heyyyy so like. could we maybe make a tag or something for the people who are super genuinely upset about the finale. like #ofmd negativity or something. bc shit I’m upset too but I don’t think I’m necessarily upset in the same way you guys are and reading 1 million posts just shitting on the show isn’t really making me feel better 😭

actually can we stop talking about “deserve” when it comes to characters dying in fiction. not everything is a fable with a moral lesson to be learned. romeo and juliet didn’t “deserve” to die. bambi’s mom didn’t “deserve” to die. izzy dying in the finale doesn’t mean ofmd is saying that certain types of queer people “deserve” to die. fictional death can serve more narrative purposes than just punishment for the character doing the dying.

"We need more gay ships that include people of color!"

The Spiderverse Fandom: does that

"Actually no, don't do that. In fact stop touching people of color and forcing themselves into gay ships!"

Alright, it’s less than a week since the Owl House finale aired and as expected I’ve already seen two direct comparisons to Steven Universe’s ending and several more vague-blogs, because one of this site’s hobbies is using other queer shows to put down Steven Universe. So let’s do this, then. Let’s compare the endings of Owl House and Steven Universe, and what each is ultimately trying to say.

Steven Universe and the Owl House are both shows that deal heavily with the clash of individualism and self-expression vs. socially-mandated conformity, and both shows’ final villains ultimately embody this conflict. One major difference, however, is that Owl House approaches this from the perspective of legal/societal structures, while Steven Universe approaches it from the perspective of family structures.

Steven Universe has always been about family--and particularly the ways traumas and biases are passed down through a family--and it has always heavily used the language of metaphor to discuss these topics. The Diamonds are the ultimate extension of this theme, something a lot of bad-faith (or just bad) takes on the ending miss; they interpret the diamonds in their literal capacity as dictators, rather than the way Steven Universe always portrays them, which is as matriarchs, i.e. the heads of a family who dictate and control all the family’s other members. This metaphor becomes more and more blatant until it outright becomes text, with the Diamonds turning out to be Steven’s literal family members, with whom his part of the family is estranged because of their previous controlling behavior.

In accordance with this theme, we ultimately find out that the Diamonds’ toxic ideology, with its rigid standards of perfection, are not only something they enforce on the gems below them, but also on themselves. They are suffering from the system in their own ways, unable to live up to the standards they themselves created. And who among us hasn’t known someone like that? A parent or grandparent who grew up under a cruel, oppressive worldview, and instead of rebelling against it internalized it--who turned around and said “I dealt with this, and so can you”? And so the ending of Steven Universe is the Diamonds realizing exactly how toxic the rigid ideology they’ve spent their lives perpetuating really is, and confronting the fact that their adherence to this ideology is what destroyed their relationship with Pink, and that the only way they’re going to have a relationship with Steven is if they’re willing to commit to changing both themselves, and the family structure they’ve enforced for so long.

Emperor Belos, in contrast, is not suffering from the structures he created, because his rules were never meant to apply to him. He sees the witches (and demons, and so-on) as lesser beings, evil beings, who exist to be controlled, and ultimately, exterminated. And every element of the society he built--the schools, the government, the police force, the religion--he intentionally constructed to keep these lesser beings under his control. The real-world allegory isn’t hard to see, here. And because what Belos represents in the story is, in fact, a fascist leader, the story shows that he can’t be reasoned with in any way that matters, and instead he is ultimately ground into paste beneath the boots of the people he sought to destroy. Different themes, different endings.

Now the usual argument that comes up here is as follows: but the Steven Universe ending isn’t as realistic! Not everyone is going to change, not everyone is going to be able to be reasoned with. Not every older, conservative family member is eventually going to accept you for who you are. And while that is true, ultimately SU isn’t meant to be realistic; it’s meant to be a power fantasy. Rebecca Sugar has come out and said before that they wrote a world in which there was good in everyone, because that’s the way she wishes the world could be. That’s the world they want to be able to believe in. And I am never going to begrudge a person, much less a queer person, for finding healing in writing that kind of world.

But you know what else is unrealistic? What else is ultimately just a fantasy? Grinding your government’s fascist leader into paste under your boot, then taking over and remaking society into something that accepts everyone. Sadly, Trump is not likely to get his ass beat any time soon. And more generally, punching fascists, while ideologically sound, is something most people are not going to get to do, due to real-world consequences such as “getting beat up by the fascist’s angry friends” and “being arrested for assault”. And even if you did depose one leader, our very society is set up in a way that perpetuates all manner of injustices, and systemic change is a complex and lengthy process that almost certainly won’t be completed in our lifetimes. But it’s fun to imagine we could, isn’t it?

Both endings are power fantasies. Both show the way they want the world to be, rather than the way it is. They are very different power fantasies, which fill very different--and at times conflicting--needs. And in situations like that, internet culture really likes to pick one to be the right fantasy, the right way to look at the world. 

But the truth is, both fantasies are needed! Some people need stories about your queerphobic relatives finally realizing the error of their ways and taking the necessary steps to accept and reconcile with you. And some people need stories where you get to grind fascist bastards beneath the heel of your boot. It’s okay if you prefer one type of fantasy over the other! But in the end, both are valuable, and both are important. 

And isn’t it wonderful, for us to have such a diversity of great queer stories? That we can explore both of these deep, conflicting needs? Let’s appreciate each of these fantastic works for what it was meant to be, rather than trying to pit them against each other or make them conform to a single, “best” way to tell a story.

I’ve been thinking about this for a while but the most recent round of Orym slander on twitter and some of the player assumptions accompanying it are making me finally write this:

Liam is not a “glutton for tragedy”. He just likes emotionally intense storytelling, and is actually very drawn to hopeful endings.

I am so beyond exhausted of seeing that take. Liam did not plan for Vax’s tragic ending. Vax’s ending was a result of dice rolls that Liam honored because he’s always true to the emotional journey of his characters. Caleb, who so many people cite as tragic, has a happy ending. He lets go of his selfish and borderline impossible plans and settles down and achieves his childhood dream and finally makes some peace with his past. Orym is grieving, sure, but he’s focused on his job and loves his friends and wants to help people and is finally getting on with things. The insistence he’s “going dark” or going to “take a tragic turn” seems to mostly be coming from this assumption that Liam always chooses tragedy which just isn’t true.

I think the level to which Liam allows his characters to openly express grief and deal with very difficult emotions has led to this idea his characters are “sad” but prior to disintegration Vax’s ending was building to an at-peace happily-ever-after with Keyleth. He didn’t choose to have Vax die, the dice did, so Liam honored that. This would be like claiming Taliesin always makes tragic characters because he had Molly stay dead and very nearly had Percy not come back one time after the dice led to their deaths. Caleb has a tragic backstory, sure, but his journey and ending are incredibly hopeful and positive.

Orym’s really out there being a little halfling on an adventure as if Merry Brandybuck stepped into D&D and people are acting like he’s destined for a tragic downfall just because Liam’s an openly emotional player.

one thing i see a bit with disco elysium fan script is a conflation between a failed skill check and bad advice from a skill. one of the beautiful things about DE is the skills are not arbiters of truth; successful checks won’t always lead to the correct outcomes, and a skill level being too high can impair you. in that sense, a failed passive (“anti-passive” according to wiki) wouldn’t be a skill giving bad advice, but a skill failing to fulfill its duty.

(bad example ahead) so it wouldn’t be:

LOGIC [Trivial - Failure]: Stick a fork in the toaster.

but more like:

BREAD-TOASTER: You peek into the narrow opening at the top of the electric bread-toaster.

PERCEPTION: You find a slice of bread wedged between the filaments. Smoke wafts into your nostrils. It’s burning, and you seemingly have no way of retrieving it.

INTERFACING [Challenging - Success]: The metal fork you found in the cupboard. It should be both long and sturdy enough for the job.

You: Grab the fork.

INLAND EMPIRE [Medium - Success]: The tips of your fingers tingle. This seems like a very bad idea.

LOGIC [Easy - Failure]: You are uncertain of the outcome here.

1. Use the fork to fish out the toast.

2. “This is beneath me.”

3. [Half-Light - Godly 16] Establish dominance. Fuck the toaster.

I don’t know how else to say this except Zuko is the big spoon BUT Sokka tops

nah bc imagine they really do pull a lucius on us and bring back izzy for s2 and it turns out that was the plan all along and we just like. went through extreme depressions and discourse for nothing 💀

Been seeing a lot of love for Lucifer's snake form. And don't get me wrong, I love it. It's a classic, and snakes are awesome, but I feel the need to remind everyone just how many different animals he transformed into.

I wanna be able to turn into an octopus during a fight.

(Maybe it's good that I can't. I don't exactly get into fights now, but if I could turn into an octopus, I might start throwing down)

Today I heard someone say that there is an "insecurity epidemic among young men" and I am just so fucking happy someone has FINALLY given me the words to describe what is happening to the world. I keep hearing whinging about "men's mental health crisis" and "male loneliness" and "male suicide rates" blahblah in spite of the fact that none of that stuff is actually an issue. Women's depression and rates of suicide attempts have remained consistently higher than men's over the years, and if we look at sex stats you'll see that the rise of loneliness is actually affecting women at very similar rates to men (12% and 14% celibacy rates in the US, respectively). Not to mention the suicide attempts of young women and girls have sky-rocketed in the last couple of years. Suicidal ideation in girls in my country is currently double that of boys. In spite of all this we still see males lashing out en masse, claiming that "men are under attack", "women are privileged", and feminism is "ruining men's lives". Even though none of their claims have any basis in reality there is still an obvious problem here- something is very disturbed in the modern male psyche; but I have not seen anyone accurately label the issue until today. There is an insecurity epidemic among men. Women are finally attending classes, entering the workplace, and gaining voting rights in most countries around the world. These changes are a recent development and they are making modern men question their place in society- as they should. Sadly, instead of taking this time to self reflect, men are desperately trying to stop women's suffrage and cry "abuse" whenever we hold firm. What we are seeing is a big, glorified tantrum, not a "mental health crisis". I am not sure how we would go about fixing this problem but I'm glad that I am finally able to name it!! I thank D'Angelo Wallace for the help.

re: egg discourse

i thought it was just people saying that specifically making jokes about someone being trans but not knowing it yet can be kinda invalidating and sometimes traumatic. are people actually saying you should never tell someone that they might be trans?

i dont really have a side in the debate it just feels like people are willfully misunderstanding eachother and its making my brain hurt

"making jokes about someone being trans but not knowing it yet can be kinda invalidating and sometimes traumatic"

Sure, but it also isn't for a lot of people. And, a lot of people I talk to say egg jokes helped them realize who they were. Though I do think part of this resistance to an egg joke is actually internalized transphobia at points (the idea of being compared to trans people is being treated as degrading in a lot of these people's arguments) the truth of the matter is different people need and want different things. Me making eggs jokes with my friends is not your friend group.

This is why the recurring complaint of our side is it's never egg jokes can make people uncomfortable, 'make sure your friends are cool with them before just doing them,' it's always complaining about trans women forcing cis men to be women or trans women being "transvestigators" or "similar to Christian missionaries." People who are uncomfortable with egg jokes are always projecting their discomfort onto other people, other friend groups, and portray harmless fun between friends as something abusive.

Like for example,

this is a projection. the egg jokes people are talking about happen among friends and stuff, but this person is doing a whole "never make egg jokes because people did it about me and made me feel bad" (oh woe is you, people thought you might be transgender, how disgusting to be a tranny). The majority of egg jokes are not about random ass people, it's within friend groups. And, if you don't like your friends saying them, tell them to stop. If they don't? Then stop being their friends. Also from that post

The underwater filter butchered that. I know you can't read it but I wanted to post it cuz fucking look at that. What the hell. Anyways,

This opposition to egg joke people always talk about strangers. As if we're walking up to random people on the street and making egg jokes about them. It's mostly contained to friend groups. This is just an inaccurate portrayal of what's actually being discussed, and I'm sure the op will be like "I'm talking about my experience!" but OP openly admitted that this rant was relevant to a random blogger complaining about an egg tweet a woman made about her own friend group that neither this OP or that blogger are part of. They are actually dictating how strangers are allowed to act and identify with this, not the egg jokesters.

Yeah, once and a while you get shit like "Aaron Bushnell seems transfem" which was a completely innocuous convo that no one would have seen if well known transmisogynists who accuse random trans women of pedophilia like three times a year hadn't found the post. It was a trans woman seeing herself in someone important in history, and even if someone said something inappropriate, the backlash was undeserved. Yall say embarrassing shit all the time and no one's running you off the web site for it.

I'm sorry this person and others seem to have a bad time with egg jokes (though most of the time, what they describe isn't egg jokes but that's a whole other thing), but their few experiences can not be used to determine a blanket response to something so many people actually do enjoy and find useful. I'm especially not gonna take a cis person's opinions on egg jokes seriously (since so many have seemed to gotten involved and think their opinion on this matters).

"are people actually saying you should never tell someone that they might be trans?"

Yes! That's like, the entire underlying premise of this! Like, 100% this is the backbone of every anti-egg joke argument. That's the entire concept of "egg prime directive." And, it's overwhelmingly weaponized against trying to help transfems realize themselves sooner than they would. From the aforementioned Bushnell drama, to the polls where a shit ton of transmascs voted it was ok to tell an eggy friend they might be a trans man but NOT ok to tell an eggy friend they might be a trans woman, to the newest drama where chongoblog whined about a random trans woman on twitter making egg jokes about her friend (which it was later revealed chongoblog misrepresented the tweet), the anti egg joke committee / "You can't tell anyone they're trans!!!" crew are always wielding this ideology against transfems / trans women but practically never against transmascs.

This is why it's constantly said that these posts and arguments are transmisogynistic in nature. "I'm a trans woman and I say eggs jokes are bad, so it can't be transmisogynistic you're just using that as a shield!" That's great but 1) maybe read between the lines, or read the criticisms you're clearly ignoring and maybe you'll see these people don't respect you 2) the whole "using transmisogyny as a shield" is like, classic transmisogyny at this point. We've been hearing that from anti-feminists, cryptoterfs, and trans woman hating google doc writers for a few years now and 3) you being complicit doesn't mean we gotta care about what you say.

"it just feels like people are willfully misunderstanding eachother and its making my brain hurt"

Oh, I'm sure this is absolutely the case. The problem is a bunch of transphobes are really who spurred a lot of this drama up earlier this year and instead of people thinking "oh these people have bad intentions I shouldn't boost this" they instead were like "Yeah! I don't like egg jokes!" and now we have to deal with trans women making egg jokes (normal, harmless, pro-trans and literally want to help trans people) being compared to transvestigators (a literal anti-trans hate group thing). The issue is people aren't treating us as people, and thus it gets returned in kind.

What's the answer to this? Mutual understanding that "some people need to be told they're trans," "some people don't respond well to being told who they are," "egg jokes can help people and be a fun joke for friends," and "some people are uncomfortable with egg jokes" can all coexist. But, honestly, I don't think we'll ever get there.

Another tfe discourse post but I have a crappy gift at the end

I wasn’t going to say anything more about the tfe situation because I know some people are just haters but…

If you’re upset Robbie, a main character, is getting screen time and development, you’re in for a rude awakening because spoiler alert: shows develop their MAIN CHARACTERS

I for one am ECSTATIC they’re trying to develop the main cast and not have Robbie be like every other human kid (absolutely nothing burger). The fact he can actually fight along his siblings is fucking cool.

All this negativity because earthspark isn’t tfp is making me piss out shit bricks like what were you expecting??? It’s a different story.

Anyway here’s a starbee sketch I made so we can end this with love as much as the parasites want me to send hate. Spread love, be kind, give your friends a compliment, support a Palestinian charity because paramount isn’t going to, be good.

REDBERRYTERF WAS BANNED!!!!

we did it folks!!!!!! RACIST DOWN @dysphoria-things @xxblotchy-scarsxx @420weedwhacker69 @our-queer-experience FUCK YEAHHHHHH

I really do dunk on villain stans a lot but the thing is like. I genuinely do not care on any sort of moral level if you love a villain, or villains generally. They are pretend. The murder and the war crimes aren't real. Do whatever.

The issue is that like, this is a person the narrative is telling you to root against, and that it's okay because they are pretend. That doesn't mean they can't have sympathetic qualities but it does mean that as a rule the story is telling you "hey, here are the heroes who oppose this person, cheer for them" and also "you should boo and hiss when this motherfucker comes on stage" and a lot of people who like villains will look at everyone else and go "why the FUCK are you booing and hissing don't you see they have TRAUMA" instead of acknowledging the big "TIME TO BOO AND HISS" signs being thrown out by the story and saying "bring it on."

And I suppose you can argue that this is an overly simplistic way of looking at it, but if we're dealing with a story with at least some reasonably clearly delineated heroes and villains you're not intelligent for trying to pretend it's more complicated than it is. I'm not talking about the gray areas of antagonist who could be persuaded otherwise, nor antihero but straight up "this is the bad guy, we all but have arrows pointing at them saying it". Like, really, a lot of people who stan villains don't seem to do it for the love of the game, which I would respect, but because of a sour grapes situation with the heroes, or because they're in their edgy "subversion automatically means you're the smarter one" phase.

Anyway my point is I don't care if you woobify a villain for any sort of moral reasons but I do think that if you do so, you're a coward and not terribly good at understanding stories. I also don't care from any sort of moral standpoint if you enthusiastically cheer on the villain, but if you act confused or mad that most people aren't with you on that, I think you're an idiot and not terribly good at understanding stories.

My only 911 season 8 prediction is that Captain Gerrard will end up in a situation where his life is in danger during a call and the team decides to save him even though he's hurt them so much. We'll have the "we don't get to decide who lives and who dies" speech from one of the characters and, depending on how much the writers want to lean into Gerrard's evilness, he either dies despite the team's best efforts, or lives and thanks them through gritted teeth. Tumblr will be, of course, in shambles over this, constantly discoursing about people being irredeemable. "If I were in their situation I would never forgive him" posts for weeks.

i think they could be friends