#do these constitute as incorrect quotes???

[nixotinix]

For today's post, I figured that I might as well share a couple Monster High text memes that me and my best friend(@brovotics-art) made mostly for our own amusement. Enjoy!

[nelyoslegalteam]

I don't think you realize how invested I am in your campaigns. Plz tell me things about the gondolin crew

HIHIHIHI THANK YOU.

oh man HAVE i introduced tumblr, formally, to the gondolin campaign crew? ANYWAY. we have:

my problem of an oathsworn would-be-a-paladin-if-aime-would-let-me, Antar, a fanatically loyal member of turgon's royal guard, who has been serving as idril's personal bodyguard since saving her life in the battle of the lammoth. everyone sure did see them on the ice that day!! pay no mind to why they're having weird tension with maedhros that suggests that they might have been around when he was captured!!! they were definitely on the ice and not in beleriand at the time for sure!!! has been lying through their teeth while also genuinely meaning every word they have said this entire time. this does not negate them lying through their absolute teeth. has a rivalry with a literal teenager (the teenager deserves it (the teenager is mëohen (you understand))). MAY have been overheard shittalking said teenager to maedhros BY said teenager,

@thymo-leonta's terrible spoiled boyprince, Mëohen, ie. the teenager in question, whose stated description and character desire on his official sheet are simply - and i quote - "smug brat" and "get turnt", respectively. technically a lord, but like, a minor unimportant one. mostly can be counted on to cause massive problems for everyone but mostly himself. The Entire Noldorin Royal Family is now aware of the time when he, in order, agreed to a 6am cross country race without stopping to ask what he was even getting himself into out of spite, went to a giant rager the night before and showed up hung over, failed all of his constitution rolls and did really badly, got stranded in the woods outside of barad eithel for most of the day, and then rolled up to court in front of Actual High King Fingolfin still hungover and covered in mud from said woods. (antar might be actively helping this become a topic of gossip for the entire noldorin royal family). there is an ongoing joke about his presence in this campaign rendering maeglin as a character entirely obsolete,

@potatoobsessed999's hypocrite of a kinslayer, APPARENTLY, NOT THAT ANY OF OUR CHARACTERS ACTUALLY KNOW THIS, Niquessë, who very loudly disowned her parents, disowned the entirety of fingon's host, kidnapped her baby sister, ran away to vinyamar, and got hired by mëohen, not necessarily in that order. tried to hide from said parents in a thornbush. failed at hiding anyway. (mëohen didn't help). agreed to take damage if she could look dignified while getting out of the thornbush. failed at looking dignified anyway. clearly has the most wet cat energy of the group. is maybe responsible, just a little bit, for stranding mëohen in the woods. developing a very catlike friendship with antar, who she will definitely absolutely not have any reason to have conflict with in the near future not at all (incorrect (this is going to go so bad for them)),

and @shadowkat2000's Anoraen, ie. THE BABY SISTER IN QUESTION WHO NIQUESSE KIDNAPPED. is baby. is adorable. definitely ALSO has Secrets, which if history is anything to go by WILL be kept from the party for MUCH longer than antar's!! possibly has weird elf magic shit going on?? talked Actual High King Fingolfin into officially, in court, declaring that niquessë kidnapping her was chill actually. did so successfully enough that even mëohen couldn't ruin it, which IS saying SOMETHING!!

because we are all noldor, our beloved gm @jaz-the-bard can make us fail doing anything at any time!!! everything is fine and is going to go great!! if we just gondolin enough the doom of the noldor surely won't get us!! :D

[khwxbeeda]

The Vice President, in a recent public event in Mumbai, has said and I quote:

The reservation is not against meritocracy. It is the soul of the country and the Constitution.

Listen. Reservations are important. Everybody deserves to have a proper education, regardless of whether they have enough money and resources or not. But this statement is INCORRECT.

Nowhere does the constitution mention "reservations". Reservation is important to the people of the country, but IT IS NOT THE SOUL OF THE COUNTRY OR THE CONSTITUTION.

Soul of the country? Reservations? Bitch please. India is more than just reservations. India is diversity. India is a hub of cultures and traditions. India is a land of the people. The people of India are the soul of our country. Not reservations.

Soul of the Constitution? Alright then. Pull out a copy of the Constitution. Show me where the reservations are mentioned. Go on. Oh that's right. You can't. Because it's not there. At all. The soul of the Constitution is the welfare and benefit of the people of India. And yes, reservations do that in some way, but they are not the only way to do that. Reservations are not the soul of the Constitution.

When I say I'm sick of dirty politics, this is what I mean. At least fact check yourself before you speak in public, especially if you're in a position of power. Smh bro Indian politicians need such a tight slap from an ICSE English teacher istg.

[familyabolisher]

🔥 fanfiction

the distinction between what does and does not constitute ‘fanfiction’ is almost entirely dependent on site of publishing/identification as such on the part of the author. whilst ‘dante’s inferno is fanfiction’ is an incorrect statement because it misunderstands the relation between the commedia and its plethora of source materials & misattributes this relation to what is in fact a contemporary phenomenon that exists relative to the rise of IP, this is v rarely the terrain that people are fighting on because the ‘is/is not fanfiction’ property is applied as a metric of quality rather than a value-neutral statement about the political economy of a prose text. (ie. inferno/the commedia is ‘not fanfiction’ because it’s Good—under a particular metric which defers to hegemony—your 400k destiel coffee shop omegaverse au etc etc could Never be dante because it lacks an intellectual quality with which dante has been imbued—do you see what i mean about quality being the qualifying metric here, rather than the actual nature of the text? plausibly, under this framework, someone could write fanfiction of a quality sufficient to transcend the category of ‘fanfiction’ and become, in fact, ‘canonical.’ by this logic, there exists a scale of objective ‘quality’ running from ‘fanfiction’ to ‘canonical’ such that that is what those categories describe. like, you see why this is incoherent.) anyway, these are silly terms to fight on & i think key to an actual politics of literature (far beyond this v parochial argument) is interrogating all the assumptions about meritocracy + artistic value + particular forms of ‘publishing’ as legitimising or delegitimising a work that seem to be making up the base of this discourse whilst managing to go totally uninterrogated.

also, it’s very weird that people treat fanfiction as a wholly discrete category completely shut off from the critical practices we bring to our understanding of what gets called ‘real’ literature (which is in itself a very poorly thought-out umbrella). fanfiction does have significant reactionary currents running through its attached culture and it’s dishonest and lazy to try and dismiss that fact, but there exists a particular cognitive dissonance which jumps from here to the idea that the way we ought to think about ‘difficult’ subject matter in our ‘real’ literature (as deployed to a particular end that could look like any number of things far beyond the boundary of tacit or explicit endorsement; as potentially unethical in its depiction, but also as potentially thoughtful and discursive and ethically viable) has no crossover into how we can think about fanfiction. the idea that fanfiction alone is a discrete category in which everything depicted makes for a 1:1 articulation of the real-life ethics of the author with no possible room for ambiguity of the kind that we allow other forms of prose fiction is as silly as saying that lolita is sufficient evidence for vladimir nabokov having been a pedophile, and leaves us with a stupidly limited and pretty easily refutable scope for what fanfiction actually is and does.

that being said, hot take #3 is that people interested in fanfiction & how it can be situated within a discourse of literary criticism & production need to be prepared to actually address the fact that the culture around it can be vv reactionary, most often racist, and decrying all criticism as coming from quote-unquote “antis” (silly term) or as people trying to project “moralism”/“puritanism” onto a fandom space is itself also racist.

[yubnubforhire]

I’ve been trying to process the latest SCOTUS decisions all day and I’m truly having trouble coming to terms with what this means. In the course of two days, a group of privileged, racist assholes have destroyed affirmative action, student debt relief, and the possibility of queer people utilizing public accommodations without being discriminated against. The fact that this all came on the last day of pride month, in a year where we have seen more POC and queer people targeted and harassed than ever in the 21st century, feels like an absolute punch to the gut.

The worst part is how fucking telegraphed this all was. They’ve been after these cases for years and they finally got do what they wanted. Thomas told us after Dobbs that gay rights were next. Gorsuch wrote himself a big old libertarian opening in Bostock through which, with that as precedent, he could argue that any protected group constituted discrimination. They’ve been going after affirmative action since the 60’s.

The plaintiff in the 303 Creative case (the wedding website designer) literally has no standing, since her filing claim has been revealed to be a complete lie. The court does not fucking care: they were looking for a way to weaken acceptance for gay marriage and they took it, no matter the representative. The same problem exists with the student debt relief decision: Missouri has no standing since it does not control MOHELA. The facts, presented by the highest fucking court in the country, are literally incorrect. They’re not even trying to obfuscate at this point.

I will absolutely not be surprised when we see a challenge to Obergefell on the docket next year — no need to design a website for a gay wedding if there are no gay weddings. To anyone who’s going to try to tell me I’m exaggerating or that won’t happen: I was also called hysterical when I said, the day that RBG died, that it was the end of Roe. Stop telling POC, queer people, and any other marginalized group that we’re wrong to imagine the worst and just fucking listen to us when we tell you what’s coming. Help us. Help us protest, vote, raise awareness. The alternative is selective extinction, and I’m just going to quote something MLK wrote half a century ago: “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”

Complacency is complicity. Don’t be fucking complicit.

[prxckedradiolove]

incorrect rtc quotes as my class quotebook

[ "." indicates new quote ]

. *Noel talking about his scrapes and cuts*

Noel: I think pain makes the school day more fun.

Ocean: What!?

Noel: Well, I mean just a little bit… it gives you something to think about.

. Mischa: I NEED drugs.

. Jane Doe *Petting Ricky's hair*

Ricky: *Staring off into space* I’m not a furry..

. *Talking about who signed the constitution in history*

Ocean: Signing papers? Like adoption papers?

Constance: Wait, Ocean, you're adopted?!

. *Watching a video in ELA about ancient Rome*

Mischa: Why do they wear blankets?

. *We are watching a history video, the screen says smile and learn!*

Noel: Be depressed and learn!

. Constance: Ocean, you're so light! *Proceeds to tip Ocean off of the chair*

. Jane Doe: *Ties a slip knot*

Constance: Isn't that the thing you hang people with? 

*Quieter, scared* She knows how to hang people.

. *Mischa hasn’t arrived at the Bonfire yet*

Ocean: I bet Mischa got lost in the forest.

*Mischa arrives*

Mischa: I did!

. *Noel takes a picture on his chromebook*

Mischa: Noel, this is not snapchat.

. Mischa: That makes sense, I can’t make sense. My job is to be funny and dumb. If I don’t do that, I’m worth nothing.

. Mischa: *Points to a line* That's not a gender..? 

. Ricky: *Talking to himself* Are you a chicken nugget? Take your test today at chickennugget.org

. *Talking about stores* 

Ricky: No, Walmart is better

Noel: I go to Target more..

Ricky: I go to walmete!

Mischa: That’s where Little Nas X lives. 

. Mischa: When I was but a wee laddie, my parents left me.

. Mischa: I drew a wine bottle, because who doesn’t like a good cup of wine?

. *Ocean is asking a question: If chicken nuggets have enough kinetic energy, can they move*

Mischa: Dinonuggies are actually alive?!

. *Reading a book about a child being left behind on a field trip to the moon.*

Ricky: That happened to me once.

. Noel: If you can use rubbing alcohol to help the outside of your body, can’t you use drinking alcohol to heal the inside? 

Mischa: Yeah, that's why I haven't been sick for 4 years. You know the saying: “A shot a day keeps the doctor away.”

. Noel: My whole life goal is to look hot.

. Constance: My chromebook is lagging.

Ricky: Leave it alone, it’s trying its best.

. *Using different types of oil to pop popcorn as a presentation example*

Ricky: The motor oil did the worst and actually burned my house down. 

. *Talking about science fair presentations*

Ocean: Don’t… be weird.

Ricky: What if you can’t help it?

. Mischa: Ricky, he told us to stop talking and you're still rambling on about electric toothbrushes.

[knizmokat]

Welcome to the Show

· · ────────── · 🎃 · ────────── · ·

hey there! my name is kit (formerly parkersaysthings) and this is my sfw tickle blog

i don't do anything interesting aside from rambling about my latest oc and current obsessions—and i mess with my friends, that's fun

sometimes i'll post fics or incorrect quotes, but i don't take requests (it's purely for fun)

ask box: open

dms: open

◇ get 2 know me (meet the blogger)

◇ kit's dictionary (tags guide)

◇ kit's constitution (roleplay & blog rules)

◇ the restricted section (dni list)

◇ kit's hyperfixations (fandoms)

◇ the buddies (mutuals)

◇ the library (fics, drabbles and incorrect quotes)

[thebigshotman]

Hey everyone! So I’m gonna wait on replying to threads until Thursday night, when I have more time and am not at school until 7 to answer them 😅 I hope no one minds. In the meantime, I wanna try something! Had a shower thought about it lol

I wanna try doing a semi-regular thing involving incorrect quotes with Spaul and the many characters from his past and present on this blog! Since I love incorrect quotes so much. I’d definitely love to include other people’s muses as well, but I’d feel wrong using them without permission first. So if you’re okay with me using your muse in some incorrect quotes in the future, IM me and let me know! And of course, IMing or submitting through ask your own quotes are totally ok, too!

If people like it enough I’ll make it an ongoing thing! But for the next few days when I have the time I’ll just pop one out there and see how you guys like the idea. So, without further ado:

Incorrect Quotes with Spaul and Friends #1

Source: Had to start with this one haha

Spaul: H1, I’M SPAUL G SPAMTON!!! DID U KN0W THAT U H4VE RIGHTS?!?! TH3 CONSTITUTION SAYS U DO!!! 4ND SO DO I. I B3LIEVE THAT UNT1L PROVEN GUILTY,,, EV3RY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD IN THIS TOWN 1S INN0CENT. 4ND THAT’S WHY I FIGHT FOR U, CYBER CITY!!!!

[estera-shirin]

You’re right, it’s not rocket science, it’s international law, which is an incredibly complicated field in and of itself!

And your claim that the Genocide Convention would not include airstrikes that purposely target civilians is wildly incorrect. Airstrikes targeting civilians could absolutely meet the criteria of both killing and injuring in acts which constitute genocide. So long as the requisite intent is present (I’ll get to that), bombing civilians can certainly count as acts constituting genocide. I would know (and have in fact read the Genocide Convention) because I literally study and work in international human rights law!

And you know, my bad about missing your post addressing Croatia v. Serbia, thank you for screenshotting and putting it here.

To address what that post says about this case and the Amnesty report: Amnesty is saying that genocide can occur when parties are in conflict, not that the genocide is against one of the warring parties. The victims are still civilians, the point is whether a court can even make a ruling of genocide during any armed conflict based on the Croatia v. Serbia ruling, so long as the motive of military objectives can be weighed AGAINST genocidal intent. Which is a matter of ongoing debate, as I have painstakingly attempted to explain to you.

In fact, you use the quote “mutually warring parties” which does not appear ANYWHERE in the Amnesty report. So it’s unclear what Amnesty claim you think you’re responding to here.

And a finding of genocide in South Africa v. Israel would change the jurisprudence on genocide, though the extent of this really depends on what exactly the judges write in the majority opinion. They could leave the ruling in Croatia v. Serbia in tact and rule that genocidal intent on Israel’s part is “the only reasonable inference.” This would be difficult given how Croatia v. Serbia affects ruling on armed conflict, but it is possible. As I’ve said before, Amnesty’s report makes a case based on this jurisprudence. They encourage the ICJ to apply a broader interpretation than the one set in Croatia v. Serbia, but their case that Israel is committing genocide does not rely on expanding the definition of genocidal intent.

Part of the issue at hand regarding intent is the conflation of Palestinians in Gaza and Hamas. You point out that some of the statements which Amnesty and other international organizations consider genocidal explicitly specify Hamas as the target. What you do not address is that collapsing the distinction between Gaza’s population and Hamas is part of the genocidal project. For example, President Herzog’s claim that “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat.”

Trying to nullify genocidal statements because the speaker then said “oh no I meant Hamas” doesn’t actually count for much when it is a widely held attitude that all Gazans are Hamas or should at least be collectively held responsible for Hamas’s actions. The later of which is easily demonstrated given the actions the Israeli government has taken since 10/7. That is why Amnesty included patterns of conduct as part of the section on intent alongside genocidal statements.

As for your claim that the quality of the evidence is insufficient to establish if genocidal acts are occurring, the example you provided is not in the Amnesty report. You have yet to actually address the evidence of genocidal acts which Amnesty includes in its report.

In the 15 bombings they investigated fully, they sent fieldworkers to photograph the sites, interview survivors, and locate weapons fragments where possible. Amnesty only included strikes that had to be by Israel (done with aerial munitions that only Israel has access to) and requested comment from the Israeli military.

Is a military bombing a residential home, providing no rationale for doing so, and then repeating that pattern over a year not enough? Is that military dropping 2000lb bombs (provided by the US!) on tent camps in “safe zones” not evidence of genocidal acts? Is that same government starving the entire population of Gaza not enough?

What I have been saying is that while Amnesty has made a case for why the ruling in Croatia v. Serbia is too narrow, they are still applying the criteria of that case to their determination that Israel is committing genocide. Thus the claim that Amnesty's finding that Israel is committing genocide is based on an expanded definition is very clearly untrue. You have thus far deflected and ignored this point.

I’m happy to get off your dash, but I hope you really consider why you’re so invested in denying the genocide right in front of you. And if you’re determined to engage in genocide apologia, please for the love of G-d stop butchering widely available information on international law in order to do so.

For anyone still claiming this Amnesty International shit is accurate.

[pazodetrasalba]

Shibboleths

Dear Caroline:

I remember decently well the first time I read The Book of Judges. I must have been around 10 (so precocious, albeit not as much as you) and the Gideon's Bible was available in every room of the hotel in which I lived. The historical books of the Old Testament were pretty much the entertaining bit -although I wasn't reading them for fun- and the anecdotes and battles in said book quite memorable. As I said, I remember reading the anecdote that constitutes the background to 'shibboleth' - Jephthah's troops massacring the Ephraimites through their distinct pronunciation of 'ear of wheat'.

Like many words, its modern use as in-group jargon, with connotations of ritualism, lip-service, hypocrisy and euphemism was, however, unknown to me, and I discovered it in texts of yours, and in an infamous SBF quote. From these two use-contexts, I would infer it is pretty commonly used among rationalists and/or EAs. Sam's use comes from his interview with Kelsey Piper: "this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shiboleths and so everyone likes us".

Here is something in which I think I agree with both of you, which is this hypocritical use of language as a signpost and public declaration of assent to a set of (quasi)mandatory values. Like in the case you mention, a lot of the times this word-chasing is motivated by an attempt at avoiding words that have become 'negatively tainted' because of their social history, associations and usage; but unless those conditions have changed already, it becomes a bit of a hamster-wheel race, as the new words feel silly and, conditions being what they are, they acquire pretty soon all the same, old, bad connotations.

I probably should make an effort at trying to see this from a different lens, if only for sport. Like, language appears trivial to most of us, but it does have some power, and the choice of words we regularly employ might have the power to hurt others with backgrounds of oppression and discrimination. Yet I still feel that the ones who end up doing the most in playing this sort of game are white liberals with a 'guilty' conscience and a very high desire for virtue-signaling and a perverse form of 'the white man's burden'.

Quote:

Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

Confucius, The Analects

[amicidomenicani]

Question I’m 36 years-old and, ever since I was a young boy, I’ve been attracted to men, especially older men (maybe because I was missing a father figure… I don’t know why). Oftentimes, people associate homosexuality with being effeminate or behaving like in the film “La Cage aux Folles”. This is incorrect because a great number of people are homosexual and you would never suspect it and they can be priests, doctors, etc… Like many of you, readers of this site, I’m baptized and therefore belong to the Body of Christ and the Church as a community. I’m quoting this excerpt from one of your answers because I thought it was interesting and contained many truths. “In truthfulness, we should also say that, just as someone who is born with a physical disability has the same dignity as anybody else, in the same way, someone who is born predisposed to homosexuality has the same dignity of every other human person. His defect is an evil, a disorder, but it’s not a sin. For this reason, discriminating against gay people because of their tendency is unjust, and it is also unjust to condemn them. Especially if we consider that, generally speaking, gay people suffer because of their pathology. They are the first to admit that their condition is abnormal, that there is no real family with children in their future, and that, because of their tendency, they will always be the object of some joke that wounds them. 6. Morally speaking, the homosexual act is condemned because it goes against nature. The individual, however, is not condemned, especially if their conduct is beyond reproach — even if he were to commit a sin he’s not condemned, especially if he repents. In short: only God can judge somebody’s subjective responsibility. Gay culture is only tied to sex lived as lust, like a fleeting pleasure that only lasts a moment and leaves one with nothing. The gay community demands civil unions but, frankly, there are very few people in this scene who actually desire that or who want to adopt a child to raise. Everything revolves around sex used like a drug. Oftentimes, it is a very lonely life, punctuated by quick fleeting encounters to satisfy a sexual need. Relationships between men don’t usually last and, in almost every case, they are unfaithful from the very beginning. There is then the fear around sexually transmitted diseases, which isn’t a small matter. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church talks about this topic in a very objective, non-discriminatory and respectful manner: “2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

When it comes to me, it is experience which led me to write about my disillusionment with that scene. I try to live my situation like a cross to bear and not something to get rid of. Everybody has their cross to bear during this life. Some evangelical sects profess that you can be liberated overnight by reading one of their booklets. I also believe that chastity for a gay person should be lived in the same way of a heterosexual person who decides not to marry. Everything should be borne as a trial and, if one falls, he should at least be remorseful and reconcile with God. I don’t think the Church hates gay people, but rather She hates the sin that is committed. Priest’s answer Dearest, 1. I thank you for your testimony. It is honest, especially in speaking of the Church — Which makes a distinction between the person and the sin. You were also very honest in recognizing that, especially between homosexual males, there is little faithfulness and everything is reduced to the experience of lust. 2. Others, even some of our visitors, claim to find communion and spiritual enrichment even in homosexual relations. I answered their claim by saying that communion and spiritual enrichment are not tied to being homosexual and that communion and spiritual enrichment can be lived well without genital homosexual involvement, which is always a perversion and a profanation of God’s design for human love and sexuality.  3. We should also note that not all gay people are the same. To some, their situation causes suffering, they try to behave in a blameless and dignified manner. From my pastoral experience, I even know of married people who identify as homosexual and have never had homosexual experiences. 4. On the other hand, others, like those who are involved in what you call the “gay scene” are tied, as you wrote, “to sex lived as lust, like a fleeting pleasure that only lasts a moment and leaves one with nothing” and you add “everything revolves around sex used like a drug”. You also admit that “it is a very lonely life, punctuated by quick fleeting encounters to satisfy a sexual need”. 5. Now, when it comes to you: you say you try to live your situation like a cross to bear, rather than something to get rid of. One could say you are maybe too resigned to your condition. But you certainly know yourself better than I do. Maybe you have come to the conclusion that in your case it’s an ingrained inclination, impossible to root-out. Therefore, you say you are determined to suffer this inclination like a cross. I think you intend to live it in “chastity” which, as you rightly state, “should be lived in the same way of a heterosexual person who decides not to marry”. If there are any lapses "at least be remorseful and reconcile with God.” I thank you for your heartfelt testimony. I assure you of my prayer and bless you. Father Angelo 05 February 2016 | A Priest Answers - Moral Theology - Sexual and Matrimonial Morality

[incorrect-all-for-the-game]

I think this constitutes a reblog to the Incorrect Quotes Blog I feel like they’d appreciate it

HI GUYS!

GO LOOK AT WHAT MY COOL MUTUAL DID,

ALSO DO NOT SPOIL THE BOOKS IN REBLOGS OR REPLIES BECAUSE SHE’S NOT FINISHED YET,, OKAY!?!?

aftg textpost (just one)

because I need to affectionately torment people. thank you @quintessential-candles for choosing who went where as I still need to fINISH THE THIRD BOOK. No time to check for mistakes (school) will fix later if any

i am not finished with this series so appreciate it if you're vague with spoilers but don't mind too much either way

[fairytail-incorrectquotes]

Evergreen: Why are you walking around shirtless all the time?!

Elfman: I have the right to bare arms.

[slut4normanosborn]

Galadriel: This is Nenya, the ring of adamant and I am it's keeper.

Frodo muttering under his breath: So you want two rings? Thats kinda greedy ngl.

*Galadriel glares at Frodo and he whimpers and hides behind sam.*

Sam: What does it do?

Galadriel:.............

*Fellowship waits in awkward silence for a minute or two*

Galadriel: Nenya buisness

[youlackconviction]

had some fun on twitter today lol. a series stan came @ me with some of the above so i decided to compile them and other common genuine responses that i’ve seen to LOKI-series-critical meta and create a fun little game for y’all.

if you want to use this board go ahead, i’d appreciate a credit back this blog or my twitter @ulackconviction if you do use it, so i can follow your threads myself. just save the pic, mark which responses you’ve received from fans of the LOKI series, and reblog with your edited bingo card.

below i the cut will quote each one and my own response to each “argument”.

if you hate sylki then you are biphobic - no, i hate sylki for many reasons but alleged bisexuality is not one. how about, the toxic abuse dynamic sylvie sets up towards LOKI? let’s start there.

you don’t want your uwu emo boy LOKI to heal - incorrect. i’d love for him to finally get a chance to be heard and acknowledged, genuinely cared for and shown how to let go of his unresolved trauma. but that would require a compassionate person talking about it and showing it, none of which the series did.

it’s not incest they don’t have the same parents - they literally have the same father: laufey of jotunnheim.

it’s not self-cest that’s a made-up thing - well. hard to say really isn’t it? since the showrunners have both defined sylvie as “a LOKI” and as “not a LOKI” in the same breath. obviously it’s a fantasy concept, but people will have their opinions about that either way.

why don’t y’all just move on and shut up? - rude. why should we? LOKI is important to us and the series is hurtful and disappointing, and we will shut up when we feel like it. maybe never. cry about it.

if you don’t like it then don’t watch it - we like LOKI tho. and that’s who we were promised. that’s why we watched it. the damage is done.

y’all are just mad that lokius is not canon - lmao if there’s one thing to not be mad about in this shitshow, that would be it. mobius is just as toxic and abusive to LOKI as sylvie is, so it’s just as well.

LOKI is just a selfish villain - citations needed thanks. i’ll wait. not even the series managed to portray him that way so... good luck.

sylvie is not LOKI she’s her own person - ok... if she’s not LOKI why is she dressed like him? why does everyone in the series call her the superior LOKI variant? why was LOKI’s help enlisted in the first place to capture her? why does she say “we are the same person” to him?

sylvie is LOKI so genderfluid rep is on screen every time she is - wait what? she is LOKI now? hang on... i think i have whiplash. and more questions. also, an individual presenting and identifying consistently as a single binary gender throughout their entire appearance does not constitute genderfluidity representation.

mobius did not torture LOKI it was therapy - therapy. right. so physical violence, threats of further violence/death, repetitive physical brutality for the purposes of “softening up” the candidate (yes that can also be defined as torture), intimidation, and misrepresenting the truth for manipulative purposes (you killed your mother) is therapeutic. got it.

fluidphobia is not a real thing - genderfluid folks would disagree. let’s ask them?

go touch grass - one of my favourites, gotta say. for all you know i’m typing this on my phone while laying in a hay paddock lol.

misogynist, you obviously just hate women - again. the reasons i can’t stand sylvie are many and varied, and none of them have anything to do with her biology or gender. disliking one (1) woman because of her actions and personality is not logical grounds for such an accusation.

well tom loves the series so... - uh, good for him? i think tom loves tennis too... doesn’t mean i have to enjoy it, nor i suspect would he insist that it’s unreasonable for me not to do so. my brain is actually separated from tom’s by the entire molten core of a planet, so i can actually think my own thoughts about things.

LOKI is out of character in the series because he learned self love - okay so he learned self-love the instant he fell from the sky above that mongolian settlement? because that’s the moment when he ceased to resemble MCU LOKI in any way, shape, or form. hair, skin colour, mannerisms, personality, vocabulary, physical strength, intelligence, fighting ability, grace, wit, charm. wow. incredible. who knew it would be so easy? and who knew self-love would look so shitty?

LOKI is not out of character in the series compared to the films - um... actually he is, and it can easily be demonstrated with simple side-by-side comparisons of appearance, posture and body language, abilities, and speech patterns. see above.

LOKI is out of character in all the movies and now we see his real self - this is such incredible nonsense - it’s impossible for a character to be out of character in their seminal appearance(s). thor 2011 established LOKI’s character. this claim is right up there with “LOKI acts differently from the movies when he’s off camera.” um... what? hun, this is a movie. there is ONLY on-camera. there IS nothing else. are you confusing BTS footage of tom with LOKI?

series antis have no friends - one in a range of irrelevant and unsubstantiated personal attacks that series fans like to sprinkle into their arguments as if it somehow strengthens them, rather than revealing them to be three children in a trench coat hurling insults.

everything you think about LOKI is just a headcanon - no... the stuff that i know about him was told to me by the films, and by the writers and directors of the films, and by tom back when he was first engaged for the role. all of it is coherent and consistent. and that’s what i think about LOKI.

i’m not going to read/watch that! but you are wrong - incredible powers of deduction: to refuse to even engage with a piece of media or information and yet claim to know everything it contains, and be able to judge its accuracy. truly amazing.

LOKI isn’t going to fuck you - again, more absolute gold from a person who has literally run out of rebuttals. when you consider the barriers to such a liaison... crossing the boundaries of reality no less... lol imagine if this is how political debates were conducted in parliament or the senate. “the president/senator/prime minister/queen isn’t going to fuck you, you know!” lmaoooo.

LOKI is a narcissist to fall in love with himself - look up NPD, and then read this again. also, LOKI actually hates himself and goes along with others’ ridicule of him because his self-worth is literally in the gutter. he only likes sylvie because he describes her as being nothing like himself. he has no idea that he has any value.

your anti opinions are taking away my enjoyment - ok so... don’t read them? block me or mute me or whatever, and get on with your life? it’s not like you have any kind of past attachment to me like series-antis do with LOKI?

i never liked LOKI before the series anyhow - i mean that’s fine. but don’t even start trying to tell people who actually do know and love the original character, ANYTHING at all about him. don’t even start.

sylvie’s trauma is worse than LOKI’s - how do we even know? and why is that even relevant? how do you judge what damage a person has incurred by comparing it to some other different person with different experiences? fuck off with your trauma olympics. but since you made it a competition: LOKI wins. i care about him, i don’t care about sylvie. therefore his pain and opportunity for healing will always be more important to me. die mad about it.

even if the series hurt minorities, how many people even is that, tho - literally a remark one of my friends received when defending genderfluid folks on her blog. so apparently according to series fans, you actually can put a number on how much real-world suffering is okay for the sake of entertainment.

sylvie is not a narcissist to fall in love with herself - interesting, since in the show LOKI was explicitly labelled one for this exact reason. an “incredible seismic narcissist”, in fact. there wouldn’t be a serious double standard in play at all, would there?

no one cares what you think - well i have evidence to the contrary: both from people who agree with me letting me know; and from those who don’t being unable to resist coming at me and berating me for it. including the person who said this, ironically.

you just hate sylki cos you want to fuck your siblings - another incredible take by a series fan defending the canon ship. i really can’t follow their line of argument here... it’s unclear what message they want me to walk away with. surely if i hated the ship for incest reasons it would be because i DON’T want to fuck my siblings? (for the record, i do not). so that was a confusing one, but it was a real response, so it got included.

[anew-jackson]

yick wo v hopkins touched on BOTH issues of apparently racially neutral laws and the constitutional rights of noncitizens. you should’ve read deeper into the wikipedia article.

Illegals have been given constitutional rights many times throughout history. I’ll quote justice scalia’s opinion in Reno v. Flores, that the "Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” The fifth amendment is part of the constitution if you didn’t know.

distinguishing between constitutional rights and constitutional protections is strange, i have not heard of a any court case or law doing so.

If you knew the context of “the people” you would know that the protections of the first and fourth amendment also are given to “the people,” and so you are supporting a circuit opinion(not a supreme court opinion) that argues “the people” means something completely different in the context of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments.

“federal criminals” always have rights, to say otherwise is absolutely provably incorrect. Due process is literally a right ONLY extended to accused criminals. the right against cruel and unusual punishment is also a constitutional right that ONLY applies to those found guilty of a crime! The bill of rights literally in its text alone gives rights to federal criminals. Your position simply doesn’t agree with the text of the document.

>supreme court says you can only regulate gun rights in ways with strong historical precedence >illegal immigrants argue the federal ban on them having guns has no strong (pre 1900s) historical precedence >federal court in louisiana rules that illegal immigrants are not “people” under the second amendment >FEDERAL COURT IN LOUISIANA RULES THAT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT “PEOPLE” UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT