#'the only reason you're calling my abuse rhetoric abuse rhetoric based on the evidence of your eyes is bc you're Crazy Irrational & Insane'

[the-moogle-of-your-nightmares]

i truly love making people mad by applying basic reading comprehension to the words that are in front of me instead of using telepathy to intuit that a stranger means the exact opposite of what they said, using my block button, and moving on with my life

[cupcraft]

I think why it's important to support victims too is the reality of being a victim is that not everyone is going to have collected the evidence that ppl always ask for (and even then people always say the evidence is fake/not good enough).

Like I wont get too personal on details bc im not comfortable with that, but I want to use myself as example for my point because I don't want to speak for other people's experiences.

I was a victim of emotional abuse from a friend group for years that i only very recently went no contact with 1 year ago just about (2 ppl in the group specifically the most). And I didn't collect screenshots. I didn't collect video/recording (and even if i planned to thats illegal in my state without their consent). And for a lot of that relationship though I suffered and was in a bad place I never really quite realized it was abuse until I got out and had someone some else give me a wakeup call. And I currently still have no plans to report it or go through legal trouble with it personally (for reasons not important to this post's point.

And why I say this is because when I share my story with people I'm close to all I have is my word. My word of the things they did to me. My word on how the abuse was subtle, how I knew from a tone of voice if I'd get in trouble with them. How they'd belittle me under the guise of jokes and "game lobby culture". Etc.

And so when you think all victims need to come with you with a mountain of evidence you're really saying you won't believe people at their word which is my reality and many other people's realities for any type of abuse and harm. At the end of the day you're going to trust me or not if you're someone I'm comfortable enough telling my story to. At the end of the day you're going to see the post and decide if I'm making shit up or not.

Of course I wish I had scs of things for many reasons, but even then a lot of my experiences were verbally related with no recording (some of which is subtle anyway ill get into that in a second) The angry comments on Instagram I got were quickly changed while I was too panicked to sc them at the time. A lot of my texts were over kik of which never saved the history.

Sometimes people's words are going to have to be enough for people because that's all you're going to have. Because when you say evidence is important you're really saying that I expect every person in a situation to: know they're a victim, and once knowing theyre a victim collect evidence (even if that evidence collection could harm the victim/or isnt possible) and to somehow make sure that evidence is enough for people, plus be able to have evidence for abuse that is publicly subtle.

And on another point this expectation doesn't really cover how abuse can sometimes be so fucking subtle. You know? How can you explain to people how a tone of voice is a part of the abuse? How can you explain something that could be a joke between friends wasnt a joke in that situation and a part of the torment? How canyou explain to someone when they say something normal its the smile that tells you its belittling/anger? Like even if I had a believable recording of the interaction for the smile example, like it may not be noticeable to you because thats the pt in why its so fucking subtle! you're just gonna have to trust ppl when they know something is sinister or not idk how to explain this. How do we collect evidence for the things that are so subtle and innocuous and meant to fly under the radar in public?

So when people tell you to check your victim blaming rhetoric this is part of the reason why.

You may reblog this btw and you free to rb with additions of your own too this is an important and open conversation. And before it's said this is not specifically about any one situation it's something I've wanted to write about for a while based on both fandom experiences, irl experiences, and just witnessing how abuse victims are treated in various situations. So it's not a vague.

[robotpussy]

ok i had to delete the original because i had so many people harassing me because i told them their white woman fave fucked up and are terrible people, but unbeknowest to me, everything under the cut cannot be seen once the original post has been deleted. so im going to quickly do this again.

Before you come here and say "you just hate women", you're right, i hate bigoted white women! hope this clears everything up 👍

I am only going to mention things i have evidence to back myself up with, so sorry if i left anything out.

TW RACISM

Im going to briefly bring up lindsay ellis because she is the reason why i made that original post.

Lindsay has made claims she was "harassed" off the internet but will not explain why she was "harassed", she was told that she has continouslly said racist things and decided to brush those "criticisms" off.

The examples of these instances i can find are when she dismissed the racist portrayal of Native Americans in twilight as being a factor of why Twilight was so hated, (and also the racist rule based on the mormon belief about black people in twilight (not mentioned) being inherently evil because they are black) and instead just said "its because the world hates teenage girls!".

she also made very strange and racist tweets about finding reylo-type fic of Harriet Tubman and her "Twinky salve master" on a plane.

and of course the Raya tweet many people spoke about

This also goes beyond twitter as people who knew Lindsay in real life had come out and said Lindsay is very dismissive of and has racist biases

1. Jenny Nicholson

Jenny Nicholson has a very long history of being extremely racist, but most well known for getting john boyega harassed over a joke he made about movie characters that are not real.

here is the thread of some of the harassment john had to endure because Jenny claimed he was a misogynist

Then wanted to turn around and play into her white woman victimhood

And when told she was racist and encitied the harassment John Boyega received, she went on a mass blocking spree

(all people shown below were blocked by Jenny after they called her out)

TW CANIBALLISM

and i think she also defended caniballism?

2. Contrapoints

TW TRUSCUM, ANTI-SEMITISM, RACISM AND NAZI IMAGERY

Despite me finding Contrapoints' obsession with "deradicalizing numerous young men within alt-right spaces" is weird (and it shows as she spends so much time with them she ends up spewing a lot of their same rhetoric) she constantly gives them a platform.

The most notorious instance of this was when she made a video with known domestic abuser and truscum, Buck Angel.

TW ANTI SEMITISM

Contrapoints keeps to have a affinity for "ironically" being anti-semitic, evidence can be found in these videos, where she "jokes" about the anti-semitic conspiracy of the lizard people.

What's Wrong with Capitalism (Part 1)

What's Wrong with Capitalism (Part 2)

She also sold t-shirts with said lizard people, and apparently had in the description "David Ickle was right" in the description. I cannot find this, but i did find the shirt on TeePublic with "The reptiles rule us" in the description.

TW RACISM AND NAZI IMAGERY

She also mocked Native Americans for talking about racism and dressed up as a Nazi in her video about Charlotteville (yes, its weird to have nazi gear lying around your house)

3. Sarah z

Sarah Z is known for going on mass blocking sprees when she is called out for her racism, and claimed she was "curating her space" due to "harassment". she also went on a big petty blocking spree when people were joking about her blocking anyone who interacts with a post talking about her.

posts can be found here:

1.

2.

She has obviously gained a lot of attention on here because of her youtube channel, where she talks about tumblr history and fandom "drama". I will not be bringing her channel up because as i stated in my last post, i do not care about her content and i have no reason to bring it up.

But she did reblog a post talking about only caring about the women and children of Afghanistan, which is a very common scapegoat white women use as cheap representation for them to "tear down the patriarchy" when they do not care about women of color (and will deny their womanhood when criticised by them, or claim it is misogyny as Sarah z did to me when I confronted her) and also an excuse to be racist towards men of color.

TW RAPE KINK, PEDOPHILLIA AND RACE PLAY MENTION

as of July 7th 2022 Sarah came out to say that it is transphobic that people, many of whom are not white, are discussing how harmful race play, pedophillia and rape kinks are.

These women constantly cry about being "cancelled" (Lindsay and Contrapoints even made videos about them)

Lindsay's video

ContraPoints Video

When they were "cancelled" for genuine shitty things and not "they were mean to someone on twitter and a video we don't like".

And if people telling them they have racist biases, spew alt-right rethoric, and enticing the harassment of a black man is wrong is "harassment", then i don't know what else to say.

[plotholes-and-spellingerrors]

Okay so I've been thinking about this and I don't think I've seen it expressly pointed out, so I've got to say something or I shall go mad.

When someone tries to counter the reactionary charge of "groomer" against trans folks, the thing I see most commonly is to point out that it's actually, overwhelmingly, in reactionary spaces that kids tend to be preyed upon. Not to mention the reactionary pundits who just straight-up question age of consent and advocate for child marriage, but I digress. So we can address the insincerity of the "groomer" claim: clearly they don't actually care about child abuse, they're just attacking people they don't like. I also often see people call up the actual stats and evidence to counter the "facts and logic" crowd to demonstrate that it's a myth and a scare tactic to claim that queer people are child predators. Remember when gay marriage was being debated? Gay people want to marry your kids (again, it's projection). However, I think that these arguments fall short because they don't address the heart of the reactionary, anti-queer logic, which is the thing that I want to point out:

To reactionaries, queerness in general, and right now transness specifically, is, in and of itself, a sexual perversion. Remember, these are the folks who think that gay marriage would lead to bestiality and that trans women are just men who fetishize themselves as women (the "autogynephilia" myth). To a reactionary, being trans has nothing to do with identity, nothing to do with societal expectations. To them, it's a sexual fetish. I think this is the big reason that the rhetoric has moved from "pedophile" to "groomer". Because, yeah, at some point if you're going to accuse someone of being a pedophile, you need evidence that they're, you know, abusing children. But if you think that someone simply existing as they are, which is in a way that you disapprove of, is the depraved sexual at itself, then it actually logically follows that anyone telling a kid "this is a fine and normal way to be" is preparing the kid to accept that behavior as fine and normal, and maybe even to engage in that behavior themselves. This is why it's so insidious. Reactionaries are really good at taking progressive language (which requires understanding) and twisting it to their uses (which requires misunderstanding). The problem is not that they're making a wild accusation, the problem is that they're making a sound accusation BASED ON A FALSE ASSERTION.

It's the same type of thing you see in, for example, the trial about the white family wanting to adopt a Navajo kid - the accusation that they are being racially discriminated against logically follows from the FALSE ASSERTION that the Indian Child Welfare Act prioritizes Native American families (specifically, first extended family, and then other members of the same nation, as I understand it) as candidates to adopt the child over non Native families on the basis of race, when in reality it prioritizes on the basis of membership of a political group, namely, the child's nation. The "reverse racism" charge only works on people who are mislead about how the law works.

Similarly, the "groomer" charge only works on people who have been mislead about what transness, or queerness in general (because that's the endgame), means. Now, many of the people who are mislead are hateful and bigoted and are willingly mislead because it fits into their worldview better. And for those people, idk, I don't think there's much that can be done. But for someone who is just ignorant, it may be more helpful to convince them, first, that being trans/queer is not a sexual fetish. Once you deprogram someone from the idea that cishet is normal and natural but anything else is evil and perverse, then the "groomer" charge will fall too.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. Just kinda throwing it out there because I haven't really seen it addressed from that angle.