autism powered jayvik machine

Thank you 😭💕

IT IS. And thank you!

I am so, so sorry you’re going through this. I’ll donate some whenever my next check hits, I missed when it was posted. Please stay safe and I hope things improve for your family soon. I’ve been in a similar situation in the past and it’s difficult to say the least, I hope your mother is well.

Donate to Help Rads' Family Find Safe Housing, organized by Harry Smith Hello, this is Dis on behalf of my friend Rads, who is currently living in Brazi… Harry Smith needs your support for Help Rads' Family Find Safe Housing

Hey yall, my family is going through a very rough period after my mother left her abusive marriage and I'm not able to fully support them alone.

If you enjoyed my art, writing, or any of my work in the past, consider helping us move out. Please share! eternally grateful 🙏❤️

gofund.me/bd7e0e2e0

Know I am writing and you will see it soon but also not only did the snow storm kick our ass but I have surgery due to a kidney stone tomorrow

Don’t know how many more examples it’s going to take for people to realize that billionaires are an existential threat to democracy and its institutions.

But my main thing is that I don’t think Cherry needed to elaborate, I think not choosing a side and simply stating that they have boundaries against certain topics was enough.

The larger issue isn’t who’s “right,” it’s that the pro/anti binary rewards immaturity — whether that immaturity shows up as moral panic or as total disengagement.

Pretending that pro spaces don’t also normalize avoidance, indifference, or hostility toward anyone uncomfortable is where the conversation breaks down.

This isn’t about mislabeling harassment as boundaries. It’s about how fandom keeps collapsing into two opposing camps where nuance, accountability, and care get discarded on both sides. Calling out antis for misunderstanding boundaries is fair.

When adults who are capable of critical thought disengage entirely, refuse to contextualize, and treat harm as someone else’s problem, it creates the same kind of absolutism antis rely on — just in reverse.

Where I disagree is the idea that this is purely an “anti problem.” Pro-ship spaces often respond by drawing a hard moral line and taking an “I’m not your babysitter” stance, which is just as reductive.

Adults in their 20s–30s doing the same thing is actually part of the issue I’m criticizing: age doesn’t magically confer emotional maturity or ethical engagement.

My point was about why this behavior keeps replicating, not about justifying it. A lot of the loudest antis are minors who haven’t learned the difference between personal discomfort and public regulation, but the problem doesn’t stop there and I don’t think it’s exclusive to kids.

Framing antis as “minors expressing boundaries” wasn’t meant to excuse or deny the real harm that anti behavior causes. Calling people “pedos,” demanding censorship, and barging into adult spaces is not boundary-setting — I agree with that, and I’ve never claimed otherwise.

And I think Cherry’s response worked because it didn’t pick a side. A lot of us are there: both camps tend to spiral, we’re adults who can choose what we engage with while still accepting that nothing is above criticism. I don’t think people should have to pick a side when both sides kind of suck.

Also worth noting there’s been a real uptick in pro-ship spaces fetishizing marginalized identities, which does have real-world and historical implications. I’ve seen some of the most vocal pro shippers back away from the label due to this.

I wouldn’t go that far. Pro-shippers have also engaged in harassment, so framing this as uniquely or primarily an “anti” behavior feels reductive. Especially when a lot of people labeled antis are minors trying (often badly) to express boundaries or discomfort.

Don’t fall for that bullshit.

That dynamic benefits the companies, too. Straight fans defending ambiguity give cover to corporate noncommitment. They become an unofficial shield: “see, it’s not queerbaiting, you’re just projecting.”

They can afford to treat queerness as optional interpretation because their existence is never on the line.

They insist everything is neutral, that nothing means anything, that reading queerness into obvious romantic framing is “forcing it” or “making it political.” This feigned ignorance doesn’t come from confusion, it comes from comfort.

What makes this worse is the current political climate.

At a moment when queer lives and rights are being openly debated, rolled back, and politicized, straight fans suddenly discover “plausible deniability.”

The only thing happening is that corporations have learned how to monetize queer longing — keeping us engaged, invested, and grateful for implication — while never having to fully commit to representation.

And don’t put yourself down for hoping anyway. Wanting to be seen isn’t naïve. Believing a story might finally include you isn’t embarrassing.

The game isn’t that you’re bad at reading it. It’s that the rules were designed so the company can always deny they were playing. Unless queerness is explicitly presented by the company in the actual work, assume the bait is the point.

So no, you’re not “losing to a dog at chess.” You’re not imagining patterns that aren’t there. You’re responding exactly as intended to signals that were deliberately placed. Both in the text and outside of it.

They egg it on because fandom engagement is free marketing, and queer fans are incredibly good at generating buzz when given even the smallest scrap. The performance of allyship costs them nothing; following through might.

And it doesn’t stop on the screen.
These same companies will then turn around and actively engage with the ship on social media. They like the fanart. They retweet the edits. They post emojis, inside jokes, captions, coy responses that encourage speculation while carefully avoiding commitment.