#‘It’s okay to be a bigot when they’re a bad person’
Text
Just saw someone say they’re not going to use Ezra Miller’s preferred pronouns (they/them) because they’re a bad person so as a friendly reminder don’t do that :))))
#imagine being like#‘It’s okay to be a bigot when they’re a bad person’#same energy as people who say racist things during video games cuz it’s just a game#orrrr maybe you’re using this as an excuse to not have to respect people’s identities#ezra miller
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
okay genuinely what is with some of the complaints for mh g3 because at this point it just sounds like y’all hate it for existing and nothing else.
"ewwww the outfits are so ugly!!" gee, it’s almost like popular fashion trends have changed over the years. there’s a difference between "this outfit is ugly" and "i greatly dislike this outfit"; i personally think a lot of the outfits look pretty cool, but i’m not gonna default to calling the ones i don’t like "ugly" just because i don’t like the style.
"everyone’s personality has changed for the worse!!" because it’s a reboot of the franchise; of course they’re gonna change things to keep things "fresh". besides, i honestly think the personality changes got me more invested in certain characters compared to g1 – frankie and lagoona in particular are characters i didn’t care all that much about in g1, but i’ve loved their g3 characterizations so far.
"it’s racist because they toned down clawdeen’s blackness!!" i am admittedly as white as can be so i don’t know how well i can comment on this, but i feel like people who use this argument have a tendency to sound more bigoted than they claim mattel is. i have both g1 and g3 clawdeen dolls; they have pretty much the exact same skin tone, so that complaint only really applies to the live-action movie. the arguments about her personality being "less black" sound like they’re turning into "clawdeen is less of a sassy black woman stereotype and i hate that". and all the complaints about her being mixed race (and thus "less black") now just sound bigoted against actual afro-latina people. and that’s without getting into how this old argument keeps being used while they ignore that there’s a wider degree of racial diversity in the line, that clawdeen actually has a black va now (light-skinned black, sure, but still an improvement over having a white va do a "black" voice), and that some of y’all made fun of the new venus for looking different when they gave her implicitly black facial features.
and on that note, "you’re just sucking mattel’s dick and ignoring everything bad because there’s more diversity now!!" so people aren’t allowed to be happy that they’re being properly represented in their favorite doll line now? so plus-sized people aren’t allowed to be happy about plus-sized catty? so south asian people can’t be happy that abbey is now properly south asian-coded instead of weirdly russian? so i can’t be happy that one of the characters is explicitly autistic? sure, a story should have more than good diversity if it wants to be truly good, but every time i see this complaint get brought up it’s phrased like we shouldn’t be happy about the increased diversity at all.
"this is just as bad as g2!! why don’t you hate it like g2?!" because it’s not like g2 at all. g2 suffered from a combination of budget cuts that led to cheaper doll designs and marketing unsure of whether or not it was connected to the original g1 continuity; g3, while not perfect, definitely has a better budget and marketers who’ve learned from their mistakes and made it more clear that this is a full reboot.
and all of these complaints seem to carry an undercurrent of "g3 is the only option available and it’s bad" which...just isn’t true. g1 fans still have stuff like the boo-riginal creeproductions, the reel drama dolls, and so many special dolls that hearken back to g1 aesthetics and designs. mattel’s still paying attention to them.
tl;dr stop using increasingly flimsy arguments to justify complaining about people liking something.
23 notes
·
View notes
Note
“How Bad was Snape Really?
Is Snape hated more because he was awful or because he was awful to characters we love? Snape is judged as irredeemable by a lot of the fan base for the way he treated children, which is fair, however the same fan base loves it when characters they dislike have awful things done to them. Hagrid giving Dudley a pigs tail is brushed aside. Crouch Jr turning Malfoy into a ferret is seen as hilarious and I haven't come across too many people who felt that was a suspect thing for Moody to do. The twins enlarging Dudleys tongue doesn't cast any doubts on their character. If Snape had threatened to poison Dracos pet instead, or made mean comments about Pansy rather than Hermione would he receive as much hate?”
There are also comments about James hexing anyone he sees, and he and Sirius being worse when they’re defending Snape.
I know you’re getting a lot of these, sorry if you don’t like it, but it’s interesting to hear your thoughts about these things (I didn’t send the other ones)
I love it! I'm not used to getting asks, so keep sending them :)
How bad was Snape really? - Absolutely Terrible.
The assumptions that I dislike Snape purely because of his actions toward Harry and Sirius (my beloved characters) rings entirely false when I list out the things he's done:
Supported a hate group and was a bigot.
He was a terrible friend to Lily.
He abused students under his care (not just Harry).
He probably turned off a lot of people from Potions - like a whole decade of students - which impacted Aurors and Healers and such.
He was a loyal DE until ONE PARTICULAR PERSON was in danger
and he would've continued if that hadn't happened.
I am sure there are better lists but at this point, I can't think of them. (too tired I guess).
As for the others:
I criticize Hagrid, the twins and other characters - including James, Harry and Sirius - when they do something wrong. Including the things mentioned.
While I don't hate them for the few terrible things they've done - it isn't a double standard because they do nothing on the scale of what Snape does.
Snape is terrible. He abuses children. He abuses his power. He doesn't care about anyone else. He just does what he does out of guilt for Lily - not because it's the right thing to do.
Jr I don't care about enough. I certainly didn't find it okay.
Anyway. It's not a double standard. Snape sucks.
Thanks for the ask :)
20 notes
·
View notes
Text
ok so re: logan and racism (and marcia) because i’ve been having Thoughts TM rotating in my mind for a day or two but like. logan, obviously, is a very racist individual, but i think mostly in the sense that he perpetuates and weaponizes racism rather than actively, like, unironically having said bigoted beliefs (for the most part of course lmao)
in the sense that, like, he does not believe that, say, white people are inherently superior, and he knows and acknowledges that they have a leg up in the world because he’s many things but he’s not stupid. but to him, that’s not a bad thing. it’s not a good thing either. it’s just .. a Thing. it’s the way the world works. (same with misogyny and other forms of oppression. “i didn’t make the world,” he says to shiv after saying her being a woman was a minus.)
he’s got a, like, might makes right natural selection type proto-fascistic sense of morality that prioritizes power and strength above all else. rather than condemning systemic bigotry that he is very very very aware is real and exists, it’s like -- it is what it is. the world isn’t fair, tough luck. he’s aware that spreading racism, islamophobia, antisemitism, etc is profitable for him and therefore he will do it and he won’t feel bad because he didn’t create the world and it’s not his fault that that’s the way things are. racism and bigotry are tools and he won’t hesitate to use them if it’ll serve his interests. it’s all part of the game.
like he’s one of those people who would look at african and asian countries who have had their resources fucked to hell by colonialism and capitalism and imperialism and white supremacy, like iraq, egypt, iran, ethiopia, etc, and he wouldn’t try to downplay how much they contributed to humanity or whitewash them the way your run-of-the-mill old racist man would, but he’d also have no sympathy for their current suffering. he’d think well it’s their fault they let themselves get lazy and soft. that’s what you get. he wouldn’t downplay the crimes europeans have committed against native americans but he’d say that “they were conquered” and that’s the way the world works. oops sorry tough luck you lost.
which brings me to: he respects people of color who, to him, “rise above” racism -- like marcia. because to him, human rights aren’t inalienable. you have to claw your way through the world to be respected and perceived as a human being but if you DO manage to do that -- then you’re one of the good ones. you deserve respect. (romanticizing suffering like a good old catholic lol) i think he feels like him and marcia are similar in the sense that they both rose above hardship -- in the sense that they’re both immigrants (obviously with VERY different experiences) who made something of themselves.
so he respects marcia in a way he doesn’t respect anyone else in the show, in a way. he doesn’t respect his kids or the pierces because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths and he doesn’t respect poor people either because he grew up poor too and he still made something of himself so fuck that everything’s an excuse. he’s like the poster-child of someone who has personally experienced injustice (being abused as a child, living in poverty, etc) and rather than not wanting anyone else to experience these things, you’d rather everyone else did because that’s only fair. like why do YOU get to have a safe space when I didn’t? no fuck that
so like i think if one of the kids were to say something bigoted or micro-aggressive to marcia in his presence he’d be quick to be like, okay, well what do YOU do successfully. quickly. however. he wouldn’t of course actively make the environment they live in safe for her, and he WILL actively promote racism against her people because that’s what works for him, just like he didn’t take measures to keep his kids safe from the people he associates himself with.
#this turned out longer than i thought it would be lmao#does this make sense...#anyway#logan roy#marcia roy#many loganmarcia thoughts their dynamic is insane to me#also i do love marcia howeverrrr. she is very much a race traitor#obviously that doesn't mean she deserves to be subjected to bigotry#but she's a brown woman who actively chose to marry a man who literally owns fox news to serve her own personal interests#to ignore that would be reductive imo
245 notes
·
View notes
Text
There is nothing wrong with being mindful of your own personal safety.
We all have a right to feel uncomfortable, and to act accordingly. It’s okay to cross the road to avoid others, I do this myself.
So too we should all be mindful of how we can make others feel safer when walking home at night – this is just basic common decency.
But what isn’t okay; is to fear monger, vilify and create a cultural panic around ‘men’ as a group.
To talk about men as if they’re monsters forever lurking the shadows; comparing experiences with men to walking through a room of snakes, or swimming in a shark tank, and yes, eating from a bowl of poisoned M&Ms.
This is not advocacy. This is ignorance, and hate.
Neither do such thought experiments help women ‘feel safe’ either. In fact, such terrifying analogies will likely make them feel the opposite.
Neither do you get to tell men (who are at a significantly higher risk), that they can walk the streets at whatever time they like, without fear or consequence – under the protective shield of so called ‘male privilege’.
Walking home at night is not an opportunity for you to inject your bigoted political ideas around men, or stoke fear and division.
I am tired of it.
I am tired of the endless pearl clutching.
I am tired of seeing the conversation of violent crime centred on highly privileged millionaire celebrity women, who are not at risk, and taken away from those who are – which is young, inner city, working class black boys.
I am tired of the conversation making no effort to understand what shapes violent crime, or how to reduce it, to instead fan the flames of a gender war.
I am tired of seeing tragic stories hijacked for political ends, to become yet another bludgeon to hit ‘yes all men’ with.
It is boring. It is divisive. And most of all, it doesn’t achieve anything.
So let’s look at the numbers, for a more reasonable and evidence based insight into violent crime.
--
Sources:
[1] https://tinyurl.com/5ah8vw34
[2] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-39
[3] https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/national/asrh/nc-est2019-agesex.xlsx
[4] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/march2022
[5] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31065232_Gender_motivation_and_the_accomplishment_of_street_robbery_in_the_United_Kingdom
==
Xians will thank their god for everything good in their lives, but are pathologically incapable of blaming it for the bad things that happen. It's either "free will" or "Satan" or some other excuse. This is hypocritical.
If you blame men as a category for violent crime, then you can also give credit to men as a category for the decline of violent crime over the years. To not do so would also be hypocritical.
Or you just blame the extreme minority who are actually responsible.
And if you're still like, nope, changes nothing, then okay. But just do one thing for me. Type: "I'm justified crossing the road when I encounter..." Then go look up violent crime by race, pro rata it, and see how you feel about finishing that sentence. I dare you. If one would make you feel racist about making assumptions about and blaming all members of one group, then the other should also make you feel sexist about making assumptions about and blaming all members of another group.
In fact, such terrifying analogies will likely make them feel the opposite.
This is, of course, a feature not a bug. Women's fear is a valuable political and ideological commodity.
"... as we know from the war on drugs and the war on terror, for those in the business of providing protection, high threat levels are bread and butter. Likewise, for those in the business of healing race relations, racial division is your sworn enemy but your secret friend—so much so that wounding and healing become part of the same operation."
-- Lyell Asher, "Why Colleges Are Becoming Cults."
The same thing applies here. The point of stupid analogies and stories is the same as the threat of hell: to control and manipulate, to gain authority by building dependence through fostering fear.
When someone is encouraging you to be afraid, stop for a moment and ask yourself, why. What do they get out of it?
#The Tin Men#violent crime#misandry#gynocentrism#gynocentric#stranger violence#religion is a mental illness
21 notes
·
View notes
Note
What's your opinion of people outside of the West that don't know anything about JKR but still play Hogwarts Legacy?
This is just a strawman argument.
I don't know what you want me to say here. Idk if you're genuinely curious or if you want me to provoke me to prove trans people are irrational meanies so you can buy a video game guilt free, or you want someone giving you the greenlight to yell at someone who isn’t aware.
If they don't know, they don't know. There's not anything I can do but inform those who don’t know when I can.
Harry Potter is huge, with hundreds of thousands of products and a cultural phenomenon. I want to say they should know about Joanne's beliefs as she's gotten more and more vocal, and it has been reported on by across multiple platforms, but Harry Potter is so much bigger than we can possibly imagine and how's been a pop cultural phenomenon much longer than she's been open about her transphobia.
But I’m finding a majority of people who are buying the game are online, and most people online are aware and
Are actively transphobic so they’re buying it out of spite.
B. Are casually transphobic, so they don’t care at all.
Feel guilty about buying the game and use donating or just feeling bad to get people to reassure them it’s okay they bought the game.
Care more about a video game than trans people, and use “death of the author” and “no ethical consumption under capitalism” (neither which they understand) and also “some trans people are harassing people so they’re the Real oppressors” (aka transphobic rhetoric used to justify stripping our right) as excused to justify why they don’t feel bad and aren’t transphobic.
Genuinely believe they did nothing wrong and can still be a trans ally despite knowing their money will be donated to transphobic causes.
And for people who were able to purchase the game without knowing about Joanne’s transphobia or the antisemitic story, I'm not going to pretend I'm happy with it, or it makes where the money is going fine.
And, for the people who are ignorant? I don’t hate them. I’m frustrated where their money is going and I'm sad they're ignorant of the reality of their situation and the game their playing. I'm sad they aren't aware of the harm their money will cause, and I wish I could inform these people and they would return the game. I wish they never bought the game in the first place. I wish JKR wasn’t a bigoted, I wish the game wasn’t bigoted, and I wish all the money this game made was put to helpful causes or better art.
But we don’t live in that world. Joanne is a bigot and likes being a bigot and likes pretending to be a feminist. All she cares about is getting money to fund her anti-trans causes. She doesn’t care if fans agree with her or not, or if they're aware of her beliefs, she’s just happy to be having money. She has stated she doesn’t care what her fans think, she sees them as people helping her.
I'm frustrated where their money is going, people are allowed to be upset by this. They're allowed to be angry that people are buying this game, whether or not the person knows it’s harmful. Because the harm is still there and is still harming people, whether they’re intended to hurt someone or not. Are people not allowed to cry when someone accidentally hurts them?
People are especially allowed to be pissed with others trying to act like they’re allies all while knowingly buying this game. Allyship isn’t something that depends on when you feel like it. Allyship shouldn’t be playing into what JKR wants, which is money. You are either an ally or not.
Idk, anon, is this enough?
117 notes
·
View notes
Note
i love ur blog fr… one of my least favorite things about the tarot community (not just kpop) is how some people alter or water down their readings (or just aren’t perceptive enough) so that their content is more positive and validating for consumability… and the people who choose to be honest and direct get ate up 😭 divination can be harsh. idk why people are here expecting validation or only positive things. most of these idols are not nice!!
if you want a romantic story and enjoy living in denial, go to ao3!! wattpad or something?? y’all are looking for fanfiction. there are soooo many writing blogs on this site.
and i also have soooo much beef with like, pop culture tarot readings on youtube and tiktok that are clearlyyyyyy not too good in quality, but people eat it up blindly because it tells them things that they like to hear and never anything critical. i have a theory about that being one of the reasons why people assume honest readers have bad intentions or are hating on people. i don’t think people realize just how common it is to read on someone and get the vibe that they’re shitty in some capacity, or not even having to rely on intuition and to be directly told that there is something off about someone. idols aren’t usually any better than the average person, and the average person usually has bad traits. period. some are worse than the average person.
also… i have a problem with how it’s seen as perfectly fine to share the positive traits we’re able to pick up on through tarot, but sharing the negatives is seen as invasive?? like girl either it’s all invasive or none of it lmaooo. you’re okay consuming content that makes you feel like you’d be attractive to someone or reading about what their personality is like, but it’s too much when that same person says that they’d potentially be a bigot or have issues with stuff like anger? that’s when it’s too much??? 😭😭
Thank you so much for stopping by to show love!! I really appreciate your perspective and agree with pretty much everything you’ve said. 🩷
People were shocked by @dreamofmetoday and l’s ideal type readings being so specific and descriptive and we didn’t get why until we tapped in with other peoples readings and realized most are just saying very vague things or just things that EVERYONE is looking for in a partner (for example, kind, sympathetic, loyal) or just things that make it easy to self-insert in general. I think the self-insert aspect is a main reason people put such an emphasis on only focusing on the positive.
I also get asks demanding I tell them how I get such specific and detailed answers when it comes to things like homophobia/race/misogyny whatever, and it’s like, that’s just how it works? Makes me wish more people would get into tarot themselves so they could see.
The “romantic love story” crossover stuff that you mentioned is why I think you’ll often come across readings, and even PACs, on here that are like a wattpad story. like you said, many readers know there’s a large audience for this. For example when it comes to PACs, 3 pile PACs are a very quick and easy way to get followers and likes, but overall don’t exert a lot of energy and limit the amount of people who can actually connect with the PAC but then each pile will be filled with nuance, details and specifics and the reader is able to just say, “take what resonates and leave what doesn’t” to get away with it. How is someone even supposed to know what truly resonates and what doesn’t for a future spouse reading anyway? Not to mention, how can these readers suddenly get so much detail for a random pac and then not in their other readings or personal readings? There’s just a lot of predatory behavior in the tarot community unfortunately (thank you to melody’s anon for helping us label this finally too), and in turn, it creates a huge misunderstanding of what to expect from readings when you know nothing about tarot.
Not saying all 3 pile PACs are bad of course btw, because that would be ridiculous. There are of course situations where the 3 pile format makes sense, but a lot of them on here are just baiting.
In regards to positives being welcomed with open arms and negatives being considered invasive, it’s literally just nonsensical and honestly, a little weird (often the result of fetishization or idolization etc. so to say this under the pretense of high morals is odd… to say the least). I’ve seen people say things like “who are readers to decide what’s a negative?” when that’s literally not the case, it’s not a case of the reader “deciding” anything, I’m literally asking specifically about the negative traits. It makes me wonder what questions other readers are actually asking in the first place to even come to the conclusion that we would assigning these traits ourselves. Or the argument that “humans are multifaceted so we shouldn’t assign them blah blah blah” like… yeah… duh they’re multifaceted, which is why there’s literally a positives section? It just seems like they reach for excuses to defend their main point that the negatives of these men’s personalities just shouldn’t be acknowledged. It almost makes me feel like some people make these blogs to even improve their idols overall image on a smaller scale or have more control of the perception of it.
I really LOVE how you said “it’s either all invasive or none of it is” because that’s something Melody and I talk about together all the time. Their love lives and “kinks” aren’t invasive topics, but everything that could ruin someone’s fantasy about an idol is. In the end, you’re only allowed to post readings that let you daydream about being their best friend, boyfriend or girlfriend with no complications or obstacles I guess lol. Thanks again for sending this ask! It was really cool to unpack this and see that there’s a reader/follower on the same page. 🩷
41 notes
·
View notes
Note
Tw for te/rf rhetoric/beliefs. Apologies in advance for how long this is lol.
I wasn’t fully in the terf cult, Ive maybe talked to one terf and then backed out when she gave me really sketch vibes about how she felt about trans men (which I wasn’t, but it felt predatory and gross and I didn’t wanna be around it). but I did fall into kink-critical radical feminism when I was a teenager because my trauma around patriarchy and extreme discomfort around any nuance within sexual dynamics made kink critical conversations feel sensible. Like of course I should be critical of kink that can take advantage of and abuse consent and condition you to let awful degrading things happen to your body under the guise of consent because the person doing that to you has no reason to be turned on by your powerlessness and if you get off on that, you’re someone we should be concerned about. I was seventeen.
Kink-critical turned into, very quickly, “if you were raised as a man/amab, you’re dangerous to women/afabs because of that gender power differential in patriarchy” which turned into “it’s pretty suspicious that trans women want an opt out of being misogynistic and sexually exploitative towards afabs” because it’s “okay now that she’s a woman” which turned into “trans men Are men but they’re still afab which means they’re basically just women still” (but not in the cool bigender way, but in the gross terf way). This didn’t happen perfectly chronologically or linearly.
While I never misgendered a trans woman and never wanted to take away their rights or ever believed she was a man invading women’s spaces, that conditioning still stuck and I’m still trying to unlearn it and it’s still really hard to undo all that programming. These days, I still have to catch myself all the time. It really seeps into you if you’re not careful. And it all started with someone validating my trauma around consent and patriarchy at 17. Terfs and radfems do not have good intentions, but their words look pretty if you’re not careful. Even if they don’t start off believing trans women are predatory evil masterminds. You cannot always trust your gut instincts about certain things because your gut instincts were not formed in a vacuum devoid of biased conditioning and if they can validate one (understandable) concern you have, they can turn that against others and they will.
It isn’t your fault if they target you but it is your responsibility to make sure you hold yourself accountable for the choices you make from then-on. Being a victim is, surprise, not mutually exclusive from holding bigoted behavior that needs to be checked. But we also need to stop alienating every single person who isn’t pure of heart and mind and soul because literally nobody is. Sorry for the ramble.
yup, like at a certain point you have to sit with yourself and figure out: do you want there to be less bad people or do you want to hate the bad people? which option will cause you less pain in the long term? the answer is probably there being less bad people. and this is where internet 'i don't owe you emotional labor' activism has really fucked us over. because should marginalized people have to sit there and explain to their oppressors why we are human beings? absolutely not. but will we have to do that sometimes if it means they get deradicalized and join the fight for liberation? yeah. and obviously, when possible, it should be allies doing this work. but sometimes you're gonna have to get your hands dirty and it's gonna suck. but sometimes you are going to change someone's mind, and it will be worth it.
44 notes
·
View notes
Text
god knows there's a lot of antisemitic microaggressions from "friends" that i'm willing to let slide. genuinely my standards aren't that high. which is obvious based on the people i was friends with pre-oct 7th lol. but like i do have limits and those limits have been crossed by
expressing a desire to join hamas/the houthis
expressing open support for hamas and oct 7th
referring to oct 7th as "legitimate resistance/oppressed rising up/revolution/freedom fighting"
denying oct 7th happened at all
insisting shani louk is alive (she is not, while her family had hope at first they have since found pieces of her she could not have survived losing)
joking about october 7th
joking about the holocaust
saying jews didn't "learn their lesson" from the holocaust
denying the holocaust
denying other jewish genocides
mocking the hostages and their families
wishing death on the hostages
using "zio"
saying israelis need to go back to brooklyn/florida/poland/etc
saying jews were and have always been well-treated in MENA regions
openly fetishizing and lying about mizrahi/sephardic jews
saying antisemitism doesn't exist/is over
saying ashkenazism don't face antisemitism
saying judaism is a dominant world religion
saying zionists/AIPAC/israel are controlling companies/the government/biden/trump/US military/US police/hollywood
mocking hebrew and jewish culture
mocking jewish holidays
treating jewish holidays as inherently evil
saying that israeli government crimes are being done in "our [jews'] names" and we bear the guilt for it
saying "happy [jewish holiday/memorial day] now stop doing genocide!!!"
saying diaspora jews are okay but not israeli ones
saying all israelis need to die/deserve to die/are settlers who therefore deserve to die
saying jews have no culture/stole all culture from muslims/arabs/christians
open insane blood libel conspiracies about (for example) israelis kidnapping blonde palestinian children or digging up graves for organ/skin theft
referring to israeli "blood money"
spreading and endorsing neo-nazis
spreading and endorsing holocaust deniers and other bigots ie norman finkelstein
spreading and endorsing avowed tankies, NK/russia supporters, and deniers of the ukrainian/uyghur/armenian/syrian/etc genocides
spreading rhetoric from other hate groups ie neturei karta
sharing cartoons of octopi, big-nosed evil men, netanyahu and co eating babies, etc
spreading conspiracy theories about spotify or tumblr or what the fuck ever being controlled by """zionist""" CEOs (and even explicitly stating they're jewish when they often aren't)
belittling ANY anti-antisemitism movement as anti-palestinian
using terms like "zionist rats/pigs/filth"
"all zionists should die/kill themselves/aren't human/should be gassed"
"the zionist entity/zionist state"
"hitler loved israel/was a zionist"
"[x] is worse than the holocaust"/"the holocaust is the only genocide that's taken seriously bc it's a genocide of white people"/"get over the holocaust"
being creepy and ogling about the token good jews that meet your insane standards
weighing in on deeply personal intracommunity jewish discussions in horrible ways
telling Good Jews that you’re so sorry about how isolated they’re being by the majority of jews, which are Bad Jews
saying not to donate to palestinian aid groups bc it could make israel money bc israel controls all the aid groups apparently bc they're just so greedy and want so much money
did i mention je-isra-zionists really love money
movements against "zionism in medicine" and other witch hunts against "zionist" (jewish) people in professions
participating in mass harassment movements and callouts against random jews online asking people to stop being antisemitic
openly calling for violence against jews and/or israelis
claims of dual loyalty against diaspora jews
support the american south bc they're victims of their government too (true) but kill all the israelis bc they definitely support every action taken by their government (hm)
jokes and memes. the fucking memes. you're monsters
"but lace, this is hyperbole, surely nobody is actually saying these things " -- these are all literally, exactly, personally things my "friends" and mutuals have said and reblogged/retweeted since october 7th. if you're reading this now there is a 99% chance you are one of them.
and yes i fucking hate the israeli government. what is happening in palestine is evil. i'm a nonzionist jew.
but i know that's not enough. unless you're a token in "jewish" voice for """peace""" willing to say "kill every single israeli and the holocaust wasn't a big deal and 10/7 didn't happen and antisemitism isn't real and i have never been afraid as a jew in my life" you're one of Them. Being pro palestine or even antizionist isn't enough, you have to want your whole family dead and you can't say a fucking word about the way you're treated by your lovely leftist "allies". oh and you better post about it! constantly! 24/7!!!! or you're secretly a zionist who loves dead palestinian babies! probably personally killing them yourself! you filthy ki- er, zionist rat!
so, yeah, if you think i'm one of Them, that's fine. feel free to block me, i'd much prefer if you did. and let me be clear that jews are not exempt from this either. it's reprehensible regardless
i am not your fucking good jew. If you have ever thought of me as one, fuck you. You are not my good goy, either. Fuck your bugs bunny "i wish all my jewish mutuals a happy rosh hashanah." Fuck your "pictures of African Jews worshipping" tokenism and "jews fighting god" memes. Fuck your nazi punches and your Anne Frank headcanons. Fuck all your disgusting pats on the back and keep my fucking name out of your mouth. If you can't stop reblogging blood libel then I don't want to see another goddamn WORD of it.
18 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hey just saying, but if you disqualify aot and (in your words) media with too many problematic properties, you should also disqualify harry potter, hetalia and south park. I get that this is a poll for controversial characters, but imo there's very much a line between "this character is controversial because they are a bad person or badly written in an otherwise okay media which you can enjoy critically" and "this character is controversial because the writers project their own bigoted views onto them and are openly right-leaning shit heads whose media or current presentation reflects this too"
No.
There is a discourse tag, you can read what I’ve already said about this. But I’ll summarize a few for you here anyways. There are specific reasons I removed the things I removed and allowed the things I allowed. Here they are, in roughly increasing order. Under a cut so people who don’t wanna see this/are uncomfortable with it don’t have to.
I tag everything appropriately, so if you don’t want to see something I allowed, block the tag or unfollow me. I promise I won’t be offended if you unfollow.
If a character is controversial for being bigoted or from a bigoted media, they’re obviously not gonna advance to further rounds because hate will sweep. So they will not advance and will be gone democratically, and they will certainly not win.
Even if they DID win, this poll would not be “promoting” these medias anyways because this is not a “best” character competition. It is for the most controversial. I am not presenting these medias in any positive light, let alone the characters from them. This is why these SAME medias (and others) ARE banned from my two other tournaments that try to find the “best” thing.
I CAN’T meaningfully promote these medias anyways when they are worth billions of dollars and I have like, under a thousand followers on tumblr.
There are certain medias I think are bigoted and I don’t like them. Harry Potter and South Park are two of them (I don’t know anything about Hetalia). The difference between these and Attack On Titan are, from what I’ve been told, Attack On Titan is bigoted on purpose to push a specific agenda. This is not true for the others. OBVIOUSLY I’m not gonna allow racist propaganda, for the same reason I wouldn’t allow, like, idk anything else that actively seeks to radicalize its audience towards a bigoted end goal
The purpose of removing things is to prevent harm, not to make the controversial character tournament uncontroversial. Because if you remember, I actually DID remove a Harry Potter! Because she is a racist caricature and it would harm people to see racist imagery, language, or propaganda all over my blog. It does not harm anyone to read the words “Ron Weasley” or whatever. It’s not like I’m including a list of every slur the author has ever said underneath each character post. If I’m wrong about some character and their image IS bigoted, let me know! I’m more than happy to make this blog into a safer space for people in that way. But I’m not removing it for being controversial in a way where the actual post content is non-harmful and tag-blockable.
If you still disagree, you can send this ask again off anon and then we can talk and I’ll listen. But I’m not taking orders from some anon saying what I should and should not do.
#sorry but this pissed me off. the answers are literally all right in the discourse tag and you try to send a holier than thou ANON#I will talk to you kindly if you have concerns off anon but since I’ve ALREADY SAID that I don’t want to talk about this stuff with anons#I will no longer be polite about it. the people before this were before I said the anon thing so it’s fine but if this one knows that I#that I banned aot then they know I said I won’t discuss this with anons#not a poll#ask#anonymous#discourse#cw racism#cw bigotry
32 notes
·
View notes
Text
this isn’t something that I normally talk about (for a Lot of reasons, but namely because 98% of my engagement with fan content in this fandom is found family oriented), but this Also directly involves something that I care very much about.
but to put it plainly, the way that some corners of this fandom talks about queer platonic relationships is unacceptable. and I’m saying this as an aspec person with experience with qprs.
this isn’t a post about whether certain ships in the dsmp fandom are morally okay, whether ships like beeduo should be depicted romantically or platonically or not, so divorce that idea from this conversation.
but if your criticism of a piece of queer platonic fan content Fully amounts to “this action can look romantic so that means the person depicting it is just mislabeling a romantic relationship/are actively trying to lie to get out of having to admit that they’re just shipping these characters romantically” please Stop and think about what you’re implying about real people’s real relationships.
“queer platonic relationship” is a term that was originally coined by the aromantic community (though not used exclusively by aromantics) to describe the relationships that Some (though not all) aromantics experience that are neither traditional romance Or traditional friendships.
what these relationships actually look like, the boundaries of the people involved, why they use the labels that they do, are all completely different between individuals and partners.
yes, for many people qprs Do look like best friends But More. people who have a stronger commitment with each other, who would like to spend the rest of their lives together under one roof and raise children together, but who otherwise don’t engage with things that are traditionally considered romantic in nature.
but to claim that that’s All a qpr can ever look like is to erase the lived experiences of Many queer people. not all aromantics are asexual, qprs aren’t romance But Less or Friendship But More. they’re just relationships that exist outside the bounds of either, and sometimes that means mixing and matching traits from both camps in ways that Could look like one or the other from the outside. and it is frankly nobody’s place to tell them that they’re Wrong about the label that they use because of that.
if you want to have a conversation about how people depict characters’ relationships together Regardless of whether it’s a romantic or platonic in nature, then by all means have that conversation. if you think, for instance, two characters shouldn’t be depicted as kissing then make that point.
but “if you depict two characters in a qpr kissing that’s Actually a romantic relationship and you’re going to discourse jail” is just actively bigoted and I don’t think people understand this when they make that point.
what you’re criticizing is not the nature of the relationship these characters have together, it’s the actions that the characters are depicted doing while in said relationship. Criticize The Actions, don’t throw queer platonic relationships under the bus to try to make a point about shipping. qpr’s don’t translate to the good pure shipping and romance doesn’t translate to the bad naughty shipping, and trying to act on that assumption without nuance is causing people to say and imply things that they really shouldn’t.
#dream smp#discourse#fandom critical#long post#I'm not getting into specifics here because this isn't a call out post#this is more a psa
155 notes
·
View notes
Text
Okay, SO. Some of you may recall when I gave this speech to the town council in March because our gay mayor intends to be a community center and made a point to say, “This will be an LGBTQ+ safe space,” and all the bigots here promptly *lost their shit*.
Anyway, I posted it to my personal TikTok and then promptly got distracted by work/life/stress/being broke/etc., and came back today to see if I have enough Professor videos to make a “Where the heck is Mahm?” video. Aaaaaand that’s when I spotted this:
Aside from the fact that this person did not listen to anything I said at all, or at least has the listening comprehension of a chair, I mostly just rolled my eyes, then went to my FB and wrote this. (Look, writing is my best weapon.)
Anyway, here:
“Okay, let’s try this again, because I know there are a WHOLE bunch of people with reading and listening comprehension so bad their teachers should be ashamed. (Not HERE, obviously, my FB is *heavily* curated.)
“This is a safe place for the queer community” does not mean it’s ONLY for the queer community. It just means you can’t show up and be a homophobic or transphobic dick.
“This is a safe place for the Black community” and “Black Lives Matter” is not ONLY about Black people. It’s about police violence (which affects everyone, even if the cops have always been nice to you) and racism (which affects everyone) and a whole bunch of other aspects of American daily life.
“This is a safe place for women” does not mean it’s ONLY for women. It’s for people who can manage to be mature and kind to others, and not be a sexist harassing douchebag.
Stop shoving “ONLY” into whichever statement you hear that YOU don’t like. It’s not fucking there. It never was. And if you’re hearing it, it’s because someone else telling you you can’t go somewhere unless you can behave like you’ve got some home training and won’t be an asshole makes you angry, because you were PLANNING to be an ass.
That’s YOU telling on yourself.
“But why do you have to SAY it?”
Why? Because THAT was your first reaction. Because when we feel grateful we know a place will be safe, you seem angry we get to have that security. Because if we knew we were safe, we wouldn’t have to acknowledge these things. But we do, because of sexual assaults and hate crimes and mass murders. Because of Ecole Polytechnique and Pulse nightclub and the Charleston church shooting. Because YOU may not need to hear it, but some of us stand in nightclubs with our backs to the walls and our gaze darting toward the entrance, or memorize the Angel drink in bars so we know how to get the bartender’s attention if a guy won’t leave us alone, or have to get “the talk” about how to respond to cops as a kid because you need to be seen as harmless as humanly possible or they’ll shoot you, and even THAT might not work.
My last podcast episode was on the Club Q shooting. A queer club where everyone went for fun and acceptance, ruined by a broken person directing their hate at a vulnerable community. And nearly every survivor account I read mentioned being afraid of another Pulse. We’re afraid of another Pulse, and another Club Q. We’re afraid of another AIDS crisis dismissed because it first hit the gay community, and COVID being dismissed because it majorly hit communities of color and the disabled. We’re afraid because the people who make these arguments are the ones we have to add to our mental list of people who might wish to hurt us. People who don’t want us harmed, or want to harm us? They’re not the ones arguing against these assurances.
We know who to fear. Mostly because they’re never, EVER quiet.”
#lgbtqia#queer#queer pride#I am BEGGING people not to shame the work of at lest thirteen years’ worth of teachers by acting like this
16 notes
·
View notes
Text
okay so I just watched the new ep of it’s always sunny.
It’s set in a knock-off/parody Chuck. E. Cheese place and the episode depicts the gang getting angry that things have changed since they were children.
These tend to be safety precautions and changes to bigoted stereotypes/jokes/behaviour.
For example, one of the characters was previously a disablist caricature, and Dee is upset that he no longer speaks with a stutter (Frank uses the r slur).
There’s an idea that older generations are always going to be upset about attempts to change things to be more progressive (with the gang obviously going overboard in their disgust/reaction).
Frank keeps bringing up his experiences of the place in the 50′s, which horrify the others for its overt racism and misogyny. But then the rest of them criticise the place for no longer doing the bigoted things they loved as kids.
So, as always, the gang is in the wrong here. Still, there was a bit that bothered me.
One of the animatronics, a teenaged girl, had originally been designed with realistic breasts. These had been sanded down and replaced with bubble wrap.
Dennis and Charlie react with disgust and Charlie says that “they mutilated this poor woman.”
Initially Dennis suggests that this is the work of the “god damned libs,” but when Charlie suggests that it could be religious conservatives, Dennis agrees that “lopping tits off feels like a religious move.”
So. They’re talking about top surgery, right?
They must be. The language is too specific otherwise.
But this is not a trans character. Not a real person who can make this kind of decision. Not a personal choice by somebody exercising bodily autonomy.
This is an object which was censored, presumably to protect any kids who might accidentally (or even purposefully) see the animatronic topless.
This isn’t acceptance of trans people; it’s a safety precaution.
So, the analogy doesn’t work, right? They can’t be saying “trans people should be allowed to lop their tits off if they want to.” Because there aren’t any trans people! There aren’t even any cis people (who should, of course, also be allowed to lop their tits off if they want to).
The message can only be: “people who are disgusted by this are old-fashioned, ignorant, and misinformed.”
Old fashioned, because that is the theme of the episode. The characters are upset that times have changed.
Ignorant and misinformed because of course, if you know anything about lopping off tits, you know that religious conservatives are (usually) very much opposed.
Dennis also says: “this is a sad day for women’s rights.” This could be a reference to terfs?
He, (who is currently perving on an animatronic teenaged girl) is positioning himself as an advocate for women’s rights by criticising “lopping off tits.” So, the joke is that he’s a hypocrite. He positions himself as a defender of women (and people he perceives as women) while actively harming them.
Idk. It’s not bad exactly, but it bothers me that it’s a reference to trans bodies without actually mentioning or depicting trans people.
I feel like it’s a problem that iasip has with all the issues it tackles. It lacks a certain clarity. It knows who it’s making fun of but it’s not entirely sure what the “right” position is.
It’s always making fun of racists - but is it antiracist? It makes fun of transphobes - but does it support trans liberation?
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
I saw a post saying that you were a hypocrite if you hated Billy but “excused” Nancy’s actions, and I’m still totally baffled. Nancy has done maybe four mildly bad things in the show under difficult circumstances:
Persuade Barb to come with her to an un-fun party so she could hang out with her new boyfriend. Honestly, I don’t think this is actually bad—sometimes you go with a friend to an event you don’t really enjoy so they’ll be safe or have company. Under ordinary circumstances, Nancy would’ve owed Barb a favor, but a favor in the sense of doing an activity that was way more of a Barb thing.
Say mean things or snap at people when traumatized, provoked, and/or inebriated. I think the most offensive thing she says is the one about “the Oliver Twist routine” to Jonathan. To be fair, that was a fight where they both said harsh and unjust things in a very trying situation, and I love him but he kind of started it.
Arguably stay with Steve too long when her heart wasn’t in it. I say arguably because we don’t know what happened between Christmas 1983 and late October 1984. She might have sincerely believed she loved him and that it was best to let things go with Jonathan before the Hollands revealed that they were sinking money into the futile search for Barb.
Seem weirdly hostile to acknowledging that Jonathan has to deal with being poor and (to a lesser extent) not understanding his difficult family situation. I think some of this is classism and general indifference to Jonathan on the part of the writers, so I can’t be fully mad at Nancy the character.
These are all okay reasons to dislike Nancy, but Billy:
Threatens, berates, physically harms, and breaks the possessions of his thirteen-year-old stepsister;
Insults people without provocation (the kid at the pool, women in general);
Tries to run over children with his car;
Declares that Lucas, a thirteen-year-old boy who’s never done anything threatening in his life, is dangerous because he’s black;
Tries to beat or even kill Lucas (again, a boy who’s five years younger and much smaller than Billy) for no reason;
Bullies Steve for no reason in a kind of creepy way and beats him to a pulp at the Byers house for the crime of…not letting him hurt Lucas or the other kids;
Smashes shit in the Byers house even though nobody in that family has done anything to him.
He’s out there committing actual crimes and being a proud bigot. Nancy just has normal character flaws and mostly tries to be a good person. They’re not on the same level. What’s next? You’re a hypocrite if you think Vecna is bad for killing people horribly and trying to take over the world, but you let it go when Dustin ungraciously complained about the quality of snacks at Will’s post-funeral reception?
44 notes
·
View notes
Note
Regarding the "negative reviews" that ROP is apparently receiving, because you all seem to claim, without seeing it, that it's a bad show or of low quality: most negative reviews on ROP I have seen are outright racist or, if they're not racist/bigoted they're childish arguments and incompetent critique. "The elves have short hair now". "Elrond isn't respectable enough". "Galadriel is too warlike". This is not a slam dunk. They're setting up character arcs and prepping them for development, as you do when writing a story. You idiots. The fanfictions you've devoted your life to have taught you nothing, apparently. They don't have primacy, and there's no intrinsic value to following the "fan-accepted" version of any character. Nobody who is negatively criticizing ROP can make a good argument against its writing or dialogue (which is no worse than the original LOTR, they're basically on the same level), its set design, its characters or acting. All they have is petulant stuff like "this is not my Galadriel" "they gave Elrond short hair" "they don't say Finrod's name". You embarrass yourselves, you lower the quality of the discourse. Boycotting ROP on the basis of Amazon being ghoulish is a valid approach, but making up incompetent arguments and passing them off as critique isn't. Y'all just can't accept that an evil company can also create a technically and artistically competent TV series, because you lack critical thinking skills and are consumed by tumblr brainrot, thinking things can only be wholly bad or wholly good. Children
Okay, anon, sure.
Let’s take this in order:
The negative reviews I’ve highlighted have been from respectable mainstream publications who are not caving to reactionary racist or sexist backlash. You’re assuming I’ve been going to great lengths to seek out user reviews or comments on Twitter or the shit the Daily Mail or Bounding Into Comics is saying. I’m not. The reviews I linked to all point out significant flaws with the writing and dialogue and approach to the showrunning. Whoever you’re accusing of being a child, it sure as hell can’t be me.
The things pointed out in those reviews - the gender-essentialist short hair, the complete mishandling of the family relations in House Finwë, the details they legally can’t mention, the political situation in the Second Age that are being completely rewritten - are all signs of a bad adaptation. They are indicators that the writers fundamentally do not understand the text they are using as a source material, and that therefore the story they are telling is not connected to the books. You present these as petulant or childish complaints but they aren’t, they’re significant and show that the people writing this work are not interested in accurately portraying what’s written on the page. At that point, regardless of how good the writing is, this project has failed at its most basic task.
The first episodes also prove that they didn’t have the rights to anything except the Appendices. This means they are compelled to write an entirely original story, which might be good but so far is neither accurate nor compelling on its own.
Whether or not the adaptation is accurate matters to people who aren’t racist. This is because a desire for accuracy is not approving of the author, the author’s personal politics, or the author’s preferences. I don’t want accuracy because I care about Tolkien the man. I want accuracy because I like the books as they are written, and clearly what Amazon is doing is not following the books as they were written. This matters to me and to many other people. (“Accuracy” is not a shorthand for “white people”. I have said before on this blog that I want substantially more people of color in the show, not less and not the current amount. It is in fact necessary to include more characters of color to accurately reflect the text.)
The writing on this show is bad. Abysmally bad. Horribly bad. So bad I’d rather watch The Room and Birdemic and Zardoz on loop. Assuming that everyone criticizing this show has nothing to say about the writing and dialogue is false. The production design is horrible, the music is either generic or actively racist, the plot is already disjointed and badly structured. All of these are things that have been said in many critiques, and all of them matter. I at this point doubt that anyone who likes this show has actually watched it because the incompetence in every possible place except for some of the effects and the cinematography is staggering.
So no, I can’t accept that Amazon made a technically competent series. They didn’t do that, and I am not interested in being told they did simply because of your assumptions about what we’re all objecting to.
Cheers!
26 notes
·
View notes
Note
hey Steph, um, you're the first person I'm admitting this to. but...I think I'm on the ace-spec. And sometimes i have these really bad doubts as to if i actually am or just don't want to have sex and have convinced myself just - *hug?*
Hey Nonny *HUGS*
First off: You're not alone, and this experience is not only relatable to me, but I have gotten a lot of DMs and asks about other aces trying to figure themselves out in a similar fashion. I've written numerous posts about it, and STILL have to answer an ask from years ago that asks me specifically about my "version" of sexuality and the story of how I figured myself out. But the short version (EDIT: It’s not short, lol) of it is this:
It's okay if you don't know right away what you are, and the process may take you days, months or YEARS. You are literally me back when I was in my early 30′s and suddenly realized I wasn't fitting into the heteronormative mould that people expected me to be in. And it's a TERRIFYING experience to have a sudden crisis in your 30's. Because we aces are SO used to the bigoted rhetoric of us being broken, or us not finding the right person, or we just need a good fucking, or medication will fix us. It's gross, and so SO wrong. And it’s VALID to be questioning before settling. My journey took me FOUR YEARS of trying on different flavours of asexuality before I settled on labels that fit me currently. It was a lot of soul searching and self-discovery, and I don’t regret it.
Asexuality is actually one of the broadest sexualities out there, with a HUGE spectrum and with SO many nuances and intricacies that the only way we CAN figure ourselves out is to, unfortunately, do our own research. It sucks, but I don't regret doing it for myself since I am now at peace with that part of my life at least. There's not many "public" support groups for aces, so we do have to go online and find the documents.
So, this is my advice to you, Nonny: Now that you are ready to start your journey, and you're in the headspace to do so, I do implore you to START your journey at AVEN. It's where I started, and I read EVERYTHING on the site, and jotted down terms and info for me to research. One of the biggest things that helped me understand myself was learning about the split attraction model, and realizing that ace people experience relationships VERY differently than allosexual people. Keep that term under your hat for the future, but in your case, I think you should read up on "Asexuals and Attitudes Toward Sex", and then as an aside (since I DON'T know if your lack of attraction to sex is trauma-related), read this short post from a Nonny who ID'd as ace because of trauma (cw below link: light allusions to SA in ask). AND check out some Ace YouTube Channels... they’re small but SUPER interesting! My faves are Ace Dad Advice, Slice of Ace and Lynn Saga as the active ones I’m subscribed to. Ash Hardell has a great 3-part video series on “Everything Ace and Aro” and I REALLY like the Anthony Padilla “Spent a Day With Asexuals” video.
I think these are all good places for you to start.
Here are some additional posts to carry you on your journey:
RESOURCES
Asexuality Visibility and Education Network (AVEN)
The Trevor Project – Understanding Asexuality
Healthline – What Does It Mean to Be Asexual?
LGBTQ Centre UNC-Chapel Hill – Asexuality, Attraction, and Romantic Orientation
QueerEvents.ca – Asexuality 101
LGBTQIA+ Wiki – The Asexual Spectrum
Wikipedia – Asexuality
BBC.com – Asexuality: The ascent of the ‘invisible’ sexual orientation
Mindbodygreen.com – 14 Signs and Considerations to Know if You’re Ace
TeenVogue – What Is Asexuality: Myths and Truths About Being Asexual
And for some giggles, check out the subreddit r/asexuality. Beware though, there is some allophobia and shaming of sexual aces on many posts. I usually only go here for the memes, or just watch a YouTube Redditor read all the best ones, like Jammidodger and One Topic at a Time because they’re SUPER wholesome and silly.
MY POSTS
“I’m ace but like physical affection”
Autochorisexuality / Aces Who Love Smut
“It’s hard to be ace in a hyper sexualized world”
Celibacy Does Not Equal Asexuality
Romantic Feelings vs. Platonic Affection
“I Think I Might Be Ace”
“Am I a ‘fake ace’? I feel like I’m betraying my sexuality“
“I’m ace but I have sexual fantasies. Am I still ace?”
“How Does One Find out they’re ace or Aro?”
“I’m not attracted to any one but my boyfriend, am I Demi?”
“Is it okay to still call myself ace if I am sex-repulsed because of trauma?”
“My cousin came out as Ace, family this it’s because she doesn’t want to marry” (discussion about asexuality vs celibacy)
OTHERS’ POSTS
The B(ace)ics of Asexuality 101
History of Asexuality
Let’s talk about asexuality!
You Might Be Asexual If
The Ace Experience
History of Asexuality (cis straight aces and queerness)
The Recent TERF and Ace Discourse on Social Media
Sex and Asexuality
Aphobic Rhetoric on Tumblr Queer Spaces
Asexual doesn’t mean non-sexual
Aspecs don’t need to have dated
Can I be asexual if…?
Asexuality and the LGBT Labels
You can be kinky and ace
The Card Suits
VIDEO: Split Attraction Model
And finally, because I feel like it's important for me to state this to you because you're alluding to feeling shame for I.D.ing as something you're not sure that you are: If THAT'S the label you choose right now for yourself, THAT IS WHO YOU ARE. Sexuality is fluid. I KNOW people who, after I told them I'm ace and they asked me questions about it, they always had a sex drive until recently and just... started thinking they might be ace now too. I know people who thought they were straight but really they're bi. And THAT'S OKAY.
And you know what? If you NEVER settle on a label, that’s okay too. Our labels just here to help us understand ourselves better, and if people have issues with that, then that’s their weird-assed problem to deal with. Nothing pisses off people more than trying to shame others for things and you not responding in a way they were hoping for, LOL.
I hope these help you out Nonny, and FINALLY, I apologize for taking long to answer this I got lazy after my trip, LOL. Let us know how your journey goes! <3
Love ya!
#steph replies#chatting with nonnies#i am not a professional#my advice#sexuality#asexuality advice#my thoughts#resources#long post
36 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
dead-dialogs
Dead Dialogs
komback
Untitled
sheimus1371
Sheimus#1371
the-dentonweaver
Thoughts
amnesicjester
NONBINARY JEVIL SUPREMACY