RedStalkingDeath

sometimes I’m reminded that there are still people who don’t know ao3 was literally created by incest shippers — and the site’s sole purpose is to 1. be completely against censorship and 2. host all kinds of dark, taboo fics that are banned on other platforms — and the first ever fic that was posted on ao3 was a fic about an incest ship from supernatural.

you are in the house that was created by freaks. for freaks (affectionate). every disgusting thing you can think of is rightfully allowed and welcomed on ao3, because they are exactly the reasons why ao3 was created in the first place.

ao3 was created because its creators got tired of censorship, they got tired of dark and taboo fics getting banned on pro-censorship platforms, and they wanted a place that was safe for ALL FICS THAT WERE DARK AND TABOO.

ao3’s main principle is being against censorship and being proship / profic.

there are some things in fiction that make me uncomfortable, but instead of shaming people who are just minding their own business and not harming anyone in real life, I choose to curate my own internet experience by blocking/muting what I don’t want to see. ao3 has excellent tagging system, so instead of being a bitch, use their tagging system properly and you won’t see the things you don’t want to see.

it’s your job to curate what you see. it’s not other people’s jobs or responsibilities to censor themselves for your personal comfort. the world does not revolve around you.

also you cannot censor “only the things you personally hate” without expecting everything else, that isn’t of conservative beliefs, to be censored too. because censorship is a slippery slope and a fascist tool. I promise you there are people who think “why do tags for queer love even exist on ao3? they’re grooming children”.

if you allow the things that you hate to be censored — because someone with enough power gets to control what other people can and cannot create/consume, it will not stop at the things that you hate.

Giving $70k to a hate group - it was the equivalent of $89k. The actual number you're thinking of is £70k.

Bankrolling anti-independence for Scotland - she did, yes. However, it seems to be about how pro-independence is full of bigotry. I'd accept proof that I'm wrong, but I can't find it. Remember, she used to have some liberal beliefs before she became radicalized - it's possible that genuinely is the reason.

Started her own hate group to 'protect women' - Yep, it's not exactly hidden. Here's a link to it, even. Yes, this is one of those "everyone knows it, why are you sourcing it?" things, and I'll tell you why: so you have it to convince people who don't believe you. You can throw around claims all you want, but anyone who believes unsourced ones are much more vulnerable to being exploited.

Also, it's not "having their autism exploited" insomuch as it's attempting to ban trans women from existing anywhere. "In the workplace, in protected female spaces, and in public life." To reduce it so such simple terms feels...kind of disingenuous.

Slipping on and off the forbes list - Yep, that's a thing. It also does still seem to be a thing. Here's something saying it's 1.2b. The money going to bigotry does not change that she's spending it. Interestingly, she pays a tax rate of 45%, if you're curious just how much money people spend on this shit.

How interacting with the series at all makes her money - This...is pretty difficult to source as fact, because just from that, it's speculation. However, we can look at something else - video games. In the free to play video game market, there's emphasis on the importance of minimal- or non-paying players, because it creates 'a vibrant community and contributes to the game's overall success and popularity'. The people who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on it wouldn't want an empty community, right? That does sound an awful lot like her claim, doesn't it?

Fun thing to randomly discover, she also hates asexuals now. Unsurprising, we're a pretty 'easy' target, but fun to learn.

Also it is absolutely ridiculous to think that we can deem a work from a country where queerness is illegal less legitimate because the author has not chosen to publicly disclosed their identity. Authors who were forced to hide their names because of government crack downs on queer art have been questioned for not being openly #Ownvoices.

I'm passionate because I have experience with this issue. I was questioned as to whether I could write about trans people, while I had been out as genderfluid in my personal relationships for years. I just didn't think it was a strangers business. If not for pressure from outsiders, I may have had a better experience coming out on my own terms, but some of y'all ruined that for me.

Source ~ Neurodivergent_Lou

Alt Text added to each image.

He's a brat. He's such an annoying brat. But he's my brat.

I am all for holding men accountable. I do think we should call out petty, controlling, abusive behavior, and I do think men should face consequences for these behaviors.

Because it is important that these men face consequences, it is important to teach people — men who have gotten away without so much as a slap on the wrist, women who enable these behaviors, girls who are told that it is okay to be treated this way, impressionable boys developing their sense of morals — that it is not okay to behave this way.

But the second we start insinuating that these traits are inherently masculine, innate male behaviors, we throw that progress away.

It's true that these behaviors are more common in men, but not for biological reasons. It's because these behaviors have been labeled as acceptable, these behaviors have been encouraged. Which is why it is crucial to say "no, this is not okay, this is unacceptable, and there are consequences to doing this."

When you reduce it biological explanations, you give these behaviors a pass. You're saying, whether you mean to or not, that men are behaving as men do, because they're men, and this is how they operate. Which means that these behaviors are acceptable by virtue of being uncontrollable. That's just how men are. They can't help themselves. It's up to everyone around them to protect themselves, because men are just giving in to their nature.

At times, Gatwa’s casting in those projects has been dismissed as an exercise in ‘box-ticking’. Gatwa scoffs. ‘First of all, you don’t know anything about me. Secondly, tick fcking boxes! People need to be fcking seen. What are you going to do, tell the same stories? Have the same people fronting things for all of eternity? Representation and inclusivity and branching out… it enriches us all. How embarrassing. You people with your tiny mindsets – open a book, look out the window and then f*ck off.’ (source)

What do I mean by the Third Argument? Well, I'm not sure I've ever made a post about this directly, but as far as I can see it, there are three main arguments for greater diversity in popular media. The first two are the most common, and they go like this:

It is good for media to be diverse because it is good for people to see people like them on screen. That is, the beneficiaries are marginalized people.

It is good for media to be diverse because it is good for people to see and learn about people who are not like them through art. That is, the beneficiaries are non-marginalized people, who then (hopefully) pass on the benefit by treating marginalized people better.

These two arguments are the source of a lot of debate here on ye olde tumblr. Despite both being arguments for representation, they pull in different directions. What counts as 'good' representation for the purposes of Argument 1 often would not be good for the purposes of Argument 2, and vice versa. Authentic versus sympathetic. Ugly or over-sanitized. You see this debate play out constantly. It's really hard for a piece of - say - queer media to do both at once.

But these debates tend to leave out Argument 3, the one that Gatwa is making above. And that argument cuts through a lot of this debate.

3. It is good for media to be diverse because art needs variety. The beneficiary of representation is art itself, absent any social effects that may or may not be present.

For this argument, diverse stories are intrinsically good. It is good to make art that's not just the same thing you've seen a hundred times before. Putting the kinds of people who don't often make it into mainstream media into your art is an extremely efficient way to make that happen. It's not the only method, but it's a really good method.

For representation to be 'good representation' according to Argument 3, all it needs to be is interesting. A story you haven't heard before, at least not in that medium. That which counts as 'bad representation' by the lights of this argument are stock characters, like the Eternally Patient Mother, the Gay Best Friend, the Wise Black Advisor. Perhaps there was a time in which these characters were new, but that time has long passed. There's no art in pulling a bog-standard character trope off the shelf. Show us a new kind of guy. The world is infinitely diverse. You're not going to run out. Telling the same stories with the same voices for all eternity, as Gatwa says, is boring. Even if there was nothing else wrong with it, this would be. Art isn't supposed to be boring.

Imagine finding out you have 90 minutes to tie up a love story that's developed over thousands of years. You create something beautifully in character and completely on point for the plot. You pay homage to the original writer's legacy in a fitting and poetic way and create an ending that not only shows the depth of two people's love for each other but the wider love they have for the thing that brought them together in the first place.

And then you go online to find the loudest outcry is that everyone hates it and "THEY DIDN'T EVEN KISS!"

(Comment via @the-lost-mage )

"When God tried to give Job new children to replace his old ones, the show understood that people aren't replaceable. But it seems to have forgotten that now."

☝️THIS☝️