#just say you dont like a thing. dont make it into some moral argument

[katetcake]

You ever see someone make a public call-out post to a portion of a fandom, but the deeper you go into why they think X thing is bad, the more you realize this is very much a them problem. Like their issue is so damn hyper specific it's actually insane.

Like have your headcanons, no one says don't have them. But don't try to force it on to others? If it goes against popular consensus, that's a you problem. A you problem you have to learn to deal w/. Plenty of people have headcanons or views that go contrary to popular fanon. God knows I do. It sucks, but learn to be mature about it.

Edit: Oh yikes. That person started calling everyone who criticized them a predator....

[snekdood]

at some point in the future:

*non vegan reading about a new vegan leather*: psh. bet it has plastic in it tho.

*scrolls down and finds out theres 0 plastic. the non vegan gets angry since now theres finally a vegan leather they dont get to complain about*: psh, bet it doesnt feel like real leather tho.

*scrolls down to find out the creators of this leather spent a lot of time to make it more "like real leather*: psh, bet they exploit their workers tho

just say you want to use animal leather and you were never going to consider an alternative in the first place, bud

[arolesbianism]

Why must I only be capable of coming up with cool art ideas long past midnight

[yuquinzel]

“hey,”

sae's ears perk up at the call of your voice. it sounds hesitant, almost a little desperate and most definitely defeated, he smirks internally. “you said something?” he asks, amusement dancing in his eyes as you simply refuse to spare him a glance.

“hmm? what was that?” he questions again, having heard you perfectly fine the first time. it's cute, he thinks. the way you glare at him for making you repeat your words.

“i said, open this for me.” you sigh, holding out a jar, eyes set on the lid with a sweet pout gracing your lips.

“oh,” he takes it, but doesn't really put any effort in trying to unlid it any time sooner. you wait, patience running thin after a mere seconds as you repeat, “sae, come on, i need it right now.”

this time he doesn't hide his smirk, he wants you to see the victorious glint in his eyes as he looks up at you again, batting his lashes in boyish way, something that you've called ‘charming’ before— almost tempting you to say he looks pretty right now because even when you're mad at him, he's still the most prettiest man you've ever seen.

you wouldn't dare though— not inflate his already big any more than it is.

“say please.”

“what? ”

“say please,” he repeats, an annoyingly amused chuckle leaving his lips.

itoshi sae is grinning at you in all his untouched glory on a random saturday morning because you asked him to open a jar for you especially after he had been eyeing you struggling to open it for the past fifteen minutes. you're sure the reason he's wearing that self-assured smirk is because the moments leading up to the aftermath of your argument with him, you have been avoiding him all morning.

you haven't been talking to him, leaving all his texts on seen, even going as far as leaving the room whenever he steps in— that one definitely wound him a little.

“i'm helping you out, saying please is common courtesy.”

“sae, I'm not in the mood to joke around.” you say with finality, finally meeting his eyes.

“who says I'm joking?”

“are you really okay with eating bland pasta tonight?” you scowl.

“are you really okay with continuing this attitude? you've been ignoring me all day, and you say I'm petty.” sae places the jar on the table, no longer of any significance to the conversation.

“oh, that's because you are. you're the reason I'm ignoring you.” you cross your arms.

“i said i was sorry, quit being mad. i didn't mean it.” he sighs, taking one step closer to you—he's testing the waters of your patience.

“sounded like you meant it alright.” your voice is a low whisper, and sae wants nothing more than to go back in time and knock some sense in his past self.

“people say things they don't mean when they're mad. i didn't either. what i did mean was that I'm sorry. really.” it's laced with enough regret to sound convincing, coaxing you to take a step closer to him — albeit, begrudgingly. your anger beginning to dissipate at the tenderness of his caress when sae brings his hand to brush his fingers over your cheekbones.

when he takes another careful step towards you and you don't step back, sae immediately envelopes you in his arms, rubbing circles on the small of your back as he hears you whisper, “you're mean,”

he laughs, “i know.”

“an asshole, a jerk, a stuck-up bastard—”

“yeah, okay, i get the picture.”

“dont just walk out on me like that, i don't ever wanna go to bed angry again.” you say at last, arms coming to drape around his shoulders. a sense of relief washes over him.

“right, i promise. i love you.”

sae basks in the silence that follows, he thinks it's okay you didn't say you love him too immediately. he's still trying to figure out if he deserves it or not. but when he hears you mutter a quick ‘i love you too ’, feeling all the love you hold for him carefully wrapped up in the syllables, tasting sweet on your lips when they meet his— he's glad he tightened the lid on the jar this morning.

© yuquinzel2023 [ plagiarism is a violation of moral rights ! ]

he's insufferable ( affectionate )

[vexwerewolf]

hey, I saw a post reblogged around hating the whole idea of no kink at pride and wanted to understand why that was, but noticed the comments were turned off, so I'm asking here. for reference I dont know very much about the subject and had the general idea that pride should be an all ages space, BUT (the but is very important) since I dont have much knowledge on the subject and can see you are very opinionated around it, id like to know why that is your stance from, well, someone who actually holds that stance.

No pressure to answer I simply want to understand why others hold this stance, the potential history behind it and if I am looking at things the wrong way, a chance to change my opinion

I hope all of this comes across correctly because im not trying to start internet discourse, just learn and have a well rounded understanding of a subject before taking a more solid stance

CW: discussion of sex, homophobia, kink, common anti-kink lies

Okay so if you're not read up on queer history, you have to understand that "deviant," "indecent" or "degenerate" sexuality is an accusation that's been used to repress queer people for pretty much as long as the concept has existed. It has often extended so far as to encompass any form of sex that isn't missionary cishet boning for the purpose of procreation, but it has always and by definition encompassed any and all ways that queer people have sex.

Now, I want to be clear that the LGBTQ+ community is not entirely about sex. Our community touches love, passion, art, gaming, basically every sphere of human experience, but it also includes sex. A lot of queer people like to have sex! Queer people, however, are judged for having and enjoying sex in a way that straight people simply aren't.

It's important to note that the concept of "degeneracy" is a vital component to white supremacist repression of queer people, because it inserts the necessary moral proposition that allows sex between two consenting adults to be labelled as harmful. As cynical as I am about the general public, it's actually pretty difficult to convince the average person that gay sex is something the government needs to repress in and of itself; any argument to this effect needs to come packaged with an additional, vaguely credible concern about social corrosion.

This is much easier to do with kinksters, because kinksters are weirder-looking than shirt-and-slacks queers (who, to be clear, are equally valid). But it's still difficult to make the average member of the public balk, because they'll say "well that sure is freaky but so long as they're doing it in private, who gives a shit?" So long as the people you're trying to stir up hate against aren't doing anything illegal, the average member of the public is gonna think you're the weird one for digging into other peoples' private sex lives.

Thus, the easiest avenue of attack is Pride, where it isn't in private. But it's a fucking deceitful canard. Straight people never have to answer for public displays of their sexuality, which are often far more gratuitous than some dude walking around in a pup mask.

[cringefail-clown]

Jakehal is very fun. But why dirkkri? I dont understand what's appealing about it :? confused

theres a lot of things i like about dirkri and honestly i dont even know where to start lmfao

first of all, and its mostly a funny reason - davekat on crack. like some traces of davekat are still there - the arguing about shit, stoic facade vs emotional mess, all the good stuff, but its also so much more exaggerated it makes it this much more ridiculous. gets even better when you consider them under the lense of swap aus like alphaswitch or tbau, where they land on the meteor together. theyre most likely hunting each other for sports by the year two

second of all, the funney. theyd be so fucking funny together. their smallest arguments would take like twenty pages of non-stop flow of red-orange text to resolve, and not because they came to a consensus but because some third party physically dragged them away from their electronics. it doesnt do any good, since it only gives them both time to think over new arguments to use, and theyre back at it as soon as they get their phones back. like if we had a tournament about which ship would do the most collateral damage to the overall group, i think these two would be Up There. karkat would gauge his eyes out from frustration, because now not only does he have to deal with his piece of shit, know-it-all other self, but now theres also Fucking Dirk thrown into the mix. their home life is absolute insanity, a small jab about the other forgetting to buy sugar once again devolves into a screaming match about the merits and flaws of communism or some other inane shit. and theyre doing it for fun, they enjoy debating with each other, because often times they have vastly different opinions, and comparing their beliefs challenges them intelectually and morally. from the outside perspective theyre one of the most dysfunctional pair in the paradox space, when in fact thats simply how they want their relationship to be, and it makes them better people overall.

third reason is that theyre thematically delicious. dirk is a control freak, micromanaging his and his friends constantly. hes terrified of losing control, but hes also desperate for someone to just tell him what the fuck he should do. dirk doesnt think he should be in control of others, because he believes hes a naturally evil person capable of horrible acts, at the same time he doesnt trust anyone else to get things done but himself. hes a whole collection of contradictions.

kankri desperately needs to be in control as well. hes constantly injecting himself into conversations he has no business being in, trying to find someone thatd listen to what he has to say. hes wants to guide others, but his efforts are flawed, because he doesnt listen to other perspectives - hes got tunnel vision, as he thinks hes the one in the right while everyone else is wrong or ignorant (cringefail seer literally). he doesnt trust anyone else to make decisions for him, and becomes defensive when he thinks others are attempting to coddle him. his ass was definitely culled on beforus.

theyre also both so fucking lonely. dirk conciously tries to put difference between himself and his friends, worrying hell "corrupt" them. kankri tries to connect to his friends, but his behavior alienates him from them to the point of no one except maybe porrim want to have anything to do with him.

my point is, kankri wants to guide people but has to learn to listen to others and reflect on his own flawed opinions. dirk has to learn to trust that people closest to him can get shit done on their own and loosen up, as well as realise hes not evil at the core. them helping each other out - dirk teaching kankri about different perspectives, kankri teaching dirk about letting others do their thing - is something i think about a lot.

also i like to think theyd spar for fun a lot as well. its not really a reason and wholly my own personal headcanon but i wanna mention it as well bc its so funny to me. i like the idea of kankris behaviour being a complete reverse of karkat - where karkat is all bark no bite and doesnt like fighting or violence, kankri puts up a front of the beacon of love and peace and tolerance, but in his free time he gets his rifle and goes shooting at the fucking squirrels or some shit. i think he wouldnt have the same qualms about strifing as karkat. like dirk would try to jokingly jab his finger at kankris side and he would just fucking flip him over his shoulder and onto the table breaking it in half, because he doesnt like being touched unexpectedly and by gods dirk when will you fucking learn. he goes from 0 to 100 real fast. its such a hysterical concept for me.

[kcokaine]

Hi sorry but people on twitter are saying you’re a nazi and I was just wondering if that was true??

Not only is this quite outrageous take on someone without like 0 actual proof. I can admit in the "proof"(the zionism thing which people mean as Nazism) people used against me was me at most being insensitive/ignorant which i already sincerely apologized for because i wasn't edjucated on the matter whatsoever. It was not right of me and I never repeated that after i found out about the truth of things.

But also this is ridiculous. I'm not american, I'm from a country that has been wartorn by nazis and communists. All my life I was taught about atrocities these two sides did to central europe and other countries. If you had a swastika tattooed on you here you would get literally arrested or killed on the street. But that isn't even an argument, that's just me stating how stupid and hypocritical it would be of anyone to support such things from the area i was raised in. I'm highly anti nazi, anti facist or anti anything that is even similar to that. I stand with civilians and innocent people that are being collateral damage to war and governments. Therefore I'm not a trump supporter, i was always left leaning i was always for rights. Hell I'm a bisexual woman, how could i ever support someone like Trump in my right mind?

I do not understand where this claim is absolutely coming from and i dont understand how people disregard the severity of saying this online with confidence. This is such a serious accusation that can ruin reputations unrightfully and just shows how people have no interest searching for more proof or anything before saying serious things because all they care about is drama and that the finger is not pointed at them in that moment. We as society got too comfortable about canceling and just saying anything, growing into complete parasocial relationship within each other. You are either no person to them, no human being or you are a glorified idea. Everyone is a person behind that screen and if they ever got over they pride and looked themselves in the core they would understand they also do mistakes and not everything is black and white.

I'm hurt by these accusations. This isn't anywhere close to calling someone names or weird for having odd preferences and stuff in fandoms. This is claiming that I support actual genocide, suffering of real people which is fucking awful. It makes me sad, deeply hurt. I'm not saying im better than anyone else, i dont need to be, I want this genocide to end same as anyone else would. I reflected, I took criticizm to heart and I'm now trying to truly do something with my following, i retweet donation links and donate to the charities with spare money i have.

The truth is, no matter what I say, it will never be enough for the people that just want to have moral highground, they act like they never made a mistake, like they were never ignorant in their life. I wonder how they would like it if someone took something terrible out of context and endlessly kept posting it on social media just to feel better without you having a proper chance to redeem yourself, always being seen as a "nazi" in some people's eyes because someone lied about you. It's sad and I'm sorry you keep seeing this lie about me. I think about it every day. And with this message I wanted to let you know what I truly feel and think. If you believe it is on you, but I'm finally putting my thoughts out there after months of thinking.

[mywitchyblog]

"Debunking Misinformation: The Truth About Age Changing in Shifting and Why Your 'Mature Soul' Argument Falls Flat"

Disclaimers : read the post fully you dont understand something ? ask me and i will happily clarify it for you. And debates and arguments are welcome, Fallacies arent.

And also i apologie for the tone that may be rough and/or intense i am trying to change that and perfect it , my apologies.

Alright, it’s time to really break this down and rip apart every flawed, uninformed argument you’ve laid out. You’re out here acting like you’ve got it all figured out, but spoiler alert: you don’t. So buckle in, because we’re going deep into the weeds, and I’m bringing receipts to debunk every one of your points with twice the heat and twice the sources.

"You bring up the fact you fully embody the reality that you go to, but your soul and experiences from here whilst ur there. It’s a mix of both."

Let’s get one thing straight: this idea that shifting is a "mix of both" is flat-out wrong. When you shift, you fully immerse yourself into your Desired Reality (DR) and become that version of yourself completely. There’s no half-and-half bullshit where part of your Original Reality (OR) self is sticking around while you live in your DR. If that were the case, no one would even bother shifting—what would be the point if you’re still dragging your OR baggage with you?

As I’ve said before and as extensively covered in sources like this Tumblr post, when you shift, you adopt the mindset, emotions, and even the memories of your DR self. Your awareness is fully aligned with the reality you’ve shifted into, meaning you think, feel, and live as that person. You don’t just “borrow” the body of your DR self while keeping your OR experiences in the background. It’s not a costume; it’s a complete immersion.

To say that part of your “soul” from OR sticks around? That’s just an uninformed take. Souls in this context are not limited or bound to the rules you’re trying to impose. Consciousness is vast, all-encompassing, and when you’re in your DR, you’re fully there. The idea that there’s some kind of fractured awareness where part of your “mature soul” is lurking in the background? That’s nonsense. As I’ve previously said, your soul adapts to the context of the reality you’re in. You’re not half in, half out. You’re all in.

"Being romantically involved with a minor knowing at least a part of your soul has matured is incredibly disgusting no matter how you phrase it."

Let me stop you right here because you’re trying to apply OR morality and assumptions to something that doesn’t even apply in a DR. You’re not walking around with your adult OR mind when you shift to a younger version of yourself. When you shift down, you fully take on the age you’ve shifted to, and that includes your mental, emotional, and cognitive states. As I’ve discussed before, and backed up by posts like this one, you aren’t keeping any “mature” part of yourself intact while you’re in the DR. You are mentally and emotionally aligned with the age you’ve shifted to, whether that’s 16 or 60. So this whole "part of your soul is still mature" argument? It’s based on a complete misunderstanding of what shifting really entails.

And let’s talk about your use of the word "disgusting." You’re trying to frame consensual experiences in a DR as inherently gross, but that’s just because you’re stuck thinking in OR terms. When someone shifts into a younger version of themselves, they aren’t an adult with a teenager’s body—they’re a teenager again, period. They think like a teenager, feel like a teenager, and experience relationships as a teenager. There’s nothing inherently disgusting about exploring love, relationships, or even sex in a different stage of life—especially when you’re doing it as a fully immersive part of that DR.

If you really want to cling to the argument that having any part of your soul "matured" makes romantic relationships problematic, then by that logic, you’d also have to condemn teenage shifters aging themselves up into adult relationships, because guess what? That’s the exact same thing, just reversed. But no one’s out here screaming about that because it doesn’t fit the "adults are creepy" narrative, right?

"It’s vile to see how many shifters do this and will never get any repercussions to their actions. I’ll die on that hill."

Alright, let’s talk about this hill you’re so eager to die on. The idea that shifters should face “repercussions” for engaging in consensual relationships in their DRs is just ridiculous. Shifting isn’t the same as living in OR, and you can’t impose OR consequences on DR actions. In your DR, you are the age you’ve shifted to, and the dynamics of your relationships match the context of that reality.

Here’s the thing: Intent matters. If someone is shifting to a younger version of themselves to relive missed opportunities, heal from trauma, or just experience youthful love again, there’s nothing inherently vile or wrong about that. As I’ve written extensively before, shifting is a deeply personal and immersive experience, and most shifters are doing it for reasons that have nothing to do with anything harmful. The idea that people should face "repercussions" for their DR relationships just shows you don’t understand how shifting works in the first place.

And let’s get real: If someone truly had vile intentions, they wouldn’t even bother shifting down. A real predator wouldn’t waste time becoming a teenager in their DR. They’d shift into a reality where their disgusting behavior is normalized or even celebrated. They’d create a world where their actions have no consequences. So the fact that you think “repercussions” are necessary shows that you’re missing the bigger picture. As I’ve discussed in depth here, the true issue lies in intent. If someone’s intent is to heal, grow, or explore, then no harm is being done. Full stop.

If your hill is built on assuming that every adult who shifts down is doing something harmful, then you’re standing on a pile of fallacies and fear-mongering. You can die on that hill if you want, but it’s made of weak arguments and ignorance. The majority of shifters aren’t engaging in anything harmful—they’re using shifting as a tool for self-discovery and healing. Don’t throw the entire community under the bus because you’ve failed to understand the complexities of the practice.

Bonus: Let’s Address the “Soul/Consciousness” Argument One More Time

Since you seem stuck on this whole “soul and consciousness” bit, let me break it down again. Souls and consciousness are vast, all-encompassing. When you shift, your soul is fully adapted to that reality. You’re not carrying over some mature OR fragment of yourself that suddenly taints your DR experiences. As explained in this Tumblr post, souls are adaptable and expansive. The idea that part of your soul stays mature while you’re in a younger body is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of consciousness. You’re just not aware of the vastness of your soul because, in that moment, you’re immersed in your DR self. Trying to claim that you have this lingering OR maturity floating around is just plain wrong.

Conclusion

So here’s the bottom line: Your entire argument is built on misunderstandings, double standards, and a fundamental lack of knowledge about how shifting works. You’re out here trying to apply OR morals and logic to something that exists outside of those rules. Shifters fully become the age they shift into—mentally, emotionally, and cognitively. There’s no half-in, half-out soul situation happening. And when shifters engage in relationships in their DR, it’s not “disgusting” or “vile” because they’re living in a completely different reality where their mindset aligns with that age.

You want to die on a hill of fallacies and false assumptions? Fine, but don’t expect everyone else to follow you there. The truth is, the majority of shifters are using this practice for self-exploration, healing, and growth. Intent is everything, and unless someone’s specifically scripting harmful dynamics, there’s nothing wrong with shifting to explore different stages of life.

So maybe it’s time to rethink your stance before you go throwing around accusations and blanket statements about how “vile” shifters are. As I’ve said before, most shifters aren’t doing anything harmful, and they’re not dragging their OR experiences into the DR to manipulate age dynamics. They’re fully embodying the age they’ve shifted into, living that life with the mindset, emotional capacity, and maturity of that version of themselves. Your assumptions about maturity and the soul are based on a limited understanding of what shifting actually entails, and frankly, it’s not helping anyone.

You’re out here dying on a hill made of shaky, fallacious arguments, while the rest of us are living in realities where intent, self-discovery, and healing are the focus. If you want to keep painting shifters as predatory based on a misunderstanding, that’s on you—but maybe take a second to realize that your perspective is rooted in fear, ignorance, and a flawed interpretation of how consciousness and shifting really work.

If you can’t wrap your head around the fact that shifting is a deeply personal, nuanced, and immersive experience where your OR doesn’t come into play the way you think it does, then maybe it’s time to step back and reconsider how much you really know about this community before making sweeping judgments.

P.S. Let me hit you with one more thing:

When it comes to your Original Reality (OR), you’re not walking around in your Desired Reality (DR) with your OR brain tagging along for the ride. Instead, you have extensive knowledge of your OR through the lens of your DR self. Your OR becomes more like a distant memory or background information that your DR self is aware of but isn’t actively living or processing with the same emotional or cognitive weight. So yeah, you’re aware of your OR, but it’s not some dominant force influencing your every thought or action. You’re living fully as your DR self, with only as much knowledge of your OR as your DR self needs to function in that reality.

You’re not straddling two worlds, dragging OR maturity into a DR body—you’re embodying your DR self, period. The knowledge you have of your OR is filtered through your DR self’s perspective, which means it’s not the same as living with your OR mindset in your DR. So again, the whole “part of your soul is still mature” argument? Nonsense. You’re aware of your OR, but you’re not mentally living in it while you’re in your DR.

Hope that clears up whatever lingering confusion you’ve got about how this actually works.

[yukishirostar]

So people are talking about a post in the Zolu tag by a certain tumblr user in regards to their issues with Zolu as a ship. They shall be unnamed because i dont wish to bring attention to them and instead just want to focus on their arguments because they're not the first people to make some of these points and so this is also an opportunity for me to talk about these things (a tweet is going around on Twitter containing these screenshots with the username so you can find it there if you need to anyway).

The way this person dismisses the relationship between Zoro and Luffy as a result of needing to pair gay Zoro with someone is too laughable, they must be very fit in order to be able to do these mental gymnastics. I believe that many people who are going on about the Zolu scenes in the OPLA were already Zolu shippers who were familiar with the original story and are enjoying the moments because they were well, really good Zolu moments? And there is actually, shockingly, many good Zolu moments in the original story too which is why many people ship them. Wild, I know.

Then there's 'straight-washed Sanji'. Equally if not more of a bizarre thing to believe. I might make some people mad especially the Sanji stans out there who constantly insist on the 'repressed queer' narrative with his character, but Sanji is written pretty explicitly to be seen as a cisgender and heterosexual character. The way you say with your whole chest that Luffy is 'canonically' aroace but don't acknowledge that Sanji is 'canonically' cishet is beyond hypocritical. If you believe Sanji looking like a 'misogynistic straight man' is different from the way he is written in canon then maybe you should go back and reread/rewatch series with your eyes open this time. If you wish to headcanon him with the frankly offensive repressed bisexual/transgender cliché then go ahead, but that is clearly not the intention Oda has with his character.

There's also the fact that aroace people can uh. Be in relationships. Get married. Have children. Did it occur to you that many people who ship Zolu ship them as an ace couple or-

First thing I want to say here, as a trans man who is 'mlm', can other dudes stop with this idea that women or fem-aligned individuals enjoying homosexual relationships between two men is inherently fetishising or that as a masc-aligned individual your enjoyment of a ship is morally superior in some way. Stop pulling out your 'mlm/ transmasc / cis gay' card in order to justify why your ship is superior. Its cringe af.

But if we are to insist that 'cishet female gaze fetishising mlm' is going on then ironically Zosan fits that the better than any ship in the fandom. It being by far the most popular mlm ship means there is likely a higher proportion of people who identify as cishet women who ship it. Its also the classic 'two men who dislike/hate eachother and have a toxic relationship but hot sexual tension' slash/yaoi stereotype. Majority of Zosan I've come across is depicting Zoro as the masculine male man in the relationship while Sanji the effeminate twink that Sanji stans project themselves onto and they go crazy for the bickering that is apparently reminiscent to them of a toxic heterosexual marriage. Meanwhile every Zolu/Luzo shipper I've interacted with has been some flavour of queer and Zolu is closest to the 'falling in love with your same sex bestie' narrative that the majority if not every non-heterosexual person has experienced at least once in their lifetime. This is just my personal view of course, but I think noting a difference in perspective on this topic is interesting and reveals that at the end of the day this is totally subjective and based purely on anecdotes.

Also it's just a very weird point here that apparently OP has 'plenty of varied queer rep' (it actually doesn't have that many canonical queer characters in relation to its cast size but anyway) and other media doesn't so shipping aroace characters in gay relationships is valid in those but not in One Piece … HUH???? So you're saying if One Piece had 'less' queer rep, then Zolu would be fine to ship? Idek my brain hurts.

"I have black friends so I'll speak for the black community and get offended for them" (btw this person then proceeded to block aroace people who had issues with their depiction of aroace people).

Also if we're talking canonical depictions, the only thing Zoro has been canonically depicted as is also aroace, equally if not moreso than Luffy. So by your own rules, you can't ship a cishet (sanji) with an aroace (zoro), therefore Zosan is now invalid. Stop erasing Zoro's aroace identity bigot.

'Categorically wrong' makes me laugh. I don't ship Zoro and Nami but like, people can ship what they want to??

'The general public is aware enough of gay people and how to spot them these days' uh... firstly this sounds very homophobic. Secondly the general public (cishet ppl) are famously bad at recognising queerness even when its in flashing lights before them. Thirdly you make it sound like Zoro was going around on roller skates and booty shorts listening to YMCA and Madonna in the show. I do agree he was gay-coded but it was mostly because he had sexual tension with every man he interacted with, not for the strange reasons you pointed out...

Its kinda the elephant in the room too but like. These are just headcanons. You can have multiple headcanons and interpretations of a character's sexuality. I can see Zoro as aroace virgin one day and a gay h*e the next. I'm actually allowed, legally, to do that.

The way they think shipping Zolu is harmful to aroace representation when BOTH characters are closest to being canonically aroace than anything yet ship Zosan, label being anti-Zolu as some kind of pro-ace activism, and then proceeded to block aroace people for criticising their incorrect depiction of what being aroace is...

This was a lot of words to say that you don't like a ship. Just say you don't like it, and it gets in the way of the ship you like, instead of writing a virtue signalling essay to justify your reasoning. Please.

They had some more to say on future posts I'll just pick my favourite bits

They really have this narrative that Zolu is only popular because of OPLA and can't fathom that its just a popular ship in general and always has been huh. And they couldn't make it more obvious that they're totally salty about it ranking in the top 100 most popular tumblr ships, lmao.

Your classic case of 'self-identifying ally who speaks over the people they are supposed allies of'. Its a general rule that you feel the need to declare yourself an ally you're probably not an ally, actual allies know they need to just shut up and do the work. Saying 'this character's aroace' and 'I have aroace friends' actually isn't what allyship is, thats just accepting that ace people exist which is like... the baseline.

Calling a wholesome loving ship like Zolu an icky ship is a severe consequence of online brain (this person is 26 years old btw)

[redscreendarkwin]

People being stupid (again, what a surprise)

Saw someone say that people who have "limiting beliefs" such as believing race changing and aging yourself down to date minors is wrong will keep you from shifting. Bitch, explain all the other shifters who have shifted (including myself through minishifts) with said "limited beliefs". Actually, explain anti-shifters who got into shifting because they didn't believe it wasn't real until they shifted.

You could literally claim ANYTHING is a "limited belief". Like for example, murder. I along with other shifters believe that murder is wrong. Does it mean I'm not gonna shift because of that? NO. Just because murder drs exist doesn't mean you should go to them just like how people who are not a certain race shouldn't shift to be another. Or like how if you're an adult, you should leave minors ALONE and not shift for them. Because that's stupid as fuck and I don't know about the rest of you people who claim anything is a "limited belief" but I have morals.

Like, you realize those people who murder innocent people in their drs could literally claim if you’re against it that that’s a limiting a belief. Some of yall don’t even think your arguments through and it SHOWS.

Do you see how your argument makes no logical sense?

This app has genuinely shown me that the majority of y'all are chronically online. Jumping through hoops to make it seem like you're not attracted to children or gaslighting minorities into thinking that race changing is ok just because you have a few Uncle Tom's backing you up.

"Well, I'm already that age in my dr so why does it matter?" why are you attracted to that child in the first place that you want to shift for them? Answer that, diddy. You're telling me that you see it as perfectly ok for 30 year old shifters to age themselves down to date someone who's 12 or even younger?

"B-b-b-but I'm already that race in my dr so why is it bad?" Maybe it's the fact you're purely using it for aesthetics/fetishization? If you're white, don't argue with me. I am never gonna look at your opinion as valid so you can stop typing on your keyboard now. Go outside.

I'm also so tired of people saying "It's not your dr, why should you care?" As if it's not human to care when people are culturally appropriating my or other people's culture for aesthetics/fetishizations or being pedophilic. Y'all care when people literally MURDER innocent people in other drs, why is it so different with this? Using your logic, we shouldn't care because it's not our dr.

And it’s so ironic that shiftblr proclaims itself as people who don’t spread false information when one of the biggest shiftblr blogs (this is targeting a specific person) is spreading false information like “if you don’t believe ____ you won’t shift.” You are quite literally doing the very thing you hate on shiftok for doing..

This app is FUCKED.

And dont try to debunk my post if you aren’t even gonna read my post in its entirety. Hint hint, you know who you are 😉

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

hi there! love your work! i recently had a prof say that all zoos (USA) are bad (so we shouldn't support them) and sanctuaries are better because using animals for entertainment is morally wrong, most zoo profits dont go to conservation, and conservation efforts are bandaid solutions to capitalism destroying animal habitats, so the real solution is to return the land to indigenous stewards to manage/rewild. i didn't disagree with the last bit, but the argument as a whole felt a little off to me for a reason i couldnt put my finger on. am i off base here? just feeling really unsure about the whole thing.

You're not wrong! There's a mix of reality and personal opinions in those statements, and it's definitely something worth critically examining. A quick fact-check of what they said for you:

All US zoos are bad

There's a massive range of quality of zoological facilities within the US (and around the world). Some are stellar and some are not, and it's really just not accurate to lump them all under the same umbrella for almost any purpose. Unless, of course, your issue isn't with animal welfare, and it's philosophical, which is what it sound like in #2...

2. Using animals for entertainment is morally wrong.

This is one of my favorite things to talk about w/r/t how we exhibit animals. Entertainment has become equated with exploitation and implicit low welfare in the last couple decades, and so you get a lot of people saying using animals for entertainment is wrong. But those same folk will say that they enjoy seeing animals in other contexts, and they think that's okay. Where's the line between enjoying something and being entertained by it? What makes something one and not the other? Also, we know that people learn better from from situations which are enjoyable/entertaining - even just a fun teacher who jokes around vs a dry lecture - so how can that only be a problem when it's used to make viewing animals more impactful? I wrote a whole piece on this a while back (linked here) if you want to dig into this more. Some zoos (and accrediting groups) are shying away from "entertainment" type branding - shows are demos now, for instance - and others are leaning into "edutainment" that's done with good welfare and communicates actual education messaging. In short, this is a personal philosophical belief, and you're right to question if you agree. (Even if you decide you do think that too! It's always good to question why someone is arguing what they believe about animal use, and how they came to believe it).

3. Sanctuaries are better than zoos.

There's two reasons I think he's misinformed here. First, almost all exotic animal sanctuaries in the US are licensed exhibitors - just like zoos! I only know of a couple that don't exhibit to the public at all. It's an important part of their revenue stream, because gate take helps support paying for animal care. Also anything you see from a sanctuary on Youtube, Facebook, or TikTok? Also exhibition! They just message about it differently, and often have a different ethos about how they exhibit (e.g. tours to reduce stress instead of letting people wander, doing conservation or rescue messaging instead of just display). Second... look, most people assume that the word "sanctuary" means a facility is intrinsically more ethical than a zoo, and therefore they must be a good place. In reality, many sanctuaries get much less public and regulatory scrutiny (at the state level) than most zoos. There are good sanctuaries out there, but there are also sanctuaries where stuff goes on that would absolutely be unacceptable at zoos, and it slides because of the assumption that sanctuaries are inherently more moral and ethical and care for their animals better.

4. Most zoo profits don't go to conservation

This is correct! Direct conservation funding is often a small part of the money a zoo makes. However, that's because money goes to things like facility maintenance, new construction, paying salaries, etc. If zoos put all the money they made back into conservation programs, practically, they wouldn't have the funding to continue to operate. The question that I'd suggest asking instead is "where are they putting money into conservation" and "are they doing conservation work or just throwing money at something to display the logo of the program." Also, it's worth keeping in mind that a lot of what zoos do to support conservation isn't necessarily financial. Many facilities contribute "in-kind", by doing things like sending staff to assist with programs or teach specific skills, or by donating things like vehicles and equipment. Research zoos do also seriously contributes to in-situ programs, and breeding programs for re-introduction like the scimitar-horned oryx and the black-footed ferret are also conservation. Could many of the big urban facilities with huge budgets do more? Yes. But looking just at dollars spent on conservation programs is disingenuous and inaccurate.

5. Conservation efforts are band-aid solutions to capitalism destroying habitats / Returning the land to indigenous peoples to manage/rewild is the real solution to conservation issues

This is a little outside my scope so I'm going to only address the part that I know. First off, like, there's no One True Answer to conservation issues. That's reductionist and inaccurate. Conservation really is a human issue, though, and it often has to involve solving human problems that lead to negative results for animals. There's definitely an issue with what some people call "parachute conservation" where Westerners swoop in and try to tell people living in range countries how to best manage their animals and natural resources without recognizing their perspectives, needs, or what drives their behavior towards those animals. That's not just a zoo issue - that's an issue with a ton of traditional Western conservation work. And there is progress towards fixing it! In the zoo world, I've been very impressed with the work out of The Living Desert, where their conservation people spend a lot of time overseas teaching people in range countries to evaluate and improve their own conservation programs, so they can assess efficacy and also have data to apply for grants, etc. They provide support when asked, rather than trying to tell people who live with these animals regularly what to do. One of my favorite programs that TLD collaborates with (they don't try to run it!) is a group called the Black Mambas that reduces poaching by supporting entire communities to reduce the desperation for food/income, educating kids about animals, and running all-female patrols staffed by community members.

Overall, it sounds like your professor's view of zoos is really informed by their personal moral perspective, and possibly reinforced by a lot of the misinformation / misleading messaging that exists about the industry and about conservation work. They do have some specifics right, but not necessarily the context to inform why things are like that. It was a good catch to question the mix of information and approach it critically.

[snekdood]

personally, i dont see the fundamental difference between deleting your account and making a new one and deleting all your old posts, if we're talking about "running from ones past", then what are you tryna hide there, bud?

[proshippers-against-censorship]

Long ask incoming so i really apologise for that lol.

in my honest opinion yaelokre is going about this incredibly wrong. but the way people have been talking about not only their characters (to be clear im not saying this because of "blah blah they're children" fake morality stuff or whatever lmao im a proshipper myself—but one of the main characters is quite literally meant to represent/be keath themself) but about them themself (sending them rape threats, threatening to draw them having sex with their characters?? I've seen a lot on the internet these past couple days, especially in proship spaces, which is so upsetting to me because I had so much more faith in our community 😭)... All this is incredibly disgusting to watch. and disheartening.

Are they going about this incredibly irresponsibly? Yes! Is it naive for them to expect that no rule 34 is created whatsoever? Yeah, probably! But they did explicitly say they dont want the characters directly representing their own childhood (including one who's basically their own persona) sexualised, much less have it sent directly to them (which it was—that's how we even got to this point, anyway) and going ahead and mocking this boundary directly, and then encouraging people to do it out of spite feels... off to me. dunno. (To be clear i think, once again, their actions are incredibly dumb and irresponsible. They're not justified in doing any of that and im not trying to say they are lol.)

(And, while we're here, there's a difference between gigantic heavily funded capitalist projects like disney, and Some Guy working on one deeply personal thing all by themself for free. Do whatever you want with like. Thousand dollar franchises with no specific human faces behind them, but it feels so weird to tear into someone's passion project theyre making out of love for free. Idk where else in my message this point fits so I'm leaving it here.)

I can't help but be reminded of antis tearing into my own work to "fix" it simply because i was a proshipper. On paper people can do whatever they want with fiction, can't they? Of course—but taking a story i made to cope with my trauma and spitefully twisting it to their own wants for no reason other than because I was a proshipper is still harrassment, still done with malice, and—proship/anti stuff removed—an objectively fucked up and mean fucking thing to do. Artists making shit for free do not owe you anything and that includes not owing you their comfortability with people interacting with their personal projects they are sharing with others (for free!! When they don't have to!!!) in certain ways. The same way they also don't owe you being comfortable with unprompted criticism and whatever else.

The "fiction is fiction" argument doesn't hold up when it starts to hurt real people. They aren't a bad person simply for not wanting their personal project sexualised (which—you could argue "that's not the problem, the problem is how theyre going about handling it it," which i agree with; but there are several posts on this very blog and countless others mocking them entirely for simply wanting their work not sexualised, and several posts encouraging others to make sexual content of their characters out of spite. Im not saying it's sexual harrassment but god it does start to feel like it's somewhere in that realm.) This isn't the first time anything like this has happened in their community, ive been here since the beginning, and in the beginning they were so unbelievably calm and polite about their boundaries and then people started directly dming them nsfw and things spiraled and here we are.

I've used the pottery analogy to explain this before—imagine someone puts a ceramic sculpture down on a table. It belongs to them, and they're very clearly proud of it. You could push it off the table and break it if it makes you happy, you won't even face any real consequences if you do. They'll just be really upset, rightfully so—it's their thing that they physically made. Maybe they even made it as a coping mechanism, only they know for sure. And they ask you to handle it gently if you decide pick it up. There's a billion things you theoretically could do, having now been made aware of this clear boundary, but only two are right—either handling it gently, or simply not picking it up in the first place.

You're a shitty person if you push it off the table. Using excuses like "there are lots of people in this room, someone was going to decide to break it eventually" doesn't suddenly absolve you morally because you are a sentient being, not a mindless robot slaving to statistics. Maybe statistically it was going to get broken eventually, it still doesn't make it right because you chose to break it yourself, directly going against what they asked you to do when handling their property, simply because it made you happy. I know full well you would not purposely damage or otherwise ignore clear boundaries or guidelines when it comes to someone's physical shit in real life. The concept of having boundaries about your own things that you made and own is not new and having to follow others' boundaries is not you being oppressed it's just being a decent human being.

Fictional characters' feelings don't matter more than real peoples'. But your own real person feelings of Mild Disappointment at not being to make porn for something you (evidently) don't even like that much ALSO don't matter more than the creator's massive upset and discomfort at direct representations of them (real person!!!) being sexualised.

TL;DR: yeah it's stupid of them to try to Anne Rice this whole situation. And yes they deserve to be called out for it and face the consequences for their actions. But let's... not treat them like it's so bafflingly unreasonable and evil of them for simply not wanting people to sexualise characters who are meant to be a direct representation of them (real person!!!!) as a child and let's EXTRA not break their boundaries even further. Their actions are stupid, yes. But their desires are like. A perfectly normal thing to want, if a little naive. harrassment is still harrassment. Being spiteful and vicious isn't suddenly okay when you're on the "right side" with the Right Opinions doing it. Being anti-harrassment doesn't only apply to people you like.

This ask isn't meant to come off as hostile or mean or anything so I sincerely apologise if it does. Wishing you the best. I also apologise if anything in this ask reads wrong it's late at night and im recovering from a concussion lol.

Fair enough.

I'm team 'break rules, not boundaries'.

By all means, show their Anne Rice approach is stupid by creating nsfw and properly tagging it and posting it to proper spaces. Fill R34 with that. Create nsfw fanworks on AO3 with proper tags. Go ham. But they clearly don't want to see it, so don't send it to them.

You wouldn't send porn of characters to any other creator without them asking. And you shouldn't be sending rape threats either. That's fucked up.

There's a difference between acting out of spite and acting out of malice, and I won't dispute the fact that some people are taking things quite far and doing the latter.

You can say a rule is dumb without taking steps to directly harm.

[pngjamie]

I got blocked 🧍 a little addition to the last post/reblog, I do genuinely understand where contrarians come from calling indie web projects "formulaic" or w/e but that does NOT mean I agree with em I think theres a valid way to have that argument and opinion! Just, yknow without the subtle homophobic + sexist undertones 😰

Im gonna use TADC as an example here- A lot of people like to dismiss it as like, cliche food bait for popular tropes but like, do any amount of research into Goose and shes always been like this /pos Sometimes- people just like making their things funky and weird!/pos Have you considered that people just like those tropes-? Another example is Welcome Home- which got SUPER knocked off by some people as just cliche tropes bright colors with edgy horror themes, again,

These creators arent making these things because theyre popular bait or sm shit, they just like this stuff!! Theres so many creators that are finally getting the opportunity, freedom, tools and skills to make what they have in mind! I genuinely believe its just a new generation of creators with like minds growing up and were seeing them rise at the same time :) Im saying this as someone who also doesnt really like mascot horror game tropes </3 im not personally a big fan of superhero tv shows where every episode is mostly the same thing with a different scenario/villain GUESS WHAT ! IM LITERALLY MAKING A PILOT FOR A VILLAIN/HERO SHOW ! There are aspects of that trope i really like! Things i intend to tinker with but its still so easy to just "gah, another darn superhero show about morality" and i think thats okay :) Theres generally speaking better ways to go abt this stuff but I dont know, im generally a supportive optimist instead of a critic

indie animation community i love youuuu thats all :)

[melkyt]

CW: Child Abuse, Doflamingo is a warning all of his own

Thinking about Law's flavor of trauma again. Making Doflamingo worse than he is, I like him being an absolute asshole but only to Law xd. So Doflamingo would often give Law orders, and in ways that he had to obey or die, Law was walking a tightrope, trying to prove useful to Doffy and survive long enough to get the fruit. He sometimes still remembers all the beatings, all the blood on his hands when he stopped caring just to avoid the pain at Diamante's or worse Doflamingo's hand. He would learn to obey no matter what it was, his soul, and any idea of morals that his parents taught him dying along with it.

That is until Cora saved him, until he met Penguin and Shachi, where they all learned what it is like to just be kids and not be afraid of a beating just because an adult barked at them with any sembelance of command. They healed together from the abuse they went through as children.

Still the trauma lingers there at the edges of his subconscious, and when Law is not at full health emotionally or physically, he finds himself following orders that are said in a firm tone and he hates more then anything. He always had nightmares after. That's why he avoids relationships outside casual one night stands. So when he starts meeting with Luffy, one turns to two, then three. Then they are dating, and that fear of he is only doing what Luffy wants will do what Luffy wants at their first argument as a couple pulses at the back of his mind constantly. He is afraid that by being in a relationship, he is sacrificing the freedom that Cora worked so hard to get him, yet he can't quite gather the strength to end it with Luffy. So he worries, doubts eating away.

Then while they are traveling they encounter a devil fruit user that has the power to bind two souls, making one the leader and the other cursed to obey for a time, it is a battle of willpower and Luffy's is stronger, he has no doubts about their relationship, or doubts about anything in general. He only does what he wants when he wants it, *others should either keep up with him, or speak up that they can't, he trusts Law to tell him things*

This Devilfruit user leaves as soon as they curse the two of them. Luffy saying something that comes of as an order. Law struggling to not do it, tears burning at the edges of his eyes. Its like all his doubts came true. He tries to hide it as he does whatever little thing Luffy asked him to do.

Luffy notices that Law is doing it just like that. Usually, they bicker about most tasks, casual and with a grin, thats half the fun. He notices that Law is in distress and that he is about to cry. Luffy tells Law to stop, which only makes it worse. Law's hands shake.

Luffy pouts that Law listens again. He makes a few statements, testing whats going on. Then, gets it and starts adding 'if you want' before every statement. Whatever power took control of Law relaxes and he can talk, but he still breaks down in Luffy's arms. Because of having to obey, and because he did not expect Luffy to adjust to make sure he is not forcing Law to obey even though he has the actual power to do so.

Luffy calling Traffy dumb, ofc he dont want boring ass obedience. He wants everyone to be free, why would he ever make Traffy do anything he doesnt want? They love each other right? So its only right that he wants his special one to do whatever he wants and be free. Law is beyond words, holding onto Luffy as he comes down from reliving some of the worst times of his existence. Then they go back to bickering in their usual way xd

[its-the-sa]

Different anon. God just boiling down the slugcats to 'animals' angers me in a way I didn't think I could be angry. Yes, they are animals, but by all means they are cognitive and understand complex emotions, communicate with a supposedly complex language, are able to be taught to do things. Why else would the iterators use them as messengers constantly? It's not like they're messenger pigeons where it's just going from point A to point B, they understand exact instructions. If this was just some random animal, making groans and grunts, they wouldn't be able to understand what Five Pebbles even meant when he was explaining how to ascend. Even with the mark, could you imagine if he told a lizard this? Artificer, arguably, is a prime example of this. Just an animal would get over their fallen children, sure they'd grieve but in the end they'd just make more. Arti not only is so enraged by their death, that she is physically incapable of ascension, but also swears vengeance upon a whole other species. This isn't just some animal who lost her children, this is a mother who is enraged at her children's murder. Sure, they aren't on the same level as humans are. Like obviously. But I'd argue it makes sense that a scavenger and a slugcat could fall down the path of enemies to lovers. Especially when you consider the fact that death isn't permanent in Rain World's universe. That would definitely change one's perspective on it. I dunno if I make sense, I'm juggling like three things at once, but I had to say what I needed to say. Wording bad, slugcat smort.

tbh it took me a minute to figure out what this was even referring to, because honestly I don't think that anon meant to use the word 'animal' to dehumanize arti in the first place. it sounded to me like they were just using it as a non-human equivalent for 'person', like "why would anyone fall for a person who committed hate crimes against them?" which is a valid question. it never even occurred to me that they could have meant it in the sense of calling her an inferior creature.

that said... you ARE 100% right and you should say it, lmao.

I very nearly got into this exact argument once, bc i saw some comments from a guy scoffing at the idea of arti showing mercy to baby scavs. because by his logic, 'she is just an animal, so she isn't bound by human morality. in the wild, animals kill any young that don't belong to them without hesitation'. and it just pissed me off so much, because not only was it such an edgy "mercy is for the WEAK!" alpha-male bullshit take, it was also just factually wrong. many animals can and do adopt the young of other animals, even other species, especially when they've just lost their own. and like you said, they can grieve, but then they move on. they keep surviving, and making more babies. they don't dwell on injustice, or let rage consume them to the point that it becomes a hindrance to their own survival. they don't go on single-minded revenge quests. they dont try to justify their own violence by demonizing entire species, and they dont end up plagued by guilt in their sleep. those are very, very human things.

and yeah, i see a lot of people theorize that it's the mark of communication that grants the slugcats higher intelligence, but I don't really buy that either. i think the mark just lets them understand the iterator's language. they must've already had the capacity to understand it, or else it wouldn't work at all. it'd be like trying to install windows on a calculator. also, even without the mark, slugcats are obviously shown to communicate with each other. they have their own culture, they tell stories and make art, and they're apparently able to understand karma and the nature of the cycle at least enough to be able to ascend. so like... any creature thats capable of spiritual enlightenment must at least be sapient, right??

it seems like in the absence of the ancients, both slugcats and scavs are beginning to move in to their niche in the ecosystem