Reylos won’t rest until they’ve run every black anti out of this fandom. I hate them so much

korrasera:

lj-writes:

korrasera:

To preface this, I’m not actually shipper or an anti-anti. By which I mean that my opposition to antis rests purely in their authoritarianism. But otherwise? I don’t have any skin in that game. I think reylo is a little gross myself, but shippers are free to do what they do. The closest I’ve gotten to caring is that I think Kara and Lena should be canon on Supergirl and I cried tears of joy when Korra and Asami became canon.

And unfortunately, you’re incorrect about antis. I mean, I would love it if the picture you were painting was accurate, that some antis are authoritarian while others are not, but the fact of the matter is that being an anti-shipper means that you’re subscribing to an authoritarian stance in regards to fandom. Sure, maybe you’re not as hardcore as other people, but the ideology you’re talking about is still ultimately authoritarian in nature. I wrote a short 101 on authoritarianism when an anon criticized me talking about authoritarian exclusionists that hate aces in the LGBTQ+ community because they didn’t understand authoritarianism either. (source)

As for your abortion debate example, a better way to put it would be this. Not all people who are anti-choice support murdering people who seek abortions or doctors who provide abortions. But! All people who are anti-choice stand opposed to bodily autonomy and think that all pregnant people, almost all of whom are women, should not have the right to control their own bodies. That’s an inherently authoritarian and an inherently violent ideology, regardless of the number of them willing to assault and murder people in the name of their cause. The only real caveat I have is that anti-abortion might just be born out of a different kind of authoritarianism, as in the US it’s strongly indicative of religious conservative Christian attitudes and that community is authoritarian as all get out.

In other words, you don’t have to provide shelter and material support to someone who does evil if you actively enable evil by embracing authoritarianism. Since anti-choice advocacy gets people killed and intentionally tries to strip rights from people, that counts.

Antis, on the other hand, just subscribe to an ideology that polices fandom looking for people who are not sufficiently pure, using disgust in the place of reasoning to judge someone as being evil or morally wrong. It would be nice if those of you who just didn’t like a ship were the core of your community, but that’s not what an anti is, at least not anymore. They’re people who harass shippers, drive them off of social media, and use claims of pedophilia and child grooming to do it. A lot of people have pointed out how anti attacks on shippers actually make it more difficult for us to stop predators who go after children because not only has it meant creating false reports that law enforcement officials have to take action on, but the community has themselves sheltered predators because they know how to manipulate authoritarian power structures in order to facilitate their grooming behaviors.

Why do you think so many people identify as left-wing in US politics without identifying as Democrat? It’s because identifying as a Democrat means participating in the system Democrats have built, much of which has been built on regressive social policies that aren’t much better than what Republicans offer. In this same fashion, identifying with a community that’s become defined by it’s authoritarian ideology means supporting that ideology, even weakly.

Yes, I stack rank antis near the bottom of the list of authoritarian groups that I personally care about fighting, but it’s still not healthy. If you want to be healthy then I’d encourage those of you who don’t subscribe to those views to come up with a new term to describe yourselves and break your community away from that ideology so you aren’t in tacit support of them.

For someone who’s not in fandom you sure are eager to tell me I’m wrong about fandom spaces I’ve been active in for years. You also seem to think you know what my “ideology” is when it’s nothing like what you describe. I’m actually closer to you–I think the ship is gross but that people are free to ship what they like. I don’t want to censor people or stop them from creating content, and I certainly don’t want to be anyone’s thought police. I have a hard enough time managing my own thoughts.

I do talk about things like bigotry and misogyny in fandom, commenting on and criticizing publicly available content generally without even interacting with the creators. That’s what the bulk of anti activity consists of, at least among people who came to be known as antis through a combination of tagging convention, identification by detractors, convenience, and self-identification.

I mean sorry we don’t match the cartoon idea of us you have in your head, I guess, but when reality and your own conceptions don’t match maybe it’s the latter that should be adjusted rather than the former. And that’s a cool take, telling us that we should cede our fan space and label to the worst elements among us, effectively saying we need to get out so the trolls and harassers can take over. All this from someone who has admitted to not being much involved in the spaces I’m talking about.

And if we did as you suggest and relabeled ourselves “crits” or something else, do you really think the caricature of us that lumps us in with harassing trolls will stop? I highly doubt it, considering that the reason Black women who talk about fandom racism get called fascists and racists isn’t because of a fandom label. They get treated like that because they’re Black women who talk openly about racism. Falsely labeling them as inherently authoritarian abusers helps, of course, so thanks for that.

All people who are anti-choice stand opposed to bodily autonomy and think
that all pregnant people, almost all of whom are women, should not have
the right to control their own bodies. That’s an inherently
authoritarian and an inherently violent ideology,

Having anti-abortion beliefs correlates with authorian personalities, certainly, but that by itself doesn’t make someone an authoritarian personality, or rather by itself doesn’t determine their score on the right-wing authoritarian scale. You seem to be sliding over the definition of “authoritarian” to encompass all bigotry and evil, which is unhelpful and imprecise. Authoritarianism is a scale, with high scores having predictive value for certain behaviors such as intellectual/moral inconsistency and aggression on behalf of leaders. It’s not a test of good and evil people. (I just took it myself and the people bragging in the comments about their low scores were… something.)

And did you seriously say people who identify as Democrats in the U.S. are supporting the Democratic Party’s worst policies? I mean I guess that means people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic Socialist who became the Democratic nominee for her district, is participating in the Democratic system and therefore is complicit. Never mind that leftists like her who run in Democratic primaries are trying to change the party and take it over from the centrists and right-wingers. It almost looks like a label is more important to you than actual actions.

In specific:

Unsurprisingly, I have a few problems with your response, starting with how you’ve just accused me of being eager to tell you who you are, when in fact you’re the person that was in a hurry to attach a label to me while simultaneously misrepresenting and misunderstanding what I’ve said about authoritarianism. And a quick side-note: I referred to you as an anti-shipper and you’ve just said that you’re an anti-shipper in saying “I mean sorry we don’t match the cartoon idea of us you have in your head” so it doesn’t sound like I’m being presumptive at describing you as an anti. You just identified as one.

One thing I see I didn’t clarify properly before is that there’s a difference between calling someone a harasser and an authoritarian, but you’ve interpreted me talking about groups exhibiting authoritarian behaviors as being indicative that all such people are harassers. If you’ll reference my previous post you’ll see that I was very clearly talking about how people who consider themselves antis but do not engage in harassment are still siding with a group of people who harass people, because it’s those antis that go inventing claims of pedophilia and harassing people off of social media that you have to worry about.

That said, let’s get to the points you’ve made. Yes, if you aren’t aware that anti-shipping is a hotbed of authoritarianism then I am telling you that you are wrong about fandom spaces you’ve been active in for years. This is me, telling you that you’re wrong.

Next, let’s talk about what the actual point of describing how authoritarian antis are, because this shit comes up in my communities all the time in the form of exclusionists and truscum. In short, your community has a lot of dirty laundry and right now it’s been strewn about the floor for everyone to see. Or, in simpler terms, there is so much harassment leveled by antis at shippers that there’s no way that you can claim that they’re edge cases, they represent the community.

That’s something that is usually really useful in determining whether or not a community is inherently authoritarian, because in communities that don’t embrace it, or even better are outright anti-authoritarian, when someone behaves poorly the rest of the community calls that person in and helps them learn that what they’re doing is wrong. In authoritarian communities, the behavior is either condoned or supported, with only very weak attempts, if any, to put a stop to it. And that goes whether we’re talking about harassment, abuse, or straight up violence.

So, you’ve got three options. Deal with the problem people in your own community and reclaim it, break away as I mentioned before, or get used to being lumped in with people who do terrible things. Take the word authoritarianism out of it if you want, it’s not really important for this part of the framework, but to be honest I left out the ‘deal with your problem’ part of it because I anticipated that you’d reject that because you’d probably reject the notion that your community has problems. And yes, if there was a concerted effort by healthy anti-shippers, people who identified themselves by the way they find some aspects of shipping distasteful but in no way needed to enforce that view on shippers, you’d get a new reputation and would be able to distance yourself from being associated with abusive and authoritarian antis.

But the fact of the matter is that you’re still supporting a fundamentally authoritarian community. And you’re even inventing excuses for it, ways to explain away the criticism without actually addressing it.

In general:

Okay, now for all of the cleanup:

Yes, having anti-abortion beliefs makes you an authoritarian. You cannot hold anti-abortion beliefs without choosing in some part to support an authoritarian stance, in which someone chooses to police other people to change their behavior in order to bring it into line with a group norm based on purity and adherence to a central authority, whether that’s the ideology or a leader. Just like you cannot be selectively progressive and call yourself progressive, you can’t be anti-authoritarian and yet not support bodily autonomy. If you choose to oppose bodily autonomy, even in spirit, you are choosing authoritarianism, because the idea that our bodies are our own is core to not just anti-authoritarian principles, but also most legal systems and a great deal of everything human beings have ever based our morality on.

No, there’s no one authoritarian inventory. It’s been studied extensively for decades and a lot of people have come up with different scales and inventories to describe it, so your experience taking one right-wing authoritarianism inventory does not describe the whole of what authoritarianism means. My preference, and I’m hoping this is the one that you found, is the Right-wing Authoritarianism Scale invented by Bob Altemeyer, a professor at the University of Manitoba who studied authoritarianism in great detail. If you haven’t read his book The Authoritarians, it’s a great start. I recommend immediately following it up with the book Adult Children of Emotionally Immature Parents: How to Heal from Distant, Rejecting, or Self-Involved Parents by Lindsay C. Gibson, PsyD. That should make the link between emotional immaturity and authoritarianism absolutely clear, something that Altemeyer only hints at in The Authoritarians, when he addresses the need for security in such groups.

I am impressed at the level of sophistry that takes ‘left-wing people often times don’t identify as Democrats because Democrats have done some terrible things’ and then suggest that means I’m saying that reformers and non-Democrats who attempt to join and reform the party are somehow responsible for regressive social policies they had no hand in building. Because, and let me quote you exactly here, “people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic Socialist,” is somehow responsible for things like the prison-industrial boom created by the Clinton Administration in the early 90s. I do hope you can see that this point is ridiculous because not only are Democratic Socialists not the same thing as Democrats, Democractic Socialists like Ocasio-Cortez, or the Justice Democrats that came out of supporting Bernie Sanders, who join with the Democratic Party to reform it are specifically choosing to fight the very same corruption I talked about.

No, I’m not defining authoritarianism as all bigotry and evil. The fact that you feel the need to simplify everything I’ve said to that point kinda suggests that you can’t engage with the material. I’ve repeatedly, in that 101 post I linked to you before and elsewhere on my blog, have addressed the complicated nature of authoritarianism, the way it does harm, it’s role as a cognitive flaw in our species that arises naturally, it’s relationship with emotional maturity, and the fundamental need for security that authoritarianism tries to fill…and the best you can come up with is to look at all that and say that I’m basically saying that authoritarianism = evil.

Hell, one of my core fucking points is that authoritarianism isn’t evil, it’s a trait that a lot of us embody that we can unlearn and that we have to fight to help others unlearn before they go past the point where they’re never going to give it up!

In closing:

I don’t like how simplistic your attitudes are on pretty much all of this. Whether we’re talking about the way you want to sidestep discussion of the problems that antis create, the way that you clearly don’t grasp authoritarianism or how it relates to political science, or just the way that you’re throwing cheap rhetorical tricks at me in an attempt to make your point, it does not sound like you’re arguing in good faith. At all.

I mean, you honestly just tried to turn something I said inside out and tell me that it somehow suggested that I cared more about labels than someone’s actions.

Well, your actions tell me that you can’t argue your way out of a wet paper bag or you’d be presenting substantive and valid points instead of misinterpretations and misdirects.

Post-script:

I noticed you’ve got an ‘anti-anti bs’ tag. Where’s your ‘anti bs’ tag?

If you stand opposed to people in the anti community that harass people, it seems like you might want to point that out when you see it and educate people on how to avoid it and prevent it. Or maybe take any stance on it aside from ignoring it.

Maybe you haven’t ignored it. I don’t know in detail, as I don’t follow your blog. But you want to tag stuff as being ‘anti-anti bs’ because presumably you think that people who oppose antis often say bullshit things. I’m pretty sure harassment and abuse is worse than bullshit, so why no tag there?

Me: *repeatedly states that there are antis who are harassers, trolls, and abusers, and explains that it won’t help to vacate the anti label in favor of them*

You: OMG YOU’RE DENYING THAT ANTIS HAVE PROBLEMS!!! DEAL WITH IT!!

At this point there doesn’t seem to be much relationship between what I said and what you’ve replied to. I do know there is a problem. I have acknowledged it. All I’ve told you is that there are authoritarian antis and non-authoritarian antis, much like there are authoritarian shippers and non-authoritarian shippers. It’s ironic that the ask at the top of this thread was literally about shippers harassing Black antis to drive them out of fandom, but I don’t go from there to say reylo is inherently authoritarian or whatever. It means there are reylos who behave badly, including in authoritarian ways.

Sure, maybe you’re not as hardcore as other people, but the ideology
you’re talking about is still ultimately authoritarian in nature.

Um? The only “ideology” I’ve described is this:

I think the ship is gross but that people are free to ship what they
like. I don’t want to censor people or stop them from creating content,
and I certainly don’t want to be anyone’s thought police. I have a hard
enough time managing my own thoughts.

I do talk about things like bigotry and misogyny in fandom,
commenting on and criticizing publicly available content generally
without even interacting with the creators.

This is authoritarian, despite not meeting any of the criteria you’ve described? If anything the only authoritarian parts seem to be the parts I’ve said I don’t subscribe to. This is another part where what you’ve said to me doesn’t seem to have any bearing on what I actually wrote. If you want to tell me I can’t argue/am not arguing in good faith, it’s a good idea to look like you actually know what my arguments are.

As for having an #anti reylo bs tag: There’s that inconvenient part where I and other antis have in fact discussed harassment and misogyny among antis (link, link). When disgusting shithole antis on Instagram stole and posted a picture of a shipper’s minor child, I knew about the situation because antis on Tumblr talked about it and condemned it.

You seem to think I should make more regular posts about anti reylo bs, but do you really not know how these harassers operate? They act generally as anonymous mobs who send awful anons to shippers. In order to regularly track and document that I’d have to follow/regularly read reylo blogs, which is a big no both for my own well-being and because that’s like, stalking? Anti antis can do that, which is an upside to their fandom presence. (It’s almost like anti anti isn’t inherently a bad thing? I mean what else do you call people who are against all antis? Oh right, you’d rather pretend you’re not anti anyone and prefer to make your inaccurate and wrong arguments under a veneer of neutrality and intellectual rigor that you don’t actually possess. Okay.)

I referred to you as an anti-shipper and you’ve just said that you’re an
anti-shipper in saying “I mean sorry we don’t match the cartoon idea of
us you have in your head” so it doesn’t sound like I’m being
presumptive at describing you as an anti. You just identified as one.

Where…. did I say you were presumptive… for calling me an anti…? I said I am one and that you were presumptive for making blanket condemnations of a fandom community whose activities as a whole and whose “ideology” you don’t actually know outside of its worst elements. I’m taking you to task for using the label incorrectly, not for applying it to me. Again, reading what I actually said would help.

Because it evidently bears repetition, I know there are authoritarian antis who subscribe to authoritarian beliefs. My problem is with your saying that there are authoritarian and non-authoritarian shippers, but that there are no antis who are not authoritarian or at least do not give tacit support to authoritarianism by being an anti. (Would this be a correct summation?) I’ve explained to you at length why that’s an inaccurate and harmful stance that helps silence fans of color who discuss fandom racism, so if you actually care about that you can scroll up to read it.

Yes, having anti-abortion beliefs makes you an authoritarian. You cannot
hold anti-abortion beliefs without choosing in some part to support an
authoritarian stance, in which someone chooses to police other people to
change their behavior in order to bring it into line with a group norm
based on purity and adherence to a central authority, whether that’s the
ideology or a leader.

Except there are multiple ways to have anti-abortion beliefs and not all of them involve adherence to purity and authority. I’ve debated enough of them on a sideblog to know (link if you want to see it). Many anti-abortion people sincerely–and wrongly–believe that abortion is murder and infanticide. Others of course, perhaps most, simply use that argument as a veneer for the authoritarian motivations you mentioned. That doesn’t mean the former are giving tacit support to the latter’s worst actions or have similar psychological profiles as the latter. It’s like saying soccer fans tacitly support hooligans by being soccer fans.

If you haven’t read his book The Authoritarians, it’s a great start.

The funny thing is I was literally describing Altemeyer’s research from that very book, and though I read it in full a long time ago (10+ years) I’ve checked it briefly to see if I remember the main points correctly. Unless my memory seriously fails me it didn’t have anything about labeling single beliefs as “inherently” authoritarian or blaming all conservatives for being complicit in authoritarianism.

lj-writes:

Saaaaaame. And they justify it by deliberately conflating all antis with a subset of awful harassers, ignoring the fact that antis who operate under their own names are by and large people who just don’t like a fucking fictional ship and engage in discourse about it. I have literally seen anti-antis like @korrasera (whose take on other subjects I respect) say all antis are by definition authoritarian harassers. Way to ignore the fact that, in reality, the word is also used to describe people who do no such thing. It’s like saying all anti-abortion people are killers or complicit in sheltering killers. I fucking hate the anti-abortion movement and am well aware that there is a strong authoritarian streak in the movement. A number of them are in fact bullies, harassers, and terrorists. That doesn’t mean anti-abortion thought is inherently authoritarian or violent, just goddamned stupid and sexist.

I do hope you can see that this point is ridiculous because not only are
Democratic Socialists not the same thing as Democrats, Democractic
Socialists like Ocasio-Cortez, or the Justice Democrats that came out of
supporting Bernie Sanders, who join with the Democratic Party to reform
it are specifically choosing to fight the very same corruption I talked
about.

This just in: Being a Democratic nominee for Congress, hell, campaigning to be the Democratic nominee for President, does not constitute identifying as a Democrat. If a would-be Democratic nominee for President is not a Democrat, who is? Joining the Democratic Party isn’t the same thing as identifying as a Democrat? Whut?

Also LOL at thinking being a Democratic Socialist is incompatible with the Democratic Party, whose members hold a broad range of beliefs from leftist to right of center. It’s almost like people can identify with a party affiliation while being critical of it and working to change it, so your original take was hilariously wrong and actions matter more than labels.

catchymemes:

Anti anxiety.

Kylo Ren is not a Dark Side villain

I’ve started to think the real conflict in the sequel trilogy might actually not be between the Light and Dark Sides of the Force. The former can be immoral and the latter can be moral, after all.

Pacifism in the face of injustice can be irresponsible cowardice, which is why people have criticized the “That’s how we win” line. Rationality in the face of others’ pain can be dismissive and callous, as we saw with Yoda toward Anakin.

On the other hand, violence to fight unjust violence is moral. That’s the entire foundation of the Rebellion and later Resistance. Anger and pain in the face of oppression, suffering with those who suffer, can be compassion.

No, I now think the real conflict in the sequel trilogy is between elitism and egalitarianism. Think about it. JJ has said that it’s very deliberate that Finn and Rey don’t have last names. We thought it was because they would get big reveals later on (or at least fandom, including me, thought that was true of Rey), but what if he meant something else entirely?

The third main hero in the new movies is Poe, who has a last name and known family but who was at best solidly midle class his whole life. In TLJ we got Rose, whose homeworld was destroyed by the First Order.

These heroes are arrayed against Kylo Ren, a son and nephew of famous heroes and a genetically powerful Force user, who had every advantage growing up and every reason to be the greatest force for good the galaxy had seen.

In a way, being told he is the ultimate good may be the very reason he went so very wrong. Kylo’s actor Adam Driver has said that Kylo has absolute conviction that he is right and that he is an elitist. What would that do to a person’s morality if he is told, implicitly or explicitly, that he can do no wrong by virtue of being a good guy and that he is a cut above everyone else?

Maybe this is why many people are still flummoxed by Kylo Ren’s character and insist that his motivations are lacking, that he is incomprehensible. Our template of the main antagonist in Star Wars is Darth Vader, who was indeed a Dark Side villain whose passion and fear ran amok, motivating him to murder and destruction. That’s why fans read abuse, brainwashing, or the loss of a loved one into Kylo Ren’s character, so we can fit him in the mold of the Dark Side.

But what if there is no Dark Side to be read into his character? What if there was no anger, fear, or loss that motivated him, at least not from legitimate loss or pain?

What if Kylo Ren’s brand of evil is far more mundane: Self-righteousness and arrogance?

In this frame, we can see why Rey misjudged him in The Last Jedi. Like the fandom, she thought Kylo Ren was driven by suffering and could be reached by a hand of friendship and understanding, like Luke had reached Vader. She learned to her surprise that Kylo didn’t hate the father he murdered, which should have made her rethink her approach. Luke himself who knew both Kylo and Vader warned her that she was dangerously misreading the situation.

And when Rey forgave Kylo Ren the pain he caused her, believed in him, stood by his side, and fought by his side–it had no effect on him at all. He had plenty of people believe in him, love him, and even forgive him after he did the unforgivable. That wasn’t what was wrong with him. It wasn’t the Dark Side that made him evil.

Rather he believed he was he ultimate good, that destroying the galaxy and remaking it in his image was the right thing to do. He thought Rey was nothing and had no place in the story because of her unremarkable birth, and only through him could she find meaning and worth.

The real evil in the sequel trilogy isn’t lashing out in hatred and suffering. It’s the belief that you are better than everyone else and are entitled to use others as a means to your ends. Such a belief may lead to suffering, such as rage at the fact that people aren’t treating you with the deference you believe you are due, but in that case you are not evil because you suffer; rather, your suffering stems from your evil belief.

This is the kind of evil the heroes of the sequel trilogy are standing against, and that their backgrounds and choices refute. Finn was kidnapped and enslaved to be a means for the glory of his leaders like Kylo, but he refused the role. He asserted his own individuality and self-worth and wanted to run far away from the First Order before he decided to fight with the Resistance.

Rey grew up in deprivation but never gave up hope, always longing for people who would love her and with whom she had a place. She projected her own pain onto Kylo, and that very nearly became her downfall.

Poe, like Kylo, was raised as one of the “good guys.” Unlike Kylo, however, he always remained open to questioning himself and whether he was doing the right thing. When he saw evidence of First Order activity as a Republic pilot, he didn’t dismiss it because he thought the Republic was always right. Instead he changed his entire life, leaving behind stability and certainty, to do the right thing. When a Stormtrooper offered to rescue him, Poe believed him and became his friend. In TLJ, though the execution was somewhat muddled, he again showed the humility to question his assumptions and admit when others were right.

Rose, like Finn, was one of the people Kylo deemed inferior and expendable. Like Finn she rejected that to fight back, and like Rey she knows she is more than her birth. Like Poe she showed a willingness to admit when she was wrong and to change her views.

These are the democratic and egalitarian heroes who will fight Kylo Ren despite the odds, who respond to his terrifyingly egocentric worldview with a resounding “no.” No, we are not fodder for your ambitions. No, we do not accept that we are less. No, the greater good is not in some Übermensch because good and evil lie in choices, not individuals or sides. No, we will not bow to you. No, we will not let you continue on this path of destruction. No. No. NO.

Kylo Ren is not evil because he is on the Dark Side of the Force, but because he believes himself to be the absolute good and the ultimate worth due to who he is. It is why he is a villain for our times and why he must be defeated by our heroes.

I hate listened to a reylow podcast that youtube recommended me and I just listened to a couple of reylows going on about how Finn isn’t Rey’s equal. They insist that because Finn is standing of the lower step during his confession scene and looking up at Rey that is JJ showing us that Finn isn’t her equal. And they insist that Kylo is bowing to Rey in knightly worship in the “interrogation” scene. Other gems include that Finn needs her to “babysit” him. But you know they /swear/ they love Finn

It’s funny they should mention that scene, because I’d been thinking for a while how strongly Finn and Rey’s parting scene on Takodana reminded me of the parting between Rodrigo and Jimena from El Cid (1961).

I mean here’s the woman, climbing up on a higher step and turning to face the man for a Very Important Conversation just before he leaves ~~we know you watched the scene over and over and were just itching to try it Rey you extra bitch~~

The woman tells the man how unhappy she is with his decision to go.

The man, in words or gesture, confesses his feelings for the woman. This part comes near the end of the conversation in El Cid but at the middle in the TFA scene, since Finn unlike Rodrigo must tell the truth of himself first.

The man makes a heartfelt request to the woman, and that’s exactly what it is–a request, respecfully presented without any pressure ~~as opposed to “I can take whatever I want” or “I’ll destroy her”~~. As seen below, the woman refuses his request freely and without repercussions.

In each case the woman refuses, asserting her own needs and feelings, while also reiterating her unhappiness with the man’s leaving. This is greeted without any rancor or even a repeat request on the man’s part.

The man says good-bye with complicated feelings. He knows he’s leaving the woman unhappy and she doesn’t want him to go, but he does what he has to do. And she lets him, without threats or coercion, because when you love and respect someone you also respect their decisions.

That doesn’t mean she’s not sad as hell, of course. She climbs down from the steps she was standing on, the better to watch him go.

And she watches and watches, so sadly…

While the man in turn can barely bring himself to go, and looks back at her before he leaves for good.

Finn standing on a lower step than Rey is in fact a very recognizable romantic/knightly trope with the knight gazing up at his lady in adoration. It’s pretty much a mirrored version of the El Cid scene, as seen above. THAT is what knightly worship looks like.

Also, Kylo “bowing” to Rey? Nah, we’ve seen this before, a man invading a woman’s personal space after tying her up, only for her to ridicule and rebuff him (putting under a cut for potentially triggering content and also Hunchback of Notre Dame gifs):

Here’s the man, leaning into the personal space of a woman he has abducted and physically restrained. See how the woman leans away, the fear and revulsion clear in her face:

And then she humiliates him, revealing him as the pathetic bully he is with such force/Force that he is physically repelled. I was always very impressed at Esmeralda’s projectile spitting ability.

As usual Reylows get it all wrong and don’t know their cinematic history lmao.

First chapter in my ESB rewrite

(The repetitive, lazy writing is intentional. I’m also really playing up the more ridiculous aspects of the movie. Warning: compared to The Last Jedi, at least, this fic might actually make sense.)

Star Wars: Episode II: The Last Jedi Strikes Back

The EMPIRE reigns. Having discovered the location of the Rebellion, Emperor Palpatine now deploys merciless legions to restore military control of the galaxy.

Luke Skywalker has gone in search of Jedi Master Yoda, certain that he can restore a spark of hope to the fight.

But the Rebellion is in grave danger. As the Empire speeds toward the rebel base, the brave heroes mount a desperate escape….

Chapter I: The Evacuation

The Avenger loomed over the jungle moon, its shadow casting doom on the rebel base. Below, General Rieekan shouted orders, loading transports with evacuees. Above the planet, the Home One waited for the evacuation to complete so the fleet could escape into hyperspace.

Suddenly Rieekan looked up as something massive emerged from hyperspace. It was a Star Destroyer, black and bigger than any Star Destroyer the general had ever seen. It was the dreadnought Eclipse, and it had come to wipe the rebel base from off the face of Yavin IV.

From the Avenger’s bridge, Captain Needa turned and smirked to his commanding officer. “Our first catch of the day.”

“I have my orders from the Emperor himself,” said Admiral Piett with sober triumph. “Wipe them out. All of them.”

As the hearts of the rebels filled with dread, a ship approached the Star Destroyer Avenger.

From the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon, C-3PO murmured, “I have a bad feeling about this.”

Chewbacca growled at him, an admonition to be upbeat and think happy thoughts.

“With all due respect, Chewbacca,” came the voice of Ackbar, the fleet admiral, “I’m with the droid on this one.”

“Well, thanks for the support, admiral,” Han snarked from the gunner’s position. “Chewie, open communications.”

Chewie flicked a switch and a signal was transmitted to the Star Destroyer Avenger.

“This is Han Solo of the Millennium Falcon,” said Han loud and clear over the channel. “I have an urgent communique for Admiral Pete.”

“Patch him through,” Piett ordered, walking the length of the bridge. “This is Piett. Your rebellion is at an end. You are all scum and war criminals. There will be no terms, no surrender. We will eliminate your filth from the galaxy.”

Han drummed his fingers on the trigger. “Hello?”

“Yes?” asked Piett.

“I’m holding for Admiral Pete.”

“This is Piett,” the admiral snapped.

“Is Admiral Pete there?” Han demanded. “Can someone please get me an Admiral Pete?”

“I am Admiral Piett,” Piett snapped. “Can you hear me?”

“Piett? With a P?” asked Han. “Bony fella. Big Adam’s apple.”

“That is me,” Piett snapped. “I am Admiral Piett.”

“Look, is anyone even there? Why won’t you answer me?” Han snapped.

“This is Piett of the Imperial Navy,” Piett snapped. “I can hear you. Can you hear me?”

“Do I have the right number?” asked Han.

“We read you,” said Piett. “This is Piett.”

“Look, if I can’t get an Admiral Pete, can I talk to Ensign Ferder?” asked Han. “First name Nerv, is he on?”

“Is there a Nerv Ferder on this ship?” asked Piett loudly to the bridge.

“No, sir,” replied the crew with a straight face.

“There are no Nerv Ferders on this ship,” said Piett to Han.

“Well, that’s obviously wrong,” Han smirked.

Needa furrowed his brow. “I believe he’s tooling with you, sir.”

“Look, I can’t hold forever,” Han snapped. “If you see Piett, tell him I’ve got an urgent message from Admiral Ackbar. About his mother.”

Piett blinked. “What is it?”

“Oh brother. Boring conversation anyway,” Han muttered as he hung up. “Punch it, Chewie!”

Chewie roared and put the Falcon’s new booster to the test, sending Threepio flying into the wall with a wail and a clatter.

The Avenger opened fire, but the Falcon zoomed straight past it, heading straight toward the dreadnought.

“He’s insane,” Piett muttered. He dialed up General Veers on hologram. “Why aren’t you blasting that puny freighter?”

“That freighter is at too close range for our weapons,” Veers replied. “We’ll have to fight them ship to ship.”

“Then unleash our fighters at once,” said Piett, hanging up.

“Ten minutes too late,” Veers muttered. “Launch fighters!”

“That single freighter can’t penetrate our armor,” Ozzell scoffed.

“They’re not penetrating our armor,” Veers snapped. “They’re taking out our surface cannons.”

“Sir,” said Ensign Canady, “ventral cannons are fully primed.”

“Excellent,” said Veers. “Blast the rebel base to rubble.”

The cannons charged and reduced the base to a crater.

Meanwhile, the Falcon dodged and weaved as Han took out cannons effortlessly. Chewie roared triumphantly.

“I know, one left,” said Han. “Looks like we’ve got company.”

A swarm of TIEs zoomed after the Falcon. A blast hit the Falcon, causing a panel to blow.

“Threepio, get down there and patch that up!” Han bellowed.

“I’m going, I’m going!” Threepio called, barely able to stand with all the Falcon’s spinning maneuvers. Sparks were flying from a console in the wall.

Threepio stuck his finger in it and yelped as he was zapped. The sparks stopped, only to explode in two other places. Threepio stuck his fingers in the breaches, yelping each time he was zapped. Soon eight of Threepio’s fingers were in awkward and physically impossible positions.

Chewie roared from the cockpit, asking if the droid had gotten the problem under control.

“I’m running out of fingers!” Threepio cried. He stuck his last two fingers into the sparking mess. Then he shut his eyes and rammed headfirst into the console with a wail. The sparks stopped flying.

Threepio opened his eyes. “I can’t believe that worked,” he said amazedly.

Han blasted the last cannon and whooped.

“Yeehaw!” cried Chewbacca.

“Excellent work, Captain Solo,” said Ackbar. “The fleet is ready to make the jump to lightspeed. Return to the main cruiser at once.”

“With pleasure, your Admiralbleness,” said Han.

Chewie roared and turned the ship back toward the Eclipse.

“What are you, suicidal?” Han demanded. “He said return to the cruiser!”

Chewie roared in retort.

“What do you mean we won’t get far?” Han demanded. “I’ll tell you what, we won’t get very far if we don’t jump to lightspeed right now instead of playing hero!”

“Oh, Chewbacca, please do listen to Captain Solo!” Threepio cried. “This is madness!”

“Chewbacca!” Ackbar thundered. “Return at once!”

Chewie shut off Ackbar’s channel and ordered Gold Squadron to strafe the dreadnought.

“I’m the captain!” shouted Han. “I give the orders around here! You turn this ship around right now, you big hairy idiot, or you’re grounded for a month!”

Chewie roared and pelted the surface of the Eclipse with blaster fire.

The Y-wings began their bombing runs, dropping proton bombs on the dreadnought’s surface. They weren’t making much of a dent, and the TIEs were picking them off fast. The rebel ships began to be caught in one another’s explosions.

From the cockpit of her fighter, Holdo growled in frustration. Her release mechanism was jammed. She reached for the manual remote in the ceiling compartment, but it fell between her feet. Frantically, she attempted to scoop it up with one of her booted feet.

Seeing the other bombers weren’t doing any damage, Holdo realized what she had to do. She shot straight toward the bridge.

“Blast that fighter!” Veers ordered, but it was too late. The Y-Wing was careening straight toward the bridge.

Holdo closed her eyes and stomped on the detonation button.

“Well, f–” said Veers as a sudden explosion engulfed the bridge. A chain of explosions blossomed along the dreadnought, destroying it completely.

Chewie roared in triumph and made the jump to lightspeed.

Piett stood at the bridge of the Avenger, letting none of his fear show on his face.

Needa approached him. “Emperor Palpatine is requesting contact.”

“Excellent,” said Piett. “I’ll take the call in my chambers.”

The Emperor’s hooded head suddenly filled the bridge in blue hologram. “Admiral Piett,” growled the raspy old man.

“My lord, I report that–” Piett’s face smacked into the floor with a crunch as the Emperor used the Force to drag him across the bridge.

“My disappointment in your performance cannot be understated,” snarled Palpatine.

“My lord, they cannot get away,” said Piett, standing up only to slip on the puddle of blood from his nose. “We have them tied to the end of a string.”

The Emperor mused on this. “See me in my chambers at once.”

Chewie and Han stood before Admiral Ackbar.

Ackbar slapped his great fishy flipper across Han’s face. “You’re demoted,” he barked.

“Hey, now hold on just a second!” Han replied indignantly. “Chewie was the one going kamikaze, not me!”

Chewie roared. Ackbar slapped him. “You’re demoted!” he barked.

Chewie roared.

“For disobeying direct orders!” Ackbar barked.

“That’s not fair!” C-3PO protested.

“You wasted valuable lives on a suicide run–” Ackbar growled.

“We took down a dreadnought!” cried Han.

“Enough!” Ackbar shouted. “Lieutenant Solo, your Wookiee is on probation until further notice!” He stormed from the room.

“That’s it, I’m getting out of here,” Han muttered. “Come on, Chewie. We’re leaving this dump before we get into even more trouble.”

Chewie growled and shook his head.

“Come on!” Han snapped.

Chewie shook his head again and roared angrily.

“Fine!” Han snapped. “See you around, pal. I’m going to find Luke.”

Han stormed off to the hangar, muttering all the way.

is queer being a slur really a controversial position? i know there’s a segment of our community that is trying to reclaim it but i think the other side is just as valid, some of us don’t want the slurs that were used against our community for decades to be used just because we haven’t agreed on a better umbrella term for the community.

sophrosynic:

lj-writes:

sophrosynic:

lj-writes:

sophrosynic:

lj-writes:

@sophrosynic Obviously reclamation is not universal. Words in such common usage by the community such as “gay” and “dyke” are still slurs in many contexts and places, but we don’t see the “queer is a slur” crowd running around trying to shut down these terms.

Also, queer can’t be an umbrella term for all people who are not straight/not cis, and the claim that we’re trying to use it to describe the whole LGBT+ community is false. “Queer” is associated with radical activism and resistance to heteronormativity specifically as a reaction to mainstream LGBT+ politics, so it can’t be replaced with LGBT+ and vice versa.

If you’re not queer then you’re not queer. Simple as that.

Except the problem with the word queer has never really been what you’re saying here. No one is saying that people who use the term as an identity can’t do that, or that the word has to be scrubbed entirely out of existence even in historical & certain contemporary contexts. What people have overwhelmingly tried to critique are the politics of reclamation that people ascribe to when it comes to the word queer, specifically the idea that reclaiming a slur on a personal level somehow stops it from being a slur, period, when this is really not true.

It’s not comparable to words like ‘gay’ or ‘d*ke’, mainly because the word gay is not an analogous slur to begin with, and ‘d*ke’ is a slur that is overwhelmingly derogatory towards lesbians and no one else. Many of the lesbians who use the term don’t deny that it’s still a slur, regardless of their own personal usage of the word, which is exactly why non-lesbians are not allowed to use it to refer to lesbians, even if said lesbian happens to use the word as a personal descriptor.

It’s great that you’re happy with identifying as queer, and that this is empowering to you. That’s your personal decision, and no one should dictate to you otherwise on the subject. But it’s not a “reclaimed” slur, and it hasn’t stopped being a slur because some folks have chosen to identify as such. It’s still a slur. Acknowledging that is important.

So not being called queer against your wishes isn’t enough for you. Here you are getting honest, telling me you want it to be relegated to historical and **limited** contemporary contexts. You want us to sharply cut back on its use, to the personal and whatever specific contents you decree.

Like, buddy, of course it’s a slur. If it wasn’t a slur it would never have had to be reclaimed. The reclamation is part of the radical act, turning derision and hatred and violence against us into strength. And no it’s not just personal, it’s a political movement with a lot of history–bold of you to try to erase that on your say-so lmao. Queer is purposefully not respectable like LGBT+ because it is meant to be a giant fuck you to heteronormativity. It is a different politics and replacing it with a word that is not a slur misses the entire point. You don’t like that it’s a slur? Then stay in your respectable LGBT+ boxes where you never have to hear a bad word with bad connotations. Queer isn’t for you and it’s not about you.

You want to know what some of the biggest Pride events in my country are? Queer Culture Festival and Queer Parade. Not Gay Pride, because we reject the idea that cis gay men and cis lesbians represent us all. Not LGBT+ because we don’t all fit into neat categories, and no one gets to play cute little tricks like “Drop the T” or “A is for Ally.” Queer, because we are an indivisible whole, and those who want to pull shit like “Lesbian, not queer” know to stay home. We’re not changing that just because you have an issue with how inclusive the term is and the fact that dirty little aceys can claim it just as easily as you.

We’re here. We’re queer. Cover your damned ears and stay in your fucking lane.

“Here you are getting honest, telling me you want it to be relegated to historical and **limited** contemporary contexts. You want us to sharply cut back on its use, to the personal and whatever specific contents you decree.“

That’s really not what I said? I was offering clarification and an understanding that there are always going to be contexts where the word queer is required and necessary and important, especially if you’re referring to, like you mentioned, “a political movement with a lot of history.”

Also, I didn’t use the word “limited”–you chose to add that, so maybe don’t put words in my mouth? Neither did I say that I wanted to “sharply cut back on its use”–you chose to add that take yourself, so acting like I said or meant that in some way is to have read my response in really bad faith.

“The reclamation is part of the radical act, turning derision and hatred and violence against us into strength.“

Except this isn’t actually all that simple, which was the whole point of my response. It’s much more complicated than that, especially given the complex history and evolution of the movement to begin with, as well as the complex history and usage of the word ‘queer’. This is what I mean when I say that this is a perspective that works for you, but isn’t one that’s shared across the board, especially when you consider the full breadth of the history of queer activism as a whole.

Acting like “reclamation” in general falls neatly into two groups where one group is happy with the word as an identifier, and the other group is not doesn’t even come anywhere close to the actual reality. This perspective wrt “reclamation” has always been super ignorant of the variety of ways in which the word ‘queer’ has been used and is still used today. Quoting from this post:

people have been debating the political efficacy and ethical concerns of using the word “queer” as a self-identifier, unifying term to describe populations, and/or theoretical framework for decades. these debates are not about two sides, where one side thinks it’s great and the other thinks it’s terrible and everybody in either camp agrees with everybody else in their camp.

The perspective also ignores the fact that perspectives on things like queer history/theory/activism are not monoliths, not even within the same organization, let alone the movement. The post I quoted from offers a number of those perspectives from a bunch of different sources, and even that doesn’t come close to just how many varied viewpoints there are, even from the people who were at the forefront of activism in the 90s.

So when I said that “reclamation is not universal.” I don’t just mean that there are some people who are unhappy with and don’t identify with the word ‘queer.’ I meant that there’s a spectrum of views, where the idea of “reclaiming the word” represents just one of them. This is what I meant when I said that it’s great that it works for you, and that this is your perspective, but this is nowhere near representative of the views of the queer movement as a whole. Even if that movement happens to have the word ‘queer’ in the title.

Again, to quote from the same post:

“queer” is complicated, it has multiple histories and meanings, and not accounting for that, especially when talking as if you’re an expert on the issue, is an enormous failure. lgbtq people have rich and complex histories and cultures. if you’re not willing to account for that, then get out of the business of trying to tell our stories.

“Queer is purposefully not respectable like LGBT+ because it is meant to be a giant fuck you to heteronormativity. It is a different politics and replacing it with a word that is not a slur misses the entire point. You don’t like that it’s a slur? Then stay in your respectable LGBT+ boxes where you never have to hear a bad word with bad connotations.“

Holy shit, this is an entire mess. I didn’t address this implication in your original response, because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now that you’ve set this down so clearly, it’s worth responding to.

In what world are LGBT+ “respectable” and “tidy” categories of identification? Do you not realize what a profoundly bad take it is to imply that identifying as “queer” makes you somehow more radical in your subsequent politics? Do you realize what you’re saying when you say that LGBT+ is somehow less of a giant fuck you to heteronormativity? And do you even understand where this criticism of the LGBT+ movement as “heteronormative” even emerged from to begin with?

The implication that people who might not want to identify as queer for a variety of reasons are somehow less radical in their identities and their rejection of heteronormativity isn’t just a bad, incorrect take. It’s a deeply homophobic one. If your intention is to use the word queer in a way that encompasses and unifies radical politics against heteronormativity, then I’m gonna tell you flat out that the way you’re using it here is not only wrong, but also immensely disrespectful to the very movement you think it describes, as well as the people who are a part of it.

And like, people have criticized this exact take on multiple occasions because of its limitations and also because it’s one of the most fundamental pitfalls of “queer politics/theory/activism” as a whole. Not only because it’s been a framework that has historically not accounted for things like “race, gender, class” etc, but also because it does the exact thing that you claim it doesn’t do, which is sanitize everyone’s identities into a nebulous, neatly defined little category that doesn’t even account for the sheer diversity of peoples’ identities:

There is something odd, suspiciously odd, about the rapidity with which queer theory–whose claim to radical politics derived from its anti-assimilationist posture, from its shocking embrace of the abnormal and the marginal– has been embraced by, canonized by, and absorbed into our (largely heterosexual) institutions of knowledge, as lesbian and gay studies never were. Despite its implicit (and false) portrayal of lesbian and gay studies as liberal, assimilationist, and accommodating of the status quo, queer theory has proven to be much more congenial to established institutions of the liberal academy.

[…]

The next step was to despecify the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or transgressive content of queerness, thereby abstracting “queer” and turning it into a generic badge of subversiveness, a more trendy version of “liberal”: if it’s queer, it’s politically oppositional, so everyone who claims to be progressive has a vested interest in owning a share of it

(source)

“Queer, because we are an indivisible whole, and those who want to pull shit like “Lesbian, not queer” know to stay home.“

And speaking of homophobia, it really didn’t take you very long to break out the garden variety lesbophobia now did it? I mean, I would say I’m surprised, but I’m not. How are you honestly going to start off with the premise that “queer = inclusive” and then say something like “lesbians know to stay home if they don’t like it”? The fact that you typed this shit out with a straight face and zero awareness is emblematic of nearly everything that’s wrong with popular Tumblr discourse about the word queer, lol.

It’s laughable that you state that “queer = indivisible whole,” except for those lesbians who should stay home if they don’t agree with you, because they’re probably too respectably heteronormative anyway. If your so-called “queer activism” and radical politics is one that seeks to exclude people, then it’s not radical, or inclusive, and it’s not activism. It’s just stale, rehashed bigotry.

Also, have you actually spoken to local Korean activists at length, aside from Pride? Because if you sincerely believe that your dumpster fire of a take is somehow universal among the community, then you’re in for a really shocking eye-opener.

“We’re here. We’re queer. Cover your damned ears and stay in your fucking lane.“

That’s cute. Except the way you’re using the phrase “we’re here, we’re queer” is entirely divorced from its actual historical context. So maybe instead of throwing this around like a gotcha, you can spend some time reading up on the history of this chant and how it was born from HIV/AIDS activism, and how it isn’t actually a cutesy little catch-all snap back for people to fling around when they don’t have a leg to stand on.

If “certain contemporary contexts” doesn’t sound limiting to you and you didn’t mean it that way, then fine. You already agreed that it’s okay for people to identify as queer, that it’s a political movement, and that it’s okay to use it. I agreed that it is a slur–a slur that, whatever its level of reclamation, we agree is all right for personal, political, and academic use, though its level of efficacy may be in dispute (more on that later). According to you, you didn’t even mean to tell people to limit its use when you went all “it’s a sluuuuur.” (Jeesh, we know!)

So what was even the point? What’s the point of contention here? You just completely change the subject from queer being a slur to critiques of the queer movement and the fact that my opinion isn’t universal. Why? Because you need to keep this “conversation” going somehow? Because you need to waste more of my time by shifting the conversation every time we reach an agreement?

I never claimed my opinion is universal or that I speak for the whole movement, because who can? Do you speak for the whole LGBT+ movement? The best “rebuttal” you can give is that it’s not that universal or simple, which is… okay? What movement is simple and homogenous? What theory is free from problems? If you were going to come at me about the efficacy of queer as a label and a movement then you could have done that from the start. You didn’t need to act like its being a slur was the end of the argument then move on to substantive critique when we reach an agreement on that. These critiques are valid and important but they really weren’t the point.

Also, you’re being deliberately obtuse if you think my stating the aspirations and background of (some in the) queer movement is an attempt to pin it down to one thing. I was explaining why a slur can still be useful and be worth reclamation and make a political statement–and you agreed. Your points of contention seems to be that it’s not that effective and there isn’t broad agreement, but again, that’s a different conversation that I’m not sure why you’re even bringing into a post about whether it’s okay to continue to use queer. It looks like we’re in agreement: It is! That was the whole point of the OP! To me the fact that you’re dragging things on by adding a ton of irrelevant stuff makes it look suspiciously like you’re still trying to say it shouldn’t be used, while also insisting that’s not what you mean. Maybe talk out of just one side of your mouth?

“The implication that people who might not want to identify as queer
for a variety of reasons are somehow less radical in their identities
and their rejection of heteronormativity isn’t just a bad, incorrect
take. It’s a deeply homophobic one. If your intention is to use the word
queer in a way that encompasses and unifies radical politics against
heteronormativity, then I’m gonna tell you flat out that the way you’re
using it here is not only wrong, but also immensely disrespectful to the
very movement you think it describes, as well as the people who are a
part of it.“

Holy strawmannig, Batman! Like, maybe read what I actually said? I was responding to people like you who object to its use for being a slur. Which you say you’re not. So what’s the argument here, again? I have already said on this very thread that you have reblogged that it’s not an umbrella term and cannot replace LGBT+, and in fact reacts against mainstream LGBT+ politics (M A I N S T R E A M which is by definition not radical, what even are words). That is why, I argued, they are not interchangeable and queer should continue to be in use. Way to accuse me of saying the exact opposite of what I said.

Thanks for the sources, like I said these are really important and good critiques but, again, doesn’t really pertain to this discussion, which is about the usage of “queer.”

“it really didn’t take you very long to break out the garden variety lesbophobia now did it?”

Zomggggg are you really ignorant of what “lesbian, not queer” was about or are you purposefully obscuring it? It’s the same slogan used by the “Get the L Out” people, a.k.a. TERFs, which is what they turned to after “Drop the T” failed. Here it is from the “Get the L Out” campaign’s own website (link):

We believe that lesbian rights are under attack by the trans movement and we encourage lesbians everywhere to leave the LGBT and form their own independent movement …

“Lesbian not queer” is literally AT THE TOP OF THEIR WEBSITE. Did you really think these peeps are just stopping at not identifying as queer, that they are critiquing the problems of the queer movement in good faith? Did you really think they’re not flaming transphobes?

Jesus H. Christ, this is how aphobia and exclusionism become gateway drugs to TERF thinking and help mainstream their rhetoric. Get your head out of your ass and stop conflating pushback to transphobia with lesbophobia. That is literal TERF talk. You don’t seem like a transphobe yourself but what you’re doing here is called being a useful idiot.

“So what was even the point? What’s the point of contention here?“

My initial issue with what you wrote was the idea that the word queer has been “thoroughly reclaimed” because it’s been used in terms like “queer theory” and “queer activism” etc. I pointed out that this is really not how reclamation of a slur works, and you seemingly agreed, and it would have stopped there, but then you careened on and exposed the exact variety of “queer politics” that you ascribe to (not all of them are the same btw), hence my subsequent response with the sources critiquing your specific variant of queer politics and its efficacy lol (not the efficacy of queer as a label and a movement as a whole).

It wasn’t the initial point of contention for sure. Heck, I was even willing to ignore the way that you created a shitty dichotomy between “LGBT+ politics” and “queer politics” in your initial response, but again, you were committed to misunderstanding what I wrote, and then you dug your hole deeper in the process. But I’m the one who shifted the goalposts, right?

“I have already said on this very thread that you have reblogged that it’s not an umbrella term and cannot replace LGBT+, and in fact reacts against mainstream LGBT+ politics (M A I N S T R E A M which is by definition not radical, what even is reading comprehension).“

I think it’s funny that you’re complaining about me lacking reading comprehension when you honestly don’t seem to understand that words have actual meanings, and they don’t just mean what you want them to mean.

Where did I ever say that my complaint was about this idea that queer is going to replace LGBT+ as a label? I know that’s not what you meant. That’s not what my objection to what you wrote is about. My objection is entirely rooted in the fact that you literally stated things like, “Queer is purposefully not respectable like LGBT+” and that if people don’t like it they should, “stay in your respectable LGBT+ boxes where you never have to hear a bad word with bad connotations.” And also how you said, explicitly, that LGBT+ identities are “tidy” and “respectable” and that “queer activism was born as a reaction to mainstream LGBT+ activism.”

Like, you jump straight to accusing me of strawmanning your argument when, frankly, there’s nothing to strawman to begin with. I know what you wrote. You know what you wrote. And what you wrote is fucking stupid. The idea that “queer politics” is inherently more radical and that the mainstream LGBT+ movement is by contrast “respectable” is false. It’s an idea that has an actual meaning and a history behind it, and it’s been criticized on multiple occasions for being flawed and limited in both thinking and practice, not only because it’s homophobic, but also because it’s racist and lacks any type of intersectional analysis regarding the diversity of identities in the movement to begin with.

The idea that “mainstream =/= radical” in the sense that you’ve used it here is also rooted in the context of HIV/AIDS activism and its subsequent aftermath. The queer activist movement that emerged as a reaction to mainstream LGBT+ politics was incredibly limited in its scope, even as it claimed to be broader by virtue of its lack of respectability. My objection was never about the fact that I thought queer was meant to replace LGBT+. My objection has always been the way you’ve chosen to characterize the two as “respectable vs. not respectable” without actually considering what this has meant historically and in practice today. *That’s* what my sources were for.

Even if your intentions behind the usage of these terms is benign, the fact remains that they came from somewhere, and it would be worthwhile for you to consider exactly why you conceptualize the mainstream LGBT+ movements and the queer activist movements in these exact terms. Just saying. If I were the type to argue as you do, I’d also say that this is the gateway drugs to racist thinking that lacks in any meaningful intersectional analysis. But I’m not an asshole. So there’s that.

The especially funny thing is that, as you pointed out, this was never the original argument to begin with. The whole conversation about “queer as a label and a movement” would have remained a whole different one, if and only if you hadn’t gone straight ahead and exposed your own self in the process of misunderstanding and acting like a douchebag about what I wrote in the first place lmao. You literally went into the details of what you think queer politics is on your own, and then you complained about me responding to your shit for some reason.

“Jesus H. Christ, this is how aphobia and exclusionism become gateway drugs to TERF thinking and help mainstream their rhetoric “

Are you fucking shitting me? You accuse me of shifting goalposts? When did this conversation become about aphobia and exclusionism? Even setting aside the fact that this is a fucking appalling take that multiple trans lesbians on this website have addressed, I haven’t referenced either aphobia or exclusionism once in my responses. You’re the one who brought this up. So are you going to complain again about how I’m straying from the point and shifting the goal posts or what?

So I had a chance to look at the links you so thoughtfully provided, and I’m laughing hard because none of what you sent me rebuts my characterization of the history at all.

This article, linked by the post whose link you provided says in the very first page (link to PDF, emphases mine):

lj-writes:

If you don’t identify as queer, have trauma with it or have other objections to it, then we’re not including you when we say “queer community.” Full stop. Also nearly every word LGBTQ+ people have been using for themselves have been slurs at some point, or still are used as such. If you think an alternative would be better, present one and fight for it to be used. Do what you need to do to protect your mental health, filter words, block people, but don’t tell people who need an inclusive term that they can’t have their own identity because you personally object to a word that has been so thoroughly reclaimed that there are “queer studies” and “queer theory.”

[The resignation of three Black board members from the largest AIDS organization in the world] raises mixed emotions for me, for it points to the continuing practice of racism many of us experience on a daily basis in lesbian and gay communities. But just as disturbingly it also highlights the limits of a lesbian and gay political agenda based on a civil rights strategy, where assimilation into, and replication of, dominant institutions are the goals. Many of us continue to search for a new political direction and agenda, one that does not focus on integration into dominant structures but instead seeks to transform the basic fabric and hierarchies that allow systems of oppression to persist and operate efficiently. For some of us, such a challenge to traditional gay and lesbian politics was offered by the idea of queer politics.

It’s almost like this article…. confirms the stance… that many saw queer politics as an alternative to assimilationist gay and lesbian politics? It may not be a monolithic view (which I never claimed it was, that’s all you), but it is a prominent enough view to be discussed in academic articles. It’s almost like your characterization of queer as “never” meaning what I said it meant is like… false and ahistorical or something.

In the Mark Halperin article (link), the portion you quoted is talking about limitations and problems of queer theory being institutionalized, which like I said is a valid critique, but doesn’t rebut anything I said. The paragraph right before that talks about the good that queer theory did, and Halperin himself is a prominent queer theorist.

I think your main objection is that I’m shitting on LGBT+ politics as a whole based on a false dichotomy with queer politics, but I’m not. When did I ever claim queer politics was the only radical politics for non-straight/non-cis people? I was responding to the kind of LGBT+ politics YOU seemed to endorse (and that queer activists from the late 80s were reacting to) when you appeared to denigrate the entire idea and existence of queer politics, and the usage of “queer” itself, outside purely personal identification choices. If that’s not what you meant, then there was really no point to this whole tiresome exchange.

When did this conversation become about aphobia and exclusionism?

Are you going to just ignore the part where you defended actual TERFs and called me lesbophobic for pointing out that people spouting out-and-out transphobia should not be welcome at Pride? Since you rightfully object to these transphobes’ bigoted positions, where did your terrifying bout of stupidity come from if not your dislike of the queer label and its inclusiveness of aces?

Or are you still in denial that “lesbian not queer” is a TERF thing? Are you still so attached to anti-queer rhetoric that you’re willing to accept them as good-faith critics of queer politics and identification? Here’s an article that’s actually friendly to the “get the l out” protesters (link, endorsement of transphobia at linked article) where, yes, it explicitly says “lesbian not queer” was one of their slogans. If you don’t think the stance that trans inclusion is a plot for trans women to rape cis lesbians is not violently transmisogynistic, please let me know so I can block you and never interact again.

is queer being a slur really a controversial position? i know there’s a segment of our community that is trying to reclaim it but i think the other side is just as valid, some of us don’t want the slurs that were used against our community for decades to be used just because we haven’t agreed on a better umbrella term for the community.

sophrosynic:

lj-writes:

sophrosynic:

lj-writes:

@sophrosynic Obviously reclamation is not universal. Words in such common usage by the community such as “gay” and “dyke” are still slurs in many contexts and places, but we don’t see the “queer is a slur” crowd running around trying to shut down these terms.

Also, queer can’t be an umbrella term for all people who are not straight/not cis, and the claim that we’re trying to use it to describe the whole LGBT+ community is false. “Queer” is associated with radical activism and resistance to heteronormativity specifically as a reaction to mainstream LGBT+ politics, so it can’t be replaced with LGBT+ and vice versa.

If you’re not queer then you’re not queer. Simple as that.

Except the problem with the word queer has never really been what you’re saying here. No one is saying that people who use the term as an identity can’t do that, or that the word has to be scrubbed entirely out of existence even in historical & certain contemporary contexts. What people have overwhelmingly tried to critique are the politics of reclamation that people ascribe to when it comes to the word queer, specifically the idea that reclaiming a slur on a personal level somehow stops it from being a slur, period, when this is really not true.

It’s not comparable to words like ‘gay’ or ‘d*ke’, mainly because the word gay is not an analogous slur to begin with, and ‘d*ke’ is a slur that is overwhelmingly derogatory towards lesbians and no one else. Many of the lesbians who use the term don’t deny that it’s still a slur, regardless of their own personal usage of the word, which is exactly why non-lesbians are not allowed to use it to refer to lesbians, even if said lesbian happens to use the word as a personal descriptor.

It’s great that you’re happy with identifying as queer, and that this is empowering to you. That’s your personal decision, and no one should dictate to you otherwise on the subject. But it’s not a “reclaimed” slur, and it hasn’t stopped being a slur because some folks have chosen to identify as such. It’s still a slur. Acknowledging that is important.

So not being called queer against your wishes isn’t enough for you. Here you are getting honest, telling me you want it to be relegated to historical and **limited** contemporary contexts. You want us to sharply cut back on its use, to the personal and whatever specific contents you decree.

Like, buddy, of course it’s a slur. If it wasn’t a slur it would never have had to be reclaimed. The reclamation is part of the radical act, turning derision and hatred and violence against us into strength. And no it’s not just personal, it’s a political movement with a lot of history–bold of you to try to erase that on your say-so lmao. Queer is purposefully not respectable like LGBT+ because it is meant to be a giant fuck you to heteronormativity. It is a different politics and replacing it with a word that is not a slur misses the entire point. You don’t like that it’s a slur? Then stay in your respectable LGBT+ boxes where you never have to hear a bad word with bad connotations. Queer isn’t for you and it’s not about you.

You want to know what some of the biggest Pride events in my country are? Queer Culture Festival and Queer Parade. Not Gay Pride, because we reject the idea that cis gay men and cis lesbians represent us all. Not LGBT+ because we don’t all fit into neat categories, and no one gets to play cute little tricks like “Drop the T” or “A is for Ally.” Queer, because we are an indivisible whole, and those who want to pull shit like “Lesbian, not queer” know to stay home. We’re not changing that just because you have an issue with how inclusive the term is and the fact that dirty little aceys can claim it just as easily as you.

We’re here. We’re queer. Cover your damned ears and stay in your fucking lane.

“Here you are getting honest, telling me you want it to be relegated to historical and **limited** contemporary contexts. You want us to sharply cut back on its use, to the personal and whatever specific contents you decree.“

That’s really not what I said? I was offering clarification and an understanding that there are always going to be contexts where the word queer is required and necessary and important, especially if you’re referring to, like you mentioned, “a political movement with a lot of history.”

Also, I didn’t use the word “limited”–you chose to add that, so maybe don’t put words in my mouth? Neither did I say that I wanted to “sharply cut back on its use”–you chose to add that take yourself, so acting like I said or meant that in some way is to have read my response in really bad faith.

“The reclamation is part of the radical act, turning derision and hatred and violence against us into strength.“

Except this isn’t actually all that simple, which was the whole point of my response. It’s much more complicated than that, especially given the complex history and evolution of the movement to begin with, as well as the complex history and usage of the word ‘queer’. This is what I mean when I say that this is a perspective that works for you, but isn’t one that’s shared across the board, especially when you consider the full breadth of the history of queer activism as a whole.

Acting like “reclamation” in general falls neatly into two groups where one group is happy with the word as an identifier, and the other group is not doesn’t even come anywhere close to the actual reality. This perspective wrt “reclamation” has always been super ignorant of the variety of ways in which the word ‘queer’ has been used and is still used today. Quoting from this post:

people have been debating the political efficacy and ethical concerns of using the word “queer” as a self-identifier, unifying term to describe populations, and/or theoretical framework for decades. these debates are not about two sides, where one side thinks it’s great and the other thinks it’s terrible and everybody in either camp agrees with everybody else in their camp.

The perspective also ignores the fact that perspectives on things like queer history/theory/activism are not monoliths, not even within the same organization, let alone the movement. The post I quoted from offers a number of those perspectives from a bunch of different sources, and even that doesn’t come close to just how many varied viewpoints there are, even from the people who were at the forefront of activism in the 90s.

So when I said that “reclamation is not universal.” I don’t just mean that there are some people who are unhappy with and don’t identify with the word ‘queer.’ I meant that there’s a spectrum of views, where the idea of “reclaiming the word” represents just one of them. This is what I meant when I said that it’s great that it works for you, and that this is your perspective, but this is nowhere near representative of the views of the queer movement as a whole. Even if that movement happens to have the word ‘queer’ in the title.

Again, to quote from the same post:

“queer” is complicated, it has multiple histories and meanings, and not accounting for that, especially when talking as if you’re an expert on the issue, is an enormous failure. lgbtq people have rich and complex histories and cultures. if you’re not willing to account for that, then get out of the business of trying to tell our stories.

“Queer is purposefully not respectable like LGBT+ because it is meant to be a giant fuck you to heteronormativity. It is a different politics and replacing it with a word that is not a slur misses the entire point. You don’t like that it’s a slur? Then stay in your respectable LGBT+ boxes where you never have to hear a bad word with bad connotations.“

Holy shit, this is an entire mess. I didn’t address this implication in your original response, because I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now that you’ve set this down so clearly, it’s worth responding to.

In what world are LGBT+ “respectable” and “tidy” categories of identification? Do you not realize what a profoundly bad take it is to imply that identifying as “queer” makes you somehow more radical in your subsequent politics? Do you realize what you’re saying when you say that LGBT+ is somehow less of a giant fuck you to heteronormativity? And do you even understand where this criticism of the LGBT+ movement as “heteronormative” even emerged from to begin with?

The implication that people who might not want to identify as queer for a variety of reasons are somehow less radical in their identities and their rejection of heteronormativity isn’t just a bad, incorrect take. It’s a deeply homophobic one. If your intention is to use the word queer in a way that encompasses and unifies radical politics against heteronormativity, then I’m gonna tell you flat out that the way you’re using it here is not only wrong, but also immensely disrespectful to the very movement you think it describes, as well as the people who are a part of it.

And like, people have criticized this exact take on multiple occasions because of its limitations and also because it’s one of the most fundamental pitfalls of “queer politics/theory/activism” as a whole. Not only because it’s been a framework that has historically not accounted for things like “race, gender, class” etc, but also because it does the exact thing that you claim it doesn’t do, which is sanitize everyone’s identities into a nebulous, neatly defined little category that doesn’t even account for the sheer diversity of peoples’ identities:

There is something odd, suspiciously odd, about the rapidity with which queer theory–whose claim to radical politics derived from its anti-assimilationist posture, from its shocking embrace of the abnormal and the marginal– has been embraced by, canonized by, and absorbed into our (largely heterosexual) institutions of knowledge, as lesbian and gay studies never were. Despite its implicit (and false) portrayal of lesbian and gay studies as liberal, assimilationist, and accommodating of the status quo, queer theory has proven to be much more congenial to established institutions of the liberal academy.

[…]

The next step was to despecify the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or transgressive content of queerness, thereby abstracting “queer” and turning it into a generic badge of subversiveness, a more trendy version of “liberal”: if it’s queer, it’s politically oppositional, so everyone who claims to be progressive has a vested interest in owning a share of it

(source)

“Queer, because we are an indivisible whole, and those who want to pull shit like “Lesbian, not queer” know to stay home.“

And speaking of homophobia, it really didn’t take you very long to break out the garden variety lesbophobia now did it? I mean, I would say I’m surprised, but I’m not. How are you honestly going to start off with the premise that “queer = inclusive” and then say something like “lesbians know to stay home if they don’t like it”? The fact that you typed this shit out with a straight face and zero awareness is emblematic of nearly everything that’s wrong with popular Tumblr discourse about the word queer, lol.

It’s laughable that you state that “queer = indivisible whole,” except for those lesbians who should stay home if they don’t agree with you, because they’re probably too respectably heteronormative anyway. If your so-called “queer activism” and radical politics is one that seeks to exclude people, then it’s not radical, or inclusive, and it’s not activism. It’s just stale, rehashed bigotry.

Also, have you actually spoken to local Korean activists at length, aside from Pride? Because if you sincerely believe that your dumpster fire of a take is somehow universal among the community, then you’re in for a really shocking eye-opener.

“We’re here. We’re queer. Cover your damned ears and stay in your fucking lane.“

That’s cute. Except the way you’re using the phrase “we’re here, we’re queer” is entirely divorced from its actual historical context. So maybe instead of throwing this around like a gotcha, you can spend some time reading up on the history of this chant and how it was born from HIV/AIDS activism, and how it isn’t actually a cutesy little catch-all snap back for people to fling around when they don’t have a leg to stand on.

If “certain contemporary contexts” doesn’t sound limiting to you and you didn’t mean it that way, then fine. You already agreed that it’s okay for people to identify as queer, that it’s a political movement, and that it’s okay to use it. I agreed that it is a slur–a slur that, whatever its level of reclamation, we agree is all right for personal, political, and academic use, though its level of efficacy may be in dispute (more on that later). According to you, you didn’t even mean to tell people to limit its use when you went all “it’s a sluuuuur.” (Jeesh, we know!)

So what was even the point? What’s the point of contention here? You just completely change the subject from queer being a slur to critiques of the queer movement and the fact that my opinion isn’t universal. Why? Because you need to keep this “conversation” going somehow? Because you need to waste more of my time by shifting the conversation every time we reach an agreement?

I never claimed my opinion is universal or that I speak for the whole movement, because who can? Do you speak for the whole LGBT+ movement? The best “rebuttal” you can give is that it’s not that universal or simple, which is… okay? What movement is simple and homogenous? What theory is free from problems? If you were going to come at me about the efficacy of queer as a label and a movement then you could have done that from the start. You didn’t need to act like its being a slur was the end of the argument then move on to substantive critique when we reach an agreement on that. These critiques are valid and important but they really weren’t the point.

Also, you’re being deliberately obtuse if you think my stating the aspirations and background of (some in the) queer movement is an attempt to pin it down to one thing. I was explaining why a slur can still be useful and be worth reclamation and make a political statement–and you agreed. Your points of contention seems to be that it’s not that effective and there isn’t broad agreement, but again, that’s a different conversation that I’m not sure why you’re even bringing into a post about whether it’s okay to continue to use queer. It looks like we’re in agreement: It is! That was the whole point of the OP! To me the fact that you’re dragging things on by adding a ton of irrelevant stuff makes it look suspiciously like you’re still trying to say it shouldn’t be used, while also insisting that’s not what you mean. Maybe talk out of just one side of your mouth?

“The implication that people who might not want to identify as queer
for a variety of reasons are somehow less radical in their identities
and their rejection of heteronormativity isn’t just a bad, incorrect
take. It’s a deeply homophobic one. If your intention is to use the word
queer in a way that encompasses and unifies radical politics against
heteronormativity, then I’m gonna tell you flat out that the way you’re
using it here is not only wrong, but also immensely disrespectful to the
very movement you think it describes, as well as the people who are a
part of it.“

Holy strawmannig, Batman! Like, maybe read what I actually said? I was responding to people like you who object to its use for being a slur. Which you say you’re not. So what’s the argument here, again? I have already said on this very thread that you have reblogged that it’s not an umbrella term and cannot replace LGBT+, and in fact reacts against mainstream LGBT+ politics (M A I N S T R E A M which is by definition not radical, what even are words). That is why, I argued, they are not interchangeable and queer should continue to be in use. Way to accuse me of saying the exact opposite of what I said.

Thanks for the sources, like I said these are really important and good critiques but, again, doesn’t really pertain to this discussion, which is about the usage of “queer.”

“it really didn’t take you very long to break out the garden variety lesbophobia now did it?”

Zomggggg are you really ignorant of what “lesbian, not queer” was about or are you purposefully obscuring it? It’s the same slogan used by the “Get the L Out” people, a.k.a. TERFs, which is what they turned to after “Drop the T” failed. Here it is from the “Get the L Out” campaign’s own website (link):

lj-writes:

If you don’t identify as queer, have trauma with it or have other objections to it, then we’re not including you when we say “queer community.” Full stop. Also nearly every word LGBTQ+ people have been using for themselves have been slurs at some point, or still are used as such. If you think an alternative would be better, present one and fight for it to be used. Do what you need to do to protect your mental health, filter words, block people, but don’t tell people who need an inclusive term that they can’t have their own identity because you personally object to a word that has been so thoroughly reclaimed that there are “queer studies” and “queer theory.”

We believe that lesbian rights are under attack by the trans movement and we encourage lesbians everywhere to leave the LGBT and form their own independent movement …

“Lesbian not queer” is literally AT THE TOP OF THEIR WEBSITE. Did you really think these peeps are just stopping at not identifying as queer, that they are critiquing the problems of the queer movement in good faith? Did you really think they’re not flaming transphobes?

Jesus H. Christ, this is how aphobia and exclusionism become gateway drugs to TERF thinking and help mainstream their rhetoric. Get your head out of your ass and stop conflating pushback to transphobia with lesbophobia. That is literal TERF talk. You don’t seem like a transphobe yourself but what you’re doing here is called being a useful idiot.

IMPORTANT LONG POST: How to deal with Aspies, by an Aspie

Note: This is a post submitted to me, and after reviewing it and consulting with an autistic friend I’ve decided to publish it because it is potentially useful information and good advice in general. As with most accommodations, it would make life easier for neurotypical people as well.

One thing I think this essay is missing is that, especially where the person uncomfortable is a woman or girl and the person with Asperger’s is a man or boy, there are good reasons for the woman/girl to fear giving an outright rejection. Most men and boys will not turn violent, obviously, and it’s most certainly not Asperger’s or any other form of autism that makes anyone violent, it’s the general culture of entitlement and objectification that has been taught to men and boys in general. The problem is that she would have no way to tell who is safe and who is not.

Therefore I’d like to emphasize that every situation is different and there might be valid reasons for people to fear setting boundaries in a clear way. I wish we lived in a better world where everyone felt safe having clear and straightforward conversations like the one outlined here. I agree that it’s a good idea for neurotypical people to take the initiative when they judge that it is safe to, and I hope people with Asperger’s will also stay aware of these dynamics and take initiative, such as asking for opinion and advice from neurotypical friends who might catch the nuances better. I’m rooting for you all to be safe and happy in your interactions!

So an Aspie is doing something off-putting. They could be telling jokes that make you squirm. They could be popping their knee to make a weird sound. They could be strongly opinionated and make you wish they’d shut up about it.

Maybe they have a crush on you. You’ll be able to tell. They might act like you guys are way better friends than you are. They might hug you too much and/or at awkward times. They might stand behind you, waiting for you to finish talking to someone so they can have a private conversation with you. They might hang around you at a dance, just kind of keeping an eye on you so they can snag a slow song with you.

And in case you’re wondering, I have done all these things. I still do sometimes, but I’m getting better.

Crushing on you or not, if an Aspie is bothering you, there’s something very important you have to do:

TELL THEM.

THIS. IS NOT. OPTIONAL.

I mean, technically it is, but here’s what happens if you don’t:

1. They keep bothering you because they don’t know they’re doing anything to make you uncomfortable.

2. You get more uncomfortable and distance yourself from them.

3. You break off your friendship (if you had one) and basically do everything you can to block them out because you can’t take it.

4. They realize they screwed up and react accordingly. (Personally, I lower my self-esteem a couple hundred notches, blame myself and listen to Little Lion Man on repeat until anguish becomes depression, depression becomes apathy and apathy dissipates into normality and the pain goes away. I don’t recommend this. The self-esteem scars will linger for a long time.)

Is this your fault? I’m going to say no, because you’re responding naturally and we were bothering you. It’s an annoying neurotypical habit, but we understand your considerate nature makes you loath to admit we’re putting you off. In fact we probably like you because you’re so nice, and we don’t let go of that perception easily. We’d rather assume we’re the exception (and we probably are.)

But the point is, that cycle is internalized and you need to cut it out. We won’t fault you for it. But it’s still a mistake.

I know it’s hard. I’ve experienced it myself, actually, because something utterly unprecedented happened to me recently. Someone had feelings for me. She was nice but not my type and I was a little put off by her forwardness (but having been in her situation myself, combined with the fact that I was starving for this exact experience, I didn’t mind too much.) And it was hard to go up and talk to her about it. It was very similar to when I would try to ask my crush if I’d been making her uncomfortable recently; you look for an opportunity to talk in private, you see what might be a chance to get them alone, you freeze up. I don’t know if this will help, but in my experience an Aspie is pretty much always down for a private conversation about your feelings if you need to take them aside. This is important to us.

If you think they’re crushing, ask them straight up. Honestly, answering yes to that question is way easier than telling you first. Let them down easy. If they don’t have nice guy syndrome (coughs in direction of Aspies who use their awkwardness as an excuse not to change, or worse, to be actively creepy) they’ll understand completely. Although Aspies tend to think if they completely stop making mistakes and be as chivalrous as possible, they just might be able to turn your heart to them. The key distinction here is that those guys understand your favor is something to be earned, whereas NGS types think they only have to be nice to you once before they’re automatically entitled to it. An Aspie recognizes they might never succeed in winning your affections, but what’s the point in not making sure you’re as happy as possible? We’re like dogs. We’ll do literally anything for you, so if you don’t want us to go out of our way to be helpful, you gotta say “down, boy.” Not with those words.

Also, VERY IMPORTANT, we’re not as totally clueless. We learn to smell when something’s up. Problem is we feel paranoid doing it. That’s because neurotypicals don’t always KNOW an Aspie bothering them and their subconscious could be driving you away. Aspies shouldn’t be ashamed of paranoia when it comes to this kind of thing because it’s rarely unjustified. If they come to you, for glory’s sake, DON’T LIE. My crush did this all the time and it turned out awful for both of us. She only got slightly better before our paths separated; she stopped lying but she’d usually ignore the question and let the ‘seen’ speak for itself. (‘SEEN’ does NOT speak for itself! It confuses the HELL out of us 9/10, so DON’T leave us on read! ESPECIALLY IF IT’S A QUESTION!) If she’d communicated better, we might have had a conversation like this:

Her: Hey ___________, can I talk to you for a second?
Me, if this is in person, which is ideal and should always be your first choice: Sure, let’s take this somewhere private. [We do that.]
Me: What’s up?
Her: I don’t know if you know this, but you’ve been doing some things that make me uncomfortable.
Me: Oh no! I’m so sorry! I’d never do that on purpose. What have I been doing?
Her: Well, you’ve been following me around a lot.
Me: I had no idea that bothered you. I just wanted to hang out. I’m so sorry.
Her: It’s alright. You’ve also been hugging me a lot?
Me: Yeah, I had a feeling that was bothering you. I was going to ask about that. I’ll stop.
Her: Thanks.
Me: _______, I want you to know that I care about you a lot and I don’t want you to be uncomfortable because of me, ever. Is there anything else I’m doing that’s bothering you?
Her: No.
Me: Are you sure? I’ve learned from experience I can’t be too careful. I promise I’ll understand.
Her: Well, you have been telling dark jokes and they make me uncomfortable.
Me: I promise won’t do that around you anymore. Thank you for telling me. Is there anything else?
Her: No.
Me: Often, people will be put off to Aspies subconsciously because we’re different in subtle ways. I need you to be careful to take that into account whenever I make you uncomfortable and you don’t know why. But if you do know why, then just take me aside again. I’m always willing to listen and I’m so proud of you for having the courage to talk to me. If it makes you feel better, I feel nervous trying to talk to you alone too.
Her: That reminds me— do you have a crush on me?
Me: Yes. Thanks— I would have been too nervous to tell you without you asking. Believe me, I tried— remember last time we danced, when I changed the subject and then didn’t say anything?
Her: I remember that. To be honest I’ve kind of known for a long time. I don’t feel the same, I’m sorry.
Me: That’s alright. We’re still friends, right?
Her: Actually, I don’t think we’re that close. Friend isn’t the term I’d use to describe our current relationship, if I’m not being broad.
Me: Would you mind if we got to know each other better and hung out more, so we could become friends?
Her: I’m willing to try that.
Me: Thank you. I won’t expect anything more to come of our relationship than that, even if I may hold out hope that it might.
Her: Alright. Will you understand if being friends doesn’t work out?
Me: Right now, I don’t think I can honestly say if I will, but I’ll be willing to break off completely if it makes you happy.
Her: Alright. Good talk.
Me: It certainly was. I’m glad we’re being open with each other.

If we’d sat down and done that, we wouldn’t have had the train collision that happened instead. (Again, I take all the blame on myself; communicating this openly is a learned practice. And obviously, it’d be awkward if your conversations were as specifically and literally honest as the one above.) This applies to romantic and platonic relationships alike. Heck, try this with non-Aspies even. It’ll probably help your relationship with them and help you unlearn the practice of saying what they want to hear and doing what you really mean. Hypocrisy is terrible for interaction and relationships.

tl;dr: If an Aspie is bothering you, TELL THEM.

How would you rank the Droid characters?

7. BB-8

Looks like he was created by committee to be as cute and saleable as possible
Accused Finn of being a thief and got him beaten up
Convinced his girlfriend Ivee to ride with the unluckiest pilot in Black Squadron, Jessika Pava. Girlriend died for Pava.
Dashed my hopes for a Stormtrooper uprising
A cutesy R2-D2 knockoff for a new generation and you know it
“Move, ball.”

6. R2-D2

Looks like the love child of a trashcan and mixing bowl
Doesn’t give 3PO the respect he deserves
Why are you so grimy is your owner that lazy
Is lazy himself, slept for like six years since Luke went away
Took too long to download his Windows 10 updates and delayed the search for Luke Skywalker
Seriously fuck Windows 10
Has a potty mouth
Somebody have mercy and format this thing already, it’s way overdue for a memory wipe and OS reinstall
Not Windows 10 though because fuck Windows 10

5. R5-D4

Purposefully malfunctioned in both old and new canon so R2 would be purchased by Owen Lars instead
Was a Force-sensitive droid in the Legends canon, how cool is that?
Yeah we’ll probably get Force-sensitive droids before Force-sensitive Finn
Way underrated
Hero

4. C3PO

Shiny
Spymaster with the personality of a fussy butler
Anxiety icon
Has fallen to pieces more than once only to come back as neurotic as before
Fluent in 6 million forms of communication
Literal god

3. ID10 Seeker Droid (Dio)

Smol and highly portable
Seriously why isn’t the backpack model of droids more widespread
Flying droids are so convenient again this should be more common
Gets a redemption makeover along with their master to white and yellow
Looked much more stylish and sharp when they were evil, sigh
(Much like Iden herself–whyyyy Iden was the new dowdy outfit penance for your affiliation with the Empire)
Cute flying insect droid, recommend 10/10

2. K2SO

Former Imperial droid that did NOT get a weaksauce makeover on joining the Rebellion
Tol boy slouches when he walks
Has the purest expression of droid-organic bonding with Cassian
Always ready with a bitchy comment or a bitch slap
Can’t think of his last moment without tearing up

1. HK-47

Has a scary mean insect face
Mouth looks like a mandible or a vagina
No you can’t unsee that
Badass assassin droid who probably uses annoying protocol droids for target practice
Would play soccer with BB-8 as the ball
Would cheerfully murder you in your sleep
What’s not to love

turtledirt:

niggazinmoscow:

know your rights and don’t be afraid to share your experience

[Image Transcription: Tweet thread from Qasim Rashid, Esq.

Today I returned home after a week in London. Customs & Border Protection “randomly selected” me even after I passed passport check

They threatened me with intimidation tactics and claims I was breaking the law. It was garbage and among the worst experiences I’ve ever had

Dulles was super busy. I clear passport control and head for the exit.

CBP: Hi sir can I check your passport?

Me: Fine (hands over passport)

CBP: Where’d you travel?

Me: UK.

CBP: Sir you’ve been randomly selected. Follow me

Me: (tired emoji. I follow her. I’m the *only* one selected.)

She asks me the same questions I was just asked:

CBP: Have you handled livestock?

Me: No.

CBP: Are you smuggling fruits or vegetables?

Me: No.

CBP: Place your luggage on the X-Ray belt and pick them up on the other side.

Me: (Complies as instructed & walks to the other side)

CBP: Your luggage cleared. You can go.

Me: Ok. (grabs my things to walk away)

CBP2: What’s the problem here?

Me: Nothing, I’m leaving.

CBP2: Why are you giving us attitude?

Me: Can I go now?

CBP2: No. I need to check your bag again.

Me: (tired emoji)

Me: Look, I have Global Entry. This officer checked my things. She cleared me. What’s the issue?

CBP2: What’s this?

Me: Chocolate.

CBP2: Where’d you buy it?

Me: Heathrow. Here’s the receipt.

CBP2: Do an explosives check

Me: My kid’s chocolate is a matter of national security now?

My chocolate was non-explosive.

CBP2: Ok you can go.

Third CPB officer walks up to me.

CBP3: Sir we’re just doing our jobs.

Me: Heard that before. Bye.

CBP3: Give me your Global Entry Card.

Me: Ok? (hand him my card)

CBP3: I’m confiscating this.

Me: Why are you confiscating my card?

CBP3: Because you’re being non-compliant.

Me: Pardon? I’ve been cleared three times now. How am I non-compliant?

CBP3: You mocked us for checking your chocolate for explosives.

Me: I mean, seriously? And you didn’t answer. How was I being non-compliant?

CBP3: You’re breaking the law.

Me: Asking a third time. How was I non-compliant? What law have I broken?

CBP3 walks away.

Me: I need to speak to your supervisor.

CBP2: He is the supervisor.

Me: Then I need his supervisor.

I asked five times more how I was non-compliant? No one answered.

CBP4 walks up

CBP4: I’m the supervisor. So you think because you have Global Entry you’re exempt from screening?

Me: What? No. I said I’ve been screened and cleared 3 times so far. But your CBP took my GE card and said I’m being non-compliant and broken the law. Please explain.

CBP4(to CBP3): Why’d you stop him?

CBP3: He was laughing at us.

CBP4: But did he refuse orders?

CBP3: No, I mean, he harassed us

Me: This is ridiculous. You have the power. You’re detaining me. You have my property. But I’m harassing you? What? Do you hear yourself?

Me: Asking for about the tenth time now. How was I non-compliant and what law did I break?

CBP4: Well those are his words – not mine.

Me: Great, so you won’t even stand by your own officer’s words. Meanwhile, you have my GE card. I’m still detained. Why am I still here?

CBP4: What do you do for a living?

Me: I’m a civil rights lawyer with expertise on racial and religious discrimination and profiling.

CBP4: (embarrassed emoji)

Me: Asking for the last time. What law have I broken, how was I non-compliant?

CBP4: I think everything checks out. You can go.

Me: (Leaves)

The whole time, no one else was “randomly selected”.

They never told me what law I “broke” or how I was being “non-compliant”.

I get stopped often. Every time I mention I’m a lawyer, they release me immediately. Funny how that works?

They know they’re illegally profiling.

I’m a US Citizen, an attorney, I understand American culture, the English language, and the law – and CBP still tries to intimidate me with lies and threats.

Now imagine you’re an undocumented asylee who doesn’t speak English, after a 2000 mile trip with a baby – and you have to face CBP?

I know if I tell CBP upfront I’m a lawyer, they’d let me go pretty quickly. I don’t – because it’s not fair to non-lawyers. I shouldn’t have to be a lawyer to get equal treatment under the law.

If this is how CBP treats US Citizen attorneys, just imagine how they treat refugees?

Fellow POC: We have a bad habit of not sharing our stories publicly.

This isn’t my opinion. It’s fact. Hate crimes and discrimination incidents are wayyyyyyyy underreported, making reform more difficult.

If safe, please share your stories. Let the world hear and learn.

In short: Don’t be bullied. Know your rights. Share your story. Thanks for reading. Human rights are my passion – it’s a key element of my podcast.

And remember, if you don’t write your own narrative, someone else will – and it won’t be in your favor.

End transcript.]

Podcast link on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/re-sight-islam/id1416941037?mt=2