can't really remember

use overdrive, libby, hoopla, cloudlibrary, and kanopy instead of amazon and audible.

use firefox instead of chrome or opera (both are made with chromium, which blocks functionality for ad-blockers. firefox isn't based on chromium).

use mega or proton drive instead of google drive.

get rid of bloatware

use libreoffice instead of microsoft office suite

use vetted sites on r/FREEMEDIAHECKYEAH for free movies, books, games, etc.

use trakt or letterboxd instead of imdb.

use storygraph instead of goodreads.

use darkpatterns to find mobile game with no ads or microtransactions

use ground news to read unbiased news and find blind spots in news stories.

use mediahuman or cobalt to download music, or support your favorite artists directly through bandcamp

make youtube bearable by using mtube, newpipe, or the unhook extension on chrome, firefox, or microsoft edge

use search for a cause or ecosia to support the environment instead of google

use thriftbooks to buy new or used books (they also have manga, textbooks, home goods, CDs, DVDs, and blurays)

use flashpoint to play archived online flash games

find books, movies, games, etc. on the internet archive! for starters, here's a bunch of David Attenborough documentaries and all of the Animorphs books

burn your music onto cds

use pdf24 (available online or as a desktop app) instead of adobe

use unroll.me to clean your email inboxes

use thunderbird, mailfence, countermail, edison mail, tuta, or proton mail instead of gmail

remove bloatware on windows PC, macOS, and iOS X

remove bloatware on samsung X

use pixelfed instead of instagram or meta

use NCH suite for free software like a file converter, image editor, video editors, pdf editor, etc.

feel free to add more alternatives, resources or advice in the reblogs or replies, and i'll add them to the main post <3

And my rough translation of what it says:

I think there's some confusion around the intention of the Klan the morning after the grand opening, and in general about Sinners just being a "vampire movie" that we're all reading too much into. I also believe Ryan shows us exactly what he wants us to take from certain scenes and the film overall, by drawing on history.

Also, I feel like in the scene where Smoke kills all the Klan, as they are pulling up, there are flash-backs added that weren’t in the theater release either. I do NOT remember those flashbacks or the lines that were repeated in them.

It’s the historical context of Black-Irish conflicts, rooted in the anti-Blackness of the United States and the rampant anti-Irish discrimination that placed Irish people below White folks, but above Black people.

It’s that the Irish weren’t ‘really’ white at the time because Whiteness is a social construct not based in phenotypic presentation, but culture, behavior, and power.

That the Irish however were able to ‘become’ white as the rules of whiteness changed, a dichotomy so strongly personified by Remmick.

AND BEFORE ANYONE STARTS; im not saying you cant like remmick, he's a very interesting character, a great villain, and jack o'connell gave a great performance playing him, nor do i care if you think hes sexy, I think hes sexy

but i think to come out of a movie where vampires serve as a metaphor for how black american communities have the life sucked out of them by white people via cultural appropriation (remmick wanting to use sammie's gift to summon his own ancestors) and forced assimilation (all the turned vampires singing and dancing along with remmick's irish folk song and dance juxtaposed with the blend of cultures during sammie's song in the juke joint) and for your main take away to be 'aww the main villain is just a misunderstood sadboy' or 'idc abt the atrocities he looked sexy doing them (when the atrocities in question were racism)' then youre just being so disengenuous and antithetical to the whole point of the film?

and dont come at me with the 'let people enjoy things' bullshit, sinners is a movie FUNDAMENTALLY about racism and racial dynamics in the united states, and i do think focusing on your little y/n x [whiteboy of the month] fics and 'hes so babygirl' posts do actually stunt your own critical engagement with the message this movie was trying to convey to its audience

i think its also a disservice to remmick's character; the moral nuance that comes to light when you consider his position as an irish immigrant to the US, a victim of the colonialist british empire just like the black main cast (although in a very different way) and how, whilst his desire to reclaim his ancestry and heritage is understandable and even relatable, his pursuit of sammie and willingness to kill literally everyone else at the juke joint is allegorical for how, regardless of their own marginalisation, white people will prey upon and steal from black culture(s) and destroy/disenfranchise black communities to serve their own interests, and the movie is NOT subtle about this either, delta slim literally lays it out for us "white folks like the blues just fine, they just don't like the people who make them"

Scarlett, one of the victims, met Amanda Palmer (Neil’s ex wife) and became friends with her. Scarlett was out of work and started to do odd jobs for Amanda and eventually starts doing some babysitting/nannying for them. It sounds like she was already very close to Amanda at this point.

So far I’ve seen her kind of referred to as just an employee and while it is factually true, I don’t think it’s completely honest. She was very much a personal friend of Amanda’s first and clearly had many interactions with Amanda that were not strictly professional. What I’m saying is that the boundaries between employee and personal friend were blurred from the beginning. Though blame still falls on Amanda/Neil for mixing personal and professional boundaries and not on the victim. I just point it out to say all three were already acting inappropriately for an employer/employee relationship

The first night she meets Neil Gaiman, he alleges that he asked her if she wanted to take an outdoor bath (I’m assuming this is a hot tub) together. Her story is that she did not know he would join her in the bath. He was naked but she thought it might be “normal” because she was used to seeing Amanda naked often. He says that the shared bath was consensual. She says that he pressured her into giving him a handjob and when she said no, he said she was “missing out” and he masturbated in the tub with her and then penetrated her anally with his fingers. His account was that this instance was only consensual cuddling and making out. She is clearly uncomfortable during this scene and any consent that may have given does not seem genuine. She does end up messaging him that night, “Thank you for a lovely, lovely night. Wow. Kiss”

From there however, they continue to have sexual encounters involving some potentially extreme BDSM scenes. In WhatsApp messages she repeatedly consents/expresses a a desire for these encounters. She tells a friend the sex is “rough” and “amazing”. There are A LOT of messages with clear and enthusiastic consent and love for Neil.

One message from Scarlett read: "I am consumed by thoughts of you, the things you will do to me, I'm so hungry. What a terrible creature you've turned me into. I think you need to give me a huge spanking very soon. I'm fucking desperate for my master."

"I may be ill [covid] but I am lying here with my sick little mind wondering into terrible, filthy, dark places, and I want you to, if I'm lucky, occasionally instruct me with naughty things to do so that I can fill all this alone time imagining your cruelty. I'm sorry, I'm such a desperate and perverted and kinky sad little girl. What do they say? When you play with fire"

Neil’s replies are described as neutral, affectionate, brief, and non committal. At least via messages it seems like Scarlett was the one perusing sexual contact.

She goes on to describe one encounter as so painful she blacked out and he hadn’t noticed and had left to watch rehearsal tapes? And that she had been bleeding? This encounter was very unclear, violent seeming but hazy. It’s really unclear what happened to her. It sounds like it might have been painful anal sex. Potentially consensual in words, but she clearly was not taken care of. He alleges that he only ever penetrated her with his fingers.

At some point she tells a friend about these encounters and the friend points out the power imbalance and tells Amanda. Scarlett says to Neil in clear terms that everything was consensual and though it may have “crossed boundaries at the start” everything after was consensual.

EDIT FOR CONTEXT: the beginning of this conversation opens with Neil saying: "Honestly, when Amanda told me that you are telling people I'd raped you and were planning to Me Too me, I wanted to kill myself. But I'm getting through it a day at a time."

Scarlett: "Oh my god, Neil. I never said that. I have been deeply upset about it all because it's triggered things from my past and also for many reasons. I feel whiplash. But I am horrified by your message." [more messages inbetween] "I have never used the word rape. I am just so shocked. I honestly don't know what to say."

Neil: "It was very unstabilizing. I spent a week actively not killing myself, if you see what I mean."

Scarlett: "I feel like bawling my eyes out. I would never Me Too you. I don't where that came from, and I have told Amanda that even though it began questionably, eventually it was undoubtedly consensual and I enjoyed it. Heart is pounding too."

Neil: "Knowing that you would be prepared to say it's not true, it was consensual, he's not a monster, makes me a lot more grounded."

Scarlet: "It was consensual. How many times do I have to fucking tell everyone?"

It has to be said that Neil implying he considered suicide over this adds context to Scarlett’s messages of consent and how true those feelings were at the time. It was incredibly manipulative on his end.

Scarlett seems to go through some pretty traumatic life events outside of this situation and is hospitalized for suicidal thoughts (actions? unclear). Neil sends her messages of support, which she now in hindsight finds it was his way of pulling her back in. She asks Neil to pay her rent and Neil agrees to. Neil’s bookkeepers ask her to sign an NDA, not specifically about any allegations but just talking about his personal life overall. She admits to not reading the NDA.

EDIT 2: I believe the timeline of Scarlett’s hospitalization occurred before she messaged Neil and said their relation was consensual.

She does end up filing a police report in summer 2022 but receives rent payments until winter 2022 and drops contact with Neil completely Jan 2023. She says her view of their relationship changed after her hospitalization.

It is clear from this situation that Neil did act inappropriately but this is not a black and white situation overall. Their first encounter in the tub is very disturbing. The texts/relationship after are very complex and I’m not qualified to place judgement.

Now important point I want to make about this podcast and its reporting. These podcasters are vehemently against BDSM and they made it clear they don’t think BDSM can ever be consensual. I think critiquing this podcast itself is a discussion worth having. I find this podcast to be pretty biased in that sense. An “expert” they have on as a guest says, “the idea that you can consent to degradation is such a stupid idea. Only men can think this up.” I’m not saying that Neil engaged in BDSM with these women in a healthy or consensual way, however the podcasters make it clear that they don’t believe BDSM could ever be consensual and they consider these acts as blanket abuse in any situation.

The second victim K, did meet Neil at 18 however they had no sexual/romantic contact until she was 20. She says,"I never wanted any of the stuff he did to me, including the violent stuff, but I did consent to it." Neil says they were in a two year relationship that was completely consensual. He says that he has record of hundreds of emails between the two of them that never show any sign of distress. K began to become upset that Neil did not plan on leaving his marriage (open at the time I believe?) or ever make their relationship public. Unfortunately it does feel like K consented to things she didn’t necessarily want to keep Neil in her life.

She alleges that they did not use lube during sex and it was often painful for her. During one encounter she alleges she told him not to penetrate her due to a UTI and he did so anyway.

K and Neil have an argument that leads him to break the relationship. He leaves, and buys a plane ticket home. K buys a ticket on the same flight, follows him onto the plane and begs him not to end their relationship. Security ends up removing her from the plane. They continue to email from 2008-2022 pleasantly and flirtatiously.

The podcast reached out to other sexual partners of Neil’s and they did not have any stories of misbehavior.

Overall, this isn’t a clear cut situation. Neil clearly did take advantage of his celebrity and position of power and failed to protect these women. He was the instigator in all these relationships and he does seem to seek out younger more inexperienced partners. Partners who don’t seem to have the social/mental footing to consent properly. There are times where he clearly crossed boundaries and assaulted these women. The bath/hot tub and UTI instances were clearly not appropriate consensual acts.

But I think there’s a discussion worth having about intentionally lying about your consent. Hindsight and experience can certainly recontextualize everything and I understand why they may have consented in the moment. The pressures they were under etc. They clearly at times felt like they couldn’t say no in some ways. But they also both actively perused the relationship and admit to giving clear verbal consent often. I very very much feel for these women and I’m so sorry that they had such a negative experience.

I have no answers on any of this and it’s not my job or place to. I hope this recap provides more context and that everyone comes away knowing that this is not a black and white issue.

I also hope everyone does not tie their identity/enjoyment of good omens/his other works on this. We as fans are not responsible for the actions of others. Our engagement with Neil’s work is not an excusal or support of his actions. We are not responsible for what he has done in his personal life. If you end up seeing posts that imply you are somehow a bad person if you engage with his works now, that is not a healthy or good take.

Be critical, be open to the facts as they develop, find where your comfortability with engaging in his works is, and do not tell others how they have to feel/act about this situation.

For those of you who haven’t/can’t read the article/listen to the podcast episodes, i recommend reading this series of threads on twitter, which is a play by play of the accusations and a breakdown of them. They are incredibly in depth and clarifying and I thank them for this work. https://x.com/redcoast/status/1808514093323587854

I find it incredibly suspicious that this was released a day before UK elections, with right wing alleged victims and a right wing media source, to a very openly liberal public figure.

I find it suspicious that this was released with a short article and the full story in FOUR sponsored podcast episodes all dropped at once.

I find it suspicious that the “expert” the journalists brought in was an expert in how men manipulate women in relationships and NOT an expert in sexual assault in relationships.

I find it suspicious that all of the texts presented as evidence show amicable and explicitly consensual communication about any sex between Neil and the alleged victims.

I find it suspicious that the journalists reached out to “dozens” of other former partners of Neil who all report that their relationships were always consensual even when taking into account his well known penchant for kink and BDSM.

I find it suspicious that he is suddenly and voraciously being accused of zionism as well as sexual assault by tumblr users.

I find it suspicious that the details of the alleged assault are not consistent, as the alleged victim changes the details even five minutes after she gave them.

I find it suspicious that the alleged victims continued to be in close contact with Neil months, years, even decades in the second alleged victims case, after their relationship with Neil was over. And that all the communication seemed to be amicable.

This doesn’t discredit the assaults at all. The only thing that discredits the assaults is the victims saying so.

We've all seen the opening sequence many times now right?

Well, I think we may all have missed something very, ahem, suggestive… do you see it? (Answer below)