#oh the hypocrisy is rife

[toebeans-mcgee]

Imagine being so weak you’re offended by a tumblr ad... no wonder this country is going to shit.

Imagine being so weak you feel the need to leave an anon message instead of blocking and moving on like an adult. Get steppin’ honey

[where-dreams-dwell]

Argh the hypocrisy, misogyny and wilful misunderstanding around women as fans is so infuriating!

Matt Rife wants to ‘assure’ people that he doesn’t ‘cater to women’ in his new comedy special. If so that is a fucking *stupid* decision.

Because if you’re an artist then a largely female fan base is a great marker for success.

Some of the most successful global artists right now? Taylor Swift. BTS (and K-pop to a greater extent). Harry Styles. Beyoncé.

The majority of their fanbase? Female.

IMPORTANT: I’m NOT saying men don’t love/support/consume these artists, or that they shouldn’t. Huge numbers of men love and support these artists, and they should continue to do so. I’m stating that the majority of these fanbases are made up of women.

And women show up for you as an artist, on every metric which currently tracks ‘success’. They stream your songs/interviews/skits; they buy your album/record/dvd; they fight over tickets and pay astronomical fees to see you live; they tune into your award shows/guest stars; they watch your movies/documentaries; they post about you and your activities; and they go to bat for you in arenas you aren’t even aware of.

The colleague at work who heard a BTS song on the radio? Oh yeah, it can be intimidating if you don’t know who they are, here let me help you understand more and show you their best attributes and why you might like to learn more.

The family member who doesn’t ‘get’ why this singer is all over their TV? No worries, let me explain their songs and why they resonate, how they connect with their fans and why they’re incredibly talented.

And when ‘real’ artists are brought up to compare them against, not only do they pick an artist who’s peak years were decades ago, they try to rewrite history.

‘Yeah they might be successful but they’re not the Beatles!’ Okay so you see the Beatles as legitimate, successful, global artists with talent. Shall we look at Beatle Mania? A huge part of their success was the women who supported them, who bought their records, showed up to their performances, who funded their financial success and drove their pop culture relevance.

‘Yes they’re a good singer but they’re not Elvis!’. Oh are you referring to ‘The Hips’ who’s gyrating style of dancing ‘drove women wild’? Who’s success in music meant he was *able* to make movies and tour the country. The women who consumed his music, came to his shows, followed his personal life in the news, who watched his movies - they’re the ones who financed his life. Guys wanted to be Elvis, to dress like him, because women loved him.

Why is having a majority female audience seen to delegitimise you as an artist? When they are the ones who got you to where you are now, why are they suddenly not good enough?

[avelera]

Your fic reblog reminded me - after reading your fic last night I was musing about Dream calling the human cultural practice of forcing a couple to wed if they came to be with child barbaric. I mean, he's not wrong but I did think it somewhat ironic considering the Endless and Greek gods (and presumably other entities of Higher Power) can be bound to the whims of cruel humans due to unjust laws. It was just a thought that I had and forgot to add to my comment on your fic. ^-^

Oh definitely! I was absolutely intentionally invoking the canonical experiences of Dream and Calliope in the 20th c with Dream's outrage in that moment.

(Cut for some Giving Sanctuary Behind the Scenes rambling because I CAN)

On a deeper level, I can imagine that in the world of gods and goddesses who can, theoretically, absolutely control their own bodies and are never at the whims of a lack of resources (like money, food, etc.) the idea of being forced to bind yourself to a person against your will to survive or for your child to survive, and/or for that child to not be an active choice, would be especially barbaric to them, because I often write Dream as not seeming to quite understand, beyond the abstract, that humans have these needs like food and other resources to survive. Sure he knows Hob might have grown up through famines so him sharing largess in 1589 was an act of generosity as well as triumph, but since Dream has never personally experienced those privations, he mostly sees Hob as being boorish. Of course, if you confronted Dream about his ignorance, he'd use his abstract knowledge of these limitations as proof that he understands them, but I truly doubt he does unless he personally experiences them, much like many people who live in the ultimate privilege bubbles (like limitless resources, immortality, beauty, and magical powers, Dream).

Now, I did wrestle with the line a little because obviously, Greek myth in particular is rife with women being forced into lives they don't want, to give birth to children they didn't consent to, and experience relationships they did not agree to. For that, I'd defer to Dream being Endless and not being a god, indeed being disdainful of gods as lower than him. Mere gods might engage in such behavior, but he is Endless so he finds even gods barbaric in ways, but they're still an order of magnitude (on average) more civilized than your average human (like Hob).

Of course, Dream definitely wouldn't like anyone to ask whether or not his dreams and nightmares get paid or otherwise compensated for their total lack of autonomy to even choose if they are dreams or nightmares, but sure Dream, tell us about the unquestionable evils of human slavery and non-consensual marriages while you were born to a position of absolute authority and rule your realm as an unquestioned god-king over entities who are forced to live according to your whims without compensation. I mean, good on you for knowing these things are horrifically evil, but like... idk, maybe look around your own house, dude?

Which is all an elaborate way of saying: Dream isn't wrong but man, don't go digging too deep without expecting to find some deep hypocrisy in his pronouncements.

[tinky-dinky]

Every time I think about or see something about the Falcon and the Winter Soldier, I get angry.

That show had potential. It could have been good. But it wasn’t.

It was a Rogers shilling hypocritical mess.

Some of its issues are typical of the wider MCU- like that sad, pretty young woman Karli is treated sympathetically while angry man John Walker is not, even though he is the far more sympathetic character. It echoes of Wanda and Tony.

The way they chose to handle John Walker exemplifies my issues with this show. It’s so focused on insisting that Rogers was just the best man ever, so perfect, so good so John can never measure up.

Rogers spends an entire film defying the entire world and attacking people, including his friend Tony, for his beloved Bucky? Oh that’s perfectly fine. Doesn’t matter that there’s no way no one died in Bucharest, given how he and Bucky were flinging people and vehicles about.

John kills a terrorist who helped kill his best friend Lamar? The worst thing ever. He’s an awful person. How dare he.

The hypocrisy is rife.

A Cap Stan actually said that Rogers doesn’t kill people. What films were they watching? Rogers was a soldier! In World War 2! Of course he killed people! And he hardly pulls his punches after that either. And Civil War proves he doesn’t care about anyone who dies while he’s fighting a bad guy.

Rogers was a self righteous, selfish hypocrite. And yet John Walker is seen as the bad Captain America. Ugh.

[tellthemeerkatsitsfine]

I'm into the live episode that make up the last five episodes of season 3 of the Ray Peacock Podcast. Then one more season and then I can move on and pretend none of this ever happened and that'll be for the best. They did make me laugh pretty hard on the bus today. But this is definitely not a healthy part of a media diet.

Anyway. It is really weird to listen to this show from 2007-2008, and so much of it is so different. Ed Gamble is, mostly, borderline unrecognizable. The world they're in is borderline unrecognizable, the references and the talk of the media landscape are so wildly different.

Do you want to know a change that I like, and didn't until today manage to put my finger on what exactly that difference is? That they can say horrible things without prefacing them with "I bet this'll get me canceled by the wokes" every time. They could just say horrible things because they genuinely believed it would be funny, rather than these days, when people say horrible things because they can brag about how they say cancel-able stuff and that'll get them attention and let them sell tickets/views to horrible people who will put their money toward supporting anything that's horrible. It's hard to hide behind "but I was just being ironic!" when you do it like that. I realized I've grown so used to the "Oh my God you'd better come listen to me say something cancel-able!" grifters that it now actually sounds weird to me to hear someone be edgy without the grift.

Anyway, this podcast is so rife with big and small clues that it existed in a totally different world to ours, it's actually escapist as I re-arrange my brain to temporarily inhabit this other world while I enjoy the podcast, that I found it amazingly jarring to be suddenly pulled back into reality by something that is amusingly still exactly the same today:

This reminds me of when I was listening to Lee and Herring on the radio in 1994 and they started talking shit about Bruce Dessau, and I asked, how long has that guy been going? Not just that he was doing this in 1994, but that by then, he was already so well established that he was a go-to reference for comedians who talk about reviewers. (Although I guess I can't consider it that weird, since Lee and Herring were established enough to have a radio show by 1994, and they're both still going.)

I obviously knew that Chortle existed in 2008, since for one thing, it hosted The Ray Peacock Podcast at the time (I don't actually know when Chortle started, but I've found a Chortle review of John Oliver's first stand-up hour in 2002 - Steve wasn't impressed - so at least that long). But for some reason it really, really surprised me to hear how little has changed. I find it genuinely baffling how someone can get away with running a largely text-based web publication for a living while constantly making mistakes in the technical side of writing, and I think on some level, I must have assumed that he was good at it in the early days, and then just got well established enough to not have to care as much. Standards for proper spelling on the internet in general were higher in those days too (for professional publications, that is - they were probably lower on forum posts and things). I didn't even consciously realize that's an assumption I was making about Steve Bennett, until I heard he couldn't spell in 2008 either, and I found that shocking. How does he have his career then? Why doesn't someone stop him? Apparently Steve Bennett's inability to spell is the one thing that connects all parallel universes. In this entire podcast so far, it's the only reference they've made that hasn't dated.

(Obligatory note, and I know I say this every time but I still can't leave it out because hypocrisy bothers me, of course my Tumblr blog is full of errors, I'm writing it for free, I would have this shit polished and pristine if someone were paying me for it.)

[sandsofdteam-moved]

well sapnap was getting glitched out for a bit so maybe I will be a little evil a little silly if u will but a little rant under the read more abt the zach thing

I mean right off the bat I feel a resounding disappointment. I haven't really watched the try guys in a while and I do still feel bad for them—Ned was irresponsible and his actions left the rest of the Guys and his family scrambling to save their company, their reputations, and just their lives as they knew it, and they faced tons of heat online for 'covering it up' before they released their explanation video last weekend. We especially have seen how horrible internet users can be to people they think are condemnable, and I'm certain they were on the receiving end of that hate.

That being said, you'd think that Zach would know a lot better than to turn around and do that same thing to someone else. I don't know if he ever saw the full extent of the bullying he faced on the internet after the reveal, but idk I'd think regardless saying that someone should be bullied more for their looks shouldn't even be a tweet that should've crossed his mind???

Idk on one hand I get it, there's rife misinformation about Dream being a catch-all for every single horrible thing someone can be, but even then you don't ADVOCATE for bullying based on their looks?? Like at the very least you aim for their actual idiocy and call out the apparent hypocrisy (even if it's untrue). Then to double down and say that encouraging bullying someone's looks is a "hot take" was just fanning the fucking flames. Like come on, there's a brain up there, I saw it during the video that they posted that explained their situation and their stances in the best possible way. He's being an idiot and definitely deserves people calling out his hypocrisy and for how easily he stooped to the lowest level without even looking into possible misinformation, especially given the last couple of weeks he's had too. Hope he learns from this, but he's not really worth the energy and it's way better to ignore him than fight with try guys defenders given that he's in a much more sympathetic position with the greater internet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

also don't love the "oh I knew it"s and the turning around and bullying him back because it's only fodder for people to fight back—it's not worth it and it's way better for people to see that he's an asshole instead of people seeing us on the same wavelength. just my personal MO though I get it's not for everyone and it's not my place to tell anyone what to do lmfao

[amuser-96]

Funny how Karen Traviss accused the Jedi of white supremacy considering how racist most of her Mando characters were. Or like what she liked to cover it up as “hypocrisy.”

Or how one of the minor Mando characters wanted to open up a legitimate eugenics program with a force sensitive as a human stud horse.

Not only were most of Karen’s Mandos space racist and transphobic but they were also ableist (the Halo fandom can account for Karen writing Ableism in her work), and also found Force Sensitives creepy.

There’s also a lot that can be said about Karen’s hard on for the White Savior Trope and how her books were rife with colonial racism, especially centered around the clones. Like the books wouldn’t shut up about their genes, and Mandalorian ancestors despite the fact that they weren’t even ethnically Mandalorian.

Even Jango’s success as Mand’alor is attributed to his Mandalorian ancestors at one point, and so are most of the clones’ accomplishments. It’s always Jango’s genetic ancestors this, Mandalorian ancestor that despite the fact that Jango’s biological parents weren’t even ethnically Mandalorian, and neither is Jango or the clones. Really milked that one drop of Mandalorian blood Jango had.

The one time Jango’s Non Mandalorian ancestors were even brought up is in regards to Jango’s literal parents. Those of you familiar with racism in America can recognize that.

You know this was in reference to clones becoming farmers, a career that have been looked down upon several times in the books by other Mandos, because Mandalorian men should be soldiers and warriors and those who aren’t aren’t Mandalorian.

Isn’t it funny how it’s Karen’s Mando characters that bemoan the lack of genetic purity in the regular clone troopers who were genetically modified? Because that’s what it was whenever the reg troopers were looked down upon for being docile and lesser because of their genes.

Hell, the Mnadalorian Hokan, who might have been an antagonist ultimately offed by the commandos, and a rumored ex-member of Death Watch—which wasn’t even true considering he was a Jango fanboy—believed the clones would be better off dead because of their genetic modifications rather than say rescued from their lives of slavery.

Oh, and Kal called the commandos mongrels. Just adding that in for those of you who don’t believe Kal was racist and a bad father in the books. Never mind the other slurs he called them, and the commandos took as him not meaning any of them.

Stumbled upon your master list of SW meta you wrote, and enjoyed reading through some of them, especially the ones that examined and defended the jedi order. I point to the jedi order in particular because when you pointed out that the number of jedi in the galaxy are proportionally smaller compared to a planet with a population in the trillions, it reminded me of a bad take regarding the order (which is conflated with the whole "the jedi are actually the bad guys" in SW): that the jedi are eugenicists because their adoption of force sensitive children. This never sat right with me given that the jedi never seemed the type to be concerned with propagating their numbers in some form of "purity" (genetic or force sensitivity wise). Any chance you can gleam into the nitty-gritty of this take's unsavory implications?

OOf, that's an old ask, and that reminds me that I really need to update that masterlist 😅 (and me saying that is an even older draft, oops 😂)

Okay, the idea of the Jedi being *eugenicists* is SO out of left field that I feel like it doesn't even deserve to be really addressed so much as mocked, because words mean things.

To be quite fair, I don't think I've ever seen anybody seriously use that word. (It may very well have happened tho, I just can't remember somebody seriously making the claim and sticking to it.) Even the infamous KT rant (see below) doesn't call them that - the extremely weird and frankly absurd take is that they embody supremacist ideas and that people who are into them believe there is such a thing as an inherently superior person. She does use the word "Nazi" (just wow), but I don't think she was going for the eugenics part, just the run of the mill white supremacy theories. People on both sides of the argument may have misquoted/misinterpreted her on that though.

(Seriously woman, why were you even writing for Star Wars?! YOU DIDN'T EVEN LIKE IT!)

Now, eugenics? (This post is so weird to write, I can't even) ⇊

It is LAUGHABLE to use it in relation to the Jedi Order, because as you accurately put it, the Jedi just aren't interested in... making babies.

Do they force their members to procreate, even artificially? Absolutely not.

Are they seeking to improve the Order by only taking in the healthiest, strongest, most powerful children? No. They were ready to reject Anakin, for one thing.

Are they studying how to arrange reproduction in the rest of the galactic population? No.

Is there a ban on non-Jedi Force sensitives having children of their own? No. Are they forced or even strongly encouraged to have children of their own? No.

Do Jedi control who Force-sensitives are allowed to have children with? No.

Do Jedi test for Force-sensitivity and keep records of it? Yes. But they don't seem to keep genealogies - there's nothing that says the list in the Holocron is a permanent one either - rather, the way it's phrased and the way there's only babies on it, names are probably erased eventually. And the purpose of the list has nothing to do with increasing the occurence of Force-sensitivity.

Are non-Jedi Force sensitives forced by law to give up their kids? No.

Do Jedi automatically take in Force-sensitive children anyway? No. Bardotta and Dathomir are right there and nobody's bothering them.

Is the Order ableist? No. We even see plenty of disabled Jedi and nobody is throwing them out. (Amputees like Anakin and elderly people like Yoda and Tera Sinube, for starters. Also Prosset Dibs, or Tahl in Legends).

The Force isn't even proven to be reliably 'transmissible' from one generation to the next - the Force 'being strong' in particular families may just as easily be for more spiritual reasons depending on how you want to look at it. Because, you know, Star Wars isn't all literal.

IT'S JUST SO DUMB.

NOTHING ABOUT HOW THE ORDER WORKS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THAT WORD MEANS.

(I'm sorry I'm not dissing you for the ask I just don't get how anybody could ever have said that 😂😭)

[andromedasummer]

Hi! Is the thing with Mitch being far right real? I've looked through his Twitter and there seems to be nothing on that. To be fair, I'm not really on Twitter much so I might be missing something big time

oh hes not far right as far as i know, (i hope not) but he retweeted anti-government sentiments from the ACT party last year in regards to our lockdown rules and made anti-labour and jacinda ardern instagram posts (full on rant about how the government was "destroying this beautiful country". the reason being he was upset he could not enter into new zealand until this year because of our lockdown requirements. there was, however, a period where he could have returned here at the start of the pandemic and later on in 2021 had he taken the time to apply and wait a few weeks in a hotel to be cleared if covid. he chose to stay in monaco.

most the people supporting ACT and anti-labour protests that have been rife around the country are far-right. qanon types, anti-vax, anti-"communism", supporters of Brian Tamaki (notorious church leader with bigoted beliefs in the name of "Freedom". blamed the Christchurch quakes that killed like 300 people on god punishing us for trying to make gay marriage legal. held a protest a few weeks ago at parliament. i cheered for counter protestors pointing out their hypocrisy when i walked past on my way to work and got called a f*ggot. real charmers that lot.).

they believe jacinda is attempting a full on dictator style takeover with lockdowns (no longer in place) mask mandates (not a thing) and vaccine mandates (not a thing). call her a communist and edit her to look like hitler. they blocked our public transport for a month back in feb when they occupied the parliament grounds. assaulted multiple people including young teenage girls, some of which were my coworkers and when they finally got chased away they set fire to tents and playgrounds.

a lot of them are tied into the anti-1080 movement, something personal to me as i have had friends and family members threatened with violence and break ins for working in the environmental sector and seen the violence these people have attempted (massacre of native birds, shots at the DOC vehicle, DOC worker chaser with a machete etc). theyre all very conspiracy prone and downright dangerous. ACT find an easy target for support in them even if they wont admit it. and unfortunately for Mitch he was made an easy target as well.

i very much doubt mitch is paying attention to anything happening here and only retweeted comments that aligned with his want to go home. something selfish considering his ability to when this all started, and many less wealthy new zealanders who didnt have the money to stay in monaco when they didnt make it back in time. hes likely uneducated on the kind of people supporting these movements and so disconnected from nz all he saw was a blocker to him coming home and got mad and had a rant.

either way i find it worrying hes willing to talk about nz politics so loudly and quickly like that, apparently without looking deep into the situations we're in or any of the context behind these ideas and conflicts. im no fan of jacinda and fucked off with the neolib half-left full-useless policy and idea bullshit that labour are pulling for sure. but i'll take that over national and their new leader who was in charge of our only airline while they were supplying plane parts to countries who used them on innocent, protesting civilians.

all this to say i think he pretty much can risk retweeting whatever party he wants and supporting whatever views he wants without looking deep into their ideals because ultimately he wouldn't be affected by their ideas or policies. ACT, the people whose anti-lockdown tweets he supported, come into power? (as if lmao) he lives in another country, and even if he lived here they wouldn't be enacting policies that affect him with the money he has. on the other hand as a bi nonbinary, person I'm not so into their idea of unbanning conversion therapy in the name of free peace.

[farewell-happy-fields]

Finger Pointing Politics in the UK

How highlighting inequality elsewhere in the world allows for insidious, systematic and institutionalised racism to continue infecting Britain itself. And how we have been actively kept ignorant.

The British ruling class relies upon, and is built upon finger pointing. In pointing out how another country is tackling an issue faced in our country in a less effective, less efficient manner, they successfully create the illusion that this is an area within which Britain must be succeeding.

Not only is it simply not true that Britain is somehow leading the way when it comes to tackling with many of these social, political and economic issues, it is highly damaging to the campaigns trying to tackle these injustices at home. This illusion of success, this narrative of empty victory sustains the colonial narrative that Britain is a great civilisation; Britain is simply more developed in ways that other nations are not. It simultaneously belittles other countries and maintains British Exceptionalism and superiority. This narrative that the UK is somehow a highly competent and successful country, and somehow better than the rest, is carefully preserved by those in charge. It has seeped into even some of the most seemingly mundane aspects of British life, such as the national curriculum.

British values are taught in schools as part of the mandated curriculum given to schools by the government. British values are taught as though A) these values are uniquely British and B) these values are genuinely reflective of Britain. British values, as taught in schools, introduce young children that at the core of Britain lies democracy, tolerance and meritocracy. It frames them as particular to Britain. It suggests that Britain alone is founded on these values, that Britain upholds these values, and that Britain respects these values.

We know this to be false. If Britain had truly been founded upon true democracy voting wouldn’t have been impossible for working class, women or people of colour in Britain, nor would Britain’s origins be so firmly anchored in the feudal system. If meritocracy were truly the creed of this nation then everyone would receive equal opportunity, and it wouldn’t be an exception to see women and PoC succeed in the work place, or live in the nicer ends of town, or at a private school. If tolerance mattered so much to being British then racism wouldn’t be excused. How long can we pretend that these are British values when they are not reflected in society with actions and outcomes?

As well as these self-professed values, Britain also teaches a heavily colonised curriculum, that upholds and adds to Britain’s self-imposed image as the plucky underdog that frequently defies expectation and can do no wrong, while conveniently avoiding the power of the largest Empire in the world and the consequences and atrocities of this sordid past. Britain refuses to acknowledge the damage they dealt in the past and expect us to forget the truth and buy into their fictitious history. If our past was something to be so championed the government wouldn’t have actively burned, buried or sunk so many records following the decolonisation of former colonies. There wouldn’t have had to have been a court case in 2011 to discover the extent of the abuse those colonised faced, and that records had been safely guarded and locked away in Hanslope Park.

But how is it, then, that we are able to buy into our fictionalised history? How has this photoshopped history been maintained for so long?

And the answer lies in Britain’s constant finger pointing. It sweeps a whole host of crimes under the carpet, allows for the people and the government to ignore their own past and present. Good and bad becomes associated with British and Other. People are blind to poverty in the very areas in which they reside, because childhood malnutrition happens ‘in Africa’ (a heavily racialised stereotype, but how often have you heard ‘there are children in Africa starving’ when someone leaves their peas), and it would be inconceivable that such a crude injustice would exist in Britain. People are blind to our own Civil Rights movement and the effects still felt by PoC today in Britain because, oh, the USA has the real issue with their police murdering citizens on account of race, not us.

It is an active attempt by the ruling class that benefits from these injustices rife in the UK to maintain the status quo in Britain. They keep the fight distant, so that its message cannot ignite a fire at home. They actively encourage us to look elsewhere to channel our hurt and anger so we do not notice the same right under our noses.

It encourages hypocrisy among Britons.

It also creates the perfect opt out for Britons.

We are so quick to condemn the torrid events of other countries, while we are blind to what happens on our own streets. People leap at the opportunity to show their devotion to anti-racist causes in America while remaining silent about those in their own country. It allows people to do just enough to avoid being seen as apathetic, but without having to confront the issues that affect the very people they know. It allows people to wash their hands of issues while little changes in their own lives. It lends these people an increased sense of superiority, morally, because they have done such a Good and Brave thing for those poor people who are suffering overseas.

But it also lends a sense of superiority nationally. It perpetuates British Exceptionalism. Because, look how bad those people that aren’t us have it - that could never happen here.

Recognise that the fight for equality is a worldwide issue. Of course we should fight hard for justice in America, and everywhere necessary.

But don’t neglect the home front simply because it is a more uncomfortable fight.

[depplosion]

Hey guys, you'll never believe this (or maybe you will). I was unfortunate enough to stumble into a far and remote corner of our beloved phandom today, a corner which is dark and full of terrors (and hypocrisy). A sparsely populated little planet, rife with ignorance and limited vision, completely devoid of intelligent life. Perhaps some of you have been there, yourselves. Yes, dear friends, I am referring to the rare sub-species of phan known as the "anti-E/C shippers". They hate Erik, in general, because he is an abuser, which makes all of us (nearly the entire phandom) "abuse apologists". I talked with two such individuals, both of whom took one last dig at me and then blocked me before I had the chance to respond (so mature, right?) Both of whom REFUSE to interact with any of us, because evidently we condone real-life abuse because we stan an abusive fictional character, and ship him with a woman who he abuses. Hmmmkay. Both of whom are a victim of abuse, as am I but go off, I guess..... Oh! And they both said that we are all horrible people (just for the record, some of the best people I've ever met, I've met thanks to PotO), we poison the phandom, nothing we have to contribute enriches it in any way, in short, we are all sick fucks who are wrong for loving Erik. The 14 year old (yeah, one of them was 14 but such a know-it-all) immediately hopped on their Discord server and started sharing our convo with their like-minded buddies (all 9 of them LOL), and that's how I ended up speaking with not just one, but two of these crazies. The second person has an Enjolras icon, so I asked them the following (forgive my typo, I was typing very fast):

I'm failing to see how I could possibly "ruin" Les Mis, but okay. This was just one among the veritable galaxy of completely dumbass things said by these two. Here is one more, from the other idiot, for good measure:

"If u dare" (first off, I have 0 respect fot those too lazy to type three letter words, and second, aren't we high and mighty?) "you'll be blocked". Oh no! Say it isn't so! Please, if anyone reading this shares any opinions with these seriously troubled children, then by all means, PLEASE BLOCK ME NOW!

Now, I warn you. The content of the below images WILL be upsetting to you. I apologize, friends, but it helps to illustrate just how deeply disturbed these people are.

Left: that's an awful lot of redundancy, not to mention superfluous f-bombs (smells like teen angst to me), but that's what these people love most in the world. They used the term "abuse apologist" collectively probably about 2 dozen times, and I'm truly sorry you've been abused, that sucks and I know from experience, but you don't have to let it rule your life like this? Y'all need therapy, or Jesus, or -something-, cuz this shit.... Mm-mm.

Right: That's just plain mean!

So, to summarise, I'm very disturbed to discover there are those out there with this viewpoint, those who are so focused on HATING something that they refuse to interact with anyone who has anything to do with that thing, they refuse to put aside differences or agree to disagree (as would adults), and they attack and insult those who do disagree, blanket-labelling us as "abuse apologists". It's really a shame.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

[givemeyourtired]

Isn't it kind of...weird that 'not all men' is a demonized response but the response to 'innocent until proven guilty' when it comes to MeToo often boils down to 'not all women make incorrect reports' ?

Tons of the social justice realm is rife with hypocrisies and double-standards.

When #MeToo erupted, all of its advocates rallied for swift “justice”, vehemently urging that we as a society should bypass due process for these men accused of sexual assault. Because to these advocates, any given man accused of sexual assault by a woman was “proof enough”, and according to them, “no woman lies about sexual assault”. If you ever dared to ask for proof, then you’d get confronted with “but why do you hate women though?” or “but why are you victim blaming?” Because of course, questioning any sexual assault accusation and wanting to get the absolute truth and facts is tantamount to blaming the victim or something, it makes no fucking sense. 

However, their tune about not needing proof or evidence and that just an accusation is proof enough changed real fucking quick when it came to light that one of the biggest MeToo advocates, actress Asia Argento, got accused of sexual assault by a young man (who was underage at the time he said the sexual assault occurred). Then, everyone was magically all “oh, but we need to hear all the evidence, we need to gather all the proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, we can’t accidentally condemn a potentially innocent person for things they might not have done”. Only then, did evidence become a must-have, did proof become a must-have, did innocent until proven guilty become a revered tenet by which MeToo should operate. And all because the accused was a woman.

The sheer transparency of MeToo, in my opinion, was laid bare right then and there with the Asia Argento attitude-flip of the movement. It was laid bare that the movement wasn’t so much about calling out sexual assaults first and foremost, but more so about calling out men first and foremost, and the possible perpetration of a sexual assault secondmost.It was entirely a gender hyperfocused movement more so than it was an anti-sexual assault advocacy movement. If it weren’t, then it wouldn’t have mattered who got accused of sexual assault, all cases would have been met with the same approach of seeking evidence and proof before passing final judgement. Instead, the way it operated was that there was the casting aside of the need for evidence and proof if the accused was a man, and the embracing and upholding of the need for evidence and proof if the accused was a woman.

So yeah....this is why I never go along with almost anything the social justice crowd is vehemently preaching about, or on witch hunts about, or are self-aggrandizing with their “wokeness” about. Because so much of the social justice realm is all show and no substance.

[icaralo-the-bluebird]

fall·out

/ˈfôlˌout/

noun

the adverse side effects or results of a situation.

Rarely, now—it has been time enough for empires to stretch infant hands up into His sky, taking their first toddling steps—I find myself fighting it.

The animal caged in my human chest is a wrathful, frightened thing. Parasite, I snarl, throat a spasming repercussion of hatred. The word echoes like the only real thing I have to compare it to: the fall. I had not known the raw symphony of sound, before. (Oh what I would give, this arching agony colonizing me, for before.) Nor had I these traitor’s palms—thud thud thudding—holding every breath just there. I had not known the metallic smack of this body’s blood.

In the beginning, I was an animal thing unused to an animal world. I was dragging claws in looping inconsistencies down the skin shielding my spine. Over and over again I would split the scars I thought must be hiding my wings—nails splintering and skin sticking to raw gore. One wouldn’t guess I had once been an angel, seeing me tear and hunt for that which He stole with such human fervence.

Humans dream, and I am counted among them in punishment only. I wake from one such violence, begging and penitent, long fingers stretched up to the ruined stupidity of the sky. Shards of these horrible, ever-present weights called memories rush forth as if called home to rip. I want to say that now I am grateful, now I can look at this diminutive, wingless form, and accept my punishment. I can set aside the cracked splinters of my once-full horns, and live. I can set course to wreaking havoc, destroying these beings I share heartbeats and memories and dreams with.

He forgot the repercussions of the heart he

S

H

O

V

E

D

into this orphan chest.

Something that widens my eyes, expands my chest in a hitching, cacophonous hacking, crawls from my throat. This body heaves, and my hands drop to grip handfuls of pine needles. This sound—somehow rife with something I have learned is called Joy and also somehow all the rest. Anger, this sounds sings—He had no right—Sadness, this sound bleeds—He has never known Homesickness—

What? I scream—this was the first thing I did, the first form my lips took. It has begun to feel like coming home, and that only makes me scream louder. What? I repeat. Were You thinking? My Father who art in Heaven, I wash my hands of your Paradise. Even though I’m spitting, so taken with this strange feeling, this reaction I cannot stay in its course, I do not shake. Steady in my resolve—just as He taught me. I have waited for those empires to reach my new waist, waving play swords at each other, to admit this.

I WILL TEACH YOUR CHILDREN—HERE THEY CALL YOU GOD—

TO CLIMB UNTIL THEY TOO REACH YOUR BLINDING, HEAVENLY HYPOCRISY.

I SHALL GUIDE THEIR HANDS TO SHRED YOUR ROBES,

SEVER WHAT LURKS BENEATH.

WE WILL ROB YOU OF THAT WHICH YOU CALL CREATION.

I BEGGED NOT TO FALL,

I BEGGED YOU AS MY FATHER.

HUMANS HAVE TAUGHT ME PLEAS MEANS NOTHING TO ONE SUCH AS YOU,

BLIND AND DEAF TO YOUR OWN CHILDREN’S AGONY—THEIR PRAYERS.

I WILL MAKE YOU REGRET THE MONSTER YOU SOWED.

FOR ONCE, YOU’LL BE THE ONE BEGGING.

[nature-god-christ]

Salvation: Of A Double Minded Man

"Christian" But Religious, Damned Agents of Darkness:

In the following verse, God speaks directly to Antichrist, who is coming and is now in the world. He is coming, having intimate knowledge of God and Christ; yet, rejecting the way of Christ's discipline. Being deceived, he desires to gain the whole world, at the loss of his own soul. Fool!

Ps 50:16-17 But to the wicked, God says, What is it to you to proclaim My statutes, and to take up My covenant on your mouth? Yes, you hate instruction and toss My Words behind you.

To the Wicked, who in opposition to what they do, proclaim God's word in hypocrisy; and yes, priests and pastors, we're especially talking to you. God does not accept your sacrifice, as a covering for sin. He hates your hypocrisy, even as you have hated his instruction, having conveniently tossed them aside at the slightest hint of elicit gain or pleasure of sin.

So, if you think that in the end it will be well with you, it will not. You have deceived yourselves and are further deceived by your enemy, the Father of all deception, Satan.

And, though there be, many of our religious leaders who are ignorant or simply undisciplined in the ways of Truth, God foretells ominent judgements against them, nontheless:

BSB'19 Jam 3:1: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."

Why are those who teach the word of God, judged more strictly strictly? It is because, some teachers stiffle the growth and development of their own discipline, by discouragement of investigation and research on the part of their own students.

Religion, is one such discipline, rife with oligarchy who will not tolerate those who simply want to know more, and know with greater accuracy. Students, especially want to know, what says the word of God, concerning the issues in life and the relationship between Christ and God.

Again, why would these individuals desire to strangle the advancement of knowledge? It is mostly because, they fear that inquiring minds might prove some of their longheld traditions to be, wrong or outright lies.

And they can't have that. So they construct obstacles to truth, such that all paths lead back to them, their organization, doctrine, and dogma. But again, what does the Word say?

BSB'19 Jer 29:23: "For they have committed an outrage...by...speaking lies in My name, which I did not command them to do. I am He who knows, and I am a witness, declares the LORD.”"

Because many errant religious leaders know the Word of God, even as Satan knows the Word and his own end, they fear their own end (Heb 10:26-27); and thus, a fracture of psychy occurs within; a double mind, owing to a corrupt heart.

BSB'19 Mat 6:24: "No one can serve two masters: Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."

HCSB Is 29:13: "The Lord said: Because these people approach Me with their mouths to honor Me with lip-service — yet their hearts are far from Me, and their worship consists of man-made rules learned by rote —"

All who love this present world or age, does not love or obey God; nor can they. The consequence, is separation from God and fellowship with the world. For that reason, many of us, are "Christian" in name only.

It is for that reason, God cannot consistently heed our requests; because we regard sin, in our hearts, even while we pray.

Why Prayers Fail:

AKJV+ Ps 66:18: "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:"

As we pray, let us not regard iniquity in our heart. Because, all such, oppose the knowledge of God and Christ; and thus, deviate our focus away from our conversation with God. Under those circumstances, Jehovah, will not hear our prayer, because he cannot. We, have cut the connection.

Jas 1:6-8 But let him ask in faith, doubting nothing. For the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, being driven by wind and being tossed; for do not let that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-souled man, not dependable in all his ways.

He who doubts: ebbs and flows, rises and falls, according to the tide of passions that sway him; according to the beating rhythm of a world passing away. The spirit (or "wind") of error, drives and buffets him, because he is conflicted, in his love of the world and his desire for God.

His double mind, results from his being strongly affected and trying to fulfill two opposing attractions, simultaneously. The pleasures of sin, yields death; while the joy of sanctification, immortality.

Both are at war, in the heart and mind of a man. He yields to one or the other, according to the mind, spiritual or carnal, subconscious or conscious, which he himself (heart) allows dominance.

But, understand this: While loving one, he outwardly feigns love for the other, while in the presence of those who affiliate with like affection; being able to invert, his outward mentality. And as a camilion, he switches between opposing affiliations, affections, and causes; cunningly adapting his words and deeds, to accomodate whatever social circumstance in which he finds himself, as is convenient.

The double-minded man, allows for simultaneous inspiration by opposing spirits, producing opposing motive forces that drive him in drunken fashion.

Niobe Ps 42:7: "Deep calls unto deep at the noise of Your waterspouts; all Your waves and Your billows have gone over me."

"Deep calls to deep": Therefore, as Spirit calls, spirit of like kind answer.

God calls to all. But only they that are his, heed the call. The rest, answers to another spirit that is of their own desire and kind; and even while they may feign obedience to God, their heart is not with him. Therefore God's heart, is not with them.

That is the bad news.

The Cure:

The good news, for all who seek truth and righteousness, is this: In our relationship with God, we can change; from state, to state; from bad, to good; and from good, to better or even perfection.

HCSB Jms 4:8: "Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, sinners, and purify your hearts, double-minded people!"

First and foremost, in our daily routine, let's incorporate the following admonition.

HCSB Dt 22:9: "Do not plant your vineyard with two types of seed; otherwise, the entire harvest, both the crop you plant and the produce of the vineyard, will be defiled."

Our heart, is the "vineyard".

The "two kinds of seed" sown in the heart, are good and evil.

The "crop sown," is the character of the seed planted.

The "harvest" or "yield": We reap what we sow; be it good or evil, life or death; In the end, we are weighed (Judged) and awarded according to all we have said and done. That is the natural law of things. That is not, The Good News or Gospel.

The "produce of the vineyard", is the character of the fruit flowering from the seed, in the interior. It is righteousness or iniquity;

The "produce of the vineyard", also describes the fruit yielded in the exterior, as words and deeds. So that it also defines the character of the individual manifesting said fruit.

NASB+ Mat 7:16: ""You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn [bushes,] nor figs from thistles, are they?"

However, in Christ, we have his shed-blood as our protection, even from the character of our own fruit. Our continual confession of sins, to God, and our repentant lifestyle, ensures that Christ's blood negates our negatives; so that through him, God sees in us, only the perfection that is Christ; that is, if we remain in him, the blood of Christ has already filtered from us, all things that offend God.

HCSB Heb 10:14: "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are sanctified."

That being the case, for all who earnestly seek God through Christ, our sins were washed away, at every point upon each of our individual life timelines; be it relatively past, present, or future to our consciousness. We were made, the Righteousness of God, by Justification, through Christ, more than 2000 years ago. Now, isn't that cool?

Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God."

Our job, is to make sure, very sure that what we profess, we also live; or at least, be of willing mind and fighting the good fight, for self-discipline and good conduct. Justification, makes up the rest, of what we lack.

However, to him who, regarding his faithfulness to God, is Double Minded and have diagnosed himself to be such, say and do the following, over and over again, until it becomes your reality:

I love God.

I hate Evil.

I love the light.

I hate the darkness.

God's word says, "Only the pure in heart, will see God". I, therefore, purify my heart by the word of God.

It is not, at all, for mere convenience that I site his commandments and words of wisdom; but, through patient study and self-discipline, I make the word of God, my practice.

I desire to see you, oh God. I, therefore, purify the desires of my heart by your word; I meditate on them, day and night, to make it so.

My faith is that the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ, 2000 years ago, eradicated all my sins, past, present, and future; your word, has declared it so.

Your word, oh God, has convalidated your promises to me and all who dedicate themselves to your Son, Yeshua, your Christ.

I, being chosen, am willing.

I, therefore, struggle to overcome my old self that I might align my words and deeds to the commandments of Christ the righteous one who serves as our example of faith and trust in you, oh God.

And even as it was with Yeshua, so may it be with me that the word of God becomes flesh, through my life, as I submit and obey him.

BSB'19 Ps 91:14: "“Because he loves Me, I will deliver him; because he knows My name, I will protect him."

Immediately above, God speaks of Yeshua, his Christ who was yet to come in sinful flesh.

Because Yeshua loved God, God delivered him from all of his enemies, even death itself.

Because Yeshua knows God's name, God protected him from all his enemies, even corruption and decay of his body, in the grave.

If we love God and Christ, Jehovah will deliver us from all our enemies, even death.

If we know Yeshua, if we trust in his name, then at his coming, when Christ calls to us by name, we will hear him. Thus, overcoming corruption and decay, we too will awaken to everlasting life. Christ, declares as much:

NOG Jn 5:25: "“I can guarantee this truth: A time is coming (and is now here) when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who respond to it will live."

Say and do the following:

Jehovah, protect me, deliver me. I repent. I do your will, not my own; because, I love you.

May I respond to Christ, now, even as he calls to me in this life; so that I may be able to respond to his voice, when he calls to me, hereafter.

RESOLUTION:

So then, can a double minded man unify his thoughts and purpose, unto single mindedness in dedication to Christ?

Yes, we are now made aware of a mechanism to do just that: Foremost, by continually washing the heart; filtering out or sanctifying the very core of the inner realm, through the word of God; casting out every seed of iniquity, to strangle every wicked motive that gives rise to sin. But, then, we must want to do it. We must want, to change.

Easier said, than done? Oh, yes! But consider that Yeshua entered this life, with the exact same weapons of spiritual warfare as we; and yet, lived a perfectly sinless life, while passing through struggles of flesh and mind, far greater than our own.

RSV Heb 2:17: "Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people."

Yeshua, however, had a secret weapon: Prayer

AKJV+ Luk 6:12: "And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God."

Yes, indeed! Yeshua, prayed to God, all night. That was his custom and preparation, which sharpened the weapons of his warfare; which was, principally, the word of God.

If prayer to God, was instrumental in Yeshua's example of Christ, then so it is, and must be, with the example of Christ that we manifest to the world. Prayer, is how we daily overcome, even our own double mind; even as we implant, God's word, deeply into our hearts.

MLV Mt 21:21-22: "Now Jesus answered and said to them, Assuredly I am saying to you, If you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only be doing the miracle of the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, Be lifted up and cast yourself into the sea, it will happen. And all things, as many things as you may ask in prayer, and believing, you will be receiving."

Yeshua says:

• have faith, do not doubt.

• pray believing, be receiving.

• do it often.

• so that as you say, no power can resist your desire.

• whatever you say, it will happen.

• You will be doing miracles, great and even greater.

• And all things, as many things as you may ask in prayer, and believing, you will be receiving.

Heb 10:22 Iet us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water.

For your consideration

1kingofwonders

Sep.4.21

[jessicachastainsource]

At Elle Magazine's Women In Entertainment event Monday evening, actress Jessica Chastain took her turn at the podium as an opportunity to call out hypocrisy in Hollywood. "This is an industry rife with racism, sexism and homophobia," she said, speaking to a room full of women including Laura Dern, Riley Keough and Aaron Sorkin. "It is so closely woven into the fabric of the business that we have become snowblind to the glaring injustices happening every day." She continued, "Oh we're very quick to point the finger at others and address the issue with social action and fundraising. Yet there is a clear disconnect between how we practice what we preach in our industry." Chastain pointed specifically to actors and actresses who have been told to stay closeted while the industry champions same-sex marriage, as well as the wage gap that exists between the sexes even as the industry itself supports equal pay legislation. Additionally, Chastain addressed the issue of sexual harassment in the wake of the accusations mounting against Harvey Weinstein: "We rally against the presidential candidate who slants a narrative of his sexual assault as mere locker room talk, but at the same time we ignore the stories and warnings of sexual predators in our offices."

[jayonthestreet]

I said I wasn’t going to respond to these, but this one stood out. It’s taking basically all of my resolve not to publish it w the url and all asdbsjffsjds but here’s the text:

Look, I don't know who you are, but you're making a lot of ignorant, baseless, hurtful, and generalizing statements. Admit that you're racist towards your own people (and yes, I am an Indian woman). And the way you construct your rhetoric shows me how classless and uneducated you are. Do us all a favor and leave out the expletives next time you decide to publicly pms....

Baseless implies that there isn’t a foundation on which the argument stands…but I listed quotes. What more do you need? These are things that I have heard in my lifetime, and if you don’t believe that, it really isn’t my job to convince you. And if it is hurtful, I’m glad. It should hurt. It should make you stop looking inwardly and instead look out of the sphere you’ve existed in for 18+ years. And it isn’t generalizing or “oh not all of us!!!” when 90% of Indians in the US are like this……almost to a fault. It isn’t restricted to class either, since I’ve found these things to be true of even lower income Indian families. (But yeah, it’s more rife among upper and middle class Indians, I’ll admit that.)

It is not racist towards your own people to point out shortcomings. It’s an injustice to ignore them (and especially to silence people who do).

Hypocrisy aside, maybe it is a good thing that you are Indian, because my post was directly targeted towards people like you.

But man, nothing in your ask got me like that last bit, LOL. Yeah, I am so utterly classless, look at me swearing all over the fucking place, it’s a real storm up in here. I should really get a fucking education, MY BAD. #WHOOPS

And pms?? Really??? I’d expect that shit from a man, but damn…..you’re a real lowlife, ain’t you?

[florgmeister-dinglehopper]

This is fucking awful. Good on you for standing up for yourself.

@ppgxrrblove as I've heard, you're one of these people claiming to righteously judge lgbt people. I don't know you and I may be wrong. If you aren't, you don't have to read this part. If you are one of these people, I want to ask you this. Who the fuck are you to judge me? Who the fuck are you to judge anyone for something as ridiculous as the people they love? You are not without sin. Who are you to judge others for theirs? You aren't God, that's for sure. But go ahead and cast your stones, we'll see what Saint Peter says when you reach the pearly gates.

What follows was going to be short but kind of turned into a manifesto of sorts. But it's all things that have been going threw my head for a while that I wanted to get out.

One of the things that bothers me most about religion based homophobia is how blatantly they cherry pick. They hound gay people for being sinners, but they completely ignore one of the most well known stories in the bible. In this story from the Gospel of John, Jesus tells a crowd of people, who were about to stone a woman to death, that they have no right to judge someone so harshly when they themselves have sinned. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Who are these fuckwits to claim they can "righteously judge" anyone? They are not without sin, they are not as perfect as Christ himself. Last time I read the bible, only God could judge others. This kind of hypocrisy from these assholes is infuriating. You don't even need to be Christian for this to apply to you, moral of the story is everyone can be a dick, don't be a fucking hypocrite about it.

You might also hear the story of Sodom and Gomhorra. God destroyed the cities, and many will tell you it was because the cities were rife with homosexuality. This is a lie. Ezekiel 16:49 explains that God destroyed the cities because the people were rude, inhospitible, and corrupt. How are homophobic Christians any better than the people of Sodom and Gomhorra when they themselves demonstrate such hatred?

Another part of the bible I'd like to bring up is The First Letter of John, personally one of my favorite parts. There's so much from this passage that I love but I don't have time to go over all of it. Basic summary of the message is: God is light and truth, and to live by his word is to live in his light, and with his truth. If we are not in the light, we are in darkness. "If we say that we have no sin, we decieve ourselves, and the truth is not in us.... If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." These are direct quotes.

Later the letter explains a new commandment. The letter explains that it's not new because we had it from the beginning, but it had to be reiterated because it was being forgotten. We talked about how God is light earlier, here's where that comes in again. "Whoever says 'I am in the light,' while hating a brother or sister, is still in darkness." The commandment is to not hate anyone. It doesn't specify anything, there are no exceptions or loopholes. The commandment, plain and simple, is to never hate. There's also Matthew 5:21-22, which basically says that to hate someone is to murder them in your heart, and those who murder will be judged by god and face consequence. Murder starts in the heart, it says.

Lets talk about God's name. "Do not take the lord's name in vain." A lot of Christians will get offended if you even just say "Oh my god!" There's nothing wrong with that, and by that I mean being offended by someone saying that. You know what offends me as a Christian? People who really take the lord's name in vain. They use his name to justify hatred. They try to justify their abuse and harassment by saying "It's what God wants." No, it's not. He never told anyone to treat others in such a fashion. The bible also makes mention of these assholes. To sum up Matthew 15:6-9 and Matthew 22:39, some chuches are misguided and do not teach God's true message of love. God is not hateful and does not command hate or discrimination.

In 1978, a group of teenagers ran around Central Park in NYC with baseball bats looking for gay people to clobber. In 1992, Allen Schindler, a navy petty officer, was literally stomped to death in a bathroom by a shipmate. The attack was so brutal his body was unrecognizable, other than by a tattoo on his arm. In 1998, Matthew Shephard was tied to a fence and tortured to death. In 2005, Ronnie Paris Sr. beat his three year old son to death because he thought the child was gay, literally beating the three year old into a coma. And we all remember the Pulse Nightclub Shooting, which was the deadliest terrorist attack in the US since 9/11, and at that point the deadliest mass shooting in US history. Where in the bible does God tell people to do this? Where in the bible does it say these kinds of actions are acceptable, if not encouraged, because it's being committed against a gay person? Absolutely no where.

Well that's it. To anyone else who might read this, please don't go after the person I called out at the beginning of this or send him any kind of hateful messages, please don't harass him in any way. If you see some shitty homophobic behavior, don't hesitate to call it out, but don't go after people, it's a shitty thing to do on it's own. Btw calling someone out isn't going after them if it's on shitty behavior

I recently came across someone claiming they were “righteously judgeing” people for who they love, that they had no choice but to be against the lgbtq community because they weren’t a “lukeworm” christian. Needless to say I went off on them, said some foul words and called them a bigot. Seeing someone claim righteousness and hiding behind their religion to discriminate and harm their fellow human beings sets me off and should rouse similar feelings in everyone who sees this type of hate.

How did you feel when you saw these photos of the horrible people from the westboro baptist church? Because even though it’s obvious that they are the most extreme, they are expressing the same feelings of righteousness shown by all who are against lgbtq rights due to religions belief of any faith. When you see hate like this you fight back or you are choosing the side of hate.

Never let hate show its ugly head without challenging it!

@ppgxrrblove do you enjoy being on the side of the bigots shown above?