#and it's especially bad when they're using words for like. specific political ideologies

[captainjonnitkessler]

If I could create a law of the internet it would be this: There is no word so specific or so well-defined that people online won't misuse it until it is absolutely meaningless.

That shelf is going to buckle under the weight of all the words we've had to put up on it and we are still finding new words to redefine into oblivion every single day

[ewingstan]

The Love Lost interlude was interesting. The flashback to interrogating Jen seemed to be establishing that Nicole was, even before everything, operating on certain specific beliefs and resulting frustrations. She saw the world as filled with people who aren't people but monsters, and was frustrated at how little she could do about it. She couldn't "stop all the bad guys," resented the misconduct statutes that slowed down her ability to send "monsters" to jail, and was at least somewhat aware that punishing them after they already hurt people accomplished little.

All of which helps explain her obsession with Rain: she sees him as an especially heinous monster who's escaped punishment too long. Not dealing with him and the other monsters would be compounding her failures, and the fact that killing him wouldn't accomplish anything doesn't matter that much, since she didn't really see it as accomplishing anything back when she was a cop.

The oddity is how she sees herself as working with another monster to "save the world." Firstly because Rain doesn't seem world-threatening, though maybe she's talking about the Mathers more generally. The whole of their plan still isn't clear to me, I'm not sure why they needed to attack the Navigators. But the bigger thing is that she sees Cradle as a monster, and it seems like the text agrees with her even in a way it didn't for Jen.

And its somewhat weird for the text to agree with that "some people are monsters" framing when this whole chapter is pretty clear that its wrong. Its earlier use in the flashback seems to be purposefully positioning it as wrong and dangerous:

Nicole describing people as inherently monstrous is first given in the context of a cop deciding someone must be guilty, and falsifying evidence on that basis. Its introduced as being part-and-parcel with police misconduct. And later parts pose it as something borderline fascistic:

She sees certain criminals as "not having reasons," as if they're savages who do violence because of some automatic, atavistic urge. Instead of, you know. Doing crimes to get money/revenge/safety/etc. People usually have reasons for doing things. But the fact that she thinks some people don't, and that she uses such a politically charged word as "degenerate" to describe such monsters, all signpost that Nicole is following an overly simplistic ideology with horrific ends. Even if she sees herself and Nailbiter as "very similar people at different points in their journeys," she sees the latter as someone who needs to die.

Then there's the whole Colt thing, that Colt was distressing to Nicole because she straddled the line between "innocent child" and "monster" and her becoming a parahuman pushed her in one direction rather than Colt's own autonomous choices. Colt has from the start been an example of people doing stupid harmful things for understandable reasons, and Nicole recognizes that as a burr in her worldview.

But then the reveal that Cradle has been manipulating the cluster and literally turning them evil for his own ends. Which admittedly I still don't understand at all. Though part of that is that I don't understand Nicoles side either; she wanted to kill all the "rule-breaker capes" but also said that stopping kids from getting into capedom was a worthy goal, and whatever she thought they were doing with March I completely missed. But the last paragraphs of Cradle revelation suddenly reinforces what the rest of the chapter so persistently (and often skillfully) tried to argue against vis-a-vis some people just being monsters. I'd typically say that this means that we have to be due for a humanizing look at Cradle, but nothing I've seen from Wardblr indicates I'll get it. We'll see.

Part of the problem might just be the form of the story: a genuine ideological belief that no human is a true monster gets in the way of having a truly villainous villain. But I'm not sure why this story needed one.

[a-womans-rhetoric]

Natalie Wynn's "J.K. Rowling" and Disruptive use of Women's Rhetorical Tropes: A Defiant Reply to Transmisogyny

ContraPoints, surrounded by an opulent, candle-lit set and adorned in witch's garb, leisurely pours champagne into her glass — she's ready to breach the internet's hottest topic of January, 2021: her childhood idol being outed as a transphobe (link here). The video itself being over an hour and a half long, I would be hard-pressed to claim that I could ever hope to cover its entirety, comprehensively, in a single post. So to save-face, I'll be dedicating this space only to breaking down her most frequently used rhetorical tropes, one by one.

Irreverence

"Joanne, I wanna talk to you, Joanne! [Fans herself with a rainbow paper fan with the word "BIOLOGICAL" written across it] What is it about Joannes? I can't catch a break from these people" (00:23-00:29, emphasis added).

Wynn's introductory lines immediately open a dialogue with J.K. Rowling — however, this invitation of discourse is defiantly "irreverent" (reminiscent of Nomy Lamm's punk-feminist style in "It’s a Big Fat Revolution” (1995)). Contrapoints, herself a transgender woman, is aware that her very existence is considered in opposition to the TERF-ideology that Rowling subscribes to. Thus, she's rather playful — even openly disrespectful — with her diction: calling the British author by her first name in a mocking-tone and flaunting her own trans identity to the camera (in a way that would likely offend the fragile sensibilities of a transphobe). Her personal tone (with ample use of the pronoun "I") servers a duplicitous purpose: a simultaneous message of "sit down and listen" and a fair degree of "I don't care if you can't accept me."

"So, now that 2020 is finally over, I think we can let the record conclusively show that it was a year whomst is bad. And on top of everything else going on, truly the last thing we needed was the author of Harry Potter coming forward to announce there's two things she can't stand: bigotry, and the transgenders. (00:31 - 00:50, emphasis added).

Finally broaching the subject at hand directly, Wynn employs kairos alongside her irreverence. Kairos, or the rhetorical use of an "opportune moment," holds incredible weight in the first month after 2020: the year in which the whole world fell into a stasis. Characterizing Rowling's transphobia as a collective "the last thing we needed," is also rather dismissive — she unites herself with her audience with the pronoun "we" and invites us all to groan at the exasperating nature of Rowling's bigotry.

Claiming the Right to Speak / Personal Experience

"This is a painful topic for me all around because, as a transgender woman, I am honestly really hurt by a lot of the things Joanne has said in the last year. But I also know what it's like to be the target of a Twitter mob" (01:36-01:47).

As she begins to touch on the topic, Natalie Wynn claims the right to speak on the issue of Rowling's transphobia — a type of bigotry that directly effects her. However, Wynn also situates herself partially with Rowling in her acknowledgement that receiving Twitter backlash is a terrifying experience (an experience, she argues, that the human brain is not prepared to handle the scale of, 01:49-02:39). In treating her subject with such dignity — and adding her own deeply personal account— ContraPoints creates a credible ethos in the beginning of her video essay. The audience is inclined to listen to someone who has been directly effected by the subject of Rowling's controversy (transphobia) and someone who is, rather compassionately, willing to empathize with those who would wish her harm. Although the generally sassy, glamorous, and irreverent tone of the video still appears soon after (see: the above image), her opening up for this somber moment garners a fair degree pathos in the viewer — we, as human beings, are inclined to sympathize with people who are open about being hurt.

Metis (Embodied Rhetoric)

[The following ContraPoints quote is addressing the above J.K. Rowling tweet, content warning for transmisogyny] "Transphobes love to play this game where they pretend that trans people just don't understand basic biology, that's our problem! As if I didn't start taking female hormones because I'm acutely aware that my body is not the same as a cis woman's body, that sex is real. "[Fictional TERF character] You will never be a woman, Nathan. Every cell in your body is male and has a Y chromosome." Really? That's crazy. How you'd you learn so much about science? You know I don't really feel the need to have a second X chromosome, I get by with only one, I make it work. I actually like the Y chromosome, I think it's a little more dainty, you know, it's little softer, a little more petite. The X chromosome has a lot of extra appendages, and don't you think? I don't need anymore of those, thanks. No trans person thinks it's possible to change chromosomal sex and to pretend otherwise is to argue in bad faith" (08:47-09:34).

If you can excuse my gargantuan quote, I hope you'll agree that the dialogue ContraPoints builds here was just too good to cut short. Within this excerpt, we see Wynn's use of irreverance and personal experience blended seamlessly together. For this YouTuber, the personal is perpetually political — especially when her own identity is constantly taken as an ideological stance. She uses her own expertise in trans issues to pick apart just how disingenuous Rowling's assertions are — even accusing her of "argue[ing] in bad faith" with her reductive claims (later, taking specific issue with how Rowling treats trans-ness as a costume). But, here, she also directly invokes another rhetorical trope: that of metis, or embodied rhetoric. Natalie Wynn specifically references her transgender body as a sort of counterpoint to the condescending "sex is real" claims by TERFs. She cites her intrinsic desire to pursue hormonal therapy as evidence that she — and other trans people like her — are all "acutely aware" that there are chromosomal differences between themselves and cis women. With this salient statement, she then follows with some humor: which, again, utilizes her trans body in her rhetoric. Her characterization of the Y chromosome as "more petite" and playful declaration of not needing "extra appendages" lightens up the often dark tone that arguing for trans rights and liberation can take. The clever points she makes are by no means weakened by her humor — if anything, the audience is more willing to listen to someone who can "joke about themselves" (so to speak) while still arguing an incredibly important message.

Naming and Defining Issues

"When I see Joanne tweeting about how trans people think sex isn't real and they're erasing same-sex attraction and they're silencing women, alarm bells are ringing because I recognize these as familiar transphobic talking points, specifically TERF talking points. "TERF" means trans exclusionary radical feminism. God are we still talking about this? I promise this is the last time. So TERFism is a hate movement that disguises transphobia as feminism. ... The fundamental problem with TERFs is not that they're mean. It's that they're politically reactionary, they want to reverse the progress of trans liberation." (14:05-16:02)

In her definition of TERF rhetoric, Natalie Wynn outlines some dog-whistles that are obvious to her, as a trans woman. She calmly explains to the viewer that, oftentimes in the present-day, rhetorics of exclusion are thoroughly disguised; TERFs, specifically, hide their rampant transphobia as a form of feminism. However, she further clarifies that the specific "danger" that TERFs pose is not from their cruelty — it's from their fervent dedication to strip away trans rights through political means. By specifying this danger, Natalie Wynn shifts the conversation away from empty discussion of offensiveness/terminology, to issues which directly affect the lives of trans people every day.

[This portion addresses the picture above] Also an act of naming and defining, ContraPoints makes a distinction between "Direct" and "Indirect Bigotry." She argues that many people envision bigotry as a festering, public, frothing-at-the-mouth hatred — a phenomenon she dubs "the Westboro Baptist Church theory of bigotry" (20:06). In bringing attention to the human tendency to think of people as exclusively practicing "direct bigotry" — envisioning them as a sort of delusional "other" — she then forces the audience to contemplate the relative omni-presence of the more covert (and possibly alluring) "indirect bigotry." This definition, crucially, requires introspection. By allowing ourselves to think of bigots not exclusively as "Westboros," we're made to adopt a much more nuanced view of subjects (most) generally prefer to keep black-and-white. Natalie Wynn uses her J.K. Rowling case study to complicate this 2D view of "The Bigot," inviting others to more carefully examine how politically reactionary views develop.

Phew, this was probably the longest post I've ever typed up on tumblr! Hopefully, I succeeded in demystifying (or at least adding clarity to) some of the specific tropes ContraPoints uses (that are common to women's rhetorics as a whole). Thanks for reading if you stuck around this long, and my ask box is always open!

[michaelbranch]

A Brief Summary of Ideas: The Righteous Mind

*These summaries are kept intentionally very brief, just hitting what I consider some of the important/interesting takeaways, most word-for-word or paraphrased. I strive to be objective as possible and not include any review/opinions on the material. My goal is also to stick to ideas/principals, not specific examples.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion

Author: Jonathan Haidt

Morality made civilization possible.

Human nature is not just intrinsically moral, but moralistic, critical, and judgmental.

Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.

The mind is divided, like a rider (rational side) on an elephant (emotions/gut. more powerful), and the riders job is to serve the elephant. Emotions are partially cognition, a kind of information processing. "Feeling" happens very fast, "thinking" is slower, and is also more evolutionarily new, rooted in language.

It is possible to reason your way to a moral conclusion that contradicts your initial intuitive judgement, but it's very rare.

Moral reasoning is a skill we evolved to further our social agendas, to justify our actions. They're constructed post hoc to advance strategic objectives.

When we want to believe something we ask, "can I believe it" and search for supporting evidence. When we don't want to believe something we ask, "must I believe it", and search for contrary evidence.

All societies must reconcile how to order society; balance individual needs vs. groups.

Make sure everyone's reputation is on the line at all times so bad behavior will always bring bad consequences.

Moral domains vary by culture.

The capacity to evaluate individuals on the basis of their social interactions is universal and unlearned.

If you put individuals together in a way that some can use their reasoning to disconfirm claims of others, and all feel some common bond or shared fate that allows civil interaction, then outcome can be good (why its important to have intellectual and ideological diversity within groups whose goal is to find truth).

There's more to morality than just harm and fairness.

Most research in psychology is conducted on a very small subset of people: WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic). Statistical outliers and least generalizable about human nature. The more WEIRD the more likely you are to see a world full of separate objects vs. relationships.

Universal moral modules would be adaptations to long-standing threats and opportunities in social life and would trigger instant intuitive reactions or emotions. Would have original (evolutionary) triggers, and current ones (cultures can shrink or expand the current triggers).

Traits can be "innate" without being either hardwired or universal; rather "prewired". Nature provides first draft, experience then revises. This means we can be more predisposed to particular moral (and thus political) aisles.

Moral Foundations Theory: 6 moral modules

Care/Harm Foundation: We are innately sensitive to signs of suffering/distress. Original trigger was your child in distress.

Fairness/Cheating Foundation: set of moral emotions that make us play "tit for tat" in mutually beneficial cooperation. Original triggers are acts of cooperation or selfishness. On the left fairness = equality, on right = proportionality.

Loyalty/Betrayal Foundation: System meant to foster forming cohesive tribes. Original trigger is anything that tells you who is a team player and who is a traitor.

Authority/Subversion Foundation: Help forge beneficial relationships within hierarchies. Authorities performed some socially beneficial function. Needed to cultivate protection of superiors and/or allegiance of subordinates. Original triggers were indications of higher vs. lower rank.

Sanctity/Degradation Foundation: Developed as the need to avoid pathogens, parasites, and other threats that spread by physical touch or proximity. Original triggers include smells, sights or other things that predict the presence of dangerous pathogens.

Liberty/Oppression Foundation: Evolved to challenge of living in small groups with individuals who would, if given the chance, dominate others. Original triggers were any signs of attempted domination. Liberals are more universalistic and employed in service of underdogs and perceived victims. Conservatives are more concerned about their groups.

Liberals generally have a two foundation morality (care/fairness). Conservatives generally have all of them (some in slightly different ways).

Morality binds and blinds

Human beings are 90% chimp (individualistic), 10% bee (hive/group oriented)

Natural selection works at multiple levels simultaneously. Individuals compete with individuals and groups compete with groups and that favors groups composed of team players. Most effective groups have many ways of suppressing selfishness.

Group selection is controversial among evolutionary theorists.

Human beings are conditional hive creatures and have the ability, under certain conditions, to transcend self interest and lose ourselves in something larger.

To understand persistence of religion you need to look at how religious beliefs work with religious practices to create a religious community.

Religion might be an adaptation evolved to confer benefits to individuals/groups, like helping groups cohere, solve free rider problems, and win competition for group level survival. Rituals, laws, and other constraints work best when sacralized as to hide their arbitrariness in a cloak of seeming necessity; works to solve cooperation without kinship. Those that do a better job at binding people and suppressing selfishness spread at the expense of others.

Anything that binds people together morally that glorifies the in-group while demonizing outsiders can lead to moralistic killing. Religion is suited for this task; but it is an accessory to atrocity, rather than the driving force.

Moral systems: interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, institutions, technologies and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate self interest and make cooperative societies possible.

Actually harder for liberals to even understand the conservative narrative (easier vice versa).

Can improve harmful partisanship by doing things to cultivate more positive social connections between members (especially legislators).

Be suspicious of moral monists (those that believe there is one true morality for all people, times, and places). Moral pluralism (not relativism) allows you to understand why others may pursue different values, even if you don't.

[imanes]

do you think that "influencers" and celebs should speak out about "political issues"? (putting it in brackets bc. it's clearly an understatement n not accurate but idk how to word it) re: palestine? cause i've seen a lot of people be like "yeah they shouldn't talk about it if they're not educated or if they're just doing it for the trend" (even tho at this point its been so all over social media that ppl cant use the "im not educated enough" excuse anymore) n all and i guess it's a fair point and all but also? idk when i'm on social media and i see ppl talking about what's happening in palestine, and then i scroll down and see ppl be like omg new haul uwu! vlog with my friends! and thats just so???? idk. idk what to think bc on the other hand ofc performative activism is bad ykw? (like....re: blm ppl just posting a black square on their ig....) but i don't know what to think about it and i would love to hear your thoughts!!!

inchresting question to which i have no concrete answer to provide (except a lot of ramblings) because it is a thorny subject related to the ubiquity of digital society and the social weight we give to a certain class of people who frame their existence as something that could represent us but actually doesn't at all. and everybody and their mother - including me - has an opinion on it but at the end of the day it's just an opinion, not an empirical fact to be presented, and not even one i think about a lot bc it isn't a primary concern of mine on a day to day basis. so i'm like not looking for a debate with some random tumblr user (not talking about u anon, but talking about whoever might care too much about my inconsequential opinion) bc this is a question i'm answering, not a question i'm asking so to anyone tempted to "well according to the encyclopedia of pfppspfpsp" me, make ur own post!

i guess we can start with "should influencers/celebrities/people who are famous by virtue of being well-known even exist and should we lend weight to their words?" the answer to that may vary from person to person but social media accounts with a very large following can indeed turn tides with regard to socio-political crises, such as demonstrated by bella hadid who single-handedly educated a whole generation of south-korean netizens through her posts on palestine so we can see the good effects of that. now obviously bella hadid is personally concerned by the ethnic cleansing of palestine and has a lot more at stake than say rihanna with her all lives matter bullshit statement (someone said "saudi dick must be potent" but i think it has more to do with her contract with puma who is actually on the BDS list) or even jameela jamil who has a terminal case of "everything must be about me always".

people can say whatever they want about what well-known ppl are allowed to speak about or not but i'll just remind that these "influencers" and whatnot are people and they're bound to want to talk about stuff, especially when it is relevant or when prompted by their own following, because literally everybody with an account on a social media platform expresses their opinions about smt at one point or another in time. that includes random ppl on facebook commenting under news with their stale hot takes. famous ppl or "influencers" are no different.

I'll also say that "influence" only goes so far so I'm not *particulary* concerned with whatever whoever that i don't take seriously says. let me take the queen of talking out of her ass jameela jamil as a case study for this. people who agreed with her bizarre and narcissistic takes are already bound to agree with her because people flock to opinions that are similar to theirs. in my opinion that is not influence, that is attracting similar weirdos in your sphere and consequently creating impenetrable echo chambers of idiocy. did her stale ass take become a "consensus" amongst the indecisive? i don't know for sure bc i haven't run a survey but my assumption is that people who have critical thinking skills were rightfully put off by her rancid take and called her out publicly for it, providing sources and information, which i think is visible enough for anyone 2 look through. and people who like her talk and think out of their asses were like "wow preach i've been saying!" so they are themselves inconsequential.

so in my opinion it is less about influencing - because at this point i think someone can be influenced by a single person into buying a product but your fave singer is not going to make you buy into their ideology just because they released one lukewarm-at-best statement - and more about signaling where you stand. when viola davis and idris elba (amongst many others) stated that they stood by palestine, they made it clear that they stood against apartheid and ethnic cleansing and people who already agreed on these basic principles saluted their stance. do i believe they changed anybody's mind? not really, that is the job of well-informed people such as activists disseminating information and other people sharing the info. do i think that mark ruffalo lost all credibility with his flip-flopping? absolutely, and it doesn't reflect back on palestine, it reflects badly on HIM. we're in an era where people are bombarded with so much information from all sides that one person saying something is a drop in a bucket no matter how famous they are. this is also why we say that israhell lost the PR war. we were and are too loud 2 be ignored now and a few celebrities showcasing how inane they are doesn't change anything. the famous-ppl-market is too saturated for their opinion to matter a whoooole lot. support is appreciated but not hailed as the second-coming jesus u know what i mean?

to address ur final point about finding it weird that some people flat-out ignore some stuff while you are neck-deep into it, I think it's an understandable situation to find yourself in and as subhi taha said, it just looks tacky. i think it should be your cue to just unfollow whoever doesn't align with your interest content-wise. i unfollowed a loooot of people lately because of that like I really didn't give a fuck about Michelle phan's cryptocurrency peddling (which was already yikes on principle) in the midst of real-time live-stream decolonisation and liberation struggles against apartheid and ethnic cleansing, and at this point I don't think I can go back to caring about using social media for frivolous things (except cats and memes account bc they bring me joy) and following bigger accounts that are trying 2 sell me some shit, because I've changed in the past weeks, one could say I've become more "radical" (lol) and I'm ready to sustain an online space that caters to my concerns and abandon all content that I indeed find tacky in between two posts that talk about some serious shit. it's not to say I'll never post a pic of the sunset on Instagram again or that I don't consume content that has literally nothing to do with informing myself and disseminating information on decolonisation and anti-capitalism (I literally watch study vlogs from med students to unwind lol), or that "everybody should use their account in this specific way because it's the only one that is valid" (it's not and i don't care what other ppl do) but u are obviously dissatisfied with ur feed for valid reasons and while some ppl may not share your opinion it doesn't mean that you shouldn't take steps to make ur user experience less jarring.

it's again just an *opinion*, not a to-do list or smt that i'd ever want 2 present as a "fact", at the end of the day everybody curates their online spaces the way they want to and if you find your current configuration to be distasteful, that's understandable. and everybody is entitled to believe that celebrities/influencers/glorified sellers of products and lifestyles and disorders talking or not talking about certain things can be harmful or beneficial, as there are arguments and examples for and against it and i am personally not interested in participating the debate even tho i wrote a long ass text about it akjdlkfjgd I'm sorry about this u might be regretting ever asking me this question. hope i made sense!

[trashcat-hiss]

I believe you.

I think not taking a blogger at their word of "that's an accident, I do NOT support those ideas" should be the end of discussion, like a period at the end of a statement.

Social media is just too massive to perfectly curate unless you're only communicating with people in your safe bubble of people you can remember (this number is low for even NT people, like 20).

If you can't believe that someone you're following who has already stated multiple times that they do not support TERF/FART rhetoric, cancel culture should not be the answer.

The only reason you should unfollow someone who -might- accidentally reblog an ideology you can't abide is that seeing the ideas in type will bring you personal harm. I can totally understand knowing your own limits and having to unfollow someone because an accidental share of harmful ideas will cause you to see those ideas and you will subsequently be Triggered and in pain. (not just uncomfortable and able to let the blogger know their accident). Even remembering that FARTs exist can be capital T Triggering for some folks, but if that's not you, unfollowing isn't the answer. A polite message of "hey, this specific post doesn't mean what you think it means, its FART (or whichever awful group someone accidentally reblogged) stuff.

I also understand trying to curate so well that you can't ever be surprised by hurtful things and even this post is too much for you -- you are valid. Curating to this extent is just really, really, -really- hard to do on tumblr.

BELIEVE AUTISTIC PEOPLE ESPECIALLY. As a community, actually autistic people are more likely to be trans or unable to gender in a NT way, even if only gender non conforming--I said more likely, not all of us. Also I can't speak for every individual, I'm using big ol brush strokes here. We also know what it's like to struggle socially, wonder why we can't fit in until Dx or self-Dx, we know what it's like to have our opinions completely discounted by a culture obsessed with the idea of normalcy. Even if the autistic person in question identities as cishet, through the autistic community, they have learned the value of allyship to other groups of people who are also neglected by society at large. The autistic and trans/queer/LGBTQIA+ [I identify as queer bc it fits and I was alive when it was in the common lexicon/already taken back, I'm not even gonna fight ab this] communities are intrinsically linked (I'd love to see a venn diagram). We're most likely an ally but often we don't catch the dogwhistles. Autism is like that.

I think allies who are different from us in some way are really useful. @butterflyinthewell and I do not share the same faith, but it doesn't mean I'm not happy for her when she posts about the great time singing in choir at church, or similar topics. If you're using her faith as a semi-sign that she (or any other person of the big three/most modernly populous faiths) is not trans-friendly, stop. Some of the most ardent fighters for trans rights and service accessibility and health education that I personally know (trans and cis) are Christian or Jewish, and their faith is what drives them to keep pushing and fighting for us trans and otherwise queer folk.

TL;DR - please stop cancelling friends and allies and believe them if the only words they actually type are "I don't support that, it was an accident"- esp when autistic. We really didn't catch the dogwhistles.

If the pattern of someone's posts are supportive, one bad post every once in a while was probably an accident. FARTs and other hate groups will repeat their pattern of hate more consistently and they're not as good at being subtle as they think they are.

And now I get people telling me I reblogged from a radfem TERF, so I’m too freaking oblivious to recognize those signs in something somebody is saying.

2 people were kind to let me know, a 3rd said they were unfollowing because apparently unknowingly reblogging radfem TERF bullshit without realizing it’s radfem TERF bullshit means I agree with it.

My autistic ass doesn’t see between the lines. I don’t check the post history of every person I reblog from because I would be spending hours doing that instead of actually enjoying myself on this hellsite.

I’m so tired of never getting things right. I’m so tired of fucking up the good I try to do.

I do not want to associate with TERFS, transmeds, radfems, MAPS, misogynists, racists, antivaxxers, neonazis, etc.. 

If I reblog something from one, it’s because I don’t KNOW they are any of those! 

I appreciate being notified so I can remove the post, but I do NOT appreciate being treated as if mistakenly reblogging from them means I agree with them or am one of them. 

I’m dealing with enough of having my mistakes thrown at me as reasons I’m trash, I don’t need MORE reasons to feel like the dumpster everybody shits in. 

FFS people, if you throw someone else’s worth that easily then I hate to see what you think of your own self worth.