as his shifu and himself as LLH's disciple, responding that he is too old to be LLH's disciple and it was merely a joke. He clearly sees LLH as an equal, and rejects the notion of their relationship being anything other than that of 2 adult equals. LLH also tells his shiniang that FDB is not his disciple, and a few episodes ago LLH told FDB that he has never understimated FDB.

Coding/hints as something other than platonic:

Zhiji/zhijiao - FDB calls LLH his 知交 zhijiao in ep 19, and 知己 zhiji in ep 34. "In this life, I, Fang Duobing, recognize you as my only zhiji." is practically a love declaration. And this bond is reciprocated by LLH, bc in a deleted line in ep 19, translated by forayuarchive on twitter, LLH is the one who first calls FDB his zhijiao.

To clarify, Zhiji is not specifically a romantic term, but it's what was used in both The Untamed and Word of Honor - both dramas based on danmei novels with canon gay main pairings - to bypass censorship, to code the bond between the main duo as deeper than your typical platonic male friendship. (See this post for a detailed explanation of the significance/history behind the term zhiji, and see this twitter thread for an explanation of the meaning of zhijiao in MLC - especially how zhijiao is specifically mutual, reciprocated).

2. Married bickering - forayuarchive on twitter has discussed in these twitter threads how the tone of many of LLH & FDB's interactions (especially FDB) is similar to how married couples or romantic partners speak to one another bc of the level of familiarity, tone and language. For my fav example, see this note (translation by forayuarchive) that FDB left LLH in ep 35, which reads pretty much like a note that a spouse/partner might write when leaving their shared house in a hurry.

3. "Xiaobao" - Personally as a native Chinese speaker, LLH calling FDB "xiaobao" in front of everyone is a level of intimacy that genuinely would make me feel embarrassed to hear as a third party. 小宝 xiao bao (literal meaning = "little treasure") is usually something you call actual babies/children AND is FDB's family nickname for him, so if you're calling a grown man that in front of everyone including his colleagues, family and even strangers, then one might assume he is likely either your biological family or your romantic partner. (For comparison, just imagine calling your s/o their parent's special childhood nickname for them at work.)

4. Deleted lines where FDB calls LLH "xiaohua'er". 小花儿 Xiaohua'er ("little flower") is very intimate and feels like something someone might call a lover. Or, at least, definitely not a platonic shifu, even less so a parental figure. (For meta on the names that LLH & FDB use for one another, see forayuarchive's twitter thread.)

5. More deleted scenes (translated by forayuarchive on twitter), perhaps cut due to censorship, which make apparent LLH's high regard and deep care for FDB. For e.g., a line of internal monologue by LLH in ep 40, translated here by forhenjun, shows that LLH thinks of FDB as the only person in his two lifetimes who has always treated him as a human being rather than putting him on an unfair pedestal.

6. Official MLC accounts act like as if they ship them.

As murderedbyhomework mentioned, there is a song in the official soundtrack of MLC called "Fanghua's Day-to-Day Life" (yes, the exact same words as their ship name). Sounds like a couple's daily domestic life, doesn't it?

The official iQiYi Romance youtube channel lists clips of LLH & FDB under the romance category.

The official MLC douyin account posts MVs with emotional captions (e.g. this one translated here by forayuarchive) that emphasize how much both LLH and FDB mean to one another. Another official MLC douyin calls LLH & FDB the person each other trusts the most.

The MLC clips posted by the official Guangdong TV weibo account also has captions such as these (translated by rice_jpg) that straight up describe FDB's feelings towards LLH as "when you like someone" (very similar CN phrasing as the phrasing used to describe romantic crushes).

7. They are subtly paralleled with a canon straight romantic couple (see fanqxiaobao's twitter thread on the parallels btwn LXY/QWM scenes and certain LLH/FDB scenes). MLC also made a distinct change from the novel by not having FDB get married to Princess Zhaoling, even though the drama could have easily given FDB a romance with her.

8. If you're familiar with chinese romantic tropes or the danmei genre, LLH & FDB fit many common romantic tropes e.g. sharing a drink on the rooftop under the moonlight, forgotten first meeting in childhood (and then meeting again properly as adults), power couple fighting side by side (they even held hands!), nianxia, protective younger ml, sickly older mc - just to name a few. Danmei even has many stories of shizun/shifu & disciple pairings who fall in love as adult equals.

There's honestly lots more but these are just some off the top of my head. Again everyone is free to interpret anything! This is just me explaining why as a native chinese speaker I personally did not read their dynamic as that of a father and son.

Okay, this is a bit of a call-out post, which I don't like to engage in, but some of the stuff that's been brought to my attention, that's apparently been being said about me and, by extension, people who share my views, isn't really something I can let stand.

So apparently there's some blogs going around vague posting about Levi fans who dare (oh the horror) to call Levi a good man and a hero, saying stuff like doing so is how one treads down the path toward Nazism, because it's a "denial" of Levi's faults, and if we don't condemn his violence as outright bad or wrong, then we're liable to start making excuses for and justifying all forms of violence.

Do I even need to lay out why this argument is absurd and absolutely childish at its core? I don't think so, but I will anyway.

One of the overarching and main themes of AoT is that we shouldn't flatly condemn people for their actions without first understanding the context of those actions. That nothing is ever so simple as being flatly right or wrong, good or bad. That there can be and are complicating factors that might lead to any, given person's actions or behavior.

Levi himself is a prime example of this, and we see the error of flatly condemning and writing him off as "bad" in the form of Jean's and Mikasa's judgmental and dismissive attitude toward him after seeing him engage in acts of violence, only to themselves be forced into similar acts moments later.

The stupidity inherent to uniformly condemning all violence as bad or wrong lies in its total failure to consider any mitigating circumstances that might have lead to the violence in the first place, and, ironically, it's THAT sort of basic and simplistic thinking that leads toward the kind of fanatical, ideological foundations of Nazism and other, similar movements. Nuanced thought, consideration, empathy and critical thinking are never the things that lead down that road. Moralistic and generalized view points are what do that. To call Levi a "morally grey" character is to fundamentally misunderstand that morality itself is a "grey" concept. There's no such thing a black and white morality. Almost nothing is always right and always wrong, including violence. Very few things, if anything, can be definitely categorized as right and wrong in and of itself. The argument that some things need to be wholly condemned or eradicated is, for example, the same sort of logic that people who advocate for censorship apply. All pornography is bad or wrong? Better to just flatly condemn and ban all of it, then. Oh my, you're going to let two men marry each other? What if someone wants to marry an animal next? Better just make gay marriage illegal then, I guess. Many Jews are bankers, and banking is a corrupt business that preys on people's vulnerabilities, thus, all Jews are really just money launders and loan sharks and need to be stopped. Killing and violence is always wrong, and so people who kill or commit acts of violence are always criminals and bad people with malicious intent or who reveal in other people's pain. See how that works? All generalizations like that lead to is mass persecution, either of a concept or of a person/group of people, without taking into consideration the actual complexity or nuanced reasoning for why something or someone might be a certain way or do a certain thing. That's what's dangerous.

To deny Levi is a good man or a hero because he commits acts of violence is to totaly deny and strip him of all the many aspects and characteristics of his personality that makes him who he actually is. Levi's violence doesn't define him. It isn't who he is. Rather, it's a product of the world he lives in and the circumstances of his upbringing and life. It doesn't signify the person he is at his core. It doesn't negate the immense compassion, kindness, empathy and sensitivity with which he regards and treats other people. It doesn't render his heroism worthless or questionable. It doesn't undermine his intentions or motivations. It doesn't rob his many sacrifices of their selflessness. That's why I say Levi is a good man. Not because he's on the "good guy side" or because he holds a certain set of ideological beliefs, but because of those inherent qualities which define him as a good man. Compassion, kindness, empathy, emotional intelligence, and a genuine desire to help others for others sake. He's a good person because he actually, truly cares about other people. Is that assessment of him supposed to somehow lead down the road to fanaticism? How absurd.

That's not to say Levi doesn't have flaws. Of course he does. He's a human being, and all human's are flawed. Nobody ever said Levi was a "perfect" hero, just that he is a hero. Understanding Levi's violence and where it comes from and why he engages in it doesn't mean we're excusing it or calling it "good". It's simply an attempt to understand and acknowledge one of the main themes of AoT, which is that a person committing a "bad act" doesn't in and of itself make them a "bad person", and that certain actions and behaviors that are deemed "bad" by society can and often do have reasonable and justifiable explanations at their root. Does Levi resort to violence too often and too easily? Sure. I've said that and acknowledged it on multiple occasions. I've dedicated entire, long-winded analysis posts to exploring the duality of Levi's compassionate and empathetic nature with the fact that he's one of the most violent characters in AoT. His knee-jerk reaction and response to most situations is to apply physical force of one kind or another. Levi is also an extremely emotional character, and is given at times to bouts of emotionally excessive response. When he kicks Eren and Jean after his conversation with Erwin. When he manhandles Historia for her initial, flat refusal to take the throne. When he kicks Eren's teeth in during the RtS arc, or on the airship in Liberio. When he tortures Zeke in the cart on the way to the capital. These are all instances of Levi giving in to his emotion and responding violently. And no, it's not good, but it also doesn't make Levi bad. It doesn't make his intentions malicious or cruel in nature. In all of these instances of violence on Levi's part, it's driven by an intense emotional response, generally in regard to some traumatic event. Levi learning Erwin might not be the good man he thought he was. Levi having to torture a man for specific information, only to have the point of it threatened by Historia's self-pity. Eren interfering with Levi's direct command during a situation in which time was severely limited in making a decision. Eren slaughtering countless innocent people. Zeke forcing Levi to kill more than two dozen of his own soldiers. All of the examples one could point to of Levi being "unnecessarily" violent, meaning in a way that didn't further some larger goal or cause, were all moments of emotional reaction linked either to trauma or urgency or both. Most of these responses from Levi, in fact, came about because he was upset about someone else getting hurt, or at the possibility of people getting hurt. They're rooted, at their core, in Levi's compassion for others. They're emotional responses triggered by Levi's empathy and care. He gets angry because he's scared or grief stricken over someone else' suffering. And that's my and other fans' only point. Levi's violence might be considered bad by some, but the underlying reasons for it almost always prove Levi's goodness. He responds so strongly because he cares. So to refuse to acknowledge the circumstances and context surrounding those acts of violence and to refuse to acknowledge the influence of his upbringing in his inclination to respond with violence is grossly unjust and unfair to who Levi is as a person. To pretend that his very nature can't be contradictory to his actions and behavior is to deny, not just Levi's complexity as a person, but the complexity of people overall. Because Levi's nature is, much of the time, contradictory to his actions, especially when one only looks at his actions in a vacuum instead of in context. He's a violent man who also holds more kindness and compassion in his heart for people than any other character in the story. That's a contradiction. But it's true, nonetheless. You can be a good person who does bad things, or things deemed wrong by others and society.

Levi doesn't enjoy violence, and anyone who says he does or tries to claim he does is flatly wrong. To say, just because Levi is good at violence, that must mean he's somehow born to it, or that it's in his nature to want to commit it, is equally unjust and unfair in the way it dismisses the circumstances of his life and upbringing. A person can be forced into doing something that goes against their core temperament and personality due to forces outside of their control, and acknowledging that about Levi and his violence isn't the same as claiming him to be a "perfect hero". He's not perfect, but he is a hero. He's a hero because he's inherently selfless and kind and empathetic toward other people and their suffering, because he's willing to do all he can to help other people, despite an upbringing which forced violence and a familiarity with violence into his life, despite a childhood and young adulthood filled with deprivation and poverty. He wasn't born with a violent temperament, he was raised in an environment that necessitated a reliance on violence in order to survive, and so we see that manifest in Levi as an adult. A reliance on violence to survive. Again, to not acknowledge that and the impact it had on Levi's behavior and actions is unjust and unfair to him as a person. A stupid oversimplification of not just Levi as a character, but of people in general, and of the concept of justifiable violence too. Pacifism is an ideal, but one which doesn't and can't always coexist with reality. To judge someone and condemn then for engaging in violence, no matter the circumstances surrounding that violence, when nature itself is predicated on violence, is absurd.

Context matters. Circumstances matter. Intent matters. Levi's violence was never ideological in its reasoning. He never committed acts of violence in service to some abstract school of thought or philosophy. He never killed anyone because he thought they represented or symbolized some great evil or threat to the world and needed to be eradicated as a result. Levi's acts of violence have always been practical in nature. Defense of himself and others against people directly threatening their well being. And further, Levi has never, not once, tried to impose his way of thinking or doing on a single, other person. He's always, always, allowed everyone to decide for themselves. To come to their own conclusions of what they believe is right and wrong, good or bad. He's always allowed everyone their own agency. He's never manipulated or badgered or bullied anyone into agreeing with him or tried to brainwash anyone into a certain set of ideological beliefs. He's only ever wanted and tried to ensure people the freedom to make those decisions for themselves, and he's only ever tried to protect people, more often than not at great cost to himself.

He's the very definition of a hero, and to accuse people who call him that of exhibiting the kind of ideological thinking that leads to Nazism is not only absurd, but a massive insult, both to Levi's character and to the intelligence of his fans. As if they're incapable of understanding the nature of violence because they differentiate between acts of violence by applying critical thought to outside factors and mitigating circumstances. I guess our justice system is similarly incapable of understanding the nature of violence too, then, because it also dares to weigh outside factors and mitigating circumstances when judging a person's "crimes" or "guilt". It isn't the people who apply nuanced thought and consideration to Levi's actions who are susceptible to fanaticism, it's the people making those sorts of accusations who are, in exposing their total inability to divorce themselves from their black and white view of reality.

@confusledqueer apologizes for not responding sooner, it’s been a busy couple days and—honestly—I forgot for a bit.

Moving on-

—————

Me equating some of the things that anti-Jedi people say to antisemitism and, sometimes, outright Nazi-esque rhetoric is not “wild” or “a stretch,” as you’re implying.

Justification of their genocide, denial that it actually was a genocide, a belief that the genocided party “caused” their own genocide, and a belief that they genocided party were wrong or “led astray” while one person was sent to make things right- (via either making them change their ways or outright destroying them/their culture) -are all things I’ve seen people say about the Jedi…

…but they’re also things that people have actually said about Jews.

Take the example I put in the post of someone denying that the Jedi Purge was actually a genocide, and how—by changing “Jedi” to “Judaism” and “Force-religions” to “Abrahamic Faiths”—it sounds verbatim to Holocaust denial.

Or, as another example, people claiming that the Jedi “kidnapped kids to brainwash them”…don’t you see how that sounds like Blood Libel?

So me pointing out that a lot of stuff anti-Jedi people say sounds like antisemitic rhetoric isn’t a stretch, not when a lot of it sounds verbatim to what people are saying with the rise of antisemitism and stuff they have said in the past.

—————

Now, I’m not Jewish, but it’s not just me, your neighborhood White Girl™️, who’s pointing this stuff out.

Actual Jewish people have pointed out the alarming similarities between anti-Jedi rhetoric and straight up antisemitism. So, if you wanna argue about- “you shouldn’t compare real world discrimination to fictional stuff” -then you should probably take that into account.

Go ahead and try telling Jewish Star Wars fans to stop calling out antisemitic rhetoric in the fandom, I’m sure that’ll go down real well.

I also find it hilarious that you’re telling me to be careful about the rhetoric I use in a thread about how I shouldn’t point out that some of the rhetoric other people spout is basically antisemitism rebranded.

And my point in that post wasn’t- “since this is based off of a real world culture/religion, you can’t criticize it.”

My point was- “since this is based off of a real world culture/religion then you need to be careful about how you criticize it, otherwise you might unconsciously be spouting bigoted beliefs and antisemitic rhetoric because you don’t recognize that that’s what it is because you’re saying it about a fictional culture.”

By all means, I get that some people just don’t like the Jedi, that’s their prerogative and we all have our own tastes.

Criticize them, if you feel like it, but don’t go around spouting rebranded antisemitism to do it. I’m sure you can come up with plenty of things to complain about them for without doing so.

—————

Now, I can understand why you might be worried about the slippery slope from this to shit like actual censorship—which, I think we can all agree, is a bad thing. Or how you might think criticizing this could lead to the whole “fandom purity” debate.

My thing is, it all comes down to does it actually harm people?

Perpetuating harmful stereotypes via saying stuff like the Jewish based characters “steal children,” or “lost their way,” or “they caused/deserved their genocide”—that does cause actual harm.

Think about why the “angry black man” stereotype or the “cheating bisexual” stereotype are bad and people- (rightly) -push back against them. It’s the same thing here.

Shipping a problematic ship, calling a fictional serial killer “babygirl,” writing about dark topics*, headcanoning characters as gay or trans…none of that is actively harming people.

(*obviously when writing about dark topics you should tag appropriately so people can avoid triggers, but that’s another topic for another day)

That’s the difference.

And, for the record, I think letting people spout bigotry just because they’re saying it about something fictional is the more dangerous mindset than calling it out.

Beware of racist/sexist/homophobic assholes who use the "profic"/"anti censorship " thing as an excuse to vent their inner racism/sexist/homophobia .

Case in point the "Nessa" controversy:

Nessa is a black pokemon character who was drawn a shade lighter than canon (likely unintentionally) by a twitter artist. Antis saw it and accused the artist of intentionally whitewashing the character. Crowds of people began to support the artist and showed that support by drawing Nessa as white to spite the antis (rather iffy move if you ask me,)

One person in particular dropped subtlety and went whole hog into blatant racism by outright drawing Nessa as a literal monkey .(in the USA black people have been equated to and called monkeys by racists for decades)

I feel that people like that don't actually care about being truly pro-fic/anti censorship, they just want a free pass vent to bigotry without being called out

.

You guys can say that banning tiktok is bad because it sets a shit precedent for censorship without pretending that its some bastion of info sharing that isnt so insanely packed with disinformation that its actively made people of every demographic stupider btw. Like you can say that outright banning any massive platform is censorship without acting like tiktokers arent out here saying that you can manifest away leprosy and that osama bin laden was right. That is possible.

Tiktok is NOT some big stage for positive growth and information, its algorithm is built to encourage the spread of disinformation and conspiracy bullshit by pushing you to the most extreme side of whatever political ideology you stumble into. And banning anything unequivocally sets a bad precedent. These two things can be true at the same time. Stop calling tiktok of all things a positive platform when it just isnt. Lying about it for the sake of making your argument sound better does not actually help your case

fedi sites that i recc you go to because they're in my bubble and im hesitant to recc any without vetting them first. if youre interested in fedi, take a look at an instances about page(s) and rules before you choose to make an account there

(don't know what fedi is? watch this video!)

sharkey instances

lethallava.land - gaming, tech, shitposting | sister of wetdry blahaj.zone - general lgbt

mastodon instances

tech.lgbt - queer friendly, tech focused wetdry.world - gaming, tech, shitposting | sister of lethallava, runs on glitchsoc fork called chuckya. limited signup that needs mod approval

wafrn

app.wafrn.net - potential tumblr clone, in alpha, works best on web mobile. pretty active but limited features as of time im writing this. limited signup that needs mod approval

akkoma instances

void.lgbt - lgbt general, good moderation procedures, allows tagged nsfw akko.wetdry.world - gaming, tech, shitposting | akkoma frontend for wetdry.world, limited signup that needs mod approval seafoam.space - general

generally i would avoid any instance that says outright that its fandom focused or anti-censorship as they tend to federate with unsavory corners of the internet. be wary!

more info below on fedi stuff you should be aware of

bc of the nature of fediverse it's up to admins to choose if an instance is defederated with (blocked by) theirs- theres no way to get bad parts of the fediverse "taken down" unless they host illegal content in their host country (and even then cybercrime divisions are usually only focused on seizing specific types of illegal sites). so with that in mind a good admin/mod team will defederate a lot of instances for you, and you can usually find out which instances are defederated on an instances about page.

also because of the nature of fediverse you can always move your account to another instance. if you feel you want to move to another instance for whatever reason youre within your right. some people will register with multiple instances just in case something goes awry with their main, or for diff types of posting- ie like sideblogs on tumblr. its normal and a sign you know how things work there imo

and if youre particularly crafty, or just know more about web stuff than the average person, you are totally able to set up whichever type of instance you want if you have a domain for it

Came across a series of posts today all claiming that the PROTECT act was "resurfaced and put back into law in 2022"

Now, I found that hard to believe, if only because I think the entire pro-fiction/anti-censorship community would have probably heard something about that at some point during the last two years. So I went to go and look it up.

Turns out, there's very little info to be found at all (or at least, I wasn't able to find much of anything even after searching for a while) The closest laws I was able to find - both called PROTECT and both from 2022 - don't say a single thing about reinstating the original 2003 law and neither of them say a single thing about fictional characters or artistic depictions like drawings.

One law simply says that criminals guilty of child abuse and/or creating CSEM should not be punished for less than the current minimum sentences. I'm guessing because of how often child predators are getting off with extremely light sentences or no sentences at all? But nothing in the law even mentions fictional depictions or drawings.

The second law, also called the PROTECT act and also from 2022, is about non-consensual videos of people being uploaded online without their permission, and making it possible for victims of rape and abuse to get videos of their abuse taken down from whatever platforms are hosting them. The law is entirely about real videos of real people, regardless of whether they are adults or minors, defining what is and isn't considered consensual, and giving protections to people who want non-consensual videos taken down. Once again, there is absolutely nothing about reinstating the original 2003 PROTECT act, and nothing about drawings of fictional characters suddenly being illegal.

It makes me wonder where the hell these antis are getting their information. Whether they're looking at the laws and totally misunderstanding everything they're reading, or if they're just outright lying and making shit up themselves. If there really IS a new PROTECT act from 2022 that makes drawinga of "underage" anime characters illegal, I certainly can't find it anywhere.

--

🌟OPEN DISCUSSION about the 2020's era of shipping culture, Sonadow in the Sonic Fandom, and how well-intended activism can circle back to the language and violence of oppressors 🌟 (Broken down into PARTS for the sake of readability and my own attention span lol. >>>FULL ESSAY HERE<<<) (>>>PREVIOUS PART HERE<<<)

PART 5

LANGUAGE AND VIOLENCE OF OPPRESSORS

Now is where I will delve into the connection between Sonadow shipping (and overall shipping) debates and how well-intentioned activism loops back into mimicking oppressors. Thinking about how Sonadow is historically important to the Sonic Franchise, the Sonic Fandom, LGBTQ+ Sonic Fans, and maybe even video game history as a whole, I feel major discomfort and even dread when I see so many people (particularly those that are young) throwing around very serious accusations at (fellow) Sonic Fans and (fellow) Sonic shippers. Accusations supporting pedophilia or pedophilia itself is one of the most egregious. I've seen it thrown at Sonadow shippers, Vector x Espio shippers because Vector is 20 and Espio is 16 (despite it being another extremely popular LGBTQ+ headcanon-ed ship due to lack of representation), and even Knuckles x Rouge because Rouge is 18 and Knuckles is 16. It strikes me as counterintuitive and unnecessary at least, and actively dangerous at most/worst, seeing fellow Queer people utilizing the morality-policing, fear tactics, surveillance methods, censorship mindset, and rhetoric/language of our oppressors and using those things against the people in their own communities. Realizing that long-time Sonadow fans who felt inspired to come out and be unapologetically Queer because of that specific ship have been facing harassment and slander from fellow Queer people (who are likely younger than them), getting called "pedos" or "dangerous" or "suspicious" or "unethical" over the mere act of creating representation and Queer Joy with fictional characters and seeking some sense of comfort while surviving homophobic environments...bluntly, my stomach is churned and my blood is boiled. The last thing we need in this rapidly backwards-turning world is more in-fighting within the broader LGBTQ+ community that distracts our thoughts, emotions, time, energy, organizing, education, community-building, and activism away from the oppressors who are causing us real-world tangible harm, suffering, and death.

A random teenager on the internet drawing fanart of Sonic and Shadow holding hands, or even random adults on the internet drawing suggestive art or outright porn of these characters, is NOT going to be the catalyst that rapidly or gradually normalizes pedophilia or inspires worldwide support for unethical relationships. And yes, this includes content about the "weirdo/unethical/dark" ships that are found in the shadowy fringes of the internet and Fandom spaces. I am uncomfortable with a lot of it myself. But those ships and the people that engage with them ALSO can't have the same level of impact and reach (key words: Same Level) that real life oppressive systems have to cause widespread suffering. The key difference that makes widespread abuse possible is that the real life oppressive systems are disguised as wholesome safe environments that develop trust and closeness with community members. Those oppressive systems and the harmful people that support them are usually NOT on the freaky/dark/weird fringes of society, they don't outwardly appear that way, and they demonize the "degenerates", not associate with any such label. The Catholic church institution is a big example, the institution covering up uncountable cases of their clergy members abusing minors while those clergy members are positioned as a pure, trusted facet of society that people actively look to for guidance, safety, and belonging.

At NO point am I ever going to say that everyone online is perfectly pure and that we should ignore everyone's behavior online. When we do encounter legitimate creeps causing harm to real people (not watered-down definitions of what being a creep means) we absolutely need to call them out and keep each other safe. HOWEVER, by pitting fellow Sonic Fans, fellow Queer people, fellow shippers against each other with this blanket "us vs them" mentality that overshadows the real life patterns and signs of how widespread oppression and real world harm happens, we end up accomplishing a lot of what our oppressors want anyway: divisions, distractions, and outright mimicking the violent language and behaviors that they display toward us at ourselves. This is the point where well-intentioned activism goes wrong and circles back around to oppression without meaning to.

Many people are super-duper-sure that they have dismantled all of their -isms and -phobias and now identify with labels and movements that are on the right side of history. But all of us STILL need to be aware of the fact that our thought patterns, behaviors, logic, and emotional responses can be tied to previously held beliefs and mindsets, and they can sometimes carry over and linger in our minds even after significant "character development". This is true even if we don't immediately realize it and think that we are a "safe person" within our own marginalized communities and for other marginalized communities. It can be really hard to identify if/when that is happening sometimes, but it is pertinent that we are actively checking in with ourselves, listening to constructive criticism, and cross-analyzing whether we are unintentionally mimicking the language, behaviors, and violence of our oppressors, and what effects that can have on the people in our shared communities and the people we care about.

PART 6 HERE

Y'know I have to wonder...I'm not the first person who's noticed that the push toward algorithmic Content Delivery(TM) pretty much EVERYWHERE but here and AO3 is probably at least partially responsible for a lot of no-problematic-content-allowed-on-any-social-media-ever kind of thinking. I'm not the first one to notice that "you need to curate your own experience" probably rings pretty hollow to people who "live" primarily on Twitter and TikTok and YouTube and Instagram and Pinterest and wherever else just decides to throw stuff related to ANYTHING you've glanced at into your "personalized" feed - easier said than done! Like, this is an underappreciated part of why those of us who remember it miss the internet's wild west days - people fell down radicalizing rabbit holes, but those rabbit holes didn't come incessantly banging on their doors, filling up their autoplay lists, all because they accidentally clicked on some troll link once. Imagine if your morbid curiosity about why everyone was grossed out by that 2girls1cup video (don't Google that), your desire to prove you were Tough Enough to laugh through your disgust, or even just your foolhardiness in clicking an unfamiliar link that happened to lead to it ended up filling your feed with extreme scat porn for months - because that's what would happen today, along with a whole bunch of other shock porn, some gore, all that "fun" shit that tended to be related. You see Tubgirl (don't Google that) once, you probably go "EWWWWWW LMAO GROSS HOW AND WHY WTF" and move on with your life...maybe with a lingering twinge of morbidly amused curiosity through your disgust as to how the FUCK someone figures out they can DO that - but if you see her or someone similarly, uh, talented every 20 posts, to the point where you can't browse your feed in public or around your friends or family anymore, because the algorithm is convinced, well, you clicked through out of morbid curiosity as to whether that thumbnail was REALLY as gross and graphic as it looked so OBVIOUSLY this is a good way to keep your attention, yeah that's a LOT worse. Hell, imagine if a 4chan troll stole your friend's account, sent you a link to a beheading video pretending to be them, and suddenly you're FLOODED with snuff vids because you DARED to trust a link that was sent by "your friend"! If we had the culture and in many cases lax rules we had then with the infrastructure we have today, that would very likely be a daily occurrence. That shit had the potential to be traumatic enough then - well, if you lived through it, now imagine if the internet would never let you escape it from then on, the algorithm would keep chasing you down with more and more material running the gamut from just plain gross unless you share some very niche fetish to outright traumatizing just on its own; this faceless, unfeeling entity coldly retraumatizing you again and again and again and again and again.

If that's your template for the ONLY way the internet works - hell, if you're so spoiled by these Jitterbugified content discovery methods that you don't know how to find things you like manually anymore and the very concept sounds like too much work - then of course you're going to end up wanting most sites to be pretty conservative in what content is allowed. There are, of course, better solutions; we HAVE them and HAVE had them in the past, but it is very human for better and worse to look for the easiest quick fix.

But what I can't help but wonder is if this norm is having a cultural effect that's broader than just internet fights, and making people more sympathetic to far-right calls for censorship in the real world.

Look. It's not 1998 anymore. The internet isn't some niche thing that stops affecting people the moment we log off. It's rarer to find someone without social media than with anymore. Sure, okay, some people have VERY distorted ideas of the importance of individual posts and petty arguments between 5 people, but just because the stakes of your ship war or your debate over model train scales or the argument over whether that blurry bird photo is a crow or a raven may be exaggerated doesn't make it suddenly untrue that online disinformation has severely harmed public health, or been used for election interference, or all kinds of other awful shit with SERIOUS real-world consequences in recent years. In fact, the signs of the regressive movement we're facing now WERE visible in the rhetoric being used to justify some of those terminally online takes about inconsequential subjects months to years before the same rhetoric started being entertained on national stages, with gradually increasing frequency until those ideas became Acceptable To Say In Meatspace - the people who mastered the delicate balancing act of being Online Enough to see this but Offline Enough to recognize what rhetoric was at risk of breaching containment from those petty online nothing arguments, THOSE were the people who saw this shit coming!

So, when the internet has this potential to have this kind of stochastic impact on culture, I then have to wonder...is Silicon Valley's obsession with algorithms and ads and bridging the physical world and the digital world actually convincing people on some level that even offline, if something is allowed to exist at all, they're OBLIGATED to see it, try it, and welcome it into their homes, more than conservatives already were before? And if it is, is this particular layer intentional, or is it just a happy little accident for these tech corporate fucks that it ends up pushing people farther and farther to the right without realizing what's happening?

the anti-lgbt (among other things) censorship laws in china are just so crazy to me because you're telling me a production company spent all this money in 2021 adapting a lesbian manhua called couple of mirrors into a television series and they had to censor every kiss, bit of physical affection, and outright declaration that I'm guessing it might have (haven't read the manhua but it's meant to be more explicit) dsajdask. that's crazy. I mean well done for trying I guess the story must just be that good. but that's just crazy!

my take on the discourse is that we're not going far enough by saying if its fine to depict murder it should be fine to depict incest & other taboo materials etc etc. Like thats true but i think the censorship crowd does agree with that. The issue at the center of this (which we're doing a disservice to by deflecting) is that the depictions in question are very often eroticized at the very least, if not outright pure erotica. And we're not getting out of this one by calling for comparison with another acceptable form of depiction bc the truth is that no form of erotic depiction is acceptable, except for the ones that fit the mold of the prescribed heterosexual script and therefore loses their status as erotica and become rhetorically sexless and unthreatening. Its a more complex discussion than i can fit into a text post but the short version is that the desire to censor transgressive eroticism is a conservative impulse at its core no matter where it arises from. Richard Siken put it best when he said that depictions of incest do not constitute incest, the act. This is true even if those depictions are explicitly intended as erotic material by & for an audience that explicitly seeks it out. Those two things are not equivalent and the assertion that they are should be as closely examined & made to justify itself as the assertion that they are not. Depictions of every aspect of life & thought should be permitted & respected and this extends to sexual depictions designed to evoke arousal. Sexual desire, arousal and curiosity is as much of a part of the human experience as the rest and should be treated as such. This is my stance and i won't cave to anything less. Wincest porn is not only fine its an important aspect of creative expression & should be treated with respect and im not joking.