There are many wonderful surprises in Extraordinary Attorney Woo. One of them is Young Woo having so many friends, allies, and protectors.

She has one single rival, and it's a professional rival. She has no bully. I really expected she'd just be dragged through the mud to have some story about her overcoming endless adversity and mistreatment, with most main characters being bullies or antagonists.

And of course, she doesn't have it easy, not remotely. Which is proof it wasn't necessary to throw all those elements in there. It's hard enough to navigate the social and professional world as a person with autism - well, where she is on that spectrum. I think they just wanted to highlight that truth without the unnecessary drama and trauma.

Maybe I’ve just been Thinking Too Much About the Concept of Justice due to...currently watching....something (Idon’twannatalkaboutit)..........but GENUINELY the way most of y’all talk about the death penalty and about ANYONE who decides to go through law school for ANY reason is terrifying.

I think that tme people have heard a lot of things about terfs that give them a false impression of who can be a terf. yes, most terfs are heterosexual. but there are bisexual and lesbian terfs. yes, terfs are racist. but there are still terfs who are poc. yes, terfs are antisemitic. but there are still jewish terfs. yes, terfs are intersexist. but there are still intersex terfs. yes, terfs are ableist. but there are still disabled terfs. yes, terfs are transphobic. but there are still nonbinary and transmasc terfs. if you're not transfem, and especially if you were afab, terfs will happily accept you into their "sisterhood".

like, if you think I'm being harsh here, you need to understand that for trans women, we have to see them all. you might think that because you're [insert marginalized identity], you couldn't possibly be a terf. but I can guarantee you I've been personally harassed by a terf who shares that exact same identity, and a lot of trans women can say the same. are they less common than the stereotypical cishet white christian perisex able-bodied women that you imagine all terfs to be? absolutely, but they still exist. and it doesn't particularly matter if they don't check all those boxes, because at the end of the day, they're still calling me a male-socialized rapist who will never be a woman and telling me to kill myself! it doesn't matter to them that the movement they're a part of harms people like them - people like you - because they hate people like me more.

it would be nice if we could all pretend that terfs are this tiny group of ultra-privileged conservative women but when you're transfem it becomes so glaringly obvious that that's nothing more than an illusion. terfs are a fairly large hate group, one that includes people from any background you can imagine, excluding transfems. if it bothers you to be reminded that there are terfs who share the same background as you, then do something about it. they're everywhere - they could be your family, your friends, your co-workers, your classmates. start advocating for trans women, especially the ones who also share the same background as you, and shield them from transmisogyny. learn to actually recognize transmisogyny and nip it in the bud when people start spouting off terf talking points - it's better not to let them become terfs at all. you're not helping any trans women when you plug your ears and pretend that people just like you can't possibly be violent transmisogynists.

JVP Explained

So, I've been seeing WAY too many gentiles ignorantly uplifting an American "Jewish" group called JVP this past month.

Members of JVP have been very loud this past month, pretending that they speak for Jewish people. They do not.

As a Jew, I'm here to help you understand who this group is, why they act in the blatantly antisemitic ways they do, and why they are dangerous to Jewish people around the world.

And, as an ACTUAL Jewish voice, I am here to tell gentiles to STOP uplifting them.

If you have never heard of "Jewish Voice for Peace" (JVP), or even if you have, I want to give you an analogy that will help you understand this group:

JVP are to Jewish people what Blaire White, Kalvin Garrah, and Caitlyn Jenner are to trans people.

And it's worse, because JVP have gentiles (non-Jews) in their membership. (At least Blaire, Kalvin, and Caitlyn are actually trans.) So for JVP to even call themselves a "Jewish voice" is a lie.

Like Blaire, Kalvin, and Caitlyn, JVP's Jewish membership desperately want to be seen as "the good ones" by bigots, and they are willing to throw vulnerable people in their own community under the bus just for a chance to be accepted by those bigots.

JVP has been called out REPEATEDLY by the Anti-Defamation League for harassing observant Jews at synagogue, harassing queer observant Jews, invoking the antisemitic blood libel canard against Jewish people, and most recently, cheering on and uplifting Hamas after their pogrom on October 7. Among many, many other antisemitic offenses.

There are LEGITIMATE and VALID ways to protest the atrocities and war crimes of the Israeli government.

Let me say that again.

There are LEGITIMATE and VALID ways to protest the atrocities and war crimes of the Israeli government!

But JVP doesn't do that.

Instead, JVP chooses to amplify Neo-Nazi dogwhistles, harass American Jewish people at shul, and uplift Hamas — an antisemitic terrorist organization.

You DO NOT, and I repeat, DO NOT!! get to call yourself a "Jewish voice for peace" and then use BLOOD LIBEL, UPLIFTING ANTISEMITIC TERRORISTS, and HARASSING OBSERVANT JEWS as a way to "criticize" the Israeli government.

You are not a "freedom fighter." You are just a Jew who is a self-loathing, Jew-hating antisemite.

Now, if you're queer like me (nonbinary, genderfluid Jew here, hi!), you're likely aware of how Blaire, Kalvin, and Caitlyn have harassed countless other trans people, especially nonbinary people, for not being trans in the "right way." They do this because they are desperate for approval from right-wingers. Why? Because they, and trans people like them, have a deep sense of self-loathing, shame, and guilt about being trans. They think that if they harass other trans people, right-wingers will accept them. All they want is for right-wingers to tell them, "It's okay, we know you're not like those cringy trans people over there. You're some of the good ones."

Right-wingers then benefit from this "relationship" because they can deny that they are transphobic bigots. Right-wingers can say things like, "I don't hate all trans people. I watched a couple of Blaire White's YouTube videos, and she's alright." So by seeking out right-wing approval, people like Blaire are making it more difficult for other trans people to fight back against anti-trans bigotry. But Blaire doesn't care, so long as Republicans will pat her on the head and tell her she's "one of the good ones."

JVP are very similar to this, except that they are seeking approval from extreme left-wing groups. Jews in JVP may be on the opposite end of the political spectrum, but they are behaving in the exact same way as Blaire, Kalvin, and Caitlyn. They are members of a marginalized group who are seeking approval from bigots, and they're throwing their community under the bus in the process.

JVP's Jewish membership desperately want to be seen as "Good Jews."

(JVP's gentile membership, of course, are just leftist antisemites and are there to harass Jewish people they deem to be "Bad Jews.")

Why? Why do Jews in JVP want to be seen as "the good ones"?

Because Jews in JVP have a deep feeling of self-loathing, shame, and guilt about being Jewish, and they think if leftist groups tell them, "It's okay, you're some of the good ones," that this will somehow assuage their guilt for being Jewish.

This self-loathing, shame, and guilt goes far beyond the current Israel/Palestine conflict. That's just how it is manifesting right now. There have always been Jews who have wanted to assimilate into gentile spaces and be told that they're "the good ones." There have always been Jews who are ashamed of being Jewish.

Jews in JVP consider spreading antisemitic Neo-Nazi conspiracy theories, uplifting Hamas, and further marginalizing other Jewish people to be a small price to pay if it means that they are provisionally "accepted" by certain antisemitic gentiles. Even though these antisemitic gentiles will discard the Jews in JVP as soon as it is expedient to do so.

And of course, just like Blaire, Kalvin, and Caitlyn do with right-wingers, the Jews in JVP sanction left-wing antisemites to say: "I don't hate all Jews. I'm not antisemitic. I just hate Israeli Jews 'Bad Jews.' I just want those 7 million Israeli Jews 'Bad Jews' to be exterminated."

Sure, Jan. Sure, you're not antisemitic. You just want 7 million Jews mass murdered. In case you didn't know, you absolute ghoul, that's the very definition of antisemitic.

Oh, and Gentiles, many of you have gone mask-off enough with your Jew-hatred this month for us Jews to know that when you say "Israelis," "Zionists," "Zios," "Zio scum," "Zio rats," and every other permutation of those words, you really mean "those dirty Jews I'm allowed to hate publicly now."

But the Jews in JVP haven't studied their Holocaust history. The Jews in JVP don't care to remember that the Nazis, too, rounded us up into groups of "Bad Jews" and "Good Jews" — or, really, "Bad Jews" and "Useful Jews." Then the Nazis used the "Useful Jews" to attack the "Bad Jews." Finally, they shoved ALL the Jews that they could get their hands on into the gas chambers and tried to kill every last one of us.

And what I know from studying Holocaust history is that as soon as Jews start getting sorted into camps of "Good Jews" and "Bad Jews," you had better say, "Fuck no, I'm not being a Good Jew!"

You had better get into the "BAD JEW" camp as FAST as you can and start SPEAKING OUT, and uplifting the Jewish community, and supporting as many other Jews as you can.

If you try to be a "Good Jew," antisemites will just use you as a useful idiot and a pawn against other Jews. Then within a short period of time, you will find that EVERY Jew is lumped into the "Bad Jew" camp. And EVERY Jew is now in danger. Including you, O "Good Jew" who tried so hard to convince antisemites that you were "one of the good ones."

If JVP studied Holocaust history, they would see that they are being useful idiots for Neo-Nazis, Hamas, and other antisemitic groups that want Jews around the world to be eradicated. (You should read Hamas' excruciatingly antisemitic charter sometime. I have. The group is literally founded on Jew-hatred.)

But the Jews in JVP do not study Jewish history, or Holocaust history.

The Jews in JVP don't want to acknowledge the truth:

In siding with the Neo-Nazis, the Hamas supporters, and the other antisemitic groups that are co-opting the Free Palestine movement and turning it into a movement of Jew-hatred, the Jews in JVP are signing their own death warrant, too.

It's only a matter of time, O "Good Jews," before you are rounded up with us "Bad Jews." Because to antisemites, we're all just "dirty Jews who deserve to die."

i don't often talk about transfem issues and transmisogyny by myself on this site (with the regards to me reblogging stuff from the girlies to essentially keep the rent low) because the real meat of what i discuss is usually reserved between my friends and i over on discord and my personal discord but considering the recent influx of shit getting slung at outspoken transfems, and other TMA people on this site--i'm making an exception to my clause because great googly moogly it got bad here, huh! i have anons off for a good reason but the aforementioned influx of things getting sent to outspoken transfems & TMA people here in regards to that pretentious ass "public service announcement diagnosing you with baeddelism" or whatever terminally online goobledygook that you can only find in insular as all high hell online spaces with a predominant TME population. putting aside the very clear underlined corrective r/pe statement in that message--the statement of viewing trans women as objects to be sexualized is very clear, and i don't think the statement that "most people don't view trans women as women, rather objects to be debated about, sexualized, or stomped underfoot entirely" needs to be repeated here. years of having to sit through that fucking debate about astolfo and ferris argyle really does one hell of a number to you when you're the one directly effected by that transmisogynistic stereotype--even if from what i'm aware, there has been a focused effort to reclaim those two characters the other clear issue is that the modern-day queer community was founded by black trans women. are you doing marsha p johnson any favors by going into the dms of trans women and basically going "hahaha no don't be vocal about issues that you firsthand face in the queer community have sex with me instead :)", especially in a time of unfettered and unchecked transmisogyny, and rampant anti-trans legislation that can and WILL personally effect you and people you know--if you don't make an organized, focused effort to stop it? that being said, the unspoken rule is that when a marginalized group of people are speaking about issues that they personally face--you don't stick your nose up and argue with them. you sit down and listen to them. because they know what they're talking about. apologies if this is long and a bit unfocused and/or disorganized. i'm understandably very miffed about all of this, and i needed to get my thoughts out on this all. something something trans men are the men of the trans community. something something saint-dionysus and nothorses and their consequences have been disastrous for the queer community as a whole

If you learn anything from my many thoughts about words today please have this takeaway:

-USE YOUR (ESPECIALLY LOCAL) RESOURCES OR THEY WILL DISAPPEAR-

It is OK! You are not taking someone's seat or burrito! If you use a service that you need you make it easier for everyone to access that service!! You get added to the numbers that say this is a necessary thing! Especially if it is a resource aimed at marginalized groups - there are probably not that many people who actually know about or take advantage of it! Tell everyone who may be able to use it now or in the future! Go get some help and allow yourself to take up space and get added to the numbers when they're deciding to cut that resource or not.

In the same vein, use that mobility aid! Do you not need it 100% of the time? Who gives a shit! Does it help you? Does it alleviate pain or make you feel safer? Use it! Oh what will people think- people will start to slowly understand that not all disabilities present the same way every single day! People will start to realize more often how shitty their streets are designed or how many fucking steps it is to get from point A to point B on this campus. People will realize anyone can become disabled at any time and people they love have disabilities and !!!hopefully!!! VOTE for us to have actual rights!

This is your sign to not listen to any voice in or out of your head saying you don't need something Enough to partake and exist more fully in this world, and help make resources more accessible to yourself & others in the meantime

something that has been on my mind recently is that fact that so much of antisemitism within lgbt spaces and/or leftist spaces comes from people who consider themselves to be allies to the jewish community. particularly white goyim who see themselves as allies are actually unwilling to listen to jewish people because they believe they're already doing enough through simply stating they support us. i believe that most of their antisemitism is not intended to cause harm, and rather comes as a genuine attempt to do the right thing and show support another marginalized group. here are some examples that i have noticed all from goyim who call themselves allies

asking jewish people they've just met about zionism after learning they're jewish when their conversations had nothing to do with israel

continuously sharing memes/rhetoric with nazi origins even after being informed of their meaning because "the joke isnt antisemitic"

constant use of antisemitic language to discuss transmisogyny after jewish people have asked them to stop

critiquing media for only the ways it negatively affects white lgbt folks and disregarding antisemitism/islamophobia/racism/ableism etc

using the word "religion" as a synonym for christianity, often framing "all religion as bad" in conversations about religious trauma

claiming that jewish women (especially orthodox) contribute to their own oppression through religious observance

again, these all come from people who claim to be allies to the jewish community. goyim, i am not saying you're a bad person or inherently evil if you have done any of the above, but rather calling attention to the fact that your words and actions may have been harmful to jewish people, as well as other religious minorities, even when that was not your intent. if you call yourself an ally, it shows us that you recognize our oppression and will support us. when a jewish person addresses antisemitism, the best thing you can do is listen to them, educate yourself, and either change your behavior or call it out in others. allyship is an action. take the time to listen to us, don't speak for us or over us.

I feel like, if Democrats want to win in places that AREN'T deep blue, if they want swing states and rural areas, they NEED to shut up about social issues. Don't talk about abortion or birth control or women's rights. Don't talk about police brutality and racism and immigration, legal or not. Don't talk about transphobia or homophobia. They should talk SOLELY about economic policy and solid legislation and sneak in protections for marginalized groups once elected.

Imma be real with you chief, since you came to my inbox and you presumably want my opinion: that is an absolutely terrible idea. Here's why:

First and most importantly, this is confusing "Democrats/progressives need to learn how to explain their policies in terms that are acceptable to the American mushy middle" with "they shouldn't talk about those policies at all." It's not that we can't pursue left-wing economic or social policies, it's that we should stop f'n calling them "socialist," which does nothing and causes a lot of harm among the people who instantly tune out or turn hostile the instant they hear that word and are unreachable afterward. If we CAN put them in terms that the American public likes, i.e. freedom, justice, opportunity, we should do that.

So... black people don't exist in America? LGBTQ people don't exist in America? Immigrants/racial minorities don't exist in America? Women (HALF THE ENTIRE POPULATION) don't exist in America? Especially when those are all core constituencies of the Democratic Party and vote for it precisely because it has openly expressed support for their issues and protection for their basic personal rights and civil liberties, especially as the right wing gets ever more reactionary, fascist, and crazy? You really think we should just throw up our hands and totally cede the public debate on these issues to the fascists, and act like any pushback or critique is the aberrant position??? Really???

Likewise, we're not gonna go for the "absolutely everyone in a red state/area is an unrepentant bigot who can only be mobilized if we discreetly tuck away our social liberalism." We're gonna talk about gerrymandering. We're going to talk about voter repression laws. We're gonna talk about how Ken Paxton, the Texas AG so wildly, insanely corrupt that he finally managed to get impeached by fellow Texas Republicans, boasted that if he didn't stop Texas counties from mailing out ballots to all registered voters, Biden would have won Texas. We're not going to act like there are Sensible Americans in Deep Blue Areas and everyone else is f'n David Duke of the KKK who needs to be appeased in hopes we can meekly trick them into supporting us. We're just not.

We're not gonna act like abortion or LGBTQ rights are shameful, unpopular, or minoritized views that have to be hidden or treated as secondary, especially when we're pummeling the Republicans, even and especially in deep red areas, precisely because of those things. Ordinary people in Tennessee, Florida, Texas, and all the other usual suspects are coming out to protest against drag bans and bathroom laws, not "superior" blue-area liberals. Republicans are backtracking on the abortion issue as fast as they can because it is so incredibly politically toxic and is costing them local/state/other competitive elections like crazy. 60% of the country supports abortion rights and 70%+ supports LGBTQ rights. The fascists are a minority and that is why they are so loud and so terrible: because they're shit-scared and they see the demographics coming to end them. We are not, again, acting like they're the majority or it's too shameful to speak about anything related to anything that's not the economy, especially since:

It won't work anyway! If people were actually, genuinely motivated by appeals to improved economic circumstances, they would already vote for Democrats! But they don't, because white supremacy and white grievance is too important for them! Even if the Democrats did try to rebrand themselves as solely focused on economic issues (which, for all the reasons stated above, would be insane), the people who don't vote for them now still wouldn't vote for them then! They will still vote for the Republicans, because a) they've been fed for decades on the myth of REPUBLICANS ARE BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY and b) they know that Republicans will punish non-white people, while Democrats won't. If they did try to "sneak in" protections for marginalized groups even once, and since that's, again, what they've built their entire party on, that would be it. It's the racism. It is always the racism.

Basically, this is the exact kind of mega-reductive "the only war is the class war"/"economic oppression is the only oppression" analysis that is so popular among Online Leftists and attempts to just erase racism, sexism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, and all the other complex reasons why people vote, experience oppression, want the government to represent their interests, affiliate with a political party, or prioritize their particular identity/civic participation, because it's inconvenient for something something the purity of their Marxist theory. Besides, this is not even to mention that the Democrats' existing supporters would abandon them in droves, which would gut any remote increase in the number of voters that they could even (wildly unrealistically) hope to gain for doing it. You might as well be the f'n No Labels party, which is trying this exact kind of BS in hopes of peeling off just enough of the ideologically wavering Biden voters to hand the election to Trump. So. Yeah. No.

The Potential of Asian Lois Lane. Pt 1: Girl Taking Over and American Alien, a comparative analysis

Lois Lane has had many iterations over the years. But specifically in the last decade, Lois has been reimagined as an Asian American woman in both the comics and recently in the animated show My Adventures with Superman.

I believe making Lois Asian is a very inspired choice for the Superman mythos! I would like to take a moment to analyze these versions of Lois from an Asian perspective, seeing what works, what doesn't, and what I'd like to see more of. We'll start with the comics first, as MAWS is going to need its own post.

Usual disclaimers: I'm just one Asian perspective, I do not and never will claim to cover every Asian person's opinion on a thing ever. We're not a monolith, we come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences. I'm simply a fan who enjoys media analysis and believes it's valuable to have my perspective in this topic. Secondly, this discussion covers the comic run American Alien, which is written by Max Landis. He's an ultra creep and while I think the comic is worth a read for what it is, I leave it up to you whether you'd like to buy the comic. You can always arg-arg-ahoy otherwise.

I'd like to start with Girl Taking Over: A Lois Lane Story written by Sarah Kuhn with art by Arielle Jovellanos. This is a self contained YA graphic novel about a young Japanese American Lois dealing with the ups and downs of breaking into journalism as a career in National City. When her dream internship at Catco gets a corporate take over, Lois seizes an opportunity to write an exposé on a shady art director. But when her story is turned down, Lois does some out of the box things to get the story of marginalized performers shared with the world.

Girl Taking Over is a fantastic story and I happily recommend it to anyone looking for how an Asian American Lois could be reimagined (with fabulous art by Arielle! The fashion especially is on-point). This story isn't just a diverse coat of paint on a Lois Lane story, being Asian informs Lois' experiences and choices. Both she and her frenemy roommate Miki, are ambitious Asian women yet have hidden insecurities where they still made themselves small to their respective white male bosses. They played into model minority in different ways, and it's only by working together that they're able to foster a community for their stories to be told.

Lois and Miki don't just "have a diverse friend group", that friend group is actively being taken advantage of and suppressed by white gatekeepers. By extension, Lois' friends from work find solidarity in each other. Lois looks up to Cat Grant, a Filipina-American journalist, because seeing Cat succeed made Lois feel like her dream as a journalist is possible. I love how Lois' mom (a character so rarely expanded on in DC canon) acts as a voice of comfort for Lois in the story. All these characters feel holistic and whole, going through their own unique struggles.

It's clear from interviews with both the writer and artist that they care for the history of Lois, and saw an opportunity to reimagine her in a way that aligns with her character but also revitalizes her for new readers of color who aren't used to seeing themselves reflected in media. It's taking Lois' ambition and fearlessness and channeling them into the need to be a model minority, and the insecurities that can come from the desire to succeed constantly. It's taking a character historically frustrated by sexism and disrespected by her male peers- including Clark Kent (who got better treatment than her as a man), and expanding her to be a Lois that has to deal with both sexism and racism in the workplace. It's humanizing Lois' excellence into something painfully specific and relatable for many Asian women.

The only thing I feel I want from this version of Lois is... honestly more of her! I want to see what Japanese Lois does when she moves to Metropolis and works at the Daily Planet. I want to see how her experiences in National City informs her adulthood. Girl Taking Over sets up an incredible groundwork for stories to be told in the Superman mythos. How would Lois react to Superman, a fellow immigrant? Would Superman see himself in Lois? Since she's someone who, in the American context, is perceived as the perpetual foreigner? What would their relationship be like? Out of all the Asian Lois' in media we have so far, this Asian Lois' story has the most rich potential in my opinion.

Up next, we have American Alien written by Max Landis. This 7 issue series swaps artists for each issue, as a means of reflecting different milestones in Clark's life. I will be focusing on issues #4, 5, and 7 since those have the most prominent Lois appearances. With that, I'd like to celebrate the artists for those issues: Jae Lee (issue 4), Francis Manapul (issue 5), and Jock (issue 7). All these artists did a fantastic job, their art styles are energetic and fun to look at. Lee and Manapul are both Asian artists (Korean and Filipino respectively) and I love how they draw Lois- who looks undeniably Asian in their art styles.

American Alien is a modern take on the Superman tale. It expands Clark's story to be connected to Batman, Green Lanterns, Green Arrow, and more. We see Clark grow from his days in Smallville to a city boy in Metropolis, coming into his own as Superman. It's a bold and pretty divisive take with some standout story moments. From what I know, this is likely the first time Lois has been reimagined as Asian- and continues to influence Superman media like MAWS (the producer specifically calls out this comic as inspiration).

In issue #4, Clark moves in to his Metropolis apartment and talks on the phone to his mom about "some bigshot guy named Louis Lane". The reader, likely familiar with the Superman mythos, knows Clark is coming in with biases and a preconceived notion of who he considers a promising student reporter. Once we meet Lois Lane however, the comic turns the reader's expectations on their head:

Lois Lane is an Asian American woman (it's not specified what her exact ethnicity is)! This is a fun moment where the comic metatextually challenged the reader's own biases, showing it's not just Clark who had a different idea of who Lois Lane could be.

Lois' introductory panel is my personal favorite part of her characterization in American Alien. Lois proudly stands as a wall of text behind her recounts how she was considered as a winner for the Daily Planet's Charlton Memorial Laureate Program. When asked why she deserves a place on the program, Lois snaps back that the very question itself is loaded. She's listed her credentials and looks professional- so she's either already been rejected and is just being made to "at least had my say" or she's been accepted and is "meant to garnish my success with eloquent affirmation" to which Lois refuses to do either.

This is a great defiant introduction to Lois, showcasing how jaded she is with the way the world perceives her- but is very confident in her self worth as a journalist. By the end of the issue she reaches out to Clark to combine their exclusive interviews into one story to make a big impression on the news. Her words inspire Clark to seize an opportunity to make a big change in the world as Superman.

Afterwards, the comic plays the classic Superman and Lois dynamic straight. Lois is initially suspicious of Superman, but eventually comes around and is inspired to hope through him. There's a great back and forth between the two where Lois' words initially inspire Clark to be Superman, then Clark assures Lois that Superman is probably just a good guy, and when Clark loses hope from a bad day of heroism, Lois gives him hope again. In the end, Lois realizes her love for Clark Kent over Superman and they share a passionate ending kiss.

Overall American Alien nails the Clark and Lois dynamic and understands their relationship. I consider this Asian Lois "just okay". I like that we get to see an adult jaded Asian Lois meet Clark Kent and Superman, and see them get together. Similarly to Girl Taking Over, I'd like to see how this Lois and Clark would play out. My only issue with American Alien's Lois is a sense of missed opportunities.

The writing overall leaves room for plausible deniability over Lois' Asian identity. The artists (particularly Lee and Manapul) are doing the heavy lifting delivering Asian Lois. If she was drawn as a white woman, none of the writing would need adjustment. Sure her introductory panel implies that people judge her based on her appearance- but that could be just sexism instead of the intersectional experience of Asian Lois going through racism and sexism. Clark did assume she was a man after all- it's never specified if he assumed she was a white man. The only thing you'd lose is the metatextual shock value of Lois Being Asian This Time. That's really what this Lois boils down to, initial shock value with no specific writing to follow through. Her marginalization and identity is written broadly enough that it could be attributed to general sexism and womanhood. It's not specific to being an Asian American woman.

However, because of its broadness, there's room for Lois' Asian identity to be built on in the world of American Alien. The story centers Clark's experiences, but I can easily imagine a continuation of the story expanding on Lois'. The basic groundwork is there. I think it's telling that in a comic called American Alien, we get a more diverse Superman cast system. Jimmy Olsen is Black, Lois Lane is Asian- when Clark moves to the city it feels expansive compared to Smallville. It's a world that feels ready to tackle themes of racism if it was ever to continue (and probably in the hands of a writer with that kind of life experience!). In the end, there's room for this Asian Lois to be something special. Clark isn't the only American Alien in American Alien, if you catch my drift.

You can see how Girl Taking Over has a huge piece of what American Alien is missing. The characters aren't just diverse for shock value, they're not an aesthetic change over historically white characters. They have a story to tell that is inseparable from their identities. Whereas in American Alien, the art is doing the heavy lifting with the reimagined diverse characters- Girl Taking Over has both the writing and art carry the representation. Lois can't be changed into being white in Girl Taking Over.

Both of these stories have potential- but if I had the choice to pick which story should continue, it would easily be Girl Taking Over. This graphic novel works for what it is: it makes sense that this is a younger and idealistic Lois that hasn't met Clark or Superman yet. It's a YA book and Lois can absolutely carry a story on her own. What I want as an Asian fan, is for the potential of Asian Lois Lane to be seen through to the point it's considered the definitive version. As of right now, Girl Taking Over is a fun twist on the Lois Lane story. Not something that is seen as inseparable from the Superman mythos. However! If those themes of marginalization and immigrant identity are tapped into for both Superman and Lois Lane? I feel that has the potential to radically strengthen the overall themes of Superman. It's certainly been touched on before.

(TW/CW: racial slur mention in below image)

Superman Smashes the Klan by Gene Yang with art by Gurihiru is a retelling of the Clan of the Fiery Cross arc in the classic radio show The Adventures of Superman where Superman faces off with the Klan who had been terrorizing a Chinese American family. The graphic novel adapts the story to center the Chinese American characters, and makes it a point to show that Superman relates to them. If that dynamic was applied to Asian Lois, that feels like a definitive love story waiting to happen.

The classic two person love triangle with Clark and Lois is that Lois loves Superman and is indifferent to Clark Kent. She thinks Superman is this ideal macho man and Clark is a cowardly fumbling guy at work who rivals her. What happens when you take that dynamic and made it so Lois identified with Superman- the more othering identity? How complicated would that make Clark Kent feel? How would he navigate that when his marginalization isn't always visible? That's a whole new depth to the love triangle we're not used to seeing. I feel so far, none of these versions of Lois have touched upon this potential dynamic. The perpetual foreigner, Lois Lane and the ultimate alien foreigner that is Superman. The jaded city girl meets the alien farm boy who gives her hope. They inspire each other to be more of themselves in a world not ready to accept either of them.

Up next, we'll be discussing My Adventures with Superman's Korean Lois Lane in pt 2. It's well. You can probably guess how I feel about it from what I wrote here but welp. We'll talk about it.

Do you have any advice for dealing with election anxiety?

I think/hope so!

First, a couple caveats:

I'm from the US, so US perspective, and about US 2024 elections

I know more about politics/follow them more than like, at least 85% of US Americans? But I am not an expert.

Environment/climate news and climate hope are science-based and can be measured/predicted empirically wayyyyy more than politics can, because People

I'm not getting into the trenches around Democrats vs. the Left vs. Liberals vs. Progressives. In this post, we're all in one big venn diagram of mostly interchangeable terms

So, first off, maybe my biggest piece of advice is this: The antidote to anxiety is action.

Find something you can do to help - anything. Anxiety is like fear - it's part of your brain's alarm system. It's part of your brain's mechanism for telling you that you need to do something

So if you listen to that alarm and do something, your brain won't feel the same need to desperately escalate the alarm system

You can look up and sign up for actions, protests, petitions, letter-writing campaigns, phone banking, canvassing, and more for candidates near you at Mobilize.us (no Repubs on here I promise). They also work with Swing Left a lot - a group that helps voters look up and focus on helping the nearest race that is actually competitive (because most of them aren't!)

Again, that's Mobilize.us and Swing Left as two of the best places to find out how and where to help, and sign up to do so

Other than that, I don't have advice specifically so much as I have "some useful and more hopeful ways to think about the coming US election" and to a lesser extent democracy in general

1. The media is going to underreport how well the Left and/or Democrats are doing, basically no matter what.

So, although we can't get cocky about it, this is something absolutely worth remembering when you see just about any polling or predictions about the 2024 elections.

Here's why:

Poling is weird and often inaccurate and skews in a lot of ways and is inherently biased, and it's less accurate the further you are from an election. Also, the electoral college is a huge complication here

This skewing is built into both the interpretation of the poll and the design of the poll itself - how many people do they sample? Demographic spread? Polls try to go for "likely voters," but how well can you predict that, especially as voting rates for young people and marginalized groups are rising, often dramatically?

Right now, those biases are all skewing most to all polls and predictions to the right. Including from basically all pollsters, as well as left-wing media and news outlets.

Now, THAT'S NOT INHERENTLY A BAD THING. It's not because they don't want the Left to win. It's because in 2016, basically all mainstream media, including left-leaning media, said that there was a very low chance Trump was going to win. They said that Hillary Clinton had it in the bag. So they're all correcting for the huge inaccuracy in the 2016 (and 2020 and 2022 tbh) elections

Not only were they catastrophically and humiliatingly wrong about that, they then had to deal with the fact that that very reporting was part of why Clinton lost in 2016 - voters heard she was probably going to win, so they felt safe staying home instead of voting

And then the 2020 election polls were also super wrong, mostly in the other direction

Polling as a field is undergoing a massive shakeup around this, trying to figure out how to not fuck up that badly again, but they haven't figured it out yet, so right now they're skewing things to compensate

That's for the sake of both their own credibility and, you know, the part where just about no one in either left-wing or mainstream media or mainstream polling orgs wants Trump to win

So they're going to underreport Democratic chances on purpose to a) compensate for the bias skewing things toward Democrats in their models, and b) to make sure that they don't accidentally help Trump win again

Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x

Reasons the Republicans are in more trouble than a lot of people think

Democrats are largely closing ranks hard around Biden, because no matter what they think of Biden, they know a Repub victory would be a thousand times worse

Republicans, however, are absolutely NOT unifying around a candidate. And they're also the ones who go around saying a ton of awful and offensive and wildly untrue things about their opponents. Meaning that the Republican primary is about to get fucking messy, and probably all of their candidates will be tarred in the process

So, basically, the Republican candidates are all going to be busy smearing the fuck out of each other - while Biden mostly doesn't have to deal with that level of negative campaigning against him for months and months

As studies show, in politics, "a negative frame is much more persistent, or “stickier,” than a positive one. If you come at an issue negatively, but are later reminded of the policy's positive aspects, you will still think it's a bust."

Also, Biden is gonna get basically all presidential-race left-wing big-name donor money, while the Right will have that money split a bunch of ways and blow through it hard on infighting, creating a probable funding gap

Trump's campaign contributions are all going to pay his legal fees. Like, to the extent that last month, his main PAC had just $4 million in cash on hand - because they siphoned over $101 million to pay his legal fees (muahahaha)

Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x

Other hopeful things to consider

Yes, Trump's indictments and trials are, unfortunately, boosting his numbers among his supporters. However, that's only with the hard right wing - and you can't win a general election with just the far right. He needs to appeal to independent voters and moderate Repubs - and every indictment and trial hurts his chances with them. x, x

In 2022, literally everyone was predicting a "red tsunami." And they were wrong: it never happened. Instead, Democrats picked up a seat in the senate, lost a third or less of the seats in the House that they were expected to, and won a number of statewide races. x, x, x, x, x

DeSantis's decision to go to war with Disney stands to do him a lot of fucking hard. Disney isn't just powerful in general - it's an unbelievably powerful force and employer in DeSantis's home state of Florida. Disney has already pulled a $1 billion project from Florida due to the feud, is responsible for "half" of FL's tourism industry, and and is branding DeSantis as "anti-corporation" and "anti-business" - dangerous charges in the right wing. x, x, x, x, x, x

Abortion is an issue that gets voters to the polls. This is an issue on which politicians are wildly out of step with voters: Numbers change depending on how you break it down, but generally 60% to 70% of Americans think abortion should be legal - which is, in election terms, is a landslide. For years, that momentum has been with Republicans. Well, now it's with us, and so far pro-choice candidates and ballot propositions have done way better than expected. To quote Vox, in 2022, "abortion rights won in all six states with abortion ballot measures, including in red states like Kentucky and Montana that otherwise elected Republican lawmakers." x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x

Rowling had nothing to do with Legacy and I think most people forget that. She wasn't even consulted. WB bought the license and the devs did whatever they wanted. "Sirona" is a beautiful, feminine Celtic name associated with healing, and "Ryan" is an extremely common Irish surname. I feel like people are looking for reasons to be offended, especially when it comes to trans characters and antisemitism. The goblins are not and have never been Jewish stereotypes. They're a fictional race. They're based on Tolkien's goblins and old English folklore dating back to the 1400's, where they have always been depicted and small, ugly, and greedy. Rowling herself was shocked by the antisemitism rumors and staunchly stated they weren't true. Just like the rumors saying lycanthopy is a metaphor for AIDS. Just... who thinks of this stuff?

What's really sad is people have argued that Sirona was never meant to be trans, but a male character that the devs rendered to look "more feminine" at the last minute. People have made fun of her voice and said it's "too masculine", so obviously WB just hired a man to voice her and changed her gender later. But that's not true! Her VA is actually a trans woman and the backlash against the character must be devastating to the VA.

Okay, so, I don't think you're here in good faith. You're here to be dismissive. But I'll reply anyway, just in case I'm wrong.

One thing at a time.

I'll start with the one point you made that I agree with: the VA. She doesn't deserve to have her voice scrutinized and criticized. That's horrible, no one deserves that. I did see - and share - the misinformation that Sirona Ryan was voiced by a man, and I regret that. I edited it out of my post as soon as I knew, but this is tumblr and unedited versions do go around. I hope more people will see that corrected, and leave the VA's voice alone.

Now for the mess you threw at me.

Hogwarts Legacy is related to Rowling by virtue of existing within the world she created. It's still her goblins, since she gave her permission to create this, and she let it be added to the canon.

Rowling's world is the context.

I don't care that she wasn't consulted about the details, that just means the other creators are bigots too. When you build within a world that has such large issues, where so much time and effort was devoted to highlighting and criticizing those issues, and you create a story that continues all the problems from the original canon and adds to them - that's a choice that I have a right to criticize. They had the benefit of being a google search away from knowing how to be respectful about all of this, and they did the opposite.

Sirona Ryan IS a beautiful real name, that's not the issue. I already wrote this post where I tried to explain the reaction, but I accept that maybe my feelings about this name come from cultural ignorance. If that's the case, I apologize, and I'd love to be corrected.

My real issue with the game is the antisemitism.

You say "folklore dating back to the 1400's" as if that's far too old to be influenced by antisemitism. Fun fact: antisemitism is older than goblins. Antisemitism is literally millennia old. At least as old as Christianity, which is the root of many antisemitic ideas. It's older than many European mythological creatures, and it infuses a lot of European folklore and mythology, down to the depictions of witches with their pointy hats. Stories about goblins being used as a way to dehumanize Jewish people is not new. And using a fictional race of non-humans as stand-ins for real groups of marginalized people - either intentionally or not - is a very common practice in storytelling. Most fantasy races have those roots to them. But even then, where, in the original lore of the goblins, did they control the banks?

It doesn't matter if Rowling was shocked by the claims of antisemitism and it doesn't matter if she denied them. The reality of her story is that she created an antisemitic depiction. I can believe that it wasn't her intention, but that doesn't mean it's not what she did.

You don't get to look at an antagonistic group that embodies EVERY SINGLE TRAIT THAT WAS ASSIGNED TO MY PEOPLE TO DEMONIZE US and tell me that's not antisemitic.

I already made this list, but let's do it again. All antisemitic traits that can be found in Rowling's goblins. I'll break it down to the original book canon, the movies, and the game.

Books - Rowling's actual canon:

Short, with clever swarthy faces, sallow skin and pointed beards

A guttural language

Ruthless and known for their greed

Pursue someone who owes them money with violent threats

Have cultural differences that make them impossible to trust

Harmed by dark wizard but still suspected to support them

Only worth associating with for their metalworking and control of the economy

She placed a goblin's rebellion in 1612 - the same year as the events that led to the Fettmilch uprising, which resulted in pogroms and Jewish deaths. Rowling stated that wars and political unrest parallel between the muggle world and the wizarding world as the two societies influence each other

The most prominent named goblin character, Griphook, betrays Harry. Harry is a Christ allegory - literally sacrifices himself to save everyone, and then comes back to life

Movies:

Hooked noses - the best known antisemitic feature

A six pointed star in the building they chose for the bank - I don't believe this was intentional, but it's an unfortunate choice and they could have covered it

Here end the parts I blame on Rowling directly. And the game was built on these foundations.

Game:

A historical time frame of pogroms, where our people were murdered in large massacres that often had support from authorities

Explicit ties between the goblins and the dark wizards

Aiming to undermine wizard society - the goal assigned to us in every antisemitic conspiracy theory

Kidnapping of children for their magic - literally just look up blood libel

A character says the goblins can't appreciate art. It’s absurd to say considering the quality and coveted status of goblin-made artifacts. In the real world, this is a claim that was made against Jews by the Nazis (and it targets other groups hated by white supremacists as well)

A ram’s horn artifact that strongly resembles a silver plated Shofar - a Jewish ritual item. Said horn is from 1612, from the same rebellion mentioned above. According to the item’s description, it was blown to rally the goblins and to annoy witches and wizards. It was stuffed with gorgonzola to mute it, a specifically non-kosher cheese (most kinds of cheese are kosher). It's so disrespectful I still don't have the words to fully convey it

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, those traits became associated with Jewish people as a group through hateful propaganda. Putting all of them on a non-human race isn't better. It just adds to the dehumanization of it. It's not just Rowling's fault. That's shared by every single person who had a hand in the creation of this story. For the issues in the game, I blame the people named here more. I see no reason to extend grace to far-right bigots.

But to focus on Rowling. You brought up lycanthropy. You seem to think we made up the idea that it's a metaphor for HIV. We didn't. She said that. In the ebook Short Stories From Hogwarts of Heroism, Hardship, and Dangerous Hobbies - she said that. She said it before that, on Pottermore.

Lupin's condition of lycanthropy (being a werewolf) was a metaphor for those illnesses that carry a stigma, like HIV and AIDS. [...] The wizarding community is as prone to hysteria and prejudice as the Muggle one, and the character of Lupin gave me a chance to examine those attitudes.

This is a quote of her thoughts. It still exists on Lupin's page on her Wizarding World website.

And it's actually a pretty good example of how it's absolutely possible to be awful about depicting a stigmatized minority through a fantasy stand-in.

HIV+ people are stigmatized through no fault of their own. But in her books, it seems reasonable for the wizards to fear werewolves. And she did that, she made prejudice reasonable. We have: Remus Lupin, a named werewolf who is good and kind, and tries to avoid hurting people. Even then, he nearly does cause harm more than once. He turns in front of our heroes and spends a night loose in the forest. He tells the heroes that as a student, he almost bit people while out with his friends. So even while well-intentioned, he's a danger. That means we don't have a single safe HIV+ allegory in her work. The other named werewolf is Fenrir Greyback, who intentionally targets children to turn them young and raise them to hate the society they came from - which is fucking homophobic, whatever she intended, because of the way HIV gets associated with homosexuality. And the rest? A whole community of werewolves who side with the Death Eaters.

Did she mean to make a whole community of marginalized people into wizard Nazis? I DON'T CARE. SHE DID THAT.

I don't care to argue about her intentions while writing the text. I can't read minds. I can read the text she wrote. I can see what was put into the game that was added into her world. I can read about the history of my people and their persecution. I can see how disturbingly similar this game's story is to the propaganda that led to my grandparents suffering through the holocaust and losing their families to it.

If she cared about the antisemitism in her works, she wouldn't just act horrified and say "No, of course I wasn't being hateful to Jews!" - she'd look at whatever she lets people put into her IP, to prevent further harm. I do blame the other writers of the game more than I blame her for that plot, but it's not better that she gave her approval without being consulted. It's her IP, it carries her name, she gets royalties, it's her responsibility.

And at the very least, she doesn't care about antisemitism enough to worry about minimizing harm. I know that, because I know her friends. I know TERFs and Gender Criticals. Rowling saw an anti-trans event with white supremacist speakers, and she chose to criticize the counter-protesters. She went out to eat with Maya Forstater and Helen Joyce, who participated and spoke in events organized by Posie Parker - who explicitly includes far right groups in her events, and shares platforms with white supremacists. Rowling bought merch from Posie Parker. She wrote about Magdalen Berns as a "brave young feminist" - as if she didn't push the antisemitic George Soros conspiracy theory and share Breitbart articles. She praised MATT WALSH. The people she associates with now, read from Mein Kampf in their rallies.

She didn't put the antisemitism in the game, but she's very comfortable with antisemitism. Don't tell me she was horrified by the idea that her goblins could be called antisemitic. She just didn't want the label applied to her. If you willingly associate with Nazis, you're a Nazi. And enough of her friends don't seem to mind that.

I stand by what I said: playing this game, even pirated, is like printing out an antisemitic caricature and hanging it on your wall, saying “well, I didn’t pay the artist, I just like this art.”

I know “puriteen” is a controversial term but I think a really good example of what that behavior actually entails is seeing a 15 year old trying to tell an autistic adult who made a meme about being sexy to "stop sexualizing autism" when in reality autistic adults are already treated like (adult) infants who can't possibly know their own feelings or emotions

It's ableist as hell and already a commonly held belief, especially by conservative groups, but here, this 15 year old/9th grader was likely assuming they were fighting against the “fetishization” of a group

Or as another example, there’s a different case where the poster was also 15 and who called out a physically disabled artist for daring to try sexually empowering himself through art in a way that made them uncomfortable, which resulted in the artist being bullied by thousands and shamed off of social media.

Just the act of combining sexuality with a minority group becomes a heinous act of “fetishization”, even if the person is from said group. They think they're being helpful when in reality they're pushing regressive and abusive anti-sex ideas they don't understand on strangers

So here you have middle- and or highschoolers harassing adults about their own sexuality when they shouldn't be talking to them about those things at all, and at the same time they’re spreading harmful attitudes and misinformation amongst themselves while thinking they're the good guys

That's why it's so harmful, and why so many people are making a stink about it. It's not safe for either party, only contributes to abuse, and should not be happening at all

Also this behavior basically works to turn the predator narrative on it's head: “This marginalized person who was minding their business was fetishizing themselves so THEY'RE the predator who's abusive and dangerous to others; not me for directing a hate mob their way.”

That's why this behavior is so dangerous to people who are either queer/LGBTQIA+, disabled, neurodivergent, sexual survivors, or mentally ill etc. because those people are already disproportionately abused and framed as predators for simply existing as themselves.

This behavior does nothing to challenge or topple abusive institutions but actually upholds them by offering nothing new; just reinventing the wheel of oppression and abuse in the name of “they don't know what's best for themselves, I know what's best for them“

👆👆👆👆

The more I think about DA:2 's ending and read people's thoughts on it here, the more it changes. I've come to the conclusion that while the Watsonian explanation for what Anders does is okay, I cannot say the same of the Doylist explanation. For those who don't understand what that means, a couple definitions. Watsonian: the in-story justification for why something happens or is. Ex. Luke's aunt and uncle are murdered in A New Hope because the Empire was looking for Luke. Doylist: The author's purpose for having something happen or be in a story. Ex. Luke's aunt and uncle die to move the plot forward and help make sure he leaves Tattoine. In other words: the in-universe reason for the Chantry being blown up is clear, but the writers' reasons aren't. Therefore, we are not discussing Anders's motivation. There's plenty of meta for that if you're curious. Instead, we are discussing the writers' motivation for writing it the way they did. One could simply say, 'they needed a conflict for the finale', and have done with it. But that only explains the most bare-bone plot-related reasons. It says nothing about how that plot point relates to the overall message, or how the writers intended Anders to be viewed by the audience. Specifically, I doubt that the writers meant us to view Anders positively. If that was their intention, they would not have written Anders murdering Elthina in a way that involved massive collateral damage and the death of innocents. Those things don't tend to generate goodwill. It's possible they wanted Anders to be viewed as a villain, but in that case, why doesn't DA2 end with an Anders boss fight? No, I suspect that the writers' intention were in the same situation as Marvel movies with politically progressive villains. Namely, the ones the audience ends up agreeing with to the point they're in danger of losing their status as villains. Only, instead of it being a single character, the writers had this problem with the concept of mage rights as a whole. Namely, modern people are generally against depriving people of their freedoms/rights. They're especially against doing so because of something the person can't control or doing it to a whole group because only some members of that group are bad. Therefore, most players will probably agree with Anders that the Circles are indeed bad. Especially players from real-life marginalized groups. It's the same deal as X-Men, except that X-Men understands and ANTICIPATES that the audience is on the side of the X-Men. DA:2, on the other hand...not so much. So, I suspect Anders blowing up the Chantry was the writers doing what Marvel writers often do: make the left-wing villain inexplicably do something nasty in order to have them retain their villain status. Or, in this case, have the most prominent activist do something bad so that the mage rights cause looks equal to the Templar point of view. And, like in the case of Marvel, it doesn't really work. Anders blowing up the Chantry doesn't make the Templars look right. As a matter of fact, the in-universe explanation explicitly relies upon the fact that it doesn't! And that is why I cannot say the writers' reason to write Anders do what he does makes sense. Mainly because I don't believe the writers had a reason. In other words, I believe Anders was done dirty by the finale.

Idk if you know who Noah Schnapp is but I feel so sad for him. He seems like a sweet kid and The internet has been sending him death threats and trying to get him fired because he’s pro Israel/anti Hamas. Noah is gay and Jewish the two groups Hamas hates the most of course he’s not gonna support them

Hi Nonnie!

I do know who Noah is. I think he seems like a nice guy, I was really happy for him when he was able to come out as gay, and get such a positive reaction, first from his family, then from the public.

He visited Israel back in July, almost 3 months before Oct 7, and already he was getting attacked simply for that. I think it's SICK in the worst way possible, that Jewish people are getting harassed for even simply visiting their ancestral land, and it's the kind of racism we wouldn't see turned on ANY other marginalized group in the US. Kids of Mexican descent don't get attacked simply for visiting Mexico, African Americans don't get vilified for visting Africa, no matter what people think of these countries. It's anti-Jewish racism to do this to Jews, and it should be loudly called out and condemned. Noah was brave to post about this visit, he was brave to explicitly say he had never felt as alive as he did visiting his ancestral land, and getting to know fellow young Jews here, but he shouldn't have to be.

By now, however, as the attacks on him intensified since Hamas' massacre, and Noah's continued support for Israel, of native Jewish rights in our land, and calling out Hamas for being the vile organization they are (you're right, it is vile to Jews AND to gay people. In fact, it's an organization that should be vile to ANYONE who claims to care about human rights), he's deleted most of his posts from his visit here on his IG, only one remains, and he removed the caption for that one, which is that one that IIRC said he's never felt more alive. Now there's no caption, and it's still apparently taking a lot out of him to simply keep it up on his account.

He did try to backtrack, IDK to what a degree he might have been pressured to. He's certainly not the first Jewish celeb I've seen having to do that, and later admitting they were motivated by fear and harssment. The "kind" anti-Israel crowd is definitely implying Noah is only doing it due to Stranger Things' new season which is about to be released. I'm afraid whatever the reason, he's about to find out that if the antisemites can't tokenize you to use you against other Jews, then you're forever a "bad Jew," and nothing you say will ever change that. On the way, I guess he'll disappoint many Jewish followers, who looked up to him when he was one of the few celebs, even more so one of a handful of young celebs, to stand by Israel. The anti-Israel crowd claims to be persecuted, silenced and bullied, but as far as I can tell, especially with young people like him, they're the ones doing the persecuting, silencing and bullying. I'm really saddened that he felt he had to backtrack his support of Israel, to a great degree because it tells me just how severe the attack and pressure on him must be, and I just don't want any Jew to suffer.

But this actually brings me to another, maybe more important point: just because celebrities have a bigger stage than the rest of us, it doesn't mean they know more about politics than others. If Noah, as a Jew, could safely speak about his experiences as a young Jewish man, I think that would be fantastic, just like I think it's great whenever a queer celeb comes out of their own accord and shares some of their experiences. It's a really sad thing to realize that in 2024, it's safer to talk about being gay, and to speak up for gay rights, than to be Jewish and speak against antisemitism, or about Jewish experiences, or for Jewish rights. But beyond sharing personal experiences, celebrities don't understand a conflict as complex as the Israeli-Arab one, and with as much history as this one has, more than the average Tiktoker. Neither one is an authority, and neither one should be who people go to for their political views. The fact that people look at Tiktokers as any kind of authority, or have expectations from celebs regarding political views and bully them for the "wrong" ones (based on what Tiktokers said) is a part of what has gone horribly wrong with modern society.

The internet was supposed to help us fight misinformation through the availability of facts. Instead, we see repeatedly how what is true falls prey to what is viral.

Sending big hugs, and I hope you're doing good! xoxox

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

finally got around to watching nimona because i've seen so many people talking about it and wow, it really is a metaphor for transphobia and the struggles that trans people face with being accepted.

nimona constantly being asked the question of "what are you" symbolizing people's entitlement to know one's gender identity to figure out if they're cis or trans.

nimona constantly being told to be normal symbolizing trans people being told to accept their agab and conform to society's expectations

ballister's struggle with accepting nimona symbolizing those whole struggle to unlearn what they've been taught but eventually finding the ability within themselves to accept.

the director using ballister as a coverup symbolizing how discriminated groups (in his case being a commoner) are often used as scape goats to avoid confronting the real issue.

the director finding the scroll symbolizing people finding that one tiny piece of information to still try and turn people against the trans community even though its not actually true.

nimona's line of driving a sword through things they don't understand literally representing a large portion of society and their resistance and struggle to accept things they don't understand right away

young gloreth symbolizing how children are naturally more accepting of those who are different but are taught prejudice by the older generation that has yet to give acceptance.

wow, just wow. these are just a few of my thoughts. i honestly wish i was taking notes while watching but i wanted to fully enjoy the movie without interrupting myself. every scene i was seeing symbolism for trans/queer struggles. i'm including queer because i feel a lot of these issues not only apply to trans people but other marginalized groups especially in the queer community. the whole movie is a call out to prejudice that just especially queer.

i wish more people could see this movie with the understanding of what it is trying to teach and learn from its lesson how to be more accepting and that just because something was always taught to us one way, doesn't make it the right way.

Uh-huh. You realize, coming from a 26 year old, that this is just ageism, right? "I'll only take you seriously because of your age"... and you think you're in the right?

Yeah, "14 years olds act more 14 about it" because typically a group with absolutely zero societal power that is literally treated as the subhuman property of their parents and irrational mindless inconveniences that are only here to annoy "real people" will get upset when you continue to treat them as such while reminding them of the absolute privilege and societal power you hold over them.

I was 14 too. I remember the frustration at no one taking me seriously. I remember the fury that when I turned 18, 20, 25, suddenly everyone believed me about the things I'd been saying for 4, 6, 10+ years. I remember the disillusionment that happened when I realized the only thing that had changed was not some arbitrary debunked number at which the brain "develops fully", not some threshold of "maturity", but simply that I was no longer the age at which the state had a chokehold around my personhood, or in some cases the age which people think my human rights should have been delayed to.

Because it's not like adults EVER have bad opinions about something you say online, right? It's not like they don't FREQUENTLY respond to you trying to talk to them about it with stubborn and willful ignorance. It's not like the OP of this or a similar post didn't once respond to my detailed and logical essay about ageism with "lol I'm not reading all that". It's not like unreasonableness and angry nastiness at a post is utterly unlinked to the age of the person perpetrating it, and people of all ages do this in equal numbers.

Oh wait, it's exactly like that, it's just that society supports and even rewards the exact same misbehaviors in privileged people that they condemn in marginalized people.

It's just that when an adult does this, it's either that they're arbitrarily right based on their age/other privileged identity and often the marginalized status of the person arguing against them (see: OP, every argument on antisemitism where goyim are seen as the rational and reasonable and therefore right ones), the person arguing is being "immature" and "might be lying about being an adult' or "is acting like a child" (transmascs being silenced about their oppression using infantilization, the concern trolling of people who are happily 'crazy', the infantilization of disabled people and especially those who are intellectually, cognitively, or developmentally disabled), or both.

They're right. Their age has nothing to do with what they're saying. However, it has everything to do with how you're mistreating them. If they had no age in their bio, you might have taken them seriously, at least enough to believe they might listen to your viewpoint and to treat them like an equal human being.

If they had had an age above (usually 20-25), your last grasp at defense would have been to discredit them by comparing them to a 14 year old or accusing them of lying about their age, precisely because even adjacency to that identity allows you to shut down any argument they make.

Unfortunately, when you're in your 20s and 30s, everything is influenced by how fucking 20-40 you are. You forget exactly how cruel and oppressive society is to children. You forget how people magically started treating you like a person instead of a thing that existed only to "irrationally" be angry at the world around you. You forget how you were right to be angry at how they treated you.

You forget that you were legally allowed to have someone else dictate what and when you ate, how you dressed, whether you received necessary medical care, whether unnecessary medical procedures such as intersex "correctional" surgeries and treatment were forced on you at any age, when and for how long you were allowed to leave the house, and if they hit you in a well-known erogenous zone it would have been considered "discipline" as long as they called it "spanking" and not "physical and sexual abuse. You forget this and any number of other things considered abusive if a partner or roommate were to do it to even someone who had just turned 18 two seconds ago.

You forget that while it was technically illegal for your parents to starve you, to beat you, to emotionally abuse you by gaslighting or daily verbal abuse or manipulation, to torture you, to sexually abuse you, to hurt you to the point of you developing PTSD and or dissociative disorders, that there is very little recourse for actually enforcing it. You forget that you just have to hope that a different adult believes you, and in order for them to do that you usually have to fit a stereotype of a good victim and that your parents usually already have to be not in good standing with your community.

You forget how many cases of actual textbook abuse CPS does nothing about for "lack of proof" despite a supposed societal narrative of "believe victims".* You forget that they prioritize reunification even in cases of actual physical abuse, often with the abuser themself. You forget that you were a member of the only class that can have the police called on them like dogcatchers to drag them back kicking and screaming to their abusers, with no recourse or means of escape provided, because the state depends on and serves the institution of the "nuclear family". You forget that historically police served to return escaped property to their owners, and still do so today.

(*Believe victims if they have any measure of societal power that causes consequences for not believing them. Believe victims as long as you will be judged by most people for not believing them. Believe victims only if you can be held accountable for not doing so.)

As a disabled person and therefore a vulnerable adult, I had the unique position of being treated as a child until I escaped at age 23. It was all the same arguments - that it was "for my own good", that I was "incapable of making those decisions for myself" (or apparently, finding someone I did trust to make them for me, because I was "unreliable enough" I couldn't even do that), and so on.

This only made me realize that, despite the fact that none of that was true, it wouldn't be okay even if it was. It's not okay for disabled adults who DO need significantly more help caring for themselves than I do and who are profoundly cognitively or intellectually disabled to have their autonomy infringed on and their consent violated.

So why, then, is it okay to do to a child, regardless of their actual ability to take care of themselves or "make rational decisions"? Why is it okay to treat a child this way? Why is it okay to regard someone as fundamentally subhuman until an arbitrary cutoff?

Why is it okay to assume complete and total irrationality and unreasonableness on the part of an entire class of people just because as a subjugated and oppressed class they are still on rare occasion irrational or unreasonable? Isn't that bog-standard bigotry?

Why is it okay to justify their oppression by them being sometimes unable to fully stand on their own two feet, without help or community, under the weight of the oppressive system itself that serves to reinforce that? Why claim the purposeful elimination of tools and obscuration of helpful skills and knowledge under the guise of "protecting them" shows that they are incapable of surviving without those violences in a system that you claim is not, in fact, openly hostile to them?

And yes, this does all matter in the context of petty online discourse, because it is these systems that serve to reinforce and be reinforced by this casual ageism.

It is reaffirming the ideas which uphold these systems - that children are incapable of being rational people with reasonable emotional responses to mistreatment, who have to be told at every point what is in fact fair and how they must react to not face active bigotry for their immutable identity. It is conditioning children to beg for scraps of respect so that they learn assimilation early and go on to perpetuate childism when they themselves become adults.

It's petty and cruel, and it's destroying my faith in humanity to see marginalized people I otherwise respect sharing this. Y'all of all people should know better. Y'all of all people should be able to see how it maps to multiple of the various types of oppression and even intersectional oppression and then goes further.

Y'all of all people should be able to remember how being a child was your primary identity and primary form of marginalization, because you could legally be allowed to be abused for your other marginalized identities and most people in fact supported your family doing so, or at least felt that even if it was wrong it was still "their right" to do so.

Maybe you were privileged enough to have a supportive family, but I know for a FACT most of you weren't.

Kids are considered uniquely incapable of having any identity that is not immediately apparent - of knowing they are chronically ill or queer or plural or neurodivergent. They are considered incapable of having valuable and complex thoughts about politics or religion. They are not listened to or considered experts on the specific intersectional discrimination they face for immediately apparent identities, such as being children of color or visibly disabled. Adults within those groups are considered the experts on forms of discrimination they'll even admit they no longer experience, but that children continue to.

This is not just queerphobia or ableism or racism or any other number of forms of bigotry. This is specifically childism intersecting those forms of bigotry. It is not just not okay because of their queer or disabled or racial or other identity. It is not okay because children are fucking people, and yeah, deserve to be treated as equals and not be condescended to even in the actual rare cases where their reasoning is not completely rationally sound - just as is the case for disabled people, I might add.

If you can see how one is ableism but not how the other is bigoted childism, if you can't see the parallels between two cases where

-most individuals in a class are fully rational and intellectually capable people purposely being mislabeled as not so in order to justify their subjugation

-which is fundamentally reliant on the societal acceptance of mistreatment of those who may not be fully rational or intellectually capable (which is deeply ableist/childist, oppressive, and wrong),

-and where those who actually aren't fully rational or are intellectually incapable face no reprieve both in being weaponized against members of their own class with relative privilege AND in fighting their own mistreatment, which unlike in the case of those who might be able to convince others of their capability is considered always justified on the basis of their incapability, while not actually being okay on ANY basis,

then I can't help you.

To be clear, the reason it is ableist and/or childist to label someone as intellectually incapable when they are not is not at all because actually being so would be in any way bad. It's because it relies on the deep, insidious ableism/childism against those who are considered intellectually capable to function. It is essentially a separate facet of that same ableism/childism, and one specifically functions because of the other facet of ableism/childism that says that all members of said class are incapable and therefore need to be mistreated in the same way as those who actually are.

"No one deserves to be treated this way," is fundamentally how this oppression should be addressed, period. Understanding how it functions differently for different people, and how easily the most vulnerable members of an oppressed class could have their liberation tossed aside in order to pursue assimilation for the less vulnerable is still important, though. Understanding that your own oppression relies on the total subjugation of part of your community on the basis of an ontological trait that they have and you do not is actually paramount in recognizing both your own relative privilege and how to effectively fight the oppression you all face.

Or to put it simply, it's important to recognize that if you're being oppressed because someone is claiming you're something you're not, that that oppression isn't okay toward the people who are that thing.

Anyway, adults who talk about childism, adultism (I apologize that I struggle to remember the difference between the two, much like I struggle with the difference between ableism and disableism), and youth liberation also hold privilege. As I mentioned above, the most that someone can use to discredit me here is to say that I'm immature or they think I'm secretly a child.

Even the people who really don't want to examine their own privilege and complicity in their hierarchical relationship with children are more likely to listen to me, and if they don't they'll make fools of themselves with such lines as "I refuse to read anything longer than a twitter post to educate myself on complex systems of oppression".

I'll keep trying to stand up for children anyway. Not just because I actually remember what it's like to be 14, but because I have a responsibility to do so as an adult. I'll uplift the voices of the children who quite honestly are way better at explaining this and have a far better understanding of both the direct experience and the sociological theory behind it than I ever will be.

Also note: I didn't anywhere in this post point out how people who are 17 and some months are functionally indistinguishable from those who have just turned 18, or how variations in "development" might cause some who are 15 or 16 to be very similar to others who are 18, or so on.

Quite frankly, I don't think that matters. I do think 14 year olds deserve to be treated with respect just as much as 17.99 year olds, and I also think often 17.99 year olds face much of the exact same mistreatment and oppression (especially systemically) as 14 year olds. The exceptions where legal emancipation can help those over 16 are both rare enough and require trading being controlled for being unsupported. Therefore I think that while a more nuanced conversation about this could take place within the communities actually affected by this, I think it's neither appropriate nor helpful here.

I'd also like to remind people that predators are often successful at grooming children because they pretend to treat them with respect and take them seriously. The answer to this should not be "oh, anyone who respects children is a groomer", but rather, "hey, maybe if everyone treated children with respect and took them seriously, actual predators would have one less avenue through which to target and harm children".

As a CSA victim myself, I will NEVER stop doing anything and everything I can to prevent more children from becoming victims. I only care about what's effective, not what feels good in pseudo-proxy revenge fantasies against imagined perpetrators while very real ones continue to go unnoticed and unchallenged by society.

I take children seriously because it's the right thing to do, but also specifically to fight CSA. I also remind anyone who needs it that they do NOT know they can trust me or anyone else on that sole basis. While I want to be a safe adult, doing so in a society where children have no recourse against mistreatment fundamentally requires them protecting themselves by not trusting me just because I recognize the power I have over them and the ways in which they are abused.

(This is another example of how the fearmongering mindset over generational friendships, particularly between minors and adults, is just as harmful as the pushback against comprehensive sex education and coming from the same puritan and christofascist roots. Knowing that something is sexual abuse just allows victims to voice what they're experiencing. Having safe adults who respect them allows children to recognize the manipulative behaviors and other red flags of unsafe adults.)

Anyway, all the original post is saying is "I don't like when members of an oppressed class stubbornly refuse to compromise on being treated as equal people with valuable thoughts and rational responses to mistreatment, and in fact insist on being listened to when I say things that are cruel, unfair, and untrue."

(When did use of "unfair" become a synonym for "whiny snowflakes children who just can't see that life is inherently unfair" in leftist spaces that purportedly fight against systemic injustice, anyway? When did it become something "immature" in the fight against identity-based violence that is inherently not fair?)

So I guess, act more 14 about it. I'll continue acting more disabled and queer about ableism and queermisia, so I fail to see what's bad about that. But imagine thinking that interacting with someone on the basis of their age is useless and thinking you're in the right for it. Truly showing their entire ass.