#since it lets me remind you that this policy doesn't just apply to me

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

I occasionally get asks requesting that I analyze/critique very specific fan content and it's so weird. My policy - as stated in my pinned post - is the same as Jacques'. I am not here to fight with or critique other fans. I'm here to have fun analyzing a bad TV show. The first is bullying. The second is not.

You guys do understand the difference between punching up and punching down right? That dunking on a multi-billion dollar commercial property is massively different from dunking on a small-time creator who makes very little or no money off of the work that they're sharing for free? It doesn't matter how bad something is, just because something is out in the public sphere doesn't mean that public criticism is appropriate. There's also a huge difference between critiquing a fan theory that's pervaded the fandom and critiquing a specific person's theory/take.

This is why you'll only see me reblog fan content that I agree with, people who directly responded to my stuff/send me an ask, or things that come from official sources. That last category is always reblogged with no comments or neutral comments because it's posted by a fan, not an official source, so I'm saving it for reference and will give my negative opinions on a post that isn't directly linked to the fan's activity feed unless their original post made it clear that they were also negatively inclined to whatever they posted.

The only exception to the above is if the ask is complementing another fan in a way I agree with (ex: I loved the way X talked about this and it matched the issue you brought up in Z post, but is there a way to fix this?) That's not bullying. That's a positive and appropriate interaction. So long as that's the approach you're taking, you're probably fine. Don't overthink it. I can always just ignore your ask if it crosses my boundaries.

I'll also point out that, while it's fine to critique commercial properties, it's really not okay to send that critique to those involved with the property unless they're directly inviting it. Sending uninvited critique to a creator is always rude and incredibly arrogant no matter how successful they are. They didn't ask for your feedback, so don't give it to them. Share it with that property's fandom and have fun! You're not going to fix Miraculous by harassing the writers on the website formally known as Twitter.

Basically, have manners people! And also remember that I'm a person with a life who does this for fun and for free. Sending me a YouTube video and asking me to watch it then give feedback is wildly inappropriate on multiple levels.

But like, do you really purposely ignore fanart that has Adrien in it?

Why is this what you’re all so fixated on? (not just you, I’ve been getting other asks about this)

If I like an art, I will reblog it

If someone specifically links me to art (or any other fan work really) unprompted and puts me on the spot to give my opinion on it, regardless of whether I like it or not, I will not respond to it

I’ve said it before regarding someone asking for my opinion on another blog’s essay, I do not want to directly critique fan content. If I organically happen to come across fan content that I do feel like critiquing, I will do so in a vague manner and not name any urls so as to not put the creator in a position where they’re in any way pressured to respond or defend themselves. Quite frankly, the only reason I recently posted that one ask with a link to a video essay on it was bc I was too lazy at the moment to screenshot and blur out the link and make a separate post to notify y’all that I do not go anywhere near ML yt and don’t plan to anytime soon.

So no, I do not go out of my way to ignore art of specific characters, I just don’t appreciate being pushed to interact with it

[freddie-77-ao3]

sup yall we're vibing here

anyway. hey, my name's freddie, and i'm finally trying to write an actual intro/master post which... we'll see how this goes.

important stuff is highlighted in orange.

so, basic stuff:

as I said, my name's freddie. he/him pronouns. i'm a college student (majoring in accounting, might add a psych minor). not gonna say which college but i'm currently in california.

i've been on tumblr since 2019 i think? not under this account, this started as a fandom account and then spiralled out of control... really fast. um, my regular tumblr which i've not actually opened in ages is @chronicchthonic14 so. yeah.

not particularly relevant to this blog, but i might mention it at some point so, i have autism and adhd. and some other things but. like. that list is very long and those are the two most relevant because i promise if i come off wrong/mean, i didn't mean to, i just forget to make my words normal. but. those are the two most referenced. if for whatever reason someone wants to know more or has questions you can send an ask ig?

i'm scottish, born there. moved to US when I was four. finishing uni and moving back.

some quick warnings

this blog definitely contains cursing/vulgar language, whatever you want to call it, so if you're not comfortable with that, probably not the blog for you, as i don't tag cursing or anything for you to filter out.

if, for whatever reason, if i ever reblog something that contains a slur (against racial minorities, queer people, anything) i will ABSOLUTELY tag that though.

also if anyone has any trigger warnings they think any content needs, please let me know-- asks, dms, comments, reblogs

the cursing thing also applies for sort of dirty jokes? think that only applies to like. two posts and very not explicit. those aren't currently tagged but if they get any more explicit they certainly will be.

queer identity because the explicit reminded me, i'm asexual, and probably straight. maybe bi? dunno, don't particularly care. and i'm trans. ftm. this isn't the blog i talk about that on usually though, unless it relates to a specific ask or a fandom thing.

which, getting into what this blog is for because i can't think of anything else i need to add here (guys let me know if i forgot important stuff, please, i'm an idiot!!! i will forget the important stuff and write random shit instead!! i've already deleted three tangents from this!!)

sooooo

fandoms!! ones i write and/or post about or will potentially post about

percy jackson extending to hoo, toa, tkc (definitely post way less about this), mcga (again, way less). haven't read TSATS or COTG yet, but spoilers are fine. i post way more about minor characters. write fanfiction for and have some posted (both on here and ao3) and a bunch of snippets.

dcu-- films, comics, animated shows, all of it. personally, my favorites are young justice (the comics, not show version), new teen titans, and batman inc (batgirls, nightwing, and red robin esp). late 90s yj run is my favorite, and i loved the DCeased event. favorite batman comic is definitely court of owls run. no fanfics posted, but some on docs.

mcu-- way less so, but have a stucky oneshot. slowly making my way through in timeline order.

throne of glass. i'm an aedion and chaol apologizer because they do a bunch of dumb shit but then WHO DOESN'T in this series. fanfics in doc, not posted.

this would go on for ages if i listed everything so instead, here's an ask i answered on my fandoms/genres and everything. feel free to send me asks about anyone. if you send me something about radium girls i may cry though (tears of joy) so there's your advanced warning.

main things you'll see on my blog are incorrect quotes, snippets, and the occasional fic

this^^

my... idk, contact policy? seriously what do i word this

asks are always open, anon is on.

if you send hate... whatever. i'll probably delete it.

unless i find it funny. then I'll post it. there's really little you could say to me that would hurt.

when i say asks are always open, you can drop anything you want.

literally anything

you need to vent? want advice? want to request headcanons? request a fic? give me a prompt? ask random things about me? something else I've forgotten? go right ahead

if you want to ask me to update my fics? go right ahead. sometimes i forget i didn't post something.

send as many asks as you want, i don't care if it might be spam

i can't promise i'll respond to asks in a timely manner, sometimes i open my inbox and forget they exist for months, i'm sorry. if it's something you really want answered you can send another one

dm's are alright? if you want to be friends or something, go right ahead.

anyone can reblog any of my posts/comment/heart, i don't care. you want to heart 50 things in a row? i adore you. if i had kids, you would get my firstborn

if we're mutuals you can ask for my insta/give me yours.

now, other accounts:

anyway, i think that's it?

[someone-will-remember-us-i-say]

T'hy'la

[This was posted long ago on my main blog gender-snatched]

He can't think that way.

Not anymore.

Not since he was a kid,

Not since the jeers,

Not since the taunts of

Half breed

Human

Freak.

He can't imagine his captain's hand

Sliding against his

Lips smiling a smile that says

"I am yours"

Before leaning in,

Index and middle fingers connecting,

Lips colliding.

He is a Vulcan,

And Vulcans don't think that way.

Nyota tells him

"You are half human,

You can have emotion."

But he doesn't see a need for insults.

His brain,

And his memories,

Do that enough.

He says that he doesn't dream,

As if he doesn't feel Jim curled against him,

Only to wake and find a pillow where warmth was before.

Vucans don't dream,

And Vulcans don't love.

Maybe if he tells himself Vulcans don't

Just enough times

He won't.

Jim touches him sometimes.

Pats on the back,

Touches to indicate passing by,

Hugs when the mission goes well.

He cannot stand it,

Not because he hates the feeling,

But because he wants more.

Vulcans do not crave touch,

Vucans are not supposed to crave touch,

But this one does.

What if their hands brushed together?

What if Jim got excited,

And pulled him along by his hand?

What if they simply held hands?

He makes up endless what ifs,

What if?

What if?

What if?

What if he wasn't Vulcan?

Would Jim like him then?

All human,

Red blooded,

Illogical,

And emotional?

Or would Jim dismiss him,

Not pretty enough,

Not handsome enough,

Not flirty enough,

Not enough.

Nyota says

"Honesty is the best policy",

To tell Jim,

Because it's logical,

A captain must know

When their first officer is irrational.

But Nyota doesn't call it irration or illogic.

She calls it love,

And he cannot disagree.

But he cannot find the logic in telling Jim.

And it scares him.

Logic is what he relies on,

What Vulcans rely on.

But Vulcans are not emotional,

So how can they apply logic to emotion?

How can he apply logic to a need,

A want,

A craving?

How can he logic his way out of love?

Freak.

Human.

Half breed.

The memories repeat,

Like a broken record in his mind,

Reminding him that he cannot love a human.

He avoids Jim.

Chess is canceled,

Conversations outside the bridge cease.

A ban, until he knows why.

Why he feels so irrational, so illogical, so in love.

"Spock!" Jim says,

And he acknowledges him, but does not stop.

"Spock!"

He cannot. He cannot talk to Jim, because...

Because if he does he is going to act illogically,

Shove Jim against a wall,

Connect their hands,

Their lips,

Their minds.

"Please."

He stops.

"Please."

"What, Captain?"

But Jim just says please again, and he steps forward and takes his hand.

"Please?"

He is asking permission.

He is asking Jim to elaborate.

He is asking the only word he can remember.

Please

Can I kiss you?

Please

Can I love you?

Please

Can I leave you?

Can I?

Must I?

"Spock." Jim breathes, and he moves his hand.

His ring and pinkie fingers curl in,

He outstretches his index and middle.

"Kiss me."

Spock curls his last two fingers in.

He lets his first two stretch out, reaching for something he can finally have.

People, crewmembers walk around them.

Neither can bring themselves to care,

Reaching into each other's soul.

Eyes connected and blown,

Their lips not even having connected.

Yet.

"Chess?"

"Chess."

[gender-snatched]

Bad Star Trek poem I wrote. In dialouge so I don't have to wirte in paragraphs

He can't think that way.

Not anymore.

Not since he was a kid,

Not since the jeers,

Not since the taunts of

Half breed

Human

Freak.

He can't imagine his captain's hand

Sliding against his

Lips smiling a smile that says

"I am yours"

Before leaning in,

Index and middle fingers connecting,

Lips colliding.

He is a Vulcan,

And Vulcans don't think that way.

Nyota tells him

"You are half human,

You can have emotion."

But he doesn't see a need for insults.

His brain,

And his memories,

Do that enough.

He says that he doesn't dream,

As if he doesn't feel Jim curled against him,

Only to wake and find a pillow where warmth was before.

Vucans don't dream,

And Vulcans don't love.

Maybe if he tells himself Vulcans don't

Just enough times

He won't.

Jim touches him sometimes.

Pats on the back,

Touches to indicate passing by,

Hugs when the mission goes well.

He cannot stand it,

Not because he hates the feeling,

But because he wants more.

Vulcans do not crave touch,

Vucans are not supposed to crave touch,

But this one does.

What if their hands brushed together?

What if Jim got excited,

And pulled him along by his hand?

What if they simply held hands?

He makes up endless what ifs,

What if?

What if?

What if?

What if he wasn't Vulcan?

Would Jim like him then?

All human,

Red blooded,

Illogical,

And emotional?

Or would Jim dismiss him,

Not pretty enough,

Not handsome enough,

Not flirty enough,

Not enough.

Nyota says

"Honesty is the best policy",

To tell Jim,

Because it's logical,

A captain must know

When their first officer is irrational.

But Nyota doesn't call it irration or illogic.

She calls it love,

And he cannot disagree.

But he cannot find the logic in telling Jim.

And it scares him.

Logic is what he relies on,

What Vulcans rely on.

But Vulcans are not emotional,

So how can they apply logic to emotion?

How can he apply logic to a need,

A want,

A craving?

How can he logic his way out of love?

Freak.

Human.

Half breed.

The memories repeat,

Like a broken record in his mind,

Reminding him that he cannot love a human.

He avoids Jim.

Chess is canceled,

Conversations outside the bridge cease.

A ban, until he knows why.

Why he feels so irrational, so illogical, so in love.

"Spock!" Jim says,

And he acknowledges him, but does not stop.

"Spock!"

He cannot. He cannot talk to Jim, because...

Because if he does he is going to act illogically,

Shove Jim against a wall,

Connect their hands,

Their lips,

Their minds.

"Please."

He stops.

"Please."

"What, Captain?"

But Jim just says please again, and he steps forward and takes his hand.

"Please?"

He is asking permission.

He is asking Jim to elaborate.

He is asking the only word he can remember.

Please

Can I kiss you?

Please

Can I love you?

Please

Can I leave you?

Can I?

Must I?

"Spock." Jim breathes, and he moves his hand.

His ring and pinkie fingers curl in,

He outstretches his index and middle.

"Kiss me."

Spock curls his last two fingers in.

He lets his first two stretch out, reaching for something he can finally have.

People, crewmembers walk around them.

Neither can bring themselves to care,

Reaching into each other's soul.

Eyes connected and blown,

Their lips not even having connected.

Yet.

"Chess?"

"Chess."

[pope-francis-quotes]

28th May >> (@VaticanNews) #Pope Francis #PopeFrancis In a wide-ranging interview with Mexican media network Televisa, #PopeFrancis responds to a series of questions concerning his pontificate and the state of the world.

Pope Francis interview addresses violence against women and more

In a wide-ranging interview with Mexican media network Televisa, Pope Francis responds to a series of questions concerning his pontificate and the state of the world.

By Vatican News

Mexican journalist and writer, Valentina Alazraki, has been the Vatican correspondent for Televisa since 1974. In an exclusive interview, published on Tuesday, she asks Pope Francis questions ranging from abortion to migration.

Building bridges not walls

One of the first questions regards the border wall with Mexico. Pope Francis responds by repeating what he has always said, namely that “whoever builds walls ends up a prisoner of the walls he builds... Instead, those who build bridges make friends, shake hands, even if they stay on the other side... But there is dialogue”, he says.

Young people

Turning to the subject of young people, the Pope warns of how youth risk “losing their roots”. He confirms his advice “for young people to talk to old people, and the old to talk to the young, because... a tree cannot grow if we cut off its roots”. The Pope encourages youth to “dialogue with the roots, receive culture from the roots. Then you grow, you bloom and you bear fruit”.

Violence against women

The Pope also addresses the issue of violence against women. Without attempting to give what he calls “a sociological explanation”, the Pope does say that “women are still in second place” and, often, being in second place can mean “to be the object of slavery”. Here he gives the example of prostituted women and speaks of his own visit recently to a rescue shelter in Rome. The Pope goes on to praise the role of women, saying “the world without women doesn't work”.

Relationship with the media

In the interview, Pope Francis responds to a question regarding his relationship with the media: “I feel comfortable”, he says, “I tell you the truth, don't I?” The Pope admits that, sometimes, “the questions may be more difficult to answer”, but he thanks journalists for their patience. “Some questions have made me think”, he continues, giving the example of the trip to Chile when journalists asked him about alleged cases of sexual abuse in the country. “It was largely some of the questions asked with much respect on the return trip”, he said, that helped him realise he had not been adequately informed on the subject. The Pope says that when he returned to Rome, he “thought, prayed, asked for advice and decided to send an Apostolic Visitor, who uncovered what I did not know”. And that “was a help”, said the Pope.

The McCarrick case

The interview also touches on communicating information and the need to clarify matters to both the press and people in the pew. Here Pope Francis confirms how “we have to explain”, especially when it is a question of “presumption of innocence. The McCarrick case was different, says the Pope, because “it was obvious”. Which is why he was able to “cut to the chase before the trial” and remove McCarrick from both the cardinalate and the clerical state.

The Viganò case

The interview continues with a question about the Pope’s silence over unanswered accusations by former Nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. “Those who made Roman law say that silence is a way of speaking”, he begins. He also says that, in the case of Viganò, he made a choice to trust the honesty of the journalists: “I said to them: "Look, you have everything, study for yourselves and draw the conclusions��� And the result was good, it was better than if I started to explain, to defend myself”. Pope Francis confirms he knew nothing about McCarrick: “I said that several times, that I didn't know, no idea… otherwise I wouldn't have kept quiet”. He again explains his silence, saying “firstly the evidence was there for you to judge”, and secondly because of the example of Jesus: “in moments of viciousness you can't speak, because it's worse. Everything is going to go against you. The Lord taught us that way and I follow it”.

Migrants and refugees

The Pope also answers questions about migrants and refugees, something he calls a top priority in today’s current world scenario. “The phenomenon of migration is such that I have taken in my hands the Migrants Section of the Vatican Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development,” he says, because every day we receive news of more deaths in the Mediterranean. Pope Francis comments on the problems that arise from some political leaders enforcing policies that close ports of entry, obliging boatloads of migrants and refugees to return to dangerous waters. He reiterates his belief that not only must we have the heart to “welcome”, but that we must follow up with the unique process of “accompaniment, promotion and integration”.

Pope Francis acknowledges that not all countries are able to follow up on that process, but he invites leaders to take into consideration how far they are able to do so, and that requires both dialogue and agreement, he says.

The Pope also mentions the reality of humanitarian corridors as a positive response to the global emergency. He gives the example of Sweden, “because during the dictatorships in the 1970s in Argentina and in Latin America, the so-called ‘Operation Condor’ worked very well”. Pope Francis explains that thanks to that project, Sweden received many Latin American refugees. They were welcomed, given language training, temporary housing and help in seeking employment. Sweden was able to do this, he says, although today it is harder because of the numbers. However, he says, the system has worked, pointing to some of the children of those migrants who today are government ministers.

Pope Francis goes on to speak about how when countries make political agreements and set boundaries, migrants - who are the weakest and most vulnerable – are the ones who suffer and often end up being trafficked, enslaved, tortured…

He also speaks of the need for security for those who are repatriated: “In order to repatriate we need dialogue with the country of origin; not simply build a wall or close the doors of the house”.

Why does the Pope care so much about migrants today and talk so much about migrants? “Because it is a burning problem”, he says, underscoring how he also continues to talk about life, protecting life, and against abortion about which he reminds the interviewer, he has said “some very hard, very hard things.”

Abortion

On the subject of abortion, the Pope says, he always asks two very clear questions: “Is it fair to eliminate a human life in order to solve a problem?”. The answer to which is: no. “Second question: is it fair to pay a sniper to solve a problem? No. Abortion is not a religious problem in the sense that just because I am Catholic I must not seek an abortion. It is a human problem”, says Pope Francis. “It is a problem of eliminating a human life. Period”.

Relationships with governments

In the interview, the Pope refers to how, during his travels, he sometimes finds himself in situations in which political leaders may be champions of policies with which he disagrees. Pope Francis says he always strives for dialogue and for the best possible outcome. In his speeches, he says, he touches generically on what may be the problems of a country, but in private, he takes another step, always making the effort to give encouragement in achieving good. “I find something good in everyone”, he says, “be it good will, also in non-believers, they always do something good”, he says, reminding the journalist that it is never good or profitable to speak badly of others.

For the first time, the Pope reveals that "Don’t speak badly of others” is the title of a pamphlet he has had distributed in the Roman Curia in the Vatican. “Gossip is a universal defect and it applies to everyone”, he says, “to rulers, non-rulers, children, young people, men, women, everyone. They say that women are more gossipy: rubbish! Men are also gossips”, says the Pope.

Another question in the interview focusses on possible controversies deriving from gestures and words spoken privately to individuals such when as the Pope embraced a transsexual person and his partner whom he received at the Casa Santa Marta, or his words to a divorced Argentinean woman over the telephone in which he reportedly said she could receive Communion.

'Irregular' situations

“Sometimes people, because of the enthusiasm of being received (in audience), say more things than the Pope said, let's take that into account”, explains Pope Francis. Still, he adds, we are all children of God, and no one must be discarded. “I can't tell a person that his or her behavior is in line with what the Church wants, (…) but I do have to tell them the truth: 'You are a child of God and God wants you that way, settle it with God'”, he says. God loves all of his children, continues Pope Francis. Specifically regarding the lady from Argentina, the Pope says he does not remember exactly what he said to her: “I must have told her: 'look in ‘Amoris laetitia’, it tells you what you have to do’”.

Homosexuality

Underscoring his belief that we are all God’s children, the Pope reiterates his stance regarding the fact that families must love and include all of their children, including those who are homosexual. He vehemently denies ever having said homosexuals are in need of a psychiatrist. But, he adds, that “doesn’t mean I approve homosexual acts, far from it”.

Finally, Pope Francis clarifies his famous quote: “Who am I to judge?”. He made the comment during an inflight presser while returning from Rio de Janeiro soon after becoming Pope. The comment seemingly raised a lot of expectation within the global homosexual community that allegedly hoped he was going to go further. In the interview with Televisa, Pope Francis notes that Catholic doctrine has not changed. Rather, he warns against the temptation to take words out of context, and as far as doctrine is concerned, he defines himself as a “conservative”.

Topics

POPE FRANCIS

INTERVIEW

HOMOSEXUALITY

PROTECTION OF MINORS

FAMILY

MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES

POLITICS

28th May 2019, 14:47

[firstdegreeliberty]

I like how you put your absolutely indefensible straw men in the tags.

First off, overlooking your double negative, I NEVER said human beings were "incapable of racism" so take that and dispense with it right now. Also, let's 86 your gross false dichotomy which boils down to "you either believe that racism lurks around every corner and under every rock or nowhere at all." Since you want me to take one of those terms, I will go better and take ten:

"Denial of white privilege" -- Denial of something is not guilt of it. That tactic reminds me HEAVILY of the Chinese secret police forcing dissidents to sign confessions to crimes they have not committed, and it is sickening. To go even further and make the statement that it embodies any kind of racism at all, you've gone at 120mph into Big Brother territory. I'm not going to be lectured by you or anyone, least of all as long as that train of thought persists. Thoroughly in bad faith and not conducive to rational discussion.

"All lives matter" -- I refuse to take a sentiment such as "life matters" and compartmentalize it to only one group, even in implication, no matter the intentions. Black lives are included in "all" as you should have known if you were approaching this with a clear head, which makes this impossible to have nefarious intentions. One can support equality under the law for all people without supporting the BLM movement, in what it stands for and has made clear its policy statements line up with, in much the same way as one can support ending breast cancer without throwing money into SBK. So if you find it racist in ANY form to take the attention off a movement of self-professed trained Marxists for one second, that is YOUR problem and not mine. Capice?

"There's only the human race" -- That statement originated in the 90s by people who hoped it would eliminate seeing people as 'others', as members of different races and different groups. Who hoped it would eliminate racism. To include this on the list would be hilarious, if it weren't so sad.

"Colorblindness" -- See above, bippypoos.

"Claiming reverse racism" -- If you believe that black people cannot be racist, that is racist of you in and of itself. I will not sit around when I have personally experienced black people treating me like shit for my skin color and say nothing. Only in bizarroworld could claiming that you have been affected negatively by racism be racist.

"Bootstrap theory" -- That is an economic theory which applies to everybody that lives in Western economies whether they be white, black, or plaid. Impossible to glean racism from it when it has nothing to do with race, especially when people like Ben Carson, John DeBerry, Eddie Murphy, Chadwick Boseman and even John Lewis knew the value of working hard.

"Tokenism" -- That's a creation of the identity politics mindset which I don't subscribe to in the first place. It's basically saying you have to throw in a black person, or throw in a woman, etc. to be diverse. Diversity of course is in and of itself incompatible with racism.

"Make America Great Again" -- Does this mean to imply that Ben Carson is a racist? Colion Noir? Diamond and Silk? Tim Scott? Kimberly Klacik? Herschel Walker? Daniel Cameron? Alice Johnson? A non-racial political slogan is once again incompatible with racism when people of all races vote for different political candidates. To suggest that non-whites either are or should be a hive mind is condescending of both yourself and the artist. So to paraphrase Tumblr, just say this list was made by left wing extremists with no dignity and go.

"Cultural appropriation" -- Culture was meant to be shared, so what people here call appropriation doesn't qualify on that basis alone. To say that white people should only be enjoying stereotypically white things, black people only stereotypically black things, Mexican people only stereotypically Mexican etc. is once again racist AND also segregationist! It's almost as though I can't tell if the author of this diagram is a SJW or a KKK member.

"Calling the police on black people" -- I'd understand where that one comes from if "for no reason at all" was appended to that, I'll give you that much, but it's not. That begs the question, how can it be racist to call for action by black police officers when your business has been torched or your family threatened with rape and murder? Are you genuinely concerned for those affected by lawlessness and the behavior of evil men no matter their skin color, or not?

And as a bonus:

"White silence" -- The zenith of entitlement, to make a blanket suggestion that white people without the inclination, or ESPECIALLY the mental health, to care about what is important to YOU are racists.

Since these are suspect, the entire list has been thrown into question and may as well be null and void. To continue to believe it would demonstrate a shocking level of cognitive dissonance. Was there anything else you wanted or are you going to continue to insult me where you think I can't see it, like this?

Spread this far and wide, my pretties.