#good faith | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

i4eth · 6 months

Text

Neopronouns Flag Re-Desing

by: Ethan (i4eth)

I made this new flag design because the flag representing the most popular neopronouns wasn't very pleasing to my eyes and I found the meanings a bit vague and not very related to the neopronouns themselves. Not that there is a problem with that, just create an alternative to deal with these "problems".

Color Meanings

Green: Represents Diversity, and I think it's important as there are different types of neopronouns, and different types of ways in which you use pronouns for comfort, so it's important that you know that there is diversity between pronouns

Light Green: Represents Freedom, its about you can use whatever you feel comfortable with as a pronoun, it's almost freedom, it's as if you weren't obligated to use popular pronouns to refer to yourself.

White: Represents Recognition, because neopronouns are generally viewed very negatively by people who only use pronouns recognized by the language, and the idea would be for people to see that neopronouns don't hurt anyone and that they need to be taken seriously along with the people who use them.

Yellow: Represents Harmony, everything that a person who uses neopronouns deserves, everyone deserves to live in peace and harmony, but for this to happen people have to stop having an opinion on how people live and how they decide to be, being themselves, and Learning to respect them, well, it's not that difficult.

Orange: Represents Community, we are a group of people who are attacked for not only using the pronouns recognized by the languages, we need to be united so that anything that tries to stop us, we overcome, community is one of the very important aspects, but not just queers, but as in society itself, we walk together because we are better together

Symbol meanings

I was researching a little about pronouns, and I discovered that there is a symbol that represents pronouns, and also neopronouns, but I found this symbol a bit strange, such as the fact that it only works in the English language, and I, as a person who speaks Brazilian Portuguese, I felt a little left out, but I know that the person who made the symbol didn't do it with bad intentions.

So I decided to reuse the symbol in my own way, I realized that the part that represented the neorponomes looked like a flower, with just a few petals, so I used that to make a metaphor. Neopronouns are diverse and colorful like flower petals, so I placed a flower in the center of the flag with the neopronou symbols around it, using an old symbol, along with a possible symbol/metaphor for people who use neopronouns.

(Separate symbols, if you want to use them, and a photo by me with the meanings of the flag)

I couldn't think of any possible name for the flag, if you want to give your suggestions, you are free!

Any questions suggestions just call ⭐

#lgbtq #lgbtqiapn+#pride flag #mogai #mogai blog #mogai positivity #mogai coining #mogai community #neopronouns #pronouns #new pride flag #lgbtqiapn #inclusivity #inclusionist #good faith #queer identity #queer community #lgbtqia

32 notes · View notes

obviouslypancakes · 1 year

Text

I MADE SOMETHING AGAIN (ﾉ °□°)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧

This was for the 3rd good faith anniversary, but very late.. (◕ᴗ◕✿) Maybe I'll animate it some time! Who knows! Nobody does. I sure don't ┐( ˘ ､ ˘ )┌

#madeon #fanart #good faith

265 notes · View notes

i-want-my-iwtv · 8 hours

Text

(continued) I damn near exploded with anger, but also was able to concede how someone could come to that conclusion.

Hmm. I hope you're being hyperbolic, Anon, I mean, I'm glad you didn't explode with anger on your friend, and I'm glad you conceded how someone might come to the conclusion that there is/are problematic content/elements in a gothic horror story/series. 😬

I don't think this was a question, more of a confession/comment? I censored it for reasons below*. Whether it's IWTV canon, the '94 movie, the 2022 TV show, etc... I would say that if you enjoy it, allow that your friend has made a comment and you can talk with them about why they think it's bad, that could be an interesting conversation if it's in good faith!

I can say that in general, these stories/characters/ships are not intended to appeal to everyone, I consider canon to be a buffet where I can pick and choose what I like and skip over what I don't!

TL;DR: Don’t Like, Don’t Read. Applies to you, your friend, etc. Hopefully it won't cost you your friendship, but if it does, well, life goes on. I am not comfortable discussing certain topics publicly because fandom is a hostile environment at this time, and I come here for a fun little escape from reality in my limited free time, not to police anyone or be policed myself.

[^X by @bluebellofbakerstreet)

Hit the jump for more, cut for length.

~~~

*So, I wanted to take this as quick opportunity to share some thoughts on answering asks like these, because there is some fresh blood in the fandom who may not be aware... Assuming Anon wanted to ask if I agreed with their friend or not, the question wasn't quite clear. In general:

I've been in fandom long enough that I can say that the intention for questions like these is sometimes good, to spark intriguing conversations about how ~X problematic thing~ applies to various ships, whether it's harmful to the characters or maybe just part of their nature as vampires, so it's normal for them (as an example, "Was Armand cutting off Nicki's hands an abusive act, or is that a standard punishment that a coven master would commonly do to aberrant vampires? He didn't gloat about it, and he did return/reattach them after all!"), etc.... in other times, this could be a chance for an intellectually stimulating conversation and I would have enjoyed unpacking it with ppl.

Other times, especially currently in 2024 (to timestamp this), these questions are often in bad faith as a means to provoke an unwinnable debate; pinning a fan of a piece of media (the target/person) into defensive position of ~X problematic thing~ in fiction, which often becomes a slippery slope to accuse that target/person of "promoting/endorsing/supporting ~X problematic thing~ in real life!" This is then used to vilify the target/person when they insist that "Fiction is not reality," "Depiction is not endorsement," etc. etc.. As the person continues to defend themselves the bad faith actors escalate their harassment, this is fun sport for them. This can lead to dogpiling on the target/person with hateanons, online character/reputation assassination, or even real life consequences including doxxing. All this over a piece of fiction. It's extremely risky, it's entrapment, I have seen it happen and been a mild target for it over the years, it's unpleasant at best and ruinous at worst.

And I’ll also quote the description from @ozhawkauthor of one of The 3 Laws of Fandom, which applies to canon, fanfic, adaptations, all fiction!:

The First Law of Fandom Don’t Like; Don’t Read (DL;DR) It is up to you what you see online. It is not anyone else’s place to tell you what you should or should not consume in terms of content; it is not up to anyone else to police the internet so that you do not see things you do not like. At the same time, it is not up to YOU to police fandom to protect yourself or anyone else, real or hypothetical. There are tools out there to help protect you if you have triggers or squicks. Learn to use them, and to take care of your own mental health. If you are consuming fan-made content and you find that you are disliking it - STOP.

I used to wrap things up by saying smtg positive like "Let's all get along!" but that in itself was picked on for some reason, so I'll just end it here ✨

#anon #ask #problematic #problematic content #bad faith #good faith #fandom #advice #on fandom #bluebellofbakerstreet #ozhawkauthor #tsuki-lovey #gif #laws of fandom

10 notes · View notes

rhube · 1 month

Text

Existentialism and anti-fascism

I don't have the spoons to make this the essay it should be, but a passing quote from Sartre on Mastodon brought something into focus for me that should have been blindingly obvious. The quote is this:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. - Jean Paul Sartre (1945), Anti-Semite and Jew, pp. 13-14

(It should be acknowledged that he's specifically addressing anti-Semitism, but apart from the fact that fascism and anti-Semitism tend to go hand in hand, I don't think it's controversial to say that they operate using the same playbook.)

What jumped out at me is the bit about acting in bad faith.

You see, the importance of acting in good faith is a central aspect of existentialist ethics. In brief, the thought is that, for conscious beings (humans) existence precedes essence - we are fundamentally free and self-determining; each person decides their own purposes (their 'essence'). When you blame your actions on external forces (genetics, societal pressures, God etc) you are acting in bad faith and seeking to evade responsibility by denying that, whatever circumstances you found yourself in, you still had some form of choice for which you are responsible.

When you act in good faith you not only acknowledge the responsibility for your choice and its consequences, but also recommend that action to others. By acting, you attach value to the kind of action you performed (it is worthy of being done), and it is in this that moral value is created.

In this way, integrity is central to existentialist ethics.

As we have all seen in recent years, fascists have absolutely no integrity. They cannot be shamed. Few have denied that characters like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, and Silvio Berlusconi are ridiculous figures. Frequently those inside and outside the countries in which they reside look on in horror and ask themselves 'How is this possible? Why do people keep voting for them? Can't you see these men are a joke? A dangerous joke?'

Yeah, but they don't care. They live in bad faith. They have no integrity, because they know integrity is draining, and taking responsibility for what they do and say is something they have no intention of ever doing. They don't deign to give reasons because they want to convince you that the reasons (or at least ones that make sense) don't matter. They will dizzy you by jumping from argument to contradictory argument without hesitation, because any person who lives in good faith feels bound to unpick the mess they leave behind to justify their own decisions.

But it's a trick. You should be prepared to justify yourself to interlocutors acting in good faith, in as much as you should take responsibility for your actions, but the person acting in bad faith has no argument. Their actions are not at all bound by anything they say. You are arguing without an interlocutor, and the fascist has succeeded in wasting time and energy you could have put to meaningful resistance.

I've always been partial to existentialist philosophy: there is no fate but what we make for ourselves, no meaning to life but what we put into it. I don't think it's the whole picture. Long-time readers will know I favour a refined form of rule utilitarianism, but a part of that is that I believe you cannot have a happy society without integrity.

Just as with Davidson's Principle of Charity - we cannot even begin to have meaningful communication unless we assume that those with whom we communicate are speaking the truth and are largely correct in their beliefs.

Fascists trample all over that. They do not care about the truth and they have no problem lying to you. They require no correspondence between their words and either the world or their actions.

And yet it's still true that they rely on a background of truth and sincerity in order to be understood. They need to at least appear to be speaking the same language as we do. They may more frequently stumble into obvious gaffs where communication collapses - Johnson's vague blustering noises, Trump's 'covfefe' - but they have to string enough words together to at least *sound* like what they are saying means something.

Anyway, the point is: I always admired this philosophy, and I knew that it came out of the post-war sense of abandonment - that there is no force for good that prevents death and torture on a massive scale, only human endeavour. What humans choose to say and do.

As someone who has often been troubled by the quietism of despair, I immediately found this deeply comforting and empowering, even in as a teenager in the boom years of the turn of the millennium.

What I hadn't put together was that talk of good faith and bad faith is not only a deep philosophical truth about ethics, it is a straightforward practical critique of fascist rhetoric.

This way of arguing to score points - usually in support of right-wing positions - was something I found intensely frustrating as a young adult. I can remember specific individuals who behaved that way and the destruction the wreaked in my life. As a philosopher - someone who is good at arguing - it felt sort of shameful to me that I wasn't quick-witted enough to marshal my thoughts in the moment and unpick why what they were saying was nonsense.

But I can now see that that wasn't my fault. What I eventually did - which was to remove myself entirely from their presence - was the only rational call. It's just soul-destroying that for me that meant leaving behind the vast majority of my friends, who couldn't see what the problem was with that person, and were thus left to be poisoned against me by what they said.

I'm digressing into an old pain. The point is that at that time, people behaving like this were isolated individuals. Now they are dominating our politics, traditional media, and social media. Because fascism is rising again.

Of course Sartre was talking about how people who act in bad faith are dickheads that poison our communities - he lived through the rise of fascism!

He was making the incredibly important point that it's not just that a failure to take responsibility for one's actions brings negative value into the world, but that the Worst Wankers You Know literally argue in bad faith as a way to tie careful thinkers in knots and whip up the emotions of less careful thinkers.

A middle-class white 16-year old, living in boom years, just couldn't connect the dots - even though I was still at the intersection of multiple oppressions. I had been raised to fully believe that good debate was possible and should be the goal. I was doing a Media Studies A-Level, so I knew dishonesty happened in news and media, but... how to explain?

Elder Millennials were sold a dream of reality and progress that genuinely seemed to be going on in our teenage years and early 20s. There were still problems to solve, obviously, but many of us - especially where we had some kind of privilege - believed that racism was declining; the gender pay-gap was closing; homophobia was decreasing; and anyone could achieve anything they put their mind to, no matter their disadvantages, if they just tried hard enough. Nevermind that in my country if you were LGBTQ+, but not L or G, you probably didn't realise it, because you weren't allowed to learn about people like you in schools.

It's why so many of us are burnt out. Because it wasn't true. And we tried to be all we could be anyway.

But when you're 16, you're not burnt out yet. You believe that 'Never Again' means it can't possibly happen again. You learned about the Holocaust in school and are horrified, but it's at a complete disconnect from your reality. You have never knowingly heard anyone say anything anti-Semitic (of course, you probably heard things said in code that you didn't understand). It's a feature of The Past. You don't understand how it could have come to be, because no one actually taught you how it came to be.

I read Existentialism is a Humanism, but I didn't read Anti-Semite and Jew. And when they taught Existentialism is a Humanism we discussed Sartre's example of the student who's unsure if he should join the resistance, but no one explained that 'bad faith' wasn't just a technical term that has a specific meaning for Sartre's ethical analysis, it's also literally about how some people make bad-faith arguments as part of fascist and anti-Semitic rhetoric.

So I never thought, 'Oh, this person is arguing in bad faith on purpose to waist my energy,' - like, I sort of knew they were doing it to wind me up and because they were an arsehole, but I didn't get that it was a political strategy for stifling progress.

And all this distillation of political statements into 'sound bites' is fundamentally to the fascist's advantage. Because they explicitly don't care about reasons, and normal humans DO. So when all you heard are sound bites you can fill in reasons not given, and it doesn't matter what you imagine for the fascist, but if a progressive doesn't get to explain their point fully, it's very easy to make them into a strawperson they will spend the next few news cycles failing to unpick.

ARGH.

I'm not sure I'm any nearer to knowing how we defeat fascism. To an extent, it's comforting to know that we came out of it and had these discussions before. But it's endlessly frustrating to know how much was LOST from the public consciousness - even from people who DO know something about what was said - despite the best efforts of philosophers and writers and film directors and everyone who kept trying to communicate it to us.

#existentialism #fascism #anti-semitism #genocide #holocaust #sartre #bad faith #good faith #philosophy #ethics #rhetoric

17 notes · View notes

mystic-miracles · 1 year

Text

WE LOVE YOU BACK!

i spend way too much fucking time on this.

#art #digital art #fanart #sega #samba de amigo #madeon #love you back #good faith

94 notes · View notes

wobblydev · 3 months

Note

I am not trying to attack you but I strongly disagree with your analysis of voting. I think it is contradictory to believe, simultaneously, that voting for Biden materially does something, but that voting for someone other than Biden because of his policy on Israel does nothing. If voting for one candidate has a marginal effect, then voting for another candidate also has a marginal effect, and vice versa.

In either case, whether my vote does effectively nothing or whether it pushes the meter a little bit toward something better, I believe the correct long-term strategic choice is to vote for a third party, slightly increasing some third party's access to funding and ballot listings, at the cost of slightly decreasing the chance of a Biden victory this year. (Realistically: the only person who can affect Biden's electoral chances on a macro scale is named Joe Biden.)

But even if you choose the short-term strategic option of voting for Biden despite everything, I think it's pretty distasteful and a strategic error to, publicly and in your capacity as an activist, ask others to do the same, as it effectively turns you into an advocate for eternal and unquestioned loyalty to the Democratic party for as long as the U.S. exists, no matter what. If you must vote Biden, at least have the decency to threaten not to, to (potentially) scare party shot-callers into doing something worthwhile occasionally.

thank you for not attacking me, i appreciate it. let's have a conversation as comrades.

i agree that voting third-party can definitely work. in my opinion it is only viable (and quite viable at that) in local elections where upsets against the status quo are easier.

gains have demonstrably been won in municipalities that elect third party candidates. i would argue that those candidates then inevitably have a hell of a time once they enter the larger arena of american jockeying, corruption, tradition and outright evil, but that's a larger conversation.

do you think a third party candidate will win the 2024 presidential election?

#good faith #thank you for the thoughtful ask #american electoralism is a dangerous joke #we're talking about politics but please everyone concentrate your time and effort on organising #continue to fight gather en masse to raise our voices in furious defense against genocide #apply pressure to the points of production and distribution where we can have an impact to save lives

16 notes · View notes