> @A.B. I didn't dig incredibly deeply but I saw about a dozen people saying things to the tune of solidarity and only one naysayer

@trogdor I've lost track of what you were referring to :-D (I did scroll back but couldn't be sure.)

@doppelgreener I do favour LGBT+ or LGBTQ (or LGBTQ+ if you must, but that's redundant since "queer" is a blanket term and I do also like good grammar :-) ), in preference to LGBT, because it acknowledges that asexuals exist and are included in whatever's being said. But if I see someone use one version of that acronym rather than another I tend to assume that the most likely explanation is always that they've lost track of which is which :-D

I just want to say that I am not necessarily concurring with any or all of the things said above about gender or neopronouns. That is all.

> then again, there are some people that don't feel like that the world of darkness needs [LGBTQ] topics. or has them.

@Trish I think those people are on a loser. :-D

The stance that "[media franchise] doesn't need [topic]" is... well. People are allowed to have their opinions, but in my experience it often boils down to people seeing minority representation as radical political statements, while sticking to the status quo, no matter how distorted, is seen as politically neutral.

Applies to many other topics as well, of course, not just minority representation

@A.B. oh to the Twitter Thread about spending extra time in the shower

huh I don't even see the thing I said that you are refering to in here anymore

maybe they were both removed or at least moved

@trogdor I... don't think so? I think I see all the relevant messages, which are still in this room. Start of the convo, the particular message that you replied to semi-recently, the mentioned reply by you

(...Unless I'm misunderstanding what's being talked about too. :P )

huh

oh there it is

that's the problem I thought it was closer to what it was replying to

it's actually a lot more recent than I was thinking

Ah yeah, I just caught up on the whole channel so I knew exactly where it was :P

Plus clicking the little "reply" arrow on the left of the message took me straight to the previous message that it was a reply to.

@kviiri super agree. In fact there's no shortage of quips about this, like: "there are two genders in video games: male and political"

@A.B. oh for sure, I have some preferences too. :)

That's a good gag, and a good point. That is how it works, and it's awkward.

@trogdor Ah, I see. I wasn't meaning naysayers, I was meaning... I don't remember what I was meaning.

do you mean you didn't mean my message that included mentioning a naysayer?

@kviiri Something that comes to mind around stuff like this is: everything is political. What one does and doesn't consider political is part of of one's politics. For example: me drinking a cup of tea isn't political here and now, but it would be during the Boston tea party. Women wearing a headscarf is political here in Europe, and women not wearing a headscarf is political in Iran.

well women wearing or not wearing headscarves in either area is political

it's just that one or the other isn't commented on in the place where it is more common

as it were

True, I guess I mean it gets recognised as a political action that goes against the grain.

yes

but yeah I mean, your point is entirely valid I just mean,... if doing the one thing is political, doing the opposite is too

@doppelgreener Full agree.

Many times, especially in USian discussions, "political" gets used to mean "partisan."

As in, something that's going to divide opinions primarily by the R/D fault line?

pretty much

Aye. The broader sense of politicalness is anything relephant to the power dynamics between groups of people, especially as relates to influences on decision-making. This contains the partisan politics of governance, but to limit "politicalness" to that subset is to reduce all discussions of power to pre-made and ill-fitting categories.

we don't have much in the way of political parties other than R/D that are taken seriously by,... basically anyone

when our other parties, what of them that do exist, get press they get press as mostly a joke

To consider "politics" exclusively partisan isn't even just an R/D thing, though. It's about reducing group power relationships to merely issues of struggles for governmental power.

To be political becomes synomymous with taking sides and having teams, and with the struggles between supposedly equal opposing groups for dominance over a status quo which will not itself change.

Thus labeling something political becomes labeling it petty and self-serving, and denies it the opportunity to be seen as transformational or altruistic.

I see, yeah.

When really, the phrase "everything is political" means quite the opposite:instead of a narrowing of scope and a cynical framing of all power dynamics as equally corrupt, "everything is political" is meant to be a perspective-widening call to see power dynamics as a nuanced, complicated web of interactions that interpenetrate all human life and its study is necessary for the dignity and upliftment of humanity.