#im sure in their actual life they tolerate those ppl better but for me it was just a step too far

[britneyshakespeare]

Sorry I can't stop talking about that ex-mutual who went off on me last night (well really I only made that one, really long and rambly, pretty over-repetitive post about it) but it's been like just running through my mind because of how hurtful that was from someone that on some level I did consider a friend. Not like a close friend who knows everything about me, in fact as I stated to exhaustion in that post I made earlier, the part that really got me was how much they were illustrating that they DON'T really know about me, how much they just ASSUME without ever having heard or seen confirmation from myself. And how unkind those assumptions were. But I did like them (do? I still have sympathy for them as a person and don't wish them any ill...). I cherished the thought of our online friendship we shared around the time I was 18-20ish or so, and even if we never kept in constant conversation (in fact, before I replied to their message last night, we hadn't chatted through DM since early 2021, if that's saying something). I'm sure they still did/do feel that way about me and this isn't easy on them, that they feel hurt by my posts in some way, etc. I did not go on a rant to them, though, attacking their moral character, calling them a coward who can't take criticism and refuses to learn and grow. I told them I think it's ok if we grow apart and though I still hold my differing opinions from them, it's ok to be upset at me for that. But don't bring it to me.

I would've seriously just preferred it if they unfollowed and left. All I keep thinking about these past couple of hours of marinating on it is: entitlement. I've crossed a line because I don't post about issues in the way they would like me to, and ultimately I still will be voting for Kamala Harris. They maintained that much very firmly even after I replied to their first message saying that they were putting a bunch of words in my mouth and not acknowledging how little they actually know about my views and actions in the real world, off of Tumblr; that I might have ways of caring about and engaging with things that are specifically not on my personal blog because of how toxic some zealous communities on this website can grow to be. They still felt the need to attack me at length for all the things I, in their opinion, "support" because I choose to vote for "a fascist" (meaning Harris). Their opinion that both sides are truly the same is the only logical answer and I'm not trying hard enough to be a good person if I don't agree with that. But that's what makes them presumptuous. That's not what makes them entitled.

I feel like the fact that they really did think well of me at one point, that we shared emotions and kind words with each other, that we talked about music and poetry and all sorts of matters of sensibility together, is why they felt the need to bring that to me. When we feel an attachment to someone, even someone we may be lacking a lot of information about, but there's that mutual sympathy there... we feel that we are invested in them. They (and I) felt that the two of us, as friends, reflected each other's values and sense of self. To be honest I was getting annoyed at some of their posts, too, that were basically fatalist about the US Democratic party and how nothing has ever actually changed since Tr mp left office. I simply don't agree with that analysis, and I didn't know how to sensitively bring that up with someone who I did respect and care for as an individual. They were asserting things that basically implied our views were irreconcilable; and yeah, I basically agree that if you're going to call me essentially a g n cide apologist, I don't really know how to reconcile that with you. I don't think that's what I am; they do. They discussed that because they felt that way they were no longer open to a dialogue (one which I never had brought up to them personally) in their reply to my response to their ask, and blocked me afterward. Well, I think it's ok to not be open to a dialogue. In that case, I really don't know how to defend myself. We're on two entirely different levels of interpretation if mild support of Kamala Harris's presidential campaign is seen as akin to me denying g n cide to you. If that's the angle you're approaching me with, I don't want to have a dialogue with you, either. I don't think one in good faith is possible at that point.

They got angry at me though not just for my differing opinion, but for the disappointment they felt in me for it. I ruined the Diana they had so much respect for. Their initial message reminded me so much of when fans hound celebrities to speak on particular issues they may not know anything about. But at least if you're, like, asking the lead singer of your favorite band to speak about a currently topical issue, you probably are falling back on the argument of thinking they have a higher status to their audience that they're neglecting to use for good. Or maybe they've seemed to do and say things in the past that make their current silence seem hypocritical. I don't particularly agree with the former argument, that every celebrity should use their "platform" to raise awareness for certain causes. There are some times when I think calling on a celebrity to speak on this or that specific thing is just kind of silly. I tend not to proclaim instances where I feel that way publicly, because I don't want to trivialize the issue or the fans' feelings. But there's also the parasocial hurt I've seen some people display when they suddenly interpret a person's silence, or (in their perception) 'inadequate' statements and actions, as genuine indifference. That tends to make fans actually angry, the disappointment that this person they admire could be 'doing better' but isn't. I was told by this person that I'm 'not even trying to do better' when we had never had a conversation about what I'm actually 'doing' or thinking or feeling, even a single time. They let their impression of me fester in silent resentment before finally snapping at me about all the things I never actually said to them.

I'm sure they felt like they had reached their limit of tolerating me, and reaching out was only so they could feel like they had some closure. That they had said their piece to a person they cared about but could no longer associate with. I don't think they actually considered what use their message would actually have to me. That it would be hurtful to be accused of all these moral failings by someone I used to just talk about Jane Austen books with. Someone I shared my poetry and feelings with when I was younger. They must have been feeling 'betrayed' at me for not living up to the expectations and standards they set for me, for not being the idealized friend that I must've seemed when we were in our late teen years. But I am feeling shock and confusion at the sudden void of sympathy or benefit of the doubt being directed towards me from someone I once mutually regarded somewhat highly and rather affectionately.

It didn't have to have been a deep friendship, where we shared all aspects of our life with each other, for this to be hurtful to me or for my words to have been hurtful to them. I'm sure they felt so angry at me because they do think I'm a smart and sympathetic person that they expect 'better' from. But I'm really not your confirmation bias friend. None of the sweet but somewhat shallow memories they once respected me for has to be null and void now because I'm not sufficiently radical in my politics for them. And again, I do think that they were under the impression that they knew my current thoughts and personal philosophies a lot better than they do, because of how much more of an open book I used to be on this website when we first started following each other. I never made some announcement that I was going to start being more reserved about certain things, guys, so, like, don't act like you know everything about me. Because should I have to? I don't have a "platform" or really any meaningful social status on this website. But they still thought I wasn't doing "enough" with it because they interpret my blog as being more intrinsically linked to my actual life than it is. My social status to them was the good opinion they had of me, that I soiled by disagreeing with them in principle about electoral politics.

I'm not less smart or kind than I used to be. That's really not how I make sense of people I mostly like, but who have done or said something I deplore and that disappoints me deeply. You don't have to abandon all faith in the individuals you love. People do not always make sense with your own moral compass, but you can still tell when they're not evil. And I don't think they think I'm evil. I don't think they're evil. None of the sympathy I ever had for them is gone. I'm just honestly hurt and confused. I don't understand why they thought it was appropriate to take up their issues with me in the way that they did.

And again, in every single timeline, I would rather have just been disappointed to see that a once-respected mutual has unfollowed me, after some years of growing apart and changing, than I would to be hurt by someone dramatically going off on me about how they can't be friends with me anymore because I'm just not good enough for them.

[lacunasbalustrade]

what are your general thoughts on queer(gay n trans n all) people? like you dont seem to be against gay ppl from what i can see but i also see that you've like never really openly said something pro or against trans ppl. sorry if its out of the blue im just curious esp seeing your pov as a religious person who has trans mutuals/follows n all bcuz i (unfortunately) know plenty of christians that know trans people but only tolerate them instead of accepting them (which usually means they misgender/deadname them)

hi! I'm happy to answer your question - it's a bit controversial, though, and a sensitive topic for everyone, so I do ask for your understanding if anything I say happens to offend you.

as a Christian, I believe in the stance the Bible puts forth: that BEING gay is not a life choice, it's an inclination that came forth due to the presence of sin in the world. the continuation, however, of this choice, is a sin.

To quote so no one thinks I'm speaking out of some random, bibically incorrect bigotry, Romans 1: 24 NIV "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another." ,Romans 1: 26 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones." , Romans 1: 27 "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

obviously my faith and beliefs should not be forced on unbelievers. I am not any holier than anyone else because I am straight. I am every bit as sinful because it's impossible to avoid committing sin.

so if I'm going to sum it up, it's best said as: none of my business because Who Am I to tell you how to live, right? you're my friends and 'preaching' isn't actually loving. the best form of loving others as a Christian is to accept them as a person before judging based on whatever life choices they've made or pronouns they call themselves. which brings me into the next part!

theologically, I have to admit I'M NOT VERY SURE about trans people. I genuinely cannot find many sources of literature on the topic. There are intersex people, there are people with gender dysphoria. The Bible doesn't talk much about those, enough to give any real objections anyway. To talk about my beliefs based off the context, if God made you as you are, you shouldn't be trying to change you...is the logic, but again, no reason to force biblical beliefs on unbelievers.

I do disapprove of the extent to which some trans people have taken this schtick. I've seen posts saying 'oh if kids can play soccer and do ballet which messes them up for life, they can also do trans surgeries!' I'm sorry. That just doesn't make sense. WHY would anyone want kids to have permission to do Very Risky Things when they are small enough to not know better or make informed choices? And I also know many posts say that 'common sense', kids aren't gonna do those things till they're old enough to feel like they need to do them....those posters need to remember the last time they regretted doing something as a child. Common sense can't be relied upon in my experience.

Plus, given the kidnapping laws in the U.S which basically allow children to be taken away from their parents if their parents disapprove...lol yeah now make a law where my child can be taken away from me if I'm not in the same fandom as them. It can be hurtful to receive dissent on your life choices, but that don't mean up and leaving is the solution, unless the living situation is physically dangerous in some way or you are an actual adult. Children are not trustworthy indicators of whether or not a parent is problematic. And I'm saying this having had problematic parents myself - sometimes we are part of the problem. And if it's difficult, you should still try not to give up on them.

This might be the most important part: I'm wondering whether the gender stereotypes placed on girls and boys are the markers trans people want to overcome. Because from what I've researched, there are two different camps. 1: people who admit that they are biologically whatever sex they were born, and just enjoy dressing like and passing for the other sex because it makes them more comfortable. 2: people who actually believe they are the other sex because they feel that way and they are only effectively realizing that change to their 'authentic' self by transitioning.

I don't believe in gender stereotyping. Like, girls wear skirts boys wear pants. Boys can't wear pink etc etc. So the concept of a trans woman thinking they are a woman because they enjoy the markers attached to being a woman, like, for example, having long hair and wearing skirts, makes me really uncomfortable. Because that's not the whole experience of being a woman. It's only a small part of it, and it's not universal at all. And while no one can claim that ALL woman have experienced a certain set of conditions that make them woman...the only standard for BEING a woman, in my book, is to be a biological one, because it's the only defining trait. When people think of girls, I don't want them to automatically think of girls with skirts and wearing pink. I want them to acknowledge that all girls are different, and the only thing that makes them girls is the gender marker, not their conformance to 'gender norms' that have arisen from societal conditioning.

The idea that someone's feelings can be 'authentically accurate' makes me feel even more....nah. Feelings are valid but if I trusted mine all the time, I'd definitely be all over the place.

To sum it up: no problems with the trans behavior because I'm not into forcing biblical perspectives on y'all. But I definitely have a problem with the idealogy and the legislature.

dead name, misgendering wise...I believe people should be called whatever they want to be called unless it makes the other person uncomfortable. In which case the other person should just stop interacting with them since they're so uncomfortable. (E.g you want me to call you Baby Chicken. For some reason I have a problem with it. Maybe I have a strong fear of chickens.)

Basically I respect your life choices. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk haha.