#magi's thoughts

[willowlark369]

Maybe unpopular take, but it will never NOT be satisfying to see a man whose career stems from making jokes about slapping women to “show them their place” get slapped just like he jokes about. The fact that it was in defense of a woman that he had just mocked in front of the people she had to work with & over (and international television) for the second time... why that just makes it even better.

Jada Pinkett Smith turned the other cheek before, y’all. Will Smith let it go before. This time, Will Smith didn’t. He drew a line in the sand and enforced it in the only language that Chris Rock seemed to understand.

Maybe like that politician who stopped going out in public after he got a milkshake thrown on him, Chris Rock will learn to keep his fucking mouth shut.

[willowlark369]

Interesting Reminders

Always fun times when the Team Treason trolls come onto old posts to complain that not everyone ignores canon like they do.

Anyway, here’s a few reminders of canon, in case it’s been a while since you’ve watched the older MCU stuff (Phases 1 & 2):

Tony Stark was not the one selling weapons to terrorists. That was Obadiah Stane, who was so convinced that Tony wouldn’t agree that he tried to kill him multiple times. He also wasn’t a “war profiteer”. That term has an actual definition which he does not fit.

Steve Rogers has never been an officer and was actually discharged from the army as a private. “Captain America” is a stage name. Arguing over who gets to use it after Rogers died makes as much sense as arguing over who should get the nickname “the King”.

Natasha Romanoff knows less than nothing about psychology. She was also a shitty friend and an even shittier sister. (Yelena deserved better.)

Thor is actually a sexist jerk. His “support” of women ends with what they can do for him personally and not because he believes women are equal to men.

“Ultron” existed in the Mind Stone prior to the Scepter coming into the Avengers’ possession. Tony Stark & Bruce Banner never installed that existing program into anything nor did that program access the program that they wrote but couldn’t get operational.

Wanda Maximoff is a terrorist, of her own admittance. She voluntarily worked for Hydra, knowing they were Hydra, and never showed any remorse for having done so. In the MCU, she is also a white Christian, not a Jewish Roma.

The Accords were about accountability and holding superheroes to the same protocols as other martial forces potentially crossing sovereign borders, regardless of SHIELD using them as an excuse to continue their Index protocols.

What a great way to come out of a holiday celebrating violence, huh?

[willowlark369]

Genuine Reminders

These are just a few things that I think people need to be reminded about:

Bigotry is not a mental illness. It does not to be diagnosed by a professional to be present (and it will never be diagnosed).

Anyone claiming that a specific type of bigotry is a mental illness because it has the suffix "-phobia" is wrong. Phobias are real mental illnesses; bigotry with names ending with "-phobia" are not. Bigots making this argument are just wrong.

They are also not arguing in good faith. They know that they are wrong. They are just trying to dodge accountability for their bigotry.

Calling bigots out on their transphobia/homophobia/xenophobia is not diagnosing them. Nor is it turning a mental illness into a prerogative.

"Transphobe" is not a slur. "Homophobe" is not a slur. Neither is "xenophobe".

Bigots are not allies. No. Not even if they are claiming to defend some other oppressed group. A bigot will only act like they're an ally until a member of the marginalized fails to meet their standards exactly. The moment the member isn't "a perfect victim", the bigot will declare them not a "real " and treat them the same way they would any member of the group(s) they hate.

A lot of bigots believe they are genuinely nice people. This is also not true. If they were genuinely nice people, they would not be bigots.

TL;DR: Bigots are not friends; they're fodder.

[willowlark369]

Truth Is

Look, there are very, very few stories in which a character being white is necessary for the story. Yet a lot of canons have a predominantly white cast while the real world just doesn't. So of course there's been a rise in fandom of "race bending" (a white character made something other than white). It's the exact same thing as fandom making characters queer.

Yet there seems to be a vocal minority of people who complain about characters not being white in fanfiction. If an author/artist calls out these complaints, the complainers get even more offended. They're "just asking questions" or otherwise believe that they don't deserve to be called racist or my favorite that I've seen: "what if <the character> really was a PoC and someone made them white? How would you feel then?!"

Here's the thing. Questions along these lines cannot be taken as done in good faith. Except in very, very few instances, there are no problems with adding diversity in this way. Fandom has always had the "rule" that if you don't like something, then you don't have to read it. Exiting out of a fic that you don't like isn't hard. And if you leave a comment/review about what you don't like, then yeah, you're being rude at best and mostly likely a troll.

The truth is, if you have a problem with a character not being white, then yeah, you're being racist. If you cannot see the difference between making a character of color white and making a character of color, then you're either willfully ignorant or painfully naive. Either way, it's not up to individual authors & artists to fix that for you.

Just fuck off with your "questions" and "issues". If you don't like something, don't read it.

[willowlark369]

Yet Another Reminder

Some readers really need to understand that not everything is about them. If you don’t like a story or an aspect or the story, then you are perfectly capable of just going away.

Don’t like ABO? Don’t read that fic.

Don’t like creature AUs? Don’t read that fic.

Don’t like queer characters? Don’t read that fic.

Don’t like gender or race bending? Don’t read that fic.

You can just leave. That’s a thing you can do. You can stay in your lane and not bother people who clearly do enjoy those things because they wrote them.

It’s not about you. Complaining that something that was free not being what you exactly wanted is not only rude but petty as all get out.

Just go away.

[willowlark369]

Psst

It’s not “bashing” if the personality/actions are from canon.

Authors choosing to not pretend that canon didn’t happen isn’t bashing.

Authors choosing to not to give characters different opinions than they expressed in canon is not bashing.

You don’t have to agree the interpretation used, but you also don’t get to go onto fics marked as Not Friendly or Critical and tell the authors that they’re doing something that they’re not.

[willowlark369]

Crazy Ideas 31

Candidate TG: We need to get rid of all child porn on AO3!

Fandom Olds: We remember what this means, what it always means. We recognize the threat that you are, tho' the harm may be far into the future. We know to take such threats seriously and ACT NOW to prevent that harm.

Purists: There's nothing wrong with censoring such deplorable things! Why are you writing such filth in the first place?!

Fandom Olds: What we are saying is that it is never about child porn, which isn't even allowed on the Archive in the first place. It is about sex in general and especially sex that people don't approve of.

Purists: No, it's definitely about the child porn and rape glorification.

Fandom Olds: No, because again, child porn is already not allowed and "glorification" is a bit much. If you don't want to see that kind of stuff, it is much better all around to allow people to tag it without fear and then people who want to avoid it can easily do so.

Agrument: [devolves into circular debates that go nowhere]

.....

Fandom Ancients: It is easy to acknowledge that child porn and rape are terrible things. ...until you remember that there are people who argue that queer characters existing are grooming children and that no one is capable of consenting to same-sex relationships nor in cross-racial ones. Or that BDSM is inherently nonconsensual, despite having consent as one of the community's core beliefs (both SSC & RACK).

Fandom Ancients: It is easy to condemn fics with dark topics or themes while forgetting that people work through things in writing and no, no one owes anyone an explanation on why they wrote something. It could be trauma processing; it could be purging intrusive thoughts; it could just be a twisted moment of grotesque what-if. And still the author does not owe anyone an explanation. If it is tagged, then readers know ahead of time what it is, and if they do not wish to read it, then they may simply not read it.

Fandom Ancients: We remember how the purges begin, how they always begin. They begin with the Righteous arguing that we should just meet them in the middle, and they will choose a well-made veneer on why we should do so. It will be something that we would not argue with--as who would not wish to protect the most vulnerable of our societies?

Fandom Ancients: So we agreed and we moved to meet them in the middle.

Fandom Ancients: And a purge would happen, cleansing a space of the unworthy filth. Only it would not be good enough. The Righteous had not targeted what they had said they would. Instead they had come for the queer and the kinky and those who dared to be defiant & different.

Fandom Ancients: And still, the Righteous took a step back and called out, "Meet us in the middle."

Fandom Ancients: We remember the harm that comes, for it is NEVER about the children.

[willowlark369]

Just Don’t

When people point out that you’re giving money to genocidal causes, your offense at being told that doesn’t actually change the fact that by giving money to genocidal causes, you are supporting them. If you don’t like having your actions described, then the problem isn’t in the description. It’s in your actions.

If you can’t tell the difference between “giving resources to genocidal causes” and “activity that doesn’t give money to genocidal causes”, that’s on you.

Either way, you reveal yourself.