tw negativity and stuff

discourse and vent blog of an anonymous system. dont interact if youre not feeling well, okay?

[angry-ram-000]

refer to us as ram, this is our discourse & venting sideblog so we can keep negativity off of our main.

important reminder: pls remember to take frequent breaks when discoursing, make sure to distance yourself from it when in a bad state of mind. you can always stop interacting and take a break, its okay.

posts will only be tagged with the -course its about, such as syscourse, or if it is a nonrelated vent just "vent".

[angry-ram-000]

could someone more knowledgable about racism than i am educate me on how someone (mainly white people) whos mentally disabled in some way should interact with posts about racism? i see people say that you shouldnt say you agree if youre white, that its making it seem like the poc being discriminated against need your approval to be valid? but im confused because im not sure what one should say then to say "i am not effected by this but i respect and agree with this statement, and find it important" without doing that. when i was younger i stayed away from posts about racism out of fear of doing something disrespectful accidentally but i realise now that not reblogging or centering those voices is probably more harmful than ignoring them but i still want to be respectful so if its okay could someone explain to me and others who are less able to understand social norms or complex topics so we can understand how to act to support poc voices and posts?

[felya-reblogs]

I'm SO tired of people pretending Gameoverse is not misogynistic and defending it like their lives depend on it. "If you think curvy women are inherently sexual content that's YOUR problem" the problem is not that the women are curvy, the problem is that they all have the same exact bodytype (minus the "disgusting girl used for laughs trope" crab) and the two main characters get tied up twice and wear bikinis for majority of the VERY FIRST episode's runtime. I'm sorry, but if you think these screenshots don't look like goonerbait you're just playing dumb on purpose

Speaking of these screenshots - wow don't you love it when the supposedly main female character can't do anything without her male bestie deuteragonist? 🤩 isn't that so cool and awesome and totally not a "even if women can fight they do it worse than men and need to be rescued by them" trope 🤩 this project has been in production for 14 years and it shows/derogatory

Also the very first draft of the show has this lovely background character named Ovary-Raptor. Like oviraptor but ovaryraptor because it's PINK and has HEART PATTERN because it's probably A GIRL or some kind of homophobic caricature

But don't listen to me, after all I'm just a "petty vocal minority" and every big YouTuber is calling Goonerverse "PEAK" and "THE BEST GLITCH SHOW that will SAVE THE INDUSTRY" so it's probably really cool actually

[confusedgoldenflower]

I don’t know if I can say it right but it feels like that “girl boss” slop that assholes make to basically say “no! There’s woman, so no misogyny! There’s breasts and vagina as main character! So this is feminist! Saying it’s not is hating women! You need to accept this!”

How do you green light this? Does Glitch approve of stuff as long as it’s by non POC??? Why couldn’t the resources put here be put to Guinevere, something with actually a lot of story and characterization and representation??? It feels like they’re spreading themselves thin just with these three projects, and I know there’s more like five. And from what I can tell, this was made by a man, and has an almost full white cast.

[rjalker]

PSA: "Gooner", "gooner-bait", and any and all variations of "goon" to be used as a stand in for "person obsessed with sex" or "sexual predators" are Nazi dogwhistles.

You can call that art what it is — creepy, misogynistic, objectification, sexualized, fetishized, fanservice, etcetera, without using Nazi dogwhistles. People have been talking about this problem long before Nazis came up with "gooner" as a code word for anyone who interacts with sex outside their accepted White Woman And Man Making White Babies.

[tadc-crit]

I refuse to watch Tadc because when the pilot dropped years ago, I watched it in german and got fucked up that Jax, in his very first sentence, says a word I could best compare to the R-slur in english. He says Vollspacko. That rabbit has been saying slurs since day one.

WHAT

[tadc-crit]

hey, when is/what is the sexual harassment in the episode? i watched it but i dont remember catching it and i wanna make sure i know incase any of my friends want to watch it so i can warn them.

It's the second door in Jax's mind, where Zooble hypothetically abstracts and Gangle is wearing her manic mask. Jax comes up to her in the maid dress, says she's wearing it because "what better way to honor Zooble than being all gender freaky?", and then starts getting weird and sexual when Gangle obviously gets mad at her for it, calling her "sweet cheeks" while holding her and inviting Gangle into her room.

It's a bad scene. It's a real bad scene.

[tadc-crit]

Okay I'm gonna stop talking about Daisy eventually but at this point it's hard to know what to do. Do I semi-misgender him since there was no effort put into acknowledging that he's trans after the reveal, and he's still referred to with male terms and pronouns? Do I just reclaim her identity and refer to her the way she might've, but might not have done so if she somehow survived/un-abstracted after Pomni went into her mind?

Should I just wait for the YouTube release? Is Glitch sacrificing the integrity of their trans rep for two weeks just because people might get spoiled? Well, that's clearly not it, Leeroy is still called a man in-show!

Do I just say they/them? But then no one will be happy, this fandom hates non-binary people!(/hj)

Do I even call her Jax? Do I call her Daisy even though that name isn't canon whatsoever?? Is it even ethical to call Leeroy Leeroy? Do I call them Daisy, too??? WHAT ARE THE RULES, DAMN IT!

[tadc-crit]

So Lee actually goes by.... well, Lee.

Problem is, this was confirmed in a Bluesky post that I only learned about thanks to other people in the crit community.

So, thanks Goose, now half your fanbase is gonna deadname the IRL version of your deuteragonist because you didn't bother putting this in the show in any capacity!

[anti-gooseworx-safespace]

For anyone wondering about the blue AI

It was confirmed on Bluesky (yes because this is how TADC works) that the Blue AI didn’t “make Caine evil.” Rather he was mentally and emotionally unstable because he had two powerful AIs inside his head with the Red AI being the dominant personality.

So yeahhhh Caine was plural which makes him removing his alter from his head kind of gross, in my opinion. OH and apparently the reason he did this is because he realized that Kinger was trying to ‘fix him’ (give him a lobotomy) back in episode 8 when he deleted him.

Oh, and he learned because the sudden magical internet access gave him new data to feed on.

Incredible writing Gooseworx.

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

🎪

[tadc-crit]

Hey! You don’t have to answer this, sry, I’m still pretty new to tumblr and idk if it’s a bit off-topic!

Anyway, I’ve read some of your posts and I rly enjoy them, you make some very good points! Like I said; I’m new to tumblr, but I also finished watching tadc a couple of weeks ago, so I’m basically finding my way into the fandom just now. And I’ve heard A LOT of bad stuff. About the fandom as well as about gooseworx, which is ac my question.

What makes her problematic or what did she do that made the fandom dislike her sm? Not tryna defend her or anything, I just genuinely don’t know that much about her and I’d be curious to! That’s why I thought you might have an answer, given that ur acc is mainly focused around criticism towards tadc (and gooseworx)!

Tysm, you don’t have to answer at all, but thanks anyways! <3

She's made weird jokes involving incest, pedophilia, and being bigoted (including straight up Nazism) for the sake of being edgy

^This includes her making frequent misogynistic jokes (and not-really-jokes) as recently as 2024

She was in the stream where Michael and Ashley joked about the n-word and is distinctly the only one of the three to never apologize for her behavior, and only addressed the fandom's racism when it crossed into an IRL event.

While this is extremely old, she got genuinely upset over people drawing Josuke from JJBA as black. Despite its age, it's still relevant seeing as she's never denounced this or lifted up black headcanons in any way. I don't have a link to the post on its own so I'll just drop it as a screenshot:

She's made a shit ton of jokes about scarring children, in general but ESPECIALLY sexually.

She interacted with a then-minor's NSFW fanart of one of her OCs, didn't back down and correct herself when she realized how young she was, and continued to interact with him. A lot. Including her continuing to interact with his NSFW stuff. She did all of this as a 26 year old (in 2021) and her (and the victim but he's the victim so he's exempt) has been shown to not give a shit and find the situation funny shortly after the pilot came out.

[angry-ram-000]

holy fuck why did nobody just fucking link this to me???? this shit is horrible

[dragon-in-a-fez]

you can believe victims about what they experienced and also not want to torch the lives of the people they've accused without proof. that is a space you can walk in and usually it's not even that hard. I say this as a survivor of domestic violence. "believe victims" doesn't mean get torches and pitchforks any more than "innocent until proven guilty" means victims are lying. please please learn this "believe victims" isn't about the perpetrators it's about the victims

[caspercryptid]

I would actually go as far as to say that MOST abuse is unintentional. I think most people will go through their lives without ever experiencing intentional abuse. People are abusive because they're selfish, because they're stressed, because they care more about what society thinks they should do than the impacts of their actions on their children and partners, because they think what they're doing is correct, because they've made it make sense in their own heads, because they think they can fix their victims, they think they can fix their relationships, they think they can stop you from leaving, they think they can make you a better partner to them, they think that means you need to do what they want. We've sort of constructed mental illness in a way that doing this shit to other people counts as a form of mental illness because it is anti social behavior in the literal sense— it is behavior that causes social harm.

I don't say any of this to excuse it. I think everyone needs to be more aware of this because if you think abuse has to be intentional you will never realize you are capable of abusive behavior. You will never realize you are being shitty to the people you love, because YOU know what you mean, YOU know you don't mean any harm. But you're doing harm. You need to pay attention to the impact you have on other people, and you need to do it all the time, Especially when you feel least capable of doing so. Sorry! You live in a society. Get your head out of your ass.

[northstareclipse]

Springing off of my addiction post once more, I am also skeptical at best of 12-step programs, because their framework has just never remotely aligned with my actual experience.

The substance I was addicted to was heroin. While I was actively addicted, it absolutely came before everything else. My life shrank around it. I kept using despite very real, very obvious negative consequences. If you’re looking for something that fits the “compulsion + harm + loss of control” model, that was it.

But what’s always sat strangely with me is what happened when that context changed.

Once my abusive relationship ended and I was no longer in an environment where it was readily available, it was shockingly easy to stop. I’m not saying it was physically comfortable. My body was pretty pissed off for a while. But psychologically, it just didn’t have the same hold anymore. I wasn’t spending my days white-knuckling cravings or constantly thinking about it. It dropped out of my life in a way that, according to the 12-step model, is not really supposed to happen.

And that’s where my issue with that framework starts.

Because 12-step ideology tends to assume that if you have ever had that kind of relationship with one substance, it reveals something fundamental and permanent about you. That you now have a generalized “addictive nature” that will attach itself to other substances or behaviors if you’re not constantly managing it. That you are, in some essential way, always on the verge of transferring that pattern onto something else.

And that just hasn’t been true for me.

I was a near-daily cannabis user for years. When it started consistently making me feel physically uncomfortable instead of good, I stopped. No drawn-out battle, no existential crisis, just “this isn’t giving me what I liked about it anymore” and I moved on.

I drink occasionally, in social or celebratory contexts, and I genuinely find alcohol kind of boring outside of that. It doesn’t have much pull for me.

I tried gambling once, got annoyed at how tedious and overstimulating it felt, and left the casino in under an hour. I have not felt remotely compelled to revisit that experience.

I use the internet a lot, and I play a handful of video games, but I can also go on a camping trip with no signal and be completely fine, unless you want to try and find something pathological about nature photography, in which case you can blow it out your ass. If anything, I generally enjoy the change of pace. There’s no sense of panic or withdrawal or “I need to get back to my computer/consoles immediately.”

So when I hear the idea that addiction is this broad, transferable trait that will latch onto anything with quick reward or low friction, I just don’t see it reflected in my own life.

What does make sense, looking back, is context.

When I was using heroin, I was in an abusive relationship. My environment was unstable, stressful, and honestly pretty bleak. The substance didn’t just exist in a vacuum. It fit into a specific set of conditions where it functioned as relief, escape, and regulation.

When those conditions changed, the behavior changed with them.

That doesn’t mean there was no dependency. There obviously was. It doesn’t mean there were no consequences. There very much were. My grades suffered. I dropped out of college. I lost my apartment because staying out of withdrawal and numbing out from the abuse felt more important than paying rent.

But it does suggest that what we call “addiction” might not always be this permanent, identity-level trait that needs to be managed forever. Sometimes it looks a lot more like a relationship between a person, a substance, and a specific environment.

When that’s the case, then a framework that assumes universality - “if this happened once, it will always be waiting to happen again, with anything” - is going to miss a lot of variation.

I’m not saying 12-step programs can’t help people. Clearly they can, or they likely wouldn’t exist in the way they do. But I do think they’re often treated as the model of addiction rather than a model that fits some people and not others, and when your experience doesn’t match that model, many people who swear by them will assume that you are misunderstanding yourself, in denial, or “not taking it seriously enough.” This paternalistic attitude only serves to make me even more skeptical of the framework.

For me, what mattered wasn’t declaring myself permanently “addictive” or treating every pleasurable behavior as a potential threat.

What mattered was getting out of the environment where that pattern made sense in the first place.

Rat Park, people. Stop forgetting about Rat Park.

[northstareclipse]

A lot of criticism of delivery apps focuses on the fact that they offer convenience and variety, which I find much less compelling than criticizing the fact that the apps often send their contractors on fetch quests from Hell.

There are real labor problems here. Base pay is often insulting. Customer tips carry too much of the burden. Workers need better protections, more transparent algorithms, protection from arbitrary deactivation, and actual recourse when the app or a customer screws them over. Car-dependent delivery is also an environmental and infrastructural problem, though in a denser city I’d still be doing this work; I’d just be doing it by bike.

But when people talk about delivery work, I rarely see them talk to actual delivery workers. I see a lot of abstract arguments about convenience, consumer decadence, “hustle culture,” and internalized neoliberalism. Meanwhile, when I’m out working and waiting in restaurants for orders, the other Dashers I meet are usually people who only speak Spanish, people who read as neurodivergent, visibly physically disabled people, or some combination of the above.

I have not met this mythical Disco Elysium poor ultraliberal hustlegrinder-wannabe people seem to be arguing with. Maybe that archetype exists somewhere. If it exists among any kind of gig worker, it would probably be rideshare drivers. But most of what I see looks less like “rise and grind” and more like “this is one of the few forms of work available to people who need flexibility, low barriers to entry, limited managerial surveillance, or a way to work around language barriers, disability, burnout, chronic illnesses and injuries with symptoms that come and go unpredictably, caregiving, résumé gaps, or discrimination.”

That does not make the current system good. It means the current system is filling a real gap that a lot of supposedly better systems do not even acknowledge.

As a disabled person who is burnout-prone and demand-sensitive, contracting as a delivery driver has given me an unprecedented level of financial flexibility. I can work when I have capacity. I can stop when I’m deteriorating. I can build my day around my actual body instead of being trapped under a manager who thinks “reliable” means “able to perform the same way every day no matter what.” That matters. It does not cancel out the exploitation, but it is also not fake just because it is politically inconvenient.

And delivery itself is not some inherently decadent evil. Sometimes people live alone. Sometimes they are sick. Sometimes they are disabled, exhausted, overwhelmed, grieving, overloaded, or recovering from something else - perhaps the stress and fatigue induced by their own job. Sometimes they need medicine, groceries, or a meal that will actually unplug their sinuses instead of whatever generic community-care slop someone thinks they should be grateful for. Humans are allowed to need specificity. “Food” is not the same as “the food I can actually eat right now.”

A serious labor critique would ask how to make delivery work safer, better-paid, less tip-dependent, less car-dependent, less algorithmically punitive, and less precarious. It would ask what kinds of flexible, accessible work should exist for people who cannot thrive in conventional employment. It would ask how cities could support bike delivery, worker cooperatives, public infrastructure, and real protections without simply replacing one bad system with a moral sermon about how nobody should ever want takeout.

But a lot of the discourse does not do that. It treats convenience itself as suspicious. It treats wanting flexible work as false consciousness. It treats the needs of disabled people, immigrants, and other people who can't fit into traditional employment structures as details to be swept aside in favor of a cleaner political image.

I guess the opinions of delivery workers only count when they are politically convenient.

[learn-how-to-love]

Extremely funny phenomena I’ve seen is trans bigots on this site doing their equivalent of the conservative bit of “well I’m going to start wearing a dress and going in women’s restrooms and see how YOU like it!” And having no response when the people they’re trying to get a rise out of are like “okay that’s awesome I hope you have fun”

[rabidbatboy]

I would like to invite you to compare the way you treat and think about paraphilias to the way you treat and think about other disorders with me. particularly if you are a member of communities that aren’t as likely to spread stigma surrounding disorders like NPD and ASPD etc like in typical society.

anti paras tend to hold the beliefs of ‘anti para unless anti contact’ in a guilty until proven innocent sense, the conflation of paraphile with predator is so deeply ingrained from decades of social stigma that it provides people with a safety net to acceptably say that we should kill and harm paraphiles.

as someone who has personality disorders, these disorders sometimes compel me or make me desire to harm people. acting upon my desires to hurt people around me would be physically and emotionally traumatic for strangers and even people I care about. why can you rationalise empathy for people like me, when this pertains to BPD, NPD, ASPD, schizophrenia, etc? if someone was to say ‘anti NPD, except anti abuse ones’ why is that unacceptable, but ‘anti para, except anti contact ones’ is acceptable?

do you understand that sexual taboo is affecting the way you treat and think about human beings? do you understand that sex being integrated into the conversation is what’s affecting your mental shift from ‘person with a condition’ to ‘predator’ as soon as the conversation moves to paraphiles? ‘narc abuse’ is a condemned term in these communities for conflating a condition with abuser. but conflate ‘paraphile’ with ‘predator’ and you very wilfully submit to a decades long psyop that has also been historically used to hurt the gay and trans community.

it’s frustrating that I try and keep this blog mogai focussed, but more and more violence and bullying is being incited towards various groups that already suffer from social stigma. you aren’t interested in protecting children if you can’t get over your own internal biases— who is going to protect the children who are paraphiles? who is going to protect the victims who are paraphiles?

consider your own hypocrisy, dont disregard reason and empathy to soothe your personal discomforts

[123gocat]

problematic has become such a stupid word now . when you call someone "problematic" are you referring to someone who posted furry inflation porn on a private sideblog, or someone who kills and rapes children irl

[only-knives]

"alters arent real people" *loud buzzer sound* WRONG

i for one am a real person. this is my physical life. my physical body. i am a real person who exists. im just a different version of that person and capable of being multiple different versions of that person.

if you think alters cant be real people, then you basically think plural people arent real people. gonna talk from the CDD angle cuz thats what i know.

the host is an alter. there is no "real alter" and acting like there is basically functions no differently than treating us like a singlet, but worse, because we're mentally ill.

plural personhood is still personhood. we dont have to be people like singlets are people in order to fucking be real and deserve human rights

like you do realize there are people who have had professionals try to eradicate integral parts of who they are under the pretense that alters arent people and just a symptom of mental illness that need to be gotten rid of entirely, right?

(we have experienced that; now think of how fucking traumatizing it is to have an integral part of your personhood treated like a disease that needs to be cured so you can be a good normal person. ykno, instead of just treating you like a person with a different experience of identity and supporting you emotionally)

alters live life too. we have thoughts, feelings, and emotions too. we have just as real of experiences of life as other people do. it's not like we only exist inside our heads. we can perceive the world around us and act in it. this is not news.

so of fucking course we're people. you can add whatever modifier you want like "parts of" or "versions of" or "alternate identities of" but at the end of the day that's still "a person." and without the "person" there are no "parts."

if a singlet can have a part of them that's bold and courageous around people they feel safe with and yet quiet and meek around everyone else. and still be a person regardless. i think an alter can be a fucking person.

[ written by a diagnosed PF-DID system who supports endogenic systems and self-diagnosis. get fucked if you don't support endogenic plural people or self-diagnosis of CDD ]

[angry-ram-000]

sometimes i feel like those against non-traumagenic systems claiming plurality or polymindance would genuinely prefer it if the terms those nontraumagenically plural made WERE exclusive to nontraumagenic systems only, because it feels like as soon as those who are nontraumagenic and/or nondisordered include disordered folk, the edges of that disordered group who are very vocally against nondisordered people end up claiming its ALL a mockery (even if it was made by a group unlike them) of them specifically. so its like? the only way endos can "make their own term" by the specifications ive seen people like that put down is via specifically excluding traumagenic or disordered systems, which isnt.. nice? its ableist in a way and in my eyes would end up driving those of mixed origins to communities that hate their guts, but if they are included in this theoretical group then thats 'ableist' by antiendo standards so..? uh?

no idea if im making sense here, more of a half formed thought but i wanted to get it out there. basically i mean like, it seems like the only way anti-endos WOULD be 'happy' with endos existing is if endos specifically excluded them (ie "THIS ISNT A CDD if you have a cdd you cant be this!!!" etc etc so that way the terms ARE specific and cant be claimed to be "stolen" by endos like antiendos claim of.. basically any plurality related term)