if you looked at me crazy when i said that cannabalism is a metaphor for intimacy and i cut you out of my life: don’t worry, it was personal.

you probably looked at me crazy when i said Palestinian/Congolese/Sudanese people don’t deserve to be murdered.

You’re gonna die if you keep that up (Patreon)

when saying "I just don't understand why this level of aggressive violence, supply blockade, and civilian casualty is necessary in 2024" results in people saying to your face that you "support terrorism and want the hostages to die" you start thinking maybe the human race wasn't built for any level of nuance

Overly long disclaimer incoming: This is not anon hate. This is not an argument. This is not accusation. This is not agreement with anyone directly involved. Any feelings of hostility that may be gleaned from this ask are most likely because I struggle with maintaining a professional tone. Because this is not intended to be read as hostile.

This is solely intended as a statement of facts regarding who said what, mixed with light speculation on their intent. It is being sent because I feel that misinterpretation has occurred, and I firmly believe that one should always be as informed as possible on situations they are directly involved in. I hope this ask can make a positive difference.

Okay. Disclaimer over. Sorry it was so long.

I do not think roadhogsbigbelly accused you of being a pedophile yourself, and I don’t believe it was because of your stardew valley take.

I have seen several of his posts on this matter, and it seems he doesn’t like stardew valley (found it boring), his beef with your take was frankly minor and inconsequential, and it was intended to be separate from the larger critique he had of you. He made a few posts saying rather explicitly that they were separate issues, and I believe his initial post was a vagueblog that, on accident, conflated the two issues.

As for the main issue: if i recall correctly, you had reblogged a kink-positive post that turned out to have been made by an open zoophile (and also pedophile?). The zoophile in question is a clear danger to others, as they have a community of pedophiles and zoophiles that welcomes so-called “pro-contact” people.

This was where his accusations originated from, and this was what he focused on. He is concerned about how dangerous people like that are able to infiltrate into kink-positive spaces (is “infiltrate” the right word? I don’t know). His harshest critique of you seems to have been that you did not interrogate the intent of the person when you reblogged, and even that seems to have been mostly expressed in order to turn this into a learning moment for others. I don’t have precise wording (curse you tumblr mobile, for not letting me factcheck myself), but i believe he shared the sentiment that we all could stand to be a little more discerning?

- and I know he knows you have already responded to that criticism. For those unaware: txtlletale’s response was that she cannot be expected to vet the OP of every post on her dash, and that this criticism is thus unreasonable. His response to that response? … I forget, sorry. But I don’t think what you said was unreasonable. Again, my intent is to clear misunderstandings.

The point here is that, I don’t believe “accidentally reblogged a pedophile” and “is a pedophile” are the same statements, and roadhogsbigbelly had made the former statement. In short… I don’t think he was pedojacketing you. Whether he had unfairly judged you, and done so out of a transmisogynistic bias is, of course, a different question entirely. And if anyone else used his words to directly accuse you of pedophilia? Well, fuck em. Assholes.

I hope this makes sense. This ask is anonymous because I do not wish to become the focus of this issue. I am solely presenting information as I understand it. Feel free to fact check for yourself.

I think your anger is valid. These situations are infuriating, as is the culture of distrust that they bring. People on social media are, in general, far too swift to condemnation. You see it all the time, with pedojacketing, with qanon, with countless petty internet arguments. I try my best to reverse this tendency, at least with my own behavior. I don’t think you are a careless person, nor someone with a pattern of spurious accusations against people. I know you’re an intelligent and discerning blogger, which is why I trust you enough to send this ask. I hope I can have a positive impact.

have a good day, and take care of yourself.

(Considering sending an ask about this to him as well, so if you see a weird anon on his blog talking about misinformation hi its me)

i just don't agree with you--like, i don't say this aggressively either but this is just not an honest description of what he said. he called me, verbatim: "a tumblr user who markets incest and loliporn as an inherent part of queer sexuality". nothing in the screenshot mentioned "loliporn" -- nothing i have ever posted about in my fucking live mentions "loliporn" -- and for that matter, obviously, in none of my posts have i ever said that any kink, 'problematic' or not, is 'an inherent part of queer sexuality', and most fucking evilly of all, i don't 'market' these kinks.

like, think for two seconds about the implication of saying i, a trans woman, am "marketing loliporn". i think that goes beyond criticizing that i didn't vet my reblogs (which would obviously be insane in and of itself but i agree would not be pedojacketing). it's literal grooming/social contagion rhetoric. and again i can't emphasize enough he "just assumed" that "loliporn" was involved, despite it having no connection to anything i have ever posted! that + in his absolutely laughable double-down he says "99% of the people who make these sorts of posts are actual fucking pedophiles" as well as "pedophiles are agreeing with you! that’s not great!" which.

like wow that's crazy hey if 99% of people who make "those posts" (about "not being mean to sex freaks", or as i would phrase it, "criticizing the double standard leveraged to initiate mass sexual harassment campaigns against queer people but especially trans people for what they do privately and consensually with other adults" are "actual fucking pedophiles", what is that implying about me? can sherlock holmes get on this case with me?

idk i don't appreciate being told that "he never said 4" when he sure as hell was repeating "2+2" over and over again. & if his critique was 'intended to be separate' then why would he bring it up at all in his original post, multiple times, to clearly imply he doesn't think i should have 'takes' or 'opinions' on anything? regardless of what he did and didn't say about me i think it is pretty fucking clear that this:

is not 'seperate or unrelated'. i think it is really really difficult and requires totally unearned levels of good faith to read this as anything other than explicitly confirming that the point of this post is to use transmisogynistic rhetoric as a cudgel to shut up me up.

you can believe what you like but i know what i read and what was said about me and i will not be lied to.

Was watching a ContraPoints video (popular trans lady YouTuber) on some gender philosophy and got to thinking about trans girl Ani nuances.

OKAY SO: Contrapoints makes a comment in the video (transcript here) that she views herself as a boy who became a woman, not a girl who didn't realize it yet, which is a relatively uncommon approach among trans people, and that's in the middle of a longer discussion on the flaws in radfem theology (which I watched right after this PhilosophyTube video, and accidentally conflated the two since the former talked a lot about systems/structures of gender).

Anyway, I'm rotating that in my mind with regards to Anakin, who grew up in a setting that could easily be interpreted as having a much foggier distinction between Man and Woman than between Slave and Maste,r or human and twilek, etc.

It's entirely feasible that, on Tatooine in particular, the social elements of gender came down to very practical concerns (reproduction) and very superficial signs (e.g. hairstyle could maybe broadcast intended gender, and who wears skirts) outside of the specific situation of highly gendered and sexual forms of slavery (Jabba's dancing girls), which was relatively rare compared to more standard forms, like shop work or janitorial or what have you.

So you have an Anakin who grew up in a setting where "am I a girl?" isn't necessarily a question that would have the same answer as in another setting with more defined gender distinctions, in terms of both expression and role, and of the matter of identity at that confluence.

Then he--still he, at that time--meets Padmé and the handmaidens (very feminine, very girl, but not in a way that's at all like the way women on Tatooine willingly engage with), and encounters Coruscant culture (lots of gender dynamics due to the culture mash, but a low-key Western Misogyny vibe in the Senate and other non-Jedi settings Anakin's liable to encounter), as well as the Jedi classes on gender and sexuality and respecting/navigating those parts of culture on other planets.

As a result, Anakin starts developing a new, more nuanced and expansive understanding of gender, where it's more than just a few small differences, and the people around are mostly Jedi, who are also pretty dang open to nontraditional gender approaches etc And Anakin sort of… grows into wanting to be woman? In a way that isn't the usual "I always knew I was a girl" and more of an "I've learned what people consider a girl, and I'd like to be one."

And like. Ani COULD go back to thinking of gender in Tatooine terms, but why bother? Being a girl makes her happy. She wasn't unhappy as a boy in that gender framework, but she's happy as a girl now.

But because she didn't mind being raised a boy, she might say things a "when I was a boy" or "back when I was still living as a boy"

Me every time I hear a new, interesting take on gender: How can I apply this to a fictional character?

Also tbf this settles pretty well with my general thoughts on nb Anakin as well, where gender is like… It Sure Is A Thing That Exists. Anyway, Where's The Blasterfire?

I might be mis-remembering but I kinda reading an ask where you Said that hori only drawing thicker girls because he has a thing for them????

I remember a lot more about reading the ask and how horrible it made me feel that someone actually thought that way😭 especially when I myself was finally able to feel good and confident about my body through momo and other Mha girls.

I might also be mixing you up with someone else though so don’t take what I said in the last part of my ask too seriously.

I don’t feel like answering any asks atm I’m drained from last night help but I also I think you deserve an answer. I probably did say that and tbh i don’t know how you come to the conclusion that I said that to be hurtful, I said that neutrally as in a lot of male artists (artists in general) project their own preferences onto their characters and I found it a bit amusing that it’s pretty easy to tell that horikoshi seems to like curvy women lmao. (Im pretty sure he even added that as an annotation next to a female design somewhere like good for him why would I mind ehehsj)

and once again, i do not have an issue with anyone’s body type in bnha, I have an issue with horikoshi putting some of the girls in situations that he would never put his boys in (rightfully so). I am sorry if my words hurt you but I think you have conflated two separate things here

i have voiced my appreciation of the girls’ more realistic and sturdy body types compared to a lot of other female characters from other mangas, I’m not his biggest fan but I do think he knows how to draw bodies well and I tend to lean into that and draw toga and ochaco even bigger :) so again, no issue with that at all

the most important factor when shipping things that aren’t outlined or implied in canon or where the characters don’t have much canonical dynamic going on is how much it strengthens and adds to an existing situation. everyone and their mom knows joui 4 is real in a way few other anime Main Character Group polycules are real. and I genuinely am invested in sakamoto/takasugi even if they’ve only interacted 1.5 times. and that’s because of the following mathematical premises:

1. takagin is (obviously) real

2. takazura funny never married divorcees

3. everyone falls for sakamoto because of his SS rank charisma stat

what we end up here with is the following situations, all of them funny and therefore good:

- sakamoto threw up in gintoki’s face upon their first meeting and gintoki developed a crush on him anyway and ditched his childhood friends to hang out with the handsome new guy who’s really annoying and talks too loud. and who also threw up on you (takasugi)

- despite this takasugi doesn’t hold it against sakamoto because no one holds it against sakamoto. sakamoto’s allowed to do that

- zura also doesn’t hold it against sakamoto. however he Does hold it against takasugi and develops numerous fascinating complexes about takagin’s existence (and probably his ntr kink in the process)

- sakamoto and zura get along just fine but zura isn’t sakamoto’s type even though sakamoto likes dark haired women who would work as hostesses because zura out-bokkes him

- however this makes him gift him elizabeth. he was never even mad at takasugi and he made a tender flashback shounen promise with gintoki and just never got them anything. and after he met up with them again he continued to not get them anything. except pickled daikon. after he knows gintoki probably got heavily traumatized by the events of the plot he still doesn’t get him anything or text him.

- takasugi has no opinions about ginzura. I don’t think he thinks zura is capable of having a genuine relationship (funny thing for him to think of another human being). and I think ginzura is mainly concentrated in the present where takasugi has used the highest grade exorcism talismans to seal off his panels from any encroaching “gintoki having unspoken feelings and tender tension with old friend from his past” aura

- gintoki is a character born to get into funny situations where he’s in cartoon boxers and interacting with implied femdom gags. he’s a guy we see on a leash and with underwear on his face. he’s a guy who claims to be a virile shounen jump hero but needs to bottom for genre health and also his own health. but he’s stuck with takasugi and zura who both want/need him to top them in different ways. gintoki doesn’t want to deal with it. he wishes sakamoto would elope with him and they could go to sci fi vegas where he’ll drink a lot and forget everything. however sakamoto leaves him on read

- both zura and sakamoto think they were the guy who had to clean up after gintoki and takasugi’s messes and mediate between them. zura felt like it as a conflation of how he felt like a third wheel. sakamoto was genuinely mediating because both parties actually liked him.

- the only guy everyone likes as a blanket rule is never around and doesn’t talk to anyone except zura, because zura knows everyone’s contact information. but he also won’t share

- you know that infamous scene where gintoki and takasugi both picked the same woman at the brothel. and where takasugi (gay boy) spent the whole night unmoving in the corner. okay forget those two have you thought about how zura felt that night. and probably many other nights. he would Never engage in such a morally crass activity. going to the brothel would pollute his samurai soul—sakamoto is also there of course. sakamoto loves brothels. it’s just zura. alone. at home. all his men gone out. leaving just him. in his tent. well it’s fine. it’s his principles vs their degenerate tendencies. they’re all out having sex without him right now…………… even… takasugi………………….

- (takasugi is not having sex)

Hello, it is me again with a question for you regarding your Ganrauru series 😁

I was just thinking about how you have framed Rauru's relationship to power, that there is a part of him that does seek the sort of friendship and genuine connection it brings while also bristling at the idea of someone opposing him and discarding his attempts at making said peace and friendship. That being said I was wondering, given Rauru's very complex feelings and mental gymnastics around Ganondorf and his refusal to submit, in your opinion what would have Rauru felt compelled to do had Ganondorf refused his advances? What if he had continued to refuse his invitations to Hyrule? How about in the case where Ganondorf does give his false vow of fealty, but refuses Rauru's more sexual advances, seeing them for what they are? How do you think Rauru would handle this situation, and how would he justify himself in the sort of framework he has set for himself as a just king? (For the record I don't think for a second that Ganondorf would have refused, just because I see him as an opportunist and he would absolutely take the opportunity to exercise some form of power over this so-called king in his mind, even if he is deluding himself in the process and choosing to forget that Rauru is essentially keeping him like a prisoner and objectifying him. But, it is something I do think about, even in the context of canon itself. What would Rauru do if Ganondorf and the Gerudo dug their heels in and refused allegiance with Hyrule?)

Ooooh this is such a great question. Consent issues ahoy, let's get into it

I was thinking about something similar the other day from a slightly different angle; if I argue that the Gerudo's previous chieftain was leading Rauru on, maintaining diplomatic relations and humoring his overtures, what would have happened if she had eventually said "No, actually"? And I think with either negotiating partner, Rauru's first emotional response is a petty, confused indignation. Excuse me I am benevolent and my rule is beneficial, why are you not responding to me accordingly?. We see this kind of pettiness canonically, I think--Zelda introduces herself and his response can be interpreted as "No, I'm king here, you want to try that again?"; Mineru tells him he can't defeat the Demon King alone and he gives her such a look. My guy, what is going on with you.

How this plays out with Ganondorf and a protracted refusal from the Gerudo to join up is of course a slightly different question of course, and I can't really see any answer to it other than that Rauru just... will not hear a no. Hyrule just keeps pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with. The shrines are already in place on Gerudo land but what if there were, you know, a military outpost or two as well. How much control over trade does Hyrule have, and how do they exercise it? Is there eventually an attitude of, well, if the Gerudo want nothing to do with Hyrule, then Hylians shouldn't be marrying Gerudo? I'm spitballing here, but a lot of this has an air of punishment to it, yknow? Retaliating against the Gerudo for not responding positively to Hyrule's invitations/incursions, for not playing into Rauru's self-conception and thus revealing the ways in which it's not fully true. Wow, so benevolent.

I don't see any world in which Rauru escalates to armed conflict first but I see many, many worlds in which he escalates to a point that armed conflict is an understandable response from the Gerudo. I mean. Is not "I have decided I'm gonna be king of this new kingdom I just made up :) You're invited!" already pretty close to that point? If we're being honest? I do feel like it is. (And I wonder if there's any world in which he loses the support of the allied tribes, if this pressure ever could have been perceived as the imperialism it was.)

How does Rauru justify this to himself, this refusal to acknowledge the Gerudo's no, this inch-by-inch encroachment? By conflating, I think, his personal sense of injury with the threat of harm. Ganondorf does not want the Gerudo to become part of Hyrule is shrunk down to the petty, personal terms of Ganondorf thinks of me as an enemy and then expanded again into Ganondorf is an enemy of Hyrule. He's right about that last one because Nintendo is so very boring about this, but he's making a series of logical fallacies without realizing it. I don't see a lot of propensity towards self-reflection in Rauru. Not without Very Bad Things Happening to Him first. So he trusts his own feelings without questioning them.

As for what would have happened if Ganondorf had turned down his sexual advances... oh that would just be awkward for everyone, wouldn't it? In the sense that: I think that part of what keeps Ganondorf from pushing back when Rauru is being petty and imperious is Ganondorf's own recognition--conscious or not--that Rauru will not necessarily listen to a no. This is his experience of Rauru thus far, of someone who receives an implicit no and rather than respect it simply keeps asking and thinks himself right to do so (canonicallyyyyyyy). And so there is a risk for Ganondorf in saying "no": that of winding up in a situation where he has drawn a line in the sand that he cannot defend. One that Rauru will coldly step over. Rauru doesn't want to be in this situation, either: he doesn't want to see that he is a person who will only accept a "no" if he thinks it's justified. His mind squirms around admitting how coercive he's being, even to himself. But on some level he does know what sort of position he's putting Ganondorf in. He knows that Ganondorf is not in a position to say no, and that's a balm on the ego-wound that Ganondorf's political refusals have inflicted. One that reveals that the true nature of the ego-wound is not he does not think I am good but he does not acknowledge my power. (Again I gesture towards "I'm the only king Hyrule's got, who r u" and "excuse u, wat do u mean I can't defeat the Demon King")

So if Ganondorf did actually say no? In ACNOC, after that first kiss, a cold, "I don't want this, Your Majesty"? There is a part of Rauru that flares with the desire to take anyway, to say have you not come to offer me your submission?, but so early in the situationship maybe he is able to recognize that desire for the cruelty it is. ...Maybe. But god, can he afford to? Can he afford to apologize to Ganondorf for overreaching? Mm, absolutely not. Even if he ceases to try to goad Ganondorf into a sexual relationship, I think the answering dialogue is along the lines of "Then what makes you think you have the right to invade my personal space like this? Your actions belie your claim that you have come to offer submission to Hyrule." There's still very much a need to put Ganondorf in his place--an increased need, even, having just lost a bit of face by allowing Ganondorf to refuse him something.

(consent issues get louder)

At the end of UAWTATR, though, hhhhhhhh. Many times I have turned this thought over in my head. At that point. I think there might be some phrasing of the sentiment I don't want this that would stop Rauru in his tracks with the realization that hey this is WAY rape-ier than I wanna be, but I'll be honest. I haven't figured out yet what phrasing would do it. I think most protests that Ganondorf could have offered would have been met with something that boiled down to I know you don't want this, but your position relative to mine means you're going to do it anyway.

How he justifies that to himself later, I don't know. Ganondorf did try to assault him just the night before so that comes into it, probably. That Ganondorf immediately tries really hard to kill him keeps him from having to look to closely at it, either. He's still left with a feeling of nauseated shame and horror but he's got other things on his mind.

God. Nintendo cannot possibly have meant to make Rauru like this but then why did they make Rauru sO CONSISTENTLY LIKE THIS. I know I am expanding things. But I am expanding things that DO exist. Why is he like this.

GET TO KNOW THE MUN. respond to the prompts out of character !

what made you pick up the current muse(s) you have? oh, where do i even begin?  well, i suppose i should start with how long sw has been in my life.  ANH was the first movie my mother ever saw when she visited the USA; she saw it with my grandmother ( and subsequently developed a massive crush on harrison, so indiana jones became a huge part of my childhood too lol ).  for this reason, my mother introduced my brother and I to sw when we were actual babies.  then, when the prequels came out, it’s all me and my brother consumed.  from the movies themselves to the original clone wars cartoon to the PS2 games to the novels/book series.  we watched it on a tiny portable player for every trip, and every time my relatives needed us to go away to let the adults talk lol.  it also helped our comprehension of english so much. i can’t recall a time in which sw hasn’t been present in my life! before i joined the tumblr swrpc, i kept to myself in the prequels community, wrote fanfic, and rped anakin on skype.  he’s always been a character that hit a little too close to home in one too many ways.  the main parallel i have with him (that doesn’t relate to his mental issues haha) is his love/devotion/attachment to his mother.  it’s difficult for me to explain without getting into the aspects of my culture (孝順 / filial piety), but in short, i am cantonese; if my mother asked me for my thumb tomorrow, i would give her my arm today.  anakin’s love for his mother, his determination to free her from slavery at an early age, was very touching.  EPII has been memed to oblivion, yes, but the pain i feel when anakin doesn’t get to hear his mother tell him she loves him one last time before she dies, and knowing that it haunts him for the rest of his life (eu), makes me want to throw myself out a window lmao  i have an extremely close relationship with my parents; this sort of pain is absolutely gutting for someone like me. anyway, when i joined the tumblr swrpc, writing han solo was never the plan.  i originally wanted to write luke but ended up changing my mind at the last second.  I’d written well over a dozen fics with han at that point, but was nowhere near confident, so i thought of it as more of an experiment. guess that doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, because if you really think about it, since the day i started writing him in fics, he hasn’t stopped butting into my brain.  in fact, he’s been harassing me ever since—to the point that i even switched from writing luke to him… lol given my upbringing and my mother’s love for him, han has always been my childhood hero, as well as my brother’s.  our dad was our han solo.  the nostalgic and familial associations run so deep, it’s difficult to articulate.  we share many traits, right down to his universally agreed-upon zodiac sign (sagittarius); i know han solo like the back of my hand—and it’s probably because i wanted to be just like him when i grew up.

is there anything you don’t like to write? character death.  if i have to say another, it’s when people conflate harrison with the character he plays and then decides to address that in a thread.  harrison was a ladies man back in the 80s, and that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean the same for han.  i hate seeing the conflation between the two.  not sure if this happens as often anymore, but there was a time when fics/threads/even han rpers would lean into it, by default, thus totally destroying his character in my eyes.  i mean, write it as a storyline, that’s cool and fine, but infidelity has never been inherently part of his character.  i will die on this fucking hill.

is there anything you really enjoy writing? most unpopular opinion ever: action sequences.  critical situations, fast paced action, thriller scenes featuring immediate, life-threatening circumstances.  i love writing that which exhibits a sense of urgency and tension, with sprinklings of emotional depth and contemplative introspective moments.  scenes with internal conflict combined with aforementioned external events.  even evading enemy forces, sustaining minor/major injuries, dressing wounds.  dunno why those are always the most fun to me.  aside from that?  romance/romantic angst.  i’ve had many writing partners over the years, and each one thought they could outdo me in writing romantic angst.  sometimes, the psychosomatic pain of heartbreak isn’t far from feeling like you’ve lost a limb in battle.

how do you come up with headcanons? by being the most annoying, meticulous person ever.  i’m extremely detail oriented; when i see incongruities in my own work, i perish.  so, when i come up with headcanons, i have to consider all factors that may affect the outcome of whatever question i’ve posed in my mind and feel the need to justify my choices, for whatever reason, by tying it back to XYZ.  my headcanons must align with my muse’s personality, their environment from childhood to adulthood, their current circumstances, and if it’s an AU, how it mirrors canon events.  canon/eu is everything imo, because they are their own choices; it’s what shaped them into the character we know them as.  ofc, this is my process and opinion, so make of that what you will.

do you write in silence or do you play music? no music, no tv.  sometimes people talking is too much for me.  i have adhd and my medication only helps so much.  i will absolutely start writing down the conversation or lyrics playing in the background lol

do you plan your replies or wing them? plotting vs planning replies is different to me.  plotting gives me a foundation, but it can’t be too confining.  to plan a reply is to block out each moment.  if you trap me, i will always deviate; so i wing everything, even when i have a foundation.

do you enjoy shipping? yes, absolutely!  i’m not sure why people tend to assume otherwise, but i’m more open to it than people think.  i’ve never cared about who you write, if they’re in the sw franchise, or even what era of sw etc etc  never given a shit about what people think; if our muses click, they click.  honestly, some of the best ships i’ve had with han, as in the most enjoyable and enlightening of his character, have been ‘crack ships’.

what’s your alias/name? vin, vince, vincent.  vincent van hoe.  trash bin vin.

age? 27!

birthday? dec 2!

favorite color? silver.  if that’s not a color to you, then blue.

favorite song? you can’t expect me to… well, ‘in your eyes’ by the weeknd has been up there for a long time.

last movie you watched? star wars: the clone wars (2008)

last show you watched? … the clone wars lol

last song you listened to? billie jean - MJ.

favorite food? my mother’s 番茄炒蛋 ( egg and tomato stir fry ), unagi, freshly baked breads, fresh fruit …

favorite season? i get mostly tropical weather, but i love a cold winter.

do you have a tumblr best friend? unfortunately, so many people have left the site over the years, but i'm grateful to call these people some of the closest friends i have in the rpc: @techniiciian @desiccation @vibraea @rcvanchist @sgterso @voxcrystallis

tagged : @debelltio thank you for thinking of me!! tagging : if you're still reading this, i tag you!

I have to say your phrasing was rather odd in a recent post. You refer to every Israeli citizen as a Jew but not every Palestinian citizen as a Muslim. There are non-Jewish citizens of Israel; however you conflate one guilty state with the innocence of its dominant religion while noticeably not treating the other two the same way.

You’ve also utterly failed to hide that you’re valuing Israeli lives greater than Palestinians. You’d rather there be 33,000 deaths on one side than a single on the other? It’s also Hamas and Hamas’s fault alone that Israel made a decision to obliterate a civilian hospital? Israel is completely innocent in every war decision it makes because ‘Hamas started it’?

Nothing in this debate should be about antisemitism—and before you go off on me by conflating criticism of a nation with hatred of a religion, I am half jewish—it is about one sovereign state leveling another that has been oppressed by its neighbors for decades. Nothing in this conflict should be about the religions of those fighting it, yet you insist that those on Israel’s side are innocent Jews while those on the other are evil Palestinians.

Lastly, “I don’t have an answer to that” I do. It’s 0. Saying even a single death is justified if it’s a Palestinian one instead of an Israeli one is xenophobic and vile. Acting as if the world’s only options are one genocide or another is depressing, and acting as if it’s just going to stop at 33,000 is downright ignorant; it’s not “33k preventing 4.8m or 7m” it’s “the first 33k.” You criticized the asker for saying their solution was for Israel to lay down in its grave, and then you turn around and demand Palestine do exactly the same.

Netanyahu’s regime, no matter what flag they fly or god they believe in, is not going to stop until that 4.8 million is reduced to ashes in the soil of Gaza and the disbelieving stares of our grandchildren.

"You refer to every Israeli citizen as a Jew but not every Palestinian citizen as a Muslim."

No I didn't.

"however you conflate one guilty state with the innocence of its dominant religion"

No I didn't.

"You’d rather there be 33,000 deaths on one side than a single on the other?"

I literally did not say that.

"Israel is completely innocent in every war decision it makes because ‘Hamas started it’?"

I didn't say that either.

"Israel made a decision to obliterate a civilian hospital"

They didn't.

"and before you go off on me by conflating criticism of a nation with hatred of a religion"

I wasn't going to. 90% of your issues are poor reading comprehension.

"I am half Jewish"

Most Jews will tell you there's no such thing as half Jewish. Either way, having a Jewish parent doesn't make you right.

"it is about one sovereign state leveling another"

Neither Palestine nor Gaza is a sovereign state.

"Nothing in this conflict should be about the religions of those fighting it."

Well, it is. The conflict has many causes but you can't pretend religion isn't a factor.

"you insist that those on Israel’s side are innocent Jews while those on the other are evil Palestinians."

I didn't say that. I said "Most of Israel's 7 million Jews would die". Israel's population including non-Jews is 9.5 million. I only mentioned the Jews because it's the Jews who would be primarily targeted by Hamas and/or other radical groups in a final Intifada that topples Israel. Arab Muslims have a place in the Islamist utopia, Jews don't.

"Saying even a single death is justified if it’s a Palestinian one instead of an Israeli one"

I didn't say that. I never compared the value of one Palestinian life to one Israeli life.

"'I don’t have an answer to that' I do. It’s 0."

Your moral code is bunk if you think "zero" is always the right answer. Your philosophy falls apart when you're faced with the kind of impossible situations of 21st century international politics.

If you had 1 life on one hand, and 1,000 lives on the other, which would you choose? You can't abstain. Abstaining defaults to letting 1,000 die. If you choose "zero" then you've de facto chosen the higher number.

Another example is school shooters. Do you think it's justified to kill a school shooter if it's the only way to stop him massacring 30 children? (and no, I'm not comparing Palestinian civilians to school shooters. This is an exercise in moral philosophy.)

I'd encourage you to read The Failure of Nonviolence by Peter Gelderloos. "Zero" is not always an option you can choose, and pretending it is often leads to violence.

"Acting as if the world’s only options are one genocide or another is depressing"

Yes. Global politics is depressing. It would be nice if we all lived in a world where something being depressing meant it wasn't a reality, but here we are.

In this case, though, it isn't a reality: my entire fucking post was about how a two-state solution means neither genocide needs to happen. Not sure how you missed the point so dramatically.

"acting as if it’s just going to stop at 33,000 is downright ignorant"

I don't even know how to receive this kind of comment. You're wrong. If Hamas surrenders and returns the hostages, the war will end. Did you forget there was relative peace on October 6th?

"You criticized the asker for saying their solution was for Israel to lay down in its grave, and then you turn around and demand Palestine do exactly the same."

No I fucking didn't.

You're reading so far between the lines, the lines aren't even visible anymore. You're inventing things to get mad it.

"is not going to stop until that 4.8 million is reduced to ashes"

Why haven't they done that already, then?

The big evil war machine funded by billions of U.S. dollars with endless missiles at their disposal, and they can't wipe out a few kilometers of land?

It's been 6 months and only 1.5% of the Gazan population has been killed. Do you think they're trying to flatten Gaza and are just... really bad at it?

"in the soil of Gaza and the disbelieving stares of our grandchildren"

Always nice to sign off you rant with an emotive image of a child staring teary-eyed in disbelief of the horrible world before them.

Now do one about Israeli children on October 7th.

regarding the post today about Anna's nasty comments, "jokes" etc about Michael's appearance in the last few years. Do you think there is genuine reason to feel worried about him and what it may be doing to his mental health overall? What I mean is I am starting to worry and then it makes start to spiral a bit and think that if he stays with her longer that the possibility of her "soft bullying" will escalate into actual abuse and I really don't want to think like that but it really makes me worry for him. Please tell me what you think and should I just take a step back and not think on it too hard (am I?) If you agree with me though, what do you think can be done to help him? Like as in a safe way for him to break up with her? I appreciate whatever you can do to help ease my mind at least.

martinsharmony replied to your post "So for those who haven't seen, AL posted a new..."

I have to wonder about Michael's state of mind. He has said he has his own body issues and has struggled with depression etc. The fact that he is "letting" her do this makes me worry about him a little. The fact that he's not standing up for himself and setting a boundary. From my own experience, all of this is okay, until it's not. My heart goes out to Michael. Of course I don't know the real truth. But I see a little of myself there. I recognize it.

(Grouping these two together due to having similar themes.)

First, I am glad that you felt comfortable enough to message me about this and share your thoughts. But I think there are a few things going on here, and it's important that we have some perspective. When I started responding to asks and questions about AL on my blog four years ago, it was largely as a counter to what many of us were seeing the fans do, which was idealizing Michael and AL's relationship and making it into some sort of fairy tale romance. Many of us could see things that did not seem to hold true to this narrative, but were afraid to discuss it openly. So the discourse became about open and honest conversations and speculation, and since GO 2 came out, that discourse has only seemingly increased (if the Asks and Anons in my inbox are anything to go by).

To your comments, @martinsharmony, these are some very good points you are raising, and I'm sorry that you see yourself in Michael's shoes. I think there's a chance many of us do, and is part of why we have the strong feelings we do--one way or the other--about this situation. I think a lot of us see Michael's visible unhappiness and are jarred by the sharp contrast between that and the narrative of him and AL being "madly in love."

I do, however, think there is a real risk of taking that line of thinking so far in the opposite direction. That is, if it's not okay for fans to assume that everything is perfect and wonderful and the absolute best with Michael and AL's relationship, then it is also not okay to assume everything is the absolute worst, because extremes in either direction are not a good thing, and reality often exists somewhere in the middle. Reality and relationships are also infinitely complicated, which means that there often are no easy answers.

Also, because things are not ever truly black-and-white, I think it's important not to conflate being an unpleasant person with being an abuser. There tends to be an assumption that an abuser is mean and nasty all the time, every day, but so many abusers are viewed as "the nicest person you ever met" by everyone but the victim, which is how they are so often able to get away with what they do. Conversely, someone (such as AL) might be self-absorbed, immature, and annoying, but that does not make them an abuser.

Again, in no way, shape, or form am I saying that it is a bad thing to care about Michael, or to want him to be happy. But what we are ultimately talking about here is Michael's agency--that is, his right to make his own choices, and to deal with and feel whatever he feels about the consequences of those choices. By either romanticizing or catastrophizing his relationship with AL, we are unintentionally removing that agency. We have to remember that Michael is an adult man who has been in many other relationships in his life, and has navigated those (with varying degrees of success) on his own. So while we can have conversations and engage in discussion here, it is very much not appropriate and not our place to intervene with any of this personally or to try and facilitate the breakup of Michael's relationship.

Remember, too, that Michael has people in his life that he can trust and confide in--his parents (who are still alive and live near him, bless them), his sister, his friends. And he has David, of course, which we know is a beautiful thing. He and David have gotten immeasurably closer over the last four years and it is genuinely heartwarming to know that he can turn to David. The point here is that while we are fans of Michael's, we are not his family nor his friends. But Michael is not alone in this, and has support available to him, and that is something to be grateful for.

Going back to my previous comments about agency, one of the things that I know I love about Michael is that he is always going to do what he wants to do. He has reasons for doing those things, which means that if he is still with Anna, there is a reason for that (even if it is, as many of us believe, due to wanting to be there for the kids). And if/when Michael should decide to break up with her, there will be a reason for that as well. The most important thing, however, is that it's his choice. That if he decides he's made a mistake, it's his mistake to own, and not something for us to save him from.

I hope this has helped to put your mind at ease. I also want to make it clear that I absolutely do not have all the answers, and this (like all my posts) is my own opinion. Taking a step back might still be a good idea, as we can all find ourselves becoming too invested from time to time, and it is good to take a breather on occasion and find perspective. Glad as always for my followers to share their thoughts on this post as well...

hi mim! i hope you're keeping well :) i wonder if you have any experience or thoughts on something, as a fellow late twenties-er:

how do you deal with unaccountable/unjustified cruelty towards you? like most people, i've lived through some bad times and have had pleeeeenty of people be mean to me, but generally as an adult, especially in the last few years, i do all right managing social situations & protecting myself, so i can safely disengage or accept the shitty stuff until the feelings dissipate. also, i try really, really hard to be genuine and kind to everyone, no matter what, and am relatively naive, so that helps limit bad interactions to some extent.

but earlier this year, i was trapped in a situation with a boss (they had power over me, so i couldn't leave) and was stuck listening to them hammer at me relentlessly with cruel, personal insults. (my union wasn't willing to do anything because of work politics.) my boss had teased out some misunderstandings and built them up in their head and let them fester until they felt the need to pull me into their office and scream really horrible things at me. they refused to let me defend myself and called me a liar every time i tried - basically begged - to explain where the misunderstandings must have come from, laughed at me when i asked them to stop yelling, threatened me over and over...i was full-bodied sobbing in front of them because i couldn't understand how this could have happened, how someone i knew and trusted (at work! not a shitty family member or abusive partner!) could snap and lose control like that at me. it was so so awful.

an older friend, who is much more cynical than i am, pointed out afterwards that this is par for the course when you're trying to be a nice and honest person; he tried to impress upon me the idea that if you are kind and passionate, you will inevitably & repeatedly encounter people who will harm you because they can do so without consequences. because if you care about being kind, they know you won't fight back. because if you care about your work, you'll do anything to keep doing it.

i have a really hard time with this perspective. again, i've lived through plenty of horrible things, no small number being directly related to injustice and prejudice, and i firmly believe that you don't get the chance to opt out of suffering in life. i know that there are worse things that happen on vastly different scales. i also know vocational awe and abuse is a real issue in the arts and in helping professions - i made it my life's work to help people who've suffered childhood trauma, as did my coworkers, but unfortunately the kind of people who run not-for-profits are rarely (if ever?) cool, decent people.

so i can't stop thinking about this day - i quit my job, even though i was eventually able to calm my boss down, because i have boundaries when it comes to yelling at work, but the excessive degree of cruelty sticks in my mind. i can't wrap my head around it because her behaviour feels so antithetical to anything i could ever even imagine doing to another person, especially in a workplace. i'm not obsessing over it, but this degree of meanness really sticks, you know? as we get older and encounter more people like this, how do we keep our hearts open? how do we make sense of cruelty when we have no way of fighting it or reasoning with it? as we get older and get a better sense of how limited our power is in the world, how do we let go and move on without losing hope?

I think we are able to let go and move on without losing hope because "letting go" is not surrendering our own capacity for action--it's surrendering the belief that we should be able to (if we are truly "good and virtuous" enough as people) control the responses and decisions of other people.

I think it's very easy to conflate the two: that letting go is the same as not caring, but they aren't mutually inclusive things in the least. And I think this idea maybe comes from the same perspective you described your older friend as having (and I am with you in this, because I do not abide by that belief either)--that if you are kind and passionate, you will inevitably & repeatedly encounter people who will harm you because they can do so without consequences. I think the biggest issue I have with this (and I have many) is that it assumes a responsibility for others' actions that you are not obliged to have. And in doing so it actually erases the notion of accountability (which we do have) by putting the brunt of it on a single party, effectively absolving the other (the person who acted cruelly and caused you harm in the first place) of any responsibility they themselves have. It's a perspective I don't like because it negates itself without realising, or acknowledging, that it does so but still posits its view as an undeniable truth about the world: by its own logic people have enough agency to act in cruel ways because they know they can get away with it (which implies a conscious, measured, analytic decision), but somehow not enough agency to be held responsible for that decision in the first place.

It's not an objective statement, but a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you are going to be responsible for other people's unwarranted mistreatment of you, then, yes, caring and sincerity aren't worthy endeavours--but only because you have actively created, and justified, a world in which your right to behave callously takes precedence and is, therefore (whether this is conscious or not, admitted or not), valued. And at its heart, I sometimes think that is what statements like this are about: they're an indicator of what we value in this world, even if we don't realise it, or would be horrified to realise it

I think that because this idea is so prevalent and exists in so many different variations--the idea that you have to guard yourself against others because people will "always" take advantage of you otherwise--it trickles down even to those of us who don't believe it; you convince yourself that any mistreatment has to be a failing on your part: your kindness wasn't good enough, your attempts at understanding weren't empathetic enough--in short: you made a bad investment and therefore you were not good enough. And when we fall into this trap, the same thing happens to us as happens to the person who harmed you: you lose sight of your own agency and your own capacity for decision-making, and the role these occupy in every interaction, for every person.

Being kind, open, and sincere, to me, are things that have very little, if anything, to do with other people--they are decisions that I have made regarding my conduct, my beliefs, and my hopes for the kind of world that I want to live in, and the world I want to build with each interaction I have with someone else. They are not a means of measuring my own worth in the eyes of others, or proving myself to people to show that I am good enough, I can be good enough, that if you let me show you who I am, what I am, how I am then surely this can overcome anything (because I am giving everything I have) and you can accept me and therefore I can accept myself--because the fallout of that is, like I said, that if someone rejects it and decides instead to offer cruelty, the edifice of my entire being falls apart: why? because I have hitched it all on someone else's decision. The decision that I made, the decision that I came to as a result of all my experiences, all my hurts and beliefs, all that I have learnt and unlearnt in order to get to a place where I can exist in the world in a way that gives me fulfillment (in essence: the sum of my entire life)--all of that suddenly doesn't matter anymore, and why? Because someone else decided to be shitty?

This is what I mean about agency, and about our own capacity for action. Someone else's choice doesn't have to be mine. But it is their choice. And if you offer kindness and are met with callousness, that is a choice on their part, not yours. Letting go of others' cruelty towards you, and cruelty in the world at large, is not letting go of your own beliefs or changing who you are and how you approach or live in the world. It's simply saying: this is me, and that is you--otherwise it'd be like deciding that you no longer like oranges because some random person thinks clementines are gross.

I don't necessarily believe that all acts of cruelty are beyond understanding, but I also don't believe that understanding is going to come as some kind of revelatory moment that will make it all make sense. But what I do believe is that, sometimes, especially when it comes to people treating us as horrifically as your boss treated you (and I really am so sorry that you were forced to endure something so awful for that long), when we look for understanding, what we're looking for is a justification: that there has to be a why to explain it all and tidy these painful interactions up like a neat and indisputable equation. But I don't believe that they are always the same thing. If I were to take any of the hateful rhetoric I see around me--sexism, racism, homophobia etc--and try to understand it I know I won't and never could, and I'm thankful for that: because, for me, the very moment it begins to make sense to me is the moment I have seen something in it that can be justified and that will never ever be the case. But what I can understand is how we have a world in which these exist--I can see and recognize all the various points of power and domination that require a constant renewal and generation of such intense violence and hate in order to maintain a status quo whose sole priority is its own preservation, at the brutal cost of anyone and everything else. That, in situations like these, is what understanding is to me: it isn't acceptance or justification but knowing how certain aspects of this world work so that I can make the decision to refuse them.

The key thing, I think, in trying to understand why people treat us unkindly, is knowing that we can refuse it, not by negating it as a reality (this is naivety and can, sometimes, be just as insular as blind cynicism) but recognising that sometimes people respond in ways that are the result of factors that have nothing to do with us personally--they could be the result of traumas, immaturity, selfishness, bad behavioural feedback loops or simply plain pettiness--but it isn't our job to somehow fix that for them.

When it comes down to it, at the heart of most pessimism (and some cruelty) is a reservoir of fear or pain, or some concoction of the two. Our world is a profoundly fucked up place, in many regards, and all of us accumulate a host of hurts and traumas as a result of that: you cannot always control the things that happen to you but you can control the decisions you make about your life and the actions you choose to follow as a result. Your boss made a calculated, deliberate decision to berate you in the most painful and humiliating way possible--this had nothing to do with you, and everything to do with her. People who decide, consistently, to act cruelly will do so regardless of who is on the receiving end: it isn't about the person they target, but about whatever this cruelty and targetting validates for them and that is a choice. You cannot understand why she would do this to you because you know there is no justification for it. And that is something to hold on to because already it shows you that you are absolutely not like her. And that is where your agency and your ability to not lose hope lies.

I think the only way, sometimes, that I have managed to deal with this (and despair in general at the things that happen in this world sometimes) is to recognise what I can control and what I can't. It doesn't make things less painful, but it does make them less crippling. Whatever has happened in people's lives, the views they take as a result and the decisions that they then make--that isn't something I can change. All I can account for is how I respond, learn and grow from my own experiences. Other people can have their truths about the world, but I also have mine: and I assert it over and over again through the people I surround myself with, through the little actions I take to try and make it all as bearable as I can for myself and others, where I'm able to. I think, for me, recognizing the world's duality is part of that: knowing that cruelty exists, that pain exists, that senseless violence exists and knowing, too, that beauty exists, that graciousness, and openness, and kindness exist--and that I can resolve to bring more of those into the world and less of the others, even if it's only in my tiny corner of it. It may be small, but it exists. And if my life is a testament to nothing else but that, then I know I'll have spent it sincerely, regardless of what others choose to do with theirs. I really hope this helps you somewhat, anon 💕

I think I may be overthinking this but ever since I read a translation of Vil's new bday line that mentioned that his dad was magicless, it made me wonder if the magic gene is reliant on the mom (kinda like how in pokemon, the baby takes after the mom's species). Think abt it: Ace's dad is magicless so he likely got his magic from his mom, Azul's grandma is said to be a powerful mage so he gets his magic from his mom's side, Epel's grandma has magic (and I think his great grandma too, not sure abt his mom tho), Kalim's mom has magic while his dad doesnt, I think Im sensing some sort of pattern here with the one magical parent+one normal parent pairs, seeing as the magical ones are usually the moms/on the mom's side.

But what do you think? Am I overthinking it or nah?

While I see where you may get the idea from (you listed some good examples, and TWST overall has more prominently magical mothers than prominent magical fathers), genetics is never as easy as that. (Also!! Some of the family members listed aren’t strong instances since assumptions were made about them; for all we know, Papa Trappola’s dad could have been able to use magic or the magical mom’s own moms may not have had that magic gene.)

The examples only go as far back as two generations; to get a more accurate read on the influence of maternal genes on magic acquisition, we’d need a lot more data (ie great grandparents, great great grandparents […], environmental factors, consideration of other genes, etc) or a family pedigree to reference. Otherwise, it could be a conflation of “lots of characters have mage moms” and “magic is reliant on the mom”; those two statements don’t actually mean the same thing.

Below the cut I will go into much more technical detail about basic genetics and how genes are sorted and then are expressed as traits. If you don't care for all that, then you can peace out now ^^ This isn't a mandatory read!

If we used a Punnett Square model (think of it as multiplying the genes of the mom and the genes of the dad to predict possible generic combinations for their children), we may be able to better illustrate how likely it is for a male vs female child to have the capacity for magic. I think we could maybe guess magic is a recessive trait for humans (since it only occurs in 10% of them). “Recessive” means that the trait is easily “covered up” or not expressed if a dominant gene is present.

In genetics, recessive is a lowercase letter and dominant is an uppercase letter. Thus, a mage would most likely have “mm”, as “Mm” and “MM” would have dominant genes that mask the magic of “m”. However, it’s not clear whether the magic gene is autosomal (on the first 22 chromosomes) or sex-linked (on the 23rd and final set of chromosomes), which further complicates things. If magic is autosomal, then I can kind of see why “mm” is feasible, but it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily mom dependent, since the dad also contributes a recessive m.

Here is an example Punnett Square; blue is the dad’s genes and red is the mom’s genes. R is the dominant trait which masks magic and r is the recessive trait which expresses magic. We need a rr in order to have a magic using child, which occurs 25% of the time.

If magic is sex-linked, then it poses a strange situation. Sex chromosomes are XX for women and XY for men. If their child is a girl, the mom gives 1 X and the dad gives 1 X. If their child is a boy, then the mom gives 1 X and the dad gives 1 Y. So if magic is truly dependent on the mother’s genes, the mom’s Xs truly matter, right?? But if you do the Punnett Square to see if it’s possible, it makes no sense.

To the left is the mom’s genes and on top is the dad’s genes. The r that accompanies one of mom’s Xs carries the recessive trait for magic. (I know it says “disease” there, but just pretend it’s magic.) In the real world, note that many hereditary diseases are X-linked. This is because the Y chromosome is so much smaller than the X; the Y is mainly known for carrying genes for sex differentiation for male body parts.

If you cross X^rX mom with XY dad, you’ll see that it reads as 50% of men can use magic and 50% of men cannot use magic, and 100% of women can’t use magic. (To be a carrier means the child has the magic trait to pass on to her future kids, but she as the mom is totally incapable of expressing that magic herself.) This is just… not true of the TWST world which has a number of female mages (look at the Great Seven), so it seems like magic can’t be sex-linked to the mom??? (If we made magic linked to the dad’s genes then this still would not make sense because daughters would not receive dad’s Y^r; this would make all boys mages and no girls mages.) Maybe this would work if the mom was X^rX^r, but then that would make 100% of their sons magical which also is not true.

dbjsbsksndksns That was all a very simplified breakdown + rambling about magic and how genetics might influence that 💦 I’m NOT saying what I shared was entirely accurate it’s been a while since I did studied genetics so my recall may be rusty; understanding and “calculating” genetics is a LOT harder than slapping some squares together and calling it a night. Likewise, it’s probably not as easy as saying “the one magic gene is reliant on the mom’s side”. As I said before, we’d need a pretty extensive family history to more accurately figure this out! It would also be useful to consider other genes (because genes can influence other genes) as well as environmental factors.

Side note: What I don’t really get (and this may just be a function of the game’s target demographic being women instead of men) is that if we accept the speculation that women are supposedly the ones that pass on their magic genes and many women (parent-wise) appear to be magical themselves, then why is NRC specifically an all-boys school? Even the other private magic institutions we see (RSA, NBC) appear to be all-male. Wouldn’t there be more women?? More co-ed or even at least one big all-girls school mentioned??? It may be just me overthinking what is a meta concept totally not related to in-game lore, but you'd think even a passing mention would be warranted...

There is an ocean of difference between institutional/systemic poverty and situational poverty, and I never ever want to conflate the two. But I am gonna say it- situational poverty still sucks and the financial exploitation of graduate students needs to end. It should not be an expectation that you'll be living in functional poverty for several years to get an advanced degree. But it is. It absolutely is, ask anyone who's been through it- people treat it like some rite of passage. But no one ever seems to question it. We do so much work and receive so little compensation for it, if any at all, and especially with the economy being what it is right now? It's fucking criminal.

Graduate students should receive a stipend that covers the average cost of living in the area of their school and that should be the bare fucking minimum.

Hello, I am Lovari from Poland. My name is Naomi. I wanted to ask your thoughts and opinions on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Many people are using the Romani people as an argument against Zionists. They say, "We faced the same thing the Jewish people did, yet we aren't doing all this that Zionists and Israel are doing to Palestinians just to get a homeland." I don't want a country. Many members of my family don't want one either, and even my grandparents, who are survivors of the Holocaust, don't want one. I am very pro-Palestine, but I feel a little weird that we are being brought up just for an argument.

Hi! I totally get you here, I have also seen Romani people being brought up in those discussions to compare us to Jewish people. I am also very critical (euphemism) of Israel, but just like you, I feel weird about those comments. It boils down to different things:

It usually implies Jewish = Zionist, which is not true as many Zionists aren't Jewish and many Jewish people aren't Zionist

You just cannot compare the situation of Romani people to the situation of the Jewish people. We are at two different places in the world. Romani people have virtually no civil rights movement, we mostly live in Europe, and the majority of us live in poverty. Jewish people have been fighting against antisemitism for centuries, they have written theory about antisemitism and antisemitism tends to be more acknowledged than anti Romani racism (note: I am not saying antisemitism is as acknowledged as it should be, it is often ignored too, but it still tends to be more acknowledged than anti-romani racism). Jewish people mostly live in the US or in Israel, and they tend to be more middle class. Furthermore, antisemitism doesn't work in the same way anti-romani racism does, the tropes invoked are not the szme, the way it manifests and reinvents itself are not the same, etc.

These are two very, very different positions to be in and it feels very superficial to just compare Romani and Jewish people on the mere basis that we were both targeted during the Holocaust.

Those comments also ignore the one thing that is at the core of the (barely existant) Romani movement, the idea that we are a stateless nation, that we claim to have no ties to any specific territory and that we are proud of that.

When people try to compare Romani people with Zionists (in a way that conflates Zionists and Jewish people), it rubs me the wrong way because it shows these people don't know about the characteristics of anti-Romani racism, about the present living conditions of Romani people, and about the characteristics of the Romani movement. They are just name-dropping us to get back at Jewish people (not Zionists) by basing themselves on the Holocaust, which is the only piece of Romani or Jewish history they apparently know about. It is a superficial comparison that does a disservice to every group involved.

(I also want to reiterate I am not trying to undermine how prevalent antisemitism is; I am just focusing on the anti-romani aspects of that comparison because that's what I'm more knowledgeable about)

Hello I am curious about toki pona 👀

rubs my hands together evilly... teehee

ok so! the basics. toki pona is a constructed language made by Sonja Lang made up of around 120-150 words (depending on who you ask). the first book, known by toki pona speakers as lipu pu, which is a sort of an introduction to the language and basic reference document, has 120. the second book, lipu ku, which is a dictionary based off usage by toki pona speakers, adds 17 more words that are commonly used, bringing it up to about 137 "canonical" words. many low-use words exist, known as nimisins (literally "new words") or nimi ku lili (words that are in the second book but aren't part of those 17 common use ones), but these are often very situational and often not well regarded, because the point of toki pona is minimalism! i think linguistic minimalism's a lot more fun than most other kinds-- it forces you to really dissect what you're thinking about. but it also helps trim the fat! some people stick to the words in lipu pu only, which imo is a little wild. where would i be without kijetesantakalu..... (joke)

most words cover extremely broad meanings. soweli refers to most any animal, though generally it's referring to a mammal. something furry, beasty, something like that. waso refers to birds and perhaps other flying animals! i get into discussions about if a bat is a soweli or a waso-- my opinion is that if youre looking at its little mammalian face, or considering its other features rather than its flight, it's a soweli. if it's just something flying around at night, it can be a waso! or maybe even its a soweli waso, or a bird-like mammal.

toki pona's very context-sensitive, like i mentioned a bat can be either a soweli or a waso. what matters is what's important to the conversation. if im using a pencil to draw, it's an ilo, or tool. if i'm referring to the shape of it, it's a palisa, or stick-shaped object.

the name "toki pona" uses two of those very few words in the language-- toki, meaning talk, language, speech, etc., and pona, meaning good or simple. personally i think this conflation of good and simple raises some problems, but i've had this conversation with other toki pona speakers lol. ultimately, if you're speaking toki pona you should be able to see the good in simplicity, which is what makes the idea of pona work.

one of toki pona's selling points is that it's easy to learn. you could probably learn the vocab in a few weeks! but fluency takes more practice-- and one reason for that is that you're having to interpret each phrase and figure out what meaning's important... or you have to stretch your brain a bit to not care what kind of ilo someone is using, it's just important that theyre using some kind of ilo. if it was important what kind, they'd specify!

it makes for a really fun challenge and i call it sort of a "toy" language. it's not going to replace other languages or anything, but it's fun and makes the brain feel a bit better! not worrying about the specifics of things can really feel nice.

also one of the 137 main words is tonsi, meaning trans or nonbinary, so yaaaaay. mi tonsi. plus gender is completely optional in toki pona-- meli (female) and mije (male) are words that exist but quite frankly i rarely ever use them. there is one (1) third person pronoun. toki pona speakers may mix up their headnoun, though! basically all proper names in toki pona become adjectives instead of nouns-- for example, the US is ma Mewika, aka a place called Mewika (America). i use kili (fruit/vegetable) or jan (person, which is the standard/default for people), so im kili Temeke or jan Temeke!

as you can see words also get changed to fit into the acceptable sounds of toki pona, since it also has a very limited sound inventory and won't accept consonant clusters/consonants at the end of syllables except for n. this is also to make it more accessible to speakers of many languages, since all the sounds are quite common cross-linguistically!