#it just means theyre using jargon

[master-gatherer]

"just because you can't articulate it doesn't mean you're wrong" true but also if you want to communicate you have to find some way to articulate it. Not just b/c other people need to understand your ideas, but so you can stress test your ideas to make sure you're not wrong

B/c you can still be wrong, you see. But you won't know where you went wrong unless you can articulate what you're thinking

[sexhaver]

one of my favorite parts about MTG is how much wording matters, like you're making a deal with the fae folk. for example, look at this old-ass card:

the official Oracle text of this card reads as follows:

"Counter target instant spell if it's blue. Draw a card at the beginning of the next turn's upkeep."

those of you not well-versed in the intricacies of MTG rules jargon (i.e. normal people) might think of this as unnecessarily wordy. after all, wouldn't the following wording be shorter while keeping the same functionality?

"Counter target blue instant spell and draw a card at the beginning of the next turn's upkeep."

Wrong. You idiot. You absolute fucking oaf. You have just made the card objectively worse.

the first half has to stay the same because the actual wording allows you to target any instant spell (even nonblue ones), whereas the revised wording requires the spell to be blue as you cast Burnout. this means two things, one of which is pretty much irrelevant:

the wordings interact differently with spells/effects that change the color of a spell on the stack. with the actual wording, you could target a nonblue spell, then hold priority and respond to yourself by making the spell blue. with the revised wording, you would need to cast and resolve the effect turning the spell-to-be-countered blue before casting Burnout. this is completely and totally irrelevant because there are maybe 15 cards ever printed that change the color of a spell being cast, and the only one of them that doesn't suck ass is only usable as half of a two-card instant-win combo (Painter's Servant + Grinding Wheel)

you can cast the current wording targeting a spell that is not blue, it just won't be countered when Burnout resolves. the revised wording would make Burnout literally unplayable until your opponent casts a blue spell, which theyre not even guaranteed to have in their deck in the first place. i know this is kind of a subset of the last point but it bears repeating independent of the color-changing shit: the current wording lets you cast Burnout in response to ANY instant, not just blue ones

the second half has to remain as its own separate sentence because if it didn't, you wouldn't draw a card if the first half of the spell doesn't do anything (i.e. you targeted a nonblue instant). this one is kind of annoying to explain with counterspells so i'll use creature/damage spells for example

Sorin's Thirst says "deal 2 damage to target creature and you gain 2 life." with this wording, if the creature you target has become an illegal target by the time the spell resolves (usually by being sacrificed, bounced, or given hexproof), the entire effect is countered and you don't gain 2 life.

the Explosion half of Expansion//Explosion reads "deal X damage to any target. Target player draws X cards." in this case, if the target of the damage is illegal/gone by the time the spell resolves, the card draw part of the effect doesn't give a shit because it's separated by a period. by God you paid good mana for that card draw and with God as your witness you're drawing those X cards whether you hit something for X damage or not.

with Burnout, this means that if the "draw a card" part was lumped into the same sentence as "counter target instant spell if it's blue", you wouldn't draw a card if the spell you target isn't blue. which sounds stupid until you remember that not every deck plays blue* and it's possible for this to be a completely dead card. the current wording allows you to effectively cycle it for something more useful by targeting any spell (even your own!) with Burnout, letting it resolve without countering anything and still getting the "draw on next upkeep" effect. if the rules text was all one sentence, all this would accomplish is wasting 2 mana and a card. this has been your morning MTG Autism Post, thank you for tuning in

*in practice, since this card is only legal in Vintage, Legacy, and Commander, you are actually 100% guaranteed to have someone playing blue at the table. the problem then becomes that this card kind of just sucks even with the lenient wording letting you cycle it with the slowtrip

EDIT: as pointed out in the replies, if you somehow manage to actually fizzle Burnout by removing the targeted instant from the stack entirely before Burnout resolves, you will not draw the card since the card draw is not targeted, and spells fizzle when ALL of their targets are illegal upon resolution. the examples above still hold true, though: since the card draw of Explosion requires you to target a player (usually yourself), the cards still get drawn regardless of whether or not the damage goes through

[borealing]

sometimes i wish ppl could realise more easily when theyre using Jargon, ill be like "i dont understand what that jargon means" and the person will be like "oh sorry, [different jargon for the same thing]" like. i dont know these words! just tell me what you mean!

[xxxjarchiexxx]

im listening to black trans feminism by marquis bey and theyre brilliant overall and discussing ways to move away from idpol and new ways to examine transness and blackness, but there's a specific sentence towards the end of the introduction that hasn't left my brain because it bothered me. it was something to the effect of feminism is not about women. they were trying to get at the idea of feminism not being solely for women and how woman is not an ontologically pure grouping and they dug into that idea and clarified as the topic continued, but it bothers me that that initial sentence was used at all, i guess. this isnt to remotely downplay the text of their points or anything, but wording like that reminds me of how people twist the ideas of intersectionality and moving away from idpol into something to denounce women and feminism as conservative. this isn't marquis bey's meaning, but someone who skims the text or doesn't understand the academic jargon of the text might just take away the idea that Feminism Isnt About Women Period. not to say that they should have written this for bad actors, i just think there's likely some connection between misreading academic discussions of idpol in feminism and antifeminist backlash from selfproclaimed Academic Feminists

[memecucker]

i think its ironic how the popularization of names for  generations resulted in the total dilution of “boomer” to mean “at least older middle-aged” and then to just “old” bc of all the “generation names” its the one thats actually the most justified in existing because at least in the US where the term was coined it refers to actual demographic data about the post-WW2 surge in births and when the birth rate declined back to pre-WW2 levels whereas Generation X was literally just an already-existing term that meant “disenchanted young people” that was being used in the 1950s which is before “Gen X” were even born and Billy Idol’s punk band “Generation X” was named after a 1964 book about British youth subculture and then another book called Generation X by Doug Coupland came out in 1991 and became a bestseller so “Gen X” was popularized as referring to not just disenchanted young people in general but specifically disenchanted young people who are in the range of being considered a young adult circa 1991 but then those people get older ok now we have Gen Y actually 2000 is coming up lets say Millennials because everything in the late 90s needed to remind you the new millennium was coming ok wow now those kids are disenchanted but you see im using the pseudo-jargon term “Millennials” instead of “Youth” so my marketing pitch now sells better i sound like im up to date with the new research this is how you sell stuff to millenials ok now theyre getting older uhh we dont have anything catchier than “Gen Z” and pretend the “X” in “Gen X” was used for symbolic reasons about counter-culture dividing generations into Alphabetic order makes sense its not like people are being born all the time so whats the point of these cut-offs well they feel right ya know sure “baby boom” might reference empirical demographic data but just doesnt it ‘feel right’ and ‘make sense’ that these young kids are different from when you were a young kid Strauss and Howe are pseudo-intellectuals that wrote what sounds like a mythological poem of the American people and thought it was actual sociological analysis apparently Al Gore said it was the deepest book he ever read and sent it to all members of Congress i think that should disqualify him from his reputation as an egghead intellectual

[mochlus]

apropos of nothing, I understand the "stop using abbreviations when talking about your specific fandom in a public space, I want to know what you mean!!" sentiment 100%, but also, sometimes I do kinda use abbreviations and only want the people who already understand them to know what im saying. you know? like for all my "I am cringe and I am free" posting I am still just kind of embarrassed about all the animeboygames I'm into & the fact that theyre honestly my primary interest right now. Plus let's not pretend that a lot of folks don't look down on people who get super into Hot Bishie Games For Girls, like?? People very much do do that. It is a huge part of online anime spaces and even just general nerd spaces to make fun of people who only like hot anime guys with no substance, or whateverthehell. so yknow sometimes I just like the pseudo-privacy that using fandom jargon can give me, cause I know if someone understands me when I say "oh I like mhyk and i7 and sort of follow enst, twst, and a3, and I used to be big into hpmi" then they already at least know enough to judge me slightly less. Or slightly more but at least they're judging me for the right reasons

[algrolo]

Alrighty, time to clear up some of the UC Santa Monica misinformation from your local architect

Off the bat, this shit doesn't meet code. Specifically it fails TWO important building codes (and a zoning code!) but I'll get into that later. The important thing to know, first off, is this is just a proposal.

Whats a proposal?

Its when you create a set of drawings of a building you wish to build. You do not have any permits prior to this presentation, which is typically done after the fact. If you look through the full document, a lot of the text jargon is about how the college is going to attempt to get this thing to pass.

I heard an architect resigned after this building was proposed.

Yes but its not that simple. He resigned in protest which essentially means he recognized how illegal the project was and was infuriated that it was allowed to get this far in the proposal process. This building should not have even gotten to this point. UC Santa Barbara was willing to completely neglect multiple illegal actions just to get a small grant from a billionaire to help build this building.

It only has two exits !!!1!

Wrong. It has 13.

See all that tan colored space? Thats circulation. Theyre hard to spot for the untrained eye, but if you look on the far left and right of the building, youll see 3 stair towers, all of which have egress doors. All buildings have extra stair towers that, despite not being primarily used, are required by law for proper egress since everyone cant just fit down one stair.

For all intents and purposes, the building has 13 doors that egress outwards, 8 of which have stairs from upper levels. Im not going to do the math here but it may be enough. Additionally, the distance to get to these stair towers is under 300ft, so assuming this has a sprinkler system, thats fine. The proposal isnt that stupid to fail egress.

But it does fail three important codes.

Off the top of my head and with a little skimming of the document, this thing fails three codes. As I stated above its not egress, that should be fine. It fails Natural Lighting, Energy Conservation, and Zoning.

Because of the early 1900s skyscrapers in New York and Chicago blocking out sunlight, a bunch of people got together and said "hey, all livable spaces should have access to natural light!". So what's a "livable" space? Bedrooms and living rooms. These rooms are required to have windows AND the window has to be a certain size. With 94% of rooms in this plan not having windows, yeah, thats a big red X on the proposal.

The panels.

So these panels are super new and because we've figured out how they can be made to give off UV light similar to the sun, people think they can be used as windows!

Wrong. It's not a window. They're for getting more "natural" light in spaces that already have windows, not as a replacement for windows.

Oh! And heres the second code that this building fails on! Energy Conservation Code.

Imagine all those panels. Running for at least 10 hours a day. Think about how much power that would take. On top of already having to light every corridor of every hall and every room. The electrical demand would be astronomical. There are limits in place, based on how big a building is, of how much power it gets. This thing would fail in two seconds. I guarentee it. Anyone with a brain in lighting and electricity would agree. Hell, with all that power running, it might even have its own electrical magnetic field, who knows.

Zoning and Wetlands

In the document, they refer to pushing back the existing wetland setback of 50ft to 25ft. A setback refers to the area around a thing, in this case, wetlands, that no one is allowed to majorly disturb or develop on. It helps keep the actual wetland area safe and healthy. If there is one thing I learned about wetlands is you Do Not Fuck With Wetlands. These pieces of land have unique biological features that are essential to so many ecosystems that they're, at least in America, under the protection of the military. You don't fuck with them. I've known jobs where people do fuck with them or disregard them, and the military literally ordered a cease and desist. Dont. Fuck. With. Wetlands.

If the setback says its 50ft. You accept that. Other people might think differently cause of opinion but I dont mess with wetlands and their setbacks. Its not worth it.

Okay so this building sucks, but its illegal. So what?

Make sure UC Santa Barbara has the worst PR of its life. Make it regret ever allowing this attrocity to see light, something its not even letting its students have.

On top of everything, this is a disgrace for the precedent it sets. It means we would one day be able to develop windowless towers where people would have to live with no natural light because the light panel is cheaper than a window. A window would be a luxury. Its appalling. Disgraceful.

Remember yall, PR is powerful. You get enough bad reputation, you lose admissions. People dont want to go to the school. That means less money. That means the school has to spend more money on advertising to get back the money they lost. So hurt them where it counts- their wallet.

[chikkou]

can i just say, as an english lit major with a “big vocabulary” and shit: i cant fucking STAND leftists who couch everything theyre saying in overly complex language and academic jargon to the point that its basically indecipherable. and no this isnt “anti-intellectualism” or whatever, i do understand that many of these terms are crucial for in-depth conversations on leftist ideologies (and just ideologies in general tbh), but fuck do you REALLY need to say the phrase “excessive identitarian reductionism.” my eyes crossed just typing that. you didnt even use “identitarian” right it doesnt just mean “pertaining to the topic of identity” im gonna fucking scream

[kaypeace21]

ppl ask u who will be homophobic n then when u say mostly everyone theyre like omg kayp is racist saying lucas is homophobic

I mean if it makes anyone feel better - I have a theory about Jon’s new gf. She’s black and not homophobic and in some movies she’s hinted to be bi.also, low key prob going to be my fav female character . But then I piss off a whole new group of people with that crack theory . 😂 Also if I’m right and the byers are in Chicago we’d have the real life black mayor elected at the time who had been fighting for gay rights for decades. And it could be something shown. Because of his race: he was bullied and harassed and not even supported by his own Democratic Party In the elections. The republicans did dog whistles and just straight up racist shit to him (they wore white buttons to oppose him that said “before it’s too late”.) And it brought a lot of attention to the segregation and racial politics/classism of Chicago. Which even today is the most segregated city in the USA. Seriously look him up : Harold lee Washington- he seemed like an amazing man!! He died suspiciously the day before thanksgiving 1987 (when I think s4 takes place) and it caused mourning all over Chicago -mostly those of pocs who thought he was there only hope to having their lives improve. He’s so inspiring . He reduced corruption, helped queer people with protection ordinances , even had an open lesbian in his cabinet, and did speeches at pride parades every year, gave pocs, specifically poc women financial support for small businesses. But - alot of white chicagoans cheered his death and literally made up lies that he did drugs saying that’s how he died (it was just a heart attack ) .🙄

But, It’s the 80s most people don’t react well to Mike and Will’s sexualities. That’s just basic statistics and what the movies hint at.

I think generally the people who take it the best initally are: Jon/his gf, Joyce, Steve, robin, Karen... and maybe max .

No one is hating Lucas or Nancy or others and calling them irredemiable monsters . A lot of the characters will most likely be homophobic. The vast majority of these characters are/have been white. And like I said lucas, Nancy , Dustin and others will change their views : like how Steve used to be homophobic but now isn’t . The vast majority of 80s society hated gay people. In 1983 (st s1) , Pat bunchunan, communications director for President Ronald Reagan, calls AIDS, "nature's revenge on gay men." In 1984, (st s2) addressing the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, Paul Cameron uses the AIDS crisis to suggest that "the extermination of homosexuals might become necessary.” In 1986 Anti-gay groups cheer the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick holding that state anti-sodomy statutes are constitutional (essentially making being gay illegal in those states) . In 1986, At the first Congressional hearings on anti-gay violence, Kathleen Sarris of Indianapolis (same city lonnie lives in) tells of being stalked and assaulted by a "Christian soldier" who held her at gunpoint, beat and r**ed her for three hours, explaining that "he was acting for God; that what he was doing to me was God's revenge on me because I was a 'queer' and getting rid of me would save children”. In 1989, U.S. Rep. William Dannemeyer (R-Calif: same state Max is from) publishes a landmark anti-gay tome, Shadow in the Land: Homosexuality in America. Calling lesbians and gay men "the ultimate enemy.”Many People equated being gay to mental illness, murderers, disease, religious sacrilege, r*pists/p*dos or even being unpatriotic. Homophobic slurs were commonplace everyday jargon. People like Harold Washington were outliers. I could go on and on. It’s not 2020. It’s the 80s! The society shaped their problematic views. And the 80s were very very very homophobic! And we saw hints of that in s1.

[radiovisual]

03 09 13 17 ( of COURSE ), 20, 30, 38

03. What would be their favorite physical trait about themselves?

hmmm........... HIS favorite would probably be his antlers, he thinks theyre cool as shit and hes lowkey a little smug that theyre naturally Larger than most of his doubles' while in a resting state lmao, but he will admit that the most conventionally attractive part of him is his narrower waist n how it blends with his hips and chest, and he does hold Some pride for it, but mostly only as an outsider looking in rather than genuinely liking it, if that makes sense???

09. Do they have a favorite season? What about a favorite holiday?

Fall or Winter! Leaning a bit more towards Fall because he doesn't like the cold, but he can't stand the sweltering heat either so Summer is a no go--he also really likes Halloween and Christmas, but it does lean more towards Halloween!

13. What are your character’s sleeping habits? Heavy or light sleeper? Blanket stealer? One that always rolls onto the floor? Pushes their lover onto the floor? Sleep talker or walker?

EXTREMELY HEAVY sleeper, he absolutely steals blankets, sometimes a leg will poke out over the side of the bed, if their in his bed that means he can tolerate them and they will get snuggled, he might sleep talk a Little bit, but its definitely unintelligible jargon.

17. Does your character have dreams of getting married and/or having children?

Married? No, fuck marriage, he hates it, his dad tried to get him married and he Bit the mf to end the ordeal, he would Actually rather lose a limb than get married! But he does really really want kids 👉👈�� preferably his own bio kids but he is absolutely Not Opposed to adopting!

Or kidnapping.

He'll steal your baby if you leave it unattended.

20. Does your character like animals? What are some of their favorite animals? Would they want pets? What about mythological creatures?

He loves animals! As food and friends!!! He's always been fond of watching wild animals do their thing since he was a child (he was absolutely the kinda toddler to go hopping around following frogs n shit like that), so he likes a long of the animals he saw growing up! Frogs, gators, raccoons, etc. He actually currently has a pet! She's something like taxidermy n something like a doll, brought to life by his magic while he was figuring out how to use it in Hell--But I still don't have a name for her! I usually just call her Kittygator! Bc you cant go wrong with just saying whats on the tin!

30. When it comes to the arts (music, film, theater, etc), what does your character like?

MUSIC! With a healthy side of theater! In all his free time since arriving down in hell he's learned to play a VAST amount of instruments, and he does occasionally make up his own songs! He just never shares them, and that's one of the few things keeping him from becoming a damn Music demon.

38. What kind of weather does your character like? Cloudy skies, rainy days, sunshine, etc?

Cloudy and rainy! It makes him feel very cozy. I dont have much else for this one so heres a photo i took the other day of a very pretty cloudy sky!

[itsc]

sometimes i will try to read a post On Here that i feel might have good information that i want to consider, but i am so far removed from wherever op is getting their terms and vernacular that i cannot parse anything. i cant tell what it is that theyre for or against or what they are asking me to consider because i just cannot understand the words they are saying, or why they are putting them in that order. like its fine to use jargon of your social circles, whatever, it exists for a reason, but online it can get so far away from those circles that it ceases to have the same or any meaning. 

[ariesrps]

in honor of a recent rise in roleplays set in the uk, coinciding with the recent global success of the new british netflix show sex education, i was inspired to create this guide to roleplaying british characters. as a british kid myself i love seeing these characters in rps, but have often had friends in the rpc tell me that they struggle to write them due to the differences in popular culture, dialect, slang, media etc.

of course, accuracy isn’t TOO important when it comes to this, since british people generally aren’t a marginalized or oppressed group. however i do think this is a guide a lot of people will find valuable. in a poll with 43 respondents, the highest percentage of roleplayers were from north america (72.1%) compared to only 9.3% coming from the united kingdom (all info correct at time of posting). with the assumption that people mostly write characters that are from the country they’re most familiar with, there aren’t a lot of british characters in tumblr rp. if this guide can provide non-UK-based rpers with the info they’re seeking to pen a british muse, then my job here is done!

DISCLAIMER: if you were looking for a guide written like an essay or report, this ain’t it! this is mostly a collection of external resources you may find useful when writing your characters, as opposed to written instructions.

PLEASE, LIKE OR REBLOG THIS IF YOU FOUND IT USEFUL IN ANY WAY!

GEOGRAPHY — where will your character be from?

as a british person who isn’t exactly the most well-traveled, there are definitely inaccuracies in my knowledge of other countries’ geography. i wouldn’t be surprised if some people struggle with the same issue, but regarding the united kingdom. if your character is from the UK, it’s important to know that their characterization should differ depending on which part they’re from.

map of the british isles

map of england

map of scotland

map of wales

map of northern island

the difference between the UK, great britain, and england: explained

why is the republic of ireland not a part of the united kingdom?

NOTE: this guide will not include info on how to write characters from the republic of ireland, as that identity is one of its own and is not classified as part of the uk!

SOCIAL CLASS — what kind of socio-economic background will your character have?

class is an important issue in the UK, in some ways more-so than the US. the first bullet point of this section is an interesting article which explains why this is, but to summarize: the american dream – though flawed, is a reality to an extent. there is no such concept in the UK, making the class situation and socio-economic divide a little different.

“in the uk, i’m working class, but said goodbye to that title in america” article

the seven social classes of 21st century britain — where do you fit in?

POLITICS — what kind of stance will your character take?

just like in any country, politics is extremely important in the UK. just like in america, the country is extremely divided between left and right. if political views is something your character views as important, or you think that their politics defines their characterization in any way, this section should be helpful!

parliamentary (UK) vs. presidential (US) democracy, explained

the uk’s many political parties, explained ( NOTE: this video is slightly outdated. the prime minister, and leader of the conservative party, is now theresa may, not david cameron. but you probably already knew that. )

uk political spectrum

2017 uk general election map

brexit, explained

to summarize the two main parties: labour = left-wing = good. conservative = right-wing = bad.

ETHNIC DIVERSITY — what kind of ethnic background will your character have?

similarly to the US, the UK (though dominated by caucasian people aka white british) encompasses many different cultures. according to the UK gov “87% of people in the uk are white, and 13% belong to a black, asian, mixed or [from] other ethnic group[s], according to the combined 2011 censuses.” while non-white ethnicities are a definite minority, it’s so important not to erase their existence.

a chart illustrating the uk’s race / ethnicity breakdown

britain’s most racially diverse areas

2011 census reveals most ethnically diverse city

IDENTITY — what kind of cultural identity will your character have?

ask a scotsman for a handful of reasons he’s different from an englishman, and he’ll talk for hours. within england alone, ask a londoner how they’re different from a mancunian and they’ll talk for even longer. different parts of the uk have different identities, and it’s important. something we want to avoid is the “posh”, well-spoken, crumpet-eating stereotype or, on the other end of the spectrum, the modern-day oliver twist. expand your horizons!

stereotypes americans have about british people that aren’t actually true

10 differences between brits and americans

what does it mean to be british?

ENGLAND

how is the south of england different to the north? (spoiler: very)

north-south divide wikipedia

culture of england wikipedia

SCOTLAND

our scottish culture: so much more than kilts and bagpipes

scottish culture and traditions guide

culture of scotland wikipedia

WALES

wales history, language and culture

welsh culture: facts and traditions

culture of wales wikipedia

NORTHERN IRELAND

northern ireland – cultural life

northern ireland history and culture

culture of northern ireland wikipedia

LANGUAGE, DIALECT, ACCENT, SLANG — how will your character speak?

here’s where the fun parts start! there are so many different variations of accents, regional dialects, area-specific slang and colloquialisms throughout the uk. sometimes i see british characters being written with little to no use of any of these, nothing at all differentiating them from american characters and it’s such a waste in my opinion. even if you don’t like writing with a an accent (some people don’t!) the dialect and slang words along can make your character so much more authentic.

how are british english & american english different?

everyday american words we don’t use the same in the UK

america vs british english – 50 differences

NOTE: resources for the north of england are higher in quantity than the midlands and south of england due to wider variations of accents within the region.

ENGLAND (NORTH)

a tour of northern english accents

a - z of northern slang (GENERAL NORTHERN)

northern slang with blossoms (GENERAL NORTHERN)

a - z of mancunian slang (MANCHESTER)

mancunian: english like a native (MANCHESTER)

scouse: english like a native (LIVERPOOL)

scouse slang (LIVERPOOL)

geordie slang (NEWCASTLE)

mackem slang (SUNDERLAND)

yorkshire slang (YORKSHIRE)

the yorkshire accent (YORKSHIRE)

sheffield slang (SHEFFIELD)

arctic monkeys slang lessons (SHEFFIELD / YORKSHIRE / GEN. NORTHERN)

ENGLAND (MIDLANDS)

how to speak birmingham (BIRMINGHAM)

a brummie accent (BIRMINGHAM)

7 things said in nottingham (NOTTINGHAM)

black country dialect (BLACK COUNTRY)

ENGLAND (SOUTH)

10 common british/english slang expressions & phrases (NON-SPECIFIC)

cockney (LONDON)

cockney rhyming slang: english like a native (LONDON)

roadman slang vs cockney slang (LONDON)

london street slang, translated (LONDON)

west country: english like a native (WEST COUNTRY / SOUTH WEST)

essex slang (ESSEX)

mark watson on bristol slang (BRISTOL)

slang of the south - portsmouth (PORTSMOUTH)

WALES

welsh people on welsh slang (GENERAL WELSH)

taron egerton talks welsh slang (GENERAL WELSH)

common welsh sayings (GENERAL WELSH)

luke evans on welsh slang (GENERAL WELSH)

25 words and phrases you’ll always hear in cardiff (CARDIFF)

swansea slang (SWANSEA)

20 welsh colloquialisms (GENERAL WELSH)

29 words that have a totally different meaning in wales (GENERAL WELSH)

welsh language wikipedia

SCOTLAND

how to speak & understand glaswegian (GLASGOW)

gerard butler teachers you scottish slang (GENERAL SCOTTISH)

glasgow slang words (GLASGOW)

most used scottish slang words & phrases (GENERAL SCOTTISH)

doric from around aberdeen (ABERDEEN) note: definitions in description

edinburgh dialect words (EDINBURGH)

trainspotting slang explained (GLASGOW / GENERAL SCOTTISH)

scottish words glossary (GENERAL SCOTTISH)

glossary of scottish slang & jargon wikipedia (GENERAL SCOTTISH)

handy scottish words to know (EDINBURGH / GENERAL SCOTTISH)

28 great scottish sayings and slang phrases (GENERAL SCOTTISH)

use of gaelic in scotland wikipedia

NORTHERN IRELAND

jamie dornan teaches you northern irish slang – vanity fair (GENERAL N. IRISH)

jamie dornan does northern irish slang – bbc (GENERAL N. IRISH)

28 sayings from northern ireland (GENERAL N. IRISH)

northern irish words (GENERAL N. IRISH)

16 slang phrases you’ll need to know in northern ireland (GENERAL N. IRISH)

17 words and phrases you’ll always get in belfast (BELFAST)

a list of belfast sayings (BELFAST)

derry slang words 1 (DERRY)

derry slang words 2 (DERRY)

use of gaelic in northern ireland wikipedia

SURROUNDINGS — what’s it like where your character grew up, or where they live now?

whether your character comes from one of these places OR lives there now (or both!) it might be interesting to incorporate some of their surroundings into their characterization. this section isn’t classified by country/region, because if i were to start going into that much detail here, this guide would go on forever!

10 incredible historical towns in the uk

where are the largest cities in britain?

a guide to the english countryside

the 15 most stunning places in the uk outside of london

top 50 areas for quality of life in the uk

10 best party cities in the uk

10 best student cities in the uk

10 of the uk’s most creative towns & cities to live, work & play

cities with the youngest vs oldest age population

map of stereotypes in the uk

google autocomplete map of the uk “why is [city]...”

POP CULTURE / MEDIA — what does your character like? what are they consuming?

us brits are very proud of our own british-made media. our television, our music, our cinema, etc. if you’re somebody who is interested in including the things a character likes in their characterization, it would be unrealistic not to give a british character some favourites from the place they’re from.

uk map showing where tv shows are set and filmed

uk map showing the origins of famous bands/musicians

the uk’s most popular tv shows according to IMBD

10 best british rock bands of the 21st century

the ultimate reference guide to british pop culture

LASTLY, HERE ARE SOME RESOURCES ON WRITING BRITISH CHARACTERS:

making british characters realistic as an american writer

tips from a brit for writing british fictional characters

another ‘writing british characters’ guide by @thewritershelpers​

another ‘writing british characters’ guide by @writeworld​

another ‘writing british characters’ guide by @rphelper

how to write dialogue for british characters

writing black british characters by talkthepoc on wattpad

of course, this is overkill. there’s no way on earth you’ll ever need all of these resources, but they’re here and i hope you find some use out of this guide! please forgive any inaccuracies or mistakes, this is my first time writing a guide. you’re welcome to leave me feedback on this here. last but not least, HAPPY WRITING!

[patriotsnet]

Are Republicans Allowed In The Impeachment Inquiry

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/are-republicans-allowed-in-the-impeachment-inquiry/

Are Republicans Allowed In The Impeachment Inquiry

What Does The Constitution Say About Impeachment

Under pressure to defend Trump, GOP lawmakers decry House impeachment inquiry

Not a lot. There are four sections of;the Constitution;that chiefly address impeachment:

Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article I, Section 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Opinionheres The Fastest Easiest Way To Keep Trump From Ever Holding Office Again

Wednesdays opening argument exposed a president who gleefully ratcheted up his acid rhetoric to the point of violent insurrection, and a Republican Party mostly unwilling to face the terrible cost of their attempts to undermine the integrity of our recent election. The GOPs blindness isnt merely symbolic: When footage was played of rioters reading Trumps tweets through a megaphone, multiple Republicans turned away rather than accept what their party enabled. The impeachment prosecution means GOP senators can no longer feign ignorance.

Dont Miss: States Voted Trump

Opinionthe Unfortunate Reason Republicans Like Rand Paul Are Already Attacking Biden

The callousness of lawmakers like Hawley is now a distressing image that stands beside the shouts of rioters calling for the lynching of then-Vice President Mike Pence as testaments to how far the GOP has fallen.

Republicans like Hawley may flee to the gallery when our nation needs leadership, but they wont be able to outrun their complicity in supporting the far-right radicals who raided their workplace. If they arent held accountable by voters at the ballot box, the impeachment trial will forever serve as a testament to their dark role in American history.

Also Check: Are Democrats Richer Than Republicans

Don’t Miss: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

The Current House Impeachment Inquiry Began Without A Vote By The Entire House Is That Illegal

No. There is no law or rule requiring a vote to commence an impeachment investigation.

In addition, there is no court precedent to require a vote. In fact, on October 25, 2019, in an order compelling the Department of Justice to turn over grand jury materials relative to the Mueller investigation to Congress as part of its impeachment inquiry, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell;flatly rejected;the administrations assertion that the House impeachment investigation is not legitimate without an authorizing resolution.

Why Republicans Are Complaining About The Impeachment Process

And why their complaints are finding an audience

About the author: David A. Graham is a staff writer at The Atlantic.

Theres a reason Republicans have been making a great fuss about the process of the impeachment inquiry over the past few days. Unwilling, or more likely unable, to mount any substantive defenses of President Donald Trumps behavior with regard to Ukraine, members have instead assailed the way Democrats are conducting the inquiry.

You may doubt the sincerity of these complaintsmore on that in a momentbut they have grabbed attention because they are intuitively persuasive. Thus far, the inquiry has taken place behind closed doors, with only opening statements and secondhand accounts of interviews reaching the public. It would be both a miscarriage of justice and political malpractice for Democrats to vote to impeach without public proceedings. The trick is that Democrats have said all along that they intend to have a public process.

On Wednesday, GOP House members staged an odd maneuver in which they occupied the roomthe Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, in acronym-obsessed D.C. jargon where Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper was to be interviewed under subpoena as part of the inquiry, delaying her testimony. On Thursday, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a steadfast Trump shield, announced that he would introduce a statement criticizing the House Democratic process.

Recommended Reading: Senators Republican Vs Democrat

Heres How Little Republicans Were Allowed To Participate In The Closed

When a group of Republican legislators barged into a secure facility on Capitol Hill last month to register their opposition to impeachment inquiry depositions taking place behind closed doors, we couldnt help but register an unusual aspect of the stunt.

Of the 197 Republicans in the House, 48 had authorization to attend the hearings, either by virtue of their positions or their membership on relevant committees. Of the 41 who signed on to the protest, led by Rep. Matt Gaetz, nearly a third could have just gone in and observed the hearing itself.

Part of the point of the camera-friendly effort was to raise broader questions about the extent to which Republicans were given a role in the deposition hearings. The impeachment inquiry was a function of Democrats holding a majority in the House, and Republicans argued that they were not being given a chance to interview witnesses or generally guide the outcome.

Fox Newss Sean Hannity summarized the line of argument on his Oct. 29 show.

Another day of secret meetings, secret hearings, secret transcripts, a secret whistleblower, non-whistleblower, hearsay whistleblower, all because of a phone call between President Trump and the president of Ukraine, he said. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff was calling in witness after witness but only behind closed doors, without real Republican due process at all to speculate on the presidents intentions.

The result looked like this.

Republican Lawmakers Disrupt Democratic

By Richard Cowan, , Patricia Zengerle

6 Min Read

WASHINGTON – Republican lawmakers, encouraged by President Donald Trump to get tougher in fighting Democrats attempts to impeach him, on Wednesday disrupted the U.S. House of Representatives impeachment inquiry and prevented a Pentagon official from testifying.

The Republicans stormed into a hearing room where Laura Cooper, the U.S. defense official who oversees Ukraine and Russia matters, was due to testify behind closed doors and began yelling, lawmakers and aides said.

The impeachment inquiry focuses on Trumps request for Ukraine to investigate a domestic rival – Democrat Joe Biden – for his personal political benefit.

In a dramatic confrontation during an escalating probe that threatens Trumps presidency even as he seeks re-election next year, Capitol police were called in to clear the room and bring order, a Republican congressional aide said.

A witness inside the room said the Republicans brought cellphones into the high-security facility where electronic devices are forbidden.

Theyre freaked out. Theyre trying to stop this investigation, Democratic Representative Ted Lieu said. They dont want to hear from witness Cooper today. They know more facts are going to be delivered which are absolutely damning to the president of the United States.

Related Coverage

See more stories

NEVER ENDS

Also Check: How Many Republicans In The Us Senate

Deadline: Jerry Nadler Gives Republicans One Week To Participate In Impeachment Inquiry

Rep. Jerry Nadler has given Republicans and President Donald Trump a deadline of December 6th to participate in the House impeachment inquiry or the inquiry will move into an impeachment vote without them even though Republicans submitted a list of witnesses and requested time for questioning but were denied.

The Daily Caller reports that Nadler has sent a letter ot House Republicans demanding they comply with the House impeachment inquiry and pressuring the White House to decide one way or the other whether President Donald Trump will testify either in person or answering interrogatories under oath.

BREAKING: House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler sends letter to Pres. Trump, reminding him he and his lawyers have a right to attend the hearing.

ABC News

The Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee, which is due to begin weighing possible articles of impeachment against Trump next week, sent a two-page letter to the president setting a deadline of 5 p.m. EDT on Dec. 6 for the presidents counsel to specify intended actions under the committees impeachment procedures, the Caller reported the letter as saying.

The first House Judiciary Committee hearings are set to take place December 4th, though the House Intelligence Committee has yet to officially conclude their own investigation. They claim a report will be circulated Monday, but on Friday, Rep. Schiff was telling staffers that he plans on calling more witnesses.

South Carolina Rep Tom Rice

Trump impeachment inquiry enters new phase l ABC News

Rices vote for impeachment stunned those familiar with the South Carolina lawmakers record as a staunch Trump defender, especially during his first impeachment.;

I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice, Rice;said in a statement;Wednesday evening. But, this utter failure is inexcusable.

Rice voted for motions to object to certifying Bidens Electoral College victories in Arizona and Pennsylvania last week, votes that came after security teams cleared the building of rioters and members returned from a secure location. Rice told local media he waited until the last minute to cast those votes because he was extremely disappointed in the president after the riots and that Trump needed to concede the election. He also said last week that he did not support impeaching the president or invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.;

Rice, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, has supported the Trump administrations position 94 percent of the time over the past four years. He represents a solidly Republican district in the Myrtle Beach area that Trump carried by 19 points in November. Rice, who has had little difficulty holding his seat since his first 2012 victory, won his race by 24 points in November.;

Also Check: Did Republicans And Democrats Switch Platforms

Can Senators Ask Questions During The Impeachment Trial

Under the 1986 impeachment rules, senators do not directly question witnesses. Instead, witnesses are examined by representatives of the prosecution and defense . If senators wish to ask a question, they are instructed to put it in writing and submit it to the presiding officer. Before a witness answers a senators questions, the prosecution and defense have the opportunity to raise objections, which are ruled on by the presiding officer or by a vote of the full Senate.

Opinionwe Want To Hear What You Think Please Submit A Letter To The Editor

This band of Republicans who stormed the hearings this week seemed to be demanding that the testimony of these witnesses be made public but that is the last thing that they should want, which is probably why their efforts did more to disrupt the process than show why they should be allowed to participate. These witnesses have reportedly already presented damning evidence that President Donald Trump engaged in an effort to withhold congressionally authorized military aid to Ukraine unless the president of Ukraine publicly announced an investigation of Trumps political rival, Joe Biden.

The public testimony theyre nominally demanding will happen, though. And when these witnesses testify in televised public hearings, support for impeachment will soar.

Michael Conway was counsel for the House Judiciary Committee in the impeachment inquiry of President Richard Nixon in 1974. In that role, he assisted in drafting the committee’s final report to the House in support of the three articles of impeachment adopted by the committee. Conway is a graduate of Yale Law School, a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a retired partner of Foley & Lardner LLP in Chicago.

Also Check: Can Republicans Win The House In 2020

Led By Cheney 10 House Republicans Back Trump Impeachment

WASHINGTON Ten Republicans including Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, the No. 3 House GOP leader voted to impeach President Donald Trump Wednesday over the deadly insurrection at the Capitol. The GOP votes were in sharp contrast to the unanimous support for Trump among House Republicans when he was impeached by Democrats in December 2019.

Cheney, whose decision to buck Trump sparked an immediate backlash within the GOP, was the only member of her partys leadership to support impeachment, which was opposed by 197 Republicans.

There has never been a greater betrayal by a president of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution, said Cheney, whose father, Dick Cheney, served as vice president under George W. Bush. The younger Cheney has been more critical of Trump than other GOP leaders, but her announcement hours before Wednesdays vote nonetheless shook Congress.

Katko, a former federal prosecutor who represents the Syracuse area, said allowing Trump to incite this attack without consequence would be a direct threat to the future of our democracy.

Also Check: Did Trump Call Republicans Stupid In 1998

House Manager Uses The Words Of Republicans Against Trump

The House impeachment managers presented senators with videos of their colleagues fleeing a pro-Trump mob, which breached the US Capitol shouting stop the steal. They showed the rioters searching for then-Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and rummaging through the senators desks on the chamber floor.

Also Check: When Did The Republicans And Democrats Switch Platforms

What Happens If The President Is Convicted

If the Senate votes by a two-thirds majority to convict the president, he is removed from office. But a conviction and removal from office do not automatically mean he can never again hold public officeincluding as president. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution also provides that the Senate may vote to disqualify the impeached individual from serving in federal office in the future. Since the Constitution does not specify a vote requirement for disqualification, a simple majority vote has been used to disqualify individuals, but only on three occasions.

Heres What The Gop Believes

Cynicism comes easy in an era of maximal polarization. Different parties embrace different ideologies, agendas, and sometimes even entirely distinct constellations of facts and truths. From inside either closed world, the other one appears shot through with delusion with its leaders blamed for actively encouraging deception for the sake of political gain.

Thats what Ive accused Republicans of doing in a pair of recent columns. Ive called them cynics who manipulate voters by intentionally deceiving them with lies and sometimes even by eliding the distinction between truth and falsehood altogether for the sake of winning political advantage. But there is something more than a little cynical about this very accusation itself. Some, like President Trump and his most loyal minions in Congress , may well be comfortable spreading a miasma of epistemological confusion out of political expediency. But thats not all thats going on on the Republican side of the debate about impeachment.

There is at least one story that Republicans are telling themselves about impeachment that rises above cynicism. I find it largely unconvincing, but it is not reducible to a clamoring for power at all costs or an indifference to the distinction between truth and lies. Many on the right actually believe it to be true and defensible. And its worth making an effort to understand it from the inside, so that we can better understand our fellow citizens.

You May Like: Trump 1998 People Magazine Quote

Don’t Miss: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

What Have Presidents Been Impeached For

Two presidentsAndrew Johnson and Bill Clintonhave been impeached in the House, but no president has ever been removed from office.Fifteen federal judges and one cabinet official;have been impeached.

The House impeached;Andrew Johnson;in 1868 for removing the secretary of war in violation of a federal statute that prohibited the president from firing a cabinet official without the consent of Congress.

In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment for;Richard Nixon;for obstructing the investigation of the Watergate burglary inquiry, misusing law enforcement and intelligence services for political purposes, and refusing to comply with the Judiciary Committees subpoenas.

In 1998, the House impeached;Bill Clinton;for providing perjured testimony to a grand jury investigation and for obstruction of justice.

Whistleblowers And Their Lawyers

WATCH: After Kupperman defies House subpoena, Republicans call impeachment inquiry charade

Andrew P. Bakaj, the lead attorney representing the whistleblowers, sent a joint letter to Maguire on September 28, made public on September 29, in which they raised concerns about the language used by Trump, amongst other things. In the letter, the lawyers state “The events of the past week have heightened our concerns that our client’s identity will be disclosed publicly and that, as a result, our client will be put in harm’s way.” The letter also mentioned the $50,000 “bounty” that two conservative Trump supporters have offered as a reward for information about the whistleblower.

, co-counsel for the whistleblower, said in a statement in September 2019 that whistleblowers’ identities are protected by law and cited testimony by Maguire which drew upon the Whistleblower Protection Act. The statement was released after Trump questioned on Twitter the validity of the whistleblower’s statements. Bakaj took to Twitter to issue a warning on September 30 that the whistleblower is entitled to anonymity, is protected by laws and policies, and is not to be retaliated against; to do so would violate federal law. Bakaj argued in an October 25 Washington Post op-ed that the identity of his client is no longer pertinent after further events corroborated his client’s account of the matter.

For impeachment inquiry

Against impeachment inquiry

Senator Lindsey Graham criticized the whistleblower, calling the complaint hearsay and a sham.

You May Like: Did Republicans And Democrats Switch Names

[carys-awen]

I sort of half agree with this. Definitely structures of prejudice are built into academia, but at the same time the way we are taught to write often sacrifices clarity and readability for obeying strict rules that maybe don't serve the purpose theyre alleged to. I don't mean using jargon, which I agree is often necessary and helpful. I mean that I've read papers in my own field that take me hours to get through because they are so obtuse, and I'll get to the end and realize they've taken 20 or 40 pages to say absolutely nothing, but they follow the rules of scientific presentation to the letter and get into prestigious journals. I mean that I've read articles that hide behind the passive voice to appear objective when they are engaged in writing about marginalized communities like they're some sort of exotic, ineffable animal. I mean that we're so obsessed with telling a particular kind of story that we end up imposing faulty, bad narratives over data that doesn't fit them, which yeah is a problem with science more generally, but which also affects the coherence and thereby the accessibility of the writing because all of the individual bits do not add up to a complete whole and people who read them feel stupid as a result. I've seen students completely discouraged about even finishing an undergrad degree because they couldn't understand something -- I've seen the relief on those students faces when they're told that no, that paper is just bad, its just hard to tell because it follows The Rules (and if you think all students are discouraged equally regardless of race or gender or class or ability you have another think coming).

I don't think we need to write so any random fifth grader could understand what we're talking about, but I do think we need to write so that anyone who had an understanding of stats and specialist terms (whatever their age, precocious 10 year old to nerdy octogenarian) could follow along and not feel like they're being subjected to some kind of alien torture. I think we need to write like human beings doing science instead of robots bestowing holy truths upon the world. Sure its only one part of accessibility, but its not a baseless claim that academic writing is often alienating in its sheer, structural badness, and often uses that structural badness to imply a level of objectivity that is not actually humanly possible.

(Also obviously the tenure thing is complicated, because a lot of people have it who don't deserve it and got it through privilege, but if you take that pitch to a university board you are going to end up with more labour abuses where academics are not properly compensated for their work, which is already a widespread problem which specifically has the effect that fewer women and fewer racial minorities and fewer working class people progress in academia. We don't need tenure necessarily but we do need some kind of job security).

I cannot stand the “academic writing is inaccessible (and ableist and classist and racist) because its So Hard to Understand” argument

Academia is racist and cements class antagonism by its very structure and mode of existence, not because you don’t want to put the effort in reading or learning. Academia is racist and “classist” by its admission standards, it test score standards, is demographic quotas, in the adherence to a propagandistic white western canon, and its flip side the tokenization of BIPOC voices, in the very system of paying for education, loan debts, school districts, funding, material inaccessibility, journal paywalls, the complete deprivation of publicly readily available knowledge, the impoverishment of common intellectual life.

A more accessible academic life would see the complete shattering of the ivory walls. Life long learning. The end of tenure. The end of capitalistic competition in publishing the newest piece of trash. 

There is bad writing. Of course. But when I see “write so a 5th grader can understand” I hear a call for the further impoverishment of intellectual life. A disregard for intellectual rigor. 

And worse, I hear a complete infantilization and dehumanization of the very people you’re trying to advocate for. Black people are not stupid. Poor people are not stupid. People with mental illness are not stupid. And they’re certainly not in “5th grade”

[thedegenerateasexual]

a rant: i am so fucking tired, brought to you by: this horrible textpost that showed up on my dash THREE TIMES and i guess i only have it in me to ignore it twice

Hi I’m Liz And I’m Tired

i am tired of other aces setting themselves up to be an easy punchline and easier targets for all the bullshit other queers throw at us 

i am tired of people using it as an excuse to point & laugh at all asexual-related things 

i’m tired because my instinct here is to get angry at the ace person for asking this question and not at the OP for not just ignoring the post if they felt that weird about it instead of being a jerk

i am tired because i know the second poster might have meant meant “queerplatonically” (and since that’s a bond without romantic or sexual attraction yeah you COULD have an entire debate about it i guess if you cared enough but that’s beside the point) but 1. english doesn’t seem to be their first language and 2. that’s not a word commonly found in queer jargon so they get to get laughed at by like 60 thousand people instead sure

i'm tired because ace-specific words like “queerplatonic” and “demisexual” or whatever instinctively sound so stupid they make you want to cringe (and me too! and i’m even asexual! i’m fighting tooth and nail to unlearn it and it's impossible!) but on the flip side everyone knows what words like “butch” and “twink” mean and you don’t get people laughing at you for using them. theyre just words

i’m tired because i catch myself all the time typing “ace” instead not just because it’s shorter and i’m lazy but also because i’m trying to distance myself from the goddamn word and i’m already using “queer asexual” for me instead of “graysexual” because it sounds less cringe-y and more valid and i have been struggling with this for twelve years, when do i get to be done feeling embarrassed about this shit

i am tired of posts where asexuals being fucking idiots because they’re asexual are the punchline - its different than the loving way we make fun of gays for not being able to do math and drive or lesbians not being able to tell when a girl is flirting, because in that case most of us are laughing at ourselves. this is mean spirited. “hurr hurr calm down it’s just a stupid text post you’re being way too sensitive” yeah i am sensitive about it & yeah it is just a textpost & yeah it’s a mean spirited one

i’m also tired of being sensitive about it. i wish i didn’t have to be!! that’d be swell! i’d love that! wouldn’t it be great if i had a magic time machine to undo all the deeply terrible experiences i’ve had because i’m ace! i wish i didn’t have to put things like “aphobes dont interact” in my fucking bio to draw my absolute bottom goddamned line, but here we are! 

i am tired of the majority of aces on the internet being this goddamn uwu because apparently that’s ace culture! bc like Where Are My People. the non-uwu aces. They Don’t Exist And I Am Alone. i can’t even trust other queers because they might be assholes like OP! they might reblog this post and then where would i be! i’m tired because i don’t know if i can trust people who laugh at this kinda stuff!

i am tired of seeing posts like these because then i do this whole internal thing where i feel the need to either side with someone who is supposed to be one of My People but looks like an idiot or someone who laughs at people like me and makes us feel ashamed and broken

mostly i’m tired because i read through OP’s blog and surprise they don’t even believe asexuality or aphobia is real and that the conceopt is inherently homophobic (me: a queer ace: lmao ok) so that’s where we’re at this fine monday night. three times i had to witness this fucking bullshit on my dash and no one stopped to think “hey you know what maybe that’s actually a shitty post and not a funny clapback” because if the target’s on an ace how can you miss lmao i hate this website and also the entire internet

[vampmcr]

moral of the story is nice guys are the worst. i mean everyone who learns the buzzwords to claim feminism, superiority, or abuse when they're the misogynist abusers.. gross. a great tell is when they use jargon incorrectly or repeatedly misspell words, so often u know isn't a typo but just their ignorance.. honestly you have to laugh they're beyond help. they're just self centred and self serving. they adopt the lingo as arsenal, but they look so dumb.

LMAO sometimes they dont even have to be nice... just well liked smh. also i see that all the fucking time like men trying to sound super smart but really theyre just saying fuck all . omg . my adhd brain sees right thru tho it bc i just decide to stop listening xxxx fake men are the worst tho there was this guy in our friend group who kind of constantly said horrible things about other people but was super loveable and nice to us? anyway he was in love w me apparently but i didnt like him back at all and he kind of made it his mission to be hurtful to me in secret. and i felt like i couldnt cut him off bc everyone loved him sm and i wouldve split the friend group up? we've cut him off now. honestly though befriending someone hateful is the worst thing. its like "wow this person is super fucking mean and negative all the time towards everyone else but..... they like me? wow i must be super fucking special!!" like no bitch !!! ur not lmao chances are they hate u too bc theyre a fucking miserable person x