im very confused

Then. Do that?

And Stop;

• comparing everything to trans-misogyny when you don't even get the concept - you just want an equivalent to stop feeling obligated to care about it

• getting upset when transfeminism is largely from transfems that made literature about their experiences and transfems who still speak about it

• thinking a transfem talking about trans-misogyny is a personal attack on you

• insisting every structural issue unique to transfems is actually something "we all" face

• On the flip also insisting that transfems just wouldn't understand your connection to femaleness/womanhood and the oppression there - you face UNIQUE things that we do not

• Framing all your conversations around "transfems dont want us to acknowledge we experience oppression!"

• Framing conversations around "sex based oppression" and "male socialization" to prove your points

• Getting upset transfems have their own culture and insisting you NEED your "own version"

• Getting upset when transfems are taken care of and are having their voices listened to and insisting it should be about YOU instead

• Getting upset transfems talk about THEIR issues and not yours

I can go on... You're not called trans-misogynistic because you wanna discuss your oppression (crypto-TERF take btw), it's because you are obsessed with framing everything as you in opposition to transfeminized people and our conversations, our community, our activism, our culture...

Whenever transmasculine people actually create things for themselves instead of being upset transfeminized people didn't create anything for them, you know how transfeminist spaces react? HAPPY. With PRAISE. We discuss it, suggest it to each other, hype it up.. We care, too. The reason you don't recieve the same is because you are doing something that needs to be criticized (comes with the activist space btw - cant handle it dont speak i guess). And the fact you refuse to listen to that and wish to utilize and perpetuate trans-misogyny to deflect from your (now-willful) ignorance is an issue.

The Call of Duty games are actually popular not just in spite of their quality, but they're actually well-crafted games. However, there is merit in critical analysis of them that goes beyond "how many graphics" and "how much gameplay," but also looking at them via their quite real connections to the US military and how they basically mirror the ideology of the US military. This doesn't mean that you should treat the Call of Duty games as infohazards which will turn anyone who interacts with them into drones for the US military, but as reflections of real ideologies that are larger than the players themselves.

And like, there's a lot of art that carries ideologies that when transplanted into the real world would be morally repugnant to me, but as works of art they are worth engaging to me. Old-school D&D doesn't actually describe a real world but the fictional folks and structures used to populate it still say something about the people who made it, their priors, and what concessions they were willing to make in the fiction for the sake of gameplay.

This is something you should keep in mind when someone makes a point like "well the orcs/bandits/cultists deserve it because they did bad things in the fiction." These are in-setting justifications, ultimately come up with to frame the narrative of the game as heroic. There's not a lot of interesting ground to be covered in discussions of "how do we find an enemy in D&D player characters can kill without it morally compromising players" because the game isn't a cursed tome that'll turn you evil for engaging with it. What's more interesting is "what kind of priors went unexamined to uncritically make bandits/cultists/orcs the default enemies instead of, say, the lord's soldiers?"

And an unwillingness to think about these things doesn't make anyone morally deficient; however, in my opinion an unwillingness to entertain these ideas or an aggressive and vitriolic rejection of these lines of thought may be indicative of intellectual incuriosity and ultimately I feel it emerges from a similar place as "D&D must be woke or it'll infect me:" D&D must be protected from evil criticisms because otherwise D&D may seem morally deficient. Which is like so far besides the point.

just found this sketch i did back when Metroid Dread was first revealed, prompted by someone's comment along the lines of "why is EMMI so angry? i think she and Samus could put aside their differences and make a relationship work if they really tried"