#i sure do point out conservative hypocrisy a lot

[autisticlee]

so many christian conservatives that hate/criticize science and don't believe in it because "it's not always right/it always changes/they don't know for sure/there's no solid proof/etc" sure do love to believe in their magical sky daddy they never saw with their own eyes but swear is real, just because mommy and daddy and the old bald man at church had told them this since they were babies.

just like much of the scientific theories they're talking about, this god also has no actual solid proof. no one knows for absolute sure that this magical being exists, or anything in the bible actually happened. this god, his son, and every other religious figure could be nothing more than a character in an ancient fictional fantasy novel the ancient people wrote for fun because they had nothing better to do. some say there's proof the "person" existed. but there's no proof they performed magic or had magical things happen to them. maybe the readers got so engrossed and obsessed that it took on this religious culture that persisted for centuries. (imagine if the twilight series took on this form and a religion about worshiping vampires emerged and people a few centuries from now though bella and edward are their original, very real existing, saviors and everyone worships them hoping to become a vampire. I remember seeing articles that thar series started getting religious cults around it. don't know if it was true of just male journalists hating that teenage girls enjoyed something —let's be honest, it was probably that.)

but if you say those things to conservatives, that there's no proof, that it could be nothing more than an ancient fantasy novel, they get so upset and defensive. they won't admit it. they come up with excuses. they turn around and point fingers instead. at least the science they hate for "having no proof" or being proven wrong always admits when it's wrong and is always trying to disprove *itself* in order to find the truth. it's based on theory and everyone should have learned about that in school, so i won't explain it. science, in general, is the study of trying to prove and disprove theories and gain evidence needed to reach a truth. it's ongoing. even these truths are usually accepted as things that can still expand and get rewritten as we learn more.

yet most christian conservatives are often over there saying those bad things about science, which actually realistically applies better to their sky daddy and his son's story. even the meanings of their bible change depending on the language/translation and who's interpreting it, with no solid proof one way or another. their religion is very stagnant. they have forbidden questioning it. they know it won't hold if you do.

they can't believe in science because there is never any concrete evidence, and scientists never know for sure....... yet at the same time, though they won't admit it, they truly don't even know if their magical god exists up in the clouds for sure. all they do is "believe" but "belief" is not proof, no matter how much they try telling you it is. but,,,,it only is if it's directed at their god. if it's belief in anything science? "no, you're brainwashed! it's all fake!"

they preach to you from a kid that you need to blindly believe and if you question it or don't believe hard enough, you get sent to hell to suffer. you're not allowed to think or choose for yourself! but they try really hard to make it look and feel like you're "choosing" it. it sounds very brainwashy to me. it FELT very brainwashy as a kid experiencing this, being foeced to go to church 2-3 times a week and a catholic school for 11 years. it's truly the opposite of what most conservatives preach and rant about. they're all about ~individualism and not being a sheep and free speech and freedom of choice~ and whatever else they yell about that is generally the opposite of how they actually live, lead, and raise their young.

science doesn't do that to you. science is more forgiving. if you dont believe, go prove it wrong! yet they claim scientists are trying to "brainwash" everyone; if you listen to and believe science, you are being "brainwashed." but *they* aren't. no. they're definitely not brainwashed by their big benevolent sky daddy and his magical story book, who threatens to strike them down into the pits of hell to suffer if they get even the smallest inkling of questioning or doubt in their tiny brains.

hypocrites they are!

[cath-lic]

Hallo! I was pleasantly surprised to open up your profile to find out you're both trans and catholic!! (This might be a long read)

I'm the same! But in recent years due to my transness/queerness + my criticisms of the church I've kind of distanced myself from the church. I still go to mass and receive communion and do what is expected of me (I'm in a very catholic family) but I do it with a hollow feeling in my heart.

Almost paradoxically though, I really like Jesus, I think he's a cool guy, I have unending respect for him + I take bible classes and I find it to be really fun and interesting, esp the gospels and I guess the new testament in general. Studying the characters, the setting and the meaning of the story is always so cool to me and I really really love it.

However, the environment i grew up in and the Catholics I grew up with gave me a really sour feeling and I feel a lot of spite because of the blatant hate they spew towards lgbtq people/ their hypocrisy at times (things like defending isr4el's actions vehemently even though they're contradicting themselves to their face when they preach about love and anti harm and stuff) umm I lost my sentence, basically I feel like lgbtq people would be the last thing Jesus would consider a problem and I'm just soo sick of hypocrisy among catholics and Christians that it's made me almost resentful but I'm not quite there yet

What I wanted to ask was, how are you keeping your faith despite all these things? Despite all the horrible actions people commit each day in the name of Jesus and Christianity (just look at, say, the treatment of trans people in the US, Project 2025, all that, book banning, just... Blatant misuse of the faith, I hope you know what I'm talking about). I feel like the more I hear about stuff like this, the less I want to associate myself with the church. I feel ashamed, I guess. I figure that I've lost myself in all this, but any advice? I'd love to hear your thoughts :)

this ended up being a long answer, so i'll put it under a cut!

hello my sibling, i know exactly how you feel. i was lucky enough to grow up in a non-hostile and fairly liberal environment, but for similar reasons, i am in the closet as well.

seeing the violence and vitriol that so many christians espouse on a daily basis is extremely upsetting to me. i absolutely despise the fact that christianity has become popularly associated with hatred. at the same time, i acknowledge that many christians have wielded our faith in such a way that they are absolutely deserving of that reputation.

what helps me is having catholic friends IRL and online that make me feel sane. building this type of community online honestly helped me in so many ways—i no longer feel like one of the few catholics in the usa that aren’t associated with the alt-right.

another thing that helped me was, ironically, finding a different church. though i am still catholic, i go to an episcopal church. it’s smaller and friendlier, and i felt much more welcomed there as well, and i feel comfortable knowing that these are people who share both my values and (most of) my religious beliefs.

i think i become more gung-ho about the faith when seeing the horrible things that people do in the name of christianity, actually. i tend to post more when i’m riled up about it, because i KNOW they’re wrong! so basically, when i’m feeling down, i turn to the source material. more often than not, they reaffirm my faith and reaffirm that god has sanctioned absolutely none of the shit that republicans are trying to pull.

i want people to know that being catholic does not mean being conservative, so i yell about it in my own space here. i don’t want to, you know, proselytize to people—so i make sure that this is a blog they can block. i would like to attend pride events and bring my own signs, and protect others from protestors at some point.

i’m sorry i don’t have a more succinct answer for you, my sibling. i can only assure you that you are not alone, and that so many of us trans catholics feel the exact same way. sending all my love to you ❤️❤️❤️

[jyndor]

here's something I need people to understand about the hypocrisy of alicent or crispy ass cole, as well as conservative and/or fundie repressed people in general - hypocrisy is not something they give a flying fuck about.

it never has been- its always rules for thee not me, always always always. whenever they don't abide by the ridiculous rules that they hold others to (and I do mean Others - those in some sort of out group) they don't see it as the same as the people they judge. they justify ALL of their actions, and often those justifications for their own rule breaking is fairly reasonable (since their rules are usually bullshit, of course it does make sense for most people to not be able to hold to them).

but see we, people who have been Othered by these institutions like alicent's definitely-not-catholicism, see the hypocrisy clear as day because we already have been victimized by the rules that people like alicent conditionally follow.

this is how patriarchy harms us all - alicent isn't able to live her best queer life and have lots of passionate sapphic sex with the hottest women in the realm because of how she has been raised to serve at the altar of patriarchy.

it is easy for me to have immense sympathy for a character like alicent hightower, a girl whose father basically forced into child marriage with his old man friend in order to gain political power and influence. even if she is jealous of her girlfriend's sexual liberation* (which alicent clearly both reviles and craves) and ultimately falls further into a religious conservatism that I am never gonna be down with, as a queer myself who has only ever been harmed by that christian conservative bullshit.

anyway at the same time, I see that abused girl become a woman with real power because of her refusal to break a system that has done nothing but harm her. because that system ultimately serves her in many ways too.

this goes for rhaenyra, the liberal feminist hillary to alicent's conservative christian phyllis. rhaenyra ultimately doesn't have a liberatory bone in her body if it isn't about her own rights to exist as she is in a patriarchal world and reap the benefits of being at the top of that hierarchy. the closest any noble person in this canon gets to an actual liberatory political theory of power is daenerys (which... lmao - it's still based in her belief in a divine birthright, even if she would want to use that birthright to get as close to being a class traitor as one gets in asoiaf).

and so while she is a compelling and sympathetic character (thanks to olivia, and yes emily as well) she would be my enemy irl, make no mistake about it. (so would rhaenyra ofc I'm not here for girl boss feminism).

and because she's my enemy I know how she works. for example, these freaks irl are always pointing fingers at queer or just regular old non-fundie people trying to live because they've got a bad translation of a religious text that they likely haven't even read, a text which would also condemn these same people for any sexual act that isn't marital PIV. like a blow job. lmao do you think for one second conservative christian/fundie/fundie-adjacent women aren't giving their husbands head??? okay nancy 'throat goat' reagan lol

they genuinely do not see it as the same thing, and they don't care if it's close to the same because They are righteous and saved and justified in their kinky shit. (that is more of a protestant grace over works thing; alicent's faith of the seven is clearly more of the catholic sort, especially given that westeros is akin to pre-reformation europe but I mean its not a one to one comparison).

hypocrisy is not a good weapon to use against anyone. conservative white christians in the us won't hear about trump fucking a sex worker while his wife is pregnant and then giving her hush money and suddenly abandon ship. sure, plenty will lie to themselves about it being fake news but plenty of others legitimately will never give a fuck about that, even if it seems counter to their whole pretense of morality.

they do not give a shit. alicent hightower likely sees herself as a newly widowed woman who did her time and can fuck her hot guard (his being a misogynistic incel likely is not a problem for her because his inceldom is based in a morality she believes in herself - that his oath was broken by some nasty snake bitch seducing him or whatever, but of course when he and alicent fuck it is moral and good sex, no excuse me it is probably ~making love lmfao) until it's time to say a few hail marys, and she's forgiven! except ofc she's not, but it's fine! because she did everything the right way, right???

the hypocrisy is not going to bother her because she can justify her behavior. however the reason these fundies feel the need to justify shit to themselves is because deep down they know they're not actually following the standards they have set for themselves. there must be a good reason for them to break those standards. those standards that must be followed no matter what. it's irrational and brain breaking.

the hypocrisy won't bother a person like that, but the cognitive dissonance? that's another story altogether. that will bring shame and disgust and self-loathing, which may result in them re-evaluating their ideology but also may just make them double down on that ideology.

getting caught up in the team sports of it all seems very contrary to the thesis of this story and frankly all of asoiaf - that this patriarchal hierarchical divine right of kings ass absolute monarchy system is so oppressive and harmful that even those who benefit from it the most are also certain to fall victim to it in time. and that one team may be marginally or even greatly better than another, but ultimately these teams still exist to keep a fundamentally cruel and inhumane system in place.

anyway rhaenyra stans stop saying alicent is a hypocrite for getting her nut with crincel. alicent stans, watch yourselves because some of you seem to forget that alicent is basically a sympathetic phyllis schlafly.

*obligatory rhaenyra was a victim in many ways; her exploration of her sexuality with crispy ass cole was technically consensual (ofc it was messy all around, even for crispy due to the power dynamics, but ultimately she was a teen girl who had literally just been groomed by her uncle, and he was a grown man so... come on folks)

[crusherthedoctor]

What is your most controversial opinion involving each Sonic character?

Here are mine:

Sonic - Despite exhibiting some of the typical speedy snarker hero traits, he’s otherwise a lot more introverted and contemplative than that of the average take on said trope, which includes using his words conservatively. If Sonic is running his mouth off to no end, especially during serious or emotional moments, then the writer doesn’t truly get Sonic.

Tails - Reducing him to Sonic’s yes man does him a disservice and goes against the Adventure character development that I thought fans wanted to see more of.

Knuckles - His role as guardian is important, but he should be allowed to do things beyond how they relate to the Master Emerald or Angel Island.

Amy - I doubt they’d have a full-on ugly breakup, I’m sure they’d remain good friends, but ultimately I can’t see Sonamy working out in the long run.

Shadow - He’s not any more complicated than the other characters, despite his busier backstory. As such, the excuse that he’s too hard to write for is bullshit; the real issue is that writers try to fix what isn’t broken and make him over-emotional in order to appease people who are too attached to their warped perception of Shadow at the expense of the actual Shadow.

Rouge - If you think she’s a bad female character because she wears feminine clothing and “eww why did they give her boobs”, you’ve already missed the point.

Big - Big is simple. Not stupid. Know the difference.

Silver - Neither his canon portrayal nor the Stanley-approved caricature of him are that interesting.

Eggman - Him not having genuine moral standards does not make him one-dimensional (hypocrisy that serves his own ego doesn’t count). And his relationship with Sage is pointless no matter the execution because if it’s portrayed in an evil way, then Sage doesn’t offer anything that Metal Sonic or one of his other recurring robots couldn’t, whereas if it’s portrayed in a wholesome way, then it forces Eggman into an unfitting role out of a misplaced desire to make him more like Bowser.

Metal Sonic - Using his identity crisis to turn him into another forgettable usurper of many is a waste of a good concept. Exploring his delusion while keeping him fanatically loyal to Eggman would be a lot more fascinating and eerie.

Freedom Fighters - They don’t offer anything that isn’t already covered by certain members of the game cast, and when judging them as individual characters, they’re not that superior to the game cast either.

Scourge - He would still be an obnoxious character even if the parody handwave was actually true. Same goes for Vagina Scourge AKA Surge from IDW.

Black Doom - Greatest comic relief in the whole franchise.

[communistkenobi]

More than just merely presenting an account of fascistic beliefs, The Authoritarian Personality interrogates the epistemological assumptions of various ideologies - it explores assumptions people make about concepts like The Truth, which then structure how they navigate the world, how they interpret information, and how they ultimately express their beliefs. This book is obviously primarily concerned with fascist understandings of The Truth, but there is a very interesting section in the methods chapter where Adorno critiques liberal understandings of fascism. He points to the failure of large opinion polls on various social and political issues to accurately capture fascistic thought. The guiding assumption of a lot of prior literature on the subject (and he is saying this in the 1940s, directly after WWII) is that fascism has some underlying rational consistency to it that can be discovered. Or, even deeper, that researchers acknowledge the irrationality of fascism, but still attempt to place fascism within a rational framework for the purposes of analysis - they take what fascists say at face value and try to analyse what these stated beliefs mean. Adorno argues that this will structurally prohibit any deeper analysis of fascism as a particular tendency, as a way of viewing the world beyond the realm of politics. Fascists frequently do not say what they “mean” and are often explicitly contradictory because of the specific way they understand concepts like truth and knowledge. Moreover, the fascist is so deeply irrational that he is not aware of the extent of his own irrationality, and so any attempt to explain fascism as a coherent political project is going to end up over-rationalising it.

Adorno places the blame of this epistemological failure at the feet of liberal understandings of The Truth and how people interact with it - the belief that every person is essentially rational, that everyone’s beliefs have an underlying consistency to them, and, most importantly, that it is always possible to change someone’s belief system by presenting them with evidence that contradicts their current beliefs.

To give a contemporary example, you can see this in action with the liberal obsession with pointing out conservative hypocrisy - liberals are not merely attempting to rhetorically humiliate conservatives by calling them hypocrites (although that is often one of the goals), there is a deeper anxiety being expressed, one they are projecting onto conservatives. They are outraged that right wing beliefs are not consistent, because it shakes their own faith that all people come to their ideology through rational inquiry, that The Truth has a higher power above and beyond things like class relations, institutional oppression, modes of production, capital, and the state. That, despite these various (irrational, alienating) forces in people’s lives, we are all able to rise above the noise and come to rational, evidence-based conclusions about the world. This of course has a self-serving logic to it - surely they are not irrational demagogues. A consistent belief system to a liberal is therefore a “true” belief system, one that exists outside the realm of “base ideology.” This is epitomised by the memetic phrase: “the truth has a liberal bias.”

I don’t personally know what Adorno thinks about concepts like The Truth, but his basic argument is that people are not homo rationalis, that our approach to what we consider The Truth is itself an ideological construct that shapes our belief system, and one that is inextricably tangled with historical and social forces like white supremacy, capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy, and all the rest. The failure of the liberal is their failure to understand that they themselves are ideologues just as much as communists or fascists are, and that insults like “ideologue” or “hypocrite” are themselves ideological expressions of liberal understandings of The Truth. This does not mean that it is impossible to reach truth, or that evidence-based understandings of reality are just as irrational as hysterical violent bigotry, but that no person, no single ideology, is able to rise above ideology itself. To borrow from Zizek, to call oneself non-ideological is the most ideological thing you can do.

[uboat53]

Time for some political strategy, how in the world does the current deadlocked Speaker of the House election end? I have no certainty on any of this, but I figured it couldn't hurt to game out a few outcomes. Call this a SHORT RANT (TM)

MCCARTHY (EVENTUALLY) WINS

Okay, it's possible that McCarthy wins. He's only lost two votes from where he started after the first day and he's been completely stable between them. It's possible that he just keeps holding out and eventually the opposition to him fractures and they vote for him. It's also possible that he makes some kind of deal with the Democrats for them to vote "present" which would lower the threshold to allow him to win.

The problem with the first one is that there are two groups of people opposed to him, groups of about 10 each. The first group appears to have some demands and he can satisfy them by making some concessions, but the other group has made it clear they oppose him personally because they view him as insufficiently dedicated to… something? That first group he can probably get on board but the second group is going to have a hard time finding a way to support him without opening themselves up to accusations of rank hypocrisy. He needs to get at least half of that second group and I'm not sure how that happens.

The problem with the second one is that there's no way the Democrats help him out for free. He's been promising to do things that they hate and promoting people that they hate and they're going to demand that he un-promise some of those things in return for helping him out. That will cost him support in addition to accusations that he's betraying his own party and it's going to be a tough balance to find some package of promises that can keep enough people on his side AND get the Democrats to help him win the election.

AN ALTERNATIVE EMERGES

There's been some talk about possible another Republican other than McCarthy stepping in as a compromise candidate between the various factions of the party. Even without any additional concessions, this could possibly give the never-Kevin faction a face-saving way to claim victory without really getting much additional stuff out of it.

The problem is that it's hard to see who, at this point, might be acceptable to both the moderates and the extreme wing of the party. There's been talk about Steve Scalise, but there's no evidence that he can get more votes than McCarthy at this point. More to the point, what many of the holdouts are demanding is policy concessions, which a new candidate couldn't offer any more than McCarthy can.

UNITY CANDIDATE

Another possibility is that the moderate Republicans give up on getting the conservatives to fall in line and make a deal with moderate Republicans. Instead of continuing to try to get more Republican votes for McCarthy they switch candidates and try to get more Democratic votes than the Republican votes they'd lose.

The first problem with this is, again, who is this person who can appeal to both factions? Is there a person either in the House or outside of it (nothing in the Constitution says the Speaker has to be a member of the House) who can unite moderate Democrats and Republicans and, if so, why haven't they done so in some other context? There's also the question of policy, moderate Democrats look a lot more like liberal Democrats than they do like moderate Republicans on policy and moderate Republicans look a lot more like conservative Republicans than like moderate Democrats. Is there a policy or rules framework that could really unite them or is that a pipe dream?

The second problem is raw partisan politics. Most congressional districts aren't competitive in the general election so the real election is the primary. How many of the "moderate" Republicans are willing to team up with Democrats to elect a Speaker and be attacked for being insufficiently loyal to Republican and conservative values in the next primary election? Given the extreme submissiveness of these Republicans over the last decade I'm betting it's "not a lot".

STALEMATE

The longest election for Speaker of the House took two months and 133 ballots in 1855 and it's not insane to think that it could go that long or even longer this time around. The House cannot do anything until a Speaker is elected, even swear in its own members, so it's going to turn into a real crisis for American governance if this happens.

I could list all of the problems with this possibility, and there are a lot of them, but realistically it's the most likely not because it's the best option but because it's the status quo. In order for this option to happen, no one had to change their mind or compromise anything. So yeah, it's a huge problem which leaves all Americans without a functioning government.

CONCLUSION

There's three ways for this stalemate to end, but I don't really see any of them as realistic at the moment. The problem is that our current political system is splintered into three factions, Democrats, Establishment (or "moderate") Republicans, and MAGA Republicans, none of which have a majority and none of which are willing to compromise with or work with each other.

Buckle up, it's probably going to be a long one…

[sarcasticsweetlara]

Ok so in terms of a tumblr scuffle youve had recently, ik whats gone wrong, it shouldve been like a 3 reblog discussion tops tbh.

You each got stuck on your respective arguments somewhat, wherein you kept returning to the meaning of your original post, and the other person was solely arguing semantics.

To number this for backreference: 1. When you misused woke, you both mocked the term and were antiblack about it. The misuse of the term has both attributes. You don't have to stop using it, just use it right. Your message is still good, even though it's muddied by this problem.

2. In your first response you bring the discussion back around to a holier than thou "yeah but my point is that theres people dying" when it's a semantics discussion, and then you do this again in your second response, making it seem like you think that the attack on semantics is an attack on your message's intent, which it isn't at all! I often end up making semantics arguments, and leave the things I agree with unsaid. Like, you both agreed that the two problems were separate (although when you roped the topic of palestine in each time you betrayed that understanding--this is also the framing issue btw). I'm sure the other person agreed with your message, the topic of discussion was just...a semantics issue, though. That's all.

The actions of 2 make it seem like 1 wasn't clicking for you, which made the discussion draw on for longer than necessary. The framing and mocking and stuff are all unintentional actions -- to be fair the other person did seem to think you were reframing on purpose, a lot of people do employ that to "win" the discussion and whatnot -- in reality it just stems from misunderstanding in this instance, and is why you had to apologize like, twice, you didnt get the issues and thought you were just being lectured about it, I don't think they were hunting for multiple apologies.

Fwiw I think the issues in the original post you made are so interesting you could write like, a paper on the sociopolitics of the word use. From the conservative standpoint wokeness is often a strange, hollow concept, but a lot of uneducated people on the left have taken the stance of "palestine homophobic!!!" which has that secondary conservative meaning (even though the conservative use often stems from homophobia and racism and stuff, sorry this is just a really surface level description of the aforementioned "whole paper" it almost finds a correct secondary meaning in this message, but otherwise would fry the brains of those of certain conservatives, lmao)

Hi!

I guess I didn't explain myself very well.

To be honest, my intention was never to mock anyone, quiet the opposite, but now I'm better informed now.

I had seen people use it to justify the Palestinian genocide so my intent was to try calling out their hypocrisy, but now I know better, thanks.

And yes, it just pisses me off how people are taking the stance of "Palestine is Homophobic" to justify the bombings.

[wolveria]

Perhaps you're not getting the point of the original post, so I'm going to back up a bit. You may not have been in fandom spaces for long enough to know that "proshipping" is a term created by antis so they could carve out an "us vs. them" space in fandom.

Proshipping was the default. "Live and let live" was the motto most fans lived by, at least when I first got into fanfiction in the 90s. This is how I (and a lot of people) define it.

Proshipping is anti-censorship. It says nothing about being unable to criticize said media. It says nothing about romanticizing, normalizing, sexualizing, etc. It only means "you shouldn't ban and persecute artists and those who consume their art."

That being said, there is nothing inherently wrong with having fantasies, no matter how dark and taboo. Thoughts are not actions. Literature will not "poison" the mind or the soul. "Getting off" on dark content is not a sin. These fears and talking points are steeped in conservative Christian values. Perhaps you are a conservative/Christian, but that has nothing to do with me, or with anyone else.

Allowing "bad" content to exist doesn't mean you can't criticize it. The problem is, many antis seem to think stalking, harassing, and doxxing someone until they disappear off social media is the socially acceptable way to criticize fellow fans and artists.

By stating proshippers don't want you to criticize or scrutinize anything, you either don't know what proshipping is, or you're moving the goalpost.

"Antis are trying to cancel me!" We aren't afraid of antis cancelling us. We're afraid of being stalked, harassed, having our workplaces called on us and accusing us of being predators, etc. (Yes, this does happen, I have real world examples of it). I don't think you realize what a toxic, unsafe environment fandom has become because of this fanatical obsession with "good behavior" when it comes to literature.

How do you define romanticize? Who gets to decide what is romanticizing and what isn't? What if you think I'm romanticizing something, while I believe I'm writing it in a non-romantic way? Who gets the final say?

"Authors need to be watched" Authors are not here to teach you moral lessons, let alone need to be watched (whatever the hell that means). If you want moral lessons, go to church. I'm not being facetious. If you want your literature to "teach right from wrong" (and I say that very generously because I'm no longer religious), then controlling authors is not the way.

"We're not against dark subjects, we're against romanticizing and getting off on it." Got it. No one is allowed to be horny from sinful fantasies.

"So long as they only do it behind close doors and doesn't effect me I don't see the problem" I'm not sure what you find wrong with this statement. What do you care what consenting adults do behind closed doors? These talking points you're coming up with are reminiscent of right-wing, historically anti-queer language. Whether intentionally or not.

"We're not against writing/exploring dark topics!" That's. That's exactly what antis are against. Because they can't agree on HOW to explore those topics "tastefully" or "correctly." They can't even agree amongst themselves what content is problematic. It's a goddamn train wreck of hypocrisy.

I know exactly why antis think they way they do. I was Mormon once. You don't get more pro-censorship, thought-policing than that. So, yes, I have years of personal history and critical thinking when it comes to considering the media I consume. Don't worry about me, I'm doing just fine.

What I worry about are young people growing up in this environment where fantasies aren't only considered sinful, they're considered harmful, and they're being told to purge them from their thoughts if they want to be a good person. I can't even begin to describe how harmful that is to children and adults alike.

Do not let the antishippers find the Got or House of the Dragon fandom cause they'll cry

Or Labyrinth, or Flowers in the Attic, or any one of Stephen King's books. It's almost as if the wider public understands that fiction can be both fucked up and entertaining without the need for a moral lesson following after, or that it's an indictment that you're going to partake in the things you read about.

Antis are so far removed from reality, and they have to remain that way in order to not have their beliefs constantly challenged and torn apart.

[titaniumelemental]

Semi-coherent rambling about the start of the pandemic. Probably uncharitable. Largely US-focused, but we weren’t the only ones doing this

Now that it’s been about a year and we’re all talking about what happened at the beginning, I want to give a big screw you to the general trend in Jan/Feb 2020 of downplaying the seriousness of the virus and conflating any amount of concern with “panic” and implying (or outright stating) that the only reason people would be afraid of this new scary thing more than the flu was xenophobia. And also we’re gonna assume all the people “panicking” are also against flu shots in order to get a snappy gotcha and never consider the possibility that someone already cares about the devil we know while at the same time caring about the new scary thing.

It was just weird, wasn’t it? To wade through all those gotchas about how the flu kills X number of people per year but no ones talking about that, so why are you freaking out about the coronavirus... to a week later it’s Trump saying the coronavirus is basically just the flu and suddenly all those same people are united in opposition to that because obviously it’s way worse than the flu, and it’s hugely irresponsible. It was super weird. 

And of course, it’s never made sense to expect people to have the same emotional reaction to an old familiar danger (flu) and a new scary thing, it doesn’t ever work that way! A new thing that no one has immunity to, and with an uncertain death rate (because it’s new and hasn’t been studied yet) and an uncertain rate of transmission (because it’s new and hasn’t been studied yet). Like, that’s obviously a potential danger and people on the other side of the world were working really fucking hard to try to contain it. 

So as a lay person were you supposed to see this potential danger that people were working really hard to contain and not be a little worried about the possibility that the effort doesn’t work? Were we seriously not supposed to worry about that?!

I didn’t predict that the pandemic would happen, or make any kind of call about how serious it would be, because I don’t have that expertise. All I did was recognize the potential danger and spent at least a month (two months?) with slowly simmering worry increasing that the potential danger would end up reaching here (because I worry about everything) only to hear from basically everyone on my facebook that people who are worried are either “panicking” or have sinister motives for being concerned. 

The social climate that made me self conscious for buying my regular big pack of toilet paper in Feb 2020 (I really had ran out) or made me make sure my thermometer wasn’t left out on the table when a friend came over so no one would think I was “panicking” about the virus that was two to three weeks from majorly fucking up all of our lives. 

The attitude against masks (not just to conserve medical masks, but against the idea of masks) that made me self conscious in early March 2020 for walking around with my scarf and jacket covering my nose and mouth (it was cold!) because that might look like I was worried about the thing and that’s bad. Months later people pointed out how messed up it was to have everyone who’d been telling people not to wear masks then in April 2020 be aggressively shaming people for not wearing masks. Others rightfully point out that it’s not hypocrisy to change your mind in response to new information. Fair. But that leaves the fact that being straight up against regular people wearing masks was never the best use of the available evidence, and I didn’t see a lot of people apologizing for that. 

That transition zone in mid-March 2020 where the amount of restrictions everyone was starting to follow was expanding rapidly, not directly in response to new info, but just the overton window shifting in real time. You might think you were paying attention and wouldn’t be attending any big parties and just talked to your boss about setting up work from home, and then you start hearing that anyone who’s still trying to run a club meeting with eight people is a horrible person who doesn’t care if people die. Recalibrate. Then two days later anyone who doesn’t support a full-on stay at home order (even if you live alone) doesn’t care if people die. Recalibrate. 

Everything I’m describing arose from the same self-righteous, shame-focused, lack of actual discussion, lack of admitting uncertainty problems that social justice stuff has been having for years. And my main response to it is the same: damn it, we could have done better! We didn’t have to predict anything, it wasn’t in our reach to actually fix the problem, but we didn’t have to do this. We could have not spent months shaming people for being scared and then immediately pivot to shame them for not caring enough, and it would have made all this a little less fucked up.

[glassshard]

Do you have any thoughts about current "wokeness?" I'm a "90's kid" and always thought of myself as very liberal, but a lot of the popular woke trends today feel alienating and very intolerant to me, most noticeably when it comes to equating fictional media as equally "harmful" as real-life, actual harm or illegal behavior (such as depictions of violence, or ships that aren't 100% healthy and sanitized models of unrealistic relationships).

We have to be really careful about the language we use when discussing this topic. I’m not sure I would include the specific matters you’ve named under the “wokeness” umbrella. If we’re not careful, we might poison all the good stuff that “wokeness” has given us with the obnoxious and wrong-headed stuff you take issue with.

So let’s set that broader designation aside and specifically address the bizarre reemergence of pearl-clutching prudishness. It’s not new, of course. It’s always been very popular to criticize and marginalize fringe artists and fringe sexualities; what’s different now is a different crowd has joined in with the moralizing conservatives. And I think they fall into a few different categories.

First you have kids who are dumb because they are kids. They lack the experience to recognise the broad spectrums of sexualities, and they lack the maturity to recognise that fantasy is distinct from reality. They get these conflated and then they lash out, both out of personal discomfort and squeamishness, and out of a desire to remain on the perceived “right side” of the issue. Since they’re kids, I’m hopeful most of them grow out of this as they experience more of the world and eventually explore their own sexuality. If they weren’t mingling with older people this wouldn’t be an issue, but internet communities are porous and ungated. I think it’s really, really important to remember that a lot of these internet randos we find so absolutely intolerant and unreasonable are just unsupervised children who’ve wandered into someone else’s yard.

The adults are maybe a little different. Some of them are obsessive shippers who treat their hobby in a very emotionally unhealthy way, and have assigned too much importance to fictional characters. These characters are “real” to them, and if you do anything they don’t like to them in your art or in your shipping discussions, they flip out. These people aren’t well, but we have to share the internet with them. Ignore them just like you have to ignore the crazy people talking to the bushes in the park.

Some of the other adults may have trauma that is aggravated by different flavours of kinky art. I have sympathy for them, and I think we can help them out with responsible tagging and warnings, but we don’t have a responsibility beyond that. They are being unreasonable by pushing for more, and asking others to censor themselves. Freedom of expression is of utmost importance.

Finally you have adults who have difficulty differentiating between fantasy and reality. That sense just never grows in for them. I’m not sure how to help them. They’re sitting on the same couch as the preachers who say that playing Dungeons and Dragons makes you susceptible to demon worship, or reading Harry Potter opens your heart to witchcraft, or that playing violent video games is going to cause you to shoot up a shopping mall. It doesn’t matter how many studies you throw at them or how many different ways you point out their hypocrisy - you’re not going to reason them out of a belief they didn’t reason themselves into. They want to charge you with a thought crime and send you to horny jail. It’s a frankly ridiculous accusation to make against a grown adult in a free society. Adults are allowed to have kinky fantasies, violent fantasies, bizarre fantasies involving lasagnes and Jack Black and Jack Black’s imaginary brother Jacque Noir, and as long as they remain fantasies it’s not anyone else’s friggin’ business.

But yeah, people are making it their business anyway because we’re all trapped in the same internet together. It’s even being put into legislation, as recently happened with Australia banning import of Japanese erotica - drawn or otherwise.

Anyway, I’m pretty liberal and you’re pretty liberal, and we don’t like this nonsense being associated with us. Let’s keep speaking up against it and make the weirdos feel as childish and intolerant as they’re acting! :)

[syl-posts]

Except Jensen literally HAS acknowledged them & said he would answer things differently if he had the chance now. He acknowledged that he has some toxic masculinity in him due to how he was raised in a conservative household & how he unlearnt it & constantly tries to do better. Not to mention a lot ot the "homophobic shit" he said was literally straight up debunked.

I like Misha as such & don't think he's a bad person either but after a point I'm tired of his constant fucking up - between the irked video to the fatphobic joke toward a teen to straightgate to being mad about someone making an obvious joke manip saying he supported a sapphic show (which was literally a good thing) - I can go on - these are just in the last couple of years. He's done this both in the past as well as recently & then just throws in a 5 tweet thread about how "sorry" he is.

But sure Misha solo stans like the one I'm reblogging right now act like he's such a saint & Jensen is the source of all evil. I wouldn't bring all this up usually but if y'all crucify Jackles for things out of context from a decade ago which he has literally taken accountability for & shown his growth in action WHILE simultaneously acting like Misha has never fucked up then I will call out that Hypocrisy.

Even now simply due to me also liking Misha, I'm not going into detail, but if I actually were to list his fuckups then let me just say - just the last 2 years for him would have a longer list than the last 20 years would for Jensen.

misha collins is an undeniable freak but i think hes like terminally normal abt playing cas. hes always just like oh yeah i love that guy such a great character i care abt him a lot. jensen ackles on the other hand is ur average texan homophobe but something terrible happened to him on that set and now he thinks dean is a real person

[jambeast]

Hate to be That Guy, but Sean P. McCarthy is one of those dirtbag leftist trolls, so there’s a small but significant chance he’s actually more sympathetic to fascism that he is letting on, particularly the pseudo-socialist parts.

Well, I’d say that in that post, at the very least, the point of me (and, I suppose, @the-grey-tribe​) pointing out the similarity would be what I said, regardless of the initial intention of the tweet.

I skimmed through a few more of their tweets, and some of the sort of ‘anti-SJW’ sentiment I can agree with, though they seem to fall into that trap of seeing affluent white people with left-wing opinions, feeling there’s a hypocrisy there, and then mentally characterising the affluent and powerful of America as being Predominantly left-wing. When, like, it’s not, it’s just that the parts that are left-wing stick out a bit more in contrast because when the bad people making things worse for everyone are conservative it’s kind of a given.

Y’know, it’s the whole thing about “liberal coastal socialist elites” that claim to not be racist but secretly are that conservatives bang on about, which is a bit of a mischaracterisation of the types of rich people making laws, and ignores the much more significant group of conservative elites that make laws and run government, who are both a lot more racist and bad for the poor, and a lot more obviously racist and bad for the poor. It just feels a lot more egregious when a person who claims to be economically left-wing fucks over the poor, as opposed to when a person who everyone already expects to fuck of the poor a lot harder, because with them at least you know where you stand.

Y’know, it felt like a big betrayal when 3 of the 50-so democrats voted no on the stimulus. Moreso than when 0 of the republicans do.

Also lots of things that I guess some people would call ‘class reductionist’?  Like making a point of saying middle-class black people have it better than poor white people. I’ve not seen much I necessarily disagree with in terms of the actual substance of the tweets, though maybe I could complain about where emphasis is put, or where they’re going with that. Charitably it’d be because they’re dealing with lefty people being very very silly, uncharitably it’d be because they want some kind of white class consciousness for white people.

Kinda hits a point where you’re spending more effort advocating against lefties going in the wrong direction than you do advocating anything going in the right direction, or advocating against conservatives going in the complete wrong direction.

...Reading more, he seems to be pretty firm about his broad range of CIA assassination conspiracy theories, which is whacky but I can’t say much about it. I think, and I suppose this is common for all sorts of conspiratorially minded people, that it’s hard to say how much they actually *believe*. Like conspiracy people will just fling ideas left right and centre and, like, do they actually believe what they’re saying? In the moment? don’t know. But I’m pretty sure that they don’t either. I guess human minds are bad with dealing with uncertainty. He’s also pretty firm set on bringing back manufacturing jobs to the rust belt, and that anyone who doesn’t intend on bringing manufacturing back to the rust belt or doesn’t think it’s possible isn’t a real marxist and, like, come on. Really.

...And apparently he’s actually one of those leftists who think that modern China is a worker’s paradise and that anyone that criticises the bad things done in China are The Real Fascists (and also simultaneously naive liberals somehow) and that America does it worse, as if that is relevant or a rebuttal. It’s actually quite impressive how in the span of like a single chain of tweets he goes from 1) The atrocities that people accused China of doing are false, they’re made up lies to discredit them 2) They only committed those atrocities because Western Imperialism forced them to do it and 3) The atrocities are good and the victims deserved it. All at the same time.

There we go, it all clicks in to place, I see now.

[songtoyou]

Mr. Evans and the Congresswoman - Part 2

Paring: Chris Evans x Politician Reader

Rating: PG

Word Count: 1,858

Warnings: Political topics such as Biden, Harris, our current White House occupant and the current administration. 

Description:  It is the week of the DNC and Chris is once again interviewing you for A Starting Point. 

A/N: The DNC inspired me to write a second part for this story.  This is pure fiction as I do not know what Chris believes when it comes to politics and policy issues. This is a complete work of fiction.

I do not permit my work to be to be posted on any other site without my permission.

Note: Updated for grammar and punctuation edits.

"Hi, Congresswoman Y/L/N?" Chris Evans asked with a smile.

He was once again interviewing you for ASP. This time it was during the week of the Democratic National Convention. Chris and Mark had already talked to other politicians such as Senator Cory Booker and Representatives Ro Khanna and Alma Adams. You were the last elected official he was slated to interview to wrap up the DNC week.

Truthfully, Chris was happy to get the chance to talk with you again. Your previous interview for ASP was such a hit that it garnered a lot of attention from fans and the media. However, it was not because you helped bring more legitimacy and attention for ASP, but instead, Chris found himself genuinely admiring you.

"Hi," you said to Chris, giving a small wave through the Zoom screen. "I told you to call me by my first name."

"I know, but I still want to show respect," Chris responded with a teasing smile. Was he mildly flirting with the congresswoman? Yes, but he had no shame in doing so. "How are you? You are looking well."

"I am doing well. Thank you. How about you?"

"Same. Just trying to stay sane through everything. I'm actually currently in London. Working on a project." Chris admitted.

"Uh oh. You better be staying safe and following the right procedures and protocols," you lightly reprimanded him.

"My fans ratted me out. They found where I was just by the hotel door. Can you believe that? That is some FBI-level investigating, right there. I'd be impressed if I weren't also terrified of the lengths some of these fans will go to scout my location," Chris ranted. He did not understand why he was sharing this with you, but a part of him felt comfortable doing so.

"That…is quite impressive, I must say. Creepy. Scary. But impressive. You need to learn how to put in a Zoom background. It would solve all of your problems," you suggested to him.

"I would, but I'm technology deficient. Maybe I should look up some Zoom tutorials on how to do it. Give it a try."

"There is no try…only do," you advised cheekily.

"Now you're quoting Yoda. A woman after my own heart," Chris replied. He knew he needed to refocus. "So, as you can tell, Mark won't be joining us for this interview. I'm going to hit record if that is okay?"

"Okay. I'm ready when you are," you said.

When the record notification appeared on screen, Chris introduced you and immediately went into the first question.

"How do you think the DNC is going so far, particularly how this year is more of a virtual setting rather than in-person due to COVID-19?"

"Despite not having the big in-person celebration/gathering, I think the virtual setting is working very well. Better than I expected, actually. It gives off a more inclusive and intimate vibe to the DNC that we haven't felt before. I like the whole documentary approach and feel to it," you replied honestly.

"Were you excited that Joe Biden chose Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate?" asked Chris.

"Oh my God! I was so happy that Vice President Biden chose Senator Harris as his running mate. Like, my staff and I were beyond ecstatic. There is no one better to be Biden's running mate than Harris. She is amazing. Such an inspiration. I'm not going to lie, but I'm really excited for the debate between her and Pence."

That made Chris laugh. "Yeah, me too. Senator Harris really knows how to pull all the punches. Her nomination as VP has been met with overall positive response. The Trump Administration and Republican pundits appear to have a hard time painting a negative image of Harris. Why do you think Trump and Fox News are struggling to provide a negative image for her?"

"That is an excellent question. The public's overwhelming response to Harris' nomination is because 1.) she is the first black and south Asian woman to be on a major presidential ticket, and 2.) she is likable and charming. She has this exuberant energy that attracts people to her. You know, black and brown women and girls finally have someone that looks like them running for the second-highest office in the land. That is huge!

"I also have to wonder if people have smartened up in the last four years and won't tolerate the…hypocrisy, sexism, and misogyny…in this case misogynoir that is thrown towards Senator Harris from the media, political pundits, social media bots, etc. So, what we are seeing with Trump and Fox News struggling to attack her is because…well…they just aren't smart. All we have seen from Trump in his attacks against her is that she was mean to Kavanaugh when questioning him during his nomination process. But none of what Trump says holds up because we all know that smart, confident women intimidate him," you finished off your point.

"There is also the left…or more of the progressive left who are unhappy with Biden choosing Harris," Chris spoke up and continued, "They say she is a cop and put people away for weed. That she took kids away from parents when the kid didn't show up for school. That Harris is too conservative. What do you say to that?"

"All of that is…you know…. Senator Harris one of the most policy progressive senators we have. Her voting record is more progressive than Bernie Sanders. All people have to do is research her time as a district attorney and Attorney General for California to find out what she actually did concerning policy. But as we both know, people nowadays don't know how to critically think, which scares me. Progressives need to look at the overall big picture. This election in November is crucial. We are in the fight for our democracy, for our country, and for our lives…literally."

"I talk with my brother, Scott, all the time about certain political issues," mentioned Chris. "He is a tad more progressive than I am. I can admit that I tend to be more centrist. The district you represent is a mix of blue and red areas; how do you balance opposing views from your constituents?" 

You took in a deep breath before you answered. That was a loaded question. Representing a district that was not solely red, or blue could be difficult from time to time. You wanted to be respectful of the different viewpoints from constituents, but maintaining a neutral balance was hard and frustrating at times. 

"The majority of Americans are centrist/moderates. You need a balance of both liberal and conservative policies. Bipartisanship is crucially important when developing and passing laws. We are currently seeing an overt of one-sidedness while sabotaging the other side, which is detrimental to our country's growth. It is important to reach across the aisle to talk with those who may have opposing views than you. At the end of the day, people just want to feel that their concerns are heard and valued. We all want to feel that way. So, as an elected official, I make sure to take the time to talk with those in rural areas, along with urban areas, about their issues and concerns," you shared.

"Do you ever get any pushback from Trump supporters in the red areas?" Chris inquired.

"Well, it is important to note that not all residents in rural areas are Trump supporters. They just tend to keep that to themselves. I have actually talked to Trump supporters in blue areas. We can never and should never assume that one area has this type of person and vice versa. I learned that the hard way when I was campaigning for city council early in my career," you revealed to Chris with a small chuckle. "But overall, my constituents will talk with me and have been respectful. Some of the concerns that have been shared with me do fall under the QAnon conspiracy theories, which do disturb me, I'll be honest. Um…when being confronted with someone who has that extreme of ideals, it is important to remain calm and not to come off combative. Meaning that I have to remind myself that I am not quite dealing with a rational person. The only thing that I can do is calmly talk to the person and respond back with facts. Either they listen or brush me off and call me a radical lefty."

"The majority of people are good, like you said," Chris reminded you.

"That's right. It's a good mantra to live by. I think the American people are tired and have been tired for the past four years with this Administration. We need a sense of normalcy and decency. Compassion and empathy, which were two of the big themes during the DNC. This week was a nice reminder that we, as a country, can have that again."

"I agree. Very well said. You always end on a positive. I appreciate that. Thank you, Congresswoman Y/L/N, for taking the time to talk with me. You always provide great insight into the world of politics and your experience as an elected official," said Chris and ended the recording. "That was really great, Y/N. I know Mark, and I really appreciate you taken the time to do these interviews for ASP," Chris added.

"Oh, it is no problem. Like I said before, I like what you both are doing with the site. Are you happy with how everything turned out?" you asked him.

"Yeah… it's…it took a while to just get the website up and running. I know there is still work that needs to be done. Some areas need to be fixed, but with a project like this, we can adjust. There is more room for improvement and growth," Chris communicated to you.

You nodded in agreement. "Politics is a whole different ballgame. Not many people are willing to venture into the field. It can cause a lot of annoyances and headaches. So, hats off to you, my friend," you said, giving Chris a salute.

"Thank you. Well, I better let you go. I know you must have a million things on your plate."

"Ah yes, I have to go and save the United States Postal Service from corruption. Talk to you later, Chris. Take care," you waved goodbye and signed off.

Chris had to admit, he was in awe of you. There was something about you that fascinated him. None of the elected officials he and Mark talked to for ASP had the liveliness you had. You were not jaded or defeated by the system, at least not yet, since you were still considered a junior member of congress. Chris hoped that the energy and enthusiasm you had for politics and helping people would not diminish. When his Uncle Mike was still a congressman, he shared with Chris that D.C. can cause a lot of strain on a person's values and beliefs. "I have seen too many of my colleagues succumb to the pressures of dirty politics," Uncle Mike once said.

Chris just hoped that you would not succumb to those pressures.

[eelsfeelgross]

Conclusions: Trans Activism v. Radical Feminism, a first-hand account

This is current stance after a lot of direct investigation on both radfems online and trans activists online. No group is judged based on the observations, rhetoric, or propaganda of any outside group, but from my own first-hand observations in combination with objective knowable facts such as actions known to be committed in public record by the likes of criminals or celebrities. However, the bulk of this is based on what I have seen, what I know to be true because it’s been done before my own eyes. While my conclusion may lack information on the more nitpicked aspects of things, I believe their overall impressions still hold true with the amount of experience I’ve had. Keep in mind: this is not my only account. I have dipped into the radfem community before, each time from a different perspective, at a different time, and with open eyes ready to receive whatever I was given. The same is true of the trans community.

Trans Activism

I want to make clear that these conclusions were mainly drawn from my direct experience with the trans community from within. I am not relying on critics of the trans ideology to tell me any of this, though they often echo the same concerns and observations.

The trans community has a serious problem with misogyny, homophobia, and sex denial. They employ magical thinking and emotional pleas to justify their conclusions and commit to arguments of definition that are ultimately lacking substance. However, while lacking rational, they are abundant with emotional reasoning and can be incredibly powerful rhetorical tools in convincing others to believe them without the necessary evidence of anything claimed.

This is especially prevalent when discussing sexual biology and sexual orientation. They consider self-harm to be the fault of other people, even in adults, and use this as a manipulation tactic to make it seem as if they’re being killed at higher rates than their general demographics. This plays hand in hand with the appropriation of statistics around things like racial violence or violence against sex workers to make it appear trans people, particularly white heterosexual (attracted to the opposite sex) trans women from the middle class of Amerca who aren’t victims of prostitution, are under much more persecution than their lived experiences actually reflects.

This has grown into a political ideology not dissimilar to a religion, but without the usual trappings we associate with a religious group. It requires blind faith in the concept of gender and the “life saving” virtues of expensive hormone treatments and plastic surgeries without proper regard for the risks and consequences of these procedures. Challenging the dogma or asking critical questions is considered a sin itself, even when done with excessive caution for other’s feelings. Violence towards known dissenting groups is considered not just ok, but admirable. Expressions of this desire for violence against the out-group is seen as virtuous to the point that doing it too much will be taken as virtue signalling rather than a sign of deep-seeded anger issues as it would for any other situation. Self-identity is their belief system, and public shame are their tools of punishment to control those within the belief system. Due to sex denial, females suffer especially in this paradigm no matter how they identify or what presentations they choose.

However,

Radical Feminism

Once again, I want to make clear that these conclusions were mainly drawn from my direct experience with the radfem community from within. I am not relying on critics of the radical feminist ideology to tell me any of this, though they may echo similar observations.

Radical feminism, as it exists today in action and not in theories from the 1990s, has a huge problem with transphobia, homophobia, and racism. The focus has shifted almost entirely from protecting women to attacking trans women, understandable on some level but counter-productive to all but the individual ego. There is a preoccupation with what women are “allowed” to do, rather than whether their actions and the consequences of those actions actually benefit the cause of anti-sexism. People feel entitled to be nasty, hurtful and even downright transphobic and homophobic if it means hurting their “enemies” somehow. I’m not sure if they fail to see the big picture or have just given up on caring, but it makes all their pleas for compassion and an end to the trans community’s homophobia seem pretty disingenuous.

This focus on “women deserve more as reparations”, when self-applied to the individual, does nothing to combat sexism as these self serving actions often do little to stop sexism and everything to benefit the individual currently existing within a sexist system. It totally ignores the vital role women play in perpetrating sexism through the generations, from mother to daughter or sister or sister or peer to peer through an intricate web of social pressures.Its not totally ignored mind you, but it is conveniently unaddressed whenever addressing it would prevent them from acting aggressive and toxic toward someone else. However others in the community who aren’t personally benefitting from this at the time will notice, thus leading to endless pointless arguments as the egos clash.

This hypocrisy undermines all attempts at broadening their reach to a new generation of women. Similarly, this toxic attitude undermines all opportunity for organization and real activism which requires a certain level of tolerance and the ability to give basic respect to those you don’t like or agree with. All those who do not tolerate such behavior will simply assume radical feminism must be a hate movement because all they see is vitriol and toxicity, no matter how justified the perpetrator feels about it or the underlying motivators. They will not take the time to read theory because they’ve already seen the practice and they have the sense to know it’s bad. Then when these newcomers see this bad behavior for what it is, they’re belittled or deprived of their agency for their decision to turn away from your movement, called things like “handmaidens” and accused of being either selfishly misogynistic or plainly brainwashed, driving them ever further away. The refusal to take responsibility for your own image and the consequences of your behavior under some false impression of ideological purity justifying it only further cements this takeaway outsiders have.

The most egregious example that comes to mind is the “queers” issue. Radfems are adamant about queer being slur, and they’re right. I myself grew up having queer flung at me by violent straight men and I’m not even that old. I feel no joy in the sanitation and generalization of the term. That is not reclamation, that is erasure and appropriation of pain. Most radfems agree on this wholeheartedly. That is, until you decide to spell it “kweer” and start flinging it at trans people who fit a particular homophobic stereotype: strange appearances, unorthodox body modifications like piercing and colored hair, unwashed, perverted to the point of being predatory, self important children who are just playing pretend to be different. All these qualities call back to the stereotype of queers, gays, and it is deeply intrenched in homophobia going back generations. And yet, while radfems would condemn the trans community for the appropriation of queer and its homophobic implications, they have no problem employing it as a slur when it suits their own toxic impulses.

Some even seem to believe that misspelling the word or being homosexual themselves absolves this. It does not. Anybody without the blinders of radfem internal rhetoric will quickly see past this nonsense. If the trans community came back and started calling radfems “diques” and associating the term with severely lesbophobic stereotypes like being unwashed or too ugly to get a man or any of the other countless stereotypes around the slur “dyke”, radfems would be rightly livid. Making a point to only target straight radfems with this insult would not make it any different. But addressing these kinds of hypocritical positions has become a taboo within the radfem community, yet another spark to relight the fires of senseless infighting.

This is the worst example I’ve personally seen, but it is not the only one. There’s also the tendency for radfems, desperate for others who are gender critical to connect with, to make alliances with right wing conservatives despite their racism and homophobia simply because they’re also transphobic but for completely different reasons. And also a tendency to be much more forgiving of misogyny coming from these new “allies” that will glady destroy you too once trans people are out of the way. But I will not labor my point any further by bringing up everything all at once. Regardless, for those who harp on and on about getting to the root of the problem, the moment anyone suggests you try getting to the root of your own problems, taking accountability and making changes, all that self-righteous posturing seems to go out the window just like it does in the trans community. You’ve become a reflection of what you hate in an attempt to combat it, and it will be the death of your movement if you don’t make a serious effort to reform these behaviors and distance yourself from those who employ these forms of rhetoric.

It’s a harsh fact, but the world at large does not care what you deserve, just like sexual biology doesn’t care about your personal feelings about your sex. It just doesn’t. That’s why patriarchy exists in the first place. It is your job as a social movement to use your words and actions to convince them to care. That is what the trans community has managed to do successfully, in my opinion often for the wrong reasons but successfully nonetheless, but such things do not stroke the ego of the individual radfem and therefore simply doesn’t happen in an organized, ideology-wide manner. Small islands of rational stand isolated in a sea of this pointless vitriol, and alone they are hopeless against the attacks against radical feminism born from the trans community and their sex denial that leads to egregious misogyny.

Conclusion

When it comes to the underlying theory, the ideological core, I find that radical feminism has the best chance of growing to become a social movement for genuinely good change in the world, particularly for women and women-loving-women specifically. Trans ideology, in my opinion, is inherently flawed as its core tenants require faith in what one cannot prove and a rejection of science that doesn’t support said faith.

Trans ideology as it exists in 2020 is more akin to religion than science, and has proven its capability to do harm through its use of magical thinking and distorted points of view that constantly shift and change to make space for the core trans ideology to be “correct”. Core ideas such as: sex is either fake or less relevant than gender, that gender is an objective fact of the human psyche, that others failing to fix your own poor mental health are responsible for your harm or death, that transition is always a good idea if someone wants it and no gatekeeping should be performed regarding using plastic surgery to treat mental discomforts, and so on. Remove all these ideas, and the whole thing falls apart.

Meanwhile, removing the toxicity of the radfem community as it exists now will not destroy its underlying core beliefs. Its just that the current people who advertise themselves as radfems and take up that mantle do not actually follow the core ideology of their own movement when it doesn’t benefit them. It has been infiltrated and run amok with bad faith actors who abuse the movement for personal gain, whether they are aware of it or not. And with their combination of being excessively vocal and lacking any shame for their misdeeds, more and more are drawn into their toxic games to the point that the ones who actually speak to the spirit of the core theory get drowned out or attacked to the point none will associate with them openly. The ones who actually know the theory and practice it end up effectively shunned from a community that widely hasn’t even read the theory and thinks hating trans people and thinking pussy = superior makes them a radfem. And thus, by allowing this, that is what radical feminism has become in practice. No amount of appealing to that core philosophy will matter if the actual people don’t apply that theory properly.

So my conclusion? Radical feminism has the greatest potential for good, but it is grossly unrealized and will remain that way without radical internal changes. However, if anyone is equipped to get to the root of the problem and make a radical change it should be radfems. Or at least, the good faith radfems who aren’t abusing the movement, of which I’m convinced have become the minority of radfems in the present day. Perhaps it is time for feminism to once again branch off, not to try returning to the 2nd wave but to set the stage for a true 4th wave as many have talked about. A 4th wave that is based on the foundations set by 2nd wave feminist thinkers, but forward thinking, self-critiquing, and not limited by the hangups of the last wave. I guess only time will tell what radfems value more: their egos in attachment to the idea of identifying as a radfem, or the effective dis-empowerment of patriarchy through organized effort at the expense of satisfying your personal vendettas against all men.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>'Isn't the amount of trans people estimated at about 1% or lower?'- I'm sorry, i burst out laughing here. 'The percentage of redheads with freckles is 80%' 'bUt oNlY oNe pErCeNt Of pEoPle HaVe ReD hAiR'.

So, no actual counterargument, just some sort of bizarre analogy and cognitive dissonance.

My point was "if you think X% of a group is a negligible amount, does that also apply to trans people themselves? Did you make up that standard just for ideological convenience?"

You know, exactly what AAB kept trying to do to Tora.

>'people shouldn't rush into marriage and shouldn't get divorced as easily'- so do you also believe that people should not get into marriage for at least 2 years of conversation on whether you want to date that person, then several years of dating that person before being GOVERMENTALLY ALLOWED to marry? And do you believe that detransitioners should also have to wait 2 years to be allowed to detransition.

I'm sorry, you seem to be confused.

I am talking about other people's views. I am explicitly talking about other people's views. You deliberately left out the part of the sentence that says I was talking about other people's views.

I'm not going to defend other people's views.

My point was the attempted "gotcha" quite possibly displays a remarkable amount of ignorance of who opposes puberty blockers/transitioning kids. Which is often traditionalist conservatives.

Of course, I'm not sure, and can't prove that, which is why I specifically said "I suspect".

>'and b) people who are against tattoos.'- are you against tattoos?

You just keep trying to make personal attacks. This is a bad habit!

>Proposing government checks and balances on permeant, irreversible medical procedures is authoritarian now.'- Applying mandatory 2 years of therapy advising against a medical procedure even if you believe it is necessary is in fact authoritarian. Do you believe there should be 2 years for marriage, pregnancy, vasectomies, birth control etc? Birth control can cause serious long term impacts, people thus should only be allowed to use them with goverment permission /s

It is absolutely astounding how you think repeating the same arguments and attempted gotchas I'm disagreeing with - just with extra words and passive-aggressiveness - is a good tactic.

Also, birth control needs to have FDA approval in America. It's already government approved. The first non-prescription OTC birth control was approved as recently as July 2023.

So it's been exclusively prescription for longer than I've been alive.

>'It's amazing how so many people will go, "lifelong gender dysphoria and feeling like your body doesn't match who you are isn't so bad, actually" when it comes to "detrans" folks.'- Nope, its still bad. But one way there is a choice. You should be allowed to make a choice about your body even if there is a small chance you will regret it.

I have seen lots of people hand-wave away detrans people's entire existence, or act like it's just a minor inconvenience.

Suddenly claiming to care - and then immediately downplaying it - after criticism against your team for not caring, seems...a tad insincere.

Also, societies regularly keeps kids and adults from doing things which have only a small chance of hurting them. Because we don't just care about chances, we care about the severity of the hypothetical damage.

I doubt your stance is out of some high-minded libertarian ideal, instead of ideological convenience.

>Here you go. Prove it wrong.

No. The request for proof was still nakedly hypocritcal, at best. Providing "proof" now does not change that.

And why should I bother wasting more effort on someone who didn't have the guts to actually respond to my post directly?

(This is the part where you accuse me of hypocrisy, even though I wasn't pretending AAB would actually see that post.)

Just a reminder of every time I rant about 2 years or more of therapy before being able to even take hormones. And I'm not talking affirming therapy. I'm talking you cause and adversarial therapy. (Not aggressive, just not mindless agreement)

Because how many more people will have to destroy their bodies until we actual act like a civilized society and put barriers in place to stop people from rushing shit like this. I believe in an age of consent yes. But mental disorders, trauma, and hell even manipulation affect adults too. As does large scale peer pressure. Imagine hearing all the time from love activists, "OMG you'd make such a good man. Clearly that's what your were meant to be. No there's nothing wrong with you, you're just in the wind body. Of course you hate how you look, you're not the real you. Just take hormones and get the surgeries you'll feel so much better".

Then you look online and you see, "perfectly safe" non stop. And, "OMG the rush of endorphins from the T, I felt better instantly". Umm yeah. Because it's like taking drugs. And it wears off. Otherwise guys would be a bundle of sunshine and rainbows. We aren't. The suicide rates are proof of that.

[umbraja]

Screaming into the Void

I write for half an hour almost every morning. Not fiction. More like a transcription of the conversations I have with myself trying to untangle whatever pressing thoughts kept me up that night. I do this because I’ve learned the hard way that people don’t want to hear what’s in my head. Or at least the ones I talk to are tired of hearing it. Unfortunately talking about it makes me feel better. It helps me process and make sense of this absurd world we all live in. So I write instead.

If I could afford a therapist I’m pretty sure she would say that’s a good thing. Healthy coping mechanism. Therapists like it when people write about their thoughts. Journaling helps get ideas out, forces you to slow down enough to actually think about them, and being written down can help you remember it later. I get that. Journaling really is good therapy and I recommend it for everyone.

I just find it hard to understand why people don’t like talking about the things in my journal. But then I also don’t understand why people do most of what they do. I am Autistic so I don’t really get “normal” things.

“I’ve spent a lifetime being told to shut up”

My journal isn’t normal either. It’s not full of hopes, dreams, or even nightmares. It rarely talks about myself or my day and then only to exemplify a broader subject. Its entries are not addressed “Dear Diary” or to my future self or even some imaginary friend. The intended audience is most often all of humanity, or at least America. It reads like a collection of academic papers or editorials on a wide range of topics. I often end up doing research for these articles, as if they might someday be published in a very strange magazine.

But they never will be. I’ve been convinced that no one wants to hear what I’m trying to say. I’ve spent a lifetime being told to shut up about it. Stop being so paranoid/alarmist/negative. It’s rude to point that out. Or my favorite - No one cares about that. So I go through life observing patterns, taking note of things that normal people are too busy or afraid to see. And I do nothing with it.

Part of me hates that. The part that hasn’t given up yet. I really think it could do some good if people would just listen to what I have to say once in a while. Not that any of it is revolutionary. I’m no genius. It’s probably all been said a dozen times by people smarter than me. But good ideas bear repeating and it wouldn’t hurt to hear them again. Especially with all the bad ideas going around these days.

“Does anyone out there want to listen?”

This will probably go nowhere. I’m just screaming into the void after all. But I wonder - does anyone out there want to listen? So I’m writing today, for a lot more than half an hour, to ask anyone who sees this if they want to read my journal. Most of it’s not even finished. I usually give up once the crushing reality that no one cares starts to outweigh my need for connection. But if anyone is interested I will gladly finish whatever article they would like to read and publish it here for the world to see.

Pick an Article and I’ll Post It:

2020: Vindication for Losing My Mind in 2016

How to Find Meaning in a World That Doesn’t Make Sense

Apparently Making Everyone Live My Lifestyle Collapses the Economy

Workplace Inequality: I’ve Hit the Autistic Glass Ceiling

The Importance of Art in Civilization: Unifying Self Expression

How to Make CBD at Home and Why it May not be Legal

The Pandemic Showed Me How Stressful Being Normal Really Is

I Hated Social Media Before it Was Cool

Generational Poverty: the Engine of Systemic Racism

Sorry State of Women’s Health: Endometriosis Sucks

Historiography of the End of Civilization: from Sumeria to Us

How to Fix American Schools: Respect Different Intelligences

How Branding Made Zoom a Household Name though Discord is Objectively Better

When Were We Great? History of American Exceptionalism

Aquaponics: Making Fish Feed the World

That’s the Way it Is: Abuse, Neglect, and ASD

Copyright Paradox: Supporting Artists while Stifling Creativity

How to Fix Capitalism: Recipes for Eating the Rich

The Relationship Cycle: Why I Can’t Keep Friends

American Politics: Eerily Similar to Divorced Parents

My Father the Man-child: Growing up with a Narcissist

The World Would be a Better Place if Liberals Understood Branding

Body Hair Positivity: Good or Gross?

Rose Colored Glasses Prevent Migraines - Not a Metaphor

OK Boomer: Explaining to My Parents How Much Easier They Have It

When Fanworks Were Mainstream and How That Changed

What’s Wrong with Academia and How to Fix It

Being Moderate in America: So I’m a Liberal Now?

Conservative Hypocrisy: Quantity over Quality of Life

Liberal Idiocy: Being Right Doesn’t Win the Fight

Conservative Hypocrisy: Law and Order not Protect and Serve

Liberal Idiocy: It’s Hard to be Woke When You’re Poor

Conservative Hypocrisy: What Would Jesus Really Say about America?

Liberal Idiocy: Slactivism’s False Sense of Accomplishment

Conservative Hypocrisy: How to Sneak Facism into a Democracy

Liberal Idiocy: One Size Does Not Fit All

Conservative Idiocy: Private Gun Owner vs the US Military

Liberal Hypocrisy: Social Justice Warriors

Perceived Reality: We Really Do Live in Different Worlds

Standing Still: Paralyzed by Emotional Shutdown

American Sheeple: Generations of Domestication

Depression. It’s a Lifestyle.

How to Survive in a World That Doesn’t Want You

Leave a comment to let me know what you'd like to read. If anything.