#also the people who are trying to ‘cancel’ a country are stupid | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

researchgate · 6 months

Note

the “jews should go back where they came from” rhetoric from the left over the past month omg.. it makes me sick just thinking about it. how tf do these people think they're on the right side of history? go back where? to the countries that violently tried again and again to wipe out all jewish population? The left has also made it crystal clear that they don't believe antisemitism is a legitimate form of oppression or something. Theres holocaust survivors still alive and somehow the world is already downplaying the genocide of 6 million jews, they're calling jewish israelis nazis and bringing up ashkenazi “whiteness” as a counterargument that cancels out Jew hatred. Pity Hitler didn't share their views on that “whiteness” ig.

and of course they're taking zero responsibility over their antisemitic views. Instead they're trying to pin the recent wave of antisemitism on the far right that “infiltrated” the free Palestine movement. it's like these people think there's one hero and one villain in this as if we're in a movie or something? they think antisemitism only ever comes in the form of the west's far right as if jewish people don't face hatred from all sides! meanwhile the call is coming from inside the house cause when you cozy up to the middle eastern equivalent of the far right and praise an islamist terrorist group that wants the extermination of jewish people you should at least own up to being a fucking antisemite

the whole Ashkenazi "whiteness" argument is incredibly stupid as it takes US American racial relations and sticks them where they don't belong. According to their view, then, Ashkenazim and mizrahim in Israel weren't racist against Jewish immigrants from the former USSR because theyre white, and whites (Ashkenazim) can't be racist against whites, and mizrahim, by product of being non-white can't ve racist against whites (Jewish USSR immigrants, which aren't even all white). It also means that white-passing Levantines oppress their fellow country people by merely being white. This is just not how the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter, works.

their downplaying of antisemitism and the holocaust has been unsurprising given how easy for them it was to take the term genocide and apply it to less than 50 dead trans people in a year, but not say the same about women's deaths which are massive in numbers. They completely ignored and still do ignore the genocide convention of the UN, which clearly states there must be intent for something to qualify as genocide. It's very frustrating still, because you'd thingk that people who "hate Nazis" would realize why Nazis were bad people, and not copy them or have a similar line of thinking as them. But Jews are proven wrong again and again when they trust any gentile when push comes to shove. And still there are Jews who pander, who do their best to appear like the Good Jews, so that they won't be attacked or hated, not realizing they're already hated for being Jewish. They prefer to take a kapo role (so to speak) even though they'll be murdered all the same. They think being token Jews will protect them. (with them of course there are the fanatics whose only reason for being tokens is actually their messianic delusion of a third temple, and these of course Neturei Qarta, but I digress).

Thing is, Jews were never safe anywhere on the political map. They were never safe wherever they went. They finally could have their own state and be safe in it, and would accept almost anything, even very little, for that safety, but around them, people had other plans. There were no open arms, but rather armed opposition to their mere existence, a continuation of the Farhoud and the ethnic cleansings of Jews from Arab and Muslim countries. The fact that even after October 7th, Jews in the diaspora are still showing intent to leave to Israel is enough a proof that the Jews in Israel have nowhere to come back to, unless they want to be killed yet again.

It's disheartening to see how easily people on the left, to which Jewish people have contributed greatly, still hate Jews more than they care about peace.

#nf #anonymous #asks #antisemitism #antisemitism on the left

15 notes · View notes

wanderrnest · 6 months

Text

@mercurialcreatur3 Answering here because it was too long for replays on the previous post i reblogged. sorry for my English.

What you said is the most painful to me. People walk among us after they went through these unspeakable horrors, and people still find ways to deny or underestimad it. This is equivalent to Holocaust denial for us. Except now, unlike Nazi Germany, even Hamas terrorists themselves filmed things and uploaded them, sometimes even to victims' social media. There are photos and videos that I wish wouldn't be true, but they are. When there's a terrorist investigation where he said they were told to murder, behead, and rape. There are videos of sexual assault. They found sexual assault evidence on dead bodies. I'm choosing not to go more graphic, but there is so much more graphic. Many people can't tell you what happened because they're dead, like entire families; we won't hear their stories (again painfully similar to the Holocaust, where in some cases there was not one left to tell); they only left butchered bodies behind them, but even that is not enough. read on shani louk, it's one exapmle out of many. look on Hadas Kalderon that her mother and niece were murderd and her two children are kidnapped in gaza without her. they uploded one thing to her daugther's tik tok - "goodbye". it's diffrenet when you know the faces and you hear the first hand stories.

Hamas is a terror organization; it thrives on propaganda. You are fed with propaganda about Israel that comes straight from their scripted messages and false information and the dehumanizing of israelis and jews. The amount of misinformation in the pro-Palestinian circles and the Muslim world is truly off the charts. Israel did not use photos of Palestinian children. Hamas burned babies and beheaded and raped Jewish people and paraded with their bodies. It's a fact; it's documented; people saw it. i can't even think about making this up because it's too terrible to even be imagined; it's hard for me to even say it. It's people's families! I can't believe I have to try to convince a fellow Jewish person that it's not a lie, that innocent Jews actually were brutally murdered. It may seem hard to believe, and you refuse to believe the photos, but is it really that hard to believe when it's literally their declared written goal? Slaughter Jews? c'mon What else do you need? why would you choose to believe the messages of a terror organization?

Yes, she said they treated her nicely; she's like 85. I'm so glad she is physically unharmed, and I believe she wisely managed to interact with them (which to me, shows more about her humanity than theirs, since kindapping a 85 years old or breaking into a house of an old lady and holding a grenade up her head (different story of rachel adri) pretty much cancels ones humanity. not to mention shooting elders in the head. I guess some of them were interactable (also, please don't forget that her HUSBAND is still there, which might be a reason for her words). but it doesn't make their crimes against humanity any less terrible, it doesn't bring back 1,400 people who are brutally murdered. they didn't treat nicely the other elders they shot, the women they raped and murdered, the babies they burned or beheaded, and the children that are still held in Gaza. their morals are entiraly diffrenet then ours in ways we cannot comprehend. they justfiy and call to do all those things to jewish people, in all ages, including rape.

Those people also understood really quickly that bragging about all their horrifying acts wouldn't give them the West support that they love, they are not stupid, so they try to minimize damage, and it's working.

As much as I'm not a fan of the Israeli government (before it all happened, I protested against it every week; again, a leftist), and I'm the last one to defend it, but this is still not some version of Russia with fake news and censorship. We are a small country with a mandatory army, where everyone knows someone who knows someone who's been affected, who was there in some way or another, during or after. Our media is still free and diverse. Please believe me; I know what happened an hour's drive from where I live. If the TV news leaves out details, and it does, it's in order to keep us sane because the ideas are too much to handle and are feared to cause massive hysteria, but everyone knows anyway. Sometimes it's even scarier to watch the news reporter knows something but stops themselves from giving the details because it's too terrible to air on TV.

Honestly, there is so much evidence and testimonies and there will be so much more. i hope that even if not now, one day you'll understand the horrors; I don't know what else will make you believe after all that. I understand you are for the weak now, but if we were weak now, we wouldn't be alive. We were weak on October 7th, and we aren't going to be weak again. Gaza could've been free without the terror organization that rules it. That was the intention from the beginning when Israel withdrew completely from Gaza, giving Palestinians autonomy. Once it got controlled by a terror organization, it naturally got complicated and violent. But we can't protect them from their own now; I'm sorry. We'll have to protect our people from being murdered. we have no way of "freeing" anyone without sentencing our own death (casual reminder of the sea of muslim countries around us, that wouln't miss a chance to join our destraction). And it feels like it's comfortable to you as a Jew that doesn't live in Israel to underestimate this need and join your friend by judging from afar, but you aren't in this danger. anyway i hope you won't be beacuse antisemitism is getting worse and worse everyday.

But if you'd be here, and these horrors were at your doorstep, believe me you'd understand the need to defend yourself. that's why i'm so anxiously try to make you understand. Israel is not comitting genocide, i'll say it again and again. it fights a terror organization thet hides behind their civillians, and it would not have done that if this terror organization stopped murdering israelis. we have no interst in killing palestinians just because they are palestinians. none.

this is the propaganda.

and if anyone from our dozens of neighbor muslim countries truly cared about palestinians and not just interested in destroying us and the western values, they would actually help them and not encourage hamas.

This comes from a leftist who, until very recently, believed wholeheartedly in a two-state solution. i don't know what i think now.

#israel #trigger alert: everything

13 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 9 months

Note

While I respect that Islam-dominated countries do have it worse than America, let's not deny that America is loaded with tons of problems caused by the religious right, like historical revisionism, the denial of abortion rights, and whatever the hell created trump's cult. The reason a lot of people who don't like it don't leave is because they can't, mostly due to financial issues. Just because my neighbor is paralyzed, that doesn't mean my broken arm is any less of an issue.

Let's imagine for a moment that money was no object. Where would you go? Where in the world do you think doesn't have a right-wing, with a large proportion of religious?

Canada? Sweden? UK? All of those countries have abortion laws that are comparable to, or even stricter than, many state laws in the US. For example, California bans abortion after fetal viability (~24-26 weeks), while Sweden bans it after 18 weeks (notwithstanding those medically necessary due to risk to the mother or fetus).

Regarding historical revisionism, that's not unique to the right or the left. The 1619 Project, for example. Not only did they fabricate a bogus history, the lead author denied even the pretence of objectivity, and then fabricated an alternate history where she never said the things she said. (See: #1619Gate.) You should be as concerned about one as the other, but also notice that it doesn't require religiosity -- at least in the conventional sense. Fundamentalist ideology works just as well.

As far as Trump goes, I think Bill Maher put it best:

youtube

So why do Republicans stand by him now? The easy answer is they're deplorables, ignorant and bad, and yes, there is some of that. I'm sorry, if I'm going to stay in America, and America is going to stay America, I can't write off half the country that easily. Also, I talk to deplorables. So let me try to translate. Not endorse, but translate for liberal America. Part of the appeal of a Herschel Walker, or a Donald Trump or any number of egregious assholes Republicans have backed is, in their mind, the worse a candidate is, the more it says to Democrats "do you see how much we don't like what you're selling?" "All that socialism and identity politics and victimhood and oversensitivity and cancel culture and white self-loathing and forcing complicated ideas about race and sex on kids too young to understand it? Literally anything would be better than that." That's their view. That's why you can be a really bad dude in Republican politics, and it's not a deal breaker. [..] I'm not so sure [the fetish breasts trans teacher] isn't doing this to make a statement. That anyone can do absolutely anything in the name of wokeness and the left will never stop them. And that's when Republicans say "well then we'll have to, no matter who we have to elect to do it." The fact that Republicans have no shame in their game, and will vote for any monster with an R by his name is their way of signaling how serious they are about blocking this shit.

There's a sense that what opened up the opportunity for people like Trump was the shift of the left away from the core party principles, towards esoteric, postmodern and, let's face it, pretentious ideas. That they abandoned their historical constituency and their historical platforms related to concerns over socio-economic class, and became fixated on identity politics, rather than economics politics. Stupid ideas like those that eventually gave birth to "defund the police," which nobody who was affected by police reduction actually wanted; it came from white middle-class people who would never have to bear the brunt of the the results. Luxury beliefs. (And if anyone wants to insist that "nObOdY mEaNt ThAt," I'm going to call them a liar.)

When you cut through the horseshit of Trump's lies and megalomania, the message he has is simple, and yet enticing to average America: "they don't care about you and your working class jobs, your middle-America values, your nuclear family. They're east and west-coast elites who look down on you." Such as calling a good chunk of the population "deplorables."

Now, as someone who doesn't believe for a second that he genuinely has their interests at heart or in mind, or anything other than his own self-interest and self-promotion, I can still see he has a point here.

His particular brand of insane multi-billionaire schtick being sold to average Americans is not the remedy. Re-asserting classical liberal ethics is, not embracing right-wing populist illiberalism. I still regard myself as left-ish, but I don't recognize the incarnations of the left that are now manifesting in countries that have succumbed to this crap. While I would be willing to vote for a sane conservative head of government, I would rather have my left back. But I get why people might view him as the alternative.

A Trump doesn't come out of nowhere. He comes about as a reaction to or shift in something else. He's an opportunist and a predator, and he's exploited a vulnerability in America. The question shouldn't be why he's exploiting that vulnerability, because if it wasn't him, it would be someone else. The question should be what created that vulnerability in the first place that opened the door for him.

I'm not saying don't fix the remaining issues, but don't act like the majority of the really big ones haven't already been addressed. And don't act like the liberalism on which your society is organized isn't equipped to, or capable of, fixing what remains.

Frankly, I see a lot of what you described as a natural part of the liberal system doing its job. Or, supposed to be doing its job, when people actually do liberalism. Maybe I'm a naive idealist in that way.

Look at it this way: everything you're concerned about can be inverted, and that's what the Republicans are concerned about. That's why I describe it as disagreements. "But I'm right," you might say. So do they. These are matters of opinion.

The reason why countries like America, Canada, UK, etc are better than Islam-dominated countries isn't because there are no problems. It's because it has a system to fight over those problems that doesn't involve either going to war, or having a regime kill everyone who disagrees. In an Islamic regime, there are no matters of opinion, no disagreements. There is compliance with Islamic doctrine, or there is retribution.

Eerily, the failure of people to do liberalism is creating the same thing. In a woke regime, there are no matters of opinion, no disagreements. There is compliance with Critical Theory, words like "woman", "man" and "racism" have been redefined for ideological objectives, there are new phrases like "birthing people" and "parents of childbearing potential," while other words, such as "same-sex attraction" and "merit" are haram. And if you don't comply, there is cancel culture.

Liberalism is not an ideology or a set of policies or beliefs. It's a method for conflict resolution. It's a way for different ideas to compete be thrashed out, be tested, accepted, rejected, negotiated, and so forth. I actually see many - not all, but many - of these discussions, arguments and disagreements as a good thing. It's a liberal system in motion. What you're describing is simply a moment in time. Look back 20 years to the gay rights movements, or 60 years to the civll rights movements.

That's what messy democracies look like while hashing out their disagreements.

One thing I will point out is that the US is a union of states, just as Canada is a federal dominion of provinces and territories, and Australia is a federation of states and territories. Laws like abortion occur at the state level because it allows citizens to build the kind of state that they want. To nominate and vote in representatives that will implement the laws they want. This is intentional, and by design. So whichever side you fall on in regards to abortion, cannabis, euthanasia, gun laws, whatever, you have the ability to find or create the state that suits your views. As the saying goes, it's a feature, not a bug; a specific, intentional design by the founders, and it's why so many laws relating to social issues operate at the state level, not the federal level.

You can have the state that suits you, and someone else can have the state that suits them.

Roe v Wade didn't create new law, and it certainly wasn't "settled law." All it did was put a pause on the existing laws. What it being overturned means is that, because abortion is not protected by the US constitution, control returns to the states. The states - that is, the people - get to decide what they want their state to look like.

That's not a failure or error, that's the US functioning as it's supposed to.

Obviously I reject religious arguments and claims, as anyone can and should. But in regards to abortion, this is not simply an argument of religion vs everyone else; there are philosophical aspects to the abortion debate that have nothing to do with ancient superstitions.

Even if you support choice (as I do), how comfortable are you with the "any time, any reason" of the hard-line "pro-choice" activists?

[ Amanda Herring, left, poses for a portrait with the words "not yet a human" written on her pregnant belly during an abortion rights demonstration in front of the Supreme Court on Friday. Herring, who is Jewish, told CNN that her religion has helped shape her views on abortion. "Judaism says that life begins with the first breath, that is when the soul enters the body," she said. Source: CNN ]

On the other end of the spectrum is the hard-line "at no time, for any reason."

Do I support the right of Amanda Herring to abort her baby at 38-39 weeks? Hell no. And don't give me "tHaT nEvEr HaPpEnS!" Then why does it need to be legal? There shouldn't be a problem legislating against something that never happens, right?

And why do these exist?

[ Source: Redbubble ]

And let's not forget that religious nonsense - in this case, Judaism - cannot be a justification for "pro-choice" any more than it can be a justification for "pro-life." It's would be colossally hypocritical of her to oppose religious (Xian) arguments against abortion (which is justified) while promoting religious (Jewish) arguments for abortion.

Do I support her right to abort at 4 weeks? Absolutely.

Now start counting upwards from say 10 weeks upwards, and see me get less certain and less comfortable. Which would be true of most people.

Look at this graph from Pew Research for a moment:

You have however many agreeing with the Dem party position ("pro-choice"), and however many agreeing with the Rep party position ("pro-life").

Now, I don't know that either party has actually adopted those hard-line positions as official policy, but they operate as the de facto positions in the debate between the activists.

But don't focus on the blue or the red. Look at the gray section in the middle. There is a large cohort in the middle which doesn't agree with either party.

Because most people have a more nuanced view than these two extremes. (There's an irony that some of the people who think sex is a "spectrum" think you're either for or against, with no gradation in between.)

The majority of people think the length of pregnancy should matter.

The majority of people agree with the right to choose (first trimester), yet also disagree with "any time, any reason" (third trimester).

Did you know there's a Democrats for Life, and a Republicans for Choice? Or that a third of Republicans support choice?

Or that, among Democrats who say abortion should be illegal, more than half are women? Or that Medium religiosity of Democrats on both sides sits within 10 points?

[ See also: A closer look at Republicans who favor legal abortion and Democrats who oppose it ]

One of the reasons I support choice is because it is a morally fraught question, that parents have to wrestle with the reality of it, they know what they're discussing and considering, because there aren't only religious concerns or objections. Because at 6 weeks, atheists who don't subscribe to myths about the soul or god's commandments are still aware of what they're contemplating.

In the majority of WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) countries where abortion is legal, there are also limits, although these also include exceptions, such as for danger to the mother, for example.

Canada by province and Australia by state:

In most of Europe, it ranges from 10-24 weeks. Keep in mind that 24 weeks is close to the end of the second trimester.

Ask people from these locations whether they feel "oppressed" by this. There will undoubtedly be people who think these should be longer or shorter, but my point here isn't the outcome, it's the process. Take, for example, what happened in the UK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom

When a further Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (now enacted) was considered by Parliament in 2008, several votes were held on the term limit in Britain, as follows: • reduction from 24 weeks to 12 weeks (71 ayes, 393 noes); • reduction from 24 weeks to 16 weeks (84 ayes, 386 noes); • reduction from 24 weeks to 20 weeks (190 ayes, 331 noes); and • reduction from 24 weeks to 22 weeks (233 ayes, 304 noes).

You can see that at different term limit points, people become less or more certain. They're more willing to consider reducing from 24 weeks to 22 weeks than from 24 to 12. Because it isn't purely the religious trying to dictate to everyone else.

When Roe v Wade was struck down, there had already been 50 years of opportunity to codify Roe v Wade through a constitutional amendment.

This is comparable to what happened recently with the Respect for Marriage Act, which had bipartisan support, and is what's actually supposed to happen in these kinds of situations. If they had not, the 2015 ruling would have been at future risk of being overturned.

But they didn't. And now that it is overturned, there's no motivation for those states with laws or amendments banning or restricting it to come back and do so. Prior to it being overturned, the pro-choice side should have been motivated by a desire to mitigate the risk of overturn, and the pro-life side should have been motivated to solidify something that they could live with - as we've seen, most people support some form of choice. But all that's gone away, and this isn't something congress can "fix" after the fact.

Keep in mind the Supreme Court doesn't, and can't, create new laws. It rules on the constitutionality of laws when they're challenged. And the constitution doesn't define what you can or can't do, it defines what the government can or can't do. The constitution is about limitations on the government. Any constitutional amendment which was writtten to codify Roe v Wade would have been about limiting the government's ability to legislate abortion, not institute "rights." That's not what the constitution is for.

If you've ever read the 14th Amendment, which is the linchpin to Roe v Wade, it's kind of astonishing that it was ever successful in the first place. Even if you support the effect it had, you should still be surprised it wasn't struck down earlier. (Seriously, have you people actually read it?) The fact the pro-choice side seemed to think this house built on sand was "settled law" and resisted, or never pursued, locking in something that could not be overturned without amending the constitution again, even if it would mean conceding term limits or other qualifications, will remain a mistake with lasting consequences.

One of the very obvious problems is that a fetus at 20 weeks and 1 hour is indistinguishable from a fetus at 19 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours. Like evolution, there are no milestones. And every pregnancy is different. There is no "right" answer.

But as is often the case, the perfect is the enemy of good. Because although there might be no "right" answer, there can be a "good enough" or "less bad" option. Many countries, provinces and states have used their liberal processes to argue out a "good enough" answer. And this could have been negotiated and codified in the US.

Along with a program of sex education and contraceptive access and education, to make it, as the saying goes, safe, legal and rare.

But it wasn't. So, now it goes back to the states, and they each get to do it.

So this isn't a problem of "the religious right." It's a function of shaky case law, the extremists on both sides causing stalemates through (different) arguments from authority ("because god said"/"because I said"), a ticking timebomb finally going off, and the structure of the US operating like it's designed to.

Remember: these legislators aren't just doing things arbitrarily. They're voted in by people whose interests, values and beliefs they represent. If the people are unhappy, they vote them out and vote in someone who will do what they want.

Circling back to my point, when I see the abortion debate, and what's going on post-Roe, I see a messy democracy sorting out its disagreements. I see states codifying things into law and their constitutions one way or the other. And that's fine. Given the opportunity to codify at the level of the US constitution has been and gone, this is how it's supposed to work. They had an opportunity to avoid it all, but this is what they ended up with.

What we're likely to see over time, if we were to say, look 100 years into the future, is that the ground will likely be different again. Many states will have relaxed bans because the generations since have changed their views. And some states will have tightened things up from the "any time, any reason" approach (although there aren't many right now).

Again, this is liberalism at work. The evolutionary pressure of opposing views testing and being tested against each other for support.

"Liberalism’s great contribution to civilization is the way it handles conflict. No other regime has enabled large and varied groups of people to set a social agenda without either stifling their members’ differences or letting conflict get out of hand. Bertrand Russell once said that “order without authority” might be taken as the motto both of political liberalism and of science. If you had to pick a three-word motto to define the liberal idea, “order without authority” would be pretty good. The liberal innovation was to set up society so as to mimic the greatest liberal system of them all, the evolution of life. Like evolutionary ecologies, liberal systems are centerless and self-regulating and allow no higher appeal than that of each to each in an open-ended, competitive public process (a game). Thus, a market game is an open-ended, decentralized process for allocating resources and legitimizing possession, a democracy game is an open-ended, decentralized process for legitimizing the use of force, and a science game is an open-ended, decentralized process for legitimizing belief. Much as creatures compete for food, so entrepreneurs compete for business, candidates for votes, and hypotheses for supporters. In biological evolution, no species, however clever or complex, is spared the rigors of competition—nor are the participants in capitalism, democracy, science. No matter who you are, you must conduct your business in the currency of dollars, votes, or criticism—no special fiat, no personal authority." -- Jonathan Rauch, "Kindly Inquisitors"

Let's face it, though - countries like the US long ago solved problems that Islam doesn't even acknowledge, because the quran was written 1400 years ago and its morality and understanding of the world hasn't improved by a single day.

We'd do well to remember that perfection is not achievable or desirable. A perfect society can never be achieved, simply because all citizens will never agree on everything. And any "perfect" society - or attempt to create one - is functionally a repressive, totalitarian regime; take heaven, for example.

A functioning society will also be imperfect and messy because there will always be a new idea, a new scientific discovery or technology, a new thing to hash out.

Islam has only the word of god. What is the answer to any question? We look it up in the quran and religious scholars try to divine Allah's intent, applying 1400 year old "wisdom" to issues "Allah" (Muhammad) never saw coming. When they declare it, you obey. If you disagree, you're a blasphemer and an enemy of Islam.

People escape from places like this to the WEIRD countries to participate in the liberal system, because they're flexible and evolving, rather than because they're perfect. Ask someone who immigrated from a Muslim-majority country why they immigrated. Somewhere on that list is going to be the fact the Islamic government will kill them for disagreeing, because it means disagreeing with the word of Allah. In a liberal society, that disagreement is fundamental to its operation.

#ask #religion is a mental illness

13 notes · View notes

thdramas2 · 5 months

Note

https://www.tumblr.com/thdramas2/737975633515315200/while-i-agree-that-spamming-people-with-things

People on TH have reading comprehension for two fucking minutes I beg. Nobody is excusing bigotry, that’s why we’re saying to BLOCK them and move on. The reality of the situation is that people are fully allowed to like and dislike what they please, nobody is actually legally forced or obligated to support every identity as long as they aren’t being violent about it or going out of their way to assault and murder people. They DO have the freedom to practice their religion, ideals, beliefs, etc. regardless of how you feel about it. That is not excusing bigotry, that is stating a fact. Nobody is saying you have to like it. Nobody is saying you have to agree with it. Nobody is saying you can’t block the person to get them out of your life. What we ARE saying is that you can’t shut people down, censor them, harass them, and expect them to change their views or conform to fit YOUR standards. Nobody is going to change their mind and side with a group that is actively harassing them. I see this mentality so much on Twitter/X, people will harass, doxx, threaten, and just generally try to cancel people, and it’s unacceptable. The hate mob mentality of trying to tear down others is so fucking stupid. You’re just as much bullies as the people you claim to be fighting against, but you’re blinded by the sense of moral superiority. You aren’t superior, and you’re sure as hell not moral either if you think what you’re doing is justified. You are hurting people, too.

You do realize that forcing people to choose between conforming to your views and ideologies, or being run off of the internet, is problematic right? The world isn’t yours to rule. You don’t get to decide what’s right and what’s wrong, and you don’t know what is going on behind the screen on the other side. Many countries across the globe are still LGBT-phobic and being openly gay, trans, etc. will get someone literally dragged out of their house and shot in the street. Many people live in LGBT-phobic homes and openly showing support or identifying as LGBT can get them put out onto the street. Just because someone is English speaking doesn’t automatically mean they’re North American and even if they are, they aren’t guaranteed to be safe to support LGBT people. Yes, obviously bigots exist and they’re bad people, but karma comes around without your interference.

You do also realize that people who are LGBT-phobic still exist offline, and you aren’t going to be able to block and report them to get them out of your life, right? Be thankful some of them openly advertise it, because many don’t. You could interact with someone offline for years who loathes your guts and wishes harm upon you every day for the way you identify, or the religion you practice, and you would never know the difference if they weren’t open about it, because believe it or not, it’s possible to be courteous to people you despise.

All you are doing right now is encouraging people to be stealthy about their hatred. You aren’t getting rid of them, you aren’t changing their mind, you’re just teaching them to hide their beliefs and intentions which means they’ll end up hurting MORE people in the long run.

Signed, a fucking tired trans person.

Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he; But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door—

Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door— Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

#vent #you get two lines of the poem for this one #do kinda agree #ending the topic here though since its not really TH related anymore

6 notes · View notes

fictionplumis · 1 year

Text

I have opinions about Bill's (The Last of Us) political stances and I have nothing to do but make people suffer through my thoughts.

But first like... Obligatory thing to say that these are my headcanons of the politics of a fictional character, they're no reflection of my personal political opinions and any phrasing that makes it seem like they are my personal opinions is just me dramatically impersonating what's going on in Bill's head. I'm just a little gremlin who likes to think about how the minds of fictional characters might work. And that this is more of a modern day thing because my memory is shit when it comes to dates and times and things that have happened, and I don't remember the political climate of anything more than three years back at a time, which is very sexy of me.

So firstly, we know several things for a fact about Bill. He does not trust the government one fucking bit, he believes very, very strongly in his 2nd Amendment Rights, he has a Don't Tread On Me flag, he's a Survivalist, he's gay, and has refined tastes in music, wine, and food. To me, Bill is an interesting person with some seemingly contradictory traits and I firmly believe his political opinions are also an interesting mix of things.

Some people have thrown around the word libertarian, and I vaguely know what that means politically, but not enough for me to be satisfied just going with that and I don't care enough right now to look it up, which is also very sexy of me. This is a stupid fandom post, I am not trying to make an informed decision about something or influence someone else to, therefore I don't have to do research about things if I don't want to. So if I just describe what the typical libertarian believes then. Okay. Whatever, I guess. Post cancelled.

Anyway.

Bill would see someone with a Don't Tread On Me flag and a Thin Blue Line flag and immediately consider them the dumbest dumbass to ever dumb, because the latter thing shows you don't understand the former. OBVIOUSLY the message of the Don't Tread On Me flag is meant specifically for people like the POLICE and the MILITARY and the GOVERNMENT.

And some people might look at him and go, wait, you hate the military? But Bill, don't you love freedom? They're fighting for that!

To which Bill would probably be like, you're stupid if you think they're fighting for YOUR freedom. Who do you think those guys work for, dipshit? Not you! You're not giving them orders! What happens when Governor Jackass decides he's sick of people disagreeing with him so he mobilizes the National Guard to get everyone in line, huh? You think the National Guard is gonna care about YOUR freedom? No.

Which is of course why he thinks everyone should have guns, because the government is run by Nazis.

Now, this being modern with no apocalypse, which means no FEDRA, people will be like well, not quite that bad, Bill.

And he's like, have you never researched World War II? Pearl Harbor? We had concentration camps! Arguably, we still have concentration camps! We just call them migrant detainment centers. And prison.

So Bill, you're for immigration and abolishing prisons?

No. Bill is not necessarily for or against these things, because these things are matters that hold no personal importance to him. It's not worth having an opinion on them. He is, however, very against anything that the government can use to just throw people that disagree with them into a cell.

Well that would never happen, Bill! Only bad people go to jail. Only people entering the country illegally get put in detainment camps.

Uh, no, actually. Again, Pearl Harbor, they rounded up anyone who so much as looked Japanese, who had done nothing wrong, and put them in camps. And that's all it takes! The second they have a reason to come after you, they will!

Which is of course why he thinks everyone should have guns.

But Bill, what about all the school shootings and gun violence?

If more people had guns, people wouldn't be stupid with guns, because they know someone would fucking shoot them. Yes, also, teachers should have guns. Duh.

Now I think meeting Frank would kind of slide his opinion on that a little bit, but it would be later in their relationship and it would be in that weird way where he knows he doesn't believe what he did before, but he doesn't know what the proper solution would be because it's obviously not stricter gun control. But at the beginning, if Frank asks him, "Okay, so you believe teachers should have guns, and grocery store people, and mothers, in case those people ever have to shoot someone. And me? You think I should have a gun in case I ever need to shoot someone?" Bill would say yes, of course, it's a matter of safety.

But later.

Later, if asked that same question, his knee-jerk answer is interrupted by the mental image of Frank watering flowers, and painting, and smiling, and laughing, and touching so gently, so kindly... And him having to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. Which is an immediate no from him. Frank should never have to do that. And that's kind of where he suddenly, viscerally understands that the argument for not giving teachers a gun is about protecting them in an entirely different way. It's about wanting to make sure people who thrive on gentleness never have to be put in that kind of situation. And from then on, he doesn't know. He doesn't know because he firmly believes the answer is not to take guns away from people, but now he also believes it's not a good idea to arm everyone, and it's DEFINITELY not any kind of police presence, but then how do you make sure people like Frank are physically safe, and emotionally safe?

The best answer he has is that physical safety comes first, so, reluctantly, yes, arm everyone. But he's no longer satisfied with that answer so it comes with a whole spiel about, "But other people's safety isn't my concern, so that's something each person should decide for themselves. I'm just going to be here and make sure MY personal ray of sunshine never has to worry about that so don't fucking test me."

Now of course we all know what kind of people usually have those Don't Tread On Me flags and a hard stance on the 2nd Amendment, so where does Bill stand on racism?

And that's kind of like the immigration and prison abolishment deal. He has no hard and fast opinion of that. Is the government probably inherently racist? Yeah, that tracks. Is life easier for him because he's white? No, that's stupid. Does white privilege exist? No, that's stupid. So you don't believe in the Black Lives Matter movement? And that's where he would shrug and say that he doesn't have an opinion on it, he's not black, he doesn't know shit about what black people experience every day. But enough of them seem to think that there's something they need to push back against, and he very much supports the right to do that, it's not going to turn into reverse racism, because that's also stupid. It's not like they're pushing back against him specifically because he's not doing shit to them.

The right to protest is an important right to him. Made even more important because cops show up in full riot gear to them, which means the government is scared, and the government should be scared.

Oh, the people bemoan, but Bill! The the police are there because the protests will turn into riots and looting otherwise!

Yeah, well. If the government listened in the first place, they wouldn't. But Bill would damn well resort to violence too if he felt he had to, and half the time those riots and looting are started by COPS, and also, if all the store owners had guns, there wouldn't be any rioting or looting!

Welfare stuff?

He doesn't need it, but hey, he might one day, so he had a vague opinion about it. And that vague opinion is that the government is supposed to help people but they don't because they're all Nazis and not helping people keeps them in power. This is why everyone--

--SHOULD HAVE GUNS, WE KNOW BILL.

--Should learn how to be self-reliant at all costs and not hesitate to break those stupid ass laws about not growing or hunting your own food, because in the end no one can help you but yourself, also yeah, everyone should have guns.

Basically. Basically. This is a man who hates the government and believes in defending his own so much that it almost wraps around and becomes a weird kind of liberalism. Like, every person for themselves means that every person has the right to do whatever they feel they need to in order to keep themselves and their own safe, just like he does. It's not "go around and shoot everyone" but it's "if someone goes for you or yours, shoot them". And it's fine, because he doesn't plan on going after anyone, so it won't hurt him if everyone is allowed to do that. If someone takes it too far like people sometimes do, he will shoot them, easy peasy.

Also also. Yes, Bush did 9/11, no the government is not secretly aliens or living off baby blood or whatever, and that Q Anon conspiracy stuff isn't trustworthy, I'm not going to trust shit from some random jackass on the internet who plays favorites with politicians.

And I can just see when Frank and Bill in this hypothetical modern AU get around to talking about political opinions, and Frank experiences the emotional whiplash of, "Immigration detention centers and prisons are bad," followed closely by, "Teachers having guns would end gun violence in schools," followed by, "Cops shoot innocent people and I don't trust them," followed by, "The government has no right to issue mask mandates for Covid and by doing so they're only further proving my point that they're all Nazis," followed by, "But I'm wearing a fucking mask regardless because the only negative side of it is doing what the government says and all the people who have made up reasons for not wearing one have obviously never worn a military grade gas mask for 8 hours straight while working with incredibly toxic chemicals. Your stupid cotton mask won't give you brain damage, Sharon, and neither will an N95, but I'll be damned if I'm going to catch whatever kind of stupid you have just to spite our dumbass government."

Frank sitting there like, "Okay. So all the things you said that pissed me off are balanced by all the things you said that I wholeheartedly support, so... I guess that means I'm neutral about your political opinions? Alright, good talk. I think?"

#the last of us #tlou bill #bill tlou #out of everything ive posted this is the one im most worried about #its stupid fandom shit about fictional characters #for the love of god treat it with the weight it deserves #which is like...... nonee

14 notes · View notes

graysbullshit · 2 years

Text

Ok, what the fuck is going on with this new "anti intellectualism" trend? I keep seeing the most obtuse takes laced with lack of nuance on twitter. Suddently it is as if everyone is determined into making everything a part of "good guy" versus "bad guy". Especially when it comes to "cancel culture". People seem to have an issue differenciating "mistake" and "pattern of behavior". It applies to real people, to characters, to SONGS???? It's insane.

Like, with the realease of HOTD I keep seing people saying the wildest things. People have been treating luke's death with a type of seriousness that isn't warranted. Like, I understand he is your favorite character, but why are people acting as if Almond is the devil? Also, the opposite is also true. Why do people insist in trying to take the blame away from almod as if he ISN'T an antagonist? Including the authors! He IS bad and he has done BAD THINGS and he will probably do WORSE things. It's the whole purpose of the character. It's not surprising, it doesn't reflect the character of almod's fans, it should not be excused and it's annoying me so fucking much that I'm starting to wish he'd kill Jake too istg.

Or the Antihero video clip from Taylor. I've seen people say that the word "fat" was being used as a derrogatory insult in the video, and yes. It has been used as a derrogatory insult in the video, on real life, on video games, on books and on other songs. The movement to turn "fat" a positive word is great! But you can't pretend as if the prospect of "becoming fat" hasn't been the biggest fear of any woman for the past 20 years. Taylor was representing this fear, that was caused by the big media, by putting a word that has been used as an insult against her. What is the problem? Did she say that you should be scared of becoming fat? Did she say being fat is a bad thing? No, she simply showed a fear she had that is related to a EATING DISORDER. She is talking about her personal experience people, how ignorant do you have to be to miss this? It's not even a opnion she has, its literally an artistic expression of a personal experience she went through.

Then there's the whole doctor who thing, which I'm not even going to get into because I'll get angry and not be able to articulate my thoughts in a concise manner. In general, my thoughts are [insert angry emoji here].

Then there's all the crazy discussions of my country's politics, which I won't get into because there is A LOT to discuss.

Then there's Tiktok and OH MY FUCKING GOD I HAVE NEVER SEEN A PLACE SO FULLED BY STUPID PEOPLE IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. No one does any research, no one even googles anything, no one fact checks. It drives me insane. Tho, I really like tiktok when you ignore this factor.

Anyway, sorry for the rant. It was weighting on my chest and I had to get all of this out of my system.

#anti intellectualism #doctor who #taylor swift #hotd thoughts #i will have an aneurism before i'm thirty #anyway

23 notes · View notes

winderlylandchime · 11 months

Text

15 QUESTIONS, 15 (or whatever) TAGS

tagged by @lostcol ily bb

1. WERE YOU NAMED AFTER ANYBODY?

Nope. Family lore is that my mom and dad went through a baby name book and my mom circled all the names she liked in red and my dad circled all the names he liked in blue and mine was the only one with two circles. My first middle name is the name my mom wanted to give her sister when my aunt was born. And my second middle name is my mom’s maiden name.

2. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU CRIED?

When my spouse and I were on vacation abroad and our flight home had been cancelled and we got scammed trying to get another flight and had to cancel our credit card and still find a way home. I very rarely cry (except when watching stupid things on tv) but I sobbed I was so stressed out. And on my period. Which y’know made traveling home super fun.

3. DO YOU HAVE KIDS?

Childless by choice (I love being an auntie to my nieces and friends’ kids though!) (I hate that I worry people will assume I hate kids because I’m a woman who didn’t want them!)

4. DO YOU USE SARCASM A LOT?

No, never. 😉

5. WHAT SPORTS DO YOU PLAY/HAVE YOU PLAYED?

I played basketball for one memorable season in elementary school. I ran cross country for one memorable season in high school because it exempted me from gym class (joke was entirely on me when I realized being on the track team meant actually exercising more than going to gym class. And I used to be a (very very slow) runner (a whole slew of half marathons, 5 and 10ks, and exactly 1 marathon). My body doesn’t work like that anyone. But I miss it.

6. WHAT'S THE FIRST THING YOU NOTICE ABOUT SOMEONE?

Their smile. What they’re wearing.

7. EYE COLOUR?

Blue like my mama.

8. SCARY MOVIES OR HAPPY ENDINGS?

I don’t do scary. I definitely prefer happy endings…but a good story is a good story.

9. ANY SPECIAL TALENTS?

I have a freakishly good memory for personal details. Like I will pretend to have never heard something about someone before to avoid freaking them out. It does come in handy at work though!

10. WHERE WERE YOU BORN?

New York, New York baby!

11. WHAT ARE YOUR HOBBIES?

Reading, writing, watching drag (on tv or live), going to concerts

12. DO YOU HAVE PETS?

2 dogs, 2 cats

13. HOW TALL ARE YOU?

5’9” yes I can grab that for you

14. FAVOURITE SUBJECT IN SCHOOL?

In HS: AP US History and Latin (because my teachers for each were incredible - shout out to Ms Favretti and Dr Polsky!)

In college: Fairy Tales, Abnormal Psych, Mythic Imagination, and that seminar where I got to read Timothy Leary’s research

In grad school: Psychopathology I & II and Social Bases for Behavior

15. DREAM JOB?

I do not dream of labor. But if I must work for a living, I literally have it. When I went to grad school my hope was to be part of a group private practice and voila! I am clinical director of an awesome practice with incredibly talented folks. And my hours permit me to also do some consulting work with CMSC which is also a dream.

no pressure tagging: @flowerswehadgrowntogether @bartbarthelme @sheisraging @headbandsandflats @provenance

#tag games #lostcol

3 notes · View notes

airyucat · 1 year

Video

Hello again, tumblr. It’s a fitting that that my first post back comes from a place of deep pain. I used tumblr a lot in grad school, some of the most painful years of adulthood. It’s not that I don’t trust my loved ones, but it’s that I still have intrusive thoughts that I let become thoughts. But this animation also comes from a place of deep gratitude. I wanted to add more outlines to the video, but if you’re in it, how dare you not give up on me >:c How dare you always support me, no matter what I’m going through. Absolutely rude (am I supposed to specify sarcasm here). If you’re in the video, I love you inexplainable amounts. And if you’re not, or you’re wondering if you are, I probably love you too. But I have a constant feeling of a valley bigger Valles Marineris cut through my being. Loved one prove to me they love me over and over again, and my stupid scientist brain collects stupid evidence and puts together a stupid hypothesis and runs simulation upon simulation on why this is wrong actually, why those people don’t care about me, why they’re lying to me actually. I have far away friends on other states and countries, so we try and plan online events, that get cancelled or where 2 people show up and can only stay for 15 minutes. If you truly cared about me, why don’t you call, or message, or reach out, of your own volition. Why do I have to wait until I’m cracking and deseperate and seek you out in pain for us to connect? I left an online group I loved - I let one person ruin it for me - and there went a big piece of my life. And people who said they still cared about me, why should a hi every now and then be enough? We used to move mountains with tremendous conversations, but now I just get a Merry Christmas in response to me saying it. I have friends here, in norcal, that live 2 hours away by driving, and 3 hours away by public transit. It’s exhausting, I often need to spend the night if it’s a late event, and I’m so far away that there are events I miss by not knowing about them. I’ve known them forever, but like, not as long as the full time I’ve known them. I met some before moving to Michigan for grad school, others when visited norcal but lived in michigan and then socal. So I was MIA physically from their lives from 2012-2018

Trauma led me to move back to norcal at the end of 2018. I got a job in SF, and my now spouse, Tai, and I moved to a cheap area still far from friends. It was supposed to be temporary, but I’m bad with money, and weddings can be expensive, and it’s hard to save up when a pandemic hits. But, in late 2018, everything felt broken, awful, horrible. Honestly that time and the year before felt like “what if our whole polycule that hadn’t even formed yet fucked up every thing every where all at once.”

So, 2019 was the year Tai and I took time to ourselves fix serious issues in our relationship, which meant we were distant from everyone, no matter the distance. We got cats at the start of the year though, two of the best decisions I’ve ever made. The end of 2019 was when we we finally reconnected back with our poly partners, and started reaching out to friends. And then, well, happy happy 2020 pandemic. Mid-2021 was spent reconnecting for me, but disconnecting for Tai, for similar reasons. “If you truly cared about me, why didn’t you reach out until you found out how bad things were.” I like to think we’re both decent at masking though. As a kid, before my dad starting ripping up all my art, he ripped up the ones where I drew sad faces. Because you’re not supposed to be sad, ever. Early 2022 I lost my one of my best friend’s dad. He felt like my dad. How sad was I allowed to be? I still don’t know, and next month it’ll have been a year since.

Did you know that a wedding at Disneyland and another wedding at a Hindu temple are really, really hard to plan? That’s what almost half of 2022 was. The weddings themselves, in May, on our anniversary, and the honeymoon, wow. Breath-taking. Especially for all the adlibbing we ended up doing (no rehearsal needed). 12 years since I met Tai. 11 years since I asked them out. 8 years since I proposed. Took us long enough.

My favorite pictures are the ones with or of loved ones, particularly our polycule and wedding party. I generally never get nostalgic, but I cry thinking about all the people that supported us. A lot of them are outlines in the video. My chest physically hurts knowing I will not be able to express how damn much I love them. People from all those three groups above? Didn’t matter how long the drive was, or the plane costs and delays, or the wallet-draining hotels, buying Indian and Disney-bounding clothes, spending a day in weather that was too hot for them... they did it. For Tai. For me. They did it. Side note - I’ll never forget that my (white) girlfriend taught me how to tie a sari. If you ever feel like an outsider to your cultural roots, remember me. And after the wedding... it was back. June, July, August, September, October, worse worse worse feelings of being excluded, people not wanting to be around me, doesn’t matter how false those feelings were. You can know something logically and not know it. Tai withdrawing from everyone. Accidental emotional neglect - if someone’s masking well enough, you don’t know. You can’t know. You can’t. And it matched my self narrative anyways: I’m disgusting and people don’t want me around. It solves everything; no one can kick you down if you’ve already done it. Emotions compounded by feeling unskilled in art, drained by my job’s commute and miniscule amounts of time off, Kaiser giving me scraps of therapy once every 8 weeks... My mental health pludged. October. Went to Europe with my girlfriend. Met some internet friends IRL. Covid finally got its claws into me, but my symptoms were just a sore throat, and I thought, maybe I was climbing up mentally. Maybe I got this! Halloween. My fave holiday. Sat around the apartment and did nothing. November. My birthday. It hit. It always hits hard. I can mitigate it with a party, and I did two weeks later, but having friends in their 20′s makes me wish I didn’t spend half of those years rotting away getting a PhD. I guess I can slap a Dr. in front of my last name now. 32 is the age one of my fave webcomic writers ended her long-running comic, and had plans but not really, and I think about her a lot, now that I’m that age. What am I going to do? I’ve got 10 months left to this age.

We went to a convention that emotionally hit Tai bad, and now they really really really won’t reach out to our friends. And I started trying to see friends more and talk to them more and... burnt myself out a little I think, because if you feel excluded and think people don’t want you there and aren’t used to interactions without a spouse or partner, seeing friends more isn’t a magic cure. It’s helping I think... I hope. I had to also come to terms with the fact that I’m probably never going to move to Hawaii, or have kids, or buy a house of be a Cool Internet Artist™, and might never be able to retire. Everything felt like it was crumbling. And then I drew this ...last week? It feels like a million years ago, but the new year did just happen. Here I am now. I’m going to keep trying I guess. I don’t know why, really, but here I go. I’ll try and be on here more, and just, share more. Take things out of my head and plop them down, and hope that the void yells back every now and then. Love, Airyu (Agni)

#cw gore #cw vent #cw depression #animation #procreate #art #artists on tumblr #animators on tumblr #animator #indie animator #personal vent #vent

5 notes · View notes

twopoppies · 2 years

Note

I’ve seen a lot of non American fans try and gatekeeper Harry after tour ended. They keep saying that Harry should cancel his dates here because he seems not as happy here. As an American fan I take offense to that because I’d like think that fans who come to the shows to love and support him would make him happy but apparently not. Maybe he seems less happy here because of the leech that follows him around like a lost puppy lol . Idk am I being stupid for feeling offended?

Hi sugar. I don’t think you’re stupid. But I think it’s a pointless thing to be offended about. It’s such a silly argument to be having in the first place because it stems from such a place of entitlement — that is, people are arguing about who most deserves to have the bulk of his attention.

His tour schedule is determined, first and foremost, by money. Last year’s tour and much of this tour was also determined by Covid regulations. His personal feelings about one country or another is likely pretty far down on the list. And Olivia has followed him around just as much in Europe as she did here, so I don’t think she’s playing any part in it. He’s been very clear in the last few years that London is his home and Los Angeles is work. Probably most places outside of London are work (and sometimes a vacation, if he actually takes them). So why the aggressive need to stake claim to him?

I just find this fight very, very weird. There are so many better things to focus on… I don’t get the point of this one.

18 notes · View notes

ijustreallylikecaptainamericaok · 2 years

Note

if you're still in the mood to ramble, thoughts on peggysous? full disclosure, i havent seen agent carter, but i've seen ppl talk about it and how sousa was pretty misogynistic (but grew as a person or something idk) and then after endgame it was like "steve ruined peggysous! the horror" which 🙄 anyway

Hi! Whoo hoo, okay. *cracks knuckles* Strap in, everybody.

I've touched on pieces of this here and there over time, but let's just get it all in one spot.

Let me preface this all by saying that when I first started the first season of Agent Carter, I liked Daniel. He seemed like a decent dude and clearly had a thing for her, which I was down with and thought could be good for her. Initially. But it became very apparent, very quickly that that was not the case at all. Hell, even after season one I still thought both him and the ship had potential, but the show squandered it, hard.

Because yes, Daniel is a misogynist and arguably one of the worst kinds. The kind that thinks because he isn't screaming slurs or being ~~hateful~~ that that makes him one of the good ones and such a. Nice. Guy. His misogyny is insidious and paternalistic, all wrapped in some "I'm just trying to protect you" nonsense. His respect and niceness is tenuous at best, because he will turn on a dime once he thinks a woman isn't living up to his standards for them, as Peggy herself called him out for here.

And no, he did not grow. Not in AC, anyway. If anything, he became more of a dickbag as the show went on, but we'll get there. I've seen folks say that he did grow as a character once he jumped ship to Agents of SHIELD, but I haven't seen it and I don't want to and given what little I have seen of it, I have my doubts. He still seemed to be on the paternalistic shit, but Daisy was into it, so I guess that makes it alright? Whatever. Not my problem.

Now, since you didn't watch AC, Nonnie, let me give you a quick timeline of how P*ggysous went down. Season one of AC takes place over the course of a few weeks around March or April of 1946, which means it happens about a year after Steve "died." Peggy was not in a good place, obviously. She wasn't even ready to open up to having friendships with people, let alone a romance. During the course of the season, she does open up and get close to Angie Martinelli (a waitress at the diner she frequents) and Edwin Jarvis (Howard's butler), but romance is still not something she's ready for. During the season finale, Daniel asks her if she'd like to get a drink after work, but she politely declines as she already has plans with Angie and Edwin. It's also obvious in the way she smiles once Daniel turns away that she isn't opposed to the idea, it's just not good timing (for many reasons.) But the show very much leaves that door open. Fine, cool.

Season two takes place around July 1947 about six months after Daniel transferred from NYC to California. By the time Peggy arrives there for the case she's investigating, Daniel's with a new girl, Violet (who's lovely, had better chemistry with him, and didn't deserve any of this shit) and he is already planning to propose to her. Yet we're still subjected to multiple characters (especially poor Rose and even Violet) being relegated to mouthpieces for how obviously in love Daniel is with Peggy. Not to mention how the season kicks off with Jack (the SSR’s resident shithead) playing matchmaker by sending Peggy to LA, in the first place. Meanwhile, the only indication of what their relationship was between seasons is a mention of how he refused to answer her calls once he got out to LA. Then the season ends with Peggy's other, better romantic prospect, Jason, leaving the country to work with Howard and Peggy decides to stay in LA and kisses Daniel. And then the show got canceled.

(And per EG and AOS, they broke up some point before 1949.)

Like, what? It's so rushed and so stupid. Both of them had options that were better and made more sense, yet the show still forced this ship. And not only was it pushing this ship hardcore, for some reason, it also made a big deal about how Peggy had to chose between him and Jason, immediately, right now. Despite the fact that the show made it very clear that it was never going to let her pick Jason anyway. Everything about the ship was so sudden and urgent, out of almost nowhere. Yes, the ship was teased in the first season, but it's still remarkable how suddenly it escalated and again, for almost no reason.

It’s not like they had some whirlwind romance off-screen that turned sour or that Peggy was stringing him along, no. Dude asks her out once, she says no (because duh), then literally nothing happens between them for months, but he’s so incapable of dealing with or moving on from his work crush that he fucks off across the country to immediately hook up with some other girl, who he immediately drops once Peggy’s back in the picture. Seriously, fuck this entitled dumbass. I’m not the least bit sad that Marvel broke up this train wreck. The bottom line is this: Agent Carter ruined P*ggysous, not Endgame and certainly not Steve.

And no, despite what many want to claim, Daniel is not Peggy’s Nameless Husband. We are given one piece of information about her husband in TWS, which is that Steve saved him at some point during the war. Maybe AC’s writers intended to go down that route with Daniel, but as of the end of season two and the show as a whole, there is no indication at all that that factoid applies to him.

Even if he was the Nameless Husband that changes nothing for me, because, well, the ship sucks, but also! Different timeline, different rules. Peggy’s allowed to make different choices under different circumstances. And the concern trolls who claim Steve somehow took away her choices and her life? They damn well know that, as evidenced by the fact that no one’s crying over the Captain Carter timelines hurting Daniel or the Nameless Husband, who are apparently oh so entitled to her in the prime timeline. The post-EG fawning over Daniel and worry over the Husband was bullshit from the get-go, but the lack of any of that same concern post-WI or post-MoM confirms what the real problem always was: Peggy can make any and every choice she wants to as long as she doesn’t choose to be with Steve. And I’m sorry, but there’s no way for me to describe that other than fucking bullshit.

(”thoughts on ___” meme)

#let's be real most of the concern trolls probably never even watched the show #and damn sure don't care about peggy #or daniel for that matter #nonnie mouse #replies #mcu grievances #ranty mcrantface #fandom woes #anti daniel sousa #anti peggysous #i'm just covering my ass here

1 note · View note

whitelightloom · 10 days

Text

So as it turns out, I think I needed help from somebody, but Nancy was a little bit too ehhhhhhhh

Nancy and Dennis I think they had some really really bad ways of thinking, but I did need advice from somebody who has killed women. Can them? I’m sorry cancelled

Doctor Ken, what the fuck is going on with all women trying to get all nasty toward me when it was like I think I got you out of sex slavery honey

What is a retard?

Awe.

You guys don’t be rude to the slow women. They think they are more intelligent based on nonsense from other stupid people like themselves.

Count Tammy

Because in Asian countries you can actually be yourself in ways that you can’t be yourself here I mean I never said that I did not have an evil streak with a couple of people. It’s just that sometimes people and sometimes people and they are mean and that’s also sometimes funny, but then other times it’s not

Who helped Oprah get in the Hollywood? I said into Hollywood who helped her do that I do not want to be a person who contributes to any more of that nonsense.

0 notes

uncloseted · 1 month

Note

Do you think this is normal or something I should seek help for? I am constantly worried about offending someone or accidently saying something racist. I come from a small country and there's a few times I've noticed our slang might mean something negative in a different culture. The other day I learnt from Twitter that the hairstyle rat tail is considered offensive to be called that because of past racism connotations but everyone here calls it a rat tail without thinking twice. I feel that

in online culture today there is zero room for making ignorant mistakes and I'm terrified of making one. I don't want to hurt anyone and I don't want to get myself cancelled because I was stupid in trusting the slang of my country. My anxiety around it has got to a point where I will google nearly every word or phrase I am unsure about to try and make sure nothing offensive comes up. If one offensive thing comes up online even if it's from something stupid like urban dictionary I will

have panic attacks if I've used that word online in the past and feel like I've made the biggest mistake of my life and someone is going to turn around and call me racist or the person I said it to secretly thinks I'm a horrible person but never said anything. It doesn't help when I google a word or phrase half a year ago and when I search it again today new search results show. I try and educate myself but I also feel it's not normal to feel the need to google almost every word I use online

I think to some degree, this is a normal reaction to an abnormal situation. The possibility of being dog-piled by hundreds of people for making a well-meaning but poorly phrased statement (or even just a statement that doesn't overtly mention all possibilities and permutations of an issue) is a pretty new phenomenon, and I think the vast majority of us aren't really equipped to psychologically handle it. Nobody wants to feel like they're a bad person, and it's really easy to feel like you're a bad person when so many people are offering their commentary on your opinions.

That said, the degree to which this is creating anxiety in your life seems (to me) to be more than the average person. It might be worth talking to someone about your anxiety to see if you can find ways to reduce it.

In the meantime, I think it's important to remember that the internet isn't real life. The people who are the loudest and most aggressive online tend to be the people who are the most dissatisfied with their own lives and want other people to feel as miserable as they do. Their opinions aren't necessarily right or true, and their anger doesn't mean that you're a bad person. The people who are worth listening to are the ones who can let you know when you've said something potentially hurtful in a way that's kind and "calling you in" instead of "calling you out". Being able to grow and learn and be more culturally sensitive is important, especially as our world becomes more and more globalized. No person is born with perfect knowledge of all the cultural nuances of every country on earth, and that's okay. It's okay to be wrong or uninformed sometimes. And so I think the best thing that we can all do is to assume that people on the internet have good intentions, even if what they're saying is worded poorly or misinformed.

Also, for what it's worth, I think you're okay on the rat-tail thing. I'm in the US and people here call it that too. It seems like the origins of the term and the popularizing of the hairstyle (in the Anglosphere) came out of the largely white punk movement in the 80s, so I'd be curious to know what the person on Twitter thought was racist about it. I actually couldn't even find a debate about it online anywhere (I think the original person on Twitter may have taken down their post). Which brings me to my last point on this topic. Sometimes people on the internet just make stuff up. Just because one person says that something is offensive doesn't mean that their entire community feels that way, and it doesn't necessarily mean that you'll get in trouble for saying whatever that person objected to. Of course, if you see lots of people saying the same thing, take it seriously. But sometimes, personal takes are just that- personal.

1 note · View note