#double standards

[bideogaymes]

i notice the more i talk about Blackness, my culture, history and people online, the more distanced the nonblack mutuals or followers i have are, it’s like they either get intimidated or something, like me acknowledging and being proud of it makes me and other Black ppl unapproachable. The same way recently a South Asian American popular creator lost 2000+ followers after posting videos promoting and celebrating Black women owned restaurants for Black History Month. some even took to his comments to essentially whine, “why cant you support all restaurants and not just Blacks, why even mention the race!”

Mind you, nobody ever has a problem when someone says they’re going to eat at a Chinese/Mexican/Indian etc. restaurant. To everyone, that is normal and not an aberration but centering Blackness in any context immediately gets everybody tight; or hesitant, limited enthusiasm. 😐

The public and unbiased support of Black people actually has social repercussions that aren’t addressed or elaborated on enough tbh.

[odinsblog]

Control the poor, excuse the rich.

[teambyler]

In defense of celebrating Will's likely coming-out and sexual liberation

I write this in response to criticism I've received for commenting that the padlock necklace likely worn by Will Byers can be both a commitment symbol (possibly related to Mike!) and also an expression of his sexual/romantic preferences, sharing what I'd just learned the lock symbol has in the gay and BDSM communities.

Given how closeted and repressed we know Will's character to be, and given other rumors/leaks, this is likely a glance at Will after a time skip after the main events of s5, or "Epilogue Will" (lol). He's likely an adult here, and his colorful style SCREAMS that he is out of the closet! (Maybe it's less true now, but wearing this in 1989 screamed I AM GAY! It was quite common to get gay-bashed for what you wore.) Plus the lock necklace has some flair and is undeniably stylish lol.

My reaction to seeing this was "This is AMAZING!" As a gay man who's been invested in Byler and Will's character arc, I see cause for CELEBRATION. This older Will is READY TO FACE BULLIES, if he's openly wearing an outfit expressing his gay identity and sexuality. This is an out and proud gay man!

So I put up my post, and the reaction on Tumblr was ALL POSITIVE. (Then I made more Byler posts, as is my wont lol.)

Then suddenly in the past few hours, my post has gotten comments all saying the same ugly things. The timing was suspicious and I soon found where all the hate was being organized (Hint: it's not Tumblr.)

First of all, I have learned increasingly this past week or so on TikTok that saying "weird" is code for homophobia. ("Byler would be weird" etc.) Doesn't matter if the word comes from a Byler either. It's been quite consistent. It's what someone says when they want to express something but also know they'd come off as prudish or bigoted if they said what they really think.

Will is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER, and this is a decision by the SHOWRUNNERS and COSTUME DESIGNERS. It's open season to talk about its meaning for a character who has throughout the show been closeted and self-effacing. And the lock having various commonly-understood symbolic meanings is a FACT. The creators have talked about putting thought into every detail in the show, from triangles on shirts to... well, locks on necklaces. (Personally, I didn't know about its association with BDSM culture until I googled "gay lock necklace" myself, and bam I found it!)

The necklace is probably WILLINGLY WORN BY WILL IN THE SHOW. And by wearing it, he would face judgment from BULLIES for the various things it signifies, judgment that those of us who claim to be open-minded and/or not homophobic shouldn't partake in.

Commenting on how a FICTIONAL gay character dare express HIS sexuality and CHEERING for him to do so, like really? Gay liberation has ALWAYS been about rebelling and breaking taboos, and this is possibly Will not giving a fuck and celebrating his sexuality. (What that "sexuality" is exactly here is ambiguous - that's the beauty and fun of interpretation!) It would be AMAZING if WILL of all people is loving himself and feels he has the right to be happy!

Why are we suddenly prudes? When Milev*ns talk about Mike and El having sex in s5 while they're still minors they're not met with stigma and insinuations. Why only NOW the pearl clutching and accusations of "sexualizing"? Didn't this show have a somewhat-explicit scene of two minors having sex (Nancy and Steve)? Didn't it show two twelve-year-olds kissing (Mike and El)? But talking about an adult gay man who MIGHT ACTUALLY LIKE SEX (shock! gasp!)!?!? It's a homophobic double standard and it doesn't matter where it comes from, and it's wrong. This is precisely why many LGBT people stay in the closet. And it's also why many make a point to express their sexuality: because society tells us to be ashamed for something wonderful and normal.

Meanwhile, there's nothing inherently wrong with BDSM! There are people of all sexualities, gay, straight, etc. who consensually engage in it. I personally have zero interest in it, but I'm not going to clutch my pearls and kink-shame people. (If you're like what the hell is this, then read up on it! See links at the end about BDSM and its relation to queer history.)

Now on to what my post was OBVIOUSLY about.

This glimpse of Epilogue Will is EXCITING because we might actually see the full promise of what the Duffers said would be Will's arc this season:

As many who've seen my Byler video have probably guessed, it's meaningful to me as an older Byler who grew up in the 80s to see a suffering, closeted, and bullied gay boy in the 80s OVERCOME IT ALL. This glimpse of Epilogue Will is a clue that the Duffers have motherfucking done it: they put at the center of the world's biggest TV show a FIVE-SEASON ARC OF GAY TRIUMPH...

... JUST as how it would be groundbreaking for this show to feature likely TWO closeted gay boys finding the courage to love each other against all odds. Will not only gets the love of his life, but gets to be OUT AND FREE.

I was celebrating that we might see Will's coming-out arc and sexual liberation.

And it's frankly homophobic and dehumanizing to think it was anything else.

I can stand toxic Milev*ns attacking me; they'll come up with any excuse to try to tear down anyone who points out the signs that their ship started sinking long ago.

But to see some in the Byler fandom join the chorus trying to stigmatize and drive out older fans for being passionate and wanting to celebrate Will's gay liberation is SHAMEFUL. And honestly, given that Byler itself is a story of heroism against bigotry, I don't think people who persist in such views should be welcomed in the Byler fandom.

We shouldn't cave to the homophobes. Be Epilogue Will. Wear that lock necklace proudly, dammit. Let people think what they think, because it won't stop us being who we are.

-teambyler

==========================================

EDIT: I suspect many younger folks who are swept up by or confused by the hysteria don't know much about BDSM and its relation to queer history. Here are some resources:

"It’s Time to Recenter Kink and BDSM as Part of Radical Queer History" (Slate.com, 11/7/2018)

"Leather subculture" (Wikipedia)

Also for the record, if this is truly Epilogue Will, I personally don't think he's a BDSM kind of guy lol. (Though a comment was made that he might explore it as a way to deal with trauma and reclaim his power, which is a valid take!) But I DO think with the lock necklace he's making a statement! Definitely telegraphing being gay, probably saying he's in a relationship, and possibly saying more!

EDIT 2: Want to share a great comment from @woah-someone-actually:

"It's so disheartening to see people turning something that can be such a beautiful thing and turning it into something weird. People need to understand that sexual topics are not always discussed for pleasure??? And its kind of weird for them to assume so?? Sex is a part of life. Its a depiction of love, and a vulnerable one at that. Its a natural puzzle piece in every persons life, and it affects everyone somehow. Fully celebrating Will Byers as a character ultimately involves looking at his sexuality. And that is undeniable."

EDIT 3: Honestly I'm not sure some of my critics understand this is a fictional show with characters who don't exist, who are created by real-life people. They trade fantasy with reality. While defending fictional "minors" as if they're real people, they enable real-life homophobes, shame sexuality, and detract from actual bullies and abusers. It reminds me of how hypocritical the 1980s Satanic Panic against D&D was: people claiming D&D players were into the occult, when they were actually the ones who thought magic was real and players were summoning demons. They reveal more about themselves than about whom they're targeting and act like people with skeletons in their closets who are obsessed with making the point that they don't. They accomplish the opposite of what they claim to be for. In their zeal to demonstrate they have "purged" themselves of evil, they detract from real-life evil. I'm sincerely concerned that some of the younger people swept up by this hysteria aren't recognizing bullying when it really happens. Protecting real-life minors from abuse begins with calling out real-life bullying and empowering real-life victims against their abusers -- not performative acts.

[unmooredonasundayevening]

I can't know for certain because you know, we don't live in that timeline. But I have a sneaking suspicion that if some of the stuff happening with young men right now were happening with young women instead it would be treated as evidence of female inferiority. If boys were outperforming girls in school, you'd have op eds in major newspapers questioning whether girls need or deserve a formal education. Folks would be trying to revive the debate over colleges admitting women. If young women were losing tons of money to sports betting, you'd have serious proposals for giving men control over their finances "for their own good". The notion that any group of people is inherently inferior and should be excluded from society is wrong, not matter who it's applied to. That idea is considered off the table when we talk about men, but not so much about women.

[lune-moon-nuit]

Now that the Duffers have confirmed that it is strongly implied Robin and Vickie broke up in the epilogue, can we finally talk about what that really means?

The only openly queer couple in the entire series—a relationship that was largely developed off-screen—was used solely as a narrative device. Not as a love story in its own right, not as something allowed to exist and grow, but as a tool for Will’s arc, and more cruelly, as a mirror held up to him to show the love he would never be permitted to have this season.

Their very first scene together, in episode one, is intimate: they are kissing, touching, existing in tenderness. And Will watches them with quiet longing, with that unmistakable ache of recognition—the desire not just to be seen, but to be loved like that. Robin’s friendship with Will did matter, of course. It guided him toward self-acceptance, reminded him he was not alone, offered him a glimpse of a possible future. But the moment Will comes out, that friendship is quietly erased. They stop interacting. We are not even granted a glimpse of it in the epilogue.

That absence speaks louder than any dialogue. It proves that Robin and Vickie were never meant to exist beyond their usefulness. Once Will’s arc was “complete,” they were discarded. And it becomes even more disturbing when you realize the show had the audacity to use Tammy as a narrative excuse to dismantle Byler.

Robin and Vickie were used to give false hope—to Will, and to the audience who longed for Byler to become real. And once the season was over, once that hope had served its purpose, the writers broke them up. They are the only couple to end that way. Even Nancy and Jonathan—who also broke up—are, according to the Duffers themselves, destined to find their way back to each other in time.

So let’s be clear: The only canon queer couple was used to offer false hope to the only canon gay boy, whose feelings were then exploited to prop up a heterosexual relationship—and all of it was for nothing, because that heterosexual couple was ruined anyway.

And this doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

The Duffers have now revealed alternative endings they considered for Eleven. Aside from her suicide, the other option they entertained was keeping her alive, no longer hunted by the government—but married at eighteen to Mike. Those were the two imagined futures.

Think about that.

For a girl who was exploited throughout her childhood in a laboratory. Who never had a childhood at all. Who spent her life being hunted, controlled, used. Who was kissed at twelve—six days after escaping captivity—when she barely understood what the word “friend” meant and before she even knew her own real name. Who was abused, manipulated, and denied agency again and again by men.

The only futures the Duffers could imagine for her were death or marriage—a life still defined by a man, still orbiting male desire, still stripped of true autonomy. They never imagined a third path: Eleven alive, free, independent. Catching up on the childhood she was robbed of. Exploring the world. Traveling. Growing alongside the sister who truly understands her. Becoming a person before becoming someone’s wife.

No. In their imagination, abused children and traumatized girls either disappear—or settle.

And queer love? Queer love is allowed to exist only long enough to teach a gay boy that he may never have it.

("but it's okay since he had self-acceptance, why he would have both ? lol")

Once it has served that lesson, it is erased.

What we are left with is not tragedy—it is ideology. A story where heterosexual endings are endlessly protected, repaired, and forgiven, while queer ones are treated as temporary metaphors. A world where growth is permitted only if it leads back to conformity, and where hope is dangled just long enough to hurt when it is taken away.

And that, more than any monster or Upside Down, is the real horror of this ending.

[trekkitkat]

Watching so many of the Left, the ones who are supposed to care about people, supporting and celebrating actual terrorists and dictators who murder their own people in the streets, who use rape as a war weapon, who kidnap and kill babies and children, who pay suicide bombers to murder innocent people, who rape, mutilate and murder women for showing their hair or dancing or just trying to exist as equal human beings.

Watching so many of the Left, the supposed peace loving, champions of the oppressed, chanting for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, spreading disgusting lies about how a minority group is going to "eat your babies and drink your blood".

The ones who go on about noble revolution but ignore or outright vilify an oppressed people fighting for their freedom.

The ones who cry "Oh but the children!!!", then laugh and celebrate when children of a minority group are murdered.

The same people who cry "Guns are bad!!!" but then laugh and celebrate when someone they don't like is murdered.

Do you hear yourselves? Just as bad as the people you claim to oppose. Bunch of blood thirsty, hypocritical vultures.

How can you claim to care about human life, then celebrate death.

[wowgrim]

seeing mutuals who reblogged every single "gaza" scam money request and "14,000 babies will starve to death in 48 hours" because "I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt in case it's real" afraid to reblog anything about antisemitism because they "don't know the context" and "might get it wrong" and "don't want to amplify because what if the victim is a Zionist and the incident therefore might have been motivated by anti-Zionism not antisemitism" or they haven't "thoroughly vetted OP's account to make sure that they have never said anything objectionable in their entire life"

[shkedia]