#did i reblog something Nazi?

[perpulchra]

NAZI 🤮

????

I'm latina (?)

[goldensunset]

‘filtering out content about upsetting current events on social media is wrong and disgusting because you’re basically looking away and remaining ignorant’ is a weird bit of discourse to me. as much as we like to joke about being terminally on tumblr it’s pretty wild to assume someone doesn’t have, like, a life outside of the fandom stupidity website and that tumblr is the only source of information they could possibly have access to. buddy some of us actually do read the old fashioned news and talk to people i actually don’t need to hear you specifically talk in order to understand that the world is a nightmare. i use this website to scroll through pretty pictures

[listen-to-the-inner-walrus]

.

[pinkrangerv]

Well, you see, women are naturally inferior and therefore cannot POSSIBLY compete with men because they will always lose. We know this because their muscle fibers twitch differently, and they have less muscle mass sometimes, and they might be short.

See, women are pretty much just delicate little flowers that exist to be sex toys. It's biology. So ugly people, people of color, and anyone who might be strong or powerful? They can't be women. Ever. Because women are just Nature's RealDolls and can't do anything a man can.

This is, of course, feminist. Because as we all know, feminism isn't the idea that women and men are equal, supported by quite a lot of science and history. Feminism is obviously just Nazi ideology, women are just sex toys, and no real woman is ever anything but a cute little babymaker.

Obviously.

No, we're not Nazis. Why do you ask?

One takeaway I have from all this noise around Imane Khelif is that a lot of grifters and TERFs had to make up a trans person to be mad at, which is really sad and funny. I feel awful for her.

My second takeaway is people think sports are about fairness? What? Since when?

[anarkhebringer]

It just makes me sit here dumbfounded when I see folks go "don't compare to this genocide it's DIFFERENT", despite doing verbatim shit said genocide did, looking to open colonizers and contacting them for tips on how to colonize the best way, and the survivors of said genocide ALSO saying "hey this is like that genocide I suffered during". Not antisemitic to point out that there's Jewish people out there that are raging bigots and make a mockery of the faith by using it as an excuse to slaughter an entire population of people.

[hotvintagepoll]

Propaganda

Eartha Kitt (Anna Lucasta, St. Louis Blues)—My friend and I have a saying: NOBODY is Eartha Kitt. A thousand have tried, and they've all come up empty and will continue to do so. Everyone knows her for something: from "Santa Baby" to Yzma in Emperor's New Groove to Catwoman to making Lady Bird Johnson cry for the Vietnam War. She was a master of comedy and sex, an extremely vocal activist, and she aged like fine wine... I honestly don't know what I can say about her that hasn't already been said, so I'll stick to linking all my propaganda. Like what else do you want from me. She was iconic at everything she ever did. Literally name another. How can anyone even think of her and not want to absolutely drown?

Hedy Lamarr (Samson and Delilah, Ziegfeld Girl)—Look. I'm sure someone has already submitted Hedy Lamarr because she was spectacularly beautiful, and a very strong lady too: she fled both an abusive marriage AND nazi persecution at a very young age and rebuilt a life for herself pursuing her love for acting all on her own!! Her career as an actress was stellar; while she began acting outside of Hollywood (her very first movie, Ecstasy, won a prize at the Venice Film Festival), she conquered American hearts very quickly with her first movie in the US, Algiers, and then just kept getting better and better. If all this isn't enough, she was also an inventor: her invention of the frequency-hopping spread spectrum radio transmission technique forms the base of bluetooth and has a lot of applications in all kinds of communication technologies. I think that deserves a prize, don't you?

This is the final poll of the Hot & Vintage Movie Women Tournament. Please reblog with further support of your beloved hot sexy vintage woman.

THIS POLL LASTS FOR 24 HOURS.

[additional propaganda submitted under the cut.]

Eartha Kitt:

"A hot vintage woman who was not just known for her voice, beauty, poise, and presence, but also her unapologetic ways of speaking about how she was mistreated in the show business as a girl who grew up on cotton fields in South Carolina in the 1930s through the 1940s coming to Broadway first and then Hollywood."

"Have you watched her sing?? Have you seen her face?? Have you heard her talk?? How could you not fall instantly in love. She makes me incoherent with how hot she is."

"She can ACT she can SING she can speak FOUR LANGUAGES she is a GODDESS!!! Although she is (rightfully) remembered for her singing, TV appearances (Catwoman my beloved), and later film roles, her early appearances in film are no less impressive or noteworthy!! She’s an amazing actress with so much charisma in every role. She was also blacklisted from Hollywood for 10 years for criticizing the Johnson administration/Vietnam War, so. Iconic. Also Orson Welles apparently called her “the most exciting woman in the world.”

"She had such a stunning, remarkable appearance, like she could tear you to shreds with just a glance- but the most undeniable part of her hotness was her voice, and it makes sense that it's what most people nowadays know her for. Nothing encapsulates the sheer magnetism of her singing better than this clip of her and Nat King Cole in St. Louis Blues, she pops in at 2:49. Also I know it's post-1970 but her song that was cut from Emperor's New Groove is likely to make you feel Feelings."

"Even with as racist as Hollywood was in the 1950s and 60s, Eartha Kitt STILL managed to have a thriving career. She also once had a threesome with Paul Newman and James Dean, and called out LBJ over the Vietnam War so hard that it made First Lady Johnson cry. Eartha Kitt was talented, sexy, and a total badass activist."

Hedy Lamarr:

"The only person you can find both on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and in the Inventor's Hall of Fame--her radio-frequency-hopping technology forms the basis for cordless phones, wi-fi, and a dozen other aspects of modern life. She was also passionate in her efforts to aid the Allies in WWII (unsurprising for a Jewish-Austrian Emigree to America), and her name served as the backbone for one of the best running jokes in what is possibly Mel Brooks' best movie. Look, Louis B. Mayer apparently believed he could plausibly promote her as "The world's most beautiful woman". Is an entire website full of people going to be less audacious than one Louis B. Mayer? I didn't think so!"

"Described as "Hedy has the most incredible personal sophistication. She knows the peculiarly European art of being womanly; she knows what men want in a beautiful woman, what attracts them, and she forces herself to be these things. She has magnetism with warmth, something that neither Dietrich nor Garbo has managed to achieve" by Howard Sharpe, she managed to escape her controlling husband (and Nazi Germany) by a) Disguising as her maid and fleeing to Paris or b) Convincing the husband to let her wear all of her jewelry to a dinner, only to disappear afterwards. Also she was particularly clever and helped develop Frequency-Hopping Spread Spectrum (I can't really explain it but anyway...)"

"Her depiction of Delilah and Samson and Delilah just lives rent free in my head. The woman was gorgeous."

"One of the most beautiful women ever in film, spoken by many critics and fans. Beautiful shapely figure, deeper seductive voice, and often played femme fatale roles. She was also brilliant and an inventor. Mainly self-taught, she invested her spare time, including on set between takes, in designing and drafting inventions, which included an improved traffic stoplight and a tablet that would dissolve in water to create a flavored carbonated drink, and much more."

"Gorgeous and brilliant pioneer of modern technology and the middle part."

[yes-ihavealwaysbeengreen]

My Home Is You Part 1/3

A/N: I am so obsessed with this movie, I've seen it twice. Enjoy. Leave a comment, like, or reblog if you've enjoyed it. Thank you to @kingliam2019 for requesting.

Fandom: The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare

Pairing: Gus March-Phillips x Female Reader

Warnings: 18+ for language, Nazi's, canon typical violence, possible spoilers for the movie, and mentions of sexual assault.

Part 2 Part 3

“What’s that?” Freddy points to the lump behind Gus’s coat. 

“Nothing,” Gus shrugs, “shall we.” 

“We shall not,” Freddy shouts exasperated, “it’s moving! Unless you became the hunchback of Notre Dame in the ten minutes I left you, you got something hidden behind your back!” 

“He’s got a point, boss,” Hazy shrugs. 

Gus sighs, pinching the bridge of his nose, “I think the jig is up,” he pushes the coat up and out you pop from behind his side, disappearing behind him with a shriek. 

“Where the hell did you find a woman?!” Freddy looks around, then goes silent putting two and two together, “Oh, I see.” 

“She’s coming with us,” Gus reaches behind him and you grasp his hand, trembling hard at being surrounded by so many men. His touch is warm, and you take a moment to breathe before stepping out from behind him at your full height. 

“Hello,” you whisper, giving an awkward wave. 

Gus lets go of your hand and claps making you jump and his face quickly turns apologetic, “Fuck, sorry about that, love. These are the boys,” he points to each man giving you a quick rundown on his merry band of miscreants. He turns to you with a proud smile, “I never did catch your name.” 

“Let me get this straight,” Freddy puts his hands on his hips, sticking out one finger towards Gus, “you find a random woman hidden in a Nazi garrison, fight your way out with her, and decide to bring her with us, without asking her name first?” 

“Probably did it a bit backward,” Gus rubs the back of his head with a chuckle, “but I’m making up for it now.” 

You clear your throat and they all turn towards you as you say your name, a small smile spreading across your face when they repeat it to you. “Welcome to the team,” Anders bows before putting his bow over his shoulder, “shall we get back to the boat, we got somewhere we need to be.” 

“After you,” Gus says, frowning when he realizes Anders is already halfway back to the boat. “That’s the spirit Lassen, lead the way!” Gus slings an arm around your shoulder and helps you walk, it’s slow and painful; your foot aches with every step but you keep it to yourself. These men have already done enough liberating you and agreeing to take you with them. The last thing they need is for you to be injured. But nothing gets past Gus. 

He doesn’t ask, just leans down and swings you up into his arms. You gasp, quickly wrapping your arms around his neck. “Wh-what are you doing?” you whisper. 

“You’re limping,” he whispers back, almost like two children sharing a secret, he grins. “I’m not about to let you hurt yourself worse before I can take a look at your injuries.” 

“I’m fine,” you bite your lip looking away, “you’ve done enough already.” 

Gus stops, the others moving around him to toss the rope down the cliff side, “Darling, I know you’ve just spent gods knows how long with the worst creatures imaginable but not all of us are monsters.” 

“I didn’t say you were,” you turn back to him, and catch your breath when you notice how close he is. “I don’t think you’re a monster at all,” you whisper, swallowing hard, “I just don’t want to cause you any more trouble.” 

“Do you know what I thought when I saw you tucked behind that wall crying and holding your ears?” You shake your head, and he grins, “She looks like just my kind of trouble.” 

The first smile in months spreads like wildfire across your face and you nod. “Ready?” Apple interrupts, “We managed a pulley to get her down.” 

Gus nods, lifting you into the makeshift pulley and working with Apple to lower you down. When you reach the ground Lassen lifts you into his arms while Gus and Apple come down and re-wrap the rope around their arms. 

When finished, Gus reaches his arms out for you and Anders smiles, tugging you closer. “I think I’ll hold on to her for a while. Give you a break,” he looks down giving you a conspiratorial wink. 

“Give me back my damsel,” Gus holds out his arms wider, “I’m not going to ask again.” 

“Who are you calling a damsel?” you ask, crossing your arms over your chest, and Lassen lets out a joyful cheer. 

“You tell him, honey,” he turns walking with you back towards the dinghy. His glee makes a ghost of a laugh appear in your throat before you toss your head back in delight. 

Apple pats Gus on the back as he climbs into the boat and you look back to see Gus smiling, a full-blown smile just for you and you rest your head on your arm and look back at him. “It’s good to see you laugh,” he mouths, and your cheeks ache from smiling as he sits down and begins to row. 

“Row row, row your boat,” Lassen mumbles under his breath, the lull of the waves and the feeling of safety making your eyes droop. “Oh, the little lamb is tired, no?” he whispers in your ear, “You rest, no one will harm you ever again.” 

“Don’t make promises you can’t keep,” you repeat your fathers words aloud. 

“Little lamb, with the way Gus is looking at me right now. You don’t have to worry about anyone hurting you for the rest of your life.” He rubs a hand over your arm and chuckles, mumbling, “if looks could kill.” 

“He won’t always be there,” your words are drowsy as you burrow deep into his arms, letting out a yawn. 

“Ah, little lamb, I highly doubt that,” Lassen chuckles softly, before you feel yourself being lifted into anothers arms. The scent of smoke, cologne, and leather lull you into a deeper sense of calm and you snuggle into his arms. Gus looks down, brushing a knuckle over your cheek and committing your face to memory as you fall asleep, breathing softly. “Take a picture,” Lassen teases, “it will last longer.” 

“Her cell was next to mine,” Apple interrupts, “she was always so nice to me. Tried to patch me up the best she could through the bars. I tried to return the favor, everytime they brought her….fuck I can still hear the screaming.” The men are silent, the waves crashing against the dinghy as they get closer and closer to the boat. 

“Well,” Freddy clears his throat, “she’s safe now.” They reach the boat, helping Gus aboard and watching as he disappears below deck with you. 

“Heaven help the man who tries to take her away from him,” Hayes clears his throat, and the rest climb aboard and continue on toward Fernando Po. 

Below deck, Gus tucks you into his bunk and watches the rise and fall of your chest before he moves towards the end of the bed, and lifts the blanket to remove your shoe. He curses when he sees the bruising around your ankle. He removes the other shoe and has to control his breathing when he sees the same markings; shackles. 

“Never again,” he whispers, grabbing bandages and ointments and applying them to your ankles. The bottom of your foot is no better, and he grabs the tweezers removing several shards of glass and bandaging your feet. “No wonder you were limping,” he talks to himself. He takes the next twenty minutes checking over the parts of your body he can see, treating every little cut and bruise. When he’s finished he walks over to a basin of water and washes his hands before pouring a glass of scotch and sitting down at the map. 

He loses track of the time, his head snapping up from the table when the screaming starts. He pushes the chair out, climbing over the table to grab your thrashing body. He repeats your name over and over again till your eyes pop open, gasping you reach towards him throwing your arms around his neck and letting out a sob. “I thought it was a dream,” you sob brokenly into his skin, almost crawling into his lap, “I dreamed I was back there,” you take a deep breath, “that they were…” 

“No,” he shakes his head, pulling back to put both hands on your face, his thumbs brushing the tears from your eyes. “You’re safe,” he repeats once, then twice, “do you hear me?” 

“I’m safe,” you repeat back, the tears silently streaming down your face. From the stairs, the men stare at the scene before them. “Uh oh,” Freddy shakes his head, and the others turn to him with various questions. “Look at them,” he points back to you and Gus, “he looks at her like he just realized what love was.” 

“I didn’t know you were a romantic, Freddy,” Apple claps him on the shoulder with a laugh. “I’m not,” he shrugs, “but I’m also not blind. That right there,” he points a finger, “that’s love if I ever saw it. You just wait, I bet you ten pounds she goes home with him at the end of this mission.” 

“I’ll take that bet,” Hayes tosses over his shoulder. 

Apple raises a brow, “you don’t think they’ll end up getting hitched once we’re home.” 

“That wasn’t the bet,” Hayes grins, “he bet that she’ll go home with him at the end of the mission. I think we’ll either be dead or in jail so she probably won’t be going home with him.” 

“Never bet against yourself, Hazy,” Freddy shakes his head, “have I taught you nothing.” 

“It’s your deal,” Henry reminds him before shrugging past to go back to the deck, “let’s go, give them some privacy.” 

Their steps recede and Gus rubs the last of your tears away, “do you want something to eat?” 

“Yes,” you nod, moving from his lap and tugging the blanket around your shoulders. When you step down, you quickly look at the bandages around your feet and ankle before meeting his eyes, “thank you,” you whisper, “for everything.” 

“You don’t have to thank me,” he puts the kettle on, “any decent human being would do the same.” You sit down at the table seeing the maps and confidential files spread across the surface. Gus grabs the papers and puts them into a pile before putting down a cup of steaming tea before you. 

“I have a few questions,” you wrap your hands around the cup, absorbing some of the warmth. 

He takes a sip, blowing the top with a grin, “I’d be disappointed if you didn’t.” 

“What were you doing in the Garrison?” 

“Rescuing Appleyard,” he takes another sip, “we needed him.” 

“For what?” 

Gus puts down his cup, crossing his arms over his chest and your heart beats a little louder at how strained the fabric is over his bulging biceps. You quickly take a sip of your tea, burning your tongue when you meet his eyes, seeing amusement sparkle. “Enjoying the show?” you cough, the tea spilling down the front of your dress. “Shit,” he shouts, grabbing a towel and pulling out the chair beside you to sit down. You grab it and soak up the liquid from your dress, the top sinking lower with each tug. 

When you’re finished you glance up to see his eyes on your chest before he quickly averts his eyes and clears his throat. “Enjoying the show?” you smile softly when he coughs and lets out a strained laugh. 

“Very much,” he turns his head and your mouth goes dry. Neither says anything for a moment before he goes back to the pile and tugs out the map. You take another sip of tea to prevent being parched when he spreads it over the table. “We’re on a secret mission for the English government.” “Come again?” you clear your throat, sitting up straighter. 

He grins, “We are on an unsanctioned, unofficial mission to destroy a ship and two tug boats holding enough supplies to supply the German U-boats for six months. We destroy those ships and we regain control of the Atlantic.” 

“And how do you plan to do that?” 

“Explosives,” he pushes a tin of biscuits towards you, “tons of explosives. What do you think?” 

You sit there for a moment, processing everything he’s said before reaching into the tin and pulling out a ginger snap. You dip it into your cup before taking a bite with a grin, “where can I sign up?” 

[studioboner]

in regards to my latest reblog, it's not just that "brazil court asked elon to do something about the hate crimes on twitter and he refused"

it's that brazil court, and brazilian twitter headwaurters? or somethihng? were suspending accounts who were spreading hate and electoral campaing fake news and etc. But elon was like nooo free speech. and Un-suspended the neo-nazis that we had banned.

and the court was like you can't do that, and thats mostly how the situation started.

It was elon who did the first shitty move, at no point did brazil court reach out to him first, as far as i recall

[mightypurplethunder]

I don't want to see any of you usamericans talk about "punching nazis" ever again. I don't want to hear yall pat each other on the back and say shit like "If I had been alive during the holocaust I would have done something about it", or any other white savior shit like that.

You don't care about jews, you didn't care about them back then, just as you don't care about palestinians now. Yall repeat and repeat "the holocaust was terrible, we should condemn it", not because you care, but because it lifts yourselves up. Because it's the only war that the US won where they just happened to be on "the good side", so it portrays you as heroes, warriors of justice, which happens to be excelent propaganda material, so you exploit it. You make memorials, you make films, hundreds of them, fetishizing the jewish suffering and portraying yourselves as the force of good that saved them all. Meanwhile, dozens of other genocides - many of them even bigger and bloddier than the holocaust - happen around the world, many of them endorsed or supported by your government. But yall don't care. It's not the holocaust. You're not the good guys in this one so why bother making a movie, why pay atention to it at all? It's hard to keep track of everything happening in the world, it has nothing to do with you. So you just keep scrolling your socials paying no mind to whatever fucked up shit is happening out there, until you run into some fucker from the global south posting something mildly critical of israel, or about how the United States shamelessly exploits jewish history for the sake of warfare, or how victim mentality is a dangerous thing for a marginalized group to hold on to, and you get furious. How dare they say things that don't align with the narrative I've been fed my whole life?? They are anti-semitic!! They hate jews!! They are nazis!! And you tell them so, you put them in their place, because you are a democrat and a good guy and you won't tolerate nazis. And then you reblog "support our troops" posts and write letters to your president begging him to bomb brown people on the other side of the planet because they are terrorists, I think. And I'm here to tell you that you are not the good guy, you are not a hero. You are a victim of indoctrination and an idiot, and your domestic white politics mean absolutely nothing to the rest of the world.

Yes, I did watch Schindler's list. No, I don't hate jewish people. Yes, I'll aggresively condemn Israel's actions and anyone blind enough to say that one genocide justifies another, and I will always support palestinian people. And if you happen to be a jewish person that has somehow found themselves in the center of a conversation that isn't even about you, and getting negative attention you don't deserve, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that no matter what you do or where you live, you keep being used as a scapegoat and your life and history exploited for colonialist propaganda, your heritage is worth more than that.

So keep calling yourselves the good guys, keep pulling the anti-semite card or the "Palestine is homophobic" argument. Keep playing your white politics in your white country that you stole from non-white people. The rest of the world is watching you and history will remember you as what you are and always have been; fucking colonizers.

[shivasdarknight]

i feel like we also got to address character C and character D and how person C and person D (...and E and F) interact with them because there's still a level of harm that media can inflict, and that depends on the intentions of the author and the type of fan who engages with them.

character C is a character is an offensive caricature part of an otherwise standard show. they are played off as normal through the show, but everything about them is harmful in terms of how the audience engages with them and how they continue to portray (blank) group in offensive lights. the author may not realize that character C is offensive, but to the audience - especially the group that they reflect - it's glaringly obvious. person C recognizes the harm that this character can cause but they also find themselves liking this character in spite of it. person C's engagement with character C is still positive, but due to understanding the problems with character C's portrayal, most of their engagement with the character comes in as mitigation (rewrites, redesigns, etc.), while also acknowledging vocally what is wrong and never condoning it.

person D also likes this character, however they do not recognize what is wrong and continue to play into how the piece of media portrays character C all the way down into intentionally/unintentionally adding in more offensive material because "it fits." person D can go one of a few ways: denying that the text is offensive and continuing to act blindly; acknowledging that it's bad and learning from it to follow person C; or doubling down on their beliefs and even sometimes finding tokens of the targeted group that agree with them to use them to justify their uncritical love of character C. a person D who takes the last route often doubles down on their interpretation and finds themselves at odds with a person C for their denial of harm. they also use the argument that because it's fiction, that they should be allowed to enjoy it when a person C is still enjoying it while acknowledging the arm it can cause and trying to work around it.

you can also extrapolate this into a person E, who likes character C because of the harm they cause. they see character C as emblematic of (blank) group and are often attracted into fandom spaces by a person D who creates enough of a fuss from being asked to be careful, critical, and respectful when engaging with the sensitive topic of character C's design and existence. a person E often first appears as a defender of a person D who comes into conflict with a person C to portray person C as someone who is trying to take away their right to like fiction, while reinforcing the uncritical love of character C, who perpetuates the harmful portrayal of (blank) group. This causes person D to double down, and slowly be dragged into spaces that person E occupies, where they curate harmful ideas through this media (see: how antiblackness manifests in many fandom spaces and how white supremacists and nazi-types take uncritical (mostly white) fans and turn them against black fans in these kinds of conversations).

character D, on the other hand, was intentionally made to be offensive or represent an offensive idea (see: Rita Skeeter being an early reflection of Rowling's transphobia; the entire dichotomy of AoT, Eren's ideology towards the end, and how titans are designed + later revelations about them) and it's difficult to remove them from the views of the author (Hajime Isayama is a staunch Japanese imperialist, and has gone on record to mock and discredit the existence of comfort women during Japan's occupation of Korea; his characters are named and modeled after notable Japanese imperialists). no matter which way you look at them, they are offensive and harmful, and often times they exist to expose uncritical audiences to their rhetorics (often eugenics, transphobia and general queerphobia, the great replacement theory, antisemitism, antiblackness, and pro-surveillance state sentiments (the last two especially in copaganda media). things like misogyny definitely come up a lot, but they're often red flags for much deeper issues that the author fully endorses; if misogyny is the focus here, it's a lot deeper than just shallow sexism and goes into femicide, the glorification and sexualization of sexual assault, and the reinforcement of "traditional" values. antiblackness functions similarly in that it permeates everything shallowly, but the levels of it can be a red flag for deeper issues - like dehumanization, justification for violent hate crimes, etc. - but im also not qualified to get into this too deeply because thats not my lived experience). they can look kind of like character C, but the important difference is that the author did this intentionally. a place of ignorance can be extremely offensive, but the intentionality of it tries to sneak by audiences and trick them into agreeing with them.

person C may like the character in theory, but it's impossible to deny the reason why the character exists as such. like with character C, person C may try to mitigate the damage, but this more comes in the form of talking about how character D is handled in the source material. there isn't a lot that can be done by these fans because again: the character is meant to harm. they may play into a bit of uncritical fandom, but for the most part just talk about them. person D does not recognize the harm that is does and acts similarly with character D as they do with character C. the problem is, character D is meant to cause harm where character C likely wasn't. so when a person C tells a person D that character D is extremely harmful and you follow those three ways a person D could go, you now have someone who is parroting talking points that may even be antithetical to their own views. they're usually the targets of authors who write character Ds so that their rhetorics get broadcasted to audiences that wouldn't knowingly engage with them.

to bring back person E, this is exactly the kind of person and character they're looking for. people who really like character D are usually like person E - or, they use character D as a way to publicly air out their -isms with the plausible deniability of fiction. entirely depends on the angle of character D. if they're an eren, then person E is one of their biggest fans; if they're a rita skeeter, then person E is using character D to air out their grievances about (blank) group through them and they loathe character D.

we can also introduce person F here. they more align with person C, but the crucial difference is that they will not engage with character D on the grounds of the harm. they can acknowledge the writing all they like, but they will never like, engage with fanworks, or anything unless it's criticism of the character and the author. if anything, they think person C doesn't go far enough in condemning the harmful nature of character D by the fact they still engage with fanworks involving character D and the media they come from as person F views positive engagement (even when it's just a tiny bit, like in person C's case) as tacit endorsement. they are explicitly against people like person E, and often try to work to educate people like person D into moving away from that and more towards person C (ideally further), but often are at odds with person D for the reason that they will double down on fiction and fall in line with person E who reinforces their "right" to consume all fiction. Because the important thing to remember here is that character D was made intentionally to broadcast the author's shitty viewpoints. This means the character is meant to cause harm, as media perceptions do skew worldviews, and it's more complicated than just how people engage with a character in fandom spaces. To reconcile with a character meant to cause harm is a difficult thing, and naturally there are people who choose to divest entirely because of the tangible harm it can cause (again: see copaganda and the perceived rate of solving crime (i think it's around ~75-80%) versus the actual statistics (~30% if you're lucky and more often ~16%); see also the military entertainment industry)

And yeah! It's all extremely complicated because people, their beliefs, media, and media literacy are all really complicated! It's way more than just if a bad character is portrayed as bad and everyone reacts to them as bad - sometimes that bad character is the protagonist and the author wants us to view them as a hero and not a genocidal freak like Eren Yaeger is. Because no, that is not how you portray a "fall from grace", given how many people associate him with sigma male goals and im not joking nor using that term out of nowhere - i recommend this video on the subject, but here's the specific part about eren and the idolization of him and a very fun roast since this is about role models for boys, unhealthy power fantasies, and how anime ties in with all of this. FD's got two other videos on this ("two" and "other" are two different links) on his side channel. Eren's just one of the worst case examples of this since his base full of uncritical enjoyers who don't realize that they're in community with literal fascists who idolize Eren's goals. there are other extreme examples that at least thankfully arent as common as the usual stuff (like Wyll's treatment by Baldur's Gate 3 fans and specifically Astarion fans - links to their wiki pages for people unfamiliar with the characters but tl;dr: wyll's a black man, a sweetheart, and literally has the folk hero background; astarion is a white man who tries to kill you upon first meeting, dislikes it when the player helps people, and is frequently manipulating those around him. it's more complicated than that obviously - especially astarion's motivations - but it still stands that people take wyll's traits and act as if astarion is like that, villainize wyll, and the cherry on top is that wyll has 8 hours of content while astarion has the most content out of all of the companions and the devs won't add more for wyll while astarion (and the others) continues to get more. as an aside, lae'zel - a mean woman who isn't conventionally attractive by virtue of being a fantasy alien - was made to be Less Mean because people didnt like her...not being nice, and fans frequently boast about killing her).

Intentionality is really crucial here, and the way people behave with characters says a lot. You're allowed to engage with not-so-great characters, but you also have to keep in mind other factors such as your own biases and the author's biases - whether they got in intentionally or not. to summarize really quickly:

character C comes about from an author's own ignorance to their own biases about a marginalized group. they are harmful, especially in the fact that the text treats this as normal, but their treatment is like any other character (but depending on the marginalization, they may not receive as much screentime as their less-marginalized counterparts, or are more likely to be antagonistic). authors may or may not be receptive to criticism - those that are will adjust character C in future media or even retcon and republish old media, while those that arent may just ignore criticism or double down and attract people who agree with those harmful tropes

character D is intentionally placed in the text by a bigoted author, and their offensive nature may be either overt or covert. the intention of this is to spread their rhetoric to those that consume that piece of media and introduce it to as wide of an audience as possible - one of the most common forms of this being copaganda portraying the police in a positive light and marginalized people as threats to white society (see: how frequently white women are the victims, while black men or arab men are portrayed as extremely violent and often are the perpetrators). it's not like character A who's mostly just an asshole, or character B where they're bigoted but that can serve a purpose in the narrative: character D exists to do harm - be it as an offensive caricature, or as a bigot to be idolized - through their actions in the text and how that reflects real world issues, or how the text informs people on how to view real people that are like character D (eg: idolizing the police or military, or viewing all black men as thugs). the existence of character D is problematic, but what often exacerbates this issue is when people argue that because they are fictional, they can't do any real world harm. if that were true, then we wouldn't be pushing back against examples of minstrelsy in media or continued use of blackface in fiction. positive representation in media is important and also proves that media has an impact on real people - you can't just say that it doesn't affect the real world suddenly when the portrayal is negative. negative, harmful portrayals do impact people just as much as positive ones - if anything, they impact people more when they're negative. to engage with a character D is to engage with the stand-in of the author's views, and to stand by their reason for existence is to agree with the author who intentionally made them that way (again: people who think Eren's right).

person C is someone who acknowledges that characters can be problematic and tries to engage with them as best they can. they try to give the benefit of the doubt in cases like character Cs, and often try to reconcile with canon in whatever way they can to mitigate damage. while character D is harder to reconcile with, they will still talk about the problems of character D while still engaging with the media that character D is from. they acknowledge harm, talk about harm, and will critique their favorite media while still enjoying said media - even if the character they engage with is intentionally or unintentionally a harmful stereotype.

person D is someone who refuses to engage with media critically and take characters like character C and character D at face value and will often defend them and their right to like them. they do not view them as harmful, and will often expand upon the character without thinking about what other harmful tropes they may be adding. a person D can go a few routes: continuing in ignorance or choosing to remain ignorant, doubling down on their views and arguing that it's not actually an issue (and even going so far as to find tokens of that group who agree with them to back them up), or stopping and considering their actions and taking more after person C. the second route can often lead to them becoming more like person E, even without realizing it.

person E is someone who recognizes the harm in these characters and embraces that because these characters line up with their way of thinking and their world views. they prefer a character D to a character C, while often portraying character Cs as worse than in canon. a person D doubling down on their right to like character Ds will often attract person Es, and they will attempt to pull person Ds further to their side. these are thin blue line people who love cop shows; these are antisemites who love Attack on Titan and Hogwarts Legacy; these are transphobes and literal nazis that get giddy at seeing Rowling becoming more extreme in her bigotry with every passing day. if you are in community with a person E, you need to examine why that is.

person F is someone who recognizes the harm that character Cs and character Ds cause in the real world, and while they will openly criticize character Cs and their authors, their main targets are character Ds. a person F will talk about character Cs to try and educate people on harmful tropes and often fall in line with person C here, though they tend to more focus on the author and the harm this can cause to try and get it to change (rather than keeping that change in fanworks only). a person F will talk about character Ds, on the other hand, to get people to drop them. they view the harm they cause as more important to address rather than their own fandom interests. these are people that will abandon media when they introduce a fascistic character to idolize, or when they continue to play into offensive tropes even after being made aware that the author was doing it. they care more about impact than personal enjoyment in fandom, so they measure things in terms of how the text and metatext can impact the audience. where a person C will continue to read AoT while talking about its harm, person F abandoned the franchise well before it ended and only keep up with it from a distance to discuss its continued harm. they often don't think person C goes far enough when it concern character Ds; they can often be at odds with person Ds because of how person Ds prioritize their personal fan experience over harm, while person Fs prioritizes harm over their own enjoyment; and are antithetical to person Es. this does not mean that they don't enjoy media like a lot of people love to accuse; they just would prefer to drop something they like once they learn the harm that it causes - it's mitigation just like person Cs, but to a much more drastic degree.

yeah, you are allowed to like things. and yeah, who and what you like does says something about you as a person. but the problem is that the third factor - real world harm - isn't discussed much, especially with how people engage with things that cause it. because to like and engage something that causes harm is to perpetuate it. you can try and reconcile with the issues in that character or piece of media, but a lot of people ignore it. and to ignore it is to create a space that lets in people who thrive on it and seek that stuff out - your person Es.

character B exists for a reason and the text criticizes them. the text may not criticize everything, but still shows they are meant for critique. character D does the same things as character B, but the text portrays them as correct and that you should like them. person B will like both regardless and end up a lot like person D, but the both of them are susceptible to being pulled further into bigoted ideologies by the existence of person E who seeks out things like character D and anything that looks like them - like character B, and character C.

we need to examine things outside of the framework of "character is bad and text portrays them as bad" more often. it's not as simple as that. there are a lot of things that show someone doing something would generally be considered immoral, but the author agrees with it so it's portrayed as good. there are things that are portrayed as bad, but when you pick apart why it's bad you suddenly realize they're bad because they're marginalized - or, they're a standin for a real world group and made into the bad guys (eg: how many games have "barbaric" "tribal" enemies (like moblins from LOZ or the hilichurls from genshin) which are just offensive anti-indigenous caricatures, or how goblins (especially in harry potter) are used to perpetuate antisemitic sentiments and conspiracy theories). a fascist can be portrayed in a sympathetic light or have their ideologies be repackaged to sound appealing. a civil rights advocate can have their views warped to make them look like a threat to the white majority and be portrayed as an antagonist often by playing into stereotypes around "barbarism" and violence. there's a difference between having a fascist be a hero and is never condemned (jjba, marvel's zeemo), having a fascist be weakly criticized but be considered sympathetic or even your friend when they're an unrepentant fascist (many characters in ffxiv, this is literally the plot of hetalia and so much nazi chic), and having a fascist be held accountable for their actions and sometimes even maybe working past what made them fascistic to begin with and have them stop being one (terran emperor philippa georgiou from star trek discovery i adore you) - and that difference is the intention of the author in creating that character, the intention behind portraying their ideology for a wide audience, and what ends up happening to them in the end. An author can even kill their fascist off and still be in support of them because they frame it as martyrdom and try to make you feel bad for the character (jjba, ffxiv) - so it's not at all simple.

This is why being critical of the stuff you enjoy is important. No one is saying don't enjoy villains, and I'm certainly not because I'd be a hypocrite. What I am saying is: consider how the characters - protagonist or not - are being portrayed and how it relates to real world harm. Consider the intentions behind them, the impact they have had, and how they can be used against marginalized groups to hurt them and change how others view said group. Again: you are allowed to like things but what you like and defend says a lot about you. I do not disagree with OP. I just feel that the facet of harm and intention behind said harm needs to be considered because you may be putting investment into a character you don't realize is harmful (or you're ignoring is harmful). They don't even have to be a villain in the story to be harmful because again: look at copaganda and the military entertainment industry.

What you like has impact outside of you. How you engage with it impacts others around you. Some people try to mitigate, others try to ignore, while others still double down and get solicited by people who intentionally seek out things that support their bigoted viewpoints.

When the character is just an ass and the text treats them as an ass, that's not an issue. When the character is bigoted for a reason to explore and deal with, that is also not an issue. But if you find out that your blorbo is the focus of critical discussion because they were written to be a harmful stereotype/a means of idolizing bigoted rhetoric, you need to ask yourself this: are you willing to take the steps to mitigate harm - even if it means not engaging with that character or piece of media again - or are you going to continue on as if nothing's wrong and risk alienating those around you that are impacted by the harmful ideologies that are inseparable from this character/media?

What I'm not saying: Don't like villains. What I am saying: Every character - regardless of if they're a protagonist or antagonist - has the potential to cause harm because of the author's biases or bigotry. It is on you to recognize that harm and mitigate whenever possible, and choosing not to reflects on you as a person. You still can like villains. But how you like them and for what reasons says a lot about you, and people may choose to avoid you if you decide that your "soft feelings over the imperial leader working to colonize what is now the empire" are more important than understanding why people are uncomfortable with you, your blorbo, and their rabid uncritical fans.

You're allowed to like villains. What you like reflects back on you. You need to take real world harm into account when you engage with media, because what villains you like reflects on you very differently based on the real world harm that those villains can cause.

hot take but i think that "fictional characters are fictional and liking or disliking them have no real life effect" and "the way you treat certain characters can be an indicative of your character in real life" are statements that can and should coexist

example: character A is violent and makes misogynistic comments. they're still charismatic and their arc is interesting to read/watch. person A acknowledges that the character is bad but they still enjoy consuming content from the character and they do so unapologetically. they're allowed to like the character, especially considering that literally everyone the character has harmed is also fictional. they don't pretend the character isn't violent, or misogynistic, they just like the character despite that. they post about it constantly. this is a neutral action that shows nothing about person A.

character B is a white man that makes racist comments, treats a black person in the show badly and gains money through anti-ethical means. they're still charismatic and their arc is interesting to read/watch. person B claims the character is flawed but overall misunderstood and all their actions are entirely justified. they're allowed to like the character, especially considering that literally everyone the character has harmed is also fictional. person B claims the black character that character B treated badly either had it coming or overreacted. all of person B's favorite characters are white men. person B goes out of their way to justify that all of their favorite characters are actually misunderstood and good people, and more people should like them. this shows that person B likely has some favoritism for white men.

just. you're allowed to like fictional characters even if they're awful fucking people but. and im not sure why this is controversial. the way you interact with media says something about you. this isn't necessarily a bad thing. does this make sense please

[matan4il]

https://www.tumblr.com/drtanner/746570503303610368/zionists-should-never-feel-safe-go-fuck?source=share

This hypocrisy is so sad to see in real time.

"Don't use dogwhistles so Jews and PoC feel safe around you"

*gets called out for antisemitism on blog*

"90% of Jews should feel unsafe!"

I'd laugh if it wasn't horrifying.

I'd clap back at them but I was blocked :(

Hi Nonnie!

I don't clap back at anti-Zionists, because they don't deserve the attention, nor the added notes on their posts, but I think you did something meaningful in your ask, and I wanna highlight that, because you deserve the attention and applause.

So, someone who's anti-women, but doesn't wanna come across that way, will claim to just be speaking against feminists, and that there's no connection between women and feminists, because not all women are feminists! "Here," they'd say, "a tokenized anti-feminist woman!" But there is an intrinsic connection between the two, which is why it's no surprise that most women are, in fact, feminists.

The same goes for Zionism. Just like feminists wanted the right to vote to be equally applied to women, Zionists want the right to self-determination to be equally applied to Jews. Just as feminism is the liberation movement of women, Zionism is the liberation movement for Jews. Zionism is inherent to Jewish identity, and it's no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of Jews are Zionists.

One indicator that anti-feminism works to hurt women, is to take an anti-feminist statement, and replace "feminist" with "most women." Here's an example:

"Feminists are incapable of crafting a coherent argument using their words." -> Most women are incapable of crafting a coherent argument using their own words. Does that sound anti-women?

So a quick way to see that anti-Zionist statements are antisemitic, is to replace "Zionists" with "the majority of Jews," exactly as you have done, and see if it sounds antisemitic (every single one of the following examples is real, posted on Tumblr):

"Zionists should never feel safe" -> The majority of Jews should never feel safe.

"I don't want Zionists among us" -> I don't want the majority of Jews among us.

"Zionists always lie" -> The majority of Jews always lie.

"Arm yourself with knowledge to defeat Zionists" -> Arm yourself with knowledge to defeat the majority of Jews.

"Fuck Zionists" -> Fuck the majority of Jews.

Regarding the OP's post (not the antisemite's reblog), I wanna mention that OP's introduction of "dogwhistles" is kinda lacking. I mean, everything they said is true, but there are additional dogwhistles that they didn't address, ones which are more encoded than their examples.

For example, one dogwhistle neo-Nazis use is the numbers 18 (like in German neo-Nazi group "Combat 18") and 88. A is the 1st letter in the Latin alphabet, H is the 8th, so 18 is AH (stands for Adolf Hitler) and 88 is HH (stands for Heil Hitler, the Nazi greeting). On the surface, these are just innocent numbers, but for Jews who are familiar with neo-Nazi dogwhistles...

Another example of a dogwhistle is one that I've had an anti-Zionist type of antisemite use with me once. She's a Muslim young woman, I won't say from which country, but one that's very hostile to Israel, and where there's no free press. One antisemitic thing she said was that none of the prophets of Islam were Jews. Just a quick reminder, the prophets of Islam include mostly Jews, like Abraham (mispronounced as Ibrahim in Arabic), the patriarch of the entire Jewish nation, Moses, who delivered the Jews from Egypt (Moussa), King David (Daoud) and Jesus (Issa). Denying their Judaism is an antisemitic act easily called out by most people. But this woman also said to me, "Go plant gharqad trees." This one most people will miss. There is a Muslim hadith (a saying attributed to Muhammad, but reported by someone else), which states: "The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: oh Muslim, oh the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews." This hadith is quoted in the founding charter of Hamas. So in this context, "Go plant gharqad trees," is telling a Jewish person to prepare themself for the extermination of Jews. It's a genocidal dogwhistle. Ironically, this dogwhistle is so common, it has actually become its own anti-Israel propaganda piece, circulated in anti-Israel circles, where they claim that Israeli Jews are ordered to plant gharqad trees.

And one more example of a dig whistle! The infamous "From the river to the sea" qualifies. On the surface, it sounds like a peaceful chant for the liberation of a people. In reality, it is the English translation of a racist and genocidal slogan, stating that ALL of the land between the river and the sea (meaning, the territories currently under Palestinian rule AND Israel) will be Arab. To a Jewish person, this is at the very least a call for an ethnic cleansing via expulsion of the Jews, but we all know that this won't happen through just expelling the Jewish population, so an Arab country covering all of Israel will only exist through the shedding of a lot of Jewish blood. It IS genocidal.

Lastly, the incrdible @tzomet-spy-pigeon made a really important addition, pointing out that OP has actually posted antisemitic dogwhistles themselves, of the anti-Zionist variety of antisemitism. So I just wanna make it clear: people who come out against one type of antisemitism (such as the white supremacist kind) are NOT exempt from being guilty of perpetuating others (like the anti-Zionist kind).

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[preyseisgone]

Hi ! This is a callout post on @gloomylace also known as @clingyidol. Before I start , I hate doing these kind of things and it took me alot of effort (+ encouragement from friends ) to do this. Also please do not go and harass Lolita. Cher is a minor and I just overall do not condone harassment. I was originally going to stay quiet .

tw for , abuse , r//pe , violence suicide and more .

Before I start , “weren’t you two just friends ?” Yes but that is until this popped up in my feed. Lolita and another friend are the only two people that know about a situation that roughly happened 2 ~ ish days ago. I was insanely panicked and anxious being accused of stuff like this. I know this is Lolita on anon due to being my ONLY friend in the editblr community and the only one who knows this situation. (besides Avery, Avery isn’t on editblr or the same scenes as me) You know how deeply this affected me. So yeah kinda your fatal flaw assuming I tell my life story to more then 2 people 🤷 also STOP using fucking freyr on me. 🤍 massively appreciated. “An Ex friend” I have only one long term friend and that is Avery 🤍 I am not a fucking freak and copy people , even if I do have identity issues I know it’s weird to copy someone! This is really fucking low of you Lolita and I genuinely trusted you with information and my thoughts and feelings! But no you went behind my back for no reason. It seems like you wanted a reason to turn on me. 🤍

First of all , Lolita said this ! At the time , I did not know anything about oyasumi punpun . I don’t willfully consume media with the following topics

I am massively triggered by almost ALL of those topics . I felt like I was being essentially compared to an abuser , which overall made me feel very, very icky. When confronted about this - ( as seen in the images below )

Lolita ignored me . Cher has done this to another friend of cher’s , making an uncomfortable joke and then when confronted went on a dni and days later replied with something random . Lolita cannot take responsibility for cher’s actions. Che just ignores you essentially and then replies with something random! I am just sick of this behaviour and I will not be surprised if che or someone else will spread rumours about me JUST because I came out about this. I originally thought this wasn’t serious enough to be a call-out post and I felt like I was being overdramatic.

these two screenshots ^ .

multiple people (including me) have had their mental health DRAINED due to your actions. You have lied multiple times. It’s also such a coincidence that hate anons seem to follow you around and when asked you blame it on your exes ? In reality you probably sent them and you sent someone into a really bad episode! You make baseless claims off of little to no proof, broke SEVERAL boundaries of one of your ex partners. You also compared one of your bfs to someone who abused you which is just! plain! fucking wrong. You claim to have high empathy / sympathy and yet when someone who is also mentally ill did not react well over small things you went to shittalk them to their boyfriend.

props to you if you defend a liar and someone who makes nazi jokes xx lying about your exes stalking and harassing you is fucking crazy! Also sent my personal messages to someone and talked shit about me so yeah !

@artistrydoll + @magnoliawriter please reblog if you see this . ^_^

[nothorses]

What is your opinion on terf blocklists, where every one on there at the time had clear and intentional radfem beliefs pushing shitty ideas about trans people and easily identifiable as to what exactly they believe via what they say and circulate and who they constantly reblog shitty things about trans people from?

I promise this is a genuine good faith question; I want to understand if the thing I've been taught be others to do with the purported intention of eliminating platforms for terfs to protect ourselves and others is actually helpful or if that also has far reaching consequences I hadn't considered before. I'm trying to think about it but struggling with the idea I got taught to do them/follow them (blocklists) for being to identify correctly and block, not harass. But do the harms of encouraging that approach actually outweigh the benefits and that doesn't change even if the blocklist is for actual bigots?

Again, genuine question. Trying to learn.

I think the problem here is less in how a blocklist is constructed; it's not hard to imagine that a list can be made under strict enough criteria, with enough careful vetting, to contain only Genuinely Bad People- or at least people who would not object to being placed in the category of that list. It's also not hard to come up with categories of people that feel morally reprehensible enough, and unattached from any marginalized identity enough, to be "safe" to target: it would be absurd to argue against a "Nazi blocklist" that contains only self-proclaimed Nazis.

The problem also isn't really in how blocklists are intended to be used; it's pretty fair that someone might want a list of people to block pre-emptively in order to avoid harassment, particularly when that harassment is bigoted. It's not hard to imagine that someone making such a list is doing so with the intent that it only be used for blocking, and that they might even make an effort to say as much in the post. And at that point, is it really their fault if someone goes against their clearly-stated wishes?

The problem is that a blocklist is, by fundamental design, "free research". It's put forth entirely so other people do not have to do their own research, which means the entire premise discourages people from doing that research.

You aren't offering up a list of people that others should go look into and form their own opinion about, you're offering up a list of people you already did the research on so people can copy/paste and be done with it. It would be counterproductive- and frankly silly- to post a blocklist with some "but make sure to double check these yourself!" disclaimer, because like, that's not the point of the list. Nobody is going to do that. Even if they did, they're looking into these people under the assumption that there is something to find; everything is going to look suspicious in a way it never would have without that framing.

The question isn't whether a blocklist can be made with good intentions and due diligence; the question is whether it can be made with ill intent or sloppy execution, whether anyone can tell the difference, how likely they are to actually check, what you're doing with that list, and what impact your choices have.

If I make a list, the message I send is, "you can trust me. I did the research, I did it right, and this is a Good Blocklist. If you trust me, you should trust this list."

If I reblog a blocklist, the message I send is, "I trust this list. I may have even checked it myself. This is a Good Blocklist. If you trust me, you should trust this list."

The majority of the people who follow me probably believe they can trust me to some extent; oftentimes, people just trust that whatever is on their dashboard is trustworthy, because someone they follow put it there. Those are their friends, and their friends are trustworthy!

This should make you nervous. You should not be comfortable with this. People make mistakes all the time, and even if they did do the research (it's so much more likely that they did not, especially if they're not the original creator), someone else's standards of what kind of person "deserves" to be on a list like that are very likely different from your's. Are you going to double check every single name on that list yourself?

Well, if the accusation is bad enough, probably not. Especially if the accusation is something like "Nazi" or "TERF". And if you do start checking, how likely are you to check every single name? If the first 3 or 5 seem to check out, will you bother with the other 50 on the list?

What if OP hid someone in that list who doesn't belong there; someone they just have a personal grudge against? What if OP defines "TERF" to mean "anyone I assume doesn't think trans women are the most oppressed", and after the first 15 actual TERFs, the list is just a bunch of transmascs- many of whom don't even disagree with OP in the first place? What if they define "TERF" to include anyone who has ever been a TERF, and one of the people on that list is a trans person that has been rumored- without any foundation or grain of truth whatsoever- to have once been a TERF?

Will you know? Will you check? Even if someone you trust reblogs it? Even if someone you trust made it?

A blocklist may not have the same kind of obviously punitive intent as a callout post does, but it's a tool from the same toolbox. People think callout posts are about "safety", too. Lots of people also think that about the criminal justice system, about prisons, about the death penalty.

The question is not whether that could be true, or whether there could be a world in which justice is administered correctly with these tools. The question is whether it could fail, and who it hurts when it does.

Who can abuse this system? How easy is it to do so? Who is most likely to be hurt; is it the intended target, or people who are already disempowered by our systems and society?

What is the best way to go about this?

Even done correctly, a blocklist is not the most effective tool here: people can remake their blogs, change urls, and often have sockpuppets ready to go anyway. The list is rendered useless and inert as soon as enough people change their strategies to evade it. A more effective tool is education; teaching people how to recognize a TERF, or TERF ideology, on their own. Teaching them why those ideas are problematic. Encouraging them to block and disengage, and teaching them why engaging is harmful and counterproductive. Talking about de-radicalization, cult recruitment and radicalization tactics, and how to fight this epidemic.

Telling people what to think does not solve the problem, but teaching them how to be critical might.

[thetrexartist]

OK that's it I'm making a post about this-

To all those who think the thirteenth doctor is not a good doctor i have some points I want to say to counter.

I'll get this out if the way first if any of yall try to put down Jodie- get the fuck off of my post and account. She did the best with what she got.

Moving on, the few episodes I see people talking about as proof of her being bad are the spydoc p2, kerblam, and Rosa parks episodes.

Now don't get me wrong I definitely see why people get upset at these episodes.

Let's start with the spydoc episode, the doctor left the master, who is a person of color with the Nazi's. HE WAS THE ONE TO SIDE WITH THEM IN THE FIRST POINT. some of yall are acting like this isn't the MASTER, out of anyone you should know he would have taken something like this into account.

He was literally playing with fire, even the doctor mentioned how he doesn't usually hang around that type of crowd. In her defense she was also in a actual time crunch as well. she does not under estimate the master and had to get things rolling.

Kerblam episode.

In this specific circumstance the system WAS NOT THE PROBLEM. Someone was actively ABUSEING THE SYSTEM. In that matter it honestly was not the problem, hell it was even the thing to send out and ask for help.

twelfth doctor was the doctor to point out how bad capitalism is: " that human progress is measured by the value placed on a life, especially an unimportant or unprivileged life". The system in question was reaching out for help because it valued the lives that were being killed in its warehouse.

Sure its a kick in the gut because the villain is a image of gen z. Especially with the job market for the younger generation. but truthfully i'm from this generation and? we are so fucking mean at sometimes.

I have seen my teachers quit their jobs because of us, we are human we are fallible. In that episode a younger person was abusing the system. It happens today as well.

Rosa Parks.

For a lot of people this is a sensitive episode/topic. So i wont go to far into detail as i'm not the absolute best person.

The doctor did not put down rosa parks, she was even in awe about Rosa. But the episode is literally about how someone was trying to change history. So they had to stage the exact circumstances that got Rosa parks arrested. its even shown to be emotional and honestly? i teared up at the scene because it hurts to watch someone be discriminated against. But it had to be done.

I thought about this while rewatching thin ice. The doctor punched that racist because the guy was unimportant in the long run. He was able to punch him- and rightfully so imo. But with Rosa the timeline was at stake, so the doctor couldn't do anything like that but was able to recognize how wrong everything that was going on was.

one things all of these have in common are the politics behind them for us. Is our real world system corrupt? Most definitely i will not say that it isn't as that is ignorant. We have a real problem with racism in our world that i hope will one day not be as big of a problem.

But isn't that what doctor who is about? Politics and showing sides to our society and making us ask questions. That's what makes doctor who one of the greatest shows personally.

Anyways, this is all rushed. But i just wanted to say my piece and please, if anyone sees this and wants to talk about it. even if you don't agree with me. reblog or reply, i want to see all sides. I'm getting really pissed at people who will not even attempt to see the other side, even if you share my views^

[sister-lucifer]

hey! I’m hosting another challenge and since you did the dividers for my last one, I thought I might ask for more if you didn’t mind!

If you could, something with slasher/horror vibes, and maybe some spooky ghosts and monsters? ❤️ your blog

🔪Slasher/Monster Horror Dividers❤️

please like, reblog, & credit if you use!

[DIVIDER REQUESTS ARE OPEN!]

DNI: TERFS, endo, proship, pro ana, nazi, MAPs, zoophiles

tag list: @ghostboneswrites2 @savanaclaw1996 @lordhavemercyyyyy @siriuslywhimsy @bloodythornsandskulls

[if you’d like to be on the tag list for dividers, please leave a message in my inbox]

[hotvintagepoll]

Propaganda

Eleanor Parker (Scaramouche, The Sound of Music)— Eulogized as a ravishing beauty whose looks were merely ornamental to her craft, feast your eyes on Eleanor Parker. Listen! I know you're thinking of the Baroness in Sound of Music and saying NO I won't protect the woman who tried to steal him from Maria but forget about that (like you personally wouldn't shoot your shot with Plummer)! The trailer for Scaramouche describes her character Lenore as "The glamourous queen of the nightlife of Paris. A flame-haired wildcat" and this is a woman who was able to pull off that role, and you get the vibe she was like that irl too. There's a story about her changing hair colors that never fails to make me laugh. Take note of her stunning eyes! Her amazing legs! And to see her in motion is to make note of the aura about her, she has an amazing presence. Fall in love with Eleanor Parker today, and make your vote count!

Audrey Hepburn (My Fair Lady, Sabrina, Roman Holiday)—Growing up, Audrey Hepburn desperately wanting to be a professional ballerina, but she was starved during WWII and couldn't pursue her dream due to the effects of malnourishment. After she was cast in Roman Holiday, she skyrocketed to fame, and appeared in classics like My Fair Lady and Breakfast at Tiffany's. She's gorgeous, and mixes humor and class in all of her performances. After the majority of her acting career came to close, she became a UNICEF ambassador.

This is round 3 of the tournament. (yes I know it says round 2 in the poll. sometimes I post these when I’m sleepy.) All other polls in this bracket can be found here. Please reblog with further support of your beloved hot sexy vintage woman.

[additional propaganda submitted under the cut.]

Eleanor Parker:

“When I’m spotted somewhere, it means that my characterizations haven’t covered up Eleanor Parker the person. I prefer it the other way around.” So shy she was actively nervous about winning awards in person, her personal life remains mostly behind the scenes. But on screen? she was a force majeure. It's a shame the role most people remember her in is the Baroness in The Sound of Music, but then again, it did make Christopher Plummer reminisce upon her passing “I was sure she was enchanted and would live forever.”

Listen we all know Christopher Plummer and Julie Andrews had insane chemistry but the Baroness deserves some love too! She has such a glamorous presence but not in a hard way

She will be known as the fabulous baroness in TSOM, but she was so much more than that. Just as comfortable in westerns or melodrama, the scheming other woman, and the beauty that wins the heart of every man in town.

Audrey Hepburn propaganda:

"She may be a wispy, thin little thing, but when you see that girl, you know you're really in the presence of something. In that league there's only ever been Garbo, and the other Hepburn, and maybe Bergman. It's a rare quality, but boy, do you know when you've found it." - Billy Wilder

Raised money for the resistance in nazi occupied Hungary. Became a humanitarian after retiring. Two very sexy things to do!

where to begin......... i wont her so bad. i literally dont know what to say.

My dude. The big doe eyes, the cheekbones, the voice. The flawless way she carried herself. She was never in a movie where she wasn't drop dead gorgeous. Oh, also the fact she raised funds against the Nazis doing BALLET and she won the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her humanitarian work.

"It’s as if she dropped out of the sky into the ’50s, half wood-nymph, half princess, and then disappeared in her golden coach, wearing her glass slippers and leaving no footprints." - Molly Haskell

"All I want for Christmas is to make another movie with Audrey Hepburn." - Cary Grant

64.media.tumblr.com

I know people nowadays are probably sick of seeing her with all the beauty and fashion merch around that depicts her and/or Marilyn Monroe but she is considered a classic Hollywood beauty for a reason. Ironically in her day she was more of the alternative beauty when compared to many of her contemporaries. She always came off with such elegance and grace, and she was so charming. Apparently she was a delight to work with considering how many of her co-stars had wonderful things to say about her. Outside of her beauty and acting ability she was immensely kind. She helped raise funds for the Dutch resistance during WWII by putting on underground dance performances as well as volunteering at hospitals and other small things to help the resistance. During her Hollywood career and later years she worked with UNICEF a lot. Just an all around beautiful person both inside and out.

No one could wear clothes in this era like she could. She was every major designer's favorite star and as such her films are time capsules of high fashion at the time. But beyond that, she had such an elegance in her screen presence that belied a broad range of ability. From a naive princess, to a confused widow, to a loving and mischievous daughter, she could play it all.

Look at that woman's neck. Don't you want to bite it?