#not even anti; just pro common sense
Text
“Elriel is too predictable! It’s boring & lazy writing!”
… 🧍♂️
My brother in Christ. You call SJM the fated mates author. Through 15+ books and 3 series she hasn’t diverged from that trope. Elain has a “mate”.
If an Elriel outcome is predictable, it’s because the author willed it so and therefore ✨wrote scenes✨ to ✨develop their relationship✨.
and by that i mean…
(long post ahead…. bear with me)
SJM wrote Mr. “I don’t need to resort to poetry” going all Azriel Allan Poe, flustered as he tells Elain “we are born hearing the song of the wind”. She wrote him uncharacteristically open & talkative, while when he 1st met Feyre he deferred all her questions to others.
SJM wrote that despite how different they may look, Elain does not balk from Az. She never has: from their 1st meeting she finds comfort in him, and he in turn notices her—she’s never been afraid of him, he has always seen her.
SJM wrote the 1st coherent thing to come out of Elain’s mouth in WaR to be “beautiful” as she beholds Azriel’s scarred hands. In turn, she wrote our gardener not minding imperfections on hers, for despite her lady-like conditioning, she prefers to get her hands dirty.
SJM wrote Az spending time with her in the sunshine: no forced conversation, no one hEaLinG anyone, just them both doing their own thing as a relaxed Az suns his wings. Just two pals comfortable with one another… which SJM foreshadowed in MaF through Feyre’s “Elain would likely cling to Az for some peace and quiet”.
SJM wrote Az and Cass both stilling at the sight of El & Nes, she wrote Az cutting in to set Elain up in her garden even as Feyre was about to do it, she wrote the mention that Elain was safe after the twin raven’s attack bc Az had stayed with her at the townhouse.
SJM wrote Azriel’s eyes churning as he looks at Elain and her too-thin body, before abruptly winnowing away, and we’re left with Mor looking at the spot where he left. Wonder what that was about (it certainly did not remind me of Rhys in TaR).
You know, Elriels are not just making stuff up and theorizing about the E/ucien bond cause we’re desperately pulling at straws…
SJM had Madja say “a mate would know if something is amiss”, then wrote a scene juxtaposing both Lucien’s and Azriel’s reactions/assessments of what was going on with Elain… and she had Azriel be the one to know nothing was “wrong” with her—no, she just had rare powers and needed to be heard, to be taken seriously. He didn't let her be misunderstood, for he was the ONLY one that listened to her, that took her visions/ramblings seriously right from the get go. And so he gave Elain the understanding she needed to free herself from the dream-like murky realm she was trapped in. Through it all, SJM emphasizes that Azriel also understands what it is like to struggle with rare, strange, prized powers in silence; what it’s like to be othered by them. I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again: she sees everything and he hears everything.
SJM wrote that “Elain had hoped that love would trump even a mating bond” and had her characters question the Cauldron in relation to Elucien *twice* (years apart!).
…
SJM wrote Az being the only one—in a room full of Made beings speaking of being Made—to notice that Elain was missing. A reassuring but empty statement by Cass that they’d get her back….but then it was Azriel that stated, eyes glowing golden, that HE would be getting her back, despite the girl’s own sister discouraging him & telling him he’d die. Hell, Feyre had this whole deliberation on whether she’d join him only after he’d say he’d go. His initiative.
The Hybern scene is too long to add, but this post and this theory break it all down brilliantly.
Yes, Az has sacrificial tendencies. Yes, he’d risk his life for loved ones in general. But we have never seen him this affected, and it is because SJM purposely used language to emphasize Elain and Azriel’s meaningful reactions to the other… despite it being wholly “unnecessary”
It is all intentional… lazy’s antonym.
SJM wrote the Truthteller scene. She emphasized the exchange, which left Cassian gasping and Rhys flabbergasted; it also left Feyre with a significant painting in her mind. It lead to Elain, aka “my God has answered me,” stepping out of a shadow to save her sister. Azriel, aka “God is my help”, indeed helped armed Elain so she could answer her sisters prayers.
SJM ended WaR with Elain’s smile literally lighting up Az’s shadows.
SJM had Elain’s thoughtful gift to him make his eyes the brightest we’ve seen—and by doing so gave us the most beautiful description of his earthy eyes, “the hues of green amid the brown and gray like veins of emerald.” We have never seen Az so joyful & carefree throughout the entire series.
SJM wrote that Azriel beat Feyre to Elain’s side as she was looking out into the night. She wrote Elain stilling at the sight of a dashing Azriel—her throat bobbing—while Az “just moved towards her”.
SJM wrote the potato scene—“sit i’ll take care of it”—Azriel again being the one to respect Elain’s presence & contribution as he makes a room full of his “superiors” wait until Elain finishes tidying herself up (cause girlie wanted to look put together for a certain shadowsinger). Mor gapes, Amren smirks, Rhys talks of Az’s mom… all because of that surprising, singular behaviour from him.
SJM wrote Az making a joke at Amren’s expense upon noticing Elain’s discomfort; our girl’s shoulders indeed relax in relief. THE LIGHT RETURNS IN HER EYES.
SJM has Azriel staying up past 3am with Elain, listening to her speak of something she is passionate of.
SJM wrote Azriel spending an entire convo with his brothers looking out into the garden from the window (SJM mentioned it 4 times yet some still missed it).
SJM wrote Rhys goading Az for a reaction as he quizzes him on Lucien and Grayson; wrote Rhys realizing that Azriel did not want to know what Elain did with Lucien (in the case she did anything). She wrote Azriel nervously stuttering as he asks risks if they need to get the sisters a present… I wonder why.
And Rosehall… SJM wrote ROSEhall: cracktheory this cracktheory that, to the gwonriels I’d say we both know you wouldn’t say it’s irrelevant had SJM chosen to call his estate Tealhall.
~~~~
Keep in mind: SJM could have written those significant scenes and ultimately kept it PG: she could have chosen language that built up a profound platonic relationship.
Yet… in MaF she has Feyre comment that they would be good together—as in make a good *couple*. WaR roles in and they’re both dealing with the very public rejections they went through—but SJM had them build a quiet companionship in the background, while giving them a wealth of scenes of great significance for both their characters, and while using language like “she DEVOURED the sight of him” “he CRADLED her to his chest”. In FaS they are slowly but surely getting over their last loves, and SJM continues developing their connection.
And in ACOSF, in the book that supposedly “ended” Elriel…
SJM wrote Az following the sound of her laugh (😭). “ It’s just lust” PLEASE BFFR.
SJM chose to remind us—THREE times—of the Hybern rescue scene... then had Az tell Cass that he’d know, in his chest, if something happened to Nesta.
SJM had Az longingly stare at the gift Elain gave him every night for a YEAR—mind plagued by thoughts of her—made him so affected by her that he had reactions to every mention of her name in SF, so affected that it took Nes one look at them to notice his feelings, to reach out in comfort upon noticing the pain that keeping himself apart from to her caused him. As SJM said she would, Nes saw through his secret in ACOSF, still it is “his secret to tell, never hers”. After Solstice we are met with a grumpy Azriel, who lost the snowball fight for the 1st time in centuries (i wonder why…).
SJM chose to link his every secret back to his feelings for Elain, as per the bonus . Why does he stay up so late and wake up so early? He longs for Elain so much he can’t sleep. Why is he staying in the HoW? It is too hard to be close to Elain given their circumstances; he must physically distance himself from her. Why has he moved on from Mor after centuries? Elain. Why is he grumpy post Solstice? The argument with Rhys concerning Elain.
~~~~
Ultimately, SJM wrote for Elriel:
- Complementary imagery (flowers and death? light and dark blending together to form something new… DUSK, anyone?)
- AND plot altering scenes
- AND chose to liken them to one another multiple times
- AND genuine moments of companionship that slowly bloomed into something more…
… Is it so insane to believe that maybe SJM spent so much page time and effort building connections & common ground between them because she intends for elain & az to find peace and quiet within one another?
Or idk, maybe it was all for shits and giggles… and if it was i salute her commitment to the shits and the giggles🫡
Either way, it is the opposite of lazy writing…
It’s SJM’s world & words, and we are just reading them.
P.S: This was all just typed on my cell phone from the top of my head… yes remembering all this is probs concerning, yes I am obsessed. Please correct me if I got anything wrong.
#elain archeron#azriel#elriel#pro elriel#azriel shadowsinger#pro elain#pro azriel#acomaf#acowar#acosf#elain x azriel#elucien-bond#antigwynriel#not even anti; just pro common sense
213 notes
·
View notes
Text
You know the point of "protecting the children" dogwhistles, right? It's a reference to the idea that all queer people are child abusers. Super common belief among homophobes and transphobes, including (sometimes especially) gay ones.
It's also not just "a dogwhistle". When pressed to explain what exactly they want to protect children from, it's a ready-made emotional appeal to something that has broad social support. Most people, even if they don't like being around kids, are also not pro-child abuse. That's why conservatives go out of their way to invent (even if it's completely fictional) "reasons" why acceptance of gay and trans people amounts to child abuse. It helps them create an emotional connection with their target audience, and can be leveraged into logically ridiculous arguments like "well, if you don't agree with my platform, you must be pro child abuse, because I'm on the side of The Children".
"Protecting the children" is also super appealing to parents in particular, not because all parents are secretly authoritarians, but because it's super common to have a child and realize "Oh shit, I brought this person who can't defend themselves into the world and the world kind of sucks", and to feel horribly, horribly inadequate in the face of that.
I get very tired of people who mock, scorn, and ridicule people for falling for these rhetorical traps, or being snared by something that seems common-sense but disguises something ugly underneath. They are traps. That is what they're meant to be. That is why there are gay people who fall for anti-queer rhetoric, and get pulled into exclusionist or violently reactionary circles. We all have things we are vulnerable to, whether that is a history of being abused or a deep fear that we cannot protect our own children, who we brought into the world and are responsible for the protection of. And we gain nothing by mocking the latter.
I'm sure it makes some people feel great to say "well if you were really who you claim to be, you wouldn't fall for this shit", but frankly, that's a stupid-ass take. It misses entirely that these messages are carefully crafted by the people who hate us! They workshop these statements! They spend months or years trying to find the right message and when they find it they use the hell out of it, because it works. Because they are listening to the public conversations people are having online, and it doesn't take any level of basic agreement to be capable of regurgitating the party line word-for-word.
I am so sick of people who look at a deeply-embedded struggle over social and political ideals and think that this fight won't demand our whole brains and hearts and souls and yeah, we might fuck up because we care deeply and sometimes, people with bad intentions prey on that. On our grief and our fear and our rage.
And I'm frankly a lot more nervous around people who refuse to be aware of that, especially when they loudly mock the people who are willing to acknowledge their own fallibility and explore how they got ensnared in something. People are not moral machines, they are people.
#that post was pure moral purity police and it was so aggravating#the WHOLE point of that post was to shame every single person who saw it for being fallible and the net effect will not be to make us bette#it will be to make us less willing to interrogate ourselves and whether we're on the right track
519 notes
·
View notes
Text
Symbolism of Metals OC Questions.
A little list of OC questions based on the symbolism of various metals throughout history. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all symbolic meanings, but rather just a small selection for entertainment, rather than educational, purposes.
Iron - Inner Power, Rage and Primal Urges.
Has your OC ever regretted something they have said or done in anger? Perhaps this has happened more than once?
Has your OC mellowed as they have got older? Or are they just as quick to anger, or as easily irritated, as they ever were?
Upon what does your OC draw to get them through situations of great adversity? Their sense of purpose? The thought of their loved ones? Sheer overwhelming rage? Or perhaps something else entirely?
Does your OC struggle to contain their baser emotions, such as lust, aggression or greed? What helps to keep these feelings in check (if anything actually does)?
Are others ever surprised by your OC's steely resolve or ability to endure hardship? Or are they generally regarded as someone with great inner reserves of willpower?
Gold - Wisdom, Wealth and Nobility.
If your OC was called upon to arbitrate between the nobility (or an equivalent social elite) and the common people, on which side of the table would they be sitting during negotiations?
Do those that know your OC consider them to be wise? Is this quality seen as distinct from intellectulism or book-learning in their case? Or do they posess both academic knowledge and the wisdom of experience?
Does your OC struggle to believe anyone is truly smart unless they are also rich?
Does your OC hold that some social groups have an inherent nobility unavailable to others? Do they perhaps believe in the idea of a "ruling class", with qualities that the lower orders could never hope to evince? Or, conversely, do they believe in the unsullied nobility of the poor, in contrast to the decadent and corrupt upper classes?
If your OC could pass on a piece of wisdom to others starting out on a similar path to their own, what would it be and where does it come from?
Lead - Sin, Death, Transformation and Toxicity.
Which experience of loss or bereavement has most affected your OC?
What is your OC's most anti-social trait? Do they acknowledge it as such? Are they even aware of it themselves?
Which sin is your OC most likely to be accused of by others? Would this be fair criticism? Or are their actions often somewhat misunderstood?
What has been the most transformative experience your OC has been through? Was it an experience of loss? The first time they ever felt loved? A traumatic or violent event? Or something else entirely?
How does your OC believe they will die? Peacefully in bed surrounded by friends and family? Or alone in the wilderness? Or fighting against overwhelming odds? Or perhaps they have a different notion altogether?
Silver - Intuition, Honesty and Wisdom.
Does your OC ever base their decisions on a "gut feeling"? Or do they always weigh up the pros and cons carefully and dispassionately?
How tactful is your OC? Are they able to frame criticism constructively and give feedback in a way that protects against potential hurt feelings? Or are they blunt, or even callous, in their attitude to the failings of others?
Does your OC believe they can assess someone's character upon first meeting them? Or are they inclined to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they get to know them better? Or even to assume the absolute worst of people until it is conclusively proved that they are not an enemy?
Does your OC ever deliberately make themselves appear less wise or astute than they actually are? Perhaps in order to ensure that others underestimate them?
What is something that your OC would find incredibly hard to lie about? Even if they really wanted to do so...
Copper - Love, Beauty and Creativity.
Does your OC believe that they are beautiful? Is their beauty, or lack of beauty, something to which they ever give much consideration?
Does your OC enjoy creating things? Are they particularly artistic? Or do they prefer to focus upon creating things with a practical use?
Was your OC loved as a child? What difference has the experience of love and nuture during their early years made to their character as an adult?
Of all the places your OC has seen, which do they consider the most beautiful?
If your OC were to be immortalised in art, what would be their preferred medium? An epic poem? An exquisite statue? A flattering painting? Or something else entirely?
Tin - Life, Breath and Flexibility.
How quick is your OC to adjust to changing circumstances? Are they more likely to keep going with an existing approach or strategy, even though the situation has changed?
Does your OC work well with others? Even if their approach or attitude is markedly different to their own?
Does your OC believe that all life is sacred on some level? Or are some types of person more valuable than others? Can someone's deeds ever make them deserving of death? Or would your OC never consider that an appropriate sanction, no matter the circumstances?
What does your OC believe makes life worth living? Assuming that they do, in fact, believe that it is?
Has your OC's life turned out how they were expecting when they first began their journey? How well have they adjusted to any differences in this regard?
#oc ask list#oc questions#oc ask meme#OC ask#oc asks#oc meme#oc prompts#oc development#ffxiv#ffxiv ocs#OC development#ffxiv OC#ffxiv wol#final fantasy xiv#ff14 ffxiv
201 notes
·
View notes
Text
"I want what Elain wants and she wants Azriel"
Is a claim I often see e/riels use to claim why they are "pro Elain" and implying that if you ship Elain with her mate because "she clearly doesn't want him" then you are anti Elain.
So yeah this whole post is why that's bullshit.
First let's get some things straight that we all can agree are facts.
1. Elain had a crush on Azriel. It's clear by their looks and touches and her showing body language that she wanted to kiss him in the bonus chapter. It's unclear whether that crush survived post her tears over his rejection and giving the necklace back as they had no canonical interactions post solstice.
2. Elain does not want to address the bond right now and avoids Lucien. Her feelings about Lucien specifically and what she thinks about the bond are unclear.
Now that we got that out of the way, the assertion that you are the most pro Elain because you ship her with Azriel is quite a stretch. I'm sure you like Elain, as do I, but you do not hold some moral high ground because of who you ship her with.
First, let's discuss the idea that you have to support who Elain wants. People can want all kinds of people who are not right for them for a lot of reasons. It's a common experience for many to want the wrong guy. To have a crush and think they're the best and it'll all work out only to have your heart smashed by the cruel reality that they were wrong for you or didn't want you the way you did. It's also common to hate your friends' boyfriends and husbands because they're assholes despite how much they "want" them.
People's feelings change. Feelings are fickle.
In SJM's canonical world, mating bonds are not.
It makes sense that Elain, after going through her horrible rejection by the man she actually wanted and loved, Graysen, would not be ready to face what having a mate means. I'm sure it felt like infidelity to her, especially if she does desire and feel a pull towards Lucien like every other female with a mating bond has in this series. Her avoidance of Lucien can mean a lot of things, including that she wants him even if she mentally isn't ready or feels she shouldn't.
It also makes sense that she would seek out and find herself in a rebound crush with someone who is in her proximity and is low risk. Azriel doesn't come with the pressure of being her fated soulmate. He's just a dude. A dude who is pretty and paid some attention to her.
So yeah, I get why she wants him. Doesn't mean I think he is right for her.
Why isn't he right for her? To make a long post short, Azriel often undermines Elain. He diminishes her need for help when she's clearly depressed (ACOWAR), and he speaks for her and directly contradicts her wants (ACOSF, scrying). He is entitled to her without merit (the third sister line, bonus). He ignores her wishes to avoid violence and wants to kill people who are important to her (wanting Graysen killed, saying he'd kill Lucien in a blood duel - we know canonically if a mate dies it is like losing half of your soul). He thinks very little of her past his lustful fantasies (bonus chapter) and even to the point of projecting his own self-hatred when he looks at her skin (bonus chapter). Elain is symbolic for him of the thing he covets most (a mate), and his crush on her is a manifestation of his psychological need to pursue unavailable females because of his self worth (friends who will never romantically love him or a female with a mating bond). Basically they are a recipe for a toxic relationship full of avoiding real personal healing.
So yeah sorry, even if Elain wants to kiss him I'm not shipping her with someone like that just because she "wants" it. I would rather see her have a story where she discovers who she is and what being Fae means to her, which means directly addressing not only her powers (hello let her scry) but also addressing her mating bond head on by getting to know the male that she will always have a pull to, no matter if she rejects the bond or not. Elain is a fictional character with a narrative arc. Her wants now will not always stay static.
For me, as someone pro Elain, I want her to give herself a chance at a forever kind of love, one with a soul to soul connection and an eternal devotion. I want her to experience that unconditional love she so desperately craves. I don't want to read her choosing just some regular dude who will probably drop her the second his mating bond snaps anyways. She deserves a mate. Even if she doesn't know or understand that yet.
And quite frankly, I think once Elain does learn not only who Lucien is but the way he thinks about her and how devoted he is to her and only her, she will want him soon enough. I don't ship for characters' frivolous crushes in the now. I ship for their potential with the right person. The person who will see them starving and depressed and worry about their well being rather than what their powers can provide them. Who will hear their vision and cross an ocean because they believe in it. Who will fight across a battlefield just to make sure they're okay. Who will even push down their own needs and wants to give them space because that's what they want right now.
You know what that means though. If you're pro-Elain for wanting what Elain wants, then Lucien is the most pro-Elain person there is. And why wouldn't he be? He is her mate after all, and he will do anything for her.
So yeah, that's who I want for Elain, and I think that makes me pretty pro-Elain too.
#elucien#lucien vanserra#elain archeron#pro elain#pro elain archeron#anti e/riel#anti azriel#pro elucien#elain x lucien
127 notes
·
View notes
Text
Recently, Planned Parenthood released a statement on the Oct. 7th attacks and the broader conflict between Israel and Palestine. Their statement condemned Hamas’s attacks on civilians, and specifically condemned sexual assaults committed against Israeli women during the violence. They also noted how thousands of Palestinian women and children had been killed in Israel’s counteroffensive, stated the need for Palestinian women to maintain access to reproductive and maternal healthcare, and condemned both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
The social media reaction to such a balanced and empathetic statement? Furious, unrelenting anger.
The statement was quote-tweeted thousands of times by social media users outraged by the statement. Planned Parenthood was accused of spreading Israeli propaganda, ignoring Palestinian deaths and fabricating rape claims, and enabling genocide. These outraged users aren’t conservatives who always oppose Planned Parenthood—they’re progressives furious that an organization they normally support put out a statement they hated. Now there are calls to end donations and Planned Parenthood staffers are fighting with donors. Their own employees, affiliates and organizers are making public statements against them.
This outcome was predictable to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of social media dynamics. And it raises an obvious question—why release a statement at all?
Metastatic social justice
It’s actually quite common for organizations and activists to get into hot water these days by addressing areas outside their expertise. Trans activists in Vancouver loudly insisted there can be no Trans Liberation without Palestinian Liberation, which caused pushback all over Canada. Two years ago, New York City’s Pride organizations courted controversy by excluding LGBT police officers from the city’s Pride parade in the name of racial justice. There are YIMBY housing organizations taking a stand on abortion rights and climate organizations demanding a Federal Job Guarantee.
There’s a common theme here. Organizations that appear to be single-issue advocacy groups are increasingly commenting and taking stances on issues outside of their narrow focus. Activism is becoming more global in nature—if you are an activist for one cause, you’re expected to speak up about all causes now. It’s not enough to ‘stay in your lane’, you need to be protesting and advocating for all forms of social justice. Pro-choice advocacy is now part of your racial justice non-profit. Jobs packages are in your environmental bills. Your LGBT organization has a stance on ‘Defund The Police’ and your housing group has a stance on Israel/Palestine. Social justice is metastasizing.
This phenomenon has happened on the right as well—see the NRA transitioning from being a somewhat non-partisan group to essentially being an arm of the GOP—but it’s especially striking in the current progressive movement. There’s a real sense in which NYC Pride is no longer an LGBT advocacy organization, but rather an overall progressive social justice organization. That may sound like an exaggeration, but they kicked out a gay organization (the Gay Officers Action League) to accommodate another form of social justice. It’s the internal logic behind a LGBT Pride march excluding LGBT people.
This also explains the online fury at Planned Parenthood. Their statement was thoughtful and balanced, but deviated from the dominant and overwhelmingly pro-Palestinian progressive narrative. Their donors expect them to advocate not just for progressive goals in women’s health, but progressive goals everywhere.
This type of activist mission creep risks stunting the progress on the core issues that social justice advocates care about.
The downsides of missions creep
The urge towards mission creep comes from a reasonable place. If you care so deeply that you spend your free time (or your career!) as an activist for a particular issue, the odds are that you also have strong feelings on many other issues. You’re also likely to live in a bubble of activists and people who think like you, and so your conversations professionally and socially may often center around all sorts of political issues. But as an activist it’s important to remember that most people you’re trying to reach are not like you and don’t think like you.
The typical voter is over 50 and does not have a college degree. They also don’t think about politics all that much. They are far, far away from the mindset of a typical activist. And when they do have political opinions, those opinions are far more varied and haphazard than a committed political partisan would guess. I think a few minutes scrolling the twitter feed of the American Voter Bot is invaluable to understand how voters think. This bot takes real voters and profiles them in brief tweets. While some look as expected—a Democrat who supports gun control, for instance—many look like this:
Most people are a confusing mix of demographic signals, issue positions and partisan identification, and they rarely fit squarely within one political tribe. That’s the danger of turning a single-issue advocacy group into a generalized progressive messaging group—you’ll end up alienating a far wider group of potential allies than you realize.
If Issue Group X declares loud progressive positions not just on Issue X but also on gun control, abortion, Palestine, Medicare For All, trans rights, free trade and school prayer, they won’t attract a large diverse group of people who care about Issue X. They’ll end up attracting a narrow slice of progressive activists who are ideologically pristine enough to agree with them on every issue.
The ultimate result of activist mission creep is that your issue ceases to be something that people across the ideological spectrum can work together on. It becomes coded as a red tribe vs blue tribe issue, gets swallowed by the general culture war, and progress grinds to a halt as partisan warfare starts.
The most likely outcome of Planned Parenthood voicing an opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not that they make any difference at all towards that conflict. It’s that they alienate their own supporters with differing views on Israel/Palestine. They’ve undercut their own ability to make progress on reproductive care and reproductive rights for no gain.
One thing at a time
None of this is to say that individuals shouldn’t care about many issues at once—they obviously should. And general purpose ideological organizations can and should tackle many policy areas. But it’s a poor strategy for single-issue groups to try to become general purpose organizations. There are real benefits to staying in your lane.
One example of a movement that has done a reasonable job at this is the pro-housing YIMBY movement. While there are some instances of YIMBY groups straying from their purpose, for the most part they’ve done a good job staying narrowly focused, and that that focus has allowed them great success.
YIMBYism is a far more ideologically diverse movement than many people realize. There are conservative YIMBYs, neoliberal YIMBYs, Democratic YIMBYs, libertarian YIMBYs, and many left or socialist YIMBYs (although in true socialist tradition, some want to break away from the YIMBY label and create a sub-label PHIMBY). This isn’t just a feel good story about how conservatives and liberals can be friends—this has a real impact on YIMBYs getting things done. It’s part of why you see both Republican and Democratic officials at the local level working towards YIMBY solutions in different cities, and why those solutions can often pass without bitter partisan warfare. It’s why the YIMBY Act in Congress had Republican and Democratic co-sponsors. It’s why YIMBYs are scoring victories in blue states like California and red states like Montana.
This sort of thing matters. YIMBYs are a big tent and they’re getting things done. It’s hard enough to make real change happen on a single policy or a single issue. Whole movements try for years and still sometimes fail. Single-issue groups trying to address every issue at once aren’t going to succeed. The urge towards mission creep is strong, and too many groups are weakening their core strengths to address problems they can’t solve. Single-issue organizations shouldn’t burden themselves with having the answer to every question, with having a stance on every issue, and with having to be all things to all people. It’s ok not to comment. It’s ok to stay in your lane and just work on one problem. It’s ok to try to change the world just one issue at a time.
126 notes
·
View notes
Note
That may seem random 😭 but I want to know what your favorite pro Darkling bloggers are.
That's a beautiful question actually. Because it also gives me an excuse to give kudos to some amazing pro Darkling bloggers out there.
I won't rank them of course and I have many but my most favorite are:
@stromuprisahat (I agree with everything she says about the Darkling. Also I absolutely love her posts where she throws dirt at the good guys. Like, yes girl remind me how they suck actually 😭)
@starlesszova (her love for the Darklina ship is immense. Also she gives light to the Darkling's dark side as well but that doesn't stop her from stanning him and standing by his side even more!)
@theweeklydiscourse (if you haven't read her metas, go read them now. She puts her thoughts into words so beautifully and the things she criticizes the Grishaverse and its author about are only facts)
@is-today-tomorrow-in-nz (same thing as @theweeklydiscourse. Her criticism about the good guys' bullshit and actions is so true and she understands the Darkling so well)
@greensaplinggrace (her page is only facts about the Grishaverse and the Darkling. She brushes off neither his bad actions nor his good ones)
@darklinaforever (the way she has exposed the fandom's and the antis' bullshit needs to be applauded)
All these pages support Aleksander and none of them ignore his bad side. But they just prefer to dig deeper not only inside his psychology but also the Grishaverse's problematic messages and the author's failed attempt to deliver a cohesive, satisfying and non-problematic story. They also acknowledge how toxic that fictional world and society is and how it had affected the characters' personality and actions.
Also, all of them have critical thinking. They don't eat whatever the author says with the spoon but on the contrary they judge based on their own opinion and common sense. Which is something very important.
#love all these blogs#i just wait every day patiently in the corner with a cup of hot tea for them to speak the facts ☕#i salute you#the darkling#aleksander morozova#pro darkling#pro aleksander morozova#darklina#anon asks#alarkling#pro darklina#alina starkov#grishaverse trilogy#shadow and bone#grishaverse
74 notes
·
View notes
Text
started reading the cass review because i'm apparently just Like That and i want everybody crowing about how this proves sooooo much about how terfs are right and trans people are wrong to like. take a scientific literacy class or something. or even just read the occasional study besides the one you're currently trying to prove a point with. not even necessarily pro-trans studies just learn how to know what studies actually found as opposed to what people trying to spoonfeed you an agenda claim they found.
to use just one infuriating example:
Several studies from that period (Green et al., 1987; Zucker, 1985) suggested that in a minority (approximately 15%) of pre-pubertal children presenting with gender incongruence, this persisted into adulthood. The majority of these children became same-sex attracted, cisgender adults. These early studies were criticised on the basis that not all the children had a formal diagnosis of gender incongruence or gender dysphoria, but a review of the literature (Ristori & Steensma, 2016) noted that later studies (Drummond et al., 2008; Steensma & Cohen-Kettenis, 2015; Wallien et al., 2008) also found persistence rates of 10-33% in cohorts who had met formal diagnostic criteria at initial assessment, and had longer follow-up periods.
if you recognize the names Zucker and Steensma you are probably already going feral but tldr:
There are… many problems with Zucker's studies, "not all children had a formal diagnosis" is so far down the list this is literally the first i've heard of it. The closest i usually hear is the old DSM criteria for gender identity disorder was totally different from the current DSM criteria for gender dysphoria and/or how most people currently define "transgender"; notably it did not require the patient to identify as a different gender and overall better fits what we currently call "gender-non-comforming". Whether the kids had a formal diagnosis of "maybe trans, maybe just has different hobbies than expected, but either way their parents want them back in their neat little societal boxes" is absolutely not the main issue.
This would be a problem even if Zucker was pro-trans (spoiler: He Is Not, and people who are immediately suspicious of pro-trans studies because "they're probably funded by big pharma or someone else who profits from transitioning" should apply at least a little of that suspicion to the guy who made a living running a conversion clinic); sometimes "formal" criteria change as we learn more about what's common, what's uncommon, what's uncommon but irrelevant, etc, and when the criteria changes drastically enough it doesn't make sense to pretend the old studies perfectly apply to the new criteria. If you found a study defining "sex" specifically and exclusively as penetration with a dick which says gay men have as much sex as straight men but lesbians don't, it's not necessarily wrong as far as it goes but if THAT'S your prime citation for "gay men have more sex than lesbians", especially if you keep trying to apply it in contexts which obviously use a broader definition, there are gonna be a lot of people disagreeing with you and it won't be because they're stubbornly unscientific.
Also Zucker is pro conversion therapy. Yes, pro converting trans people to cis people, but also pro converting gay people to straight people. That doesn't necessarily affect his results, i just find it funny how many people enthusiastically support his findings as evidence transitioning is… basically anti-gay conversion therapy? (even though plenty of trans people transition to gay? including T4T people so even the "that's actually just how straight people try to get with gay people" rationale for gay trans people is incredibly weak? and also HRT has a relatively low but non-zero chance of changing sexual orientation so it wouldn't even be reliable as a means of "becoming straight"? but a guy who couldn't reliably tell the difference between a tomboy and a trans boy figured out the former is more common than the latter + in one whole country where being trans is legal but being gay is not, sometimes cis gay people transition, so OBVIOUSLY that means sexism and homophobia are the driving factors even in countries with significant transphobia. or something.) anyway i hope zucker knows and hates how many gay people and allies are using his own study to trash-talk any attempts to be Less Gay. ideally nobody would take his nonsense seriously at all but it doesn't seem we'll be spared from that any time soon so i will take my schadenfreude where i can.
Steensma's studies have the exact same problem re: irrelevant criteria so "well someone ELSE had the same results!" is not exactly convincing. This is not "oh trans people are refusing to pay attention to these studies because they disagree with them regardless of scientific rigor", it's "one biased guy using outdated criteria found exactly the numbers everyone would expect based on that criteria, i can't imagine why trans people are treating those numbers as relevant to the past criteria but not present definitions, let's find a SECOND guy using outdated criteria. Why do people keep saying the outdated criteria is not relevant to the current state of trans healthcare. Don't we all know it's quantity over quality with scientific studies. (Please don't ask what the quantity of studies disagreeing with me is.)"
Steensma also counted patients as 'not persisting as transgender' if they ghosted him on follow-up which counted for a third of his study's "detransitioners" and a fifth of the total subjects and. look. i'm not saying none of them detransitioned, or assuming they all didn't would be notably more accurate, but i think we can safely treat twenty percent of subjects as a bit high for making a default assumption, especially when some of them might have simply not been interested in a study on whether or not they still know who they are. Fuck knows i've seen pro-trans studies which didn't make assumptions about the people who didn't respond still get prodded by anti-trans people insisting "the number of people claiming they don't regret transitioning can't possibly be so high, some of the people who responded must have been lying. (Scientific rigor means thinking studies which disagree with me are wrong even if the only explanation is the subjects lying and studies which agree with me are right even if we need to make assumptions about a lot of subjects to get there.)"
and this is not new information. not the issues with zucker, not the issues with steensma, not any of the issues because this is not a new study, it's a review of older studies, which in itself doesn't mean "bad" or "useless" -- sometimes that allows connecting some previously-unconnected dots -- but the idea this is going to absolutely blow apart the Woke Media, vindicate Rowling and Lineham, and "save" ""gay"" children from """being forcibly transed""" is bullshit. At most it'll get dragged around and eagerly cited by all the people looking for anything vaguely scientific-sounding to justify their beliefs, and maybe even people who only read headlines and sound bites will buy it, but the people who really believe it will be people who already agreed with all its "findings" and have already been dragging around the existing studies and are just excited to have a shiny new citation for it.
the response from people who've been really reading research on transgender people all along is going to be more along the lines of "……yeah. yeah, i already knew about that. do you need a three-page essay on why i don't think it means what you think it means? because i don't have time for that homework right now but maybe i can pencil it in for next semester if you haven't learned how to check your own sources by then."
#cass review#lgbt#transgender#transphobia#science#'tldr': *writes three-page essay* 'but i don't have time for a three-page essay rn'#also: holy run-on sentences#but seriously this is not going to change the mind of a single person who would be influenced by reading scientific studies#the studies already existed and have BEEN being used by terfs who think ZUCKER of aLL PEOPLE#is a good gotcha against anyone saying 'reputable studies indicate detransitioning is pretty uncommon actually'#but the responses i find truly fascinating are the ones along the lines of#'ohohoho i bet all those people who criticized jkr will be reeeaal quiet now' w. why.#if past studies didn't convince them the Special Collector's Edition of past studies won't#y'all don't have a monopoly on Scientific Knowledge just because y'all think your Fisher-Price level Gender Definition is the best#sometimes. other scientific information exists. and trans people and allies can even read that scientific information.#i know a weird number of y'all think we run on vibes and liberal propaganda but i promise a ton of us are absolute DORKS
33 notes
·
View notes
Text
It bothers me when antishippers try to say that their pro-kink because. Uh. No.
Also, because antis love to only use proshippers who are attracted to their ships as examples, ill be doing the same in this post. However do be aware that a lot of proshippers aren't attracted to their ships and simply enjoy pairing characters for fun rather then pleasure.
The Merrian-Webster dictionary defines Kink (n) or Kinky (adj) as;
relating to, having, or appealing to unconventional tastes especially in sex. also : sexually deviant. 3. : outlandish, far-out.
If you are a proshipper who is sexually interested by your ships, you can very clearly see how that could be considered kinky. In simple terms, a lot of " normal " or vanilla people wouldn't exactly understand your attraction. While a lot of people in fandom spaces may talk about finding a character attractive, they usually mean this in an aesthetic sense and not literally in a sexual sense. And, even if it was a common preference, it could still be considered a kink as the average adult isn't in fandom spaces.
And there's nothing wrong with that. The kink community is huge and nowadays there's more positivity about it then there used to be. However, puritans have always existed, and they still do. But, quite interestingly, antis seem to push these ideas under the cover of progressive thoughts and activism.
Because being pro-kink is a common leftist belief that, if we have bodily autonomy as a right by birth, all kinks that are done between consensual adults are okay. However, antis will argue that a fictional character is not a consensual adult. But that it's also okay to lewd them if they are an adult. (Your going to just have to do the mental gymnastics, trust me, i don't get it either.)
So usually antis will say their trying to " protect " the fictional characters and that their the morally correct ones, which I'm not saying that they aren't. Sure, it could be morally incorrect for someone to be a proshipper, but I am saying that being morally incorrect is human nature, and their not hurting anyone. Except the fictional character who is not real and therefore also can't be hurt.
This is one of the main things that kind of tears apart the anti argument. Though I do want to do a full deep-dive into antiship culture and leftist purity.
#proship#proshipping#pro fiction#ship discourse#anti anti#anti ship#anti proship#proship discourse#anti contact#antis being stupid
52 notes
·
View notes
Text
Seymour Hersh has the number of the CIA on the Nordstream pipeline explosions.
The reaction of the media establishment to completely ignore the Hersh piece before going all in on a narrative that makes no sense whatsoever just shows the level of control exercised by the political-econonic elite and their willingness to completely stifle and ignore anti-establishment voices.
How coincidental that exculpatory articles (there's literally zero evidence in the articles themselves) for US responsibility in the Nordstream pipeline explosions should just magically appear a week later in the pages of the NY Times in the US and Die Zeit in Germany at the exact same time?
In these articles they claim that a small "Pro-Ukrainian" group somehow boarded a tiny sailboat with 2200lbs of plastic explosives, tanks and diving equipment, as well as drills, welding equipment and more into one of the most surveilled water bodies on the planet, and dove down into the deepest section of pipeline in the Black Sea to setup these explosives and escape back without anyone noticing, and all without formal training.
Now compare that to Hersh's story and YOU consider which one makes more sense:
According to Si Hersh's source, a team of Navy divers working with the CIA and Norway used the cover of Military games going on at the time to secure access to the location with the cover of the NATO forces operating in the area. They set the explosives while diving with overt permission to be in the area to perform an exercise. This is backed up by radar that tracked the ships in the area at the time as well as the overt permission the diving crew had to be operating in the area.
Not exactly an unbelievable story knowing the history of terrorism by the CIA. The establishment's narrative around the Nordstream pipelines is a joke. It doesn't even stand up to basic common sense.
Sorry Bidenites, you'll have to do better than this
#nordstream pipelines#Nordstream explosions#socialist news#socialist politics#us hegemony#us imperialism#us terrorism#socialism#communism#marxism leninism#socialist#communist#marxism#marxist leninist
164 notes
·
View notes
Text
on system terminology: traumascum
tldr: the word “traumascum” is used online by anti endos and system medicalists as a way to delegitimize endogenic systems way more often than it’s used by pro endos to put down or harm trauma-formed systems or those who don’t believe in plurality without trauma.
ah, and so we’re back… wanting to talk about something that’s been bothering us lately in syscourse and greater system spaces.
personally, our system hates the word “traumascum.” equating trauma survivors to scum is never a good look, regardless of the intentions. we understand the term to be a synonym of sysmed, similarly to how truscum is a synonym of transmed. but who actually uses this term, these days or in the past?
we spent a long time searching on tumblr, reddit, twitter, and the internet in general for instances where “traumascum” has been used. on tumblr and twitter, we searched through over two years’ worth of posts from all sorts of people using the term. on reddit, we searched through the r/plural and r/did subreddits.
and in general, we saw almost no one at all use this term to genuinely refer to system medicalists or even trauma-formed systems at all. we honestly saw almost no endogenic systems use this term whatsoever.
the overwhelming majority of instances of the term “traumascum” were by anti endos who were using it as a way to take a dig at endogenic systems. seriously, for every one instance of someone using traumascum in a derogatory way towards system medicalists, there were probably 20-30 posts with people complaining about how endogenic systems have used the term against them. we cannot emphasize enough the sheer amount of folks using traumascum as a “gotcha” for endogenic systems or their own reasoning for why they don’t support endogenic plurality.
in reality, most endogenic systems used the term in the context of “hey, this term sucks, let’s not use it.” in all the posts we witnessed, on all the social media platforms we combed through, we saw scarcely any endogenic systems use “traumascum” in any other context.
don’t believe us on this? you can search for this term on these platforms just the same as us, and you’ll come across the same posts that we saw while we were researching for this post. we’re not saying that no one has ever used the word “traumascum” in a derogatory way against trauma-formed systems. we’re just saying that moments like this are incredibly, incredibly rare.
what is vastly more common is seeing anti endos use this term to justify their hatred for endogenic systems. that’s what we saw through our searches, anyway.
idk if this post is coherent or will make much sense to anyone, but we thought it was worth sharing. maybe as a community (whether as syscoursers or as systems) we can strive towards a future where this word is dead and buried forever. until then, maybe let’s think twice before using it as a means to harm or delegitimize other systems. take care of yourselves, and thanks for your time.
18 notes
·
View notes
Text
questions
hi
i'm antiship, almost pro para/paraneutral, anti c but i have many questions about those things and i was wondering if someone could answer these for me..in comments/asks i suppose, or dms if you feel like letting me annoy you with additional ones - though these are rather nsfw so no minors would be a disclaimer here, im an adult myself...
im not sure if im comfortable with rbs on this, because of overwhelming amounts of notifs i usually get with rb-based interactions.
english isnt my native language, some things might be worded badly. and of course cw for nsfw, SA, discussion of pxrn, common discourse topics in both communities(from anti side), general triggers. and again, since im anti/paraneutral, I will say things that might tick you off, and i'm not sure how to juggle with it - i'm using examples, stances, and personal thoughts to be able to get more clearer examples, stances and personal thoughts in reply, if that makes sense.
FYI i know those things are different and not directly connected, you can be proship and not propara vice versa.
proship:
fiction isn't reality, though i've been of the belief that it can affect it. Such as effects of porn on violence or worse during sex; The brain not seeing difference from fabrication/reality itself; desensitizing et al... which is half the reason I'm antiship, and i wanted to know if there are any counter arguments to that be it studies or something you'd just want to ramble on?
personal experience question: why are people proship? what interests them in this kind of fiction? dynamics?
is there any misconceptions or something alike you see from the general public when it comes to proship? be it from anti, pro, or clueless people
are there any scientific studies you'd like to share that in general talk about the usage of taboo in fiction or morbid media?
propara:
when it comes to paraphilias, are they something that just..happen to ya? random attraction that isn't happening by will, be it mental illness (paraphilic disorder) or not (just paraphilic)? I know about attraction=/= action, but the inner details of what a paraphilia is itself sometimes confuses me or maybe the research isn't that good about it for me to find info on it.
this is something i have trouble being 100 supportive on - how does usage of fiction or fantasy help, or prevent harm when it comes to paraphilias? such as for ex. usage of fantasy or realistic toys if one has one of The Big 3 paraphilias, etc. Though of course there are More paraphilias associated with attraction to Harmful things if acted upon but I hope yk what I mean
whats complex consent?
is there any misconceptions or something alike you see from the general public when it comes to paraphilias? be it from anti, pro, or clueless people
are there any scientific studies you'd like to share that in general talk about paraphilias, how they are coped with, and other stuff alike?
silly ramble ended with another question:
personally, some of my lack of support for bits of both of those things has to do with my personal view of morality, and discomfort.
raised with a high sense of morality + unfortunate experiences/trauma leading to sour feelings about some communties (proship et al) also played into it. in general, since i was a tween i was around people who said if you like fictional xyz, then you're xyzphile (-phile term used wrong too, meant someone who is willingly attracted/seeks out attraction to xyz and/or attempt at sexually offending them) so that also lead to me just following the flow. though as of right now i feel there is still a difference.
Like, yes, this person likes fictional morbid content, but it does not mean that that interest is sexual, and even if it is it does not mean they will commit a crime of those morbid styles in real life. Its just that that interest is....problematic, i guess. so question
While I still believe that being attracted to fictional likeness of something morbid to be a tad problematic on its own, even if the person doesn't do much or think much about the IRL counterpart, i want to know if there are counter arguments to that too?
I see that a lot of my personal feelings about this are "kinda weird, kinda not into excusing it as just fiction" i guess i still want to know or read more of the Pro argument variation of this stance? i think im repeating myself
I hope all of that made sense despite being rambly, thanks for any responses
43 notes
·
View notes
Note
I’ll be honest. A post you made popped up on my dashboard so I went to your profile to see other posts you’ve made about ACOTAR.
After about 15 minutes of doom scrolling, I realized something. I never saw a post about what you thought about Nesta saving Nyx, Rhys, and Feyre is ACOSF.
I know you’re an anti-Nesta fan. But I find it hard to believe that any pro-Feyre fans couldn’t appreciate what Nesta did to save her sister and nephew. Especially after completing the Blood Rite and dealing with the Cassian/Briallyn situation like 15 minutes before getting to the River House. I’m pretty sure that would knock anyone on their ass.
Now I’ll be the first to admit that Nesta is no saint. She has said and done things I don’t agree with. I also understand, on a certain level, some of her actions. I think her plan with Thomas was to lighten the load for her family. As one less mouth to feed, it was intended to lighten the family’s load. I also firmly believe that Nesta’s mom was grooming her for the vast majority of her childhood. And that type of abuse is not so easily healed. Also, Elain and Feyre have had their own shares of nastiness.
- Elain’s reaction to how Nesta was not adjusting well after being taken to the HoW and being forced to detox cold turkey made me realize how truly childish and naive she was to her sister’s suffering. Also, the fact that Elain was “pretty” and “quiet” during her suffering was deemed acceptable and the fact that she never contributed to the family’s situation in cabin is just glossed over.
- The constant Nesta bashing carried out by IC when Feyre was present always grated on me. I think it bothered me most because Feyre never defended her sister, like, not even a little. I also find absolutely comedic that the IC are all 500+ but take Feyre’s POV as the gospel truth. Surely they know better than to only seek one version of a story…
Honestly, I like Nesta. I know it’s hard for some people to see and that’s totally fine. That being said, if Nesta was truly as horrid as some people make her out to be, she could have let Feyre die during childbirth and taken Rhys out too. But she didn’t.
I’m not looking to throw hands or anything lol. So please don’t take this as an attack. I’m just truly curious to see what your opinion was concerning Nesta’s sacrifice for Feyre, Rhys, and Nyx. And to see how you think it will play out in the coming books.
I can’t speak for all feyre stans, just me. N.esta “sacrifice” was nothing more than an answer to an already unnecessary plot moment. No one wants her to sacrifice anything, I just need basic respect towards her little sister. The pregnancy and all it’s complications only happened to move feysand out the way so n.esta can finally be useful and “go up the mountain”… it’s quite obvious since cassian was healed after having a worse injury. If the pregnancy was actually for Feyre and feysand plotline I would be much more appreciative
Its barely a sacrifice when n.esta didn’t care or train her powers. Feyre spent all her life sacrificing for n.esta so I would barely call it a favor. I do not care about the IC bashing n.esta the few times they did and Feyre unnecessarily defended n.esta on multiple occasions, please reread. She has the most nice things to say about n.esta. If n.esta can’t handle people not liking her maybe she should be nicer to their family (feyre) or don’t. I don’t get why everyone has to be nice and she can say whatever she wants.
N.esta also admitted to pushing elain away and literally blamed her for their fathers death. What is elain suppose to do? Again, why is she allowed to do these things but everyone else needs to be a saint. Since Feyre returned, Elain apologized, was happy to see her sister alive, and actually works to fix her relationship with feyre and don’t degrade her unlike n.esta so she would be treated nicer it’s common sense. People aren’t punching bags and she couldn’t get any friends or new “sisters” until she respected people which again.. it’s common sense
And point to the part of a.cosf where n.esta disagrees that she treated feyre poorly, how is the inner circle only taking Feyres side of the story when they see n.esta with their own two eyes. She confirmed Feyre story, added more, and truthfully admitted that she didn’t deserve Feyre.
Y’all have to admit that y’all wanted n.esta to be able to treat people however she wants and they have to remain dutiful and nice and patient while offering unlimited support.
56 notes
·
View notes
Note
The anti ship debate is pointless at best and genuinely harmful at worse. It's a group of people that spend all their time saying that if you explore themes or works they personally find uncomfortable, that you are an immoral criminal that needs to face justice. This often comes in the form of exclusion, harassment, and call outs.
It seems like a perfectly reasonable response to say "I don't support people that engage with pedophilia or incestuous content", but they twist the definitions to include things like shipping a 2 year age gap or """sibling coded""" pairings (aka a ship they don't like but argue they're "like family", because people can't just be friends, and therefore it's morally incorrect to ship it). And even if these same arguments can be applied to their own preferred pairing, it doesn't count. It's very rules for thee, but not for me, and no amount of arguing or thoughtful discussion will make them see differently. These examples seem niche but I was on the wrong side of twitter for too long and can tell you this stuff is a dime a dozen these days. 💀
There are some valid comments on both sides of the argument, but the plot has officially been lost. It's just weaponizing discomfort as an excuse to bully people they don't agree with. Dhip and let ship, tag the freakier stuff and use discretion about where you put it, and then leave each other alone. It's not that hard. 😭
oh yes, the dark side of twitter... the behaviour you describe is not cool! I have seen some posts about the age gaps and minor characters and it does sometimes seem like common sense and practicality has completely evaded these discussions (like a 2 year age gap being called pedophilia or viewing teenagers as completely nonsexual until they turn 18, which, granted, I think is not connected to the pro/anti-shipping discourse alone). I do sympathise if it comes from fear for children and/or their own traumatic experiences, but harassment, call outs, and other malevolent actions towards people who haven't caused any actual harm to real-life people is not the way to go (and if there was, for example, an abuser, even then there should be a more constructive way to go about the problem and helping people who have been hurt).
you worded it really well there at the end, tag the freakier stuff and use discretion about where you put it! thankfully most people have a good head on their shoulders, I believe.
#btw if people want me to tag these things don't hesitate to ask#the very original anon who did ask me to tag wrote it in bit of a confrontional tone though. you can ask nicely... auygfhkd#discourse
23 notes
·
View notes
Text
Grrrhhhnnn okay venting time because doing that to my family will either make them sad or they'll tell me I'm exaggerating.
So in my family there's two group chats. A big one with relatives from the side of my late father, and a smaller one with relatives from my mother's side. The first one I'm a part of, and though I'm not very active, I do pop in to see photos of the family whenever they share.
The second one I'm not a part of anymore. I was in it, but my aunt was in there, who can be perfectly described as a Facebook aunt, complete with Minions memes posting. Anyway, I was mostly ignoring the stupid memes she shared in that group chat, until she started spouting anti-vaxxing shit and I was like okay yeah bye. And I left the group chat.
Considering that everyone else in the group chat HAD vaccinated against covid and was PRO vaccine... I expected they'd talk to her and I'd come back into the group and we'd just never have to deal with her shit again.
But nope. I was left out of the group. I told my mother about my complaints over that, and she was like "Yeah okay we'll talk about it" and then we just never did.
It's been years since, and all along they've been sharing photos and news and having video calls in that group chat and I'm just never in, and then they go like "Oh yeah, you're not in that group" LIKE YEAH. FOR A FUCKING REASON. I have mentioned that a few times but they're just like "Eh okay".
Anyway, I've been mostly ignoring the fact that I feel pretty much left alone by my own family, because we Shan't Upset the Anti-vaxxer Facebook aunt, but today I realized my sister, who is visiting the States, did a video call DURING THE FUCKING ECLIPSE. And I wasn't even given the chance to take part. I realized that because she shared a video her friend took with his phone while she was talking to the others, and I could hear her greet someone from the Facebook aunt's camera. In the video (which she shared in the group chat of the other side of the family - which I get why she didn't call there, this group chat has some 30 something participants, while the other has like, seven) the eclipse is very clearly shown, and fantastic tbh, while in the video call she made she says the eclipse wasn't visible. So, I shouldn't get to complain, I guess?
Fuck that, though. Because no-one wants to talk some sense to our aunt, even though we all agree she's wrong, I missed an opportunity for something my sister knows I love. I know I wouldn't be able to see the eclipse from her video call, but seeing her being excited about it live would do as much.
And the thing is... who do I complain to about this? I can't complain to my mom, because I was raised in a "don't make mom sad" mentality, and she has lost her parents, two of her three siblings (with Facebook aunt being her last remaining close relative), her closer aunts and uncles, and recently her husband. How do I come up to her and tell her "Your bitchy sister, the last person left alive from your original family, made me miss a great opportunity for a bonding moment, and it's all the fault of you and the rest of the family for deciding that It's Okay that Nette isn't in this group chat where we share all about our family, and it's better that we keep anti-vaxxer Facebook aunt instead." How do I do that?
I can't complain to my sister who witnessed the eclipse, because I don't want to sour it for her. It was a great moment for her to witness it, I'm happy for her, and I don't want her feeling sad because she clicked "video call" on the group chat of the extended family, which is the one with the most activity.
I can't complain about it to my oldest sister, because she's the type of person who will blame me for overreacting on Facebook aunt's comments, for not talking about it, and for caring so much for a fucking eclipse or whatever. We don't have a lot in common and sadly she has a hard time understanding that I am passionate for different things than she is, and my passions are just as legit as hers. So I'm pretty sure she'll just scoff and blame me.
I could complain about it to my brother, but he lives far away and has little to no contact with Facebook aunt aside from that group chat. He won't disagree with me but he might say I'm exaggerating, and he won't be able to provide any help.
I don't want to complain to my therapist, because I have better use of my 40 euros per session than a stupid Facebook aunt.
I don't want to complain to my Facebook aunt, because she won't listen and, just like my oldest sister, she won't understand why what she originally did was stupid and insulting considering she knows I have a heart disease and I am a high risk group for any disease so anti-vaxxing can be just like lethal danger for me, and she also won't understand why it was important for me to witness the eclipse with my sister, or at least witness her witness it.
And like... UGH. I might go for a walk and listen to some music, fuck this shit. I'm tired of being second thought to anti-vaxxer, minion-posting, ignoring-her-daughter's-very-obvious-learning-disabilities-and-near-arrested-emotional-development aunt.
15 notes
·
View notes
Note
Brain is really noisy atm and it’s kinda driving me a mad akjdkskd
We have both self-absorbed attention seeking alters and anxious/lonely people-pleasing alters so we’ve been in this constant thought cycle of
A: “we should put anti endo or endo critical on our blog so people finally know how we feel”
B: “What about all the well meaning people who’d hate us if we made that information known? What if acquaintances of ours find out and call us out?”
C: “declaring that we’re not pro endo in any sense is just going to put an unnecessary target on our back, and A you only want to do that so people harass us in our inbox”
A: “True but also I’m sick of having to deal with us being always lumped in with these people who clearly aren’t experiencing the same thing as us by their own definition. At the very least it’d be a sign for them to stay out of our blog”
Etc etc, wash rinse repeat
Like I wish none of this even had to happen tbh akjdks
I just wish endogenics could’ve just cultivated their own whole group completely separate from OSDDID with all their own unique terms and concepts and done whatever instead of conflating themselves with systems even though the whole POINT is that they fundamentally aren’t experiencing what we’re experiencing
Idk,,,, hopefully something from this rambling made sense
im sorry things are like this anon. Endos are so frustrating and it is annoying that we even have to be anti endo. That we have to have an opinion, that we have to openly say we're not okay with people making fun of our disorder and spreading misinformation even though it should be common sense that it's not okay. You are valid, your feelings are valid and I can understand it. Honestly, if you want to and are ready to, then say you're anti endo. If you aren't ready keep it private, maybe say you aren't comfortable sharing your stance on it yet. If people hate you for being anti endo, they aren't well meaning, and yes being openly anti endo can lead to some harassment but over our experiences on other blogs we've rarely received much of it. Even then you can always block people or turn off anon if it gets to much ^_^ please stay safe and do whatever you think would be best for you and your system
11 notes
·
View notes
Text
On Thursday, pictures and videos went viral showing Hamas fighters surrendering en masse. The IDF had moved into southern Gaza to target Khan Younis, one of the terrorist government's last strongholds. Reports of weapons and tunnels being found everywhere in the city were prevalent.
What was also prevalent were Hamas and Hamas-affiliated individuals who decided they'd rather come out of their tunnels and surrender than get drowned in seawater. The men who gave it up were stripped to their underwear to ensure they weren't carrying any explosives or other weapons and lined up on the streets and beaches to be processed.
As soon as those pictures were released, you knew it wouldn't be long before the pro-Hamas liberals of the West started crying foul. Sure enough, some of the worst offenders were essentially accusing the IDF of war crimes for the grave sin of...taking prisoners.
Ironically, though they didn't mean to be, they are correct. It is a Western value to not just shoot terrorists on sight but instead take them captive without beating them, raping them, breaking their bones, or chopping their heads off. If Thomas Fazi and Jeet Heer remain confused about that point, I've got some pictures from October 7th that I can show them for comparison.
What is the suggestion here? If Israel bombs Hamas, they are bad. If they shoot them during a ground offensive, they are bad. Now, we are being told Israel can't even take prisoners lest it humiliate the poor terrorists. Do the math there. These spoiled Western intellectuals who constantly infantilize Hamas simply want Israel to tie its own hands behind its back and wait for the knife. That's what they are suggesting.
Of course, it wouldn't be an article on pro-Hamas meltdowns without America's most ridiculous anti-Semite making an appearance.
To be clear, no "innocent civilians" have been identified in the photos. All of those detained were taken prisoner after they came out of the tunnels. Among them are supposedly some "journalists" and "academics" of the pro-Hamas variety. Whether they were direct fighters or not is irrelevant. No one gets to walk out of a terror tunnel from an evacuated area without being treated as a POW.
This is the idiocy Israel has to put up with. In any other war involving any other country, no one would claim the taking of prisoners is inhumane. Certainly, no one would cry about a "journalist" being detained if they walked out of one of Osama Bin Laden's tunnels. Common sense goes out the window when it comes to Israel, though. Antisemitism is a heck of a drug.
Just saying.....those Palestinian rapists and child murderers sure display an abundance of belly fat and man boobs. I thought they were being starve? It was all fun and games until the IDF arrives.
Never again and this time mean it.
29 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
gastonducasse
Gaston Ducasse
dragoon811
Fangirling It Up
spicynred
spice🍊🌊
sertten-blog
SERTTEN
tatertatsu-blog
ChimichangaChimichangaChimichanga