sadly i actually did another full drawing for once

tools not rules: the importance of critical thinking

More than once, I’ve talked about the negative implications of Evangelical/purity culture logic being uncritically replicated in fandom spaces and left-wing discourse, and have also referenced specific examples of logical overlap this produces re, in particular, the policing of sexuality. What I don’t think I’ve done before is explain how this happens: how even a well-intentioned person who’s trying to unlearn the toxic systems they grew up with can end up replicating those systems. Even if you didn’t grow up specifically in an Evangelical/purity context, if your home, school, work and/or other social environments have never encouraged or taught you to think critically, then it’s easy to fall into similar traps - so here, hopefully, is a quick explainer on how that works, and (hopefully) how to avoid it in the future.

Put simply: within Evangelism, purity culture and other strict, hierarchical social contexts, an enormous value is placed on rules, and specifically hard rules. There might be a little wiggle-room in some instances, but overwhelmingly, the rules are fixed: once you get taught that something is bad, you’re expected never to question it. Understanding the rules is secondary to obeying them, and oftentimes, asking for a more thorough explanation - no matter how innocently, even if all you’re trying to do is learn - is framed as challenging those rules, and therefore cast as disobedience. And where obedience is a virtue, disobedience is a sin. If someone breaks the rules, it doesn’t matter why they did it, only that they did. Their explanations or justifications don’t matter, and nor does the context: a rule is a rule, and rulebreakers are Bad.

In this kind of environment, therefore, you absorb three main lessons: one, to obey a rule from the moment you learn it; two, that it’s more important to follow the rules than to understand them; and three, that enforcing the rules means castigating anyone who breaks them. And these lessons go deep: they’re hard to unlearn, especially when you grow up with them through your formative years, because the consequences of breaking them - or even being seen to break them - can be socially catastrophic.

But outside these sorts of strict environments - and, honestly, even within them - that much rigidity isn’t healthy. Life is frequently far more complex and nuanced than hard rules really allow for, particularly when it comes to human psychology and behaviour - and this is where critical thinking comes in. Critical thinking allows us to evaluate the world around us on an ongoing basis: to weigh the merits of different positions; to challenge established rules if we feel they no longer serve us; to decide which new ones to institute in their place; to acknowledge that sometimes, there are no easy answers; to show the working behind our positions, and to assess the logic with which other arguments are presented to us. Critical thinking is how we graduate from a simplistic, black-and-white view of morality to a more nuanced perception of the world - but this is a very hard lesson to learn if, instead of critical thinking, we’re taught instead to put our faith in rules alone.

So: what does it actually look like, when rule-based logic is applied in left-wing spaces? I’ll give you an example: 

Sally is new to both social justice and fandom. She grew up in a household that punished her for asking questions, and where she was expected to unquestioningly follow specific hard rules. Now, though, Sally has started to learn a bit more about the world outside her immediate bubble, and is realising not only that the rules she grew up with were toxic, but that she’s absorbed a lot of biases she doesn’t want to have. Sally is keen to improve herself. She wants to be a good person! So Sally joins some internet communities and starts to read up on things. Sally is well-intentioned, but she’s also never learned how to evaluate information before, and she’s certainly never had to consider that two contrasting opinions could be equally valid - how could she have, when she wasn’t allowed to ask questions, and when she was always told there was a singular Right Answer to everything? Her whole framework for learning is to Look For The Rules And Follow Them, and now that she’s learned the old rules were Bad, that means she has to figure out what the Good Rules are. 

Sally isn’t aware she’s thinking of it in these terms, but subconsciously, this is how she’s learned to think. So when Sally reads a post explaining how sex work and pornography are inherently misogynistic and demeaning to women, Sally doesn’t consider this as one side of an ongoing argument, but uncritically absorbs this information as a new Rule. She reads about how it’s always bad and appropriative for someone from one culture to wear clothes from another culture, and even though she’s not quite sure of all the ways in which it applies, this becomes a Rule, too. Whatever argument she encounters first that seems reasonable becomes a Rule, and once she has the Rules, there’s no need to challenge them or research them or flesh out her understanding, because that’s never been how Rules work - and because she’s grown up in a context where the foremost way to show that you’re aware of and obeying the Rules is to shame people for breaking them, even though she’s not well-versed in these subjects, Sally begins to weigh in on debates by harshly disagreeing with anyone who offers up counter-opinions. Sometimes her disagreements are couched in borrowed terms, parroting back the logic of the Rules she’s learned, but other times, they’re simply ad hominem attacks, because at home, breaking a Rule makes you a bad person, and as such, Sally has never learned to differentiate between attacking the idea and attacking the person. 

And of course, because Sally doesn’t understand the Rules in-depth, it’s harder to explain them to or debate with rulebreakers who’ve come armed with arguments she hasn’t heard before, which makes it easier and less frustrating to just insult them and point out that they ARE rulebreakers - especially if she doesn’t want to admit her confusion or the limitations of her knowledge. Most crucially of all, Sally doesn’t have a viable framework for admitting to fault or ignorance beyond a total groveling apology that doubles as a concession to having been Morally Bad, because that’s what it’s always meant to her to admit you broke a Rule. She has no template for saying, “huh, I hadn’t considered that,” or “I don’t know enough to contribute here,” or even “I was wrong; thanks for explaining!” 

So instead, when challenged, Sally remains defensive: she feels guilty about the prospect of being Bad, because she absolutely doesn’t want to be a Bad Person, but she also doesn’t know how to conceptualise goodness outside of obedience. It makes her nervous and unsettled to think that strangers could think of her as a Bad Person when she’s following the Rules, and so she becomes even more aggressive when challenged to compensate, clinging all the more tightly to anyone who agrees with her, yet inevitably ending up hurt when it turns out this person or that who she thought agreed on What The Rules Were suddenly develops a different opinion, or asks a question, or does something else unsettling. 

Pushed to this sort of breaking point, some people in Sally’s position go back to the fundamentalism they were raised with, not because they still agree with it, but because the lack of uniform agreement about What The Rules Are makes them feel constantly anxious and attacked, and at least before, they knew how to behave to ensure that everyone around them knew they were Good. Others turn to increasingly niche communities and social groups, constantly on paranoid alert for Deviance From The Rules. But other people eventually have the freeing realisation that the fixation on Rules and Goodness is what’s hurting them, not strangers with different opinions, and they steadily start to do what they wanted to do all along: become happier, kinder and better-informed people who can admit to human failings - including their own - without melting down about it.   

THIS is what we mean when we talk about puritan logic being present in fandom and left-wing spaces: the refusal to engage with critical thinking while sticking doggedly to a single, fixed interpretation of How To Be Good. It’s not always about sexuality; it’s just that sexuality, and especially queerness, are topics we’re used to seeing conservatives talk about a certain way, and when those same rhetorical tricks show up in our fandom spaces, we know why they look familiar. 

So: how do you break out of rule-based thinking? By being aware of it as a behavioural pattern. By making a conscious effort to accept that differing perspectives can sometimes have equal value, or that, even if a given argument isn’t completely sound, it might still contain a nugget of truth. By trying to be less reactive and more reflective when encountering positions different to your own. By accepting that not every argument is automatically tied to or indicative of a higher moral position: sometimes, we’re just talking about stuff! By remembering that you’re allowed to change your position, or challenge someone else’s, or ask for clarification. By understanding that having a moral code and personal principles isn’t at odds with asking questions, and that it’s possible - even desirable - to update your beliefs when you come to learn more than you did before. 

This can be a scary and disquieting process to engage in, and it’s important to be aware of that, because one of the main appeals of rule-based thinking - if not the key appeal - is the comfort of moral certainty it engenders. If the rules are simple and clear, and following them is what makes you a good person, then it’s easy to know if you’re doing the right thing according to that system. It’s much, much harder and frequently more uncomfortable to be uncertain about things: to doubt, not only yourself, but the way you’ve been taught to think. And especially online, where we encounter so many more opinions and people than we might elsewhere, and where we can get dogpiled on by strangers or go viral without meaning to despite our best intentions? The prospect of being deemed Bad is genuinely terrifying. Of course we want to follow the Rules. But that’s the point of critical thinking: to try and understand that rules exist in the first place, not to be immutable and unchanging, but as tools to help us be better - and if a tool becomes defunct or broken, it only makes sense to repair it. 

Rigid thinking teaches us to view the world through the lens of rules: to obey first and understand later. Critical thinking teaches us to use ideas, questions, contexts and other bits of information as analytic tools: to put understanding ahead of obedience. So if you want to break out of puritan thinking, whenever you encounter a new piece of information, ask yourself: are you absorbing it as a rule, or as a tool? 

48hr tumblr blackout proposal

tumblr mobile has seadily become near unusable these past few updates. not just from a user experience perspective (which is important enough in itself) but also from an accessibility perspective.

examples include the new way the image viewer works (if you can call it "working"), the tumblr live button replacing the profile button, and that newly created blogs will be forced to have their main dashboard tab be the 'for you' page.

the demands of the protest would be along the lines of:

to protest against these usability issues, and inspired by the recent reddit blackout, i propose a 48 hour blackout (where you don't use tumblr at all). preferably of both mobile and web (since web has problems too) but mobile is the focus here.

I suggest the 48 hours between the 30th of June to the end of the 1st of July.

this marks the end of pride month (for the "queerest place on the internet") and the start of disability month (since accessibility is a massive issue here).

tumblr office is in San Francisco, USA, so the times and dates will be calculated using their time zone (PDT).

you can find out the times and dates for your timezone here.

i can't afford to blaze this post so please spread it around as much as possible! protests only work if significant numbers show up!

tumblr rejected the blaze campaigns for this post because they know it would hurt them. let's make this an indefinite blackout - it's the best way to get results.

(so the blackout would be from June 30th onwards)

staff statements, politician answers, disconnect

i do have to premise, many staff-involved posts are going to be from cyle's blog or written by him. some have other staff contributing to the answer! but he appears to be a sort of main front-end developer, so he's quite literally the most visible staff member, to me at least.

thanks for your feedback! no.

make it accessible? nah, no thank you.

empty words and a cash grab

I have seniority, tough luck! 🤷‍♂️

your gif quality sucks now? here's a solution to a completely different problem :)

getting their disconnect called out

disappointment w disconnect and attitude w older users.

discussion on transparency

asking for forever? list plz :)

further disconnect

issues w reblog chains

thought it was a bug. it is not.

deep dive

feedback on functionality

layout issues:

unintuitive

changes are needed, not this one

insight on ui changes

inconsistencies and broken ui

issues w video/picture viewer

hurts the curating of feeds+

lack of functionality

doubles w accessibility issues

issues w other long standing features

custom domains

legacy editor (expands on gif link above)

fun this is long standing now

user frustrations and rage

one two three four five six

and personally my favorite post

we didn't forget :)

matching icons

gay ones

The YouTube content creator community was wracked by macabre tragedy this morning after Amelia Bedelia was instructed to hang streamers for a six year old’s birthday party

keep seeing Temu ads on here so just to share cause idk if people are widely aware

since when can youtubers just fucking quiz you through their community posts

Well ladies and gentlemen, this is what paradise looks like, right here.

I hate... fanon archetypes. You know how people sand down their blorbos to fit into the same handful of incorrect quote templates and then they forget their actual canon personalities because they've gone too long without engaging with the source material? I hate it. I hate it. He would not fucking say that. The joke was slightly funny when it was on the office or whatever but we've all heard it over and over with different characters pasted into it how are you still laughing please let me out

The funny character has no other personality traits. Also he's incompetent now. The one who's kind of prickly is just weirdly mean OR sad and did nothing wrong, take your pick. Gotta have the Sunshine Boy. Woman 1 is yass slay badass. Woman 2 is the rest of the cast's Mother. If there's only one woman, she can be both. Do you want to kill yourself yet

I didn't say a fandom but you thought of one, didn't you? That's because they all do this. All of them. You search the main tags for the media of your choice and you will find them there. The same incorrect quotes you've been hearing for years. It's like a time loop. It's my own personal torment nexus

Cleo's Armour Stand Workshop done!! Originally started for Hermit-A-Day May, showing various stages of the stand process. See how many details you can find!

Ummm!!! Is anyone else getting comments like these? I wouldn't have noticed anything off about the comments themselves, but check out those usernames. And then in that context, those comments are very generic.

What's happening? What's even the point of spam like this? Is it worth reporting or would it just create unnecessary work for volunteers?

( @naryrising tagging for likelihood of you being more in the loop)

Yes, it's just spam. What's the point: spammers presumably trying to build up some 'realistic' comment history so they don't immediately get detected as spam, before they start spamming for real. You can simply mark them as spam, that doesn't cause any work for us at all because it's an automated system, and marking them helps better train that system to recognize this type of spam.

This post has over a 1000 notes, getting hermitblr mutuals was a mistake XD

So Why Do I Keep Talking About Don't Like: Don't Read and Block And Move On?

So there are ships in my fandom that don't do it for me. There are characters who I do not like, there are tropes that make me grimace, there are relationship dynamics that I can't see any way that they could be delivered and still bring me any joy (in fact they actively make my day unpleasant). When I fill out my Do Not Want for exchanges, I have a BUNCH of stuff on that list. There's stuff in every fandom that I'm part of that makes me go "Oh boy that's a no from me". And my reaction to that is to ignore it. Block terms if necessary, unfollow people, just— leave it along. Don't like: don't read.

But why? Because that's not necessarily the fandom norm. This fandom definitely has a tendancy to actively go after stuff that it doesn't like. Especially on twitter, but I've seen it here too, especially when it comes to ships people don't like, or character takes they think are problematic, or creators they hate. Sending messages to warn people about other blogs, searching up the thing you don't like to hate on the people who post it, screenshotting the thing you hate or just talking about how bad it is so you can all be angry together. And man I just think that's a really bad idea.

The reason I think going after the thing you think is bad is a bad idea falls under two major headings. The first is what it does to you. Some of the things I don't like are just because they rub me the wrong way, or I think it's rude. But a good portion of the stuff I don't like is because it taps directly into some pretty serious stuff. If this is bringing up actual major trauma in my life, things I'm afraid of or bad things that happened, I do understand the desire to focus on it and the eraticate it. It's the same thing that makes you keep biting down on a painful tooth or poking at a painful eye. The thing hurts, so I give my attention to it. But oh boy, giving extra space in my head to the thing that is painful to me is not something that I should be doing lightly, and especially not in my recreational space. I see people being like "I hate this/this is bad because it's related to my trauma", but I can't overstate how bad of an idea it is to go "okay, this is terrible and related to my trauma, therefore I am going to search it up and focus on it and talk about it and share it with everyone I know. I'm going to make this traumatic thing a feature of my life".

You're just giving extra space in your head to the thing that hurts you. Don't give it that. Block the tags, ignore it, go full "I won't see it and I won't respond to it".

And even when it's just that I think something is rude, there's posting a careful post about the rudeness that you think some people might not have thought of and washing your hands of it (which is fine but like the amount of times I've started typing it and then gone "wait, everyone who follows me knows this, I don't have to post this, leave it along"), and then there's making it a feature of your blog to talk about how rude something is— why are you giving a slice of your precious life to the rudeness. Why are you giving them the spotlight? Why are you choosing to celebrate the worst things possible, and not the good things?

And then the other thing where I'm like— you're gonna see stuff you don't like, it is the internet, when you do so I'm begging you to just leave it be and walk away— is what it does to other people.

So I spent ten years on twitter. And in that time I have seen my fair share of hate mobs. Some of them are attacking legitimately horrible people. Some of them are completely misinformed and/or operating off of pure hatred. Some of them are attacking people over the most trivial things. But the thing is that with amost all of them, once they really started rolling, the impact they had was disproportionate to what anyone who was talking in good faith wanted. Someone would start a careful conversation about racism, and then people would go "oh, something I hate", and twelve hours later it's just several thousand people screaming over the original people who just wanted something to be fixed, and instead the person who fucked up is scared off the internet and being doxxed. Sometimes the original problem got fixed, but over half the times the person just closed down because they were being screamed at and learned nothing, and that's pulling from the situations where there was an actual problem to be fixed, and not misinformation or hatred or like, liking the wrong ship motivating things. And like, getting mobbed can really fuck someone up. People have had to check themselves into hospital and worse over this.

There's participating in someone saying "hey, this is fucked up", and that's something we should all do when it comes to matters of bigotry, but it's real important to be able to tell when a conversation is no longer being productive and is just about calling for someone's blood. Saying "hey, this trope plays into sexist stereotypes and you should be aware of it" is a great conversation to have. Attacking and mocking people who wrote the wrong trope does not actually increase the store of justice in the world.

And that's for things that you have a rational, principled reason for thinking is bad. A bunch of the time you just don't like a thing! And that's fine! You're allowed to not like things! But starting the ball of hatred rolling because you don't like things— oh in that case you do not have the moral high ground. You're just a bully.

Like at a certain point you have to start looking at matters of harm reduction, and going "I hate this ship, is calling everyone who likes it filthy degenerates actually going to make the world better, or is it going to make them feel bad and then double down, and nothing good happens". Or is it going to get even worse? Is it going to lead to a mob that causes in real world harm— people's housing or jobs impacted, or mental health, or worse! Sometimes it gets worse!

Sometimes a ship or trope you don't like can feel like a personal attack, but like, in the vast majority of cases, you're having an emotional reaction to something you don't like, you're not actually being harassed. You can feel like it's a good idea and even justified to strike back at this thing that is so bad, but like, in actuality it's just some words on a page someone wrote. Stabbing back at it is biting down on the injured tooth again, it's making things worse. Your best bet is to not give it power. Block terms, block users, ask the mods to not match you with certain people or ships, unfollow people— walk away. Don't spend time on it. Ignore it and focus on something good.

Engaging with things you hate is bad for you, and it's bad for the people around you, and way too much of the time it's disproportionately bad for the people who like the thing you hate. So I'm all in on Block And Move On, and Don't Like: Don't Read.

DO NOT ENGAGE WITH BLUE CHECKS

Elon Musk is paying blue checks for ad revenue in the replies of their Tweets now. He is only paying "verified" accounts for this, even if the account in question has hundreds of thousands of followers.

Do not reply, quote-tweet, or retweet any posts made by a user with a blue check.

Spread the word. Quit Twitter.

when the subject of "why do people believe things that are seriously wrong and harmful" comes up it feels like you kinda hear one of two perspectives:

"oh, that's easy! it's because they're fundamentally Bad people who want to hurt others and choose their beliefs to justify that! :) hope this helps"

or

"they just don't have access to the same information we do. look at this person who was raised in a cult! don't you feel sorry for her?"

and like, yes, fine, some people were in fact raised in cults, but what i wish people would understand is that the bulk of it is just normal human flaws, like:

you, dear reader, are presumably right about everything and were correct to die on every hill you've ever died on, but the difference between you and someone who's wrong about important stuff doesn't look like "well they're inherently evil and i'm not", it probably looks like a combination of:

and, look, i also do these things. the nicest and most thoughtful people i've ever met do these things. if you meet someone who never does any of these things, i dunno, give them a fucking medal or something.

i know you're doing your best. we're all doing our best.

Sausage on stream: Talking about how his powers work

Me sitting in my chair with my animation software open:

the “please donate to help my sick cat 🥺” scam is going around again, keep an eye out and don’t fall for it