#in a non-binary sort of way

[sinead-smith-3]

Guys, I need you to understand something. As a lesbian, I am not attracted to Loki Odinson, second prince of Asgard. I want to BE Loki Odinson, second prince of Asgard.

[pookapufferfish]

Just saw a post that was really weird about trans people and had a bunch of people attacking each other in the replies. For just people wanting to exist as a gender they want??? (And something about trans men being against feminism?? patriarchy stuff??)

I don't know. I don't look at conflict and stuff like that usually. Do what y'all want, have funky genders, respect others. I support y'all

My blog is inclusive of you guys. I understand how happy expressing yourself is. I got my name changed a few months ago and I am the happiest I have ever been

If you are against trans men, or trans women, or non-binary people, or people with weird pronouns, or anyone, then you can leave my blog

I am not gonna fight about gender with people, I will explain or answer any random questions about my personal experience as a trans man but I will not fight people

[mad-hunts]

the thing about barton and his own 'foil' as she should technically be considered, as she is technically the complete opposite of him in every way that matters, is that sumire [ whom i have talked about a few times on here, albeit briefly, so i will give you a brief refresher on her and that is that... her character eventually commits these killings based on the twelve main tarot cards in a deck based on them not fitting her idea of what 'perfect' looks like (kind of like barton BUT much different at the same time) ] and barton used to know each other as they were best friends as kids — even if it was only for a few years.

and as strange as this may sound, a broken promise between them was partially the catalyst behind what started her descent into feeling this need to 'judge' people, which is quite the coincidence as it may seem. because where do most of her victims end up dying? in these settings where she has set up these 'mock trials' for people. so, i know that i said i would talk about how barton had inadvertently created a monster a longgg time ago, but i now am sharing it with you all. because although one cannot blame barton fully for her actions as sumire, of course, has to take responsibility for them herself; but this did play a part in being a catalyst for her feeling all of this resentment and hatred for the world / people around her that led up to her first murder.

which, as you might have it, was the chariot: a tarot card that symbolizes revenge, willpower, and essentially tries to subconsciously put off this message that you are moving in the 'right direction.' i don't think it's so much just the promise itself though that makes this important — it's also that barton himself essentially forgot about the promise he made to sumire, as terrible as that may sound. it actually kind of gives you more insight as to what was going on in barton's mind as a kid because he basically made sumire promise him this: that, if he ever got on the 'wrong path,' that sumire would be there to show him a better one. and that she would attempt to reconnect with him if they ever got separated somehow / give him a sign of some kind that she was still there, so he could meet her.

and i say that this provides more insight because i haven't really gone into depth about this, but barton has expressed this idea in one roleplay on here. + that is that he didn't want to end up like this. however, regardless of that statement, there is no washing away of all of the heinous things he's done and he chose to do them anyway. i'm just thinking about how messed up it is that sumire, up until the point where she started her murders, had casually been searching for barton because the way in which his victims were found was vaguely remiscent of the way that wesley used to kill his victims. + this meant that he was definitely on the wrong path and she would eventually end up on the wrong one too.

[pikachu-deluxe]

would be nice if i could look at myself in the mirror and be able to say i'm looking at me

[paging-possum]

3.5 hours of sleep does crazy things to ones brain and by that I mean. Murderbot gender thoughts

[6mayhem]

identified a little too hard with shion no.6 at age 13 and became what i am now

[3gremlins]

omg mary kirby confirming that she intended lucanis* to be ace - between that and bg3's astarion (and my real actual partner), just cements my apparent fatal flaw of being a deeply horny not at all ace person who is constantly attracted to ace people first thing right out of the gate like "yes that one!!" like a cat that just wants only to sit on people who are deeply allergic to it XD (i'm so sorry you guys T.T) *and maybe bellara too? my 2nd romance plan lol

[brick-van-dyke]

Unfortunately, I am thinking again and am reminded again how heterosexual TERF women continually steal shit from lesbians and try to erase butches because they hate them so goddamn much. ESPECIALLY he/him butches and queer women and non binary dykes. Hell, even bisexual women, non binary people and he/him folks who are dykes in some way or another.

In fact, as a bisexual bigender trans man dyke, this'd be me. For real, we were here before you all decided to be offended by lesbians who dare to even use a strap because that scares you! Or call themselves men! And no not "because of safety reasons" but because we've always done it and still do it regardless. Because it's part of who some of us are. We have loved tits, pussy, straps (plastic or bio) way before you all decided to use lesbian to mean "we hate men". It's the "we fucking love women and wanna kiss women" club. It's not hard, lesbian means we kissy kissy women in a way the hettys don't like.

Because they think only gender roles abiding men can kiss gender roles abiding women and anything that's different is a sin or yucky, that's what offends them! That's why when lesbians are a femme that looks very feminine and womanly and such OR a butch that looks like a man people get pissed. That's why a woman with a beard makes people pissed. That's why a man who has breasts who kisses women makes people pissed. Because it denies all the gender roles that are defied here. It doesn't matter if a woman has a pussy or a dick, because it's already against the damn rules if she kisses girls and no one's gonna care when they call her a sinner like the rest of us.

They don't care that I'm a dude who looks cis, because I act too feminine, yet dress masculine and androgynous, and I have breasts and a pussy and like people with breast and a pussy as well to boot plus I like men and that's all against the bloody rules so I'm a freak of nature them who they want to legislate against. Hell, even in the community (esp among people who refuse to learn what older queers have lived through or anything about our history) being non binary to the point you aren't able to fit cleanly in any single clean label makes you really easy to hate. It doesn't matter that my love of women and my love of men makes me hated as a man who loves men and a woman-like person who likes women, because god forbid I call myself a dyke because my gender relates deeply to being a he/him butch. And the thing is, we've always been around since always but people get pissed when things aren't neat, tidy and easy to digest for their convenience and personal ease. When our existence is actually broad and vague, that makes people puzzled and scared, despite us all being fluid as people. It's our species whole thing to not be consistent or always the same or easy to understand. We're complex. But I digress...

There's just so much to this I could delve into but the biggest thing here is that regardless of what TERFs think, so much of it is borrowed from queers. So much is just stolen shit they rebranded and repurposed but made for hets. So much of feminism was built from queers, hell, from gay men. So much of feminism was built from lesbians and bisexuals and trans people. So much of the terms that TERFs use and the rights they have were built off our backs and now we're the fucking enemy? Lmao okay. Who do you think helped you all fight against abusive cis men? Not cis men saying you all need to join up with their anti trans groups that for sure. It was the gay men who look down on and lesbians you all call predatory and the drag queens who pushed to normalise the idea that femininity isn't just for women but men and, for you all, that it doesn't define a woman. Who stood by you all this entire time? And now we're all expendable, us queers.

And hey, we don't want you in feminist circles either since you've all proven yourselves to be sexist as hell. But I'm still pissed that so much of queer culture and our efforts have been used, borrowed, taken for granted and repeated as if it came from you all when a lot of it came from us. Like, sweetie, no. You all really think heterosexual women built feminism without us? You all think when you say "all men are gross perverts to women" you're not realising you're forgetting the gay men who aren't fucking attracted to women and have been treated like shit for being attracted to men? You think banning drag queens are some sort of thanks to all the times they've pushed against the idea that dresses must only be worn by women and pants can only be worn by men? Are you all fucking kidding me?

Everything about TERFs are borrowed and stolen, but hey, can't be surprised. It's the same for all bigots, they're never original aren't they?

[lvicevlk]

MLC questions because my memory is failing me

A) Does anyone know if there was ever an in story reason given for why Di Feisheng doesn't kill women?

B) I vaguely recall seeing/hearing that Di Feisheng was also poisoned in the battle 10 years back but I can't recall where or when I did, can anyone point me in that direction?

C) I cannot for the life of me remember if we were given any information at all about the third of the Three Kings. Did I just completely blank on this or did they really give us nothing?

[iceslushii]

hm

[inkskinned]

probably time for this story i guess but when i was a kid there was a summer that my brother was really into making smoothies and milkshakes. part of this was that we didn't have AC and couldn't afford to run fans all day so it was kind of important to get good at making Cool Down Concoctions.

we also had a patch of mint, and he had two impressionable little sisters who had the attitude of "fuck it, might as well."

at one point, for fun, this 16 year old boy with a dream in his eye and scientific fervor in heart just wanted to see how far one could push the idea of "vanilla mint smoothie". how much vanilla extract and how much mint can go into a blender before it truly is inedible.

the answer is 3 cups of vanilla extract, 1/2 cup milk alternative, and about 50 sprigs (not leaves, whole spring) of mint. add ice and the courage of a child. idk, it was summer and we were bored.

the word i would use to describe the feeling of drinking it would maybe be "violent" or perhaps, like. "triangular." my nose felt pristine. inhaling following the first sip was like trying to sculpt a new face. i was ensconced in a mesh of horror. it was something beyond taste. for years after, i assumed those commercials that said "this is how it feels to chew five gum" were referencing the exact experience of this singular viscous smoothie.

what's worse is that we knew our mother would hate that we wasted so much vanilla extract. so we had to make it worth it. we had to actually finish the drink. it wasn't "wasting" it if we actually drank it, right? we huddled around outside in the blistering sun, gagging and passing around a single green potion, shivering with disgust. each sip was transcendent, but in a sort of non-euclidean way. i think this is where i lost my binary gender. it eroded certain parts of me in an acidic gut ecology collapse.

here's the thing about love and trust: the next day my brother made a different shake, and i drank it without complaint. it's been like 15 years. he's now a genuinely skilled cook. sometimes one of the three of us will fuck up in the kitchen or find something horrible or make a terrible smoothie mistake and then we pass it to each other, single potion bottle, and we say try it it's delicious. it always smells disgusting. and then, cerimonious, we drink it together. because that's what family does.

[lilyveselka]

How To Shut Up A Woman In Three Steps: The Transmisogynist's Guide

I - Her Tone

This is, by far, the easiest tool to wield effectively against a trans woman. If she is short in her responses, then you can accuse her of harassment and unwarranted anger; if she outright blocks you then you can simply claim that she only cares about her small-minded internet echo chamber; and if she engages with you at any length then you can quite easily nitpick her language and tone until she is thoroughly discredited.

Even better, she will most certainly become annoyed with you - in this scenario, all you have to do is argue that she is aggressive, hysterical, and quite likely a danger to society, and you will be believed by a great many people. This is, of course, because the trans woman's natural position is as a fundamental danger to society. Therefore, it takes very little convincing for an onlooker to come to that selfsame conclusion with some prompting. They may not even be aware that they are falling victim to their own inherent transmisogynistic bias, which is why this approach is quite beautiful in its simplicity! For those who don't immediately believe you, you can easily dismiss them as brainwashed idiots, syncophants, or both.

To drive your point home, call her a terf, a radfem, or a baeddel. If she has ever, in anger, spoken poorly of cis queers, or even better of transmascs, then this will become trivial to argue. Tell her that she is the problem, that she is contributing to community infighting, and that she should really be trying harder to work on this whole "trans unity" thing. Blame all oppression on her. For bonus points, when you tell her that she is dividing the community, you can also throw in the idea that should be making out with you instead of arguing. (This is, of course, because women primarily belong as sex objects to men, and if she would stop having so many opinions then perhaps she would understand this better.)

II - Her Privilege

This is an expanded version of the former tactic, because it requires a certain level of delicacy in the wording you use. However, people react quite strongly to the language of privilege, irrespective of whether that language reflects a material reality, and therefore this is a fantastic way to make a woman stop whining.

I would advise you to check if the woman is white; if she is, then you can easily accuse her of weaponizing her whiteness. (N.B. If she has not stated her race publicly, or if you can't be bothered to check, then this accusation will still work - if she is actually a woman of color, you may very easily claim that you were making a statement about white trans women in general. Further, it is not necessary for you yourself to be a person of color; as long as you position her as uniquely privileged in her whiteness, your own whiteness will remain irrelevant.)

In a similar bent, it is always quite possible for you to dismiss her theory as being "white." Always posit that she is championing a sort of wealthy white woman's privilege, always claim that transfeminism is at its core non-intersectional, and always claim that transfeminist theory in its entirety was created by the white woman - in this way, you may mark her as a privileged white bitch regardless of her race, national origin, or identity. (Under no circumstances should you mention or acknowledge the existence of trans women of color, as this immediately disarms your rhetorical weapon. In fact, if she brings up trans women of color, it is most necessary for you to claim that she is co-opting their experiences.) If you can imply that she is a racist while doing so, then you will be even more successful.

If this fails, then there are other similar cudgels you can implement to great effect: perhaps claims of intersexism, exorsexism, or sex-based discrimination. Call her a "perisex trans woman," a "binary trans woman," an "amab trans person." Say that she is speaking over the real victims; if you must combine multiple (or all!) of these terms at once in order to make her seem like a uniquely privileged party, then do so without hesitation. If she has ever had a bad opinion, or an opinion that you might frame without context as being a bad opinion, then simply publicize that. However, in the absence of such, see rulebook as follows: if she talks only of trans women in general, then you must bring up transmasculine nonbinary people; if she talks of transfeminine nonbinary people, then you must bring up intersex people; if she talks of trans people as a whole then you ought to circle right back around to claiming that she could never understand what trans men have gone through. Never concede that, say, an intersex trans woman exists, because that will inevitably lose you rhetorical ground.

Insinuate that she is herself the oppressor, that she is regressive and small-minded. In fact, if you really wish to run circles around her, then you can easily accuse her of upholding her own oppression by arguing that she is upholding a gender binary, enforcing sex-based division in the community with her language. If she describes herself as a victim of transmisogyny, then tell her that all people can be victims of transmisogyny; if she tells you that this is inaccurate, then simply argue that she is speaking over the real victim (you).

In fact, if you misgender yourself and claim to be oppressed due to your assigned birth sex, then she will have no recourse to fight back - because we all know that she is really a male, and therefore is silencing you poor natal women, who are the true arbiters of female oppression, and the real experts on misogyny. If you intend to utilize this specific tack, then I would personally suggest you use "they/them" to refer to her, because delegitimizing her womanhood is a key component to this argument.

III - Unpersoning

If both of the above techniques have failed (unlikely!) then you may now proceed to that age-old transmisogynistic technique: weaponizing her fetishes. This can be a bit more difficult to bring up naturally, but it is a last resort that can produce some fantastic results. Ask yourself the following: Has she posted about CNC? Has she talked about siscon roleplay? Has she ever engaged in a little/caretaker dynamic? Has she ever made a forcefem joke? In order, your claim against her should be as follows: she loves rape, she loves incestuous abuse, she loves to fuck children, and she personally wants to nonconsensually detransition every transmasc because of her violent perversion. It should be quite simple to get people to turn on her. If she has ever interacted with a user who has posted any of these things, simply consider her tainted by association and dismiss her in the same manner.

This is, as previously discussed, due to her natural position as a degenerate danger to society; simply reinforce that concept wherever possible, until she is driven away from her online circle entirely. Do not outright use the word "autogynephilia," but you can certainly suggest the actual tenets of the idea to wonderful effect.

This can be implemented via statements such as, "oh, so now the incest lover is going to tell me about the oppression i experience;" however, if you would care to be more subtle, then you can set up a slow-burn whisper network to turn her friends and acquaintances against her, or dedicate years to harassing her in her comments section whenever possible.

If she has pushed you far enough that this technique has become necessary, then it is clear that she must be a hostile force in the community who ought to be removed by any means. Therefore, it falls to you to try to get her to cut herself off from everyone who might support her - this will efficiently shut her up. If you can get her to kill herself, then it will silence her permanently (and cause you to win the argument, by extension)!

Just remember: what you are doing is noble and correct, because any woman who claims that a man has power over her is one who is better off dead.

[halalchampagnesocialist]

How to spot Liberal Zionist Propaganda 101

This post is by no means exhaustive at all. There are many Liberal Zionist talking points but these are just some of the most common ones. While on the surface they seem a little naive and hopeful at best, they are very much harmful. If you claim to be an ally to Palestinians, this post is primarily for you!

For starters, liberal Zionists will often try to both-sides the issue of Palestine, talk about how it's complicated, they'll claim that the conflict hurts both Israelis and Palestinians, how the only way forward is one where Jews and Arabs "just need to get along," amongst other things. They also often like to centre themselves, even when acknowledging Palestinians as the victims of Israel or this "conflict." From time to time, they also like to engage in tokenising certain Palestinians whose views tend to more or less align with theirs. Here are some common arguments you may hear from them:

1. Any form of justifying Israel's existence or claiming that the only solution is two states

It does not really need to be said why justifying Israel's existence is harmful but justifying its continued existence also means legitimising Israel's land theft, its expulsions of Palestinians, and its ongoing harm to Palestinians and other populations. Reducing any sorts of “solutions” into a binary is unhelpful. Needless to say, a 2ss would not even address any legitimate concerns Palestinian have, such as the right of return, and would only legitimise Israel’s colonialism. Talking about a two-state solution also implies that the root of the conflict lies in Palestinians not having their own state rather than being an occupied people. It is very much also possible to construct a paradigm where Jews and Palestinians both live together on the same land as equal citizens that doesn't involve two separate states, much less an ethnostate.

2. Security for Israel could only come through peace

This is a similar talking point to the one above. Not only does it centre Israeli safety and security above Palestinian liberation but it mistakenly assumes that once Israel makes peace with Palestinians, it'll achieve security. The reality, however, is that Israel's imagined security has quite often come at the expense of peace. In fact, "peace" has just acted as nothing more than a smoke-screen for Israel to carry out its expansionist policies, particularly in the West Bank. When liberal Zionists talk about peace juxtaposed with Israeli security, they're talking about attaining a negative peace rather than a positive one.

3. Israelis are not their government.

This point does nothing to actually help Palestinians. It is also an incredibly tone-deaf thing to say when Israel has targeted many Palestinian civilians by having alleged proximity to Hamas, such as being family members of militants or leaders (inc. children!), civil servants in a Hamas-led government, or even any male above the age of 15 they consider to be a potential combatant! It also deliberately erases Israeli civilians' support of and culpability in Israel's actions towards Palestinians.

4. Netanyahu and/or the Israeli right are the source of conflict.

While it is true that things have gotten inadvertently worse under Israel's various right-wing governments, they are not the source of conflict, but rather a product of extremist nationalism and Jewish supremacy perpetuated by the system. Both the 1967 occupations and settlements were undertaken under centre-left governments in Israel, and Israeli policy under non-right wing governments has been just as harmful towards Palestinians and has paved the way for where we are today. Blaming Netanyahu just also obscures the violent nature of Israel's military occupation over Palestinians which long precede him coming into power.

5. Netanyahu and Hamas are two sides of the same coin

I don't think I've seen any allies give validity to this claim but it's an extremely reductionist claim and is sort of similar to the one above. Groups like Hamas are merely a response to the Israeli occupation while Netanyahu is a byproduct of it. While some Israelis may see Hamas or their actions as an "obstacle to peace," Israel's actions and policies long pre-date Hamas and how Israel is currently responding to Hamas is no different to how Israel has engaged with Palestinian militant groups in the past, regardless of political affiliations or political goals. It is also important to note that Hamas has agreed to the establishment of a state along 1967 borders while Netanyahu aims to prolong the occupation and empower the settler movement (some of whom are part of his coalition government) as much as possible.

6. Israel is not a settler-colonial state.

While it is indisputable that Jews have historical connections to Palestine, that doesn’t automatically make you Indigenous or negate Israeli settler-colonialism. Colonialism in particular describes a relationship of exploitation. There are many cases of this, but we most clearly see this in the West Bank where Israel exploits natural resources on occupied Palestinian territory for its own political and economic gains. In terms of settler-colonialism, it is widely known that Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to make way for Jewish refugees and migrants to the new state of Israel, and is still actively facilitating Jewish migration to Israel today while denying Palestinians their right of return.

7. (X) doesn't help Palestinians.

It is not up to anyone to determine whether certain tactics or strategies are helpful or not. This point only seeks to discredit pro-Palestine organising. Only Palestinians get to decide what is actually helpful for the cause or not.

8. Any sort of Hamas-blaming.

On the surface it may seem like there’s nothing wrong with this, but this point is often harmful and usually lends itself to right-wing talking points because its objective is to deflect blame away from Israel. Certain arguments blaming Hamas also aim to minimise Palestinian suffering perpetuated by Israel. It also paints Israeli violence as retaliatory to Palestinian violence which only obfuscates Israel’s (and by extension, the US’) role in its state military apparatus and the differing power dynamics between Israelis and Palestinians. In other contexts, this point seeks to also legitimise certain opposition, such as the Palestinian Authority. Hamas-blaming also tends to sometimes lead to racist diatribes about Palestinians and their culture.

9. Al-Jazeera is not a credible news source.

Al Jazeera is a news source like any other. It has varying editorial policies and therefore will have equally good reporting on certain issues while having terrible reporting on others. The difference is that Al-Jazeera's news on Palestine is credible because it comes directly from their Palestinian reporters on the ground and first-hand eyewitness accounts. Western news sources are no more or less credible than al-Jazeera. Compare this to CNN, NYT, and any other Western news sources where Palestinian voices are often entirely missing from the narrative.

10. Overemphasis of antisemitism on the left

Antisemitism is a real issue and has the potential to fester in left circles if not directly addressed head on. Combatting antisemitism is extremely important, however, it is not an issue exclusive to the left. There is also a double standard in that no one expects Zionists to call out Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism. Certain accusations of "antisemitism" also seek to distract from what's going on in Palestine by making it about Jewish comfort and feelings. Combatting antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism etc is always important as the basis of good politics.

Last but not least, be wary of native collaborators or any sort of normalisers! They are Palestinians or Arabs who try very hard to appeal to Western liberal consensus and can end up perpetuating a lot of harm to the cause and/or other activists. You will know them when you see them.

[lukadjo]

girl help I'm getting they/them'd by well-meaning people who don't know what a tomboy is

[bbrattywise]

SEEKING VALIDATION FROM THE 3D IS SOOOOO LAST SEASON

HEAR YE! HEAR YE! ladies & gents, boys, gals & non-binary pals, i present to you another post brought by urs truly, @bbrattywise : this post was ib: this reddit story

anywho, intros done, let's cut straight to the chase, i think the reason why most ppl struggle with validating themselves from the imagination is we're scared its "lying to ourselves" & its "being delusional" *red buzzer to both answers because those are FAR from right!!*

1) the imagination is REAL, realer than this reality in a sense that whatever u persist in the imagination will quite litreally materialise into ur 3D (because thats litreally how the law of assumption works. You assume in ur imagination/4D and it materialises into the 3D, ya get me??) So no matter what, ur dominant thoughts/assumptions (a.k.a ur dominant thoughts u persisted in ur imagination whether thats being tiktok famous or having ur dream yacht) have no choice but the manifest into the 3D.

2) u not feeling happiness/any sort of positive emotions when visualising/imagining living in end w/ ur desire ≠ it being fake. Because obviously, u having something = u being quite used to it so ofc u are not gonna feel all giddy everytime u think about it. Thats totally normal!! that is the same principle for experiencing "negative emotions". You experiencing any sort of emotion doesn't change the fact that you ALREADY HAVE ur desires in ur imagination, so chillax buttercup! you are not doing anything 'wrong'.

3)"but how do i imagine having my desires?" pls dont overcomplicate yall, i swear its as easy to do as it is to say. Basically pick what u want & acknowledge it being in ur imagination. For example, whenever i be stressing about the 3D i be like "oh yea, i already have it in the imagination which is my true reality" and go about my day. Its as easy as thinking, think as u already have it (because that is quite litreally the case). As Neville Goddard says "creation is finished" which i love falling back to whenever i am in doubt because once you've imagined ur desire, thats it. Thats all you gotta do.

4) find ways to make ur imagination ur fun place. When i started utilising the imagination, i was like "huh, wdym i can litreally imagine WHATEVER?!!" lemme tell u, the imagination is limitless!! It's like playing sims 4 without the restrictions put in place by the developers. You make DA MF RULESSSSSS!! Wanna visualise owning a pet dragon?? the sky's the limit!! its so fun picking things & living out ur imagination knowing that it materialises into the 3D regardless <3

the law of assumption (though a mundane, universal law) is such a beautiful thing to be aware of so utilise this information. Don't dwell in old circumstance because you're scared of change. Trust me, take this leap of faith and really have fun with the law of assumption. After all, its practically a life cheatcode, might aswell use it, right?

divider creds:

[vampire-nyx]

Hey i saw your tag on that post that a reply of mine got added to about the gummy worms, and i just wanted to apologize and say i agree. I had some trouble exactly phrasing what i mean to say there and i think i could have stated my joke better

Oh, this was unexpected- I really appreciate the apology and thinking about the joke! It's absolutely not a huge deal and I wasn't meaning to target you directly, it just happened to be the most recent/accessible post I saw for me to express that sentiment on, and the "you" in reference to the joke was more general "you" than specifically you, so no worries! Thank you for being so cool about the criticism